Is Obama's Amnesty Plan Constitutional?

President Obama's executive order to protect illegal aliens from deportation and reward their criminal behavior with not just a green card, but also work permits and natural born citizen-grade social security numbers, is coming under scrutiny by the Supreme Court this week.

Certainly it is true that other presidents of both stripes in the past have used executive orders but almost all of those have been to clarify how existing laws, lawfully passed and enacted by Congress, were implemented. On the other hand Obama has used his "pen and phone", as he haughtily puts it, to circumvent constitutional law and deprive Congress (the legislative branch) of their Constitutional mandate to craft laws which the president (the executive branch) can either sign into law or veto.

After this particular executive order, Texas and 25 other Republican-led states filed a suit in federal court in Brownsville, Texas.  Last year, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the states against the federal government.

So now the case is seemingly deadlocked 4 to 4 in the Supreme Court. Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that Congress, not the president, has the authority to decide which groups of immigrants can stay lawfully in the United States. By way of clarifying his opinion of whom is tasked with this responsibility he stated, "It is a legislative act, not an executive act."



But simply handing out jobs to those who broke the law by entering this country illegally, in a criminal manner against a sovereign state, borders on stupidity not to mention giving away the store. Low to medium wage earning Americans, both union and non-union, who were born and bred here are crying out for those jobs.

In a statement, Todd Schulte, who is the spokesman for a pro-immigration reform group founded by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said, "We will continue working to pass a permanent legislative solution. In the meantime, we hope the Court will quickly cement these vital programs to help millions of American families live free from the fear of deportation."

Excuse me? Exactly in which way are trespassers holding foreign and not USA citizenship status "American families?" Only in the sense of that old linguistic canard which is often stated as, "We should all be called Americans, those of us who hail from North, Central, or South America." Somehow I doubt that is what Schulte had in mind. Rather, that sly dog is inching his foot surreptitiously onto that slippery slope that serves to mold through insinuation and repetition the opinions of those who prefer to be spoon fed by the media rather than doing their own homework.

Because hey, we're not as smart as Zuckerberg who has a big stake in low-paying job globalization.

In short, we have two huge long-reaching considerations going into what SCOTUS decrees. First, do we finally set in stone the precedent that a sitting president can disregard the Constitution and act as Emperor? And second, going forward, are illegal trespassers equally or more entitled to American jobs that taxpayers, natural-born citizens, and veterans are?

What are Superdelegates?

There has been a lot of traction in the news lately over the subject of superdelegates, also called "unpledged delegates." Specifically, there are some people who speculate that Hillary Clinton is using them, via her and Bill's influence, to widen the gap between herself and Bernie Sanders.

Indeed, as of this writing, Clinton has 1,243 delegates and Sanders is rather close behind with 975. When you add the superdelegates to the mix, Clinton leads Sanders by 1,712 to 1,004. Quite a difference, yes?

But who are these mysterious superdelgates? To begin with, only the Democrat party uses them, not the Republicans. They are totally unattached to the popular vote of the citizens as opposed to the distribution of regular delegates. The method of distribution of regular delegates is determined by each state; some are winner-take-all, others depend on a ratio.

On the other hand, the supers make up their own mind; they are bound by no one. Many people, with good reason, feel that this undermines the voting system by taking some critical power out of the hands of the common voters and giving it to special interests with absolutely no oversight.

Who are the Superdelegates?

This is where it gets scary. The supers are for the most part elected officials such as members of the House and Senate, Democratic governors, and the Vice President. Others to note are members of the Democratic National Committee.

Also included are “distinguished party leaders” like former Presidents, senators and House leaders. There are about 712 of them nationwide; potentially a sufficient number to swing the nomination--no matter the will of the people.

Oh, did we mention that the party named Bill Clinton a superdelegate? Now that's ethics taken to the next level.


One would have to be blind not to see the implication of political chicanery and backroom "sausage-making" to secure their loyalty to one side or the other. Would you like a comfy government job after the election?  How about an ambassador post? An invite to all state dinners would be nice, yes?

If you think the matter is trivial, consider this--if the tables were turned and Sanders had the number of pledged supers that Clinton has and she had his numbers, he would be crushing her.

When Jake Tapper of CNN asked Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?" Schultz responded, "Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists."

Citizens, be afraid; be very afraid.

Trump's Ascendancy Signals a GOP Revival

The Republican party has seen better days. As it stands today, one might call it the Republicrat party. Certainly the policy talking points reflect a solid conservatism but as with all other things in life, actions speak louder than words.

Consider; currently the GOP controls both the House and the Senate. Yet both keep rolling over and giving President Obama everything he wants. John Boehner as Speaker of the House was an embarrassment. He caved on every issue because he was terrified of being labeled as the person that orchestrated a government shutdown (which technically speaking is meaningless; any federal employees put on hold get all un-worked-for back pay when the budget is again funded).

Paul Ryan promised to be a breath of fresh air when he took over Boehner's post. That promise was short-lived. One of his first accomplishments was his Omnibus bill. This bill fully funds DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and grants around 700,000 illegal aliens with work permits, as well as the ability to receive tax credits and federal entitlement programs.

The bill also funds sanctuary cities with federal grants. If that were not enough, Ryan's bill funds President Obama’s refugee resettlement operation and will allow for the admission of tens of thousands of refugees with access to federal benefits. Mind you, many of these benefits are not available to tax-paying citizens. These are conservative values as trumpeted during stump speeches?

In view of all this disregard of the promises made to earn votes, is no small surprise that the base is throwing up its collective arms and embracing Donald Trump? The establishment earlier blew him off, thinking he would burn out. But to their dismay, he has only gained momentum and the establishment is now running scared. As the delegate count continues to rise, establishment attitudes are beginning to change and many hangers-on are hustling to position themselves in the new party paradigm. Chris Christie saw the writing on the wall, bailed from the primaries, and promptly endorsed Trump. Is there a conciliatory cabinet position in the offing?

Another key endorser is the Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions. Sessions is known as being one of the strongest opponents in the United States Congress of illegal alien amnesty. His endorsement adds more conservative cred to The Donald's image.

Clearly, not only Republicans but the populace at large is ready for a change back to more accountability and constituent representation. According to the Boston Herald, "Nearly 20,000 Bay State Democrats have fled the party this winter, with thousands doing so to join the Republican ranks, according to the state's top election official."

These citizens are joining the Trump movement and the current Republicans that are rebelling against the establishment. Whether Trump wins the Oval Office or not, the voters have spoken. A new, revitalized GOP will have to happen if it is to survive at all.

Nearly 20,000 Bay State Democrats have fled the party this winter, with thousands doing so to join the Republican ranks, according to the state’s top elections official. - See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/thousands-ma-democrats-quit-party-switch-trump-146725/#sthash.grtpS51a.dpuf

Nearly 20,000 Bay State Democrats have fled the party this winter, with thousands doing so to join the Republican ranks, according to the state’s top elections official. - See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/thousands-ma-democrats-quit-party-switch-trump-146725/#sthash.grtpS51a.dpuf

Nearly 20,000 Bay State Democrats have fled the party this winter, with thousands doing so to join the Republican ranks, according to the state’s top elections official. - See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/thousands-ma-democrats-quit-party-switch-trump-146725/#sthash.grtpS51a.dpuf

Donald Trump's Delaying Problem is Troubling

At this point Trump seems to have a lock on the Republican party presidential nomination. He's a great showman, businessman, and has large sweeping ideas. The problem is that he paints with a broad brush. He has yet to indicate how he will implement those plans. Thoughtful voters want to see substance, not delaying tactics.

And there's the rub. When questioned on almost any issue his typical response is something like, "We're working on it." Or, "I'm not ready to release that information but trust me, it's going to be HUGE."

One might remember from a previous campaign long ago in 1984 when Walter Mondale used the phrase, "Where's the beef?" in a challenge of substance against rival candidate Gary Hart. Some of the more skeptical voters would like to ask that of The Donald. It's that time in the campaign to reveal some real substance.

There are some things that voters expect from candidates, such as the release of medical records, education records, and tax returns. After all, when you get down to brass tacks, an election campaign is essentially an extended job interview. The voters sit in the hiring seat.

Trump has been declining to reveal his tax returns. "Either he's not as anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is or he hasn't been paying the kind of taxes we would expect him to pay, or perhaps he hasn't been giving money to the vets or to the disabled like he's been telling us he's been doing," Mitt Romney said on Fox News Channel's "Your World with Neil Cavuto."

This is troubling because if elected he will have a large say in how tax money is spent, even though spending originates from the House. All we know at this point is that he has indulged himself in bankruptcies to protect his interests from failing business interests.

According to Newsmax.com, "Earlier this month, Trump told John Dickerson on CBS' Face the Nation that he plans on releasing his tax returns "over the next three, four months." The problem with that is by that time the hiring process will be locked down. Convenient.

Where's the beef, Donald?

Is Louis Farrakhan the Ultimate Bigot?

There are a number of purveyors of racial hate or as they are often referred to as "poverty pimps." They include such notable figures as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. However, Louis Farrakhan (his real name was Louis Eugene Wolcott) may be the most damaging of all.

He recently called for the black citizens of Detroit to redevelop the city. Note that he only calls on blacks to participate, not whites. He says he wants the city to become the "new Mecca." Not only is he divisive about race, but also on religion. It sounds like only black Muslims are invited to participate in his urban renewal plan.

He goes on to disrespect professional basketball players, comparing them to slaves. It is hard to see how a talented, hard-working athlete who pulled himself up by his bootstraps and is finally making a huge salary through hard work is a slave. But this is the professional hate mantra; pull down the high achievers.

If this man truly has leadership qualities in areas other than fund-raising, he should commit them to uniting the races and encouraging successful lives, not the opposite.

Madeleine Albright's and Gloria Steinem's Comments don't Help Hillary

Hillary Clinton's campaign for president has been losing steam even as contender Bernie Sanders has been picking up steam. There are many factors involved but two recent ones are statements made by her feminist supporters.

Take Madeleine Albright, for example. Albright was the first female Secretary of state under President Bill Clinton in December of 1996 and was confirmed the following January.

At a recent rally, Albright said, “We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it’s done,” Ms. Albright said of the broader fight for women’s equality. “It’s not done. There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

At the time, Hillary hooted in appreciation with the rest of the crowd, but must have been advised by her team later how wrong that was to do because she is now trying to walk it back. She later said, “I think what she was trying to do, what she’s done in every setting I’ve ever seen her in going back 20-plus years, was to remind young women, particularly, that you know, this struggle, which many of us have been part of, is not over.”

That's a logical explanation for another scenario but in this context and setting it just doesn't work. This was a presidential candidate rally. The credentials for the office of president don't include gender and inferring that women who don't vote for Hillary are going to hell is, well, just a bit creepy. The actual credentials are who is most qualified for the job; it's really not based on the difference between Hillary's and Bernie's physical characteristics. But to infer that it is is not resonating with young women voters.



Gloria Steinem's comments on the other hand on the Bill Maher show were, "When you're young, you're thinking, 'Where are the boys?' The boys are with Bernie," seeming to imply, as reported at www.nydailynews.com that "young women are supporting Democratic presidential wannabe Bernie Sanders for only one reason — to meet boys."

While that may be true in some cases, making a blanket statement like that trivializes young women and is likely to drive them away from Hillary.

The bottom line is that although Hillary is making her own problems and trying to suppress old ones, a campaign based on feminism is not helped by outspoken feminists adding fuel to the fire. If she wants to keep her base and her message she needs to find some way to rein them in.

Is Donald Trump a Conservative or a RINO?

If you've been watching the Republican presidential contest for the nomination, you will have noticed all the hype surrounding Trump. Early on, the common sentiment was that, "Don't be concerned; he's just a showman and will burn out soon."

Well folks, that didn't happen and the pundits are getting nervous. They're not sure why he is demonstrating such holding power. It's easy to see; he has tapped into a nerve common to the average Joe and Joan on the street.



He's talking about the issues that concern the common citizen. The established Republicans have long promised to tackle these issues. They include jobs, illegal immigration, the economy, crime, local and national political corruption, and more.

The professional politicians have a habit of making promises regarding these issues while on the campaign trail but once elected, they promptly forget and proceed glad-handing with the boys carrying the money bags.

Now that they are getting nervous they are crying, "Trump's not a real conservative!"

But how many true conservatives are really out there among the candidates or sitting in Congress? I can't find one except for Ted Cruz. Even though Republicans control both the House and the Senate, they continue to capitulate to the liberal Obama administration.

John Boehner was a huge disappointment as Speaker of the House. Paul Ryan showed promise early on but has since proven to be Obama's lap-dog.

Donald Trump scares them because he is not beholden to special interests, speaks his mind (coinciding with the average man and woman on the street) without worrying about political correctness, and is actually a financial success unlike the mainstream ruling class suckling the government teat.

It's impossible to say in advance how conservatively the Donald would run the country, but one thing's for sure. He couldn't do any worse than the current batch of RINOs. Let's make America great again.