Rotating Header Image


From the White House Rose Garden yesterday came an emotionally resentful, petulent guy from the Office of the Presidency with his latest, newest low — disregard for the Constitution because he didn’t like it and has decided to direct the nation’s resources to do what he prefers, instead — and then this immature figure turned and left after refusing to accept questions he’d initially announced he’d accept, reporter present having dared to speak up at the abnormality of what this foolish, reckless character, Barack Obama, had just announced.

Obama appears to have taken a political stick to the heart of opponents, an angry, spiteful act by an angry, spiteful, and likely irrational man with our nation’s resources at his disposal and to Obama that seems to mean he can dispense, consume, direct and do-with all of that as he “wants, whenever.”

He’s taken a political spit that reveals his political and egotistical desperation with — my guess — a desire to get the public focus off his disasterously awful job performance and other low-deeds in Office in the last three and half years and to get the public discourse to talk about “immigration” and “amnesty for illegal aliens” instead of the economy and job creation, two areas there he’s failed miserably at managing.

So today the Leftmedia and other Democrats were all grinning and a picking at public sanity by cheering Obama’s (latest) anti-Constitutional act. There’s quite clearly a political effort there by the Left to redirect the criticism from Obama and his disaster from the Presidency and onto cheering emotional ploy. Who can argue against “saving children” (in this case, those in the nation illegally)? At least that’s what it appears is the latest ploy by Democrats to get voter concentration off economic conditions. Which is just too bad by the Democrats and even worse by Barack Obama among them, since he among the rest is the one guy who is by his job sworn to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution and is so clearly refusing to do that.

The Presidency is an Office in the Executive Branch of government. Our Constitution enumerates how our government is structured: three co-equal branches of government, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. The Presidency is an Office in the Executive, Congress is the Legislative and the Judicial is self-explanatory. The Presidency isn’t a monarchy, it is “co-equal” with the other two branches of government and most specifically, it is not empowered to write (“make”) laws. A President can write Executive Orders but to be Constitutional, those Orders must be in reference to existing laws; a President can’t just write these Orders to create laws, to establish anything that isn’t already written and consented into law by Congress.

Unfortunately for our nation and our Constitution, what we have at the present time in the Presidency isn’t an individual in Barack Obama who displays any respect for nor understanding of the Constitution. If he does understand it, then his behavior in the Office displays that he disdains it and yesterday’s Rose Garden tempered announcement with walk-out immediately afterward is but the latest, newest, lowest evidence yet from among his three and half years of sticking his finger in our nation’s Constitutional eye. Obama doesn’t like the Constitution, he doesn’t like the nation and he certainly doesn’t care for the job description he’s been hired to do, nor his responsibilities as the Constitution conveys them.

No, Obama has proven himself to be the “anti Constitutional” President, which is no President at all. He’s using the Office and crude deeds to reveal that he disdains the structure and responsibilities as described and has gone about cavalierly, cruelly at times, revealing just how much he rejects respecting his job and the nation along with it.

Congress must act to correct this scurrilous character who continues to hack away at the Presidency in growing animosity for the Presidency, and us along with it. We are a nation of laws because that’s what the Constitution has created us to be as also requires us to be. We are not a nation with a monarchy or a dictator who can, as Obama does, do what pleases him when and how and what when it’s beyond or outside the job he’s been hired to do but that’s what he’s doing.

The issue targeted yesterday by Obama — announcing by his own decision, however illegitimately, that illegal aliens of his own selection are now to not be subjected to our laws — is a privelege he as President does not have. Yet there he went, there he goes, similarly to earlier extremes he’s taken while in the Presidency…

Following is but a very small sampling of opinions from but one website while in general around the internet there is a flood of outrage expressed about this latest low from and by Obama; in quoted comments below that don’t have links embedded, it is because they are found at the next appearing link in comments that follow them:

Obama is seeking to rule this nation by his will alone in the form of Executive Order and the use of agency heads whom he appointed. Let’s be clear on this point: ONLY the congress of the United States has the power to make or change the law.

I agree with Lindsay Graham in that this bending of the law in a blatant attempt to bypass the congress yet again has most likely gone so far as to actually break the law.

“DISCRETIONARY POWERS” as Napolitano called it, only goes so far and no farther. The Discretionary power she is trying to invoke was meant to deal with INDIVIDUAL CASES…. not grant a blanket amnesty to an entire subset of illegal aliens. The administration and the DHS were keenly aware of this limitation as expressed by Obama when he said he could not act unilaterally to effect this law.

I think this was a cynical ploy meant to try to derail Rubio’s efforts on behalf of this subset of illegal aliens and put the congress in the position of having to confront the administration on this flagrant violation, thereby allowing Obama to APPEAR to be a ‘champion of the downtrodden’. This is, after all, where his community organizer persona is best suited.

Its obvious to the left and the right that Obama cannot run on his record or the economy. He has to try to CREATE a diversion that will allow him to change the topic of the national dialogue.
He’s tried everything else. Now he’s attempting to use the DREAM Act and the subset of illegal aliens as his means to try to appear relevant.

— thatsafactjack on June 15, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Do you even know what the office of the President entails? The President is the head of the executive branch of the US government and serves as Commander in Chief of the armed forces. In this role, it is the president’s duty to administer the laws passed by the legislative branch of the US government.

What the president did today just usurped that role as executive in charge of administering laws and stepped into the role of writing those laws himself. He himself, during his rambling speech, made the statement that because the DREAM act is stalled in Congress, he has taken it upon himself to implement the DREAM act himself via executive order while calling upon congress to get the DREAM act passed into law.

Do you … have any inkling of exactly what that means? A president of the United States just “deemed” a law that he wants as passed, has implemented it by executive order, and is now demanding that Congress pass that act into law post-implementation. At this point, Barack Hussein Obama has passed from being President of the United States to Supreme Leader of the United States essentially ordering the separate and co-equal legislative branch to affirm his executive order by rubber stamping his actions by passing legislation he deems already in force.

— AZfederalist on June 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM

It is the first baby step of a budding tyrant. There are many more examples of this kind of lawless behavior.

The first I remember was when Obama imposed his own bankruptcy on GM, moving the secured creditors to the end of the line and elevating the UAW.

Another example – violating a Federal court order in Hornbeck v. Salazar concerning the moratorium on drilling in the East Gulf. The Obama Admin refused to obey an order to lift the moratorium and simply issued another one – and was found in contempt of court. Can you imagine the media firestorm if GWB had pulled something like that?

Another example – refusing to enforce DOMA even though it is the law of the land.

— TarheelBen on June 15, 2012 at 3:48 PM

It is an illegal act, and a violation of his oath of office. It is the first baby step of a budding tyrant.

— spiritof61 on June 15, 2012 at 3:43 PM

It is not an illegal act, it is a lawless act. Obama has decided to ignore a co-equal branch of government, the ones rightfully in charge of crafting legislation. He’s decided to issue fiats from 1600 Pennsylvania.
And while on the subject his comment that these criminals are “Americans” everywhere except on paper is flat out wrong. They are not American in the eyes of the law. Obama granting them a de facto version of amnesty will not stand. This is doubling down on the same kind of arrogance that led him to attack religious freedom.

— Happy Nomad on June 15, 2012 at 3:51 PM

“There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”
– President Obama, May 2011

It’s un-Constitutional and calls for nothing short of impeachment. Barky thinks he owns this nation. We don’t eat dogs and we have a COnstitution that limits the powers of the various federal branches. Making law is not part of the Executive branch’s powers.

This is the most serious Constitutional violation this White House has committed yet, and that ain’t no mean feat as they have had their boot on the neck of our Constitution since first sliming into office.

— ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 15, 2012 at 4:14 PM

I think this is going to backfire but I don’t think you are using the right analogy. Obama’s pandering to women included much the same tactic. Nevermind religious freedom, he directed Sebelius to order religious organizations to shut up and violate the tenets of their faith.

Now we have him telling Congress to go to hell because Papa needs those Hispanic votes come November. But he isn’t doing it directly, he’s making it a “change in policy” within DHS and not an executive order.

— Happy Nomad on June 15, 2012 at 4:15 PM

and the WHITE HOUSE: Comment line 202-456-1111 and BOTH of my SENATORS and my REPRESENTATIVE.

I told them:

That I don’t agree with the president and his Executive Order adventurism with the DREAM Act.
I do believe in the rule of law.

I want am immigration system with integrity and its laws enforced. Congress, not the Executive Branch, has sole power to make laws, the purpose of the Executive Branch is to enforce them.

I object to rewarding illegal immigration through ‘deferred action’ or any other executive maneuver.
It only undermines the rule of law and encourages more illegal immigration.

IT is also an act of SHAMELESS political pandering by the administration five months before the presidential election.

I found these phone numbers on the FAIR website ( Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform)along with the aforementioned points.

I URGE YOU TO CALL THESE NUMBERS AS WELL AS YOUR OWN SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVE AND DEMAND THAT THE PRESIDENTS DREAM Act be stopped, that he stop trying to bypass congress, and thereby, the will of the American people.

— thatsafactjack on June 15, 2012 at 4:22 PM

That’s why O is insisting that this isn’t amnesty: It’s not formal legalization, it’s de facto legalization insofar as they’re simply not going to enforce the existing law against a certain class of illegal immigrants.


“…innocent young kids.” UP TO 30 YEARS OF AGE.

The AMNESTY under Reagan was in 1986. So..the OLDEST person who was brought to this nation as an INFANT AFTER that date would be…. 26 years of age.

Further, if they’ve been here since BEFORE they were 16 years of age…they were considered having reached the age of majority at 18 years of age… THEY ‘must have graduated high school, passed the GED, or be enlisted in the United States military’….WHY haven’t they resolved the issue of their status in this nation IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AS ADULTS?

Especially if they are 30 years of age, which means that they would have had to have been in this nation for 15 years MINIMUM and of the age of majority… ADULTS UNDER THE LAW….. for 12 YEARS.

WHY haven’t they resolved their legal status in 12 YEARS?

I believe that the failure to resolve, or at least begin the process of resolving, their legal status demonstrates INTENT to shatter federal immigration law IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AS ADULTS.

These people should NOT be granted amnesty of any kind. If they are UNDER the age of majority, they should be sent back to their nation of origin WITH THEIR PARENT(S), if they are 18 or older, they should be deported for failing to resolve their legal status and willfully shattering existing federal immigration law in their own right.

We are a nation of law and those laws must be enforced equitably without preference or prejudice. This is the rule of law and it is the pillar of our democratic republic.

— thatsafactjack on June 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Senate Candidate Ted Cruz issued this statement:

KERRVILLE—Ted Cruz (R-Texas), conservative candidate for U.S. Senate, made the following statement today regarding President Obama’s new amnesty policy:

“The Constitution places on the President the solemn responsibility to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’ President Obama has repeatedly defied the Constitution and flouted the rule of law. His latest decision to refuse to enforce our immigration laws is cravenly political, lawless, and wrong.

“We have a crisis in illegal immigration, and the federal government must get serious about securing our borders; this latest Obama policy is nothing more than an attempt to enact back-door amnesty, and I categorically oppose amnesty.”

Obama..”I can’t deport the children to Mexico…Eric has sent too many guns down there..”

— Caper29 on June 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM

How can prosecutorial discretion extend to the issuance of work permits? I’m not following that.

— mbs on June 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Border Security, E-Verify, Limited Amnesty for people who could prove they were brought here before the age of 12 and are not now over the age of 22 and have been here at least 10 years and who serve a full enlistment in the military.

I’m seeing neither Border Security nor E-verify in Obama’s executive order.

— jaime on June 15, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Do my eyes deceive me, or is that lousy POS actually wearing an American flag pin on his GD lapel while he stands there crapping all over the Constitution?

— waterytart on June 15, 2012 at 5:24 PM

The purpose of the legislative branch is to write law.

The purpose of the executive branch is to sign or veto the law, and to enforce the laws that are passed.

The act of picking and choosing which laws to enforce and which ones not to, and especially exempted certain classes of people from signed law, in an unacceptable act of legislative by the executive branch.

This is blatantly unconstitutional.

Short of impeachment proceedings, the next step is for Congress to pass a law that says that the president may not carve out special classes of people within a law and refuse to enforce the law against that cohort, unless the law specifically allowed that.

The main basis of the violation is simple: the Oath of Office that the president swears:

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

== Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”==

— cane_loader on June 15, 2012 at 5:31 PM

It’s prosecutorial discretion, in other words — exercised en masse on behalf of something like 800,000 people.

This is prosecutorial discretion in the same way that the Empire State Building is a chair because someone can sit on top of it.

Selectively enforced law is worse than no law, at all. It is tyranny with the false sheen of respectability. This is tyranny. Period. The Executive decides what to enforce and what not to enforce, and who to allow through and who doesn’t “get waivers”. This is insanity and they all need to go to jail.

— ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Obama is a tyrant. Plain and simple. the Founding Fathers are turning in their graves. In a sane America, 0bama would be on on trial in the Senate already after having been impeached by the House.

In 0bama, we are witnessing the fall of America. I am so sad I lived to see it. The nation is collapsing into dictatorship under this despicable tyrant.

— cane_loader on June 15, 2012 at 5:39 PM

*I walk by the Occupy movement every day and see them trashing a beautiful park.

*We have religious freedoms being challenged with the contraception mandate.

*Gay marriage is being shoved down people’s throats whether they endorse or not.

*We just had a President willingly break the law again in an attempt to “buy” the election.

*We have an Attorney General that is so dirty and crooked, I don’t think he would know the truth if it bit him in the butt.

*Economy is in the crapper and people who are lucky enough to still have a job are doing the job of 4 people.

I’m getting scared that we won’t make it to Romney’s swearing in. Obama will destroy it all before then.

— gophergirl on June 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM

LINK to article on how La-Raza state reps in California changed the impound law to benefit illegals.

— cane_loader on June 15, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Remember when Obowma just made Recess Appointments when Congress wasn’t in recess, and nobody did anything…?

… Ha Ha Ha, yeah, good times, huh.

Remember when a two judges from the Gulf Coast ruled against Obowma’s moratorium on drilling in the Gulf, and Obowma basically told them to kiss his a%%, and nobody did anything…?

… Oh boy, THAT was so funny!

Hey, rember when Obowma went to war in Lybia and didn’t even bother to ask Congress, and nobody did anything…?

… My sides are splitting I’m laughing so hard.

(chortle… snort… gasp)

Remember Solydra…?

… Not even a stern letter, ha ha ha ha.

Boy, it’s almost like Obowma thinks he can get away with anything…

… Oh, wait!

— Seven Percent Solution on June 15, 2012 at 9:28 PM

So what we have here is a president who is refusing to carry out federal law simply because he disagrees with Congress’s policy choices. That is an exercise of executive power that even the most stalwart defenders of an energetic executive — not to mention the Framers — cannot support.

Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision was included to make sure that the president could not simply choose, as the British King had, to cancel legislation simply because he disagreed with it. President Obama cannot refuse to carry out a congressional statute simply because he thinks it advances the wrong policy. To do so violates the very core of his constitutional duties.

>>The law school didn’t fail. Obama is doing exactly what he was taught, that is to manipulate and manage the administrative state.

No. Harvard failed, miserably. Barky is too stupid to have ever been accepted by any decent school, to begin with. Harvard went out of their way to certify a retard and loose him on civil society. They should lose every cent of federal funding and get every penny they’ve received since the Indonesian Imbecile was trained to break America there clawed back. Every single cent. Break that sh!t school.

>>Law Schools gave up any semblance of teaching constitutional law a long time ago and they along with graduate business and management schools train people to become managerial progressives..
>>chemman on June 15, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Then they shouldn’t be accredited. Fine with me. Let them train janitors.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 15, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Barry’s change in policy is couched in the guise of a change in prosecutorial discretion, so it is within his power to do so. Legal challenges will probably not work, and it will take too long anyway. But it is not certain that this pandering may not backfire on Barr.

1. Voters may see this as an abuse of power with him bypassing the Congress.
2. Blacks, who see Latinos as competitors in jobs, political power, and as the main minority group to be catered to, will be ticked off.
3. Union member may be upset at the potential impact on the tight job market.
4. This may fire up the GOP and Tea Party people to work to get Barry out in November lest he has 4 more
of unbridled and unaccountable power.

— bayview on June 15, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Obama is now ruling by dictate. The basis of this “law” is that the president thinks it’s the right thing to do. So where does that stop exactly. May be know what else he thinks is the right thing to do, so we can have a hint what will be law next week?

— Fred 2 on June 16, 2012 at 12:30 AM

And, this but one from among hundreds of opinion articles:

“This isn’t about immigration but about constitutional order,” says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative-leaning think tank. “One problem is that even Democrats in Congress now have no right to complain about future usurpations – they might as well all go home and have Napoleon run the country.”


On the immigration issue, it’s still unclear whether the order overreaches the president’s constitutional prerogative. DHS said the order does not guarantee a path to citizenship or suggest amnesty, but is merely an expansion of constitutionally appropriate prosecutorial discretion over individual cases.

But many headlines highlighted another takeaway: That the President somehow has the power to actually order ICE agents to stand down from prosecuting their jobs, en masse. Critics say that Obama committed a constitutional fault if he bypassed Congress to create a new program where people can apply for a government benefit.

But even assuming that the order is legal, even progressive legal experts say Obama’s modus operandi has begun to undercut the basic balance of power in Washington.

His moves “fit a disturbing pattern of expansion of executive power,” constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, who usually sides with progressive ideals, tells Politico. “This is a President who is now functioning as a super legislator” who is “effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.”

I’ve experienced a number of Presidencies in my lifetime, so far. Even before eligibility to vote, I clearly recall many conditions, national concerns, even emergencies that beset us as a nation and how they were met by existing Presidencies. But I’ve never witnessed such terrible, outrageous times as what is taking place now and has been taking place since Barack Obama was elected to the Presidency. Younger voters sometimes think that those of us growing older now who share such alarm as that are exaggerating, but, no, that’s not the case: things really are awful compared with previous decades and previous Presidents and Obama really is doing damaging things, severly damaging things, to our nation and our population along with it.

Not to be overlooked, this article:

Are We in Revolutionary Times?
By Victor Davis Hanson
June 15, 2012 6:51 P.M.

Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.

Politically, Obama calculates that some polls showing the current likely Hispanic support for him in the high 50s or low 60s would not provide enough of a margin in critical states such as Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado, or perhaps also in Florida and Virginia, to counteract the growing slippage of the independent vote and the energy of the clinger/tea-party activists. Thus, what was not legal or advisable in 2009, 2010, or 2011, suddenly has become critical in mid-2012. No doubt free green cards will quickly lead to citizenship and a million new voters. Will it work politically? Obama must assume lots of things: that all Hispanics vote as a block in favoring exempting more illegal aliens from the law, and are without worry that the high unemployment rate hits their community among the hardest; that black voters, stung by his gay-marriage stance, will not resent what may be seen as de facto amnesty, possibly endangering his tiny (and slipping) lead in places like Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. And because polls show overwhelming resistance to non-enforcement of immigration law, Obama also figures that the minority who supports his recent action does so far more vehemently than the majority who opposes it. Time will tell; but my gut feeling is that his brazen act will enrage far more than it will delight — and for a variety of different reasons. As with all his special-interest efforts — the Keystone cancellation, war-on-women ploy, gay-marriage turnabout, and now de facto amnesty — Obama believes dividing Americans along class, ethnic, gender, and cultural lines will result in a cobbled together majority, far more preferable than a 1996 Clinton-like effort to win over the independents by forging a bipartisan consensus.

Economically, why would we formalize nearly a million new legally authorized workers when unemployment is approaching its 41st consecutive month over 8 percent — especially when Democrats used to label 5.4 percent unemployment as a “jobless recovery”? Here in California, the slowing of illegal immigration, due mostly to the fence and tough times, has led to steep wage hikes for entry-level and farm labor, and given a little more clout to Americans in so-called unskilled-labor fields. In other words, it really is true that the real beneficiaries of border enforcement are low-paid Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans who become more valued when they are not competing with virtually unlimited numbers of illegal-alien workers…

C O M M E N T S : now closed