You Know Things Are Bad For Obama When Even Liberals Start Turning Against Him

Photo credit: a katz /

Protests against the flood of immigrants entering the United States have erupted in the most unusual – and symbolic – of places lately.

For example, a large protest was held this week in deeply liberal Boston – a place that’s also pretty familiar with revolutionary acts.

According to a report by Leo Hohmann through WND, “The protests against illegal immigration turned up in an unusual place this weekend when more than 5,000 people rallied in Boston, Massachusetts, an area that has historically voted for Democrats. Organizers hope the surprisingly large turnout will set the stage for a new wave of protests planned for Saturday in Tennessee and two other states.”

Hohmann interviewed the rally organizer, James Neighbors, who explained the protest: “I think it’s a sign of the times, a symptom of the problem we’ve got going on here. I think it shows this illegal immigration issue goes beyond party politics.”

But what’s driving this bipartisan movement? Well, as I explained in an article about Chicago protests, communities are feeling neglected.

Obama is spending billions of dollars to handle the flood of illegal children; but in the meantime, American-born children are being denied services. Schools are overburdened trying to teach “ESL” children, and child welfare agencies are struggling to find room for the youths crossing the border.

A Mega Problem

Interestingly, environmentalists – once the backbone of Obama’s left-leaning supporters – are also beginning to voice their opposition to the flood of arrivals.

Take self-described environmental activist Frosty Wooldridge, who typifies the left-wing thinkers fighting Obama’s border policy. While protesting against Obama’s policies, Wooldridge recently witnessed a 100-mile-long traffic jam in Colorado, which he described on his blog:

What caused Colorado’s 100-mile-long traffic jam? The reason: relentless, massive, and inexorable population growth created by legal and illegal immigration bombarding America. Yet, no one dares speak a word for fear of verbal and social reprisals. If you so much as mention a word about immigration, the media brands you with various names. Furthermore, no media outlet dares mention what we face as a civilization.

Wooldridge hit the nail on the head when he said that overpopulation “will become the single greatest issue facing Americans in the 21st century.”

He concluded that if we don’t want 100-mile-long traffic jams on a regular basis, we need to find a way to control the country’s population. If not, our quality of life is going to be severely impacted; and we’ll end up like Beijing or Sãn Paulo, two cities that routinely face 200-mile-long backups.

You’d think Obama would know that, having grown up in the third-world mega city of Jakarta. This city on the Island of Java has a population of over 10 million; but when you add in the surrounding suburbs, the population is more like 30 million. Unfortunately, the president doesn’t seem to remember what it was like there.

Instead, his vision for a transformed America is to make it more like the cities of the world. He can only do it if we continue to sit on our hands and watch.

Luckily, some voices on the left are finally calling him out.


This commentary originally appeared at and is reported with permission. 

Photo credit: a katz /

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

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Watch: What This Democrat Says About Obama In Just 18 Seconds Will Make Your Head Explode


In response to Wednesday’s House vote authorizing Speaker John Boehner to advance his lawsuit against Barack Obama, Democrats have voiced increasing disapproval of the measure.

Republicans contend Obama’s frequent use of executive power constitutes a violation of the separations of powers established in the U.S. Constitution. According to some in his own party, however, the president has actually not issued as many unilateral decrees as they might have hoped.

Appearing on MSNBC following the aforementioned vote, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz expressed that sentiment when she accused her fellow legislators on the other side of the aisle of suing Obama “for doing his job.”

She contended, in fact, that he is “doing his job actually less often and at a rate that is lower than any president since Grover Cleveland.”

Though it is unclear by what metric she arrived at that accusation, Hot Air’s Noah Rothman suggested she is using the number of executive orders issued as a way to determine whether a president has done his respective job. If so, he points out, it represents “a unique take on the role of chief executive,” particularly in light of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling that struck down multiple appointments he improperly made while Congress was not officially in recess.

Nevertheless, Schultz asserted that the lawsuit was filed only “because the Republicans refuse to do anything.”

Others in her party, including the subject of the lawsuit, share her sentiment.

Obama weighed in Wednesday, claiming his political rivals are voting “to sue me for doing my job.”

As CNN reported, Democrats plan to use the suit as a common issue around which the party can rally voters.

“You bet we’re going to run on a Congress that is just obsessed with lawsuits, suing the president, talking about impeaching him, instead of solutions for the middle class,” said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Washington Post Condemns Citizens’ Concern About Housing Illegal Immigrants

Photo credit: Dan Holm /

Many in the liberal media believe that those who don’t embrace the massive influx of illegal immigrants to the United States with open arms, accepting their illegal crossings as a search for “refuge,” are hate mongers and racists, or worse. Now, those who don’t accept the “it’s for the children” argument when faced with the influx of more than 60,000 unaccompanied alien children (UACs) are condemned as child-haters as well.

All of these elements were present in a hit job on the residents of Lawrenceville, Virginia recently perpetuated by The Washington Post. Reporter Tina Griego jumped feet first into the immigration debate on July 25, writing that this Virginia town had “unequivocally rejected temporary housing for 500 Central American children seeking refuge.” Firstly, Griego’s tone suggests that she has accepted the mainstream media argument that the current influx of illegal immigrants is because of violence in their home countries, not the perception that the United States has loosened its own immigration policies. As AIM’s Roger Aronoff reported earlier this month, the El Paso Intelligence Center, which utilizes federal data, states in a report that “Of the 230 total migrants interviewed, 219 cited the primary reason for migrating to the United States was the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or permisos…”

And, as Breitbart News has questioned, why has the Obama administration repeatedly been mentioning the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) memorandum if it does not itself believe that this memorandum played some role in the current border crisis?

While Griego is not willing to attribute anything but innocent motivations to the child crossings (she does not mention the many adult border crossings), she has nothing but terrible things to say about those who oppose “the children.” She calls it a “full-throated, bared-teeth rage with which not everyone is comfortable or proud,” quotes a source likening it to opposition to the Civil Rights movement and the forced integration of schools, and refers to it as “that night’s fury” and “heat.” The implication is that the backlash is irrational. “In the days since, similar anger has raged throughout the country,” she writes.

The “fury” in Lawrenceville was the town speaking out against the federal government’s decision to use the local historically black college as a temporary shelter for UACs.

But, according to Griego, we can’t use the term UAC either. It’s too dehumanizing. “In this heat, the children cease to become children. They are, instead, called by the government acronym for unaccompanied alien children: UACs,” writes Griego. “They are called juveniles, illegals, possible carriers of infectious diseases and random mayhem, young men of unverifiable age and unknown intent who might be better suited for the empty state prison down the road.”

Are these concerns really so unjustified? AIM has already cited reports of the infectious diseases carried by some illegal aliens. “Vice President of the National Border Patrol Council Shawn Moran told Fox News that the violent MS-13 gang is exploiting the chaos on the U.S. border to recruit new juvenile members,” reported The Washington Free Beacon earlier this month.

“They are denied innocence in order to be remade as symbols,” asserts Griego.

Griego, and the Post, are trying to turn this town into a symbol of hatred and bigotry because they don’t like its reaction to illegal immigration. But there are two sides to this debate, and a good reporter shouldn’t forget that. Demonizing one side to score political points, taken to this level by Griego, is nothing more than thinly disguised advocacy journalism.


This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission. 

Photo credit: Dan Holm /

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

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

This Tea Party Senate Candidate Just Gave 7 Simple Steps To Securing The Border


With an increasing number of Americans blaming the Obama administration for its perceived complicity in exacerbating an already detrimental border crisis, many Republicans are taking the initiative to tackle the problem.

As Western Journalism reported, Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently indicated he is willing to send as many as 1,000 Texas National Guard members to the most porous corridors of his state’s border with Mexico in an effort to battle the influx of illegal minors traveling primarily from countries in Central America.

Though his state is much farther removed, Alaskan U.S. Senate hopeful Joe Miller is doing his part by publicizing a series of steps he feels would bring the crisis under control.

“The crisis of illegal immigration we’re facing is not only unnecessary,” the GOP candidate asserted in a recent press release, “it is being instigated by the Obama administration.”

Miller, who recently advocated Obama’s impeachment based on his complicity in the border crisis, said Americans deserve decisive action to preserve the nation’s sovereignty.

“It’s time we take some simple steps to ensure the integrity of our borders and the security of the American people,” he said.

The seven-point plan he recommends begins with ending foreign aid to any nation offering encouragement to illegal immigration. He also urged the completion of a fence along the nation’s southern border.

Miller wants to see the U.S. send a bill to each illegal alien’s country of origin to cover the cost of “policing, housing, feeding, and transporting their citizens.”

His plan calls for an end to America’s policy of bestowing citizenship on anyone born within its borders as well as the lottery system that provides such status to 55,000 individuals annually.

Miller’s recommendation also includes a requirement that employers utilize E-verify software in hiring all workers, proposing fines for those who give jobs to illegals.

Finally, he wants to cut off all benefits, including “healthcare, schooling [and] social services,” currently extended to illegals.

“With these seven, simple, common sense steps we could fix this problem once and for all,” Miller explained.

Calling the crisis “unconscionable,” he said that granting illegals “a safe haven with many of the same benefits as citizens is unacceptable.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Is Obama Incompetent Or Lawless?

Photo credit: BeckyF (Creative Commins)

It has been well established under the Constitution and throughout our history that the president’s job as the chief federal law enforcement officer permits him to put his ideological stamp on the nature of the work done by the executive branch. The courts have characterized this stamp as “discretion.”

Thus, when exercising their discretion, some presidents veer toward authority, others toward freedom. John Adams prosecuted a congressman whose criticism brought him into disrepute, an act protected by the First Amendment yet punishable under the Alien and Sedition Acts; and Thomas Jefferson declined to enforce the Acts because they punished speech, and pardoned all those convicted. Jimmy Carter asserted vast federal regulatory authority over the trucking and airline industries, and Ronald Reagan undid nearly all of it.

The president has discretion to adapt law enforcement to the needs of the times and to his reading of the wishes of the American people. Yet that discretion has a serious and mandatory guiding light — namely, that the president will do so faithfully.

The word “faithfully” appears in the oath of office that is administered to every president. The reason for its use is to assure Americans that their wishes for government behavior, as manifested in written law, would be carried out even if the president personally disagrees with the laws he swore to enforce.

This has not always worked as planned. President George W. Bush once famously signed into law a statute prohibiting federal agents without a search warrant from reading mail sent to persons other than themselves — and as he was literally holding his pen, he stated he had no intention of enforcing it. That was a rejection of his presidential duties and a violation of his oath.

But today, President Obama has taken the concept of discretion and so distorted it, and has taken the obligation of faithful enforcement and so rejected it, that his job as chief law enforcer has become one of incompetent madness or chief lawbreaker. Time after time, in areas as disparate as civil liberties, immigration, foreign affairs, and health care, the president has demonstrated a propensity for rejecting his oath and doing damage to our fabric of liberty that cannot easily be undone by a successor.

Item: He has permitted unconstitutional and unbridled spying on all Americans all the time, and he has dispatched his agents to lie and mislead the American people and their elected representatives in Congress about it. This has resulted in a federal culture in which the supposed servants of the people have become our permanent and intimate monitors and squealers on what they observe.

Item: He has permitted illegal immigrants to remain here and continue to break the law, and he has instructed them on how to get away with it. His encouragement has resulted in the flood of tens of thousands of foreign unaccompanied children being pushed across our borders. This has resulted in culture shock to children now used as political pawns, the impairment of their lives, and the imposition of grievous financial burdens upon local and state governments.

Pages: 1 2

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

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom