Obamnesty Falls Apart. American Workers Win.

Well, this should make the crapweasels in D.C. listen.

On Monday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals told the immigration power-grabbers in the Obama administration to stuff it.

The amnesty sympathizers in the media mourned mightily.

“Appeals court rules against Obama’s plan to protect about 5 million people from deportation,” the Associated Press spun.

“Court again blocks Obama’s plan to protect undocumented migrants,” the left-wing U.K. Guardian decried.

“President Barack Obama’s executive action to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation suffered a legal setback on Monday with an appeal to the Supreme Court now the administration’s only option,” Reuters reported.

Or rather, editorialized in the guise of reporting.

By a 2-1 decision, the federal judges handed a landmark victory to 26 states, led by Texas, that forcefully challenged the legality of Obama’s executive amnesty overreach. The 5th Circuit majority ruled that the states’ case was “likely to succeed on its merits” and that a lower court’s injunction against the White House was “impressive and thorough.” Judge Jerry Smith summed up: “At its core, this case is about the (Department of Homeland Security) Secretary’s decision to change the immigration classification of millions of illegal aliens on a class-wide basis.”

By a wave of his hand, President Obama and his DHS minions issued blanket deportation waivers and work authorization documents to 1.2 million young illegal immigrants (the “DREAMers”) and 4.3 million parents of an even broader class of illegal immigrants. No congressional debate about the impact on American citizens and American workers. No public comment period as required by federal Administrative Procedures Act. No nothing.

Current immigration law, the majority concluded, “flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization.”

Here’s how the radical transformer-in-chief turned the law on its head:

Under the Constitution, Congress defines the classes of immigrants eligible to work in the United States, and the executive branch has the broad authority to determine the individual immigrants within those classes who are authorized to work. Obama’s Department of Homeland Security flipped this around and usurped the authority to allow any alien — legally or illegally in the country — to work unless Congress explicitly prohibits it.

The Obama administration first encroached upon congressional authority over immigration with the so-called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allowed illegal immigrant children to remain in the United States.

Next, Obama created the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, which granted illegal immigrant parents with children born in the United States the right to remain in the United States and work.

After lower court judge Andrew Hanen issued his initial injunction this year, Obama bureaucrats defiantly violated it anyway and issued 2,000 more work permits to people here illegally. The 5th circuit ruling puts an exclamation point on Judge Hanen’s order to stop the unlawful Obamnesty. Stop!

But if you thought these brazen usurpations of power were bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama sneakily expanded the foreign worker supply by administrative fiat another way: executive expansion of the Optional Practical Training program, through which 560,000 foreign “students” have been authorized to work in the U.S. It may well be America’s largest de facto guest-worker program, yet it has never been authorized by Congress. This backdoor H-1B visa increase allows foreign students to work with little monitoring, no wage protections, no payment of Social Security payroll taxes and no requirement for employers to demonstrate labor market shortages.

In addition, Obama this year unilaterally started allowing certain spouses of H-1B workers (H-4 visa holders) to work in the United States.
The good news is that software engineer-turned-lawyer John Miano, the co-author of our new book, “Sold Out: How High-Tech Billionaires & Bipartisan Beltway Crapweasels Are Screwing America’s Best & Brightest Workers,” is challenging both schemes in court. Like the states that stopped executive expansion of illegal immigrant worker benefits, John and his clients aren’t waiting for D.C. politicians to do the job of defending American sovereignty.

John’s groundbreaking federal lawsuit on behalf of WashTech (a labor union of professional tech workers) against President Bush’s regulatory expansion of the OPT program is, as National Review’s John O’Sullivan called it, “the first step of a long battle.” In April 2015, John and the Immigration Reform Law Institute filed another federal lawsuit in D.C. challenging President Obama’s arbitrary and capricious regulatory expansion of work authorizations for H-1B workers’ spouses (classified as H-4 visa holders). The plaintiff, Save Jobs USA, is a group of former Southern California Edison employees who were forced to train their foreign guest-worker replacements before being laid off.

“Under the Constitution, Congress is supposed to have control over immigration,” John reminds our fellow citizens. At stake is a fundamental question for the republic:
Do we have an office of president or an office of Caesar?


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Who’s Burning Black Churches? Oh.

Here we go again: another liberal narrative burned to a crisp.

Over a two-week period in October, an arsonist targeted seven churches in the St. Louis area — including several in Black Lives Matter protest hotspot Ferguson, Missouri. The Atlantic magazine, invoking the “long history of terrorism against black churches in America,” lamented that the crime spree had been “slow to get the same attention” in the local and national media as another string of church arsons that occurred earlier this summer.

Reminder: Several of those hyped hate crimes against “black churches” had been committed by black suspects; a significant number of the “black churches” were, in fact, white churches; and the complex motives behind the crimes included mental illness, vandalism and concealment of theft.

Reminder: The same hyperventilators who stoked fears about this summer’s church incidents had also stoked hysteria about the 1990’s black church arson “epidemic” that fell apart under scrutiny and ended with USA Today admitting that “analysis of the 64 fires since 1995 shows only four can be conclusively shown to be racially motivated.”

Undaunted, agitators did their best to fan the flames over the latest alleged wave of race-based black church burnings in October. On Twitter, social justice activists resurrected the #WhosBurningBlackChurches hashtag. “Black churches are burning again,” Oklahoma State University professor Lawrence Ware lamented in Counterpunch. The far left propaganda outfit U.S. Uncut concluded unequivocally: “Racists in Ferguson Burn Down 5 Black Churches in 9 Days.”

Except, they didn’t. Again.

Last week, police charged 35-year-old David Lopez Jackson, who is black, with setting two of the fires. “Forensic evidence linked him to the fire on Oct. 18 at Ebenezer Lutheran Church, 1011 Theobald Street,” the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported, and “video of his car near New Life Missionary Baptist Church, 4569 Plover Avenue, links him to the fire there on Oct. 17, police Chief Sam Dotson said.” Jackson is a suspect in the other fires and additional charges are pending.

The arrest follows another black church hate crime spree-gone-bust in my adopted hometown of Colorado Springs. In late June, after a pair of churches received menacing notices (“Black men, be aware, you are the target,” read one), black suspect Vincent Broughton admitted to posting the ugly signs. And yes, Colorado Springs is also the home of the January 2015 NAACP office bombing that wasn’t.

The smoke-blowing never ends.

In Texas last week, a professor who cried “racism” against police officers was exposed as a fraud when dashcam video showed the cops politely asking her to move to the other side of the street while exercising — so she wouldn’t get run over.

In Berkeley, California, this week, high school and University of California students cranked up the protest machine and walked out of classes en masse over dubious “KKK” messages discovered on a school library computer. The texts threatened a “public lynching,” used the n-word, and referenced a hanging in a backyard. Of course, suspicion is warranted: Almost a year ago, Berkeley students similarly exploded after effigies of blacks hung from nooses appeared on the UC campus. It turned out they were hung by a “Bay Area collective of queer black and PoC [People of Color] artists” to raise awareness.

Unrepentant race hustlers go bonkers when advised to approach these alleged hate crimes with caution. Anyone showing an iota of skepticism or journalistic responsibility is branded a bigot or collaborator. If you’re a racial or ethnic minority who expresses doubt or hesitation, you’re a sellout or Uncle Tom/Aunt Tomasina. This is nuts. There’s a long, shameful trail of hate crime hoaxes exploiting racial division in America that can no longer be whitewashed by the media and academia. The real sellouts are the phonies and fraudsters “of color” who must manufacture racism for attention, clicks and career advancement while victims of all backgrounds pick up the pieces.


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

You’re Doing It Wrong, ‘The View’

It looks like those elitist harridans on ABC’s The View learned nothing from the national backlash over their mockery of nurse Kelley Johnson less than eight weeks ago.

Guess they’ve already forgotten how major advertisers Johnson & Johnson, Party City, McCormick spices, Snuggle, and Eggland’s Best all pulled spots from the show after co-host and lead Mean Girl Michelle Collins led a cacklefest ridiculing Johnson, Miss Colorado 2015, for a heartfelt monologue about her work during the Miss America pageant.

In a craven attempt at damage control, the daytime divas inflicted yet more damage by blaming nurses and their supporters who protested the plain insults for “misconstruing” their snotty remarks. Co-host Joy Behar blithely confessed she “didn’t know what the hell I was talking about” when she poked fun of Johnson for wearing her stethoscope.

Liberal female TV stardom has its privileges. Rather than be humbled and chastened, however, the know-nothing loudmouths have dug themselves another big, fat hole. Last week on the iconic show created by a pioneering female journalist with an all female-cast to provide revolutionary TV programming for a female audience that had been marginalized by the male-dominated entertainment world, the shrews of The View chose to wield their influential platform to…

…publicly make fun of the only female GOP presidential candidate’s face.


Aren’t there enough misogynistic men in the world to do that dirty job, ladies? Must every nasty thought in your narrow-minded noggins be broadcast over the airwaves?

Apparently so. Nurse-bashing Michelle Collins took out her ugly stick again to trash 61-year-old Carly Fiorina’s visage. “She looked demented! Her mouth did not downturn one time,” the smug Collins exclaimed as her own petty, potty mouth twisted into an unmistakable snarl.

Self-admitted moron Behar, who has frequently bragged about her own Botox shots, chimed in: “I wish it was a Halloween mask. I’d love that.”

What would Barbara Walters have said? Undaunted, the beastly Collins continued to pile on as the collective tittering swelled: “Smiling Fiorina? Can you imagine? It’d give me nightmares.”

When co-host Paula Faris meekly suggested that “demented is a strong word,” head bully Whoopi Goldberg insisted that “as a comic we have to stand up for the words we use.”

Because, you see, it’s a matter of progressive noble principle that catty left-wing comics stick by their woman-on-woman vitriol.

Heckuva job, feminism!

Take note: Fiorina is not my favorite GOP candidate by a mile. Though I’ve praised her strong critiques of the media’s whitewashing of Planned Parenthood baby-parts peddling, I was (and remain) critical of her gender-card-peddling California Senate campaign in 2010, her bizarre corporate courtship of race-hustler Jesse Jackson while she served as Hewlett-Packard CEO, her support for the Wall Street bailout and federal Obama stimulus, and her advocacy of the California DREAM act providing in-state tuition discounts to illegal immigrant students.

But because The View hosts neither know nor care anything more than a centimeter deep about the actual policy issues they discuss during their train-wreck “water cooler” debate segments, they must resort to grade-school taunts instead of even the semblance of a substantive discussion.

And when they’re called out for their unsightly displays of public ignorance or shallowness, all they have left to defend themselves is “Don’t you know who we are? You owe us!” arrogance.
Goldberg announced on Monday that Fiorina will be on the show this Friday after challenging “The View” gang to hurl their invective at her directly to her face. Instead of remorse, Goldberg bragged that she and her co-hosts deserved credit for Fiorina’s campaign success because they “raised her profile” when she appeared on the show in June.

With a “nyah, nyah, nyah” tone that belongs on Nickelodeon, Goldberg wagged her finger at the camera: “I do want to point out, Carly, that the last time you were here (…) we welcomed you to our table. We helped raise your profile so you would be included in the sea of men. (…) We were respectful and gave you your due.”

In full blame-the-victim mode, Goldberg smirked and sassed: “She wants attention and now she’ll get some.” As if Fiorina engineered the bile about her face that spewed from Collins’ and Behar’s demented pieholes in the first place!

In the TV business, stars are ranked by a “Q factor.” It’s a measure of their likeability and “relatability” to the viewing public. Part of this coveted rating stems from a public figure’s projection of authenticity. As “The View” grew in popularity, the hosts’ heads (and salaries) swelled. Their hearts hardened. Their smugness and self-importance metastasized. They’ve lost touch with reality and humanity outside their TV bubble.

The naked truth: In a desperate bid to boost their un-Botox-able ratings by tearing other women down, the shrews of “The View” have lost their Qs.

And their souls.


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

A Closetful Of Hillary Clinton’s Immigration Costumes

When it comes to immigration policy, Hillary Clinton’s had more career costume changes than her new BFF Katy Perry.

This week, Clinton donned her militant, pro-illegal immigration mask and vowed to out-executive amnesty her old pals at the White House. “I will go as far as I can, even beyond President Obama,” she bragged, “to make sure law-abiding, decent, hard-working people in this country are not ripped away from their families.”

The millions of “law-abiding” people she’s talking about legalizing, of course, are law-breaking border crossers, visa overstayers, document fraudsters and deportation fugitives who chose on their own to rip their families apart. But hey, let’s not get bogged down in small details. As her more “progressive” 2016 challengers breathe down her neck, the perpetually transmogrifying Clinton has done everything but change her name to “Hilaria” and don an “Aztlan Nation” T-shirt to lock up the Latino vote.

During one of her umpteenth campaign reboots this summer, she hired a 26-year-old illegal immigrant “DREAMer” named Lorella Praeli to conduct “outreach to the Latino community.” She trumpeted her “comprehensive immigration reform” plan before the ethnic radicals of the National Council of La Raza (“The Race.”) And she crusaded last week for opening up Obamacare exchanges (which continue to crumble across the country under the weight of skyrocketing costs) to untold legions of immigrants here illegally.

Election-year conversions are nothing new. But Clinton’s immigration path contains more switchbacks than a Colorado mountain road. One season she’s a bleeding-heart Mechista. The next, she’s channeling her inner Pat Buchanan with sound bites that would make a Trump loyalist cheer. “A country that cannot control its borders is failing at one of its fundamental obligations,” she thundered many moons ago. “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants,” she asserted in 2003.

But that was then. This is now. Like Forrest Gump’s box of chocolates, you never know what yer gonna get with Transformer Hillary.

After the horrific murder of San Francisco’s Kate Steinle by a serial criminal alien who had been deported multiple times, Clinton disavowed sanctuary policies and stated she had “absolutely no support for a city” that looked the other way. Almost immediately, a campaign spokeswoman named Xochitl Hinojosa clarified that her boss believed sanctuary cities can “enhance public safety” and supported more amnesty (that is, more illegal immigration) to cure the bloody consequences of unfettered illegal immigration. All clear now?

Before Clinton was for driver’s licenses for aliens here illegally, she was sorta-kinda against them. Her slippery straddling evoked mockery among her Democratic presidential rivals in 2007, when she was asked during a debate whether she supported then-New York Democratic Gov. Eliot Sptizer’s licensing scheme. “Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform,” she babbled. After Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., unequivocally stated that “a license is a privilege and that ought not to be extended” to law-breakers, she protested that “she did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize what Governor Spitzer is trying to do.”

Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., jibed, “Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes, just a few minutes ago.” Then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., declared that he “was confused on Senator Clinton’s answer. I can’t tell whether she was for it or against it.”

Cynical birds of a feather flip-flop together. In 2006, both Obama and Clinton voted for the Secure Fence Act, which in theory mandated construction of a 700-mile barrier along the southern border. Barely two years later, both Democratic presidential rivals renounced their support after Texas special interests complained about the inconvenience to the “community” and open-borders activists whined about onerous passport requirements. (The grand irony is that the Secure Fence Act was a bipartisan ruse all along — a Kabuki gesture from the “immigration reform” illusionists in both parties that was purposely underfunded, slow-walked, and sabotaged by Bush administration bureaucrats and cronies.)

“You know where I stand” on immigration, Clinton is telling voters. But she doesn’t stand so much as she slithers from one expedient position to another and back in order to mollify Big Business and identity politics racketeers. Rest assured: The one role she’ll never play convincingly is that of truth-telling defender of “law-abiding, decent, hard-working” citizens who believe in putting American sovereignty and American interests first.



The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Doctors Agree: Obama’s Electronic Medical Records Mandate Sucks!

Hey, who’s up for a stiff dose of “See, I told you so?”

For the past several years, medical professionals have warned that the federal electronic medical records mandate — buried in the trillion-dollar Obama stimulus of 2009 — would do more harm than good. Their diagnosis, unfortunately, is on the nose.

The Quack-in-Chief peddled his tech-centric elixir as a cost-saving miracle. “This will cut waste, eliminate red tape, and reduce the need to repeat expensive medical tests,” he crowed at the time. In theory, of course, modernizing record-collection is a good idea, which many private health care providers had already adopted before the Healer of All Things took office.
But in the clumsy, power-grabbing hands of Washington bureaucrats, Obama’s one-size-fits-all EMR regulations have morphed into what one expert called “healthcare information technology’s version of cash-for-clunkers.”

I reported in 2012 how my own primary care physician quit her regular practice and converted to “concierge care” because of the meddlesome EMR burden. Untold numbers of docs across the country have done the same.

In 2013, health care analysts at the RAND Corporation admitted that their cost-savings predictions of $81 billion a year were vastly inflated. In 2014, RAND researchers interviewed doctors who spotlighted “important negative effects” of the EMR mandate on “their professional lives and, in some troubling ways, on patient care. They described poor EHR usability that did not match clinical workflows, time-consuming data entry, interference with face-to-face patient care, and overwhelming numbers of electronic messages and alerts.”

And the hits keep coming.

Robert Wachter, author of the recently published “The Digital Doctor: Hope, Hype, and Harm at the Dawn of Medicine’s Computer Age,” chronicled the damage he’s witnessed: “Physicians retiring early. Small practices bankrupted by up-front expenses or locked into ineffective systems by the prohibitive cost of switching. Hours consumed by onerous data entry unrelated to patient care. Workflow disruptions. And above all, massive intrusions on our patient relationships.”

The American Medical Association, which foolishly backed Obamacare, is now balking at top-down government intrusion into their profession. Better late than never. The group launched a campaign called “Break the Red Tape” this summer to pressure D.C. to pause the new medical-record rules as an estimated 250,000 physicians face fines totaling $200 million a year for failing to comply with “meaningful use” EMR requirements.

In Massachusetts last month, physicians decried the failure to achieve true “interoperability” between EMR systems despite a $30 billion federal investment through the Obama stimulus. Dr. Dennis Dimitri, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, noted at a rancor-filled town hall that the mandate has “added significant time to the daily life of most physicians in their practices,” WBUR reported. “It has not necessarily lived up to expectations in terms of its ability to provide cues to physicians to make sure that necessary treatments are not being missed. It has certainly not been able to swiftly disseminate information from one clinical setting to another.”

That’s in no small part due to the cronyism embedded in the federal stimulus “incentives” — a massive chunk of which the White House doled out to behemoth EMR company Epic Systems, headed by Obama crony Judith Faulkner. As I’ve noted repeatedly in this column the past three years, Epic continues to be plagued by both industry and provider complaints about its creaky, closed-end system and exorbitant fee structure to enable the very kind of interoperability the Obama EMR mandate was supposed to ensure.

Now, even left-wing Mother Jones magazine reports this week that “instead of ushering in a new age of secure and easily accessible medical files, Epic has helped create a fragmented system that leaves doctors unable to trade information across practices or hospitals. That hurts patients who can’t be assured that their records — drug allergies, test results, X-rays — will be available to the doctors who need to see them. This is especially important for patients with lengthy and complicated health histories.”

The Obama White House has responded by doubling down on its destructive EMR rules that punish both patients and providers. Congress must intervene. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, introduced a bill Thursday to repeal the draconian penalties “so that providers can get back to the business they are uniquely trained to do — utilizing their skills and knowledge to heal the sick and support the continued vitality of the healthy.”

Prescription: Butt out, Washington. Primum non nocere.


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.