From the NYTimes.com:
Behind Closed Doors, Obama Crafts Executive Actions
WASHINGTON — When President Obama announced in June that he planned to bypass congressional gridlock and overhaul the nation’s immigration system on his own, he did so in a most public way: a speech in the White House Rose Garden.
Since then, the process of drafting what will likely be the only significant immigration changes of his presidency — and his most consequential use of executive power — has been conducted almost entirely behind closed doors, where lobbyists and interest groups invited to the White House are making their case out of public view.
Mr. Obama’s increasingly expansive appetite for the use of unilateral action on issues including immigration, tax policy and gay rights has emboldened activists and businesses to flock to the administration with their policy wish lists.
It also has opened the president, already facing charges of executive overreach, to criticism that he is presiding over opaque policy-making, with the potential to reward political backers at the expense of other interests, including some on the losing side who are threatening to sue.
“Opaque policy-making” from the individual who swore to make his administration the most transparent in history?
On that note of “transparency,” the Washington Times writes:
by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
The administration that vowed to be the most transparent in history now must defend itself against a federal lawsuit accusing it of thwarting the release of public information. It’s a case that could reveal just how much politics influences the processing of Freedom of Information Act requests, especially when such releases could embarrass the president.
The civic watchdog group Cause of Action on Monday sued the Obama administration, claiming that presidential attorneys have interfered improperly in the release of public documents under the landmark FOIA law in an effort to curb the release of derogatory information about the White House.
This is the most opaque administration in years and the American Media Maggots, like the boot-licking pussies they are, continue to go to great lengths to cover up Mr Obama’s crap in the cat box.
The problem is, it still smells.
I guess they’ll have to resort to clothes-pins next.
This is Obama The Imperial.
by Matthew Boyle
“What you’ve seen with our politics, partly because of gerrymandering, partly because of the Balkanization of media so people just watch what reinforces their deepest biases, partly because of big money in politics, is increasingly politicians are rewarded for taking the most extreme, maximalist positions,” Obama told the liberal Times columnist. “Sooner or later, that catches up with you. You end up not being able to move forward on things we need to move forward on. We need to reform our immigration system. That would be good not just for our domestic economy but for our position in the world. You travel around Latin America—nothing would more reinforce an admiration for the United States than us doing that. We need to rebuild our infrastructure. You go to the Singapore airport and then you come back to one of our airports and you say, huh? We’re not acting like a superpower.”
Given some of the policy issues he lists, especially immigration, Obama seems to be referring to the Tea Party in his comments about a faction in the GOP that has “blocked” his agenda by taking “extreme, maximalist positions.” Another way of looking at his remarks is a testament to the strength of the grassroots movement’s power.
An interesting final paragraph:
“This is a defining issue of our time,” [Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)] Sessions said. “History books will write how much power President Obama grabbed and exercised if he’s not stopped and he goes through with this plan. So it’s a matter of constitutional order as well as a matter of important public policy. Just imagine if six million more people are legalized, how will anybody be deported? How will anybody be deterred from coming to the country unlawfully? It will amount to the collapse of law enforcement. I think the Senate has to confront this—and the American people need to know why is it that Harry Reid has been blocking votes. It has nothing to do with time. We spent days negotiating it to try to get a vote when we could have cast 20 votes. The reason is, he does not want his members to have to cast votes because it will expose their position. They’re saying things in their states that are different than what they’re voting for in the Senate—or avoiding voting for.”
Illegal invasion grates on me for any number of reasons, not the least of which is the flaunting of American laws. We are a nation of laws allegedly equally applied — except that they are not. Both the federal government and illegal invaders are picking and choosing which laws they wish to obey, and which laws they wish to disregard.
Can you imagine the hue and cry if I — and many, many others like me — were to pick and choose which laws we wished to obey with an equally cavalier amount of disdain?
The unrestrained flood of illegal invaders is a nation-changing event. These are people who, now, are uninterested in assimilating, in speaking English, in paying taxes, in becoming part of the American culture. They wish to stay in their enclaves, speaking their native languages, and expecting that their whims will be catered to.
And their whims include free medical, free tuition to universities, priority over others. And that is wrong.
As I found in a Union Pacific locomotive a few years ago:
Frankly, I don’t believe it for a second. The AMM continue to be “in the tank” for Obama, doing their level best to carry his water — and they plan to do it for the full eight years.
And dissension? Let’s have a review of “dissent” from Shrillary Rodham Clinton, shall we? She says it is patriotic to disagree.
Except that, apparently, it is NOT patriotic to disagree with Mr Obama.
Instead, disagreement is declared as racist.
Mr Obama simply wants his way, and if he doesn’t get it:
Obama truly believes: America does more harm than good.
The Obama administration will continue handing out Obamacare subsidies to federal exchange customers despite a federal court’s ruling Tuesday that the subsidies are illegal.
A DC Court of Appeals panel ruled Tuesday morning that customers in the 36 states that didn’t establish their own exchange and use HealthCare.gov instead cannot be given premium tax credits, according to the text of the Affordable Care Act itself.
But the White House said in response that it will continue handing out the billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that while the case continues to be battled out in the courts, the administration will continue to dole out billions in tax credits to federally-run exchange customers.
“It’s important for people all across the country to understand that this ruling does not have any practical impact on their ability to continue to receive tax credits right now,” Earnest said in a press briefing Tuesday.