Update: More Reaction to President’s Immigration Speech

In a story posted before last night’s presidential announcement on immigration, President Obama drew equal parts praise and criticism for his proposal to stop enforcing deportation action on roughly 5 million illegal immigrants. Daniel Malloy and Jeremy Redmon teamed for a pre-speech story that was pretty good. Read it here.

Also, during a live appearance on Newsradio 1067 yesterday afternoon, U.S. Rep. David Scott, D-13, said Obama was being forced to act on the issue because Congress had failed to, a point the President repeatedly stressed during his address. Scott is the ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, and he said the No. 1 issue facing Georgia farmers is a stable workforce.

The post-speech comments from Georgia’s Republican leaders were uniformly, err, critical.

U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston:

The President is spoiling for a fight. If he was serious about implementing the best policy he would be working with Congress, not against us.”

Joint statement from U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss & U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson:

“President Obama continues to circumvent Congress by executive order. This is the wrong way to govern. Bottom line, any attempt to circumvent Congress and grant legal status to millions is unacceptable. We must stop the President from executing bad policy and will consider all legislative and legal options when determining the best course of action to do so.”

U.S. Sen.-elect David Perdue:

“President Obama’s proposed executive action on amnesty is an outrageous abuse of power. Georgians sent a clear message in the most recent election: they want Washington to work again. They don’t want the President playing politics and sidestepping Congress on important issues like immigration. They want security first and enforcement of current laws. They don’t want amnesty and open borders.

“Let’s not forget, the President purposely delayed this unilateral action until after Election Day for political purposes. As part of the new Senate majority, I will fight to hold the Obama Administration accountable when they overstep their authority and work through Congress to fix our broken immigration system with step-by-step reforms, not sweeping actions that don’t solve the underlying problem.”

U.S. Rep. Doug Collins, 9th Congressional District:

“Executive action granting amnesty to millions of illegals is President Obama taking out his anger on the American people for rejecting his agenda through the due process of elections two weeks ago. He’s had six years to work with Congress, two of those years with his party in total control of Washington, on constructive, compassionate, and fair immigration reform.

 “His singular action defies all three of those principles.

 “Those who are in the United States illegally should be deeply concerned about the president’s intentions.  So many immigrants come to this country from places where the rule of law and the will of the people are defied.  That President Obama has taken it upon himself to do the same thing with his executive order should be as troubling to them as it is for the millions of law-abiding citizens who have trusted this man to uphold the Constitution.

“The majority of the People’s House will fight this because it is wrong. It is political retribution under the false guise of compassion, and it is yet another abuse of power the branch of government closest to the people will have to resolve.”

U.S. Rep. Tom Graves, 14th Congressional District:

“President Obama’s action defies voters, the law and even his own statements. My constituents are outraged by his brazenly political and lawless behavior. In response, the Republican Majority in Congress is exploring every tool we have to keep the constitutional checks and balances intact. Our system of government is stronger than one man’s ambition, and I know that Congress will steadily lead the country through the final chapter of the Obama presidency. In the days ahead, it should be clear to everyone that the president’s political agenda for illegal immigrants will not be allowed to derail the work Congress needs to do for over 300 million American citizens. Congress must use its power to keep the government open and shut the president down.”

U.S. Rep. Rick Allen, 12th Congressional District:

“President Obama does not like to admit that his policies lost at the ballot box two weeks ago.  He cannot accept that the failure was his and likely assumes that the American people were just too deceived to comprehend his genius.

“Well, he did lose and having shrunk his party to historic lows – a wide minority in both houses of Congress, a historic dearth of Democratic Governors and approval ratings for him and his policies that go beyond catastrophic, he wants to change the game.

“When the current voters wake up and do not support him, President Obama is intent on creating new Democratic voters by taking an eraser to the Constitution and penning in new sections that allow him to create and enforce laws he has made up in his own head.  These are actions that Obama himself repeatedly told America were beyond his Constitutional power as President.

“Losing changed his mind.

“This is incredibly sad because it undermines and tarnishes a Republic that was singular on Earth at its inception because it placed laws above men.  It rebuked monarchy, banished totalitarianism, shone like a beacon to the world.  With one stroke of his pen, President Obama seeks to undo all that so many struggled and even died to protect.

“But he has miscalculated.  The American people will not stand for this.  Even the non-lunatic fringe of his own party likely will not stand for it.  The new citizens he creates will empower themselves economically and educationally and eventually reject this government by fiat, which so closely resembles the political systems they fled to come here.

“America is an idea as well as a country.  Today represents a grim setback of which the President and his supporters should be ashamed.  But we will burnish the ideal once he is gone and restore our nation to its former glory.

“I’m just sorry it had to be this way.”

U.S. Rep. Rob Woodall, 7th Congressional District:

“Unfortunately, President Obama has once again chosen to disregard the voice of the American people and bypass Congress,” said Rep. Woodall.  “Rather than partner with America’s elected representatives, he has decided to double-down on a unilateral approach that is not only unconstitutional, but does absolutely nothing to improve our immigration system for the millions of individuals going about the process the right way.   The American people are weary of Executive overreach, and our entire nation loses when the constitutional process is abandoned for the sake of political expediency.”

U.S. Rep. Tom Price, 6th Congressional District:

“President Obama’s actions are not only unlawful, they are emblematic of this administration’s increasingly brazen disregard and disrespect for the American people – not to mention every immigrant who has come to this country legally. The president has wandered so far outside his constitutional authority that he’s doing incredible harm to the integrity of this country’s rule of law. At the same time, he is saying that he cannot be trusted to keep his own word. After all, President Obama himself, on multiple occasions, has told the American people that he does not have the authority to take the type of unilateral actions he’s now pursuing.

“The Obama Administration’s reasoning and excuses are increasingly nonsensical. The president is not exercising his authority. He’s trampling on the Constitution that prescribes him his authority; he is to enforce the laws of this land, not invent them. Moreover, when the American people are asking Congress and the president to work together on solving the challenges facing our nation, the president is doing the exact opposite.

“That is why President Obama remains the greatest obstacle to immigration reform. His actions are doing more to setback the cause of reform than advance it. So long as the president and his administration see our broken immigration system as a political opportunity rather than a problem to solve, they will continue to stand squarely in the way of success.”

U.S. Rep. Austin Scott, 8th Congressional District:

“President Obama’s decision to act unilaterally on immigration is the latest example of his arrogance and indifference to the laws of this country,” said Congressman Scott. “He talks about fairness and justice, about character and responsibility, yet he ignores the U.S. Constitution and the pledge he swore to uphold it. The President himself has earlier stated that, by taking this action, he would be ‘ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally.’”

You get the picture. And it probably will go downhill from there.


    • newby says:

      What he said was that he will do as he pleases. If the Republicans don’t pass the Bill he wants he will just keep doing what he wants. Sounds a little like blackmail. The GOP needs to do what they were hired on November 4th by the people to do. They need to stop Obama and his agenda.

      • xdog says:

        That’s bs. gopers wouldn’t allow a vote on last year’s bill, wouldn’t work to modify it either. Immigration is an issue that needs addressing now, but a minority of gopers would prefer an issue they can keep saying ‘no’ to.

        • TheEiger says:

          That is incorrect. We have a healthy distrust for government. The last time millions of illegals were granted amnesty there was a promise to secure the border. Well, the illegals became citizens and the border is still wide open. The border and the visa programs need to be fixed before we grant any type of citizenship to anyone. The House has passed many bills that would start securing the border and work to fix the broken visa program, but because it didn’t grant amnesty to millions of illegals Harry Reid and the President have refused to talk about those bills.

          • xdog says:

            I don’t have a list of immigration bills passed by the House in front of me. If you’re talking about the bill they passed back in August, it would have sped up deportation and rescinded the president’s authority to decide to deport certain immigrants. imo, no one thought that was a serious bill and it was passed only to give house gopers political cover.

            • androidguybill says:

              “No one thought that it was a serious bill.” So only Democratic bills (with a few GOPers voting for it to make it “bipartisan”) are serious, right?

              • xdog says:

                If that’s what you think. I think House nativists killed leadership’s bill to provide border security. I think any bill that is heralded by Steven King and Michelle Bachmann isn’t serious, by definition.

      • The GOP needs to do what they were hired on November 4th by the people to do. They need to stop Obama and his agenda

        Finally, and honest GOP conservative. Mask off, agenda revealed for all to see.

        *golf clap* great plan for our future as a country. When you say ‘stop agenda’ you are saying ‘blocking anything the man supports, even if it was our idea in the first place’ (Romneycare).

        Truly, you are a willing tool of your corporate masters. But I’d be careful with that gloating and open honesty thing. Those type of comments tend to get you ‘classified’ as a ‘certain type’ of poster.

    • Bobloblaw says:

      Actually the country that the left would love the USA to turn into is South Africa. It is their model. White minority, one party state.

  1. saltycracker says:

    Both sides had an agenda that created the mess. The frustration has been the log jam on immigration. The big fight has been one side or the other could not act (states can’t back up Fed laws or executive can’t act when legislative doesn’t).

    Citizens have been asking that we do something about immigration, for years. What is it in Obama’s plan that we Republicans would not have in a plan to get those with families and jobs a card and paying taxes ?

    When congress refuses to present a plan we should assume they benefit in a standoff. Screaming the worst president in US history can’t do this is a bad hill to die on. Do something besides deporting 11 million we allowed in years ago.

    • Andrew C. Pope says:

      James Buchanan would like to have a discussion about that “worst president in US history” tag.

      • saltycracker says:

        🙂 we are too dependent on the Feds to have Buchanan’s problems. The Republicans have a door to open in opportunity and need to do it without wholesale expansion of welfare supports.

        • xdog says:

          Running 2 losing wars off the books, overseeing a financial meltdown, legislating away the 4th and 5th Amendments, politicizing every branch of government–it’s President Pinhead in a walk.

          • Andrew C. Pope says:

            Hey, Herbert Hoover wants to throw his hat in the ring as well. What about that William Henry Harrison, that guy did nothing but lie in bed sick.

              • xdog says:

                If you’re talking about me, wrong number, but then I don’t judge ability by the letter that follows a candidate’s name. I do wonder, however, what the goper nativist reaction would be to a donk president who blew off intel about a pending attack in America.

                • Bobloblaw says:

                  And what Intel would that be? The PDB of 8/6/2001? Nothing specific was in that. Given that liberals oppose any proactive actions against ISIS or ebola. We can imagine that had Bush taken action against al Qaeda on 8/7/2001, they would have screamed bloody murder.

            • John Konop says:

              We had more information linking Saudi Arabia to 9/11, should we have attacked them?

              ……..President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).

              A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.

              Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”

              Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally.

              The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war…


              • TheEiger says:

                Hillary Clinton saw this report and voted to give Bush permission to go to war. Along with 28 other Democrats in the Senate and 82 in the House. It isn’t all Bush’s fault.

                • John Konop says:

                  No I have been clear on blame for all…..Agree or not with me from the start I never understood this policy, and made it clear……I have also been a very big Bush 1 supporter on foreign policy….one of the best foreign policy presidents we ever had!

                • Bobloblaw says:

                  Afghan War was supported by all but one member of congress. You’re thinking Iraq War.

                  Yes I believe that the Saudis played a large role in 9-11. Not the crown prince. But members of the royal family, of which there are thousands.

            • no.

              The War in Afghanistan (2001–present) has resulted in between 18,000 and 20,000 Afghan civilians being killed

              Classified US military documents released by WikiLeaks in October 2010, record Iraqi and Coalition military deaths between January 2004 and December 2009 109,032 deaths broken down into “Civilian” (66,081 deaths), “Host Nation” (15,196 deaths),”Enemy” (23,984 deaths), and “Friendly” (3,771 deaths).

              Tell me, does your empty vengeance keep you warm at night, Patriot Bob?

              • Bobloblaw says:

                I don’t care. How many German civilians were killed in WW2? Over. 750,00 by allied bombings from the air alone. I don’t shed a tear for them.

  2. Three Jack says:


    The emperor has spoken with full knowledge that he cannot be challenged because the GOP would end up being the bad guys. They can’t shut down the government, no way to try impeachment so the emperor says, ‘bring it mofos, you can’t touch this’.

      • androidguybill says:

        Therein lies the rub. Any bill other than the bill that Obama wants to sign is either “playing politics” or “doesn’t address the problem.” The idea that Obama should sign a bill that Congress agrees to according to the priorities that Congress decides is unthinkable, right?

        • saltycracker says:

          He said he’d sign any bill put in front of him, on national TV, so let’s make him a liar.
          If the lame duck congress can’t agree, the new congress should be ready to go with one.

          • androidguybill says:

            “so let’s make him a liar.”

            As if that hasn’t happened before. And before that. And before that. And before that …

            Look, we all know that Obama will not sign a bill that does not include conferring legal status on every illegal immigrant that is not a thrice convicted violent felon. And we all know that Obama will not actually comply with any of the enforcement provisions that the bill will contain, because the left has already staked out the position that enforcement violates human rights. The Gang of Eight bill had 700 miles of fence in it? Who actually believes that the same guy who has spent 6 years “reviewing” the Keystone XL pipeline will actually build that fence? Or that the Democrats would actually release the funding for the fence (which is what happened with the last fence law … the funding was never allocated and it still hasn’t been built. So now they are working on enacting another fence law that would be passed in order to gain a “compromise” in legalization but will never be built.)

            It is one thing if Obama decides that human rights makes enforcing the law situational. But that doesn’t mean that the GOP has to go along with it.

            • saltycracker says:

              Failure to enforce is how we got here, immigration is just one example. Both sides have thrived on selective enforcement in every Federal program we have. Best example, the tax code. Failure to enforce – the spawn of quid pro quos, special interests, convoluted and indecipherable laws.
              But no reason not to put a rational immigration program on the record.

              • Three Jack says:

                Obama’s speech was fine, actually found myself agreeing with him on most points. Problem is he does not have the legal authority to carry out what congress fails to do. So he played politics with the lives of over 5m hispanics hoping to get a reaction from GOPers that can and will be used against them going forward.

                If Obama really wanted immigration reform, he would have sought legislation in 2009 and 2010. He didn’t.

                If he wanted reform now, he could have given the same speech last night sans the EO threat/promise then hit the road to rally support for his position as is the norm. That would have been the proper way if one actually seeks a policy outcome instead of a political tool. Yet again he fails in the role of leader.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        Whether you all like it or not, it is supposed to be difficult to get things through Congress. Bush is rarely a person I find worth quoting, but he said himself, “this would be easier if this were a dictatorship.”

        We don’t live in a dictatorship, and someone should tell Obama.

  3. John Konop says:

    This is the box the GOP is put in…..Most Americans would rather see it done by congress…..But the bill has majority support and was done by both parties….The only thing holding it up is the House. The GOP lead house will not bring it to a vote. I would recommend the House modify the bill to make sure immigrants are employed and or in school before granting legal status….. Also that they pay for all taxes and have proper insurance.

    A war on this issue will only make 16 even more difficult for the GOP…..

    Senate passes sweeping immigration bill

    ……Senators passed the sweeping legislation — initially drafted by the four Democrats and four Republicans in the chamber’s so-called “Gang of Eight” — by a 68-32 vote.

    Fourteen Republicans joined a united Democratic caucus in supporting the bill, which is backed by the White House and has the potential to become the crowning legislative achievement of President Barack Obama’s second term….


    • gcp says:

      Senate bill says DHS verifies when the border is secure? Sorry but I don’t trust them to verify border security. When the four border governors in consultation with border sheriffs says its secure; then its secure.

      And also how do we verify how long the illegals been in the country?

      These are just two of the problems with senate bill.

    • androidguybill says:

      Oh please. I wish people would quit claiming that the failure of the House to pass the Senate bill was some moral crime. Or are we going to talk about all the bills passed by the House that Harry Reid never allowed to be brought up for a vote? A Democratic bill (it was opposed by the vast majority of the GOP Senators so no it wasn’t truly “bipartisan”) passed by a Democratic chamber failed in a Republican chamber. Big deal. Happens all the time. And when the reverse happens – when the Democrats block a Republican bill – everyone (including so called moderates) treats it is a victory for decency, common sense, human rights and “science.”

      But here is the reality: that bill is dead. No, the House is not going to bring it back up … it has been voted down already. And when the next Congress convenes, it will be officially dead; time will have run out on it because it will be a new session. The sponsors of this bill are free to re-introduce it, but why? Several of the people who created the first bill are no longer even in the Senate. Also, that bill would have no chance of passing a vastly different Senate – especially if it is filibustered and it will be if it even comes to that – nor would it pass a House where the Democrats are an even smaller minority than before and (several pro-bill Republicans were defeated) even if it were brought up for a vote.

      So give it up. That bill was dead before Obama changed the ground rules with his executive order, and is certainly dead now. So now Congress is going to start from scratch, meaning that no bill is going to see the light of day in either chamber unless and until both Boehner and McConnell agree on it. (Meaning no more “Gang of Eight.” By the way … of the Senate Dems wanted a bill that would actually pass the House GOP, they should have allowed the House GOP an opportunity to help craft the bill. They didn’t, because they only wanted the input of a few GOPers who already agreed with them so that they could falsely claim that the bill was bipartisan, instead of an actual bipartisan bill.)

      And when Congress passes the bills, Obama will veto them. Why? Various excuses.
      A) It isn’t “comprehensive”
      B) It doesn’t “really deal with the problem”
      C) It is mean/cruel/evil/nativist or whatever
      At that point, Obama will demand the Gang of Eight bill (or something similar that confers legal status on nearly all illegal immigrants) or nothing. The problem is that the GOPers who supported “the word that Charlie refuses to utter that begins with the letter ‘a’ and ends with … oh well do not want to risk it” have pretty much been routed, and their position is a lot weaker now thanks to Obama’s own actions. So no matter how many people who keep singing “the GOP must move to the left to expand their base if they want to keep winning elections” there will be far fewer GOPers willing to listen to the song.

      • John Konop says:

        ……..Oh please. I wish people would quit claiming that the failure of the House to pass the Senate bill was some moral crime….

        LOL….never said it was a moral crime….Do you work for the democrats?

    • Bobloblaw says:

      There wont be ANY Immigration Bill now. Obama has so poisoned the well, nothing should get passed.

      BTW, it is a new congress. The original Senate bill is dead. It has to be repassed by the Senate.

    • I would recommend the House modify the bill to make sure immigrants are employed and or in school before granting legal status….. Also that they pay for all taxes and have proper insurance.

      Don’t you understand what this is about? It is not about race, although that is the fuel the Everyman in your voter base runs on. This is about money.

      Business money, Lots of it. As in back employment taxes owed, but not reported by the businesses who employ all those undocumented workingmen and women. Yes, many are hired simply because they don’t’ report, and the business does not pay matching funds, SSI, GA state unemployment tax, you know, that additional 30% of overhead on deductions the company has to absorb.

      So what happens when Pedro reports that he has no W-2 or 1099 from his job at a work site for, say, Selig Enterprises or The GA Aquarium or the grounds-keeping staff at World of Coke? Do you think the State and the IRS are going to come down on Pedro, or the business who intentionally cheated the government out of legal contributions to the payroll systems.

      This is why the GOP House puppets are all fired up on this. Think of the chaos created in companies big and small, when all this tax fraud is exposed. Even the media is not immune from this scrutiny as well as political families with undocumented nannies and house cleaners.

      No, they aren’t going to require anything of the sort. They can’t let this happen and that is why you hear all that baby wailing from our ‘representatives’. Trust me, I’m a businessman with a payroll.

  4. Andrew C. Pope says:

    So it took a little over 2 weeks for Perdue to turn into one of those babies from his ad. That has to be a new record.

    People have been calling for action on immigration reform well before Obama took office. The inability of the President and Congress to actually accomplish meaningful reform on this issue (or any of the other “serious” issues) is why people are so frustrated with national politics. If the GOP is serious about immigration reform, put those ideas into a bill. Running to the closest TV camera in order to cry/rant/scream about how Obama is attempting to destroy the republic will just perpetuate our broken immigration system and cost the GOP credibility with people who aren’t mouth-breathing simpletons.

    I watched Ted Cruz’ speech yesterday and hung my head in shame. Here’s a guy that was a Supreme Court clerk. He’s obviously taken his lawyer pants off and replaced them with his political ones. He knows darn well that this executive order is within the President’s executive powers. Suggesting otherwise means he’s being brazenly political or he’s just a bad lawyer. I have a hard time believing the later and a much easier time buying the former. Not only that, he’s a guy who has benefitted directly from special immigration laws designed to welcome in Cuban immigrants. I guess because he and his family have “got theirs” it’s just dandy to close the border to anyone else who would try and pursue their version of the American dream.

    Lastly, with all due respect to the above listed elected representatives, they had an opportunity to prevent this “fiat” by acting on the bipartisan Senate bill. But no, Boehner decided to be “brazenly political” and didn’t want to give Obama and the Democrats an electoral victory right before the summer campaign season.

    Just pass a bill, losers.

    • gcp says:

      Ron Johnson is working a senate bill to be introduced after 1st of the year.

      As for Cruz, yea he may be political but when Johnathan Turley question’s Obama’s authority…well that’s a little different.

    • Bobloblaw says:

      The only action needed, is enforcing existing law.

      “”Lastly, with all due respect to the above listed elected representatives, they had an opportunity to prevent this “fiat” by acting on the bipartisan Senate bill. “”

      Ever hear of Separation of Powers. The Legislative Branch is under NO obligation to pass anything the Executive wants.

    • Yeah I noticed that about Sen to Be Whatshisname. He is like the chihuahua yappy dog behind the back, yakking’ Yeah! Yeah!”

      I’m not liking him much yet. In this case, the cream that rose to the top turned out somewhat curdled.

  5. ChuckEaton says:

    “Obama was being forced to act on the issue because Congress had failed to”

    Kim Jong-un has the same sentiments regarding the North Korean Parliament.

    Talk about the ultimate lapdog definition of Congress: you’re an important part of the Separation of Powers until I disagree with your position, then you’re irrelevant.

    • saltycracker says:

      Rather a debate if the grandstanding narcissist can hit, after a long foul ball, maybe we need to start throwing strikes…put one over his plate….

    • Congress could also be accused of the same circumvention. Congress is not in control, nor was our system set up to be obstructionist utilized. If Congress won’t bend, it will eventually break.

      Like every other poster said above; quit obstructing and start governing with solutions, not foot dragging.

  6. Will Durant says:

    Senator Jack S. Phogbound

    “How dare this President circumvent our august body when we still have years to posture and milk this issue for political (and personal) capital. The immigration problem will not be solved with his unilateral action when we were already doing a fine job of not solving it with inaction. I predict the next two years will be a hotbed of inaction. Remember to ask not what your party can do for you, but what can you do for your party.”

  7. Three Jack says:

    Biggest winner(s) from the ObamaDare speech, those on both sides of the issue with money to raise. My email box has been littered with crap from all sides seeking funding to “Stop Amnesty!!” or “Support the courageous president”. Just a total scam by all involved to the detriment of hard working folks seeking a better life working jobs Americans refuse to do.

    • saltycracker says:

      Don’t mess with the biggest child’s game of “Ollie, Ollie, in come free” in the world.
      Everybody wins exploiting these people. If they get over no local cop can do a thing. The bad news is the learning curve will quickly go from job seeker to freeloading looter. Obama is playing the GOP to be the champion of the disenfranchised.

  8. Bobloblaw says:

    What Obama has done is prove how delicate our democratic institutions are. How our nation needs just and moral people to guide it. How easy it is to undermine 200+ year old traditions. Conservatives have thought of these institutions such a separation of powers and limited government as solid. They are not. Obama is essentially President Erdogan. A man who hates his nation’s institutions and wishes to transform it into something else. Democratically elected but acting like a dictator.

      • MattMD says:

        He is either very drunk or an idiot. He talks about “limited government” despite the fact this country and its politicians do not embrace that idea in any practical sense.

        Bush II was a fairly conservative president yet I keep trying to find areas where the government became more “limited”. Was it Part D? Homeland? Hmmm, there has got to be something I’m overlooking…

    • Michael Silver says:

      No. President Obama has proven how craven and pathetic Chamber of Commerce Republicans are.

      The President has no opposition in DC. The press is nothing more that Democrats with bylines. The Chamber of Commerce Republicans just want to go-along and get-along. Heck many Republicans support Amnesty, they just can’t say it publicly. Back in 2006, President Bush not only pushed Amnesty but even opposed securing the border. He accused opponents of his Amnesty plan of being racists.

      The dirty little secret is that both Democrats and Chamber of Commerce Republicans share the same goal of legalizing a bunch of third world-socialism loving low wage workers so they can grow their personal power and wealth through increased government dependency and control.

      Our institutions are just fine. We need people in Washington to fight for America and put Americans first. We’ll see if Boehner, McConnell, et al are willing to fight hard for the Constitution, or will they give President Obama a wink and a nod.

      * To Senator Isakson’s credit, in 2006 he tried to have an amendment added to Bush’s Amnesty that requires border security first. I’m hoping Sen. Isakson will throw off the gloves and fight this “executive non-action” tooth and nail.

  9. Bobloblaw says:

    As America becomes less white and more brown, it will have more inequality, less educational achievement and become more mediocre as a nation. Culture is the reason

    • John Konop says:

      The top driver no matter what race is the war on drugs that has created poverty….If we just ended the war on drugs….and did aptitude based eduction,….you would add at least 2 more points to GDP…

Comments are closed.