Jeanine Pirro To Obama: ‘Stop With the Smug, Tony Soprano Type Threats’ (Video)

You knew it was coming. Judge Jeanine Pirro had some stern words for Emperor Obama about his imperial immigration decree on Justice, Saturday night.

“This is not prosecutorial discretion,” she declared. “It is deliberate, unrestrained,  irresponsible, and unprecedented defiance of the US Constitution, and the of the rule of law.”

“And stop with the smug, Tony Soprano type threats, she said, referring to Obama’s repeated “put a bill on my desk, or else” threats that sound unnervingly like extortion.

“You’re so arrogant that instead of giving the new congress a chance to pass a fair immigration law – you just do your own thing!”

She added, “but I have to give you credit, because only one week after a historic shellacking, your thuggish move has cornered Republicans. They now must act, or suffer political consequences.”

You’ve created a precedent for for future presidents to outright ignore the law – from granting waivers to changing ObamaCare deadline dates, instructing prosecutors to not enforce certain drug laws, and telling ICE agents to not enforce the immigration laws, and not deporting those who are both illegal and criminal.

Pirro envisioned a near future in which a Republican president could throw out any number of laws that he doesn’t like. (But she forgets to note  the key element that will prevent that from happening – the change in demographics Obama is forcing on the nation.)

She went on to note, that what Obama did “was a slap in the face to every immigrant who follows the rules.” She said Obama made the millions of people who became US citizens the right way, “feel like schmucks.”

She had on Republican Congressman, Andrew Schwartz to talk about Obama’s latest tyrannical overreach.

Marc Thiessen: Obama’s Trying To Provoke A Fight With The GOP With Cynical Immigration Edict

On the Kelly File, Thursday night, Megyn Kelly had on frequent guest  Marc Thiessen to discuss the president’s imperial immigration edict.

Thiessen, a former speechwriter for G.W. Bush, vouched for the penmanship of Obama’s speech, calling it  “moving” and “beautifully written” but  a “deeply cynical speech.” He went on to call it a “cynical” speech about 20 more times during the segment.

“If the president of the United States really believed a word of what he said, Thiessen noted, “he would not be doing this with executive action. He’s not trying to help illegal immigrants. He’s trying to provoke a fight with the Republican party.”

He said “the money quote” from Obama’s speech were the following words; ‘meanwhile, don’t let a disagreement over a single issue be a deal-breaker on every issue. That’s not how our democracy works and Congress certainly shouldn’t shut down the government again because we disagree on this.’

“That’s exactly what he wants!” Thiessen cried. “That’s exactly what he wants the Republicans to do. He’s trying to goad the GOP into self-destructive behavior. He wants them to shut down the government, he wants someone to go out there and issue articles of impeachment, he wants someone to go out there and say something bad about immigrants because he wants to rally his base and he wants to make the GOP blow itself up.”

(It’s true – as should be obvious by now – Obama didn’t come into his presidency with the intention to bring people together. His M/O is to divide people into warring factions. His radical agenda advances through through division and chaos.)

Thiessen went on to say that if Obama had given that same exact speech minus the executive action, it would have been “one of the most powerful speeches of his presidency”  that could have rallied “a super majority of Americans to get behind him.”

“If it was a call for legislation rather than executive action he could have rallied the country,” Thiessen said.

SEE ALSO:

Daniel Greenfield, FrontPageMagazine: The 5 Dumbest Lies in Obama’s Amnesty Speech

There were more than the ones he listed – Greenfield must have been working under a strict deadline.  The biggest whopper of the night was Obama’s claim that he has a massive, record breaking, deportation record. If you still believe that one, you might be one of the “stupid Americans” Gruber was referring to.

 The Hayride: Obama’s Amnesty Speech, Deconstructed

 Rich Lowery, NRO: The Immigration Position that Dare Not Speak Its Name — as Usual

Krauthammer: “I’ve Waited Long Enough” Is Something A Banana Republic Leader Would Say

One of the more obnoxious things about Obama’s imperial decree on amnesty is the rationale he’s been using to go forward – which he has repeated over and over again and it didn’t sound any better the 10th time he (or one of his minions) said it..  Congress failed to pass “common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform” when Emperor Obama laid out his glorious principles for reform two years ago — and that’s why he must now act unilaterally.

That’s an obscene distortion of how our system of government works.

“The only rationale Obama is citing in doing this,” Krauthamer explained is “not lack of resources, it’s not a crisis, it’s not something new. As he said the system is broken, it has been for decades. It is one thing and one thing alone. ‘I’ve waited long enough.’ That’s what a caudillo says in a Banana Republic. ‘I waited long enough, and the National Assembly hasn’t acted, and so I’m going to issue a decree.’ That is not how it works in our system.”

Also, George Will throws cold water on liberal equivocations – Executive Amnesty = Institutional Vandalism:

UPDATE:

Weasel Zippers: WH Blames Boehner For Amnesty Order: “President Simply Isn’t Going To Tolerate” House GOP Refusing To Pass Amnesty Legislation…

“Just two weeks ago when Speaker Boehner was doing his post-election news conference, he was asked by reporters in that news conference if he would commit to bringing up immigration reform legislation in the next Congress, and he wouldn’t do it,” Josh Earnest said during an appearance on MSNBC.

Earnest said that GOP leadership was scared to allow a vote because “they know, as we do, that if that bill were allowed to come up for a vote it would actually pass in bipartisan fashion.”

“The president simply isn’t going to tolerate that,” Earnest said.

SEE ALSO:

Joseph Curl, The Washington Times: Obama sets off on scorched-earth rampage

After his party’s historic losses, he refused to even acknowledge the thrashing. Instead, he said the real lesson from that day was that Americans want everyone in Washington to “work together.”

Yet behind the scenes, the president was busy directing his team of lawyers to find real or perceived loopholes in the law — even the Constitution — in order to wave his royal scepter and instantaneously turn as many as 12 million illegal aliens into America citizens. Already he had quietly ordered the federal government to stop deporting aliens and unilaterally allowed some 60,000 “unaccompanied minors” to enter the U.S.

So he never had any intention of “working together” with Republicans, who in six weeks will control both chambers of Congress. Instead, he set off to circumvent Congress by granting amnesty to millions. Throughout, he knew that he would be, as GOP leaders said, “poisoning the well” and “waving a red flag in front of a bull.”

On Wednesday afternoon, the president announced — on Facebook — that he will be delivering a speech Thursday night detailing his intent to change U.S. law by executive fiat. The timing is deliberately designed to throw gasoline on an already blazing fire.

With just weeks to go before the end of the 113th Congress, and with funding for Ebola, a continuing resolution to keep the government open that expires Dec. 11, and a slew of others set to come up, the president has made unilateral action on immigration his top priority.

Despite his vow to work with Republicans, he will shove his executive order down their throats, intent on bringing conflict with the soon-to-be ruling party.

Gabe Malor, The Federalist: No, Reagan Did Not Offer An Amnesty By Lawless Executive Order:

Today is the big day, and the Progressive media is in full spin to mitigate the anger Americans are expressing about President Obama’s decision to offer legal status to millions of people who broke the law. That spin has taken many forms, including the novel arguments that the executive branch is empowered to act whenever the legislative branch declines and that the executive branch’s enforcement discretion includes the affirmative grant of benefits not otherwise authorized by law. Most recently, however, Progressive columnists have settled on an old favorite tactic: justify Democratic misbehavior by claiming (falsely, as you will see) that a Republican did it first.

Democrats across print, web, and cable media have been repeating the claim that Obama is doing nothing more than what Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 did first. They point to executive actions taken in 1987 and 1989 that deferred the removal of certain aliens. But, as usual for Progressive commentators, they elide the crucial facts that distinguish those actions from Obama’s. The sign that you’re being swindled isn’t so much what the con artist tells you, but what he does not tell you. What the Progressive commentariat is not telling you is that the Reagan and Bush immigration orders looked nothing like Obama’s creation of a new, open-ended form of immigration relief.

 SEE ALSO:

Byron York, Washington Examiner: Government shutdown? GOP has a better strategy

Gateway Pundit: Rick Perry May Fight Obama’s Lawlessness – Sue Over Executive Amnesty

John Hayward, Red State: Amnesty and the minimum wage make strange bedfellows

Red Alert: MSNBC Host: I can’t find ‘a single Democrat in Washington’ who says Obama’s amnesty is legal

The Right Scoop: Mark Levin: Democrats are legalizing illegals not to help America, but to help themselves and their own damn party

Weasel Zippers: Pelosi: “Everybody Will Have A Happier Thanksgiving” Because Of Obama’s Executive Amnesty…

Peter Wehner, Commentary: Obama Is About to Commit an Act of Constitutional Infamy:

What is about to happen may be the low point in a presidency filled with them. Mr. Obama is acting in a way that he himself knows–that he himself has said–is unconstitutional and indefensible. No matter. In an act of unmatched narcissism and selfishness, the president will create–he is thirsting to create–a constitutional crisis that is utterly unnecessary and will further polarize our political culture.

Mr. Obama is about to commit an act of constitutional infamy. This is a stain that will stay with him.

 

GOP Hires Prof. Jonathan Turley To Oversee Obama Lawsuit (Video)

House Republicans have hired noted constitutional lawyer, Professor Jobathan Turley  of George Washington University, to oversee thier lawsuit against the president for his executive overreach.

Turley, who has testified in two House hearings about presidential overreach, has argued “in favor of the suit against Obama’s executive order delaying the employer mandate provision of Obamacare.”

This is Republicans’ third lawyer since the suit was initially passed in July. Two previous lawyers dropped the case and the House has yet to file the lawsuit in federal court.

“Professor Turley is a renowned legal scholar who agrees that President Obama has clearly overstepped his constitutional authority,” said Michael Steel, a spokesperson for Speaker John Boehner. “He is a natural choice to handle this lawsuit.”

Turley wrote about it at his blog, 

As many on this blog know, I support national health care and voted for President Obama in his first presidential campaign. However, as I have often stressed before Congress, in the Madisonian system it is as important how you do something as what you do. And, the Executive is barred from usurping the Legislative Branch’s Article I powers, no matter how politically attractive or expedient it is to do so. Unilateral, unchecked Executive action is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in our constitutional system. This case represents a long-overdue effort by Congress to resolve fundamental Separation of Powers issues. In that sense, it has more to do with constitutional law than health care law. Without judicial review of unconstitutional actions by the Executive, the trend toward a dominant presidential model of government will continue in this country in direct conflict with the original design and guarantees of our Constitution. Our constitutional system as a whole (as well as our political system) would benefit greatly by courts reinforcing the lines of separation between the respective branches.

After I testified earlier on this lawsuit, I was asked by some House Members and reporters if I would represent the House and I stated that I could not. That position had nothing to do with the merits of such a lawsuit. At that time, in addition to my other litigation obligations, I had a national security case going to trial and another trial case in Utah. Recently, we prevailed in both of those cases. Subsequently, the House General Counsel’s Office contacted me about potentially representing House. With the two recent successes, I was able to take on the representation.

He appeared on the Kelly File with Megyn Kelly, last night, to discuss Obama’s serial abuses of power.

“It’s a sad moment and it’s a very dangerous moment,” Turley noted. A congress is coming in with the full voice of the American people behind them – that’s what an election is.  Now you disagree with the outcome – but you have to respect the outcome. What the president is suggesting is tearing away the very fabric of the Constitution. We have a separation of powers which protects us, ” he declared.

“We will rue the day that you helped create this Uber-presidency,” Turley warned fellow liberals.

Hat tip: Ace of Spades

Melissa Francis Slams CNBC’s “Glib and Sarcastic” Response To Her Accusation (Video)

Last Friday Fox Business Network anchor Melissa Francis made news with her allegation that  CNBC “silenced” her for questioning Obamacare.  Francis said executives  chastised her for being “disrespectful to the office of the president” for noting that the ObamaCare numbers don’t add up. She made the point  that the administration relied on people’s (read Democrats) “lack of economic understanding” to help pass ObamaCare and also the liberal media to help cover up the truth.”

On the Kelly File  Monday night, she expanded on her experience at CNBC  and commented on their disrespectful and glib response to her accusation.

Kelly read CNBC’s “nasty little shot” at Francis on the air: “That’s laughable, but we take notice because as the fastest growing network in primetime (Hm! Megyn sniffs) we’re always on the lookout for high quality comedy writers and actresses.”

(Melissa Francis was a child actress who is best known for her role as Cassandra (Cooper) Ingalls on Little House on the Prairie.)

“They don’t try to deny it – they just try to attack you personally,” Kelly declared.

“I guess,” Francis replied. “I thought their response was glib and sarcastic and they treat it like a joke and I don’t think it is a joke.”

SEE ALSO:

The Conversation: Senator Chris Murphy, Jake Tapper and the Unsung Villains of GruberGate

Montage of Obama Saying He Takes The Constitution Seriously And Can’t Go Around Congress

There was a time in which King Obama at least PRETENDED he cared about the Constitution – first when George Bush was in office – of course. No video montage of Obama would be complete with out at least one example of gross hypocrisy. But even throughout the first few years of his presidency Bam insisted he was constrained by the Constitution from doing what he needed to do (to help the American people.)

Watch the Constitutional scholar tells audiences over and over again how seriously he takes the Constitution.

Video montage compiled by Fox News:

SEE ALSO:

Big Government: FLASHBACK: OBAMA: ‘I ACTUALLY RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION’

This week, Obama unilaterally decided to tell insurance companies that they could now allow sale of plans in the individual insurance market that Obamacare had prevented, forcing five million Americans off the health plans they liked. As Ken Klukowski ofBreitbart News has written, this is a violation of the Constitutional separation of powers:

Obama’s announcement is a flagrant and undeniable violation of his constitutional duty under the Take Care Clause. The provisions of Obamacare causing enormous trouble for insurance plans are mandatory, and only Congress can change those parts of the Affordable Care Act.

But President Obama has a history of violating the Constitutional balance of powers. As Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal has noted, he has unilaterally suspended enforcement of immigration law; he has refused to prosecute drug law violators; he simply stopped defending federal laws he didn’t like, like the Defense of Marriage Act, in court; he issues waivers on Obamacare and the No Child Left Behind Act; Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has attempted to regulate carbon emissions when Congress didn’t push through a global warming bill; he appointed members of the National Labor Relations Board in violation of law; his administration rammed through an auto bailout that screwed bondholders, as well as a slush fund from British Petroleum. Strassel writes, “Mr. Obama came to office promising to deliver a new kind of politics. He did—his own, unilateral governance.”

Andrew McCarthy, National Review: The Point of Impeachment:

I drew on Faithless Execution in last weekend’s column and in a follow-up Corner post, positing that, short of credibly threatening impeachment, Congress and the courts can neither compel a president to enforce the laws nor stop him from using his plenary pardon authority to grant a sweeping amnesty. That gets Obama two-thirds of the prize he is pursuing — namely, several million aliens whose illegal status has been purged, put on the path to inevitable voting rights that will give Democrats an invincible electoral majority.

As for the remaining third, Congress could, in theory, block the president from granting illegal immigrants legal status and other positive benefits (such as work permits) without impeaching him. To do thisin reality, though, Congress would have to use its power of the purse. Translation: It would take the credible threat of a government shutdown to check the president’s lawless conferral of benefits.

Alas, that constitutional parry has already been disavowed by GOP congressional leadership. If they persevere in this disavowal, it will be in defiance of their base (and against the sound tactical advice of Mark Krikorian). Yet such a signature display of preemptive surrender would come as no surprise given that, as previously argued here, their opposition to Obama’s imperious method of achieving his goal seems, shall we say, less than genuine. Moreover, the judiciary that Mr. Obama is stacking with Lawyer Left activists like himself can be relied on to twist the Constitution into mandating any benefits the president does not succeed in awarding.

Against this backdrop, I am gratified that Fox News’s Megyn Kelly and Charles Krauthammer have just given the topic of impeachment in the immigration context more of the serious consideration it deserves. Appearing on The Kelly File Thursday, Dr. Krauthammer asserted that the president’s anticipated amnesty decree for millions of illegal aliens “is an impeachable offense.”

He is plainly correct. As Faithless Execution elaborates, “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the Constitution’s trigger for impeachment, is a term of art for abuses of power that violate the president’s fiduciary obligations to the American people he serves, the constitutional system he takes an oath to preserve, and the laws whose faithful execution is his core duty. High crimes and misdemeanors are not — or at least, not necessarily — the same as “crimes” and “misdemeanors” prosecutable in the courts. Impeachment is a political remedy (i.e., the removal of political authority), not a legal one (i.e., the removal of liberty after criminal indictment and conviction). That is why Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as “political” in nature — as “proceed[ing] from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

Jeanine Pirro: Hey Gruber – Americans Aren’t Stupid! (Video)

On Saturday night’s Justice with Judge Jeanine Pirro, the Fox host let-er-rip against Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber for bragging about the deceptions used to pass ObamaCare and insulting the intelligence of the American people.

“They think you’re stupid, that they can pull the wool over your eyes. They know more than you do. And that they know what’s good for you and it’s best to simply keep you in the dark. So, why lie to the American people? And make no mistake, we were lied to. Starting with ‘you can keep your health care plan and your doctor,’ to ‘this isn’t a tax, it’s just a penalty’” she said.

In reaction to the White House’s attempt to distance itself from Gruber, Pirro pointed out that “records confirm that Gruber spent time at the White House and Gruber himself says he met with the president twice, including in the Oval Office to discuss the law. Hey, Gruber, Americans aren’t stupid. We knew all along that Obamacare was nothing more than an attempt to socialize medicine and tax us to pay for this redistribution of wealth.”

She declared, “if they think that we can’t see that this is simply a transfer of wealth from those who have insurance to those who don’t, from the young and healthy to those who are old and sick, a transfer of wealth from legals to illegals, then they’re the ones who are stupid.”

“Yes, we were right all along,” she said triumphantly.  “We never liked ObamaCare from the get-go. True costs were hidden in a 1,700 page bill that we would only understand once it was passed.”

She concluded her opening statement by having some fun with Nancy Pelosi.

Her first guest was noted healthcare expert Avik Roy of Forbes and National Review. He said none of the Obama administration’s promises ever made any sense and most people figured that out.

He said that there’s absolutely no doubt that Jonathan Gruber was the central figure in the crafting of the bill.

 

Pirro’s next guest former NY Lt Governor and health care expert Betsy McCaughey came on lugging her dogeared copy of the ObamaCare law with her. “I am committed to repealing that law. Never mind what Avik Roy says,” she declared. “Those who say we can reform this law within the framework of this law, hasn’t read this law. It is rotten to the core.”

She predicted that the the Halbig decision (which is expected next summer) will be the end of the law because “four out of five people who sign up for this law get a subsidy.” She continued, “the subsidies are so big compared with the price, once the Supreme Court rules, their going to see the actual price of these ObamaCare “affordable” plans and it’s going to be 400% higher than it currently is.”

She predicted that “the exchange period that started today – it’s going to be the last one in history.”

From her lips to God’s ears.

  • Blog Stats

    • 4,709,670 hits
  • free counters
  • Is your cat plotting to kill you?
  • Follow Nice Deb on WordPress.com
  • Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 554 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: