Fed. Judge stalls Obama’s amnesty executive order

February 18, 2015

Obama unable to suspend deportations

U.S. District Court Judge Andrew S. Hanen’s opinion and order cuts to the chase from page one of the 123-page document as he delivers a blow to Barack Obama‘s executive order on illegals, defining the issue in these terms:

This is a case in which twenty-six states or their representatives are seeking injunctive relief against the United States and several officials of the Department of Homeland Security to prevent them from implementing a program titled “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.” This program is designed to provide legal presence to over four million individuals who are currently in the country illegally, and would enable these individuals to obtain a variety of both state and federal benefits. It continues here.

Judge Hanen noted that the Department of Homeland Security “legislated a substantial rule without complying with the procedural requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act” because the executive amnesty provisions did not undergo “notice-and-comment rule making procedure.” He concluded that the Department of Homeland Security is “not rewriting laws,” but actually “creating them from scratch.” He also determined that Obama’s executive amnesty is a “complete abdication” of immigration enforcement.

Hanen said that if the program were allowed to proceed at this point, “The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle.”  This video montage of Obama mocking the very executive orders he has been working to implement leaves no doubt he knew he was acting outside the framework of the law.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is no stranger to suing the Obama administration, having filed more than 30 lawsuits while serving as Texas‘ Attorney General. In this case, he filed the lawsuit challenging Barack Obama‘s executive order and was  joined by numerous other states. The collective Plaintiffs include the States of Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin., Michigan, Mississippi, Maine, North Carolina, Tennessee and Nevada.

The Obama administration is expected to appeal the ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.


Why not “Americans”?

February 1, 2015

“Default” white designation may become MENA?

The federal government is working on another way to further divide Americans. The U.S. Census Bureau is weighing the advisability of implementing a new classification to specifically designate another ethnic division. The acronym MENA would identify those of Middle Eastern and North African descent —- the majority of whom are Arab-Americans.

According to this report in U. S, News and World Report, these Americans “have previously been classified by default as white.”

The census is constitutionally ordered for the express purpose of enumeration for congressional representation. Article I, section II directs that the population be enumerated at least once every ten years and the resulting counts used to set the number of members in the House of Representatives from each state, and, by extension, in the Electoral College. 

In addition to enumerating the population, there is now intrusive data collection. Besides asking how many toilets you have in your home, the relationship of the residents, religion practiced and languages spoken, census data uses ethnicity to determine the configuration of race-based congressional districts, such as Arizona CD 3 and CD 7. Additionally there is $400 billion in federal aid programs and enforcement of civil rights laws to maintain these contrived districts.

A question about Hispanic origin, currently the only ethnic category, has been incorporated into the survey since 1980, though the census form instructs respondents that Hispanic is not a race.

CNN reports that during the 2010 census, some Arab-and-Iranian activists launched a campaign that urged people to check “some other race” on the form and write in their ancestry. The campaign’s slogan was: “Check it right; you ain’t white!

This trend toward ethnic-based separation rather than unity as Americans is troubling. “Balkanization” describes the destructive process of fragmentation of formerly united regions into smaller regions or states that are often hostile toward one another. 

“E Pluribus Unum” was the motto proposed for the first Great Seal of the United States by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson in 1776. The Latin phrase translates to, “One from many.” That’s who we are.


2015: A New Year comes with opportunities

December 31, 2014

Happy_New_Year

Seeing Red AZ sends sincere best wishes for a satisfying, productive, safe and healthy New Year to our readers.

As we embark upon this New Year, there is no better time to renew our acquaintance with America’s founding documents: The Declaration of Independence, our U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

They have served us well. The least we can do is stay familiar with what they contain, hold our newly elected Republican House and Senate majorities accountable and ensure that our children know what blessings we have been given as a nation.


AZ Republic cheers the demise of E Pluribus Unum

December 15, 2014

“Out of many, one” transmogrifies into “out of one, many” as unity takes back seat to diversity

The Periódico de la República de Arizona’s (Arizona Republic‘s) dual agendas of amnesty for illegals and promotion of same-sex issues, have matured and given birth to a rowdy youngster named Diversity.

The celebration of diversity, tinged with the not-so-veiled threat of the coming minority status of today’s European-ethnic majority has stepped front and center, elbowing the longtime favorites to the sidelines.

Like the carnival midway it has become, the newspaper now has a new go-to attraction known as the “Changing Face of America.” Our nation’s motto, E Pluribus Unum —- Latin for “Out of many, one” —- is teetering on the brink of extinction, with diversity based separatism grabbing the limelight in this ongoing series.

Sunday’s five-page splash followed three teens “who have long had one date etched in their minds,” that being “Nov. 8, 2016, Election Day, and the day all three will turn 18.”

On Saturday, we were treated to a skew by reporter David Gonzalez, who noted he was wearing a dark blue suit, and described his speech to the United Nations on World Cities Day, dealing with….what else?  Increasing diversity, of course.  His report centered on being invited to speak to a conference whose goal is to “make sure American cities become socially inclusive as they become increasingly diverse.” His complaint is that “many immigrants remain invisible.”

Gonzalez, it turns out,  is quite the linguistic contortionist. In employing over 1900 words in his report, he used the word “immigration” 14 times, “immigrants” 20, “without legal status,” twice, “unauthorized migrants,” only once, “illegal” (“the debate over illegal immigration”) once, “undocumented” a single time, and “illegal alien” not at all.

Rather than finding strength uniting us as proud Americans in the manner of  previous generations of grateful legal immigrants, we are separating along ethnic fissures. Most disturbing is the fact that America’s twice-elected first black president, has presided over and exacerbated the deterioration of race relations, according to this Bloomberg Politics Poll.

Americans are witnessing the result of the invasion of our nation by a flood of people who came here in violation of our laws and national sovereignty —- now aided and abetted by Obama’s illegal executive amnesty and shameful congressional inertia. They do not value our history, language or way of life, which is clearly evident as they march through our streets making demands or walking over, spitting on and desecrating the American flag (video) during a patriotic event at the Arizona Capitol.

Rather than immigrating through the proper channels, and becoming part of the fabric of this great country, they have come here to access our legendary generosity and turn this country into a replica of the downtrodden and crime infested one they left. Should it be much of a surprise they are unwelcome?


Psst…“Don’t tell anybody I said that”

December 11, 2014

These ignoramuses with titles teach our kids

Illustrating the topic “How they came to power,” Dr. Blake Armstrong, a psychology professor at South Texas College in Weslaco, Texas was recorded (video under link) as he likened the rise of the tea party to the rise of the Nazi party. The school is a public community college supported by taxpayers.

Armstrong began his lecture saying, “In 1931, which was really interesting, the Nazis —- people were kind of tired of them. They’ve been around since 1920, 11 years now. They’ve won seats —- they’re like the tea party. That’s such a good example,” Armstrong smugly noted. “Don’t tell anybody I said that, though.”

“But in the sense of how they politically came to power, there’s a good analogy there. That eventually people realized, ‘Oh, these Nazis are a bunch of nuts,’ ‘These tea party people are a bunch of nuts.’ I mean, the analogy really is a good analogy,” he concluded.

No, Professor Armstrong.  The analogy really is a vile one, based in leftwing deceit and moral relativism.

The tea party rose up out of citizen frustration. It is not actually a party, but a gathering of Americans united in their desire to return our United States to its constitutionally based roots. Last we heard they did not have forced labor death camps or gas chambers and ovens such as those in which the Nazis systematically murdered millions of those they deemed “undesirables.”

In another video, Armstrong says “civil disobedience just doesn’t work anymore.  All these people are joining ISIL, because they feel like the rest of the world is abandoning them —- which we are.”

Let’s hope so. Armstrong might have missed the numerous reports depicting these fanatics beheading innocent Westerners.

South Texas College needs to reassess its association with Blake Armstrong. He is unworthy of holding a position of trust and the ability to influence captive audiences in his classroom.


Credibility problems with lawyers defending Obama’s overreach

November 25, 2014

April Fool’s Day is still months away, but the gags keep coming

The U.S. Department of Justice recently released a letter* citing 10 legal academics at colleges across the country defending Barack Obama’s imperial executive action —- bypassing congress —- which grants amnesty to millions of foreign nationals who have illegally entered the United States.

But while the DOJ touts these professors’ prominence, their neutrality is certainly questionable.

In the letter, the legal scholars say they don’t always see eye-to-eye on presidential power and immigration policy, but that they “are all of the view that these actions are lawful.”

Of the 10 letter signers, seven are registered Democrats. Two live in states that don’t release party affiliation, but they both donate exclusively to Democrat candidates. The lone Republican, Eric Posner, is also an exclusive Democrat donor and has repeatedly written that Obama can literally “do whatever he wants” when it comes to executive authority.

Three of the lawyers work at the University of Chicago, where Obama taught constitutional law.

Another, Lee Bollinger, is the president of Columbia University, where Obama did his undergrad work. Bollinger is also directly involved in the effort to make Columbia the site of Obama’s presidential library.

Duke University professor Walter Dellinger, another who signed the letter, served in the Clinton administration and has an ongoing friendship with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who was nominated by Obama.

Finally, there’s Laurence Tribe, a mentor to Obama at Harvard Law School, who called him “the best student I ever had and the most exciting research assistant.” He also campaigned for Obama.

* The DOJ letter is missing from its website.

 


Obama’s raw contempt for constitution’s separation of powers & Update

November 21, 2014

Statements from Arizona’s D.C. delegation

The President of the United States, a onetime senior lecturer who later claimed to be a “constitutional law professor,” has shown his ineptness regarding the subject.

By unilaterally implementing his brazen amnesty scheme via executive order —- bypassing congress —- he has rejected the voice of America’s voters. Barack Obama has exceeded his authority for what he undoubtedly views as  pure political gain.

This is Obama speaking more rationally to a live Univision audience in March 2011:

“With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case,” Obama said at the time.

“We’ve got three branches of government,” he instructs.  “Congress passes the law, the executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws and then the judiciary has to interpret the laws,” he says.

“For me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

When Obama was first sworn into office he had large Democrat majorities in both the Senate and the House. They were so large he could have designed and passed a bill exclusively through the Democrats. Instead he pushed healthcare reform and gun control bills. Now after a major 2014 midterm election loss repudiating his policies, and putting both the Senate and House in GOP control, an angry Obama has bypassed congress altogether.  This comes despite the fact that he has repeatedly acknowledged he does not have the authority to take such action.

Obama’s sagging polling numbers speak volumes. He will have no legacy as he leaves office in two years. Still, the question remains, are his actions legal?

Update-tag

These are the responses to Obama’s executive order under “press releases” from Arizona’s Republican members of congress. Rep. Trent Franks has a page titled “In the News.” His most recent newsworthy issue does not address this massive overstep of presidential authority.

 Rep. Gosar Responds to President Obama’s Unlawful Executive Amnesty Order

 Rep. Salmon Responds to President Obama’s Unilateral Immigration Actions

 Rep. Schweikert Secret Science Bill Passes the House

Trent Franks: Stand Up For Religious Freedom

 Longtime amnesty leader, John McCain attempts to feign outrage: 

Senator McCain on Pres. Obama’s Executive Action on Immigration

McCain’s amnesty doppelganger Sen. Jeff Flake  issued this two sentence equivocation:

Flake Statement on Obama’s Immigration Executive Order


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 360 other followers