Obama and the border: what side is he on?
Why is Ed Rogers so mild and tentative here?:
Nothing suggests the president wants to own, control or take charge of securing our border. He only met with Texas Gov. Rick Perry when he was shamed into doing so and he is not relaying any tough messages or talking about potential penalties for the countries that are exporting their citizens to the United States. Even the $3.7 billion he wants Congress to appropriate for the crisis is mostly geared toward accommodating the inflow of illegal immigrants, not stopping it. And that request has not been accompanied by any serious effort to lobby for its passage.
With all this, it is fair to ask: Whose side is the president really on? Does he support the beleaguered U.S. law enforcement officials who are trying to guard our border? Does he empathize with the American communities who are forced to deal with the influx of those who are willfully breaking the law?
It is revealing that after meeting in early July with immigration activists who oppose any efforts to return the illegal immigrants to their home country, the president went so far as to reassure the group that, “in another life, I’d be on the other side of the table.” It is not hard to believe the president has a bias on the side of the foreigners. It isn’t a leap or unfair to believe that emotionally and ideologically, the president’s sympathies are with the goals of the immigration activists ”” but since, as president, he has this bothersome responsibility of enforcing U.S. laws and protecting the U.S. border, he must, for the time being, avoid formally joining their ranks.
Rogers has long been an Obama critic. But still, contrast the polite caution of his accusations in this piece with the sort of thing you used to read every day about President Bush from the liberal press. And yet there really is no question that Obama not only is uninterested in securing the border but is actively undermining and even sabotaging border security for what he sees as political gain.
Granted, it’s a serious charge. There aren’t too many things presidents are required to do, and one of them is to maintain and defend our territorial integrity. Obama not only refuses to do that, he is neither subtle nor hidden about it; on the contrary, he is open in his contempt for the entire situation.
Obama has reached a new stage in his presidential life. It was nearly four years ago (November of 2010) that I made the prediction that Obama could be re-elected in 2012:
And then, and then””voila! Four more years! Four years in which he won’t have to answer to the electorate at all. He will be unleashed to do whatever it is he really wants. And does anyone think that would look moderate at all?
In Obama’s case, not answering to the electorate doesn’t just mean advocating unpopular things, or spending his time on golf and fund-raising, or refusing to even make an appearance at the border despite being begged, although those activities or omissions are all included. It means endangering the country and putting its populace at risk. It means winking at the arrival of criminals from south of the border. It means dismantling the armed forces. It means releasing five Taliban leaders in exchange for one traitor. It means refusing to stop the rise of ISIS when it was possible to do so, allowing Islamist terrorists around the world to regroup and get much stronger.
And somehow it means that even many of those pundits who oppose and criticize Obama are afraid to tell it straight. I assume that’s because they fear they’ll sound as though they’ve gone off the deep end, or will be accused of that old perennial, racism. But it’s Obama who’s gone off the deep end—and this country is poised to follow him right over the brink.
[NOTE: In the comments section to the Rogers article, I found this interesting remark by someone who calls himself “brianc2221.” I can’t find a way to link it, so I’ll just quote it:
Some on the far right have long claimed Obama’s goal was to destroy the country. I never believed them UNTIL NOW.
I’m not sure how widespread that sentiment is, but I hope “very.”]
Of all the issues that the left could’ve taken issue with Obama on, I never thought it would be immigration.
But the pushback has become palpable.
Immigration or immigration “reform” was way down the list of voter priorities until recently…something like #10 or 12. Now, it’s more like #4.
Well, cheer up.
Not sure if it makes national news any more, but Obama is back in California this week for fund raising. A day or so in SF, then down here to SoCal.
Local rags had news today that commuters were upset because his motorcade created (worse) traffic problems in the Hollywood area. (Not sure what is worse than terrible.) There were also reports that a street closing prevent a woman in labor from crossing to Cedars Sinai Hospital. But, never mind. EMTs were treating her on the sidewalk until the Royal procession passed.
So, you may have your priorities; but, they are not HIS priorities.
I always though he was mostly a fool who’s was taking bad advice from others and on a limb way out beyond his abilities. Now I am sure that he is a knave who is doing his best to turn us into a second world country. I don’t think this slick trickster has any idea at all why most of us, right and left love our county, he is just “do’n his thang”.
Maybe that’s why there’s discord on the left:
Although some may paint the left with a broad brush, many low-level Dems probably want the best for the country.
Up until the border crisis, there was always a fig leaf of plausible deniability to Obama’s actions.
No so now.
Obama’s handling of the border crisis leaves no room for interpretation. He is absolutely refusing to enforce the border at the least, and may be instigating the influx or worse.
This one is impossible to blame on Bush, and since Obama is the chief executive, it is impossible to blame on Congress.
Massive influx of violent criminal gang members. Massive influx of disease carriers. Intentional distribution of these elements throughout the country.
How long till these factors start killing Americans in numbers too large for the MSM to ignore?
Direct responsibility of the President for those deaths. The blood of those victims upon Obama’s hands and his democrat supporters thus culpable in those deaths.
If such occurs and how can it not, how long till personal retribution becomes inevitable? No one wants it, but everyone has their limits. Were he not such a narcissist, I’d seriously consider his actions as those of someone seeking martyrdom.
Geoffrey Britain is spot on. “massive influx of …”
Cloward-Piven, baby. Classic text book Cloward-Piven. Google it. Wikipedia it. Anticipate it.
No one of any political persuasion wants these people transplanted into their neighborhood. If the msm ever begins reporting on the diseases they carry and the criminal nature of many of the teen males bho will have his approval numbers drop another 10 points… not that he cares or will do anything differently. However, this purposeful surrender of the border may prove to be a factor in November.
The low information voter doesn’t know we have a border. They do know Obama is black and cool.
One of the other comments struck me as being extremely ironic. This from “Up by the Big Lake”:
“I’d rather have a few thousand illegal alien children for neighbors than many of the so called patriot neocons. Seriously. The kids would be grateful to be here. Not so much the neocons who just can’t seem to gather the gumption to move to that make believe island with no government”
My response: “”up by the lake” basically states that he would rather live with people from another culture than his own countrymen. Thanks for actually proving the point the author was trying to make, and thanks for doing it so succinctly”
A few days ago my (democrat) sister posted a link on Facebook to a clip where Jon Stewart (late night) was lambasting conservatives because “Americans have always welcomed immigrants.” I replied that yes, Americans have always welcomed immigrants–LEGAL immigrants. Jon conveniently failed to differentiate.
If they believed the Left’s propaganda on any of the historical topics, including slavery or Iraq under Bush II, then they are too weak to speak truth to power. So it was in the past, and so it is now with Hussein. Nothing has changed.
eve, 5:02 pm — ” . . . yes, Americans have always welcomed immigrants—LEGAL immigrants.”
LEGAL immigrants who
-1- were demonstrably free from infectious disease, and
-2- showed evidence that they would be self-supporting.
“Why is Ed Rogers so mild and tentative here?” I suppose it’s a worthy question. But I gave up reading after five sentences or so.
I’m pretty uninterested in the Left’s perception of reality – only to have my prejudices confirmed in spades.
It is pretty dull exercise. Do you really find it rewarding? Who else does? – and why?
Orson:
Rogers is not on the left. He is on the right.
That’s why I asked the question. My point was: why isn’t the right more hard-hitting? He worked in the Reagan White House, in addition to other things.
Here’s a 15 minute video of a retired Border Patrol agent talking about what he believes is going on. In his opinion the children are a diversion to allow something more ominous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnkSXosZhic&feature=player_embedded
Where is the money coming from to get these people from Central America across Mexico to the border? 60,000 illegals X $13,000 in coyote payments equals $780 million. Those poverty stricken people in Central America don’t have that kind of money. Who is financing this? The answer to that question would tell us a lot about what’s going on. Is it U.S money, oil sheik money, Russian mafia money, George Soros money, or ?
Here in Omaha we had one illegal alien kill 3 or 4 people last summer. He had no business being in this country. And another case involving the brutal rape of an 80 something woman in her own home.
What will be the death and injury total from this latest fully preventable invasion?
Someone needs to start a websites like Religion of Peace to tally these crimes. But the media rarely reports immigration status. It should.
There were plenty of people who saw correctly what Obama was although I recall only one, a Brit, who stated clearly the guy was a fellow traveler. The dreaded “IT” did happen here, hopefully with fewer repercussions than in 1933. Lesson: A frivolous people cannot be expected to make wise decisions, so let’s hope in the next two years Obama’s knavery hurts his electoral entourage to the point their pain teaches them the error of their ways. Until then, they are a bunch of stupid squalid SOBs who deserve to be drawn and quartered.
My point was: why isn’t the right more hard-hitting?
They lack the will. They don’t truly believe in something worth killing or dying for, so they refuse to believe the LEft is serious. Just as the Left often refuses to believe Islamic JIhad is serious, until they have hired enough bodyguards, of course.
[NeoNeoCon: Check this out – saw it today on the web!]
Revealed: The Destroyer of Obama’s Tyranny
(One of the following will stop the runaway train called “Obama” and will be famous forever! Check everyone listed and guess who will achieve this:)
A Republican; a Democrat; an Independent; a Chinese dissident; a Muslim jihadist; a talk show host; a teenager on meds; a movie star; a White House policeman; a Black rap artist; Michelle Obama; a Jewish columnist; a 90-year-old jogger; a death row inmate; YOU; a member of a Russian garden club; a Wall Street insider; a perennial lottery loser; a Secret Service agent; a recently discovered superbug; a vengeful pig farmer; a 105-year-old Tea Party member; a mad Army general; a gay alien from the Exonica Galaxy; the world’s first transgendered dog, or one of Obama’s live-in relatives.
(The correct answer, buried above, is three letters long and in caps. For more on the same tyrant, Google “The Background Obama Can’t Cover Up” and also “Coming to a theater near you: WHITE HOUSE-GROWN TERRORISTS starring Obaba Black Sheep…”)