- Arizona General Election
- Ballot Propositions
- Big Abortion
- Big Government
- Border Invasion
- Candidate loses endorsement
- Church & State
- Faith & Families
- Faith & Freedom
- Health Insurance
- Hillary Clinton
- Homosexual Agenda
- John Semmens
- Judicial activism
- Left-Stream Media
- National Defense
- Planned Parenthood
- President Reagan
- President Washington
- Prop 122
- Prop 487
- Radical Environmentalism
- Reading Assignments
- Religious Freedom
- Religious Liberty
- Sanctuary cities
- Sheriff Arpaio
- Soviet Union
- The Arizona Conservative University
- The Left
- Homosexual Group Wants to Deny Children Their Mother or Their Father
- Feds Warn Lenders Not to Deny Loans to Welfare Recipients
- Study: How the Broadcast Networks Have Deleted Hillary’s E-Mail Scandal
- Lesbian Athletes Punished for Domestic Violence
- This is What Progress Looks Like
- Mr. Santorum, I Voted No; I Vote for a Conservative Coalition
- Congress Passes Franks’ Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
- Fascists Unveiled
- State Department Declines to Pursue Influence Peddling Allegations
- McCain Below 50 Percent … and Vulnerable!
Category Archives: Obama
Just a few days ago 10 Republican members of the U.S. Senate voted to affirm Loretta Lynch as attorney general of the United States. While we were overjoyed at the departure of Eric Holder — the most lawless, most corrupt attorney general in U.S. history — his replacement is just as bad and totally unacceptable as he is. She should never should have been confirmed. Everyone knows that if the Democrats were in control of the Senate they would have refused to affirm a Republican president’s nominee for attorney general.
Nonetheless, we were curious to see how Arizona’s junior Senator Jeff Flake justified his vote to affirm Lynch. This is the message he posted on his official Senate website:
“I was pleased today to confirm Loretta Lynch as attorney general. While I disagree with Ms. Lynch on many policy positions, I have always believed that the Senate should give deference to the president to pick his Cabinet unless there is something disqualifying in a nominee’s background.
“Furthermore, with Loretta Lynch confirmed, Eric Holder’s tenure as head of the Department of Justice draws to a close. Not a bad day in Washington.”
So it’s “not a bad day in Washington” when the people we sent to D.C. to oppose the most lawless, radical, un-American presidential administration in our history refuse to do their jobs.
Now let’s look at how a real leader — Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who voted against Lynch’s confirmation — responded to the same responsibility set before him:
The Senate must never confirm an individual to such an office as this who will support and advance a scheme that violates our Constitution and eviscerates established law and Congressional authority. No person who would do that should be confirmed. And we don’t need to be apologetic about it, colleagues.
Ms. Lynch has announced that she supports and, if confirmed, would advance, the president’s unlawful executive amnesty scheme—a scheme that would provide work permits, trillions in Social Security and Medicare benefits, tax credits of up to $35,000 a year (according to the Congressional Research Service), and even the possibility of chain migration and citizenship to those who have entered the country illegally or overstayed their lawful period of admission. The president has done this even though Congress has repeatedly rejected legislation that would implement such a scheme.
President Obama’s unlawful and unconstitutional executive action nullifies current immigration law—the Immigration and Nationality Act—and replaces them with the very measures Congress refused to adopt. Even King George the Third lacked the power to legislate without Parliament.
During her confirmation hearing in the Judiciary Committee, I asked Ms. Lynch plainly whether she supported the president’s unilateral decision to make his own immigration laws. Here is the relevant portion of the hearing transcript:
Sessions: I have to have a clear answer to this question—Ms. Lynch, do you believe the executive action announced by President Obama on November 20th is legal and Constitutional? Yes or no?
Lynch: As I’ve read the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, I do believe it is, Senator.
Of course, the lawful duty of the Attorney General is to enforce the law that exists, not one she or the president might wish existed.
One of the most stunning elements of the president’s scheme is the grant of work permits to up to 5 million illegal immigrants—taking jobs directly from citizens and legal immigrants.
Peter Kirsanow, Commissioner on the United States Commission on Civil Rights has written at length about how this undermines the rights of U.S. workers, especially African-American workers, and other minorities, suffering from high unemployment. At her confirmation hearing, I asked Ms. Lynch about what she might do to protect the rights of legal U.S. workers. Here is the exchange in question:
Sessions: Who has more right to a job in this country? A lawful immigrant who’s here or a citizen—or a person who entered the country unlawfully?
Lynch: I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.
This is a breathtaking statement. It is unprecedented for someone who is seeking the highest law enforcement office in America to declare that someone in the country illegally has a “right” to take a job.
This nation is—as George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley has put it—at “a constitutional tipping point.” Professor Turley, who is a nationally recognized constitutional scholar and self-described supporter of President Obama and his policies, testified before the House of Representatives in February 2014, 9 months before the president announced his unprecedented executive action:
“The current passivity of Congress represents a crisis of faith for members willing to see a president assume legislative powers in exchange for insular policy gains. The short-term, insular victories achieved by this president will come at a prohibitive cost if the current imbalance is not corrected. Constitutional authority is easy to lose in the transient shifts of politics. It is far more difficult to regain. If a passion for the Constitution does not motivate members, perhaps a sense of self-preservation will be enough to unify members. President Obama will not be our last president. However, these acquired powers will be passed to his successors. When that occurs, members may loathe the day that they remained silent as the power of government shifted so radically to the chief executive. The powerful personality that engendered this loyalty will be gone, but the powers will remain. We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. If balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before this president leaves office and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority.”
One of those means is the advice and consent power. It was created for just such a time as this. It is not only appropriate, but necessary, that the Senate refuse to confirm a president’s nominees when that president has overreached and assumed the legislative powers of Congress. It is particularly necessary when the president’s nominee is being appointed specifically for the improper purpose of advancing the president’s unconstitutional overreach—all through the powers of the office to which they have been nominated.
Congress must not confirm anyone to lead the United States Department of Justice who will advance the president’s unconstitutional actions. Congress has a limited number of powers to defend the Rule of Law and itself as an institution and to stop the Executive Branch from overreaching. It is unthinkable that we would ignore one of those powers in the face of such a direct threat to our constitutional order—and it is part of an escalating pattern of overreach.
Every day that we allow the president to erode the powers of Congress, we are allowing the president to erode the sacred Constitutional rights of the citizens we serve. We have a duty to this institution, to the Constitution, and to the American people not to confirm someone who is not committed to those principles but rather who will continue in violation of them. For those reasons, I will oppose this nomination and I urge my colleagues, regardless of party, to do the same.”
Senator Sessions, you are an inspiration and a true patriot and leader. We applaud your courage and your integrity in standing up to evil and to minimize harm to this great nation. You are doing what you were elected to do.
As for you, Senator Flake, the same cannot be said. We do not compound one mistake by replacing it with a second mistake. The lack of reasoning, the void of depth and intellect in your brief, casual statement is stunning. And unacceptable.
By Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner
Despite President Obama’s efforts to cool the nation’s views on illegal immigrants storming over the U.S.-Mexico border, Americans have reached a new level of anger over the issue, with most demanding a more aggressive deportation policy — and reversal of a law that grants citizenship to kids of illegals born in the U.S.
A new Rasmussen Reports survey released Monday also finds Americans questioning spending tax dollars on government aid provided to illegal immigrants. A huge 83 percent said that anybody should be required to prove that they are “legally allowed” to be in the country before receiving local, state or federal government services.
Overall, the poll is bad news for the White House because it shows sustained, and in some cases, elevated anger and frustration over the surge in undocumented immigrants in the United States.
For example, 62 percent told the pollster that the U.S. is “not aggressive enough” in deporting those illegally in the United States. Just 15 percent believed the administration’s current policy was “about right” and 16 percent said it was “too aggressive.”
That 62 percent number is a jump from a year ago when it was 52 percent.
When asked if the baby of an illegal born in the United States should automatically become a U.S. citizen, as is now the law, 54 percent said no versus 38 percent who said yes.
In another area that seems to test American patience with the administration, 51 percent said that illegal immigrants who have American born children should not be exempt from deportation.
Democrats need to pay their fair share of taxes.
Hillary Clinton IS Big Government.
Barack Hussein Obama is America’s humanist-in-chief.
Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton is not a choice.
If it weren’t for double standards, leftists would have no standards.
Barack Hussein Obama is America’s condescender-in-chief.
Democrats run the biggest plantation in the world.
Leftist public officials are the de facto editors of America’s newspapers and the de facto news editors of America’s TV stations.
“President Lincoln explained that the role of government in caring for veterans is “To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan.” Unfortunately, the Phoenix VA is ground zero for the tragic failures of bloated, big government bureaucracies. It is demonstrative of the chaos of government empowering itself with the care of our veterans rather than empowering the veteran herself or himself.
“I fear that the mismanagement and lack-of-care provided to our veterans in Phoenix and around the country will be a microcosm of what we can expect from Obamacare, which puts government in control of healthcare, rather than the doctor and the patient.
“Last year Congress attempted to empower veterans by passing sweeping legislation that would provide better access to quality care. Unfortunately, failure by the executive to implement these changes only allowed access to relatively few.
“When it comes to serving those who have served us all with honor and distinction, the buck stops at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I am encouraged that President Obama has finally decided to visit the Phoenix VA Hospital to hear about the travesties that took place there. It is my hope that he personally invests himself to ensure that what took place here never happens again.”
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is suing President Obama over his plans to grant temporary legal status and work permits to up to 5 million illegal immigrants in the country, saying the actions from the president will have a detrimental effect on his ability to carry out his job. “Specifically, it will severely strain our resources, both in manpower and financially, necessary to protect the citizens I was elected to serve,” Sheriff Arpaio said in a statement.
Among the many negative effects of the action, he said, “will be the increased release of criminal aliens back onto streets of Maricopa County, Arizona, and the rest of the nation.” The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that both Mr. Obama’s actions outlined Thursday evening and his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) are “unconstitutional abuses” of the president because “instead of legislation first passing both houses of Congress and then being sent to the president under the ‘Presentment Clause’ for signature and implementation or veto, the president originates legislation by himself and then dares the Congress to disagree.” The White House has consistently said Mr. Obama is acting within his constitutional authority. In a speech Thursday outlining his actions, Mr. Obama said deportations of criminals are up 80 percent over the last six years, and that the government will keep focusing resources on threats to security. “If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law,” the president said. “If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up.” The controversial Sheriff Arpaio is currently embroiled in a racial profiling case brought against him over allegations that a former sheriff’s deputy was shaking down illegal immigrants. U.S. District Judge Murray Snow warned Thursday that he would get a court-appointed official to examine allegations of wrongdoing by officers if the agency doesn’t adequately investigate. More than a year ago, Judge Snow ruled Sheriff Arpaio’s office had systematically racially profiled Latinos in its regular traffic and immigration patrols. Sheriff Arpaio denies that his officers have racially profiled people and has appealed the decision. The judge is requiring Sheriff Arpaio’s office to video-record traffic stops, collect data on stops and conduct additional training to ensure officers aren’t making unconstitutional stops. Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/21/sheriff-joe-arpaio-sues-obama-says-action-will-res/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz3JkQAvAzO Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
In Friday morning remarks to the British Broadcasting Corporation, Arizona Congressman Trent Franks, the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee in the House of Representatives, criticized President’s Barack Hussein Obama for bypassing Congress and taking executive action on immigration.
“One of my greatest concerns here is that this president has demonstrated, not just tonight, but on many other occasions that he holds himself unconstrained by the constitution he swore to preserve and protect,” Congressman Franks said. “And if other presidents take that tack then the Constitution will essentially be vitiated and I suppose, we, as Americans will owe England an apology for that little unpleasantness back in Revolutionary War.”
Franks added that Obama has gone beyond the Constitution …
“on a regular basis, on a mass scale, when it was very easy for him to have simply allowed the new Congress to come into power. We’ve already passed in the Republican House Judiciary Committee, upon which I sit, five bills related to immigration. And there is no question in my mind that there would be a Republican immigration bill.”
Asked about fears that Republicans, by insisting on upholding the law, would lose Latino votes, Franks said,
“Well, you know, in this last election, we got over 40%, which is a higher percentage than they’ve gotten in a long time. It’s kind of a false narrative; a lot of people who came to this country, my wife speaks a good part of Spanish, she’s from the Philippines, I’m married to an immigrant, she came here legally,” adding that immigrants, “who came here legally and who have relatives that are trying to come here legally resent the notion that we would simply allow those who come here illegally to get in front of them. And to have first place in being able to take their place in American society. I would like very much to do what’s necessary to fix our immigration system. It does have significant problems. But the reality is, if we are unable to control our borders then we simply, as Ronald Reagan mentioned, we cease to be a country at all. The bigger issue here is that this issue was playing out in Congress, there would have been legislation, and now I believe this President, sincerely, I believe that he has set back a real solution to this problem to this problem and divided Americans at each end, and this only demagogues the issue, which I’m afraid, genuinely, was his original intent.”
Attorney General-Elect Criticizes Obama
Today attorneys general and AG-elects in 17 states ripped Obama for his lawlessness. Among them was newly elected Arizona AG Mark Brnovich, who issued this statement:
Along with many of our fellow Americans, Republican Attorneys General listened carefully to President Obama’s remarks about his intended, unilateral actions regarding immigration. We agree with the President, “people who live in this country should play by the rules.” The American people also believe the President should play by the rules and respect the rule of law. The President cannot ignore the American people, the states or an entire branch of government.
Our country’s unique strength derives from its history of immigration. The values of immigrants are the values of our Republican Party, those of freedom, optimism, self-reliance, family and respect for the rule of law. We want our immigration laws to be enforced and our borders to be secure. We also want our country to be welcoming to those who want to join us on this American journey in the manner established by our laws.As our states’ lead attorneys, however, we are committed to the rule of law and ensuring that we remain a nation of laws, enacted as prescribed by our Constitution. Each president takes an oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and … to the best of [his] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” We expect President Obama to fulfill this oath. As attorneys general we will uphold our constitutional oath to take whatever actions may be appropriate to uphold the rule of law.
Outgoing Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Assails Lawless Prez
“Not so long ago, President Obama rightly acknowledged that his role as president under the Constitution is to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’ Publically and repeatedly he has rejected the suggestion of bypassing Congress to impose a de facto amnesty via executive order.
“Now, rather than work with Congress on a bipartisan solution to fix our immigration system and secure the border, he is once again taking brazen, unilateral action that will only further exacerbate the border problem – just as he did in 2012 when he signed an executive order to provide an amnesty to almost two million illegal aliens through his ‘Deferred Action’ plan.
“This is not a partisan issue. When the bluest of blue states – like Oregon, for example – vote overwhelmingly to prohibit illegal aliens from obtaining drivers licenses, it speaks volumes about the widespread lack of support for President Obama’s immigration policies. The American people have spoken, and time and again they have been ignored.
“That President Obama refuses to visit our border, refuses to enforce our existing immigration laws and refuses to come to the table on an issue of such critical national safety and economic importance is a disgrace. We are a nation of laws, the most significant of which are written to ensure cooperation and balance among our branches of government. Separation of powers is what has distinguished us from other forms of government for 225 years. Over the past six years, this President has sought at every turn to move us toward a concentration of power which, as President Reagan opined, ‘has always been the enemy of liberty.’ With controversial executive actions like that announced today, President Obama undermines our Constitution and erodes the fundamental principles upon which America was built.
“Clearly, the president is not interested in executing our laws, and even when he and his party had control of Congress and the White House, they did absolutely nothing to reform immigration. His new executive action sends a disturbing message about the way this president perceives his role as leader. When a president constantly refuses to enforce existing laws, disregards the will of the people and creates his own policies based on personal preferences, we shift from a nation of democracy to one of tyranny. In 1838, a profound man, Abraham Lincoln, prophetically warned the American people that a tyrant could overtake our political system from within, and that, ‘when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs.’
“Evidently this president must be reminded that we, the American people, elected a president that serves beneath the law – we did not anoint a tyrannical king that is above the law.”