Despite a federal judge's order halting his executive action granting amnesty to as many as 5 million illegal aliens, President Obama is forging ahead anyway, threatening Border Patrol officials with "consequences" if they don't follow his plan.
But in a wheel-meets-road application of the issue – whether the government should require all drivers, including illegal aliens to have insurance – Americans believe in the need for government intervention, according to a new poll.
The survey from the O'Leary Report and WND, conducted by Zogby Analytics, found 60 percent of likely voters believe government should require insurance for all drivers.
The question was: "California has just passed a law allowing newly arrived illegal immigrants to acquire a driver's license that can only be used for state ID, not federal ID purposes, and unlike a normal driver's license, no proof of insurance is required for this new class of driver. Do you agree or disagree that there should be a federal law that requires all drivers to have auto insurance and show it as proof to get a driver's license?"
Among the highest percentage agreeing to the insurance requirement were those who attend church weekly, 76 percent. Members of the National Rifle Association were similarly in favor.
NASCAR fans approved of the idea by 67 percent to 23 percent. Conversely, among likely voters who identify as liberal on government spending, only 38 percent thought insurance should be required.
Bradley S. O'Leary is president of the O'Leary Report and author of books including "Shut Up, America!," "The Audacity of Deceit" and "America's War on Christianity."
The poll was conducted through online interviews between Jan. 16 and 18 of 890 likely voters in the U.S. Based on a confidence interval of 95 percent, the margin of error is plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.
The Weekly Standard reported Obama was asked this week how the judge's order would affect his executive-action amnesty program.
"Until we pass a law through Congress, the executive actions we've taken are not going to be permanent; they are temporary. There are going to be some jurisdictions and there may be an individual ICE official or Border Control agent not paying attention to our new directives. But they're going to be answerable to the head of Homeland Security because he's been very clear about what our priorities will be," Obama said.
WND reported Obama's intent to move forward with amnesty, despite the federal judge's ruling, with the extension of a program allowing spouses of certain visa holders to obtain work permits.
According to the Washington Times, the move will, in 90 days, allow some 180,000 immigrants to be eligible for the benefit "in the first year."
At virtually the same time, U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, who a week ago ordered federal agencies to stop implementation of the Obama amnesty plan, told plaintiffs in the lawsuit they have until March 3 to provide any additional arguments regarding the government's request that he reverse his decision.
The order from Hanen came Tuesday in light of the federal government's emergency motion that seeks permission for the amnesty program to move forward immediately.
Meanwhile, amid a clash with Congress over whether or not executive amnesty should receive funding in the Department of Homeland Security budget, Obama held a closed-door White House meeting with "immigration advocacy leaders" Wednesday morning, the White House announced.
Also, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., according to the Hill, said Wednesday that Obama is eying a partial launch of his new deportation-relief programs in the states not involved in the lawsuit by 26 states, led by Texas.
The lawsuit was filed when the states suddenly faced massive new demands for public services such as schooling and health care from foreigners who previously had been subject to deportation.
Hanen granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the government from enforcing the Obama administration's immigration orders. The ruling also confirmed WND's exclusive report that contrary to popular perception, the order to delay deportation was not an executive order by the president. Instead, it was a memorandum issued by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson at Obama's direction.
Then WND reported the Washington watchdog Judicial Watch revealed the Obama administration was moving quickly on contracts for the president's amnesty even though Hanen ordered a halt.
Judicial Watch said it had a source inside the industry of government contracts who said there is "no indication that the court order has impacted, slowed down or modified the procurement in any way."
"They're really rushing into it," the source said.
Judicial Watch cited a government solicitation for companies to provide services for Obama's plans to process illegal aliens and give them many of the privileges of citizenship.
Even Obama himself has said he couldn't do what he did.
House Speaker John Boehner has listed online 22 times when Obama has made such statements.
For example, in October 2010, Obama said: "I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. … I've got to have some partners to do it. … If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. … I can't just make the laws up by myself."
Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano said unless an appeals court intervenes in the case, Obama's amnesty program likely will fail.
He commented on the government's request for that intervention.
"They basically said the government will be irreparably harmed if you don't lift this injunction because we need to provide a service to the illegal aliens we promised we would help."
Napolitano said the government "wants to break the law so it can help other lawbreakers stay here."
Another case against Obama's amnesty is under way. The filing by attorney Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, is on behalf of Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
The case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who thought the dispute over whether a president can arbitrarily change federal laws was a political matter between branches of government.
It now is before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the government's arguments are due soon on an accelerated scheduled imposed by the court.
WND also reported when yet another a federal judge in Pennsylvania declared the amnesty unconstitutional.
"President Obama's unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause and, therefore, is unconstitutional," said U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.
The judge noted Obama "contended that although legislation is the most appropriate course of action to solve the immigration debate, his executive action was necessary because of Congress' failure to pass legislation, acceptable to him, in this regard."
"This proposition is arbitrary and does not negate the requirement that the November 20, 2014, executive action be lawfully within the president's executive authority," the judge wrote. "It is not."
The poll also asked about guns and pollsters.
And it revealed that Democrats, more than anyone else, were will to reveal to a pollster details about whether they owned a gun or not. The poll asked the question, "If a national pollster asked you if you owned a firearm, would you determine to tell him or her the truth or would you feel it was none of their business?"
Sixty-eight percent of Democrats said they would, but only 49 percent of independents and 44 percent of Republicans were in agreement.
The poll also asked whether respondents thought Hillary Clinton's age – she would be 70 in her first year if elected – is a concern.
In fact, a plurality of Americans – even one in three Democrats – agrees that her age is a worry.
Overall, 46.5 percent of the respondents said the Democrats need to look at someone young. Only 33.4 percent said that was unneeded, and a significant one in five said they were not sure.
Among those ages 18-29, almost exactly half – 48.1 percent, said the Democrats needed to look at Hillary Clinton's age as a factor. That was 46.8 percent for those ages 30-49 and 42.5 percent for those ages 50-64. For those over 65, it was 49.8 percent.
Another question in the survey was, "Do you agree or disagree that the United States should help certain Arab countries financially and militarily if their countries' constitutions or laws make being a Christian or atheist a crime punishable by jail or even execution?"
The poll said nearly 63 percent of all respondents disagree with that funding.
Only about 16 percent said that should continue, while 62.6 percent disagreed. About 21 percent weren't sure.
"According to the poll results, Americans are more politically opposed to military and economic aid going to Arab countries that have religious bias," said O'Leary.