With a crisis growing on the Southern border as thousands of children continue streaming into the country, there is growing angst on all sides of the immigration issue. Border hawks see this as undeniable truth that our Southern border remains insecure and porous. On the other hand, those in the camp supporting a “pathway to citizenship,” or some form of amnesty, see this as a way to justify the need for such legislation or, perhaps, executive action on the part of the Obama administration.

Report from The Hill:

The Obama administration is “not bluffing” in its intent to take executive action on immigration policy if House Republicans don’t act soon, top Democratic leaders warned Thursday.

President Obama has delayed any potential changes to his deportation policy to allow House GOP leaders time to bring legislation to the floor this summer. But if the Republicans don’t act in July, the Democrats say, unilateral changes by Obama are inevitable.

“We’re at the end of the line,” Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said Thursday during a press briefing in the Capitol. “We’re not bluffing by setting a legislative deadline for them to act.

“Their first job is to govern,” Menendez added, “and in the absence of governing, then you see executive actions.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) piled on. Noting that a year has passed since the Senate passed a sweeping immigration reform bill with broad bipartisan support, he urged House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to bring a similar bill to the floor.

“I don’t know how much more time he thinks he needs, but I hope that Speaker Boehner will speak up today,” Durbin said. “And if he does not, the president will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration.”

The remarks come a day after Boehner announced his intent to push legislation allowing the House to sue Obama for what the Republicans say is a habitual inclination to overstep his constitutional authority.

Some of the stories are pretty stunning with border patrol setting up huge holding areas for thousands of children to stay for weeks before getting sorted out. Some countries in Central America have been advertising that if children reach the United States, they’ll be granted amnesty.

More from the Washington Times:

Senators told President Obama on Thursday that he must personally step up and make clear illegal immigrant children surging across the border will be quickly sent home, as the administration faces growing bipartisan pressure to get a better handle on the situation playing out in Texas.

Led by Sens. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, and Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, more than three-dozen senators signed a letter saying Mr. Obama needs to “personally make clear” that those jumping the border will not get special treatment.

The senators, who covered the ideological and geographic spectrum, also demanded Mr. Obama tell the leaders of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala they have a duty to dispel rumors that their citizens can gain legalization if they get to the U.S.

To see Diane Feinstein signing on with Jeff Flake in urging the President to personally involve himself to end this stream of children is quite something. There is bipartisan concern over the safety of these children often risking life and limb jumping on trains, crossing rivers, or being at the mercy of “guides” to transport them into the United States.

At the end of the day, what does this setup for the 2014 midterm elections? There are so many issues on the front burner right now including the economy and foreign policy. Where does immigration fit?


  1. Be prepared for an “Executive Action” memo on this. Congress only has 28 more days on their schedule before summer recess and then it’s campaign time.

    • Bob :
      Let’s hope you are right, and Obama takes the bait signing such an Executive Order. More abuse of power to add to the Lawsuit against him!

      Also, isn’t it amazing that even the scurviest rats are jumping his sinking ship — LOL, LOL, LOL — Diane Feinstein, the mother of all liberal evil…Priceless…!

      What a clever trick USING innocent children, for Obama to open the Pandora Box — and how sick is this by this unscrupulous wannabe dictator! Risk the lives of children from Latin countries to be brought here ILLEGALLY — and since children are innocent, let them stay in USA … LEGALLY now!

      Why… this putsch?

      Simple, after these illegal children become LEGAL under Obama’s executive orders, then they can bring their parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. WITH EASE to the USA!

      Suing Obama for his dictatorial anti-American Constitution actions is good enough for now, but not good enough as an end result.

      Obama must be impeached in 2015 — if justice is to be done!

  2. Hundreds of these illegal alien children (Let’s call them what they are) are being sent to US Military bases stateside. Why don’t we take care of Veterans needing medical help. There are many answers, but none serve this POTUS’s agenda to making the U.S. a second rate nation.

  3. In the news:

    Hillary Clinton slams Supreme Court (on their 5-4 ruling that an employer can refuse to provide women with contraception on religious grounds), thus showing her true colors once again — a creature that wants to dictate to ALL her dead liberal dogma, no matter who suffers.


    What’s missing from this article is the DEVASTATING RESULT to Obamacare — the US Supreme Court declared VITAL PARTS of IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! This spells the eventual collapse of Obama’s socialist Heath Plan travesty that he wants to dictate to all Americans!

    Note the Ugly Four — the Liberal Judges that wanted to make it legal to kill babies — and make sure they get Impeached/ replaced, never to hold office again!

    HERE is their ugliness: Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Breyer!

    1) Kagan (is it a woman, a man, or hermaphrodite…?) —

    2) Ginsburg (after the Wizard of Oz, she’s now a Judge…. where are her flying monkeys…?) —

    3) Sotomayor (What’s that — does it even have a functioning brain…?)

    4) Breyer (where did my brain go… I got no forehead, so where is it…at my other end…?)


    These 4 vile creatures have almost become The LAW of THE Land — all chosen by Liberal American-hating scumbags in power — bent on DESTROYING OUR FREE REPUBLIC and turning US into SUBJECTS BY A DESPOTIC SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT that OBAMA is DOING HIS BEST TO IMPOSE ON US!

    Impeaching Obama will go a long way in Impeaching these Ugly Four!

    American patriots STAND UP — and say: “Impeach”!

    Make it into bumper stickers — IMPEACH

    (one word only — IMPEACH — all Real American will know what it means!)

    • Surfisher;
      The article refers to them as “migrants” which has connotations of workers who drift from place to place according to where the work is. It also uses the term “immigrants” which we normally think of people who pick up their family and belongings and legally settle into a new country.
      Neither of these passive terms would fit the circumstances that are occurring. This isn’t even like what the Jews experienced back in the 1940’s before Israel was founded where they drifted around looking for countries to take them in. These people have a country they came from. As Sam said above lets call them what they really are “illegal aliens”.

  4. With the Hobby Lobby ruling, not only “corporations are people, my friend,” but now, corporations have religious beliefs??

    A corporation is just a legal piece of paper that says individuals cannot be held legally or financially responsible for what they do as long as they have that piece of paper.

    How can a piece of paper have religious beliefs?

    Previously, the court ruled that corporations can BUY elections–with unlimited money, used anonymously.

    If corporations now have religious beliefs, and can buy elections, why can’t corporations vote?? If they are “corporate citizens,” don’t those citizens have a right to vote??

    And if they have that right, is it limited to one-corp-one-vote, or could they vote in every district in which they have an office or plant? After all, members of a human family can each vote in the district where they live.

    • Goethe:

      I’m not sure where you got your definition of corporations or individuals abdicating being “legally or financially” responsible for their actions by a piece of paper seeing the number of law suits brought against major corporations and the cockamamie idea that suing a corporation that can afford the lost revenue and is a win/win situation.

      The argument by the left against the right for years now especially within the gay rights fight has been that they want us out of their bedrooms. They want us out of their bedrooms BUT WE SHOULD LEAVE OUR WALLETS AND PRINCIPLES BEHIND. The current hyperbole and rhetoric is to sustain the delusion that providing methods of birth control is “a basic health care need” that the right is denying them. Whether it be for simply buying condoms or abortifacients it isn’t governments responsibility under any circumstances to provide. Not when it can be purchased for under $10. a month at any local drug store. The government a few years back attempted to provide abortions to the low income before a Presidential order ended it and got away with providing condoms to the gay community (and later to the general public) with the reasoning that it was in order to prevent AIDS. This newest issue is simply another tactic used to perpetuate the phony “War on Women” and redistribute money from corporations by the DNC and it’s crony leeches. It’s the perfect storm for the left …..it supports a number of their supporters while attacking the church.


    • Here’s an argument on this from another direction…

      The crux is this: Simply because Goethe, Surfisher and Bob come together to form a Corporation, called Commentary Experts Incorporated, none of you give up your constitutional rights when you make that decision.

      For example: The New York Times is a corporation yet it enjoys the right to free speech. Goethe, by your logic, the government should be allowed to censor the New York Times because it’s not a “person” so it doesn’t have the right to free speech since the corporation is just a document.

      Can you pick and choose what rights people retain when they form a corporation and what rights they forfeit? That I think is the legal question.

  5. Bob, you’ve gone WAY off the rails. Not sure you’ll even find your way back.

    Let me state it again: the purpose of incorporating is to avoid personal or financial responsibility for your actions.

    Yes, it is quite true that a “corporation” can be sued, but even if the suit is successful,the INDIVIDUALS are scott-free. The individual owners have no responsibility, even though THEY may have been the person(s) who made the decisions that ripped off, injured, or killed people.

    Obviously, the purpose is to encourage people to take financial gambles that they’d be afraid to take if their own fortunes were at risk.

    But the point is that there is a WALL between the owners and the outside world–and that wall is a piece of paper that says the “corporation” is at fault, not the human beings who actually made the decisions.

    But the court has now said that the piece of paper has “religious beliefs.” How on earth can a piece of paper have religious beliefs??

    Assigning such attributes to a piece of paper is bizarre in the extreme.

    I guess that answers the part of your response that was relevant.

    • Goethe;
      Perhaps you should take up the defense of Bernie Madoff or all those oil corporation executives that get hauled up before Congress among others if that is the case. ONLY GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVES ARE IMMUNE TO PROSECUTION…….especially if you are democratic appointed!

  6. Nate: Nonsense. Freedom of the Press is specifically mentioned in the First Amendment, so the question of censoring is a red herring.

    But your last paragraph shows that you agree with me. INDIVIDUALS have rights. And INDIVIDUALS have “beliefs.”

    If the court had said that the OWNERS, as INDIVIDUALS, have the RIGHT to pick and choose what medical care they will pay for, having a SELF-INSURED program, then that is a reasonable argument. HOWEVER, the court has already determined that the government DOES have the authority to mandate insurance–and, therefore, what is covered. I’m not sure what twisted logic has allowed the court to reconcile these two irreconcilable rendered opinions.

    By the way, with this new system, how do we “reply” to someone, directly, and how are we going to know who’s replying to whom??

    • Keep in mind the court narrowly ruled this applies to “closely held corporations” which are usually family-owned (i.e. Hobby Lobby). This can’t apply to Wal-Mart because it’s a publicly traded company.

      The government can mandate a tax and call it insurance. Secondly, they can mandate a tax but it can’t trample my religious liberties. Such as, Amish don’t pay taxes, pastors can opt out of social security, etc… we carve out exceptions all over the place.. this is nothing groundbreaking or new…

      It’s pretty cut and dry, almost a non-issue since the decision was so narrow.

      There is a “Reply” button at the bottom of each post and it threads comments nicely. It even shows a little “Reply to Goethe” (or whoever) next to the reply post title.

      Maybe you’re seeing different on a mobile device?

  7. Nate: Yeah, it only applies to compannies like Cargil, Koch Industries, Chrysler Motors, Price Waterhouse, M&M Mars, Ernst & Young, Cox Enterprises, Toys R Us, Enterprise Car Rental, Publix Stores, Meijer Stores, and so on.


    So what you’re saying is that if I am a Christian Scientist, and I am an owner of a large, closely held corporation, I don’t have to give employees ANY insurance, since I don’t believe in insurance.

    Muslims don’t believe in paying or charging interest. Does that mean a corporation owned by a Muslim doesn’t have to pay the interest on loans they took out? On religious grounds?

    My point is, yes, INDIVIDUALS have rights, and INDIVIDUALS have beliefs, but corporations should have to follow the laws.

    My ONLY argument is that corporations are NOT people, and we should not have any more nonsensical rulings that the piece of paper that is the corporation has human rights, beliefs, feelings, sex, race, voting rights, blood, bones, or skin.

    • “So what you’re saying is that if I am a Christian Scientist, and I am an owner of a large, closely held corporation, I don’t have to give employees ANY insurance, since I don’t believe in insurance.”

      Yes. It’s your business.

      “Muslims don’t believe in paying or charging interest. Does that mean a corporation owned by a Muslim doesn’t have to pay the interest on loans they took out? On religious grounds?”

      If they do business with a Muslim bank, yes. Otherwise, they can argue that with a non-Muslim bank but I doubt the non-Muslim bank will agree to those business terms so tough luck. Remember, freedom of religion doesn’t mean me, as a private bank, has to abide by your beliefs and it doesn’t mean I’m trampling on them. It just means we won’t do business. If the government says you as a Muslim company must take out a note and pay interest, or threaten fines, then religious liberty is violated.

      Government is way too involved in telling businesses what to do. Mandating a company to provide health insurance, in general, is absurdly wrong. The debate over what forms of birth control to force employers to pay for shouldn’t even be happening.

      Bottom line:

      “I want x, y, z and I want the government to force you to pay for it.”

      That is the problem today and it is wrong.

  8. In the “real world,” yes, but that’s not where the Supreme Court resides. According to the court, you have a right to make the world conform to your own, personal religious “beliefs,” and if you happen to own a corporation, you can also force your employees to conform.

    And that would reasonably include a Muslim who doesn’t “believe” in paying interest to the bank that’s owned by Christians or Jews. You can’t force him to do something he “believes” is wrong. That is the insanity of the court ruling.

    And no, it’s not about “I want x, y, z.” It’s about the government saying people deserve “x, y, z,” and the court agreeing to that “mandate,” and now issuing a conflicting ruling.

    This can of worms is going to crawl all over the place. Some religions don’t believe in blood transfusions–so you can’t force that “corporation” to pay for any operation.

    And, again, if the court had talked about the OWNER’s rights, I would not have a problem, but the court is talking about CORPORATIONS having “beliefs,” and that is just Orwellian “newspeak.”

    • gentlemen:

      Perhaps this article could give a better picture of where the justices were coming from while using the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” as a guidance.

      The article entitled:” Supreme Court To Obama Administration: You Don’t Have To Agree With Religious Beliefs To Respect Liberty Of The People Who Hold Them….and Groups They Form”


      Of course if you are closed mined or just skeptical enough to ignore this and believe your beliefs can’t be changed then having any form of discussion on a site like this is moot.

  9. Bob: Not necessary to be insulting. While I feel strongly that corporations are NOT people, I have not been abusive about that. I did read your link, and I find it completely unconvincing.

    I just feel that it is totally possible for the Supreme Court to be WRONG. But they’re the final arbiter. So whatayagonnado? Bitch, I guess. And I’m bitchin’.

    I bristle any time there is further erosion of personal rights–usurped by corporations. It is patently absurd to suggest that a corporation can have “religious beliefs.” This is just about expanding corporate power. Period.

    This ruling illustrates the hypocrisy of the court. They say they want the original intent of a law to stand. Well, the RFRA was written to protect Native American LANDS from development. I do not believe it applies here.

    And even if it did apply, there is an exception when it cannot be applied. That is, when (a) the government has a compelling interest [ie, the goal to get medical coverage for all Americans]–which the court already upheld, and (b) that it is the least restrictive way to achieve that compelling interest. As far as I can see, this court did not consider ANY way to achieve the compelling interest, so it cannot possibly say this was not the least restrictive way.

    The court schmoozes us by saying, not to worry, if another case comes along–in which a corporation says it’s “against their religion” to follow ANY law, well gee-willlickers, this court SAYS it won’t let the slippery slope slip. What about the next court? This is already a precedent that “corporations” have “religion.” No need to worry about a slippery slope, this is absurd on its face.

  10. When are Libs / lefties / Dems / Obama going to get it through their thick blue filtered heads. CLOSE THE FRICKEN BORDERS FIRST —- Oh wait – Obama or Reid are too dumb and stubborn to do what the majority of people want!

Comments are closed.