Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is refusing to fight to prevent the Senate “Gang of Eight” from allowing illegal aliens convicted of drunk driving from being granted legalized status, or amnesty.

When Judicial Watch asked a MADD spokesperson if they would stand up against provisions in the bill that allow illegal aliens convicted of drunk driving to get amnesty, and therefore keep driving on America’s roads, that spokesperson simply responded that MADD “doesn’t get involved in immigration matters.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Breitbart News that MADD’s refusal to fight against convicted drunk drivers here is ludicrous. “We know already that Obama is releasing criminal illegal aliens onto the streets,” Fitton said in an email. “This new amnesty will further harm the public safety. In many states, a misdemeanor results in a citizen losing the right to vote. Yet under this amnesty bill, a ‘misdemeanor’ won’t stop an illegal alien from getting legal status and citizenship.”

As Watchdogwire’s Marinka Peschmann detailed in an early June article, there are provisions in the Gang of Eight bill that allow drunk driver illegal aliens to get amnesty.

“On page 608 drunk drivers are welcome too if they have only been busted three times before the Gang of Eight’s bill is enacted,” Peschmann wrote, before citing the specific section of the bill text.

Read More…

Most of what you have heard in the media about the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona is incomplete to the point of misleading.

It is true that the Court held that Arizona’s Proposition 200 (passed in 2004) requiring documentary proof of citizenship was invalid as contrary to the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requirement that states “accept and use” the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) voter registration form which merely requires that a registrant affirm citizenship.

But, this ruling essentially was procedural.

The Court held if Arizona wanted to require additional documentary proof of citizenship it needed to follow the administrative procedures under the NVRA to obtain approval to alter the instructions to the federal form. In fact, in 2005 Arizona had requested such approval, the EAC split 2-2, but Arizona failed to appeal. The Court held that nothing prevented Arizona from requesting approval again, and appealing if denied. The Court practically invited Arizona to try again.

Read More…

After Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “ObamaCare,” many wondered if there could be a yet-unknown reason why the Republican-nominated justice made the unexpected decision.

On the Glenn Beck radio program Tuesday, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) explained why he believes Roberts was intimidated into changing his vote late in the process, as laid out in his new book Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare.

Lee’s argument is not based on the NSA or its monitoring of the nation’s communication. Rather, Lee said, there are indications that Roberts originally intended to vote against the act, but that a public “campaign of intimidation” made him change his mind.

First, the senator claimed “the opinion was written in a way to suggest he switched his vote,” and that the dissenting opinion reads like it was originally written as the majority. He added that several news outlets reported that Roberts did change his vote, based on insider information.

Not only that, he said, but the court performed an unusual feat of “legal gymnastics” in upholding the legislation, particularly with regard to whether the fines incurred are or are not taxes. They had to re-write sections of the the bill not once, but twice.

Read More…

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said late Tuesday that he supports securing the United States border with Mexico with a double-tiered fence but voted against an amendment to the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill that would have required exactly that.

Rubio and his fellow Gang of Eight Republicans helped the Democrats kill an amendment from Sen. John Thune (R-SD) that would have required the double-tiered fence be built, as current law requires, before amnesty was granted to America’s at least 11 million illegal immigrants. The only other Republican to vote against the amendment was Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

“I support Senator Thune’s efforts to require completion of double layered border fencing,” Rubio said in a statement after voting against the amendment. “Properly deployed, these fences have proven highly effective in limiting illegal crossings. That is why the current bill requires $1.5 billion be spent specifically on a border fence plan.”

Read More…

President Obama’s nonstop fundraising for congressional Democrats is building a huge campaign war chest for next fall, but there is little hope that his party will win back control of the House and make Rep. Nancy Pelosi speaker again, according to an exhaustive new analysis.

But the report from the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics also shows that Obama may suffer the fewest losses of House seats for a second-term president since Ronald Reagan in 1986, itself a big victory.

“While it would be foolish to rule out any outcome, there is no indication at this point that the Republican House majority is in jeopardy,” said Kyle Kondik, the House analyst on Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball team.

His report suggest that the Republicans will boost their numbers by five seats in 2014. The average loss by the president’s party in the sixth year of an administration since 1946 is 21 seats. Dwight D. Eisenhower lost a high of 48 in 1958, Reagan lost five in 1986, and Bill Clinton picked up 5 in 1998.

Read More…

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant said.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed on Thursday that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”

If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA’s formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

James Owens, a spokesman for Nadler, provided a statement on Sunday morning, a day after this article was published, saying: “I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.” Owens said he couldn’t comment on what assurances from the Obama administration Nadler was referring to, and said Nadler was unavailable for an interview. (CNET had contacted Nadler for comment on Friday.)

Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, being able to listen to phone calls would mean the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

Read More…

RUSH: Hold it just a second. I’m serious. I don’t understand. There’s gotta be something I’m missing. The question is real: Why do all of these Republicans — you know the names — why are they supporting something that’s gonna eliminate their party? Why are they supporting something that’s going to render them an ineffective minority for as far as the eye can see? If they want to be Democrats, quit the Republican Party and join the Democrat Party. Why do they want — it’s almost as though — well, I can’t answer it. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: So why are the Republicans so eager to render themselves a permanent minority status by agreeing to amnesty, immigration reform, which is gonna result in millions more instant new Democrats, against which the Republicans will be hopelessly uncompetitive. Why would they do it? You want to take a stab? Snerdley says they see that they’re gonna be permanently defeated anyway by a rising Hispanic population if they don’t do this. It’s what they fear. Maybe.

There’s a theory, there’s an answer to the question that you know and I know, and it revolves around their hatred — too strong a word — the Republican Party is embarrassed of its base. How many times have I sat here and reminded you of this? The Republican Party, I’ve told you stories. I’ll repeat one. Hamptons, 1992, 1993. My first ever trip to the Hamptons, a dinner party at the home of a famous American, Republican. After dinner, out on the deck, a guy comes up to me — a name you’d know. Not gonna tell you who — punches me with his finger in the chest, “What are you gonna do about the Christians?”

Remember, now, this my first trip there. I’m with these people for the first time in my life, and I’m really sizing it all up and wondering why I’m really there. I mean, these are very wealthy, powerful Republicans. This guy’s pounding me in the chest, “What are you gonna do about the Christians?” I said, “What are you talking about?” “Abortion! They’re killing us! Pro-lifers are killing us, and they listen to you.” Some of the same people have done the same thing to me on gun control. “You have got to tell these people to back off on guns. You’ve got to tell these pro-lifers to just quiet down.”

I’ve heard them say they get embarrassed going to Republican conventions with the pro-life crowd that’s also there. My first experience of that was in Houston in 1992. The pro-life contingent there was huge, and I remember the way I was treated by that group, making other Republicans nervous. The bottom line is that the Republican Party is embarrassed by its own base. The Republican Party is ashamed of its base. They accept the Democrat caricature of the Republican base. Southern, hayseed hicks, pro-lifers, pickup-truck-driving, gun-rack-in-the-back-window people, chewing tobacco and going to church and talking about God all the time.

But they really see ‘em as a bunch of zealots when it comes to abortion. And all these guys I’m talking about have wives who nag ‘em about it, don’t want any part of the pro-life crowd, embarrassed to be with them at the conventions. So the theory goes that this is a way to get rid of the Republican base. Supporting amnesty and having the Democrats win big-time elections after this is a way for the party to finally get rid of its base. Now, you say, “Well, replace it with what?”

Don’t ask me, but I’m guessing, I assume that some Republicans think that there’s a new group of people that would become their base. If they just got rid of these pro-lifers, if they just got rid of this religious crowd, if they just got rid of the Christians, if they just got rid of these gun nuts, the bitter clingers, as Obama calls ‘em. If the Republicans just got rid of those people, a lot more people would like Republicans, and maybe some of the people voting Democrat would then vote Republican, ’cause some of the people voting Democrat would love to vote Republican since they also don’t like the hicks and they also don’t like the hayseeds and the religious people.

There you have a possible theory. But even when you drill that down, when you drill deep down into that one, you still ask how in the world — the Republican base is 24 million votes. The Republicans aren’t gonna win anything without them. That was demonstrated in 2008. It was demonstrated in 2012. It was demonstrated in 1992, and it was demonstrated in 1996. You don’t win without them. So if they drive their current base away, what is the current base gonna do? Just sit there and not participate anymore?

How is voting for amnesty going to cause the base to leave the party? Isn’t it gonna maybe inspire the base to want to finally take it over? There will be some third-party advocates, but if that happens the Republicans are dead, double dead politically, if a third party forms. But it is believable and understandable that the Republican establishment and their consultants and all that really don’t like a lot of the base. They don’t like conservatives, be they Christians, be they pro-lifers, be they so-called gun nuts. They didn’t like Reagan, as you know.

RUSH: I suspect, ladies and gentlemen, the answer to my question, aside from the brilliant expose I just provided, the answer to my question is all about money. And so the answer to why would these people sit by and allow this party to become a permanent minority status and be insignificant and ineffective, to answer that question, find out how in that arrangement a bunch of people get rich, and you will get the answer to your question. And if you want, we’ll explore that next week. I’ll be more than happy to take a tour down that theory, see where it takes us.

Read More…

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is bullish about the chances of an immigration reform bill passing the Senate — and he says Republicans need to pass it to avoid falling further into a “demographic death spiral” that could hurt their chances in the next two big election cycles.

“If we don’t pass immigration reform, if we don’t get it off the table in a reasonable, practical way, it doesn’t matter who you run in 2016,” Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday.

“We’re in a demographic death spiral as a party, and the only way we can get back in good graces with the Hispanic community, in my view, is pass comprehensive immigration reform. If you don’t do that, it really doesn’t matter who we run, in my view.”

With the Supreme Court only days away from major rulings on same-sex marriage, President Obama faces the prospect of having to make his own difficult decisions about the definition of wedlock.

Gay rights advocates are already pressing Obama to immediately broaden the federal government’s recognition of legally married same-sex couples if the court strikes down a ban on providing federal benefits to them.

The question for Obama turns on whether the federal government should extend full benefits to gay couples living in states that don’t recognize their marriages.

Obama would face rare, concrete decisions on the politically combustible question of same-sex marriage — an area he has largely left to the purview of courts and state legislatures.

Advocates have pressed the issue of benefits with White House aides in recent months, according to people familiar with the discussions. The advocates have pushed for a uniform standard that would make the most benefits available to legally married couples across the board. Officials have not signaled what Obama would do.

Read More…