The People, Polls & A State of Denial (Guest Post)

By 48 Comments 1,293 views

obama middle finger

Current polls destroy Obama’s ridiculous claim that he is representing those people who didn’t vote.

Midterm Exit Polls: 75% Reject Exec Amnesty, 80% Don’t Want Foreign Workers Taking Jobs from Americans

An exit poll conducting by Kellyanne Conway’s The Polling Company found that three-quarters (74%) of voters believed that “President Obama should work with Congress rather than around Congress on immigration and separately.”

Overall, strong “majorities of men (75%), women (74%), whites (79%), blacks (59%), and Hispanics (54%),” in addition to tri-partisan majorities of “self-identified Republicans (92%), Independents (80%), and Democrats (51%)” did not want Obama to enact an executive amnesty on his own. Only 20% of voters wanted Obama to move forward with his executive amnesty.

“The President may be the last person in town to realize how resistant Americans are to him playing the Lone Ranger on amnesty,” the polling memo stated. “In fact, based on his press conference yesterday, he has either suspended disbelief or has no awareness of how the immigration issue and his threats to act alone contributed to his party suffering massive losses on Tuesday.”

Considering he get’s most of his information from the news, perhaps Obama is unaware of the situation?

One of the most notable shifts in the Democratic Party away from helping Americans over illegal immigrants has been with Obama himself, who in his 2006 autobiography actually wrote that Americans are hurt by waves of illegal immigration.

“[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 Sen. Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat, wrote in The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.

”Not all these fears are irrational,” Obama wrote in the passages which were highlighted by The Daily Caller’s Neil Munro on Monday.

“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,” Obama wrote. “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.”

Oops! Well, OK but what about all those “jobs that Americans wont do?”

But 80% of voters surveyed wanted “new jobs created by the economy to go to American workers and legal immigrants already in the country.” The view was shared across all regions—74% in the Northeast, 80% in the Midwest, 85% in the South, and 80% in the West–and among men and women (no gender gap).

As the Polling Company noted, these numbers turn “on its head the elitist idea that illegal immigrants ‘do the jobs that Americans don’t want to do.’”

“Voters overwhelmingly prefer an immigration system that protects American workers,” the polling memo states. “Therefore 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.”

Even the leaders of the Green Party?

Ralph Nader, 2008: Securing the Border Protects Americans from Wage Loss

Nader continued by saying the way to raise the minimum wage is by controlling immigration policy so that large numbers of foreign workers can’t drive wages down for American workers. He also argued that “a lot of liberals” have abandoned pro-American sovereignty immigration policies, in favor of open borders ideas, to the detriment of Americans – especially minorities.

“The second is, we need to crack down on employers who are blocking a $10 minimum wage and therefore can say, ‘Oh, Americans don’t want to do this work,’” Nader said. “Who wants to do this work for under $5.15 under terrible workplace conditions? So it’s a low wage policy that’s the root of this approach. A lot of liberals have bought into it because they confuse the strategic policy by the Wall Street Journal types with civil rights.”

Nader also argued that there is not much need for more imported foreign high-tech workers via H-1B visas, since not only does that hurt Americans seeking such jobs, it also hurts other countries worldwide.

Alright but What about Obama’s approval numbers? Greg keeps telling us that Obama still has a higher approval rating than Republicans in Congress, Right?

Gallup: GOP Congress More Popular Than Obama

That lie was not only laid bare in last week’s midterm elections, where Republicans at every level of government crushed Democrats (and their media cheerleaders) in a tidal wave that hit blue and purple states, but also in new polling numbers from Gallup that shows GOP lawmakers currently enjoy a higher approval rating from the American people than President Obama.

As things stand today, Republicans in Congress enjoy a 42% approval rating. Obama, on the other hand, sits at a 39% approval rating. His disapproval rating sits at a whopping 56%.

When asked by Gallup who should have more influence over the direction of the country, a majority of Americans chose Republicans in Congress over Obama by a whopping 56-36% margin.

Wait, what about Congressional Democrats? What about all those Democrats and independents who stayed home and whom Obama says he represents? Their approval ratings for Democrats reflect support for Obama and the Democrats, right?

Gallup: Dem Approval Plunges to Record Low

Where Democrats lost support was among their own and Independents. Last month 88% of Democrats supported their own party; that number is now down to 81%. Among Independent voters support for Democrats plummeted from an already low of 35% to just 25%.

OUCH! That’s gotta hurt! What possibly else could have led to this rejection of the Democrats?

Under Obama, U.S. personal freedom ranking slips below France

The index is notable for the way it measures how free people feel, unlike other freedom indices that measure freedom by comparing government policies.

“This is not a good report for Obama,” Legatum Institute spokeswoman Cristina Odone told the Washington Examiner.

In the 2010 report (which relied on data gathered in 2009), the U.S. was ranked ninth in personal freedom, but that ranking has since fallen to 21st, with several countries, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom passing the U.S.

The nation’s overall personal freedom score has declined by 17 percent since 2009, with a 22 percent drop in combined civil liberty and free choice contributing to that decline.

Oh. What else could be upsetting “the People”?

NYC Mayor de Blasio ‘Willing to Continue the Conversation’ on Granting Non-Citizens Voting Rights

A recent study by two Old Dominion professors found that enough non-citizens already vote in state elections across the country to “change the outcome of close races.” They found that “more than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote” and, their “best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.”

But, let’s get back to Obama. Whatever could upset voters so much about the President to give Congress to the Republicans?

25 Violations of Law By President Obama and His Administration

1. Obama Administration uses IRS to target conservative, Christian and pro-Israel organizations, donors, and citizens.

2. In an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment, the Obama Justice Department ordered criminal investigations of FOX News reporters for doing their jobs during the 2012 election year.

3. President Obama, throughout his Presidency, has refused to enforce long-established U.S. immigration laws. For example . . .

4. Obama has refused to build a double-barrier security fence along the U.S.-Mexican border in direct violation of the 2006 Secure Fence Act. This law requires that “at least two layers of reinforced fencing” be built along America’s 650-mile border with Mexico. So far, just 40 miles of this fence have been built – most of it during the Bush Administration.

5. Obama’s unconstitutional assault on your Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (President Obama issued, in one day, 21 separate Executive Orders that attack and undermine your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.)

6. Obama’s assault on Christians and religious freedom.

7. Obama forced ObamaCare on an unwilling public through bribery and lying about its cost.

8. Operation Fast & Furious.

9. “Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Regulated the Internet despite a court order from the Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet.” (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

10 “Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Imposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rules on the state of Texas at the last minute and without an opportunity for Texas to respond to the proposed regulation. EPA overreach was based on a dubious claim that air pollution from Texas affected a single air-quality monitor in Granite City, Illinois more than 500 miles and three states away from Texas.” (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

11. “Department of Justice (DOJ): Rejected state voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States. DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act which calls for protections against voter fraud, and used section 5 to administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections passed by state legislatures.” (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

12. “DOJ: In violation of 10th Amendment, sued to prevent Arizona from using reasonable measures to discourage illegal immigration within its borders. Arizona has a large number of illegal immigrants, compared to other states, and needs to be able to act to reduce the number.” (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

13. “DOJ: Went to court to stop enforcement of Alabama’s immigration reform laws, which require collection of the immigration status of public school students, require businesses to use E-Verify, and prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits.” (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

14. “White House: Made “recess appointments” to the National Labor Relations Board and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when Congress was NOT in recess. The Obama Administration has ignored the ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that the appointments are unconstitutional.” (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

15. “Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): Interfered with a Michigan church’s selection of its own ministers by trying to force the church to reinstate a minister who was discharged for her disagreement with the religious doctrine of the church.” (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

16. “Department of Energy (DOE): In 2009, the Obama Administration arbitrarily broke federal law, violated various contracts, and derailed the most studied energy project in American history at Yucca Mountain by denying it a license, thus costing the American people more than $31 billion.” (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

17. Department of the Interior (DOI): Forced Glendale, a family-oriented town in Arizona, to become another Las Vegas against its will by granting “reservation status” to a 54-acre plot in the town, where the Tohono O’odham Indian Nation plans to build a resort and casino.” (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)

18. Without Congressional approval, Obama gutted the work requirement for welfare recipients passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

19. In the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, Obama illegally shortchanged bond holders in favor of Labor Unions, despite U.S. bankruptcy laws that specify that bond holders be first in line to be paid back.

20. Eager to use the killing of Osama bin Laden for political gain, Obama exposed the identity and method of operation of the Navy SEALs team that conducted the operation in Pakistan, thus exposing its members to a lifetime of risk because they have been targeted for assassination by Islamists. A short time after Obama exposed the Navy SEALs’ method of operation, 22 SEALs were shot down and killed in Afghanistan. It is a violation of law for the President or any American to reveal classified military secrets.

21. President Obama established an extra-constitutional top secret “kill list” of people (including Americans) who can be summarily killed on sight – presumably by drones — without due process. Once on Obama’s kill list, an American citizen can be targeted and executed on the opinion of a single government bureaucrat. That’s not how our legal system is supposed to work.

22. Obama Administration officials twisted the arms of defense contractors to not issue layoff notices in October of 2012 so as to avoid causing bad news for Obama right before the election — even though federal law (the “WARN Act”) requires such notices. ; Not only is this a violation of the WARN Act, it’s also an unlawful use of federal officials for campaign purposes.

23. President Obama intervened militarily in Libya in 2011 without the Congressional approval required by the War Powers Act.

24. Obama knowingly lied to Congress and the American people about the killing of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya. The President and his representatives repeatedly said an anti-Islamic video sparked a spontaneous uprising in Libya that resulted in the killings even though Obama knew that the attack was a well-planned military-style assault by al Qaeda on the anniversary of September 11.

25. Michelle Obama’s family trip to Africa in June of 2011, including a private safari at a South African game reserve, cost American taxpayers $424,000 for air travel alone. Mrs. Obama brought along both her makeup artist and hairstylist, as well as her mother, a niece and nephew, and her daughters, who were listed as “senior staff members.”

Surely Obama must recognize that 2014 elections indicate that the public no longer supports his far-left agenda, and that perhaps he should move to the middle and moderate his policies with compromise? Quips Charles Hurt:

The Nuclear Option: Elections Don’t Matter to the ‘Towering Arrogance’ of Barack Obama

After last week’s drubbing by voters, you pretended humility at your White House press conference and acknowledged, “Republicans had a good night.”

And then you went on a despotic tirade that was about as terrifying as any words uttered by a sitting American president.

“So, to everyone who voted,” you said, “I want you to know that I hear you.” Then came the most chilling words: “To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you too.”

Let’s set aside the stingy, small, belittling arrogance you displayed here toward all the American voters who actually voted in this election. You mock and dismiss them.

Where you really came unhinged, Mr. President, is when you went on to say that you also heard all of the voters who did not vote.

Really? Are you hearing voices? Is this serious? Do you need to see a doctor?

I mean, what does it mean that you hear “voters” who did not vote? Do those nonvoting “voters” — a population twice the size of actual voters, according to you — carry equal weight to those who actually voted?

How do we know what these voters want? Or who they want in power? Or do we just have to trust you and your magical “hearing” powers to tell us?

So elections don’t matter. Only “voters” you hear matter.

The President who called “wolf” seems unaware that everyone is on to his mischief and are no longer amused. Even the “stupid people” are not buying the White House BS anymore

48 Responses to “The People, Polls & A State of Denial (Guest Post)”

  1. 1

    Nanny

    Obama’s speech is a whole lotta words signifying nothing.
    He is setting up a system for illegals to sign up in.
    They won’t.
    I doubt many will, anyway.
    But he also set in practice a policy to not bother whether illegals jump through his hoops or not.

  2. 2

    oil+guy+from+Alberta

    Louis Gohmert( R-Texas ) has the right idea. Remove the fence around the White House. My idea is to leave the northern part of the fence, so that, Canadians can’t sneak in.

  3. 4

    Greg

    Current polls destroy Obama’s ridiculous claim that he is representing those people who didn’t vote.

    Horse feathers. The exit polls don’t reveal the will of a majority of the American people. They were taken following an election that had a national turnout of only 36.3 percent. It was the lowest national election turnout in the past 72 years. Also, the fact that the survey was taken only at polling places means that it was a decidedly non-random sampling.

    A comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform bill was passed in the Senate last year with the 2/3 majority that would be sufficient to override any veto. Nobody in the Senate blocked it. The President supported it fully. The Democratic Party minority in the House supported it. Everyone fully expected passage in the House. John Boehner said it would be passed. Then, they elected to do nothing.

    So there’s the problem. There’s why Obama has just taken action himself. He waited a long while before doing it.

  4. 5

    Ditto

    @Greg:

    Shows us where Obama was able to “read the minds” of Americans and know instinctively that what they really wanted was more of his arrogant dictatorial, unconstitutional rule. Where is the evidence that shows “he alone knows what those who did not vote want” It is you and Obama who are full of manure with such utter nonsense.

    Where Greg is your proof that supports Obama’s claim that his unilateral decisions represent those who did not vote?! You have NO such proof, because like nearly everything Obama says, it is fabricated from his own sociopath delusions.

    Elections are really the only important polls that count the will of the people. If the majority of the public had supported Obama and the Democrats they would have gone out and voted as such. instead, they showed their disdain and stayed home. Why did they stay home Greg? Why?

    Then, they elected to do nothing.

    Which was their right as separate house majority ruled by an opposition party. It takes two sides of Congress to pass laws, regardless of what one house and their same party president wants to shove down the people’s throat. I notice that you were completely unconcerned when Harry Reid with a heavy hand changed the rules of the Senate to put a stop to minority representation that the Democrats begged to have put in place when they were a minority. You also were quiet when Reid changed the rules on voting for presidential appointments, so to insure that the judicial system would be stacked with leftist judges by a simple majority. Democrats only want rules to be followed when it helps them, and when it is inconvenient they corruptly work to undermine and change them. Obama does not get to change the Constitution and the rule of law just because he doesn’t like the results.

    What Obama has done since the November election was hold a gun to America’s head and order the Republicans pass the Immigration Amnesty bill he wants or he will unconstitutionally enact it under a fictional “presidential authority” which he does not have. The name of that game was extortion, something he no doubt picked up from those corrupt politicos he associated with in Chicago. If Obama has such “Presidential Authority” that he claims, (disregarding that such power was never ever granted the Executive Branch in the Constitution) then Democrats need to understand that from this day forward all other presidents (Republicans included,) have such monarchic power as well, and no law or regulation is safe from executive branch tyranny . Labor Laws, OSHA, EPA, ATF, FDA, etc. all may be waved away, by a royal fiat, and the legislative branch might as well be disbanded and go home, because it doesn’t matter what laws they pass or don’t pass. Obama set a new precedence of Executive Branch lawlessness that overrules all regulations, laws, and the Constitution itself.

    Frankly I’ve grow weary of the endless prattle of the Democrat’s low-information, “stupid people” like you, “useful idiots” who mindlessly believe all their leader’s lies and parrot their propaganda. You quislings serve no purpose towards intelligent discussion, you only come along to try to deride discussion by evasive nonsense, misrepresentation of the facts, changing the subject, or throwing out utter drivel. None of us here gives a hill of beans about what pathetic OFA trolls like you have to say.

  5. 6

    Greg

    Had the House acted on the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform bill last year—a bill which was passed with strong bi-partisan support and which had the full support of the President—he wouldn’t have felt compelled to take such action. He even expressed his willingness to support it if the House addressed its various parts separately with individual bills. How much more compliant could he have been? Then the House backpedaled after expressing their intention to get on with it, and ultimately did nothing whatsoever. Wasn’t anybody paying attention to all of that?

    What Obama has done to address the problem is perfectly legal, as those who claim it isn’t will quickly discover if they turn to the Judicial Branch. That issue isn’t going to be decided in the kangaroo courtroom of FOX News. He hasn’t done a thing here that is unlawful or even without precedent.

    Congress has a real remedy. They can simply perform their Constitutional function and address the same problems Obama has temporarily addressed with permanent legislation. They’ve already got a good place to start. They can start with the Senate bill, which members of their own party helped to write and helped to pass by a very wide margin. Nobody in the Senate was shoving anything down anybody’s throat. And hey, it was the Senate, that truest manifestation of the republican ideal of representative government.

    You rattle on about endless prattle and stupid, low-information Democrats. But we’re not the ones who are the problem or the obstacle on the immigration issue. I don’t know why that bit of obvious information doesn’t seem to be sinking in.

  6. 7

    Smorgasbord

    I thought is was interesting that the propaganda media CHOSE not to show his speech. One article I read said it was because he announced his plans over Facebook first as a thank you for helping to get him elected. Is it possible the propaganda media won’t be as much of a brainwashing machine for him from now on?

    Surely Obama must recognize that 2014 elections indicate that the public no longer supports his far-left agenda, and that perhaps he should move to the middle and moderate his policies with compromise?

    I look at it differently. If obama’s goal is to bring down the USA, EVERYTHING HE DOES is accomplishing that agenda. obama has no middle ground, just like a general has no middle ground in a battle. One side will win, and one side will lose. My hope is that obama will lose.

    How long does it take to figure out that obama isn’t as stupid as he seems. He is following his planned agenda, or I guess I should say his puppeteer’s planned agenda.

    Again I ask ANYBODY to find ONE thing obama has done that actually HELPED America.

  7. 8

    Mully

    @Greg:
    So why do we need a legislative branch if what Obama has done is perfectly legal? He can just create laws on his own to insure he always gets his way. I just don’t know where this bypass valve is in the constitution. And if it’s legal now why didn’t he have this authority before when he proclaimed numerous times he could not legally do what he just did?

  8. 9

    Common+Sense

    @Greg: Greggie Greggie Greggie, as usual you are telling at best a half truth to protect you boy. The House passed the bill and sent it on to the Senate where Slimy Harry and his Democrat friends hacked it into nothing less than a joke. What did the elections tell you Greggie?? It told me that America is sick and tired of President Obola and his policies sense that exactly what he said the election was about. Any election reflects the will of the people whether you like it or not. If they supported his policies would they have not voted and voted in favor of your Demoncarts?? As far as President Obola’s stamping on the Constitution it is far more egregious that what Republicans have done. Both Bush’s and Regan passed EO’s to implement an immigration bill already passed by the Legislature. Please try and keep up with you boy’s failures and the blame everyone but him game is long over.

  9. 10

    Bill

    @Greg:

    Horse feathers. The exit polls don’t reveal the will of a majority of the American people. They were taken following an election that had a national turnout of only 36.3 percent. It was the lowest national election turnout in the past 72 years. Also, the fact that the survey was taken only at polling places means that it was a decidedly non-random sampling.

    Ah. So the exit polls don’t reflect the will of the people, just the will of those who care enough to go out and vote. Is that correct?

    Well, who the hell cares about what those dumb asses think?

  10. 11

    AdrianS

    The ONLY claim Obama has to royalty is

    the Absolutely Overwhelming

    Shellac-KING he got in the mid-term elections. Now the spoiled brat is having a child tantrum. Get over it, Obama. You lost.

    For those in Rio Linda. . .

    Shellac-king:
    Slang.
    to defeat (Obama); trounce (Obama).
    to thrash (Obama) soundly.

    It is utterly obnoxious for Obama to quote scriptures when in fact 1) Obama is not a Christian but Muslim, and 2) Obama never attends church. May the Lord our God punish the demon Obama.

  11. 12

    Smorgasbord

    @Mully: #8
    If the republicans aren’t going to stop obama because he has a fake birth certificate, or if he is using someone else’s Social Security number, or if he has a fake Selective Service registration, why would they stop him on anything else?

    I wrote all three of my REPUBLICAN federal politicians, asking them about the above, and I never received a reply back. I asked a second time, and never got a reply back. They had answered me EVERY OTHER TIME I asked for a reply. Ask your politicians:

    How dose a person who doesn’t have an American birth certificate, and who is using someone else’s Social Security number, and has a fake Selective Service number, and probably doesn’t even have a driver’s license, get to be president of the United States.

    Would you believe that all that is required by the 50 states for a person to run for president is to have the individual, or their party send a letter stating that they qualify to run for president? That is it.

  12. 13

    Bill

    @Greg:

    Congress has a real remedy. They can simply perform their Constitutional function and address the same problems Obama has temporarily addressed with permanent legislation.

    You don’t get it, Greg. The House performed their Constitutional function; they abided by the will of the people. Nothing says the HAVE to pass a law every hour or so. Sometimes, in the face of corruption and illegal activity, doing nothing is the best course.

    It was feared that, if passed, Obama could executive order and unilaterally change the portions of the law that dealt with penalties, security and the path to citizenship. So, the House decided to wait until there were more adults available (particularly in the White House) to address the issue.

  13. 14

    Nanny

    Obama slid the goalposts on what constitutes a ”border crossing prevented,” so as to look like (on paper) he is enforcing law.
    He is not enforcing the law on the books.
    Illegals are flooding in at a rate consistent with our bad economy (less than under previous presidents.)
    But Obama is also lying about his amnesty.
    It is OK with Obama that a person has been here a while even though they have committed crimes like identity theft and lying on every form they fill out).
    He SAYS those people would have to fill out a form and pay something to stay, BUT, IF it is OK with him that they are here anyway, WHAT would he do to those 90%+ of illegals who do NOT choose to fill out those forms and pay those back taxes and penalties?
    He’s already said their actions do NOT constitute enough of a problem for him to do a thing!
    So, why would they bother with his hoops?
    They won’t.
    And newer than 5 years?
    Just stay a while.
    Claim it’s been 5+ years.
    Lying is what they excel at.
    And lying is what Obama expects.
    His whole speech is putting forward a sham.

  14. 15

    Ditto

    @Greg:

    …—a bill which was passed with strong bi-partisan support and which had the full support of the President—he wouldn’t have felt compelled to take such action. He even expressed his willingness to support it if the House addressed its various parts separately with individual bills. How much more compliant could he have been?

    He could have followed the Constitution and tried to work a compromise with House, instead of acting like a petulant, willfully arrogant tyrant.

    What Obama has done to address the problem is perfectly legal, as those who claim it isn’t will quickly discover if they turn to the Judicial Branch.

    No, it isn’t. I’ve read what his lawyers told him and it doesn’t hold water. This is no surprise, as the SCOTUS has ruled against the legalistic perturbations of the law by Obama’s lawyers 13 times. What other presidents have done they did after approval via legislation passed by both houses of Congress. What Obama has done is without question unlawful and unconstitutional, as it not only says he no longer has to follow the law of the land, but that he can change laws with his pen. No SCOTUS ruling has ever supported such a position and you know full well you can’t find such a power granted to the president in the constitution because it isn’t there.

    Congress has a real remedy.

    Yes they do, but none of the legal remedies is to yield to an arrogant blackmailing emperor Obama’s demands that to counter his ultimate power grab, they must surrender to an unacceptable “offer they can’t refuse”.

  15. 16

    CharlieGee

    “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Martin Luther King Jr.
    The current President’s Character is mean spirited and full of lies and untruths… he would have sorely disappointed Rev. King and all those who were of like disposition.

  16. 17

    Pete

    @Greg:

    As usual, you leftists are telling falsehoods and spreading your vile propaganda.

    There is ZERO justification for this executive branch violation of the Constitution, other than leftists trying to further bankrupt the US and pad their collectivist voting rolls.

    The reason that conservatives have no interest nor need to give in to the disgusting leftist amnesty garbage is that we were already rolled by you con artists back when Reagan agreed to amnesty and dems pledged to secure the border…which in classic leftist fashion the left did not do. There is no reason to do anything to allow more welfare recipients into this country, and there is EVERY reason to close the border down completely, deport all illegal aliens to their home countries, and only then open up to allow immigrants to apply for the privilege of earning US citizenship in a LEGAL manner.

    By the way – there is nothing in the Constitution which requires the legislative branch pass legislation based on the whims of the executive. It does not give the executive the right to legislate simply because the congress refuses to pass a bill desired by the executive. That is one of the hallmarks of a “checks and balances” system in a republic, as opposed to the dictatorship that you leftists want.

    Imagine a president in office who decided he had waited long enough for congress to pass a law ending all welfare support, ending medicaid, ending medicare and closing off social security, so he issued an executive order that ended all such payments over the objections of congress. You leftists would be out of your minds screaming about separation of powers, demanding impeachment, and fomenting civil unrest. This is another example of your collectivist hypocrisy, because what Obama has done is EXACTLY the same violation of the Constitution. But because you agree with giving citizenship, welfare payments, socialist healthcare, subsidized housing and whatever other “government cheese” payouts to people who have broken our laws you put up irrelevant, pathetic defenses of the indefensible.

    Just to clarify the detestable hypocrisy of the lying tyrant currently befouling the oval office:

    http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/21/flashback-barack-obama-on-the-biggest-problems-were-facing/

    Senator Barack Obama, 2008: “The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.

  17. 18

    Greg

    @Mully, #8:

    So why do we need a legislative branch if what Obama has done is perfectly legal?

    Obama has done nothing more than apply temporary remedies. Partial ones at that. No law has been altered in any way. Nothing is permanently fixed. A president can’t do that. All a president can do is prioritize the enforcement of existing laws using prosecutorial discretion. Only the legislative branch has the power to revise laws that are no longer working. That’s the Constitutionally conferred power and responsibility of Congress. That’s what they’re elected and paid to do.

  18. 19

    Bill

    @Greg:

    Obama has done nothing more than apply temporary remedies. Partial ones at that.

    So, then the question is “WHY?”. What made this an emergency that he could not wait for the next Congress?

  19. 20

    Greg

    @Pete, #17:

    There is ZERO justification for this executive branch violation of the Constitution, other than leftists trying to further bankrupt the US and pad their collectivist voting rolls.

    There has been no violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of prosectorial authority previously.

    “…An agency’s decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency’s absolute discretion.” Heckler v. Chaney 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).

    Federal governmental agencies are all part of the Executive Branch. A President of the United States is Chief Executive. Consequently, he or she is the highest authority regarding the exercise of that absolute discretion.

    Under the law, the prosecutorial discretion that Ronald W. Reagan and George H. W. Bush exercised with regard to immigrants actually is the same thing. There’s no real legal argument that it isn’t. There’s only been deliberate obfuscation to give legs to a patently phony propaganda point.

    Obama hasn’t changed the law, nor has he broken the law.

  20. 21

    retire05

    @Greg:

    Horse feathers. The exit polls don’t reveal the will of a majority of the American people

    .

    The polls reflected the will of the people who voted, and it is those who actually vote hat have a say in who gets elected and what the agenda will be.

    They were taken following an election that had a national turnout of only 36.3 percent. It was the lowest national election turnout in the past 72 years. Also, the fact that the survey was taken only at polling places means that it was a decidedly non-random sampling.

    You just can’t accept that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is such a disappointment that although his base was not willing to get out to vote for Repulicans, they were also not willing to get out and vote for his party or his agendas.

    And while you are blathering how an “immigration bill” was passed with bi-partisan support, you didn’t mention the Democrats that voted for the bill that just got their clocks cleaned in the most recent election.

    News flash, Greggie; that whole “leading from behind” crap is just that.

  21. 22

    retire05

    @Greg:

    Obama hasn’t changed the law, nor has he broken the law.

    The minute his administration issues the first work permit for an illegal, he will have broken the law.

    Under the law, the prosecutorial discretion that Ronald W. Reagan and George H. W. Bush exercised with regard to immigrants actually is the same thing. There’s no real legal argument that it isn’t.

    You keep swallowing that b/s from your far left progressive websites. Again, go back to the root of the word “prosecutorial”.

    I can’t wait until the next Republican president refuses to enforce some of the oppressive EPA laws due to “prosecutorial discretion.”

  22. 23

    Greg

    @Bill, #19:

    So, then the question is “WHY?”. What made this an emergency that he could not wait for the next Congress?

    Why should he have waited? He waited a long time for the current Congress to act. The bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill passed last year by the Senate was simply dropped in a bottom drawer in the House and forgotten. There’s certainly no indication that the new House composition will make them more any more strongly inclined to cooperate. So, they’ll have the issue waiting for them next January, and more than a month of lead time to think about it. He’s not going to be threatening that he’ll do something if they don’t. He already has done. It’s now their move. They can create a legislative remedy to the nation’s immigration problems more in line with conservative views.

  23. 24

    Greg

    The minute his administration issues the first work permit for an illegal, he will have broken the law.

    He can authorize work permits on a temporary basis. Who do you imagine issues them? Congress?

    Go ahead. Sue him. Or get on with useful immigration reform. If the House screws it up badly enough, however, there probably won’t be a next republican president anytime soon. I advise that they consider useful immigration reform. That’s probably what most American voters really want.

  24. 25

    Jay

    @ Greg (#20)

    Under the law, the prosecutorial discretion that Ronald W. Reagan and George H. W. Bush exercised with regard to immigrants actually is the same thing.

    As usual, Greg, you need to check some where besides the socialist echo chamber. Funny how despite your constant assurances that you can ‘think for yourself’, I’m not sure I remember seeing a post where you don’t track right with Huffpost/Daily KOS/ et al on the lefty side of the spectrum.

    In 1986, Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The Act required him to adjust the status of certain illegal immigrants to the category of “alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence.”

    Democrats…criticized Reagan for interpreting too narrowly the executive authority they had granted him. They wanted all spouses and children to receive amnesty in the name of family unity. If anything, then Reagan acted too cautiously, exercising less than the full discretion afforded him by Congress.

    In 1990, President George H.W. Bush expanded the Reagan DOJ’s interpretation of “family unity” to encompass all spouses and children. Like Reagan, Bush merely interpreted the 1986 Act, as Congress called on the executive to do.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/11/reagan-and-bush-41-provide-no-precedent-for-obamas-amnesty-by-executive-order.php

    As stated, those presidents were acting on a law passed by Congress which required them to make an interpretation. Which law passed by Congress required President Obama to create this interpretation?

  25. 26

    Greg

    @Jay, #25:

    Reagan elected to refrain from enforcing immigration laws that remained on the books. A new law, which exempted people meeting certain requirements from such deportation, did not apply to them. His decision that they would not be deported was an exercise in prosecutorial discretion, plain and simple. He decided not to do what existing law required.

    Making a distinction based on a president’s supposed power to second-guess the true intentions of Congress is ridiculous. No such mechanism exists in the Constitution. Congress is expected to make it’s true intentions clear when it writes and passes legislation.

  26. 27

    Smorgasbord

    @Nanny: #14

    But Obama is also lying about his amnesty.

    When hasn’t obama been lying about ANYTHING? Lying got him elected. He could be the president of the Liar’s Club. Why are people surprised when they hear him tell ANOTHER lie? For a long time I have hit the MUTE button on my remote, and I haven’t heard him tell a lie since. TRY IT, YOU’LL LIKE It.

  27. 28

    Bobachek

    When you have a lawless President who violates the very document he swore to uphold and protect then it’s past time for serious measures. Remove him from office, with the military if needed, if for no other reason than to send a message to other political office holders that violating their oath will not be taken lightly.

    Speaker Boehner and his lawsuit crap is a joke…It’s a worthless move by a spineless leader…It only emboldens the President to do his next lawless action knowing there are no repercussions for doing so.

  28. 29

    Bill

    @Greg:

    Why should he have waited? He waited a long time for the current Congress to act.

    Well, gosh, Greg, let me see….. BECAUSE IT IS THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION SET THE GOVERNMENT UP TO WORK, MAYBE?

    Just because Obama is a spoiled, whiney baby that, if he does not get HIS (not the will of the people) way, he just breaks the law and does as he damn well pleases is NOT written in the Constitution.

    Had Obamacare not cratered and cost the Democrats most of their political support, Obama would still be claiming he could do nothing for the illegal immigrants here illegally and deserving nothing from the American taxpayer. This is nothing but another in a long line (since his ass was handed to him in 2010) political stunts to keep attention away from his failures. He has no stooped to covering failure up with more failure.

  29. 30

    retire05

    @Greg:

    Why should he have waited? He waited a long time for the current Congress to act.

    Why is the current Congress any different than the previous Congresses?

    The Democrats controlled the entire 111th Congress, and they have controlled the Senate since the day Obama was inaugurated. So what has changed? Obama told the interviewer on Univision that he intended to handle immigration in the first year of his office, if elected. Why didn’t he do it? You damn sure can’t blame his inaction, and the inaction of a Democrat held both houses of Congress, on the Republicans.

    He can authorize work permits on a temporary basis. Who do you imagine issues them? Congress?

    Work permits are issued by the Department of Homeland Security, BASED ON EXISTING FEDERAL LAW.

    Contrary to what Obama, and you, seem to think, Obama does not have legislative powers.

  30. 32

    retire05

    @Common+Sense:

    Let them come out of the shadows and then it will be easier to identify them and send them home.

    Obviously, no one who works for the Department of Homeland Security has ever been to Home Depot.

  31. 33

    Greg

    @retire05, #30:

    Contrary to what Obama, and you, seem to think, Obama does not have legislative powers.

    Contrary to what the right-wing echo chamber has been telling you, Obama hasn’t presumed to exercise any legislative powers. He has relied entirely on the legitimate powers of the Executive Office—which is why the GOP has been and is still blowing a lot of hot air. If Obama had truly taken all the unconstitutional actions his critics have claimed—and I’ve totally lost count of how many such claims there have been—there would truly be recourse in court, or truly be grounds for impeachment. They know he hasn’t. That’s why they never do anything substantive about all these supposed violations. They know damn well that their claims would immediately fall apart if they were legally tested.

  32. 34

    Bill

    @Greg: You also seem to have lost count of how many times Obama himself said this action was illegal before and how many times he said he couldn’t do it because he did not have the authority.

  33. 35

    John

    It was just a few years ago that the radical right was saying that the presidency was not a popularity contest and that Bush should not govern based on polls
    Of course his approval bottomed out at half of Obama’s

  34. 36

    oil+guy+from+Alberta

    @Greg: The Citizens of N. Dakota have spoken. Their State Government has approved a landfill site called “The Barack Obama Memorial Landfill”. One plumber from Minot stated that the site is black and full of shiit- aptly named. Some Democrats voted for it also. The state has a presidential popularity rate of 30%( rounded).

  35. 37

    Mully

    @John: Yes John the last election saw Democrats ride Obama’s coat tails right out of town. That’s how popular he is.

    I’ve asked every Obama supporter the same question. What qualifications did he have for this office? I wouldn’t hire this guy to clean a horse stall, although he should feel kin the floor contents of one.

  36. 39

    Greg

    @Bill, #34:

    If republicans believe what he has done is truly illegal they should take the matter to court. Hopefully they won’t waste too much more of the taxpayers’ money doing this. They’ve already spent enormous sums on investigations that have proven nothing.

  37. 40

    another+vet

    Curt- For some strange reason, the “Click to Edit” and “Request Deletion” appeared at the bottom of oil guy’s post 36 on my screen meaning I would have had access to doing either one of those functions to his post. That was a first.

  38. 43

    Smorgasbord

    @Greg: #39

    If republicans believe what he has done is truly illegal they should take the matter to court. Hopefully they won’t waste too much more of the taxpayers’ money doing this. They’ve already spent enormous sums on investigations that have proven nothing.

    You are worried about the republicans wasting money, but haven’t complained about the wasted money on:

    The stimulus
    Cash for clunkers
    The bank bailout
    obamacare
    Green company loans that the companies went bankrupt

    Can you say these were worth the investment?

    If these were done under a republican congress and president, you would be constantly complaining about them, and you would be justified in doing it, and most republican voters would side with you.

  39. 44

    Common+Sense

    @Smorgasbord: Grueggie Greggie Greggie, let me try and explain it to you but you are so full of 0-blama kool aid I doubt you will understand. On immigration 0-blama promised that he would take care of a comprehensive bill in the first year. He had control of the legislature but he failed!! Next came the 2010 election cycle when America historically returned the House to the Republicans because Obamacare was a loser the Democrats and ONLY Democrats voted on. In 2014 America once again rejected Obama and his policies by historically taking back the Senate and returning it to Republicans. Each time one of Obama’s glaring failures would surface all you could do would be two things, blame Bush and then blame everyone who did NOT support Obama’s failed policies as racist. Sadly you are a joke and the KOOL AID will prevent you from ever understanding that America has rejected your failed Black Messiah. To look at the poor turn out as an excuse is also very stupid. First of all why didn’t the Democrats vote if they believed in Obama and he said this election was about him and his policies?? Secondly for Obama to believed that the 2/3rds of Americans who didn’t vote where all Democrats is pure crap without substantiation. Now Obama does an EO to let 5 million illegals come “out of the shadow’s” and to round them up would NOT work. Well he made it a lot easier to know who they are and where they live so than when Republicans put and end to his overreach real reform will include sending illegals back where they me from. This IS what America wants rather than Obama cheating and buying the Latina vote!! Yes Republicans have done a fair job at stopping this out of control maniac but now America has asked them to do even better. Obamacare has been the gift to Republicans and the ruin of Democrats!! How many Democrats are booted out now due to it!! There will be at least one more in Louisiana and then possibly some changing of party alignment as well. Face it Greggie your Black Messiah has failed and will go down as one of the worst in History. No need to blame Bush or the Republicans, we are sick and tired of this crap!!

  40. 45

    Aqua

    @Greg:

    Obama has done nothing more than apply temporary remedies. Partial ones at that. No law has been altered in any way. Nothing is permanently fixed.

    And if upheld will set a precedent that will plague our country for a very long time. Just imagine the next republican president temporarily suspending the capital gains tax unless congress passes a bill that addresses capital gains to his or her liking. Because that is the issue. There are laws that exist to deal with capital gains right now, just as there are laws that exist for immigration. Just because you don’t like those laws, even if one half of congress has addressed it, those laws still need to be enforced. Our tax system is just a broken as immigration, if not more so.
    And if you think legal immigrants are happy with this bill, my wife is busy writing our senators and representative. She has been in the US legally since she was 16 and it took her 10 years to get naturalized because she wanted to do it on her own merits. And as a naturalized citizen, she can apply for green cards for relatives. So far that process has been in the works for over 10 years. That is 10 years to do things legally. Yet President Obama did absolutely nothing to deal with the issues on legal immigration. Instead, he focused on the very people that subverted our laws, jumped in front of people that honored the laws of the country they want to be a part of.
    Republicans don’t want to deal with Obama on immigration because he can’t be trusted. He has proven time and time again that if he doesn’t like a particular law that has been passed, he’ll just ignore it. He ignored or suspended the provisions in the ACA. He removed the work requirements for welfare. Refused to consider the application for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Making recess appointments while congress was in session. Exactly why would republicans trust him on any immigration law, in whole or piecemeal?
    The only way to deal with illegal immigration is to remove the incentives. There are people that come here on visas to give birth. Not just from Mexico, but everywhere. The Russians are tearing Miami up giving birth to new US citizens. Google it. Just type in “visa to give birth in usa” and enjoy the reading.

  41. 46

    Tom

    @Aqua:

    And if upheld will set a precedent that will plague our country for a very long time. Just imagine the next republican president temporarily suspending the capital gains tax unless congress passes a bill that addresses capital gains to his or her liking. Because that is the issue. There are laws that exist to deal with capital gains right now, just as there are laws that exist for immigration. Just because you don’t like those laws, even if one half of congress has addressed it, those laws still need to be enforced. Our tax system is just a broken as immigration, if not more so.

    I believe that comparison is flawed. He’s not suspending the enforcement of a law that’s currently being widely enforced, as in your tax scenario. The United States does not have the resources to remove even a fraction of the illegal immigrants currently living here. Obama’s action is clarifying the usage of finite resources. This in and of itself will not impact the removal rate. And obviously it’s not going to result in an additional five million illegals staying in the US because the US was never going to remove this five million anyway, not in one fell swoop. We know there is bipartisan precedent for this action, both specific to immigration and otherwise. A better comparison might be to ask how we explain the precipitous drop in the enforcement of environmental laws under George W Bush other than in terms prosecutorial discretion? Those laws were on the books too, so how does one explain the disparity in enforcement under George Bush otherwise? Yes, this isn’t new.

    I don’t mean to imply that a bad precedent excuses similar behavior, because I don’t particular care
    for what Obama is doing, in a vacuum. But, despite conservatives’ laser focus on the legislative process question, it’s not happening in a vacuum. It seems pretty foolish to ignore all the obvious reasons that have led up to this moment, so why are people choosing to pretend this is just a cartoonish power grab? Is the fact that millions of undocumented immigrants live in the Unites States, and have lived here for years, not something that we should expect our elected officials to address? Can we be honest about the reasons they’re here, the gigantic impact they have upon our economy and our lives, the moral and humantarian considerations? Or should we follow the lead of conservatives and focus only on Obama and pretend that his actions somehow mean squat in the big picture? I’ve seen it written here multiple times that Obama is flaunting the will of the people because Congress doesn’t want to act on this – that their inaction is with logical purpose. I would like to see someone here explain that to me, because that is simply bull crap. We know that Congress would act on this if a bill was brought to a vote. Does it not bother you that if a Republican wins the Presidency in 2016 Congress will then act on this? Just like they’ll act on a host of other things, such as a jobs bill addressing our crumbling infrastucture? We know they will, because these are obvious things to address, and also because they’re on record saying so. And they’re also on record regarding their strategy of obstructionism: simply put, Republicans refuse to act on these and other issues because they don’t want to give Obama the veneer of bi-partisan legislative victories. It’s that simple. As we’ve just witnessed, the President and his party take the blame for gridlock and political dysfunction. So Republicans are quite logically acting in their best political interests, while quite transparently screwing over the American people by refusing to do their jobs for bald partisan reasons. And who suffers for this? They are deferring needed legislation that impacts the economy, jobs, and national security purportedly to hurt Obama, but that’s not really who they’re hurting most. Do you really think Republicans inability to act can be placed at the feet of Obama beause he “can’t be trusted”? I didn’t think our system of government was designed to require blind trust; I thought, actually, it was the opposite. No, I don’t think Republicans are helpless to perform their function. They’ve chosen not to perform their function and we know why because they’ve told us. I for one am not going to make the educated decision to excuse them for their dereliction of duty.

  42. 47

    Aqua

    @Tom:
    You’ll have to excuse me, I must have been away when Bush held a press conference and announced he would bring environmental violators out of the shadows and make them legal “temporarily.” And if Obama’s actions stand, like Greg mentioned earlier, who is going to stop a republican president from fixing the tax code by EA?

    As for your appeal to moral and humanitarian authority, I’m for immigration reform. But someone needs to tell exactly where in the famous gang of eight bill there exists a means to stop this from being a problem 20 years from now, or even 10 years from now. We are right back where we started after the Reagan amnesty. And there is still no language in any bill to stop it from being a problem again. There needs to be a means to stop anchor babies and there needs to be a way to stop birth tourism.

    And bipartisan…there is no bipartisan with this president. Who said “elections have consequences Eric, and I won.” Every time Obama reaches across the aisle, it’s to give republicans the middle finger. See,you see things from your bias and I see them from mine. Every time republicans thought they had a deal, Obama pulled the rug out from under them and slapped them with blame. He has played politics way more and for higher stakes than anyone in the GOP.

  43. 48

    Bill

    @Tom: Actually, unless this latest lawless action is reversed, it is open season on any law by any President. The precedent is now set that if it is politically expedient to change, enact, not enact, ignore or create law from the Oval Office, so be it. Of course, when a Republican performs a like action, it will be challenged in the courts and we will see delays, gridlock and stagnation.

    Nice work, liberals. You can’t fix anything, but you sure can create massive problems well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *