Mr. Hernandez is an experiences attorney and quite good at what he does so it doesn't surprise me that he is able to twist the truth. But what is the truth?
Obama's Executive Order prevents 5 million (at least) people, who are in the country illegally, from being deported. It grants them the right to obtain a Social Security Number and a work visa. He changed these people from illegal status, for which they could be arrested and deported, to legal status, barring them from being deported and allowing them to legally acquire jobs.
Mr. Hernandez - if that's not changing someone's legal status what is?
At least twenty-two times over the last several years President Obama said he did not have the authority to do exactly what he did. He said it over and over.
"I am president, I am not king," Obama said. "...I’m committed to making it happen, but I’ve got to have some partners to do it."
"There are laws on the books that Congress has passed... Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws." Simply issuing such an order would not conform with my appropriate role as president."
And yet with a stroke of a pen and an announcement, President Obama now says (literally) he is changing the law.
"There have been significant numbers of deportations," the President said. "That's true. But what you're not paying attention to is the fact that I just took action to change the law. The way the change in the law works is that we're re-prioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally."
The President himself said it. A federal judge on Monday put a temporary block on the implementation of Obama's executive actions on immigration. Texas Governor Gregg Abbott, who initiated the legal action against Obama's unconstitutional action while Abbott was still Texas' Attorney General, said last night that because of Obama's numerous statements over the years that he didn't have the authority to do what he did, Obama will be their star witness during the appeals process.
Geez, that's gotta sting a little, huh Mr. President?
In other news, the Obama administration and the President himself are playing word games again. Speaking to the National Press Club yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed the idea that radical Islam should be defined as... radical Islam.
“Whenever you’re getting criticized by both sides, it probably means you’re probably getting it right," Holder said. "We spend more time, more time talking about what you call it, as opposed to what do you do about it, you know? I mean really. If Fox News didn't talk about this, they would have nothing else to talk about, it seems to me,”
“Radical Islam, Islamic extremism; I’m not sure an awful lot is gained by saying that. It doesn’t have any impact on our military posture; it doesn’t have any impact on what we call it, on the policies that we put in place. What we have to do is defined not by the terms that we use, but by the facts on the ground,” Holder said.
The soon-to-be-gone AG continued: "So I don’t worry an awful lot about what the appropriate terminology ought to be. I think that people need to actually think about that, and think about will we be having this conversation about words as opposed to what our actions ought to be? This is a difficult problem. This is going to be an ongoing issue."
Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Micheal Flynn (USA Ret), former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, and chair of the Military Intelligence Board from 2012 to 2014, said just the opposite.
"The world is facing a cancerous component of the Islamic religion" with a fanaticism that opposes the free world's way of life," Flynn said on Sunday
"The wolf pack closest to the sled is ISIS, but there are other wolf packs around the world right now that are actually part of this larger expanding, violent extremist version of Islam,"
"The American public is looking for moral and intellectual courage and clarity, and not a sense of … passivity or confusion from Washington," he said.
"I think that there's confusion about what it is that we're facing," Flynn said. "It's not just what has been defined as 40,000 fighters in the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. It's also a large segment within this radical version of Islam that is threatening our way of life."
"The wolf pack closest to the sled is ISIS, but there are other wolf packs around the world right now that are actually part of this larger expanding, violent extremist version of Islam,"
"The American public is looking for moral and intellectual courage and clarity, and not a sense of … passivity or confusion from Washington," he said.
"I think that there's confusion about what it is that we're facing," Flynn said. "It's not just what has been defined as 40,000 fighters in the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. It's also a large segment within this radical version of Islam that is threatening our way of life."
But hey - what's the big deal? With Eric Holder's vast military and intelligence experience, the American people should probably listen to him about such trivial things as defining the threat we face rather than a measly 3-star General who has, at best, a little knowledge of the subject, right?
Oh, wait....
No comments:
Post a Comment