Tuesday, June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012

Quayle: Obama 'behaving as an emperor,' and Napolitano as his 'court jester'
by Matthew Boyle
June 25, 2012

Arizona Republican Rep. Ben Quayle asked Homeland Security committee chairman Rep. Peter King to bring Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano before his committee to answer questions about her decision to suspend immigration law enforcement programs in his state on Monday.

Napolitano’s decision came in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that partially upheld Arizona’s controversial immigration enforcement law. While other parts of the law were struck down, the part allowing state and local law enforcement to inquire into someone’s immigration status remained.

Quayle berated Napolitano’s decision in a letter to King, saying “we have entered upon a new phase of the nation’s continuing quest to establish a clear and sustainable immigration policy which upholds the rule of law, the rights of persons, the security of the American people and the responsibilities of the federal government.”

“We now confront the spectacle of the president of the United States behaving as an emperor, and the cabinet officer entrusted with the security of the nation as his court jester,” Quayle continued, before asking King to summon Napolitano to testify before his committee about her abrupt decision to scale back immigration enforcement in Arizona.

“The secretary’s proper response to this morning’s Supreme Court decision, needless to say, would have been to immediately arrange open and collegial discussions with Arizona law enforcement authorities to determine the best course forward for the orderly and constitutional enforcement of the law,” Quayle added. “This is the response which would have reflected a sincere desire to serve the public, honor our processes and faithfully discharge the oath she and the president have sworn. Instead, she chose to send forth an arrogant decree which simultaneously insults all Americans and ushers the secretary into history as a petty tyrant.”

Read more: http://thedc.com/NvKVwV

After Arizona
by NRO Symposium
June 26, 2012

What do you make of today’s Supreme Court ruling? What does it mean for Arizona and the rest of us? What is the state of immigration policy today? We asked some experts.
Days after the March 2010 murder of Cochise County rancher Rob Krentz, I was reporting a story from southeast Arizona along State Route 80, which straddles the New Mexico state line. Police lights appeared in my rearview mirror, and I pulled over to meet a deputy for the Hidalgo County (N.M.) Sheriff’s department. He half-grinned as he told me he’d clocked me at six miles per hour over the speed limit. 
I knew what the grin meant: “We’re stopping everybody we don’t recognize, especially guys wearing Oxford shirts in ranch country. Hope you don’t mind the profiling.” I didn’t. 
After he ran my license and found everything to be okay, we chatted about the recent passage of S.B. 1070. He told me the law had already had an impact. In that notorious smuggling area known as the Chiricahua Corridor, illegal immigrants and drug mules have a choice. They can stay on the Arizona side or jump east over onto the New Mexico side. 
The deputy said the traffic had shifted significantly to New Mexico since the bill’s passage. In other words, it was working at the border — and remember, critics maintained it would have no impact on border crossings. 
I heard the same message from Keith Graves, who worked for ten years as district ranger for the Coronado National Forest in Nogales, then for the Secure Border Initiative. He said the law began having an effect even before it was passed, because “it was getting highlighted in the news and that frightened them away.” 
The lesson here is the same one we’ve learned from the beginning of our illegal-immigration nightmare: If you don’t enforce the law, they will come. Now, in spite of the Supremes’ ruling, it’s being reported that President Obama is going to decline many of the calls from Arizona reporting illegal aliens. 
He took an oath to uphold the law. November can’t come soon enough. 
Leo W. Banks is a writer in Tucson.

Read more: http://bit.ly/Lygx8e

Emperor Obama Bypasses Congress to Make His Own Laws
by Cal Thomas
June 19, 2012

“This notion I can somehow just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively, but fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.” — Barack Obama, September 2011

President Obama is no longer president in the constitutional sense. He appears to have elevated himself to the role of emperor, deciding unilaterally what should be the law and what should not, bypassing Congress and placing himself in the role of Julius Caesar.

First it was the revelation that he has a “hit list” from which he alone decides who lives and who dies by drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.

With last Friday’s announcement that he intends to effectively grant amnesty to a category of illegal aliens, according to criteria he has set — their age, a spotless criminal record, a minimum level of education, and/or military service — the president has technically, possibly deliberately and it can be argued illegally, violated his oath of office in which he swore to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” so help him God. Whose help does the president seek when he acts as if he is God?

The Constitution empowers Congress, not the president, to make laws, but President Obama has bypassed that body to become a Congress of one and a law unto himself.

Read more: http://tnne.ws/LDuTFR

No comments:

Post a Comment