Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Obamnesty — fundamentally transforming America into a neo-feudal state [Darleen Click]

Barry to give American citizens the middle-finger tomorrow ..

President Obama will announce Thursday that he will use his executive authority to expand temporary protections to millions of undocumented immigrants, according to several individuals who have been briefed on the decision. Obama will travel to Las Vegas on the heels of that announcement to rally support for his initiative on Friday. […]

The president is preparing to use his executive authority to expand temporary protections to millions of these individuals, as well as to broaden visa programs for highly-skilled technology workers and perhaps also stiffen security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

89 Replies to “Obamnesty — fundamentally transforming America into a neo-feudal state [Darleen Click]”

  1. sdferr says:

    Any wagers placed on whether ClownDisaster will seek to associate his caesarism with the anniversary of Abe Lincoln’s great Gettysburg Address, despite that he has chosen to wait one day beyond the anniversary to deliver his imperial edict to the waiting serfs?

  2. Drumwaster says:

    Does he not realize that military veterans took an oath, too, and that the word “domestic” includes people like him?

    This will not end well, no matter how the Republicans respond.

  3. RI Red says:

    Forget a Day of Righteous Indignation, I’ve moved on to Righteous Anger.

  4. sdferr says:

    PresidentIVotePresentAndWonPenPhone presents everyone with a handy bifurcative sieve to distinguish — on the basis of an individual’s reactions in speech and deed to this monstrously extra-constitutional act — to their adherence to the Constitution as a rule of law in America, and in that respect each individual’s fitness for service in any (emphasis on any) office in government, from the lowliest to the highest.

    Has a particular favored seeker of the Presidency condemned this act or no? There is the answer to such a one’s fitness or disqualification for that office.

  5. newrouter says:

    >Networks Aren’t Covering Obama’s Imperial Immigration Decree — Except for Univision

    And, one wonders, if that isn’t precisely how Obama wanted it.

    Perhaps he didn’t bother making an issue of it with the networks. He has previously complained a lot when networks declined to give him free time.

    By the way — this announcement will be made on the night of the Latin Grammies. The show will be delayed 15 minutes for Obama’s announcement.

    No, I’m not kidding.<

    link

  6. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Is <strike.Paris Ferguson burning?

    Call me cynical, but my guess is the only reason the grand jury hasn’t come back yet is that they’re trying to find something —anything— that they can get 9 grand jurors to agree to indict on.

  7. sdferr says:

    Too many Israelis have died. Too many Palestinians have died.

    And too few naked emperors.

  8. dicentra says:

    I wonder how much dinero narcotraficante went into this “decision.”

  9. That’s an angle, Di, that no one will look into.

    No corruption is beneath the Left because they have rejected Morality, Absolute Truth.

  10. Ernst Schreiber says:

    No, they’ve just embraced Will to Power in pursuit of a noble cause, subjectively true.

  11. ccs says:

    and perhaps also stiffen security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

    WAPO made a funny.

  12. Ah, Ernst, but is it not true that you can only embrace the Will To Power when you have transcended all Values [ie: rejected Absolute Truth] and become a Superman?

  13. BTW: Transhumanism is a bitch when everyone laughs at you.

  14. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I’m just trying to put a happy face on it, debbie downer.

    but it’s for a good cause!

  15. sdferr says:

    ClownDisaster demands the House vote up a now obsolete bill endorsed by Democrat Senators removed from office by their electorates or retirement. Why does that bill, never approved by the House, embody the considered opinion of the nation now? Well obviously, it does not. Yet this disapproval by the House is put forward as the cause, the root, of ClownCatastrophe’s pretence of urgency to act in haste in this hinge moment, prior to the seating of a new Congress which will surely not, in either Senate or House rewrite in any new bill addressing the manifold subject of immigration law anything like that obsolete Senate bill never approved in the House.

    We have many old names for the stance put forward by the White House as justification for its determined lawlessness: the bamboozle; the film-flam; the okie-doke; the con. The lie. And a new name, the Gruber.

  16. ‘The Gruber’ it is, then.

  17. McGehee says:

    Even when young, I tended to be the one Old Bull who would not be stampeded. Anyone I did not have affirmative reason to trust, who demanded some action of me NOW!!! without giving me time to consider or question, automatically became someone I affirmatively distrusted.

    The Unicorn Prince has done nothing but seek to stampede people. Those who question his commands, he has smeared with all manner of evil labels. And those who quite naturally and justifiably distrust him for it, he has smeared some more.

    I would say that I’m beginning to think these are all the tools in his political arsenal, but I have long thought so. I’m surprised he hasn’t yet resorted to using his five iron on somebody to get his way.

    Or perhaps we simply haven’t heard about it.

  18. So that explains why you look like The Marlboro Man, eh, McGehee?

  19. dicentra says:

    If the Republic weren’t over before, it surely is now.

    It was nice while it lasted.

    Sorry, Mr. Franklin: we didn’t keep it. Our bad.

  20. guinspen says:

    /pvt hudson

  21. TaiChiWawa says:

    L’etat c’est moi. Période!

  22. newrouter says:

    >Democrats’ vaunted social media team embarrasses its own party, again.<

    that list looks some much like proggtard projection.

  23. newrouter says:

    some=so

  24. geoffb says:

    Transcript: Obama’s immigration speech”

    For those who wouldn’t risk damage to their TVs to watch, I’m one.

  25. geoffb says:

    [ I]ndependent experts said that it would help grow our economy and shrink our deficits.

    I’m beginning to suspect that anytime “experts” say something that agrees perfectly with progressive dogma there is a whole lot of “Gruberrigging” going on in some “black box” in a back room.

  26. Blake says:

    geoffb, no way I’m going to read the transcript. My rage would probably melt down my entire computer system.

    Anyway, thanks everyone, it’s been a great country to live in. We got to see amazing advances in medicine, men on the moon and the computer revolution. We now get to write the epitaph of our once great republic.

    My choice:

    “I have… seen things you people wouldn’t believe… Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those… moments… will be lost in time, like [small cough] tears… in… rain. Time… to die…”

  27. McGehee says:

    If the words came out of Obazymandias’s mouth, you may be sure that each is weaponized; a little neutron bomb designed to kill IQ points but leave your ability to vote intact.

    How they’re delivered is unimportant.

  28. newrouter says:

    fighting the “ruining class” seems like a fun endeavor in my later stages of life. it beats being the geezers mitchy and orangeman.

  29. newrouter says:

    top link for comment

  30. bh says:

    “If he’s gonna pretend to make the law, we should pretend to obey it.”

    And that’s exactly how it works in failed states.

    Dude with a gun says you were speeding. He reeks of gin/tequila/vodka (pick your smell for local color). And you say, “No, sir, I couldn’t have been. Here’s $20 to show my appreciation for your diligence though.”

    That’s how this works.

    There are two ways to pretend that you also obey the law. The most common is what they do in large sections of Asia, Russia, Pakistan, South America, etc. The other is something new that we might invent as Americans.

  31. bh says:

    Shorter me: It’s not all that cheeky to say that we’ll not obey the law. This is a standard thing. This is how the world has worked in most places for most of all time.

    It’s not a solution. It’s not even a step towards a solution.

  32. bh says:

    If I was to twitter this shit I’d say something more like, “Americans don’t suffer kings.”

  33. sdferr says:

    Along those lines there was another saying not so very long ago which resonated with many Americans, and which slightly modified and repurposed might do so again:

    *I can hear you, the rest of the world can hear you and the people who knocked this Constitution down will hear all of us soon.*

  34. bh says:

    Along those same lines, again, this is not a time for ironic detachment.

    This is a new thing for those of us with 80-90-ish life spans living in the US.

  35. bh says:

    (Not towards your comment, sdferr. Ironic detachment, that is. I’m still bristling a bit from that Burge tweet. I understand that he’s a humorist but I find these sorts of one-off “good lines” normalize these extraordinary actions.)

  36. sdferr says:

    Standing atop a pile of political rubble there is a choice to be made: fight for the country or surrender to her enemies. So people must choose.

  37. bh says:

    Bless you, sir.

    That’s how you invigorate your fellow man.

  38. dicentra says:

    How can her caboose really be that big without being waffled with cellulite and stuff?

    I call fake.

  39. Spiny Norman says:

    Photoshop works wonders, di.

  40. cranky-d says:

    There is another angle from that photoshoot that makes her butt look even more unbelievable, into the realm of impossible.

  41. And Botox* to smooth out the cottage cheese.

    ____________________________
    *Copyright Nancy Pelosi

  42. […] They certainly would never find it any other way, even if Jesus Himself returned and told it to them, because, as Sultan Knish points out rather eloquently, the Left In America is full-on deranged [tip of the fedora to Newrouter]: […]

  43. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Republicans had better start building public support for impeachment. Apathy may be good for incumbents and Beltway insiders of all stripes, but it’s bad for Republicans who want to keep their majority and win back the White House.

    To say nothing of the country.

  44. serr8d says:

    The GOP isn’t in solidarity opposing either Obama’s ObamaCare or #ImmigrationAction, Ernst. After a bit of sound and fury, there will be nothing else.

    Rand Paul has a petition. There you go.

    (Sharyl Attkisson and Daryl Issa were directly targeted by White House & DOJ, as emails prove. That’s big news too, if it doesn’t get buried by Obamnesty and Ferguson.)

  45. serr8d says:

    How I managed that screwup, I can’t say.

    pic.twitter.com/ZsiPbz8xI0

  46. serr8d says:

    There will be linky!.

  47. happyfeet says:

    food stamp just wants attention after getting bitch-slapped in the elections

    i’m bored with him

  48. Yeah, well Feets, we who actually give a good Goddamn about this country can’t afford to be.

  49. I can’t see the GOP building anything, Ernst, except more monuments to it’s derelictions of it’s responsibilities and duties.

  50. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Inclinded to agree with both of you, serr8d and Bob.

    Perfidous insipidity is what I expect we’ll get from the GOP Congress in the next two years.

  51. Refugium inveniemus in provinciis!
    [Find refuge in the provinces]

  52. LBascom says:

    Standing atop a pile of political rubble there is a choice to be made: fight for the country or surrender to her enemies. So people must choose.

    You’re going to need to flesh that out a little for we dimbulbs that realized the Republic was dead with the re-election of Obama.

    “The country” re-elected Obama. With full knowledge of who he is and what he was going to do. So what does “fighting for the country” mean, besides what we did in the election? It’s not like we are facing a hostile foreign army; the “enemy” is our fellow citizens in their majority that voted for fundamental transformation.

    The choosing is done. Now what?

  53. LBascom says:

    I do have an idea, if we patriots are serious.

    All twenty something million NRA members take a leave of absence from our jobs, don camo, a knapsack and a rifle, and gather at the border to secure it ourselves. Turn back or shoot every man, woman and child that won’t, along with every federal agent that tries to stop us, while starving the beast of the tax dollars our forsaken jobs provided.

    That’s the kinda sacrifice the original minutemen made…think there is that willingness to pledge our lives, fortunes and sacred honor in todays population?

  54. dicentra says:

    gather at the border to secure it ourselves.

    Outgunning the narcotraficantes?

    They’ve got full military ordnance. Do you?

  55. LBascom says:

    They’ve got full military ordnance. Do you?

    Oh, I imagine 20,000,000 NRA types could scrounge up something to dissuade.

  56. LBascom says:

    OT, here’s some crap that is familiar to PW.

    The school’s position is that because students told staff they felt threatened by Taylor, he was dealt with more severely.

    “It’s the difference between intent of the action and what the person feels receiving it,” Superintendent Robert Tremblay told the Daily News. “It’s just the same way you can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater. There are things you can and can’t do.”

  57. LBascom says:

    Oh, I imagine 20,000,000 NRA types could scrounge up something to dissuade

    These gentlemen could probably be of some use for example…

  58. bgbear says:

    I really blame the Mexican government. We need some modern day freebooters to march on the Halls of Montezuma.

  59. LBascom says:

    Mr Bear, while I condemn the Mexican government for fully taking advantage of the situation, aiding and abetting lawlessness even, you can’t realistically expect a foreign government to respect our border more than our own government does.

    Illegals have been a topic my whole adult life (first eligible vote for Reagan), but just like all crime statistics, they never are (nor can be) stopped. The real problem now is, our dept justice regards illegal aliens undocumented immigrants as victims instead of criminals. And this didn’t just happen in the last five years either, I think W Bush let it be known to his people that he had great tolerance for an underground labor force.

    I could be wrong about that, but I don’t think so…

  60. dicentra says:

    Glenn Beck provided a great analogy to demonstrated how Love & Law (Mercy & Justice) must both be honored 100%:

    A married couple is bound by law/vows as well as love/affection.

    Then the lady next door loses her husband and her life falls apart. The husband tells his wife that he’s going to go over there and be her husband for awhile.

    Does the neighbor lady need the love and support of a husband? Yup, sure does. Is the husband motivated by a genuine desire to help a fellow human being? Yes*.

    Did the husband do the right thing? Not in the least. Should his wife put up with it? Not for a second.

    The husband, motivated by the best of intentions*, violates the law, which also destroys the love between him and his wife. That legal bond with his wife is liable to be broken, too.

    When you disregard the law in the name of love (even agape), you destroy both.

    But then, that’s a feature, not a bug, as all of us here well know.

    *yadda-yadda-yadda

  61. dicentra says:

    I think W Bush let it be known to his people that he had great tolerance for an underground labor force.

    Someday, Beck needs to reveal what he knows about Bush’s stance toward Mexico et al. He used to darkly hint at really, really bad machinations that the Bush family and cronies were involved with.

    Ramos & Campion were emblematic of the problem. Again, I suspect dinero narcotraficante.

  62. bgbear says:

    I am asking the Mexican govt would provide a better life for their own people. However, I can agree, no change as long as the US acts as a safety valve against revolution.

  63. dicentra says:

    I am asking that the Mexican govt provide a better life for their own people.

    Why the hell would they do that?

    The immigrants here (legal and otherwise) send money back home, which allays the cries of hunger from the streets. Furthermore, they’ve got an old European class system going, where nobody goes from rags to riches except a few athletes and the narcotraficantes.

    Those in gubmint who are in a position to improve things have already got theirs, by inheritance and cronyism. If life were improved for the Mexican commoners, they might get uppity, and the governing class can’t have that.

    Besides, a bunch of our bidnessmen already proposed to the Mexican gubmint that they help them fix their economy, and the gubmint said no.

    Mexico represents the default state of large human societies: nearly all power and money is concentrated in the hands of a few while the rest eat dirt and die. All the nasty things that socialists say about capitalism are actually true in Mexico.

    We’re losing the exception to the rule, as you all well know. Mexico wouldn’t become a second America unless we all went down there, wiped out most of the native population, and started anew.

  64. dicentra says:

    a safety valve against revolution

    They have revolutions all the time down there. Guess how it turns out?

  65. cranky-d says:

    We’re losing the exception to the rule, as you all well know. Mexico wouldn’t become a second America unless we all went down there, wiped out most of the native population, and started anew.

    Hmmm.

  66. cranky-d says:

    I’m starting to wonder if America will become America again without similar treatment.

    Then again, the majority were always ambivalent at best on the subject of liberty.

  67. bgbear says:

    Heck di, if they became commies, they at least would build a fence themselves to keep everyone in ;)

    I agree with your other comments 100%. I get annoyed that many politicians on both sides of the debate wont talk about Mexico’s culture’s role in this mess.

  68. newrouter says:

    > I get annoyed that many politicians on both sides of the debate wont talk about Mexico’s culture’s role in this mess. <

    nyt big share holder carlos simms like to keep it like that.

  69. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Payback’s a Bitch?

    Should Republicans Embrace the Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine?
    The Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine holds that a president is not required to implement or enforce laws passed by Congress with which he disagrees. Obama’s use of the doctrine sets an interesting precedent for the next chief executive, who likely will be a Republican [I wouldn’t be reserving my hotel room ahead of the inaugural festivities if I were you].

    For example, a Republican could adopt the Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine with regard to corporate income taxes by directing the IRS to cease all efforts to enforce those portions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to income taxes payable by corporations. [. . . .]Or, if a Republican president didn’t want to go that far, he could stop enforcing those provisions of the tax code relating to taxation of repatriated profits. This is an area where the right policy is obvious, but Congress has failed to act [heh]. Without the tax on repatriated earnings, somewhere between $1 and $2 trillion would flow back into the American economy.

    Environmental policy is another area where the Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine could be applied. The Environmental Protection Agency, as now operated, probably does more harm than good. A Republican president could suspend enforcement of all federal environmental laws, thereby putting the EPA out of business, . . . . [o]r, if he preferred, the president could single out for non-enforcement some, but not all, environmental laws.

    Under the Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine, a president can’t enact new laws by decree, but he can exercise his discretion by not enforcing existing laws. This means that the doctrine is a one-way ratchet with an inherently libertarian bent. Given a little thought, conservatives could come up with a long list of laws that we would be better off without. Each one would be a candidate for the Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine.

    My guess is that if a Republican president applied Obama’s doctrine a couple of times, the Democrats would say “uncle.” [yeah, right] There would be bipartisan support for a constitutional amendment to make it beyond dispute that the Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine is defunct. That goal could be accomplished through a constitutional amendment requiring that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” or some such language. [This is a joke, right? A jab at handwringers like McConnell and Boehner? Isn’t the Presidential oath of office already in the Constitution? Why, yes, I believe it is] But in the meantime, Republican presidents could use Obama’s precedent to good effect.

    They could if they had any balls, John. Fortunately for the Democrats, Beltway Republicans suffer an accute case of the Too Proud to Fights, agrravating their chronic Bi-Partisan Comity-itis.

    And in any event, I think the Democrats and their enablers in the media (or is it the Media and their enablers in the Deomcratic party?) would fairly quickly demand the impeachment of a President who had foresworn his oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States.” I expect a fair number of mavericky Republicans would join them.

  70. If Hinderaker is seriously advocating this as a strategy then he is an ignorant fool.

    If the GOP gives Legitimacy to what he calls the ‘Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine’, which is nothing but Caesarism, they will never be able to put the genie back in the bottle, as Human Nature and the cultural climate argue against a return to Sanity.

    We often forget that what The Founding Fathers did here was incredibly unusual, the grand exception in the whole history of Mankind.

  71. McGehee says:

    Under the Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine, a president can’t enact new laws by decree, but he can exercise his discretion by not enforcing existing laws. This means that the doctrine is a one-way ratchet with an inherently libertarian bent.

    What idiocy. As Bob notes, this is a discretionary tool in the hands of a single man. Laws to be non-enforced are chosen at whim by each succeeding president.

    Far from a one-way ratchet toward libertarianism, it is in truth a one-way ratchet toward autocracy.

  72. geoffb says:

    One federal felony count means prison time, millions of federal felony counts doesn’t even rise to the level of “misdemeanors” much less “high crimes.”

    Tragedies, statistics, toe-may-toe, toe-ma-toe.

Comments are closed.