Jeb Bush Is Dismissing The GOP Base At His Own Peril

NationalJournal.com:

Six months after President Obama's 2008 landslide victory swept Democrats into power across the country, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and Eric Cantor sat down at a suburban Washington pizzeria to talk policy. They spent that May weekend arguing that the GOP's best path back into power was to improve the party's battered image by advocating reforms for education, immigration, and the economy. Cantor saw the session as a rebranding exercise, offering mostly platitudes about having a conversation with the American people. Romney used the event as early preparation for his second presidential campaign, mostly sticking to talking points. But Jeb Bush came prepared with a slew of creative proposals to test out at the town hall, like charging lower tuition to students pursuing high-end degrees in engineering and science.

After the event ended, several reporters (myself included) chased after Bush to ask him the inevitable questions about his interest in running for president. He was visibly annoyed, lamenting that Washington reporters only ask about the political horse race and have no interest in policy.

With Bush's announcement Tuesday that he's forming an exploratory committee for president, he'll be testing the proposition that being a policy wonk sells politically. In discussing preparations for a run this week, Bush confidently declared he wouldn't pander to Republican voters, sticking to his principles on immigration and education reform. In principle, the argument is refreshing. In practice, however, it ignores political reality.
The organization that Cantor launched (the National Council for America) never got off the ground despite the hype. Republicans won back control of Congress simply by running against an unpopular president, not by offering a set of solutions to fix the country's struggling economy. Despite being House majority leader, Cantor lost his primary to an obscure opponent—in part because he overestimated the political reward of pitching lofty reforms and ignored the day-to-day dissatisfaction from his own constituents. In his second presidential campaign, Romney struggled to lock up the nomination against a deeply conservative field and was unable to capitalize on Obama's mediocre approval ratings.

Other Republicans have talked in high-minded fashion about selling conservative reforms to GOP voters, but found there wasn't much political benefit in doing so. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie became famous for his tough talk against wasteful government and teachers unions in his first term, but has all but abandoned advocating new ideas since campaigning for reelection. Lately, the famously outspoken governor has avoided policy questions on immigration (despite traveling in Mexico!) and on the Senate report on the CIA's interrogation techniques. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has gotten little political traction promoting reforms on health care, energy, education, and national security, and he's careful to frame his ideas in opposition to Obama. Once a supporter of the Common Core educational standards that Jeb Bush champions, Jindal now compares them to Soviet central planning.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a Jeb Bush acolyte who is mulling a presidential campaign of his own, learned firsthand the political risk in embracing change. By championing comprehensive immigration reform, Rubio alienated much of the conservative base and got sidetracked from other issues that could also broaden the party's appeal. Bush is an equally enthusiastic proponent of immigration reform, but unlike Rubio, he plans to continue pushing it in a GOP primary. Rubio responded this year by delivering a series of speeches centered on economic opportunity, but now Bush's planned candidacy puts a crimp in his path to the nomination.

Candidates want to be seen as having a detailed blueprint on how to get the country back on track, but it's those very details that lead to unintended consequences. Republican officials confidently promoted comprehensive immigration reform as a surefire way to improve the party's standing with Hispanics, but blowback from the base and resistance from the public tempered the enthusiasm. The political benefits of courting Hispanics was offset by the risk of alienating the GOP's base of working-class whites.

RELATED: Jeb Bush: I’m going to try to persuade Republican voters to back immigration reform

Federal Judge: Barack Obama's Immigration Move Unconstitutional

CNN.com:

A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Tuesday that President Barack Obama's move to halt deportations for millions of undocumented immigrants violates the Constitution -- but it's not clear that the ruling will have any immediate impact.

Pittsburgh-based U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab, a George W. Bush appointee, became the first judge to rule on the legality of Obama's executive overhaul of immigration rules when he issued his unusual opinion in a criminal case.

The Justice Department shot back that the judge was "flatly wrong" and his ruling wouldn't halt the implementation of Obama's immigration policies.

The decision -- which came in a criminal case against Honduran immigrant Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, who'd been deported before, returned to the United States and faced charges of unlawful re-entry after a drunk driving arrest -- was unexpected, and is unrelated to the legal challenge dozens of states have launched against Obama's move.

Prosecutors in the case argued that Obama's immigration policies were only meant to apply to civil proceedings, and don't have any impact on criminal proceedings like what Juarez-Escobar faced.

Still, Schwab said in his 38-page ruling that Juarez-Escobar could have benefited under Obama's action to halt deportations for some undocumented immigrants.

Obama's action violates the Constitution's separation of powers and its "take care clause," Schwab said.

He wrote that Obama's action "goes beyond prosecutorial discretion because: (a) it provides for a systematic and rigid process by which a broad group of individuals will be treated differently than others based upon arbitrary classifications, rather than case-by-case examination; and (b) it allows undocumented immigrants, who fall within these broad categories, to obtain substantive rights."

The judge also quoted several of Obama's statements, asserting that, prior to issuing his executive action in November, the President personally considered such a move beyond his authority.

Schwab said Juarez-Escobar didn't fall within any of the priority categories Obama identified for deportation, so it's not clear that removing him from the country would be a priority -- potentially blurring the lines between civil and criminal proceedings.

The Justice Department blasted the opinion, with a spokesperson saying it was "unfounded and the court had no basis to issue such an order."

"No party in the case challenged the constitutionality of the immigration-related executive actions and the department's filing made it clear that the executive actions did not apply to the criminal matter before the court," the spokesperson said. "Moreover, the court's analysis of the legality of the executive actions is flatly wrong. We will respond to the court's decision at the appropriate time."

RELATED:  Nearly half of U.S. states now suing President Obama over immigration order

YouGov Poll: Plurality of Americans Oppose Barack Obama’s Executive Order on Amnesty, 38/45

HotAir.com:

Interesting, and encouraging. Now convince me that either the White House or its friends in Congress really care. Immigration for them is about pleasing one particular demographic group long-term even if it ends up irritating other demographic groups short-term. They can probably tolerate a backlash among white working-class if it’s broad but ephemeral or durable but narrow, knowing that the gains they make among Latinos will offset those votes.

But what if the backlash is broad and durable?

This may be a nation of immigrants (and 82% of the public agree that it is), but the President’s plan for executive action on immigration clearly does not sit well with many Americans.  Democrats support the President’s decision to use an executive order to delay deportation proceedings for parents of U.S. citizens, but 51% of independents and 80% of Republicans oppose it.

Most independents and nearly all Republicans say the President should have waited for Congress to act on immigration – even though majorities think it is unlikely Congress will take action soon.

The President’s immigration actions has helped him at least with one group – one that was clearly disappointed in his previous activity on immigration – the country’s Hispanics.  Two in three Hispanics consistently have supported a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and approve of the plan President Obama put forth in his speech last week.

By more than two to one, they approve of the President’s executive order. 

Ten months ago, 55 percent of Americans favored a path to citizenship for illegals. As of last month, that number had dropped below majority support and landed at 47 percent. After the summer’s border crisis and O going rogue on executive amnesty, go figure that people would be more skittish about normalizing citizenship for lawbreakers any further.

In fact, there’s another political scenario for Democrats: What if the backlash to O’s order is short-lived … but so is the boost they’ve gotten for it from Latinos? Scrolling through the crosstabs, I was surprised by how equivocal some of the reactions to various immigration policies were among that group. For instance, when given a choice of letting illegals stay and apply for citizenship, stay but not be allowed to apply, and sending illegals home, just 51 percent of Latinos favored the first option. Another 20 percent favored the second and 29 percent favored the third, meaning that even among that demographic, the split on whether a path to citizenship should be offered is just 51/49.

RELATED:  White House: When Obama said he changed the law on immigration, he was speaking “colloquially”

Despite Highest Poverty Numbers in 50 Years, Barack Obama Okays Illegals to Compete for Jobs in U.S.

HotAir.com:

It simply doesn’t make sense in any sort of context that says the job of the President of the United States is to look after the welfare of the country’s citizens:

The official U.S. unemployment rate has indeed fallen steadily during the past few years, but the economic recovery has created the fewest jobs relative to the previous employment peak of any prior recovery. The labor-force participation rate recently touched a 36-year low of 62.7%. The number of Americans not in the labor force set a record high of 92.6 million in September. Part-time work and long-term unemployment are still well above levels from before the financial crisis.

Worse, middle-class incomes continue to fall during the recovery, losing even more ground than during the December 2007 to June 2009 recession. The number in poverty has also continued to soar, to about 50 million Americans. That is the highest level in the more than 50 years that the U.S. Census has been tracking poverty. Income inequality has risen more in the past few years than at any recent time.

The true indicator of the actual unemployment rate is the labor participation rate. It is at a 36 year low. The fudged numbers used by the US government hides the actual depth of joblessness problem. And, frankly, it’s a “buyers market” in the labor market. Lots of labor competition for few jobs. That’s one reason you don’t see incomes rising and you do see underemployed Americans.

So let’s introduce about 5 million illegal workers from other countries and enable them to compete in an already depressed labor market and while we’re at it, let’s agitate for a raise in the minimum wage.

Mind blown.  How do you square that sort of action with your oath of office if you’re the President of the United States?

RELATED:  Immigration amnesty will hurt Obama's most loyal supporters: African-Americans

AZ Sheriff: Barack Obama Flat-Out Lying About Releasing Criminal Illegal Immigrants

Breitbart.com:

Friday on "Newsmax TV's "MidPoint," Pinal Co., AZ Sheriff Paul Babeu said President Barack Obama has flat out "lied" to the American public because not only is he not doing anything to secure the border, he is releasing dangerous criminal illegals over and over again.

Babeu first gave the example of a Mexican drug cartel member who his officers have arrested 17 times and then said of Obama and former White House spokesman Jay Carney, "You have to drag these people into the light of day and show them for who they are," with FOIA requests to prove they are releasing illegal criminal immigrants back into the public.

RELATED: Poll: More Hispanics name immigration as top problem

Ann Coulter: Get Angry About Amnesty Now!

Townhall.com:

President Obama now says he will wait until after the November elections to implement an "executive amnesty" for 11 million illegal aliens, so as not to hurt Democrats' chances this year.

Instead of waiting to be enraged in December, voters, could you please be enraged now? Once the holiday season kicks off, you'll be too busy going to parties and Christmas shopping to notice that you're suddenly living in Mexico.

Getting Obama to postpone a rancid idea isn't something to celebrate. Yay! We did it! We forced him to delay doing something the country doesn't want for SIX WEEKS! Every Republican candidate better be jamming Obama's threat down the throats of their Democratic opponents.

Obama is claiming to have the powers of a dictator. Amnesty was considered by Congress, but -- here's the important thing: It didn't pass. It only passed the Senate, with the votes of all Democrats and 14 not-bright Republicans. After that, widespread public revulsion prevented Marco Rubio's amnesty bill from even being considered in the House.

But according to Obama, the only reason illegals haven't already been given amnesty is that Congress is not "doing its job."

What does Obama imagine Congress' "job" is? Being his errand boys? Their job is to represent their districts. I promise you, House members are doing a better job representing their districts than at least a dozen senators are at representing their states -- or than Obama is doing representing the country. It's called the "People's House" for a reason.

Noticeably, every Republican senator running for re-election this year claims to oppose amnesty -- even the ones who voted for it. (Let's hope they remember how unpopular mass immigration is when it's time to vote, not just when they're running.)

Obama's base isn't even looking for representation. We could have a 1929-level stock market crash, Obama could commit a murder on the White House lawn -- and they would still support the first minority president!

But Obama says he can do whatever he wants on immigration because it's "a serious issue and Congress chooses to do nothing."

If bills became law provided only the Senate and president agreed, the Nicaraguan Contras would have been funded out of the U.S. Treasury, Reagan would have gotten his MX missiles in 1982 and the Soviet Union would have fallen five years sooner, school busing would have been eliminated without waiting for the courts to act a decade later, and most of George W. Bush's tax cuts would have been made permanent. In all those cases, a president wanted to do something -- and the Senate agreed! But the House said no, so it never happened.

Obama can't ignore the House and make amnesty happen either. That's why he's talking about an "executive amnesty," which sounds like the top-tier donation category at one of the 4 million fundraisers Obama has held since becoming president, where the dinner starts at $25,000 per couple and you might bump into Jay-Z in the men's room. Actually, it just means Obama publicly, openly, officially stops enforcing immigration law.

Except in his own mind, Obama can't make illegals legal. But he can direct the entire immigration apparatus of the federal government to act as if amnesty has passed. The theory is that once they've been treated as if they're legal for a few years, it's a fait accompli, and no future president will resume enforcement of the law.

Although consistent with historical practice, it's not where the country is at all. This election is our first referendum on amnesty.

Not only do we have Obama's promise that he'll refuse to execute the law -- it's not as if he took some kind of oath, after all -- but there's good reason to believe him: After this election, he's got nothing to lose. Democrats will have two years to sign up 30 million illegal immigrants for Social Security benefits, food stamps and voting cards.

There is no more important political issue than this: Republicans must take the Senate this year.

You know how much you've been enjoying the courts overturning state referendums prohibiting gay marriage? Get ready for a lot more of your hard-won political victories to be nullified by the courts if Republicans don't take a Senate majority.

Remember how the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare on a 5-4 vote? Obama could have a shot at replacing another Supreme Court justice in the next two years. As a senator, he voted against both of Bush's nominees, so he can't very well complain if Republicans reject his loony-bird nominees.

Have you heard about the federal judge conspiring with Attorney General Eric Holder and the ACLU to bring deported illegal aliens back from Mexico? Yes, he's bringing them back. That judge, John A. Kronstadt, can't be impeached unless Republicans take the Senate.

With Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, Congress should just keep passing bills and sending them to the White House -- or whatever golf course Obama's on, busily not executing the law. If Obama vetoes their bills, Republicans can denounce him as a "do-nothing" president.

RELATED: Gov. Jerry Brown: Nearly 30% Of CA Kids Illegal Or 'Don't Speak English'

Illegal Immigration Activists Angry At Barack Obama For Delaying Reform Until After Midterm Elections

FOXNews.com:

Immigration-reform advocates expressed their objections Saturday to President Obama’s delaying executive action to fix U.S. immigration policy, including cries of  bitter disappointment and accusations that the president has caved to election-year politics.

“We are bitterly disappointed in the president,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the group America’s Voice. “The president and Senate Democrats have chosen politics over people.”

In an interview taped for NBC's "Meet the Press," Obama rejected the charge that the delay was meant to protect Democratic candidates worried that his actions would hurt their prospects in tough Senate races.

However, Obama did concede that politics played a role, claiming that a partisan fight in July over how to address an influx of unaccompanied minors at the border had created the impression that there was an immigration crisis and thus a volatile climate for taking the measures he had promised to take.

"The truth of the matter is -- is that the politics did shift midsummer because of that problem," he said. "I want to spend some time, even as we're getting all our ducks in a row for the executive action, I also want to make sure that the public understands why we're doing this, why it's the right thing for the American people, why it's the right thing for the American economy."

However, the delay resulted in widespread reaction from across the country and the political spectrum.
Obama said June 30 that he would take matters into his own hands before the end of summer, amid the GOP-led House stalling reform legislation and thousands of unaccompanied Central American youths trying to illegally cross the southern U.S. border.

“Justice delayed is justice denied,” said Arturo Rodriguez, United Farm Workers president. “He broke his promise to the millions of immigrants and Latinos who are looking for him to lead on this issue in the wake of Republicans’ dysfunction and obstruction.”

As the concept of coming in the right way becomes more and more lost on liberals, they just get more bold and bolder in their outright ruthlessness.

RELATED: Jorge Ramos Takes to Twitter to Slam Obama for Broken Promises on Immigration

Poll: Voters Overwhelmingly Oppose Executive Action On Immigration

TheWeeklyStandard.com:

American voters says they would prefer President Barack Obama work with Congress rather than use executive action to address the illegal immigration crisis at the border, according to a detailed new opinion poll on immigration, illegal immigrants, and the state of the American worker. The poll, conducted by veteran Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway, also found that Americans disapprove of Obama’s record on immigration. And as one Republican aide on Capitol Hill describes it, the results of the poll are an “utter repudiation” of the Senate’s Gang of 8 immigration bill.

The survey of 1,001 likely voters found that 61 percent say they disapprove of the president’s job on immigration, while 32 percent say they approve. That’s worse than his overall job approval rating (57 percent disapprove, 40 percent approve). Furthermore, 74 percent say they would rather Obama work with Congress to change the country’s immigration policy, while only 21 percent say they support his doing so “on his own” through executive action. The numbers on executive action versus working with Congress are lopsided among both conservatives and moderates, with only self-professed liberals favoring a “go-it-alone” path on immigration. Obama has suggested he may act on his own on immigration after the comprehensive reform bill he supported has stalled in the House of Representatives.

The poll discovered a heightened interest in immigration as a political issue since the news of thousands of illegal immigrants crossing the southern border began dominating headlines this summer. Eighteen percent now say it’s the issue they most care about, with 39 percent saying they put it among their top 3 issues.

RELATED:  Ineligible illegals file request to get Dreamer status, force Obama’s hand

Barack Obama's Executive Power Isn't What He Thinks It Is

NewRepublic.com:

President Obama has vowed to take executive action on immigration reform and the big debate, right now, is over how far he can go. The left has confidently asserted that Obama has wide-ranging authority—to defer deportations of undocumented workers and grant them work authorizations. The reason? Because, they say, the president has lots of leeway over how to enforce the laws. It’s called “prosecutorial discretion” and they say it’s no different from what local authorities do every day.

“For Mr. Obama to use the tools at hand to focus on high-priority targets — felons, violent criminals, public-safety and national-security threats — and to let many others alone would be a rational and entirely lawful exercise of discretion,” the New York Times editorial board wrote Sunday. “It is the kind of thing prosecutors, police and other law-enforcement and regulatory agencies do every day.”

President Obama has talked about his authority in similar terms, which suggests that he and his advisors are thinking along the same lines. But the concept of prosecutorial discretion is a lot more complicated—and its implications a lot less clear—than Obama and his allies make it sound. The president’s power to set priorities over law enforcement has real limits. The further he stretches his authority, the louder conservatives will yell about his lawlessness, and the greater chance that they’re correct.

The premise of prosecutorial discretion is pretty straightforward: The federal government never has enough resources to enforce every law. Think about taxes: The IRS couldn’t possibly scrutinize every single tax filing to make sure every individual has paid the proper amount in taxes. The agency has to decide where to focus its enforcement efforts—who to audit, for example, and how extensively to audit them. It’s a lot like local police deciding whether to pull over drivers who are going 66 in a 65 mph zone. Local prosecutors do the same thing when they decide not to pursue minor infractions, or sign off on plea bargains, so they can focus their efforts on locking up dangerous criminals. The federal government does this all the time as well. Laws typically give agencies that discretion, and that discretion can go pretty far. In implementing Dodd-Frank, for example, financial regulatory agencies have missed numerous deadlines for finalizing different rules. There simply was no way, given the resources Congress allotted them, to complete the rules in time. So, they prioritized accordingly.

But prosecutorial discretion also has limits, for the very simple and important reason that Congress—i.e., the legislative branch—still has sole authority to write laws. There are very rare exceptions to this: The president may have extra authority in when congressional dysfunction makes it impossible for the federal government to deal with a crisis. (Failing to lift the debt ceiling might have qualified under this criteria.) But you can’t really argue that applies to the case of immigration. Gridlock has prevented Congress from passing laws that address our broken system, but the country doesn’t face some kind of existential crisis because of it. Nor is it completely a function of congressional dysfunction. As Ross Douthat, a conservative columnist at the New York Times, explained last week, the Obama administration chose not to make immigration reform a priority when it controlled both houses of Congress. That might have been the right decision, given other priorities, but it’s a reminder that Congress doesn’t bear sole responsibility for failing to change immigration laws.

Another limit on prosecutorial discretion has to do with the way presidents use it—on a case-by-case basis versus on a whole category of people. Traditionally, prosecutorial discretion has been used in individual cases. Consider the previous examples of a motorist driving 66 miles per hour on a 65 mph road or a prosecutor cutting a plea bargain with a defendant. In each case, the law enforcement official makes their decision independently. There is no official police policy to allow drivers to go 1 mph over the speed limit or to offer plea deals. The department may issue rules advising their officials to be lenient with slight speeding, for instance, but the officers are not prohibited from making their own decisions. People driving 1 mph over the speed limit are still at risk of receiving a speeding ticket.
The Administration seemingly understands this distinction well, because it has tried to describe its actions as leaving final enforcement decisions in the hands of individual officers. One example is the now-famous “Morton Memo.” That’s a document that John Morton, the director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, issued in 2011. It gave ICE new priorities for which people to deport.  The Morton Memo did not actually exempt anyone from enforcement. Immigration officers were still free to make a determination of deportation in each individual case—i.e., they could still deport somebody who was low on Morton’s priority list. In other words, it provided guidelines for using case-by-case prosecutorial discretion—and no one argued that it was illegal.

In 2012, the administration announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which gives deferred status to undocumented immigrants under the age of 30 who were brought into the United States as children before 2007. This program is widely believed to be the prototype for whatever Obama might do this fall. When the administration announced DACA, then-homeland security chief Janet Napolitano was careful to say that the Department of Homeland Security would continue to make case-by-case determinations for each applicant.

You can bet the Administration will make similar statements whenever Obama announces his new initiative. But the claim just isn’t very credible. Whenever President Obama talks about this issue, he speaks in a categorical sense. “These are young people who study in our schools, they play in our neighborhoods, they’re friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag,” Obama said when he announced DACA. “They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one:  on paper.  They were brought to this country by their parents—sometimes even as infants—and often have no idea that they’re undocumented until they apply for a job or a driver’s license, or a college scholarship.”

If this is not a case of categorical discretion, what exactly would be? You always have to make determinations on an individual level to judge whether the person qualifies for a certain program. But the eligibility criteria are set across-the-board. That certainly sounds like a categorical use of prosecutorial discretion. And the fact that the administration has tried to spin the program as a case-by-case use of prosecutorial discretion demonstrates that they are sensitive to the different legal ramifications associated with categorical policy.

(It’s noteworthy that, when asked by the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent about this very question last week, the acting DHS Attorney General during that period sidestepped the issue—twice.)

RELATED:  Some Senate Democrats Backpedal On Push For Executive Action On Immigration

Charles Krauthammer: Obama's Criticism of House Immigration Bill 'Ridiculous'

FOXNews.com:

Charles Krauthammer said Friday on "Special Report with Bret Baier" that President Obama's criticism of the House over its failure to pass an immigration bill was "ridiculous," as he was mocking Republican lawmakers for something Democrats are also guilty of. 

Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor, said that if Obama is going to criticize the House for passing a border crisis bill they know the president will veto, he also has to criticize Senate Democrats when they pass legislation the House won't accept. 

"Is that a criterion that would determine what a House or Senate is going to do, whether the other guys are going to accept it? It's ridiculous," he said. 

Krauthammer suggested that the best course for both the Senate and the House would be to pursue a combination of amnesty and enforcement.

"Of the 11 million, ultimately, I would say, we're going to have to give them residence here, in a generous rate.  We're not going to deport them," he said. "But I think we're going to have to promise the American people...this is the last 11 million. I guarantee you that if Americans believed that there will be enforcement, and this is the last cohort of illegals to be legalized, you would get 80 percent support for that duel approach."

RELATED:  House passes two Republican measures in response to surge of child migrants

Syracuse New York Mayor to Obama: Send Those Immigrant Kids Up Here

HotAir.com:

Even as Congress struggles with the ongoing crisis at the border and the President plans some sort of meeting with Central American leaders, there seems to be no shortage of elected officials who want to get in on the action. Of course, if you’re looking for help with a huge problem on the Texas border, your first thought might not be to ask somebody in upstate New York. But that won’t stop the city’s mayor, Stephanie Minor. (Go ahead… say “Mayor Minor” five times fast.)

The mayor’s latest pitch came in a letter to President Obama.

“We have a network of people who are used to dealing with refugee issues. And we have, most importantly, a compassionate community that wants to welcome these children and give them a safe place while these issues are worked out,” said Miner.

The Mayor is not alone in offering a helping hand.

“They’re somebody’s children. They’re loved. Parents made a great sacrifice, let them go, sent them here. I think that the parent that sends a child in a situation like that is hoping that their child will be received warmly and welcomed. Treated hospitably, and shown compassion,” said Bishop Robert Cunningham, Syracuse Roman Catholic Diocese.

The general idea is to house any incoming illegal aliens at the vacant campus of Maria Regina College, and the local reporters are eating it up. I’ve dealt with the media up here for some time, having had to work a couple of campaigns for Republicans, so it’s no surprise that the articles give very little coverage to the people who showed up at the proposed site to protest the plan. But they were out in numbers and saw things differently.

“You can tell the community is more behind us just by the honks,” said Carol Lucey, the New York State leader of Overpasses for America.”

Carrying signs and American flags, those opposed to housing the children said they came to protect America.

“We need to take care of our own first,” said Michelle Coon, of Constantia, and an Overpasses member. “There’s hungry children here in Syracuse. There are homeless children here in Syracuse.”

This is clearly not the first case where somebody thought of sending the incoming children to nearly the opposite ends of the continental United States rather than keeping them close to the deportation point. And the media is quick to note that “no local or state money” will be required to house them. (No mention seems to be made of the fact that the federal money which will be used is coming out of the citizens’ pockets also.) One of the oddest claims being made by the Mayor and her media allies, however, is this one:

How long will they stay?
The average stay is less than 35 days.

That seems odd, since one of the most liberal sources on the web admits that the current backlog of cases stands at more than 375,000 and the average wait time is currently 587 days. But Syracuse is going to clear them out in an average of 35 days? Is anyone buying this?

RELATED:  Obama's foes on border crisis: Democrats

Fox’s Andrea Tantaros Unloads: Obama Should Just ‘Call Gay Athletes’ and Stay Off Global Stage

Mediaite.com:

Fox News’s Andrea Tantaros, always a stern critic of President Barack Obama, went off on him again Friday while she and her co-hosts discussed U.S.-Russia relations.

“I’ll tell you what I expect him not to do,” she said. “I expect him to not have open mic deals done about flexibility after elections. I expect him to not impose weak sanctions on Russia. I expect him to not try and disarm our nuclear defenses. I expect him to encourage Ukraine to join NATO so they can be stronger. And I also expect him to be strong.”

Tantaros, getting more heated, continued:

I mean, look, if he can’t even enforce our own borders, he’s not going to be able to enforce the borders of other countries. So, you know what I say? good let him go. I would much rather have him not playing in hard cities where real armies can march. Let him call gay athletes, let him do “war on women” press conferences. Let him talk about birth control and infrastructure. I don’t want him playing on a global stage, because he’s going to muddle it and mess it up. So, everybody hold your nose and hang on because the next two years are gonna be crazy.

 RELATED:  The Obama Doctrine

The "Heartland" Canard: Smearing Republicans On Immigration

NationalReview.com:

The heartlessness and nativist pandering that have broken America’s immigration system must give way to providing proper food, clothing, shelter and medical care to the Central American children streaming into the country.” So pronounced the editors of the New York Daily News. Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne echoed the theme in his “Bordering on Heartless” column, noting that Glenn Beck has “come under fierce attack” for his proposal to bring food, water, teddy bears, and soccer balls to the children stuck at the border. “It’s one more sign,” Dionne writes, “of how the crisis at our border has brought out the very worst in our political system and a degree of plain nastiness that we should not be proud of as a nation.”

Charges of Republican or conservative heartlessness about the children flooding the border have been common. Some journalists seemingly cannot type the word “Republican” without the modifier “heartless.” But where is the evidence of this supposed callousness and why is it any greater among Republicans than Democrats?

The flag-waving protesters who confronted buses of children in Murietta, Calif., were unseemly. Whatever the merits of arguments over illegal immigration, children are clearly helpless pawns in the drama and should not be subjected to protests about actions over which they have no control.

But other than the protesters in Murietta — and no one has polled them to discover their political views, though it’s likely that they’re conservatives — by what standard are Republicans held to be heartless while Democrats are not?

Is it by arguing that the new illegal migrants be denied legal status? Jeh Johnson, the Obama administration’s secretary of Homeland Security, said just that. “Those who cross borders today illegally, including children, are not eligible for an earned path to citizenship.”

One can make a case that those Democrats who virtually invited a flood of underage migrants to our shores are more culpable for the humanitarian emergency than those who simply reacted once it was underway. The president’s unilateral granting of legal status to the children of illegal immigrants together with the 2008 law providing special treatment for children thought to be victims of trafficking sent a signal that was received and then amplified throughout Central America. The Department of Homeland Security seemed to know in advance that the deluge was coming: In January of 2014, it advertised for contractors to help with the “resettlement” of up to 65,000 underage migrants. Texas governor Rick Perry says that he warned the administration about the influx but got the impression that “they weren’t that interested.”

Or perhaps the president anticipated the flood but miscalculated its political effects, just as he misjudged the way the Bowe Bergdahl swap would be received. He may have thought that thousands of children crossing our borders would pressure Congress to pass the kind of immigration reform he favors. When it turned out differently, he resorted to partisan sniping. No crisis will “go to waste” — including those he creates himself.

This president engages in schoolyard taunts, calling Republican budget proposals, for example, a “meanwich” and a “stinkburger.” It’s hard to be a leader of all the people when you never rise above partisan hackery.

E. J. Dionne, like the president, thinks Republicans are cruel, but as he acknowledged, unless you are prepared to permit unlimited immigration, you must make “agonizing choices about whom to let in and whom to turn away.” Yes, the circumstances from which these unaccompanied children fled are terrible. But so are the home situations for many of the 4.5 million people worldwide currently waiting, legally, for visas to enter the United States. And while Central America is poor, corrupt, and crime-ridden, it cannot be the case that those conditions alone guarantee entry into the U.S. Most countries on earth meet those criteria.

Second to the human suffering, the most dismaying aspect of this border situation is that — unlike, say, the mortgage-finance issue — it’s a relatively straightforward problem. Congress could repeal the Wilberforce Act and provide funding for housing, feeding, and deporting the children who’ve crossed the border in the past several months. Private organizations could contribute time and money toward making the children comfortable and arranging for their safe return. The president could state unequivocally (with special messages targeted at Central America) that illegal migrants who arrive at our borders will be treated humanely but deported.

This won’t happen not because Republicans are meanies, but because the president’s unremitting partisanship and small-mindedness have left him unable to do even the easy things.

RELATED:  D’Souza: Obama Wants Border Chaos, Can ‘Prey’ on the American People’s Guilt

Chicago Residents Slam Obama: 'He Will Go Down As Worst President Ever Elected'

Townhall.com:

Residents of Chicago’s South Side are sick and tired of the epidemic of violence in their community—and for good reason. This year alone, 1,080 people have been shot and wounded in the Windy City, while 184 have been killed. To make matters worse, President Obama seems to be ignoring the problems plaguing his hometown, yet is catering to the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants crossing the border.

“[Barack] is gonna go down as being one of the worst presidents ever,” one angry South Side resident said at a protest in front of the Chicago Police Department last week. “President Barack needs to pay attention to Chicago, if he cannot pay attention to Chicago and the African-American community, he needs to resign.”

RELATED:  Jesse Jackson: Good to Help Immigrants, But Obama Can’t ‘Abandon Urban America’

Black Americans: The True Casualties of Amnesty

This proves (once again) how much white liberals know they can take black votes for granted. It's a proven fact that the acceptance of illegal immigrants in this country will hurt black Americans the most--the same folks who are already suffering from an unemployment rate that doubles the national average. But white liberals don't care. Having the 1st half-black President in office will keep the blackies in line (and stats prove that symbolism alone is enough to keep their heads up Obama's ass while he continues to ignore their needs) while the white libs continue to usurp their true agenda:

One of the sleeper issues surrounding the debate on amnesty for illegal immigrants – an inconvenient one that no proponent of a widespread amnesty wishes to acknowledge – is the devastating effect so-called immigration reform will have on African Americans.

The black unemployment rate is almost 11 percent, far higher than that of any other group profiled by labor statistics. African Americans are disproportionately employed in lower-skilled jobs – the very same jobs immigrants take. As Steven Camarota asked in a recent column, why double immigration when so many people already aren’t working?

Who will be harmed most by amnesty? African-Americans.

The issue resurfaced this week when a YouTube video emerged of two young African-Americans confronting pro-illegal-immigration demonstrators in Murrieta, California. Murrieta is one of the towns in which undocumented minors are being relocated — and supporters are squaring off with protestors.
The young man argues:

If somebody brought six children to your house and you ain’t got no job, are you gonna take them in?… What are you gonna do? Are you gonna try to go out there and take care of these children AND the children you got already that you can’t take care of?… What are we going to do for the people who are here who are starving already?… We got our OWN people that are starving and hungry…. Why would we add to the problem?!

He also laments the problems in black neighborhoods where prices “are upped on everything” after large groups of immigrants move in.
 The young woman argues:

It’s just too much…. We already have our own poor people. Starvation, kids walking with no shoes…. We don’t need other people’s kids to bring more problems…. You’re gonna watch America go spiraling down… We’re already in debt as it is. [Now] we’re gonna need more money to support these kids.

Why are Democratic politicians disregarding the concerns and needs of black Americans in a push to address the concerns and needs… of foreigners? Amnesty proponents speak of the need to grant others a better life – but what of the need to  look out for our fellow Americans? What of those black Americans whose ancestors quite literally built this nation through the sweat of their brows?

Instead, Democrats are chucking aside black voters in their rush to lock in the Latino vote (or so they’re hoping). Taken for granted as a given come election-time, blacks are now actively harmed as the Democrats vow to grow their voting base through importing more and more of what they see as future blue-voters. It’s the husband who leaves his wife of 30 years: ‘We had a good run, honey, but I’ve found someone new.’

Black attorney and member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Peter Kirsanow, serves as one of the lone voices of reason, repeatedly outlining the harm amnesty will cause black Americans. In a 2013 letter to the Congressional Black Caucus, he wrote: “The obvious question is whether there are sufficient jobs in the low-skilled labor market for both African-Americans and illegal immigrants. The answer is no.” Kirsanow’s statistics demonstrate the way in which immigration impacts the wages and employment opportunities of black males and hurts the black community.

But no one seems to listen to Kirsanow.

Meanwhile, the harm to African Americans is not limited to reduced wages, greater competition for jobs, and declining household incomes – now even the black history of suffering is being diluted. Liberal columnist and CNN pundit Sally Kohn penned a column last week arguing that the term ‘illegal immigrant’ is the same as the N-word. Kohn, is usually fair-minded and reasoned in her arguments, lumping black Americans’ unique history and suffering with that of certain Latino immigrants is absurd and offensive. Consider that the N-word was used to describe a person who was whipped daily,   while ‘illegal immigrant’ is a word used to describe a person who receives free education (even in-state tuition!), housing, driver’s licenses, legal aid, food, and healthcare. To even claim the two words are similar is an unthinkable affront – and insult – to African-Americans.

Senator Jeff Sessions’s recent National Review column  “On Immigration, It’s Time to Defend Americans,” hits the nail on the head. Sessions notes:

Harvard professor George Borjas estimated that high immigration rates from 1980 to 2000 resulted in a 7.4 percent wage reduction for lower-skilled American workers…. The Center for Immigration Studies issued a study based on Census data showing that “since 2000 all of the net gain in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job has gone to immigrants.”… If mass immigration is so good for the economy, why then — during this long sustained period of record immigration into the U.S. — are incomes falling and a record number of Americans not working?

Birthright citizenship is already bad enough; largely refusing to deport illegal immigrants is already bad enough.But now, we’ve upped the ante even further. Overburdened taxpayers, including black taxpayers, are covering the cost to feed, clothe and educate illegals, and black Americans face the additional burden of having their historic suffering belittled and their precarious circumstances made even worse.

Democrats have built a brand as the party willing to stand up for black Americans, but the amnesty push shows what a false promise that was. The message to black voters is: “Yes, your ancestors endured unimaginable hardships and helped build this country, and we said we’d help you out. But now we have a new trophy wife.”

RELATED: Congressional Testimony: How Mass Immigration Hurts Black Americans

Politiks As Usual: In The News 7/6/14

Boehner: Why We Must Now Sue The President

States Look To Gun Seizure Law After Mass Killings

Grand Dragon Al Sharpton and MSNBC's Black Klux Klan 

Will Megyn Kelly Help Bring Ayers To Justice? 

Black Unemployment 10.7%, More Than Double White Unemployment 5.3%

Sheriffs Refusing to Put Hold On Immigrant Inmates for Feds

Video: Cop Repeatedly Beats Woman in the Head

Author: Machines Will Take Over, Humans Will be Cyborgs by 2100

Ten Reasons Women Are Losing While Gays Keep Winning

Newspaper Apologizes For 2008 Obama Endorsement

First Lady Bucks GOP On School Lunch Rules

Obama’s Irresponsible Taunt: President Increasingly Willing To Go At It Alone

'Refugees': Liberal News Networks Refuse to Call Illegals Illegal

Breitbart.com:

Newbusters reports that in the wake of tens of thousands of illegal aliens swarming over the American border, the broadcast networks are refusing to use the word "illegal" to describe these illegal aliens. And that's not because they are using words like "invaders" or "soon-to-be Democrats."

Instead, viewers are hearing words like "refugee" and "undocumented." NBC News went so far as to create the Twitter handle #RefugeeRiders. 

NBC''s Lauer began his editorializing by arguing that “as so many issues in this country do it's going to boil down to politics. And wherever you stand on the issue, one side or the other, I'm not going to weigh in on that, it's hard to see those images moms and their kids in that situation.” The NBC host then encouraged his audience to share their thoughts using the Today show hashtag #RefugeeRiders. 

Throughout the entire report, NBC’s Miguel Almaguer refused to use the term “illegal immigrant” and instead used the term “undocumented immigrants" to describe the 140 individuals being bussed to California[.] …

On ABC’s Good Morning America, reader Ryan Smith didn’t even use the term “undocumented” during the news brief and instead noted that “ new information about those government buses full of immigrants which were blocked from entering a processing center in California Tuesday by this group of angry protesters who say the immigrants are a public safety threat.” During the 8:00 a.m. hour, Smith did use the term "illegal" in his news brief. 

Finally, CBS This Morning substitute anchor Margaret Brennan introduced its report by highlighting the “controversial government plan to transfer undocumented immigrants from Texas to California is set to continue this morning.” Reporter John Blackstone, who provided a full report Tuesday night did not use the term “illegal immigrant” again on Wednesday morning.

The Orwellian language is likely a result of polling that shows 59% of the country rightly blame President Obama for the current immigration crisis, and just as many  say that "the children should be ordered to leave the country."

There's no question that Obama and the Democrat Party's amnesty rhetoric lured tens of thousands of illegal immigrant children to risk harrowing journeys over hundreds and thousands of miles to get here. They are now overwhelming our immigrations systems and risking the spread of disease. 

RELATED:  New Documentary “We Ride to DC” Blows Lid Off Mainstream Media’s Agenda

Liberal Media Wants You To Sympathize With Illegal Immigrant Antonio Velasquez

Of course, if this guy had gotten his papers and come into this country the legal way, like millions like have done in the past, he wouldn't have this problem. But hey, thanks to a liberal media that makes up its own rules along the way, we're supposed to sympathize with his plight. Again, control the words and you control the debate:

Antonio Velasquez sat in his home on the west side of Phoenix glued to his computer screen. The U.S. Senate was voting on a monumental immigration reform bill that was months in the making. Velasquez was so excited he took the day off from work to watch the proceedings live on C-SPAN.

One by one, the senators cast their votes. The outcome wasn't close. The bill passed by an overwhelming 68-32 majority, with 14 Republicans, including Arizona's two senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, joining 52 Democrats and two independents. It was June 27, 2013.

Velasquez was thrilled. His dream of one day gaining legal status, after having lived here illegally for almost a quarter of a century, seemed closer than ever. The bill included a provision calling for millions of immigrants such as Velasquez living in the U.S. illegally to gain temporary legal status, followed by green cards and eventually U.S. citizenship.

But Velasquez tempered his excitement. He knew the bill still faced an uphill battle in the House before it could be sent to President Obama to sign.

"At that moment, I was overjoyed. There is no question it was a huge step," Velasquez said. "But at the same time, I felt trepidation. We still needed to wait to see what would happen in the House."

As it turned out, nothing happened.

Now, a year later, Velasquez has lost hope that Congress will pass an immigration bill — ever. As a result, Velasquez believes he may never have the chance to gain legal status through an act of Congress.

RELATED: The Current Immigration Process Why don’t they just immigrate the legal way?

5 High Crimes And Misdemeanors For Which Barack Obama Deserves To Be Impeached

Townhall.com:

Barack Obama's tenure in the White House has been one of the low points in the history of our republic. It may seem melodramatic to compare the damage Barack Obama is doing to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the White House being burned during the war of 1812, but in a sense he's worse than any of those calamities because he's a purely self-inflicted wound. It's not a sneak attack from the Japanese laying us low this time; it's the man our nation willingly chose to lead us not once, but twice. 

It's bad enough that Barack Obama is not qualified or competent to handle a job like the presidency, as his performance has proven again and again. Not only has he ridden the economy so deep into the ground that the percentage of Americans not working is at a 36 year high, he's piled on so much debt in such a short period that the destruction of our economy via bankruptcy and/or runaway inflation may be inevitable at this point. 

Worse yet, Barack Obama has taken the position that he can rewrite any law he chooses, any way he chooses, for any reason he chooses. In other words, although Obama is not a dictator, he IS CLAIMING THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE DICTATORIAL POWERS for himself. This is extraordinarily dangerous to our republic. As Congressman Trey Gowdy has pointed out, if Obama claims he has the power to change Obamacare or illegal immigration law at his whim, why couldn't he do the same with election law? In other words, Obama has no more right to give illegal aliens work permits or delay congressionally mandated parts of Obamacare than he does to ban handguns by decree or reduce the number of electoral votes in Republican leaning states. That's why it's so incredibly dangerous to allow Obama to be "above the law." It's because the abuses committed tomorrow by Obama or even future Presidents are likely to build upon the ones that we're allowing to go unchallenged today. 

The best way to check Barack Obama's power would be to impeach him. Despite the fact that Obama is much more deserving of impeachment than Clinton (perjury) or Andrew Johnson (who violated the Tenure of Office Act), it's unlikely that Obama will be impeached. Unfortunately, even if Republicans take back the Senate in 2014, there won't be enough votes in the upper chamber to get rid of Barack Obama. That's tragic, because for the good of the country, Barack Obama deserves to be driven from office in disgrace. 

1) For Illegally Changing Obamacare: It doesn't matter if the Affordable Care Act is called "Obamacare;" Barack Obama doesn't have the authority to unilaterally change the law. Changes to the law have to be made by Congress and then signed into law by the President. Barack Obama has broken the law repeatedly by making at least 23 unilateral changes to the law. Saying, "The Republicans won't work with us," or more disturbingly, "It's politically convenient," is not an excuse for overriding the Constitution of the United States. 

2) Engaging In An Illegal War In Libya: While the President is the Commander-in-Chief, the Constitution gives Congress the ability to declare war. In the modern era, that has just meant an authorization of force from Congress, which Obama did not pursue. Additionally, we've tended to give Presidents the benefit of the doubt when American lives are at stake. However, in Libya, Obama didn't seek the permission of Congress and we had no national security interest in Libya. In other words, Obama's real justification for bombing that country and overthrowing its government was that HE FELT LIKE IT. Using the exact same precedent, the next President could bomb Mexico or Cuba without Congressional authorization. Incidentally, bombing either of those nations would probably make more sense than bombing Libya, although that's not saying much since our intervention there has been a complete disaster. 

3) Lying To Sell Obamacare To The American People: When Barack Obama told the public if they liked their plan, they could keep their plan, he was lying. When he told Americans if they liked their doctor, they could keep their doctor, he knew it wasn't so. When he told Americans Obamacare would cut costs by $2,500 for the average family, he was deliberately misleading the public. For a President of the United States to PERSONALLY spend months telling deliberate falsehoods to the American people in order to convince them to support something as massive as a government takeover of the health care system is beyond the pale. If the willful lies Barack Obama told to sell Obamacare don't merit impeachment, then there are no lies that a President could tell to the American people big enough to merit impeachment. 

4) Violating Immigration Law And Illegally Implementing The DREAM ACT: Simply put, Barack Obama has ceased to enforce most immigration law. As Senator Jeff Sessions has noted, “at least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal.” In other words, we've already stopped deporting anyone other than SOME hardcore criminals and gang members. Additionally, when the DREAM ACT didn't make it through Congress, Obama simply implemented it ANYWAY. Not only is he explicitly telling illegal aliens they can stay in the United States, he's illegally giving them work permits that he has zero right to offer. Even if Congress is too split on the issue to unify and put a stop to what Obama's doing, that doesn't change the fact that it’s flatly illegal. If this is allowed to stand, tell me ANY LAW on the books that the President is obligated to enforce? 

5) Releasing 5 Taliban Terrorists In Exchange For Deserter Bowe Bergdahl: Barack Obama was legally required to alert Congress 30 days before he released terrorists from Gitmo. Not only did he fail to do so, but more seriously he released five high level terrorists who he knew were likely to help kill Americans in the future. One of the terrorists has ALREADY SAID he intends to go back to Afghanistan to fight America. Barack Obama spent a lot of time bragging about getting Bin Laden, but he just released five Bin Ladens back into the world and a lot of Americans who didn't desert their country are likely to die because of it. 

RELATED: Limbaugh: Despite Obama’s ‘Lawlessness,’ ‘You Can’t Impeach the First Black President’