Obama Gets Fired Up for ‘Immigration Rights’ at LaborFest


President Obama delivered a fiery speech at Laborfest 2014 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin voicing support for unions and organized labor. He also voiced his support for “immigration rights,” lumping it together with civil rights, gay rights, and voting rights. “Hope is what gives young people the strength to march for women’s rights and workers’ rights and civil rights and voting rights and gay rights and immigration rights,” he said. “Cynicism is a bad choice,” he added. “Hope is a better choice.” During his speech, Obama asserted that the Evangelical community, unions, CEOs, and law enforcement officials all agreed that “fixing a broken immigration system” was essential. But, he warned, Republicans in Congress failed to pass a immigration reform bill. “It ain’t right,” he said. Obama declared out that Republicans tried to block all kinds of progressive goals, including Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare, but that they lost. “But we will win those fights too, I promise, and I know that because America is the story of progress,” he said.

23 Comments - what are your thoughts?

  • Thomas Goss says:

    Do you really want to know why Obama is so gun ho about legalizing ALL the ILLEGALS? I’ll tell you, it’s because then and only then could he finally say that he to was an American. That’s why.

  • Legalcld says:

    Amazing how O can get all worked up about giving ILLEGALS amnesty, but when it comes to ISIS and the beheading of Americans, no where near the passion or out rage in his voice! Besides, why would an ILLEGAL want to become an American citizen when they have more rights now then what an American citizen does?

  • On his very best day, this lying fraud and clown is merely a communist dictator in waiting. Thank God for the Second Amendment, which upholds the First!

  • Ordinary_Guy says:

    Whatever Barewee thinks will gets him mo votes…

  • disqus_BAvz0LV7zw says:

    Obama is willing to spend several billions of USD, our tax money, for the illegal aliens, but he did not want to fight with ISIS, with reasons that it would be too costly. He prefers to put our country in the hands of the enemies who will kill us, rather than protecting the American people that he had sworn to when elected in office.

  • fordfool says:

    well lets see- – Congress (sometimes) do what is right,what we hired them for.
    Maybe they didnt pass YOUR bill, because its not a “bill”…its anothr Obama give-away to people who ain’t walked the walk..just talk the talk
    And we all know, talk is cheap. A capable CEO for America would take measures to protect,preserve, the Constitution..Not the world.
    America CANNOT and WILL NOT- be the Emerg.Room. of the World!
    Get ovr it ! Constitutional violations are things of the past, live with it.

    1. bobnstuff says:

      The house has past one immigration bill. It give money to Perry to pay for the Nation Guard he sent to the border to watch others do their job. If the republicans really wanted reform they would put together a bill that made sense and that fixed the problem, how ever this will not happen because of the split in the party. Everyone talks about all those bills waiting on Harry’s desk, can anyone tell me the HR number and content of any of them that aren’t giveaways for the large donors to the republicans. If anything is going to be done the republicans have to put on their big boy pants and come up with a plain that they all agree on and that makes sense to all the American people, even the ones that can read. Obama is no Saint but he is at less trying to do something. Until the GOP stop being the party of no become the party of this is how to fix it and here’s the money to pay for it we are stuck we Obama’s way of doing things.

  • Death2Unions says:

    The ghost of Hugo Chavez sleeps comfortably and is smiling. Puppet Boobama and his Puppet Master Valerie Jarrett are sticking like glue on his words of wisdom.

  • LibertyLane says:

    If the immigration system is broken it’s because the WH is breaking the law, and not protecting our border…..it’s more like swiss cheese than a closed border.

  • WiSe GuY says:

    Fuck that communist nigger!

    1. I Seigel says:

      Since the First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech, and since the Founding Fathers envisioned that right to be exercised by someone orating in a public square, why don’t you exercise your First Amendment right the way the Founding Fathers envisioned it. Set up a platform in your community downtown area and shout it out!

      Or you can go whisper it at some KKK meeting, and get your jollies that way.

      1. LibertyLane says:

        You’re right seigel, wise guy has the right to say his opinion, out loud or written. You don’t have to like it….

        1. I Seigel says:

          Agreed.

          But as I pointed out, at the time the Founding Fathers debated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, “public speech” meant setting up a soapbox in the middle of the town square and saying your piece. Or printing and distributing your own newspaper or pamphlet. With the right of free speech came the responsibility and duty to own your speech. The Founding Fathers didn’t imagine anonymous free speech. Would they condone what it has evolved into? Anonymous internet comments, PACs in which donors give hundreds of thousands of dollars anonymously, etc? Will we have further media consolidation soon in which the few owners of the networks are faceless (maybe foreign)? Just something to think about….

          1. LibertyLane says:

            “The Founding Fathers didn’t imagine anonymous free speech”
            That’s not true….Benjamin Franklin wrote with anonymity as ‘Silence Do Good” for example. Who knows what they would condone, living in this crazy time in history? The main problem is the lack of virtue, in my humble opinion. Even Ben Franklin who considered himself a deist believed that organized religion was necessary to help mankind be good to one another. But with organized attempts at destroying Christianity and morality in this country we are at a loss for virtue AND morality. For what a man’s heart thinks is evil continually….so there you have it. The reason free speech (and written speech) has to be protected, is because someone may not like it. If only “good” speech is protected, who would decide what good is, and why would it need protection? Anyway, my point is that no one seems to want speech protected if it’s something they don’t like.

          2. I Seigel says:

            LL – you’re making some extreme generalizations here and I’d like to point them out to you:

            1. ” But with organized attempts at destroying Christianity and morality in this country…” – If you’re referring here to the “organized attempts” to keep religion out of schools, courthouses, municipal Christmas celebrations, etc., you’re wrong. There’s no “organized attempt” to destroy religion. The attempt is to follow the CURRENT interpretation of the Constitution’s requirement of the separation of church and state. There’s no official or non-official attack on religion in this country (radical Islamics notwithstanding).

            2. ” …my point is that no one seems to want speech protected if it’s something they don’t like.” – To say that “no one” is a HUGE overreach. If you’ll notice, I agreed with your earlier support of WiseGuy. The Supreme Court AND the ACLU have supported Nazis’ and KKK’s free speech rights. The only “free speech” that is not supported is hate speech, and that’s a law that is also supported in Britain, Germany and elsewhere.

            So if you’re trying to make this an “us vs. them” argument, you’re simply wrong. This is not a left vs right issue or a Reps vs. Dems issue. At least it shouldn’t be. Anonymous free speech – especially unlimited anonymous donations to politicians and political committees – is corrupting our system, greatly enhancing the power of the rich to buy the influence they want for their own private fortunes. If you’re really worried about “virtue”, start with that.

          3. LibertyLane says:

            You are absolutely correct! The ‘current interpretation” of the Constitution is the real problem. If SCOTUS and others would simply look to the Federalist Papers, letters written by our founders, history and tradition, everyone would understand that the Constitution protects our freedom OF religion, not the eradication of all Christianity from the government. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about separation of church and state. On the contrary however, most of our founders advocated prayer and divine wisdom in all of our Congressional decisions. Prayer still opens Congress today. The term you are referring to was in a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson to a couple of Christian denominations promising that the government will not choose one denomination over the other as a national doctrine. History proves we have always been a Christian nation. It was why so many Christians fled here, to be free to worship as they pleased without governmental restrictions. We are a very far cry from that nation today. Ben Franklin (a deist, Christian) said

            “IN THE BEGINNING OF THE CONTEST WITH BRITAIN, WHEN WE WERE

            SENSIBLE OF DANGER, WE HAD DAILY PRAYER IN THIS ROOM FOR DIVINE

            PROTECTION. OUR PRAYERS, SIR, WERE HEARD AND THEY WERE GRACIOUSLY

            ANSWERED…. AND HAVE WE NOW FORGOTTEN THAT POWERFUL FRIEND? OR, DO

            WE IMAGINE WE NO LONGER NEED HIS ASSISTANCE? I HAVE LIVED, SIR, A LONG

            TIME, AND THE LONGER I LIVE, THE MORE CONVINCING PROOFS I SEE OF THIS

            TRUTH–THAT GOD GOVERNS IN THE AFFAIRS OF MEN. AND IF A SPARROW

            CANNOT FALL TO THE GROUND WITHOUT HIS NOTICE, IS IT PROBABLE THAT AN

            EMPIRE CAN RISE WITHOUT HIS AID? WE HAVE BEEN ASSURED, SIR, IN THE

            SACRED WRITINGS, THAT “EXCEPT THE LORD BUILD THE HOUSE, THEY LABOR IN

            VAIN THAT BUILD IT.” I FIRMLY BELIEVE THIS; AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT

            WITHOUT HIS CONCURRING AID WE SHALL SUCCEED IN THIS POLITICAL BUILDING

            NO BETTER THAN THE BUILDERS OF BABEL….

            I THEREFORE BEG LEAVE TO MOVE THAT, HENCEFORTH, PRAYERS

            IMPLORING THE ASSISTANCE OF HEAVEN, AND ITS BLESSINGS ON OUR

            DELIBERATIONS, BE HELD IN THIS ASSEMBLY EVERY MORNING BEFORE WE

            PROCEED TO BUSINESS, AND THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE CLERGY OF THIS CITY BE

            REQUESTED TO OFFICIATE IN THAT SERVICE.

            While they did not agree to prayer on that day, “One year and nine months latter, on April 7, 1789, one day after the Senate of the First Congress

            convened, the Senate appointed a committee “to take under consideration the manner of electing Chaplains.” On April 25, 1789, the Senate elected its first chaplain. On May 1, 1789, the House elected its first chaplain. On September 22,
            1789, Congress passed a statute providing for payment of chaplains. Three days later, on September 25, 1789, Congress reached final agreement on the language of the Establishment Clause. The First Congress obviously perceived no conflict between the Establishment Clause and vocal, public prayer in a governmentally organized setting on governmentproperty.”

            So why should we today, give up our liberty to pray in public and federal places, because someone else chooses not to? No one forces them to pray, they, according to the true understanding of the Constitution, have no legal right to force us not to. Anywhere we want!

          4. I Seigel says:

            So as you note here, this debate about prayer has been going on since the country’s founding. The Supreme Court, going back at least a generation, has ruled about prayer in schools, etc. I just naturally assumed that when you referred to “organized attempts at destroying Christianity and morality in this country”, you were speaking as if these attempts were started and pushed by the Obama administration. IF that was not your meaning, then I apologize.
            Regarding the various pen names that B Franklin used to write fiction and critical essays: I’d be curious to know if and when it was discovered that it was, indeed, Franklin writing those, or if he maintained his anonymity throughout. Perhaps he used a pen name so the reader wouldn’t be confused that he was stating official US policy (or revolutionary policy). Either way, I see your point. But I hope you see MY point that unlimited amounts of anonymous donations is not something that the Founding Fathers envisioned as “free speech”. The current activist Supreme Court judges have struck down reasonable bipartisan laws that were passed by Congress, and this has been a major contributor to the hyper-partisanship and gridlock in government.

          5. LibertyLane says:

            You are correct, while I disagree with much of the policy of the current administration, I’ve not mentioned it nor any political party in our banter. My concern with free speech is Constitution specific, and all parties and administrations need to adhere to it. I know it (the Constitution) has been ‘run over’ by every president in the past, especially in regard to ‘executive orders’ but I’m not in the past, I live in the present and that is what we need to deal with, the right now! I completely agree with you that the money needs to get out of politics! Although I don’t see what that has specifically to do with free speech? Anyway, that too has been a curse since the beginning of our Republic as only land owners and elite really had much of a chance at getting elected. It makes it impossible for Joe the plumber or Bob the barber to run effectively as they are usually not multimillionaires AND they’d probably make better leaders and servants of the people than what we’ve had in the recent past. Most people running for office, to me, seem very far removed from regular people and our daily lives and concerns. And career politicians are just that! In it for the money, and that’s on both sides of the aisle. As you can see, I’ve become unfortunately very cynical when it comes to politicians.

          6. I Seigel says:

            LL – Thank you for your measured words. I brought up the subject of money as it relates to anonymous free speech. As much as I abhor the Court’s interpretation of the question of unlimited donations, I think to be able to do so anonymously is even worse.

          7. LibertyLane says:

            “Franklin used this convention extensively throughout his life, sometimes to express an idea that might have been considered slanderous or even illegal by the authorities; other times to present two sides of an issue, much like the point-counterpoint style of journalism used today.
            While in England, Franklin penned a number of letters under the name of Benevolus. These letters tried to answer some of the negative assertions made by the British press about the American colonists. These letters were published in London newspapers and journals. “

  • Thomas Goss says:

    WHEN are the true Americans going to have enough of this ILLEGAL LYING SON OF A BITCH AND SILENCE HIM ONCE AND FOR ALL. How can anybody believe a word that comes out of his mouth. This ASSH*LE is worse that Hitler ever thought of being. Wake up America and throw him bac
    k to Africa where he belongs before he destroys America.

  • brenda Harrell says:

    The immigration system is not broken. All Barry has to do is follow the law and the constitution, Something he can’t seem to do. Obama is a traitor to this country. He has broken our laws, trashed the Constitution, not followed his oath of office, aided and abetted our enemies, given five Taliban to a foreign nation for one deserter, don’t forget about Benghazi, NSA, IRS, fast and furious, not going after the black panthers for voter intimidation and the list goes on. Send all ILLEGALS out of this country. Obey the laws of our land Obama or resign, or get arrested for treason.

  • Concerned says:

    There are over 300 bills passed by the House that are now waiting for action in the Senate. These have been held up by Harry Reid with the direction / approval from President Obama. He is clearly lying to the American people when he states that the Republicans are trying to block all kinds of progressive goals when he will not even promote dialog on bills that are waiting to be debated and amended in the Senate. The key behind all bills is that they cannot increase the debt and they are best for the country and not just a few of the privileged class. It requires his leadership and both houses in order to make progress. The lack of progress falls directly on the shoulders of the President.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Keep the Fake News Media in check.

Don’t let the MSM censor your news as America becomes Great Again. Over 500,000 Americans receive our daily dose of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness along with Breaking News direct to their inbox—and you can too. Sign up to receive news and views from The 1776Coalition!

We know how important your privacy is and your information is SAFE with us. We’ll never sell
your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time directly from your inbox.
View our full privacy policy.