THE FOUNDATION
"It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf." --Thomas Paine. The American Crisis, No. 1, 1776TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
Thursday Speech to Showcase Obama's Amnesty
And now, the moment you've all been waiting for: Barack Obama's executive order on immigration. The Wall Street Journal reports, "President Barack Obama will announce changes to the U.S. immigration system in a speech from the White House on Thursday night, moves that are expected to protect more than four million people from deportation while sparking an ugly fight with Republicans, who say he is overstepping his authority." There may be surprises in his announcement, but the Journal reports on two things we already expected: "Illegal immigrants receiving new protections would include those who have been in the U.S. for at least five years and who are parents of U.S. citizens or of legal permanent residents, according to two people briefed on Mr. Obama's plan. The president will also make more people eligible for a program that gives safe harbor from deportation to young people who were brought into the U.S. illegally as children, people briefed on the plan say." Obama claims he'll use his "lawful authority" to do this, but in truth, it's a lawless political stunt to make him the center of attention and to pander to Latinos. As if to illustrate the point, the White House insists that criticism of Obama as an "emperor" is "a badge of honor." More...Comment | Share
White House Prepares for Immigration Order Backlash
In the eleventh hour before he announces his unconstitutional immigration executive order, Barack Obama is pulling together coalitions to protect himself from opposition. On Wednesday, he invited Democrat congressional leaders -- including the leaders of the Black, Asian and Hispanic caucuses -- to dinner to explain his executive order. Republican lawmakers were not invited. And when he gives his speech Thursday night, it will be broadcast to the Latinos who tuned into Univision to see the Latin Grammys, while the other big television networks think "Grey's Anatomy," "Bones" and "The Biggest Loser" are too important to interrupt with Obama's speech. Meanwhile, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) warned that Obama's grossly unconstitutional move could result in a further breakdown of the law. "The country's going to go nuts," Coburn said, "because they're going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it's going to be a very serious situation. You're going to see -- hopefully not -- but you could see instances of anarchy. ... You could see violence." More...Comment | Share
Why Obama's Immigration Order Isn't Like Reagan's
Heritage Foundation scholar Hans von Spakovsky notes that some media outlets are pointing to immigration executive orders issued by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush to say, 1. Barack Obama's coming order is not a big deal and 2. Conservatives are hypocrites for opposing it. This is flat out wrong, says Spakovsky: "[T]his claim plays a bit fast-and-loose with history and fails to explain the significant difference between Obama going against the will of Congress, which considered and rejected the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act on several occasions, including when both houses of Congress were controlled by the president's party, and Reagan and Bush who made administrative corrections designed to carry out congressional intent. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to 'establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....' And it is the president's constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed....'" Specifically, Spakovsky writes, in 1987 "Reagan was not defying Congress, but rather carrying out the general intent of Congress which had just passed a blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants." And Bush's action, which affected about 140,000 people, "was well within the authority delegated to the executive branch and a 'legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.'" This isn't to defend either previous policy, but only to say this is apples and oranges both in scope and intent. More...Comment | Share
Don't Miss Alexander's Column
Read Immigration Executive Order -- All Smoke and Mirrors, on Barack Obama's looming lawless political stunt and why an influx of legalized immigrants will depress wages for Obama's other constituents.If you'd like to receive Alexander's Column by email, update your subscription here.
|
Keystone Vote Shows Ecofacists Own Democrats
The Democrats' rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline show the party would rather allow one of their own to suffer defeat in re-election than vote for something the ecofacists oppose. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) pushed the bill forward because Keystone would bring jobs and industry to her state. But Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmentalist who poured millions into Democrats' campaigns, opposes the project -- even going so far as to threaten to campaign against Landrieu. So the vote failed. The new Democrat Party only concerns itself with the purity of its ideology. The Wall Street Journal writes, "With a few exceptions, the Democrats who will remain in the Senate next year are either gentry liberals themselves or are too afraid to risk losing the green cash on which they have become dependent. Either way, Tom Steyer owns them." Sen. Harry Reid should never rise again to speak about the influence of dark money in American politics, for he would be speaking against his fellow Democrats. More...Comment | Share
EPA's McCarthy: Focus on Climate, Not Weather
According to Remote Sensing Systems satellite data, the global warming hiatus is now 18 years old. This lull, it's important to note, was not predicted by a single climate model. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy nevertheless lectured Americans earlier this week on the importance of distinguishing weather from climate. The hiatus "is a short-lived issue that doesn't represent climate," she said. How much time then will it take for ecofascists to finally consider the pause a climate trend and not a weather outlier? Alarmists are always quick to exploit heat waves -- or what they call "weather" during cold snaps -- across any said portion of the globe as evidence of "climate change"; why doesn't a nearly two-decade-old pause count? The answer to that lies in the EPA's statist power grab. McCarthy added, "If you look at the science ... nothing tells us we are being overly aggressive." Nothing except common sense and inconvenient truths. More...Comment | Share
For more, visit Right Hooks.
|
RIGHT ANALYSIS
GOP Plans Its Amnesty Defense
|
Already, congressional Republicans, empowered by their recent election win, have a plan to stop the president’s unconstitutional breach of executive power and once and for all stand courageously for Rule of Law and our nation’s legislative process.
Or, maybe not quite.
Instead, GOP leaders have come up with a questionable idea to borrow from Jonathan Gruber’s playbook and capitalize on the "stupidity of the America voter." The would be to make it appear as if congressional Republicans are standing up against the president’s plan when, in fact, they are funding it.
It all comes down to that little "r" word: rescission, the process by which Congress revokes funding previously authorized through the legislative process.
Under the rescission approach, Republicans would pass an appropriations bill to continue funding the government -- hardly an unusual occurrence. However, this bill would include funding for the president’s amnesty plan. Then, after the fact, Congress would pass a bill revoking said funding.
To quote the eloquent words of National Review’s Quin Hillyer, “This is sheer and utter nonsense. Balderdash. Tommyrot.”
You see, all that’s needed to override a rescission vote is a presidential veto. And if you think Barack Obama might miss an opportunity to veto a bill pulling funding from his amnesty plan, then perhaps Gruber was right in his evaluation of voters.
So why is the GOP seemingly intent on this fool's errand? Because the other options may actually require a confrontation Republicans aren’t willing to face as they dance with public opinion. And, it's important to note, they don't yet control the Senate.
But there are other options. As Josh Siegel of The Daily Signal points out, the GOP could "[p]ass two separate funding bills -- a short-term bill holding back funding for immigration enforcement agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and another measure funding the rest of the government for a full year."
A second option would be a Continuing Resolution (CR), which would be a short-term funding bill that would allow the new Congress to take up the issue again when they convene early next year -- ideally with enough backbone to withhold any funding from the president’s amnesty-to-work scheme.
Unfortunately, recollections of last year’s government shutdown still loom, and should Republicans pass a CR that does not fund amnesty and Obama refuses to sign it a partial government shutdown could ensue -- a risk many Republicans are unwilling to take.
By going the rescission route, Republican leadership can gain the desirable sound bite: “We voted to pull funding from the president’s amnesty plan.” In that case, the truth would be that they voted against amnesty, but only after they voted to allow it.
Comment | Share
Race-Baiters Foment Ferguson Friction
|
Indeed, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency in preparation for the decision, and he activated the National Guard to help handle any possible riots.
Protesters are better organized now than rioters were in August. While outside groups from the New Black Panthers to Tibetan Monks came when the riots and protests first broke out, some lifelong protesters have stayed to prepare for when the decision on Wilson is handed down. They're teaching classes on "militant non-violent disobedience."
Community organizer Rev. Osagyefo Sekou explained, "[W]e use the word 'militant' as opposed to the word 'passive' non-violent civil disobedience because we are about a direct encounter with the state to create drama to show that we are willing to take a risk in confronting the state because of injustice."
A video shows protest organizers planning on targeting the white neighborhoods of Ferguson. Many in the community are boarding up businesses, stockpiling food and purchasing firearms.
Meanwhile, police and protesters are negotiating 19 rules of engagement for police officers monitoring protests. Some of the rules reinforce what the Constitution already says, like rule 19: "Bond for arrestees will not be set above the levels which would be considered average over the last two years, and arrestees will not be held for periods longer than average lengths of time." Other rules limit the power that the police wielded on the streets of Ferguson in the past. Rule 15 says, "Police will be instructed to be tolerant of more minor lawbreaking (such as thrown water bottles) when deciding whether to escalate the use of force."
Perhaps some of this organization and preparation is because, as Al Sharpton recounted, Barack Obama met with protesters and encouraged them to "stay on course." It's hard to say exactly what that means, other than to speculate based on the administration's race-baiting agenda that they want some unrest.
All the better to distract blacks from Obama's amnesty executive order, which will open the flood gates for job and wage competition for blacks, who already suffer from high unemployment.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) justified the grotesque behavior of the rabble. "The rush to judgment by some in the African-American community is, in fact, understandable," she said, "because in our country there are racial disparities in terms of how people are treated."
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) took that sentiment further, comparing Ferguson to civil rights events in Selma, Alabama: "When we were beaten on that bridge in Selma, people couldn't take it, for they saw it, they heard about it, they read about it, and it lit a sense of righteous indignation. When we see a miscarriage of justice in Ferguson, they're going to have the same reaction they had towards Selma." He called for nationwide protests if Officer Wilson isn't indicted.
Michael Brown's parents certainly think there's a case to be made, and they took it to the UN Committee Against Torture. Brown's mother, Lesley McSpadden, said, "We need the world to know what's going on in Ferguson and we need justice. We need answers and we need action. And we have to bring it to the UN so they can expose it to the rest of the world."
Expose what -- that their son, likely impaired by marijuana, robbed a convenience store, assaulted a police officer and got himself killed? And what do his parents expect from the UN, which is itself a collection of thug dictatorships that murder their own citizens? We hate to pile on grief-stricken parents, but this is beyond the pale.
This is nothing like Selma, and it's not an "understandable" reaction to "racial disparities."
Lost in all of this is Officer Wilson. In the court of public opinion, Wilson has been tried and found guilty. But Claire McCaskill doesn't seem to mind. She said, "Once their investigations are complete, Officer Wilson will either be indicted, and then of course he will be removed from the police department, or he will not be indicted, in which case Officer Wilson has to decide what the future holds for him." That's an awfully cavalier attitude to have toward a man whose life has been upended and threatened.
Ferguson is at a tipping point. Police and protesters each have an opportunity to acquit themselves better than they did in August. But things aren't looking promising.
Comment | Share
For more, visit Right Analysis.
|
|
|
TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS
- Ann Coulter: Downing Street Gruber
- Victor Davis Hanson: Meet the Snobocrats
- Stephen Moore: Climate Change Self-Delusion
- Michael Reagan: Pipeline Politics
- Cal Thomas: Teaching Hate
OPINION IN BRIEF
Poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807-1882): "It takes less time to do a thing right, than it does to explain why you did it wrong."Columnist Ann Coulter: "The Downing Street memo consisted of minutes from a July 2002 meeting of British labor, defense and intelligence officials during the run-up to the Iraq War, in which the MI6 head, Richard Dearlove, reportedly said that 'Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.' These notes from a British cabinet meeting were called the smoking gun of Bush’s lying his way into war. ... Those weren’t Tony Blair’s notes. They were a secretary’s interpretation of the MI6 chief’s interpretation of the Bush administration’s argument to the United Nations. It’s like a movie review, written by someone who knew someone who had seen the movie. The memo writer also wasn’t being paid $400,000 by the Bush administration to make Iraq War policy. Jonathan Gruber was paid that much -- plus another several million from the states -- to design Obamacare. ... Ninety-nine percent of Americans were utterly unaffected by the invasion of Iraq – other than to be made safer, until Obama threw our victory away. Every American is affected by Obamacare. The bald-faced lies told to pass Obamacare expose not only that law, but all Democratic economic claims."
Comment | Share
Historian Victor Davis Hanson: "In 2008, [Barack Obama] bragged to an interviewer, 'I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.' That same sense of superiority explains his campaign boast that, 'We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.' No wonder Obama believes that he can just give millions of foreign residents amnesty by executive order.... Progressivism has always assumed that the supposed noble ends of fairness and quality justify any means necessary to achieve them. Influential Americans also have developed a sick idea about higher education, equating wisdom and character with a degree stamped from an Ivy League or exclusive university. The media has abdicated its watchdog role. ... Wealth and status assure elites that their own lives are never affected by the laws they pass or by the concrete ramifications of their own ideology."
Comment | Share
No comments:
Post a Comment