Presidential leadership in action!
Obama Delays Immigration Action, Yielding to Democratic Concerns
By Michael D Shear, September 6, 2014
As the election draws closer, some nervous Senate Democrats have told White House officials that President Obama’s actions could cost them victory at the polls. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — President Obama will delay taking executive action on immigration until after the midterm elections, bowing to pressure from fellow Democrats who feared that acting now could doom his party’s chances this fall, White House officials said on Saturday.The decision is a reversal of Mr. Obama’s vow to issue broad directives to overhaul the immigration system soon after summer’s end, and sparked swift anger from immigration advocates. The president made the promise on June 30, in the Rose Garden, where he angrily denounced Republican obstruction and said he would use the power of his office to protect immigrant families from the threat of deportation.
“Because of the Republicans’ extreme politicization of this issue, the president believes it would be harmful to the policy itself and to the long-term prospects for comprehensive immigration reform to announce administrative action before the elections,” a White House official said. “Because he wants to do this in a way that’s sustainable, the president will take action on immigration before the end of the year.”
Let’s do something really radical here and tell the truth: if the President and the Democrats in Congress believe that going ahead with their plans for immigration reform would cost the Democrats seats in the 2014 elections, it means that they know that the voters would not approve of their plans, that the public oppose their plans. They believe that they are going to try to attempt something against the wishes of the citizens of the United States.
The United States is not, technically speaking, a democracy, but a democratically elected representative republic. Our representatives are supposed to represent their constituents, all of their constituents, regardless of whether any particular constituent is a member of the same — or any — party, or voted for the representative or not.
If the Democrats believe that their immigration reform plans would harm their electoral chances, the Republicans ought to point that out, loudly, vigorously and frequently, should point out that the Democrats are delaying immigration reform specifically because they know that the voters would disapprove.
Karen, the Lonely Conservative, also wrote on the topic, as did Donald Douglas.
Donna Miller of the Victory Girls smells a rat in the Kansas Senate race.
From Phineas Fahrquar, on Sister Toldjah: #Benghazi: security contractors claim CIA delayed aid
Hube on the Colossus of Rhodey: As a life-long Rams fan, I say this is patently ridiculous. Your Editor thinks that it’s patently ridiculous to be a Rams fan in the first place!
Robert Stacey Stacy McCain: Whose agenda is the feminist agenda?
William Teach: US Weather Only Matters When It Conforms To Warmist Narrative
From the much better looking Dana:
The Government: Compelling The Nonbeliever To Acknowledge The Existence Of A Supreme Being
Filed under: General — Dana @ 1:06 pm
Having recently discussed what the Christian private business owner can be compelled to do, the question now being raised is: Can the government compel a nonbeliever to take an oath that affirms the existence of a supreme being if it involves the military?
Not according to Monica Miller, an attorney with the AHA’s Apignani Humanist Legal Center, who is defending an atheist airman who was denied reenlistment in the Air Force because on the oath portion of his contract he crossed out “So help me God”.
The airman was told his only options were to sign the religious oath section of the contract without adjustment and recite an oath concluding with “so help me God,” or leave the Air Force, the AHA said.
That is unconstitutional and unacceptable, the AHA said.
“The government cannot compel a nonbeliever to take an oath that affirms the existence of a supreme being,” Miller said. “Numerous cases affirm that atheists have the right to omit theistic language from enlistment or reenlistment contracts.”
More at the link. The Editor is somewhat amused, given the old saw that there are no atheists in foxholes, but agrees that no American can be compelled by our government to take an oath in which allegiance to a deity is implied. However, I do have to wonder if an atheist is fit to serve, in any capacity.
On Truth Before Dishonor, John Hitchcock noted the 67 senators who voted to cut veterans’ pensions.
Donald Douglas: VIDEO: Jihad Preacher Anjem Choudary Confirms Terrorism is Part of Islam. Of course, there are squishy Muslims who would never go along with that, but, in the end, the supposedly moderate Muslims are enablers of the Islamists and jihadi.