Obama By-Passes Congress (again) and Ignores Questions Regarding His ‘Non-Dream, Non-Amnesty Act’

By Kasey Jachim

Yet again our President by-passes Congress and enacts his version of the ‘Dream Act’ – then runs for  cover!   Although the Dream Act failed in Congress, Obama has decided to ignore the Legislative Branch and use the Executive Branch to pursue his agenda.  Will he also ignore and challenge the Judicial Branch when Obamacare is overturned?

Even though he had two years of a Democrat White House, Senate and House of Representatives, he failed in his promise to pass immigration reform.  But now, just five months before the election, he decides to upstage Senator Marco Rubio and his plans for ‘legitimate’ immigration  reform and pander to the Latino vote.  Have you no shame Mr. Obama?

When questioned by reporters over his decision, the President retreated to the Oval Office.  According to Neil Munro of the Daily Caller:

“President Barack Obama declined to take any questions from reporters about  his controversial and significant decision to offer a de-facto amnesty to at  least 800,000 foreigners aged 15 to 30.

The president turned and walked away from reporters at the end of an early  afternoon address in the White House’s Rose Garden, even though two reporters  called out questions about his decision.

The announcement of the decision comes at a time of record unemployment among  low-skilled workers, Hispanics and African-Americans.”

Neil  Munro explains his exchange with President Obama in Rose Garden [VIDEO]

We need a leader who will enforce our laws instead of arrogantly ignoring them and suing states for doing the job he refuses to do.  Several states are being sued by the Obama Justice Department for trying to enforce immigration laws, voter ID laws, and even Right to Work laws.  Tell me again why this man is still the legal occupant of the White House?

Wisconsin Democrats Are Busing in Supporters From Michigan for Recall Vote (Video)

A man called into the Chris Plante Show today. He said Democrats are giving away free stuff to supporters who go vote in Wisconsin. The caller said Democrats have four buses coming into Wisconsin from Michigan to vote Democrat.

Hat Tip Gateway Pundit

 

 

I guess the Dems plan to win at all costs……but I am sure Eric Holder and his Justice Department will be there to prevent all attempts of voter fraud!

The Party of Fraud at work in Wisconsin

By Judson Phillips via Tea Party Nation

 

English: Scott Walker, 45th Governor of WisconsinThe polls have not even closed in Wisconsin, yet the Party of Fraud is already out trying to steal the election, one way or another.

What are they doing?

From Wispolitics.com:

With only about four hours into the Election Day voting, members of the Milwaukee Democratic Party claim that calls are going out to voters telling them if they’d signed the recall, they didn’t need to vote today.

 Milwaukee County Dem Chair Sachin Chheda said that Walker supporters can’t get through the day without “cheating.”

 “This latest lowlife sleaze comes on the heels of countless reports from around the state of various Republican dirty tricks on behalf of Walker,” Chheda said in a statement. “For instance, reports surfaced last weekend that Walker supporters are paying homeowners to post Walker signs on their lawns.”

 A state GOP source dismissed the claims, saying it was expected from Dems who have made voter suppression claims part of their playbook.

“That’s just what they do, they’re simply setting the stage for a close election,” the source said. “The story doesn’t exist until they provide evidence.”

While on its face, this is one of the stupidest things coming from a Party that regularly manages to produce some really incredibly stupid statements; there is something here.

No, the Republicans are not trying to steal this election.  They are winning this election.  Scott Walker will pull in over 50% of the vote in this election.

The purpose of this is to create the meme, much as they did in 2000, that the election was stolen.

If Walker and the GOP win, it breaks the back of the unions and the far left.  Their only recourse is to claim the election was stolen.  Much as crazy liberals still believe George W. Bush stole the 2000 election, this is the legacy the left wants to leave here.

The most disturbing part of this story is the attitude of the left.  Elections no longer matter to them.  They cannot accept the verdict of the voters.  Either the election must be relitigated until the left wins or it must be totally tainted.

Liberals no longer accept the will of the people and move on to the next election.  This bodes very badly for the future of democracy in America.

The simple truth is Democrats no longer believe in the validity of elections.  Elections for them are simply a tool to gain power.  They are not the voice by which the people speak.

To say this is dangerous is a major understatement.

It is this type of attitude that breeds tyrannies.   We must not only defeat but also totally destroy this attitude if our Republic is to survive.

For more click here.

Holder plays race card to block Texas voter ID law

Texas Voter Identification Law Blocked by Justice Department as Biased

By Seth Stern via Bloomberg

The Obama administration blocked Texas (BEESTX)’s new law requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification at the polls, escalating a partisan dispute over voting restrictions.

The U.S. Justice Department used its power under the Voting Rights Act to halt the Texas law, saying in a letter to the state today that the measure may disproportionately harm Hispanics. The department in December blocked a similar law in South Carolina (NFSESC).

Democrats have objected to the voter ID laws as impediments to minority voting while Republicans have said they protect the integrity of elections. Republican officials in Texas, one of eight states that passed voter identification laws last year, said the administration has no valid reason to challenge the measure.

“Their denial is yet another example of the Obama administration’s continuing and pervasive federal overreach,”Texas Governor Rick Perry said in a statement.

The Justice Department’s decision isn’t final. Texas and South Carolina have filed suit in federal court in Washington seeking permission to enforce their photo ID requirements.

Before blocking South Carolina’s law, the last time the Justice Department challenged a state voter identification measure under the Voting Rights Act was in 1994.

History Binds States

Texas and South Carolina are among 16 states or portions of states that must obtain permission from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before redrawing their district lines or changing election procedures because of a history of voting rights violations.

Hispanic registered voters in Texas are 47 percent to 120 percent more likely to lack the required identification than non-Hispanic voters, the Justice Department said in its letter. Texas has 12.9 million registered voters of whom 2.81 million are Hispanic.

“Even using the data most favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver’s license or a personal identification card,” Thomas Perez, head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, wrote in the letter to Keith Ingram, the director of elections for the Texas Secretary of State.

The Voting Rights Act puts the burden on Texas to prove its law wouldn’t interfere with minorities’ ability to vote.

‘Federal Overreach’

Representative Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that the Justice Department’s action is an example of the administration’s “abuse of executive authority.”

The American Civil Liberties Union supports the administration’s efforts to block the laws.

“It’s a good sign that the Department of Justice is stepping into the jurisdictions where it can to stop these laws in their tracks,” said Nancy Abudu, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project in Atlanta,

Under the Texas law signed last year by Perry, voters who arrive at the polls without one of seven acceptable forms of photo IDs issued by the state or federal government, including concealed carry handgun permits, would be given a provisional ballot, according to the Texas Secretary of State’s website.

Those ballots would count only if voters bring an approved ID to the registrar’s office within six days of the election.

‘Minor Inconveniences’

The law exempts mail-in ballots and voters with significant disabilities or religious objections to being photographed.

The law’s requirements “entail minor inconveniences on exercising the right to vote,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in his court filing on Jan. 24.

The photo ID law would disproportionately affect poor and minority voters, who are least likely to have any of the required forms of identification or the documentation needed to obtain one, said Luis Figueroa, a San Antonio, Texas-based legislative staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. It also would hurt students because college or university IDs would not be accepted, Figueroa said.

The photo ID requirement could suppress minority turnout by three percent to five percent in Harris County, where Houston is located, and give Republicans an edge in local elections, said Carroll Robinson, a professor at Texas Southern University in Houston and a former city council member.

Election Integrity

“We’re going to disenfranchise significant numbers of minority voters as they become more and more the majority in Texas,” Robinson said.

Patricia Harless, a Republican state representative, said concerns among constituents about “the integrity of elections”rather than possible partisan advantage explains why she sponsored the voter ID measure last year. The law reduces the possibility of fraud, she said.

Lawmakers excluded student IDs because “we wanted a form of identification that was easily recognized by the poll workers at the election site,” Harless said.

Voters 65 and older automatically qualify to cast ballots by mail, which requires no ID, and the state will provide free voter identification cards.

“We worked really hard to make sure we met the constitutional requirements,” Harless said.

Lacking State ID

The Obama administration blocked South Carolina’s law in December after concluding minorities in the state are almost 20 percent more likely to lack state-issued identification than white registered voters.

The Justice Department asked for similar statistics from Texas, which said it doesn’t collect the kind of racial data needed to accurately determine how many of the state’s registered voters don’t have a driver’s license or state ID card are black or Hispanic. Texas provided data based on Hispanic surnames and no data on the impact on black voters, according to the Justice Department.

Jasmine Price, a sophomore at Prairie View A&M University, a historically black college 30 miles from Houston, said the law would make it harder for her to vote in person in Texas, as she’d prefer, rather than by absentee ballot in her home state, Arkansas.

Price, 19, said if the law takes effect, she’ll try to find the time in between a full course load and three shifts a week as a manager at a Houston sporting goods store to drive seven miles from campus to the nearest state Department of Public Safety office that issues IDs.

Literacy Tests

“My forefathers had it even harder to vote — they had to pass literacy tests — but they made sure they did what they had to do so that their vote could count,” said Price, who is black. “So if they say I have to go to the DPS office, as much as an inconvenience as it is to go there, that’s what I’m going to do.”

Alabama, where the voter ID law is not scheduled to go into effect until 2014, and Mississippi, where lawmakers haven’t adopted legislation to implement a citizen initiative approving a similar requirement, would also have to obtain Justice Department or federal court approval.

In Wisconsin, which doesn’t need to obtain the same kind of advance approval under federal law as Texas does, two state judges have temporarily blocked a voter ID requirement.

The latest ruling today in a challenge by the League of Women Voters came six days after a second judge ruled in a separate suit by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People against Governor Scott Walker.

To contact the reporter on this story: Seth Stern in Washington at sstern14@bloomberg.net

President Obama: Does he owe Black America?

By Stacy Swimp via Thy Black Man

When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, it was for all people. The Preamble reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…

The Constitution grants no preference to ethnicity or economic class. It’s a foundation for a rule of law applying equally to all Americans.

There is only one America—not a Black, White, Hispanic, Asian or any other separatist America.

Saying Obama owes special attention to Black America is contrary to the Constitution. “Black America” itself is a dysfunctional term that only promotes class warfare and ethnic unrest.

Black America” is a concept born from Black Nationalism, creating a means for Americans of African descent to eschew citizenship.

Obama owes Americans of African descent what he owes every other American. It’s not special or preferential treatment. It’s the truth—something he’s not delivered faithfully since taking office.

Instead of improving economic conditions, it would seem Obama has allowed things to get worse. For example:

•Reported unemployment last August was at 9.1 percent. In January of 2009, it was 7.6 percent. Long-term unemployment tripled during the Obama Administration.

•The average price of a gallon of gas in early September was over $3.50. When Obama took office, it was well under $2. This commodity affects the price of almost everything we buy.

•Food stamp use rose 70 percent over the past four years. There are more than 45 million Americans now on food stamps, as opposed to just over 30 million when Obama became president.

•The ranks of poverty-stricken children grew by 2 million over the past two years.

•The national debt is over 14.3 trillion dollars, up from nearly 10.7 trillion on Inauguration Day 2009.

•The federal government essentially borrowed $29,660 more dollars from every American household since Obama signed the first stimulus bill.

•In 2010, more than a million households suffered foreclosure—the first time it’s gone so high. The current pace of home sales could make 2011 the worst year for the industry in a half-century.

President Obama needs to set aside “race-baiting” politics and embrace real solutions to our nation’s problems. For instance:

•Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act that regulates federal labor agreements. This would save taxpayers over $10 billion per year and free up more money for more infrastructure projects that the Heritage Foundation estimates will create more than 150,000 jobs.

•Repeal the minimum wage law that discriminates against minorities and poor Americans—causing alarming hikes in unemployment in urban cities.

•Based on success in the states, a national “right-to-work” law could create more private sector jobs as well as more and faster personal income growth.

•The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world that punishes corporations for increasing profits and drives jobs overseas. Reform the tax code.

Americans need President Barack Obama to lead and support policies that put people back to work.

An American agenda is colorblind, for it is based upon the tenets of free enterprise, limited government and individual responsibility.

Enough of the rhetoric. Enough of the special interest politics. It’s time to follow a real plan.

Written By Stacy Swimp

Official website; http://StacySwimp.com

How Unions are Ruining America

by Daniel Brown in Work, May 30, 2010

A union is a group of workers.  Their purpose is to try to gain rights  for the workers by teaming up.  Of  course, this sounds like a worthy cause.  More money for hard working families is a good thing.   Stop!  I do not want to downplay people who work extra hours, scraping  together every penny just to feed their children.  Hard workers are  admirable, but I believe that unions are not.

First of all, I would like to point out America’s most important feature:  liberty.  Liberty means a lot.  It means citizens can do what they see  fit, provided they retain the rights of others.  Liberty means you can  believe what you want, say what you want, and most importantly: do what you  want.  The economy of America is also [supposedly, I feel compelled to add]  a free market.  This means that  people can buy and sell as they please.  It means you can employ or be  employed as you please.  Wait, liberty and a free market gives people the  right to employ as they please?  It gives people the right to work for  whoever they please?  Then how come America forces people in certain  professions to join a union?  If a worker is willing to work, and an  employer is willing to employ, what can stop them from making a contract?   The government can, of course!

So there you have it.  The government removes a significant amount of  freedom by this single requirement.  It is not right to force  someone to join a union.  The only thing the government can force people to  do for no reason is pay taxes.   Anything else the government forces us to do is conditional.  Many people  think we are forced to buy car insurance,  but we are not.  We only have to get car insurance if we choose to own a car and operate it on the  government’s roads.  The government does have that right, because we  use their roads.  That’s fair enough, but the same concept does not apply  in employment.  The government is not working for us when we get hired (as  they are when they maintain public roads) so why do they feel they can  interfere?  They can’t.

This is just the beginning.  The government has no right to endorse  unions, but what is wrong with the unions themselves?  Lots.  First of  all, why do they feel they can demand higher wages?  (Unions also fight for  other benefits, but they all have the same effect in that they cost the employer  more.)  This is greedy.  Almost always, the union’s main goal is to  achieve higher wages and more benefits for less work.  Greed, greed,  greed.  Although these things are pleasing, there is no need for  them.  Many union members believe that they cannot survive without these  things, because goods are expensive, and they have to have food, and a house and  whatnot.  But imagine workers actually worked hard, instead of complaining,  and asking for more money.  Then, the  company would have more money (because they didn’t have to raise their  wages) and more workers (because the worker kept working, and didn’t  strike).  So now, the employer gains a lot.  They have more profit, so  they can lower prices.

A worker might complain though that the company is the greedy one.  Just  because they have more money doesn’t mean  they will lower prices.  They will keep them high to increase their profits  even more.  But this is impossible.  Remember that worker?  The  one who kept working, even with low wages?  He now has less money, so he  can’t buy the product.  The company then has no one to sell to unless they  lower their prices.  But since the wages remained low, and the worker kept  working, they are able to.  They have to, and they can.

You see?  In a truly and fully free market, a natural balance will always occur.  Now this  example is just with one worker and one company, but it would be  widespread.  If everyone worked for whatever wages they could, prices would  easily fall to accommodate less money.  So unions claim they are making  things better.  They claim they are helping people, but they only make  things infinitely more difficult.  Unions, instead of letting each person agree on what is acceptable, they force  everyone to fight for what is unacceptable and unnecessary.

So the existence of unions is plainly pointless, but they don’t just  exist.  Unions also do things.  Often they strike.   Striking is awful in so many ways.  Since the businesses don’t have  workers, their prices are bound to rise.  How does this help the  workers?  It doesn’t.  They have to pay more for things, which makes  the pay raise they’re fighting for useless.  Strikes hurt both the  companies and the employees, but not only the ones involved.  Strikes also  hurt other businesses and other workers.  If one business  is temporarily out of commission, other businesses will have no one to trade with.  They could not buy from or sell to that  business, so then other businesses are at least hurt, possibly worse.   Their employees are in turn dealt the  same hand.  Their employer goes down so the workers suffer, and it could  potentially start a long chain of business injuries.  Strikes hurt consumers just the same.   Prices rise to compensate for the lack of production, and that’s money out of  the consumer’s pocket.  The consumer might then seek a raise from his own  employer.  There’s another deadly chain.

During a strike, the government also limits the number of other workers that  can be brought in.  That is after all, part of the point of picketing  during a strike: to prevent the company from hiring other workers.  But the  government also plays a part in this action.  There are laws that put limits on hiring during a strike.  This  is a massive violation of rights.  Just as before, if people are willing to  work, and the employer will hire them, then they have every right to act.

So unions are entirely uncalled for.  They are just greedy (or lazy)  people who want more stuff.  They hurt both the parties involved as well as  external groups.  And the government supports them!  This is  just so wrong.  Even if unions really did help things, the government needs  to stay out of it.  The only way an economy will really be free is if this  is the case.  Government intervention throws off the natural balance and  hurts everyone.  This is unacceptable.

This is my stand.  Feel free to challenge me, but you will be  wrong.

Read more here.

H/T Gary Donato

Justice Department coordinates suits with ACORN’s Project Vote

Editorial in the Washington Examiner

Remember ACORN, the  far-left activist community organizing group that filed for bankruptcy a couple  of years ago? That followed revelations that some members were advising pimps  and prostitutes on tax evasion, not to mention operating houses of prostitution  and smuggling underage girls into the country to work in the sex industry. The  Democratic-dominated Congress voted in 2009 to ban ACORN from receiving federal  funds. After ACORN’s bankruptcy filing, many of its local chapters remained  intact by the simple expedient of reorganizing under different names. It’s the  same tactic used by fly-by-night rug merchants and disreputable used car dealers  to stay one step ahead of the law.Readers will also recall that ACORN activists have  long been involved in voter registration fraud, either directly or through its  Project Voteaffiliate. At least 70 ACORN/Project Vote employees have been  convicted of voter registration fraud in a dozen states since 2006. According to  a 2009 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report, approximately  a third of the 1.2 million new registrations turned in by the two groups in 2008  were fraudulent.Despite all this, documents obtained recently by  Judicial Watch via the Freedom of Information Act suggest that President Obama  — who was employed by Project Vote as a community organizer early in his career  — and Attorney General Eric Holder have no qualms about working closely with  present and former ACORN and Project Vote operatives on voter registration  drives aimed at people on public assistance. Take, for example, an April 2009  letter to deputy assistant attorney general Sam Hirsh from former ACORN attorney  and current Project Vote director of advocacy Estelle Rogers. She described  preparations for a subsequent meeting about Department of Justice plans  concerning National Voter Registration Act litigation in states deemed not being  sufficiently aggressive in registering public assistance recipients.

Among those to be included in the meeting, according  to the Rogers letter, were Nicole Kovite, director of the public agency project  for Project Vote; Spencer Overton, deputy assistant attorney general for legal  policy; Cecilia Munoz, then-director of intergovernmental affairs in the Obama  White House; and Tino Cuellar, special assistant to the president for justice  and regulatory policy. Munoz was recently promoted to chief domestic advisor to  Obama.

Other letters obtained by Judicial Watch from Rogers  to high-ranking Justice Department officials include a March 2011 missive to  associate attorney general Thomas Perrelli, about a document she forwarded to  him “for improvement” after a previous meeting on NVRA litigation. The letters  also show that during the 2010 election cycle Project Vote used the threat of  NVRA suits by the DOJ to pressure officials in Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia  and New Mexico to change policies and procedures to facilitate voter  registration among public assistance recipients. Federal NVRA suits were filed  last year by the DOJ against Rhode Island and Louisiana after officials there  balked at changing their registration policies and procedures.

Given ACORN/Project Vote’s extensive links to voter  registration fraud schemes across the country, House Oversight and Government  Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa of California might want to ask Holder  about these matters on Feb. 2 when the attorney general appears before the  panel.

MORE ON THESE TOPICS:

 

Related articles