Search This Blog


Saturday, November 22, 2014

SEIU CA Rallies Push Legal Status for Remaining Illegal Aliens, Applaud Obama

SEIU CA Rallies Push Legal Status for Remaining Illegal Aliens, Applaud Obama

by Michelle Moons

Nov 21, 2014 5:47 PM PT

SEIU celebratory rallies held across California continued throughout Friday taking names of those who don’t qualify under President Obama’s new and expanded legal status for millions of illegal aliens while heralding his iron fisted legal status declaration.

SEIU California announced 12 rallies throughout California, saying, “Community members who have fought for comprehensive immigration reform will join affected families, local elected officials, and legal experts for a news conference following today’s announcement that President Obama will take administrative action to move comprehensive immigration reform forward.”

One SEIU rally involved taking signatures from any who said they would not be included under the new and expanded executive order, presumptively remaining illegally present in the U.S.. A photo and description was posted to the SEIU California Twitter account reading, “Names of friends and family who won't benefit from ?#ImmigrationAction - but the Presidents 1st action helps millions.”

The powerful union also unveiled new website “iAmerica is for American immigrant families of all walks of life, providing tools and support to get informed, inspire change and impact America’s future,” reads the front page of the site. The site devotes a section to registering voters. Another section called, Make an Impact lists one of five actions as “Take another selfie” and “amplify the call for immigration reform.” 

Watch parties and press conference scheduled around the country are also posted on iAmerica. The site even boasts a section on finding legal services throughout the country, pulling from a database in a joint project of the Immigration Advocates Network and Pro Bono Net. Television network Univision, RocktheVote, National Immigration Law Center and MiFamilia Vota Education Fund are just a few of the organization that have joined with SEIU in sponsoring iAmerica according to the website.

Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana

Photo: Twitter

Voters Rejected Amnesty on Election Day

Voters Rejected Amnesty on Election Day

By Derrick Morganon Sat, 22 Nov 2014

Last month, in a speech at Northwestern University, President Barack Obama declared that the midterm elections were actually a referendum on his policies. “I am not on the ballot … But make no mistake: (My) policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.”

How right he was. And how resoundingly voters rejected those policies on Nov. 4!

Throughout the country, voters expressed opposition to the president’s push to amnesty millions of illegal immigrants. Even the liberal electorate of Oregon rejected granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants with a two-thirds majority.

As Ron Fournier, senior political columnist for the National Journal tweeted: “After this repudiation, acting on #immigration by fiat would be the political equivalent of … flipping the country the bird.”

Apparently, the president’s OK with that. Only a week after the elections, while Obama toured Asia, administration officials slipped the ever-supportive New York Times details of the president’s plan to bypass Congress and grant amnesty, via executive fiat, to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants.

Does the president really have the gall to ignore the will of the people? Well, he’s certainly done it before.

Remember the debate over Obamacare? As the president was trying to ram the bill through Congress over unanimous opposition from Republicans, Massachusetts held a special election. The contest became one over the law itself. It ended with the people of Massachusetts – hardly a conservative bastion – electing a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy in order to defeat Obamacare.

But the president and his allies ignored the voters and pushed through Obamacare anyway. We’re still reaping the bitter fruit from the president’s unwillingness to compromise.

Unfortunately, the president feels no more bound to respect the powers and wishes of Congress than he does those of the electorate. When lawmakers rejected his cap-and-trade energy tax and his DREAM Act amnesty for illegal immigrant children, the president blithely issued orders carrying out the policies anyway.

This year, Congress wisely declined to pass legislation granting amnesty to more than 11 million illegal immigrants. Post-election polls show that 74 percent of Americans, including a majority of Hispanics, don’t want the president to impose amnesty by executive fiat. Yet here he is, once again pledging to grant executive amnesty before the end of the year.

[Editor’s note: On Nov. 20, Obama announced he would go forward with the executive action on immigration. This column was original published prior.]

If he does move forward with this unpopular, inappropriate action, what can lawmakers do about it? For starters, Congress can exercise its constitutional prerogative – the power of the purse – and refuse to fund any actions or resources needed to implement an executive amnesty. For added good measure, they could pass a resolution affirming that any future president can easily revoke any such order, and that all the information collected regarding amnesty-seekers could be used for future enforcement actions. That might give amnesty activists pause for thought.

Why is it so important that Congress take a firm stand against imposing amnesty via executive fiat? Because what Obama is proposing is more than just bad policy. Such high-handed executive action could provoke a Constitutional crisis or lead to a new, chaos-inducing “normal” for presidential behavior.

Remember when filibusters of judicial nominees were rare? For a long time, Republicans insisted it was inappropriate. But then came a series of Democrat-led filibusters. After just a few years of it, Republicans responded in kind. Indeed, they filibustered so routinely that Senate Democrats triggered the “nuclear option,” outlawing filibusters on district and appellate court nominations.

Could executive action on immigration break down the tradition of presidential restraint, ushering in an era of government by executive fiat? Might it embolden leaders of each party to disregard the checks and balances set out in the Constitution? Might a future president simply ignore environmental, immigration, tax and other laws that conflict with his preferred policy? Legal scholars like Robert Delahunty, Jonathan Turley and John Yoo think such scenarios become increasingly likely every time the president decides to make policy with his “pen and phone,” rather than via legislation.

Now is the time for President Obama to carefully consider his legacy. Does he want to be the president who abused his constitutional authority and launched the era of Imperial Presidencies? Or, will he listen to the voters and reject amnesty? The decision is his.

Originally distributed by the McClatchy-Tribune News Service.

The post Voters Rejected Amnesty on Election Day appeared first on Daily Signal.

House Judiciary Committee to Hold Hearing On 'Unconstitutionality' Of Executive Actions

by Caroline May

Nov 21, 2014 1:42 PM PT

When Congress returns from its Thanksgiving recess, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the “unconstitutionality” of President Obama’s recent executive action on immigration, Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) announced Friday. 

“Last night, President Obama went all-in against the Constitution and today he is doubling-down on his lawlessness in Las Vegas of all places,” Goodlatte said. “Unfortunately for the American people, the President has ignored their opinions and forged ahead with his plan, creating a constitutional crisis and an untold number of consequences for the American people and legal immigrants.”

Thursday evening Obama announced his executive actions, including granting legal status to nearly 5 million illegal immigrants and further reducing the likelihood of deportation for many more.

“The stakes of inaction are high and Congress will use the best tools available to stop President Obama from implementing his unconstitutional plan,” Goodlatte said, announcing his committee’s intention to hold a hearing about "the unconstitutionality of President Obama’s power grab” on Tuesday, Dec. 2.  

Surprise, 30,000 Lois Lerner IRS Emails Discovered Late Friday Afternoon

Surprise, 30,000 Lois Lerner IRS Emails Discovered Late Friday Afternoon

by Dan Riehl

Nov 21, 2014 4:35 PM PT

If a Friday afternoon when the GOP is suing the administration over the Affordable Care Act, while still scrambling internally to formulate an official response to last night's announced amnesty for five million illegal immigrants, isn't the best time to suddenly discover 30,000 Lois Lerner emails once pronounced lost forever, it's difficult to think of a better one if one's intention is to minimize the news.

Up to 30,000 missing emails sent by former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner have been recovered by the IRS inspector general, five months after they were deemed lost forever.

The U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) informed congressional staffers from several committees on Friday that the emails were found among hundreds of “disaster recovery tapes” that were used to back up the IRS email system.

“They just said it took them several weeks and some forensic effort to get these emails off these tapes,” a congressional aide told the Washington Examiner.

Yes, sometimes things just happen that way. And when the Obama administration finally leaves office, they're all going to go into the used cars sales business together, too. Imagine that.

Committees in the House and Senate are seeking the emails, which they believe could show Lerner was working in concert with Obama administration officials to target conservative and Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status before the 2012 presidential election.

The missing emails extend from 2009 to 2011, a period when Lerner headed the IRS’s exempt-organizations division. The emails were lost when Lerner’s computer crashed, IRS officials said earlier this year.

Blue State Blues: My Immigrant Father's Warning—'When Illegality Becomes the Law'

by Joel B. Pollak

Nov 21, 2014 8:02 PM PT

I am a legal immigrant. I did not choose to come to the United States—I was carried here, by my parents, who arrived with one suitcase and nothing else. They were not fleeing political oppression, religious persecution, or economic collapse. In fact, as white South Africans in the 1970s, they were born into a life of exclusive privilege and prosperity. My father had grown up poor but made his way to medical school. A life of wealth awaited.

Yet my parents chose to immigrate to the United States instead, living in a basement apartment with no family nearby, enduring a Chicago winter they could never possibly have imagined. My father had to redo part of his medical residency as my mother tended to an eight-week-old infant alone. 

After many years and much hard work, they achieved the American dream. But they certainly would have been more comfortable in South Africa.

Years later, I asked my father why they had left South Africa. To this day, he has the same answer: "Illegality became the law." 

As students, he and my mother had both volunteered in the black and "coloured" townships where whites were rarely seen. They saw, firsthand, the injustice of a regime that stripped citizens of their vote, their property, and their dignity. And at that time, they could not have foreseen Nelson Mandela's "miracle."

The problem was not just racism or discrimination. The core of apartheid South Africa's sickness was that the ruling party, once in power, steadily dismantled all legal and political obstacles to its supreme, racist rule. 

When the courts struck down the government's attempts to disenfranchise black voters, the regime packed the courts. When political opponents arose, they were "banned"—forbidden to speak in public or even gather in groups.

Actions that were illegal—a violation of existing statutes, or of common law, or natural rights—were enshrined as the supreme law of the land. 

And that is what bothered my father and mother as they came of age. They knew that blacks were not the only people who were threatened by apartheid's illiberal democracy—though certainly black South Africans bore the brunt of suffering. 

They knew that no one, white or black, was ultimately safe.

They knew because friends who attended political rallies went missing and returned from interrogations with the security police, shaken to the core. They knew because they discovered, through their medical training and public service, that the government was hiding an entire world from the (white) electorate. They knew because they were often singled out, as Jews, by a regime that actually cared little for its professed Christian values.

When they decided to leave South Africa, they had other options: Israel, the United Kingdom, Canada, and elsewhere. They chose the United States, embracing the unique kind of freedom that flourishes here precisely because of the Constitution that has remained, until now, the foundation of communal life. They immigrated legally, and we became proud citizens after ten years, taking the oath in a Chicago courtroom in July 1987.

We came to the United States because of the rule of law. America did not offer a "better" life. It offered a life of moral dignity. 

Some Americans—understandably, perhaps—take that for granted. 

Some argue—as President Barack Obama often does—that the process of political action does not matter, only the result. The ends justify the means. 

That is when illegality can become the law. 

And that is what happened in America Thursday night.

Senior Editor-at-Large Joel B. Pollak edits Breitbart California and is the author of the new ebook, Wacko Birds: The Fall (and Rise) of the Tea Party, available for Amazon Kindle.

Follow Joel on Twitter: @joelpollak

Gruber and Obama's Big Lie

Gruber and Obama's Big Lie

By Jonah Goldberg - November 21, 2014

I understand we’ve turned the page to the next controversy — Obama’s unconstitutional immigration pander — but I’d like to dwell a little longer on the previous travesty.

Obama administration health-care consultant Jonathan Gruber was discovered to have boasted that Obamacare was designed to exploit the “stupidity” of American voters and elude honest accounting by hiding both its cost and the taxes necessary to pay for it.

When asked about this in Brisbane, Australia, the president rolled his eyes at the controversy.

“I just heard about this,” Obama said. “The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with . . . is no reflection on the actual process that was run.”

“We had a year-long debate,” Obama exasperatedly continued. “Go look back at your stories. One thing we can’t say is that we didn’t have a lengthy debate over health care in the United States. . . . It’s fair to say there is not a provision in the health-care law that was not extensively debated and was not fully transparent.”

This statement is a falsehood, punctuated by deceits, supported by half-truths, in defense of a scam.

Let’s give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he had “just heard about this.” After all, he doesn’t hear about a lot of terrible things he’s ultimately responsible for — the IRS scandal, mismanagement at the VA, etc. — until they appear, often tardily, in the newspapers.

The fact that Gruber was not a staffer is a small truth in service of a bigger lie. Gruber was far more indispensible than any staffer. Nearly every news outlet referred to the man as an “architect” of Obamacare. (Many of those outlets are now scrambling to unsay what they said.)

Mere White House staffers were like the bricklayers and plumbers; Gruber was the guy drawing the blueprints. Who gets more credit for a new skyscraper, the guy who installed the toilets or the guy who helped design it?

It’s true that there was a big national argument about the Affordable Care Act. It’s also true that the press covered it extensively. But an argument is not the same thing as a debate, never mind a transparent one. If Obamacare was so transparent, why did Nancy Pelosi, a general contractor for the ACA, insist that the only way to know what’s in it is to pass it?

Real debates require honesty. If I say, “Two plus two equals four,” and you say, “No, it equals a duck,” and then refuse to accept any contrary facts or evidence, that’s not a debate, it’s performance art.

In 2009, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos confronted Obama about the fact that the individual mandate is a tax. Obama scoffed and filibustered. Stephanopoulos responded by citing the dictionary definition of a tax.

“George,” Obama responded, “the fact that you looked up . . . the definition of tax increase indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.”

Huh? In what open and transparent debate is the dictionary definition of a word irrelevant? By the way, if the Supreme Court had agreed with Obama, the law would be unconstitutional.

President Obama lied — relentlessly — during that so-called “debate.” Most famously, he repeatedly said, “You can keep your doctor” (and your insurance) if you want. He often ended such lies by saying, “Period. End of story,” as if his emphatic assertion were irrefutable fact. Either he knew he was lying, or the law is so un-transparent that even the man who signed it into law couldn’t understand its most basic functions.

Speaking of transparency, the Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carney notes that Obama frequently attacked the “special interests” opposed to the bill even though the very same interests supported the bill thanks to the generous bribes — er, “subsidies” — included therein. From the Rose Garden in 2009, Obama attacked drug companies for opposing the bill, even though he knew the drug lobby helped craft it. (Carney notes, “Behind closed doors, the White House apologized to drugmakers for that line, blaming a ‘young speechwriter.’”)

Still, the biggest lie is the one Obama left unsaid in Brisbane. He implied that he won the debate. He didn’t. He won the fight in Congress — by brute partisan force. But the majority of the American people watching this farcical debate were never convinced by Obama’s claims. There was a time when such things mattered. But when it comes to the progressives’ desire to impose their will — on health care and, now, immigration — what the stupid voters want counts for little. 

Read more: 
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitt

Friday, November 21, 2014

Obama Defends Amnesty On Facebook: Illegal Immigrants 'Are American As Any Of Us'

Obama Defends Amnesty On Facebook: Illegal Immigrants 'Are American As Any Of Us'

by Charlie Spiering

Nov 21, 2014 10:22 AM PT

Obama explained he understood that most Americans were frustrated with people who were breaking the law and cutting the line by coming into the country illegally.

With a soft piano soundtrack in the background, Obama helpfully explained to Facebook viewers that “it just comes down to people.”

“You hear stories about young people who were brought here when they were two or three years old - are as American as any of us in attitude and love of country but don’t have the right papers and as a consequence they can’t apply for scholarships or they can’t travel because they are fearful that it might mean that they were deported,” he argued. “What you realize is that’s not what America is about.”

Obama asserted that his unprecedented executive decision was a “common sense solution that most Americans would believe in.”