Archive for Barack Ilyich Obama

Hey, You Six Million!

How do you like him now?

As many as 6 million people will have to pay a penalty under ObamaCare for going without health insurance in 2014, federal officials suggested in projections released Wednesday.

That means between 2 percent and 4 percent of all taxpayers lacked medical coverage for all or part of the year and do not qualify for an exemption under the individual mandate, according to the Treasury Department.

Another 10 to 20 percent of taxpayers — or 15 million to 30 million people — were uninsured but will qualify for an exemption from the mandate, shielding them from paying $95 or 1 percent of household income when they file their taxes.

What did we just learn the other day? That ObamaCare will end up costing $2,000,000,000,000 and still leave almost 30,000,000 uninsured? (I just busted my 0 key.)

The best-case scenario described by the CBO would result in ‘between 24 million and 27 million’ fewer Americans being uninsured in 2025, compared to the year before the Affordable Care Act took effect.

Pulling that off will cost Uncle Sam about $1.35 trillion – or $50,000 per head.

The numbers are daunting: It will take $1.993 trillion, a number that looks like $1,993,000,000,000, to provide insurance subsidies to poor and middle-class Americans, and to pay for a massive expansion of Medicaid and CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) costs.

Offsetting that massive outlay will be $643 billion in new taxes, penalties and fees related to the Obamacare law.

So, all this wasn’t about controlling costs or covering the sick. It was about power. By that metric, it has been a raging success.

Who has the last laugh?

Comments (1)

At Last!

Who doesn’t think they’re middle class? Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, who know they can’t get away with it, and the welfare cheats for whom stepping into the middle class would be a cut in pay—but who else?

So, Obama’s obsequious snake-oil palaver about the “middle class” in the State of the Union (seven mentions) was cynically meant to appeal to about 300 million Americans.

Just one question: what took him so long?

The plan is DOA, though we’ll address the merits anyway because it’s our job. But first observe the irony: The President has suddenly discovered that middle-class incomes have plunged on his watch, and he’s demanding that Congress address this with more of the same policies that have done so much to reduce middle-class incomes.

White House aides are saying their boss’s plan for $320 billion in new taxes on savings and investment to finance more transfer payments is a bid to be remembered as a Robin Hood. This would be accurate if our hero and his merry men had shaken down Sherwood Forest for the benefit of the Sheriff of Nottingham. Mr. Obama has spent six years trying to redistribute income, but all he’s done is make the income gap between rich and poor wider.

Untitled

For exactly how long are we to “blame Bush”? The recession officially ended in the second quarter of 2009, meaning we’re about to celebrate a sixth year of economic expansion. We should either credit Bush for the recovery (which began while Obama was still sleeping off his Inauguration hangover), or blame Obama for its feebleness. Or vice-versa, I don’t care.

The point is: how can Obama portray himself as Robin Hood when he’s been as hapless and useless as Batman’s sidekick, Robin?

Mr. Obama even wants to change the tax treatment of inherited assets and eliminate a provision known as “stepped-up basis.” When someone dies before realizing a capital gain, his heirs pay the top 40% inheritance tax rate on the value of the asset at that time, not when it was purchased. The reason the step-up basis exists is to compensate for the death tax on a lifetime of saving and investment.

Way back when, The West Wing featured an episode in which a proposed hike in the death tax was opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus. The president’s staff were incredulous until one of them realized that a generation of African Americans freed from the confines of Jim Crow had amassed estates that they wished to protect from the sticky fingers of the government. I always figured Aaron Sorkin’s show was based on actual occurrences. Now, it seems like he was tripping on peyote or mushrooms. They say a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged by reality. A liberal must be a liberal who’s been mugged by another liberal.

Lastly, how often have we been told how smart Obama is, possessed of a first-class mind?

We beg to differ:

The President wants to double down on redistribution by nearly doubling the capital gains tax rate over its 2012 level to 28% for couples earning more than $500,000. The 2013 fiscal cliff deal boosted the top rate to 20% from 15%, plus the 3.8% ObamaCare surcharge on “unearned income.”

The White House is describing 28% as “the Reagan rate,” because that is where it stood after the Reagan-Rostenkowski tax reform of 1986. But that came in the context of reducing the top marginal rate on ordinary income to 28% from 50%. Today that is 39.6%, and even higher with surcharges.

Oh dear. How tedious this gets:

Obama getting schooled, six years ago, by Charlie Gibson of all people. With all his gray hair, maybe his memory’s going.

Comments

¡Cuba Libre!

Well, ¡Cuba!, anyway:

Who and where are the 53 Cuban political prisoners that President Obama promised would be freed by Havana as part of a deal to liberate three convicted Cuban spies serving lengthy sentences in the U.S.?

I asked the State Department this last week. State referred me to the White House. White House officials declined to provide the list of names citing “concern that publicizing it would make it more difficult to ensure that Cuba follows through, and continues with further steps in the future.”

Bottom line: The U.S. government cannot confirm that they have been released and is not certain they’re going to be released, even though the three Cuban spies have already been returned.

A government official told me that keeping the names of the 53 quiet will give Cuba the opportunity to release them as a sovereign measure, rather than at the behest of the U.S., and that this could allow for additional releases.

In other words, the Castros are sensitive boys who throw despotic tantrums when their absolute power is questioned. Asking them to keep their word is apparently a trigger.

In other other words, the Castros have learned from the Iranian hermanos that you can string along this wet-behind-the-ears (and that’s some wet!) nincompoop for as long as you like, and he won’t mind. He seems to like it, in fact.

In the weeks since Mr. Obama’s rapprochement with Cuba, reports from the island say that more than 50 dissidents have been arrested, including the husband of the dissident blogger Yoani Sánchez. Most have been released but some remain in prison.

Don’t expect much outrage from Washington. Mr. Obama wouldn’t want to damage his newly reconciled relationship with the police state.

That’s a nice ending, but my favorite part was this, which is yet another example of Obama lying for the sake of lying:

[Obama’s] promise to review Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terror sounded like he had already made up his mind. “At a time when we are focused on threats from al Qaeda to ISIL, a nation that meets our conditions and renounces the use of terrorism should not face this sanction,” Mr. Obama said.

That would complete the concession trifecta. Cuba still supports the FARC, the Colombian terrorist group, it got caught in 2013 trying to smuggle weapons through the Panama Canal to North Korea, and credible intelligence analysts say Cuba has provided Venezuela the technology it needs to falsify identities for Middle East terrorists.

And Mexico is a sleepy little land of happy peasants and stubborn burros. Why peddle such obvious lies? Does he believe everything that comes out of his own mouth? That his saying it makes it so? What an odd, odd man.

Comments

¿Cuba Libre?

You tell me:

Here is what the U.S. Agency for International Development, which takes its foreign policy guidance from the White House and the State Department, has to say about Cuba:

Cuba is a totalitarian state which relies on repressive methods to maintain control. Criticism of national leaders or the political system can lead to imprisonment. Members of the security forces harass and physically assault human rights and pro-democracy advocates, dissidents, detainees, and prisoners. The Cuban Government does not allow independent monitoring of prison conditions by international or national human rights groups and continues to refuse access to detainees by international humanitarian organizations (U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011).…

The Cuban Government routinely denies its citizens freedom of association and does not recognize independent associations. The Cuban Constitution prohibits any political organization that is not officially recognized. As a result, grassroots community efforts which operate in a democratic manner are extremely limited (U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011)….

The Cuban Government owns and the Communist Party controls all print and broadcast media outlets. News and information programming is nearly uniform across all outlets, and the law prohibits distribution of printed material from foreign sources considered “counterrevolutionary” or critical of the government. Foreign newspapers or magazines are generally unavailable, and distribution of material with political content, interpreted broadly to include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is not allowed and can result in harassment and even detention.

The Cuban Government controls nearly all internet access, with the exception of extremely limited facilities, where foreigners and citizens are allowed to buy Internet access cards for use at hotel business centers, where the price of Internet access is beyond the means of most citizens. Authorities review the browsing history of authorized users, review and censor e-mail, employ Internet search filters, and block access to Web sites considered objectionable (U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011).

Under the arrangement Obama has crafted, Cuba is required to do not a damn thing about reforming any of this. In “exchange,” the United States of America gives Cuba full diplomatic recognition. Plus, Obama tells the world’s other despots that a windfall from Uncle Sam could be awaiting them, too, if they abduct American citizens and hold them for ransom.

It’s true that we have diplomatic relations with just about everybody—North Korea being the only notable exception. But Havana doesn’t sound a whole hell of a lot freer. Pyonyang with an extra ration of fried plantains. Beijing with palm trees.

Cuba’s current sugardaddy, Venezuela, is in its own circle of Hell. If there was ever a time to squeeze Cuba for human rights concessions, this was that time. I guess human rights are just another first-world, colonial imposition on the indigenous proletariat of the world, and Obama says [bleep] that noise. Besides, Major League Baseball could do with a few more power pitchers and right-handed bats.

Comments

One Person’s Torture is Another Person’s Training

Torture is not like pornography: you don’t necessarily know it when you see it. Rather, what you think you see is not necessarily torture. I don’t see waterboarding as torture, for example, however panic-inducing it may feel to go through. Our special forces go through it routinely; so have news reporters. Others do consider it torture, hence their high dudgeon over our dark dungeons.

Me, I need to see permanent damage. I need Uday and Qusay Hussein-style depravity before I call foul.

This does not rise (or plunge) to that level:

CBS News reported Sunday that the report contains evidence that the CIA went beyond what was “legally allowable,” and that the agency lied to the White House, the Department of Justice and Congress about the effectiveness of the program.

The CIA told Fox News it would not comment until the report is released, but former agency officials have told Fox News that the agency’s program provided it with foundational intelligence about the Al Qaeda network after the Sept. 11 attacks. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden has previously told Fox News that it is not feasible to believe that three different CIA directors and three different deputy directors of the agency conspired over a seven-year period to lie about the program’s effectiveness. Hayden and former CIA General Counsel John Rizzo also have claimed that the program provided evidence that helped direct the 2011 raid that killed Al Qaeda Usama bin Laden.

U.S. officials who have read the report say it includes disturbing new details about the CIA’s use of such techniques as sleep deprivation, confinement in small spaces, humiliation and the simulated drowning process known as waterboarding.

President Obama has previously acknowledged, “We tortured some folks.”

Oh, shut up.

Humiliation? Humiliation? We suspect these guys of plotting unimaginably horrific acts of terrorism, and we’re worried about humiliation? No power tools, no cattle prods, no brass knuckles, no broken bones, no spilled blood. If this is all the report has to offer, we didn’t torture a single folk. (I reserve the right to change my mind once I read it.)

You know why they’re releasing it now, don’t you?

MIT professor and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber will testify on Capitol Hill Tuesday about his role in selling the 2010 healthcare law to “stupid American voters” through deception and non-transparency. The hearing will be held by the House Oversight Committee and Gruber will have to field questions from Chairman Darrell Issa and angry lawmakers about the legislation.

They don’t know him, and they don’t want to know him:

Meanwhile, the White House has distanced itself from Gruber in the wake of his controversial comments and Health and Human Services sent a letter to Issa last week asking that officials from the Department, who will also testify tomorrow, be seated separately from Gruber. More from The Hill:

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is asking lawmakers not to seat ObamaCare consultant Jonathan Gruber next to Medicare’s top official when the two testify on Capitol Hill next week.

HHS Assistant Secretary for Legislation Jim Esquea wrote to the House Oversight Committee with the request, stating that government witnesses are “almost always afforded an opportunity” to sit alone or with other federal officials.

Kind of ironic for this most anti-military of administrations to employ diversionary tactics of which General Patton would be proud:

On Sunday, a top Republican lawmaker warned the release could cause “violence and deaths.”

And U.S. officials separately confirmed to Fox News that an advisory has been sent urging U.S. personnel overseas to reassess security measures in anticipation of the release. The message directs all overseas posts, including those used by CIA personnel, to “review their security posture” for a “range of reactions that might occur.”

A similar statement was being sent to military combatant commands to assess their readiness. Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren said Monday the combatant commands have been urged to “take appropriate force protection measures within their areas of responsibility.”

Who will cover Gruber if the Mideast is on fire?

Comments

Ferguson is Just Another “Crisis” Obama Won’t Waste

Let him tell you:

I think Ferguson laid bare a problem that is not unique to St. Louis or that area, and is not unique to our time, and that is a simmering distrust that exists between too many police departments and too many communities of color. The sense that in a country where one of our basic principles, perhaps the most important principle, is equality under the law, that too many individuals, particularly young people of color, do not feel as if they are being treated fairly.

Are we dealing with facts or feelings here? Nothing factual about the incident between Michael Brown and Darren Wilson supports anything like this sort of talk. What facts prove that Brown was not treated fairly under the law? And if there is “simmering distrust”, aren’t both sides at fault? Why focus solely on the police? Did the police riot and loot?

But Eric Holder does Obama one better:

“This presents this nation with, I think, a unique opportunity,” Holder said. “And I think it’s incumbent on all of us to seize this opportunity to deal with issues that for too long have been ignored.”

Never let a crisis go to waste. Even if you’ve been in office for nearly six years, pretend like you just got to town. And for heaven’s sake, don’t define the crisis, or “issues”. The vaguer you are, the more you can get away with.

Holder further bloviated:

Like millions of Americans, I know many of you have spent the past few days with family members, friends, and loved ones, giving thanks for the blessings of the past year – but also mindful of recent news, the anguished emotions, and the images of destruction that have once again focused this country’s attention on Ferguson, Missouri.

Is this where he comes down hard on the rioters and looters, the professional agitators, the Panthers?

Not exactly:

Like you, I understand that the need for this trust was made clear in the wake of the intense public reaction to last week’s grand jury announcement. But the problems we must confront are not only found in Ferguson. The issues raised in Missouri are not unique to that state or that small city. We are dealing with concerns that are truly national in scope and that threaten the entire nation. Broadly speaking, without mutual understanding between citizens – whose rights must be respected – and law enforcement officers – who make tremendous and often-unheralded personal sacrifices every day to preserve public safety – there can be no meaningful progress. Our police officers cannot be seen as an occupying force disconnected from the communities they serve.

Responding to a convenience store robbery—in a black neighborhood—is occupation?

Move along, nothing to see.

But the issue is larger than just the police and the community. Our overall system of justice must be strengthened and made more fair.

That’s right, make a spurious point and then move on. To an even more spurious point.

[I]n the coming days, I will announce updated Justice Department guidance regarding profiling by federal law enforcement, which will institute rigorous new standards – and robust safeguards – to help end racial profiling, once and for all. This new guidance will codify our commitment to the very highest standards of fair and effective policing.

Again, he’s been Attorney General for nearly six years! If racial profiling is so bad, what’s he been doing all this time? Obama should sack him for indifference or incompetence.

But of course he won’t:

Eric Holder is going to be working in parallel with the task force to convene a series of these meetings all across the country, because this is not a problem simply of Ferguson, Missouri, this is a problem that is national. It is a solvable problem, but it is one that, unfortunately, spikes after one event and then fades into the background until something else happens. What we need is a sustained conversation…

We keep trying, but no one answers us.

Holder has already announced his resignation; I thought he couldn’t wait to get out of there. Now he’s point man on a nationwide initiative? What are these creeps up to?

But enough with the questions. You come here for answers.

This is all about politics. Obama is not playing to America. He’s playing to a subset of Americans with a gripe. We can argue about the validity of that gripe, but this is not how you “bring people together”. The vast majority of Americans think justice was done in Ferguson—until the rioting and looting started, that is. They look at the mayhem in Ferguson, they listen to Obama and Holder, and the two do not match. Neither do the vast majority of Americans support amnesty for illegal aliens. But with the same self-righteous pontificating, Obama assured us he was acting unilaterally (and illegally) out of fairness.

It took some doing, but Obama has lost the middle-class white vote for Democrats. But that’s okay because he’s leaving them with a new coalition. Latinos legalized by an invalid diktat, and African Americans united by a fiction (“hands up, don’t shoot”), plus the usual collection of kooks, cranks, and Kool-Aid drinkers that remain loyal to the Party—these ain’t your daddy’s Democrats. But they’re Liz Warren’s. The Class Warfare will commence shortly.

Comments

In Other News

While doing next to nothing to stop the nationwide lawlessness purportedly in response to the grand jury’s decision in Ferguson, Obama is not doing absolutely nothing:

And on Sunday, the president went golfing at Joint Base Andrews. Looks like some of the usual White House aides were with him.

Not counting a brief trip to the driving range the Sunday before, this is Obama’s 48th golf outing of the year and the 205th of his presidency.

Wait! I take that back.

Play all the golf you like, sir. Lovely day for it:

President Barack Obama will discuss the situation in Ferguson, Missouri, Monday with his Cabinet, civil rights leaders, law enforcement officials and others.

The White House says Obama’s Cabinet meeting will focus on his administration’s review of federal programs that provide military-style equipment to law enforcement agencies.

The White House says the president will also meet with young civil rights leaders to discuss the challenges posed by “mistrust between law enforcement and communities of color.” He’ll then meet with government and law enforcement officials, as well as other community leaders, to discuss how to strengthen neighborhoods.

Officer Darren Wilson didn’t have any military-style equipment on him; he had his sidearm and that’s it—and he almost lost that. Maybe the riot police had some, but they were facing a, you know, riot. Never let a crisis go to waste, Obama. Answer a question that nobody’s asking.

And how come there’s been no outcry over Molotov Cocktail control? Is there no Molotov Cocktail registry? No waiting period? The Second Amendment says nothing about the right to keep and bear incendiary devices.

Comments

That Didn’t Take Long

Give me your tired, your poor—and they won’t be either no more!

Under President Obama’s new program to protect millions of illegal immigrants from deportation, many of those affected will be eligible to receive Social Security, Medicare and a wide array of other federal benefits, a White House official said Tuesday.

“A wide array of federal benefits”? How wide are we talking about?

Federal law says that people who pay the taxes and are deemed “lawfully present in the United States” can collect benefits under those programs when they become eligible. They may also receive survivor and disability benefits.

“If they pay in, they can draw,” White House spokesman Shawn Turner said by e-mail.

Turner noted, however, that the estimated 5 million immigrants granted protection from deportation will not be eligible for other federal benefits such as student financial aid, food stamps or housing subsidies. Nor are they eligible to purchase health insurance through the federal health-care exchange under the Affordable Care Act.

Yet.

The article actually doesn’t mention even a narrow array of benefits available to the “shadow people”, so I wonder of the author wasn’t betraying a cynicism (I might say honesty) akin to my own. How long before Chuck Schumer moans from well of the Senate (so-called because he’s a drip and all wet) about the inequity suffered by these poor semi-documented Americans living in the chiaroscuro? How long after that do they get that wide array of benefits, up to and including free dental? (Teeth are a human right.)

I’m sure it has already occurred to others what has just occurred to me: how good a deal is this for criminal aliens? We know the number of foreign invaders dropped during the recession (sorry, Recession)—indeed some emigrated—so not all of them are here for mom and apple pie (though if the pie is free…). What’s in it for them for “getting right with the law”? What if the shadows are more profitable? Why pay into a system from which they may not stick around to collect? They may be wholly illegal and largely illiterate, but they ain’t stupid.

Comments

A Nation of Immigrants

Not anymore, we’re not. Obama has made us a nation of criminal aliens.

Immigrants—honorable citizens who submit themselves to the rule of law—are no longer welcome:

When illegal immigrants are prioritized by the federal government and given a spot at the front of the line, millions of individuals going through the proper legal channels to become American citizens or to obtain visas are pushed even farther back in the process and given longer waiting periods. In most situations, this means legal immigrants spending longer periods of time away from their families.

My colleague Conn Carroll reminded us of the numbers and harsh reality of executive action has on legal immigrants last week:

At current staffing levels, USCIS issues about 1 million green cards per year. And when Obama enacted his first executive amnesty, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals in 2012, wait times for legal immigrants to get their visas tripled from under five months to over 15 months.

Only about 1 million illegal immigrants were eligible to apply for DACA amnesty and only about 600,000 were given amnesty. Obama’s next amnesty, however, will reportedly allow up to 5 million illegal immigrants to apply and no one knows how many will take him up on the offer.

But assuming the turnout for Obama’s next amnesty is bigger than DACA, we can safely assume that legal immigration delays will get much much worse.

Legitimate immigrants are justifiably ticked off:

@LaborSec are you going to refund all the money I spent doing it legally? Huh? Huh?

Hey @barackObama i want a refund of all my legal fees + 10 yrs worth of interest. I have all the receipts! I came here LEGALLY. #tcot

My family has paid fees to the US immigration system and followed the law. I’d like a refund, please, @BarackObama…

So, who’s gonna refund the $18,000 I spent to bring my wife here legally? @BarackObama? @NancyPelosi? #ImmigrationAction

Ummm make the system more fair?? What’s fair about saying f*ck you to those immigrants who followed our laws??

How’s this for insult to injury?

The proposed executive action on immigration (or whatever name you want to give it) will allow [illegal aliens] who have US citizen or green-card children and who have been here for five years to apply for some kind of quasi-status and open market work authorization. That would allow them to work for a period of time at any employer, the authorization presumably renewable until they decide to leave or have an option for US permanent resident status (green card status). This, the administration tells us, is fair and just and Biblical – yada/yada.

But this option is explicitly NOT available to those in the US in a valid legal status. There are millions of people in the US who have temporary status – as students or temporary workers or researchers or as investors (lots of Koreans own businesses with E-2 investor visas, for example). These people – many of them have US citizen children and have been here five years. These people who have been here legally and not violated their immigration status – these people are explicitly NOT eligible for open market work authorization, renewable indefinitely.

You must be in violation of the law to benefit from this provision.

At least if we must suffer, we all suffer together:

With his questionably Constitutional move to protect America’s vast undocumented population, President Obama has provided at least five million immigrants, and likely many more, with new hope for the future. But at the same time, his economic policies, and those of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, may guarantee that many of these newly legalized Americans will face huge obstacles trying to move up in a society creating too few opportunities already for its own citizens, much less millions of the largely ill-educated and unskilled newcomers.

In previous waves of immigration, particularly during the early 20th Century, there were clear benefits for both newcomers and the economy. A nation rapidly industrializing needed labor, including the relatively unskilled, and, with the help of the New Deal and the growth of unions, many of these newcomers (including my own maternal grandparents) achieved a standard of living, which, if hardly affluent, was at least comfortable and moderately secure.

Demand for labor remained strong during the big immigrant wave of the 1980s until the Great Recession. The country was building houses at a rapid clip, which required a large amount of immigrant labor.

Largely unskilled and undereducated, roughly half of adults 25 to 64 in this population have less than a high-school education compared to only 8 percent of the native born. Barely ten percent have any college, one third the national rate.

This workforce is being legalized at a time of unusual economic distress for the working class. Well into the post-2008 recovery, the country suffers from rates of labor participation at a 36 year low. Many jobs that were once full-time are, in part due to the Affordable Care Act, now part-time, and thus unable to support families. Finally there are increasingly few well-paying positions—including in industry—that don’t require some sort of post-college accreditation.

Sadly, the legalization of millions of new immigrants could make all these problems worse, particularly for Latinos already here and millions of African-Americans.

Okay, maybe we don’t all suffer together. Blacks and Hispanics take it worst. Typical.

PS: As we reported yesterday, the border is busy with jumpers again.

Comments

Supply and Demand

Obama demands amnesty for illegal aliens, and the illegal aliens supply the supply:

Last week President Obama announced his plan to legalize at least five million people living illegally in the United States during a primetime address to the nation from the White House. He detailed the plan again last Friday at a Las Vegas high school.

Just before his announcement, law enforcement officers working in and people living along the Texas border with Mexico were already seeing a surge in illegal immigration as a result. From Local ABC 5 news in the Rio Grande Valley:

The flow of illegal immigrants appears to be on the rise again in Brooks County.

Rugged trails on ranches are littered with empty bottles, the remnants of the journey made by those who entered illegally and those who are making their way north. People in the area said foot traffic is once again on the rise.

Dr. Michael Vickers said he is seeing more of these water bottles left behind on Brooks County ranches.

“Every time he opens his mouth about immigration and what he’s gonna do, there’s a huge negative impact on us that live out here along the border, especially in the rural areas where all the smuggling trails are,” said Vickers.

Last week as President Obama announced his legalization plan, Immigration and Customs Enforcement readied thousands of beds for a potential incoming surge of illegal immigrants unaccompanied minors.

On the same day President Obama announced his executive immigration overhaul we learned that the administration was gearing up for yet another surge of illegal immigrants coming this spring—more than 100,000 to be exact. And to do so, they’re getting a family detention center ready with 2,400 beds.

The new BTL just smiles and nods. Obama went to Las Vegas not to make his illegal, invalid announcement. He could have done that anywhere, including DC. He went to Vegas to play golf. Amnesty was just an excuse to hit the links with Derek Jeter. Don’t worry, be happy.

Comments

Putting His Money Where His Mouth Is

Liberal law professor ain’t that liberal:

Speaker of the House John Boehner has hired Jonathan Turley, a renowned liberal law professor, as his lead counsel in the House’s lawsuit against the Obama administration’s delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate.

Turley is a law professor at the George Washington University, frequent legal commentator and self-avowed liberal. He may be the perfect pick for House Republicans — Turley is not only a liberal, but is friendly toward Obamacare itself, according to his writings. But he’s vociferously pushed back against President Obama’s generous use of executive action in the past and has hit the administration for its implementation of the health-care law and he said he jumped at the chance to represent House Republicans.

“It is a great honor to represent the institution in this historic lawsuit and to work with the talented staff of the House General Counsel’s Office,” Turley wrote at his blog Monday. “To quote the movie Jerry Maguire, the House ‘had me at hello’ in seeking a ruling to reinforce the line of authority between the branches.”

“The question presented by this lawsuit is whether we will live in a system of shared and equal powers, as required by our Constitution, or whether we will continue to see the rise of a dominant Executive with sweeping unilateral powers,” Turley continued. “That is a question worthy of review and resolution in our federal courts.”

As we quoted Turley yesterday:

“What the President is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the constitution. We have a separation of powers that gives us balance and that doesn’t protect the branches. It’s not there to protect the executive branch or the legislative branch, it’s there to protect liberty. It’s there to keep any branch from assuming so much control that they become a threat to liberty.

That post was titled “The Fascist President”. Anyone still care to argue that?

While Turley may be a good fit for House Republicans, they’ve had trouble retaining counsel in the past. Two Washington, D.C. law firms backed out of representing the House thus far — first attorney David Rivkin of BakerHostetler and then Bill Burkc of Quinn Emanuel Urquhuart & Sullivan.

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog, is seeking information from the White House on whether administration officials pressured the firms into dropping the case. A Boehner spokesman told Politico last month that political pressure form “wealthy, Democratic-leaning clients” was a factor in the firms backing out.

That sound you hear is the sound of a democratically elected republic slipping through our grasp.

Comments (2)

Who Ordered the Egg Salad?

Remember all the stories about how Obama never mixed with members of Congress? He didn’t schmooze or gladhand? He even avoided his cabinet, preferring the company of intimate insiders like Valerie Jarrett and…Valerie Jarrett.

This has got to be hard for him to swallow:

Obama invited the top four House and Senate leaders to each bring along their top three deputies to the lunch in the White House Old Family Dining Room.


That’s right, sir. You take a big ol’ bite out of that s**t sandwich.

Republican aides said before the lunch that House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is in line to become Senate majority leader, would press Obama and Democratic leaders to support dozens of House-passed bills that they believe could be quickly approved next year when the new Congress convenes and could help jump-start the economy.

Boehner and McConnell were also expected to remind Obama — as they did in public this week — that he runs the risk of spoiling any attempt at bipartisan cooperation if he takes steps to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws by using his presidential executive authorities, aides said.

“Finding common ground is going to be hard work, but it will be even harder if the president isn’t willing to work with us,” Boehner told reporters Thursday at his post-election news conference. “I’ve told the president before, he needs to put politics aside and rebuild trust.”

Which president does he mean? Fillmore? Not this one, surely. The first words out of his mouth to Republicans after the inauguration were “I won.” He has ignored Congressional intent, abused his office, and conspired with fellow Democrats in Congress to ruin the traditions and rules of the legislative body. Rebuild trust? Work with you? If you bring a knife, John Boehner, he’s bringing a gun.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »