Skip to comments.Obama warns US not to 'demagogue' immigration
Posted on 08/01/2010 1:42:45 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
President Barack Obama warned US leaders not to use the divisive issue of illegal immigration as a way to gain power and name recognition, in an interview with CBS television released on Saturday. Fresh from a court victory that blocked provisions of a tough Arizona immigration law that Obama opposed, the president warned politicians not to "demagogue" the topic and said his administration wanted to work with Arizona on the issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at hindustantimes.com ...
One only need consult the dictionary* for the meaning of the word "demagogue" to instantly realize that it fits Obama to the T.
That's when a cold chill goes up your spine...
* A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.
The Obama Presidency, otherwise known as the Projection Presidency.
Wonder who taught him the long word, demagogue, and explained to him what it means.
I can’t be polite anymore, mixed company or no...
Piss on obama!!!
Obama can KMA! He is president, not a damned king.
Ya, like the mafia offering a business owner protection after their goons bust the place up.
said his administration wanted to work with Arizona on the issue
Actions speak louder than words. His administration sued Arizona, and as far as I can tell, made no effort to negotiate or coordinate activities aimed at curtailing illegal immigration.
What Arizona is demagoging is federal enforcement policy.
Our first bi-polar president
“said his administration wanted to work with Arizona on the issue.”
With? With as in partners? Or is it with as in king and subjects?
Where are the court transcripts of the arguments Obama’s lawyers use to refuse to produce his B/C?
We know that Free Republic is not only an echo chamber for like-minded conservatives but a forum for the expression of conservative policies. Here they are expressed and here they are tested. We know that lurkers of all stripes can be found-or not found-embedded in virtually every thread. I think some of us Conservatives should set down our position with respect to Obama and his shameful demagoguery over immigration and his opportunistic and reckless abandonment of his obligation to protect the borders in plain view for those independents and Democrats of good will to see and judge.
First, it is Obama himself and no conservative Republican who is the demagogue on the issue of immigration. It is Obama who has the motive to cynically capitalize on an influx of Latinos whom Obama can predict with confidence will vote Democrat.
Second, it is Obama who needs to gin up his poll numbers by throwing red meat to his base. There can be no doubt that the action of the NAACP and other left-wing organizations have been coordinated probably through the office of the Chief of Staff of the president of the United States. These actions have been designed to set one race against another. They come coordinated with the lawsuit against Arizona. These actions have been cynically calculated to play the race card. It is cynical and it is racist and it is ignobly motivated for crass electoral advantage. It is the worst and cheapest kind of demagoguery which sells out the soul of the nation on its most sensitive issue over its whole history for partisan advantage at the polls. Obama clearly has motive and his office has given him the opportunity. He has shamefully abused his office.
Third, Obama has opportunity not only to exploit the situation by playing the race card, but, as president of the United States whose party controls Congress, he has the undisputed power to put assets in place along the border to stop the inflow of illegal immigrants. He will not. In fact, his administration has sent every signal imaginable not excluding his lawsuit against Arizona, to encourage the inflow of illegal immigrants and to hold out to them the hope of total amnesty. Despite murders along the border, despite huge jobless numbers for American citizens, despite hundreds of billions of dollars of costs to educate and medically treat illegal aliens, despite a tsunami of illegal drugs, Obama will not lift a finger to stop the flood. To the contrary, he tacitly encourages it.
Obama has the power and the opportunity to do good but he chooses to do evil.
Fourth, as a committed Marxist and leftist, Obama sees America not as the Shining City on the Hill which stands between the civilized world and the barbarians approaching the gate, but as the focus of evil which has retarded the global march of socialism. A basic tenet of Marxist/socialism is the destruction of the nationstate. By definition, a parce of land is not a nation which cannot control its borders. To the degree that America under Obama has countenanced uncontrolled borders, America loses sovereignty. Obama wants America ultimately to shed its role as protector of the weak and innocent and abandon any responsibility coming out of American exceptionalism. If America is a bulwark against socialism, Obama is content to let America die.
Fifth, to the degree that Obama can justify his refusal to see that the laws on immigration are faithfully executed by resort to identity politics-reverse racism-he undermines the rule of law and substitutes another kind of doctrine, a race based doctrine which is hateful and destructive of the American experience. But that process of destruction advances the cause of a committed Marxist as it undermines the Constitution and disparages the whole rule of law. We all are to be governed by executive whim and by identity politics.
These are the conclusions which I come to without much time to reflect. I'm sure more will come later and I am even more certain that other Freepers will have much to add. If you are a lurker, an independent, or a questioning Democrat, and you come across this thread why not come on board and say your piece? Maybe you agree with some of these conclusions, maybe you can change my mind.
Warn all you want, you impotent little clown.
Your political reckoning is ahead.
Crossing my fingers that Obama’s political reckoning will be a historical political wreckoning.
throw sleazy wetbacks out and 99% of the prob is solved.
Google is not my friend! Use IXQ. It doesn’t store your ip address, and searches all the top search engines.
More like bi-pollock
“Our first bi-polar president”
or is it Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
Typical Leftist tactics: Define your opponent’s position as outside the bounds of acceptable debate. Alinsky would be proud.
Zero is a backdoor demagogue, but then again, from what we hear, he's a backdoor man anyway.
His “supporters” condemned us for criticizing him and said; “Just give him some time to let his policies start to work!”
Well my FRiends, that is exactly our biggest problem!
I guess the media is trying to set up a trap for illegals so they get caught and deported.
Re your Post #15. Excellent summary.
I don’t think even his supporters take him seriously. They live in a lie and knowingly so while spouting off deliberately hypocritical language that really identifies what they do and what they are. At this point he’s not fooling anyone even though he continues on with this rhetoric. What else is he going to say and his actions give it all away.
Yet HE demagogues race, religion, American Capitalism, citzenship and Superpower Status.
I've said it once, I'll say it again and again; remove this treasonous dog from office by any means necessary!
Thanks, I need a new data input. Not
Obama has thrown the promised national guard troops down the rabbit hole. They were suppose to arrive on the border today and now have been told to wait:
Who is playing games here? Obama is.
Please help Texas watch her borders.
14 live cameras. Watch live and report to border patrol.
Night cams in operation.
He is still fooling about 42%.
As Rush says, this president is the least experienced person in ANY room he walks into!
To have this man reading from the teleprompter telling ME what how the world works is like listening to a 5 year old foreign policy expert. I see his face, I hit the remote button. This man IS NOT GOING TO TELL ME what he thinks ... I don't CARE what he thinks (or what the people who write his speeches think). Everything he says has an "expiration date" on it. (It will be televised on C-Span ... uh, unless it is done behind closed doors blocking the other party out). ALL CREDIBILITY is gone ... no matter what he says ... he is proving to mean the opposite.
Thank heavens for my remote button.
REPEAL THE Immigration Act of 1965
The House of Representatives voted 326 to 69 (82.5%) in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. Opposition mainly came from conservative Republicans and Southern Democrats. On October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the legislation into law, saying “This [old] system violates the basic principle of American democracy, the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country.” The act came into effect on July 1, 1968. Along with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, it serves as one of the key parts of the United States immigration code to this day.
 Ted Kennedy involvement
Immigration reform was an important issue for the Irish community, including President John F Kennedy. For Kennedy’s administration, immigration fell under the jurisdiction of second brother, U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy. And when third brother Ted Kennedy was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1962, his first assignment was to shepherd the bill through the Senate as Floor Leader for the bill. During debate on the Senate floor, Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said: “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
 Immigration shift
By equalizing immigration policies, the act resulted in new immigration from non-European nations which changed the ethnic make-up of the United States. Immigration doubled between 1965 and 1970, and doubled again between 1970 and 1990. The most dramatic effect was to shift immigration from Europe to Asia.
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed a bill that has dramatically changed the method by which immigrants are admitted to America. This bill is the Immigration Act of 1965. This act, also known as the Hart-Cellar Act , not only allows more individuals from third world countries to enter the US (including Asians, who have traditionally been hindered from entering America), but also entails a separate quota for refugees.  Under the Act, 170,000 immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere are granted residency, with no more than 20,000 per country. One hundred twenty thousand immigrants from the Western Hemisphere, with no national limitations, are also to be admitted.  The significance of this bill was that future immigrants were to be welcomed because of their skills/professions, and not for their countries of origin. Before President Johnson signed this bill, the Senate voted 76 to 18 in favor of this act, with the most opposition votes cast by Southern delegates. The House voted 326 to 69 in favor of the act. 
Back to “Cold War Era” Chronology
The main reason the Immigration Act was the Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights Movement was to rid America of racial/ethnic discrimination. Two other bills, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Johnson signed for the same reason.  The Immigration Act was therefore a corrective measure instituted to atone for past history of discrimination in immigration.
Two earlier laws reflecting this discrimination were the National Origin’s Act of the 1924 and the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952.  Both of these granted residency on the basis of national origin, and were particularly discriminative towards Asians. For instance, under the McCarran-Walter Act, while the quota for European immigrants was 149,667, the quota for Asian immigrants was 2,990, and the African quota was 1,400.  The Immigration Act of 1965, therefore, shifted the focus to non-European countries, especially those of the third world. Both Johnson and President Kennedy wished that by reforming immigration law, they would not only gain auspicious international relations (especially with non-White nations), but they would also confirm America’s bedrock principles of America being a free country, where everyone is considered equal. 
Immigrants granted residency in America are now considered for admittance based on skill or for family reunification. More specifically, immigrants are accepted according to following preferences: unmarried adults whose parents are American citizens, spouses and offspring of permanent residents, gifted professionals, scientists, and artists. The last preferences are the following: married offspring of American citizens, siblings of adult citizens, skilled/unskilled individuals of occupations lacking workers in America, and refugees from either communist (or communist-controlled) countries, or those from the Middle-East.  The Immigration Act of 1965 became law on July 1, 1968.  Even though the Immigration Act of 1965 was not implemented to bring an immediate end to discrimination, it was definitely seen as a major contributor in ending it.
By falsely accusing their adversaries of the very things they are actually doing, Marxists have historically succeeded in putting their targets - eager to defend their honor - instantly on defense, while distracting the public from their own true intentions. An accompanying ploy (one Obama uses frequently) is to appeal publicly to the opposition to "join" them in a spirit of "cooperation" - while one's other revolutionary associates simultaneously and thoroughly impugn both their character and motives.
When the opposition responds to such treachery, they are in turn accused of partisanship and bad faith. Whose tale will be told in the State-run media?
See how easy it is? All it requires is a singular sense of purpose - and the utter lack of a soul.
Obama IS the Dem-a-gogue leading a shirtload of Dem-a-craps.