Editor’s Note – It does not surprise us that the DHS is so shoddy in accounting for the number of illegal immigrants it allows to stay in the country. After all, the Obama administration has totally subverted our immigration system and fails our citizenry to be secure within our borders.
Once again, we only find out the details when an Inspector General reviews a federal department and reveals gaping and glaring issues that should be readily found and corrected by federal agency management. Perhaps this is on purpose – well, it is obvious, especially with DACA, DAPA, Dreamers, Executive Orders, and even to mislead the courts, but you decide.
DHS Fails To Keep Track Of Number Of Illegals Allowed To Stay In U.S.
The Department of Homeland Security does not maintain data on how many illegal immigrants it allows to stay in the U.S. through prosecutorial discretion — a failure that could have national security implications — the agency’s inspector general reported Wednesday.
“The Department’s ability to accurately assess the results of policy decisions and make needed changes is important given its modified approach to immigration enforcement,” wrote inspector general John Roth.
Though the Obama administration has implemented new policies that rolled back immigration enforcement through executive action and expanded the use of prosecutorial discretion, “the policies did not include a requirement to collect data on prosecutorial discretion for annual reporting,” according to Roth.
In June 2011, U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, a branch of DHS, issued a memo which expanded the use of prosecutorial discretion, thus granting federal immigration agents the ability to decide whether or not to release illegal aliens from federal custody.
Obama followed that up with an executive action which provided amnesty to so-called DREAMers under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
But as Roth’s report notes, DHS has not maintained consistent records to show how these policies have been implemented, a failure that could have national security and public safety implications.
“The Department may also be missing opportunities to strengthen its ability to remove aliens who pose a threat to national security and public safety,” Roth wrote.
USCIS, and two other DHS sub-agencies, Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, do collect some data on prosecutorial discretion, such as for DACA-eligible individuals.
USCIS reported that as of Sept. 30, 2014, it had approved 632,855 DACA applications while CBP released 650 DACA-eligible individuals from its custody.
While ICE records some instances of prosecutorial discretion, Roth notes that some field office personnel do not record every time it is invoked.
In fiscal year 2014, ICE recorded 12,757 instances in which an ICE officer intervened to release an alien deemed to not be an enforcement priority.
But, “ICE officials noted that field office personnel do not always record their use of prosecutorial discretion because they make these decisions daily and it would be too time consuming to record every occurrence,” Roth reported.
Though ICE did keep some statistics on its use of prosecutorial discretion, it did not maintain records of how many DACA-eligible individuals it released.
Roth notes that while DHS reports enforcement data such as alien apprehensions, detentions and removals, its reports do not include prosecutorial discretion data.
Roth suggests that DHS could begin gathering data on aliens who receive prosecutorial discretion but later commit a crime or pose a threat to national security or public safety.
Roth also noted another “potential issue” that could have national security and public safety implications.
“ICE field office personnel said they might not always have access to an individual’s criminal history in his or her country of origin. As a result, aliens convicted of or wanted for a felony committed in their home country, but not convicted of a felony or significant misdemeanor in the United States may not be identified as a DHS enforcement priority.”
Editor’s Note – The ‘chickens are coming home to roost’ because of the collective failures of the Obama/Clinton/Kerry foreign policy failures. Putin is flexing Russia’s muscles and he is now cozy with China, and the entire Middle East is in complete disarray.
Perhaps an example of how bad it is, now the Obama Administration is laying prostrate before the U.N. Human Rights Council, and the new Saudi king has spurned Obama’s invitation to attend the big Camp David Summit with Arab Leaders and a one-on-one with Obama himself:
In a statement, al-Jubeir said the summit Thursday coincides with a humanitarian cease-fire in the conflict in Yemen, where a Saudi-led coalition is fighting Shiite rebels known as Houthis. He said Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who is also interior minister, would lead the Saudi delegation and the king’s son, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is defense minister, will also attend.
President Barack Obama had planned to meet Salman one-on-one a day before the gathering of leaders at the presidential retreat but the White House did not take his decision to skip the summit as a sign of any substantial disagreement with the U.S.
The king, who took power in January after his brother King Abdullah died, has not traveled abroad since his ascension to the throne.
At the summit, leaders of Gulf nations will be looking for assurance that Obama has their support when the region feels under siege from Islamic extremists and Syria, Iraq and Yemen are in various states of chaos. Arab allies also feel threatened by Iran’s rising influence and worry the nuclear pact taking shape with the U.S., Iran and other nations may embolden Tehran to intrude more aggressively in countries of the region. (From the AP in Riyadh.)
The excuse sounds valid, but the King could be much more productive for his country and the Yemen/Iran issues by attending the summit – so the excuse to us is basically a snub; an insult! This is not the first time King Salman spurned Obama. Back in March when Obama was in Saudi Arabia, a meeting was supposed to be held on the 28th; it never happened.
The bigger insult, among many others, is having to explain our ‘policing’ issues here in the USA to the U.N. human rights body. When we see who sits in that body, the insult grows ever larger. Recently a statement about how best to hide your human rights abuses is to sit on that body. Hide in plain sight.
This is also the second time the US has been reviewed since 2010 – during the tenure of the man who had the best position in US history to advance race relations in this country. Instead, it is now ‘open season’ on our police, Guantanamo is still open, and Obama still bows everywhere. Embarrassing!
The United States heard widespread concern Monday over excessive use of force by law-enforcement officials against minorities as it faced the U.N.’s main human rights body for a review of its record.
Washington also faced calls to work toward abolishing the death penalty, push ahead with closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center and ensure effective safeguards against abuses of Internet surveillance. Its appearance before the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva is the second review of the U.S. rights record, following the first in 2010.
A string of countries ranging from Malaysia to Mexico pressed the U.S. to redouble efforts to prevent police using excessive force against minorities.
“We must rededicate ourselves to ensuring that our civil-rights laws live up to their promise,” Justice Department official James Cadogan told delegates, adding that that is particularly important in the area of police practices and pointing to recent high-profile cases of officers killing unarmed black residents.
“These events challenge us to do better and to work harder for progress through both dialogue and action,” he said at the session’s opening. He added that the government has the authority to prosecute officials who “wilfully use excessive force,” and that criminal charges have been brought against more than 400 law-enforcement officials in the past six years.
Several countries, including Brazil and Kenya, voiced concern over the extent of U.S. surveillance in the light of reports about the National Security Agency’s activities.
David Bitkower, a deputy assistant attorney general, responded that “U.S. intelligence collection programs and activities are subject to stringent and multilayered oversight mechanisms.” He added that the country doesn’t collect intelligence to suppress dissent or to give U.S. businesses a competitive advantage, and that there is “extensive and effective oversight to prevent abuse.”
Faced with widespread calls for a moratorium on executions and a move to scrap the death penalty, Bitkower noted that it is an issue of “extensive debate and controversy” within the U.S. He pointed to “heightened procedural safeguards” for defendants prosecuted for capital offenses.
Brig. Gen. Richard Gross, the legal counsel to the chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, told the council that President Barack Obama has said closing Guantanamo – in which he has been thwarted by Congress – is “a national imperative.” The remaining detainees are detained lawfully, he said.
The so-called Universal Periodic Reviews of U.N. member nations’ human rights records started in 2008. Each country’s record is reviewed roughly every four years.
Editor’s Note – In the relentless build-up of his military, Putin and Russia are growing as a threat and are filling the leadership vacuum created by President Obama. Putin rolled out a fierce new armored titan, the Armata T-14 tank on their Victory Day Parade.
The Western allies though, stayed away this time, in protest – that will show Putin who is boss!!
Challenging the West in all theaters across the globe, this was another moment for him show off his prowess. The trouble is, during a rehearsal of the parade, one of them stopped moving and they even tried to tow it while its engine was running, but the tank wasn’t moving.
A state-of-the-art Russian tank, which was shown to the public for the first time earlier this month, on Thursday ground to a halt during the final Victory Day rehearsal.
The tank, T-14 Armata, is said to surpass all Western versions because of its remotely controlled cannon and the protection it offers to its crew. The T-14, which replaces the T-72 and T-90, is set to undergo trials next year. (Read more at Yahoo.)
The tank did eventually move off under its own power after a tow attempt failed. Despite this setback, the west has much to consider, and we here in America remember that during the 2012 Presidential debates, Mitt Romney did tell the world what is not obvious, Russia is our greatest threat, despite the scoffing he got at the time.
Romney was vindicated many times since then, yet Obama still continues his ‘transformation’ of America. Aren’t you again so happy how 2012 turned out? How weak we have become and continue to watch Putin strengthen.
How are those Jade Helm 15 exercises going to turn that around, or intimidate anyone but our citizenry, or is that even part of the goal?
Russia flexes military might for sparse crowd of dignitaries on Victory Day
A western boycott of Russia’s Victory Day parade Saturday did little to chasten the Kremlin as Russian President Vladimir Putin rolled out fearsome new armor and weapons in a thundering message that might makes right.
In the absence of Russia’s World War II allies who stayed away in protest of Moscow’s intervention in Ukraine, Putin was surrounded at the Red Square event largely by leftist foreign leaders for his display of the military power that has made Russians proud and their neighbors nervous.
Under blue skies and sunshine befitting a postcard, the Kremlin marked the 70th anniversary of the Allied victory over Nazi Germany by parading 16,000 troops, nearly 200 tanks and armored vehicles, truck-mounted ballistic missiles and 140-plus aircraft before thousands of Russian dignitaries, Soviet war veterans and about two dozen foreign leaders.
The Russian military unveiled its new Armata T-14 tank, the first major upgrade of its infantry workhorse in decades. With a 125-millimeter cannon, the tank offers better protection for its operators than the T-72 it is designed to succeed.
The Armata and other new weapons displayed ahead of a roaring aircraft flyover are part of a major rearmament program undertaken by the Kremlin with a projected outlay of $500 billion through this decade.
Some defense analysts say the massive modernization effort is imperiled by the financial crisis gripping Russia, where the ruble has lost about 40% of its value over the past year amid Western sanctions and a sharp drop in oil revenue on which the Russian budget depends. Others, though, say defense and security investments have the highest priority in Putin’s Russia and the costly mission to enhance the strategic arsenal will continue unabated.
Putin brushed off the U.S. and Western European boycott of the parade, blaming the concerted censure on White House bullying of leaders who would have preferred to show their respects to fallen heroes in Moscow. He alluded to the no-shows in a brief address from the reviewing stand in front of Lenin’s Tomb and the crenelated red-brick eastern wall of the Kremlin.
Putin praised the courage and sacrifice of Soviet troops in defeating the Nazis at a cost of more than 20 million lives. He also paid tribute to “the people of Great Britain, France and the United States for their contribution to the victory.”
But he suggested the absent allies were neglecting their roles as defenders of world peace.
“In recent decades, the basic principles of international cooperation have been ignored ever more frequently,” he said. “We see how a military bloc mentality is gaining momentum.”
Putin has justified his actions involving Ukraine, including the annexation of the Crimean region, with assertions that Russia needs to defend itself against NATO encroachment and what he contends is a U.S.-led plot to oust him from power. Russian officials have portrayed Ukraine’s new leaders as neo-fascists bent on repressing the Russian minority in the country’s eastern regions, where a separatist rebellion has killed more than 6,100 people.
During the 2005 celebrations of the 60th anniversary of World War II’s end, 53 heads of state attended the Red Square festivities, including President George W. Bush and nearly all European leaders.
News agencies reported that 20-some heads of state from among the 68 invited took part Saturday, including those from China, India, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, South Africa and Zimbabwe.
U.N. Secretary Ban Ki-moon was in the official reviewing stand, as were Czech President Milos Zeman and Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic, the only European heads of state known to have broken ranks with the symbolic reprimand.
“Serbia will never damage relations with the Russian Federation, even for the sake of becoming a member of the European Union,” Nikolic told Rossiya-24 television on the eve of the parade, suggesting his country’s prospects for induction into the bloc may be hurt by his renegade attendance.
Chinese President Xi Jinping was the de facto guest of honor, seated with his wife to the right of Putin. Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev, the longest-serving former Soviet republic leader in attendance, was also among the honored guests.
Xi arrived to Moscow on Friday for meetings with Putin and other Kremlin officials to sign the first of a sheaf of trade and economic cooperation agreements expected during his visit that runs through Sunday.
The 80-minute parade kicked off with the chimes of newly renovated Spassky Tower and a goose-stepping honor guard carried Soviet and Russia flags between ranks of soldiers in sharp formation. Many of the units were dressed in World War II replica uniforms and sported the black-and-orange St. George’s ribbons symbolizing Russian war triumphs from both the Soviet and imperial eras.The ribbons have become a symbol of support for Kremlin policy in Ukraine over the past year and were incorporated into the banners and logos of the Victory Day anniversary decorations that fluttered from lamposts and billboards across the country.
Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu rode an open limousine around the sprawling cobblestone square, saluting the troops as he made his way to the dignitaries’ reviewing stand to present the armed forces to Putin and his reported 2,300 guests.
Moscow airspace was closed for nearly an hour during the parade, the Tass news agency said, quoting the Federal Air Transport Agency. Security was tight throughout the capital, with major thoroughfares closed to traffic a mile out from the Kremlin. Many Muscovites watched the massive procession as it made its way from an assembly point five miles northwest of Red Square.
Afterward, a people’s parade followed, with thousands carrying small flags hailing “70 years of victory” and placards bearing the portraits of forebearers who gave their lives in a war that brought peace – and longlasting divisions – to Europe.
The breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 spun the 15 republics into independent nations, some now aligned with the European Union and NATO in a shift of allegiance that is fueling Russia’s quest to reassert its authority over its communist- and imperial-era sphere of influence.
Editor’s Note – When the NY Times broke the story about Peter Schweizer’s book entitled ‘Clinton Cash,’ the attacks came immediately from The Clinton camp. Their talking points were flying fast and furiously and many asked how they knew what was in the book when it had not been released in full.
The answer – the Clinton camp had purloined a copy somehow, very early on, and Schweizer knew it. Despite this, the story did not fizzle and even with their web site “The Briefing,” sporting a video attempting to ‘debunk’ the book by Press Secretary Peter Fallon, it is still growing in intensity.
It should grow; if any other person or couple had even the appearance of doing one tenth of what the Clinton’s and their foundation did, every single media outlet would have run already forced a candidate to drop their campaign. Remember Gary Hart and Donna Rice from 1987? That was just an affair and many think his fall from grace was the beginning of the end of civil politics, the “week politics went tabloid.”
Of course with the Clintons, “…there is one set of rules for politics, and another set for real life, you just have to learn to deal with it…”
Now America is dealing with it, but like Bill O’Reilly, we think the FBI must open an investigation. America deserves better, and deserves the truth. We are not going to get it from the media, and the Clintons know it – so does their staff in the ‘war room.’
Inside the ‘Clinton Cash’ war room
How Hillary’s team worked furiously to attack, undermine and debunk the book that threatened to disrupt her campaign.
In early March, weeks before Hillary Clinton even announced her campaign, spokesman Brian Fallon and research director Tony Carrk began holding regular war room meetings with a team of eight volunteers on a serious mission: Fighting back against a forthcoming book, “Clinton Cash,” that threatened to seriously disrupt the campaign in its infancy.
This was an updated version of the famed war room that fought the first round of Clinton scandals in 1992, propelling Bill Clinton to the presidency; now, two months later, aides point to the handling of the “Clinton Cash” threat – a still-unfolding stream of allegations involving the Clinton Foundation and its donors, but one that seems not to have seriously altered perceptions of Hillary – as proof of the campaign’s ability to manage messaging and counter the inevitable blowback of an 18-month campaign.
The campaign systematically raised questions about the objectivity of author Peter Schweizer and, according to sources with knowledge of the deals, strategically leaked details of the book to news outlets to undercut the exclusivity of excerpts given to reporters at The New York Times and Washington Post, who had obtained special deals with Schweizer.
Sources close to Clinton described meetings at her personal office in Midtown Manhattan that were so focused that when Fallon’s twins were born April 8 — four days before Clinton officially launched her campaign — he continued to join the conferences by phone from the hospital in Washington, D.C., despite being on leave.
The game plan at first was two-pronged: debunk author Peter Schweizer by stressing his ties to Republicans and his close friendship with the Koch brothers, while a second group of research and communications operatives pushed positive messages the campaign would roll out while the book was making headlines.
Instead of hunkering down, Clinton would make news herself with a speech on criminal justice — where she called for an end to mass incarcerations — and a newsy speech on immigration, where she vowed to expand on President Obama’s executive actions to include another 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation.
Behind the scenes, the strategy turned from defense to offense in late April, when the campaign caught a break and obtained an early copy of the 256-page book.
At that point, the campaign began pitching its own stories about “Clinton Cash,” and then finally turned to new media to tell its own version of the story.
Campaign operatives leaked single chapters of the book to national media outlets, sources with knowledge of the deals said — a strategy that allowed them to undercut the reporters who, through exclusive agreements with Schweizer, had obtained early copies of the entire tome, and also to attack the content at the same time.
Schweizer, in an interview, said he was aware of the strategy.
“I knew fairly early on they had access to the book,” he said. “Sure, it helped them. They’re famous for that. I was aware they were leaking selectively chapters, particularly as journalists who had access to the full book had contacted them with questions. They didn’t want to share the complete book, just chapters. For me, the power of the book is in the pattern of the behavior.”
Schweizer said he caught on to the strategy when the New York Times investigative team was working on a 4,000-word story about the connection between Clinton donor Frank Giustra and the approval of a sale of a mining company to Russia, which drew from chapters 2 and 3 of his book.
Indeed, the Clinton team was particularly concerned that the Times and Post would use his book as a jumping off point for investigations — coverage that would make it harder for them to simply dismiss Schweizer as a tool of the right.
Just as the New York Times was preparing to publish its investigation of the Giustra matter, “the Clinton team is sending chapter 3 of the book to Time magazine and other reporters,” Schweizer said. “Who gets just one chapter of the book?
They gave them chapter 3 but not chapter 2, which is also on the uranium deal. You’ve got reporters running with stories that didn’t have the full picture. That was the Clinton strategy: to muddy the waters and not have an honest conversation.”
The campaign says that Giustra, the Canadian billionaire whose role in the uranium deal is outlined in chapter 3, sold his stock two years before Clinton was appointed as Secretary of State. Schweizer says that’s only part of the story. “The book talks about nine people who are shareholders, not just Giustra,” he said. “They never mentioned the other eight. They’re mentioned in chapter 2, not 3.”
The goal of aggressively parceling out parts of the book was to generate headlines that could be discredited before the book hit the shelves and before Schweizer went on the television circuit promoting his work.
When Schweizer started making the media rounds on the Sunday shows ahead of the May 5 book release, the Clinton team had managed to get ahead of him to put him on the defensive. “We’ve done investigative work here at ABC News, found no proof of any kind of direct action,” “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos said of the claims about the uranium deal with Russia.
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and Fallon published their own posts directly to Medium, to point out what they said were errors and omissions.
During the weeks that various chapters of the book were making headlines, the campaign began releasing nightly memos to surrogates and supporters with stories and commentators on air who had discredited the book, or raised questions about the reporting. In total, the campaign put out five detailed memos to its network.
“In the last two days alone, three new claims by the partisan author of the Clinton Cash book have been discredited by independent news outlets,” read a line in one of the memos.
The final push came on the day of the book’s release. The campaign spent over 96 hours building out “The Briefing,” a website that launched on the day of the book’s release, which included an upbeat video featuring Fallon responding to the book and a supercut of Clinton surrogates and talking heads with the general message: “there’s no there there.”
In the donor world, the painstaking strategy to deal with the book was noticed.
“The campaign didn’t get paralyzed,” said Tom Nides, a vice chairman at Morgan Stanley and a close Clinton confidant who is her main liaison to Wall Street. “They didn’t get in a bunker, they kept supporters up to date daily— it felt very proactive.”
And perhaps most important to the donor class who may have harbored fears about Clinton’s weaknesses on display so early in the campaign, the candidate herself appeared relaxed and confident as she attended fundraisers in Washington and New York City.
“This could have gotten nutty,” Nides admitted. “She herself was a more relaxed Hillary. I’ve gotten universal feedback from these meetings that she’s excited to be there, she hung around. She was supposed to be at the event for an hour-and-a-half, she stayed for almost two hours. She didn’t act like she had to get back to the bunker. She was upbeat, positive, and not defensive. People tee off of that.”
So far, Clinton herself has answered only one question about the book, without referring to it by name. At a campaign stop in New Hampshire last month, she dismissed it and said she expected to be “subject to all kinds of distractions and attacks.” She has not addressed it publicly since then.
But that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been on the minds of the staffers and volunteers who manned the war room. As Clinton was speaking about immigration reform at a high school in Las Vegas on Tuesday, her campaign operatives back in Brooklyn waited eagerly on the results of a new poll.
When The New York Times poll popped, showing Clinton’s favorability had risen over the past year, the team from the war room finally exhaled.
“Clinton Cash,” the poll showed, had not had the devastating impact the campaign had feared. After weeks of stories pegged to chapters in the book, only 10 percent of voters said they believed foreign donations affected Clinton’s decisions as secretary of state, according to the poll, and more voters said they saw Clinton as a strong leader than they did earlier in the year.
But Schweizer notes that the themes of the book have now become a part of the Clinton narrative, and could easily pop up later in the campaign — especially as news organizations continue to plumb the Clinton Foundation and its donors.
“I think they have done a very detailed and aggressive campaign to try to undermine the credibility of the book,” Schweizer said. But he pointed to polls showing a relatively high percentage of voters questioning her trustworthiness.
“The narrative is now framed around the foundation and Bill’s speeches, and what role did that have on her decisions at the State Department,” Schweizer said. “My sense is those questions are going to be asked whenever she decides to actually talk to the press.”
Editor’s Note – The Clintons and their advisors sure are cocky, or is it dense, to think they could walk out “Hillary-2015 talk,” knowing full well, her “Hillary-2003 talk” is diametrically opposed. Who is she now? What will “Hillary-2016” be, or the following versions in later years?
The are cocky, because they think America will forget the 90’s scandals, and the Benghazi scandal, and the Missing Emails, and the “home-brew” server, and the Clinton Foundation, and Bill’s speaking fees, and Bill’s libido and shady friends…etc., etc., etc, well maybe the Democrats will.
Just a week ago, before the audio clip was found, she was already being called a “Pander-bear“:
If a candidate reverses a long-held position is it a “flip-flop” or someone who is “not afraid to run as her own woman?” That seems to depend on who’s doing the flopping. In the three weeks since the official launch of her second presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton, has been moving left in a hurry. (Read more at Fox News here.)
Read on about the audio uncovered and then read a tongue-in-cheek op/ed on it below with two videos:
Though you wouldn’t know it from her remarks earlier this week, Hillary Clinton was once “adamantly” against illegal immigration and was for erecting a border fence similar to one that protects Israel.
“I am adamantly against illegal immigrants,” then-Sen. Clinton said on the John Grambling radio show in Feb. 2003. “Certainly we’ve got to do more at our borders,” she said, adding that, “people have to stop employing illegal immigrants.”
The interview was unearthed and released by the Republican National Committee on Thursday. Notably absent from her remarks this week was the issue of border security.
In 2006, she told the New York Daily News that while she favored a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, she also wanted to build a fence in some areas along the southern border. “A country that cannot control its borders is failing at one of its fundamental obligations,” she told the New York Daily News in April 2006.
“There is technology that would be in the fence that could spot people coming from 250 or 300 yards away and signal patrol agents who could respond,” she continued, while suggesting that the U.S. could model its fence after the one protecting Israel.
But Clinton did not utter the words “border” or “fence” during her remarks Tuesday. She also did not speak of opposing “illegal immigrants” or “illegal immigration” as she did in 2003. The interview was unearthed and released by the Republican National Committee on Thursday.
“Come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties,” Clinton continued. “Stand in the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to get yard work, and construction work, and domestic work.”
Those remarks are remnants of a distant political past for Clinton, who unveiled her new stance on immigration at a roundtable discussion at a Las Vegas high school on Tuesday. Clinton called for a path to citizenship for all and said that she would act unilaterally to extend amnesty to many more undocumented immigrants in the country. (Read the rest here at the Daily Caller by Chuck Ross.)
That pretty much wraps up the huge flip-flop that even out does Obama’s change in stance on same-sex marriage that he took to get elected, and then to stay elected.
As usual, the Democrats will say and do anything to get elected – its about the power, not the good deeds. If America elects someone willing to go further left than Obama, say goodbye to what is left of the once grand and powerful USA.
Audio: “I am adamantly against illegal immigrants,” says … Hillary Clinton
Via Jeff Dunetz, a time capsule from 2003 rescued from the memory hole by GOP oppo researchers. We already knew she said this, but knowing it and having it available as a soundbite for attack ads are two different things.
It’ll come in handy next summer when she’s busy trying to convince Latinos that our inevitably pro-amnesty Republican nominee, who may well himself be Latino or have children who are Latino and who’ll probably have a Latino running mate, hates illegals because many are Latino.
The attack ads won’t work, though. The whole point of Tuesday’s pander-monium with DREAMers in Nevada was to assure amnesty fans that she’ll say or do virtually anything to make Latinos show up for her the way they did for O. Legal status for parents of young illegals? Consider it done, even though the Obama White House says the president lacks the authority to do that. (Seriously. Watch the [second] clip below.)
Legal status for adult illegals who don’t even have kids? No word on that yet, but all immigration activists have to do is ask. If anything, this soundbite is useful leverage for the open-borders left to extort even bolder campaign promises from her. “How can we trust someone who once said she adamantly opposes illegal immigrants unless she promises to unilaterally legalize America’s entire illegal population as president?”
I wonder if there’s any old position of Hillary’s, in fact, that will be held against her by the left despite her furious attempts to get right with them before Warren 2016 gains real momentum. Your best bet is her opposition to gay marriage, partly because it’s achieved the status of a moral litmus test on the left that immigration reform hasn’t and partly because Hillary can always point out that Obama has also disappointed liberals on immigration. (Executive amnesty made them happy but a comprehensive immigration bill passed when he had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate would have made them happier.)
The irony is, while SSM fans can tell themselves, correctly, that Hillary will do more for them as president than a Republican would, it’s actually not necessarily true that she’d do more for them on immigration than a Republican would. If you’re eager to see fragile executive action replaced with durable statutory solutions, President Jeb Bush is probably more likely to broker a compromise in Congress than President Hillary Clinton is.
Republicans in Congress might oppose a Hillary White House on immigration simply to land a blow against a new Democratic president; with a Bush White House, they’d be inclined to hand him a major victory to start his term. But there’s no point trying to argue strategy on this. Hillary will pull 65 percent of the Latino vote at a minimum, “adamant” opposition to illegal immigrants or not.
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.