Archives for November 2014

Iowa Rep. Steve King says the unconstitutional granting of amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants is one promise President Obama actually intends to keep and he says the Republican Congress must be ready to do what it takes to stop it from happening.

The day after major Republican wins in the midterm elections, Obama reiterated his vow to act alone on immigration policy.  While not detailing what his executive orders would entail at that time, subsequent reports indicate the centerpiece of Obama’s initiative would grant legal status and issue work permits to the parents of U.S. citizens and children already legalized in some way.  Estimates suggest that would legalize anywhere from 4.5 to six million illegal immigrants.

While immigration has been a divisive issue among Republicans over the past couple of years, King says GOP lawmakers are virtually unanimous in fighting what they see as an unconstitutional power grab.  He’s less certain Republicans are willing to to whatever it takes to win the fight.

“I think we’re really solid.  Those on the Republican side that would give the president a pass for usurping constitutional authority are very few.  But how far are they willing to go to block this president?” asked King.

King has been a leading voice of opposition to granting legal status to people in the country illegally.  He says he can remember where he was and the disappointment he felt when President Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 amnesty into law.

The congressman says Obama’s agenda is infinitely worse and he fears the president is dead set on taking action on his own.

“The president has a very long string of broken promises but this, I think, is going to be the promise he actually keeps.  He is poised to violate the Constitution and create his own immigration law out of thin air.  He has no constitutional authority to do this,” said King, who believes Obama’s insistence on this issue boils down to one thing.

“He thinks a high percentage of them are just undocumented Democrats and the next phase would be to document them so that they can vote,” he said.

How does King conclude the president’s actions would be unconstitutional?

“Not only does Article I set aside all legislative power to the United States Congress, but also an enumerated power is to provide a uniform rule of naturalization.  That’s Congress’ authority and there are multiple court cases that identify that Congress sets immigration policy,” said King, who says Obama has already flagrantly violated his authority on other decisions on immigration policy.

“He didn’t have legal authority to issue the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, also known as DREAMers) memo,” said King.  “And he didn’t have the authority to do the Morton memos, which waive prosecution for those whom the president considers not to be a violent threat to society,” said King.

Obama defenders accuse critics of the impending executive orders of employing selective outrage.  They say many previous presidents have effectively removed the threat of deportation for some illegal immigrants.  King admits there is some legal discretion granted to the president on immigration matters but Obama’s apparent course of action takes things to a completely different level.

“The president has authority to manage asylum and to manage refugee status.  That target of refugee status is something like 75,000 a year.  (That’s) nowhere near the five to six…million that we would end up with.  I don’t think there’s any comparable precedent anywhere,” he said.

King suggests out very system of government is at stake in this debate.

“What he’s poised to do is step up in front of a press conference someday in the near future, take the Constitution, separate out Article I, the legislative authority (and) all the things that set up the United States Congress, look at us all and tear Article I out of the Constitution, fold it up, put it in his shirt pocket and say, ‘I’m also the legislative branch of government.’  That’s what he’s doing,” said King.

“This is a constitutional crisis that is hanging over our heads like the Sword of Damocles.  Congress must block this president.  It is our duty to do so,” he said.

“The president is holding a right hostage to an ultimatum.  We have a right to secure borders, a right to expect an demand that our president enforce the law.  But he’s giving us an ultimatum.  Congress can either pass amnesty or he’s going to commit it by a constitutional violation,” said King.

So what will the Republicans do to stop it?  One thing House and Senate GOP leaders have ruled out is any sort of government funding showdown.  That’s a promise King wishes they hadn’t made.

“We’ve had some leadership say there’s not going to be a government shutdown.  I don’t know how they can declare that.  It was the president that shut the government down a little over a year ago.  So they can’t make a promise that the president would be in charge of keeping,” said King.

King isn’t eager for another showdown over appropriations but he also isn’t very impressed by some of the ideas floated by GOP leaders either.  One is simply to extend current funding levels in all areas of government until the end of the fiscal year on September, 30, 2015.

“That would give all the funding to the president and would take away our tool to restrain him by cutting off the funding to implement or enforce his unconstitutional act,” said King.

Another possibility is passing government funding at existing levels but revisit funding for immigration enforcement in the new Congress and take it out through a process known as recision.

“After money is appropriated, we can go in and claw it back so to speak.  That proposal overlooked the idea that a recisions bill would have to have a presidential signature,” said King.

King has already drafted a bill that would automatically cut out funding for unconstitutional immigration actions by the president, both past and future.

“It’s a bill that self-enacts.  If the president violates the Constitution or issues a policy that reduces immigration enforcement, it requires that he certify that it’s constitutional and that it doesn’t diminish enforcement.  Otherwise, it automatically shuts off the funding, not only for his policy going forward, but retroactively to the DACA component and the Morton memos that are part of the beginning of this immigration constitutional crisis,” said King.

Beyond that, King is ready for whatever it takes to win the political fight.

“That might be cutting off the funding.  That could be effective.  Another one that we might have to do is censure the president.  That’s happened once before in the history of this country.  That doesn’t take us down the full route that Bill Clinton experienced.  That would be the last resort,” said King.

The congressman stressed again the fight over executive authority vs. enumerated powers for the Congress will determine the fate of our form of government.

“This constitutional republic cannot survive if we have a president who is going to defy the constitution and his own oath to it.  Every member of Congress takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, House and Senate.  We have a duty too.  That duty is to defend the Constitution,” said King.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review enjoy hearing Jonathan Gruber explain how President Obama was directly involved in the creation of the Cadillac Tax inside Obamacare and they react to National Journal’s Ron Fournier saying Obama has destroyed trust between the public and government.  They also rip media and rabble rousers for ginning up the riot atmosphere in Ferguson.  And they rip Mary Landrieu and Louisiana Democrats for a new radio ad accusing Bill Cassidy and Bobby Jindal of race-baiting against Obama and lying about basic economic facts.

President Obama says Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber was “some adviser who never worked on our staff” and said the lengthy debate over the law proves there was compete transparency with the American people, but Georgia Rep. Tom Price calls the president’s characterization of events as “fiction” and “deceitful.”

A political firestorm erupted last week when a frustrated American citizen began posting videos of M.I.T economist and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber boldly explaining how the law was passed due to a lack of transparency on key issues.  In the videos, Gruber said the administration deliberately hid the fact the individual mandate amounted to a tax and that young and healthy people would pay higher premiums to cover the cost of care for older, less healthy people.  Most damaging was Gruber’s assertion that the “stupidity of the American voters” allowed the sleight of hand to work.

This past weekend, President Obama addressed the controversy during a press conference at the G-20 Summit in Australia.  In response to a question from Ed Henry of the Fox News Channel about whether his administration misled the American people, Obama quickly distanced himself from Gruber.

“The fact that some adviser, who never worked on our staff, expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters, is no reflection on the actual process that was run,” said Obama.

Price says Obama is vigorously trying to rewrite history.  He says Gruber was “instrumental” in the drafting and marketing of Obamacare.

“This wasn’t a peripheral actor.  I’ve shared the stage with Jonathan Gruber when we were debating this piece of legislation in 2009 and 2010,” said Price, who asserts all key players at the time knew Gruber was at the forefront of the Obamacare effort.

“He was a principal adviser, paid over $400,000 by this administration.  He wasn’t on the White House staff but he was a contract employee to the administration for this piece of legislation.  We would make these accusations that, ‘You weren’t being honest, weren’t being truthful with the American people.  You’re trying to say the taxes won’t be increased when we know that they will.’  They were just being deceitful,” he said.

Price says Obama’s attempt to deny the obvious following Gruber’s admissions is especially infuriating.

“The president then continues this fiction that he didn’t know who this guy was.  That’s nonsense.  Jonathan Gruber has been to the White House on over a dozen occasions over the past couple of years and the White House knows exactly who he is.  He was their individual, who helped be the architect for Obamacare.  It’s just so sad that the president, again, believes that the American people are naive and aren’t able to handle the truth,” said Price.

In Australia, Obama insisted there was no way the health care debate, which lasted more than a year, was anything less then completely transparent.

“We had a yearlong debate,” said Obama.  “Go back and look at your stories.  The one thing we can’t say is that we did not have a lengthy debate.”

Price says Obama is right about the drawn-out debate but not much else.

“Well, it was a long debate.  The problem is that one side of it, his side, the president’s side wasn’t telling the truth,” said Price.

“When one side isn’t bound by the truth, they can say anything they want.  That’s exactly what the president did.  That’s exactly what his administration did, and that’s why it was able to pass the House of Representatives.  They were not transparent and the American people were hoodwinked and I believe many in Congress didn’t know what they were voting on and should be held accountable,” added Price.

Come January, Republicans will have a commanding majority in the House and either a six or eight-seat majority in the Senate.  Price wants to see the whole law scrapped but says there are many things the Republicans will look to peel away from the law as long as Obama is in office, including the employer mandate and the medical device tax.  He says he’s an eternal optimist about Obama conceding to some changes in the bill ultimately isn’t sure if Obama will show any cooperation on the issue.

As for the overall GOP strategy, some party leaders say a full repeal effort is a waste of time because they cannot muster the votes to override a presidential veto.  Others, including Price, believe a vote on full repeal is essential towards keeping the promise of Republicans to repeal the law, in addition to efforts to remove individual components of the law.

“I think you’ve got to pass a full repeal piece of legislation though both the House and the Senate so the American people know who the good guys are on this issue and who’s standing in the way of what the American people want.  The American people want this law repealed,” said Price.

The congressman is the leader of the effort to draft legislation designed to replace Obamacare when and if the current law is repealed.

“We call it the ‘Empowering Patients First Act’.  We’re currently working on the next iteration of that, that we will introduce shortly after the first of the year.  So there are ways to solve the challenges of health coverage, health costs, the insurance difficulties that people have and we can decrease the costs significantly in the health care arena.  We can do all of that without putting Washington in charge of a doggone thing,” he said.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review like a new Gallup poll showing Obamacare with it’s lowest approval and highest disapproval numbers ever.  They also shudder as ISIS beheads another American.  And they marvel at President Obama trying to distance himself from Jonathan Gruber by saying the process was transparent there was a long debate.

Legendary conservative activist Richard Viguerie is imploring Republican leaders in Congress to do whatever is necessary, including impeachment or refusing to fund parts of the government, to stop President Obama’s plan to unilaterally legalize up to six million illegal immigrants through executive action.

Viguerie pioneered the use of direct mail in political campaigning in the 1960s and 1970s.  He is now the chairman of conservative hq.com.  His most recent book is “Takeover”  The 100-Year War for the Soul of the GOP and how Conservatives Can Finally Win It.”

Reports this week suggest the president is planning to grant legal status to the parents of children who are U.S. citizens or already have legal status.  Viguerie is among a large consensus on the right that the president’s actions would be unconstitutional, but there is great divide on what the Republican response ought to be.  For Viguerie, stopping what he considers amnesty means using every tool in constitutional toolbox.

“The Republicans should use all means available to oppose this effort, including impeachment as well as shutting down the government, if that’s what it takes to protect our form of government.  We can’t allow Obama to become a dictator,” said Viguerie.

“A failure to use all legal means to oppose his illegal amnesty efforts that’s being rumored about here would be a sign of serious sign of weakness on the Republican leaders’ part.  And it would embolden the Democrats to continue to act outside of the Constitution,” he said.

Last week, both House Speaker John Boehner and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell lashed out at Obama’s plans to legalize millions of people through executive action.  McConnell likened it to waving a red flag in front of a bull.  Boehner said Obama was playing with matches and was bound to get burned.  Both leaders shied away from the defunding strategy, however, leaving Viguerie wondering how committed they are to stopping it.

“The Republican leaders pretty much have always talked a tough game, but the Democrats have always been able to roll them.  I don’t think we’re expecting much more than just more talk from the Republican leaders,” said Viguerie.

Both of Viguerie’s suggestions carry risks, as Republicans leaders and rank-and-file members have states.  Impeachment could easily be seized by Democrats as Republicans wanting to gain power for no other reason than to try to remove Obama from office and would play effectively to the Democratic base.

Similarly, they see the threat of a government shutdown as a public relations nightmare that cost the party greatly in the mid 1990s and again last year until the horrific rollout of Obamacare overshadowed the controversy.  GOP officials believe another shutdown would turn popular opinion back in favor of the president, meaning the amnesty would eventually still stand and Republicans would get slaughtered in 2016.

Viguerie isn’t buying any of it.

“That is a patently nonsensical argument because the government was shut down for 16 days last year and it had zero effect on the election results.  What had an effect on the big election victory the Republicans had last week was opposing amnesty.  The voters gave the Republicans a big victory, expecting them to provide leadership and stop Obama,” said Viguerie.

“Republican leaders, if they take impeachment off the table and shutting down the government off the table, they are left toothless and will have defanged themselves and given Obama free reign to not only grant amnesty but pretty much anything else he wants,” said Viguerie.

One option mentioned by Boehner is to take the president to court to challenge the constitutionality of his actions.  Viguerie is not impressed.

“And will you send a strongly-worded letter also?  That’s weak and toothless,” he said.

In addition, Viguerie believes confrontational Republican action would trigger strong public support and maybe even some help from Democrats.

“A lot of Democrats will support this action too because this is now threatening our form of government,” he said.

However, Viguerie ultimately expects Obama to tone down his actions and Republicans to let him do it.

“I expect the president will probably do something less than what he has indicated he will do and the Republican response will be a lot more rhetoric and less action,” said Viguerie.

If that happens, Viguerie expects this to badly inflame tensions between conservatives and Republican Party leaders.

“Lincoln told us, the Bible tells us, a house divided cannot stand.  Right now, we have a major divide between the supporters at the grassroots of the Republican Party and the Republican leaders in Washington.  This is just going to make the situation worse,” he said.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Andrew Johnson of National Review cheer a new poll showing Bill Cassidy far ahead of Mary Landrieu in the run-off for the Louisiana Senate seat and marvel as President Obama threatens to veto the Keystone pipeline bill designed to save her.  They also cringe as ISIS and Al Qaeda call a truce with each and commit to killing us.  And they react to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest’s assertion that the administration did not mislead the public on Obamacare and that it’s really the Republicans who have not been transparent on the issue.

President Obama’s plan to grant legal status to some five million illegal immigrants through executive action is unlawful, goes directly against the will of the American voters and should be resisted by Congress in any way possible, according to Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

Vaughan also says a brand new CIS report showing both legal and illegal immigrants adding disproportionately to the Medicaid rolls and costing billions of dollars shows now is the time to employ greater scrutiny on who comes into the country, rather than open the gates to millions of illegals.

On Wednesday, reports surfaced that President Obama is preparing a ten-point immigration reform plan that he intends to implement through executive action.  In addition to facilitating legal status for highly sought after specialists in a variety of technical fields and advocating for pay raises for Immigration and Custom Enforcement officials, the centerpiece of the Obama plan is to grant legal status to some 4.5 million people in the U.S. illegally is their children were born here or given legal status.

The clear message from the administration is that it does not want to rip apart families by removing illegal immigrants while allowing legal ones to stay, but Vaughan says that argument is deeply flawed.

“The only thing separating these families is their choice is their choice to be here illegally,” said Vaughan, suggesting the way to keep families with illegal immigrants together is to send all of them back to the nations from which they came.

“In many cases, the U.S. citizen children they have were born here to illegal parents.  They haven’t been here a long time. We’re talking about small children.  They don’t have meaningful ties to this country.  The best thing for them to do is to accompany their family member back to their home country and get on with their lives,” she said.

Vaughan says many Americans feel tremendous compassion for the dire conditions many immigrants faced in their own countries, but that doesn’t mean the solution is to open the floodgates into the U.S. at a time of domestic economic challenges.

“People are very sympathetic to living conditions in other countries, but the answer is not to just let everyone come here regardless of our laws. We have Americans who are out of work in those very same kinds of jobs.  We also have four and a half million people waiting their turn to come in through the legal immigration system, who have been sponsored by U.S. citizens or American companies who need their skills.  Those people should have first access to being able to live here,” said Vaughan.

Besides staunchly opposing the Obama immigration agenda, Vaughan says she is stunned at the political tone deafness on display with Obama.

“It’s really shocking that this is at the top of his agenda after an election in which American voters resoundingly rejected these kinds of policies and sent a message to their elected representatives that immigration enforcement of the laws we have is much more important than providing amnesty for such a large number of people,” said Vaughan.

“It’s really surprising that he would move forward on something so unpopular and would have such a negative effect on American workers, on legal immigrants and on public safety in our communities,” she added.

Congressional Republicans are furious with Obama’s plans for unilateral action.  Some have threatened to use the upcoming omnibus spending bill to fund the federal government as leverage against executive action on immigration and possibly defund government departments tasked with enforcing immigration policy.  Vaughan hopes the GOP pursues that and any other tactic that could stop Obama in his tracks.

“Congress clearly needs to keep the president on a very short leash because what he is planning is most definitely something that is beyond his authority and certainly contrary to congressional intent and public opinion.  So they need to use whatever authority they have,” said Vaughan.

Polls suggest the vast majority of Americans do not want Obama to act unilaterally, but many Republicans are hesitant for use the “power of the purse” to force Obama’s hand, fearing a another possible government shutdown over the issue which could cost the GOP the moral high ground on the issue and stain its ascension to the Senate majority.

Vaughan believes withholding funding in response to Obama’s executive action would be welcomed by most Americans.

“If they have to use their funding authority to keep the president from doing something that would be such a mistake for our country, I think the public would back the members of Congress who do that,” she said.

Last week, Obama said he was tired of waiting for Congress to act on immigration reform but suggested any reforms passed in the future would trump his unilateral action so critics had little to worry about.

“That’s not how our democracy works.  The president doesn’t get to say, ‘I’m going to do this.  Catch me if you can.  Pass your own law to overturn it.’  That would also be unfair to the people he’s dangling this amnesty in front of and saying, ‘Okay, I’m going to give you amnesty.  I’m going to make Congress take it away from you.’  That’s just political gamesmanship,” said Vaughan.

Adding fuel to Vaughan’s case is a new study CIS released Thursday morning, showing that immigrants (both legal and illegal) constituted 42 percent of new enrollees into Medicaid since 2011 at a cost of $4.6 billion.  Vaughan says somewhat difficult to determine how much of that influx comes from illegal immigrants.

“We don’t know exactly.  Part of the reason is because there are so many people in this kind of limbo-like status, because of presidential amnesties and and deferred action programs, who have been living here illegally.  They don’t qualify for a green card but they are allowed to get a work permit and a Social Security numbers so states will enroll them in health care programs,” said Vaughan.

While the immediate fight in Washington is over illegal immigrants, Vaughan says flaws in our legal immigration policy are contributing to the surge of legal immigrants onto the Medicaid rolls.

“A lot of the immigrants that we have been accepting, and a lot of the people that we’ve been giving legal status to, are not able to be self-sufficient.  The main reason for that is our country does not have a labor shortage, so wages are not going up.  So they’re going to be dependent on government programs like Obamacare.  That means any huge executive action or amnesty or increases in illegal immigration is going to be costly for taxpayers,” said Vaughan.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Andrew Johnson of National Review cheer Republican unity in their Senate leadership elections and enjoy Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill saying she will not back Harry Reid as party leader.  They also slam the mainstream media for being more critical of GOP responses to Jonathan Gruber’s admissions that the Obama administration lied to the public to pass Obamacare than with the comments themselves.  And they shake their heads as outgoing Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe plans to use on of very few pardons to wipe out his own son’s marijuana conviction.

While the Obama administration trumpets an “historic” agreement on carbon emissions with China, a leading climate expert says our economy would have to collapse to comply with the terms of the deal but President Obama’s main goal is to make it difficult for the next president, Congress and the courts to strike down his many environmental regulations.

While in China for the Asia-Pacific Economic Summit, Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping came to an agreement that would have the U.S. reducing its carbon emissions between 26 and 28 percent from 2005 levels.  The Chinese, meanwhile vowed to try to peak their emissions by 2030 and attempt to get 20 percent of its energy from “zero carbon emission sources” by that same time.

As the deal was announced, Obama’s Twitter account stated: “This is huge: The United States and China have just agreed on an ambitious new joint plan to cut carbon pollution.”

Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Christopher Horner says the deal means business as usual for China but would force the U.S. to make draconian changes over the next decade.

“It promised massive reductions, which nobody knows how you could get to barring serious economic collapse on the part of the U.S.  This is even after the hydro-fracking boom.  Even assuming you kill coal dead, nobody knows how you get to where he’s talking about, which of course will be someone else’s problem,” said Horner.  “You sort of want to be on the other side of the negotiating table from people who view things like this as victories.  It was hardly that.”

Horner believes handcuffing the next president is the real motivation here.

“What he’s seeking to do is bind the next president and the next president’s (Environmental Protection Agency), this Congress and the courts to say, ‘You know what?  You really can’t undo my EPA rules.  They’re now part of something larger.  They’re embedded in a promise to the world and I’d like the court’s to recognize that.’  While it sounds crazy, it’s called customary international law and there’s always a chance,” said Horner.

Previous attempts to commit the U.S. to reduced carbon were soundly rejected in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration embraced the Kyoto Accords, but the U.S. Senate unanimously approved a non-binding vote warning Clinton and then-Vice President Al Gore that any such deal would be dead on arrival.

The Constitution states the Senate must ratify any proposed treaties with a two-thirds majority.  Horner says Obama’s plan is to declare that this agreement is not a treaty and is not subject to Senate approval.

“This is probably the most intriguing and disturbing aspect of this.  For more than twenty years, the executive, no matter what party he’s from, and the Senate have recognized that this is part of the treaty process.  It needs to be part of the treaty process.  We have a system and this goes through it.  Now that the treaty process makes it clear that they never would ratify such an agreement, the president said, ‘This isn’t a treaty.  Next year won’t be a treaty, simply because I’m calling it not a treaty,'” said Horner.

“What they’re doing is side-stepping the system.  He’s side-stepped it without legislation to regulate and now he’s hoping to get a treaty by calling it not a treaty to avoid a loss in the Senate.  It’s very problematic,” he said.

However, just because Obama tries to contend it’s not an actual treaty does not mean that’s how the Senate has see it.

“It’s a non-binding sense of the Senate resolution (he can’t veto it) in response to a non-binding non-treaty, saying, ‘You’re freelancing in a legally meaningless way.  You’re not speaking for the United States and no court or other country should take this as an expression of U.S. intent.’  That is the equivalent of the Senate saying, ‘No, it is a treaty,'” said Horner.

If that were to happen, Horner is convinced the Senate would have much stronger legal ground than the president.

“This desire to say, ‘Look, we’ve embedded our rules in promises to the rest of the world’ falls apart because the Senate is saying, ‘In fact you didn’t. You are not speaking on behalf of the United States.  The Senate has a role in speaking on behalf of the United States under advise and consent.  We’re saying you’re speaking without our word.  You don’t want our advice, you certainly don’t get our consent,'” said Horner.

This strategy does not surprise Horner.  Like the president’s unilateral approach to immigration policy, he says Obama is acting alone on climate policy despite the clear opposition of the American people.

“This was an issue in a lot of campaigns.  [Billionaire environmental activist] Tom Steyer organized $85 million, which is almost teachers’ union money of $100 million to make climate what they called the winning issue this year.  Those candidates all lost.  Two survived.  No candidate embraced the issue. They were doing this so the candidates wouldn’t have to and the voters rejected it,” said Horner.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Andrew Johnson of National Review cheer a new Gallup poll showing Americans, by a wide margin, want Republicans to set the agenda in the next two years.  They also discuss Senate Democrats considering a vote on the Keystone XL pipeline as a way to boost the re-election chances of Sen. Mary Landrieu.  And they enjoy watching Al Sharpton and friends act horrified at the thought of the Clintons traveling commercially.