Always.

Working on big story in Louisiana we will be releasing before the election. It's time we finally bring some people down there to justice.

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) November 21, 2014

Yes, that tweet is from November 21. What of it?

The day of reckoning is nigh.

And just remember: I love to say I told you so. I love it.

Always trust content from Patterico.

More to come.

[guest post by Dana]

This week, in a hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, looking ever so put out, was grilled by PA Congressman Lou Barletta about the impact the president’s executive action on amnesty will have on the American worker:

“Some people say that our economic security is national security,” Barletta said to Johnson. “Nearly 20 million Americans woke up this morning either unemployed or underemployed. The president didn’t mention these Americans when he announced his plan to grant de facto amnesty and work permits to up to 5 million illegal immigrants.

In response to the problem, Barletta has introduced the Defense of Legal Workers Act (H.R. 5761), which clarifies that illegal immigrants granted amnesty by executive action cannot be issued work permits. In the committee hearing, Johnson indicated that the Obama Administration’s plan was to encourage illegal immigrants to come out of the shadows and seek to have their deportation deferred under the amnesty program, which would also grant them work authorization.

“But how does that make it easier for the American worker?” Barletta asked. “We keep talking about the illegal immigrant. Here we go again, talking about the illegal immigrant and how we can make it easier for them. How does this help the American worker who can’t find work and can’t provide for his family? Who’s fighting for them? Why don’t we talk about the American worker and what this will do to them, not what it will do for the illegal immigrant?”

Johnson claimed that introducing millions of newly-legalized workers would not impact Americans who are currently seeking work.

“The question of U.S. jobs, American jobs, is, in my view, a separate issue,” Johnson said.

“So adding 5 million more competitors for these jobs will make it easier?” Barletta asked.

“The estimate is that the potential class is up to 4 million,” Johnson said. “Not all of those will apply. The goal is to encourage these people, who are now working off the books (and we do have undocumented immigrants in this country working off the books), to get on the books, pay taxes into the federal treasury pursuant to a work authorization. The assessment is that that will not impinge upon American jobs with American workers.”

Further, when discussing how he knew that the president’s executive amnesty was legal, Johnson explained: Because I’m a lawyer. He went on to add that because of this assurance as a lawyer , he is “fully comfortable” with the action.

In the meantime, we learn that one day after the executive amnesty was announced, the Obama administration posted 1,000 job openings for DHS:

Homeland Security officials wasted little time in ramping up for President Obama’s amnesty, posting 1,000 job openings the day after his announcement and announcing it already has space for hundreds of employees at a new space in Arlington, Virginia — an indication that it had laid its plans well before Mr. Obama said.

And even though Mr. Obama said his policy is temporary, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is hiring the employees for permanent positions, at salaries of up to $157,000 a year, according to the job postings listed on the official federal jobs website.

“USCIS is taking steps to open a new operational center in Crystal City, a neighborhood in Arlington, Virginia, to accommodate about 1,000 full-time, permanent federal and contract employees in a variety of positions and grade levels,” the agency said in an internal email to employees on Monday. “The initial workload will include cases filed as a result of the executive actions on immigration announced on Nov. 20, 2014.”

–Dana

Well that’s just wonderful:

Practicality is not, of course, the primary attribute many Republican primary voters look for in a presidential hopeful. Still, Mr. Bush noted, the viability of an unapologetically pragmatic bid has not been tested.

“Frankly, no one really knows that because it hasn’t been tried recently,” he said, prompting a round of knowing chuckles among the business executives in attendance.

Mr. Bush recognized what he had implied and quickly heaped praise on the last Republican nominee, Mitt Romney.

Republicans haven’t tried running an “unapologetically pragmatic” candidate yet? Our problem is those right-wing zealots John McCain and Mitt Romney?

To hell with Jeb Bush. I want a candidate who stands for liberty and against big government. If we get one I’ll fight for them tooth and nail. If we get Jeb Bush, sure, I’ll color the circle for him (a pointless exercise in California) as a statement against sacrificing the Supreme Court, and we’ll lose anyway.

And when we have a solid 5-4 majority to make the Constitution say whatever wise Latinas think it should say, there will be no further reason to preserve this Republic, and all bets will be off.

So, really, what could go wrong?

This is horribly appalling and disturbing:

The cop is using a chokehold not allowed by the department, to subdue a guy for barely resisting an arrest for selling unlicensed cigarettes. (Lord knows that society will crumble if cigarette vendors are not properly licensed! Long live freedom!) The man, Eric Garner, died from compression to the neck, according to the medical examiner. He can be heard pleading that he can’t breathe on the video, yet the officer does not let up.

I don’t like to reach conclusions about a criminal case based on incomplete information, but it’s tempting to conclude that the video is all you need. I would be fascinated to see what was presented to the grand jury that kept them from indicting this officer for something. (I am not intimately familiar with the laws of New York, so I don’t know what charge would be appropriate. However, a death resulting from excessive force must violate some law.)

Again: just appalling.

Popehat:

I don't like Eric Holder, and in general don't approve of Feds doubling up, but the Eric Garner case merits it. This needs a U.S. Attorney.

— Popehat (@Popehat) December 3, 2014

It’s hard to disagree.

UPDATE: Looks like that federal investigation is going to happen.

Remarkable:

Five days after Elizabeth Lauten published a Facebook post criticizing the outfits worn by President Barack Obama’s daughters, the previously obscure Republican Hill staffer is being inundated with threatening messages and major media outlets are pouring resources into tracking her moves and digging into her past.

Two network news vans camped outside of Lauten’s parents home in North Carolina on Tuesday, one day after she resigned as communication director for Rep. Steven Fincher (R., Tenn.) due to the controversy. Lauten was not at the house.

That morning, the Washington Post also assigned one of its foreign affairs correspondents to comb through an archive of columns Lauten wrote for her college newspaper in 2006 and 2007.

I watched the video and saw nothing particularly inappropriate about the behavior or dress of Obama’s daughters, who look like typical teenagers. A “communications professional” who said what Lauten said is probably in the wrong field. I have no problem with criticizing her. I have no problem with her resigning.

But this is ridiculous. Compare the reaction to this vs. the reaction to Jonathan Gruber, a central architect of ObamaCare, declaring that the law was deliberately written to fool the stupid American public. The people combing through his archives weren’t reporters, but just citizens.

Or compare Big Media’s preening over how family is off limits to their treatment of Sarah Palin’s family, or George W. Bush’s.

The media is a joke. This is just one more example — of many.