What is needed is a coalition of the congress and the courts to block the executive (which appears to be in the formative stage if not more advanced). Right now the courts are hearing cases at least and even daring to block some of the most egregious Obama diktats. But for a coalition to work the congress cannot abandon the courts in the fight.
At some point Republicans in congress and especially the leaders in congress and the party have to fight. There is no running away. For instance, suppose the Supreme Court really does block the ObamaCare illegal subsidies? Will Republicans cave in and legislate subsidies if Obama Dimocrats play the same game they have played on immigration and DHS funding? Will Obama Dimocrats blame Republicans for the ObamaCare subsidy disaster and demand Republicans restore the subsides or else Obama and Obama Dimocrats/Big Media will blame Republicans for the ObamaCare disaster?
On every issue Obama Dimocrats can play the same game with the very same template: refuse every offer except total capitulation. If Republicans cave in on immigration they will have to cave in on everything. At some point they have to fight.
The joke is Boehner might not even have to votes to pass this punt.
If they had a brain the Republicans in Congress would state clearly: “We will not fund with taxpayer dollars what the courts have ruled to be illegal.” Got that? What should be John Boehner’s exit strategy? “We will not fund with taxpayer dollars what the courts have ruled to be illegal.”
A federal district court judge has ruled it illegal. Barack Obama more than 20 times declared he could not legally do illegal, illegal immigration diktats. Got that? Congress should simply say “we will not fund what is illegal“. “It is illegal so we will not fund it.”
Why Mitch McConnell and John Boehner cannot make such a simply declaration is due either to: (1) they are not very bright; (2) they don’t want to block Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktats.
For now we are left with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funds expiring Friday at midnight. The Senate wants to fund Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat. The majority of House Republicans want to fight. There is some hope our strategy of “no funds for what the courts have already deemed illegal” will come into play and it comes from the CPAC convention which begins today, as explained by an Obama bootlicker:
The annual Conservative Political Action Conference has always been a haven for would-be presidential candidates seeking the sanction of some of the Republican Party’s most powerful populists. But it’s also been a forum for the right to vent their anger at the Republican leadership in the House and Senate. The 2015 CPAC begins Thursday, two days before funding for the Department of Homeland Security is set to expire.
It’s still unclear whether Congress can reach a deal in time to avoid at least a temporary shut-down. Even though Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner have chosen to skip CPAC, they will hear very loudly the complaints of activists who believe that both men have shown their yellow belly to the purple and blue forces in Congress.
Boehner is on point. If he sends the signal, the House will vote on a Senate measure to fund the DHS fully, along with a separate symbolic vote to show disapproval with President Obama’s immigration executive action, which the GOP calls “amnesty.” As of this writing, the speaker has not indicated that he will give in to the pressure, instead preferring to gut it out for a few days, at least, letting House conservatives relish the win of a short-duration shut-down. Tactically, Boehner would allow pent-up frustration to ventilate, and then, when conservatives quieted down, reverse course and essentially hand Obama a delayed victory — for now.
Obama’s executive action, which would affect nearly five million undocumented immigrants, is held up in court. If DHS gets its funding, Obama wouldn’t be able to act until the courts decide what to do.
CPAC’s timing couldn’t be better in this sense. There’s no way Boehner will stand up to House conservatives during CPAC, especially when many of their leading and loudest voices have a platform at the convention.
If there is a functioning brain at CPAC 2015 they will follow our lead and shout to McConnell and Boehner: “DO NOT FUND WHAT IS ILLEGAL!”
At the very least McConnell and Boehner should call attention to Judge Hanen’s Preliminary Injunction against Barack Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat. It is almost as if there is a news blackout on this court decision as Republicans/conservatives either do not believe the court’s decision will be upheld at the Supreme Court or like Quislings they want to enable Obama so as to remove the issue from 2016.
As to Obama Dimocrats/Big Media they don’t want the public to know about this decision either – because it hurts their tin pot dictator Obama.
So what is happening in the lawsuit filed by 26 states against Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat? Thus far it is all following the script we wrote.
Then on Monday February 23, after a full week had passed with threats from Obama and promises that there would be a filing against the Preliminary Injunction on the day of the ruling itself had failed to come to pass - Obama lawyers filed a most ridiculous motion before the court.
In the Stay motion Obama lawyers tried a jiujitsu stunt and claimed that indeed they would be the ones to be “irreparably harmed” if the preliminary injunction was to stay in place. It was the plaintiff 26 states that had won the argument that they would be “irreparably harmed” if Obama was allowed to proceed with his illegal illegal immigration diktat. That simple fact somehow did not deter the Obama lawyers from their stunt.
Then the funniest part of the Stay motion. The Obama lawyers stomped their feet and declared that the judge had better rule by Wednesday or else they would go to the Fifth Circuit and ask the Fifth Circuit to stomp on the Preliminary Injunction. Mind, they filed the Stay motion on Monday and demanded the judge rule by Wednesday. They forgot that a federal district judge is not to be pushed around.
On the same day as the Stay motion was filed, the 26 plaintiff states filed a response. It was a beaut. It was short. It was sweet. Here it is:
The Plaintiff States write to oppose Defendants’ request for expedited consideration of their motion filed today to stay the Court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal. See Dkt. No. 150 at 7. As this Court found, defendants have no emergency need to take applications for benefits under the new program. Mem. Op. & Order (Dkt. No. 145) at 118-21. Defendants have implicitly recognized as much, by waiting a full week from the preliminary injunction to file this stay motion. Indeed, if Defendants had any compelling claim of a looming, irreversible harm from temporary injunctive relief, they would have featured it previously. They had ample time to do so: Plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction on December 4, some six weeks before this Court’s January 15 motion hearing….
At the very least, Plaintiffs should be allowed to respond within the same seven days that Defendants enjoyed to prepare their motion after the preliminary injunction issued. It is unreasonable to demand that Plaintiffs respond, and the Court rule on the motion, in under three days.
The plaintiffs blasted the Obama lawyers. If it is such an “emergency” why did they wait a full week to file? Don’t they have enough lawyers with the capacity to read?
The plaintiffs blasted the fact that Obama’s lawyers had never before claimed they would suffer “irreversible harm” if a Preliminary Injunction issued from the court. Then came the coup de grace .
The plaintiffs noted that Obama lawyers had waited a week to file their “emergency”. They asked for the same amount of time.
What was going to happen? Would the judge ignore the ruling until he was good and ready thereby daring Obama lawyers to try to jump over him to the Fifth Circuit? Would the judge rule against himself? Would the judge order an emergency hearing on the motion for Tuesday or Wednesday or maybe even later? The suspense made us chew the pink off our fingernails.
“Before this Court is Defendants’ Emergency Expedited Motion to Stay the Court’s February 16, 2015 Order Pending Appeal and Supporting Memorandum [Doc. No. 150]. The Court orders that any response by Plaintiffs shall be filed by the close of business on Tuesday, March 3, 2015.
The federal judge in Texas who blocked President Barack Obama’s latest executive actions on immigration signaled Tuesday that he isn’t inclined to rush a decision on the Obama administration’s request to lift the injunction he imposed last week.
U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen’s order saying he’ll give the states suing the federal government another week to respond means the issue of a possible stay in the case will likely be taken up by a federal appeals court before he rules one way or another.
The Justice Department warned in its stay application Monday that if Hanen did not act on the stay by the end of business on Wednesday, the feds would move to a higher court.
Obama tried to thug Judge Hanen. For Obama “thug” is the default play. Judge Hanen knows how to deal with thugs. Contra the claims by Politico, the judge in his order blocked the appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
If Obama lawyers try to ignore the judge’s order and go the the Fifth Circuit. It is our belief that the Fifth Circuit will tell them to wait until Judge Hanen does what he will do. The Fifth Circuit can easily note that the Obama lawyers waited a full week to file their “emergency” so it can’t be such an “emergency”. The Fifth Circuit can note that it is fair to the plaintiffs to give them the same time as Obama lawyers. So wait until Judge Hanen is good and ready.
Judge Hanen? We won’t be surprised if Judge Hanen schedules a hearing in days or weeks to come after Plaintiffs file their motion next Tuesday. Judge Hanen can wait and we believe the Fifth Circuit will wait too. We’ll find out next Tuesday.
We’re well beyond the point at which we can chalk David Axelrod’s strikingly antagonistic comments about Hillary Clinton’s campaign-in-waiting up to artlessness or a temporary failure to observe etiquette. At this point, it has become clear that President Barack Obama’s close advisor is deliberately undercutting the position of the Democratic candidate aspiring to replace him in the White House. [snip]
They haven’t seen anything yet. Speaking with Yahoo’s Katie Couric recently, Axelrod shed all self-awareness in order to make the point that Hillary Clinton’s supporters were cultivating a cult of personality around her and that was a dangerous condition. Yes, really! (hat tip to The Washington Free Beacon):
Either Axelrod genuinely believes that Clinton is blowing the race or he is not all that eager to see her succeed Obama in the White House.
No “cult” we. “Tough love” when necessary from us. No Hopium guzzling here for any person.
The filth that elected Barack Obama have a problem. The problem is Hillary. They hate Hillary. But to rescue their beloved Obama they have to support/vote for Hillary. A Hillary presidency will be a return to Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton and prove that Obama was an historically meaningless burp. But the Obama filth have to support/vote for Hillary in order to salvage something/anything from their efforts.
The Obama thugs of 2008 want Hillary Clinton in 2016 to be the Shield Maiden of Chappaqua. That’s why the Obama thugs of 2008 infest Hillary Clinton 2016 organizations and will do all they can to force Hillary to not do what she must – which is to wholly and vigorously separate herself from Obama and Obama policies.
The Obama 2008 thugs know without a Hillary Clinton 2016 victory their “transformational” Barack will forever be an object of ridicule (Brookings already smells the stink of Obama’s presidential ranking). The Obama thugs only support Hillary because they think that a successful “Obama third term” will revise the two failed Obama terms into a less poisonous eight years.
The filth that elected Barack Obama have a problem. In 2008 they called Hillary a “racist”, a “hag”, the “past”, a “corporatist”, slime, Shillary, Hitlery…. Now the Obama thugs that declared Hillary everything they hate are in support of… Hillary. Alec MacGillis at a website we thought was defunct asks the question – Have Obama’s supporters forgotten how much they once disliked Hillary Clinton?
Liberal Amnesia Have Obama’s supporters forgotten how much they once disliked Hillary Clinton?
As a presidential candidate, says one political veteran, Hillary Clinton does not offer the country a “fresh start.” “For all of her advantages, she is not a healing figure,” he continues. “The more she tries to moderate her image … the more she compounds her exposure as an opportunist. And after two decades of the Bush-Clinton saga, making herself the candidate of the future could be a challenge.”
Who said this? Marco Rubio? Scott Walker? A consultant for their fledgling 2016 campaigns? In fact, none of the above. They are the words of David Axelrod, the uber-strategist for Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, and are drawn from his new memoir, Believer. The hefty, engaging book has been dissected mostly for Axelrod’s analysis of his former client and his presidency, but it’s actually far more remarkable from another vantage: It is a reminder of how far liberals who were in the pro-Obama camp in 2008 have traveled in their view of Hillary Clinton—and how much they’ve allowed themselves to forget along the way.
The Head Kook at DailyKooks and other Obama supporters accused Hillary Clinton 2008 of darkening Barack Obama’s skin color in photographs and other racist evils. Now these kooks support Hillary. Are they so corrupt they will support a racist for president or are they so depraved they lied about the racist charge?
The reconciliation of Obama’s following with the presumptive 2016 Democratic nominee has been the great underexamined story on the Democratic side of the ledger heading into an election year. One simply cannot overstate how much ill will there was between the two camps in 2007 and 2008—that historic, down-to-the-wire primary standoff was based not in policy contrasts (good luck recalling the differences in their health plans) but in a deeply personal clash about the meaning and methods of progressive politics. “Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we’re worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won’t do,” Obama said in his breakout speech in Des Moines in November 2007. “This party … has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we led, not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction; when we summoned the entire nation to a common purpose—a higher purpose.”
Clinton fired back sarcastically three months later: “Now, I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified. The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.’ ” The legions of young Obama foot soldiers in Iowa, South Carolina, and elsewhere were fired not just by airy notions of hope and change and making history but by the more negative motivation that the prospect of a Clinton nomination stirred in them.
Unlike MacGillis we cared and continue to care about policy. MacGillis doesn’t want to discuss the differences on 2008 health care plans because we now have proof that Obama devised his health care plan as a publicity stunt for a event he was set to attend. The Obama goons that worshiped Obama denounced Hillary as a great evil and now they support what to them is a great evil:
MacGillis explains the Obama thug support for “racist” Hillary as a product of Hillary and Obama “reconciled”. There is also sobriety after all the Hopium:
There is the letdown that some (many?) Obama liberals have felt about their man and his high-flown aspirations for changing Washington, which has led to a reassessment of Clinton’s more Earth-bound approach. There is the simple reality that there is not a credible rival to assume Obama’s spot in the field as the more liberal, dynamic, and idealistic alternative—were Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run, she would quickly remind liberals of their misgivings about Clinton, but it really looks like she’s not running.
They guzzled the Hopium. They look back and recall they added “Hussein” to their name. They remember the “yes we can” chants and feel stupid and stupider. Like college students who got drunk then “serviced” the baseball team the amnesia is collective:
The result is a sort of collective amnesia among Obama supporters when it comes to their former estimation of Clinton—a reluctance to reckon fully with their aversion to her then and what has come of it since. This amnesia may seem harmless now, but one can’t help but wonder if it might come back to haunt Democrats in the general election if it is not confronted more fully before then. Democrats, including Obama’s diehard 2008 backers, may now seem willing to accept Clinton with a shrug or even a hug, and let bygones be bygones. But will that acceptance hold once they start seeing her out on the trail again—giving the stump speeches they found so dreadfully dull in contrast to those of their chosen guy in 2008, giving such hyper-cautious answers in debates, coming off as stumbling and disingenuous in her efforts to align herself with the mood of the moment? Better for Democrats to reckon with that prospect now than in the heat of the 2016 campaign, when they might suddenly find themselves feeling as unenthusiastic about her as they did about another Democrat running to succeed a two-term president with a stronger claim to the party’s emotional core.
MacGillis is stirring up mud in order to fling it at Hillary. We are not surprised. MacGillis only cites the loathing from the Obama side in 2008 and what it means for the hypocrites:
That is why Axelrod’s new recounting of the 2008 showdown provides a service to Obama liberals—it cuts through the fog of forgetfulness, like some kind of Ghost of Primaries Past, to bring Obama-ites face to face with the Clinton they could not abide. [snip]
But, unlike Obama 2008 veterans, he has not signed up with Clinton this time around, and is willing to recount the grand clash in clear-eyed terms. He recalls Clinton’s weakness for gun-for-hire consultants like the “bloodless and calculating” Mark Penn, who “saw his mission as quashing any liberal impulses” and “justified himself with fuzzy polling numbers and a smug self-assurance that made everything grating.” He distinguishes Obama’s offer of change in Washington from Hillary’s copy-cat rhetoric: “The ‘change’ Hillary was offering was not much change at all—certainly not a move away from the raw, divisive politics that had come to define Washington. Rather, she seemed to revel in those politics. … The change she was offering was not away from Washington’s habit of parsing words and passing on tough issues. (She habitually sought safe harbor.) The change she was offering was not away from a system dominated by PACs and corporate lobbyists. (She had taken their money and defended their work.)”
He casts in distinctly unflattering terms Clinton’s turn to a more aggressive tone once it became clear how much trouble she was in, calling her “downright gleeful” about attacking Obama and describing “the ardor with which she bared her teeth,” all of which “validated our critique that she was a reflection of scorched-earth Washington politics rather than an answer to it.” He singles out for opprobrium Clinton’s clumsy suggestion that Bobby Kennedy’s assassination late in the 1968 primaries was proof that anything could happen and that she should therefore stay in the race until the bitter end—an “inexcusable” and “thoughtless” comment that Axelrod says “enraged” him.
MacGillis somehow forgets the gay-baiting Obama pushed in South Carolina as a weapon against Hillary. MacGillis does not mention the race-baiting coordinated by the Obama campaign. MacGillis forgets it all, except the revised history by Axelrod:
But make no mistake—Axelrod has not forgotten what the differences were that motivated him, and millions of other Democrats, to come to Obama’s side instead of Clinton’s not that long ago. And it would be better for their party’s sake if those voters grappled with those memories and realities sooner rather than later.
MacGillis fails utterly to write why Obama filth now support Hillary. Our first paragraph informs those that don’t know why these creeps are now sucking on Hillary Clinton 2016. Back in 2013 we laughed at the Obama goons now forced – forced – to support the woman they hate:
How long ago was that? Do you remember when Barack Obama was, according to his vainglorious self, “transformational”? Remember when the Obama Hopium Guzzlers thought the Obama Reich would last a thousand years?
Remember when these same Hopium Guzzlers declared Hillary Clinton a fossilized grandma never to be heard from again? Remember when the Obama Hopium Guzzlers celebrated the death of Iraq War-DLC lovin’-Terry McAuliffe huggin’-Lincoln bedroom tuggin’ Hillary Clinton and the relegated-to-the-dustbin-of-history Clinton political machine?
Remember when Bill Clinton was a racist and enemy #1 (or #2 because Hillary was/is #1 on the Obama hit list) of the Obama Hopium Guzzlers? Remember when Barack Obama promised to “turn the page” on Bill Clinton and all those old battles that according to the Chicago narcissist no longer mattered?
Now the talk is all about a return to what “transformational” Obama was supposed to transform. Yup, Bush Clinton, Bush, Clinton with Barack Obama as an asterisk. A dirty asterisk.
Barack Obama is nothing but a dirty asterisk from Chicago. Obama will be remembered as a total failure who pushed through hated programs only to have the courts and the congress unite to block him and restore the rule of law.
Whatever happens in the elections of 2016 we are sure of one thing: Barack Obama will be the loser. Obama will be a dirty asterisk if Hillary is elected. Obama will be a dirty asterisk if a Republican is elected.
Whatever happens the shame of Obama voters will never be washed away and their choice for president in 2008 and 2012 will forever be a dirty asterisk.
“You’re standing with your arms folded and Hillary’s got her hand on her heart,” she said, adding that she received so many of these emails she is sick of them. [snip]
Obama called the circulation of such pictures a “dirty trick” and mentioned other emails accusing him of being “a Muslim plant.”
Brian Williams Obama.
Obama wants his second term to be an unrestrained attack on Israel. Muslims set fire to prisoners, Christian martyrs’ heads roll, Jews are assaulted and killed 1930s style – but Obama thinks Jews are the problem. Particularly one Jew by the name of Netanyahu.
According to David Axelrod’s new book, Obama felt unrestrained in his second term and wanted to prioritize an “Bulworth” attack on Israel’s Netanyahu on behalf of Israel’s enemies. Break Netanyahu, Obama reasons, and then break the Israeli opposition parties who like Netanyahu will not surrender Jerusalem and lands won after the perfidious Muslim Arab “Six Day” war on Israel.
Rudy spoke the conclusion we came to a long time ago after Obama’s actions so trended in one direction that we could no longer excuse his direction as a compass failure. The direction Obama takes is intentional.
Obama be damned, on March 3 Netanyahu will address the American congress. It will be yet another moment of spectacular Obama implosion. In truth Obama has already lost the battle against Netanyahu and the war against Israel.
The war against Israel Obama lost in one day in Paris. The Obama losses mounted as news from Copenhagen and ISIS atrocities exploded in red blood worldwide.
The Obama war against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was also lost with one voice in the New York Times:
Nobel winner Elie Wiesel lends support to Netanyahu’s U.S. speech
Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel is lending his support to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s March 3 speech to Congress on the dangers of Iran’s nuclear program – an address that has antagonized the White House and divided American Jews.
An outspoken New Jersey Orthodox rabbi, Shmuley Boteach, said on Thursday he is placing full-page advertisements in two of the leading U.S. newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, featuring Wiesel’s endorsement of Netanyahu’s speech. [snip]
The advertisement quotes Wiesel as saying he plans to attend Netanyahu’s address “on the catastrophic danger of a nuclear Iran.” Awarded the Nobel in 1986, Wiesel asks Obama and others in the ad: “Will you join me in hearing the case for keeping weapons from those who preach death to Israel and America?”
Speaking to Reuters by phone, Boteach said: “There’s no personality more respected in the global Jewish community and few in the wider world than Elie Wiesel. He is a living prince of the Jewish people.”
“He is the face of the murdered 6 million (Jews killed in the Holocaust). So I think that his view on the prime minister’s speech sounding the alarm as to the Iranian nuclear program carries a unique authority that transcends some of the political circus that has affected the speech,” Boteach said.
Wiesel earned his Nobel Peace Prize. Hillary Clinton should march side by side with Wiesel and listen to Israeli Prime Minister Nethanyahu’s address to congress on March 3. Whether Hillary is next to him or not a picture of Wiesel and Netanyahu in the American congress will be seen as the ultimate failure of Obama’s war against Israel.
Obama is treacherous and he is also a boob. At every level Obama fails and fails. Obama attacks America’s friends and succors America’s enemies. Rudy Giuliani understands. We do too. But we do not doubt that America will outlast treacherous Obama. In large part America will outlast treacherous Obama because, well, Obama is a boob. The Obama failures grow:
It is remarkable that despite all of the political talent, goodwill and positive momentum Barack Obama had when he came into office, his policies – both domestic and international – are in tatters. And it is ironic that the former law professor’s two biggest “accomplishments” — Obamacare and executive orders on immigration — are hanging precariously by a legal thread.
The long arm of the law is catching up with Obama.
The King v. Burwell ruling looming in the Supreme Court could completely undermine the viability of Obamacare if the justices rule that the law be interpreted as written, not as the White House now hopes. Meanwhile, 26 states have brought a case that would prevent Obama’s executive orders on immigration — which would create new exceptions for many individuals to stay in the United States in defiance of what has, up until now, been a well-established law — from being implemented. A federal court judge has issued a temporary injunctive order declaring that the case against the president can go forward. In both cases, Obama is left hoping that a sympathetic court will allow unprecedented one-man rule and create a new era in which a president can rewrite existing laws in a manner never contemplated in the Constitution.
It is especially humorous that the evisceration of ObamaCare will begin to take place in the Supreme Court the very next day, March 4, after Netanyahu on March 3 speaks to the American people from the well of the American congress.
As in Sharia Law, Barack Obama will have his hands cut off like a thief. The very Barack Obama who mocked the constitutional order and declared that like a monarch of old he would rule with the executive pen finds that the executive pen cannot dictate law neither to a free people, nor their courts, nor their congress. Obama is a failure because our system of laws, moving all too slowly, eventually moves:
The president’s glaring disregard of the plain language of the law is finally getting its day in court. His inability to orchestrate legislative victories and make our system work means he has turned to what suits his talent and personality best and what he probably wanted to do all along: govern by fiat. Much of Obama’s legacy is now dependent on the notion that he can declare what is plainly written in the law doesn’t apply or actually means something besides what the words on the page suggest. Liberal legal scholars are trying to come to his rescue with contorted logic that should infuriate voters. Obama’s last days in office will be clouded by his arguments that the laws don’t apply to him.
If Obamacare is hobbled by the courts and the president’s executive actions on immigration are brought to a screeching halt, combined with the anemic economy and a foreign policy in disarray, it’s hard to make the case that this is anything other than a failed presidency.
Unlike others we always took seriously the legal challenges to ObamaCare and Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktats. This week District Court Judge Hanen blocked temporarily (and in this case temporarily means a long long time so long it is effectively an eternity) Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktats. Here it is Friday still there is no White House garbage filing in the courts.
While many immediately derided Judge Hanen’s injunction and predicted it would be swiftly overturned, or soon overturned, or eventually overturned, or at some point in the long distant future overturned, a reading of Judge Hanen’s rulings dispel that notion. The New York Timeschoked on the truth:
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s lawyers, facing what could be months of delay on the White House’s immigration efforts, are struggling for a response to a Texas judge’s ruling that has imperiled one of the president’s potential legacy achievements.
A top administration official said Wednesday it was unclear whether the Department of Justice would seek an emergency order that would allow the president’s immigration programs to go into effect while an appeal proceeds. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said that no decision had been made on an emergency application to an appeals court, but she pledged to fight all challenges to the president’s actions. [snip]
The ruling confronts the administration with a series of uncomfortable choices. Its decision will be affected by the reality that time is not its friend.
The Times is forced to concede that with only two more years of Obama horror left it could take, at best, “years” if Obama tried to finally comply with the Administrative Procedures Act; and it would take years to climb the appeals ladders whether at the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court.
Contrary to widely held belief, Obama did not implement his plan to delay the deportation of more than 4 million illegal aliens through executive orders. Instead, he relied on a memorandum signed Nov. 20, 2014, by DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, which DHS failed to file in the Federal Register as required by federal administrative law procedures.
“In his ruling on Monday that upended plans to shield millions of people from deportation, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen avoided diving into sweeping constitutional questions or tackling presidential powers head-on,” Reuters reported. “Instead, he faulted Obama for not giving public notice of his plans.”
Barack Obama thinks he is a monarch entitled to defy a free people and impose laws without the “consent of the governed”. His is an alien philosophy to these shores. Rudy Giuliani gets this but does not know exactly how to express it.
We cannot believe the Obama non-reaction to the Morsi power grab in Egypt is boobery. It is historic treachery.
Barack Obama has not demanded Morsi resign. A power grab by Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood and Obama is effectively silent. Obama demanded the resignation of Hosni Mubarak when pawns took to the streets to demand “freedom” but now Obama is slient. No calls for resignation. [snip]
But for some reason Barack Obama is not siding with the “Egyptian people” now that the Arab Spring is slowly turning to nuclear winter. [snip]
Why won’t Barack Obama demand Morsi resign? Egyptian demonstrations? Check. Violence in the streets? Check. Government officials resigning in protest? Check. Egyptian government institutions such as the military and judiciary threatened? Check. Why won’t Obama demand that Morsi resign?
The only difference between Mubarak and Morsi we see is that Morsi is an Islamic extremist. Why won’t Barack Obama demand Morsi resign?
U.S. Won’t Back Egypt’s Attacks on ISIS
Two longtime allies are attacking ISIS—and growing frustrated with one another. That’s good news for the so-called Islamic State.
The Obama administration was given multiple chances Wednesday to endorse a longtime ally’s airstrikes on America’s biggest enemy at the moment, the so-called Islamic State. Over and over again, Obama’s aides declined to back Egypt’s military operation against ISIS. It’s another sign of the growing strain between the United States and Egypt, once one of its closest friends in the Middle East.
This shouldn’t be a complete surprise; Cairo, after all, didn’t tell Washington about its strikes on the ISIS hotbed of Derna, Libya. Still, Wednesday’s disconnect was jarring.
Why is it that every time Obama has to side against Muslim extremists Obama finds a way to help Muslim extremists? But, argue Obama defenders, Obama is killing a lot of Muslim extremists. That’s true but what is needed is the capture and interrogation of Muslim extremists. In a very real sense Obama’s killing of Muslim extremists protects the infrastructure of Muslim extremist organizations.
Obama refuses to attend a march in Paris to protest Muslim killers and in support of the (classic) liberal values of freedom of expression and religion. Obama refuses to give weapons to Egypt which prevents Egypt from joining a coalition against ISIS and when Egypt attacks ISIS Obama is petulant.
Rudy Giuliani was too tepid in his analysis of treacherous Barack Obama. Obama didn’t even invite the Director of the FBI to this week’s publicity stunt to take attention away from Muslim extremists and try to distribute like Obamaphones blame for killings and violence to anyone other than Obama’s objects of affection.
In 2008 we were assured that one of Barack Obama’s great qualifications arose from his young life amongst the Muslims. We don’t know if fat young Barry “went native” and absorbed ugly anti-Western hate while in Indonesia. It is more likely that Obama’s twisted personal life led him to a pew in a church that on a Sunday immediately after the 2001 Muslim attacks against the World Trade Center three words resounded from the rafters “God Damn America.”
The church was ostensibly “Christian” but the words were decidedly Muslim extremist.
The Obama administration will not accept applications for legal status from undocumented immigrants on Wednesday after a federal judge in Texas blocked implementation of President Obama’s policy deferring the deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants.
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said the administration would appeal the court ruling. “in the meantime, we recognize we must comply with it,” he said.
Obama may have started an executive action without proper regard to law when it comes to work permits, but the DACA expansion is another kind of problem. Hanen’s ruling noted that the new DHS interpretation of DACA requires them to follow the Administrative Procedures Act, posting a notice of rule change and waiting for a comment period to expire before finalizing the change. That would require at least 30 days before making the rule change effective. [snip]
This again impacts the political issues surrounding the funding for DHS. As long as Johnson keeps talking about implementing DAPA and DACA, Republicans have reason to withhold the funding that could be used for those purposes. If anything, the recognition of Johnson’s discretion in this matter makes the point even more acute for conservatives. One might be able to fight Obama in court over the obvious abuse of power in changing eligibility for work permits without Congressional approval, but the only way to stop Johnson on the other points is to either cut off the money or use the Congressional Research Act to void the regulatory changes — and that would require Obama’s signature.
This gets more interesting by the hour.
Update: It’s a preliminary injunction, not a temporary restraining order which would expire in a couple of weeks. As we write below, the most interesting aspect of the immigration ruling is the political question Will DHS funding dynamics shift after court ruling?
Republicans should demand Obama Senate Dimocrats pass a bill which defunds Obama’s illegal illegal immigration dictats. A stall tactic of passing a 30 day “clean bill” would be defeatist and a win for Obama. The smart move for Republicans is to fight this February not later:
Foley suggested that the PI’s protection against executive overreach might convince conservatives to allow a short-term bill that fully funds DHS. It’s much more likely that the ruling will leave moderate Republicans in the Senate no cover to push for a so-called “clean” bill. After all, what would be the rationale for giving DHS all of the funding when Josh Earnest woke up at 2:48 AM this morning to declare that the White House still planned to use it to move forward with its executive action on immigration? With the court ruling Obama’s plan unconstitutional and illegal, they will have no choice but to fall back in line to restrict funding from those efforts.
Although the court sided with the states, the court did not declare the substance of the policy itself unlawful — at least not yet. According to the lengthy ruling by Judge Andrew Hanen, the administration failed to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The time is now for Congress (with the courts) to fight the lawless executive.
We’ve argued for a while now that the courts would join the fight alongside the legislative branch to block a totalitarian executive. That happened today.
We’ve also argued that this coalition of judicial and legislative branches against the totalitarian executive is the way to go:
Why do we think this lawsuit is the way to go? First, congressional action by the GOP this year is symbolic at best because the Harry Reid/Obama Senate will not pass legislation to stop Obama’s illegal illegal immigration executive power grab. It’s best for opponents of Obama’s illegal illegal immigration executive diktat to act once the new congress begins and Republicans are in control of both houses of congress.
To wait until next year however means that wheels will begin to turn and Obama’s diktat might begin to produce real harm as illegal immigrants see an open road for them to ride on. Which brings us to our most important consideration. The second reason for why this lawsuit is the way to go is: illegal immigrants are not stupid.
Illegal immigrants are not stupid. Few will risk trust in Obama when faced with the fact that Obama’s cheesy political ploy will expire once Obama is out of office. Even fewer illegal immigrants will trust Obama’s illegal illegal executive action now that they know that there are lawsuits which challenge Obama’s illegal illegal immigration executive diktat.
The court order came today, just before Obama’s illegal illegal immigration scams erupted over the land. Here’s the court order:
Aside from the legal, this decision impacts the political fight over the current funding fight for the Department of Homeland Security. Also, as we surmised so long ago, illegal immigrants will think twice about outing themselves to legal authorities merely on the word of an outlaw executive.National Review sees some of what we wrote about:
The federal government is expected to immediately ask for a stay of the injunction. That would allow the feds to resume the process of preparing to grant quasi-legal status to millions of illegal immigrants — applications for one category of the president amnesty were to open this week. For now, that can’t happen; the decision from a higher court will probably take a few weeks.
Whatever the final decision is, this ruling should a bit of ammunition for Republicans who are currently trying to force some Democrats into agreeing to a government-funding bill in Congress that blocks the implementation of the order, which many Democrats once opposed.
Such an injunction isn’t granted unless the judge feels the plaintiffs have “a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Hanen’s ruling offers analysis of whether the states have standing to sue (on a number of grounds, he says they do), and whether they have a good chance at success.
The basic argument from the states that Hanen favors isn’t one about constitutional improprieties (he doesn’t get to that question, which the states have raised); it’s that the Department of Homeland Security has effectively created a whole new program and procedure without following any of the legally necessary steps. The Obama administration’s use of deferred action amounts to new rulemaking, Hanen suggests, because there’s so little evidence that the system, based on DACA, involves case-by-case discretion, as the feds claim it does.
“DHS does have discretion in the manner in which it chooses to fulfill the expressed will of Congress. It cannot, however, enact a program in which it not only ignores the dictates of Congress, but actively acts to thwart them,” Hanen wrote. “DHS Secretary [Jeh Johnson] is not just rewriting the laws he is creating them from scratch.” [snip]
The Texas judge’s ruling blocked both key parts of Obama’s new immigration initiative: the expansion of a program the president announced in 2012 to shield illegal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children and a new program giving similar “deferred action” status to illegal aliens who are parents of U.S. citizens or legal residents.
Hanen’s decision came just two days before officials were set to begin accepting applications for the newly expanded program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA.
However, the bulk of the court’s opinion focuses on the parents’ program, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA. Officials were expected to begin accepting applications for that program by May, but no specific start date had been announced.
A federal judge late Monday halted President Obama’s deportation amnesty, ruling he overstepped his powers in trying to grant legal status and “benefits and privileges” to millions of illegal immigrants, in a stunning decision that chides the president and throws the White House’s plans into disarray just a day before applications were to be accepted. [snip]
“The DHS was not given any ‘discretion by law’ to give 4.3 million removable aliens what the DHS itself labels as ‘legal presence,’” Judge Hanen wrote in issuing an injunction. “In fact, the law mandates that these illegally-present individuals be removed. The DHS has adopted a new rule that substantially changes both the status and employability of millions. These changes go beyond mere enforcement or even non-enforcement of this nation’s immigration scheme.”
In the immediate sense, the ruling will become a major part of the debate over homeland security funding that has roiled Capitol Hill, with Republicans insisting Mr. Obama’s actions were unconstitutional and should be halted through Congress’s spending power, and Democrats backing their president by filibustering to block funding for the Homeland Security Department altogether. [snip]
Judge Hanen’s exhaustive opinion, which ran to 123 pages, eviscerated the administration’s legal arguments. Where Mr. Obama claimed he was only issuing “guidance” and using his powers of prosecutorial discretion to make decisions on a case-by-case basis, the judge ruled that wording was “disingenuous” and ignored the substance of what the president was trying to do.
He also said Mr. Obama hurt his own case by saying he’d acted to “change the law,” implying a much more substantive legal program than his administration was arguing in court.
John Boehner says judge’s amnesty ruling should end filibuster, clear path for DHS spending
House Speaker John A. Boehner said Tuesday that a judge’s ruling halting President Obama’s deportation amnesty bolsters the GOP’s push on homeland security funding, which has prompted a Democratic filibuster in the Senate and threatens a possible shutdown of the Homeland Security Department later this month.
Congressional Republicans have been trying to halt Mr. Obama’s new deportation policies through the annual appropriations process, but Democrats have balked, arguing what Mr. Obama did was legal.
Late Monday, federal Judge Andrew S. Hanen, ruling in Texas, issued an injunction blocking Mr. Obama’s policies, finding they went beyond his powers.
“The president said 22 times he did not have the authority to take the very action on immigration he eventually did, so it is no surprise that at least one court has agreed,” Mr. Boehner said. “Hopefully, Senate Democrats who claim to oppose this executive overreach will now let the Senate begin debate on a bill to fund the Homeland Security Department.”
The fight against Obama’s illegal rule by diktat is not merely one to be pursued in the courts although that is certainly a big part of the coalition that must be organized to save the Republic. This fight must be foremost a political fight in the broadest sense.
Politically the court ruling helps the GOP, but that is small potatoes politics. The big impact of the ruling will be on illegal immigrants who will now hesitate to assist Obama in his law-breaking.
For Barack Obama, as with every flim-flam con man the fight is one against the clock. A flim-flam man tries to stay one step ahead of the law. That is precisely what Obama is up to in just about all his endeavors. On ObamaCare the game is to play for time so that ObamaCare will become so deeply embedded in the national fabric that it will be impossible to dislodge.
We’re shocked! Like many others we thought Elizabeth Warren, the “Massachusetts Mohican”, was no longer a thing. But then a shock poll emerged, and we were shocked. Like an Apache brave aware of paleface danger we leapt on our high horse and conducted our own poll.
The results of our poll shocked us.
Hillary beat Warren 99.9% to .1%. Indeed, in many instances the results to our poll questions were unanimous in support of Hillary. Other than a persistent poll respondent with the initials S.H. who proved irredeemably resistant to Hillary’s charms the answers to our poll questions consistently proved consistent support for Hillary. For instance, one of our poll questions asked,
Does the fact that Hillary Clinton wakes up in the early morning with a cheerful smile and a ready to work can-do attitude next to a basket of sweet mewling kittens (with colorful ribbons adorning them) on one side of her bed and a basket of playful puppies on the other side of her bed make you (a) more likely to vote for puppy friendly Hillary; (b) less likely to vote for saintly Hillary; or (c) no difference because you hate all living things?
Other than poll respondent S.H. who volunteered that such indecisiveness on the question of kittens versus puppies made him less likely to vote for Hillary and that her early morning cheerfulness to his mind masked a murderous personality, almost 100% of the poll respondents said this information made them either more likely to vote for Hillary or made no difference.
Another question posed in our scientific poll asked,
Does the fact that the feather on Elizabeth Warren’s fake squaw head came from a bird on the endangered species list which Wig-wam Lizzie herself plucked from the carcass of an innocent hatchling she had just bitten the head off of after she slaughtered mama bird and papa bird, smashed the eggs in the nest about to be hatched, and laughed maniacally as she did so make you (a) more likely to vote for the tomahawk wielding Massachusetts murderess; (b) make you wisely reconsider any support for such a vicious killer; or (c) make no difference to those with pathological personalities?
We were shocked that the overwhelming response to this question from our scientifically conducted poll respondents revealed that Elizabeth Warren has zero chance of persuading Americans that she is anything but a vicious Massachusetts ax murderess.
Our scientifically conducted poll utilized methodologies we won’t bore you with, on dates which were very recent, and was conducted by land-line phones, cell phones, as well as weighted for accuracy with on-line interviews. For those who participated in our on-line survey we added a question after the respondent viewed this video which purportedly shows a young Hillary meeting a young Bill:
Does this candid video of animal friendly Hillary make it more likely that (a) you will open your heart and mind to Hillary the same way these loving animals do; (b) you are so embittered and filled with hate that you will not mortgage your house to donate to Hillary Clinton 2016; (c) you are so cold and devoid of humanity it makes no difference to you how loving Hillary is?
The results of our poll are as devastating to Elizabeth Warren as the #ReadyForWarren poll was to Hillary.
It’s not all good news for Hillary Clinton 2016 however. Joe Biden has apparently been reading what we have been writing but unfortunately has learned the wrong lesson. In this Friday the 13th shocker, drinking Joe guzzled one too many:
Biden: 2016 is battle for third Obama term
The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee should embrace the notion of a third term of the Obama presidency, Vice President Biden said Thursday, during a speech at Drake University in Iowa.
“I call it sticking with what works,” Biden declared.
The address was billed as a chance for Biden to explain some of the ideas introduced in President Obama’s recent State of the Union address, but the vice president repeatedly returned to a discussion of how he saw the contours of the presidential race.
His trip to the first-in-the-nation caucus state has reinvigorated speculation he could be preparing his own bid for the White House.
The vice president said the election would be “all about” either continuing the Obama economic policies or shifting to Republicans’ “top-down” vision.
“Run on what we have done. Own what we have done. Stand for what we have done. Acknowledge what we have done,” Biden said.
Biden argued that the economic opportunities of the next 10-15 years would be determined by the policies that were embraced by the presidential candidates of both parties.
“Are we going to continue this resurgence or are we going to return to policies I would argue have failed the country in the past?” Biden said [snip]
But Biden also used a similar tone to take personal credit for the economic recovery, noting, among other things, his role in implementing the stimulus programs.
“I remember the president when he announced the program, he didn’t make me feel very good,” Biden said. “He turned to me and said, ‘Vice President Joe Biden, Sheriff Joe, will run the program,’ and I thought, ‘Oh god. Oh god.’ But I did.”
And he frequently returned to promising statistics about the nation’s economy.
“Almost 12 million jobs have been added since we’ve been in office, over a record 59 straight months of private sector growth. The fact is, America is back. America is leading the world,” he said.
Asked about the possibility of a presidential bid while touring an industrial lab at the Des Moines Area Community College later, Biden deferred.
“That’s a family personal decision I’m going to make sometime at the end of the summer,” Biden said.
We’re shocked. Biden needs to reread our 2013 article The Hillary Clinton 2016 Muddled Message Mess in which we argue that the 2016 election will be either about “CHANGE” or “STAY THE COURSE” and nothing in-between. Biden thinks the message should be “we need more Obama and a third Obama term”. That’s just nuts. It’s not the first time Biden has planted the “stay the course” flag. We’re shocked at the stupidity of drinkin’ Joe Biden.
By 2016 drunken Joe Biden might want to rethink his drink of “stay the course”. We won’t be shocked.
The U.S. government is poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol
The nation’s top nutrition advisory panel has decided to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, a move that could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption.
The group’s finding that cholesterol in the diet need no longer be considered a “nutrient of concern” stands in contrast to the committee’s findings five years ago, the last time it convened. During those proceedings, as in previous years, the panel deemed the issue of excess cholesterol in the American diet a public health concern.
The finding follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that, for healthy adults, eating foods high in cholesterol may not significantly affect the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease.
We’re shocked. We’re unsettled. We’re gonna make an omelet. All those years of cholesterol hate down the drain. Good thing that at the time when cholesterol hate was in vogue the government did not mandate the killing of cholesterol providers. We wonder how this news will affect Michelle Obama lunches force-fed to schoolchildren?
Islamic State: Smoking will kill you, one way or another
Beheadings have become commonplace in the territories held by the militant Islamic State, but the severed head reportedly found last month in the eastern Syrian city of Al-Mayadeen was nevertheless unusual.
It had a cigarette placed between its lips.
“This is not permissible, Sheikh,” someone had scrawled in Arabic on the decapitated corpse lying nearby, according to an account from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a pro-opposition monitoring group. The body and head belonged to an Islamic State official, a deputy police chief.
From consuming alcohol to cursing, vices of all types are frowned upon by Islamic State.
But it is the militants’ injunction on smoking, in a region rife with chain-smokers and water-pipe aficionados, that may be the hardest habit to kick. (About half of Syrian men and one in 10 women smoke, according to the World Health Organization.)
Shortly after the group’s takeover of large swaths of Deir Elzur province in eastern Syria, Islamic State began to close tobacco shops and shutter the ubiquitous water-pipe cafes.
Bloomberg for president! We’re shocked the ex-mayor is not a cheerleader of ISIS. Maybe if ISIS kills those that sell large soft drinks Bloomberg will sing their praises. In any case, we’re not shocked at ISIS and their effective anti-smoking killer campaign. But we are somewhat shocked that the latest news from Bloomberg did not make much news. Imagine if a Republican said what Bloomberg said:
Bloomberg Suggests Banning Young Minority Males from Gun Ownership
Speaking to the Aspen Institute on February 6, Michael Bloomberg said cities should ban young minority males from owning guns, both as an effort to reduce crime and to keep those minority males “alive.”
According to The Aspen Times, Bloomberg addressed a variety of topics, and after commenting on poverty and education, he discussed guns. The Times reported that he said, “Cities need to get guns out of [the] … hands” of persons who are “male, minority, and between the ages of 15 and 25.”
He claimed that “95 percent of all murders fall into this category” and that taking guns away from them will not only reduce crime, but will “keep them alive.”
Bloomberg said male minorities from the ages of 15 to 25 do not have a good outlook on life and “think they’re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed.” He also said having a gun “is a joke” for them, that “it’s a joke to pull the trigger.”
We’re shocked. Good thing Bloomberg used the word “trigger” not that other word that is so racist. But we are shocked that this did not become a thing like that Lizzie Warren poll.
Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Ulster County, New York, in 1797, Sojourner Truth’s given name was Isabella Baumfree. As almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners, some of her earliest memories were of her parents’ stories of the cruel loss of their other children. [snip]
In 1843, she changed her name to Sojourner Truth – her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth – and left New York. She traveled throughout New England, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. Her life story, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850.
While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women’s rights.
In 1851, she addressed the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The applause she received that day has been described as “deafening.” From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. She became one of the nineteenth century’s most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women’s rights.
NoLimits.org will "keep you up to date with news about issues on which Hillary took a lead and we know you care so much about," group President Ann Lewis said in an e-mail to as many as 2 million people culled from the Clinton campaign database.
Because No Limits is a registered nonprofit, "it cannot do anything political. It has to be nonpartisan," said Lewis, a longtime senior adviser to Clinton.
In Clinton's job as secretary of state for President Obama, her political dealings are highly restricted.
For example, she shut down her political action committee.
Some, like Democratic consultant and former Bill Clinton aide Chris Lehane, dismiss talk that the group could be a springboard for Clinton to try again for the White House in, say, 2016.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Lehane said. "I think this is just [a] group of folks who developed relationships in an intense [electoral] environment and want to stay together."
But the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato countered: "Whenever a group like this says it's not a political organization, you just know it is."
"Maybe [this] is Hillary's answer to Obama's new 'change' group that controls his golden mailing list. Maybe it's a way for Secretary of State Clinton to mobilize backing for her objectives at the State Department," he said. "And maybe [it's] a standby committee of supporters in case Hillary decides to get back into elective politics."
Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said NoLimits.org is "one way to make sure that she - and/or the former President - still have political leverage."
Hillary World-Wide January 26, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."