6 Important Reasons I Will Never Support Donald Trump for President

A friend of mine on Facebook recently stated that he’s really starting to like Trump. Specifically he said, 

“Learning more about this man as his campaign develops.

Let me say it like this. I resonate with so much of what he says. Believe it's American and I believe it is on point. We must hunker down on big issues like immigration, nuclear weapons, sanctions on China, jobs, terrorist groups and many other issues.

Side note. Trump is sloppy. He is not a career politician. He is in some ways what we should expect from someone who is on the outside looking in. He wants what so many Americans feel for this country. He loves America!

Trump isn't going to tout the constitution because that is an unspoken for him. It is not the constitution in and of itself that concerns the American people. It's about big issues and how can we make them align with the American values. He's not a constitution martyr.

Side note. I'm not in love with the guy yet but I'm forming arguments that help me understand who is the best for our country. I am in love with his momentum.

Now, take for example, his temperament and the crazy things he says in front of millions of people... If it wasn't for these things would he otherwise be fit for president? Maybe. Maybe not.

What is to be said about defending oneself when your opponent takes a cheap shot at your hands/manhood? Was that presidential? What is presidential?

In my opinion Trump's ideals, how he thinks, aligns with the constitution with what hopefully the American people want deep down.

He went on to more or less to invite people to explain why they disagree. So, friend, here we go. Here is why I strongly disagree with Trump to the point of actively campaigning against him.

1. Actual Trump quote, “If I become president, we’re all going to be saying Merry Christmas again, that I can tell you.” 

I can see and understand why this sounds like a good thing to some people. And I’m someone who likes to always say Merry Christmas. It’s a religious holiday and I treat it as such. But I respect that for the majority of Americans, it’s not a deeply religious holiday. I respect that in order to be more generic and not say the wrong thing to other faiths some people don’t say it. I could shrug off what Trump said as one of his big crowd-pleasing statements that he would never actually make happen, but that’s just the thing. Some of his other statements worry me that he might actually try to pass a law or decree that forces people to say Merry Christmas. And again, I like Merry Christmas. But it’s the forcing anyone to say anything religious that scares me. And the complete and total disregard for freedom of speech.

2. His comments to and regarding Megyn Kelly and other media members.

First, his comments about Megyn Kelly have been downright rude, misogynistic, sexist, and inappropriate. If any other public figure made those comments they would be hung in the public square. But because Trump is his own media circus, and statements like that make a bigger circus, so somehow he gets away with it.

I will say one thing almost in Trump’s defense. I will agree with this one thing he said in his Washington Post Editorial Board panel. “You’ll do a hundred deals, and you’ll do one bad one or two bad ones — that’s all they read about are the bad ones. They don’t read about the one hundred and fifty great ones that you had. And even some of the ones they write that are good, they make them sound bad.”

He’s right. There is an exploitation problem in the 24/7 news cycle. The media does blow things up unnecessarily. (In fact, I’m writing a book about this subject.) But at the same time, I don’t get the impression Trump only had 1 or 2 bad deals. There are too many stories and rumors about lots of bad deals. I don’t trust him to be honest. Ever.

But let’s go back to how he says that when he’s in the Oval Office he wants to limit the media from saying bad things about them. He calls it making them be fair. (And again, I do think the media could be more fair by not exploiting so many stories just to sell papers and fill the airwaves.) But we should never, ever limit or attempt to control the media.

For this reason alone I could never vote for Trump. And why I truly believe he would lead our country to hell in a hand basket faster than you can say gesundheit.

3) He stated that he thinks the number of illegalimmigrants in the United States is “30 million, it could be 34 million.” 
This number is flat out wrong. Horribly wrong. It’s about 11 million.

It’s not that he got the number wrong. It’s that this is a perfect example of how he makes up random facts. He has plenty of money. He could have a well-experienced campaign staff with experience writing speeches and doing research for him. But he doesn’t. He prefers to speak off the cuff, and not use a speechwriter. Some people respect that. My problem with it is that he doesn’t research anything he talks about. He has no problem spouting off about things he has no knowledge of.

(Another perfect example -he doesn’t know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah.

Actual quote –

“[The difference] will [matter] when it’s appropriate,” Trump said. “I will know more about it than you know, and believe me, it won’t take long.”

Hamas is a Palestinian Islamist organization based in the Gaza Strip. Hezbollah is a Shiite Islamist militant group and political party based in Lebanon. Both are avowedly committed to Israel’s destruction.

His ego… “I will know more about it than you know, and believe me, it won’t take long.” Wow. I’m not impressed with that sort of comment. In fact, it’s a massive turnoff.

He wants to be the most powerful man in the world (or actually probably believes that he is already) and he doesn’t bother to research the issues?? I can’t support that. At. All.

4. To quote the NY Times, “Even more disqualifying is Mr. Trump’s temperament. He is erratic, inconsistent, and unprincipled. He possesses a streak of crudity and cruelty that manifested itself in how he physically mocked a Times journalist with a disability, ridiculed Senator John McCain for being a POW, made a reference to “blood” intended to degrade a female journalist, and compared one of his opponents to a child molester.”

5. His tendency to say, “I will be the best {insert anything here}.” I don’t understand how or why people believe him when he makes this claim. I can walk around all day telling you that “I will know more about it than you know, and believe me, it won’t take long” and you would hate me for it. And yet, somehow, there are people who actually believe him and like him for it.

6. I truly believe that despite the fact that he says things like how he’ll uphold the Constitution, his actions speak otherwise, and his knowledge of the Constitution is seriously lacking.

For instance, in January, he said the following on Meet the Press. –

CHUCK TODD:

Let me ask you. Senator Rubio sponsored a bill back in Florida to give in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants. There’s a lot of states that allow in-state tuition for the children of undocumented immigrants. I’ve not heard your position on that.

DONALD TRUMP:

I’m opposed to it.

CHUCK TODD:

Totally opposed?

DONALD TRUMP:

They’re here. They’re not here legally. I’m opposed to it–

CHUCK TODD:

Even kids born to illegal immigrants–

DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I happen to disagree with the whole concept of anchor babies. I mean, you look at anchor babies–

CHUCK TODD:

But that’s in the Constitution.

DONALD TRUMP:

No, it’s not in the Constitution. If you read and if you look, and if you go to the real scholars, like different people that I can give you, they will tell you. Somebody comes over and they have a baby on our border and it happens to be on this side of the border, we’re not mandated to take care of that baby. You do not have to change the Constitution.

You may need a vote in Congress, but you don’t have to change. Now, there’s a, you know, debate about that. I don’t think it’s even close. And I’ve been on this issue for a long time. No, no, people have to come into our country legally, Chuck. They have to be here legally.

Trump was completely wrong.

According to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The vast majority of legal scholars hold the opinion that children of immigrants who are born in the United States are citizens.

Again, it’s when he says things like, “if you go to the real scholars, like different people that I can give you” that I get really worried. If he’s so rich and great, why doesn’t he have actual credible scholars and researchers on his staff?

His position on illegal immigration isn’t even what I’m taking offense with here. (But let it be known, I greatly disagree with him there.) It’s the fact that he wants to be the POTUS and doesn’t understand the 14^th Amendment!!

These are not all of my reasons. But this is already over 1,600 words. So I’ll stop here.

Donald Trump is not a man with the knowledge, temperament, or experience to be the President.

Donald Trump Meets GOB Bluth

Watch this- (just the first 30 seconds will suffice)

And then this -

Let's Connect! https://www.facebook.com/AuthorErinAnnMcBride 

http://twitter.com/erinannie 

https://instagram.com/erinannie17 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/erinmcbride 

https://www.goodreads.com/erinmcbride 

https://www.pinterest.com/erinannie/ 

 http://www.amazon.com/Erin-Ann-McBride/e/B0094UQZSS/

California Passes Law to Allow Non-Citizens to Serve on Juries

In italics: the Associated Press report. 

In normal font: my [incredulous] thoughts

The California Assembly passed a bill on Thursday that would make the state the first in the nation to allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.

What the heck?? WHY??? 

Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, said his bill, AB1401, would help California widen the pool of prospective jurors and help integrate immigrants into the community.

It does not change other criteria for being eligible to serve on a jury, such as being at least 18, living in the county that is making the summons, and being proficient in English.

Does not change other criteria? It change the most important and significant criteria!!! YOU HAVE TO BE AN AMERICAN!!

 

From the California Courts official website: (written prior to the new law being passed)

California law says you are qualified to be a juror if you:

• Are a U.S. citizen
• Are at least 18 years old
• Can understand English enough to understand and discuss the case
• Are a resident of the county that sent you the jury summons
• Have not served on a jury in the last 12 months
• Are not currently on a grand jury or on another trial jury
• Are not under a conservatorship
• Have had your civil rights restored if you were convicted of a felony or malfeasance while holding public office

No one is exempt because of his or her job, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or economic status. If you are qualified, please follow the directions on your summons and call in or report as instructed. You will receive additional information when you report for service. Even if you are qualified to be a juror, you might still have what is called an "undue hardship." An undue hardship is a difficult situation that prevents you from being able to serve. If you face an undue hardship, you may be able to be excused from jury service or postpone service.

The bill passed 45-25 largely on a party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and will move on to the Senate. One Democrat - Assemblyman Adam Gray, of Merced - voted no, while some other Democrats did not vote.

Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill said there is no correlation between being a citizen and a juror, and they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge. Republican lawmakers who opposed Wieckowski's bill called it misguided and premature.

No correlation between being a citizen or a juror? Jury duty has always been considered a patriotic duty!!!

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said there is no shortage of jurors.

"Jury selection is not the problem. The problem is trial court funding," Harkey said before the vote. "I hope we can focus on that. Let's not break something; it's not broken now. Let's not whittle away at what is reserved for U.S. citizens. There's a reason for it."

Wieckowski's office said the bill is the first of its kind in the nation and suggested that courts regularly struggle to find enough prospective jurors because jury duty is often seen as an inconvenience, if not a burden. His office did not cite any statistics but pointed to a 2003 legislative report that said numerous articles have noted high rates of non-participation.

Note to the AP: those two paragraphs would have made more sense in reverse order. 

But I digress. 

"high rates of non-participation"

So launch a freaking marketing campaign encouraging patriotism, civic duty, and the importance of a fair and just trial!!

It will be a lot cheaper than the lawsuits you are going to get down the road when people start appealing that their jury was not American or their peers!

A 2007 survey by the Center for Jury Studies said 20 percent of courts across the country reported a failure to respond or failure to appear rate of 15 percent or higher. The center is run by the National Center for State Courts, a Virginia-based nonprofit dedicated to improving court systems.

It's not clear, however, if that rate translates to a shortage of jurors in California.

Sigh. 

 

Noting that women were once kept off juries, Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, said the judicial system should be changed to allow a person to be judged by their peers.

"This isn't about affording someone who would come in as a juror something," Perez said. "But rather understanding that the importance of the jury selection process of affording justice to the person in that courtroom."

Keeping women (or any minority race for that matter) off of juries was about discrimination and unequal rights.  Not including non-Americans on juries is not discrimination! We're talking about a court system designed to uphold the Constitution! 

I will be reasonable here and try to see the other side of this argument. If it is an area that is heavy on immigrants, and the basis for our jury system is a trial of our peers, I can almost see the argument for it. And although the AP says nothing of it, I will assume the law made a point to allow LEGAL immigrants. (I'm sure a few people will read it and jump to illegal immigrants, just like I did, out of habit.) 

Legal, long-term immigrants, are (if they choose to be) very much a part of the community, and in most cases "peers." Especially in states like California. 

 

An estimated 10 million Californians are summoned for jury duty each year and about 4 million are eligible and available to serve, according to the Judicial Council, which administers the state's court system. About 3.2 million complete the service, meaning they waited in a courthouse assembly room or were placed on call.

In 2010-2011, the most recent year available, only about 165,000 people were sworn in as jurors.

 
Some details on immigrant numbers in the U.S. and California.
"The number of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the country hit a new record of 40 million in 2010, a 28 percent increase over the total in 2000." (Source: Center for Immigration Studies)
"We estimate that 28 percent of all immigrants are in the country illegally. Roughly half of Mexican and Central American and one-third of South American immigrants are here illegally." (SOURCE: CIS)

Source: http://cis.org/sites/default/files/2012-profile-t1.jpg)

 California had 227,876 immigrants become LEGAL permanent residents in 2009.  (Source: California Watch)

I can almost talk myself into this idea that legal immigrants, especially if they are long-term permanent residents, should be on a jury. (Note use of terminology here. I said SHOULD, not could. I am sure many could, in the sense that they have the requisite familiarity of the laws.)

But then I think of Amanda Knox and her trial in Italy.
What if Italy's laws allowed for non-Italians to serve on juries? Her whole family, plus you and me, could all move there, become permanent residents, make sure we live in the right jurisdiction, and hope to be put on her jury! All just to make sure she gets off!
The thought is preposterous, right? Americans serving on Italian juries? Even if a long-term, legal resident there, we don't expect it to happen. 

Okay, so maybe that's not the most applicable example.

Here is a more realistic one-
Illegal immigrants in certain neighborhoods commit a lot of certain types of crimes. (Don't try and argue that I'm being racist or biased here. We all know that crime is much higher among illegals.) In fact, in a small neighborhood in Southern California, it is not completely out of the realm of realistic possibility that the criminal court docket will have a large number of cases involving young, illegal immigrants.
What if a very large group of sympathetic legal immigrants made it a point to live in that same area?
Oh wait, they probably already do.
But here's the thing, now they have motivation for doing so. And not just local Californians, but anywhere across the U.S. If you want to really make a difference in culture and laws, the court system is the way to do it. So why not start suddenly congregating large groups in an area where they can make a difference on juries?
And I'm not trying to imply that all immigrants will be naturally sympathetic to illegal immigrants. (In fact, I think they may have more reason to be biased against each other than other demographics.)
Not all immigrants are from the same country. Legal immigrants come from all over the world all the time. And I welcome that! I am fine with that! (All thoughts of the Boston Bomb Brothers aside.)
But! Can immigrants on a jury uphold the U.S. Constitution and not hold a defendant to the standards of "the old country?" This is my sticking point, right here. Can immigrants, who may or may not be interested in becoming citizens (it is a long process and many legal residents may be interested in becoming citizens and just are not there yet), be expected to not allow for prejudices from previous cultures to influence their decisions?
I realize it is biased to say that they cannot. But! I really have to believe that. How can they look at someone from their own country, on trial in a different country, and not give some allowances for previous culture, while enforcing the current one?
I am a die-hard, red-blooded, patriotic American and defender of the Constitution. I just cannot stomach or accept the idea that a non-American has the right to judge me in a court of law. The court system is based on an American document. It should be defended by actual Americans!
Is this just a case where we need to open our minds to the idea of change? Would it be so bad if immigrant (legal or illegal) defendants had someone on the jury from a different country (their own or otherwise)? Does it make it a more legitimate jury of peers?
But I can't help but come back to the reverse thought- would I expect foreigners to serve on juries in other countries?
I feel that there are 2 sides to my response. The one that sounds a little prejudiced and biased against immigrants, although I truly do not mean to be so. I have no problem with foreign born residents! I welcome it! I love diversity! But am I biased in thinking that their previous culture will color their ability to serve on a jury? Am I wrong to think so?
I really have to keep thinking on that. Because I do feel that maybe there is some unjust discrimination in that way of thinking.
(It hearkens to the old idea that women were not capable of serving on juries because of their natures.)
But I absolutely cannot let go of the idea of anyone but an American serving on an American jury! It just doesn't work! I can't accept it. If I am to be held accountable to the laws of this country, I expect to be judged by the citizens of this country.
The end.

Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' Constitution!

And the backlash begins...

Does the President have the authority and ability to completely bypass Congress to do whatever he wants to do?

Not according to the Constitution- that he has sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend."

Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision was included to make sure that the president could not simply choose, as the British King had, to cancel legislation simply because he disagreed with it. President Obama cannot refuse to carry out a congressional statute simply because he thinks it advances the wrong policy. To do so violates the very core of his Constitutional duties.

That's a little gem from former Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel attorney John Yoo, a liberal, by the way, in today's National Review.

"It's the right thing to do" is not a valid reason to completely ignore the Constitution and bypass Congress.  No matter how 'feel good' it is, and no matter how many votes it gets you from a much needed voting bloc.

Of course, President Obama has had no problem not upholding his Oath of Office on more than one occasion, hasn't he? Jennifer Rubin does a great job of outlining his misdeeds in the Washington Post today.

Here's a few statements from some of the elected legislators that President Obama chose to ignore with his new directive-

U.S. Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA-07)
“America is a beacon of freedom in the world and it is no wonder that hundreds of thousands of people each year apply to complete the legal and proper steps to become citizens or permanent residents of this amazing land.  After all, who wouldn’t want to raise their family in the land of opportunity and under the rule of law?  Unfortunately, President Obama’s decision to cease the deportation of potentially millions of illegal immigrants and instead grant them legal work permits—while millions of legal U.S. residents remain unemployed and unable to find work—undermines both the rule of law and the economic opportunity that is America.”
“As of 2011, more than 13.7 million U.S. citizens were unemployed, and today our national unemployment levels remain disappointingly high at 8.2 percent.  How can the President and his Administration offer the few American jobs that are available to those who have come to America illegally rather than those U.S. citizens who have always paid their taxes and played by the rules?”
“With today’s decree, President Obama demonstrates the same contempt for America’s laws that those who enter illegally do.  He is undermining the balance of power laid out by the U.S. Constitution, going far beyond his power within the Executive Branch and advancing his election-year politics at the expense of the American economy and the American people’s trust.”
“I am tremendously proud of America’s history as a nation of immigrants, and I am committed to continuing and improving the legal avenues that allow another generation of legal immigrants to become U.S. citizens.  But, as every new American citizen knows, we are a nation of laws, and the U.S. Constitution extends lawmaking power to Congress and Congress alone.  This executive power grab—whether proposed by President Obama, President Romney, or President Reagan—is an unconstitutional act, and I will fight it with every tool at my disposal.”

U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa., and Chairman of the Immigration Caucus

Since he delivered the State of the Union address in January, President Obama has often spoken about “fairness” and how “everyone should play by the same rules.”

Those buzzwords have become a mantra of his policies and his re-election campaign.

But on Friday, President Obama unilaterally changed the rules regarding amnesty for at least 800,000 illegal aliens – though some estimates put the number of those affected in the millions –and he discarded any pretense of acting fairly.


President Obama says his administration will not deport illegal aliens under the age of 30 if they meet certain criteria. Those illegal aliens will be allowed to apply for two-year work permits that can be renewed indefinitely.


Thanks to President Obama, some illegal aliens will be rewarded for breaking American immigration laws with federal permission to stay in the United States permanently.


That is de facto amnesty.


The president not only ignored the will of Congress, which has wisely and repeatedly refused to grant such amnesty, and the separation of powers enumerated in the United States Constitution, he changed the rules and unfairly punished American citizens and those who are legally in this country.


President Obama’s amnesty announcement directly hurts:


* American citizens and legal immigrants who are looking for work. The national unemployment rate has been over 8 percent for the last 40 months, yet President Obama’s decision lets at least 800,000 illegal aliens compete for very scarce jobs. About 15 percent of American workers are unemployed or underemployed; now, they face a tougher challenge to find work because of President Obama’s amnesty announcement;* Young Americans and young legal immigrants applying for college, scholarships, and financial aid. At least 800,000 illegal aliens can now compete for college admission spots, college scholarships, student loans, and federal and state grants;
* Would-be legal immigrants, who have been patiently waiting – playing by the rules, President Obama might say – to enter the United States to live, study, and work. Now, they see that lawbreakers are rewarded for their brazenness, while they wait to enter the United States through the front door;
* Law enforcement officials, who will face an uptick in fraudulent documentation, as illegal aliens who do not meet President Obama’s new criteria will create or purchase fake paperwork that will get them work permits and de facto amnesty;
* Those who actually believe in fairness and the rule of law, who should be offended by President Obama’s blatantly political amnesty announcement. It would seem the president agrees, or did agree. During a town hall meeting in March 2011, he said, “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that.” But that was 2011, and this is an election year, so the president chose to ignore his obligation.
* The U.S. Constitution, which is damaged by President Obama’s deliberate contravention of the role of Congress in making laws. During that same town hall meeting, the president said, “Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”


So it’s clear that President Obama understands – or understood, in March 2011 – his role and the role of Congress and the courts in setting and enforcing American immigration policy. Yet on Friday, he decided to ignore those roles.


Constitutional experts across the political spectrum say President Obama has dangerously expanded the use executive power since he took office by bypassing Congress and unilaterally altering federal drug enforcement, No Child Left Behind standards, Internet gambling policies, and more. Now, he adds immigration policy to that list – despite his public statements 15 months ago.


It is clear to me that President Obama not only overstepped his constitutional authority, but he acted with the knowledge he does not have that authority in the first place.


While I hope President Obama carefully reconsiders and reverses his position, I understand he will not in an election year.


I sincerely hope the next President of the United States strictly enforces all of our existing immigration laws.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ):
“Immigration reform is an important and complex issue that deserves a debate among the American people and in Congress. The announcement by President Obama is a politically-motivated power grab that does nothing to further the debate but instead adds additional confusion and uncertainty to our broken immigration system. Further, I find it interesting that after promising to enact comprehensive reform in the first year of his Presidency, the President chose to make this announcement in the middle of his heated re-election campaign. Rather than unilaterally deciding for the American people what they want and how they believe this problem should be addressed, I encourage the President and his Administration to finally reach out to Congress and propose legislation on this important issue.”

U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
“Today’s politically motivated announcement from the Obama Administration that it is going to immediately stop deporting illegal immigrants who came to this country and instead grant them work permits is an outrageous abuse of power by the Executive Branch.  With this announcement President Obama has completely bypassed the Congress, which is charged with writing our immigration laws, in order to grant possible amnesty to many illegal immigrants. This policy shift is in direct conflict with the law of our land.
Not only do I believe President Obama lacks the authority to make such a change to our immigration laws but I find it particularly egregious that he would want to hand out work permits to nearly 1 million illegal immigrants when many Americans are struggling to find work themselves.
America is a land of great opportunity and promise.  Our nation was founded by those who sought a better life and our strength and diversity come from our immigrant heritage.  However, our nation was also founded upon a set of principles, among them the rule of law and fairness and today’s announcement by the Obama Administration is contrary to these very principles.”   

President Obama Changes Illegal Immigration Policy (in an election year)

President Obama speaks on U.S. immigration policy in the White House Rose Garden

President Obama announced a major change in U.S. illegal immigration policy on Friday, June 15.

First, the facts.

• He did NOT grant amnesty to illegals.
• Anyone who claims the above is biased to the point of uncredibility.
• Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military can get a two-year deferral from deportation.
• Those who meet the requirements will able to apply for work permits.
• The policy change is expect to affect 800,000- 1.4M people (depending on which news source you trust). 

The exact words: “Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people. Over the next few months eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization. Now, let's be clear: This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix.”

(SEE BELOW FOR THE FULL TRANSCRIPT AFTER THE JUMP)




Now, for some discussion on the facts (with a little bias, because sometimes facts warrant bias)-

• The President did this on his own. He did not do this with the assistance of the elected legislative body of the United States. 
• That same legislative body where Senator Marco Rubio was already working on a bill to address these issues. The same Senate that defeated the DREAM Act in 2009.
  Prefer to bypass the Constitution and anyone who doesn't want to do things exactly your way, Mr. President?? Why do we need three branches of government if we can just do it your way (the right way?) every time, right?
• Hispanics make up the fastest-growing immigrant population in the country, and the Latino vote is considered a crucial bloc for the November presidential election.
  But you are better than election year politics and football spiking, right, Mr. President? You would never want to set an example to your own daughters and all of those elementary school children you asked to be loyal to you, that it is okay to do things all by yourself without asking permission first, just so you can be popular, right? You would never do that.
• Some people will love the POTUS for this. After all, as he put it, "it's the right thing to do." We're talking about young adults who were brought here as children through no fault of their own. Why should they be punished for their parents' transgressions? To that extent, it is hard to fault the President for this change in policy. These kids (which are apparently also called "Dream-ers" (news to me)) have gone to American schools and know this as their home. (And apparently some have served in our military, which begs the question- WHAT? How do illegal, non-citizens serve in the U.S. Armed Forces?! Don't you have to have a Social Security number for that?! And are we really not giving them citizenship after they have served honorably in our Armed Forces?! (HELLO CONGRESS- Please make that a law NOW. If someone is going to voluntarily serve in our military and risk their lives on our behalf, I think we can absolutely grant them some amnesty and citizenship!) But back to the point here. Yes, these kids deserve a better deal than deportation. And granting them a reprieve is a nice step in the right direction on their behalf. But it absolutely does not solve the problem. 
• If you believe he did this because "it was the right thing to do" and not because he needed to make sure Senator Rubio (a well-liked potential VP for Romney) couldn't get the glory for it later in the summer, and that the announcement on a Friday afternoon wasn't suspect in and of itself (in political media this is called "throwing it out with the trash"), and that he wasn't completely and in every way pandering to the growing Latino vote- you are not only naive, but completely unaware of how politics work.  Right or wrong, this was one of the most political moves this President has ever made. 

Rick Perry Endorser Sheriff Joe Arpaio Accused of Civil Rights Violations

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Linked to source: LA Times

Just two weeks ago the Rick Perry campaign sent out a newsletter with a strong endorsement from Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. At the time I questioned why of all people they would choose a sheriff's endorsement to circulate. Couldn't they get anyone better? The endorsement was all about how Perry, like Arpaio would be tough on illegal immigration.
Well, now they just might regret their pick of endorsements! Sheriff Arpaio is in the news today for a wide range of civil rights violations against Latinos, including a pattern of racial profiling and discrimination and carrying out heavy-handed immigration patrols based on racially charged citizen complaints. Not only that, but a federal grand jury is also investigating Arpaio's office on criminal abuse-of-power allegations and is examining the investigative work of the sheriff's anti-public corruption squad.

Doesn't sound like the kind of guy you want on your team now, does it? 

It will be interesting to see if this comes up in the debates tonight!

Meanwhile, let's take a quick look at other endorsements around the block-

GOP darling Christine O'Donnell has endorsed Mitt Romney

Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz backs "underdog" Rick Santorum (an endorsement that only holds weight in Iowa)

Newt Gingrich snagged the coveted Union Leader endorsement (but I've explained why that's a kiss of death here)

President of New Hampshire Right to Life endorses Rick Perry

Ron Paul, ever the master of social media, actually has a whole page on his website devoted to endorsements. Fans can create their own video, upload it to YouTube, and see it show up on the official Ron Paul site. Yet again showing their knowledge and domination of SEO, if you google "endorsements" one of the first suggestions (after endorsing a check) is "endorsements for Ron Paul." Bravo, campaigners, your ability to work the internet never ceases to impress me. That being said, I can't find where anyone of any political clout has endorsed Paul, other than the Daily Iowan newspaper. (And we all know how important that paper is!) 

If you want to see a list of major national or small state endorsements, check out P2012. It is very interesting to see how many are behind Romney (45 House members, 7 Senators, 3 Governors) and how many are behind Gingrich (1 Governor from his home state, 8 Congressmen - 5 of which are from his home state)!