Obama and Holder Against Arizona

[Mr VJP]

The person in this video is a professor (Ph.D.) at

Yavapai College in Prescott , Arizona .  He

puts a different spin on what Obama is

doing  to help Arizona and he repeats the

important parts and speaks slowly enough to

allow you to follow what he's saying; must be

why he's rated highly by his students - 3.8 on a

4.0 scale.

This may be the best video produced on the illegal alien problems that are being experienced.

 

After you see the video, remember that Obama and Holder have just announced they will not enforce the Federal Law know as DOMA either.

For those of you who don't know what that is, I'll let you research it.

[steve863]

You want to stop illegal immigration??  Get US employers to stop hiring them.  It is against US employment law to hire someone without a SS # and a couple of proofs of legal residency documents.  It isn't rocket science to figure out who is legal or not.  Crack down on employers who hire them and illegal immigrants won't be swarming in looking for work if there is NO work to be had.  It won't happen though, because American business WANTS this cheap form of labor, and businesses pay off politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle not to stop this flow of cheap labor.  Very simple, but of course the Mexican's are the ONLY ones at fault here according to many American patriots.

[Mr VJP]

Actually, it's Democrat Lawmakers that refuse to enforce the law against employers in the US. 

Illegal Alien is another word for undocumented Democrat you know.

[steve863]

Actually, it's Democrat Lawmakers that refuse to enforce the law against employers in the US. 

Illegal Alien is another word for undocumented Democrat you know.

That's BS.  Bush was president for 8 years and had majorities in the Senate and House for 6 of those years and exactly what did they do to stop illegal immigration? JACK, that's what.  Businesses give campaign contributions to both republicans and democrats to look the other way on this issue.  As I said, crack down on employers and they will not be swarming in like they are now. It won't happen though because capitalism has always liked cheap labor. 

[Mr VJP]

You don't think capitalism is a good thing?

What have you got against Republicans?

[Mr VJP]

The Obama Justice Department dropped all pretenses  this week and announced that it won't defend the Defense of Marriage Act  (DOMA) in federal court. DOMA, the Clinton-era law that was passed by  huge bipartisan majorities in both houses, defines marriage as between  one man and one woman, and it says that no state is required to  recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. The administration has  long held that it would defend the law in court, but that defense has  been extremely lackluster. At least they're being honest now, though we  wonder if anyone -- even his supporters -- actually believed that Obama  opposed same-sex marriage. To the poor saps who did believe him we say:  Welcome to politics.

The problem is that the administration is making  policy preference its sole justification for this non-defense, not  whether the law is deemed constitutional. That is an entirely new  standard for the Justice Department, though it's certainly in keeping  with this administration's blatant disregard for Rule of Law. The  administration is now required to present Congress with a report  detailing its reasons within 30 days, and the court of appeals will have  to appoint counsel to defend the law. The latter could actually prove  beneficial given that the administration's defense was so half-hearted.

[nyantler]

You want to stop illegal immigration??  Get US employers to stop hiring them.  It is against US employment law to hire someone without a SS # and a couple of proofs of legal residency documents.  It isn't rocket science to figure out who is legal or not.  Crack down on employers who hire them and illegal immigrants won't be swarming in looking for work if there is NO work to be had.  It won't happen though, because American business WANTS this cheap form of labor, and businesses pay off politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle not to stop this flow of cheap labor.  Very simple, but of course the Mexican's are the ONLY ones at fault here according to many American patriots.

Again Steve you missed the whole point.. the point is that a US President has taken sides against a federal immigration law (already in place) and is sueing a state in the US that is trying to enforce it... It doesn't matter why the illegals are coming here..it only matters that they don't belong here.. and a sitting US President and his minions are siding with illegal aliens and want to punish a state for enforcing current federal illegal immigration policy... stay on the subject at hand and put down the kool-aid you'll understand this a lot better

[steve863]

You want to stop illegal immigration??  Get US employers to stop hiring them.  It is against US employment law to hire someone without a SS # and a couple of proofs of legal residency documents.  It isn't rocket science to figure out who is legal or not.  Crack down on employers who hire them and illegal immigrants won't be swarming in looking for work if there is NO work to be had.  It won't happen though, because American business WANTS this cheap form of labor, and businesses pay off politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle not to stop this flow of cheap labor.  Very simple, but of course the Mexican's are the ONLY ones at fault here according to many American patriots.

Again Steve you missed the whole point.. the point is that a US President has taken sides against a federal immigration law (already in place) and is sueing a state in the US that is trying to enforce it... It doesn't matter why the illegals are coming here..it only matters that they don't belong here.. and a sitting US President and his minions are siding with illegal aliens and want to punish a state for enforcing current federal illegal immigration policy... stay on the subject at hand and put down the kool-aid you'll understand this a lot better

You are telling me I drink Kool-Aid?  What in hell are you guys drinking to cause such fear and paranoia?  Surely way more potent than anything I drink.  I didn't miss the point on anything.  I simply stated what I know would definitely curtail illegal immigration in this country since you guys are paranoid about illegals like you are about most things.  You guys simply continue to spin things around wanting everyone to think that your points of view are the only valid ones.  What I think really needs to be done here is to let you and VJP own this political forum. Maybe it should be renamed politics according to VJP and Antler with no one else needing to reply??  LOL  You guys can continue to post your paranoia and the rest of us should simply sit back and continue to laugh at it.  Obviously you guys are completely incapable of having a debate with anyone without the typical crap that you both spew in every thread. 

[Dave]

You want to stop illegal immigration??  Get US employers to stop hiring them.  It is against US employment law to hire someone without a SS # and a couple of proofs of legal residency documents.  It isn't rocket science to figure out who is legal or not.  Crack down on employers who hire them and illegal immigrants won't be swarming in looking for work if there is NO work to be had.  It won't happen though, because American business WANTS this cheap form of labor, and businesses pay off politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle not to stop this flow of cheap labor.  Very simple, but of course the Mexican's are the ONLY ones at fault here according to many American patriots.

Again Steve you missed the whole point.. the point is that a US President has taken sides against a federal immigration law (already in place) and is sueing a state in the US that is trying to enforce it... It doesn't matter why the illegals are coming here..it only matters that they don't belong here.. and a sitting US President and his minions are siding with illegal aliens and want to punish a state for enforcing current federal illegal immigration policy... stay on the subject at hand and put down the kool-aid you'll understand this a lot better

I agree the point is there are no good arguments for being here illegally. We can't have open borders, we must control our borders to keep them out. Have you watched Border wars it's a joke we catch 10 and miss 100 not a good ratio. Just a cat and mouse game and we are losing. And the Obama Administration could care less, it's Obamas problem not not Bush he is gone if you haven't noticed.

Dave

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Last year we had 6 employees that provided the correct documentation. We called the info in to the Feds like we are suppose to. We got confirmation the info was consistent with their records....6 months later we started to receive calls from the peoples who's actual info it was since we reported income from our company. They never worked for us. Their identities had been stolen. We contacted the feds and they said to fire the illegals...didn't even want any info on them or come over to pick them up. Bottom line...our laws need to be enforced. That is the only way to stop this

[Mr VJP]

Being able to see a predictable disaster isn't paranoia.  If you were reloading bullets and smoking at the same time, would you call me paranoid if I told you I wasn't going to let you do that?

[virgil]

The Obama Justice Department dropped all pretenses  this week and announced that it won't defend the Defense of Marriage Act  (DOMA) in federal court.

I've got to ask.  So, what?  I'm honestly curious as to how you perceive this as a threat.

[2BRKnot2B]

The Obama Justice Department dropped all pretenses  this week and announced that it won't defend the Defense of Marriage Act  (DOMA) in federal court.

I've got to ask.  So, what?  I'm honestly curious as to how you perceive this as a threat.

It is not the presidents personal beliefs, or his constitutional interpretations, which should guide his job. His job is as executive, top cop, CinC. Those who serve under him do so at the pleasure of the congress. He has a duty to protect the citizens of this country, and to promote the policies of the laws of the United States. He can't pick & choose which he will, or will not, advocate for, or against. His duty, as is the duty of his AG, to promote the laws whether they be in direct opposition to the constitution, as he sees it, or not. The courts are supposed to make those distinctions. If someone argues against the act, then he must argue for it, regardless of his personal preferences, or beliefs, or the status of his presidency according to polls. If you don;t understand this distinction, then why do you even bother to argue on here?

[virgil]

It is not the presidents personal beliefs, or his constitutional interpretations, which should guide his job. His job is as executive, top cop, CinC. Those who serve under him do so at the pleasure of the congress. He has a duty to protect the citizens of this country, and to promote the policies of the laws of the United States. He can't pick & choose which he will, or will not, advocate for, or against. His duty, as is the duty of his AG, to promote the laws whether they be in direct opposition to the constitution, as he sees it, or not. The courts are supposed to make those distinctions. If someone argues against the act, then he must argue for it, regardless of his personal preferences, or beliefs, or the status of his presidency according to polls. If you don;t understand this distinction, then why do you even bother to argue on here?

I understand the distinction perfectly well.  That's actually the first rational argument you've made on this thread.  I don't disagree that laws should be enforced as written.  My question was regarding the law- how do you perceive not defending the DOMA as a threat, aside from the principle that we've just agreed on.

[steve863]

My question was regarding the law- how do you perceive not defending the DOMA as a threat, aside from the principle that we've just agreed on.

Since they are intermixing illegal immigrants and DOMA here, I guess one can say they are afraid of gay mexicans?  LOL  These fellas obviously have issues with their own sexuality, so I'd reckon they better be careful when they bend over to pick up their sombrero's at the next Mexican hat dance they attend!  LOL

[Mr VJP]

"Attorney General Eric Holder announced that President  Obama had concluded that the administration would no longer defend  Section 3 of DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act]. ... As he has in so many  other areas (EPA, the offshore drilling ban, IMF), Obama has usurped the  authority of the other two coequal branches of government to make  himself, in effect, not just chief executive but super-legislator and a  supreme judicial authority. Holder admitted in his statement that the  Justice Department 'has a longstanding practice of defending the  constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can  be made in their defense,' but not otherwise. But it is preposterous to  suggest there are no reasonable arguments to defend the statute when  5,000 years of human history and the express act of Congress fly in the  face of that statement. According to professor John Yoo, 'in the few  cases that the Supreme Court has heard gay rights cases, it has never  adopted (the standard Obama is applying).' In announcing a new standard,  Obama claims that the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since  DOMA was passed. You know the drill: Society has 'evolved.' ... t is  not Obama's place to make this determination, especially when the  people have already done so in such emphatic terms through their duly  elected congressmen. ... [W]e have an imperial president who is refusing  to enforce a law passed by powerful congressional majorities while  persisting in enforcing a law (Obamacare) that two federal courts have  already invalidated. The only common denominator is that Obama believes  he is the law." --columnist David Limbaugh

"One of the most insidious practices of the insidious  Obama Justice Department is the sabotaging of litigation -- i.e., DOJ  purports to defend some statute or government policy so that it can  appear to be moderate, but uses its resulting control over how the case  gets litigated to forfeit some of the best legal arguments supporting  the statute/policy. This way, DOJ can steer the case toward the radical  outcome the Obama base desires rather than the outcome DOJ is ostensibly  pursuing. On balance, I far prefer that Obama's Justice Department  openly advocates for the outcome desired by Obama's base, as it is  finally doing with DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act]. This way, the court  can appoint lawyers who will truly defend the statute with the best  legal arguments available. ... Regardless of where the DOMA litigation  goes from here, what's interesting is the administration's political  calculation as the president gears up for the 2012 campaign. Obama has  clearly decided that it's more important to be publicly aligned with his  base -- which he desperately needs to drum up enthusiasm for his  reelection -- than to pursue the more subtle (and effective, albeit  unethical) strategy of masquerading as DOMA's defender while actually  undermining the statute." --columnist Andrew C. McCarthy

[virgil]

Why won't you just be honest?  Is you issue with the political maneuvering, or is it because the topic is 'gay marriage'?

[Mr VJP]

I see no deception here at all.  My issue is with a sitting President who is acting like a dictator to impose his will on the entire American populace, with full disregard for the rule of law, on any issue he so chooses.  Especially when more than half of the country is not in agreement with him.

[2BRKnot2B]

It is not the presidents personal beliefs, or his constitutional interpretations, which should guide his job. His job is as executive, top cop, CinC. Those who serve under him do so at the pleasure of the congress. He has a duty to protect the citizens of this country, and to promote the policies of the laws of the United States. He can't pick & choose which he will, or will not, advocate for, or against. His duty, as is the duty of his AG, to promote the laws whether they be in direct opposition to the constitution, as he sees it, or not. The courts are supposed to make those distinctions. If someone argues against the act, then he must argue for it, regardless of his personal preferences, or beliefs, or the status of his presidency according to polls. If you don;t understand this distinction, then why do you even bother to argue on here?

I understand the distinction perfectly well.  That's actually the first rational argument you've made on this thread.  I don't disagree that laws should be enforced as written.  My question was regarding the law- how do you perceive not defending the DOMA as a threat, aside from the principle that we've just agreed on.

I don't see what this has to do with illegal immigration, except that the current faux president (not a constitutionally eligible "natural born citizen"), and past presidents, have not done their job of stopping illegal immigration, nor rounding up, and sending back, those here illegally.

As to DOMA, it is not a threat to me, but to all society. If a president can pick & choose which laws to promote, or not, then he can do just about anything he wants. That is anathema to our separation of powers.

[virgil]

I see no deception here at all.  My issue is with a sitting President who is acting like a dictator to impose his will on the entire American populace, with full disregard for the rule of law, on any issue he so chooses.  Especially when more than half of the country is not in agreement with him.

I still think that you're being less than completely honest here- and your little cartoon confirms my suspicion.  You've made your point about laws not being enforced.  The cartoon makes no reference to the point that you're explicitly making regarding non-enforcement of the law.  But, it is an obvious reference to the point that you're trying to avoid.

[MuzzyLoader]

What the United States is witnessing is a man that believes he has 'all-the-answers' to the problems associated with life here in this country... and that as POTUS he will implement those solutions at all/any cost - to him the end justify the means.  He'll continue to chip away at 'small stuff' until he can obtain the necessary resources to obtain his ultimate goal (whatever that may be).  Whatever happens in the 2012 election will have a HUGE bearing on the future of this country!  I don't personally care what party anyone is affiliated with or how they vote - I only ask everyone to exercise your RIGHT to vote - I served my country for you all to keep that right!

The following was taken for the following wepsite: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/25/newt-gingrich-obama-impeachment-palin_n_828506.html

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Friday [2/25] that President Obama had overstepped his constitutional authority with his recent decision to order his administration to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. While the move didn't immediately open Obama up to impeachment, Gingrich claimed, it did raise his worry about a future constitutional crisis.

In an interview with Newsmax, Gingrich characterized the president's latest announcement regarding DOMA, a law that allows states to not honor gay marriages, as "a dereliction of duty and a violation of his constitutional oath" that "cannot be allowed to stand."

On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder said Obama had determined that his administration would no longer defend a law defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, but that it would continue to be enforced pending an actual legislative overturn [something that is NOT happening with ‘Obamacare’ – which has been ruled unconstitutional by a Federal Judge in Florida].

Gingrich on Friday said that this plan of action was unacceptable.

"He swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States," Gingrich said. "He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody."

While Obama was sheltered by the left, which "likes the policy," Gingrich claimed, he proposed another situation that he suggested would have caused much more clamor.

"Imagine that Governor Palin had become president," Gingrich said. "Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone's right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment."

 

He then provided a potential legislative solution based on his belief that what the president was doing was unconstitutional.

"I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job," Gingrich said.

[Mr VJP]

I see no deception here at all.  My issue is with a sitting President who is acting like a dictator to impose his will on the entire American populace, with full disregard for the rule of law, on any issue he so chooses.  Especially when more than half of the country is not in agreement with him.

I still think that you're being less than completely honest here- and your little cartoon confirms my suspicion.  You've made your point about laws not being enforced.  The cartoon makes no reference to the point that you're explicitly making regarding non-enforcement of the law.  But, it is an obvious reference to the point that you're trying to avoid.

Did you not understand what I said in the post you quoted and attached above?  The cartoon was printed in response to Obama's refusal to enforce DOMA.  How does that not reference my point?  What point does your confused mind think is obviously referenced that I am trying to avoid virgil?

I think if you look back on my prior posts, I'm totally clear on any point I choose to make.

See muzzy's post above for more on why this refusal to enforce laws is a threat to US citizens.

[virgil]

Well that's news.  Newt Gingrich criticizing the President and riling up the right wingers- opportunism at it's most obvious and most predictable.  And using Sarah Palin as a hypothetical example is laughable.  Admit it, she's peaked- in two years she'll be a punchline.  And none of you will ever admit to having supported her.

[Mr VJP]

Virgil, your reading comprehension needs work.  I can't help but notice your reply to the above posts are superficial and without any attempt to address the points made in such.

Your last post is purely contemptuous and lacks any depth.  I was going to say you can do better than that, but I think maybe I might be judging you too quickly with that.

[nyantler]

Well that's news.  Newt Gingrich criticizing the President and riling up the right wingers- opportunism at it's most obvious and most predictable.  And using Sarah Palin as a hypothetical example is laughable.  Admit it, she's peaked- in two years she'll be a punchline.  And none of you will ever admit to having supported her.

Must kill you to read what Gingrich says and realize that it is spot on... tough to argue when the facts keep smacking you in the face huh virgil... no critisizing here just plain common sense observations based on facts... not the "What I think" crap that comes out of your mouth.

So lets remove Sarah Palin from the analogy and replace her with any conservative of choice and the point Gingrich makes still stands... your way of shrugging off common sense, facts and reality is what is laughable. You have a hard time understanding things that are laid right out for you... we keep proving our point and you call it laughable.. yet you have yet to show any proof that anything you say or think is true or has any merit to the majority of American people... you're starting to become laughable