Obama: Immigration Fight Can't Be "Dealbreaker"

In the face of fierce Republican blowback, President Obama continued defending his recent executive action on immigration in his weekly address Saturday, warning Republicans not to paralyze the government simply because they object to one part of his agenda.

"We can't allow a disagreement over a single issue to be a dealbreaker on every issue," Mr. Obama said in the address, which was taped Friday during the president's trip to Las Vegas. "That's not how our democracy works. This debate deserves more than politics as usual."

Conservatives have accused the president of grossly overstepping the bounds of his authority with the action, which will shield roughly 5 million undocumented immigrants living in the country from the threat of deportation and authorize them to live and work legally in the United States for at least three years. Some Republican lawmakers have pushed their leaders to strip funding for new green cards and visas in a spending bill that must pass Congress by mid-December to prevent a government shutdown.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, have lodged stiff objections to Mr. Obama's policy changes, vowing a swift response when the new Congress convenes in January, but they've not yet indicated what actions they will take.

Of course, goading Congress into action on immigration is exactly what the president hoped to accomplish by acting unilaterally.

"As you might have heard, there are members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better," he said in his address. "Well, I have one answer for that: Pass a bill. The day I sign it into law, the actions I've taken to help solve this problem will no longer be necessary."

Stop blaming Obama. We know who he is, what be does and we warned the country in 2007. Want to blame someone, blame the MSM. The MSM destroyed this country. Obama was just the vehicle they used.

Granted that it would be wonderful if all movies and TV dramas were helpful to “conservatism” (true liberalism), but censorship of fictional entertainment just ain’t happening. Period. Also, making a serious dent in Grubercratic journalism would still be absolutely essential even if you could censor fiction.
Therefore, I submit that using circumlocutions such as "the media” or “the MSM” is futile and hopelessly weak. There is nothing for it but to take on big bad journalism head on. Anything else is like trying to run away from a star middle linebacker rather than running at him. It is a doomed strategy; wherever else you attack, your chief adversary will catch up with the play, and help the guy you are running at. How should we proceed?
First, recognize why journalism is Guberism. For one thing, notwithstanding the large number of “independent” newspapers and the handful of “independent” broadcast networks, journalism is unified. Adam Smith explains why:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Do the multiplicity of news outlets “meet together?” You bet - in small ways and in one mammoth way. There are things like “the committee to protect journalists,” and “The National Press Club.” But then there is the Associated Press newswire. This is a virtual meeting, not for diversion but precisely about the conduct of the journalism business. And it doesn’t end, ever. It started before the Civil War, and is still going strong. Therefore it should be surprising, not if journalists “conspire against the public,” but if they did not.
But what should we expect would be the object of a journalist’s conspiracy? What is the difference between the interests of journalists and the public interest? Journalists who began uniting in the Nineteenth Century early on began defending against the charge that the AP was a concentration of power - and they did so by claiming that “individual newspapers are notoriously independent, so the Associated Press itself is objective.” That seemed to have an element of possible truth to it in the Nineteenth Century; in the Twenty-first Century it is arrant nonsense.
The reality is that Theodore Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” speech” defines the public interest - that the efforts of people who actually do things should be recognized and rewarded, and criticism is inferior to performance. And the contrary assertion, that critics are the important ones and businessmen get too much credit (including too much money) for their efforts, is exactly what is congenial to journalists. And, it should be noted, the denigration of performance and promotion of criticism is precisely what “liberalism” is about. How else describe “You didn’t build that?”
The spirit of Jonathan Gruber’s notorious remarks is precisely the spirit of journalism - and of Democrat politicians.
The mechanism of the journalism conspiracy has usually been the half truth, sometimes the lie. The target of the conspiracy is always a white man, sometimes an honorary one such as Martha Stewart or George Zimmerman. Always an actual or honorary Republican.
Taking for granted the concurrence of Roberts and Alito, the majority of SCOTUS, including Anthony Kennedy, wants to overturn McCain-Feingold. Money is not literally speech - you can flap your gums for free - but money undoubtedly is integral to the operation of a press, which requires ink and paper at a minimum. And more modern technology such as radio and TV is logically anticipated in the Constitution by the clause which authorizes Congress to establish the patent office “to promote the progress of science and useful arts.” Because journalism must be free, and because journalism has a definite political tendency and is not objective (and who can be objective, and even if they were, how could they surely know it?), the FEC has no legitimate reason for existence and should be abolished. Similarly, any putative authority of the FCC to control political “fairness” should be abolished by SCOTUS.
The great problem is to get the right case before SCOTUS. I was disappointed when Dinesh D’Souza copped a plea; had he not done so he could have created the case SCOTUS needs to overturn McConnell v. FEC.

All true. However, the common thread between journalism, sensationalism and the “unwritten agenda” of the left is, without money, they cannot survive. Reagan used money in the 80’s to force the Soviet Union into bankruptcy, to come to the netotiating table and ultimately their breakup.

Money is the key. Destroying confidence in a company’s stock is the quickest way to destroy the entity. What the left showed us was that boycotts work. Problem for the left is that they do to have the money to effectively run and sustain a boycott. But we do.

See, there are three classes, two of them are liberal. The upper class and the lower class. The upper class cannot be bothered because they themselves are vested in an entity and the lower class does not have the money. Which leaves the middle class as the primary spenders and the reason the upper class left is trying to financially break us.

Our power is in our pocketbooks. We can choose any company we want, boycott it and put it out of business if we so choose. We just don’t because we are not organized. However with a Tea Party structure, we can get the word out.

Want to take down the MSM? Take out their sponsors one by one. What was Alinksy’s quote about destroying someone? Use that against them. The only representation the middle class has is ourselves. We don’t have anyone in Washington looking after us like the other classes do. We are at war with no general.

My suggestion for conservatives is this. Pick a sponsor of MSNBC. Doesn’t matter who. Openly boycott them. I guarantee if we can take it viral, they will pull their sponsorship. And we can start small. Rachel Maddow is a liar and your sponsorship tells us that you support liars. As long as you support liars openly harming America we will jt buy your product. Send them letters, create videos, everything. Within a month, they will demand her firing.

That my friends is how you win a war.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.