Obama's state department about to legalize millions of illegals, b

[Security]

Obama's state department about to legalize millions of illegals, but no Visa for an Israeli NBA player?

 

Seriously, this president is just an absolute joke.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/11/10/State-Department-Refuses-NBA-Visa-Extension-for-Israeli-Hoops-Star-as-Obama-Announces-Doubling-of-Chinese-Student-Visas/

 

Even as he defiantly moves to unilaterally grant legal status to millions of people inside the U.S. illegally, President Obama's State Department is making sure that such special favors are not meant for everyone. The State Department’s unexplained refusal to extend a valid P1 visa currently held by an Israeli basketball player has prevented the National Basketball Association's (NBA) Indiana Pacers from signing him.

[LeviF]

Oy vey! It's like shoah all ova again!

[IDBillzFan]

Looks like Obama plans to double-down on stupid.

 

If and when he does this, he's going to blow up the Democratic party for the next 25 years, easy.

 

Good luck, Barry! We're all cheering you on!

[Very wide right]

What difference does it make

[Tiberius]

He lost his visa when Dallas tossed him on the trash heat and the Pacers couldn't wait a few days for the paper work to go through. This is a total red herring issue. Typical right wing crap

Edited November 16, 2014 by gatorman

[PearlHowardman]

If and when he does this, he's going to blow up the Democratic party for the next 25 years, easy.

 

This^

[B-Man]

and here is an actual example of why........in Deep Blue Oregon

 

 

 

Oregon Immigration Vote is a Warning for Obama

Associated Press, by Jonathan J. Cooper and Nicholas Riccardi Original Article

 

PORTLAND, Ore. — The fate of a little-noticed ballot measure in strongly Democratic Oregon serves as a warning to President Barack Obama and his party about the political perils of immigration policy. Even as Oregon voters were legalizing recreational marijuana and expanding Democratic majorities in state government, they decided by a margin of 66-34 to cancel a new state law that would have provided driver´s licenses to people who are in the United States illegally.

 

(Snip)

 

Opponents barely gathered enough signatures to put the repeal question on the ballot. Immigrant rights groups outspent their opponents 10-1.

Still, the measure failed

[Tiberius]

and here is an actual example of why........in Deep Blue Oregon

Obama better grant amnesty now then, the American people don't really have long memories and 2016 is well over the horizon

[Chef Jim]

Looks like Obama plans to double-down on stupid.

 

If and when he does this, he's going to blow up the Democratic party for the next 25 years, easy.

 

Good luck, Barry! We're all cheering you on!

 

And with the shitstorm going on in Mexico right now if he does this the flood gates will open.

[B-Man]

This is among the most remarkable statements I have ever seen. It’s almost self-parodic.

 

" There is a very simple solution to this perception that I am somehow exercising too much executive authority: Pass a bill I can sign on this issue" the President said. "Give me a bill that addresses those issues and I'll be the first one to sign it. And metaphorically I will crumple up whatever executive actions we will take and toss them in the wastebasket, because we will now have a law that addresses these issues"

 

-President Barack Obama

 

LOL

 

 

The man just continues his lack of understanding..............why not say this

 

"I'm going to abolish the IRS. If you don't want the IRS abolished, pass a bill saying the IRS has been abolished and I'll sign it"

[IDBillzFan]

Obama better grant amnesty now then, the American people don't really have long memories and 2016 is well over the horizon

 

 

Americans are smarter than you think, Gruber.

 

If Obama moves on with this amnesty, your party will ultimately be made up of fools like you, Obama, Warren and Bernie Sanders running a kale ranch in Berkeley. Mark it.

[B-Man]

http://www.nytimes.c...od=nytcore-ipad

 

The Great Immigration Betrayal

 

IN the months since President Obama first seem poised — as he now seems poised again — to issue a sweeping executive amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, we’ve learned two important things about how this administration approaches its constitutional obligations.

 

First, we now have a clear sense of the legal arguments that will be used to justify the kind of move Obama himself previously described as a betrayal of our political order. They are, as expected, lawyerly in the worst sense, persuasive only if abstracted from any sense of precedent or proportion or political normality.

 

Second, we now have a clearer sense of just how anti-democratically this president may be willing to proceed.

 

{snip}

 

Presidential systems like ours have a long record, especially in Latin America, of producing standoffs between executive and legislative branches, which tends to make executive power grabs more likely. In the United States this tendency has been less dangerous — our imperial presidency has grown on us gradually; the worst overreaches have often been rolled back. But we do seem to be in an era whose various forces — our open-ended post-9/11 wars, the ideological uniformity of the parties — are making a kind of creeping caudillismo more likely.

 

But if that evil must come, woe to the president who chooses it. And make no mistake, the president is free to choose. No immediate crisis forces his hand; no doom awaits the country if he waits. He once campaigned on constitutionalism and executive restraint; he once abjured exactly this power. There is still time for him to respect the limits of his office, the lines of authority established by the Constitution, the outcome of the last election.

 

Or he can choose the power grab, and the accompanying disgrace.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Very wide right]

Just wait until our community organizer starts his pardon process near the end of his presidency.That will raise a few eyebrows and just eaten meals.

[Security]

He lost his visa when Dallas tossed him on the trash heat and the Pacers couldn't wait a few days for the paper work to go through. This is a total red herring issue. Typical right wing crap

 

Not really. Exceptions are ALWAYS made in these cases, just not in this case. I will give you that there was mismanagement.

[IDBillzFan]

Interesting article here from Byron York at Washington Examiner regarding the way GOP plans to battle Obama's amnesty plan.

 

In a nutshell, they need to pass some temporary spending, and just hold up the DHS portions that would cover the amnesty. It would take some Dem votes, but as is noted at The Hill article here, Dems are begging Obama to wait until the Q1.

 

Given Obama's current legacy, which is "We did a bunch of stupid stuff," Barry figures to listen only to Val and Michelle and move forward with his idiotic plan, hope Dems don't block him, and force GOP to have another shutdown.

 

The problem? GOP just crushed the left in mid-terms at every level after getting blamed for the last shutdown, in which the WH did a masterful job pinning in on the GOP, and Obama is slightly less popular than an anal boil, so another shutdown is not that threatening to the right.

[Nanker]

Interesting article here from Byron York at Washington Examiner regarding the way GOP plans to battle Obama's amnesty plan.

 

In a nutshell, they need to pass some temporary spending, and just hold up the DHS portions that would cover the amnesty. It would take some Dem votes, but as is noted at The Hill article here, Dems are begging Obama to wait until the Q1.

 

Given Obama's current legacy, which is "We did a bunch of stupid stuff," Barry figures to listen only to Val and Michelle and move forward with his idiotic plan, hope Dems don't block him, and force GOP to have another shutdown.

 

The problem? GOP just crushed the left in mid-terms at every level after getting blamed for the last shutdown, in which the WH did a masterful job pinning in on the GOP, and Obama is slightly less popular than an anal boil, so another shutdown is not that threatening to the right.

Wow. I really don't like the sound of that anal boil business but I'm not sure if Obama is slightly less popular than Gatorman around here anyway.

[B-Man]

WASHINGTON POST: In Mr. Obama’s own words, acting alone is ‘not how our democracy functions.’

 

Two thoughts:

(1) Expiration date

(2) What makes you think he cares about our democracy?

 

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/198474/

 

 

 

 

 

 

RON FOURNIER: Obama ‘Destroyed the Credibility of His Administration and Government Itself.’

 

 

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

Obama gets blown up by NYT's David Brooks here.

 

 

The move would further destabilize the legitimacy of government. Redefining the legal status of five million or six million human beings is a big deal. This is the sort of change we have a legislative process for. To do something this seismic with the stroke of one man’s pen is dangerous.

 

Instead of a nation of laws, we could slowly devolve into a nation of diktats, with each president relying on and revoking different measures on the basis of unilateral power — creating unstable swings from one presidency to the next. If President Obama enacts this order on the transparently flimsy basis of “prosecutorial discretion,” he’s inviting future presidents to use similarly flimsy criteria. Talk about defining constitutional deviancy down.

 

I’m not sure why the Obama administration has been behaving so strangely since the midterms. Maybe various people in the White House are angry in defeat and want to show that they can be as obstructionist as anyone. Maybe, in moments of stress, they are only really sensitive to criticism from the left flank. Maybe it’s Gruberism: the belief that everybody else is slightly dumber and less well-motivated than oneself and, therefore, politics is more about manipulation than conversation.

 

Whatever it is, it’s been a long journey from the Iowa caucuses in early 2008 to the pre-emptive obstruction of today. I wonder if, post-presidency, Mr. Obama will look back and regret that he got sucked into the very emotional maelstrom he set out to destroy.

Edited November 18, 2014 by LABillzFan

[John Adams]

Your State Department did this Security.

 

Congress: 95% of them were re-elected in the great bloodletting of 2014.

 

We're all suckers.

[B-Man]

Obama to announce immigration order in Las Vegas on Friday

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102183389

 

 

The debate over Obama's executive action isn't about immigration, it's about the proper role of the executive in our Republic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

Obama gets blown up by NYT's David Brooks here.

Sounds like the same complaints about Lincoln freeing the slaves

[LeviF]

Sounds like the same complaints about Lincoln freeing the slaves

 

How so?

[Tiberius]

How so?

Executive order

[IDBillzFan]

Obama to announce immigration order in Las Vegas on Friday

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102183389

 

 

The debate over Obama's executive action isn't about immigration, it's about the proper role of the executive in our Republic.

 

Interesting considering Nevada has one of the highest contingencies of illegal immigrants, and an unemployment rate still in the mid 7s because of it.

 

But hey, I'm sure everyone will back him given how much credibility he has in the nation. He wouldn't gruberize us, would he?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Executive order

Lincoln was a Dictator.

[Tiberius]

Lincoln was a Dictator.

Hey, you know who else was a dictator? A little AUSTRIAN corporal!

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Hey, you know who else was a dictator? A little AUSTRIAN corporal!

 

 

You're an idiot.

[Tiberius]

You're an idiot.

[DC Tom]

Sounds like the same complaints about Lincoln freeing the slaves

 

Could you be more ignorant? Lincoln didn't free the slaves, you asshat. Congress did when they ratified the 13th Amendment.

[B-Man]

Obama’s answer is unequivocal. Here’s what he said: “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.” And followed that up with: “There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, to ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

 

Obama’s upcoming executive order on immigration is almost certainly illegal. How do we know? Because Obama told us so in 2011.

 

 

 

 

New NBC/WSJ poll shows only 38% support executive action on immigration, and 48% oppose.. . . . . . Paging Hillary Clinton...

 

http://www.nbcnews.c...251631 …

 

 

 

BREAKING: Tomorrow night President Obama will announce that individuals going through process of legal immigration are a bunch of suckers. _ Jim Geraghty

 

 

 

 

Reminder: The debate over Obama's executive action isn't about immigration, it's about the proper role of the executive in our Republic.

 

 

 

 

 

Added: Mr. Obama, the President of the ENTIRE country has invited Democrat leaders to dinner tonight to talk about his executive action.

 

Thats all you need to know about his bi-partisan approach to anything.

 

 

.

Edited November 19, 2014 by B-Man

[Rob's House]

If he does this he should be impeached and everyone who scoffed at the idea of" King Obama" should eat heaping helpings of crow.

 

I can't count the number of times this guy has proven his supporters wrong.

 

Executive order

 

Please share with us the constitutional underpinnings of the executive order.

[DC Tom]

Please share with us the constitutional underpinnings of the executive order.

 

There isn't one, because the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't even an executive order. Just a pretty, pretty speech.

[B-Man]

Hmmmm. As of now CBS, NBC, Fox won’t take Obama’s prime-time immigration speech live; ABC still deciding.

 

Maybe he should order them to...........................

 

 

 

White House Advance Team Completes Stage Decorations for Las Vegas Immigration Announcement

 

 

 

Liberals Can't Justify Obama's Amnesty

by Ramesh Ponnuru

 

President Barack Obama is planning to rewrite immigration law in the guise of exercising "prosecutorial discretion." In other words, he's going to ask federal agencies not to enforce the laws on the books and hand work permits to millions of illegal immigrants.

 

When conservatives and moderates criticize this unilateralism, as I did earlier this week, we tend to get three responses from liberals. None of them make Obama's plan sound any better.

 

{snip}

 

Mark Krikorian, who runs an immigration-restrictionist research group, has made short work of this argument. The Republicans-did-it-too crowd is exaggerating how big those earlier executive amnesties were. They were far smaller than what Obama is considering today. More important, these weren't cases where Congress had pointedly refused to enact an amnesty. They were the "tying up of loose ends" from a congressionally enacted amnesty, and after they were done Congress passed another law trying to prevent presidents from issuing further amnesties on their own.

 

What Obama is talking about is indeed a break with the country's constitutional tradition. You don't need to take my word for it. "That's not how our democracy works. That's not how our Constitution is written." Obama used those words to explain why he wasn't going to go it alone on immigration back in 2011.

 

It's not the Constitution that has since changed.

 

 

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-19/liberals-cant-justify-obamas-amnesty

 

.

Edited November 19, 2014 by B-Man

[IDBillzFan]

Hmmmm. As of now CBS, NBC, Fox won’t take Obama’s prime-time immigration speech live; ABC still deciding.

 

 

That genuinely blows my mind.

 

Meanwhile, Dems are circulating to their party a letter of support for Obama so amnesty advocates know who to target.

 

Immigration advocates are warning that this is a real possibility — one that could have a serious impact on the politics of this fight if and when a government shutdown battle looms — and they are preparing to exert maximum pressure on those Democrats they deem at risk.

 

“We are preparing to pressure them at home and in Washington, to let them know that there will be hell to pay if this happens,” Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice, tells me.

 

Among the Democrats believed to be at risk are Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, and Joe Donnelly. Angus King (who is an independent but caucuses with Dems) is also a question mark.

 

The problem, advocates worry, is that if these Democrats come out against any Obama executive action, it could complicate the political battle to come. Republicans are expected to try to pass legislation rolling back whatever Obama does. Democrats will try to block it. But if Republicans can get 60 votes — which they could do if enough Dems defect — the president would then have to veto it. That could make the politics of this battle worse for Obama: Not only is he acting unilaterally; he’s also facing bipartisan opposition within Congress that is requiring him to protect those unilateral actions with a veto.

[Tiberius]

 

 

Could you be more ignorant? Lincoln didn't free the slaves, you asshat. Congress did when they ratified the 13th Amendment.

Really? Which of the hundreds of thousands of black union soldiers were still slaves? And was the federal government returning all those run sways to their masters in 1864?

[DC Tom]

Really? Which of the hundreds of thousands of black union soldiers were still slaves? And was the federal government returning all those run sways to their masters in 1864?

 

Your definition of "free" is "not re-enslaving?"

[Tiberius]

 

 

Your definition of "free" is "not re-enslaving?"

Lol, what? Well, in part, yes. The EP wasn't a complete an immediate solution, but then again, neither was the 13th amendment

[Rob's House]

Lol, what? Well, in part, yes. The EP wasn't a complete an immediate solution, but then again, neither was the 13th amendment

 

Since you didn't (couldn't) answer my first question, maybe you can answer a simpler one. What, if any, limitations should there be on the President's ability to enact laws unilaterally?

[DC Tom]

Lol, what? Well, in part, yes. The EP wasn't a complete an immediate solution, but then again, neither was the 13th amendment

 

You're !@#$ing retarded. The Emancipation Proclamation was for European benefit, to discredit the South and prevent the Confederacy's recognition by Europe. It freed exactly NO slaves. It didn't even free slaves in the Northern slave-holding states.

 

The Thirteenth Amendment, on the other hand..."All persons are equal before the law, so that no person can hold another as a slave." That's pretty complete and immediate.

[IDBillzFan]

The WH talking points for tomorrow's speech are here. It's totes like being governed by a 15-year-old girl.

 

Republicans are blocking funding to conduct millions of background checks.

 

Another Republican Shutdown, but this time over collecting taxes from undocumented immigrants.