dApril 28, 2015

Christian Patriots:

“The Government of Mexico is quick to condemn, yet fail to police their own people”

Tensions have sparked after the Mexican consulate issued a harsh statement blaming the U.S. Border Patrol for a boat crash that left a child and two agents injured.

In response to the harshly worded statement, the local chapter of the National Border Patrol Council rushed to defend the name of the agency pointing out the hypocrisy of the Mexican government and stating that the agents were not at fault in the crash.

As previously reported by Breitbart Texas, a Mexican fishing boat with a family on board abruptly cut off a U.S. Border Patrol boat leading to the collision. Two agents were ejected with one of them suffering head trauma. Right after the crash, people on the Mexican side began throwing rocks at the agents who were trying to come out of the water. Texas state troopers had to use less lethal weapons to fight off the attackers.

Soon after the crash, the Mexican Consulate issued a written statement condemning the crash and apparently blaming the agents for the child’s injuries as well as stating that the use of less lethal weapons following the incident had been an unjustified use of force.

Full report at BREITBART

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

Connecting the Dots: Iran, Immigration & National Security

dApril 6, 2015

The Counter Jihad Report:

Frontpage, by Michael Cutler, April, 6, 2015:

This past week John Kerry, bargaining from a self-imposed position of weakness, continued to negotiate with Iran, the world’s most pernicious state sponsor of international terrorism even after America’s allies walked away. It might be said that Kerry agreed to take “No” for an answer.

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu left no doubt about his grave concerns about the wisdom of the agreement being hammered out at the behest of the Obama administration that legitimizes Iran’s nuclear program and therefore poses an existential threat to Israel.

Mr. Obama has said that a deal with Iran would be “Historic.”

My concern is that Obama’s statement will be prophetic. History records as many tragedies as successes. The Hindenburg explosion was certainly historic. So was the loss of the Titanic and two of our space shuttles.

In point of fact, every major war has been historic as has been the Holocaust.

Many of the events recorded in history books were written with blood- rivers and, indeed, oceans of blood!

The news media has reported on Netanyahu’s concerns and noted how a nuclear Iran would, indeed, pose a threat to Israel’s survival. What has not been considered is that a nuclear Iran would pose no less a threat to America.

There is a saying that when confronting several adversaries in a dark alley you should not go after the smallest adversary but the largest. The reasoning is that if you beat up the smallest guy first, you will then have to fight your way up until you wind up fighting the largest adversary last. By then your strength and ability would have been largely depleted.

On the other hand, if you successfully take on the biggest adversary first, the other guys will run away and you will prevail.

Undoubtedly when Iran looks at Israel and the United States, the United States is that largest adversary.

Iran is operating in the Western Hemisphere as has been for many years. Their presence in our hemisphere and indeed our country, leaves us vulnerable to a devastating attack.

On April 21, 2010 the Washington Times published a report entitled, “Iran boosts Qods shock troops in Venezuela.”

On February 3, 2012 ABC News which posted an article, “Exclusive: Israel Warns US Jews: Iran Could Strike Here,” that had a clear and unambiguous title.

On March 21, 2012, the Huffington Post published an extremely disturbing article that was entitled: “Peter King: Iran May Have ‘Hundreds’ Of Hezbollah Agents In U.S.”

The basis for the Huffington Post article was a hearing that was conducted that day by the House Committee on Homeland Security that is chaired by Congressman Peter King of New York, the topic of the hearing was, “Iran, Hezbollah, and the Threat to the Homeland.”

Here is how the Huffington Post article began:

WASHINGTON — Iranian-backed Hezbollah agents, not al Qaeda operatives, may pose the greatest threat on U.S. soil as tensions over Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program ratchet up, according to the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

“As Iran moves closer to nuclear weapons and there is increasing concern over war between Iran and Israel, we must also focus on Iran’s secret operatives and their number one terrorist proxy force, Hezbollah, which we know is in America,” said New York Rep. Peter King at a Wednesday hearing of his committee.

The hearing, which featured former government officials and the director of intelligence analysis for the New York Police Department, follows a foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., and testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in late January that Iran’s leaders are “more willing to conduct an attack inside the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

Opening the hearing, King said, “We have a duty to prepare for the worst,” warning there may be hundreds of Hezbollah operatives in the United States, including 84 Iranian diplomats at the United Nations and in Washington who, “it must be presumed, are intelligence officers.”

Congressman Peter King focused primarily on the threats posed by Iranian diplomats and, indeed, these diplomats should be of great concern to us. However, these diplomats are readily identifiable. We know their identities and the fact that they are officially connected to the Iranian government. There are other Iranians who are present in the United States whose relationship with the Iranian government and its goals of destroying the United States are not so readily identifiable.

On Friday, May 24, 2013 the newspapers, “The Blaze” and “My San Antonio” reported on the arrest of Wissam Allouche by the FBI and members of the JTTF (Joint Terrorism Task Force) in San Antonio, Texas, for lying on his application for naturalization to acquire United States citizenship. The article published by “My San Antonio” was entitled: “Alleged member of Hezbollah arrested here” while the article in “The Blaze” was entitled: “Infiltration? The Alarming Details Surrounding Alleged Hezbollah Member’s Arrest in Texas.”

Here is an important excerpt from “The Blaze” article:

The federal indictment revealed Allouche had married a U.S. citizen and was going through the naturalization process when he was arrested. When asked by officials if he had ever been associated with a terrorist organization, he replied no. That apparently turned out to be a lie.

According to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, he was a militant with the Amal militia in Lebanon in the early to mid-1980s. He was reportedly captured as a Israeli prisoner of war, but was later released to become a commander of the Amal militia.

News reports at the time said Hezbollah was formed by religious members of the Amal movement.”

In addition to lying about his terror ties, Allouche is also accused of lying about his relationship with his ex-wife. He falsely claimed on his application forms in 2009 that he and his wife were married and living together for the past three years. In reality, they had no lived together since May 2007 and they filed for divorce in December of 2007.

While Allouche’s allegedly committed fraud in filing his application for naturalization, it must be noted that if the allegations are accurate, that he also gamed the the process by which he had been granted lawful immigrant status years earlier. He had a Green Card (Alien Registration Receipt Card) for at least three years before he applied for United States citizenship. The 9/11 Commission identified such fraud as being an integral part of the strategy terrorists have used to enter the United States and embed themselves.

At the time of his arrest Allouche, was applying for a security clearance in order to work for the Department of Defense and had also applied for naturalization. Allegedly he lied by claiming to have never been a member of a terrorist organization when in fact, according to the FBI, he had not just been a member of Hezbollah, but had been a commander of that terrorist organization.

On May 29, 2013 both of those newspapers published follow-up reports in conjunction with disclosures made by prosecutors during the bail hearing.

The title of the Blaze article was, “God of Death Bombshell Revelations About Alleged Hezbollah Commander Arrested In Texas.”

The article published in My San Antonio, “Accused Ex-Hezbollah Member Referred to as God”included the following excerpt:

Allouche was arrested by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force here last week after being indicted on charges of not disclosing, during his quest to obtain his U.S. citizenship, his membership in the Amal militia and Hezbollah in Lebanon in the 1980s.

He’s also charged with not disclosing his prior membership in those groups when he applied for a security clearance with the Defense Department as he sought a contracting job.

Before 2009, Allouche worked for L-3 Communications, which provides linguistic services for the U.S. military, and he was deployed for several months to Iraq. He has lived in the U.S. since about 2002, and once owned Windcrest Mobil, a gas station at Walzem Road and Interstate 35, his lawyer said.

In view of the charges lodged against Allouche, it would be important to know what the vetting process was that enabled him to be put in a position of trust. He was deployed with American troops in Iraq as a translator. This means that he may have assisted in the questioning and vetting of suspected terrorists and with those applying to work with our military. This raises some obvious and important questions.

What classified documents or people did he have had access to? Did he come to meet with covert officers whose identities must be preserved? Did he meet with suspected terrorists and, perhaps, have the capability to alter what the record reflects that they did or did not say? Might he have learned the identities of foreign nationals who for whatever reason decided to become cooperators? Has this endangered their lives and the operations that they were providing information for? Might he mistranslated statements made by terrorists seeking to gain entry to military bases to subsequently kill American soldiers?

The Allouche case is hardly an isolated one. Furthermore, the threat of terrorism is not just limited to Iranian citizens but may involve terrorists from other countries that are funded and otherwise supported by Iran.

Read more

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

Federal Judge Orders Halt To Obama’s Executive Action On Immigration


February 17, 2015


U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen’s decision comes after a hearing in Brownsville in January and puts on hold Obama’s orders that could spare as many as five million people who are in the U.S. illegally from deportation.

Hanen wrote in a memorandum accompanying his order that the lawsuit should go forward and that without a preliminary injunction the states will “suffer irreparable harm in this case.”

“The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle,” he wrote, adding that he agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that legalizing the presence of millions of people is a “virtually irreversible” action.

The White House in a statement early Tuesday defended the executive orders issued in November as within the president’s legal authority, saying that the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress have said federal officials can set priorities in enforcing immigration laws.

“The district court’s decision wrongly prevents these lawful, commonsense policies from taking effect and the Department of Justice has indicated that it will appeal that decision,” the statement said. An appeal would be heard by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

The first of Obama’s orders — to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children — was set to start taking effect Wednesday. The other major part of Obama’s order, which extends deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years, was not expected to begin until May 19.

Joaquin Guerra, political director of Texas Organizing Project, called the ruling a “temporary setback.”

“We will continue getting immigrants ready to apply for administrative relief,” he said in a statement.

The coalition of states, led by Texas and made up of mostly conservative states in the South and Midwest, argues that Obama has violated the “Take Care Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which they say limits the scope of presidential power. They also say the order will force increased investment in law enforcement, health care and education.

In their request for the injunction, the coalition said it was necessary because it would be “difficult or impossible to undo the President’s lawlessness after the Defendants start granting applications for deferred action.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the decision a “victory for the rule of law in America” in a statement late Monday. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who as the state’s former attorney general led the state into the lawsuit, said Hanen’s decision “rightly stops the President’s overreach in its tracks.”

Hanen, who’s been on the federal court since 2002 after being nominated by President George W. Bush, regularly handles border cases but wasn’t known for being outspoken on immigration until a 2013 case. In an order in that case, Hanen suggested the Homeland Security Department should be arresting parents living in the U.S. illegally who induce their children to cross the border illegally.

Congressional Republicans have vowed to block Obama’s actions by cutting off Homeland Security Department spending for the program. Earlier this year, the Republican-controlled House passed a $39.7 billion spending bill to fund the department through the end of the budget year, but attached language to undo Obama’s executive actions. The fate of that House-passed bill is unclear as Republicans in the Senate do not have the 60-vote majority needed to advance most legislation.

More at TPM:

Watch: Obama, Helping MILLIONS Of Illegal Aliens in a Way That an Aide Says Could be One of His Biggest Scandals


February 3, 2015

The Blaze:

The Center for Immigration Studies released a report Monday that said the Obama administration has operated a “shadow” immigration system for years, one that has handed out millions of work permits to illegal aliens and aliens with unknown legal status.

According to government data that CIS received in a Freedom of Information Request, the Obama administration used its discretion to give out nearly 5.5 million work permits to aliens with varying legal status since 2009.

A Republican aide said the report could be one of the biggest scandals of the Obama administration, since it shows the administration was giving work permits to illegal immigrants at a time of high unemployment among Americans.

The report was released just as the Obama administration is preparing to implement an immigration plan that could provide legal protection to up to 5 million illegal immigrants and give them work permits. Republicans have said this plan would only make it easier for non-legal residents to take jobs from Americans, although the CIS data shows this is already happening under Obama.

“I was astonished at the huge number of work permits that are being issued by the Obama administration outside the legal immigration system through executive discretion, especially at a time of high unemployment and stagnant wages,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at CIS. “Besides the effect on the American worker, it encourages and rewards more illegal immigration.”

According to CIS, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has issued 5,461,568 new work permits to aliens. That’s in addition to the roughly 1.1 million legal immigrants and 700,000 guest workers that the U.S. admits legally each year.

Of that 5.5 million, 1.8 million were issued to aliens with temporary visas, but 1.2 million of that group had a visa status that does not authorize employment.

Another 982,000 work permits were given to illegal immigrants or immigrants who weren’t qualified for admission. Almost all of this group were made up of aliens who crossed the border illegally, according to CIS.

Another group of 1.7 million is made up of aliens with unknown legal status.

Read the CIS report here:

More at The Blaze:


mage Credits: Joe Crimmings / Flickr

image Credits: Joe Crimmings / Flickr








January 16, 2015

Christian Patriots: by

More than 2 million illegal immigrants will be approved for President Obama’s deportation amnesty over the next few years, and they will be eligible to collect Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as claim a special tax break for low-income families, the Congressional Budget Office said in an analysis Thursday.

Mr. Obama predicted that up to 5 million illegal immigrants could be eligible for his amnesties, but the CBO numbers predict only 2.25 million will have signed up and been approved by 2017.

The estimate was released as the administration defended the law in a federal court in Texas on Thursday, asking a judge to reject a request by Texas and two dozen other states to halt the program even before it gets started.

Judge Andrew S. Hanen, sitting in Brownsville, said he won’t rule before the end of the month. Applications for the first part of the amnesty are scheduled to begin in the middle of February.



“There aren’t any bad guys in this,” Judge Hanen told attorneys for both sides, according to The Brownsville Herald. He gave no indication of which way he is leaning in the thorny case, which is likely to determine Mr. Obama’s legacy on immigration.

Texas and its allies argue that Mr. Obama overstepped his legal bounds in November when he announced a program to halt deportations for illegal immigrant parents who have legal resident or U.S. citizen children, and to expand a 2012 amnesty for illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children.

To win, the states first must prove that they were injured by the amnesty, which would give them “standing” to sue. Then they must prove that Mr. Obama’s actions are either unconstitutional because they try to rewrite the laws, which is Congress’ job, or else they are official policies that should have been submitted to the public for comment and revisions before they were enacted.

Administration attorneys told Judge Hanen that Mr. Obama isn’t rewriting law, but rather deciding whom to prosecute under it based on his powers of prosecutorial discretion. The attorneys say presidents going back to the 1950s have used similar powers to halt deportations, albeit on smaller scales.

The Obama administration said if it declares most illegal immigrants off limits for deportation, it will be easier to pursue the recent illegal immigrants and the serious felons who won’t qualify for the leniency


Image Credits: Joe Crimmings / Flickr


Immigration Group Urges Congress To Join States In Amnesty Fight

dJanuary, 7, 2015

Liberty Unyielding:

As 25 states sue the Obama administration over the president’s controversial executive amnesty order, an immigration group is urging Congress to join the fight on behalf of taxpayers and the Constitution.

In the words of Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform:

For six years, the Obama administration has been obsessed with centralizing power but refused to use it to enforce immigration laws. Instead, they’ve focused their efforts on dismantling enforcement and shutting down states that have tried to enact bills reacting to the inaction in Washington.

Congress must act, using both legal force and fiscal constraints.

The president has a constitutional obligation to ‘take care that the laws Congress writes are faithfully executed.’ There is no point in having this language in the Constitution unless Congress and the courts recognize their responsibility to hold the president accountable for obeying the law.

Congress must also act to restore its power to ‘establish a uniform rule of naturalization’ under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, meaning Congress makes the laws; the president must carry them out.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., issued a scathing report over the weekend, declaring that less than 3% of illegal immigrants will ever be deported. Last week, the Congressional Research Service announced that illegal immigration began to rise in 2012 after a five-year lull.

Though House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has soft-peddled the immigration issue, some newly elected House Republicans are spoiling for a fight — with or without their party’s current leadership. Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., who defeated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a stunning primary victory last year, told this reporter Sunday:

When the new Republican-led Congress takes office this week, one of our first priorities must be to have a clean bill to reverse the amnesty spending by immediately restricting any federal funds from being used to carry out Mr. Obama’s illegal decree.

There is speculation that there may only be a show vote on rescinding that money, and instead a ‘border security’ bill would be offered as a substitute for stopping amnesty. A border spending bill that doesn’t really strengthen the border and allows illegal immigrants to continue living and working in the United States would only make things worse.

That is unacceptable.

A showdown over immigration comes as Texas and 24 other states sue the Obama administration over costs they are incurring over the broken southern border. Texas state troopers spent $1.3 million a week this summer dealing with the surge of Central American children, the Wall Street Journal reported.



“Mr. Obama has increased the incentives to come here illegally and encouraged people to stay in the expectation of a future executive amnesty,” the newspaper stated in an editorial.

Administration lawyers responded to the lawsuit on Christmas Eve, alleging the states are attempting to usurp the “sovereign prerogative of the federal government.” But states say they have legitimate grievances and legal standing to fight in court. Dane estimates the states are bearing $84 billion a year in costs related to illegal immigration. The federal portion is estimated at $113 billion annually.

Dane says the Obama amnesty, which legalizes up to 5 million illegal immigrants in the country, can be challenged by the states on monetary grounds.

Federal Earned Income Tax Credits, to cite one example, will now be opened to newly legalized undocumented immigrants. About $62 billion was spent on the EITC program in 2012, with refunds averaging $3,000 per household.


Read more Liberty Unyielding:

THE U.S.: OBAMA’S DUMPING GROUND–First Wave Of 9,000 UN-Approved Muslim Immigrants For US Resettlement

cDecember 18, 2014

Arlin Report:

The greatest reason for immigration or turning massive groups of people into refugees from any nation is war, terrorism and violent chaos, etc.

Leaving one country for another as a refugee is only a temporary fix. They may only survive to fight another day.   It does not solve the problems of the nation abandoned.   Eventually, what caused them to leave the homeland follows them, catches-up and ultimately spreads to the nation that rescued them.

Muslims are threatening the U.S. that they will kill us in our own streets and neighborhoods; yet Obama will accept UN “approved” Muslim immigrants for U.S. resettlement.   Yeah, that makes a hell of a lot of sense.   The UN will screen each immigrant right?   Right!   Why don’t we just put a cannon next to our head and have Obama light the fuse.   It is the Muslim goal to destroy all non-Muslims; they said it, repeatedly.

This is only the first wave!!

The U.N. infiltrating our lives once again……We have no business with the United Nations.   Guess what America, we have and are capable of surviving without the interference or assistance of the U.N.  They have become, and may have always been, a tool of the Illuminati for the New World Order (one world government).

The spread of Muslim immigration escalates the movement towards the U.S. turning into a 3rd world nation.   American cities, will resemble cities in war-torn Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan to name a few.

If this escalation of the Obama immigration plan continues, it will get ugly.   Eventually when sleeping Americans wake up because they see all they have worked for handed over by a government that economically and socially continues raping us, it will get ugly, real ugly.   That is what Obama wants, a nation at war within…….you think there are racial and ethnic problems now?   Obama knows this!

I know of an organization called Doctors Without Borders, we are becoming a Nation Without Borders.   If we do not wake up there will be no United States of America as we knew it.   The States will become divided, we will no longer be united.   We are becoming an extension of the Middle East and South and Central America. That is what uncontrollable immigration will create; especially with all it brings with it.  The World of Obama!  The United States is nothing more than a dumping ground to Obama.



BREAKING: Republican Judge Strikes Down Obama’s Immigration Order

December 16, 2014




In an extraordinary opinion that transforms a routine sentencing matter into a vehicle to strike down a politically controversial policy, a George W. Bush-appointed judge in Pennsylvania declared President Obama’s recently announced immigration policy unconstitutional on Tuesday. Because the policy “may” apply to a defendant who was awaiting sentencing of a criminal immigration violation, Judge Arthur Schwab decides that he must determine “whether the Executive Action is constitutional.” He concludes that it is not.

Schwab spends just five pages discussing his rationale for this conclusion, an unusually short amount of legal analysis for a complex question regarding the scope of the executive branch’s power to set enforcement priorities. Notably, Schwab also spends nearly three pages discussing quotes from President Obama which, the judge claims, indicate that Obama once thought his present actions are illegal — even though Schwab eventually admits that these quotes are “not dispositive of the constitutionality of his Executive Action on immigration.”

Half of Schwab’s analysis of the Executive Action’s constitutionality is devoted to a strawman. Noting that Obama cited Congress’s failure to act on immigration in his speech announcing the new policy, Schwab devotes half of his analysis of the policy’s constitutionality to explaining that “Inaction by Congress Does Not Make Unconstitutional Executive Action Constitutional.” He’s right on this point, just as Schwab would be correct if he argued that President Obama’s authority to create this new policy does not come from a magic hat that Obama keeps in the Oval Office. But it’s somewhat curious that the judge feels the need to present Obama’s political rhetoric as if it were a constitutional argument and then tear that non-argument down.

The remainder of Schwab’s brief constitutional analysis concludes that the new policy “Goes Beyond Prosecutorial Discretion — It is Legislation.” Notably, however, Schwab cites no judicial precedents of any kind to support this conclusion.

One case that Schwab does not cite is Arizona v. United States, where the Supreme Court said that the executive branch has “broad discretion” in matters of deportation and removal. As Arizona explains, a “principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.” Executive branch officials, moreover, “must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.”

Notably, Arizona also indicates that this broad discretion flows from federal immigration law — i.e. laws that were enacted by Congress. This matters because Schwab’s opinion concludes that Obama’s “unilateral” policy “violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause.” In essence, Schwab concludes that the president lacks the authority to act in the absence of authorization by Congress. Schwab does not even discuss the possibility that Obama’s actions may actually be authorized by Congress. Thus, even if Schwab’s reading of the Constitution is correct — itself a questionable proposition — the judge does not even discuss another major source of law that can justify the president’s actions.

Another problem Schwab does not address in his constitutional analysis is how, exactly, the executive branch is supposed to deport the many millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States if it is not allowed to set enforcement priorities among them. As the Justice Department explained in a memo discussing the legality of Obama’s policy, “there are approximately 11.3 million undocumented aliens in the country,” but the executive only “has the resources to remove fewer than 400,000 such aliens each year.”

The fact that Congress only provided sufficient resources to the Obama administration to remove a small fraction of the undocumented immigrants within the United States is itself a legislative judgment that most of these immigrants should not be removed. As the Supreme Court explained in Heckler v. Chaney, because federal agencies typically lack the resources to “act against each technical violation of the statute it is charged with enforcing,” they necessarily must set enforcement priorities. Moreover, these priorities generally should not be second-guessed by judges because “[t]he agency is far better equipped than the courts to deal with the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities.”

So Schwab’s legal analysis is thin. He spends nearly as much time making what appear to be political attacks on the president as he does evaluating actual legal matters. And what little legal analysis he does provide fails to cite key Supreme Court decisions that seem to contradict his conclusion. Judge Schwab traveled far along a very thin branch to reach this decision, and he anchored his decision with little grounding in legal authorities.

Moreover, it’s not clear what effect, if any effect at all, this decision will actually have. The judge does not issue an injunction halting the new immigration policy. Nor does he even state with certainty that the actual defendant in the case before his court will benefit from an order declaring the immigration policy unconstitutional.

Yet, despite these weaknesses in his opinion, immigrant families would be wrong to write off the threat his decision could present. There was a time when the constitutional challenges to the Affordable Care Act were widely dismissed by legal experts — Ronald Reagan’s former solicitor general said he would “eat a hat which I bought in Australia last month made of kangaroo skin” if the Supreme Court struck the law down — yet these challenges rapidly gained momentum after a few Republican judges reached out to strike the law down. The same can be said about the legal theory in King v. Burwell, a lawsuit currently before the Supreme Court that seeks to gut much of Obamacare.

It remains to be seen whether Schwab’s opinion — thin though its reasoning may be — will also grant legitimacy to the case against the president’s immigration policy.

Video: Fox Poll Reveals A Large Hidden Opposition To Obama’s Amnesty

hDecember 12, 2014

The Daily Caller:

A new poll by Fox reveals the untapped well of political opposition to immigration amnesty to resident Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty for million of illegals.

The poll shows that immigration is Obama’s worst-rated area, where has only 36 percent support and 60 percent opposition — 2 points more than the 58 percent who oppose Obamacare.

And the other questions in the poll show that his 36 percent support is much softer than the hard opposition from 60 percent of respondents.

For example, one question showed that huge numbers worry that his amnesty will invite more illegals.

Forty-nine percent of independents, 72 percent of Republicans and 29 percent of Democrats said it “very” likely that Obama’s “easing the immigration laws in this way will result in more people entering the United States illegally.” Only 10 percent of independents, 13 percent of Democrats and 4 percent of Republicans said they were “not at all” concerned, said the poll.



The other respondents were neutral or didn’t care much about the issue. The people with strong responses matter because they’re likely to vote on the issue, especially once Obama’s Nov. 21 amnesty sets in.

Obama’s immigration policies in 2011 and 2012 produced a wave of 130,000 Central Americans migrants in the summer of 2014. The resulting public alarm torpedoed the closed-door amnesty cooperation between Obama and GOP leaders, including House Speaker Rep. John Boehner.

But it is not clear if the GOP leadership wants to represent or to reject the many GOP and swing-voters voters who oppose more immigration.



In many polls, respondents usually grade Obama’s performance on the main issues — the economy or defense — in the same way that they grade his overall performance.

For example, in Fox’s new poll, Obama had an overall approval of 42 percent, and overall disapproval of 53 percent. His economic rating was very similar, at 43 percent approval, 55 percent disapproval, despite the high unemployment among many of his lower-income supporters. That 42 percent is his hard-core base of supporters.

But his hard-core supporters are willing to walk away from their personal and partisan loyalty to him whenever they’re asked about problematic issues that were not part of his election campaigns.

So the poll shows that Obama scores only 35 percent approval and 56 percent disapproval when respondents rated his policy towards the ISIS.

The same trend can be seen in the overall immigration issue, where he gets his worst rating, at 36 percent approval and 60 percent opposition. The number matches many other polls.

But Obama is publicly touting his Nov. 21 amnesty, so his base partisans may feel a duty to back that amnesty when they’re directly asked.

So when the poll asked respondents if they “approve or disapprove of the recent changes Barack Obama made to how the United States government will handle illegal immigrants currently living in this country,” he got higher ratings of 43 percent approval, 51 percent opposition.

When the questions move Obama out of the spotlight, or ask people to balance his actions against the other shared priorities of his supporters, the respondents express their doubts.