Lawsuit Against Obama’s Illegal Illegal Immigration Executive Diktat

Update: Some think it’s a Backlash: 17 states suing Obama administration over executive amnesty. We don’t think it is a backlash but more of smart and expected move on the chessboard. We’ll say “backlash” when the White House “Immigration Strike Team” stumbles and bumbles as they surely will and Americans get angrier at the latest Obama bungle.


This is what we have been waiting for. A lawsuit against Obama’s illegal illegal immigration executive diktat. As with ObamaCare, Obama “blew it” (just ask Chuck Schumer) on illegal immigration too and the white working class is watching.

Late yesterday there was a surprise from an unexpected quarter against Obama’s illegal illegal immigration executive diktat. Late yesterday there was also the filing of the lawsuit. Let’s take a looky-see.

First, the surprise. The surprise comes from the Obama bootlickers who comprise the Washington Post Editorial Board:

By Editorial Board

THE WHITE House has defended President Obama’s unilateral decision to legalize the presence of nearly 4 million undocumented immigrants as consistent, even in scope, with the executive actions of previous presidents. In fact, it is increasingly clear that the sweeping magnitude of Mr. Obama’s order is unprecedented.

Central to the administration’s argument is its contention that the 4 million covered by the president’s order — some 36 percent of the estimated undocumented population of 11 million — is in line with the percentage covered by a comparable action by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. [snip]

However, as The Post’s Glenn Kessler has scrupulously reported, there is every reason to believe that the estimate is wildly exaggerated and based mainly on what appears to have been a misunderstanding at the time. [snip]

This is not a game of gotcha; facts matter — even in Washington — and so do the numbers. Under close scrutiny it is plain that the White House’s numbers are indefensible. It is similarly plain that the scale of Mr. Obama’s move goes far beyond anything his predecessors attempted. [snip]

Republicans’ failure to address immigration also does not justify Mr. Obama’s massive unilateral act. Unlike Mr. Bush in 1990, whose much more modest order was in step with legislation recently and subsequently enacted by Congress, Mr. Obama’s move flies in the face of congressional intent — no matter how indefensible that intent looks.

The Washington Post editorial was published before the filing of a lawsuit against Obama’s illegal illegal immigration executive diktat. It could not have come at a better time for those concerned about constitutional order and the rule of law.

Two weeks previously the Washington Post published an article about the Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and the potential grounds for a lawsuit against Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat:

Governors have been texting his cellphone and Senate staffers have been sending e-mails, and everyone is asking Kobach a version of the same question:

Can he beat this? [snip]

“Unbelievable,” he says, listening to Obama explain the basics of his plan to defer action for up to 4 million illegal immigrants, and when Obama says he will no longer deport people who have “played by the rules,” he begins writing notes.

Illegal means not playing by rules,” he writes.

“Huh?” he writes when Obama explains his reasons for acting alone. “You have NO AUTHORITY!” [snip]

Imperial, executive amnesty,” he says. “The sacrificial shredding of our Constitution.”

Kobach is exactly right. He is also right in that congressional action is not the proper route yet to fight Obama’s illegal illegal immigration executive diktat. The fastest road and the one likely to be paved with success is a lawsuit filed by a state or states:

The other option is a lawsuit filed by states and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents against the federal government. “That one’s on me,” he says. He tells the group he has already begun drafting a suit as the lead attorney, with plans to file it in early December. Texas is interested in being a plaintiff. So are a few other states.

Either we win this way or we lose big,” Kobach says. “If that happens, all of these illegal aliens will be eligible to feed at the trough filled by hardworking American people.” [snip]

He went from being a champion high school debater, to graduating summa cum laude in his class at Harvard, to rowing for Oxford, to editing the Yale Law Journal.

“I believe in rules and fairness,” he says, and those are among the reasons he says he was attracted to immigration law in the first place. In what other kind of law was the legal conclusion so obvious? “Illegal alien,” he says. “We can argue it a million ways, but really, what more is there to say?” [snip]

“Heartless,” he says. “I get that one a lot. But I have compassion for the taxpayers who are supporting these people. I have compassion for our citizens who are unemployed. Every time an illegal alien gets a job, that’s a job that probably would have gone to an American at the bottom of the economic ladder. So, yes, of course I might feel badly for an illegal alien. But feeling is not the end of the inquiry.”

Kobach is most concerned about “the constitutionality of this”. As of two weeks ago he already had up to 50 pages of the lawsuit written. As he put it “We have a clear violation here of Article 2, Section 3.” The question that Kobach has an answer to besides the legal violations is the question of standing:

The key to his lawsuit is finding the right plaintiffs, he says, so he has spent the last weeks compiling a list of more than a dozen ICE agents who he says are eager to file suit. They were hired and trained to enforce the country’s immigration laws, and now, he says, they believe that the president is essentially asking them to break those laws. Kobach also wants at least one state to be a plaintiff, likely Texas and possibly others. States are “lining up to sue this time,” he says. He could file one lawsuit on behalf of several states, which he thinks might have the best chance of reaching the Supreme Court. Or he could file individual lawsuits, one for each state, and force the issue into several federal court districts.

Either way, his chances hinge on the same issue that has plagued many of his previous immigration cases: He will have to prove the plaintiffs have standing to sue by showing they have suffered credible, personal injury because of Obama’s executive action. He thinks Texas, with an estimated 1.7 million illegal immigrants, might be his best chance. “The numbers there are good for us,” he says. “Illegal-alien households with kids consume a lot of resources: K-through-12 education, food stamps, earned income tax — these things add up.”

He will likely have a few supporting attorneys with him on the case, but on this day in his Topeka office, he is managing the lawsuit alone. The questions come by e-mail from prospective plaintiffs, governor’s offices and think tanks in Washington: Who will pay the legal fees for the case? In which district will he file? How early in December? Are the plaintiffs ready to withstand the scrutiny of a case that is likely to unfold over two or three grueling years?

Well, now we know. The lawsuit has been filed. It’s not just Texas:

17 states sue to block Obama immigration order

Seventeen states filed a joint lawsuit in federal court Wednesday to try blocking President Barack Obama’s executive order on immigration.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the Republican governor-elect, took the lead, filing the suit in the Southern District of Texas.

Other states joining are Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

“The President is abdicating his responsibility to faithfully enforce laws that were duly enacted by Congress and attempting to rewrite immigration laws, which he has no authority to do — something the President himself has previously admitted,” Abbott said in a statement. “President Obama’s actions violate the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, which were intended to protect against this sort of executive disregard of the separation of powers.” [snip]

This new lawsuit also argues that the DHS directive required public notice and a comment period that didn’t occur.

The Attorney General of Texas, soon to be Governor of Texas provided more details:

Abbott, in a news conference in Austin, said the “broken” immigration system should be fixed by Congress, not by “presidential fiat.”

He said President Obama’s recently announced executive actions — a move designed to spare as many as 5 million people living illegally in the United States from deportation — “directly violate the fundamental promise to the American people” by running afoul of the Constitution.

“The ability of the president to dispense with laws was specifically considered and unanimously rejected at the Constitutional Convention,” he said.

Abbott specifically cited Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution which states the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

He said the lawsuit asks the court to require Obama to go through Congress before enforcing laws, “rather than making them up himself.” [snip]

The lawsuit raises three objections: that Obama violated the “Take Care Clause” of the U.S. Constitution that limits the scope of presidential power; that the federal government violated rulemaking procedures; and that the order will “exacerbate the humanitarian crisis along the southern border, which will affect increased state investment in law enforcement, health care and education.”

[See interview with Texas Attorney General Abbott at link.]

The lawsuit wisely states in its second paragraph, This lawsuit is not about immigration. It is about the rule of law, presidential power, and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution.
That’s exactly right. There are some other very smart moves by the litigant states:

“This lawsuit is not about immigration. It is about the rule of law, presidential power and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution,” the governors said in a 75-page complaint, filed in federal district court in Texas.

The governors said they have standing to sue because they and their state taxpayers will be left on the hook for expenses related to schooling, health care and police to handle the extra illegal immigrants who will now have federal permission to stay in the U.S. despite having no permanent lawful status.

And the plaintiffs carefully chose the court where they filed their challenge, selecting Brownsville, Texas, where a judge last year wrote a scathing rebuke of Homeland Security for aiding human smugglers.

The new lawsuit, which was spearheaded by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, repeatedly uses Mr. Obama’s own words against him, pointing to the nearly two dozen times he said he didn’t have the power to take the actions he took.

And in one critical attack, the lawsuit points to Mr. Obama’s own claim last week that he “took an action to change the law.”

“In this case, the president admitted that he ‘took an action to change the law.’ The defendants could hardly contend otherwise because a deferred action program with an acceptance rate that rounds to 100 percent is a de facto entitlement — one that even the president and OLC previously admitted would require a change to the law,” the challengers said in their complaint. [snip]

The challengers also chose a Texas court where Judge Andrew S. Hanen last year blasted the Homeland Security Department for what he said amounted to aiding smugglers.

He said he’d come across several cases where illegal immigrant children had been smuggled into the U.S. and caught, only to have Homeland Security agents close the smuggling loop by delivering the children to their illegal immigrant parents already in the U.S.

Instead of enforcing the laws of the United States, the government took direct steps to help the individuals who violated it. A private citizen would, and should, be prosecuted for this conduct,” the judge wrote.

Immigration Executive Order Lawsuit

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.

Illegal immigrants are canny and play their cards very close to the vest. Illegal immigrants are not about to expose themselves to potential deportation based on what Boob Obama for the moment says or does. Just like American citizens, foreign leaders, children, dogs, and anyone with a lick of sense, illegal immigrants know:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his foes. Obama cannot be trusted.

Illegal immigrants will now wait to see how these lawsuits play out before they raise their heads into a potential trap of whack-a-mole. Illegal immigrants will do a cost/benefit analysis and see that potentially they are putting their names into a deportation list if they rely on Obama’s word.

Illegal immigrants will also understand that by staying quiet until things play out in the courts and in 2016 they can watch and wait from their ensconced positions and not put themselves at risk – they will be no worse off and in less danger if things go badly for them in the courts or in the electoral arena. Obama and activists like Gutiérrez, who are in no danger, will exhort illegals to put themselves out to danger but illegal immigrants will not endanger themselves for the benefit of Obama and the Obama Dimocrat activists.

The government will have to respond to the lawsuit in about two weeks. Expect comedy.


142 thoughts on “Lawsuit Against Obama’s Illegal Illegal Immigration Executive Diktat

  1. From one of the links in the article:–_again_124834.html

    President Obama “Blew It” — Again

    “After passing the stimulus, Democrats should have continued to propose middle-class-oriented programs and build on the partial success of the stimulus,” Schumer said. “Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all our focus on the wrong problem. … It wasn’t the change we were hired to make. Americans were crying out for the end to the recession, higher wages and more jobs, and not changes in health care.”

    Fast-forward to November 2014. The day after the Democrats got thumped in a second consecutive midterm, President Obama stepped to the podium at a post-election press conference and declared, “To everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you too.”

    Setting aside Obama’s petulant reference to the silent majority he believes let him down by staying home, the president’s takeaway from the election was that Americans really wanted Washington to work together to “get things done.”

    So he chose as his first order of business an executive action that would foster enmity and make it harder for all parties involved to come together to get things done. But if one follows Chuck Schumer’s logic, Obama was repeating the exact same mistake he and his party made in 2009.

    The exits polls were pretty clear about what voters were telling the Democrats in the November elections: They’re still concerned, first and foremost, with the precarious state of the economy. Seventy-nine percent of midterm voters said they were “somewhat worried” or “very worried” about current economic conditions. Some 70 percent said they believed current national economic conditions were “not so good” or “poor.” And 68 percent said the U.S. economy is “staying about the same” or “getting worse.”

    Nearly half the electorate (45 percent) said the economy was the “most important issue facing the country today” – 20 points higher than any other issue mentioned. By contrast, only 14 percent said the same about illegal immigration.

    Yet the president chose to make changing immigration policy his top priority.

    Schumer said that when Democrats focused so heavily on health care in early 2009, “the average middle-class person thought ‘the Democrats are not paying enough attention to me.’” It’s hard to imagine middle-class voters feeling any differently this time around.

    They might even feel worse. Schumer rightly diagnosed a major symptom of the ongoing (and growing) middle-class squeeze over the last two decades: stagnating wages. There’s some evidence that Obama’s executive action, which will provide work permits to millions of people here illegally, could exacerbate the problem by putting further downward pressure on wages, particularly among unskilled laborers and the working class. Even if it doesn’t, his inexplicable inattentiveness to the public mood bodes poorly for his political party.

  2. I believe that Hillary Clinton is committing suicide by supporting Obama

    May be she rally does not want to be POTUS

  3. Experience has shown that WashPo cares not about the Constitution when a democrat is in office.

    So why should they care now?


    First of all, the level of anti Washington rhetoric is growing, as more people across the nation come to the realization that those elites are squeezing the life out of the country. (see Rodriguez article above)

    Second, that powerful populist voices in the hinterland and now in Congress are proposing what the British tried to do in 1813, which in this instance means defunding the leviathan.

    Third, the powers which Obama now seizes for himself will set a precedent for a populist president to use against the Washington elites at some future time.

    That is the tipping point. Their paranoia.

  4. Am I selling them short.


    These people have shown no capacity to think beyond their narrow self interest to the legitimate needs of the nation.

    They not merely supported Obama–they have been in league with him, co-conspirators in his nefarious schemes

    Just as long as they could squeeze out a profit.

    Even now they would support him, but for the fact that they stand to get fleeced personally by the next president.

    Therefore, their hair is on fire and they are running for the doors.

    Like the cowards they are.

  5. I expect that John Roberts is combing through travel brochures at the moment to find a place where he can hang out for the next two years, far from the madding crowd, the duties of his office and that damned cell phone that finds him wherever he chooses to hide. Meanwhile, the Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals which has been salted with Obama hacks is studying ways to defeat these law suits and protect Obama. You can count on that.

  6. totally disgusted

    December 4, 2014 at 9:26 am

    December 3, 2014 at 4:14 pm
    I am having lots of trouble connecting on my ipad to the site…is it just me???

    You are not the only one having trouble. Since I downloaded the latest update on the iPad, I can’t download this site on Safari at all. However, I can download it with difficulty on google. The problem is that google does not have all the options that the apple program, Safari, has. I was wondering if the problem is that the site has just become huge with so may multiple links, etc. If that is the reason, then perhaps the site can be simplified somewhat so that all of the data does not have to be downloaded every time you open

  7. I can tell you for a fact that 92 million Americans of working age not working while Obama and the Washington elites bring in tens of millions of illegals to take jobs they could fill is not a halcyon scenario for democrats. But they dare not criticize Obama, lest they become racists, by the very criteria of racism they have gladly applied to others. The democrats today have nothing in common with the American People. They are the party of billionaires, and Al Sharpton.

  8. A powerhouse of a post, admin, leaving room for much hope. I’m struck particularly by the of legal brilliance of KS SOS. Cruz. Abbott soon to be TX governor, and now this guy I never heard of looking very good. I’ve been to wiki to check out his education: Kobach graduated from Washburn Rural High School in Topeka, Kansas in 1984. Four years later, he earned an A.B. (summa cum laude) in Government from Harvard University, graduating first in his class in the Government Department. He was awarded a Marshall Scholarship, which allowed him to earn M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in Politics from Oxford University (in 1990 and 1992, respectively). He then attended the Yale Law School, where he earned a J.D. in 1995[1][3] and was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. During this time, he published two books: The Referendum: Direct Democracy in Switzerland (Dartmouth, 1994), and Political Capital: The Motives, Tactics, and Goals of Politicized Businesses in South Africa (University Press of America, 1990).[1]

    Such brilliance in the midwest GOP’s young men. It’s a good thing!

  9. It is amazing how far off track the democrat party has run their train.

    They have to sit there on their hands, while Obama cuts unholy deals, buries the middle class, and brings in Al Sharpton for skull sesssions and to lean a little on the IRS to drop his case.

  10. That old saying that those to whom much is given much is expected does not apply to our current crop of elites. The problem as I see it is the rise of new money by people like Eric Schmidt who are not have no training as gentlemen, and the personality of geeks. Tom Steyne would be another example. Yesterday, my dentist told me that there is a camera on your computer which is watching you, and your eye movements. It uses this information to figure out what products etc may interest you. It also records your political preferences, and inasmuch as Schmidt is a known associate of Obama, and has helped design his voter outreach program you can see where the problem lies. Their business is global, therefore they have no commitment to the nation. My dentist learned this when he visited the home of a friend who had put a bandaid over the camera. For some inexplicable reason, he did not relish the idea of being spied on by Obama–or big brother–what’s the difference.

  11. Totally Disgusted and JBStonesFan, we’re working on the problem. It’s probably due to some of our outdated software.

  12. The two headed dentist is . . . a man for all seasons.

    Time Magazine calls him the most interesting man in politics.

    Time of course wants the Republicans to nominate their weakest candidate.

    I have heard tell that he is everything from a proctologist, to a numerologist, to a radiologist, to a neurosurgeon, to an internist to a plastic surgeon, to a dermatologist, to a psychiatrist, to an obgyn to a dentist. The only thing the most interesting man in politics does not claim to be is an abortionist. But to get those votes–who knows what he will say.

    Yes he is running for President. And he has the support of Mitch McConnell. Cervantes would compare this to Don Quixote charging the wind mill. In my opinion, Rand would be better served by finding a way to heal himself. We do not need another uniter.


    Black People The Media Hate (And Rand Paul Isn’t Wild About)

    By Ann Coulter

    It was African-Americans, exploding in rage at the devastation crack was inflicting on their neighborhoods in the 1980s, who demanded severe penalties for crack cocaine. In a typical news story from 1986, Julius Lee, the black city commissioner in Fort Pierce, Florida, said, “Drugs are terrible things, but these cocaine rocks are the terriblest of the terrible.” Black grocer Eugene Gibson sadly remarked, while sweeping the sidewalk in front of his store, “We’re in a world of trouble here. … It’s these cocaine rocks.”

    A few years later, in 1989, black columnist Dorothy Gaiter perfectly expressed the feelings of the (non-crack dealing) black community in The Miami Herald: “Crack sellers should be locked up and their bounty taken away from them. The jails are crowded with murderers and others who deserve to be there, but the crack seller is a murderer too. He’s a lethal seducer of our young, a destroyer of our neighborhoods. Being poor is no crime and should not result in a sentence to live among the lawless.”

    But now Sen. Paul is pushing the idea that the drug laws black people begged for were actually part of a racist plot to lock up African-Americans. It’s like something out of Maxine Waters’ dream journal.

    The only people impressed with Rand Paul’s defense of black criminals are the ones who will never be victimized by them.

  13. In order to advance to the next step, Rand will have to say just as President Obama’s views on gay marriage have evolved, so also have my views on foreign policy evolved to the point that I cannot ignore the contributions of the military industrial complex to our security, and, more to the point, to my campaign coffers.

  14. If we did a little “remote viewing” I think we would find Boehner esconsed with McCahhtee and MM (no not Marilyn Monroe, McMorris Rogers) and other RINO lackies in the basement of the Longworth Office Building, debating whether the law suits filed against amnesty will provide enough political cover for John to do the unholy deal with Pelousy, and insulate him against the charge by fellow senators like Sessions, and the Texas tornado Cruz–two honorable men, that such a deal would violate the promise they made to voters and voters responded to in the recent election.

  15. I will not bother you with the details, but Erickson is miffed that people are not calling their representatives to protest amnesty and he goes on to claim that even Trey is retreating on amnesty.

    Beyond John’s legendary cowardice, and his weeping sessions, there is a tactical decision to be made here. If you believe that Obama wants a shut down and that providing interim funding of amnesty until Republicans take over will not cause the party to lose leverage over the issue, then there is a rational reason to not draw everything to a head right now. And in that case, even if the public gets pissed off now, after January 20, the party can show some steel, and the public would forget.

    My concern with John is that there will never be a time when he takes a stand. He is too much like the old Brooklyn Dodgers—yes we lost every game, but there is always next season. It is a character flaw.

  16. Who Are the Cowards Now?
    Tuesday – December 2, 2014 at 10:28 am

    1Pin it on PinterestSubmit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on TumblrShare via emailShare
    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    In July of 1967, after race riots gutted Newark and Detroit, requiring troops to put them down, LBJ appointed a commission to investigate what happened, and why.

    The Kerner Commission reported back that “white racism” was the cause of black riots. Liberals bought it. America did not.

    Richard Nixon said of the white racism charge that there is a “tendency to lay the blame for the riots on everyone but the rioters.”

    The Nixon-George Wallace vote in 1968 was 57 percent to Hubert Humphrey’s 43. In 1972, Wallace was leading in the popular vote in the Democratic primaries, when he was shot in Laurel, Maryland. In November of 1972, Nixon and Agnew swept 49 states.

    Among the primary causes of the ruin of FDR’s great coalition, and the rise of Nixon’s New Majority, was the belief in Middle America that liberals were so morally paralyzed by racial guilt they could not cope with minority racism, riots and crime.

    And so they lost the nation for a generation.

    That same moral paralysis is on display in the aftermath of the grand jury conclusion that Officer Darren Wilson acted in self-defense when he shot Michael Brown on Aug. 9 in Ferguson, Missouri.

    When initial reports came in, that a police officer had confronted an unarmed black teenager on a main street at noon and shot him six times, it seemed like a case of a cop gone berserk.

    But, day by day, new facts emerged. The “gentle giant” Brown had, 15 minutes earlier, pulled off a strong-arm robbery, grabbing a store clerk half his size by the throat while stealing cigars. And Brown was in the middle of the street, and maybe high on marijuana, when he refused an order to move onto the sidewalk.

    Then came leaks from the grand jury that the 6’4″, 292-pound, 18-year-old punched the officer in the face in his patrol car and went for his gun, which fired twice, wounding Brown in the hand.

    Wilson got out and told Brown to get on the ground, as Brown walked away. After this, what happened is in dispute.

    Several grand jury witnesses perjured themselves by testifying that Wilson shot Brown in the back. All of Brown’s wounds were in the front. Others said Brown turned and faced Wilson, with four of them saying Brown moved toward or charged the officer.

    The pattern of shells from Wilson’s gun indicates he was backing away while firing at Brown.

    The grand jury concluded that not only did most witnesses support Wilson’s version, but the forensic evidence was consistent with what Wilson said had happened, and contradicted Brown’s lying companion.

    Hence, no indictment, and wisely so.

    No jury, based on the known evidence, would conclude “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Wilson committed murder or manslaughter.

    St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch concluded he had no case and would not prosecute unless a grand jury, which had seen and heard all the evidence, concluded otherwise. It did not.

    Yet, Michael Brown’s death, whatever the grand jury decided, is an irreversible tragedy, horrible for his mother and father.

    But what happened last week was not a tragedy but a national disgrace, a disgusting display of adult delinquency.

    Monday night we witnessed in Ferguson a rampage of arson, shooting, looting and vandalism, with police and National Guard ordered not to interfere. Stores and shops, the investments of a lifetime for their owners and the livelihood of their employees, were firebombed and pillaged as police looked on.

    For a week, mobs blocked highways, bridges and commuter trains from New York to Oakland. The Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade was disrupted. On Black Friday, the busiest shopping day of the year, moms and their kids at malls had to climb over unruly protesters to do their Christmas shopping. The civil rights of law-abiding Americans were systematically violated.

    And where were the president and his attorney general?

    Neither Barack Obama nor Eric Holder has yet to stand up and declare, unequivocally, that, in America, the full force of law will be used to halt, prosecute and punish those guilty of mob violence, no matter the nobility of the “cause” in which it is being committed.

    America is a democratic republic, a free society of 320 million. That society and that republic will not survive if a precedent is set that masses of people can organize and attempt to shut it down when what happens within that system displeases them.

    Make no mistake. The Ferguson riots of recent months were like neighborhood cookouts compared to Watts in ’65, Detroit and Newark in ’67, and Washington, D.C., and a hundred other cities after the 1968 assassination of Dr. King. But the reaction of our political, media and moral elites seems even more irresolute than that of the liberals of the 1960s.

    Only three weeks in office, Eric Holder called us “a nation of cowards.” Observing his and his boss’ performance in the wake of the Ferguson riots and other rampages, the same word comes to mind.

  17. DrudgeReport says this is the Hillary Theme Song – it certainly is the right target audience and message for Hillary, if she is listening to our advice:

  18. Schumer said that when Democrats focused so heavily on health care in early 2009, “the average middle-class person thought ‘the Democrats are not paying enough attention to me.’”
    Not paying enough attention.

    Wrong again, grease ball.

    Obama is paying plenty of attention to the middle class through spying through NSA, persecuting whistle blowers, corrupting elections, calling us racists, ho ho ho, how do we love thee Obama let me count the ways.

    Sorry Charlie, this is not a case of benign neglect.

    There is no point asking what Obama is smoking.

    The more urgent question is what is greaseball Schumer smoking.

    I would gladly order some of his brand, if it were not illegal.

  19. admin
    December 4, 2014 at 1:50 pm

    DrudgeReport says this is the Hillary Theme Song – it certainly is the right target audience and message for Hillary, if she is listening to our advice:
    Yes indeed.

    And look at the picture.

    At a time when Holder and Obama want selfies in Ferguson stirring the racial cauldron.

    There is Hillary reviewing America’s finest on parade.

    This will really piss off the elites, because Richard Fernadez has got it right.

    All they want to do is wallow in racism, paralyzed to act.

  20. The task ahead is clear. But that does not mean it is easy, or even possible. On the one hand, she needs to send a patriotic message to counter the nihilism of Obama and big media–and to pre empt the Republicans who will be wrapping themselves in the flag in the near term. On the other hand, she must not venture close to the flame of Obama’s scandals and overreach, because if she does that Obama and big media will use her as a human shield. I think she needs to be VERY circumspect on who she talks to in big media, because most of them have the long knives out. That new car smell comment by Obama was quickly picked up on and reiterated by Chuck Todd and others.

  21. Hallelujah!!!!!!!!!!!!

    17 states fight for OUR rights. This is the best news I have heard of in 6 years.

    Why the Hell isn’t Jan Brewer’s, Arizona on the list?

    Why the Hell isn’t California and all the freakin’ states added to this list.

    17 states – BRAVO!!

    (Back to reading Admins post)

  22. Why the Hell isn’t Jan Brewer’s, Arizona on the list?
    Her term is ending, but it sounds like they will be in—as in that fucking Obama slogan “I’m in”(sane)/

    The only thing I care about is John Roberts. Where can he hide? What can he do to evade responsibility. Oh, he can say it is a non justiciable issue, a political question, moot, or he can just go wee wee. Poor John. Poor John.

  23. Kate Sebelius has come forward and claims that Gruber was not the architect of Obama that everyone else says he was, that she never met him, and therefore, his testimony that the American People are mighty stupid, hence it was necessary to deceive them into doing what was in their best interest–especially the death panel part, is not credible.

    Well, good for Kate. However, inasmuch as she has opened the door to a discussion of credibility perhaps hers as well as his—his and hers towels–is equally up for grabs. There are at least three good reasons to discount Kate’s most recent outpouring:

    1. timing: when she was asked about it initially she said she had no comment. It was only after she spoke to the White House that Kate decided to hold forth on the issue. The plausible inference was that she wanted to coordinate her lies with what the lies that the White House was telling.

    2. motive: as the former head of HHS, Kate had primary responsibility for the implementation of Obamacare. Therefore, his claim that the American People are stupid and needed to be deceived for their good, serves to illuminate Kate’s motives as well. Consequently, it is in her interest to demean both him and his testimony.

    3. past practice: the roll out was a disaster. Kate freely admitted that she made certain mistakes. The biggest mistake was she and Taveneder (a raving lunatic according to the reports I have read) were not minding the store in terms of the website. Yet that was the very lynchpin of the entire implementation effort. That being the case, when she claims she never met Gruber it may well be that she met him and knew exactly who he was, and that information along with the website fell into the black hole of her incompetence. Accordingly, rumors that she will throw her hat in the ring in ’16 are . . . greatly exaggerated.

  24. [See interview with Texas Attorney General Abbott at link.]

    OMG, I think we finally have a Hero!

    Bravo that America still has some smart people that don’t sit on their thumbs and get crackin’ when we need help.

    Texas should be proud of this action…unlike the embarrisment I feel here in CA.

    Love that Greta asked, WHERE IS ARIZONA?

    Given their past experience with the 9th circuit, it is understandable that they would have no confidence in our court system. It is their misfortune to be within the ninth circuit. I was admitted to that circuit in 1975, and their decisions never cease to amaze me. There has been talk for years about breaking up that circuit, but congress has never gotten around to it. The interest that seem to predominate in that circuit, and have for as long as I can remember are those of the Bay Area. On a related note I was reading about the collapse of a major law firm Pettit Martin who I did business with. This was a fine article that diagnosed the reasons for its collapse from the perspective of lawyers who practiced therein. One of the salient complaints was that their Bay Area office was out of control and spent money like a drunken sailor to the detriment of the rest of the firm. And that was true. But if you connect the dots the same problem exists at the judicial level as well. I have read the opinions issued by jurists in the 9th circuit denying judicial relief from the onerous costs of illegal immigration. The rationale set forth in the opinion was unintelligible. I have seen the same thing with the seventh circuit. Their opinions lose the reader after the third paragraph, but they go on and on and on to an adverse result. Judges who cannot write so they are clearly understood fail to achieve one of the most important purposes of the law, which is legal certainty. It is hard to discern the meaning, and you begin to suspect that they are guided not by law but by crass politics.

  26. Too often these days judges do not write their own opinions. They delegate that task to law clerks, who are recent law grads, wet behind the ears. One of my professors and a friend graduated number 1 in his class at University of Chicago, was offered a clerkship for Chief Justice Earl Warren, and turned it down. That is the exception however not the rule. And that is why instead of clear crisp criteria you get six point balancing tests coming out of cases. That creates a field day for lawyers, but it does disservice to businesses who need to have a clear picture of what is lawful and what is not in order to carry on their affairs. To the main point, it looks likke Abbott picked the right judge to file his actions with. Brownsville has been overrun with illegal immigration and his a launching pad for drug gangs into the heart of the country. As such this court has seen first hand the adverse affects of illegal immigration, compared to a judge who went to Stanford or Boalt Hall and knows only Nob Hill, Telegraph Hill, Russian Hill, Pacific Heights or Twin Peaks.

  27. Admin,

    Thanks for the great post. I have been quite down about the state of the nation and the things Obola has been doing to it. I really want to fight about it, but do not know quite what to do.

    Now this poor guy in NY who was killed selling cigarettes gives them something a little more legitimate to focus on, but it is all bad for the country. Maybe Obola will get another peace prize for it.

  28. Boy are they beating up on Boner over at Red State.

    I just thought of a good name for this Quisiling:


  29. Bonar is as useless as the Three Amigos, The Young Guns and the other big talkers that are all hot air.

    Bonar is even worse, he is a butt kisser that worries more about his tan and fake leadership than fighting for our citizens.

    Boner, the Cave-In-Crybaby.

  30. Obama gets trounced in mid terms and we have amnesty and race riots,
    And a constitutional crisis.

    It is his own personal gotterdamerung.


    On Thursday, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) accused President Barack Obama of trying to implement his executive amnesty that “stains our legal system and our country” before the American people figure out that the consequences are “graver than a lot of people think” right now.

    He urged Congress to use its power of the purse to stop Obama from unilaterally wiping out the nation’s immigration laws.
    “It’s already starting,” Sessions said on the Senate floor of the implementation Obama’s executive amnesty, while referring to reports that the Obama administration is already hiring thousands of agents who will be responsible for issuing temporary work permits and federal identification cards and Social Security numbers to illegal immigrants.

    Sessions accused Obama of trying to “impose his immigration views before the Congress can contain it or restrain it” and “before the American people fully understand what’s happening, and to make it so it can’t be stopped.” He said Obama has issued executive orders that “violate the laws of Congress,” because Obama wants to” implement laws he wishes Congress had passed, but Congress has refused to pass.”

    He noted that the American people stopped the amnesty bills Congress tried to pass in 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2014 because they want an immigration system that does not reward lawlessness and one that serves their interests instead of special interests. Sessions noted that perhaps no other issue “defines the gap between the elites in this country and middle Americans who go to work every day, who support our country, pay our taxes, and fight our wars.”

    Obama’s allies in the bipartisan political class have spent nearly $1.5 billion to get sweeping amnesty legislation over the years, and Sessions noted they “haven’t given up” on enacting massive amnesty.

    “Despite the election, despite the wishes of the American people, they want their policies, and they’re going to ram it through this Congress if they possibly can, no matter what we think, no matter what the people think,” Sessions said. “That is a threat to representative democracy. It is a threat to the laws of this country. And the Congress needs to say no.”
    Congress, Sessions reminded his colleagues, is not “hopeless, helpless,” and “ineffectual” on Obama’s executive amnesty, because Congress has the power of the purse. Sessions emphasized that the executive branch “cannot spend one dime that has not been approved by the United States Congress.” He cited former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said that Obama’s executive amnesty is a “step toward kingship or dictatorship,” and Obama “must be stopped now.”

    “Our entire constitutional structure is at stake,” Gingrich said in Tweets that Sessions mentioned. “This new Obama power grab is the greatest threat to freedom since King George third.”

    Sessions said even lawmakers who agree with giving amnesty to all of the country’s illegal immigrants cannot support Obama’s executive action that eviscerates the separation of powers in order to unilaterally “wipe out duly passed laws to create an entirely new system of immigration that Congress refused to establish.”

    “So Congress has a responsibility and a duty here,” Sessions continued. “Congress should fund no program, should allow no presidential expenditure that is spent on programs it deems are unworthy. And it absolutely has a responsibility to ensure that this president spends no money to execute policies that are in violation of existing law.”

    Though Obama “may well be stopped by lawsuits in years to come,” Sessions said that “Congress has the power to stop it now.” Sessions noted that federal officials are already rubber-stamping immigration applications and illegal immigrants will get temporary amnesty and work permits without meeting with officials face-to-face, which will make it even tougher to prevent fraud.

    Sessions said lawmakers are supposed to “serve the interest of working Americans” and asked, “are we serving their interests or are we listening to special interests, political groups and activist groups, politicians who think they gain political advantage, and certain businesses who want more cheaper labor?”

    “Don’t we represent the vast majority of the people?” he asked. “Isn’t there a national interest, an interest of the American people? Somebody needs to defend that interest.”

    Sessions also mentioned that none of the nine new Senators elected to the body support Obama’s executive amnesty, and perhaps that is why Obama and his allies are trying to move their “lawless agenda forward” during the lame-duck Congress “out of fear it might not be so popularly received next year.”

  32. Well, this is consistent with what I said above at:

    December 4, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    Its funny because many conservatives are hoping the democrats do not sign on and Boehner is left there all alone with no fig leaf and no future.


    Conservatives Should Accept Boehner Immigration Plan


    Published on on December 4, 2014

    Speaker John Boehner’s plan to fund the government operations for a year, but excepting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from the bill is a great deal that conservatives should accept and celebrate. If Boehner can get the Democratic Senate — while it lasts — to agree to his proposed formula for avoiding a government shutdown, it will be a massive victory for Republicans and pose big problems ahead for President Obama.

    Republicans have always sought to use government funding as a kind of surgical strike aimed at programs they dislike. In the October, 2013 government shutdown, conservatives wanted to fund the entire government except for those that were to implement ObamaCare. But Senate Democrats and the White House held the rest of the government hostage saying that the House Republicans had either to fund the entire government or shut it all down. Even Republican attempts to exempt military pay and Social Security processing were rejected or received with a jaundiced eye.

    Click Here To Purchase Power Grab: Obama’s Dangerous Plan For A One Party Nation

    Now, however, Boehner is trying to set the stage for just such a surgical operation when the Republicans take over the Senate next year. By funding the entire government for a year but appropriating only a few months of money for the ICE, Boehner makes it possible for a fully Republican Congress to defund the ICE without closing down the entire government.

    President Obama is relying on the finding of House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) that much of the ICE processing is funded by administrative levies which are not dependent on government appropriations. But this is not the whole story. Much of ICE funding is, indeed, dependent on government appropriations and a creative conservative majority can use its power to craft a spending bill that would have real teeth.

    But it needs a majority of the Senate. We don’t have one now and won’t until next year.

    Conservatives should seize on a victory when Boehner hands it to them. Go along with keeping the government open but stop Obama’s ability to force a general shutdown next year if Republicans withhold ICE appropriations. It’s a very good deal.

  33. Thanks for posting the law suit, it’s a very interesting read. More interesting yet will be to read the arguments of the defense, which I hope you can post in the future, because I’ve learned from experience that the outcome of disputes usually depends on how the case is argued.

    For example, the plaintiffs’ argument in the suit over the constitutionality of the individual healthcare mandate was essentially that the mandate was an abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause, while HHS neatly rebutted this by arguing their case on the government’s power to tax.

    I find a weakness in the plaintiffs’ argument the present case, in point 57, where it is argued that deferred action is not merely a “decision not to prosecute an individual for past unlawful conduct,” but rather “a decision to openly tolerate an undocumented alien’s continued presence in the United States.

    The defendant can pretty easily contradict and exploit this essential point for its own purposes, by stating the executive order’s five conditions, one of which is to register as an alien, which means the alien is no longer breaking the law, and in return the alien is allowed to stay in the US, temporarily. This is “deferred action” and cannot be interpreted as “openly tolerating” any presence of undocumented aliens because, by registering, they become documented. I agree with Exhibits A and B on this theme.

    Then, the argument for the plaintiffs’ standing based on a purported substantial increase in “undocumented immigrants” (starting at point 61) is very hard to prove because it is based on polls of people now crossing the border who declare that they think they can stay in the US with impunity is the reason why they came in the first place.

    These past polls may be true, but they do not stand as proof of any future influx due to this particular DHS Directive. The plaintiffs baldly state, as if it were fact, that “the DHS Directive will increase human trafficking in the Plaintiff States.” The judges of the Texas Southern District may buy into this reasoning; but as the case moves up the judicial ladder, this argument for standing may no longer be accepted because (i) it is a simple assertion that cannot be proven and (ii) it is backed up by further assertions, some of which are irrelevant or even contradictory of fact and reality, such as “…authorizing a large class of undocumented immigrants to work in the US…” (point 68). The Directive doesn’t do this at all.

    Then we get into the claims for injunctive relief, beginning with a purported “violation of the Take Care clause”. Actually, the administration could use this argument to its own advantage, arguing that the law as it stands cannot be enforced because it requires the government to deport up to 11 million undocumented aliens. The impracticality of this is demonstrated by the inaction of previous presidents, who have not enforced the law any more than Obama.

    I don’t understand Count Two about the violation of the APA, so maybe that will stick; but the objections under Count Three, another violation of the APA, seem borderline whimsical to me. I mean, establishing that the DHS action is “arbitrary, capricious… contrary to constitutional right… in excess of statutory jurisdiction” is hard to prove, especially when considering that the law as it stands is unenforceable (inaction of previous presidents) whereas the DHS action is enforceable. The author only spends four paragraphs on this anyway.

    The Exhibits are a good read too. Exhibit A, a DHS memorandum on deferred action as “a form of prosecutorial discretion by which the Secretary deprioritizes an individual’s case… in the interest of the Department’s overall enforcement mission” puts the finger on the enforcement aspect of this whole issue. That is, the law as it stands is simply not enforceable whereas the new DHS Directive is.

    Furthermore, of interest to Hillary supporters, this same Exhibit notes that the Directive does not provide a “path to citizenship” because only Congress can do that. This was in HRC’s constant call for immigration reform in 2008 and is the reason why, after supporting the executive order, HRC immediately called for comprehensive (and bipartisan) immigration reform by Congress.

    None of the above contradicts what you say about illegal immigrants being canny and not stupid. My own reaction to this Directive is, “How do you get undocumented aliens to stick their heads into the lion’s mouth?” That is, looking at it from their viewpoint, it would seem to me that they are asked to give a lot and are not offered much in return (pay taxes and get a few months’ stay in the US in return? Not worth it.). This is essentially what you say in your conclusion: “Illegal immigrants will do a cost/benefit analysis and see that potentially they are putting their names into a deportation list if they rely on Obama’s word.”

    You expect a government response in 2 weeks and I hope you will post it here.

  34. Here’s some of the scoop on Garner:
    3. Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny.
    8. The grand jury began hearing the case on Sept. 29 and did not reach a decision until Wednesday, so there is much testimony that was presented that has not been made public.
    10. In order to find Officer Pantaleo criminally negligent, the grand jury would have had to determine that he knew there was a “substantial risk” that Garner would have died due to the takedown.

  35. admin December 3, 2014 at 7:28 pm

    We’re winning the argument…

    While some advisers suggested {HRC} she should form an exploratory committee this year to send a signal to donors, her allies who argued otherwise have won the debate — with no committee expected until well after Jan. 1, the sources said.

    Coming from a Hillary-hater, this report must be true and I for one am really happy about it.

    Shadowfax December 3, 2014 at 10:16 pm

    I can wait until the cows come home, and I hope Hillary will too. If she doesn’t want to run…she should still wait, just to give them the third finger salute!

    Right on, girl!

  36. PBA Blasts “Anti-Police Rhetoric” After Eric Garner Death
    Leaders of two police unions had some strong words Tuesday
    www dot About 30 minutes.

  37. ILLEGAL ALIENS are already BENEFITTING from the hardworking TAX PAYING citizens of this country!~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    They are feeding at the trough already and will continue to abuse our resources.


    They broke the laws .. if I break the damn law here in I would effin go to jail

    What makes THEM any better

    THIS is effin bullshit to keep GIVING to these CRIMINALS and THIEFS

    WE were NOT put HERE to support them.

    GO HOME .. yes that is crude but I hate what this country is becoming. We should NOT be expected to take care of EVERYONE.

    HOW ABOUT “US” ……. who is taking care of US????


  38. congressional action is not the proper route yet to fight Obama’s illegal illegal immigration executive diktat. The fastest road and the one likely to be paved with success is a lawsuit filed by a state or states:
    He has more faith in the judicial process than I do.

    Seeing what Roberts did in the Obamacare case, one day he was in favor of nullifying the act, the next day he was in a state of panic because somehow they got to him. According the law clerks from the conservative side, justice Kennedy tried to get Roberts back on the reservation, but there was no way to do that. The narrow reed his rested his final position on–that it was a tax was previously conceded by the solicitor general in open court, who said it was NOT a tax. That should provide insight on what Roberts will do with the plain meaning of the language of the legislation which says states who do not set up exchanges are not eligible. When they start threatening him at NYT editorials, and telling him this decision will be his personal legacy, el foldo will be back in full glory. As for this action by the states, again, el foldo will be running around like a chicken with his head cut off, and in the end will likely support Obama. Put differently, I would not bet the farm on Roberts or on the ability of the judicial bureaucracy to provide relief or defend the Constitution in a timely manner. It therefore follows that while judicial relief should be sought, we must make provision for the fact that Roberts will toss the case, by making certain that Congress does everything possible to halt this dismantling of the Constitution and this drowning the American People with inextinguishable debt. To rely on Roberts is, in my opinion, a fools errand.

  39. jeswezey
    December 5, 2014 at 7:14 am
    I do agree that you have to read both the complaint and the answer to get a full sense of the merits of the case.

    But anyone who believes that the merits will determine the outcome fails to understand how the law ultimately works.

    The law is not some brooding omnipresence in the sky.

    Nor is it a simple process of deductive logic.

    In the end the conclusion reached by the law depends on the politics of individual judges.

    Notice I did not say judicial philosophy I said politics.

    This observation is not without exceptions, such as the most liberal chief justice Warren appointed by a Republican.

    But in the main, this is unequivocally true.

    Missing in plaintiff’s argument insofar as it has been articulated up to now is any limiting principle.

    Where the self proclaimed wise Latina is concerned on the issue of immigration do you really believe there is any limiting principle. In her view, brown people should have free access to white peoples wallets, and citizenship should not matter.

    And what about the Ginsberg who believes the constitution is obsolete, and thinks we should have a constitution more like the one in South Africa? Will she uphold the Constitution?

    And what about the third female justice who is gay, a product of Harvard and has never been a judge before. She checks all the boxes Obama looks at, but does she have any commitment to a Constitution which is the flotsam and jestsom of dead straight poets.

    My point is this: the more you sift through the entrails of the Roberts court, the more you sense that the legal outcome here, while it may be clear to us, gets all mired in the personal stories, views, values of those who will decide the issue. The other problem is timing—delay delay delay will be the other side’s strategy and for the American taxpayer about to be submerged with tens of millions of permanent visitors, justice delayed is justice denied.

  40. My contracts professor was the head law clerk for Chief Justice Traynor of the California Supreme Court. In his day, Traynor was the most liberal state court judge in the country and he was often compared to Earl Warren. My professor reported to me–gosh this was forty years ago, that he would listen to a case, decide how he wanted to rule and then tell his head clerk go find me the cases to support this decision. In other words, he made a political decision, rather than attempting to find the law through a deductive process of reading the cases. If you think the justices appointed by Obama will allow his signature legislation to go down in flames, then I think you are whistling dixie. The same observation applies more generally to those who were appointed by prior democratic presidents, Breyer in particular. So there you have four who will slap down the states in favor of Obama. So its back again to Roberts, who, history has shown cannot take the heat. Again, the point is Congress cannot rely on the courts to pull its chessnuts out of the fire, and the more they try to pass this hot potato off to people like Roberts the less likely it is to work. On the other hand, now that the American People have spoken, and if Congress is seen as acting, then all we can really say is the chances that Roberts will not fall through his ass do improve.

  41. WaPo critiques Republicans (and itself) for trying to make hay out of HRC’s high speaking fees. Maybe they’re jealous.

    Republicans hating Hillary Clinton for her speaking fees are hypocrites

    By Sally Kohn

    Hillary Clinton makes a lot of money when she speaks. This is, somehow, offensive to the Republican Party.

    Let that sink in for a moment.

    The Republican Party, which wants to keep women and minimum wage workers (the majority of whom, incidentally, are also women) severely underpaid while trust fund families and Wall Street execs pocket more — this crowd is attacking Hillary Clinton for being paid well.

    In a hum-drum effort to vet the hum-drum presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, news outlets have been reporting on Clinton’s speaking fees and contract requirements. Most recently, the Washington Post revealed Clinton’s terms for a speech at the University of California Los Angeles.

    {Incidentally, that bit of UCLA speaking news has been reported in at least 20 organs around the country: A big fucking deal!}

    For the speech, Clinton’s team made such ludicrous requests as a “pitcher of room temperature water, water glass, and lemon wedges.” Why can’t she settle for cold water? Plus she wanted, nay demanded, that backstage there be “diet ginger ale, crudité, hummus and sliced fruit.” How dare Hillary Clinton demand healthy snacks? For this, she was paid $300,000 — a sum, like all her speaking fees, which Clinton donated to the Clinton Global Foundation.

    The Washington Post story comes on the heels of June reporting about a speech to the University of Nevada Las Vegas Foundation, for which Clinton was paid $225,000. Anti-Hillary conservatives have taken this reporting and run with it:

    First, the facts. Neither the UCLA speech or UNLV speech were paid for with student tuition dollars. The UCLV Foundation is a private non-profit separate from the university; the UCLA speech was paid for as part of a separately endowed lecture series. More pertinently, though, both speeches raised money for the universities and their students. For instance, the UNLV event raised more than $350,000. But shame on Hillary, speaking at events that raise money for public universities!

    It’s ironic that, after a 2012 election spent complaining about how Mitt Romney was attacked for being successful, Republicans now find themselves trying to attack success. And that’s just the tip of the irony iceberg.

    On the occasion of Clinton’s UNLV speech, the Republican National Committee put out a statement saying, “Hillary Clinton’s speaking fee at UNLV is more than 4 times what the average Nevadan makes in a year.” Raising the minimum wage would sure help those Nevada families way more than cutting Hillary Clinton’s speaking fee. But Republicans are the ones blocking a minimum wage hike nationwide.

    Conservatives also complained that Clinton accepted six figures to speak at a public university about, among other things, the challenges of mounting student debt. They pounced on calls by some students for Clinton to donate her speaking fees back to defray scholarships and rising tuition costs.

    But if conservatives are so outraged about the rising cost of college and run-away student debt, why have they blocked legislation to refinance student loans and proposed massive cuts to Pell grants?

    Certainly, Clinton has stumbled in finding a populist way to talk about her finances, as when she said she was “dead broke” when she and Bill left the White House (they had two houses). The New York Post wrote that Clinton’s “diva routine could hurt her chances of campaigning as a champion for the middle class.” Sure, but you know what else hurts a party’s reputation as a middle class champion? Repeatedly opposing policies like paid sick leave and investments to fix roads and schools that help the middle class—which Republicans routinely do.

    Selective outrage sure works for fanning the flames of Twitter trolls, but when Election Day rolls around, Republicans won’t be able to paint Hillary Clinton as an out-of-touch elitist if their party is a still a worse example of that which they seek to condemn.

    There is plenty in Hillary Clinton’s speaking schedule actually worth scrutinizing. Since leaving the State Department, Clinton has given paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, the Carlyle Group, the National Association of Realtors and other business interests. “This is a great way for a company to get access to her, to hear what she’s thinking, to be remembered if and when she does run for office,” Campaign Legal Center policy director Meredith McGehee told Mother Jones. This might also seem like the perfect thing to attack given the problems with Clinton’s coziness with Wall Street in a post-Occupy political era increasingly focused on the crisis of inequality. Curiously, conservatives aren’t even mentioning these speeches—just the ones Clinton has given at fundraisers for public universities.

    Of course, why would Republicans ever critique big business, even if big business is courting the potential Democratic frontrunner for 2016? While conservatives might rhetorically feign a defense of public colleges and the middle class, they would never, ever hint at attacking big business. Which reveals the deepest irony of all — Republicans regularly say that government should get out of the way and “let market forces” handle everything from pay inequity to healthcare. But market forces are precisely what have made Hillary Clinton the second best paid political speaker in America (after her husband, Bill) — she’s simply more popular, by leaps and bounds, than any potential Republican challenger. By drawing attention to how much Hillary Clinton is being paid to speak, Republicans are merely pointing out how in-demand Clinton is—presumably not just on the stage but in the voting booth in 2016.

  42. At this point, for me, the drama of what Hillary is doing etc. and what republicans are saying is a sideshow. The main event at this point is what Obama is doing to the country and whether there is any effective remedy. If she runs and if she wins, then the outcome of this constitutional crisis and the flood of illegals and the strain on safety nets etc. will define and determine what she has to deal with as president. If it goes the wrong way, chaos is not an unlikely outcome. And then the followers of Sharpton can riot to their hearts content.

  43. Republicans are merely pointing out how in-demand Clinton is—presumably not just on the stage but in the voting booth in 2016.
    I see. Then there is no reciprocal obligation when they pay her $300,000 for an hour speech. It just shows she is popular. Mind you I have the same reaction when Reagan did it, etc. There will come a point when Sacajawea does it too.

  44. When Goldman Sachs who received a taxpayer bail out pays a politician a quarter million to speak for an hour, are they using our money to pay for access and influence?

  45. gonzotx
    December 5, 2014 at 9:05 am
    Hillary Is going To need a lot more than a song and a dance.
    On that fine point, you will get no argument from me.

  46. Here is what one of the conservative blogs is saying about the video. What I dislike is that is was produced by an Obama supporter. Yes, is is a bit cynical. But it does shed light on the path ahead.

    What I am quoting here is not from The Onion:

    The music video is country-themed, with an undisclosed singer blaring lines like, “Guys, put your boots on and let’s smash this ceiling!” and, “She fights for country and my family, now it’s time for us to stand up with Hillary!” Images of Hillary Clinton with her husband and daughter flash across the screen throughout the three-minute video.

    Miguel Orozco, a 2008 Obama supporter responsible for a couple of viral video hits, helped create the video and wrote the song’s lyrics.

    In a phone interview, Chavez told Fusion he and Orozco wanted to create a group that could promote Clinton to working-class people, young people, and Latinos. The group kicked off with a country ballad to appeal to men, who he says, like him, should be inspired by Clinton.

    “One of the things we know Hillary will need is more male supporters,” he said. “Women support will be there.”

    “And country music is a perfect vehicle to relay stories, because so much of country music is a great storytelling platform.”

    So now Hillary has the perfect tool to lock up the vote of those “bitter-clingers” Victory is in sight.

  47. Todd is an improvement over his predecessors– Pope Gregory and Pumpkinhead Russert. He says what I have said about the impossibility of repeal. He mentions changing their business model. That is not an insurmountable issue. They can change it again if the law requires. The insurmountable issue is profitability. Obamacare has given insurance companies immense profits and has is yet another example of the crony capitalism which defines the age of Obama. Chucks other comments about Obama being rational, cool hand Luke is a profound misdiagnosis of what we are dealing with. He compares this trait to Reagan and Eisenhower. They were unflappable as well, but for them it was a function of character and experience. Whereas, for Messiah Obama it is a symptom of his narcissism. If the matter affects him directly, he is nuttier than a fruit cake. It is only those things which do not affect him personally that he has the luxury of being unflappable about.

    Todd said his biggest critique of the healthcare law is the Democrats essentially allowed the health insurance companies to write the legislation.

    “I understand the political decision to do that but you’re never going to – and maybe the insurance companies will keep it from ever being repealed, right, because at the end of the day they’ve changed their entire business model but what have you got? What is it? At the end of the day, it’s the Keep the Insurance Companies’ Industry Intact Act. They own it and obviously they want all these customers so I wonder if that’s something somebody you’ll start hearing more and more Democrats second-guessing themselves on,” Todd said.

  48. The death of Garner is a terrible tragedy.

    The Communist mayor of New York framed this as Ferguson II.

    Meaning the killing of an innocent black man by an out of control white cops.

    That is a goddamned lie.

    Yes, the man was black, but that had nothing to do with it.

    In a technical sense, he broke the law by selling bootlegged cigarettes.

    But surely that is not a capitol offense.

    What this killing was really about was the nanny state murdering a human being over a minor offense.

    This was a task force going after a minor offense.

    Garner was a large man, but unlike Brown he presented a physical threat to no one.

    They had no right to kill him.

    This is the case that should provoke the astroturfed outrage we saw in Ferguson.

    It is the case which should make every American black white or poka dot say to themselves:

    There, but for the grace of god goeth I.

    I feel profound sadness for Garner, based on the facts presented.

    His death is just cause for people to protest.

    And it is unseemly for the communist mayor of New York to blame his death on racism.

    His death is the direct result of the Orwellian nanny state policies that hisssssssssssshonor promotes as mayor.

  49. Here is where the Republicans will blow it. They are attacking the white middle class as well. That is their core constitutency and they are going after it just like we saw in Mississippi. This will kill them in 2016.
    There is a general belief that, despite the rhetoric from leadership after the executive order was announced, Boehner and McConnell really have no desire to do anything substantive to fight this,” one lawmaker who attended the meeting explained to NRO in a series of text messages. “Part of it is that leadership (as proxies for the Chamber [of Commerce]) wants the amnesty; Obama’s order provides a way to deliver cheap labor to the Chamber without having to vote for it. Part of it is an absolute fear of any conflict, including even a partial ‘shutdown.’”

  50. Labor Force Participation Remains at 36-Year Low – The labor force participation rate remained at a 36-year low of 62.8 percent in November, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    The participation rate, which is the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population who participated in the labor force by either having a job during the month or actively seeking one, was 62.8 percent in November which matches the percentage since March 1978.


    Many more American’s would effin’ love to “participate” in the work force if there were fu@king jobs they could go to.

  51. But the media is reporting economy turning around with 321k new jobs added. I presume many for Holidays in the retail sector.

  52. Assuming Republicans win both Louisiana House runoffs and hold their very narrow lead (161 votes) in the recount being conducted in Arizona 2 (Republican Martha McSally challenging incumbent Democrat Ron Barber), Republicans will close the cycle with 247 House seats, their highest total in over 60 years and a gain of 13 seats for 2014. They will have 69 more seats than they held when Barack Obama took office.

    A Cassidy victory over Landrieu will give the Republicans 54 Senate seats, 14 more than they held in early 2009 after Arlen Specter switched parties. In terms of control of Congress, Barack Obama has been very, very good for Republicans.

  53. But the media is reporting economy turning around with 321k new jobs added. I presume many for Holidays in the retail sector.
    When an economy with 92 million not working adds 321 K jobs, mostly seasonal and virtually all parttime there is a word for it:

    A depression.

    I would not expect big media to tell the truth when a democrat is in office.

    The good news is they are no longer trusted by most of the population.

    Therefore, they can no longer control the public mind.

    By now, most people I know have tuned them out.

    They have become the butt of jokes.

  54. Obama promised this would end under Obama but it seems to have gotten worse under Obama:

    By recent historic standards, Obama is starting to test the ceiling for putting friends and campaign supporters in U.S. diplomatic posts. Altogether, 35 percent of Obama’s assignments so far have gone to political people. But in his second term, the number has grown to 41 percent according to research by the American Foreign Service Association, the union representing career diplomats that would like more strict enforcement of a 1980 law that says campaign donations may not be considered a qualification for any foreign posting.

    Even assuming the GOP Senate won’t countenance confirming many more big-money bundlers in the next two years, Obama looks to have assembled the most political diplomatic corps since Ronald Reagan, whose grand total was 38 percent. Thirty percent of George W. Bush’s ambassadors were from outside the ranks of the foreign service, as were 28 percent of Bill Clinton’s, 31 percent for the elder George Bush and 27 percent for Jimmy Carter.

    Beyond the greater numbers, though, is the intensifying annoyance of Senate Republicans, who agree with the careerists’ view that too many of Obama’s political selections aren’t even tenuously connected to the countries they’re being dispatched to — and have been given minimal apparent preparation by the White House for the diplomatic challenges they’d face. Mamet, for example, had never visited Argentina before his nomination and doesn’t speak Spanish, while at her hearing Bell was unable to articulate any sense of Hungary’s strategic or geopolitical importance between western Europe and Ukraine.

    “Rewarding supporters with cushy jobs in the Caribbean is something both parties do,” Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who as the 2008 GOP presidential nominee aspired to be filling ambassadorships himself, said during Tuesday’s floor debate. “I understand how the game is played. But here we are, a nation that is on the verge of ceding its sovereignty to a neo-fascist dictator getting in bed with Vladimir Putin and we’re going to send the producer of ‘The Bold and the Beautiful’ as the ambassador. … Put a stop to this foolishness.”

  55. Terrorist states get love and patience from Obama. American long term allies get hate from Obama:

    The Obama administration is refusing to discuss reports that emerged early Thursday claiming that the White House is considering imposing sanctions on Israel for continuing construction on Jewish homes in Jerusalem.

    State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf dodged several questions on Thursday when confronted with reports that the administration had held secret internal meetings to discuss taking action against Israel for its ongoing building in East Jerusalem.

    The classified meetings were reportedly held several weeks ago and included officials from both the State Department and White House, according to the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, which first reported on the meetings.

    The possibility of sanctioning Israel for its ongoing construction sends a signal that the Obama administration is willing to go further in its denunciations of Israel than any previous White House.

    At the same time, the White House is vigorously pushing Congress against passing new sanctions on Iran. [snip]

    “If these reports are true, this would mark a new era of unprecedented hostility from the White House against our strongest ally in the Middle East,” the source said. “It’s impossible not to notice the irony of the administration mulling sanctions on Israel while threatening to veto new sanctions against Iran.

  56. jbstonesfan
    December 5, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    Those are probably jobs to people that will carry suitcases, knock coconuts out of trees and service the ‘First Family’ on their Holiday vacation.

  57. So here is a scenario that will put Boehner between a rock and a hard place.

    1. Suppose he puts forth an omnibus budget bill funding government until September 15 of next year EXCEPT for Homeland Security funding which will expire in February.

    (Note 1: Homeland Security is charged with taking care of illegal aliens.)

    (Note 2: the cost to taxpayers will be $2 trillion, plus the impact on labor markets and safety nets.)

    (Note 3: Boehner refuses to commit to de-fund Homeland Security after February to stop amnesty)

    2. Suppose conservative follow the lead of Jeff Sessions, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz and insist on defunding Obamacare now.

    3. Suppose that Boehner reaches across the aisle to get the votes he needs to pass the bill.

    4. Suppose Dims refuse to sign on to the bill UNLESS it includes funding for Homeland Security until September 15 as well.

    Question: In that case, whom will Boehner (and McConnell) cheat: their donors or their constituents?

    I think we know the answer.

    And I think we also know what that will do to Republican support in 2016.

    The best scenario?

    Since Boeher refuses to commit to defunding Homeland Security after that date.

    It is best that he fall flat on his face—for the good of the country.

  58. Hold on: Jobs report wasn’t so great after all

    A few figures to consider: That big headline number translated into just 4,000 more working Americans. There were, at the same time, another 115,000 on the unemployment line. That disparity can be explained through an expanding labor force, which grew 119,000, though the participation rate among that group remained at 62.8 percent, which is just off the year’s worst level and around a 36-year low.

    But wait, there’s more: The jobs that were created skewed heavily toward lower quality. Full-time jobs declined by 150,000, while part-time positions increased by 77,000.

    By CNBC, which means it’s much worse than this report.

  59. Shadowfax
    December 5, 2014 at 3:27 pm
    Candy Crowley out at CNN.

    She is probably being fitted for new knee-pads for her next job.

    The fattest man in the world just died.

    Crowley is worried that she may be next.

    She is, after all, mortally obese.

  60. OT but interesting…

    America’s Toughest, Ugliest Warplane Is Going Back Into Battle

    The A-10 Thunderbolt II, better known as the Warthog, is old and ugly, but effective. Senior Airman Greg L. Davis

    For more than 30 years, the A-10 Thunderbolt II—better known as the Warthog because it’s so ugly—has performed a crucial role: attacking hostile targets that threaten troops on the ground, a task called close air support. The plane, designed for the Cold War, is old. It’s slow. And it’s about as sophisticated as a hammer. But it is heavily armored and wickedly armed, making it a ruthlessly effective weapon. And that is why, despite ongoing efforts by Defense Department brass to kill it, the Warthog is headed back into battle to help in the fight against ISIS.

    An undisclosed number of Warthogs, part of the “Blacksnakes” 163rd Expeditionary Fighter Squadron based at Fort Wayne, Indiana, have been deployed to Middle Eastern airbases to provide air cover to troops fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

    That makes the A-10 something of a zombie—it refuses to die. The Air Force wants to scuttle the 238 A-10s still in service, a move that would save $3.7 billion over five years—and make way for more sophisticated planes like the new F-35 Lightning II. But given the crucial role it plays providing close air support, something particularly helpful against enemies in a place like Iraq, the A-10 has many staunch defenders, including Senator John McCain.

    Close air support is a vital job that, when properly executed, can mean the difference between life and death for soldiers. It’s highly dangerous, because it requires flying at altitudes low enough to discern friend from foe, leaving the plane particularly vulnerable to ground-based anti-aircraft fire. The A-10, little more than a flying tank, is perfectly suited to the task and beloved by pilots and troops alike.

    “It’s a game-changer,” Gen. John F. Campbell, the Army’s vice chief of staff, told The Washington Post earlier this year. “It’s ugly. It’s loud, but when it comes in and you hear that pffffff [of the cannon], it just makes a difference.” Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called it “the ugliest, most beautiful aircraft on the planet.”

    What makes the plane’s continued relevance so impressive is the fact it was designed more than 40 years ago, and a new one hasn’t been built since 1984.

  61. According to O’Reilly and Gretta tonight, Hillary has “stepped in it” again. Hope Hillary is reading here and will take the advice to
    quit supporting Obama and keep her mouth closed. She is digging a huge hole for herself. Surely she must realize this????

  62. Florida is now part of the lawsuit.

    In a press release posted on the Florida Attorney General’s website, Bondi released the following statement:

    “This lawsuit is not about immigration, rather this lawsuit is about President Obama — yet again — overstepping the power granted to him by our United States Constitution. The President repeatedly said he would not violate the law, then decided to do just that. The powers granted to the President are expressly laid out in the United States Constitution, yet President Obama has decided to ignore those parameters. We need to fix our system of immigration, but willfully turning a blind eye to the inconvenience of law and rule is not the path to a remedy, but a prescription for unwarranted presidential overreach.”

  63. SHV
    December 5, 2014 at 7:44 pm

    Holy $hit!!! That is a freakin’ cannon!

    Crawling out of your cave and seeing that flying tank with that monster gun pointed in your direction, is enough to scare you to death in your tracks.

  64. VotingHillary
    December 5, 2014 at 9:25 pm
    Florida is now part of the lawsuit.

    The continuing absence of Arizona from the list of states bringing this action is duly noted.

    I think that may have to do with the adverse decisions by the ninth circuit whenever Arizona has taken reasonable steps to protect its citizens from the adverse effects of illegal immigration by Obama.

    The operating assumption by this circuit is that immigration law is the sole province of the federal government, and even where the federal government has not acted, the states may not do so to mitigate the harm.

    Governor Brewer has expressed grave misgivings about the rulings of that court, and their improvident decisions speak for themselves. They are harmful to the citizens of her state. It is another example of the liberal line of jurisprudence which places the hypothetical rights of the law breaker before those of society and people who play by the rules.

    The question now however is a slightly different one—if you believe that federal law does not permit Obama to grant amnesty to 5 million–and ultimately the 20 million illegal aliens, which is the true figure.

    If the actions by Obama are in violation of federal law, then the fifth circuit might say, it is one thing to defer to federal government on immigration matters when the action taken is consistent with federal law. It is quite another thing however to defer to the federal government when the action is in violation of federal law as Obama has admitted no less than twenty times.

    But if that same case were brought before the judges of the ninth circuit, I seriously doubt that they would think the distinction between legal and illegal government action was material. And we know from past cases that they place no weight on the burden this action will place on the states and their citizens.

  65. That said, they are wise to focus the issue not on immigration law, but on the wholesale assault on the constitution. Their opening statement makes clear that point. I would have recommended they do it exactly that way. I think this reflects the thinking of Professor Turley. He and I think a lot alike. The real only difference is he is 50 IQ points smarter.

  66. Holy $hit!!! That is a freakin’ cannon!

    Crawling out of your cave and seeing that flying tank with that monster gun pointed in your direction, is enough to scare you to death in your tracks.

    With Chistmas (or its Muslim equivalent) fast approaching, the question arises what do you give a spoiled narcissist who has everything he wants? I mean he has already got Airforce I, drone missiles, fraudulent ballots, the keys to voting machines, hit lists on is opponent, a mansion in Chicago, a bat mobile, what else is there?

    A flying tank with a monster gun?

    I think not!

    If you give him one of those, it is only a matter of time before he trains it on the American People, with the full approval of big media.

  67. Could they please mount that gun on the volkswagon.

    It would be a fine hood ornament, and it would get great milage.

    If you could stand the recoil.

    No no no.

    Obama does not need one of those.

  68. And you guys thought the Republicans wouldn’t do anything about illegal immigrant situation!

    The House, in an ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS gesture has voted to stop Obama from limiting deportations. Hell, they haven’t been able to stop him from violating existing law. Why would they waste time providing him with another resolution, or law, or even a suggestion. He’s gonna do WTF he wants to do.

    But, if it makes them feel better, I guess we don’t mind paying our congressmen and women a whole bunch of money to do less than nothing.

  69. Most circuit courts of appeal have at least one judge who rises to the level where he might be called a great judge.

    The second circuit had Learned Hand, Henry Friendly, etc.

    The seventh circuit has Richard Posener.

    The first circuit had David Bazelon.

    The fifth circuit had Judge Brown.

    I cannot think of one judge like that in the ninth circuit over the past forty years.

  70. sorry about the nonsensical words. You’d have to be a freakin’ Pinkerton detective to notice all the changes made by autocorrect.

  71. Wbb
    The continuing absence of Arizona from the list of states bringing this action is duly noted.

    You must have missed my post above, Jan Brewer’s Arizona 😉 joined in the suit on Thursday.

  72. The blog is taking a long time to load on a very good PC…

    This has been happening to me for months….I stopped using the ipad and it is a little better with my laptop, but still slow for me.

  73. Terrorist states get love and patience from Obama. American long term allies get hate from Obama:

    I saw this article and absolutely no major press coverage. I also read an article in Jerusalem post where Hillary spoke at the Saban Foundation and claims that the administrations actions show they are strongly supporting Israel(discusses Iron Dome Funding). I am disappointed that she will not distance herself from the most hostile administration ever to Israel. At this time, I would be very uncomfortable donating money to her campaign.

  74. Shadowfax
    December 5, 2014 at 11:00 pm
    The continuing absence of Arizona from the list of states bringing this action is duly noted.

    You must have missed my post above, Jan Brewer’s Arizona 😉 joined in the suit on Thursday.

  75. “But, if it makes them feel better, I guess we don’t mind paying our congressmen and women a whole bunch of money to do less than nothing.”

    Sing it like it is, Free!!!

  76. freespirit
    December 5, 2014 at 10:51 pm

    That’s too funny 🙂

    I gave up using an iPad on the blog, I ended up sounding like a total moron with autocorrect. I have enough trouble with typos when I get excited.

  77. claims that the administrations actions show they are strongly supporting Israel.
    I guess it depends on the meaning of ‘support’.

    Some might fall into the trap of lesser thinkers like me that considering sanctions against Israel does not equate to support.

    But that is our failure not his.

    It is the mark of genius to be able to hold two contradictory thoughts in mind at the same time.

    Barack Obama has a genius for discovering solutions at perfect right angles to the ordinary world. It’s as if he’s the product of a totally different evolutionary chain, in a universe where the laws are slightly but distinctly at variance to ours. When given a choice between left and right, the flake goes up — if not through the 8th dimension. And although there’s plenty of rationalization, there’s never a logical reason for any of it. After awhile, people stop asking.

    Read more:
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  78. -No-deal-better-than-bad-deal-With-Iran-383790
    Don’t tell Bullwinkle, i.e. Kerry.

    That son of a bitch has got deal heat coming out of every pour.

    He wants that Nobel Prize.

    And he will fuck Israel to get it.

    John, Teresa, and the Ayotolla.

    If Boehner is available they could have a foursome at Congressional.

  79. What Obama has been trying to do for six years is undermine Bibi.

    Obama hates Bibi and he hates Israel.

    Nothing could be clearer than that.

    If Hillary wants to call that support, so be it.

  80. Jeff Sessions: Obama Is Giving Cash Benefits to Illegal Immigrants
    By Joel Gehrke
    December 5, 2014 2:34 PM

    Print Text

    Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) seized on a White House admission that beneficiaries of President Obama’s immigration orders will receive tax credits, a sign that the orders amount to more than an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

    “This is yet one more illustration of the enormous cost inflicted by the President’s illegal action,” Sessions told National Review Online in a statement. “He has now launched a new $100 million facility and staffing operation to provide illegal immigrants with the exact benefits rejected by Congress – including work permits, Social Security and Medicare. These credits will cost American taxpayers billions every year and represent an enormous cash transfer from American workers to lower-wage illegal workers. These tax credits are not refunds, but a direct cash payment from the Treasury to illegal immigrants – at a time when the Treasury is running huge deficits.”

    Sessions made the statement apropos of White House press secretary Josh Earnest’s telling reporters that Obama’s purpose in issuing the orders, in part, was to turn illegal immigrants into taxpayers.

    “And that does mean that they’re going to be filing their taxes on a regular basis and that does mean that if they qualify for the child tax credit, for example, as a taxpayer that would be something that they would benefit from,” Earnest said on Monday.

    Sessions said the comments provide another example of Obama refusing to enforce immigration laws.

    “Congress should fund government but not fund this illegal activity,” he said. “Congress must also demand enforcement of our unenforced public charge rules – millions continue to enter the U.S. lawfully and claim taxpayer benefits when sound law and policy demands self-sufficiency. A bedrock principle of immigration is that immigrant arrivals should not rely on public benefits from the host country, and yet this basic principle is virtually never applied.”

  81. Webb is saying what Hillary should be saying, instead of this love thine enemies and stirring the racial pot and cavorting with billionaires–if she wants to president. Instead, a potential rival, Jim Webb, is the one saying it:

    “The Democratic Party has lost its way. It lost white working-class voters by becoming “a party of interest groups.” “The Democratic Party has lost the message that made it such a great party for so many years . . . take care of working people, take care of the people who have no voice in the corridors of power, no matter their race, ethnicity or any other reason.”

    Oh well . . . if things were different, they wouldn’t be the same . . .


    Can the GOP Find Unity and Purpose?

    The Democrats are divided. The Republicans need to resist Obama’s provocations.

    Peggy Noonan

    Take no bait. Act independently and in accord with national priorities. Cause no pointless trouble. If there’s trouble, it should have a clear, understandable, defendable purpose.

    That is general advice for the new Republican congressional majority. They will be proving every day they’re a serious governing alternative to the Democratic-dominated establishment that has run Washington for six years.

    The Republicans are being told they are a deeply divided party. True enough. But another way to look at it may prove more pertinent: “My father’s house has many mansions.” The GOP is showing early signs of actually gathering together again a functioning coalition. The white working class, according to the last election, has joined, at least for now. Coalitions are messy; they have many, often opposing, pieces. FDR ’s included New York socialists, Southern segregationists, Dust Bowl Okies and West Virginia coal miners. But politics is a game of addition and Republicans are adding. They may owe it only to President Obama, but still: His leadership has been an emanation of progressive thought. And a coalition formed by reaction and rejection is still a coalition.

    Republicans on the Hill now by habit see their adversaries as The Monolith. But it is the Democrats who are increasingly riven, divided and unhappy.

    They are rocked by defeat, newly confused as to their own meaning. They’re disappointed with each other, and angry. They know Harry Reid is a poor face of the party, a small-town undertaker who never gets around to telling you the cost of the casket. They have little faith in the strategic and tactical leadership coming from the White House. They recognize the president as an albatross around their necks. Nancy Pelosi is an attractive, noncredible partisan who just natters wordage.

    That’s what they’ve got: an undertaker, an albatross, a natterer.

    Democrats are individually trying to place themselves right with their own base, which grows more leftishly restive and is losing them the center. They’re trying to figure out how to cleave to that base while remaining politically viable.

    The sophisticated and sober-minded GOP class should understand that the national press is dying to impose a story line: extremist, intransigent ideologues come to Washington to defy the president. It’s important to them that the Republicans be the bad guys. If the president can’t quite be painted as the good guy, at least he can be portrayed as the more nuanced and interesting figure, the historic president beset by smaller foes in his last two years.

    But the president isn’t the story. That’s what the Republicans need to know. The story is what they make of their new power.

    The president wants to be the story. He wants to be the matador taunting the bull with the red cape. He wants to draw the GOP into strange, dramatic impasses. They should not snort, paw the ground and charge. They should shake their heads, smile and gesture to the crowd: “Can you believe this guy?”

    Americans have moved on. They want results from the people they just elected. The new Republican majority should try, within the limits imposed by not holding the executive branch, to make progress on their own. They shouldn’t be drawn into the president’s drama, they should act independently. They’re telling their own story. They should comport themselves as if they know the difference between yesterday and tomorrow.

    Early on they should take a good, small bill, an economic measure that Republicans will and moderate Democrats can support. They should try very hard to do what the president didn’t do: show bipartisan respect, work with the other side, put out your hand. They should get that bill briskly through the House and Senate. If the president vetoes it, they should attempt to override. If they succeed, they’ve made good law. If they don’t, they try again. In time people will see the culprit, the impediment.

    Meantime the president has disasters on his hands. His executive action on immigration, seen by many as daring and clever, may not prove clever. It is assumed he scored points for his party, or his legacy, by granting a form of amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. But did he? In making that move he removed one of the Republican Party’s problems. They were split on immigration, their adversaries said the reason was racism. The whole issue roiled the Republican base.

    Now the president has taken it out of their hands. And he has united them in their condemnation of the manner in which he did it.

    At the same time the president took an issue that was a daily, agitating mobilizer of his base and removed it as a factor. He took the kettle off the heat—but that kettle had produced a lot of steam that provided energy to his party.

    Now the president has to implement his directive, and implementation has never been his strong suit. He has to tamp down grievances from those who came here legally or are waiting in line. He has to answer immigration activists who think they got too little. He has to face all the critics who will experience and witness the downside of his action on the border.

    He took an issue that was a problem for Republicans, and made it a problem for Democrats. That may well prove a political mistake of the first order.

    Last week New York’s Chuck Schumer, the third most senior Democrat in the Senate, spoke of a different political mistake. In a speech, he said the Democrats were trounced in 2014 because Mr. Obama wrongly staked everything on ObamaCare. Democrats thus “blew the opportunity” the voters gave them in 2008: “Americans were crying out for an end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs, not for changes in their health care. . . . Had we started more broadly, the middle class would have been more receptive to the idea that President Obama wanted to help them.”

    After Mr. Schumer came Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, one of the architects of the ObamaCare law, who told Alexander Bolton of the Hill that it was probably too “complicated. . . . I look back and say we should have either done it the correct way or not done anything at all.”

    Then came the reliably interesting former Sen. James Webb of Virginia, a possible presidential candidate. He told a press group in Richmond that the Democratic Party has lost its way. It lost white working-class voters by becoming “a party of interest groups.” As reported in the Washington Post, Mr. Webb said: “The Democratic Party has lost the message that made it such a great party for so many years . . . take care of working people, take care of the people who have no voice in the corridors of power, no matter their race, ethnicity or any other reason.”

    He is exactly right. In the Obama era the Democratic Party has gone from being a party of people to a party of issues, such as global warming, and the pressure groups—and billionaires—that push them.

    It has become bloodless.

    You know how Republicans should be feeling, for the first time in 10 years? Confident. For all their problems, they still have a pulse.

  82. To the multi culturalist Obama supporter who produced Hillary’s video featuring country western and imploring working class whites who have run from the party with their hair on fire are simply one more demographic in the glorious tapestry of this nation. They are too ignorant to realize what is happening to them, and will be quickly seduced by their Harvard betters through a cheap video appealing to their culture, just like Julia who wants cradle to grave government care and that man for all seasons clutching a cup of hot coco with both hands Pajama Boy– were the open sesame to the single women and young gay demographic who turned out in droves in 2014 to support our first black president who was not on the ballot but his policies were. To the white working class however, that ain’t quite it. The white working class fancies itself to be the founders of this nation, and its defenders when the troop ship is on the tide. I hope Hillary understands that much.

  83. I will not be won by weaklings
    Subtle suave and mild
    But by men with the hearts of Vikings
    And the simple faith of a child

    (The Law of the Yukon, by Robert Service)

  84. Pulse yes But still on life support
    I agree.

    Peggy may be right on the merits, but the bloodless approach she advocates misses the message of the 2014 election.

    The Republicans promised they would stop Obama.

    They have subconsciously adopted the false interpretation by dim operatives that the message was bi partisanship.

    In the end, they will pay dearly for this.

    What Peggy sees as sound strategy will be seen as cowardice and narrow self interest.

    This is perhaps the sort of analysis you have in the back of a bar just before closing time in hushed tones.

    It is not the sort of thing that moves armies or engenders trust.

    On the contrary it will be seen as cowardice.

  85. I would be curious to know how ignoring Obama, and refusing to be drawn into his dramas will affect him psychologically. I suspect it will be like water torture–to be told in effect that you are no longer relevant. It will move him to become even more aggressive with executive orders, to the point that we have two branches competing with eachother just as the framer intended–not. But Boner will say things like Oh dear oh dear.

  86. PELOSI lives in a bubble.

    She fails to realize that in the eyes of the public she is a BUFFOON.

    That is not a partisan critique.

    It is the ineluctable conclusion of empirical analysis.

    To Pelosi:

    Oh would some power
    The giftie gie us
    To see ourselves
    As others see us

  87. I don’t know about you, but for me the saga of Julia, a lifelong government dependent was riveting and sentimental to the hilt. But if her government check does not arrive on time, or the supply of contraceptives runs out, you will see this sentient charmer and object of our affection start mau mauing the flack catchers in the shrillest of tones. But we must be tolerant at all times of these outbursts of enthusiasm because they enrich our lives and immerse all of us in the rainbow coalition of different races, cultures, religions and tongues, gathering here on our shores to loot taxpayers–when they are not otherwise engaged in tearing apart Ferguson or listening with rapt expressions to the uplifting messages of Reverend Al Sharpton. And the best part? Big media is there to capture every syllable, and if things start moving a little slow, they are not adverse to screaming fire in a crowded theater. They subscribe to the philosophy of Las Vegas gambler Bart Stupak who wanted action because without action nothing happens, and when nothing happens it is harder for them to promote their anti American narrative.

  88. Could it be that the elites in this society, apart from their anti American agenda which is manifest in everything they do, are simultaneously paranoid of the middle class. History tells us they should be but their insular lives suggest otherwise. This would not matter but for the fact that the fate of a nation is determined by the ability of its elites to recognize the common good and to move the nation in that direction. The concomitant risk/temptation is that they will forsake that responsibility and use their power and influence to further their own interests at the expense of the nation as Zuckerberg and others do, with their tragedy of the commons paradigm. If the welfare of the nation is the ultimate mission of the elites, then there can be little doubt that this generation of elites have flunked the test in the starkest of ways. The article which was posted here indicating that the elites are watching the reaction of the middle class to its declining fortunes, and are relieved to learn according to polling that they have not connected the dots on who is responsible, suggests that they are worried, and it would be a mistake for them to assume that a day of reckoning will not arrive. But predicting when it will happen, and what the catalyst might be is an imponderable.

  89. The movie Mutiny on the Bounty, starring Marlon Brando and Trevor Howard sheds some light on the problem. Captain Blye is a character of studied cruelty which moves the aristocratic Mr. Christian and some of his fellow officers to mutiny. They place Blye and his loyalists in a large life boat with an adequate supply of food, water and a sextant for celestial navigation, so they can go to the nearest port of call, Tahiti. In due course, Mr. Christian takes the bounty to Pitkarin Island which is 170 miles away from where the British naval charts have it marked, thus making it a safe refuge for the mutineers. Captain Blye for his part sails all the way to England and presents himself to a naval board of inquiry. Christian and his colleagues are tried in absentia and found guilty of mutiny, and Blye is exonerated. But the Admiral speaking for the court delivers a not so gratuitous observation, that even though the crew mutinied and black letter law therefore exonerated Blye, the court could not help noticing that officers and men with spotless records were moved to mutiny, that this circumstantial evidence in turn suggested that all was not right with the captain, and if the captain did not have a fair sense of justice, then “it be not aboard” the ship. He goes on to say that historically the navy has relied on the gentry class whose education, culture and circumstances tend to cultivate a passion for justice, whereas Blye was not drawn from that class, hence he was an experiment that failed. Now think of that in terms of the elite class of our nation, as it stands today. There are men and women in that group whose ancestors go back to the Revolutionary War and in some cases even earlier. I know one such individual. Over the generations he has been steeped an marinated in the traditions and history of this nation and he is by reason of that a patriot. But can we say the same thing about the new elites—Eric Schmidt at Google, who seeks to spy on every American, or the head of Oracle who buys whole Islands, or again this young Harvard educated punk Zuckerberg who has more loyalty to illegal aliens than to the people of his nation? That is where and why the elite class has failed the test. The new blood is contaminated.

  90. wbboei December 5, 2014 at 9:36 am

    … the drama of what Hillary is doing and what republicans are saying is a sideshow. The main event… is what Obama is doing to the country and whether there is any effective remedy.

    Sure, I see your point. But this “main event” is as boring as hell because it’s just more of the same and isn’t going to change starting in January either.

  91. So Hillary has lunch with Obummer and on Thursday she comes out with this bull shit about “soft power” and “empathy” and “Sympathy” for our enemies.

    She has simply lost her mind.

    She is not going to get out of a primary with remarks like these much less win a prez election.

    I really believe she has something wrong with her. Yes she looks like Hillary but she sounds just like Obama.

    Others have spoken lately that she does not have the chops of a Bill Clinton as a campaigner .. well she was pretty darn savvy in 08 but that was many years ago

    Maybe there is something to the “age” factor here. She is different and not in a good way

  92. dot48
    December 6, 2014 at 1:09 pm
    I told you what the problem is.

    That comes from the inside.

    I said it once, and once is enough.

  93. Sure, I see your point. But this “main event” is as boring as hell because it’s just more of the same and isn’t going to change starting in January either.
    I am afraid you are right.

    For the reasons Noonan lays out.

    But those reasons will not calm the savage beast.

    Here is a little secret.

    When 92 million are not working

    A rose and tea water plan

    That smacks of inside the beltway chess moves

    Will make the average Joe see the Republican Party as in pare delicto.

    Sometime in the next year, their elites will reach out to Rand Paul.

    The sacrificial lamb for both the dims and the Rinos

    The faux conservative

    To quell an exodus from the party by their conservative base.

    And then they will buring that dumb bunny

    After it is too late for the third party to form

    Rand needs to get off the stage

    If anyone can do what needs to be done it is Ted Cruz

    And because the Hillary of 2008 no longer exists

    The party needs to turn to Jim Webb to appeal to the white working class

    I put the chances of that happening as no greater and no less than zero.

  94. If Jim hopes to run and to win, he needs to form a third party. With the support he has from our military across the nation, that may not be as far fetched as it sounds. But if he tries to do it as a democrat it will never work. Never.

  95. This is stone cold brilliant.

    The real enemy of the American People is not racism, white privilege or Putin.

    The real enemy of the American People is the entrenched Washington political class who support each other, rather than providing the check and balance upon individual greed and corruption, as the framer intended.

    Washington has become the new Versaille, as Browkaw noted, while large parts of this nation, particularly the inner city of burned out cities have become a wasteland, hostile to life and limb.

    The Washington elites are determined to protect this corrupt status quo, hence they grow more hostile paranoid and meglomaniacal with every passing minute, hour, day, month and year.

    The problem is systemic, hence the solution must be systemic as well. Otherwise all is lost.


    Levin’s call for an Article V Convention of the States has been well known since the publication of his best-selling book, The Liberty Amendments, more than a year ago.

    On Thursday, Levin framed the Article V Convention of the States as the beginning of the process in which state legislators can reassert their constitutional power and become, in effect, the kind of check on the out-of-control federal government the framers expected the three branches of federal government they created in the Constitution would be on each other.
    “Take your power back,” Levin told the enthusiastic crowd of state legislators from around the country.

    Critics who claim an Article V Convention could become a “Runaway Constitutional Convention” miss the point entirely, Levin said. Critics think such a convention would have no impact, as the federal government is ignoring the Constitution already and would have little reason to observe any amendments, subsequently ratified by the states, that emerged from the Convention of the States.

    “So if you ask me what makes you think the federal government will follow amendments

    “By giving the state legislatures the ultimate say on major federal laws, on major federal regulations, on major Supreme Court decisions, should 3/5 of state legislatures act to override them within a two year period,” Levin said, ” it doesn’t much matter what Washington does or doesn’t. It matters what you do.”

    “The goal is to limit the entrenchment of Washington’s ruling class,” he stated.

    “If you’re going to go through this process, don’t get myopic. Don’t get caught up in one issue,” Levin added. “This is a structural, systemic issue. We’re trying to restore the republic and save what’s left of the Constitution.”

    Although he did not explicitly use the term “fifth branch” to describe their powers, Levin told the state legislators that they are the only uncompromised institutional force left in the country. As such, they can serve as a check on the power of what is now the four branches of the federal bureaucracy–the legislative, executive, and judicial branches created in the Constitution, and the extra-constitutional fourth branch that has emerged–the unbridled federal bureaucracy.

    In effect, Levin argued that the state legislatures, as a group, can function as a constitutional fifth branch of government which has a constitutional responsibility to hold the other now-four branches (three constitutional and one extra-constitutional) in check.

    “We are mutating into something else… In Washington today we have an ongoing constitutional convention,” Levin told the crowd. “Rather than the branches checking and balancing each other, they are re-enforcing each other.”

    “The Democrats in Congress and the President–they don’t believe in America’s founding principles. That’s what fundamental transformation means, ” Levin said.

  96. Jeswezey

    But this “main event” is as boring as hell because it’s just more of the same and isn’t going to change starting in January either.

    Yup, I agree that there will be more words, words, words from the GOP, more tears and cave-in’s from Bonar, and nothing in Congress will change for the next two years.

    The only hope I have today is that the state lawsuits against Obola/amnesty will finally start to limit the destruction caused by Baracko Bama.

    Hope doesn’t come very often these days.

  97. I don’t know if you have ever seen the movie The Formula which concerns efforts by the oil cartel to keep a formula for synthetic fuel under wraps in order to protect their profits. It depicts the greed, and criminality of international corporations which Barack Hussein Obama is cozy with. In the opening scene we see the final days of the Third Reich where the synthetic formula was developed. Himmler issues order to a Wermacht general to take documents delineating that secret, the jet airplane and other top secret projects to the American forces, as 200 Soviet divisions march on Berlin. Those orders are relayed to the general by an SS officer. The general looks in the eye and tells him, my life has been dedicated to the service of this nation. Your life has been dedicated to serving the (Nazi) party and yourself.

    That statement would seem to hold equally true for the entrenched Washington political class.

  98. Hillary Clinton’s History as First Lady: Powerful, but Not Always Deft
    The New York Times: Seldom Right, but Never in Doubt

  99. Saudi-born US naval engineer allegedly gave undercover agent info on how to sink carrier

    Mostafa Ahmed Awwad, 35, of Yorktown, Va., was arrested Friday on an FBI affidavit that reads like it came from a Tom Clancy novel.

    Federal prosecutors in Virginia say that during his conversations with the undercover, Awwad arranged to use a dead-drop location along a secluded hiking trail to pass secrets about the Ford, which is being built in Virginia for delivery to the Navy in 2016.

    The affidavit says that at a hotel meeting on Oct. 9 Awwad gave the undercover drawings of the aircraft carrier that he said were top secret. During the meeting, “Awwad discussed where to strike the vessel with a missile in order to sink it,” the affidavit says.

    The FBI undercover was posing as an Egyptian spy named “Yousef” and spoke to Awwad in Arabic.

  100. When I Youtube “Stand with Hillary” I get the campaign song along with a half-dozen “scathing” criticisms of it from people who don’t know how to express themselves or their hatred of HRC. One of them is a 10-minute segment by Glenn Beck that amounts to “It’s Sooooooo Baaaaaad!” without saying why. The three assholes just laugh all the way through.

    I know I don’t have much of a sense of humor, but I just don’t get how someone as stupid as Glenn Beck can get his laughs, and his sidekicks on the show are laughing too!

Comments are closed.