And now in what is clearly nothing more than another example of the pull-out-all-the-stops strategy now being employed by the Democrats in their effort to maintain their control of the U.S. Senate, we now have even more tough talk coming from none other than Democrat Dianne Feinstein, the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This time around she was trying to sound tough on none other than the issue of immigration. During her appearance on CNN’s "State of the Union" this past Sunday, Feinstein said that if Barry were to bypass Congress and take unilateral action on immigration "it would be legally challenged."
Now, as you may recall, it was as recently as just last Friday, at a press conference in Wales, that Barry proudly declared that if Congress did not pass the sort of immigration reform that ‘he’ wants, he would then take unilateral action that would include allowing foreign nationals now illegally in the United States to "be legal." He also said, "What I’m unequivocal about is that we need immigration reform; that my overriding preference is to see Congress act." Frankly I think that he would prefer it if Congress were not to act, because it would then provide him with the necessary excuse for going it alone. Hence the ongoing ‘Dingy Harry’ Senate roadblock.
Barry said, "We had bipartisan action in the Senate. The House Republicans have sat on it for over a year. That has damaged the economy, it has held America back. It is a mistake. And in the absence of congressional action, I intend to take action to make sure that we’re putting more resources on the border, that we’re upgrading how we process these cases, and that we find a way to encourage legal immigration and give people some path so that they can start paying taxes and pay a fine and learn English and be able to not look over their shoulder but be legal, since they’ve been living here for quite some time."
And then it was just the next day that it was reported Barry had suddenly decided to put off taking his much-threatened unilateral executive action until after the mid-term elections. On NBC’s "Meet the Press", on Sunday, Barry very obviously lied when he said that he was not delaying unilateral action because he was worried about the impact it might have on the midterm elections but, instead, because he wanted to "make sure the T’s are crossed and the I’s dotted" and that, in the wake of the surge of unaccompanied children who came across the border this summer, people understand why the action he is contemplating is necessary.
Barry said, "Not only do I want to make sure that the T’s are crossed and the I’s are dotted. But here is the other thing, Chuck, and I`m being honest now, about the politics of it." And he went on to say, "This problem with unaccompanied children that we saw a couple weeks ago, where you had from Central America a surge of kids who were showing up at the border got a lot of attention, and a lot of Americans started thinking, we’ve got this immigration crisis on our hands. And what I want to do is, when I take executive action, I want to make sure that it’s sustainable." Who does he really think he’s kidding? Does he think we’re that stupid?
And then it was a moment later that Barry was heard to say, "What I`m saying is, that I’m going to act because it’s the right thing for the country, but it’s going to be more sustainable and more effective if the public understands what the facts are on immigration, what we`ve done on unaccompanied children and why it`s necessary." Look, this is nothing more than an attempt by Barry to placate those on both sides of this hot button issue. He hopes encourage those who oppose amnesty to go to the polls, and discourage those in favor amnesty from staying home. The primary objective here is to ensure Democrats are able to remain in charge of the Senate.
On CNN’s "State of the Union" on Sunday, host Candy ‘The Cow’ Crowley asked Sen. Feinstein if Barry has now damaged his credibility, and I use that term rather loosely, with the Latino community by delaying executive action on immigration. Feinstein answered, "Well, I have no knowledge of what he can do legally under an executive order." Adding, "I also believe it would be legally challenged. The Senate has spent, under the leadership of Pat Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, literally months on a bill, a comprehensive bill, 100 amendments, week after week after week. It is a good bill."
Feinstein went on to say, "All the House would have to do is pass one part of that bill." And then added, "We could conference it, work out the differences, and we would have an immigration bill which would be strong." Crowley followed up: "But the president says, look, I'm going to do this after the election. Politics are at play here, yes? Can we state the obvious?" to which Feinstein replied, "Well, I’m of the opinion that the way this should be done is legislatively, because anything else will be challenged, and probably will not be nearly the bill that is actually needed to solve the problems."
Ok, so let’s review things, shall we? First we recently heard from Feinstein, sounding very un-Democrat-like I might add, about how it is that the time has now arrived for America to project power and strength. Ya think? And then now we hear from her again with her this time around talking about how any attempt by Barry to bypass Congress on the issue of immigration would be legally challenged. Why is it, do you suppose, that we are now hearing all of this ‘tougher talk’ from her as well as a few other Democrats? You don’t suppose it could possibly have anything to do with the fact that we have an election taking place in a mere 56 days, do you?
No comments:
Post a Comment