An honest discussion about race…
Has this president broken the law, lied under oath, or authorized war crimes?Yes, President Obama has broken the law on multiple occasions. Despite clearly stating, in a 2008 questionnaire, that the commander-in-chief is not lawfully empowered to ignore treaties duly ratified by the Senate, Obama has willfully failed to enforce the torture treaty, signed by Ronald Reagan and duly ratified by the Senate, that compels him to investigate and prosecute torture. As Sullivan put it earlier this year, “what Obama and Holder have done or rather not done is illegal.”Obama also violated the War Powers Resolution, a law he has specifically proclaimed to be Constitutionally valid, when committing U.S. troops to Libya without Congressional approval. Or as Sullivan put it in 2011, “Im with Conor. The war in Libya becomes illegal from now on. And the imperial presidency grows even more powerful.” On the subject of war crimes, Sullivan wrote that “Obama and attorney-general Eric Holder have decided to remain in breach of the Geneva Conventions and be complicit themselves in covering up the war crimes of their predecessors – which means, of course, that those of us who fought for Obamas election precisely because we wanted a return to the rule of law were conned.” In a separate entry, he went so far as to say that Obama is “a clear and knowing accessory to war crimes, and should at some point face prosecution as well, if the Geneva Conventions mean anything any more.” That seems rather farther than Noonan went in her column.Obama has not, as Sullivan points out, traded arms for hostages with Iran, or started a war with no planning for the inevitable occupation that would follow. But there are different questions that could be asked about Obama that would perhaps be more relevant to his behavior.Has he ordered the assassination of any American citizens in secret without due process? Did he kill any of their teenage kids without ever explaining how or why that happened? Has he refused to reveal even the legal reasoning he used to conclude his targeted killing program is lawful?Has he waged an unprecedented war on whistleblowers?Has he spied on millions of innocent Americans without a warrant or probable cause?Does he automatically count dead military-aged males killed by U.S. drones as “militants”?Did he “sign a bill that enshrines in law the previously merely alleged executive power of indefinite detention without trial of terror suspects”?There is more, as Sullivan knows, and it all amounts to a scandalous presidency, even if it happens that few Republicans care about the most scandalous behavior, and have instead spent almost a year now obsessing about Benghazi. The IRS scandal and Department of Justice leak-investigation excesses are worrisome, but the biggest scandals definitely go all the way to the top, and are still largely ignored even by commentators who have acknowledged that theyre happening. Sullivan has noted the stories as they broke, and seemed, for fleeting moments, to confront their gravity, noting the violation of very serious laws, and even once stating that Obama deserves to be prosecuted! Yet in response to Noonan, he writes, “So far as I can tell, this president has done nothing illegal, unethical or even wrong.” How inexplicably they forget.And Sullivan is hardly alone. At the New York Times, Mother Jones, The New Yorker, and beyond, exceptional journalists take great care to document alarming abuses against the rule of law, the separation of powers, transparency, and human rights perpetrated by the Obama Administration. On a given subject, the coverage leaves me awed and proud to be part of the same profession. But when it comes time for synthesis, bad heuristics take over. Confronted with the opportunism and absurdity of the GOP, Obamas sins are forgiven, as if he should be graded on a curve. His sins are forgotten, as if “this president has done nothing illegal, unethical or even wrong.”Yes. He. Has.
The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation’s political landscape for a generation or more — pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily.
Beneath the philosophical debates about amnesty and border security, there are brass-tacks partisan calculations driving the thinking of lawmakers in both parties over comprehensive immigration reform, which in its current form offers a pathway to citizenship — and full voting rights — for a group of undocumented residents that roughly equals the population of Ohio, the nation’s seventh-largest state.
Rubberstamping approval for illegal aliens aka “future Democrats” to eliminate the GOP and forever change the United States. If there is such a shift, and it looks like there will be, the only option left will be to accept an America far different than what we want or secede.
We are a nation of immigrants, but does that mean that we should have wide open borders? At the height of European migration, when France gave us the Statue of Liberty, did we not have and use Ellis Island where many were in fact sent back? When they came they didn’t get anything from the govt, even as some were able to homestead, but illegal immigrants get a wealth of aid all while calling America racist. Does the fact that my ancestors came here as early as 500 years ago mean that the US should always have an open door, regardless of the struggles the American people face? Our immigration policies, the same which allow terrorists citizenship and reward criminal activity while denying a home schooling Christian family from Germany the chance to stay are insane, and if they show racism, ask yourself why the Romeike family face deportation while Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a US citizen, and his brother was allowed to remain even after we were told of his terrorist ties.