Katie Pavlich - Cruz: Senate Should Block Obama's Nominees Until He Rescinds Amnesty
Posted: 11/20/2014 8:10:00 AM EST

As President Obama prepares to announce the overhaul of U.S. immigration law through executive fiat tonight in a prime-time address, Republicans are trying to come up with ways to either stop him or to push back against the move.

Last night on The Kelly File, Republican Ted Cruz called this a "moment of testing," said we are witnessing a constitutional crisis and suggested the Senate block all of President Obama's nominations, except for those crucial to national security, until he rescinds his executive order.  

"We are are witnessing is a constitutional crisis, what President Obama is doing is he's defying the law, he's defying the constitution," Cruz said. "If the President goes forward with this, if he goes forward with unilaterally defying the Congress elected by the people, defying the American voters, then it is incumbent on Republicans in Congress to use every single constitutional tool we have to defend the rule of law...this is a moment of testing and I am hopeful we will see Republicans in Congress stand up and side with the people against a lawless President." 

"The President is behaving in an unprecedented way. There is not in recent times any parallel for a President repudiated by the voters standing up and essentially telling the voters, 'go jump in a lake,' he's going to force his power," Cruz continued. "The new Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should stand up and say, 'If you disregard the constitution, if you disregard the law, if you issue this executive amnesty, the new Congress for the next two years will not confirm a single nomination, judicial or executive other than vital national security positions until you end this illegal amnesty.' Now that's a big and dramatic step, it's never been done before in Congress but the framers put in place checks and balances and the confirmation power is a tremendously potent authority given to the Senate. The Senate majority leader has the unilateral ability to stand up and say, 'If you defy Congress, if you defy the American people none one of your nominees will get confirmed.'..We [also] need to use the power of the purse." 

Cruz also pushed back on rumors of a government shutdown reminded viewers that the only person pushing for a shutdown is President Obama.

Yesterday in an op-ed published in POLITICO, Cruz reminded the country that the President is not a monarch and therefore we shouldn't allow him to rule like one.

"When the president embraces the tactics of a monarch, it becomes incumbent on Congress to wield the constitutional power it has to stop it," Cruz wrote. "Congress, representing the voice of the people, should use every tool available to prevent the president from subverting the rule of law."

President Obama will make his announcement at 8 pm eastern from the White House. Townhall will have full coverage of his remarks.

Daniel Doherty - LA Poll: Landrieu in Deep, Deep Trouble
Posted: 11/19/2014 7:00:00 PM EST

The Keystone XL Pipeline didn’t pass. Democrats are pulling advertisements in the state. Several publications have all but declared her tenure in the Senate over. And now a new poll shows her down by double digits:

A new Louisiana survey released by Vox Populi Polling today found that Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bill Cassidy leads Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu 53 to 42 percent, with 5 percent unsure. In addition, Cassidy is up big with Independents, winning with them 58 to 31 percent over Landrieu. Cassidy has seen a big bump after the Nov. 4 open primary. In our recent Oct. 13-14 survey, Cassidy led Landrieu 48 to 44 percent in a head-to-head, with 8 percent unsure.

Deliciously, her Keystone XL Pipeline gambit backfired. Badly:

On the heels of last night’s United States Senate vote on the Keystone XL Pipeline, it is interesting to note that voters aren’t moved by Mary Landrieu’s efforts to bring the legislation before the Senate for a floor vote. When asked if it made voters more likely to vote for the incumbent Democrat, 39 percent said it made them more likely to vote for Bill Cassidy and 32 percent said it made them more likely to vote for Mary Landrieu.

Remember, Cortney will be in Louisiana this weekend covering the Cassidy campaign. Be sure to follow her coverage and analysis of the race.

The runoff is scheduled for December 6th.

Matt Vespa - Does Anyone Stand Up for Middle/Working Class America Anymore?
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:45:00 PM EST

Democrats are the party of the middle class; that’s an axiom liberal politicians and pundits pound away on the Sunday morning talk shows pervasively. Democratic Rep. Alan Lowenthal reiterated such sentiments at the liberal Netroots Nation last summer. Yet, is it still true?

One of the many reasons House Democrats are less than enthused about Rep. Nancy Pelosi remaining as House Minority leader is that they felt her messaging didn’t resonate with middle class voters.

As for the gender gap, Republicans in the most competitive races this cycle won women voters, split them equally, or lost by single digit margins. That’s not exactly an apocalyptic reading of the tealeaves.

I looked at the exits polls for women voters and those making $50k-$100k a year, which is a good range to represent the middle class vote, for all the competitive Senate and gubernatorial races this cycle.

Colorado Senate Race: Sen. Mark Udall (D) and Rep. Cory Gardner (R)

  • Udall wins women 52/44
  • $50k-$100k: Gardner takes middle class vote 57/40

Arkansas Senate Race: Sen. Mark Pryor (D) and Rep. Tom Cotton (R)

  • Cotton beats Pryor with women by 10 points 53/43
  • $50k-$100k: Cotton wins middle class vote 61/35

Kentucky Senate Race: Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) and Alison Lundergan Grimes (D)

  • McConnell actually ended up beating Grimes with women voters 50/47
  • $50k-$100k: McConnell easily beat Grimes with middle class voters 61/37

North Carolina Senate Race: Sen. Kay Hagan (D) and Thom Tillis (R)

  • Hagan beat Tillis with women 54/42
  • $50k-$100k: Hagan lost the middle class vote, which she won in 2008, to Tillis 52/44.

Iowa Senate Race: Rep. Bruce Braley (D) and Iowa State Sen. Joni Ernst (R)

  • Braley and Ernst split women voters 49/49 respectively.
  • $50k-$100k: Ernst handily beat Braley with middle class voters 55/43

Alaska Senate Race: Sen. Mark Begich (D) and Dan Sullivan (R)

  • Begich slightly beat Sullivan with women voters 48/46; He won women 55/41 over Ted Stevens in 2008.
  • $50k-$100k: Sullivan won these voters 49/44 over Begich. In 2008, Begich pretty much split the vote with Stevens.

Virginia Senate Race: Sen. Mark Warner (D) and Ed Gillespie (R)

  • Warner won women voters handily over Gillespie 55/43.
  • $50k-$100k: Gillespie won the middle class vote 54/44 over Warner. Warner, who won with 65 percent of the vote in 2008, barely won re-election with 0.4 percent of the vote. He also lost the coal counties and Loudon County in Northern Virginia, which went to Obama in 2008 and 2012.
  • If a little more money was spent in the Old Dominion, it’s possible that this could have been Republicans’ 10th senate pickup.

Louisiana Senate Race: Sen. Mary Landrieu (D), Rep. Bill Cassidy (R), and Rob Maness (R)

  • Women voters, who represented 56 percent of the electorate in Louisiana, split three ways, with Landrieu taking 48 percent of the vote, Cassidy took 36 percent, and Maness clinched 13 percent. Landrieu won the plurality, but, in all, 49 percent of women decided to throw their support behind a Republican.
  • $50k-$100k: With middle class voters, Landrieu took 39 percent, Cassidy got 43 percent, and Maness received 16 percent. Cassidy wins the plurality. Again, overall, 59 percent of middle class vote went to the Republicans.

Georgia Senate Race: Michelle Nunn (D) and David Perdue (R)

  • Nunn won women voters over Perdue 53/45.
  • $50k-$100k: With middle class voters, 52/46 broke for Perdue.

Kansas Senate Race: Sen. Pat Roberts (R), Greg Orman (I), and Randall Baston (L)

  • Roberts won women voters 50/46 over Orman; Baston clinched 4 percent of the vote.
  • $50k-$100k: Roberts managed to win 51 percent of the middle class vote, with Orman clinching 46 percent and Baston nabbing 3 percent.

Wisconsin Gubernatorial Race: Gov. Scott Walker (R) and Mary Burke (D)

  • Burke won women voters 54/45 over Walker.
  • $50k-$100k: Walker easily beat Burke with middle class voters 57/42.

Michigan Gubernatorial Race: Gov. Rick Snyder (R) and former Rep. Mark Schauer (D)

  • Women voters backed Schauer over Snyder 53/45.
  • $50k-$100k: Snyder won this demographic 52/47 over Schauer.

Illinois Gubernatorial Race: Gov. Pat Quinn (D) and Bruce Rauner (R)

  • Women voters back Quinn 51/44 over Rauner.
  • $50k-$100k: Despite the Quinn campaign’s attempts to “Romney” Rauner over his wealth, he was able to beat Quinn 55/44 with middle class voters. Also, Rauner won 101 of Illinois’ 102 counties, which is a feat that has not been seen since 1994.

Georgia Gubernatorial Race: Gov. Nathan Deal (R) and Jason Carter (D)

  • Carter won women voters 52/46 over Deal.
  • $50k-$100k: Deal was able to clinch 52 percent of the middle class vote to Carter’s 46 percent.

Kansas Gubernatorial Race: Gov. Sam Brownback (R) and Paul Davis (D)

  • Davis and Brownback virtually split both demographic down the middle. Davis slightly beat Brownback with women and middle class voters ($50k-$100k) 49/48.
  • Kansas is a weird state. While the state been dominated by Republicans virtually since the beginning, it has a vocal and effective moderate wing, which has been able to block conservative legislation when members of the state legislature vote with the Democrats.
  • Brownback ended up beating Davis 50/46, but not after nearly 200 sitting and former Kansas Republicans lawmakers endorsing him and Greg Orman; he survived what appears to be a revolt.

Florida Gubernatorial Race: Gov. Rick Scott (R) and Charlie Crist (D)

  • Crist won women voters and the middle class vote over Scott 49/47.

With the exception of Crist and Brownback, every Republican in these competitive gubernatorial and senate races won the middle class vote. It could be due to the fact that Democrats had no national message to rally around given President Obama’s dismal approval numbers. While critics can deride the results by saying the field in 2014 was much more favorable to Republicans, Iowa, Colorado, North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alaska were not sure bets, despite Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alaska being states where Romney won by 10+ points or more in 2012.

In Iowa, the Democrats were incredibly effective in maximizing turnout in the 2008 and 2012 elections; they ended up winning the state in both years.

North Carolina is a state that splits right down the middle; Colorado has the same level of volatility regarding elections.

Virginia was a curveball given that this was supposed to be a Warner beat down, which never came to fruition on election night. Instead, he barely won re-election in a state that, like North Carolina, has become purple.

It seemed as if the middle class abandoned the Democrats. But do Democrats have some serious work ahead to win these voters? I take you back to Molly Ball’s piece in the Atlantic, where she noted that the GOP wins the over $50k demographic on a regular basis; based on national exit polls, the Democrats have only won the $50k-$100k voting bloc twice since 1994, once in 2006 and again in 2008; both being Democratic wave years.

OK, let’s include the working class, which expands the category to Americans who make less than $100k.

Senate Races

Alaska: 47/46 Begich

  1. Arkansas: 53/43 Cotton
  2. Colorado: 48/45 Gardner
  3. Georgia: 51/ 47 Nunn
  4. Iowa: 51/46 Ernst
  5. Kansas: 51/45/4 Roberts
  6. Kentucky: 53/43 McConnell
  7. Louisiana: 49/36/13 -> 49/49 Landrieu ties with GOP
  8. North Carolina: 51/44 Hagan

Gubernatorial Races:

  1. Florida: 50/44 Crist
  2. Illinois: 50/46 Quinn
  3. Kansas: 48/48 tie between Brownback and Davis
  4. Michigan: 51/48 Snyder
  5. Wisconsin: 50/48 Walker

So, even with the working class vote included, Republicans were able to either be competitive or win them outright. As you can see, overall, Democrats enjoy strong support with those making less than $50k a year, which explains how some of the comfortable leads Republicans had with the $50k-$100k demographic were chipped away. Yet, that’s mostly attributed to black and other minority working class voters; it’s the massive bloc of white working class voters that left the Democrats in droves.

Some liberals know they need work on winning the support of white working class voters, but others have dismissed it as a southern problem; that’s a monumental mistake.

In all, it looks like the Democrats, for all their economic populism, have hit a ceiling in their messaging. That being said, liberals are hoping to re-engage with this lost cohort that has drifted towards the Republicans. If not, winning future elections could become more difficult.

Then again, Republicans shouldn’t take this group for granted either. America’s working class is more diverse and has more characteristics to it that didn’t exist in the Reagan era (via Washington Monthly):

[I]f by blue-collar jobs we mean jobs that involve routine and repetitive tasks, require limited skills, are closely supervised, and offer no autonomy during working hours, then it turns out that half of all white male workers and 40 percent of white working women are blue collar. Far from working on factory floors, more and more workers are employed in service-sector jobs like health care, leisure and hospitality, and, particularly, professional and business services.

If Democrats cannot figure out how to appeal to today’s working-class voters, then they don’t deserve to lead. Nearly all of the people in these jobs have not seen a raise in years. The majority of them, who now work in the service sector—maids and housekeepers, waitresses and hostesses, cooks and dishwashers, counter attendants and ticket takers, janitors and hairdressers and child care workers—earn, on average, about $400 a week.

In some instances, today’s post-industrial members of the working class need the same things from government that their counterparts did in the industrial era: a safe workplace, affordable health care, and a sound pension system, for example. But other issues are comparatively new.

Female labor force participation now equals male participation. A majority of households are made up of unmarried couples and parents, and mothers are the sole or primary providers in 40 percent of American homes. All the issues surrounding the balancing of work and family life, including child care and pre-K education, speak directly to the needs of today’s working class.

As with anything in politics, nothing is permanent. Republicans may have benefitted from Democrats dropping the ball, but with this complex mesh of issues that makes up the new American working class; there are plenty of inroads Democrats can take.

Guy Benson - CNN: 'Obama Promised Obamacare Wouldn't Do Exactly What Gruber Says it Will Do'
Posted: 11/19/2014 4:01:00 PM EST

Earlier this year, Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber was caught dead-to-rights in a brazen lie that undermines the White House's legal stance in a critical Supreme Court case. In recent days, the Gruber cancer has spread. A string of videos emerged showing the MIT economist spewing venom at Obamacare opponents, candidly confirming numerous conservative critiques of Obamacare (on cost containment, "keep your plan," taxes, and redistribution), and gleefully celebrating the law's lack of transparency -- which he deemed a great political boon to Democrats, by allowing them to deceive "stupid" American voters. Democrats have clumsily attempted to disclaim Gruber as one of their own, disavowing his comments, and trying to downplay his role in shaping their unpopular law.  They've been exposed as frauds at every turn.  Gruber wasn't just an influential insider throughout the entire process; he was arguably the central policy cog in the Obamacare wheel.  Fox's Special Report broadcast an excellent review of Grubergate earlier in the week, and now CNN's Jake Tapper has added another unsparing report into the mix:

From Tapper's accompanying piece:

At a town hall meeting where he campaigned for health care legislation in 2009, President Barack Obama pledged to voters that he did not want any tax on health insurance plans he perceived as wastefully generous to ever impact average Americans. But in recent comments by one of the men who helped draft the legislation, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, that is not only precisely what will happen -- but that was the intention of the tax. White House officials had no comment, despite repeated requests by CNN...Gruber said the only way those pushing for Obamacare could get rid of the tax subsidy for employer provider health insurance was to tax the more generous, or Cadillac, plans -- "mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people when we all know it's a tax on people who hold those insurance plans." The second way was have the tax kick in "late, starting in 2018" and have its rate of growth tied to the consumer price index instead of to the much higher rate of medical inflation. Eventually, the 40% tax on the more expensive plans would impact every employer-provided insurance plan..."This was the only political way we were ever going to take on one of the worst public policies in America." By 2018, Gruber said, those who object to the tax will be obligated to figure out how to come up with the trillion dollars that repealing the tax will take from the U.S. Treasury, or risk significantly adding to the national debt. This is obviously exactly what Obama told voters in 2009 he had "taken off the table."

This White House embraces means-to-an-end lying, so "no comment" is about the best they can do.  Meet the Press host Chuck Todd, meanwhile, is suggesting that Grubergate is a Beltway "process" story that normal people don't care about, quasi-excusing the mainstream media's lack of feeding frenzy coverage.  The "process story" rule of thumb is true more often than not in DC, but I think there are some important distinctions in this case.  First off, there's the video of a top architect explicitly applauding the "lack of transparency" that allowed the law to pass, and disdaining the "stupidity" of normal people.  Boasting about lying and openly sneering at regular folks tends to strike a nerve.  That's personal, not process.  Secondly, this is a very unpopular law that is still actively hurting people (many more than it's helping, according to polls) and betraying promises.  Gruber admits in these clips that many more painful betrayals are on the way.  So this controversy amounts to another big strike against a law that most people already oppose.  That's very much relevant.  Finally, Gruber's comments may factor into SCOTUS' decision on federal subsidy eligibility, which has the strong potential of throwing the law into further chaos.  Should that occur, Gruber has provided Republicans with lots of ammunition for the inevitable political brawl in the ruling's aftermath.  I discussed one possible game plan for the GOP within that scenario here.

Katie Pavlich - Poll: Many Latinos Disapprove of Obama's Executive Amnesty
Posted: 11/19/2014 4:00:00 PM EST

A new NBC poll shows Latinos do not overwhelmingly support President Obama's decision to thwart Congress on amnesty through executive action. 

Nearly half of Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama’s expected plan to take executive action that would potentially allow millions of undocumented immigrants to stay legally in the United States, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Latinos are divided, with 43 percent supporting the action and 37 percent opposing it. But the sample size here is small (just 110 Latino respondents), so the numbers have a high margin of error.

There's just a six percent difference in Latinos who do and do not support the President's plan to rewrite immigration law with an executive order. Notice how NBC was sure to add a note questioning the numbers due to a small sample size, ignoring that the margin of error could also result in more Latinos being against executive amnesty.

Despite what the media would have us believe, immigration reform is often at the bottom of the priority list for Latino voters and a majority want enforcement before a comprehensive overhaul. 

By a margin of 56 percent to 40 percent, Hispanic voters oppose allowing illegal immigrants to obtain federal benefits, including Obamacare benefits, “while they are going through the legalization process and before the 90% goal is reached.”

When asked to choose which of four issues — the economy, immigration reform, education, or health care — is most important to them, registered Hispanic voters said immigration reform was their lowest priority. Just 31 percent ranked the issue first or second, compared with 62 percent for the economy, 57 percent for health care, and 45 percent for education. Non-registered voters, on the other hand, ranked immigration reform as their highest priority.

Generally speaking, registered Hispanic voters were far more likely to support tougher security and enforcement measures than non-registered voters. For example, 64 percent of registered voters said they supported employment verification to determine if job applicants are lawful residents, compared with just 46 percent of non-registered voters. Additionally, 55 percent of registered voters backed increased border-security measures (fencing, drones, police, etc.), compared with 45 percent of non-registered voters.

Regardless, President Obama is moving forward and will announce his plans for executive amnesty Thursday night at 8 pm et in a prime-time address from the White House.

Christine Rousselle - Jon Stewart Rips Nancy Pelosi For Her Treatment of Rep. Tammy Duckworth
Posted: 11/19/2014 3:40:00 PM EST

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) came under fire for refusing to permit Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) to vote by proxy in the Democratic caucus. Duckworth, a double-amputee veteran of the Iraq War, is eight months pregnant and was unable to travel to Washington for the vote due to her pregnancy. Pelosi refused to allow Duckworth to vote by proxy, saying that the exception may spark a "slippery slope."

The Daily Show's host Jon Stewart feels otherwise. In a segment titled "Petty Woman," Stewart skewers Pelosi for her hypocrisy of previously touting the importance of voting (including early voting), filing briefs on behalf of pregnant women, and being awarded by women and family groups for refusing to permit Duckworth to vote. Stewart accuses Pelosi of engaging in petty inter-party politics, as Duckworth did not support Pelosi's preferred candidate to head the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Stewart raises good points. It's absolutely absurd that Pelosi wouldn't grant a pregnant woman an exception. The "slippery slope" argument is essentially moot--there simply are not that many pregnant congresswomen to merit alarm. This was politics at its worst, and Duckworth was effectively stripped of her vote. That is not right. (Pelosi's candidate lost, by the way.)

Kudos to Stewart for telling it like it is.

Katie Pavlich - Coming Soon: Gruber Under Oath in Front of Congress?
Posted: 11/19/2014 3:00:00 PM EST

As the White House and leading Democrats continue to distance themselves from Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber, Congress is moving in and wants to put him under oath for questioning. 

In an interview on Fox News last night, Republican Congressman Jim Jordan, who sits on the House Oversight committee, said "of course" Gruber needs to testify in front of a Congressional committee.

"He used taxpayer money to lie to tax payers and when it was all over he made fun of them. Of course he needs to come in front of a congressional committee and answer our tough questions about what he did, where all of the money went to. Lets hope that happens, there's a timing to it, but lets hope it happens and I think it will," Jordan said. "He was the man, the American people know he's the man. He lied to the American people using their tax dollars to do so, of course he needs to answer our questions. 

Gruber was paid $5 million in taxpayer money through state and federal grants and paychecks for his work as a consultant on Obamacare.

Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz will replace Congressman Darrell Issa as chairman of the House Oversight Committee when the new Congress begins in January.

Daniel Doherty - BREAKING: Amnesty Executive Order Announcement Coming Thursday in Prime Time Address
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:15:00 PM EST

Remember reading this? Disregard it. It’s coming tomorrow:

Our immigration system has been broken for decades -- and every minute we fail to act, millions of people who live in the shadows but want to play by the rules and pay taxes have no way to live right by the law and contribute to our country.

So tomorrow night, President Obama will address the nation to lay out the executive actions he’s taking to fix our broken immigration system. You can watch the President live tomorrow night at 8 p.m. ET at

Politico has some additional details on the executive order itself, which will reportedly affect some five million “undocumented immigrants”:

The executive actions will cover 4 million undocumented immigrants who would qualify for deferred deportations by using criteria such as longevity in the United States and family ties, according to sources briefed on the discussions. Another 1 million would receive protection through other means, two sources said.

UPDATE: The jury's still out on this one.

UPDATE: This could get awkward.

UPDATE: By the way, the Washington Post editorial board has already advised against this course of action. Oh well.

UPDATE: Republicans aren't just going to forget, Mr. President:

UPDATE: Republicans will not be attending the White House dinner tonight after all.

UPDATE: Yup, no Republicans allowed.

UPDATE: A new poll shows the president's impending unilateral action is opposed by "almost half of Americans."

UPDATE: No words.

UPDATE: Taking to the pages Politico Magazine, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) suggests ways congressional Republicans can respond:

If the President announces executive amnesty, the new Senate Majority Leader who takes over in January should announce that the 114th Congress will not confirm a single nominee—executive or judicial—outside of vital national security positions, so long as the illegal amnesty persists.

This is a potent tool given to Congress by the Constitution explicitly to act as a check on executive power. It is a constitutional power of the Majority Leader alone, and it would serve as a significant deterrent to a lawless President. Additionally, the new Congress should exercise the power of the purse by passing individual appropriations bills authorizing critical functions of government and attaching riders to strip the authority from the president to grant amnesty.

UPDATE: Eighteen Democrats are going:

UPDATE: Flip-flop of the year?

UPDATE: "Reagan and Bush did the same thing, but nobody complained back then! This is nonsense."

Conn Carroll - Americans Oppose Obama's Executive Amnesty By 10 Points
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:15:00 PM EST

Almost half of Americans, 48 percent, disapprove of President Obama's decision to grant executive amnesty to an unknown number of illegal immigrants, according to a new NBC News poll, while just 38 percent support the idea.

The full poll will not be released until tonight, and Obama will not announce the specifics of his amnesty plan tomorrow, but NBC News has shared the wording of their executive action question with Townhall:

There are a number of problems with this question:

1) Obama will not be signing an "executive order" tomorrow. Not all executive actions are "executive orders." For example, Obama's first executive amnesty program, the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was not done by "executive order."

2. That first sentence completely primes the respondent into thinking Obama's executive action is perfectly normal. After all, the question asserts as fact that "a president ... can put some regulations into effect that do not require Congressional approval." No mention is made of whether the presidential action is actually supported by Congressional statute. And Obama's executive amnesty is absolutely not supported by statute. Obama is citing his executive "prosecutorial discretion" power as the legal basis for this amnesty. Congress has never empowered the president to unilaterally choose which groups of illegal immigrants he will enforce the law on, and which groups he will give amnesty to.

3. Since Obama's executive action is based on inherent presidential power and not Congressional statute, there is no law Congress could pass "to take its place." 

Here is how a question on Obama's immigration action should be worded:

"President Obama has unilaterally created a new executive immigration program without any input from Congress. The program gives work permits and Social Security numbers to many illegal immigrants and requires most states to give them driver's licenses too. Do you support or oppose this new program?"

That would be a fair question. Hopefully other news organizations will hit closer to the truth.


Matt Vespa - Ferguson: Gov. Nixon, The Lights Are On, But Nobody's Home
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:00:00 PM EST

With the Ferguson grand jury announcement imminent, National Guard units and police are making sure law and order is kept in the city. Last summer, the city was marred by protests over the shooting death of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson.

Gov. Jay Nixon recently declared a state of emergency in Ferguson ahead of the grand jury report; so it appears as if the lights are on, but nobody’s home.

In a press call with reporters this week, Matt Sledge, a reporter from the Huffington Post, asked Gov. Jay Nixon “Does the buck ultimately stop with you when it comes to how any protests are policed?”

“Um, we’re, um, I, you know, it, uh, our goal here is to, you know, keep the peace, and allow all voices to, uh, to be heard,” said Nixon. “I’d prefer not to be a commentator on it.”

When asked what official or agency would be in charge of response, Nixon couldn't give an answer.

“Well, I mean, it uh, clearly… (4-5 seconds of dead air) I feel good about the… we worked hard to establish unified command, to outline our responsibilities now with the additional assets provided by my order today of the Missouri National Guard we have worked through, uh, a number of, uh, operational issues the folks have and, uh, I’ll only say, uh, our efforts today are on top of a lot of last hundred days to make sure we’re prepared for any contingency.”

Curtis Kalin of commented on this rather brain dead response, saying:

Suffice it to say, Nixon doesn’t seem to think he is in charge of the very plan he crafted and codified in executive order. Furthermore, he was unable to tell anyone who is in charge. The situation in Ferguson will likely be chaotic. The blundering leadership of Missouri’s governor will surely exacerbate that chaos.

Let’s hope not. The grand jury decision will be delivered in the coming days.