Don’t be fooled. Big Media and Obama Dimocrats are at it again. We’re not talking Cromnibus. Although that too stinks to low Hell and features Elizabeth Warren.
Recently, in a speech that did not get the coverage it deserved due to so much other news, Chuck Schumer made an astounding political move on 2016 which was immediately misunderstood by Republicans/conservatives and twisted by Big Media into what it was not. Schumer’s speech was portrayed as a boost for Hillary Clinton 2016. But Schumer’s speech was really a move to propel Elizabeth Warren and hurt Hillary Clinton 2016.
The incorrect analysis of the Schumer speech goes like this: Chuck Schumer made a speech about ObamaCare designed to help Hillary Clinton 2016 as it makes the necessary move to distance Hillary and the party from the Obama disasters which have led to the decimation of the party at local, state, and national levels.
In 2008 Chuck Schumer played the same game. In public Schumer was a Hillary Clinton supporter. In private, Schumer advised Obama to mercilessly “take a two-by-four” and smash it into Hillary’s head. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Rahm Emanuel, Donna Brazile, all pretended to be neutral in 2008 but they were all helping Obama behind the scenes and doing everything to destroy Hillary Clinton. Yesterday’s Howard Dean endorsement of Hillary Clinton is another ploy… but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.
Charles Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, has forced a debate over fundamental party priorities out into the open. Should Democrats focus primarily on the problems of the poor or should they first address the economic struggles of the working and middle classes? [snip]
Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem – health care reform. The plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships caused by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed. But it wasn’t the change we were hired to make; Americans were crying out for an end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs; not for changes in their health care. This makes sense considering that 85 percent of all Americans got their health care from either the government – Medicare or Medicaid – or their employer. And if health care costs were going up, it didn’t really affect them. [snip]
There were also adverse political and policy consequences to the emphasis on enactment of Obamacare:
Had we started more broadly, the middle class would have been more receptive to the idea that President Obama wanted to help them. The initial faith they placed in him would have been rewarded. They would have held a more pro-government view and would have given him the permission structure to build a more pro-government coalition. Then Democrats would have been in a better position to tackle our nation’s health care crisis.
Read what Schumer is saying carefully. Schumer’s pique is not against Obama nor ObamaCare. Schumer wanted Obama to deceive with greater skill so that once the middle class was gulled into support for Obama it would have given “the permission structure to build a more pro-government coalition.”
Schumer in 2008 bought into the “coalition of the ascendant” hogwash peddled by kooks such as Ruy Teixeira. Schumer’s goal is to realize the fool’s gold new coalition to supplant the FDR coalition (which Schumer must forget actually won elections and built the party for 40 years).
After Schumer’s speech the usual Obama henchmen went into Obama protection mode. Their goal is Obama worship not political strategy or how to build a party so these Obama thugs (Tommy Vietor, Jon Lovett, etc.) did not have the intellectual heft to understand what Schumer was saying. The Obama thugs attacked Schumer out of reflex because all they care about is their love bug Obama.
Edsall noted that public opinion sides with Schumer because public opinion is against ObamaCare. Edsall writes that the consequences have been dire for those interested in party building. Edsall writes that “there were huge white defections from the Democratic Party; in 2010 and 2014, there were comparable defections of senior voters.”
The only way for Democratic Party leaders to stop the hemorrhaging, in Schumer’s view, is to take on the task of using the government to intervene in the private sector, pushing to raise wages and revive job opportunities for working men and women.
“Large forces – technology, automation and globalization – are not inherently malign forces,” Schumer said, but the burden is on Democrats “to figure out ways for the middle class to adapt to these new forces – to be able to thrive amidst these forces.” The only counterweight “that can give you the tools to stand up to the large tectonic forces, that can mitigate the effects that technology creates on your income, is an active and committed government that is on your side.”
Standing in the way of activist intervention is the fact that “the American public is so cynical about government that a Democratic, pro-government message would not be immediately successful.” To restore credibility, Schumer argued, the “first step is to convince voters that we are on their side, and not in the grips of special interests.” He specifically suggested the prosecution of bankers for “what seems, on its face, blatant fraud” and tax reform designed to ensure that C.E.O.s paid higher rates “than their secretaries.” In effect, he said, “an element of populism, even for those of us who don’t consider ourselves populists, is necessary to open the door before we can rally people to the view that a strong government program must be implemented.”
The ability of the Democratic Party to convince middle-class voters that it is on their side is by no means guaranteed. In mid-November, 2008, just after Obama first won election, 55 percent of voters had a favorable view of the Democratic Party. In the immediate aftermath of the recent election, according to Gallup, the favorability rating of the Democratic Party had fallen to a record low of 36 percent. [snip]
By shifting the public focus to the party’s pro-work and pro-wage policies, Schumer wants to transform the negative association of the Democratic Party with Obamacare. Even as his speech has provoked an intraparty rift, Schumer’s argument has won support from some surprising quarters.
Tom Edsall is surprised but we are not. The entire Schumer speech sounded to us very familiar. We’ve heard it before. We’ve heard it a lot. The first time we heard the Schumer speech we understood immediately that Schumer was not out to help Hillary Clinton 2016. What “two-by-four” Chuck Schumer was up to was to clear the path, as in 2008, for a candidate other than Hillary Clinton.
Chuck Schumer still resents Hillary Clinton from his first run for office. Schumer could not have won against an incumbent senator if it was not for First Lady Hillary Clinton’s campaigning for him. Later, when First Lady Hillary Clinton used her New York campaign experience (and data acquired from the first Schumer campaign) on behalf of Smuck Schumer to become New York Senator Hillary Clinton, the senior senator was not happy.
Schumer resented Hillary Clinton because although she was the “junior” senator from New York it was Hillary that got the attention. Chuck Schumer was downsized to “announcements” and public relations stunts on Sundays when there was no competition for news to get play on TV. Those Sunday morning pressers were often mocked by Big Media and campaign professionals.
The every Sunday morning “announcements” by Chuck Schumer brought laughs to one and all because for years Schumer observers originated the jibe “there is no place more dangerous than between Chuck Schumer and a television camera”. To watch Schumer crawl for publicity, his most craved commodity, brought mockery and more humiliation to Schumer and he has never forgotten.
Chuck Schumer is not about to see Hillary eclipse him again. Harry Reid will be gone as soon as Nevada votes for Senate again and Chuck wants the throne. Hillary in charge with Chuck as water-boy is a humiliation he does not want ever again. So Chuck Schumer gave a speech which sounded very much like Elizabeth Warren.
A spokesman for Senator Elizabeth Warren told reporters that Warren “agrees with Senator Schumer that there was an urgent need in 2009 and 2010 to help middle-class families who were struggling to get by, and that more should have been done.”
Schumer’s speech was the Warren playbook. Chuck Schumer is making the case and plowing the road for Elizabeth Warren. Recall Schumer’s attack against bankers? Lizzie Warren has her tomahawk out for banker scalps as she smartly attacks Obama from the left:
The Massachusetts Democrat is using the president’s choice of Lazard banker Antonio Weiss to be undersecretary for domestic finance to stir a debate within the Democratic party over whether it is too cozy with Wall Street, particularly when filling top finance jobs in government.
Speaking at the liberal Economic Policy Institute, Warren cast her opposition to Weiss as part of a bigger battle against the influence of the finance industry in Washington.
That Chuck Schumer is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the finance industry due to the fact he is from Wall Street New York is not the focus of Warren’s ire. What Warren/Schumer are up to is an attack on Hillary whom the left is portraying as the bankers’ choice.
But…but…but Howard Dean just endorsed Hillary some will say. It’s just a 2008 style ploy from Howard Dean. Want proof? Here:
Progressive groups move to draft Warren
Two prominent liberal groups are moving to draft Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as a liberal alternative to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton.
On Tuesday, MoveOn.org announced its members would hold a vote on whether to spend $1 million to boost Warren in the Democratic primaries. The vote is expected to pass, with the group already saying it’s poised to throw its “full weight” behind the Massachusetts Democrat.
Democracy For America, a group founded by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, announced shortly after it would join MoveOn’s efforts. [snip]
Still, some on the left are clamoring for a progressive challenger to Clinton in the primaries. They believe Warren’s populist message is a stark contrast to Clinton’s close ties to Wall Street.
If Howard Dean was really #ReadyForHillary the organization he fully controls would not be #ReadyForWarren.
“Warren’s populist message is a stark contrast to Clinton’s close ties to Wall Street.” Remind you of anything? Remember the Schumer speech? He said, “an element of populism, even for those of us who don’t consider ourselves populists, is necessary to open the door before we can rally people to the view that a strong government program must be implemented.”
During a meeting with nearly 50 of her top Boston-area donors Sunday night, Sen. Elizabeth Warren strongly criticized President Barack Obama’s Treasury Department pick Antonio Weiss and said Hispanic and African-American families were “targeted” during the mortgage crisis, according to people who attended the event.
The get-together, which was not a fundraiser but instead a chance for the Massachusetts Democrat to tend to her donor supporters, came as some Democrats continue to plead with Warren to launch a 2016 presidential campaign. [snip]
Beeuwkes, a Concord, Massachusetts, pharmaceutical executive, told POLITICO, “She spoke with passion about things like income inequality, but I’m not going to give you an interview.”
Beeuwkes has contributed to #ReadyForHillary but the moment Warren announces he will likely be #ReadyForWarren. Warren is the model candidate straight out of the Schumer speech.
The 2014 winner of my annual award for “Member of Congress of the Year” goes to the politician who had such a good year she now defines her party’s future — Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). [snip]
The Massachusetts senator could become the Barack Obama of 2016, able to grab the Democrats’ presidential nomination from the favorite, Hillary Clinton, by coming at her from the left. The defining issue for Democrats in 2008 was Iraq. In 2016 it will be the economy. Warren is much more in step with the party on this issue than is Clinton.
Warren’s economic populism also defines the party’s present. After losses in the midterms, the Democrats have concluded that it is time for them to go on offense, utilizing Warren’s issues — raising the minimum wage, cutting better deals on student loans and supporting equal pay for women.
The new political direction set by Warren led Senate Democrats to add the first-term senator to their leadership team. They created a position just for her: “Strategic Policy Adviser to the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.”
That means Warren will be at the table shaping the identity of Democrats in the Senate, as they become a loud, defiant minority beginning in January.
But Warren looms largest over the 2016 race.
Democratic strategists are openly worried that with President Obama leaving the stage, the base of their party — women, unions, young people and racial minorities — will lose interest in politics and splinter. That could allow a unified GOP to retake the White House. Warren’s focus on economic inequality is proving to be the glue holding the Democrats together.
Warren’s surprising power is evident in her ability to force Clinton, the former senator from Wall Street’s home state and a well-paid speaker for top brokerages, to go on the attack against income inequality.
“I love watching Elizabeth give it to those who deserve to get it,” she said at a late October rally in Boston. Clinton was referring to Warren’s calls for increased regulation of big banks and Wall Street brokers who have “tried to trick and trap and cheat our families.” Clinton also echoed Warren’s rhetoric when she said at the same rally: “Don’t let anybody tell you that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) struck a Warren-like note last week, when he said the Democrats lost the midterms because they spent too much time on the healthcare law when they should have been working on improving the economy for the middle class.
The resonance of Warren’s economic populist agenda was evident in a recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll. [snip]
But a poll taken this month by the progressive group Democracy for America found Warren to be the most popular choice for party activists asked whom they wanted to see run. Warren drew 42 percent support, overshadowing Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) 24 percent and Clinton’s 23 percent.
Warren also gave the political speech of the year. [snip]
“These are American values,” she said, “and these are the values we are willing to fight for. … Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement. … We believe in science and that means that we have a responsibility to protect the earth. … We believe no one should work full time and still live in poverty. That means raising the minimum wage. And we will fight for it …
“We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt. And we are willing to fight for it,” Warren continued as the cheering grew and grew. “We believe that, after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare and pensions. … We believe – only I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014 – we believe in equal pay for equal work, and we are willing to fight for it.”
Warren also backed immigration reform.
It’s easy to mock wide-eyed Obama lover Juan Williams and his bombast for Warren. But understand this key point that Williams makes and which Schumer and the Obama Dimocrat Party establishment believes wholeheartedly: The reason, they say, Obama Dimocrats lost in 2014 (and 2010) because they did not go far left enough.
Let’s repeat that because it is something that Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton 2016, #ReadyForHillary do not understand but is the key to 2016: Obama Dimocrats lost in 2014 (and 2010) because they did not go far left enough. When the election autopsy from the Obama Dimocrats is written early next year by the party establishment do not be surprised when that group concludes that the problem in 2010 and 2014 is that Obama Dimocrats were not sufficiently pro-Obama and not sufficiently too far to the kook left.
Democrats have a lot going for them in presidential years. Nonetheless, at the moment you’d have to say that they have their work cut out for them.
Even though midterm elections favor Republicans, the 2014 results show middle- and working-class dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party rising to dangerous levels, which threatens the party’s growing demographic advantages.
Perhaps most notably, Republican House candidates in 2014 won 37 percent of the Hispanic vote, their highest percentage since Republicans rejected immigration reform in 2005, and a slight majority, 51-49, of Asian-American voters, who had been moving decisively in the Democrats’ favor. Asian-Americans and Hispanics are crucial to future Democratic presidential victories.
In combination with the growing Republican allegiance of whites, these trends raise the possibility that the Democratic plan for victory by demographics could implode, which would make the case for a full scale re-evaluation of its strategies and policies glaringly obvious.
Congress should hold hearings early next year, (not earlier, not during Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday season when no one will pay attention, but before the Supreme Court arguments in March are heard on ObamaCare) – which feature Jonathan Gruber. If necessary the rules of the hearings must be changed to allow the videotapes of Gruber to be played over and over and over again.
Senate hearings across various committees will force Big Media to cover and broadcast Jonathan Gruber’s remarks. Senate hearings across various committees will force ObamaCare supporters to confront the reality of Jonathan Gruber’s “stupid” remarks.
Most importantly Senate (and House) hearings before March of next year will prepare the political landscape for a Supreme Court rejection of ObamaCare subsidies contrary to the letter of the law.
Senate (and House) hearings will also prepare the post Supreme Court ObamaCare decision battlefield landscape. Be assured that after the Supreme Court restores the law as written, ObamaCare scam flim-flam artists will then try to force the states to impose exchanges on their citizens. Senate (and House) hearings will prepare the battlefield and put steel into the spine of the many states which have thus far refused to join in the ObamaCare scam.
Today should have been about the CIA report. Today should have been about the Nor’ easter weather (or the North California “storm of the decade“). But Issa is a showboat and wanted this hearing today instead of when it was smart. Hopefully Jason Chafetz will be smarter than Issa when Chafetz helms the committee.
All today’s hearing will likely accomplish is provide Gruber with an opportunity to walk his comments back. We hope that is not the case and that all Issa does is play Gruber videos all day – over and over and over again. Then, ask Gruber if he that was himself on the video saying (play the video again) what he said.
Why the hell did Jonathan Gruber say that? And that? And that? And (sigh) the other thing? Those are the questions on the minds of virtually everyone in the health care world—especially the people who worked the hardest on Obamacare. Ever since the videos started popping up, one after another, America has come to know Gruber—the MIT economist who worked closely on both Obamacare and Romneycare—as the guy who thinks voters are “stupid.” And the guy who thinks Obamacare was passed because of trickery. And who says, ha-ha, voters don’t understand economics. For a while, Fox News didn’t have to bother running anything else.
Now America is about to see Gruber in a new role: congressional witness. He’s going to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to testify before Darrell Issa’s committee, where he’ll be forced to answer a ton of questions, if he can, about all those things he said. For some Republicans, Gruber is a dream witness: All they have to do is play the videos that confirm their worst suspicions about President Barack Obama’s signature health care law—especially the one where Gruber boasts that “lack of transparency [about the law] is a huge political advantage”—and watch him squirm. Better yet, they can ask him about the video that presents the biggest danger of all to the White House: the one where he undermines the Obama administration’s case in the upcoming Supreme Court lawsuit that could bring a screeching halt to subsidies for millions of Obamacare customers.
For just about everyone else who has dealt with Gruber, though—Democrats, academics, policy wonks, and the health care reporters who used to call him regularly for catchy quotes about what the latest Obamacare development really means—the videos are just head-scratchers. He’s a smart guy, everyone says, and he has been a hugely successful economist who clearly knows his health care policy. So they’re all coming back to the same question: Why the hell would he say that? Does he really believe it?
The answer, according to the people who know Gruber best, is that he has always been someone who is two seconds away from putting his foot in his mouth. Yes, he has had an astonishing rise in the world of health care policy—and it’s completely deserved, in their view, because of his groundbreaking work on predicting the cost impact of different kinds of health care legislation. Gruber is the man who developed an economic model that could basically work like a faster Congressional Budget Office—a huge help to congressional staffers as they drafted the Affordable Care Act, as well as the Massachusetts policymakers who wrote Mitt Romney’s health care reform law that preceded it.
But politically savvy? No, no, no. Gruber is a chatty, affable guy, but he’s also a man with no filter—and he knows it. It’s always when he drifts away from economics, and tries to talk about politics, that he gets into trouble, colleagues say. That’s where Gruber stepped on so many land mines in those videos—claiming there was a strategy to hide uncomfortable details from voters, as if he knew the political strategy and not just the economics, and that the “stupidity of the American voter” allowed them to get away with it.
See how Politico handles the truth? Politico prefers to consider ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber’s truth-telling as “head-scratchers”. For Big Media Politico the ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber is just a “chatty” guy.
Politico has lots of excuses for ObamaCare Architext Gruber. Politico states that “ObamaCare Architect” is a recent invention by publications, including Politico, although well before the video’s emerged from their Stygian depths the term “ObamaCare Architect” was associated with Jonathan Gruber (as well as others, such as David Cutler).
Politico also excuses ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber’s searing truths because according to Politico, Gruber was not really in the room writing ObamaCare.
Politico did attempt a pretty good video of ObamaCare Archtect Jonathan Gruber’s many instances of truth-telling. But Politico’s heart was not in it as the video oddly goes dark in the middle and stays in the dark.
When we first saw the Garner video of his death for the sale of loose cigarettes we were very very sympathetic. But then we read Garner had an arrest record of 31 times (assault and grand larceny among the charges). Then we read in our comments section that Eric Garner was 43 years old. So if he started his life of crime the moment he became a teenager Eric Garner has been arrested once a year for his entire adult and teen years. At the time of his death Eric Garner was out on bail(driving without a license, marijuana possession among the charges). Our sympathy at that point evaporates.
We’ve played the board game “Monopoly” for many years. In our entire lifetime we cannot recall 31 days in the “Monopoly” jail. We can’t begin to imagine someone who has actually been arrested 31 times.
A parent, spouse, or family of someone arrested more than once may still love the miscreant. But any degree of honesty amidst the love would also require an admission that the criminal is the problem and that the repeated arrests are more than just a streak of bad luck or police harassment.
31 times!!! Eric Garner was arrested 31 times! Something was very wrong with this behemoth.
Michael Brown just robbed a store as he bullied the owner by dint of his size and was audaciously out on a stroll in the middle of the street afterwards knowing he had just committed a crime. Then he tried to take a cops gun.
So why are these two behemoths the latest civil rights icons? Two criminals who died are two criminals less to terrorize the black community.
As to the question of racism in these two cases, the charge is ridiculous. In both cases the grand juries that wisely refused to indict the police officers there were members of the grand jury that were black.
Unless the charge is two black people who have an animus against other black people there is no racism in the Eric Garner case. By “two black people” we mean the black woman police officer (not seen in the video) who was in charge of the arrest of Eric Garner and the black man at the police precinct that sent the cops to haul in Garner.
Kizzy Adoni is the name of the black woman police sergeant who was in charge of the Eric Garner arrest and death. Is Kizzy Adoni a racist?
The “racism” narrative collapses unless you believe that the black woman police sergeant is a racist.
Was Kizzy Adonie a racist that watched as Eric Garner died? Well, that would have been a neat trick when you consider that Eric Garner did not die on the street or on that infamous video. Garner died in an ambulance of “cardiac arrest” at the hospital an hour later.
NYPD No. 3′s order to crack down on selling loose cigarettes led to chokehold death of Eric Garner
EXCLUSIVE: Chief of Department Philip Banks made the order to investigate complaints over the sale of untaxed cigarettes in Tompkinsville, Staten Island, a source told The News. That fierce crack down resulted in the lethal manhandling of Eric Garner.
An order to crack down on the illegal sale of 75-cent cigarettes in Staten Island came directly from Police Headquarters, setting off a chain of events that ended in Eric Garner’s death, the Daily News has learned.
Chief of Department Philip Banks — the highest-ranking uniformed cop in the city — sent a sergeant from his office at 1 Police Plaza in July to investigate complaints of untaxed cigarettes being sold in the Tompkinsville neighborhood, a source close to the investigation told The News.
“(Banks) set the whole thing in motion,” the source said.
The sale of loosies had been on Banks’ radar since at least March, when it was discussed at a meeting at Police Headquarters about quality-of-life issues, a police source said.
Banks’ office also conducted surveillance on Bay St. and took pictures, one of which shows three men believed to be involved in an illegal cigarette sale. The News reviewed the photograph and Garner is not in it.
At around the same time, on March 27, a caller to the city’s 311 hotline complained about the issue, saying a group of men had been selling untaxed cigarettes, and sometimes marijuana, on Bay St. every day for the past three years, a second source said.
The caller identified one of the sellers as “a man named Eric.”
Did you notice the crucial missing fact? Here it is: Chief of Department Philip Banks, the #2 guy in the New York City Police Department, the man who set loose the loosie cigarette war, is BLACK. So to believe the racism angle you have to believe that the #2 guy in the New York Police Department who is black is also a racist against other black people and that the black woman in charge of the police team that tried to arrest Eric Garner was also a racist.
So what and why did Chief of Department Philip Banks, the #2 guy in the New York City Police Department, the black man who set loose the loosie cigarette war do? Here’s more of the story:
The next day, Garner was arrested for selling untaxed cigarettes, one of three pending cases before his death.
Sometime in early July, a memo was sent to the Staten Island borough command, a source said. The memo stressing the need to address quality-of-life issues was then forwarded to bosses in the 120th Precinct for “immediate attention,” according to the source.
On the afternoon of July 17, cops spotted Garner on Bay St. again. Witnesses said Garner, 43, had just broken up a fight. Cops say the 350-pound father of six was selling untaxed cigarettes. [snip]
“That particular area of the 120th Precinct has been the subject of numerous quality-of-life complaints and enforcement actions for months,” Davis said. “Among the specific public complaints of illegal activity in that area included the sale of untaxed cigarettes as well as open (alcohol) container and marijuana use and sale offenses.”
A high-ranking police official agreed.
“We address behavior and conditions and not people,” the official said. “That’s what we do across the city, and one of those conditions is the sale of untaxed cigarettes.” [snip]
Garner’s rap sheet includes eight arrests for possession and selling cigarettes.
“Every time you see me you try to arrest me,” Garner told Officer Daniel Pantaleo and a second cop before he was put in the chokehold, according to a video first posted by nydailynews.com. “I’m tired of it. It stops today.”
Did you catch that important fact that gets no emphasis in the news article and no mention in TV broadcasts? Here it is: Garner and the officer (Pantaleo) that took him down knew each other from previous encounters. Also, Garner made it explicit that he was going to resist arrest (“It stops today.”).
But the narrative of police use of force then comes into play. Was police overuse of force the problem? No.
350 pound Eric Garner decided to resist arrest. The police officers and their black woman supervisor on the scene were under orders from the #2 top cop, a black man, to crack down on the lifestyle crimes in the Staten Island neighborhood. When you look at the video of the attempted arrest you can see the cops look like Hobbits wrestling with Uruk-hai. The problem was that Uruk-hai Eric Garner refused to follow the orders of the police. What were the orders given to the police? Again, the Daily News:
The city’s crackdown against untaxed cigarettes in Staten Island intensified on March 27 when the city’s 311 system received a complaint about individual smokes being sold in front of a clothing store on Bay St. near Victory Blvd., just four buildings down from where Garner was killed.
The caller said illegal cigarette sellers set up shop outside the 4 Brothers Clothing on Bay St. for three years and were selling loose cigarettes every day.
Depending on the time of day, marijuana was also being sold, said the caller, who rattled off the names of several suspects, including “a man named Eric,” a source said. [snip]
Other store owners on Bay St. said they didn’t complain to police about Garner or untaxed cigarette sales.
But the 311 tip made its way to Banks’ office where “the untaxed cigarette problem on Bay St.” was discussed, a source said. A day after the 311 call was made, cops arrested Garner for selling cigarettes without proper tax stamps.
Cops found him in possession of 23 sealed packs of untaxed cigarettes and one open pack, officials said. He was arrested with untaxed cigarettes again on May 7, officials said.
Then, a week before his death, Garner was “warned and admonished” about selling untaxed cigarettes, a police source said.
So the #2 cop in the city, who is black, commands a crackdown on untaxed “loosie” cigarette sales on the block where Eric Garner has been repeatedly arrested for untaxed “loosie” cigarette sales and a black woman police sergeant is dispatched along with several other police officers to stop the illegal sales as part of the successful “lifestyle” crimes cleanup. Why? Who is to blame?
The entity to blame is the New York City Council. The Mayor’s office is also to blame.
For years we have heard the propaganda from the left equating cigarette sellers as “killer” who sell their products to poison the population. Now the police have stopped a cigarette seller and from the reaction you would think a saint has been sacrificed.
Why was such a stupid law passed? Why can’t someone sell cigarettes in any way they want? Well, it’s all because of taxes. Taxes killed Eric Garner:
“We have a poor guy who died because of a tax collection issue,” conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show.
Governments condemn cigarette use on one hand while relying on cigarette taxes to fund their operations, Mr Limbaugh and others contend.
“Garner died because he dared interfere with government reach and government muscle that didn’t want to lose tax revenue to independent operators,” Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass writes.
“You want an all-encompassing state with the power to stop you from smoking? Well, don’t complain about the Eric Garner case,” writes the Hayride’s Scott McKay. “This is what big government looks like.”
The Daily Caller’s W James Antle says that while public outrage is focusing on the level of force employed by the New York police, “let’s not let the people who write the laws off the hook”.
“A man who is killed by government overreach, fueled by anti-tobacco fanaticism, is just as dead as one who smokes a carton of unfiltered Pall Malls every week for 30 years,” he writes.
“You want an all-encompassing state with the power to stop you from smoking?” writes the Hayride’s Scott McKay. “Well, don’t complain about the Eric Garner case. This is what big government looks like.”
In the name of cutting smoking rates, New York has the highest state cigarette tax at $4.35 per pack. New York City piles on an additional local cigarette tax of $1.50 per pack. Since 2006, the cigarette tax in New York state has been raised 190 percent. In response, cigarette smuggling there increased 59 percent. More than half of all cigarettes consumed in New York state are smuggled, according to a 2014 report by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Garner chose to participate in the booming underground cigarette market as a smuggler. Since 2009, he had been arrested eight times for selling loosies, which are popular among people who can’t afford a full pack because of the excessive taxes.
In January 2014, tough new penalties for selling untaxed cigarettes took effect in New York City. In July, emboldened by the new law, the city’s highest-ranking uniformed cop, Philip Banks, issued an order to crack down on loosie sales days before Garner died.
These events confirm that police are ultimately the enforcers of the tax code, and every vote for higher taxes gives police increased authority to exert more force on citizens in more situations. Higher excise taxes inevitably lead to more violent clashes between police and smugglers.
Think it’s funny to blame the death of Eric Garner on taxes? Think untaxed cigarettes are not a big problem for the big taxers? Think again. Big city “progressives” are hooked on taxes on cigarettes and untaxed cigarettes are something “progressives” will kill:
New York is now the highest net importer of smuggled cigarettes in the country, thanks to a $4.50 per pack tax. New York City adds an additional tax of $1.50.
Smuggling is up 59 percent since 2006 and now is believed to account for nearly 57 percent of New York’s cigarette market. A Mackinack Center study had the figure slightly higher. Last year, authorities seized $4.5 million in counterfeit Chinese cigarettes in Brooklyn. As early as 2010, New York was losing $20 million a month in revenues to black market smokes.
It’s spreading throughout the region. According to one study, nearly 40 percent of cigarettes smoked in Boston come from the black market. In Providence, that figure is somewhere between 30 to 55 percent. In Washington, D.C., it’s 30 to 60 percent.
Nearly 60 percent of discarded cigarettes found in five large Northeastern cities lacked the proper excise tax stamps.
A revenue-hungry nanny state in New York has boosted cigarette taxes nearly 200 percent in less than a decade, creating the crime for which Garner was killed. Have we learned nothing from Prohibition or the war on drugs?
“Alleged gun-running and terrorist-loving ex-Stuyvesant HS teacher Theo Burroughs, busted in a sting two months ago, was trafficking in untaxed cigarettes along with assault rifles and handcuffs,” the New York Post reported.
Hezbollah and the Irish Republican Army have gotten a piece of the action as terrorists, gangs and the mafia get involved in the cigarette black market.
The Post quoted a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms official as saying, “We see lots of [rip-offs] and violence with drug trafficking, and you will see a rise of that in tobacco, too. As volume and money go up, the stakes get higher. And certainly, a concern of ours is violence will spill out of this.”
Two paragraphs later, the story says “state officials maintain the tax is worth it as an incentive for people to quit.” Quit breathing?
We can all breathe better now that Eric Garner has gone to his just reward. The notion that racism killed him is ridiculous. The notion that excessive police force killed him is equally false.
We understand that many people don’t get along well with cops on the beat. Too often cops are officious and think they are the king of the hill. Instead of being servants of the people too often police treat citizens as servants. Of course there are the many, many good cops who try to help and “serve and protect”. But the rude, nasty cops are the ones that stick in our memory, not the good effective ones.
But whatever our notions of cops or the many times cops have been good to us or been mean to us we remember that even with the “bad” cops we must behave with respect even if it is trough gritted teeth. That Eric Garner thought he could tell cops what to do was just another to add to his 31 mistakes.
That some think the cops should have Tasered Garner instead of knocking him down ignores the fact that a Taser of Garner would probably have killed him due to his crummy health and then Al Sharpton would have asked why the police did not use a chokehold to bring the near 400 pound man to obey the law.
For the black leaders that think Eric Garner is the extension of a new, more successful Occupy Wall Street movement we have bad news:
Washington — A majority of young people believe racism is more a problem for previous generations than it is for their own. And most young people – 73 percent of whites, 66 percent of nonwhites – say they don’t see racial minorities any differently than they see white people, according to a survey conducted for the youth-oriented cable network MTV. [snip]
Perhaps most strikingly, a majority of those surveyed, who range in age from 14 to 24, agree that “having a black president demonstrates that racial minorities have the same opportunities as white people.” Among young white people, the figure was 64 percent, and among young people of color, it was 58 percent. [snip]
Majorities of white and nonwhite respondents agreed that “it’s never fair to give preferential treatment to one race over another, regardless of historical inequalities.” Among white Millennials, 75 percent agreed, as did 65 percent of nonwhites.
Another statement presented the “racial preference” concept differently: “Because of historical inequalities, it is sometimes more fair to give preferential treatment to one race over another.” Among whites, 22 percent agreed; 30 percent of people of color agreed.
The results weren’t heartening. Overall, 46 percent of Millennials agree that the government pays too much attention to the problems of minorities, with 49 percent who disagree. 48 percent also agree that discrimination against whites is a genuine problem. When you disaggregate by race and count only white Millennials, the picture is much worse.
A solid majority of white Millennials, 56 percent, say that government has paid too much attention to the problems of blacks and other minorities. An even larger majority, 58 percent, say that “discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities.”
The pollsters at PRRI don’t try to tease out what this actually means, and honestly—as an African-American myself—it’s hard to figure out.
You better figure it out if you are at all interested in helping the country and helping the black community in particular.
Protesters staged a “die in” Friday night in an Apple store on Fifth Avenue and in Macy’s at Herald Square.
Hundreds of people angry over police treatment of African-American men crowded the street outside the Apple store, and some made their way through the store’s large glass doors…
Zandir Santos, 30, of Brooklyn, relished in the idea that protesters had disrupted life at an Apple store and a Macy’s in New York. The filmmaker said this is a pivotal time in American history and that police must change how they treat people.
“The CEO of Apple knows we shut his store down–that means capitalist America is going to take us seriously,” he said. “We are going to shake up your business and we want to hit you where it hurts. “
Capitalist America as well as every sensible American thinks these Occupy Wall Street refugees are loons. Just like Occupy Wall Street these DailyKooks harm their own goofy fad. Keep on blocking traffic and making members of the public pay for your foolishness and in the end you will be as popular as Occupy Wall Street. It is always amusing to see a young white guy lying down in the lobby of a big store with a sign that says “End White Supremacy” in a city where the #2 cop is black and in a country where the president is black, the Attorney General is black and the head of the Homeland Security Department is black.
On Thursday “Inside the NBA” on TNT, panelists Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith discussed the issues of Garner, race and Ferguson in light of Barkley’s recent remarks on police and accusations of police brutality motivated by race.
During that discussion, Barkley dismissed his critics.
“Some people are going to agree with me,” Barkley said. “And some people are going to kiss my ass.”
Former NBA star and TNT NBA Analyst Charles Barkley lamented America’s “tribe mentality” on race and criticized many black leaders as a “cast of sad characters” in an interview broadcast on Tuesday’s “CNN Tonight.”
Barkley said that while he believes Michael Brown’s stepfather should not be prosecuted for inciting a riot, he defended calling the looters and rioters “scumbags,” saying “when you’re looting people’s property, that’s what you are. That’s against the law, it’s not your property, you wouldn’t want people to do it to your house, and to go back to the stepdad, he didn’t want people to burn down his house.” [snip]
Barkley also turned to the rhetoric towards law enforcement, stating “the notion that white cops are out there just killing black people, that’s ridiculous. It’s just flat out ridiculous…the cops are actually awesome, they are the only thing in the ghetto between this place being the wild, wild west. So, this notion that cops are out there just killing black men is ridiculous, and I hate that narrative coming out of this entire situation.”
He also said that the police in the Eric Garner case in New York “got a little aggressive,” and might be “excessive force,” but also argued “if you fight back, things go wrong.”
Barkley further addressed the issue of racial profiling, declaring “there’s a reason they [cops] racially profile us at times. Sometimes it’s wrong, but sometimes it’s right.”
He expressed that the president should not go to Ferguson, adding “another thing that annoy annoys me about this whole situation, Brooke. Every time something happen[s] in the black community, we have the same cast of sad character, and we don’t have to have Al Sharpton go there…we have the same sad sack of black characters, we need strong black men in St. Louis to stand up, and say, ‘hey, let’s handle this situation.’”
We’ve written that it is time for the black community to step up and cheer when black criminals get sent to jail or killed. The former head nanny of New York wrote an op-ed article last year which states some truths too:
New York is the safest big city in the nation, and our crime reductions have been steeper than any other big city’s. For instance, if New York City had the murder rate of Washington, D.C., 761 more New Yorkers would have been killed last year. If our murder rate had mirrored the District’s over the course of my time as mayor, 21,651 more people would have been killed. That’s more than Georgetown University’s student body, faculty and administrative staff.
Based on crime data, we know that more than 90 percent of those 21,651 individuals would have been black and Hispanic. Some of them would have been children.
But even one murder is too many, and last year New York City had 419. The Post never published an editorial lamenting the loss of those innocent lives. Nor has The Post published an editorial at any point during my 11½ years as mayor about the crime in our city’s minority neighborhoods and its toll on innocent people. When our police officers were gunned down in the line of duty, there were no Post editorials about the lives and liberties they died protecting — nor about their sacrifice.
And yet this month, in two separate editorials, The Post lectured our police department about protecting the civil liberties of New Yorkers. The Post swallowed — hook, line and sinker — the attack leveled on the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) practice of stopping, questioning and frisking by an ideologically driven federal judge who has a history of ruling against the police.
This judge ruled that our police officers on patrol — a majority of whom are black, Hispanic and other minorities — engaged in “indirect racial profiling.” Never once in the judge’s 197-page opinion did she mention the lives that have been saved because of the stops those officers made. Instead, throughout the recent trial, she showed disdain for our police officers and the dangerous work they do.
Unlike many cities, where wealthy areas get special treatment, the NYPD targets its manpower to the areas that suffer the highest crime levels. Ninety percent of all people killed in our city — and 90 percent of all those who commit the murders and other violent crimes — are black and Hispanic. It is shameful that so many elected officials and editorial writers have been largely silent on these facts.
Instead, they have argued that police stops are discriminatory because they do not reflect the city’s overall census numbers. By that flawed logic, our police officers would stop women as often as men and senior citizens as often as young people. To do so would be a colossal misdirection of resources and would take the core elements of police work — targeting high-crime neighborhoods and identifying suspects based on evidence — out of crime-fighting. The absurd result of such a strategy would be far more crimes committed against black and Latino New Yorkers. When it comes to policing, political correctness is deadly.
Political correctness is deadly and the piles of black bodies testifies to that fact. We threw away our politically correct style book in the trash long ago.
Speaking of trash, now that we have disposed of the Eric Garner trash, we need to talk more trash. The trash is Mary Landreiu.
Elliott Stonecipher, a political analyst in Shreveport, La., said that the growing degree to which whites have become Republicans and the loss of an estimated 125,000 Democratic voters after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 meant that Democrats now represented about 47 percent of Louisiana’s overall voter registration, compared to more than 60 percent in 2000.
Louisiana is a state where blacks are a significant share of the electorate (a third or more), and they vote overwhelmingly (over 90%) for Democrats, as they have for Landrieu in her several races. Only Mississippi has a higher African American share of the population than Louisiana, even with the departure of many blacks from Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (leading to the loss of a U.S. House seat after the 2010 census). White voters have become almost as homogeneous a voting pool in the state in the other direction, with Landrieu receiving only 18% of white votes in the primary. Louisiana was carried twice by Bill Clinton and is one of the states that has moved most dramatically from blue dog Democrat to Republican in the past decade, along with Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia, all of which were carried by Bill Clinton twice and by Republicans in presidential races ever since.
HAMMOND, La.—Mary Landrieu is dead, and everyone knows it but Mary Landrieu. [snip]
Since the primary, Landrieu has undergone a series of humiliations. First, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee announced it would not spend any money supporting her in the runoff. [snip]
“This is a fight worth fighting. I mean, I have a very good record! Records should matter!” It doesn’t seem to occur to Landrieu that it is precisely her record—of supporting an unpopular president and voting for all his major initiatives, including the Affordable Care Act—that voters object to. [snip]
In what are likely the waning days of Landrieu’s career, she has become an exotic specimen—the Last Southern Democrat. [snip]
But that has changed dramatically since Barack Obama was elected in 2008.
As recently as 2007, Democrats controlled both houses of the Louisiana legislature and seven of nine statewide offices, including the governorship. Today Republicans have large majorities in both houses, and Landrieu is the last statewide elected Democrat. As the Associated Press recently noted, if Landrieu loses, Democrats will not control a single governorship, Senate seat, or legislative chamber from the Carolinas to Texas. [snip]
“It appears that the Democratic Party in Louisiana, with the exception of the odd majority-minority district, is moribund for the foreseeable future,” Pearson Cross, a political scientist at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, tells me. The approximately one-third of the population that is black is overwhelmingly Democratic, but white voters have fled the party. Landrieu, who got 33 percent of the white vote in 2008, drew just 18 percent of whites in last month’s primary.
Cassidy’s campaign, like those of almost every Republican this year, has consisted almost entirely of putting Landrieu and Obama in the same sentence. A chyron hovers at the bottom of the screen throughout all of his television ads: “LANDRIEU + OBAMA = FAILED POLICIES.”
America’s changing demographics have been touted by Democrats as a nearly unbeatable long-term coalition, particularly in presidential elections. [snip] But the 2014 results have raised new doubts about this strategy. Many Democrats had seen the Obama tally as a sort of floor for the party going forward; without Obama on the ballot, they assumed they could continue to turn out minority voters while doing better with whites. But now it looks as though it may instead be a ceiling, as minorities stay home or even vote Republican while white voters turn on Democrats in increasing numbers. [snip]
“I think what has changed it is that this is a hardworking state. People work hard, and they really don’t take to people who are on the dole,” he continued. “You’d better not be supporting people who are sitting on their front porch while I’m trying to work! You drive around these small communities, you see a lot of able-bodied people sitting around, when you know there’s work to be had …. That’s the only thing I can figure. This part of the country, people have been raised by families who worked very, very hard. But now we’ve got a president who loves to sit down every day and see how much he can give away of what they make.” [snip]
To bring the party back, he believes Democrats need a new Bill Clinton who can reposition the party toward the center. The day after the election, Breaux tells me, he called Clinton to suggest restarting the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. “The perception now is that the Democratic Party is too far to the left and the Republican Party is too far for the right,” he tells me. “The majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle.”
Many Democratic partisans believe otherwise, and have been insisting since the election that the party needs to become more progressive, not less. Breaux disagrees. “That’s a serious mistake,” he says. “We didn’t lose these elections because we weren’t liberal enough. We lost these elections because we were perceived as being a party that was not a centrist party.”
Occupy Wall Street, blocked traffic, turn behemoth criminals into civil rights icons, trash the white working class, are not ways to win elections or convince voters you are not a Kook. Mary Landrieu, Barack Obama, Michael Brown, Eric Garner are all the same trash.
It’s time once again to take out the trash. In Louisiana today is take out the trash day. We’ll breath better tonight after Landrieu is in the trash heap.
Can we breath better now that Eric Garner is no longer amongst the living? Yes, we can.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.”
“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.
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.
For anyone who thinks about a run for president in 2016, here’s a smart article on the White Working Class with the emphasis on working:
The key to Obama’s struggle with white working class voters is not ‘white,’ but ‘working.’
Working class white people don’t like President Obama much. According to the latest Gallup poll, only 27% approve of him. That’s 21 percentage points down since he took office in 2009.
A standard talking-point is that these voters don’t like Obama because they’re racist. But that assumes that the key word in “white working class” is “white.” In fact, the key word is “working.” After all, Obama isn’t any blacker than he was in 2009.
A few Democratic pundits seem to get this. Writing in Mother Jones, Kevin Drum observes: “So who does the WWC take out its anger on? Largely, the answer is the poor. In particular, the undeserving poor. Liberals may hate this distinction, but it doesn’t matter if we hate it. Lots of ordinary people make this distinction as a matter of simple common sense, and the WWC makes it more than any. That’s because they’re closer to it. For them, the poor aren’t merely a set of statistics or a cause to be championed. They’re the folks next door who don’t do a lick of work but somehow keep getting government checks paid for by their tax dollars. “
Given the availability of government benefits, most working-class people of any race could be on welfare if they chose. That they’re not drawing government checks means that they value work. As Slate’s Jamelle Bouie notes, government programs like Social Security and Medicare are differently received, because they aren’t seen as rewarding people for not working. When your neighbor gets welfare, it makes you feel like a sucker for going to work. Medicare, not so much.
Any candidate for president who wants to use income inequality and “fairness” as campaign issues better understand the white working class sense of unfairness and inequality when they work and others don’t while living high on the hog:
So if Democrats want to win back the white working class — and they kind of need to, if they want to win elections, because it’s an enormous demographic — maybe they need to start thinking about honoring and encouraging work, rather than talking about race or class. [snip]
And, as Joel Kotkin notes, many other Obama policies — promoting urban density, which creates fewer construction jobs; fighting oil and coal extraction, thus targeting industries that create high-paying blue collar jobs; and even opening up immigration, which drives down wages for the working class — all seem designed to punish people who work for a living, even as expanded benefits for the poor seem designed to reward people who draw government checks for a living.
That argument sounds a great deal like Reagan’s ‘welfare queens” argument because to a great extent it is. In March of 2009 we wrote that the “welfare queens” attack line would return because in large part it would be true. In 2009, two months into the Obama nightmare, we wrote:
After Bill Clinton Republicans could no longer attack Democrats as “tax and spend” wastrels. After Bill Clinton Republicans had to retire attacks on “welfare queens”. Bill Clinton enacted responsible fiscal policy and deprived Republicans of their most useful and effective epithets against Democrats.
Now Republicans are calling back to active service those ugly epithets because they describe the Obama economic “plans” with precision. [snip]
Bill Clinton understood that hard working Americans were generous and wanted to help the poor and the weak but they did not want to be taken for saps by the lazy or the rapacious.
Here we are years later and “welfare queens” as a potent political weapon is back. Indeed, the facts of economic inequality warfare waged against the white working class and the middle class buttress the perception of the unfairness as Gallup noted in a recent survey. Unfairness and inequality? Ask the white working class:
According to Gallup, thanks to Obamacare, Americans earning $30,000 to $75,000 a year are more likely to skip medical care because of cost than Americans earning under $30,000 a year.
Can the Democrats solve this problem? Sure. These are all policies that could be changed, though a lot of party constituencies would oppose it. And Democrats might choose a working-class-friendly nominee, too, if they can find one.
A measly 34 percent of this group backed House Democratic candidates in 2014, creating a gap that could sunder the party’s 2016 hopes.
Hillary Clinton’s support of deferred deportation of millions of undocumented workers might help the Democratic Party’s putative presidential nominee win over Latinos in 2016. But among the voters most responsible for the Democrats’ midterm wipeout this year, it could very well make things worse—and therein lies Clinton’s dilemma. [snip]
One of the central challenges facing a Clinton campaign will be managing to win back enough of those voters, especially in a working-class-heavy battleground like Iowa. But as her quick support of deferred deportations shows, she’ll have to do so while also motivating black, young, and Latino voters who formed the core of President Obama’s coalition in 2008 and 2012.
At times, the two imperatives will work against each other. [snip]
Once the backbone of the Democratic Party, working-class white voters have gradually shifted into the GOP’s camp since the 1970s in part because of the alienation they felt toward an increasingly urban, culturally cosmopolitan party. Democrats, meanwhile, have made up for the loss by winning over minorities and a greater share of the upscale white vote. [snip]
But in 2014, the bottom fell out, and it fell out in places where Democrats have performed relatively well with working-class white voters, even recently.
Our many discussions about the white working class, including our most recent one, have emphasized that a focus on the interests of the white working class force the party to not deviate from economic policy and jobs, jobs, jobs. “It’s the economy, stupid” works because that is what the white working class is interested in.
Deviate from the interests of the white working class and disaster follows.
Gallup: Peak Number Of Americans Delaying Medical Care Over Costs
One in three Americans has put off seeking medical treatment in 2014 due to high costs, according to Gallup — the highest percentage since Gallup began asking the question in 2001.
Thirty-three percent of Americans have delayed medical treatment for themselves or their families because of the costs they’d have to pay, according to the survey. Obamacare, of course, had promised that it would help make health care more affordable for everyone, but the number of people who can’t afford a trip to the doctor has actually risen three points since 2013, before most Obamacare provisions took effect.
The hardest-hit: the middle-class. Americans with an annual household income of between $30,000 and $75,000 began delaying medical care over costs more in 2014, up to 38 percent in 2014 from 33 percent last year; among households that earn above $75,000, 28 percent delayed care this year, compared to just 17 percent last year.
The lowest-income section, some of whom can take part in Medicaid and who are more likely to qualify for significant premium and cost-sharing subsidies on an Obamacare exchange, are less likely to delay care this year. Now, 35 percent of those who earn under $30,000 a year are putting off seeking medical care, down from 43 percent last year.
It’s a remarkable shift: after Obamacare’s redistribution of wealth, the middle class is actually delaying medical care due to high costs at a higher rate than the poorest section of the country, which is highly subsidized by taxpayers.
The Obama damage is two-fold. First, his success relied on a coalition that likely will not survive, or at least survive at full strength, without Obama himself on the ticket. Secondly, Obama drove a significant portion of white voters away from the Democratic Party.
Put those two things together — smaller Obama coalition and more alienated whites — and the result could be huge trouble for whoever the Democratic presidential nominee is in 2016. [snip]
Some Democrats are confident the coalition will be back in 2016, when interest in a presidential race is far greater than during midterms. But will it return in the strength it showed in ’08 and ’12? Or will Democratic voting return to pre-Obama patterns? [snip]
It would be risky for Democrats to assume those voters will turn out at the same rate and vote in the same proportions for a Democratic candidate in 2016. Yes, it’s a lock that the Democrat will win the minority vote, but by the same margins? [snip]
Then there are white voters. Obama’s overall job approval rating among whites is a weak 32 percent, according to Gallup. Two-thirds of whites do not have a college degree, and the president’s approval rating among them is 27 percent.
The Democrats’ problem with those voters is perhaps symbolized by Obama but goes far beyond the president himself. “Given its sheer size, the working-class white population in the U.S. is of keen importance to politicians and strategists on both sides of the aisle,” Gallup wrote recently, noting “the complex set of attitudes and life positions which … have pushed this group further from the Democratic president over the past six years.”
If Democrats don’t find a way to connect with those “attitudes and life positions” of working-class whites in coming years, they’ll have a big problem.
In a recent speech, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., argued that his party made its middle-class problem worse by insisting on passing Obamacare, which imposed burdens on millions and focused its most generous benefits on a relatively small group of Americans at a time when most voters wanted their elected leaders to focus on jobs and the economy.
“To aim a huge change in mandate at such a small percentage of the electorate made no political sense,” Schumer said in a November 24 speech at the National Press Club. “So when Democrats focused on health care, the average middle class person thought, ‘the Democrats are not paying enough attention to me.’”
The white working class forced the party of FDR to focus on the economy. Bill Clinton understood. For Bill Clinton “It’s the economy, stupid.” For Obama it was everything but fiscal probity and a focus on the economy. Obama Dimocrats have no one but themselves to blame:
Democrats Paved the Way for Their Own Decline
They have subordinated their traditional focus on helping working-class Americans move up the economic ladder in favor of other priorities. [snip]
According to Gallup Editor Frank Newport, “President Barack Obama’s job-approval rating among white noncollege graduates is at 27 percent so far in 2014, 14 percentage points lower than among white college graduates. This is the largest yearly gap between these two groups since Obama took office. These data underscore the magnitude of the Democratic Party’s problem with working-class whites, among whom Obama lost in the 2012 presidential election, and among whom Democratic House candidates lost in the 2014 U.S. House voting by 30 points.”
There are many reasons for this decline in support for Democrats among certain groups. But an argument can be made that it is because Democrats have subordinated their traditional focus on helping lower- and working-class Americans move up the economic ladder in favor of other noble priorities, such as health care, the environment, and civil rights. Whether these were the right or wrong priorities is totally subjective, but they have come at a cost. Sen. Chuck Schumer recently committed the classic case of a political gaffe, once defined by Michael Kinsley as “when a politician tells the truth—some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” The Democratic Left went crazy when Schumer suggested that the early focus on health care reform in 2009 and 2010, when he says Democrats should have been concentrating on economic growth and job creation, had cost them greatly (something that I have written about for over five years).
Governing is about making choices and facing consequences. Implicitly, to focus on certain things is to de-emphasize other things. The modern Democratic Party was effectively born during President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, reacting and dealing with the Great Depression. While books have been filled with the multitude of things that Roosevelt and his New Dealers did, if you boiled it down to its essence, it was helping people get back on their feet after the great stock-market crash of 1929 and the deep depression that resulted.
A focus on the interests of the white working class keeps your head on straight. A laser like focus on the white working class’ interests’ leads to “It’s the economy, stupid.”
If you believe the #1 issue for a presidential candidate can be summed up with “It’s the economy, stupid.” Then “it’s the white working class, stupid” that should determine your policy choices.
Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Ulster County, New York, in 1797, Sojourner Truth’s given name was Isabella Baumfree. As almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners, some of her earliest memories were of her parents’ stories of the cruel loss of their other children. [snip]
In 1843, she changed her name to Sojourner Truth – her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth – and left New York. She traveled throughout New England, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. Her life story, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850.
While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women’s rights.
In 1851, she addressed the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The applause she received that day has been described as “deafening.” From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. She became one of the nineteenth century’s most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women’s rights.
NoLimits.org will "keep you up to date with news about issues on which Hillary took a lead and we know you care so much about," group President Ann Lewis said in an e-mail to as many as 2 million people culled from the Clinton campaign database.
Because No Limits is a registered nonprofit, "it cannot do anything political. It has to be nonpartisan," said Lewis, a longtime senior adviser to Clinton.
In Clinton's job as secretary of state for President Obama, her political dealings are highly restricted.
For example, she shut down her political action committee.
Some, like Democratic consultant and former Bill Clinton aide Chris Lehane, dismiss talk that the group could be a springboard for Clinton to try again for the White House in, say, 2016.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Lehane said. "I think this is just [a] group of folks who developed relationships in an intense [electoral] environment and want to stay together."
But the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato countered: "Whenever a group like this says it's not a political organization, you just know it is."
"Maybe [this] is Hillary's answer to Obama's new 'change' group that controls his golden mailing list. Maybe it's a way for Secretary of State Clinton to mobilize backing for her objectives at the State Department," he said. "And maybe [it's] a standby committee of supporters in case Hillary decides to get back into elective politics."
Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said NoLimits.org is "one way to make sure that she - and/or the former President - still have political leverage."
Hillary World-Wide January 26, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."