Hate Executive Amnesty? Hillary Just Took Advantage Of It Big Time

Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has faced her share of hurdles – many self-created – since announcing her intention to obtain her party’s nomination. Among the comments to garner criticism recently was her promise to ramp up Barack Obama’s program of giving illegal aliens an expedited path toward American citizenship.

Of course, this position stands in diametrical opposition to her own view in 2003, at which time she described herself as “adamantly against illegal immigrants.”

Her new rhetoric, however, appears to be more than just lip service to the nation’s growing illegal population. Reports indicate the Clinton campaign recently hired Lorella Praeli – an illegal alien allowed to stay in America under the controversial DREAM Act – as part of its Latino outreach effort.

The Dream Action Coalition, operated by illegal immigrants benefiting from provisions implemented under the Obama administration, offered its support of the Clinton campaign’s new hire.

“We congratulate Lorella for her new position,” the group said in a recent statement, “as she has unquestionably demonstrated an ability to get the job done and commitment to the Dreamer and immigrant community.”

The organization did have a word of warning for Hillary Clinton, though.

“Nevertheless,” the statement continued, “we urge the Hilary [sic] campaign to allow her to continue the fight for our community she will be representing and not just a spokesperson for campaign rhetoric.”

While the staff addition likely resonated with illegals interested in jumping to the front of the citizenship line, Americans were less enthusiastic.

“I guess being Hillary’s Latino outreach director is a job Americans won’t do,” quipped one Twitter user.

Is it appropriate for the Hillary campaign to hire illegal aliens? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Chuck Norris Makes Stunning Accusation About How Obama Is ‘Ensuring A 2016 Win’ For Dems

According to Chuck Norris, Barack Obama is already stacking the deck in favor of Democrats ahead of the 2016 presidential election. In a recent editorial, Norris cited several ways by which plans to increase immigration and naturalization in coming months could create a virtually undefeatable voting bloc willing to support the Democrat candidate.

“First,” he wrote, “the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, sent letters to all 9,000,000 green-card holders urging them to naturalize prior to the 2016 election.”

Furthermore, Norris cited the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program established by Obama to allow certain immigrants a fast track toward U.S. citizenship.

Perhaps the most troubling way this administration is using immigration to score electoral victories, Norris asserts, is by admitting refugees from any number of unfriendly, predominantly Muslim nations.

“Their strategy is to ‘seed your communities’ with at least 70,000 refugees a year,” he wrote, “including Iraqis, Burmese, Bhutanese, Somalis, Cubans, Syrians and others. And the numbers of Syrians, mostly Muslim, will surpass them all.”

At least a few Americans are excited about this idea. As Western Journalism reported, the New York Times recently published an editorial in which the authors suggested Syrian refugees should be allowed to “settle Detroit” in an effort to restore the once-prosperous city.

For Norris, however, it is obvious that Obama is showing favor toward certain oppressed groups while ignoring others.

“What’s tragically unfortunate,” he continued, “is that Coptic Christians barely even get a mention by Obama’s administration and even less protection.”

Is Obama’s amnesty plan designed to create a permanent Democrat majority? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Obama Orders Illegal Aliens To Be Admitted Into Military

Per President Barack Obama’s directive last fall, the U.S. Army is enlisting illegal aliens who are so called “Dreamers” into its ranks.

The Hill reports that since January, the Army has enlisted 81 illegal immigrants who received deportation deferrals under the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Congress is debating whether illegal immigrants should lawfully be allowed into the military. Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., inserted a provision in the 2016 defense budget to encourage the enlistment of qualified illegal immigrants.

Debate on the bill is scheduled for next week, and some House members would like to see the provision stripped–including Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala. King is expected to introduce an amendment to do so.

The admission of illegal immigrants who qualify for DACA could help pave the way for them being recruited under the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest program (MAVNI), established to allow legal immigrants into the armed forces. The Army established the program to admit those with medical training or critical language skills deemed vital to national security.

The Military Times reports that the armed forces recruit on average about 5000 non-citizens a year and that nearly all of them are permanent residents, or so-called “green card” holders.

Since 2001, more than 92,000 foreign-born service members have become citizens while serving in uniform.

The MAVNI program began in 2008 and remains a pilot program. The [Department of Defense] notified Congress on Thursday that the program, which was due to expire at the end of this fiscal year, will be extended for another two years and will for the first time include DACA-status immigrants.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

If Elected, Clinton Vows To Go ‘Even Further’ With Obama’s ‘Executive Amnesty’

At a campaign event on Tuesday in Las Vegas, Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton promised to expand President Obama’s so-called ‘executive amnesty’ even further. Her pronouncement came despite an Obama administration determination that there is no further to go–and a federal judge’s injunction against what has already been done.

“I would do everything possible under the law to go even further — there are more people, like many parents of DREAMers, and others with deep ties and contributions to our communities who deserve a chance to stay, and I would fight for them,” Clinton said on Tuesday, as reported by Politico.

Justice Department attorney Karl Thompson notified the White House through a legal memorandum last fall that such a deferral would exceed the executive branch’s authority. “As it has been described to us, the proposed deferred action program for parents of DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] recipients would not be a permissible exercise of enforcement discretion,” Thompson wrote.

In the same memo, Thompson relayed that the executive branch, in his opinion, could defer deportations for the parents of children who are United States citizens and prioritize the deportation of those who had committed crimes or were involved in gang activity.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest referenced Thompson’s memo last fall as legal backing for the Obama administration’s decision to take those actions. He said, “the president was determined to use as much authority as he could.”

Earnest was clearly uncomfortable when questioned by a reporter on Wednesday about Clinton’s promised expansion of the amnesty program, in light of his fall pronouncement. “There may be a legal explanation that they have that you should ask them about,” he said.

You can watch Earnest squirm here:

A federal judge ruled earlier this year that President Obama’s executive amnesty was likely unconstitutional and placed a preliminary injunction against implementing the program. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals took up the issue last month, and it appears likely to uphold the injunction.

Prior to his decision to implement the program, the President said on numerous occasions that he lacked the power to act unilaterally regarding changes to the nation’s immigration laws. In  February of 2013, he said, “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic. … [W]e’ve kind of stretched our administrative flexibility as much as we can[.]”

According to the Washington Times, more than 600,000 ‘dreamers’ have been approved through the DACA amnesty program begun in 2012. As many as five million more could be eligible if the federal courts should ultimately rule his expanded “executive amnesty” announced last fall is constitutional.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The Dismaying RINO Co-opting Of Rush Limbaugh

The purpose of recent articles about RINO Speaker John Boehner and his supporters (herehere, and here) was to make clear that the biggest problem conservative voters face is betrayal by candidates who lie about what they will do if elected. Because the United States leans conservative, RINO conservative poseurs have the greatest need to lie in order to win elections. Apparently, this is still not clear.

On April 14, Rush Limbaugh effusively praised an egregious phony, Marco Rubio. The next day, Limbaugh astonishingly defended that praise with toxic acquiescence in preemptive surrender to contempt for the Constitution and rule of law.

Fool-Me-Once/Fool-Me-Twice

The gist of Limbaugh’s initial commentary was that Rubio is a “serious” candidate with a “powerful message.” How depressing! Where has Limbaugh been? How many times have true conservatives been betrayed by “serious” people who abandoned their “powerful messages”? Powerful messages mean nothing if never acted upon. Elections then become farces as meaningless as those staged by any totalitarian regime.

Marco Rubio is a painful case in point. The first thing he did when he got to the Senate was to give the finger to his supporters by trying to grant amnesty to alien lawbreakers, teaming up with the likes of Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Richard Durbin, and Charles Schumer — yes, Charles Schumer! (That’s the very same Charles Schumer who is a poster-boy for Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. The very same Charles Schumer so fanatically opposes freedom of speech for conservatives that he zealously advocates eviscerating the First Amendment. A shocking 48 senators supported his assault on the right of the right to criticize the left.)

Limbaugh repeatedly rails against bipartisanship and “compromise,” which, he correctly says, comes down to giving leftist Democrats whatever they want. Conservatives give; they take. In joining the Gang of 8, Rubio demonstrated that he is infected by this mindset.

Moreover, Limbaugh has often claimed to oppose both illegal immigration and amnesty for this law-breaking. He has argued it would be the death knell of often antonymous conservatism and the Republican Party. Yet he disregards the broken clear and well-documented anti-amnesty promises made by Rubio in order to be elected senator. Did Limbaugh believe the strident gaseous fulminations against amnesty emitted by John Boehner?

It was no surprise when Boehner caved in. By contrast, Rubio actively, publicly, and aggressively promoted the very amnesty he opposed as a senate candidate. Does Limbaugh expect a senator who breaks his promises on a major issue to be different as president? Does one have to be a proverbial rocket scientist to understand that pledges by a candidate with a record of insincerity and lack of integrity mean nothing? How often are conservatives going to let themselves be fooled by the faithless elected? Shouldn’t they declare that candidates who betray them on major issues will never again have their support, no matter what they profess?

Let this “powerful message” ring out: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!”

Let’s Make John Roberts an Honest Chief Justice

If Limbaugh’s initial Rubio praise was disappointing, his next day’s rationalization of that praise should appall anyone who believes in the rule of law and the Constitution. Limbaugh gushed over Rubio’s

prescient prediction …. in part an explanation for why he was participating in the Gang of Eight [amnesty bill].  …Rubio said that … if there is an executive [Obama] amnesty granted to millions and millions of illegals … he could not envision a new Republican president being elected and rescinding it. 

How can Limbaugh call “prescient” and “spot-on” a prediction about what a Republican president would do before any Republican president takes office? Has he turned from optimist to pessimist? Is he now on the side of defeatist hopelessness and despair? With this kind of thinking, there may never again be a Republican president–and it would make no difference if there were. Notwithstanding Limbaugh’s Republican cheerleading, conservatives are unlikely to vote for a candidate promising not to reverse his predecessor’s unlawful and unconstitutional acts. (On April 17, days after Limbaugh praised Rubio, the latter pulled the rug out from under the former by making just such a promise!)

If the coming contest for the Republican presidential nomination is to mean anything, primary and caucus voters should have a choice between RINOs who see anything done by a tyrant as a fait accompli and at least one candidate who unmistakably rejects the notion that tyrannical acts must be accepted as irreversible.

It has been argued that Chief Justice Roberts slandered American voters by suggesting that they voted for ObamaCare:

[O]ur Nation’s elected leaders … can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

The voters were given no choice prior to the imposition of ObamaCare against the wishes of clear majorities in poll after poll after poll. When they were given clear choices, in 2010 and 2014, numerous incumbents who voted for ObamaCare were ousted by opponents who promised to repeal or defund it. The promises were promptly broken, showing the futility of “throwing leaders out of office” and, hence, the futility of elections.

Isn’t making Chief Justice Roberts’ statement honest long overdue? Isn’t it long overdue for the Republican Party to give the voters a genuine choice by nominating an honest presidential candidate (or at least one not demonstrably dishonest)?

An honest Republican nominee would elevate this issue above all others: whether to ratify or reject lawless and unconstitutional tyrannical presidential malfeasance.

Encouraging and Defending Lawlessness

The essence of Limbaugh’s Rubio defense is that it would be unimaginable to take away unlawfully and unconstitutionally acquired plunder. That is contrary to the bitter lesson of ObamaCare. It was never inconceivable to President Obama and Speaker Pelosi to unconstitutionally deprive millions of their doctors and insurance. What was inconceivable to them was to tell the truth about it. Amnesty is doubly offensive. First, illegal aliens broke the law to get ahead of law-abiding potential immigrants. Second, Obama violated both the law and the Constitution to grant them amnesty.

Limbaugh advanced his defense of Rubio’s amnesty betrayal on tax day, April 15, when millions of Americans were having lawfully acquired money and property confiscated by government — in order to bestow unmerited benefits upon those for whom Limbaugh and Rubio contend it would be inconceivable to cease providing.

It is, of course, no surprise that the Supreme Court has expressed contempt for those who follow the law in good faith. When a retroactive change in law relied upon by Jerry W. Carlton cost him over $600,000 (page 39), the Court effectively declared him to be a fool (33, 34):

Tax legislation is not a promise, and a taxpayer has no vested right in the Internal Revenue Code. ….a taxpayer should be regarded as taking his chances of any increase in the tax burden which might result from carrying out the established policy of taxation. [Internal quotation marks omitted.]

Going further, five justices have not found it inconceivable to throw an 88-year-old lower middle class lady out of the only home she ever lived in. They unconstitutionally approved government confiscation of that privately-owned property not for “public use,” but to turn over to a huge corporation for private use. (The corporation ultimately abandoned it.) Now, frequently corrupt local politicians can seize lawfully-held private property from the less well-off and turn it over to influential private parties, often much better off, who did nothing to deserve it.

Right now, the Supreme Court is considering whether government bureaucrats may “constitutionally” steal raisins from private citizens who lawfully produced them.

If the Limbaugh/Rubio view prevails, nothing can be done by Americans to avoid living in a country where, with the approval of any five U.S. Supreme Court justices, tyrannical and corrupt government officials, often unelected, can confiscate what ordinary people lawfully obtain and earn on their own–and prevent use of the doctors and insurance obtained by responsible individuals.

In sum, the United States would be a country where people are penalized for responsibly complying with the law and rewarded for breaking the law. Once upon a time, in the not too distant past, some might have been unable to “envision” that.

Can there be greater invitation to lawlessness and unconstitutionally despotic actions by government officials, as well as by ordinary people, than to say that it would be unthinkable to take away anything unlawfully or unconstitutionally obtained? Such actions would never be undone, regardless of what voters want. That is the import of a Rubio presidency. Voters should think long and hard about whether they want to elect a president who won’t reverse what a prior president had no constitutional right to do in the first place. We have already seen the consequences of electing Republicans promising to repeal or defund Obamacare, only to shrink from the task in cowardly fear. So far, contrary to Chief Justice Roberts, “throwing the bums out” is no meaningful choice at all.

Are Conservatives Gullible Turtles?

An example of the fool-me-once adage is the ancient parable of the turtle and the snake. A snake persuades a turtle fearing a lethal bite to give him a ride across a river, arguing that for the snake to bite the turtle would cause the snake to drown along with the turtle. Whereupon, the snake bites the turtle with poisonous venom, explaining that he could not help himself because he was, after all, a snake–and that was his character.

Conservatives are almost benumbed by the bad faith of those who deliver “powerful messages.” Nevertheless, the primary 2016 goal of conservatives must be to seek the candidate who is least likely to betray them. Although there can never be 100% guarantees, at a bare minimum, they cannot be turtles succumbing to smooth-talking snakes.

Of course, a candidate with a conservative message must be sought. It is to be expected that anyone seeking the Republican presidential nomination will at least repeat conservative lines. But that should be just a start. It is much more important to find someone with a record of honesty and integrity. Not just important, but critical — critical because the next election will probably be the last chance to repel the relentless march toward complete leftist tyranny.

Flip-floppers and promise-breakers need not apply and must be rejected if they do. Conservatives must exclude from consideration anyone with a proven record of major dishonesty.

Conservatives must exclude Marco Rubio.
Copyright © 2015 by Lester Jackson, Ph.D., a former college Political Science teacher who views mainstream media suppression of the truth as essential to harmful judicial activism. His recent articles on the U.S. Supreme Court, capital punishment and American Politics are collected here and here.        

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

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth