This administration is a disgrace to America.

Obama has never stood for individualism, capitalism, or liberty. The White House has been marginalized and he has proven himself to be the most inept president in modern history. He is symbolic of a man who has downgraded the White House, the Constitution, human life, foreign policy, race relations, and America herself.

The majority of Americans are sick of his condescension, his policies, his racist bigotry, and his incompetence. Obama is “the most disastrous president in our history.”

This is the most corrupt, incompetent, dangerous tyrannical administration in American history. He is an arrogant, hyper-partisan, race-baiting, and a committed Black Liberation Socialist.

President Obama flaunts a sinister, in-your-face egotism; the self-gratifying arrogance of a narcissist that would issue an Executive Order sealing all of his personal records within 24 hours of taking office. His character is arrogance, conceit, egotism, vanity, hubris and, above all, rank amateurism

Rubio is not acceptable as P or VP and neither is Mittens. NOMITTNOBAMA 2012!

Pragmatic on June 18, 2012 at 12:14 PM

That may well be so. Most of us are not that thrilled and supported other candidates.

What is your solution and who should we support?

Where do you HotAir guys get these pictures from? Rubio is such a good lookin young man and you load a pic up on which he looks like he had no chin and his left eye would explode any second.

Valkyriepundit on June 18, 2012 at 10:45 AM

There must be an archive somewhere as we’ve seen with the Obama and Pelosi pix. At least they’ve been kind enough to have given us decent Palin pix.

kim roy on June 18, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Just looked again at the pic (never look too closely at them as they all make the subject look bad), but it looks like someone is in the midst of telling Rubio someone ate his dog.

Rubio and whichever GOP members whispering in his ear to push a DREAM Act in an election year are a bunch of fools. If defacto amnesty which was granted in 1986 didn’t solve the problem, a DREAM Act sure as heck won’t either. Rewarding bad behavior only encourages more bad behavior.

RedRobin145 on June 18, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Can you be a tea party darling and a 2500lb RINO on mmigration?

CorporatePiggy on June 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Obviously yes. A big rino with a big ego. But hey…everybody loves him. Sure he will replace romney in 2016. And we will vote for him as usual.

American Dream 246 on June 18, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Second look at brokered convention???

Where do you HotAir guys get these pictures from? Rubio is such a good lookin young man and you load a pic up on which he looks like he had no chin and his left eye would explode any second.

Valkyriepundit on June 18, 2012 at 10:45 AM

There must be an archive somewhere as we’ve seen with the Obama and Pelosi pix. At least they’ve been kind enough to have given us decent Palin pix.

From stimulus to 0bamacare to this, he wants to take credit for the work of others.

Kind of puts his books and transcripts in a new perspective.

cozmo on June 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM

The most perplexing part though is that he gets away with it every single time..leaves one scratching one’s head…

forest on June 18, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Indeed :)…

Like the idea, or not, this is 0bama in a nutshell.

From stimulus to 0bamacare to this, he wants to take credit for the work of others.

Kind of puts his books and transcripts in a new perspective.

cozmo on June 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM

EXACTLY. The man is intellectually lazy. He is much happier winning elections than actually doing the work of the job he just acquired. In a serious debate on the issues, he waves things away as “above my pay-grade” because he actually does not know why he has committed to this ideology. All he knows is that that commitment has brought him where he is.

From stimulus to 0bamacare to this, he wants to take credit for the work of others. Kind of puts his books and transcripts in a new perspective.
cozmo on June 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM

No, it actually confirms the existing, widely-held perspective of his books & transcripts.

The president conceded that the new Republican-led House would never pass the immigration legislation they all wanted. So the president told the lawmakers that they should all “put our thinking caps on,” according to two people familiar with the meeting. “What can we do to work together?” the president asked.

Gutierrez was hopeful. For the first time, he thought that Obama seemed open to asserting his executive powers. He and Menendez laid out a series of specific executive actions Obama could take, including one to help those eligible for the Dream Act.In a news conference the next day before he left for his Hawaiian holiday, Obama told reporters that the failure of the Dream Act was “maybe my biggest disappointment” of the session.

He and his aides signaled privately to lawmakers in the months that followed that some middle-ground resolution was in the works. Eventually, the administration would enact a policy of “prosecutorial discretion,” calling on immigration officials to focus on deporting serious criminals, repeat border-crossers and others considered security threats rather than students, veterans or seniors.

Really? Which “lawmakers” did he approach? Any Republicans on the list? Moreover, he already had exercised prosecutorial discretion, so this Homeland Security fiat is a big step beyond that. The activists claimed that entire families and not just “criminals” were being deported, hence the pumped up demand for more action. Eventually there was a protest about the “one million deportations” at the White House with Gutierezz being arrested.

Can you be a tea party darling and a 2500lb RINO on immigration?

CorporatePiggy on June 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Obviously yes. A big rino with a big ego. But hey…everybody loves him. Sure he will replace romney in 2016. And we will vote for him as usual.

I ain’t a lawyer or constitutional scholar, but not deporting the children of illegals could theoretically be deemed “using prosecutorial discretion” and viewed as a passive act on non-enforcement.

No, it can’t. Picking individual cases of illegal children that are brought and deciding, upon having the individual case in front of them, not to pursue it can be considered “prosecutorial discretion” for each case, but to make any blanket declaration that any law will not be enforced falls far outside of the definition of “prosecutorial discretion”. Announcing that a law will no longer be enforced for some particular class of people can never be termed “prosecutorial discretion”. That is “making new law”.

Does this also go for Chinese and Indian illegals or is it just Hispanics who get this special treatment? The reason I ask is because illegal immigration from Mexico is in decline. Illegals from China and India are increasing. But I am wondering if only Hispanics will get singled out for preferential treatment because they vote the “right” way.

Wasn’t there another case (about 2-3 months ago) where folks started to protest outside Obama HQ and the Administration yielded ?

J_Crater on June 18, 2012 at 10:52 AM

I don’t recall that, but I linked to a story last week about O meeting with Hispanic activists and being very prickly with them, advising them his hands were tied. I’ll have to try to find it.
~~~

I ain’t a lawyer or constitutional scholar, but not deporting the children of illegals could theoretically be deemed “using prosecutorial discretion” and viewed as a passive act on non-enforcement. However to turn around an hand out work permits is an active, not a passive decision.

Moreover, how will this work exactly? How will Homeland Security identify these people? Will states like Alabama who have enacted laws which crackdown on the children of illegals entering public schools sue the Federal Government? Or does this edict make state laws moot?

FTR, I agreed in principle with what Rubio was trying to do through Congress as our Constitution directs, but this is an abuse of power from a lawless preezy.

They thought they were being clever by undercutting Rubio; but by doing so, they simply reinforce the growing image of Obama as considering only politics and pandering to whatever constituencies he can to squeak out a reelection win. This will certainly not help his overall job approval ratings and will probably produce a net negative in the next round of polling.

Now, consider the likely outcome if Obama’s people had decided several months ago to work WITH Rubio. Yes, it might have increased Rubio’s stature a bit within the Latino community; but it would also have produced a bitter fight within the Republican ranks that would have benefited Obama even more politically than this unilateral action will. They could have put Mitt Romney on the spot before the primaries were over, on a hot-button issue that divides Republicans. Working with Rubio on legislation also would have sent a big signal to independent voters that Obama is capable of working with Republicans on something he believes in. His approval rating would have increased considerably in this scenario.

Stupid.

Fine, object to the phrase, “anchor babies” instead of the more formal, “birthright citizenship,” but the point is made more clearly to a lot of people when “anchor baby” is used: illegal aliens who arrive in the U.S. for purposes of birthing a child such that they can immediagtely then lay claim to social services (“free stuff” including a monthly income) by way of exploiting that newborn child’s birth circumstances.

In fact, there are entire cultural pathways in places such as China and Mexico whereby alleged “tourists” enter the U.S. just prior to birth and bear children in the U.S. for that very purpose: to exploit the child’s birth circumstances.

So do people from other nations using medical visas, student visas, all sorts of visas.

So the problem is “birthright citizenship” or the “anchor baby” exploit that is used to then exploit our U.S. resources by people from other nations.

Children born to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen then being deemed also a citizen makes sense to me but when both parents are not either, or arrive here within the gestation period of a pregnancy without prior, documented, visible plans to resettle here, well, they shouldn’t be granted “birthright citizenship” to their “anchor babies” born soon after setting foot in the U.S.

If you ask around, you’ll find there’s noticable support from among U.S. citizens to pass such legislation putting the brakes on “anchor baby” citizenship.

Lourdes on June 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM

You are exactly right about this Lourdes. There is a whole business set up that facilitates the birthing of children here from women of other countries. The women get the birthright citizenship, go back Europe, South America or wherever, and then once the child is 18 they lay claim to citizenship and then send their kid to college here. The last I knew, the “birthing service” cost roughly $10,0000. The pregnant woman is put up in a hotel and provided maternity care until the baby is born. What a racket.

Any immigration plan that the Republicans come up with first needs to explain what it will do for preserving the demographic balance. Unless the Republicans are in as much of a hurry as Democrats to supplant the gringo majority. There is not a nation on earth that wouldn’t be singly focused on the preservation of their demographic majority if their census bureau alerted them that it would change in a few years if the current course isn’t reversed.

Rubio told Muir: “The White House never called us about this no one reached out to us and told us this was on its way. And, I mean, if they were serious about a real solution to this problem and not politicizing it then why don’t you reach out to people? We’re trying to work out a real solution.”

Erika has this exactly right. This is most definitely NOT a “political move”. It’s a crime. The worst and most brazen ever to come out of the White House.

Rubio shows, once again, that he’s an idiot who is more concerned about helping illegals break the law and making a mockery of American sovereignty than looking to “protect and defend the Constitution”. Criminals rarely tell people that they are going to commit a crime beforehand … even idiots who who are happy with the crime.

Rubio keeps digging himself deeper in the hole. If he had a brain – which he obviously doesn’t – he would shut the hell up and go quietly think about how his concern for NON-CITIZEN, ILLEGAL lawbreakers in opposition to any concern about our Constitution, Rule of Law and the interest of the American Citizenry.

Rubio is a total piece of sh!t and an azz. He needs to go away … ofr just switch to the party that is looking to destroy America. You’re a dem through and through Marco. Go hang with your America-hating buddies. Stop pretending that you give a sh!t about America. We can see who you’re working for and it isn’t Americans and it isn’t our Constitution.

I thought Obama was proud that he was tougher on illegal immigration than Bush?

gwelf on June 18, 2012 at 11:15 AM

…things change!………………………daily.

Quit trying to burnish Rubio’s rep…

creeper on June 18, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Rubio’s questionable BECAUSE he lacks adequate time and behaviors in the public eye via the political to establish just who he is.

Anyone, including Rubio, who is hoisted nationwide as fabulous and all that similar by media and/or other political actors without prior experience (or with only limited experience before the public as in Rubio’s case) SHOULD draw public scrutiny.

Like asking the man to show us more and do more before he’s expected to draw great support.

My take on Rubio is I don’t know a lot about who he is and he hasn’t shown the nation (includes me) much about who he is other than he wasn’t Crist and that he’s got Jeb Bush’s favor, among a few other players. While I also question Jeb Bush’s motives politically along the same lines as I also question Rubio’s (amnesty or not, Jeb Bush is pro-amnesty and tends to routinely criticize Americans who aren’t), there’s reason to withhold support for Rubio until he’s more tried and tested. That’s not a lot to ask of anyone who wants voter support.

Why bother with the hard work of legislation when an executive order will garner just as many votes and a lot quicker too?