Obama’s Amnesty-By-Fiat: Naked Lawlessness

 The Trail of Tears begins

[NOTE: We had not intended to post more on this nettlesome issue after recently issuing several impassioned statements about it here and at other blogs, but our friend AOW, who thinks differently on The Dream Act, brought this article to our attention. It‘s a logical, remarkably clear-headed, dispassionate statement opposing a purely humanistic approach to the law, and as such, because we wish to make every attempt to be fair-minded and give all legitimate points of view a chance to be examined, we realized it ought to be shared in a condensed version here with emphasis added.  - FreeThinke]

by Charles Krauthammer 

 June 21, 2012 -  The Washington Post

”With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations [of immigrants brought here illegally as children] through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.”

~ President Obama, March 28, 2011

Those laws remain on the books. They have not changed. Yet Obama last week suspended them ... thereby unilaterally rewriting the law –– i.e. doing precisely what he admits he is barred from doing.

Obama had tried to change the law. In late 2010, he asked Congress to pass the Dream Act ...  Congress refused.

When subsequently pressed by Hispanic groups to implement the law by executive action, Obama explained that it would be illegal” 

“Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. . . . But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

~ President Obama

That was then. Now he’s gone and done it anyway. It’s obvious why. The election approaches and his margin is slipping ... this is the perfect pander [to the Hispanic community]. After all, who will call him on it? A supine press? Congressional Democrats? [Spineless Republican lawmakers afraid they might alienate some splinter faction or other?] Nothing like an upcoming election to temper their Bush 43-era zeal for defending Congress’s exclusive Article I power to legislate.

With a single Homeland Security Department memo, the immigration laws no longer apply to 800,000 people. By what justification? 

Prosecutorial discretion, says Janet Napolitano.

This is utter nonsense. Prosecutorial discretion is the application on a case-by-case basis of considerations of extreme and extenuating circumstances ... The Napolitano memo is nothing of the sort. It’s the unilateral creation of a new category of persons ... who are hereby [suddenly] exempt from current law ...

This is not discretion. This is a fundamental rewriting of the law.

Imagine: A Republican president submits to Congress a bill abolishing the capital gains tax. Congress rejects it. The president then orders the IRS to stop collecting capital gains taxes and declares that anyone refusing to pay them will suffer no ... penalty ... whatsoever. (Analogy first suggested by law professor John Yoo.)

It would be ... a cause for impeachment. Why? Because unlike, for example, war powers, [Immigration law] is not an area of perpetual territorial contention [between the legislative and the executive] ... an area where the law is silent or ambiguous. Capital gains is straightforward tax law. Just as Obama’s bombshell amnesty-by-fiat is a subversion of straightforward immigration law.

It is shameful that ... Democrats are applauding [this]. Of course it’s smart politics. It divides Republicans, rallies the Hispanic vote and preempts Marco Rubio’s attempt to hammer out an acceptable legislative compromise. Very clever! But, ... it is [still] naked lawlessness.

... I sympathize with the obvious humanitarian motives of the Dream Act. But two important considerations are overlooked in concentrating exclusively on [humanitarian concerns].

FIRST: Offering potential illegal immigrants the prospect that, if they can hide ... long enough, their children will ... freely enjoy the bounties of American life creates a huge incentive for [further] illegal immigration.

SECOND: The case for compassion and fairness is hardly as clear-cut as advertised. What about those who languish for years in godforsaken countries awaiting legal admission to America? Their scrupulousness about the law could easily cost their children the American future that illegal immigrants will have secured for theirs.

... [W]hat holds us together is a shared allegiance to our constitutional order. That’s the fundamental issue here. ...

Read Mr. Krauthammer’s complete article here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obamas-amnesty-by-fiat--naked-lawlessness/2012/06/21/gJQAa5PltV_print.html

We disagree with Mr. Krauthammer’s argument against the compassionate, humanitarian approach not because we approve of President Obama’s shameless, cynically self-serving pandering, but because we cannot subscribe to any action that has the potential to uproot and probably destroy pleasantly settled lives of innocent people who have already assimilated to our way of life, and are doing us no active harm whatsoever. 

As we said earlier, to stage what-would-amount-to a pogrom in order to meet the requirements of an unjust law would be tantamount to creating another Trail of Tears.

~ FreeThinke

Everyone’s a Racist

Avoiding the Truth by Bastardizing the Language

JUNE 22, 2012 4:00 A.M.

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE

by Ian Tuttle [Edited, emended and truncated with added emphasis by FT]

Here’s a little secret,” Keith Olbermann told viewers in 2010. “When racist white guys get together and they don’t want to be caught using any of the popular epithets ... in use every day ... about black people ... [instead they] resort to euphemisms and code words.”

Olbermann [did acknowledge then] that not all white people are racists, but three and a half years into “the first post-racial presidency,” one might [not] get that impression. 

Take the list Olbermann enumerated on air: “Cocky, flippant, punk, and especially, arrogant.” Last week, Congressional Black Caucus executive director Angela Rye added cool to the list: “Even cool, the term cool, could ... be deemed racial.”

Keith Olbermann censoring the truth

Liberals have spent the past four years tearing out page after page of Merriam-Webster. “Articulate” and “bright” [deemed condescending] were forbidden early in the 2008 primary season, ... [However, [numerous] media outlets had bestowed the same compliment on John Edwards ... years before. [In] 2004 Slate called Edwards “bright and articulate and really, really youthful” ... Steve Benen [of] The Carpetbagger Report wrote in 2003, “Edwards is ...  bright, articulate, and aggressive ...”

In April, Mitt Romney unveiled a new campaign slogan at a stop in Ohio: 

“Obama Isn’t Working.” 

“Racist!,” cried Mediaite ...  It evokes “the stereotype of the ‘lazy,’ ‘shiftless’ black man.” [Communist activist] Van Jones, Obama’s erstwhile “green-jobs czar,” said ... the slogan set off “racial fire alarms.” 

[T]he Romney campaign explained, the slogan was a tribute to Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative party, whose 1978 “Labour Isn’t Working” poster ... was named “The Poster of the Century” by Campaign magazine: ...

[Any] criticism of Obama policy is also [deemed] racist. During [the] health-care overhaul debate, NPR claimed “a sharp divide between liberal and conservative whites on racial issues.” 

[R]esponding to ... Congressman Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst during the president’s 2009 health-care address ... New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote, “But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!”

... Michael Moore [claimed] “Obama succeeded [with] young voters “because they’re not as racist as the [older] generations,” implying, of course, that all those older white folks who rejected Obama ... were racists.

[I]f liberals can find racism in Obama’s ... victories, they can certainly locate it in his defeats. When a federal prisoner in West Virginia received more than 40 percent of the vote against Obama in May’s primary, state Democrats blamed “racist voters.” However, a closed Democratic primary admits no  Republican voters, so the Democrats effectively condemned their own.  

The Left hears so many “dog whistles” in today’s public discourse that one fears to say anything at all. 

And that’s the point. Liberals use the accusation of racism as a cudgel to cow political opponents. [The tactic] forestalls  or derails substantive debate. ...

Liberals have spent the last four years manipulating and excising words because they refuse to confront reality.

But then, we already knew that, [didn’t we?]

You may find Mr. Tuttle’s complete article, as originally written, at:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/303533/everyone-s-racist-ian-tuttle#

We Hold These Truths to be Self Evident

That Our President is ...

Well, why don't YOU tell us?

~ FreeThinke

Say SNEAKED not SNUCK

Because the vernacular, unfortunately, tends to hold sway “snuck” is now considered acceptable in American English by too many sources, but not by me. “Snuck” was not even considered a legitimate word when I was young. Like “ain’t” and “irregardless” it was not in dictionaries of standard English, and if used at all, it was considered vulgar, illiterate slang.

Here are snippets from two online articles addressing the subject. As you will see, popular usage gains acceptance, but that doesn’t mean we have to like or accept it. 

Which is correct: snuck or sneaked?

“Snuck is used in American and Canadian English as the past tense and past participle of sneak, but it is considered non-standard, i.e. only for dialectal and informal speech and writing. The standard past tense is sneaked. 

Snuck is relatively new, an Americanism introduced in the late 19th century. ... Style guides at some of the biggest newspapers in Canada and the United States –– including the Globe and Mail (1998) and the New York Times (1999) –– ban snuck. But snuck may tiptoe into more formal writing over the years.”

Another source tells us

“From its earliest appearance in print in the late 19th century as a dialectal and probably uneducated form, the past and past participle snuck has risen to the status of standard and to approximate equality with sneaked. It is most common in the United States and Canada but has also been spotted in British and Australian English.” 

Naturally, in this era of militant, proud ignorance where “anything goes verbalizationwise,” you can say whatever you want –– you will anyway –– but I want it on record that I, personally, abhor the use of snuck, and still consider it a degenerate use of the language –– part of the “dumbing down” process to which we’ve been subjected by twin forces –– a corrupt educational system and a degraded popular culture.

If you think me a snob, you’re part of the problem. Wouldn’t you prefer to be part of the solution? Say sneaked, not snuck. 

~ FreeThinke

Obama’s Sealed Past

A Time for Re-examination and More Probing, Demanding Questions from the Right

President  Obama’s campaign for re-election has had the colossal effrontery to demand a public exhibition of Mitt Romney’s tax returns for the past twelve years, as if it were the very least Governor Romney could do to prove his worthiness to be a candidate for the highest office in the land.

How the Committee to Re-elect the President [Surely it deserves  to be called CREEP today more than it ever did before?;-]  could dare to make such a demand in light of the following boggles the mind, but unmitigated gall and an utter incapacity to feel or exhibit any trace of guilt or shame has always been a hallmark of the left just as excessive, timidity, politeness, reserve and restraint have most regrettably been primary characteristics of the right.

The graphic is difficult to read, so we’ve copied the information for you in more legible form.

1. Occidental college records - SEALED

2. Columbia University records - SEALED

3. Columbia Thesis paper - SEALED

4. Harvard University records - SEALED

5. Selective Service Registration - SEALED

6. Medical records - SEALED

7. Illinois State Senate schedule - SEALED

8. Illinois State Senate records - SEALED

9. Law practice client list - SEALED

10. Certified copy of original birth certificate - SEALED

11. Signed embossed Certification of Live Birth - SEALED

12. Baptism record - SEALED

13. Michelle Obama can no longer practice law. WHY?

14. Michelle has more assistants than any prior first lady. WHY?

15. Did Obama receive “Foreign Student Aid in college?

16. Obama used WHAT COUNTRY’S PASSPORT in 1981?

PUBLIC STATEMENTS

August 17, 2007 to SEIU: 

“Your agenda is my agenda ...”

July 13, 2008 to La Raza:

“[We] rise and fall together as one people ... And together ... we will transform this nation.”

January 16, 2008:

“If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it’s just that I will bankru them ... under my plan of a cap and Trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

[NOTE: Obama was endorsed by the Communist Party in 2004, 2008 and again for 2012]

We may already be overly familiar with much of this material, but the questions –– and the objections –– it should raise have never once been seriously addressed by either the enemedia or by any of the myriad spokespersons or apologists for the left.

May I suggest that the very least we could do would be to bombard our congressmen with fiercely outspoken demands that this material be summarily unsealed and freely shared with the electorate.

Surely, if the president had something to be proud of –– and nothing to hide –– this information would have been made available long ago.

What is President Obama hiding?

~ FreeThinke

Time for Some Idle Speculation

What do you think the Supreme Court is going to do about the health care law?

That’s it. This is your forum today. I look forward to seeing whatever you might have to say.

~ FreeThinke

JC Penney Stands Tall Against Homophobia

[Note: This item just arrived unsolicited via email. It seems to be a fine example of “The Tenor of the Times” being shaped by “The Winds of Change.” Is this something we need to address with anxious concern and anger, or something we, perhaps, ought to take in stride, and let pass?]

Last month, JCPenney was the focus of homophobic outrage and organized boycotts after it featured a lesbian couple in its Mother’s Day catalog. So for Father's Day, how did the company respond? With the following:

"First pals: What makes Dad so cool? He's the swim coach, tent maker, 

best friend, bike fixer and hug giver -- all rolled into one. Or two."

This isn't the first time JCPenney has been attacked by anti-gay groups. When JCPenney hired Ellen DeGeneres earlier this year as a spokesperson, the so-called One Million Moms (OMM) –– a front group for the homophobic American Family Association –– condemned the retailer for hurting family values. But instead of caving in to the pressure, JCPenney went a step farther, and included real-life mothers Wendi and Maggie in its Mother’s Day catalog. 

This month, it sent out its Father's Day catalog, with real-life fathers Todd and Cooper playing with their two kids. 

Once again, the American Family Association and One Million Moms are pushing back hard and calling for a Father's Day boycott of the retailer for being one of the first major companies to feature same-sex families in national advertising.

JCPenney needs to hear from us now, because it has given in to One Million Moms before. Just last year, JCPenney pulled an ad OMM deemed offensive. If JCPenney were to aquiesce again, it would be a huge blow to the LGBT community.

For too long, advertisers have sought to fit all families into the mold of "one mom, one dad, two kids and a dog". Indeed, our families come in all shapes and sizes, and advertisers are watching what happens with JCPenney closely –– will the public embrace ads with diverse families, or will anti-gay groups win and push "non-traditional" families back out the door? It's up to us to decide.

Join us in celebrating Father's Day by signing our card to thank JCPenney for putting two dads in its ad.

Thank JCPenney for standing up against homophobia and recognizing that families come in all shapes and sizes.

____________________________

We are being urged to send words of support and encouragement to JC Penney for their brave, bold initiative, but they would probably have to accept contrary opinions as well.

I have not tested the links, but assuming they work, I’d be interested to hear what you have  done or intend to do about this –– if anything.

Also, what do you think of the tone in which this message is written? Do you feel it is, perhaps, calculated to elicit –– sympathy? –– understanding? –– guilt? –– or possibly just controversy calculated to gain attention based on the adage “There is no such thing as bad publicity?”

Do you see this item as cynical? –– manipulative? –– sincere? –– proof of Socialist plot to weaken our moral fiber? –– Good for business? –– bad for business?

Do tell.

~ FreeThinke

Rodney King, Key L.A. Riots Figure, Dead at 47

June 17, 2012 | 10:23 am

Rodney King, whose beating by Los Angeles police helped spark the 1992 L.A. riots, died Sunday at his home in Rialto. He was 47.

King became a symbol for police brutality and the troubled relations between the LAPD and minority residents. He was eventually awarded a $3.8-million settlement, but the money and fame brought him little solace. He had repeated run-ins with the law and as of April said he was broke ...

The rest of the story:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/06/rodney-king-whose-beating-by-los-angeles-police-helped-spark-the-1992-los-angeles-riots-died-sunday-at-his-home

____________________________________

Awarded 3.8 million dollars, and he still couldn’t make it. It’s very tempting to say something contemptuous, but what good would it do? Naturally, the L.A. Times is portraying him as a Celebrated Symbol of Public Awareness of Police Brutality.  What was he really? Star-crossed? A victim of Caucasian hostility and indifference? A criminal? A lunatic? A tragic figure? A clown? Merely pathetic? Or maybe just an ordinary, garden-variety asshole?

You be the judge. 

There are many very sad things about it, but the saddest of all is that we pay so much attention to degrading spectacles of this sort.

One thing is certain, however: MONEY without proper moral grounding, and enough education to know how it can and should be used has little value.

~ FreeThinke

NEWS! The AOW’S CELEBRATE THEIR 

FORTIETH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY TODAY.

CONGRATULATIONS, Mr. and Mrs. AOW!

~ FreeThinke 

In HONOR of FATHERS DAY

                 A Father's Prayer

Ask not, my child, what I can do for you.

Forgive what seems like stinginess today.

A lot will be required to go through

The process of discovering the right way.

Help yourself. Don't wait for me, my child.

Each one of us must learn to stand alone.

Rich rewards like Love can't be beguiled,

Seduced or bought. They must in toil be grown.

Perhaps to you I sound a bit too stern?

Remember that I've lived a longer time.

A joy cannot exist until you earn

Your way. To do it FOR you'd be a crime.

Exacting though I seem, my little one,

Respect me now, and –– later –– you'll have fun.

~  FreeThinke - The Sandpiper 

The Quality of Mercy

President Obama Tries to Act the Part of Solon

  

In his tragic comedy, The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare has composed possibly the most eloquent indictment of legalistic, literalistic thinking and pharisaical interpretation of the law yet written since The Sermon on the Mount. 

The story involves the foolish promise of a young merchant, Antonio, to forfeit literally a pound of his flesh for failure to repay an outstanding loan to Shylock, a money lender. The matter has gone to court. The defendant has failed to repay the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has brought suit to demand the pound of flash rightfully owed to him according to the dictates of the law. Portia, the defendant Antonio’s girl friend, has disguised herself as a lawyer, and hopes to free her lover from his debt obligation with a demonstration of her heartfelt conviction that the deepest understanding of its purpose and most moral and compassionate interpretation of the law provides the only true justice. Her classic response to the vengeful plaintiff, Shylock, is always worth reviewing:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd, 

It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven 

Upon the place beneath: it is twice bless'd; 

It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes: 

'Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes 

The throned monarch better than his crown; 

His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, 

The attribute to awe and majesty, 

Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings; 

But mercy is above this sceptred sway, 

It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, 

It is an attribute to God himself; 

And earthly power doth then show likest God's 

When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, [you],

Though justice be thy plea, consider this— 

That in the course of justice, none of us 

Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy; 

And that same prayer, doth teach us all to render 

The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much, 

To mitigate the justice of thy plea, 

Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice 

Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there. 

It may disappoint most of my fellow conservatives, but I am with the president on his bold Executive Order to curtail any further attempts to deport illegal aliens who were brought here as young children who have never known any other home.

Obama is doing the Right Thing. He may very well be doing it for the wrong reasons, but that doesn’t stop it from being right. By all that’s humane and all that’s holy -- and by all that’s pragmatic as well -- it is surely the morally correct decision.

Deporting people who have been grown up in this country, and lived to all intents and purposes as Americans -- people who in most instances have little-or-no knowledge of their country of origin would certainly be “cruel and unusual punishment.” 

The strict, legalistic application of the law in these instances would be the equivalent of demanding “a pound of flesh” for failure to repay a debt. Such an action should be considered absolutely untenable to decent, right-thinking people who have any pretensions to fairness, kindheartedness and compassion.

The law should exists to serve the people –– not the other way ‘round. Slavish devotion to a literal interpretation of the law is flat out wrong in the many instances where, as Charles Dickens said through the unsavory character of Mr. Bumble, the Beadle in Oliver Twist, “If that be the law, the law is a ass –– a idiot ...”

I cannot help but agree.

~ FreeThinke