A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Obama's Incoherent Immigration Speech

Posted: Nov 22, 2014

"I count three ways President Barack Obama's speech on immigration last night contradicted itself.

First, there was the absolutist language he used to justify his policy -- coupled with restrictions that aren't compatible with such language. The argument Obama made for his policy of offering legal status to millions of illegal immigrants was highly moralistic: We're not supposed to rip apart families, we can't deny people "a chance to make amends" and so forth. But you don't qualify for the new forbearance if you've only been here a short time, or are coming here tomorrow. No chance to make amends for tomorrow's illegal immigrant.

Second, the president insisted that all he was doing was exercising routine prosecutorial discretion. Yet he also explained that he was engaging in a quasi-legislative act. When speaking in one vein, he made it sound as though the policy he was announcing was old news: "We're going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security." But if that's all he was doing, he wouldn't have needed to make a speech.

He was more candid at other times, when he made clear that his policy was a partial substitute for the legislation he wants, which would offer illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. But his political challenge to Congress -- I'm acting in your place because you haven't, and to make you act -- makes no sense if he's just exercising prosecutorial discretion. It makes sense if he's legislating from the White House.

Third, Obama invoked public opinion to legitimize his action -- even though the public doesn't appear to be on his side. "Most Americans support the types of reforms I've talked about tonight," he said. That's an arguable point. But most Americans don't support Obama's imposing those policies unilaterally. Polls shouldn't trump our constitutional tradition: You know, all that stuff about Congress writing the laws. But the polls aren't on Obama's side anyway.

It was a speech, then, that was internally incoherent from top to bottom. Its tone clashed with the policies Obama actually intends to pursue. And it offered no plausible defense of those policies based on the Constitution, on a consistent moral argument or even on public opinion. It's hard to imagine that it convinced many people about the propriety of the president's actions."

I give credit to those who watched or listened to this president's speech. I just cannot stomach him anymore.

Link: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-21/obamas-incoherent-immigration-speech?cmpid=yhoo

;

Odd, considering Ponnuru's own birthplace is listed on NNDB as "undetermined?" - & Wiki just says "raised in Kansas"

[ In Reply To ..]
Wikipedia, which usually says birth date and place, oddly just says "raised in Prairie Village, Kansas" and NNDB says "undetermined."

http://www.nndb.com/people/628/000172112/

He may very well be a citizen, natural born even, but I'm having difficulty finding that information on a quick search.

Do you happen to have that information?

Whatever his citizenship might be isn't relevant. - Respond to the points he made.

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Questionable citizenship is very relevant "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?" - K, I'll respond since u asked so nicely

[ In Reply To ..]
I'm pretty sure the fact that his own birth status and citizenship is apparently some big secret or difficult to find is relevant, considering the issue itself IS citizenship?

It makes a difference regarding insights to varying motivations for writing the piece.

And...

"Respond to the points he made!"

Okay, sheesh, you could've asked nicely.

But please note we are once again being asked to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain again and just listen to the Great and Powerful Oz? ;)

As I already told you, I ALWAYS look behind the curtain.

Okay, here goes - remember, you asked for it. When I'm done, you'll probably wish I'd just stuck to his citizenship status.

Ponnuru Point #1:

"We're not supposed to rip apart families, we can't deny people "a chance to make amends" and so forth. But you don't qualify for the new forbearance if you've only been here a short time, or are coming here tomorrow. No chance to make amends for tomorrow's illegal immigrant."

How clever of Ponnuru to put Obama in a Catch 22 by using Republicans' long-standing given reason for not supporting legislation against him - Republicans have long stated they would never support any action that would grant FUTURE amnesty or paths to citizenship for illegals.

So now you're going to B and moan about Obama for NOT including future illegals in it? Whaaaa ?

Talk about contradicting yourselves Republicans, make up your mind. You do want amnesty or you don't, now or in the future?

Ponnuru Point #2:

"Prosecutionary discretion"

Here is an excerpt I found of definition of "executive prosecutionary discretion" at one site and its link, but the interpretation of his law can be determined my the Supreme Court if there are disagreements.

"Executive discretion, like that vested in the president by Article II of the U.S. Constitution, is most evident in the area of foreign affairs: the president is the commander in chief of all the military forces and also has the power to make treaties with other countries.

***If Congress is silent on a particular issue—that is, if Congress has not passed a specific statute or resolution concerning that issue—then the president has broad discretion to act. This arrangement is particularly relevant in the area of foreign policy during war or other military action, when decisions must be made quickly in response to rapidly changing circumstances."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Discretion

Um, I'm pretty sure that second paragraph is what has happened here, is it not?

Considering this exact bill was attempted in Congress in 2007 and failed, with the only change being "prove good and moral character" now defined as "background check" by Obama.

Ponnuru Point #3:

Ponnuru says:

"Obama invoked public opinion to legitimize his action -- even though the public doesn't appear to be on his side."

Actually, that's not what he said, and even if it was, you have about as much proof as he does of where public opinion lies, according to which poll you use, which I couldn't help notice that neither one of you cited.

Oh but wait, there's more! Because in fact, Ponnuru gives exactly what Obama said later in that paragraph:

"Most Americans support the types of reforms I've talked about tonight," he said."

Now you've got it Ponnuru! Ding ding ding that's what he actually said!

I agree with that statement, I believe most American DO want something done about immigration reform, even John Boehner and Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Tea Party), but through Congress instead - it's the constitutionality of it and separation of powers in enacting the plan that concerns them.

Then Ponnuru goes on to say:

"That's an arguable point. But most Americans don't support Obama's imposing those policies unilaterally."

Really? Like Obama, the poll you're citing as proof is from where? Some sort of slanted publication/net site which only draws people of a certain group?

And it may be that they don't support him doing it with EO, but that doesn't mean they support doing nothing, either.

He said "the types of reforms I'm talking about tonight" - NOT whether or not they were performed with unilateral action, as you said.

Obama should've cited his source, but at least the president would most likely be obtaining how much support for this plan was given by Congress members he's talked to about it, comparing the last time a nearly identical plan attempted to go through Congress in 2007 vs congressional opinion now, as a reflection of constituency. I'm pretty sure that trumps a National Review poll performed mostly by conservatives only.

***Obama's plan is, by the way, nearly identical to GWB's 2006 plan which failed in the Senate in 2007.

Then Ponnuru hilariously contradicts himself here and says:

"Polls shouldn't trump our constitutional tradition: You know, all that stuff about Congress writing the laws."

Dude, what the heck are you talking about? You just said "Most Americans don't support the president" and didn't cite your source, but you turn right around undermine your point by saying such polls are irrelevant?

So are polls important or not, make up your mind?

Talk about contradicting yourself. In fact, you're the only one who mentioned polls, Obama most likely was talking about our Congrsesional opinion, which is a reflection of our people.

But go ahead, RP, just keep sitting over there in the corner, splitting hairs and sticking to the red herring of the constitutionality.

That way, you can sue Obama (ya know, like what happened to GWB over executive order 13233, minus all the public drama) instead of addressing the actual issues people care about.

Hey, that way, not only will that ensure nothing gets done on immigration for years while this is tied up in court, but it will also prove definitively to Americans that Republicans don't really care about the actual issues, they just care about finding new hairs to split so they can pummel their opponent.

The author of this article is grasping at straws, not to mention forget contradicts himself about 12 times, forget Obama's speech

But please, continue with this, Republicans...

Just know that every hair you split...

Every red-herring obstruction or filibuster you make...

Every step you take on focusing on a lawsuit rather than passing a bill...

That's one step closer for this Independent back towards being a full Democrat

(Edited) Hypothetically, what would an undocumented immigrant have to gain by - writing AGAINST reform?

[ In Reply To ..]
Well, let's say you're a successful Filipino journalist for a national publication, even a Pulitzer prize winner, like Jose Vargas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/magazine/my-life-as-an-undocumented-immigrant.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But now instead of his situation, let's say you are from a Middle Eastern country, but you wrote for the opposing side of politics instead. Why would you ever come out AGAINST immigration reform?

Several hypothetical reasons - and remember, you're a successful journalist, not a migrant farm worker or hotel housekeeper.

Like Jose Vargas, let's say you fudged/faked documents to attend school and later prestigious private universities.

You could work as a freelance contributor or even on contract for a major publication. And do you pay taxes? Hmmm.

Even if on staff payroll, taxes may be taken out, but you don't exist government wise. The government will still take your money from your employer's HR department regardless, make no mistake. They might look the other way, as The WP did for Vargas.

Another hypothetical reason is, if such a person come out against immigration reform, but FOR future amnesty, that is in direct opposition to your political party's stance - so why would a person do such a thing?

Hypothetically, because you could no longer continue to bring family members over undocumented anymore unchecked under Obama's plan, after under the guises of private pay for better health/medical care like people in the UAE, Iran and other Middle Eastern country do here in this country, every day. You could no longer expect amnesty for them should they decide to stay after those doctor visits for care.

Additionally, if you have children here in the future, would they truly be considered legal or not (like the controversy over Obama himself) since you are illegal?

But as I said, this is all hypothetical and once we determine Ponnuru is a legal citizen, then my point becomes moot. However, I do know some wealthier middle eastern undocumented immigrants that actually did this under the guises of medical care.

If not, then the difference between himself and Jose Vargas is that Jose Vargas has been trying to obtain legal citizenship as a former undocumented immigrant child and can't, TRYING to pay taxes, but not trying to bring family members over illegally under the guises of better medical care reasons or anything else.

(Again, I know of several middle-eastern families that got to this country through medical-care clauses, this is not just speculation. The only part that is speculation/hypothetical is about the journalist himself.

In the first place, I didn't use an exclamation point - and yes it makes - a difference in tone when you ADDED it.

[ In Reply To ..]
Very slick move, but it didn't go unnoticed. Next time you quote me, please do so exactly.

Second, you're not paying what might be called exquisite attention to Americans' opposition to Obama's executive action - nor does this come from "some sort of slanted publication/net site which only draws people of a certain group" unless you call CNN and the NY Times such sites.

Here's the CNN link below - 48% opposed, 38% favor, and 14% undecided.

And incidentally, the process matters, perhaps even more so than the specific nature of the executive action itself. It matters very much indeed.

As I said, u now have the floor but are still using it to split hairs - on my way out, quickly

[ In Reply To ..]
First, you're right, there was no exclamation point, and it does change tone, my apologies for that. However, it wasn't exactly a request you gave either, more like an executive order;)

Secondly, I believe I paid attention to the executive order aspect ad nauseum already, actually. In fact, what part of the below did you miss?

1. I believe focusing on constitutionality is a hair-splitting excuse to cover intense feelings and opinions about Obama and efforts to undo him, rather than doing anything about the issue of immigration itself.

2. I believe GWB was sued over doing the exact same thing with an EO regarding executive privilege itself in 2007 during and hostile Congress, and he lost and had to revoke it. And yet there was not such public drama about it., in fact, most people don't even know.

3. I believe Congress should've passed the thing in 2006 when George W. Bush tried the same plan.

4. I believe that as a result, Obama actually might win an executive order case because of the definition of prosecutionary discretion:

"If Congress has not passed a specific statute or resolution concerning that issue—then the president has broad discretion to act. This arrangement is particularly relevant in the area of foreign policy during war or other military action, when decisions must be made quickly in response to rapidly changing circumstances"

5. I believe Obama has no intention of really passing an EO, he's just trying to light a fire under Congress' butts to do something, anything, psas a bill already.

6. I believe that if Republicans truly cared about this issue and the American people themselves rather than catching the president in wrongdoing so they can oust/humiliate/pummel him, they'd be focused on how to pass it through Congress themselves rather than

7. ***As far as Executive Orders themselves, either pass a freakin' law to restrict EOs or to take them away entirely, but don't use them and sue only those presidents that aren't doing what your party wants
(again, Bush 2007, EO 13323, later revoked due to unconstitutionality)

Thirdly, in your point about polls, you missed the point entirely.

The author himself said public media polls should not be taking presidence over legislation or executive decisions, didn't he?

Then turned right around and contradicted himself later using a poll to support his own opinion.

I actually agreed with him the first time, polls from sites who slant questions or asked overly generalized "either/or" questions should NOT replace informed decision votes.

However, I said that instead of polls, Obama most likely got his opinion by talking to Congress who represent us as constituents vs. a news media poll. He would have access to comparing members of Congress in 2006 (which he was a part of) when GWB tried to pass this plan, comparing it to now, in speaking with members of Congress, including Boehner and Paul - who ARE for the plan, as they've said, just not an EO to do it, through Congress only.

However, Obama didn't state that, it IS my speculation - but he would have more access to actual Congress members we voted for more than the author.

Again, as long as you continue to ignore aspects you don't like, split hairs or roll over points and instead focus on irrelevant aspects of the president's plans or character assasinations of the man himself rather than his idea, the further AWAY you are pushing me from your party's perspective.

It's their way of deflecting. - NM

[ In Reply To ..]
😇

Speaking of deflection, this comment is well after I posted - lengthy, detailed response to the article itself

[ In Reply To ..]
Not only did I address all 3 points in detail in my lengthy response before this comment I'm replying to was made, but added a PS substantiating specific reasons why his citizenship status MAY be especially relevant as well, which I strongly encourage people read.

If it's preferred not to read them, that's fine, but they can hardly be called deflection.

It's the Republicans' turn now!

(If they're done deflecting with such comments).

Or perhaps it's preferred to continue to covering eyes and ears and only read Republican-sounding posts and articles, not realizing feet are going into mouths right and left (or is that right and right?;)

Obama's speech - anonie

[ In Reply To ..]
I hear you about watching or listening to Obama, his speeches or anything he is on TV for.

This whole thing was for him to get attention. He is a petulant child and a narcissist. They have to be center of attention even if they act out in a bad way like a child does to get attention.

I can no longer watch or listen to him and I always mute or just turn the channel to avoid that. I do not like liars and you cannot believe one word he says.

That is a shame that a president and a party sets out to try to pull the wool over people's eyes because they think they know more than an average American. They may be well educated but they have also been indoctrinated.

I fear our children will be as well and that someday we won't recognize this country and that our children will not make good leaders of it. History has to be taught the right way. Founding of our country has to be taught the right way.

It is such a shame that atheism has taken hold of our country literally kicking God out of everything.

What happened to not participating in something if you don't believe in it. No they have to create a huge mess against Christians or against people who have fought for our country (soldiers). Ungrateful elitists. Let's pass a law saying that elitists have to enlist and go to war instead of sending our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, etc.

You would soon see how cowardly they were.

I grieve over this country a whole lot. I got to live in a time that was much more favorable to happiness, safety above all and things made sense. Now they do not make sense and everyone has lost their common sense.

Stupendous post! - Sam

[ In Reply To ..]
Love all your posts, anonie. You know you hit a nerve when the 'dislikes' start appearing. We conservatives may be a minority on this board, but it won't stop us from shouting from the rooftop. We were heard on November 4th!

On one hand, I agree with you - but on the other?

[ In Reply To ..]
Well, I agree with you that Christians shouldn't be discriminated against. Which is why it is so odd that I left the below comment here earlier and it was removed by the moderator, without a reason given at all and it did not break any forum rules.

Because I, too, said I was a Christian and have soldiers in my family - but I also said I disagreed politically and stated why.

So is that why it was removed?

But that can't be, because Christians like us know that'd be wrong to report others' comments over no wrongdoing, just politics.

So since this comment was removed, am I to take it I was right? That this is proof even people within the same Christian faith can't agree on politics and why church and state should remain separate?

Christians and families with soldiers who fought and died for this country who don't share the same politics shouldn't be discriminated against either, here or anywhere.

Question...

In Iraq or Afghanistan, did your family member ask whether their brother in arms was a Dem or Republican first or which Christian church they went to before they had their back or vice versa?

They didn't. So why are the people here?

Here is the comment:

_____________________________

You said:

"That is a shame that a president and a party sets out to try to pull the wool over people's eyes "

... but then later spoke about "they" and "elitists:

"No they have to create a huge mess against Christians or against people who have fought for our country (soldiers). Ungrateful elitists. Let's pass a law saying that elitists have to enlist and go to war instead of sending our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, etc. "

If you mean wealthy politicians, then I agree with you.

Otherwise, I'm a former Dem, now an Independent, and I have family members who were soldiers and I am a dedicated Christian as well. However, I agree with our forefathers decision to keep church and state separate (First Amendment) because we cannot all agree on even aspects within the Christian faith itself, so best to keep it out to avoid arguments.

As well I agree with Christ telling us we needed to keep them separate when he said in Mark 12:17: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar, render unto God what is God's."

You never know, sitting right next to you in church could be a Dem just never mentioning politics because they don't believe it has a place in God's house.

I'll be out most of the rest of the day, and I believe it's
Republican turn to respond so feel free. Later:)

_______________________________________

But ya'll just keep having it removed, I'm sure that's WWJD.

I'll just put it right back:)

Maybe it wasn't removed, maybe it was moved to - The Faith Board

[ In Reply To ..]
Where talks of religion, god, faith and WWJD belongs.

So why wasn't hers moved too since she brought it up - and I just replied?

[ In Reply To ..]
Never mind, that would make too much sense if that was done.

Similar Messages:

Nov 29, 2014
Leaving aside passages in which he quoted a Chicago pub owner and a letter from a citizen from Georgia, President Barack Obama used the first person singular—including the pronouns “I” and “me” and the adjective “my”—91 times in a speech he delivered in Chicago Tuesday to explain his unilateral action on immigration. But as often as Obama used “I,” “me” and “my” in Chicago this week, it was no match for the ...

Dec 10, 2014
While there are plenty of Bible verses to mention while discussing immigration, President Obama on Tuesday quoted one which isn't so great, mainly because it's not real. "The good book says don't throw stones at glass houses, or make sure we're looking at the log in our eye before we are pointing out the moat in other folks eyes," Obama said during a speech in Nashville. One problem, though: The Bible never mentions glass houses. In addition to his b ...

Nov 21, 2014
Maybe because the majority of Americans do not want amnesty for millions of illegal aliens; the majority want our current immigration laws enforced, and they want this president to abide by them. Link: http://www.inquisitr.com/1625168/obama-immigration-speech-all-major-television-networks-snub-president-white-house-not-pleased/ ...

Jul 20, 2016
. ...

Mar 03, 2015
4 Million Illegals, Who Never Paid U.S. Tax, Get 3 Years Of Tax Refunds You have to admit it sounds crazy. The normal rule is that the IRS can audit for three years, so you can usually go back three years to amend your return or claim a credit you forgot. What if you never had any income or never filed a return? Just wait. Since an illegal immigrant under President Obama’s executive action can now get a Social Security Number, the immigrant road map is c ...

Jun 16, 2012
Thank Marco Rubio. ...

Nov 07, 2014
"President Obama said on Wednesday that he would act on his own by the end of the year to “improve” the immigration system, presumably by giving many — perhaps millions — of the country’s unauthorized immigrants temporary protection from deportation and permission to work. He has said this before, only to back off in deference to election-year politics." It will be interesting to see how "immigration reform" will play out. The majority of Americans do not des ...

Aug 30, 2011
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/29/obamas-uncle-charged-with-drunken-driving/?test=latestnews ...

May 12, 2011
President Barack Obama renewed his push for comprehensive immigration reform Tuesday, citing America's legacy as a nation of immigrants and saying that finding a solution for millions of undocumented workers is critical to the country's common future. "We define ourselves as a nation of immigrants -- a nation that welcomes those willing to embrace America's precepts," Obama said during a visit to El Paso, Texas. "It doesn't matter where you come from. What matters is that y ...

Nov 10, 2014
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama defended his plan to use executive powers to implement some immigration reforms, saying in an interview broadcast on Sunday he had waited long enough for Congress to act. Obama told congressional leaders on Friday he would try to ease some restrictions on undocumented immigrants, despite warnings from Republican leaders that such actions would "poison the well" or would be "a red flag in front of a bull." "Everybody agrees the immigration ...

Nov 15, 2014
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans debated Friday how to respond to President Barack Obama's expected executive action on immigration, with GOP leaders anxious to craft a solution that satisfies the demands of their most conservative members without courting a government shutdown. Another option would be to pass a temporary spending bill into next year when the GOP will control the Senate, to try to see if Republicans can use their grip on the purse strings to gain leverage over the ...

Dec 29, 2014
In a discussion about his recent executive actions on immigration, President Obama called out "nativists" in the Republican Party who he claimed are obstructing immigration reform,in an interview with NPR published on Monday morning. "The question then becomes, by me having taken these actions, does that spur those voices in the Republican Party who I think genuinely believe immigration is good for our country? Does it spur them to work once again with Democrats and my administration to get a r ...

Oct 24, 2014
. ...

Nov 11, 2014
"Just what happened last week on election day? And what is going to happen in the years ahead? The most important thing that happened last week was that the country dodged a bullet. Had the Democrats retained control of the Senate, President Obama could have spent his last 2 years in office loading the federal judiciary with judges who share his contempt for the U.S. Constitution.Such judges — perhaps including Supreme Court justices — would have been confirmed by Senate Democrats, a ...

Dec 04, 2014
Washington (AFP) - In a symbolic rebuke to US President Barack Obama's unilateral action on immigration, the Republican-led House of Representatives voted Thursday to block his plan to shield millions of people from deportation. The bill, which passed 219-197 along party lines, was introduced by conservatives furious with what they consider Obama's abuse of power when he announced his executive order last month. But it is unlikely to reach the floor of the Senate, where Obama's ...

Jan 20, 2015
Link: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/court-obamas-executive-action-immigration-unconstitutional ...

Jan 27, 2015
Nevada joins a multi-state coalition suing President Barack Obama’s executive action granting deportation relief to millions of undocumented immigrants. The total number of states represented was 26 as of Monday with Nevada’s participation. The lead plaintiff is Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who filed the suit last month. From Las Vegas Sun: “Our immigration system is broken and clearly needs to be fixed,” said Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, who vowed ...

Mar 21, 2015
A federal judge who has blocked President Barack Obama's immigration executive action suggested on Thursday that he could order sanctions against the Justice Department if he rules it misled him about when exactly the administration began implementing one of the measures. During a sometimes testy court hearing, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen went back and forth with the Justice Department over whether it had mislead him into believing that a key part of Obama's program would not be ...

Nov 23, 2014
The percentage of Americans against this lawless act is 68%. I am in that 68%. ...

Mar 10, 2015
Whatever one thinks of the President Obama’s aggressive executive action on immigration—which is still being litigated in the courts—tax refunds for the affected illegal immigrants has itself become controversial. The IRS says that illegals can file and claim refunds for the last three years under the Earned Income Tax Credit. That is the same refundable tax credit that is responsible for billions in fraudulent refunds. IRS Commissioner Koskinen confirm ...

Apr 09, 2015
A federal judge has wrongly prevented "common-sense policies" from taking effect by blocking President Barack Obama's executive action that seeks to shield millions of immigrants from deportation, and the federal government plans to continue its fight in a higher court, the White House said Wednesday. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the policies are in the best interest of the economy and supported by businesses, faith leaders and local law enforcement across the country, "includ ...

Nov 10, 2015
Guess somebody's pretty upset over it. Too bad. I hope the Supreme Court also upholds it, but I'm tired of Obama trying to change laws. He has no right to make law, change the law, or to pick and choose which laws to enforce, jsut like the the former AG had done. Hopefully, he won't challenge it but I don't think his ego will just let it go. ______________________________ President Barack Obama's executive action to shield millions of undocumented immigrant ...

Aug 17, 2014
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is facing potential rifts with members of his own party in tough re-election contests as he barrels toward a fall fight with Republicans over his ability to change immigration policies. If Obama takes the broadest action under consideration — removing the threat of deportation for millions of people in this country illegally — the short-term risks appear greatest for Senate Democrats in conservative-leaning states. Weeks before the Nove ...

Jul 16, 2012
The official transcript relates: There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Le ...

Apr 10, 2015
In an order issued late Tuesday, federal district court Judge Andrew Hanen refused to lift the preliminary injunction he had previously issued stopping the implementation of the immigration amnesty plan announced by President Obama last November. And in a second order, an obviously infuriated Judge Hanen said that the “attorneys for the Government misrepresented the facts” to the court. udge Hanen issued his injunction on Feb. 16 in the lawsuit filed by 26 states in a Texas federal ...

Sep 08, 2011
My fellow Americans.....this isn't my fault. I inherited this from Bush. Although I'm well into my first term, this still isn't my fault. Now congress is to blame. I want to spend...I'm sorry...I mean...invest money in public sector jobs because the unions contribute to my campaign and I want to make sure that I support union jobs while making things harder in the private sector. Republicans are evil. The rich...even though I'm rich... ...

Apr 29, 2011
http://factcheck.org/2011/04/factchecking-obamas-budget-speech/ ...

Sep 09, 2011
http://lockerroom.johnlocke.org/2011/09/09/obamas-pass-this-jobs-bill-remix/ ...

Sep 07, 2012
Michael Tomasky (left): Speech was dull, pedestrian, overconfident. Charles Krauthamer (right): Empty, meaningless, deceptive. Numbers pulled out of thin air as empty promises - e.g., he's to create x number of (teaching, green, whatever) jobs but not the slightest idea how. And even Jon Stewart is beginning to make fun of the Democrats' mindless adoration of Obama. My review: Who wrote this speech - Howdy Doody? ...

Nov 26, 2012
By not doing so, it comes across as endorsement: "A painting that features President Obama posed as Jesus Christ crucified on a cross is on display at a community college art gallery in Boston. "The painting by Michael D’Antuono is part of a larger exhibit called 'Artists on the Stump – the Road to the White House 2012.' It’s on display at the Bunker Hill Community College Art Gallery until Dec. 15th. "The painting is called 'Truth' – and shows the preside ...