Sunday, June 24, 2012

Obama's desperate amnesty gamble 

Exclusive: Tom Tancredo does the math showing move won't help with re-election

With his unconstitutional amnesty decree of June 15, Obama has played a losing hand. His cynical manipulation of the “Hispanic vote” only confirms voters’ view of Obama as an unprincipled ends-justifies-the-means politician.

Obama is going all-out for the Hispanic vote, and the rule of law be damned.

The great irony of his cynical political move is that it will make congressional enactment of the so-called Dream Act impossible. His temporary amnesty will be exactly that, temporary. It will end on the afternoon of Jan. 20, 2013, when his successor walks into the Oval Office. Any immigration reform enacted by the next Congress will not vaguely resemble the Obama plan.

Obama’s amnesty-by-fiat shows his campaign’s desperation. His campaign is in full panic as his poll numbers continue to slide.

Obama is gambling that this brazen pitch for the “Hispanic vote” will carry him over the top in key battleground states like Colorado and Florida. Evidently, no one in his White House command post has done the math: Obama can win 70 percent of the Hispanic vote nationwide and 80 percent in some states and still lose the election in a landslide.

That’s not mere speculation; we have new polling data to suggest exactly that outcome, and it is data from a pro-Obama organization. A poll by “Latino Decisions” released today illustrates Obama’s electoral challenge. The poll surveyed 2,000 registered Hispanic voters (not likely voters, so the sample has a slight Democratic bias) in five battleground states – Florida, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado and Arizona. In Colorado, Obama has the support of 70 percent of Hispanic voters.

That 70 percent sounds impressive until you consider the historical context. Its real message is that Obama is in trouble in these key battleground states.

In 2008, Obama got 68 percent of the Hispanic vote in Colorado and carried the state by 9 points over McCain. Yet, today in Colorado he has 70 percent of Hispanics’ support but is tied with Romney among voters at large. What does that tell you? It tells us that Obama cannot possibly make up in Hispanic votes the support he is losing across the entire demographic spectrum.

Besides the clear constitutional issues involved in the Obama amnesty, the decree faces a mountain of legal and pragmatic difficulties. For example, as the Center for Immigration Studies revealed this past week, different offices within ICE and the Border Patrol are already giving differing interpretations as to who qualifies for the amnesty.

The so-called Dream Act was supposedly aimed at helping young people who were brought here as children and have been law-abiding residents for at least five years. But a Border Patrol station in Texas has already started releasing persons under 30 apprehended the day after the Obama decree on the grounds that they now qualify for amnesty. The rule of law? Under Obama, we don’t need no stinking laws. We’ve got “prosecutorial discretion.”

Yet, the political fallout for a broader immigration reform will be quite different from the calculations of the open-borders lobby and the Democrat-run Hispanic Congressional Caucus. The transparently partisan Obama decree has poisoned the well for bipartisan immigration reform in 2013.

There should be no doubt that in January of 2013, President Romney will cancel the Obama executive order and begin work on true immigration reform that starts with demonstrated border security. Pundits who think Republicans have been outmaneuvered by the Obama edict have it exactly backwards. Obama’s move shows the stupidity and futility of approaching immigration reform in a cynical and illegal manner.

Anyone who doubts the reality of the coming backlash need look no further than the immigration platform adopted this month in Karl Rove’s backyard by the Texas Republican Party. The liberal media have played up the call for an “efficient and effective guest worker program.” Well, who is against efficiency and effectiveness? What the media chose not to talk about were the other planks in that supposedly “moderate” platform: the priority of border security and a repeal of birthright citizenship. Now, that’s immigration reform!

The bottom line is this. Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty-by-fiat has exposed and confirmed for millions of voters the true character of the Obama administration: It is lawless.

Obama is also gambling that all Hispanic voters share his enthusiasm for Hugo Chavez’s dictatorial style of leadership. That may prove to be the other major miscalculation behind this cynical election-year ploy.

Obama's Justice: Upside-down 

Debra J. Saunders  /

Obama's Justice: Upside-down
The important question to ask about Attorney General Eric Holder is: Whom does he protect and whom does he pursue?
Until recently, Holder claimed "deliberative privilege" to justify his refusal to comply with House Oversight Committee subpoenas for documents involving the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives "Fast and Furious" program of 2009-2010. The infamous "gun-walking" program allowed Mexican smugglers to walk away with about 2,000 firearms, two of which were found at a December 2010 shootout that left Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry dead.

On Wednesday, as the committee was set to vote to find Holder in contempt of Congress, President Obama protected Holder with a first-in-his-presidency claim of "executive privilege." Obama was not deterred by his previous criticism of predecessor George W. Bush's use of said power.

Holder had had more familiarity with executive privilege than the president. In 1999, Holder worked in the Clinton Department of Justice when the president commuted the sentences of 16 convicted Puerto Rico independence terrorists. During his 2009 confirmation hearing, Holder cited Clinton's claim of executive privilege when he refused to explain why the department switched its position on freeing the 16 FALN terrorists.

Holder also gave the "neutral leaning to positive" recommendation that covered Clinton's last-minute pardon of big-donor fugitive Marc Rich, who had fled to Switzerland to escape federal prosecution on fraud and tax evasion charges. Such are the people whom Holder protects.

Holder, however, does not stand up for politically powerless figures such as Clarence Aaron, who is serving a sentence of life without parole for a first-time nonviolent drug conviction when he was 24. Under Holder's guidance, the president has commuted only one sentence -- despite Obama's earlier criticism of draconian federal mandatory minimum sentencing.

Holder has protected administration officials from Republican calls for a special prosecutor to investigate national security leaks. Holder instead assigned two U.S. attorneys, one an Obama donor, to probe the leaks.

Me? I prefer a DOJ investigation to a special prosecutor -- when I trust the impartiality of the department.

Holder didn't always feel that special prosecutors are bad. When Obama first took office, his DOJ sicced a special prosecutor on CIA interrogators who already had been investigated for their use of enhanced interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration -- even though DOJ officials had recommended against prosecuting those operatives. It was a vindictive act against public servants who stuck out their necks to protect this country.

Holder was hell on wheels with interrogators who might have waterboarded three high-value detainees, but he has demonstrated no such scruples when it comes to the Obama administration's reliance on drones in the war on terrorism.

Under Holder's watch, the Drug Enforcement Administration has seized states' supplies of sodium thiopental, a drug used in lethal injection, because the drug is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. That's just plain ridiculous.

At first, Obama's Justice Department advised U.S. attorneys not to focus on medical-marijuana prosecutions in states that have legalized its usage. Now U.S. attorneys are raiding medical-marijuana facilities regularly. Why? I don't know, but the answer can't be principle.

The answer to my question seems pretty clear. Holder protects Democratic administrations. He helped free well-connected FALN terrorists who didn't even submit presidential-pardon applications and a gazillionaire fugitive. He protected any administration aides who might have leaked national-security information to make Obama look good.

Meanwhile, Holder takes no prisoners when it comes to CIA officials guilty of trying to protect national security, states that apply their death-penalty laws or try to uphold their medical marijuana laws.

As for small fish like Clarence Aaron, they don't even rate. In Eric Holder's world, only politically connected people rate any privilege.
Dear Mr. Obama...
By: Diane Sori

Dear Mr. Obama,

Guess it hasn’t been the best of weeks for you has it.  It started off with more bad news on the economy and the jobs market with the numbers down yet again.  Then you changed our long standing policy on immigration for nothing but political expediency.  And you wrapped your week up with asserting Executive Privilege to cover for your buddy Eric Holder and yourself so you wouldn’t be held responsible for Fast and Furious.

And let’s not forget that you’re still getting flack from your famous words, “The private sector is doing just fine” from a few weeks ago.  You must be beside yourself with all these snafus you’re making of late.

But let’s cut to the chase here, Mr. Obama, for you know as well as I that you reap what you sow.  And lately what you sow is coming apart at the seams.  First the put it bluntly your economic policies stink, as more and more Americans are joining the ranks of the unemployed. Second, your new immigration policy amounts basically to granting amnesty to ILLEGALS as you pander for their much needed votes.  But what you don’t realize is that those very Hispanic votes you desperately seek live for the most part in ‘blue’ states and would have voted for you anyway, so you really gained NOTHING by doing what you did.  And lastly, by inserting yourself right into the middle of Fast and Furious with the issuing of Executive Privilege, you’ve actually admitted there is something that needs to stay hidden.

Shame on you Mr. Obama, because it now really does seem like you have blood on your hands and that you’re trying to cover it up.  Whoever advised you on that one sure made one big boo-boo didn’t they.

So now you’re faced with one massive in what can I do to take the focus off my blunders so that the kool-ade drinking masses will love me again.  Well, I’m no mind reader but having lived through these past 3-1/2 years of watching you destroy our country, I can safely say that you know you need one hell of a knock-out punch to get yourself back into the good graces of the voters.  I’ll even go so far as to say that even you know this election is all about the economy and jobs creation, so what better way to try and save yourself than to create a lot of jobs in one fell swoop.  

Enter front and center The Keystone Pipeline, the very thing that just a short while ago you were so dead set against.  I can see it’ll call one of your infamous press conferences to declare that after much rethinking of the pipeline issue that you’ve realized the benefits of the pipeline as a jobs creating mechanism, and so you'll change your aversion to the pipeline and sign off on it.

And then you‘ll wait for the thunderous applause and adoration from the people as they thank you for kick-starting the economy and for creating jobs that will put people back to work.

However, Mr. Obama, what you don’t tell the American people is that those jobs will go to any of the 800,000 now legal ILLEGALS who want them.  After all, you do owe them big time for all their votes you just bought.

And please, Mr. Obama, don’t tell me that ILLEGALS don’t vote because you know damn well that they do!

And now I leave you with this thought, ‘We the People’ are NOT the stupid sheeple you think we all are, and everyday more and more of us see you as the phony, self-serving, America-hater that you are.  We see the difference between Mitt Romney, a man who ‘Believes in America’ and you, a man who believes only in his arrogant narcissistic self.

So, Barack, and I do feel that I can be on first name basis with you after all this, you might have fooled us once but you won't fool us again.  The American people have awoken and we are fighting mad.  We want our country back and on November 6th ‘We the People’ will do just that.

And please, don’t slam the door to ‘The People’s House’ as you leave.

‘We the People’