- A new government study shows that the vast majority of insurance companies do not itemize abortions on medical bills and charge for them separately, meaning taxpayer dollars are paying for abortions through the Affordable Care Act.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that 17 of 18 insurers it studied did not itemize elective abortions on the medical bills for Americans enrolled in plans through the health care reforms, also known as Obamacare.
The report explicitly states it did not review whether federal subsidies were used to pay for the abortions, but pro-life activists say there's no other conclusion to reach.
"Absolutely, taxpayers are funding abortions," said former Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, who is now vice president for government affairs at the Susan B. Anthony List. The group is dedicated to electing pro-life women to public office.
"This report is very damning. It shows that when the president said there wouldn't be abortion coverage in this, that taxpayers wouldn't be funding it, that's not true," she said.
The Associated Press reports that in response to the GAO findings, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a statement saying it "acknowledges that additional clarification may be needed" on the law. Musgrave says clarity has been elusive on this part of the law from the very beginning.
"This is the administration that said, 'We're going to be the most transparent administration in history.' Here we are now. People, whether they're pro-life or pro-abortion, can't figure out if abortion on demand is included in their coverage," said Musgrave.
Taxpayer funding of abortion has been hotly debated ever since the Supreme Court's 1973 decisions legalizing abortion. In the late 1970s, then-Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde successfully pushed for a change in federal law to ban taxpayer dollars from being used to pay for abortions. It soon became known simply as the Hyde Rule.
The law remained that way until the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The resolution's language convinced pro-life lawmakers on both sides of the aisle that it would legalize taxpayer-funded abortions. President Obama and other Democrats insisted that wasn't the case. The final bill only passed the House after Obama promised to sign an executive order clarifying that the Hyde Rule was still in effect.
"At the last minute, this administration cut a deal with pro-life Democrats, who said they were pro-life but they voted for Obamacare that violates the Hyde Amendment. Supposedly, this little accounting gimmick was going to take care of that. Now this report from a non-partisan government watchdog says that taxpayers are funding abortion," said Musgrave.
According to Musgrave, no one should be surprised the executive order was meaningless and the GAO report is another reminder that the law never should have been passed in the first place.
"Obamacare could have been stopped if pro-life legislators had held. Look at where we are now. My mom told me never to say I told you so, but here we are," she said.
Musgrave says the GAO study is not the first sign of taxpayer-funded abortions resulting from Obamacare but is simply the latest evidence. She says administration officials have ducked the question for years.
"When then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius was testifying, there were members of Congress that asked for this information on transparency and questions about the surcharge. She said she would get that information to them. Evidently, the information is still not available," said Musgrave
In addition, she says even pro-life Democrats know the executive order didn't stop taxpayer-funded abortions.
"It took individuals like (former Michigan Rep.) Bart Stupak a little while to be surprised that the executive order was worthless. Now, even he acknowledges that. He was the leader of the so-called pro-life Democrats that could have stopped Obamacare," said Musgrave.
While hindsight may be instructive, what options to pro-life activists and the large majority of Americans who opposes taxpayer-funded abortions have in trying to reverse this part of the new law?
"The only way to ensure that we have a remedy for this is the immediate passage of the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act. Right now, it's being blocked in the Senate by Harry Reid. You have to realize the Obama administration has had years to deal with this problem. They've refused to do it," said Musgrave, who believes the right election results could move the bill at least one step closer to becoming law.
"After November, it is very likely that we will see a Senate that will be willing to do that and take up this legislation and then give it to the president. We'll see if he's going to stay true to what he said years ago," she said.
First, she says, we need a Republican majority in the Senate.
"There are key races that will determine which party controls the United States Senate and whether legislation like the Unborn Child Pain Capable Act will be heard that are really at play in this," said Musgrave.
Susan B. Anthony List is heavily targeting incumbent Democratic Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Kay Hagan of North Carolina. Musgrave says regardless of their rhetoric, all of them consciously voted for taxpayer-funded abortions.
With Louisiana being the most pro-life state in the U.S. and Arkansas second, she says abortion in the context of Obamacare could be a major issue in those races. Musgrave also says the group is targeting Colorado Sen. Mark Udall for his Obamacare vote and for even being opposed to a partial birth abortion ban.
Despite the many challenges in policy and politics, Musgrave says she is very bullish that the pro-life cause will ultimately win this debate.
"It's a great time to be pro-life. Science is on our side. People are starting to understand issues like the unborn child being capable of feeling pain. They don't want their tax dollars going for abortion. They recoil at the thought of sex-selection abortion. So these senators in many of these states are out of touch," said Musgrave.
- Many black Americans are making bad choices from having children out of wedlock and embracing a violent inner city culture that keep them from reaching their potential and liberal government policies are encouraging them to make those bad decisions, according to Wall Street Journal editorial board member Jason Riley.
Riley is author of "Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make it Harder for Blacks to Succeed." Instead of encouraging black people to dream big and take responsibility for their actions, he says liberal politicians and civil rights leaders are more interested in telling them who to blame for their condition.
"They want to keep the focus on white behavior, not black behavior. That's the agenda of the black leadership today, from the NAACP to Al Sharpton to Jesse Jackson, we're not talking about black behavior. All the bad black outcomes we see are a result of white racism. That's their narrative and they want to stick to it," said Riley.
As policy experts debate the effectiveness of Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty", Riley says the path to advancement is the same for black people as it has been for all other demographics: less government assistance and more individual achievement.
"Blacks must ultimately help themselves by developing the same habits and behaviors and attitudes that other groups in America had to develop in order to rise here. To the extent that a government program or policy, however well-intentioned, interferes with that self-development it does more harm than good," said Riley.
"I argue that blacks have been subjected to a lot of policies that aren't doing them any good by interfering with the necessary self-development that needs to take place. For instance, trying to replace a father in the home with a government check is not helpful, but that's what a lot of these welfare policies have attempted to do over the decades," he said.
If the pathway to societal advancement is well-established, why are so many in the black community choosing not to take it?
"I think the left has done a brilliant job of convincing blacks that government is good for them and the more government the better. So you get an over-dependence on government among blacks, both in terms of jobs in the federal government, the military, the post office, civil service jobs or in terms of handouts like food stamps and welfare," said Riley.
According to Riley, this problem is evident in countless areas of society. However, in just two examples he says we can see the damage done by the liberal approach to black Americans. Riley believes the first step toward addressing many ills of blacks is to get fathers back in the home. He says study after study shows that problems from criminal behavior, to drug use to dropping out of school is greatly worsened when fathers aren't living with their kids and active in their lives.
"You name it, there's just a lot of bad things that happen when dads aren't around and that's what you have as the norm in black communities. As late as 1960, two in three black kids in this country grew up with a mother and a father in the home," he said.
"Today, more than 70 percent do not. You can draw a straight line between that fact and a lot of the problems you see in the inner city, in these communities where these young black men have no sense of what it means to be black or a man. And it's because there's no one around to teach them that," said Riley, who says the problem is made worse when people are condemned for urging responsible parenthood.
"When Bill Cosby wanted to talk about this a little while back, he got his head handed to him from the left, saying he was elitist, he was talking down to blacks, he was condescending. Even when Obama on occasion and his wife have talked about absent fathers and the bad outcomes associated with that, they get slammed by the black left," said Riley.
Another major issue is crime, says Riley. He says liberals and the media constantly focus on relations between blacks and the police and issues like racial profiling. Riley says the glaring issue is rampant black criminality, but few are interested in addressing it.
"Blacks are about 13 percent of the population but are responsible for about half of all murders in this country. Until that changes, you're going to have tensions between the black community and police. Blacks are arrested at numbers two to three times their numbers in the population for all manner of violent crime, all manner of property crime in this country," said Riley.
"Until that changes, racial profiling is going to be an issue. People, black and white, are going to view young black men suspiciously so long as crime rates are what they are," he said.
While the black vote is overwhelmingly Democratic, Riley asserts many black people are very frustrated with how Democratic leaders and prominent black figures approach key issues like education.
"Today you have civil rights leaders siding with the teachers' unions who, of course, put the interests of the adults in the school system ahead of the interest of the kids. A disproportionate number blacks get hurt that way by being stuck in the worst schools, even though polls have shown overwhelmingly for decades that parents, and poor parents in particular, favor school vouchers, favor charter schools and so forth," said Riley.
Riley says reaction to criticism of the conventional liberal approach to the black community comes in two forms. He says the elitists have no tolerance for him or any other black conservatives who dare to to challenge the system.
"I like to joke that black conservatives get put on the couch. You know, Justice (Antonin) Scalia is just wrong as far as the left is concerned, or maybe a little evil. But Justice (Clarence) Thomas is a sellout, Uncle Tom, self-hating. They put him on the couch and psychoanalyze him," said Riley.
However, he says many black people have responded very favorably to the criticisms and recommendations outlined in his book.
"I think a lot of blacks don't self-identify as conservatives but they agree with a lot of what I'm saying, particularly on the cultural stuff. Church leaders, business owners, parents who struggling with trying to shield their kids from this culture, the rap music and all that, the materialism and the violence, they get what I'm saying. They understand this is something blacks are going to have to take care of on their own," said Riley.
- American military personnel are smarter and savvier than previous generations but they share the same love for country and desire to take the fight to the enemy, according to Bing West, the tireless embed reporter who has chronicled the work of our men and women in uniform throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As the U.S. marks 13 years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the last anniversary where significant combat forces are expected to be in Afghanistan. West has just published his sixth and final book detailing his time embedded with Americans in this war, entitled "One Million Steps: A Marine Platoon at War."
West, a 74-year-old Vietnam veteran and former assistant secretary of defense, says he committed his time and risked his life time after time to tell a story that had to be told.
"I thought somebody had to tell the story who had been in combat at the same level that they were. The generals and colonels hadn't been because they came up after Vietnam, so I thought I could go back with these platoons and try to explain to people what it's really like down there and what they're really doing," said West.
"One Million Steps" traces the six-month assignment of a Marine platoon of the Third Battalion of the Fifth Marine Regiment in a small but deadly place called Sangin District in 2010 and 2011.
"It was the hardest battle of the war. More British troops, before the Marines got there, and more Americans were killed in Sangin than any other place in the country," said West.
West says there's a good reason why that sliver of Afghanistan was so much more violent than the rest of the country.
"The basic reason was the Marines and the British had gradually squeezed the Taliban tighter and tighter in Helmand Province, which was the heartland of the poppy fields that supply 90 percent of the heroin and opium to the world," said West.
"The Taliban had great finances there. Gradually they were squeezed more and more and finally when they got to this one district called Sangin, the Taliban said, 'They're not going to take this from us.' So that's what caused the battle," he said.
The platoon created lodging by "hacking caves out of farm walls". West says a key three-mile stretch of the area was covered in thick vegetation, reminding him of Vietnam. He says the limited pathways were also natural targets for Taliban-placed land mines and other improvised explosive devices. That made for careful, tedious patrols.
"We went single file on these patrols with generally about 14 or 16 Marines on each patrol. The point man was watching out for the mines and he had a mine detector. He would drop bottle caps. The last Marine in line would pick them up and the rest of us made sure we walked right on the bottle caps where the point man had swept for mines," said West, noting that even with such caution, the platoon suffered heavy casualties over the six months.
"On average we found one or two mines a day and probably killed about one Taliban a day. But this went on for 200 days. The platoon had begun with 52 men. Of the original 52, only 27 were standing at the end," he said, marveling at how well the unit adapted to casualties.
"In the book, I try to explain how...they found the courage every day, kept the courage to keep going, and how they kept raising up leaders. When one leader would be hit, and we lost some terrific leaders, the next leader would take over," said West.
Being in close quarters with American forces 30-40 years after the end of the Vietnam War, West says this generation is even more impressive in some ways then those he fought alongside decades ago.
"They're smarter than we were. They're more questioning of authority but the authority at the lower levels has a way of communicating back and forth with them about what they're doing it. They plan better and they have a recognition of how to use technology that no one can match," said West, giving an example of one major high-tech tool our forces now use.
"The way we use air on a battlefield, when we're allowed to use it, is astonishing. We can see every individual on a battlefield from 10,000 feet. We now have a way that the soldier on the ground is looking at the same picture. So they have higher technology. They are more intelligent, and they're just as dedicated as they were in the past," said West.
While in theater, West had Marines fill out a survey covering many different topics. The Marines were rather pessimistic about the present and future in Afghanistan. The vast majority said the people of Afghanistan either couldn't be trusted or were easily bullied by the Taliban. A majority expects the country to be a mess not long after the U.S. leaves.
Nonetheless, in a unit where many members were killed or wounded, 92 percent of the survivors said they would do their service all over again. West chalks that up to a special mentality that can be found in our heroes in uniform. He shared part of what he told the Marines when given the chance to address them by the platoon commander.
"You know that you joined because there was something in you that said, 'I want to be a warrior.' I'll tell you what, anyone who wants to come back with me now, I can speak to the general and I can get you out of here. Who wants to come with me? Of course, no one raised his hand. I laughed and I said, 'You see what I mean?' recounted West.
"You like to complain. You bitch a little bit but you know you love being here because you're having an adventure that only one of a thousand will ever have," he said.
"There is such a thing in our culture as some people who believe they were born to be warriors. That doesn't mean they spend their lives in the service, but it does mean they're willing to go out and fight for us and go back into civilian life and be able to say, 'Yes, I fought for my country,'" said West, who is greatly encouraged by the impact he expects these Marines to have on America in the future.
"When you look at these young men and women that are volunteering, they're just terrific. So I have high hopes for where we're going," he said.
- Choosing nation building over victory and refusing to take any action that might have the slightest chance of endangering civilians puts our troops in a position that makes progress almost impossible in Afghanistan and exposes the poor judgment of political leaders and military commanders who have no personal experience in combat.
That's the conclusion of Reagan administration Pentagon official and prolific military embed reporter Bing West, in his new book, "One Million Steps: A Marine Platoon at War." West also scolds President George W. Bush for becoming obsessed with nation-building and President Obama for thinking our enemies would go away if just stopped fighting them.
In the book, West recounts his time with a Marine Corps platoon patrolling Sangin District, the deadliest area in Afghanistan. West describes Sangin as a place where the Taliban retreated after being forced back from other parts of the country. The dense vegetation made it very hard for Marines to see the enemy, but the rules of engagement made it even more difficult.
Due to intense protests from the Afghan government whenever civilian casualties occurred, the U.S. went to tremendous lengths to prevent future deaths from happening. In doing so, West says our commanders tied the hands of our soldiers and Marines in unreasonable ways.
"I am one of the few who doesn't hold in high respect our four-star generals who most others know by household names, because I believe that those generals never understood the nature of the war. They told us that we would go over and persuade the population to join the side of the government and to become democrats and it never happened," said West.
"They said in order to do this, we had to avoid any civilian casualties. The generals said to do that, you will have positive identification (PID) before you take a shot. Well, the fact of the matter is the other side isn't stupid," he added, noting that those rules didn't stand up very well to the reality on the ground.
"Usually, in a firefight you very rarely see the other human being. You only see him for about a second or two and then he's gone again, because he's hiding to stay alive and you're hiding to stay alive. The notion that you needed positive identification, we all knew on the lines, everyone from a lieutenant colonel on down, that you really couldn't do that," said West.
The rules only got worse from there. When he was commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal further tied the hands of American forces by ordering they could not attack any compound unless they knew for a fact no civilians were present.
"You can't be a squad leader as a four-star general," said West. "The fact is when we were getting fire from a compound, 99 times out of 100, we knew from being in that area that was where the Taliban were and where the people were not. And yet our orders were that we weren't to return fire and certainly we weren't to use artillery or air."
West says these rules constantly put our forces in a defensive posture, but the red tape didn't stop there. In "One Million Steps," he reveals that each battalion had an attorney on staff. Troops engaged with the enemy were required to call into battalion headquarters and get legal permission before artillery and air power were authorized.
"Sometimes you would call for air, honestly I had this happening. You'd end up in this debate between the sergeant who's standing next to you on the phone and the lawyer who's back at the battalion and the air officer who's back there and the pilots in the air. You'd all be talking back and forth about, 'Well, are you really taking enough fire that I can really bomb? Are you really sure [no civilians are] there.' All of this was done with the best of intentions, but we went entirely too far," said West.
How did the U.S. military end up tying its own hands? West says part of it came from leaders asking troops to do things those commanders had never done.
"It's the civilians and the generals having a wrong-headed view of war. Most of our generals have never been at war. Most of them were colonels or generals when the war began. They have never fired at anybody in anger," said West, who says President Bush had good intentions but set the stage for great frustration in Afghanistan.
"President Bush started it by basically saying we owe liberty to these people. What? I didn't understand this and I fundamentally opposed what we were doing when I was out there. We said we could go to these Iraqis and Afghans who are Muslims and say, 'We're form the West and we're here to show you there's a better way of doing things,' and they would become democrats and we would build their nations for them. That was injudicious. As a result, we've reaped a bad harvest," he said.
West, who is a Vietnam veteran, says the approach in Afghanistan should have been much simpler.
"If you're going to fight people because they're your enemy and they've killed you, go over and kill those who have killed you and stop right there. Don't go any farther. Now we've reaped the whirlwind and we're back into Iraq because we left it too early after we did all this. Now we're back to fighting these guys again," he said.
While West slams Bush for his focus on nation-building, he faults Obama for letting his political ideology trump sound policy.
"He did not want to be involved in wars and he told us, 'I'm just stopping these wars.' Well hello? If the other guy's still trying to kill you, you can't just stop a war. So he made the great mistake of pulling us out of Iraq and I'm very worried that he's still promised that we're pulling out of Afghanistan completely. If you allow those who intend to kill you to plot when they're going to kill you, you're going to get killed," said West.
West is very critical of Obama's semantics in how he addresses the ISIS threat. Obama repeatedly insists there will be no "boots on the ground". West says a thousand of our forces are already there. He says the government can officially designate the troops to be under CIA command and thus deny we have ground forces there.
With respect to the big picture, West says Obama and his team obviously haven't thought about the long term goals.
"We haven't figured out the political end game. We go in and we destroy Islamists. Who are we going to destroy them with? We're going to destroy them with the Sunni tribes. Why are we doing this? Because the Baghdad government is Shi'ite and aligned with Iran and they were oppressing the Iraqi Sunnis when we left. So what are these Iraqi Sunnis going to do when they retake their country?" asked West.
"If you listen to President Obama, he's going to tell you that this is reuniting Iraq under the Shi'ite government in Baghdad. No it's not. If we have this conversation two years from now and the Islamists have been driven out, that the Sunnis announce they're going to have their own state. I don't think we've thought through where we're going in this war," said West.
- President Obama plans to legalize millions of illegal immigrants by granting refugee status to people coming to the U.S. unlawfully from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador even though they shouldn't qualify, according to a prominent black conservative.
"It's been leaking out for quite a while and they've already announced their plans in terms of numbers of refugees they're allowing in, even though they're already over that number," said Joe Hicks, co-founder of Community Advocates Inc., a Los Angeles-based think tank. He is also a former executive director of the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and is a member of the Project 21 black leadership network.
According to the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service within the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. law defines a refugee as someone "located outside the United States," has "special humanitarian concern," "demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear prosecution" and "is admissible to the United States." Hicks says people from Latin America may be in dire straits but don't meet that criteria and Obama's efforts to unilaterally change the criteria "turns the whole notion of refugee on its head.
"Prior to Obama, the notion of a refugee was someone who was fleeing war or some similar kind of circumstance in their home countries. No doubt there's very bad conditions in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, as it is in Mexico and in much of central and South America," he said.
"But as long as I can remember...those nations were experiencing poverty and violence, but not from wars. These are endemic to those nations' cultures. So to claim that this is some new rationale to allow these immigrants to stay in the country based on a refugee status makes no sense because those nations have always had conditions of poverty and gang activity," said Hicks.
If Obama were to go through with designating millions of illegal immigrants as refugees they could well be on the path to citizenship. Hicks argues against blanket amnesty for an an entire nation or region of the world.
"There is no automatic right to come to this country as a refugee. We have to make the determination. The government and the proper authorities have to look at all of these cases and determine if or if they do not measure up to prior standards, which have normally been held almost as international standards of what a refugee is," said Hicks, who argues the flood of young people illegally crossing the border came prepared to appeal for refugee status.
"These kids coming across the border (are) virtually reading from a script to border agents because they know the proper language to use. 'We're fleeing poverty and violence.' Those were the two words they would routinely use. They've been put in detention and in some cases resettled all across the country. So it really does make a mockery out of the process," he said.
Hicks also studies the impact that the cheap labor provided by these illegal immigrants will have on our economy. He says young and low-skilled black workers are already hardest hit in this economy and Obama's plan would make things far worse.
"Black low-skilled workers and black workers in general continue to be affected by the recession. They suffered longer and deeper under this recession. Their unemployment numbers are still above the norm by a fairly disproportionate level," said Hicks, arguing that illegals already have a leg up on American citizens on the job front.
"There are parts of this country where you can go into fast food restaurants where there is a high percentage of Latino illegal labor available. You simply cannot find a black kid working in a fast food restaurant. Go on a construction site in many parts of this country. You can't find black workers working at those sites because Latino workers have simply depressed the wages," he said.
Hicks says Obama granting refugee status to millions who shouldn't qualify for it will only lead to more frustration among black workers.
"Yes, they will be harmed. Project 21's view is that will not be something that most black workers welcome if five to 15 million new illegal aliens are made legal by the stroke of the pen by this president," he said.
Only 31 percent of Americans approve of Obama's handling of the immigration issue. Some think he's going much too far while others are frustrated he's not moving faster or being aggressive enough. The number is not likely to get any better as Obama delays his executive action.
But Hicks says the president's lack of action should not be interpreted as Obama being rudderless on the issue.
"I don't think he's confused. I think he knows exactly what he's trying to do and he's doing it for political reasoning. I think a lot of Americans will be outraged that he didn't simply bring his argument before the people, in this case before Congress and make his best case to try to get Congress to act. Presidents are not like a child. You don't always get everything you want," he said.
- President Obama's decision to postpone executive action on immigration policy is entirely political and is not only designed to salvage the midterm elections but prevent amnesty from being torpedoed as an issue for years to come, according to Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian.
One of the leading activists against what he considers a bipartisan push toward amnesty, Krikorian is also correcting what he sees as Obama's badly misleading statements about the current state of our southern border and this summer border surge.
Earlier this summer, Obama promised to act unilaterally in response to the illegal influx of young people from Mexico and other Latin American countries. He promised a plan at or shortly after Labor Day.
On Sunday edition of 'Meet the Press,' new host Chuck Todd suggested the delay in executive action was designed to help Democrats struggling to hold onto their majority in the U.S. Senate. Obama said "that's not the reason" but later admitted "the politics did shift mid-summer" because of the attention to the border crisis.
Krikorian says there are two major issues at work and both are clearly political.
"If he were to unilaterally, lawlessly amnesty millions of illegal aliens, which is what he is planning to do, the Democrats would lose the Senate. It would pretty much be guaranteed. It's already pretty close and that would be like throwing a hand grenade into the election," said Krikorian, who says there's an even bigger danger for Obama to act before Election Day than just risking a GOP Senate majority.
"By doing this big amnesty before the election, he would make the midterm elections a referendum on amnesty and increased immigration," he said.
"By making the election a referendum on his amnesty and immigration plans and losing, (it) sends a message to the public and to politicians that essentially the people have spoken and this is something they don't want," said Krikorian, believing lawmakers would then avoid the debate at all costs.
In the 'Meet the Press" interview, Obama also tried to assure Americans the surge of young people entering the country is now under control and the border in general is secure.
"The number of people apprehended crossing our borders has plummeted of the course of the decade. It's far lower than it was ten years ago. In terms of these unaccompanied children, we've actually, systematically worked through the problem so that the surge in June dropped in July and dropped further in August. It's now below what it was last year," said Obama.
Krikorian says there are two major problems with the president's characterization of this summer's crisis. He says the latest numbers of young people entering the country illegally are down over the past couple of months but many experts attribute that to people waiting for the weather to cool down so they can avoid crossing deserts in the dead of summer.
Second, he says people need to understand the president's definition of working through the problem.
"They've worked through it by letting tens of thousands of illegal immigrants stay. Supposedly they're going to have hearings, which they may or may not show up for, hearings that are scheduled now for 2017, 2018, 2019. Do you think some teenager who has a hearing three years from now is actually going to show up and say, 'OK Sir, you can deport me now?' It's complete fantasy." said Krikorian.
He says the number one reason why there will likely be another surge is because this one was a huge success.
"What they did was wave in tens of thousands of illegal immigrants because they had the opportunity to do so. They very fact that they did that is one more example of this administration's out-of-control lawlessness," said Krikorian.
When and if Obama does issue executive orders to change immigration laws, Krikorian expects it to focus on two priorities: legalizing many who are here illegally and loosening the rules on future immigration.
When it comes to addressing those illegally in the U.S., Krikorian says people need to be clear that what this administration will propose is amnesty.
"What the president is suggesting is actually giving work cards, Social Security numbers, drivers' licenses to illegal aliens. That is amnesty. What they're talking about is giving it to the parents and siblings of people who got this DREAM Act amnesty, which he lawlessly announced two years ago, and potentially to all illegal aliens who have U.S.-born kids," said Krikorian.
When it comes to paving the way for easier immigration in the future, Krikorian says the president would once again be violating the constitutional separation of powers.
"It would be the president making up bogus interpretations of immigration law in order to dramatically increase the number of illegal immigrants coming into the United States beyond the one million each year that we already get. You may think that's a good idea. There are people who do. I don't, but that's a plausible decision. But it's not the president's decision to make on his own," said Krikorian.
Despite some progress, Krikorian says now is not the time for any of what Obama is pushing.
"We have so much fixing to do there that the idea we have now done everything we need to do to fix the border and fix the rest of our immigration system is absurd," he said.