Obama Seriously Does not know why Americans didn't vote in 2014- Independent Voter Network

Kudos to Shawn Griffiths at the Independent Voter Network for this no-nonsense piece on low-voter turnout in America today...

Obama Seriously Does Not Know Why Americans Didn't Vote in 2014- IVN

Liberals vs Conservatives: Response to the State of the Union

In a change of pace, instead of me commenting on the President's State of the Union speech tonight, I instead want to give you folks an idea of how the two ends of the American political spectrum look at the same speech..(and then give my thoughts on the speech).

First, in the "liberal" corner, we have Ezra Klein of Vox.com:

The most important sentence in Obama's 2015 State of the Union- Vox

And in the "conservative" corner, we have Jay Cost of The Weekly Standard:

Obama's Defiant Speech- The Weekly Standard

Interestingly enough, both writers do seem to agree on one thing: The President's speech tonight was NOT one of concession or much compromise. The speech gave the impression of a President who is looking to advance a "new" agenda and be damned what happened last November...

For me, I do have to respect the President's defiance of last November's loss for his party and still propose a wide new agenda that he has to know will likely never be passed before he leaves office. He could talked more compromise given his party's weakened position, but not this President.

That being said, one does have to wonder why real purpose the President thinks this speech will serve, if any, in the long run.

A defiant speech in the face of recent political defeat is great for rallying the troops but could eventually end up wreak of pointless "political theater" to the average voter, who will then be wondering if you he/she will ever get those 90 minutes of their lives back...

On a final note, you may be surprised to hear that I don't really have much to say about my home state's new senator, Joni Ernst, having her shot at the GOP response to the SOTU. I generally don't have anything "nasty" to say about Senator Ernst, except maybe this: The fact she seems to rarely start a speech without mentioning that she is a "mother" and a "soldier" honestly bothers me. I can't really put my finger on it, but something about how she says it and the frequency in which she thinks we need to be reminded of it strikes me as run-of-the-mill campaign catch-phrase for selling political ads. I actually like her stories about growing up in rural Iowa (I can somewhat relate), but that other bit just doesn't come off as being as genuine...

Rant over, have a great week ya'll!

DISCLAIMER:

All comments and/or opinions expressed in the above work are purely those of the author unless otherwise noted and do not represent that opinions/positions of any political or non-political organization or the Department of the Defense. Any/all distribution of this work MUST contain this disclaimer. 

Pres. Obama in 2010: "I can't just make the laws up by myself."

To add to the confusion concerning President Obama's proposed/rumored executive order on "amnesty" for millions of illegal immigrants in the United States, it turns the President has not always been so enthusiastic about the idea of he taking such unilateral action on his own.

Back in 2010, President Obama participated in several interviews/speeches in which he discussed the topic of immigration reform in the United States. One interview in particular really stands out though for me in this conversation, here is a question and the President's response from a radio interview with Univision Radio Network:

SOTELO: Under your administration, Mr. President, almost half a million immigrants have been deported, more than any other president. I want to be clear that I'm talking about immigrant families that are hard working, are learning the English language and are helping our economy. What can your administration do to stop deportations now?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. What my administration has done is actually change our priorities because you mentioned that there are a lot of families out there, but the truth is, it's actually that the way we're now enforcing the law puts less emphasis on families, more emphasis on those with criminal records and so the big increase in deportations has actually to do with people with criminal records who've been engaging in illegal activity, not just because they don't have papers, but because they've been engaging in criminal activity. But the most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works -- again, I just wanna repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws. That requires Congress to cooperate. As I've said before, I've got the majority of Democrats who are ready to make those changes, but we are gonna need some help from the other side and that's where our focus has to be.

I made sure to include the entire question and answer portion to make sure we don't run into any "gotcha moment" issues.

I don't see much need to elaborate the importance of this quote from the President, as his own words on the subject of over-reaching executive authority speak for themselves...

DISCLAIMER:

All comments and/or opinions expressed in the above work are purely those of the author unless otherwise noted and do not represent that opinions/positions of any political or non-political organization or the Department of the Defense. Any/all distribution of this work MUST contain this disclaimer. 

Pres. Obama's Proposed Executive Order on Immigration: Truly "Unprecedented"?

Tonight's piece was inspired by several "spirited" Twitter conversations I have had over the last two days concerning President Obama's proposed/rumored executive order extending so-called "amnesty" to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Specifically, the conservation started when @Clydetheslyde posted an image comparing the GOP's reaction to this proposed/rumored executive order as President Reagan's sentiment towards what the GOP so lovingly calls "amnesty" today.

Now, I've actually never been a big fan of "gotcha" images like this (though I do admit they are quite effective in motivating me into a debate), and I posted in counter that Reagan's "amnesty" was first passed by Congress and then signed by him into law, not solely by 'executive fiat'.

This wandered initially into a comparison of Obama's proposed/rumored executive action and other famous EOs like Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (which I challenged on several vital points) and then to the topic of how constitutional ANY executive really is. As per the usual with debates I have with @Clydetheslyde, it was a little heated but ultimately a good and respectful debate.

To add further fuel to this fire today, @Mobygrapefan pointed out to me today that actually, there was more to Reagan's venture into "amnesty" than I was originally aware of (per the Huffington Post).

Immigration Reform: Next Major Political Battle?

I haven't posted anything lately concerning the debate over immigration reform in America and the much talked-about and denounced possibility that President Obama will announce a sweeping executive order that will provide "amnesty" to millions of illegal immigrants here in America...

I have "amnesty" in parenthesis because I despise how it is used by Conservative pathetic partisans as a code-word for internal stupidity. In other words, when any member of the GOP talks about some sort of immigration reform and this "reform" doesn't include forcibly arresting/removing the millions of illegal immigrants NOW, the pathetic partisans within the GOP immediately denouncement them for advocating "amnesty".

Regardless of the fact that for it to truly be "amnesty", the illegal immigrants would face NO repercussions of any kind for their behavior, something very folks on either side of the isle have actively proposed..

Entering into this fray, the fact that the Democratic party is not necessarily unified in support of a possible sweeping executive order from President Obama concerning immigration reform..including quite possibly the Vice President, Joe Biden.


Link below courtesy The Weekly Standard:

President, VP May Differ on Immigration Strategy: 'Obama Angrily Cut Biden Off' | The Weekly Standard

Let's Not Impeach Obama | RedState

Let's Not Impeach Obama | RedState

Without giving too much of this article's content away, I just want to say something for the record:

The author of this piece, who goes by the name of Repair_Man_Jack, is about as anti-Obama as it gets, even for the good folks at RedState (hey, at least they're honest about it!).

So for this author to not only denounce talk of impeachment of the President (going so far as to suggest Sarah Palin's public call for impeachment is a desperate attempt at getting attention), but also make some great points as to WHY the path of impeachment is illogical and ultimately not justified, is no small thing.

I think this quote from the piece best sums up this idea of impeaching the President:

"You, I and Governor Palin can all believe Barack Obama willfully subverted the accepted spirit of American Jurisprudence to our heart’s content. However, a system that allowed for faith-based prosecution would be no more just than what happened to Brandon Eich. The same code of laws that makes the process of impeachment available demands the presumption of innocence even as it serves as a fulcrum to persecute the most disingenuous people to be brought before the courts."

Kudos to the author for this short but well-put piece.

Supreme Court Strikes Down President Obama's NLRB "Recess Appointees" - Told Ya So!

Probably one of the most important political news stories of the week (though not was well reported in the MSM as I would have thought..big surprise there), was the U.S. Supreme Court striking down President Obama's act of appointing of members to the National Labor Relations Board during a Senate recess well over two years ago.

At the time and to this day, President Obama claimed that while the Senate was holding formal meetings every three days or so back in 2012, they were REALLY in recess and thus he could appoint three new members to the NLRB as recess appointments.

Many folks (especially Republicans) immediately pointed out the rather radical idea that President Obama was ultimately making: He knows when the Senate is recess or not, not the Senate.

Heck, it was obvious that even a small-time blogger like myself pointed it out and openly denounced what the President was doing was wrong and illegal.

It took over two years, but the U.S. Supreme Court finally heard and decided this issue early this week:

"The court ruled 9-0 that Obama’s appointments were unconstitutional because the Senate was not truly in recess when he made them during a three-day break in pro forma meetings of the legislative body."
- Josh Gerstein of POLITICO
Sadly though, while the President was effectively "slapped down" in terms of what he can and can't do with his Executive authority, there is a catch to this ruling (isn't there always?).

While all nine justices agreed what the President did was an unconstitutional breach of authority, five of the nine justices decided to add something a little extra: a 10-day rule.

The majority decision found that any "recess" less than 10 days long was "presumptively too short" to allow an official recess appointment by the President. However, as the mores conservative wing of the court pointed out (led by Justice Scalia), this mention of an actual number of days could still be used for possible future abuse of the recess appointment authority of the President (regardless of who holds that office), and thus this mention of "10 days" effectively limited Congress's constitutional authority.

Regardless of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court's reservations, the ruling is still a major blow to President Obama and it could very likely put over 400 rulings/decisions made by the NLRB since 2012 in question.

The President, whether intentionally or not, greatly overstepped his bounds of authority in his actions over two years ago and now the Supreme Court has effectively "laid down the law"..But we'll have to wait and see if Justice Scalia's reservations over the majority's ruling come true..

It's too bad nobody warned the President about this possibility years ago..Oh wait, we did.