#ThanksMichelleObama Trends on Facebook as Students Express Displeasure with School Lunch

Some high school students are not pleased with their new USDA-approved school lunches, and have taken to using the hashtag #ThanksMichelleObama to express their displeasure. The guidelines include strict calorie limits, as well as requiring whole grains and fruits and vegetables. Students are claiming that the lunches are too small, and they are being left hungry.

The hashtag was one of the top trends on both Facebook and Twitter throughout the afternoon.

Those lunches look quite sad, and for some students, that's the only thing they'll eat all day. When I was in high school, lunches didn't look like that--and the vast majority of them were certainly edible. It's also not a good policy to assume that all children have the same nutritional needs. A football or a hockey player will certainly need more calories than what is permitted under these guidelines.

Child obesity is certainly a problem that needs to be addressed. If school lunches are this gross, however, children are simply going to turn to empty calories and snacks to stave off hunger. This is completely counter-productive.

Schools know their student population better than some government agency does. School lunches should be up to local control, not subjected to arbitrary guidelines.

ICE Braces for New Spring Surge of Illegal Immigrants

On the same day President Obama announced his executive immigration overhaul we learned that the administration was gearing up for yet another surge of illegal immigrants coming this spring—more than 100,000 to be exact. And to do so, they’re getting a family detention center ready with 2,400 beds.

“We must be prepared for traditional, seasonal increases in illegal migration. The Dilley facility will provide invaluable surge capacity should apprehensions of adults with children once again surge this spring,” said Acting ICE Director Thomas S. Winkowski, reports The Washington Examiner.

“These facilities help ensure timely and effective removals that comply with our legal and international obligations, while deterring others from taking the dangerous journey and illegally crossing into the United States,” he continued.

If the Dilley facility turns out to be anything like this one in Texas, it’s hard to believe it would be a deterrent at all, especially after Obama's announcement. And don’t take my word for it, check out this short video:

“Did the possibility of immigration reform inspire you to come now?” CNN’s Alina Machado asked the Central American migrant waiting for a bus ticket on Thursday.

“Yes, that’s right,” the woman said. “That inspired us.”

“Now?” the reporter pressed.

“Yes, now,” the woman replied.

Get ready.

Losing Streak: WH Admits Improperly Inflating Obamacare Enrollment Figures

Last spring, Obamacare supporters were ebullient when the Obama administration announced a milestone "victory:" Despite a truly disastrous roll-out, they'd enrolled eight million Americans in the program. The Obamacare debate, the president said, was officially over. We expressed skepticism over the White House's stats almost immediately, noting that the official numbers didn't account for duplicates, non-paying "customers," and consumer attrition -- not to mention the high percentage of "new" enrollees who previously had insurance, but were forced to use Obamacare's exchanges to obtain plans after their existing arrangements were cancelled under the new law.  The last two weeks have witnessed two more blows for the "it's working!" crowd.  First came the sharply revised 2015 enrollment projections:

Fewer than 10 million people are expected to enroll in "Obamacare 2.0" for 2015, the Obama administration said Monday. That's a significant drop from the original goal. The Congressional Budget Office had projected 13 million, but officials said they expect the ramp up to be slower than the CBO originally thought. The revised goal is 9 to 9.9 million. It raises questions about whether Obamacare enrollment will reach projections down the road. The CBO had projected enrollment would hit 25 million by 2017, but now the administration says it will probably take at least one or two more years to reach that threshold. Officials are realizing it will find it tougher to convince the remaining uninsured to enroll. Many who opted not to sign up this year said the cost was too high.

It's almost as if many people aren't too excited about purchasing less-than-affordable coverage that saddles them with high out-of-pocket costs and sparse provider networks.  One thing the administration has going for it this year is that the individual mandate tax designed to punish shirkers is rising considerably, although those penalties are still much lower than the costs associated with buying Obamacare health plans.  Now we have this embarrassing admission from administration officials, who've been forced to reveal how Team Obama inflated its top line enrollment figure:

The Obama administration said it erroneously calculated the number of people with health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, incorrectly adding 380,000 dental subscribers to raise the total above 7 million. The accurate number with full health-care plans is 6.7 million as of Oct. 15, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services confirmed today, saying the U.S. won’t include dental plans in future reports. “The mistake we made is unacceptable,” Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said on her verified Twitter account. “I will be communicating that clearly throughout the department.” The error was brought to light by Republican investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, using data they obtained from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services….The new count puts enrollment short of a 2013 estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, adopted last year as a goal by the Obama administration, that 7 million people would be enrolled this year. Federal officials said in September they had 7.3 million people enrolled in coverage through new government-run insurance exchanges. They didn’t distinguish between medical and dental plans, breaking from previous practice without notice.

Oh yes, this was surely a good-faith "mistake," which just happened to depart from "previous practice" in order to push the White House's prized total "enrollment" number above its nominal goal.  A remarkable coincidence, no? Even top Obamacare cheerleader Ezra Klein can't spin this, even as he credulously swallows the "error" line:

So setting aside the previously insured population, which shouldn't count towards new enrollments in my view, the administration still fell short of its initial projections, and they've since publicly downgraded their expectations for this year.  Comprehensive data from the Census Bureau and the CDC confirms that Obamacare is falling dramatically short of enrollment expectations.  Between Jonathan Gruber's slow-motion implosion, the Supreme Court taking up the federal subsidies case, and these enrollment black eyes, it's been a rough month for Obamacare.  And the losing streak is being reflected in public polling:

I'll leave you with this:

Inside the Politics of Keystone

By now, you’re well aware that legislation to pass the Keystone XL Pipeline failed by one vote in the upper chamber earlier this week. Sixty votes were needed. Despite unanimous Republican (and some Democratic) support, however, the threshold was never crossed. The bill died on the spot.

According to The Hill, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) knew well ahead of time (despite her assurances to the contrary) that not enough Senate Democrats were on board to vote for the measure—a bill she both introduced and co-sponsored. But for reasons I'll explain below, she took the risk anyway:

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) told reporters on Monday night that she had the 60 votes she needed to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

But secretly, she knew she was one short.

At the eleventh hour, however, despite her entreaties, her Democratic friends essentially told her ‘we feel for you, Mary—we really do—but you’re on your own’:

In the end, Landrieu’s “hail Mary” fell short and not a single one of the eight Democratic senators on her list came through.

“There were eight potential Democratic yeses. You’d think she could’ve gotten one of them,” said a Democratic senator who worked with Landrieu to advance the Keystone authorization.

The whole point of bringing Keystone up for a vote was to remind her constituents what 18 years on Capitol Hill had wrought—namely, influence and power. After the bill died, however, this sunny narrative was publicly put to bed. By going all-in, she was laying everything (read: her political career) on the line. Hence why some in her own party were even questioning what she was doing at the time:

A rumor circulated among Democratic senators that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) advised Landrieu that it wouldn’t be wise to bring Keystone to the floor for a high-profile vote if she wasn’t sure she could get 60. Many lawmakers were incredulous that she would take such a big risk only weeks away from her run-off.

“I don’t know what Mary was thinking,” one lawmaker said, requesting anonymity to discuss private discussions in the caucus.

I do. Desperate times call for desperate measures. It’s no secret that once center-right voters coalesced around the only Republican left in the run-off, her chances of winning that race would evaporate. She needed (ahem) a “Hail Mary” of sorts to give her foundering campaign some momentum. This was it. If she didn’t try something game-changing, she was sunk anyway.

So why not take the gamble?

Alas, the polls now indicate that Sen. Landrieu will lose on Dec. 6thand lose badly. But if it’s any consolation, I don’t think the Keystone ploy could have meaningfully moved the needle.

The Red Tsunami, it seems, was probably too powerful to overcome.

Everything You Need To Know About Obama's Executive Amnesty

In a primetime address on November 20, President Obama made his sales pitch to the American people for a series of immigration executive actions he will sign on November 21 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Here is what you need to know:

What actions is Obama taking specifically?

The key to Obama's new immigration policy is the creation of one new amnesty program and the expansion of another.

Specifically, Obama's new amnesty program will give illegal immigrants who have been in the United States for at least five years, and who are parents of U.S. citizens or legal residents, a three year work permit. This permit will also allow them to obtain a Social Security number and get a driver's license. Pew estimates that 3.5 million current illegal immigrants will qualify for this program.

Obama is also expanding the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals amnesty program. Previously only those illegal immigrants who were born before 1981 and entered the U.S. as a minor before 2007 were eligible for benefits. Now all illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. as a minor before 2010 will be eligible for amnesty. Like the parents above, DACA recipients will also get work permits, Social Security numbers, and driver's licenses. Pew estimates that 235,00 illegal immigrants will gain eligibility for benefits through this program expansion.

Is this legal?

Obama didn't think so. As recently as this spring, and on more than 20 other occasions, Obama said he could not rewrite immigration law by executive action. 

Specifically, this March Obama told Univision, "But what I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. ... t at a certain point the reason that these deportations are taking place is, Congress said, ‘you have to enforce these laws.’ They fund the hiring of officials at the department that’s charged with enforcing. And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws that are on the books.

More damning, in 2011, Obama told the National Council of La Raza, "Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written."

How is Obama justifying this amnesty?

The Office of Legal Counsel memo released before Obama's speech cites Obama's Article II Section 3 constitutional duty to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed" as the source of his power to grant this amnesty. 

The memo reasons that since there are 11.3 million illegal immigrants in the country today, and DHS only has the resources to remove 400,000 illegal immigrants every year, Obama must choose which immigrants to deport and which to ignore. This "prosecutorial discretion" power, the memo claims, allows Obama to choose which illegal immigrants get work permits, which illegal immigrants will continue to be ignored, and which illegal immigrants will be deported.

Under this legal theory, Obama could give all current 11.3 million illegal immigrants work permits and driver's licenses, as long as he kept deporting at least 400,000 illegal border crossers every year.

Will courts let Obama get away with this?

They already have. In 2012, after Obama announced his DACA program, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents sued the Department of Homeland Security challenging the legality of Obama's first executive amnesty program.

But while the court found that the border agents "were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Department of Homeland Security has implemented a program contrary to congressional mandate," the court also ultimately determined that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue DHS since the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 already established an administrative process for resolving disputes between federal employees and their employer.

The harms from Obama's illegal amnesty programs are just too diffuse for any one litigant to establish standing in federal court.

If courts can't stop Obama in time, who can?

Only Congress can stop Obama's amnesty program by defunding it. 

Now it is true that since the federal agency that issues work permits, the United States Citizen and Immigration Services office, is self-funded through fees it would keep issuing permits in the event of a federal government shutdown.

But that does not mean Congress does not have any power over the agency. Congress could still attach a rider to any appropriations bill forbidding USCIS from using any federal funds, including those collected through fees, for the purpose of carrying out Obama's amnesty programs. 

Will Congress stop Obama?

Some in Congress, like Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), have said they will use the power over the purse to defund Obama's amnesty.

Others like House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) have said they want to pass a long-term government funding bill which would essentially rubber stamp Obama's amnesty.

How would Obama's amnesty effect legal immigrants?

After Obama enacted DACA, wait times for visas for legal immigrants tripled from 5 months to 15. Obama essentially allowed illegal immigrants to jump in line in front of law-abiding legal immigrants. Since Obama has requested no new funding from Congress to pay for his new amnesty, and since his new amnesty is three times larger than his last amnesty, legal immigrants should not only expect to head to the back of the line again, but they should also expect much longer delays.

Obama claims all these amnestied immigrants will get background checks, Is that true?

If history is any guide, no. Background checks are expensive and time consuming and USCIS does not have the resources to process additional amnesty programs on top of their normal duties. Judicial Watch uncovered documents in June 2013 showing that instead of full background checks normally used by the agency, DACA recipients got cheaper and less comprehensive "lean and lite" checks.

Obama said illegal immigrants will be held accountable by paying taxes. Is that true?

It is true that the IRS already allows illegal immigrants to pay income taxes by obtaining a tax identification number. Most illegal immigrants also already pay state and local taxes. Obama's amnesty program changes none of this. In fact, Obama's new amnesty lets illegal immigrants of the hook but not paying any fines or penalties for breaking the law.

How will Obama pay for this new amnesty program?

The White House has not explained that yet.

What about Democrats who claim Reagan and Bush also acted unilaterally on immigration?

President Reagan did pass an amnesty program through Congress in 1986, but it failed to accomplish its goals. At the time there were just 3 million illegal immigrants in the country and today there are more than 11 million. This is why most Americans do not support amnesty today.

Reagan also used an executive action to ease immigration standards for 200,000 Nicaraguans who feared persecution from the communist Sandinista regime. President Bush used similar powers to grant deportation relief to hundreds of Kuwaiti nationals who had been evacuated to the United States during the first Gulf War.

But both of these executive actions were perfectly in line with the true scope of a president's prosecutorial discretion powers. They were limited in nature, applied to specific smaller groups of immigrants, and were not designed to thwart congressional intent on immigration policy.

Obama's amnesty is the exact opposite. It is a broad-based program in response to no crisis other than Congress isn't doing what Obama wants it to do. As Obama once said, "That's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written."

Allah is the Greatest...The Greatest What?!

On this week's Townhall Weekend Journal:

Michael Medved spoke with his brother Jonathan, a resident of Israel, about the recent deadly attacks by Palestinians. Dennis Prager on Palestinians who delight in murder, but others call it what it is: evil. Alan Dershowitz was particularly struck by the day’s events--he spoke with Medved. Medved and Santorum on Obama executive order on immigration. Hugh Hewitt and Lindsey Graham on emperor Obama's immigration push. Bill Bennett discussed Keystone with congressman Robert Costa. Dennis Prager spoke with Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuel. KT spoke with Morning in America’s Bill Bennett, another member of President Reagan’s remarkable staff--they take a look at the Cold War. Dennis Prager on Obama's knee-jerk reaction to defend Islam.

Republicans Could Be Overstating Importance Of Winning More Hispanic Voters

We know voter ID laws really don’t swing elections, but what about the other liberal talking point that demographics were to blame?

“Revenge of the white guys,” wrote liberal Amanda Marcotte that day after Democrats got decimated across the country.

So, is it true that a 2012 electorate would have brought better fortune to Democrats in 2014? Not really says Real Clear Politics’ Sean Trende.

For starters, President Obama was somewhat popular in 2012; he’s toxic right now. But let’s go through the numbers. Trende wrote [emphasis mine]:

If the 2014 electorate had resembled the 2012 electorate in terms of race, the Republican vote share would shrink by just 1.97 percentage points. In other words, in a 2012 electorate, Republicans would have won the popular vote for the House by 4.5 points, rather than 6.5 points. That’s not nothing, as they say, but it still only explains a relatively small share of the difference between the 2012 and 2014 results. Put differently, if Obama had put up the same vote shares among racial groups in 2012 as Democrats ultimately did in 2014, he’d have lost.

The 2014 electorate was, in fact, quite a bit older than the 2012 electorate. This isn’t necessarily surprising, given that the elderly population is actually set to grow substantially in the next decade. Regardless, if we reduce the 65+ share of the electorate from 2014’s 22 percent to 2012’s 16 percent, increase the 18-24 year old share from 7 percent (2014) to 11 percent (2012), and adjust everything in between accordingly, the Republican advantage contracts by ... 1.94 points.

Now you might look at this and say, “Well, that’s a total of four points!” The problem with this approach is that there is a substantial double count going on. Democrats do better among young voters in large part because that demographic is less white; younger whites don’t vote that differently from older whites. So this isn’t a cumulative exercise.

To get around this, we can look at the age-race crosstabs. That is, the exit polls tell us how not just 18-29-year-olds voted and African-Americans voted, but also how 18-29-year-old African-Americans voted (and so forth). If those groups had turned out in a way as to re-create the 2012 electorate, the Republican margin constricts by a bit more than if we looked at race alone or age alone, but the change still only amounts to about two points.

In other words, even if Democrats had managed to re-create 2012-style age or racial demographics in 2014, they still would have had a rough year.

Trende also compared the demographic shifts at the state level; comparing the 2012 and 2014 electorates and found that the changes aren’t significant. Yet, one notable exception is that Thom Tillis would have lost to Kay Hagan by a small 3.8 margin. The verdict: demographics represented a tiny proportion of Democratic troubles this cycle.

After all, Republicans just had better candidates this time around.

Yet, what about 2016’s demographic layout; shouldn’t Republicans be focused on making gains with Hispanics?

Actually, they really don’t, according to New York Times’ Nate Cohn.

As he puts it, Republicans’ need to gain ground with Hispanics is not a necessity, but will make a 2016 GOP candidate’s road to the White House much easier. The Republican fixation with doing better with Hispanics is due to various 2012 post-mortem analyses showing that Obama did poorly amongst white voters, when he allegedly did “quite well” outside the south. But if the GOP wants to make gains with Latinos, the one state they should focus on is Florida (via NYT):

[I]n 2016 Hispanics will represent just 12 percent of eligible voters, and between 9 and 10 percent of actual voters. That’s a lot, but it’s not large enough to grant or deny Republicans the presidency.

Hispanic voters are disproportionately concentrated in noncompetitive states like Texas and California. This makes it even harder for the Republicans to claim the presidency by focusing on them, since there are relatively few Hispanic voters in the battleground states that determine who wins the Electoral College. Hispanics represent more than 5 percent of eligible voters in just three battlegrounds: Florida, Nevada and Colorado. As a result, the Republicans could have entirely erased Mr. Obama’s advantage among Hispanic voters and still lost the presidency in 2012, since Mr. Romney would have still lost states like Virginia and Ohio, where there are very few Hispanic voters.

The Republicans don’t have an especially credible path to the presidency without Florida’s 29 electoral votes. The easiest alternative might be for Republicans to flip Virginia and Ohio, scale the so-called Blue Wall in Pennsylvania, and then pick up 12 additional electoral votes from some combination of Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin and New Hampshire.

Cohn added that modest improvements could erase Obama’s 1-point lead, which gave him the state in 2012. But the white share of the vote in Florida is a weird mix of old, southern, and Jewish, which could be receptive to a Hillary candidacy, making improvements with Hispanics utterly worthless. Still, the GOP knows inroads with this community is critical, it just may not be the “evolve or die” approach that everyone has been suggesting in the media.

And, while the president did win predominantly white states in the north, he actually did poorly with white working class voters; all regions of the country had Obama white working class support below 45 percent.

Cohn lists Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, Wisconsin and New Hampshire as examples of predominately white states where Obama won in 2012. Obama won the white vote in Iowa [51/47], Oregon [54/44], and New Hampshire [51/47]–and remained competitive in Wisconsin [51/48 Romney] and Minnesota [49/48 Romney]. Yet, these are states, with the exception of Iowa (went to Bush in 2004) and New Hampshire*, that have voted Democratic since 1988–and Oregon’s urban areas–traditional Democratic strongholds–(Portland) carried the state in 2012. 

They’re also in regions where the Obama’s share of the white working class vote is the highest, albeit below 50 percent. 

As I mentioned in a previous post, white working class votes are a huge bloc of voters–and they’re breaking for Republicans. To say that Obama had catastrophic results with whites in the South is true, but it extends beyond that region (via New Republic):

Many Democrats would prefer not to have to face this monumental organization challenge, hoping instead that the existing Obama coalition and demographic changes in America will prove sufficient to elect a president in 2016, hold the Senate, and weaken GOP control over the House of Representatives. But the harsh reality for Democrats is that they cannot achieve all three of these objectives without increasing their support among white working class Americans—and if Democrats keep telling themselves that "the problem is just the South," that support may decrease instead.

So, it seems that while Republicans really might not need as much Hispanic support (GOP should go after this shiftable voting bloc), Democrats definitely need to find ways to bring more working class white voters back into the fold, which is quite the homework assignment.

That being said, anything can happen. We have some time before 2016.

*New Hampshire also voted for Bush 43 in 2000, but reverted back to its Democratic ways since 2004

100 Days Out: 'Road to CPAC' Sets the Stage for February Event

While conservative hopes may have been renewed in the aftermath of the 2014 midterm elections, the stakes have never been higher for the issues the American people continue to face.

On Tuesday, the American Conservative Union launched an educational program called the “Road to CPAC,” which will highlight topics of importance and debate among those on the Right. Each day, the site will release a new post on policy information, conservative opinion, or issue updates.

“'The Road to CPAC' will provide the tools and resources conservative activists need as they prepare to come together in February,” said ACU Chairman Matt Schlapp. “We must respond to Americans’ call for real change by expanding CPAC from a four-day event to a 365-day, year-round experience.”

Townhall.com has partnered with ACU in this effort, along with other conservative organizations and think tanks, by producing a series of short videos on policy issues that are poignant to the priorities driving the conservative narrative. New segments of the series will be released in the weeks leading up to the Conservative Political Action Conference; and the kick-off video, a montage of memorable moments from previous CPAC events, can be viewed below.

The ACU is the oldest grassroots conservative organization in the country, and publishes congressional and state ratings, organizes CPAC, and works to achieve conservative policy and political victories. To check out the resources included in the “Road to CPAC,” visit http://www.cpac.org/road-to-cpac.

Be sure to check back regularly for more information from Townhall.com.

Darrell Issa Calls on Jonathan Gruber to Testify About Obamacare

Over the past two weeks Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber has been seen on video repeatedly insulting the intelligence of the American voter and admitting the healthcare overhaul was written to deceive the public about costs, taxes and a redistribution of wealth of healthy to sick. 

Today, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa officially invited Gruber to testify on Capitol Hill. 

"The Committee on Oversight and Government reform requests your testimony at a hearing on Tuesday, December 9, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. in room 2154 Rayburn House Office Building in Washington D.C.,"  Issa wrote in a letter to Gruber Friday, adding that he should be prepared to make a five minute opening statement before answering questions. 

Gruber received nearly $6 million in taxpayer money at local and federal governments for work as a contractor on the healthcare law. 

"From the outset, the health law has been the poster child for this Administration’s broken transparency promises,” Issa said in a statement. “Americans were told if they liked their plans and doctors, they could keep them. They were told the individual mandate wasn’t a tax. None of these were true. Jonathan Gruber, one of ObamaCare’s chief architects, publicly lauded the ‘lack of transparency’ that was necessary to pass the law and credited ‘the stupidity of the American voter’ that allowed the Administration to mislead the public. CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner testified before our Committee that the Administration met its goals by enrolling 7.3 million individuals, however we now know that wasn’t the case. The numbers provided by CMS were deceptive and obscured the number of Americans running from exchange plans. The American people deserve honesty, transparency and respect from those who forced the federal government into their healthcare. I expect Mr. Gruber and Administrator Tavenner to testify publicly next month about the arrogance and deceptions surrounding the passage and implementation of ObamaCare.”

CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner has also been called to testify about the 2013 Obamacare rollout.

Sorry, Democrats: The GOP's Landslide Victory Wasn't Due to Low Voter Turnout

Many on the Left have sought to diminish the midterm election results, citing low voter turnout to throw cold water on the notion that Republicans won a mandate in their Election Night romp. President Obama himself attempted to address the electoral results through this prism, going out of his way to note that 'two-thirds' of voters failed to cast ballots in his first post-election press conference:

Liberals' preferred story instantaneously shifted from "there will be #NoWave," to "that wave doesn't really count because no one voted." Obama's message implied that a small minority of Americans threw his party out of office, while many people stayed home out of disillusionment with politics in general. Three pieces of empirical data debunk this narrative. Item one:

In other words, turnout was substantially in contested, 'battleground' races -- which Republicans practically swept.  Especially at the statewide level.  The GOP won nine out of the top ten contested Senate races, and even made Virginia extremely close.  The party performed extremely well in gubernatorial contests, too, netting three.  Heated races produced higher turnout…and Republicans carried the day.  Item two:

The American people don’t want President Barack Obama to take the lead on enacting policy, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll out Wednesday…By a clear 56% to 33% margin, those surveyed don’t want Mr. Obama to take the lead role in setting policy, preferring that Congress take the lead role…The 56% who now want Congress to take the lead role in policy making is a high water mark in the poll’s history. The WSJ/NBC poll found Americans are pleased that the Republican victories in this month’s midterm elections were broadly viewed as a rebuke to the president – 53% said they feel positive about the idea that “fewer people were elected who support President Obama’s legislative agenda.” Only 41% said they feel badly about candidates who back Mr. Obama’s agenda losing.

Let me underscore a key fact: This NBC/WSJ poll was among all adults, not 2014 voters.  The fanciful notion that some silent majority of non-voters prefer Democrats, or quasi-endorsed Obama's agenda via their non-participation, is verifiably false.  Which brings us to item three, and another national post-election poll of US adults:

Following the midterm election that some have termed a Republican wave, the majority of Americans want the Republicans in Congress -- rather than President Barack Obama -- to have more influence over the direction the country takes in the coming year. This is a switch from early 2012 when a slim plurality, 46%, wanted Obama to prevail in steering the nation...Republicans' 17-percentage-point edge over Obama on this measure exceeds what they earned after the 2010 midterm, when Americans favored Republicans by an eight-point margin (49% to 41%). It also eclipses the nine-point advantage Republicans had over Bill Clinton following the 1994 midterm in which Republicans captured the majority of both houses.


The American people have spoken. Clearly. Yet this is how the president has chosen to respond.

Boehner: Obama is 'Damaging the Presidency'

Friday morning, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) convened a press conference to react and respond to the president’s historic speech last night.

“The action by the president will only encourage more people to come here illegally,” he said flatly.

He reminded reporters about the unprecedented humanitarian crisis on the U.S. southern border last summer. The president’s announcement, he argued, will only prolong and exacerbate the situation. He also noted that the president’s executive amnesty was unfair.

“This action also punishes those who have obeyed the law and waited their turn,” he said. “With this [amnesty], the president has chosen to deliberately sabotage any bipartisan reforms he claims to seek.”

“And [as] I said yesterday,” he added, “he is damaging the presidency.”

He then opened up the floor to questions. Responding to one reporter, he said that the president’s actions and pronouncements essentially made bipartisanship “impossible.”

“The president made 38 unilateral changes to the Affordable Care Act…the president suggested repeatedly he would change immigration law,” he intoned. “[So] trying to find a way to work together was virtually impossible.”

“We have a broken immigration system and the American people expect us to fix it,” he continued. “And we ought to do it through the democratic process.

Issa on Obama's Unilateral Immigration Action: "We Cannot Let This Stand"

Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Cali.) has been chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee since January 2011, and has been aggressive towards holding officials accountable for the several scandals plaguing the Obama Administration including Fast and Furious, the IRS targeting conservatives, and Benghazi.

Issa's strong belief in democracy and a transparent government shown through his work on the Oversight Committee has him up-in-arms over President Obama's announcement to unilaterally act on immigration. 

He said this in a statement:

“The President’s unilateral actions on immigration are a violation of his responsibilities and the trust the American people have placed in him. President Obama is playing a dangerous political game with lives and deepening the mistrust that the American people and Congress have in his ability to faithfully execute the law. The President is not respecting our system of checks and balances–we cannot let this stand.” 

As the 113th Congress comes to an end, Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has been elected Chairman of the House Oversight Committee for the next Congress. He has also been very outspoken towards government corruption as a member of the committee and has promised to carry out what Rep. Issa has started. 

"I have great respect for Chairman Darrell Issa and can’t thank him enough for his many years of dedicated service leading the Oversight Committee...I look forward to working with new and current Members of the Committee, Ranking Member Cummings, and other leaders in the House as we continue to ensure that taxpayers’ investment in government is spent effectively, efficiently, and transparently,” said Chaffetz in a press release.

Among the many scandals Chaffetz and the Oversight Committee will have to work through, Fox News show host, Greta Van Susteren, said in a Tweet regarding Chaffetz's passionate belief of corruption inside the IRS: 

Who could forget his fiery words at an IRS hearing in 2013:

Document Dump Shows DOJ Worked With White House To Target 'Out of Control' Sharyl Attkisson For Fast and Furious Coverage

A Department of Justice document dump to government watchdog Judicial Watch, made public yesterday, shows former DOJ Spokeswoman and Holder Flack Tracy Schmaler talking to the White House about "out of control" investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson. Attkisson was covering Operation Fast and Furious for CBS News at the time. 

An email was sent by Schmaler to White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz on October 4, 2011 and shows she planned to call Attkisson's editor and longtime CBS anchor Bob Scheiffer to get a handle on her reporting. 

Emails also show Schultz responding to Schmaler with, "Good. Her [Attkisson] piece was really bad for the AG.”

The specific story by Attkisson that Schmaler and Schultz are referring to was about memos showing Holder was briefed about Operation Fast and Furious nearly one year before he claimed he'd heard about the program under oath in front of Congress in May 2011.

Keep in mind that in 2011, when this email exchange occurred, the White House had denied any discussion about Operation Fast and Furious with the Department of Justice. This email not only proves they were jointly targeting Attkisson, but working together to mitigate the scandal. At one point during her pursuit of Fast and Furious Attkisson was screamed at by Schultz, who used profanity, over the phone.

It seems top brass over at CBS gave into DOJ pressure. Attkisson left CBS News last year after 20 years of working at the outlet, citing difficulty in getting stories critical of the Obama administration on the air.

In addition to going directly to the bosses of reporters for intimidation purposes, during her tenure Schmaler regularly worked with far left smear machines like Media Matters to attack other reporters and DOJ whistleblowers.

Internal Department of Justice emails obtained by The Daily Caller show Attorney General Eric Holder’s communications staff has collaborated with the left-wing advocacy group Media Matters for America in an attempt to quell news stories about scandals plaguing Holder and America’s top law enforcement agency.

Emails sent in September and November 2010 show Schmaler working with Media Matters staffer Jeremy Holden on attacking news coverage of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation scandal.

Holden attacked former DOJ Civil Rights Division attorneys J. Christian Adams and Hans von Spakovsky on Sept. 20, 2010 for what he called an attempt “to reignite the phony New Black Panther Party scandal.”

Throughout the email exchanges TheDC obtained through the FOIA request are numerous examples of Gertz and other Media Matters staff sending the full text of Media Matters blog entries attacking the DOJ’s political opponents in the media.

Among others, Gertz sent Schmaler attack pieces he wrote about Townhall Magazine’s Katie Pavlich, who also authored a book on Operation Fast and Furious; Breitbart.com writers Joel Pollak and Ken Klukowski; Fox News Channel’s William LaJeunesse, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Megyn Kelly, Martha MacCallum, Bill Hemmer, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity; Sipsey Street Irregulars blogger Mike Vanderboegh; DirectorBlue blogger Doug Ross; National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy; and this reporter.
Schmaler left DOJ in February 2013.

Under a court order, DOJ turned over 42,000 pages of Fast and Furious documentation to Judicial Watch last week. The documentation was held for years under President Obama's claim of executive privilege. Because of the vast amount of information, Judicial Watch is asking the public for help reviewing them and with looking for evidence of wrongdoing and corruption

Attkisson recently published a book, Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington, about her experiences.

Surprise: Pelosi Most Unpopular Member of Congress

Just when you thought no one could possibly be worse than Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), you remember there is always Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Fifty-eight percent of likely U.S. voters have an unfavorable opinion of Pelosi, according to a recent Rasmussen Reports poll. What’s more, a whopping 41 percent have a “very unfavorable” view of the Maryland native.

What is there not to like about Pelosi? After all, Planned Parenthood awarded her with its “highest recognition of leadership, excellence, and outstanding contributions” for her work in support of abortion. Of course, being a “Catholic” the Catholic Church ruled that she may not take Communion due to her unorthodox stance.

There was also that time that Pelosi asserted that America’s Founding Fathers would have supported Obamacare:

"To go to back to our founders once again, they sacrificed it all for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This law, the affordable care act, is about a healthier life, the liberty to pursue your happiness."

It seems that even after passing the bill, Pelosi never did quite “find out what’s in it.”

On the whole things have gotten so bad even Democrats are starting to turn from their newly-elected House Minority Leader.

If you still have doubts about the people’s choice award, just watch:

Boehner: Obama Has Cemented His Legacy of Lawlessness

House Speaker John Boehner, who warned after the recent midterm elections that executive action on immigration reform would "poison the well," has issued a statement in response to President Obama's announcement and decision to move forward with changes in immigration law without Congress, saying Obama has "cemented his legacy of lawlessness." 

“The American people want both parties to focus on solving problems together; they don’t support unilateral action from a president who is more interested in partisan politics than working with the people’s elected representatives. That is not how American democracy works. Not long ago, President Obama said the unilateral action he just announced was ‘not an option’ and claimed he’d already ‘done everything that I can on my own.’ He said it would lead to a ‘surge in more illegal immigration.’ He said he was ‘not a king’ and ‘not the emperor’ and that he was ‘bound by the Constitution.’ He said an action like this would exceed his authority and be ‘difficult to justify legally.’ He may have changed his position, but that doesn’t change the Constitution," Boehner said. “By ignoring the will of the American people, President Obama has cemented his legacy of lawlessness and squandered what little credibility he had left. His ‘my way or the highway’ approach makes it harder to build the trust with the American people that is necessary to get things done on behalf of the country. Republicans are left with the serious responsibility of upholding our oath of office. We will not shrink from this duty, because our allegiance lies with the American people. We will listen to them, work with our members, and protect the Constitution."

Obama: My Executive Action Isn't Amnesty and It's Lawful

After six years of claiming he didn't have the authority to unilaterally change the nation's immigration laws without Congress, President Obama laid out a plan Thursday night doing exactly that through executive action. 

"There are actions I have the legal authority to take as President...that will help make our immigration system more fair and just," Obama said. "Today, our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it."

"Some people call this amnesty, it's not," he said.

Here is a fact sheet released by the White House earlier this evening detailing Obama's executive action. It includes fast tracking Green Cards, which make individuals eligible for a slew of government welfare programs, and issues five million work permits to illegal immigrants living inside the United States.

White House Details on Anticipated Administrative Relief

President Obama repeatedly berated Republicans for a lack of progress on immigration reform in the House over the past two years while ignoring the previous four when Democrats had total control over the Senate.

"For a year and a half now, Republican leaders in the House have refused to allow that simple vote," Obama said, urging the GOP to bring up legislation in the new Congress.

Republicans have been pushing back against Obama's planned action all week and have already issued responses to the President's announcement tonight. 

“President Obama’s executive amnesty violates the laws Congress has passed in order to create and implement laws Congress has refused to pass. The President is providing an estimated 5 million illegal immigrants with social security numbers, photo IDs and work permits—allowing them to now take jobs directly from struggling Americans during a time of record immigration, low wages, and high joblessness. This amnesty plan was rejected by the American people’s Congress. By refusing to carry out the laws of the United States in order to make his own, the President is endangering our entire Constitutional order," Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions said in a statement. "The President’s plan will apparently also allow many illegal immigrants to receive green cards and become legal permanent residents—meaning they can access almost all U.S. welfare programs, have lifetime work authorization, obtain citizenship, and sponsor foreign relatives to join them in the U.S. Law enforcement has warned this unprecedented amnesty will unleash a ‘tidal wave’ of new illegal immigration flooding into American neighborhoods at taxpayers’ expense"

Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who will lead the Judiciary Committee in the new Congress, says Obama's plan is an affront to the constitution and outside of the law. 

“The President’s executive actions on immigration are the wrong way forward and disrespectful of the law. Such broad, massive legalization is an affront to the Constitution. The President himself has said that he doesn’t have authority, or that he doesn’t prefer this course of action, but yet continues to take this route," Grassley said. “The President is missing a big opportunity to enact real reform, and instead he’s poisoning the well for future action. Nobody thinks the status quo is okay. But, the President’s actions are only a Band-aid for a real problem; in fact, he’s making it worse. How does Congress move forward when the President has made it clear with tonight’s announcement that he doesn’t want to work with the elected officials in the legislative branch where reform has to happen? Unfortunately, if the American people have learned anything about this President, it’s that he has never worked well with Congress-even those in his own party. His disdain for a co-equal branch of government is very evident. It shows in executive actions like this, in regulations that the American people are solidly against, and in his and his Cabinet’s responses to Congress’ constitutional responsibility of oversight."

Moving forward, Republicans have vowed to fight Obama's executive action through defunding and the withholding of presidential nominations.

Republican Texas Congressman Michael McCaul, who will serve as the new chairman for the House Homeland Security, warns Obama's action is a threat to American democracy and vows to use his new position to stop the "unconstitutional action." 

“The president’s decision to bypass Congress and grant amnesty to millions of unlawful immigrants is unconstitutional and a threat to our democracy. There is no doubt our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed, but this does not mean the president has the authority to act without Congress," McCaul released in  statement. “History has proven that unilateral action on immigration simply perpetuates a cycle of illegal entry into this country. This was true under the 1986 amnesty and it has been true under DACA, which enticed 60,000 unaccompanied children to make the perilous journey across our border this summer. We will see a wave of illegal immigration because of the president’s actions, and in no way is the Department of Homeland Security prepared to handle such a surge. Furthermore, the president knows any immigration reforms will be ineffective as long as our border remains insecure. As chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I will use every tool at my disposal to stop the president’s unconstitutional actions from being implemented.”

WATCH LIVE: Obama Announces Executive Amnesty

At 8 pm eastern time President Obama will detail his plan for executive action on illegal immigration from the White House. Watch live below. 

Lights Out: NSA Director Says China Could Shut Down Electric Grid in Parts of US

When we think about security threats facing the nation, the vulnerability of our nation’s power grids doesn’t exactly keep most Americans up at night. But should it? According to the head of the NSA, China and “one or two” other countries could essentially shut parts of the country down.

Via Fox News:

The grim forecast came from Admiral Michael Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of the U.S .Cyber Command.

Rogers said he believed China along with “one or two” other countries had the capability to successfully launch a cyber-attack that could shut down the electric grid in parts of the United States.

Rogers reiterated that if the U.S. remains on the defensive, it would be a “losing strategy.”

Speaking to the House Intelligence Committee, the NSA director said the cyber threat was “so real,” and that agreeing to an international code, a sort of “laws of law” in the cyber realm is urgent.

The possibility of such cyberattacks by U.S. adversaries has been widely known, but never confirmed publicly by the nation's top cyber official.

At a House hearing, Rogers says U.S. adversaries are performing electronic "reconnaissance," on a regular basis so that they can be in a position to attack the industrial control systems that run everything from chemical facilities to water treatment plants.

Outside experts say the U.S. Cyber Command also has that capability, which in theory should amount to mutual deterrence.

“Despite their great size and internal complexity [high voltage] transformers can be readily disabled or destroyed,” the Congressional Research Service said in a June report that quoted one manufacturer as saying such a task would be “surprisingly simple.”

Official DNC Graphic: Republicans Believe Executive Amnesty Will Lead to Ethnic Cleansing

Ahead of President Obama's announcement on executive action, he Democrat National Committee is arguing that Republicans believe President Obama's executive action on illegal immigration will lead to ethnic cleansing. The following is from the official DNC twitter account. 

Obama to Argue Executive Amnesty Holds Illegal Immigrants "Accountable"

Just two hours ahead of President Obama's address to the nation, details about his executive action and plans to rewrite immigration law have been released by the White House to the National Immigration Youth Alliance, which has posted a document with specifics. Bolding is mine. 

Here are the 5 things that you should know about the President’s initiatives impacting
undocumented immigrants in the US:

1. You must meet strict requirements to qualify for relief from deportation

Eligible immigrants will have the opportunity to request temporary relief from deportation and work authorization if they come forward and pass criminal and national security background checks, pay their taxes, pay a fee, and show that they are:

A parent of US citizens or lawful permanent residents on the date of the announcement, are not enforcement priorities and have been in the US since January 1, 2010, or

An individual who arrived in the US before turning 16 years old and before January 1, 2010, regardless of how old they are today

Additionally, we are reducing the time that families are separated while obtaining their green cards.

Undocumented immigrants who are immediate relatives of lawful permanent residents or sons or daughters of US citizens can apply to get a waiver if a visa is available.

2. You Cannot Apply for Several Months

The U.S. government– and specifically USCIS - will not begin accepting applications until early 2015. While the government is not accepting applications now, if you believe you are eligible for one or more of the initiatives, you can prepare by gathering documents that establish your identity, relationship to a US citizen or lawful permanent resident and show that you have continuously lived in the US for 5 years or more.

3. Recent Border Crossers will be a Priority for Deportation

You must have been in the US for at least 5 years to qualify for these programs. These executive actions will not benefit immigrants who recently crossed the border (defined as those who entered the country after January 1, 2014), who may cross the border in the future, or who help those who cross in the future, but rather immigrants who have been living in the United States for years. The President’s actions increase the chances that anyone attempting to cross the border illegally today will be caught and then sent back

4. If you commit fraud you will not qualify

USCIS will review each case very carefully. As with other immigration requests, knowingly misrepresenting or failing to disclose facts will subject applicants to criminal prosecution and possible removal from the United States.

5. Beware of Immigration Scams

Many people offer help with immigration services. Unfortunately, not all are authorized to do so. While many of these unauthorized practitioners mean well, all too many of them are out to rip you off.

It should be noted that Green Cards allow individuals to pursue citizenship and voting rights. A Green Card also makes them eligible for a number of government welfare programs. Under this action work permits will be issued to five million people living in the U.S. illegally. Section number three is promising, so long as the federal government allows ICE agents to do their jobs, however, there is no way to prove who has "recently" crossed the border. 

In an excerpt released of Obama's speech, it is clear the President will repeatedly stress his action is "lawful" and justified through the actions of previous presidents. He will also argue his executive action holds illegal immigrants "accountable."

This post has been updated.

Poll: More Than Half of Americans Say Healthcare Coverage is 'Not a Government Responsibility'

One endless point of contention between progressives and conservatives is over the proper role of government.

Conservatives, for their part, have always believed that a smaller, less centralized, less intrusive government works best and most efficiently. And this, of course, applies to the issue of healthcare.

And yet this hands-off, non-government approach to ensuring coverage is a position more Americans have come to embrace over the past decade. Just look at how much public opinion has shifted on the following question since 2006:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

In other words:

Prior to the feverish days of ‘Hope and Change,’ respondents were very open to the idea of the federal government taking the lead on healthcare and thus supplying coverage to every American. It seems that the public’s experience with Obamacare, however, has utterly changed their minds.

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer once observed that as a direct result of the Obama presidency, and his transformative experiment in health care reform, the case for liberalism “will be set back a full generation.”

If this poll is any indication, it seems he was correct.

More Than 100 Pastors Sign "Marriage Pledge" to Preserve Traditional Marriage

The Reverends Ephraim Radner and Christopher Seitz have published in First Things what they've dubbed the "Marriage Pledge." The pledge would effectively separate civil marriage from the religious ceremony—signers of the pledge would refuse to sign marriage certificates, for instance. The pledge has been signed by more than 100 members of the clergy, as well as laypersons in support of the pledge and came about due to fears of pastors being forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.

As Christian ministers we must bear clear witness. This is a perilous time. Divorce and co-­habitation have weakened marriage. We have been too complacent in our responses to these trends. Now marriage is being fundamentally redefined, and we are ­being tested yet again. If we fail to take clear action, we risk falsifying God’s Word.

The new definition of marriage no longer coincides with the Christian understanding of marriage between a man and woman. Our biblical faith is committed to upholding, celebrating, and furthering this understanding, which is stated many times within the Scriptures and has been repeatedly restated in our wedding ceremonies, church laws, and doctrinal standards for centuries. To continue with church practices that intertwine government marriage with Christian marriage will implicate the Church in a false definition of marriage.

Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates. We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings. We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles ­articulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life.

This seems like a good happy medium in the debate over religious freedom, and the folks at Reason agree, arguing that libertarians should embrace the "marriage pledge" idea as it removes government from something that should be a private matter.

Some may view this as a last ditch attempt to oppose the tide of history, but libertarians ought to welcome it as a step toward the removal of government from private relationships.

Marriage, after all, is in essence a private contract between two individuals, and there is no reason why the government ought to be able to determine who is eligible to enter into that contract and who is not. Government involvement in marriage is a relatively recent phenomenon.

I agree with this logic, and I support the reasoning behind the marriage pledge idea. Religious figures should not be forced by government to perform things they disagree with or find to be sacrilegious. If a pastor removes himself from every civil aspect of all marriages, he cannot be forced to officiate a same-sex marriage he finds to be sacrilegious. This seems like an easy solution.

As Obama Prepares Amnesty, Feds Leave Border Patrol Agents Without Enough Rifles

As President Obama prepares to announce his plans to essentially legalize five million illegal immigrants from the White House Thursday night, Border Patrol agents working against dangerous criminal aliens are being stripped of their weapons and forced to share rifles, leaving them unarmed and vulnerable. 

KVOA News 4 in Tucson recently finished an investigation into the situation and the findings are alarming.

We learned that U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Offices of Border Patrol and Training and Development are inspecting the quality of agents' M4 carbines throughout Border Patrol sectors nationwide. But agents tell us, some of those M4s have not been replaced. And, we've learned, agents are required to share rifles amongst each other.

"There's a lot of agents that are pretty upset over it," said Art del Cueto, president of the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector union. "We know it's a dangerous job. We know what we signed on for but we want to have as much of the equipment as we need to perform the job."

The M4 carbine is used by the U.S. military and by Border Patrol agents. It's even used by the Border Patrol's tactical unit, BORTAC. Agent Brian Terry was carrying the M4 when he was shot and killed in December 2010.

Customs and Border Protection officials in Washington D.C. claim the rifles are being taken out of commission due to safety concerns while ironically leaving agents in an unsafe, unarmed and dangerous situation. A Border Patrol source tells me that many of the rifles being "deadlined" are rifles that have been functioning properly, not rifles that were malfunctioning or damaged. The source also said many "damaged" rifles being taken out of commission can be easily repaired on scene with readily available parts. Further, "sharing" rifles is unacceptable. Mexican cartels aren't taking a day off and certainly carry weapons of their own every day. More from News 4:

Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada grew worried when told of the delay in redistributing rifles to agents.

"This is a concern for the officers and for the community as well," he said. "We want to make sure that they have all the equipment that they need to be able to provide the safest environment we possibly can."

Jeff Prather is a former drug enforcement agent who now runs the Warrior School in Tucson. He says agents have reached out to him about the rifle shortage.

He said agents stand the risk of being over-powered on the border.

"Cartels have always been better equipped, the paramilitary forces, the corrupt Mexican soldiers and federales at times," Prather said.

He says agents have contacted him and told him about their concerns about sharing the weapons.

"And now they're seriously concerned. Because if they're concerned enough to reach out and contact me and reach out so we get this message out, they are not only frustrated but they are in fear for their lives."

While the administration prepares to allocate funding to five million people living in the United States illegally, Border Patrol agents are being left defenseless. The federal government has an obligation to immediately replace rifles taken out of service, yet is failing to do so and agents are at greater risk as a result.

WH: C'mon, Obama Isn't 'Tearing Up the Constitution' on Executive Amnesty

The Washington Post's editorial board, not known for its staunch conservatism, has been warning the White House for months against implementing the executive amnesty President Obama is expected to announce tonight.  In August, the Post published a stern house editorial that laid out the stakes and Constitutional context of the administration's then-rumored action:

Congress is a mess. But that doesn’t grant the president license to tear up the Constitution. As Mr. Obama himself said last fall: “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws.” To act on his own, the president said, would violate those laws. Mr. Obama now seems to be jettisoning that stance in the name of rallying his political base. He is considering extending temporary protection from deportation to millions of illegal immigrants, including the parents of U.S.-born children and others who have lived in the United States for years. Conceivably, this would give Democrats a political boost in 2016. Just as conceivably, it would trigger a constitutional showdown with congressional Republicans, who could make a cogent argument that Mr. Obama had overstepped his authority.

Confronted with this stark assessment on MSNBC's Morning Joe, White House adviser Jennifer Palmieri laughed off the criticism (presidential spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters yesterday that Obama sees "emperor" criticisms as a "badge of honor").  We're not tearing up the Constitution, she said with a grin -- adding that the administration's stab at a legal justification for this action will be revealed after the policy has been announced:

During a follow-up question from Scarborough, co-host Mika Brzezinski interjects a comment about the president's own assessments on the legality of this move.  She's referring to the many, many times Obama has explained that he lacks the authority to do the very thing he's going to do in a few hours. You'll be seeing this WFB video a lot around here as the executive power grab debate unfolds:

Palmieri, by the way, deflected the question and retrained her focus on helping illegal immigrants, saying, "after two years, there's just no credible reason to continue to ask these people to wait." The 'these people' in that sentence refers, if I'm not mistaken, to immigrants who came to the US illegally as adults. I'm not sure how many Americans will be swayed by the argument that the United States owes millions of illegal immigrants closure as soon as possible, and that it's immoral for them to "wait" until, say, Congress passes a law -- which is how our system works.  (See Obama, above).  Earlier we asked how the GOP might respond to Obama's decree (and here's an example of how they shouldn't).  Sen. Mitch McConnell delivered a sober floor speech this morning, attacking the White House's policy, warning about the larger separation of powers issue at play, and issuing a nonspecific warning that Congress will retaliate in some fashion:

“If the President truly follows through on this attempt to impose his will unilaterally, he will have issued a rebuke to his own stated view of democracy...the action the President is proposing isn’t about solutions. It isn’t about compassion. It seems to be about what a political party thinks would make for good politics. It seems to be about what a President thinks would be good for his legacy. Those are not the motivations that should be driving such sweeping action. And I think the President will come to regret the chapter history writes if he does move forward. Because the plan he’s presenting is more than just, as the President himself has acknowledged, an overreach — it’s also unfair. What does the President have to say to the countless aspiring immigrants who’ve spent years waiting patiently in line? To the people who’ve played by all the rules? Where is his compassion for them?...If President Obama acts in defiance of the people and imposes his will on the country, Congress will act. We’re considering a variety of options. But make no mistake. When the newly elected representatives of the people take their seats, they will act.

This is a very serious issue, and it requires a serious, level-headed response. Among the challenges facing Republicans in reacting appropriately is the fawning news coverage this action will receive in many quarters, especially in the Spanish-language media: "A triumph."

Jay Leno Spokesman Falsely Claims NSSF Didn't Pay Comedian Before Cancelled SHOT Show Appearance

Last night comedian Jay Leno announced he was pulling out of a scheduled performance at the 2015 National Shooting Sports Foundation State of the Industry dinner on January 20 in Las Vegas. The decision was made after heavy public pressure from liberal media outlets and anti-gun groups funded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. 

In justifying the cancellation, Leno's team claimed in the New York Daily News they never received any funds for the upcoming appearance. 

“Jay was asked to do what was positioned as a sportsman show, and when he found out it was a pro gun lobby show, he cancelled,” Leno’s spokesman Bruce Bobbins said in an interview with the Daily News Wednesday night. “There was no money involved at this point, and if there was any, he would return it." 

Bobbins' claim that there was "no money was involved at this point" is untrue. According to documentation, a 50 percent deposit in the amount of $82,500 was wired to Leno on August 5, 2014. 

Further according to NSSF, every press release, blog, ad, email blast and website material that mentioned Leno or had Leno's likeness on it was approved by his team before publishing or advertisement. 

Counter to Bobbins' claim, there was a lot of money involved and therefore, according to his own statement, should be returned.