When giving thanks, if you think of nothing else, think of this…

Our respect for the Rule of Law makes America what it is.

Every day we wake…

…every move we make…

…is sanctified by that concept.

It’s the very fabric of American exceptionalism, and must be protected at all cost.

There’s no greater good, than the protection of that public trust…

…there’s no greater wrong, than to violate that public trust.

Engage, Enrage…it’s all the same to the ‘Alinsky-in-Chief’

Obama’s amnesty intent is less about illegals, and more about enraging GOPers.

Following his Rules for Radicals mentor, he’s keeping the pressure on his opponents.

Changing issues & tactics, applying pressure…all part of a plan to keep the GOP riled.

But, as Victor Davis Hanson points out, Obama and the Democrats had the power to do what they wanted on amnesty for several years, and chose not to for political reasons.

And his minimal ‘executive action’ amnesty now leaves many illegals frustrated.

It doesn’t matter to him…real immigration reform is the last thing he wants.

Obama would rather enrage than engage…it’s what a community organizer does best.

Why is anyone surprised Dem Senator Schumer is bad-mouthing Obamacare?

No one should be surprised Schumer is now saying Obamacare was a bad idea…he’s up for re-election in 2016, and knows that bad law played a role in Nov midterms.

The Democrats lost 8 Senate seats in the midterms (9 if Landrieu loses her December runoff); every Republican who beat them out ran hard against their Obamacare vote.

Over the last two years, Obama waived or delayed quite a bit of the bad policy that would have caused even more voter anger than has been displayed to date, but those delays can’t last forever, and the negative effects of Obamacare will now multiply.

There are ten Democrat Senators up for re-election in 2016. Schumer is the second-in-command behind Harry Reid, who is also up for re-election this cycle.

We’re guessing these 10 Democrats will perform verbal gymnastics to decry this bad law, but the nightmarish aspects of Obamacare can’t be whitewashed or disavowed…

…because ONLY the Senate Democrats voted to inflict this bad law on Americans.

In an ironic twist, Schumer, Reid, and their Democrat cohort must be praying that the Supreme Court or the new Republican-controlled Senate will do the right thing…

…and end this Obamacare disaster that’s hurting millions of Americans.

Ferguson Missouri rioters are at the wrong house

Rioters and looters taking advantage of the grand jury decision are at the wrong place.

The young man killed during an altercation with police had, moments before, robbed a store, strolled down the center of a street, and attacked the officer who then shot him.

Michael Brown was failed by his family, friends, and dismal black leadership that places more emphasis on ‘victim’ology, and ignores principles, basic values, or accountability.

The rioters and looters should be focusing rage there…

…but then, they probably can’t get a new pair of Nikes looting Al Sharpton’s house.

Random thoughts on Obama’s amnesty lawlessness

First, take heart…what one president does by executive order, the next can undo.

Second, think…to qualify for Obama’s work permits and Social Security cards, illegals must (1) be willing to identify themselves, and (2) reveal where they live and work.

(Knowing their ‘amnesty’ is tenuous at best, many will not expose themselves.)

Third…Obama’s action doesn’t change the fact their illegal entry is still a crime.

While it may seem Obama is continuing his lawless streak, his action is nowhere near as far-reaching as he would have immigrant activists (and his base) believe.

In terms of unconstitutional behavior, it’s one more lawless act to add to the list; on this issue, until his ‘executive action’ plan lays out details, cooler heads should prevail.

Finally, however, the bigger question remains… …if Obama has broken our existing immigration policy by refusing to enforce it… …why then allow him to fix it…HIS WAY?

Obama began his speech last Thursday based on a false premise: he stated that the “…immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it.” WRONG.

The system isn’t broken…it’s simply not being enforced. He’s not doing his job.

A shocking lack of ‘Ability’…or a violation of trust?

“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.””

(U. S. Constitution, Article II, section 1, clause 8)

Refusing to enforce existing immigration law, legislated by Congress, violates that oath. Claiming ‘executive privilege’ – to fix what he broke – is egregiously arrogant.

Preserve, protect and defend, to the best of his Ability – that which he seeks to end, by attacking and destroying existing law?

Republicans must defend the Constitution that provides them their office. Failure to do so in the face of such wanton hubris would be a dereliction of their sacred duty.

This is not about immigration law…

…it’s about honoring the document that makes this Nation great.

Anniversary Edition – Use RICO-type statute to freeze assets of amnesty-enablers?

(BlueCollarPerspective celebrates Nov 19 as our 2nd anniversary of publication. We take this opportunity to thank our readers for their support and continued interest.)

Those who question an ‘Impeach ’em All’ philosophy (to stop executive action amnesty) might stop and think about the power of freezing all assets of those impeached.

Such a threat could give pause to civil officers who might otherwise choose to follow the Dear Leader, Barack Obama, down an unconstitutional path of executive amnesty.

Anyone who feels the frozen-asset solution too harsh should consider this: Martha Stewart went to jail for obstruction of justice. Not enforcing law is obstruction

…shouldn’t public employees (paid with tax dollars) be held to the same standard?

We lack a legal background; use of RICO-type statutes can be left to lawyers. But in the past, many have lamented such effective use of strong-arm ‘frozen-asset’ tactics.

We simply point out, if assets are in danger of being frozen UNTIL such time as a final reckoning is determined, civil officers may see ‘discretion as the better part of valor’.

(Is there a lawyer in the House?)