Obama: I'll act on my own on immigration

President wants to place emphasis on deporting most recent border-crossers
Associated Press
Jun 30, 2014


In the face of an unyielding Congress, President Barack Obama said Monday he will no longer wait for Republicans to act on a sweeping immigration overhaul and will move on his own to make policy changes in what has been a top second-term priority of his presidency.

Obama's decision to take a targeted approach at the immigration system signals the end of a years-long quest for legislation that also proved elusive for President George W. Bush. It also illustrates the deep-rooted and complicated politics of immigration within the Republican Party.

Obama said he will refocus immigration enforcement onto a Mexican border that has seen a tide of children crossing illegally from Central America. That means putting resources into deporting people who are the most recent border-crossers or individuals who pose a threat to public safety and national security.

He also said he has instructed Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Attorney General Eric Holder to recommend ways to bypass Congress with executive actions that "fix as much of our immigration system as we can." He said he expects those recommendations before the end of the summer and said he would adopt them promptly.

"I take executive action only when we have a serious problem, a serious issue, and Congress chooses to do nothing," Obama said. "And in this situation, the failure of House Republicans to pass a darn bill is bad for our security, it's bad for our economy and it's bad for our future."

Obama said he decided to act on his own after House Speaker John Boehner informed him last week that the House would not vote on an immigration overhaul this year. A congressional leadership aide said Obama and Boehner spoke privately before an event last week at the White House honoring U.S. golfers who won last year's Presidents Cup.

Arguing there are enough Republicans and Democrats in the House to pass an immigration bill today, Obama said he had chosen to wait for more than a year to give Boehner space to act.

Obama said the thousands of unaccompanied children showing up on the border underscore the need to drop the politics and act on immigration. On Monday, he sent a letter to Congress asking for more authority to deport new border crossers from Central America more efficiently and to penalize smugglers.

"As a first step, I'm directing the secretary of homeland security and the attorney general to move available and appropriate resources from our interior to the border," Obama said. "Protecting public safety and deporting dangerous criminals has been and will remain the top priority, but we are going to refocus our efforts where we can to make sure we do what it takes to keep our border secure."

Obama's decision effectively declares that a broad-based change in immigration policy is dead for the year, and perhaps for the remainder of his administration. Changing immigration laws and providing a path to citizenship for about 11 million immigrants in the country illegally has been one Obama's top priorities as he sought to conclude his presidency with major second-term victory.

His decision is likely to win few allies. Immigration advocates on Monday already were criticizing his stepped-up measures to deal with children on the border and Republicans were ready to pounce on his decision to take matters into his own hands.

"Speaker Boehner told the president exactly what he has been telling him: the American people and their elected officials don't trust him to enforce the law as written," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said. "Until that changes, it is going to be difficult to make progress on this issue."

Obama still expressed hope that Congress could act after the November elections or next year. But Republicans have argued that if Obama were to act on his own, that would further entrench his opponents.

"If House Republicans are really concerned about me taking too many executive actions, the best solution to that is passing bills," he said. "Pass a bill. Solve a problem. Don't just say 'no' on something that everybody agrees needs to be done."

Obama's actions also represent a delicate balancing act between responding to what the White House has called a "humanitarian crisis" over unaccompanied children and a demand from immigration activists to reduce the administration's record number of deportations.

Deportations have spiked under the Obama administration to a total of around 2 million so far — the same number removed during the full eight years of the Bush administration. At the same time, formal removals from the interior have decreased each year of the Obama administration, while the number of deportations from the border has increased.

The Obama administration also has taken steps already to focus deportations on people with more serious criminal records or those who pose a threat. But this so-called "prosecutorial discretion," while harshly criticized by Republicans, never succeeded in calming concerns in immigrant communities about how deportations are conducted.

Obama on Monday was dropping by a meeting at the White House among immigration overhaul advocates and Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. Many of those advocates reacted harshly to Obama's plan Monday to seek emergency money from Congress that would, among other things, help conduct "an aggressive deterrence strategy focused on the removal and repatriation of recent border crossers."

"President Obama is asking Congress to change the law to enable the government to inflict expedited removal on unaccompanied children. That is simply unconscionable," said Leslie A. Holman, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "No matter what you call it, rapid deportations without any meaningful hearing for children who are rightly afraid of the violence and turmoil from which they fled is wrong, and contradicts the fundamental values of this nation."



The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Why bother choosing a snippet to compare to other dictatorial comments from despots around the world? Just read the whole thing and the words are there.

fascism - (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

What else can be said? Is this what the modern Democratic Party is now (Republicans have their own problems)?

If I want to engage in intercourse with a woman, but grow tired of waiting for her to give me consent, is it not still some kind of rape, molestation, or sexual imposition on my part if I do what I want to her since she has decided to not consent to me?

If I were a Democrat I'd be extremely upset by these actions! Look what this man is doing to your party (if not the country at large since a majority are both citizens and non-Democrats)! Mien Gott im Himmel...

stooge's picture

Do you really think Republican Presidents have conducted themselves any differently during the past two or thee decades? I could accurately apply everything you stated above to George W Bush's illustrious terms, his fathers also but to a lesser degree. Why is it when people become entrenched in party that they also become unable to accept reasonable blame for said party's mistakes? One thing I will say for Obama, he is motivated to see his legislation pass, motivated in ways few presidents before him ever were. He is facing an inflexible congress yet he is finding ways to make the changes he believes in. That is admirable. And no I didn't vote for him last election. They scary Mormon didn't get my vote either.


It is not the number of Executive orders signed.It is the content and all his violate The Constitution because he is above the law in his mind. He and holder should be impeached and imprisoned !

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I hope you aren't implying I am a Republican. That said just because past Presidents did it does NOT make it ok for current ones to do so. If you are agreeing with Sam below then you will find us allies here.

I'd like you to take a moment and think of other past leaders who were motivated to do things. As well I will say that "his legislation" is the terminology of dictators. He doesn't even get to legislate as the head of the Executive Branch. Let alone enact "his" legislation.

stooge's picture

Equating Obama's strategy to rape is a strange kind of propaganda. Smh...


@ stooge

I agree with both posts.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Would you prefer auto theft? Is it acceptable to take your friend's car because you are tired of waiting for their consent? Maybe kidnapping is fine. Why wait to have your own child when you can just take one yourself because other people aren't giving you what you want.

There is no propaganda.


What a strange, strange post by Hero Zone. It's well documented that Obama has used Executive Order less than any president since the 1950's. The only surprising thing is that he hasn't used it MORE than he has, considering Republicans refuse to work with him on anything.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Pray tell, coaster, what is strange about my post? You also continue to bring up the fact that number of orders somehow overshadows what the orders do. This is something I have brought up many times before with you when you repeat this tactic for trying to excuse something that shouldn't be. Would you kindly, for once, address it?

Is it murder if I use three or less bullets? Or is it only murder if I kill with more? Is it acceptable that the gulags of Soviet Russia were made with only one order? After all, it was just one little ol' order. No harm in that, eh?

It must be fun playing "catch me if you can" with Congress and the Supreme Court as his dalliances with it are frequent. How many more times must the Presidency (no matter the butt in the chair) be slapped down with rulings for overextending its reach? There is no excuse for it.

This article does a good job pointing that out: http://www.politifact.com/truth-...


This article does a good job of pointing out the fact that Hero Zone and others rarely ( if ever) read the " proof " links they send.

The article DOES NOT say what you think or want it to say.

To sum it all up:

" We (Politico) rate Goodlatte's (and HZ's assumed proof) statement FALSE. "

(parentheses mine.)



Basic U.S. Civics and History:

Presidents typically attempt to expand their Executive powers.

It's the "people's house" i.e. Congress' job to help keep the President's political overreach in check.

The separation of powers is the basis of the U.S. governmental system of checks and balances.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

You think I posted proof the current President was denied all those times directly? When in fact I read the entire thing prior to posting it and linked it because it proved the point I was making about the Presidency doing this is unacceptable regardless of who was in it. I think my entirely read link did a fine job of doing exactly what it was supposed to do.


IF that was your motive , why didn't you plainly point that out instead of the run--around through an article ?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

"How many more times must the Presidency (no matter the butt in the chair) be slapped down with rulings for overextending its reach?"

Presidency is the station a President holds, no matter his name or political affiliation.

The parenthetical statement further defines the word and provides context for those who may not know it.

The link I provide illustrates both what happens when a politician makes a bombastic statement and further shows that what is happening is no good. On its own under this President, with the polices of the last he has continued, and from the prior President himself.

There are no ifs about my motive. I used vocabulary, context, and citation as intended. I grew into voterhood under our last President and as I was becoming an adult saw and got to think about all that happened. Now, in the second Presidency I had the ability to vote in, it's more of the same BS that just gets passed and excused "because the other guy did it".

Yet here amid bickerings and nya-nyas of party-first faithful, no actual solutions to fix the country and TRULY PROGRESS it are being discussed. It would seem they are content to just continue the abuses and bad habits of prior Presidencies.

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't." still keeps one in the company of devils I presume.

And what is the abuse and overreach for? The attention and conflagration to "fix" a system? How important is this issue that the President is willing to speak the words of a dictator and employ every (perhaps unconstitutional) method of getting HIS way?

16th. He is, pardon my French, pissing away his reputation and the honor of his station on an issue that is by and far one of the least concerns of the legal population of citizens to whom he must serve first and foremost.


It would then seem that upon a sinking ship, the captain eating dinner with his guests makes a fuss and sends back the red wine for the white he had wished to drink originally, than deal with the problem of the breached hull and the scrambling crew who could use his guidance.

I shall the effect of this good lesson keep,
As watchman to my heart. But, good my brother,
Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,
Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven;
Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads,
And recks not his own rede.

There now, jazz, I have used direct language, reputable citation, metaphor, and even Shakespeare to support my point. If clarity of my position is still needed, I'm not sure what else I can do to provide it. Oh, I know! A one-sentence summary!

If you want better for our country, tactfully demand better of its leaders - regardless of party - through thoughtful presentation.


??? Too much histrionics. I won't deal with it.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Yet you still have your proof, an answer, and putting off such things as histrionics does not fix what's broken.


What proof? This is 99% about you.
You are not writing your column.

"A truly wise person uses few words..." Proverbs 17:27


That explains why obamascare took 2700 pages.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

You call out my intentions in what I post. I provide you with all the proof of my intentions you could hope to have and in various formats since my original seemed to be lost. I was trying to appeal to any number of channels through which you could better see my point as you expressed an interest in doing.

Instead of trying to understand the response you solicited from me, you then ignore everything I took the time to provide to you, pretend like the original topic of Presidential (not just with our current one) overreach doesn't exist, and then make a claim to the desire you want me to reply to you with things like "Bush did it too", "obama/fail", and other brief non-solutions that do nothing to advance a conversation on how to fix what's wrong.

Is that what you want, jazz? Here:





There you go, jazz. Wise words indeed. Brevity in its purest form. Godly words that advance humanity. All our problems are solved. O happy day, yip-yip-kayay! I should have been conveying my thoughts like this this whole time, it seems.

Come on, jazz. Seriously.


Enough , take your medication.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Let's cut to the chase. Do you approve of what our President is doing and want all other Presidents to do the same?

Dr. Information

Obama is so pissed after his Obamacare took a huge shot today, that this is the response this gorilla gives us. Pounding his chest like a caveman saying, I will get my way.
If this was Bush doing this and bypassing Congress the left and it's media would be going bonkers. Obama does it and they parade around with him.

Regardless of the party I'd be pissed. But this comedy show know as Obama is nothing more than the incompetent left sticking their fingers in their ears with their tongues out saying nah nah boo boo we do what we want with our president. It's a game, a mockery, a we won and you didn't. Well guess what libs, this nation keeps losing.


If this were a Republican president, the Democrats would be marching on the White House. And the truth is, I'd probably join them because they'd be right! NO president, no matter his agenda or his party, should be sidestepping or usurping the powers held by Congress. Lots of presidents have faced hostile opposition, and you know what they did? They accepted defeat and moved on, or they kept fighting within the bounds of the Constitution. They most assuredly did NOT say, "Well, if y'all won't give me my way, I'll just do it anyway!" And if they had? Well, our country would have seen a couple of trials for treason by this point!

Barack Obama is out of control. He's not an out of control DEMOCRAT. He's not an out of control black man. He's not an out of control activist. He is what any other man engaging in identical behavior would be: An out of control, wanna-be dictator.

Where are all of you patriots on BOTH sides of the aisle who fought against the USA PATRIOT Act? Who protested MATRIX? Who were mad as hell that a legitimate foray into Afghanistan turned into a dubious extension into Iraq? When I stood by you then, I was a patriot, too. But now I'm a "tea bagger" or a "racist." Really? REALLY? If you cared about the country then -- and I believe at least some of you genuinely did -- can't you risk a little name-calling yourself and stand up again?

All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Sadly, some of you have become very, VERY good at the latter!

stooge's picture

You are right. When GW Bush overstepped his bounds there was a lot of talk about impeachment and today there are citizens and politicians calling for Obama's. It is refreshing to find someone who makes that connection. The difference between the two in my opinion is that Obama fooled a lot of people, he showed a good front in 2008, and the majority found him sincere. Bush on the other hand never fooled anyone but himself. A sad state of affairs for far to long.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

In gaming terms, Sam, our President is committing one of the most egregious offenses to a healthy player community: the Munchkin Fallacy*.

It basically states that "I can because the rules don't say I can't."

More accurately, one commits the Munchkin Fallacy when a rule is interpreted based on something that is not said. When gamers encounter Munchkins, often the Munchkin is excluded from the group for being a power-gaming and/or min-maxing "that guy"; or the group gives in like a bunch of passive-aggressive betas and grumbles but never does anything about it.

Unfortunately I see the latter being more representative of things as they are and not just within the Democratic Party.

*In political terms these are the "loopholes" that so many of them bemoan and seek to close out of "fairness" and "responsibility". Again, it's wonderfully selective to want to close those you don't like and use those you do. Just more evidence that Congress in the aggregate represents D.C. to us rather than us to D.C., sadly.


Good post.


Dems marching on the White House? Not likely. Everyone pretty much let Bush get away with murder/lies for 8 years, even AFTER it was obvious that George had literally no idea how to fix the mess he created.

If Obama is out of control, he is certainly out of control LESS than any President in our lifetime. He has used Executive Action less than his predecessors, and has used it far less during his 2nd term than his first. Betcha Fox News hasn't mentioned those little factual tidbits...

If you want a far better example of "out of control", rewind your tapes to America circa 2004, when Bush/Cheney lied about WMDs as an excuse to start a pre-emptive war, which (last time I checked) is totally against anything America had ever done previously. Need a more recent example? How about the reckless teaparty-led government shutdown?


Cfan says"Everyone pretty much let Bush get away with murder/lies for 8 years,"

I did say that every time cfan alludes to Bush lying about WMDs that I would also present the Democrats ideas on the same subject and as I had said previous that the Democrats talked about it first and if Bush kept up on the news maybe he thought about the WMDs because all the Democrats started talking about it first.

There are several quotes.
Most of them come during a time in the Clinton administration when decisions were being made about action against Saddam Hussein and amid concerns about weapons of mass destruction.

We'll take them one at a time.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman.
It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
In a speech to Georgetown University.

There you go again

I am embarrassed to have our President of the Unted States behave like a pompous jerk ( I wanted to type a more appropriate adjective but I was censored!). That speech was uncalled for, Mr. Obama, and you need to call your Congress together-not spew hatred to those elected officials. Act like a leader not some goriilla that you might find in downtown Sandusky.


Ah yes, a racist comment from a conservative. Anyone else surprised?


Don't forget Harry Reids and Joe Bidens Racist comments!! And they are what? Democrats!!

JMOP's picture

With the SCOTU, a congressional lawsuit coming, and all the scandals, obama is realizing the American people are finally seeing his true identity. He can't keep faking it, until he makes it, The truth always comes out eventually.

Darwin's choice

It's time for the obama's to be removed from the White House.


Great post Sam.....


Nope. He has done nothing that has risen anywhere close to the level of impeachment. If we didn't impeach Bush for far greater mistakes, we're not going to impeach Obama.

He is handling things as a Democrat would, and was twice voted into office because a majority of voters decided they didn't like the way Republicans handle things. His effectiveness/success is NOT determined by the opinions of the opposing party.


"He is handling things as a Democrat would"
That is over ride his authority and belittle the voice of the people (Congress) while claiming to be the sole power in the US. Yeah i could see where a liar and wanna be dictator comes from the Democrat party. The sad thing is people like Coaster and Dog do not care until it comes from the opposition and then they act all upset. That's hypocrisy.
Just think if Stalin had a "D" behind his name Coaster would cheer for him murdering millions. (Probably still cheers for the murdering SOB but not in public)

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone


If you wish to continue beating your wife and get away with it, become coasterfan's neighbor. He will seemingly not oppose you so long as you only beat her every so often and beat your wife less than his last neighbor did with his in total. He may even come up with excuses to defend you in case someone wants to report your heinous actions.

The wife's opinion does not determine the morality of the husband's actions because she is in the minority of household voters who wish to continue the practice of domestic violence. So if you want to keep feeling like a man and bloodying up your broad because "she gives you no choice", "you have to take actions when others won't", and "the time you gave her to change her mind is up", make sure you have an ally with someone who thinks like coasterfan does.

It's totally legit and completely moral and acceptable in opinions like this. Remember, just don't hit her any more than the last neighbor did, else THEN he'd think about calling you out or maybe questioning your actions.

EDIT: If it isn't apparent I was sarcastic above. I'm just so sick and tired of this thinking that something is ok this time because it was last time. It's frustrating, especially for someone who reached voterhood under the G.W. Bush Presidency and actually would LIKE SOMETHING BETTER than this show of people regurgitating in each other's mouths instead of consuming something new or actually letting some of that vomit flow out to be replaced. GRRRR.


This is where the checks and balances comes into play, Hopefully they check his a$$ out of office.

2cents's picture

Is it time to buy more 9, 223, 45, 50 yet?


I am so going to become a Latino. I renounce my race!

double HA!

Good luck with the whole immigration thing. Mark it down on your calendar that you heard it here first : The North American Union will occur by 2018, many advantages to that you know (resources and cheap labor will abound). Next President will be a Democrat and Congress will be nothing more than house sitters as it pertains to laws and writing them.

No HA! to see here, move along >>>>>>


Waa Waa Waa. What a cry baby! It's my ball and if we don't play my way, I'll take my ball and go home. If only he would!


Sam: Apparently, you're quoting a transcript of Ted Cruz' final planning session, before the teabaggers shut down the government?

Personally, we Dems find it amusing when the ultrarightwingnuts start frothing at the mouth.


Democrats are also amused by shiny lights and promises from inexperienced street corner activist. So it doesn't take much to entertain them.

Darwin's choice

6 post's here propping up the failure! Who's foaming at the mouth? More like wetting your pants, you can't defend the stupidity!

impeach obama

Darwin's choice

"As of now, Real Clear Politics polling data has Republican already solidifying a FIVE seats in the U.S. Senate. That puts the current projected Senate split at 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans.

The new is better than 50/50 though – much better.

At least four more Senate races appear to already be leaning Republican, and by the end of the summer, that number could rise to a total of seven. That means a well within the realm of possibility of TWELVE Senate seats moving to the Republican column in 2014.

That’s a HUGE shift, beyond even what was accomplished in 2010.

Harry Reid will lose his Majority Leader status, and for the first time since Barack Obama became president in 2009, he will face a united Congress that won’t have so much of its legislation killed in the Senate. When politicians and pundits complain of a “do nothing Congress” they have it half right. The House has passed hundreds of examples of pro jobs, pro military, pro individual freedoms legislation that has then been shelved by the Harry Reid led Democrat controlled Senate. Barack Obama has never had to face a Congress unified in opposition to his far left, Big Government, progressive-authoritarian policies."

If the current Senate race trends hold, Mr. Obama will be president in name only, and that would be fantastic news for all freedom loving Americans.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

How is it good news when Republicans are, at this point, the "Not Democrat Party"? Many are feckless, passive-aggressive grumblers who enjoy waggling fingers more than actually doing something. At least they have a movement within their ranks to cut back the deadwood, but until the new growth can blossom and their platform change and/or be adhered to, it's a placeholder party at best.

Establishment Republicans are out of touch with a great many aspects of society. That isn't to say that conservatism can't be "progressive", but there are more important fires to fight than what is currently being done.

I'd be delighted if what you said was actually good news, but especially after Mississippi, I can't see things getting better in any measurable way. This can't happen soon enough because Congress won't fix what they enjoy being broken: http://conventionofstates.com/

Darwin's choice

On a rant roll today?
Anything will be better than the current state of failure, what do you suggest?

obama has failed, for over 5 years, neither party is helping.


here's something for you HZ.....

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I am, Darwin. I really am.

This really just frustrates me that seemingly our only "hope" lies with a party who aren't even necessarily a true opposition party nor one with a clear attachment to the population. Rather they "just aren't Democrats". The Tea Party movement inside it is helping, but overall it is just so...ugh. It riles me up that we can actually be making our country better but instead are distracted by the antics of party clowns.

I appreciate the link, by the by. Thank you for that if I may break momentarily from frothing to be polite. Heh.


Funny, Pres. Obama suspends the deportation of illegal immigrant juveniles who were brought here as children.

"Obama also created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which gives a more formal reprieve from deportation to so-called Dreamers, undocumented young people who entered the U.S. as children."


This action becomes misconstrued in Central America in that the U.S. is not deporting children. They then began to arrive in droves.

NOW, Mr. Obama is taking action on the border to halt the influx.

Nothing quite like the quixotic activity of causing and attempting to solve his own self-made problems and then per usual blaming it on someone else.



We have more than enough law on the book. Illegal is illegal. Deportation should be automatic and extremely swift. The already authorized and required wall to stop border crossings should be completed by returning military. Enforce the law and this manufactured problem will go away. If we used even half the energy to follow our laws as is being used to create a false impression that we need new law, this problem would end before Thanksgiving.

Dr. Information

This is not how you run a country Obama. When you do not get your way, you do not side step everything and everyone to get your way. What is that proving?

You cannot bash Bush and defend Obama in the same sentence. Bush went to war with intelligence that was VOTED ON BY BOTH PARTIES WITH A RESOUNDING YES! Obama dumped another 100k troops in Afghanistan and they are still there dying each day.

What should we learn from this? That we cannot change the nutty middle east. Lesson learned, put down the past and present and move forward TOGETHER as a nation. That will never happen with Obama. This man has small penis syndrome or something that is causing him to act irrational. His wife is irrational and I suspect his children will grow up to be the same way.

Work with Congress, both side, come to a resolution on issues that satisfies both sides and the people. We realize we cannot always have it our way but this mockery has to end.


I am so tired of the excuse offered up by the Democrats: "Well, George W. Bush did it!" Maybe he did, but so what?

Did Republicans excuse Clinton for lying because, "Well, Richard Nixon did it!" Did Democrats excuse Bush for overreach because, "Well, Clinton had sex in the Oval Office, so...?"

Sure, I CARE what wrongs were committed by past presidents. But excusing the wrongs done by THIS president based solely on the fact he's not the first (though he IS, by far the worst) is ridiculous! Do you excuse your kids for stealing because the boy down the block got caught at it? Do you excuse your employees for slacking off because you once worked somewhere else where a few did the same thing? Of COURSE not! And there's no difference here. Unless, of course, you're the very definition of amoral and hypocritical...


Re: "Obama said he will refocus immigration enforcement onto a Mexican border that has seen a tide of children crossing illegally from Central America."

Yep! I @#$%* it up with my big mouth and I'll fix it!

BUT - it's the Republicans fault!

Darwin's choice

And the hits just keep coming......

"A devastating new Health and Human Services (HHS) Inspector General report released on Tuesday reveals that the Obama administration has yet to determine whether 1,295,571 of the over 8 million Obamacare enrollees are U.S. citizens lawfully in the country.

The finding, located on page 11 of the report, states that 44% of the remaining 2,611,780 application "inconsistencies" are related to verifying "Citizenship/national status/lawful presence." Another 960,492 application inconsistencies were related to verifying whether subsidy applicants provided accurate income information.
Moreover, the Inspector General report only covered the federal Obamacare exchanges to determine how the Obama administration resolved verification problems through December 2013. As for the 15 state-run Obamacare exchanges, the report says four--Oregon, Nevada, Vermont, and Massachusetts--are simply "unable to resolve inconsistencies."
As the Washington Post reported in May, as many as one million Obamacare enrollees may be receiving incorrect taxpayer-funded subsidies due to Obamacare's continued technical failures and inability to properly verify income and citizenship eligibility.
One year ago, conservatives warned that the Obama administration's decision to use the so-called "honor system" for income eligibility was merely a backdoor way to get as many individuals on the public dole as possible.
The Office of Inspector General determined that "the federal marketplace was generally incapable of resolving most inconsistencies."
Obamacare will cost U.S. taxpayers $2.6 trillion over the next ten years."