Skip to comments.When Obama does it, does that make it legal?
Posted on 07/05/2014 5:07:44 AM PDT by rellimpank
President Barack Obama, whose power abuses have played a role in the imperilment of tens of thousands of children and earned him slaps by the Supreme Court and the threat of a suit by House Republicans, has promised more of the same.
It's the kind of performance you would more likely expect on a "Saturday Night Live" stage than in the Rose Garden. There he nevertheless was, telling us "America cannot wait forever for them to act." By "them" he meant House Republicans, by "act" he meant passage of sweeping legislation that meets his approval and by "forever" he meant passage is unlikely this year.
While no one can say for sure all that comes next, a New York Times story says the administration may give "work permits and protection from deportation to millions of immigrants now in the country." Except that it would be much further reaching, this move could render something akin to the two-year, renewable, constitutionally questionable amnesty already granted by Obama in 2012 to more than a half million immigrant youths who came here illegally as children.
This presidential venture is now seen as a factor encouraging great crowds of poor children unaccompanied by parents to come to the U.S. border. They come mostly from Central America, were sometimes escaping criminal violence but seem to have thought in many instances that amnesty applied to them and may yet see a new amnesty grant that does. Many have had to walk through desert in temperatures over 100 degrees. Many of the girls have been raped. The U.S. Border Patrol can do little else but take care of them. What might a second amnesty do even as Obama brings more agents from the interior of the country to the border?
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
If the Senate tips to the Republicans this November and the House remains majority Republican, if they do not indict him in the House (impeach) and try him in the Senate and get 100% Republican support in both houses, then there is no point in voting for any Republican come 2016. No point at all.
What then do you suggest?
The alternative to voting Republican is war in the streets
Its has been a long time since this country had a civil war. Maybe its a long time in coming. Maybe this is a way to prune the dead branches so the tree may survive.
If, with both the House and Senate under Republican control, they cannot/will not impeach and convict him of any number of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” then they will not do anything they are promising to get that majority.
If that ends up being the case, why worry about “when” to vote for any of them. They would be nothing more than a replica of the French Vichy government during WWII.
It’s cruel and heartless to keep these children separated from their parent(s). Border patrol agents are not and cannot be surrogate parents. Children need the love and security only their real parents can provide. Send them back to their families ASAP.
We can do it to the rest of them.
Oddly at the time they did this I thought it wrong...but in hindsight it was amazingly right.
“When a president does it, that means it is not illegal,” Nixon once said. Whoever thought there would come a day when so many liberals echoed the sentiment?”
Tyranny and lunacy.
Remember that conviction in the Senate is not by just simple majority vote. It has to be two-thirds. Even with the most optimistic assessment of GOP chances to take the Senate in 2014, they won’t even be close to the number required. And, you know the Dems will vote in lockstep against conviction.
I generally agree with the concept of voting even for a lousy republican vs. another Obama. In this case, he is right - if we control both houses and take no action, we are so far gone that your war in the streets is probably the preferable venue as it would be the only way to send a meaningful message from the People to the Overlords.
BTW - one of my breaking points was the Cochran fiasco in Mississippi - If McDaniel doesn't prevail with his contesting the deal, I will vote for Childers (the Democrat) in November - to allow Cochran to prevail is the same as submitting to, and endorsing betrayal of the worst kind.
There, fixed it.
Understood, but it would put Obama in the same slot in History as Clinton. It would also clearly point out who the RINOs in the Senate are.
I don't know if a failed impeachment really helps us. Although, I bet that Obama would vastly up the pace of his illegal executive order practice while it was underway!
Maybe some of that and a little "OJ Jury" action too. Get over on the "man" - the "man" here being Republicans.
Regardless, being impeached I think would make it distasteful and very personal to the narcissist who can do no wrong. That impeachment couldn't be erased from the history books.
You betcha! And, Michelle wouldn't be proud of her country anymore, either.
shades of RMN in the David Frost interviews.
Elian was a different case, IMO, but I do think that he should have returned to his father as was done.
The reasons it was different were 1) one of his parents, his mother, died getting Elian to the US and 2) Elian had close relatives, US citizens, who were very willing to take care of him and be surrogate parents to him.
With the recent illegal children, the parents are shirking their responsibilities and they don’t have relatives willing to care for them. If ICE followed the example set in the Elian Gonzalez case, all the children would be returned to their parents.
No, silly. It's legal because Obama does it and he's black.......
What they can do is cut off all funding for all of jugheads unicorn dreams. Let him issue whatever decree he wants. If he can’t fund it then screw him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.