Monthly Archives: November 2014

DAILY OBSREVATION: Ferguson Postscript

I did not plan to write again about Ferguson, but the media roll out, and the ignorant public statements by much of liberal establishment calls for a rebuke.  So, here it is.

In following the news media post Grand Jury decision on Darren Wilson, I am disgusted, even sickened.

One columnist after another, supported by God-awful political cartoons, are making the unfortunate death of Michael Brown a cause célèbre.  Many black leaders (but by far not all) talk of Brown in terms generally reserved for victims and martyrs.  What all this means is that racial prejudice and politically advantaged black victimization trumps even  the most evident and obvious truths.

The tragedy is that Brown was not a nice kid doing nice things.  He was a street thug, illegal drug user (and based on the mount on his person, may have been dealing), thief and bully.  Does not matter if he was black or white.  That is who he was.

He was killed in the commission of a string of crimes, committing more as he tried to escape capture.  In a much lesser way, he was like those bank robbers you see in movies who get taken down in a shoot out with police as they make for the get-away car.  The crime may be lesser, but the principle applies.

In the struggle with Officer Wilson, the gun represented superiority.  That is why police have them.  In this case, Brown had the superiority of size and strength, and was attempting to gain more by taking the gun from Wilson.  Had he been successful, and if he had killed Wilson, it would have been a one-day local story.

Brown was stopped from further attacking Wilson, and possibly securing the gun, by the only means possible.  When all else failed, Wilson fired.

Part of the problem with any national dialogue on races is the fact that the liberal advocates do not want to discuss the truth.  They are only interested in a discussion that covers there preconceived and fraudulent notions regarding race relations.  They have contempt for any judicial process that does not come out as they demand.  Moved only by anger and hatred, they disregard the opinion of 12 people who listened to all sides and all the evidence.  They do not want to challenge perceptions with truth, but to negate truth with perception.

Yes, there are issues of police racism and brutality.  They should be addressed honestly and openly on a case-by-case basis.  Exaggerating the issues and using the Brown case to propagandize and pander to political narratives will never solve any of the problems.

DAILY OBERVATION: Ferguson and beyond – Part three

The events in Ferguson has sparked protests across the nation.  While the shooting of Michael Brown triggered the outbreak, there are very few individuals taking to the streets in defense of Brown – largely because his case is indefensible.  The Grand Jury already passed judgment on the events in Ferguson.

In fact, the Brown case is counterproductive to any honest concern about social justice.  Putting him up as a martyr to racism or police brutality is misguided.  He was a thuggish common criminal, not a crusader for civil rights.  He was as responsible for his own death as anyone.

Making him the example for mass demonstrations does a disservice to the true cause of equal rights.  In attempting to elevate him, the larger movement is lowered and discredited.  Comparing him to Emmitt Till, as some black activists have, is denigrating to the Till memory and a complete perversion of history.

What the case has sparked is not a cohesive expression of concern about Ferguson, or even the larger issue of race relations.  What it sparked is an outbreak of a civic virus I call – excise the expression — the “perma-pissed.”  Like a virus, these folks pop into view every time some event draws enough media attention.

These are the folks who hate America for a multiple of reasons.  They include those on the edge who still dream of a liberal revolution to take over the American government.  This is why the ragtag remnants of the American Communist Party are engaged in the national demonstrations.

In the streets again is hard left, that hates capitalism – representatives of the same crowd that had once occupied Wall Street.  That is why you see the shutting down of malls and other businesses.

There are even the much older 1960s anti war crowd, almost comically attempting to tie American military actions to the death of Brown.

Now the unions have weighed in heavily.  I find that terribly ironic.  The pugnacious Richard Trumka, of the AFL-CIO, represents unions which are both historically and currently biased against black membership.  He is there more to keep blacks in the larger political movement.

Then there is the element represented by Al Sharpton.  He and his ilk make up the power and profit component of the black race baiting industry.  He is a disgrace to the memory and philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King.  Rather than recognize the changes in racial tolerance and to seek peace and harmony, as did King, the Sharptons resurrect the image of the past to create their personal false crusade based on exaggerated victimization.

There is a saying that if your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails.  That is the problem with the Al Sharptons.  Their only tool is racism, so all events are seen as bigotry.

In thinking about the efforts to promote black racism and a belief in victimization far beyond reality, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Democrat Party.  To the extent we have social injustice, it is the direct result of the hypocritical racist policies of Democrat politicians.  While they wear the “sheep’s skin” of equality and beneficence, Democrat leadership has kept black Americans ghetto-ized – deprived of housing, education, healthcare, safety and access to upward mobility.

It is no coincidence that the geography of black oppression occurs largely within political structures controlled by Democrats.  Chicago has the longest continuing Democrat Machine in America.  There are no Republican office holders in Chicago – even among the extraordinarily large 50-member city council.  Yet Chicago has the worst minority schools in America.  It is the most segregated major city in America.  Blacks in Chicago have among the highest unemployment rates in America.  And no city can match the number of blacks, including small children, murdered each year in Chicago.  How can blacks believe in Democrat beneficence in the fact of these facts?

For the most part, we are not a racist nation.  Each day, there are millions of positive interactions between blacks and whites.  We work together.  We play together.  We do favors for each other.  We care for each other.  We love each other.  We marry each other.  We served side-by-side in the military together – and on the police forces.  The incidents of racial hostility are infinitesimal within the big picture.

However — and it is a significant however – racism does occur.  In fact, it will always occur. It will arise from the malevolence of those few bigots who cannot be enlightened.  It will emanate from both white bigots and black bigots.  It is like a virus that can be put into remission, but never eradicated.

Unfortunately, the demonstrations occurring around the nation today are counterproductive.  They promote distrust, intolerance and racism.  Whitney Young once said that America does not need coalitions of blacks against coalitions of whites, but rather coalitions of the good against coalitions of the evil.  That is not happening today.

It is often said that we need a “national dialogue on race.”  Indeed we do, but not the one-side discussion proposed by narrow liberal prejudices.  We need the good people on both sides to address the issues with honesty.  We need to look at all facets of racism.

DAILY OBSERVATION: Ferguson Part 2 – The motivations behind the shooting and rioting

In ending Part 1 of this issue on my DAILY OBSERVATON, I said that what happened after the Officer Darren Wilson verdict was announced was an atrocity caused by an inappropriate response in almost every way in almost every part of the nation.

The crime and the ensuing social outrage is best understood by looking at specific motivations of the key players in this national melodrama.  It must first be noted that, like all others, I am dealing with opinion and speculation since none of us can know the exact motivations. But, we can come to some pretty logical and accurate conclusions based on the evidence.

The Grand Jury

We already covered the apparent motivation of Prosecutor Robert McCulloch, but what was motivating the Grand Jury to reach its decision?   I think nothing less than civic duty, and the overwhelming weight of the evidence and credible testimony.  They were impaneled before the shooting, so there were no preconceived notions influencing jury selection.  They were experienced in the Grand Jury process because it was toward the end of their service on the jury.  They were representative of the community.  They were aware of the strong and intimidating sentiment in their community in favor of indictment.  One can only conclude that their decision was based on fact, not racial biases.  Their collective motivations seemed nothing more than to do a good, honest job.

Michael Brown

The most critical motivation is that of the instigator, Michael Brown.  Since he is not here to explain his actions, we can only draw conclusions from his behavior.  He had just committed a number of major felonies – strong armed robbery and assault and battery among them.  I suspect that would make him highly motivated to avoid police or escape from them.  As an African-American, he may be among those with a subtext of hatred of white cops.

Where Brown’s motivation gets less clear is in terms of his unusually aggressive behavior toward Officer Dorian Wilson.  Why were they drawing attention to themselves by walking down the middle of the street after robbing a convenience store?  Why didn’t they simply attempt to run away?  Why didn’t they surrender to the armed office, with gun drawn?  Why didn’t Brown obey the command to drop to the ground?  Most importantly, what motivated Brown to attack Wilson in the patrol car and then later charge toward him?

For whatever reason, Brown decided to go past resisting arrest in favor of engaging in a violent assault on Wilson (another serious crime).  He gave every indication of wanting to harm or kill Wilson.  Even after being slightly wounded twice, Brown continued to go after Wilson — as substantiated by the physical forensic evident, Wilson’s consistent account and the testimony of the most credible witnesses.

Officer Darren Wilson

Officer Wilson, above all, is commissioned to apprehend criminals.  He is trained to use minimum force, but armed and authorized to take down a criminal when necessary.  He has never fired his gun on duty in the past.  Via a radio bulletin, Wilson was provided with an identification of the robbers.  Obviously, Brown and Johnson fit the descriptions.  Knowing he was now likely dealing with criminals, Wilson would have had heightened anxiety.

At the point of the fatal shots, Wilson had been punched several times and had to fight to retain control of his gun.  He was also aware of the fact that there was a second criminal on the scene. At that point, I believe Wilson was genuinely motivated by a fear for his safety and even life.  By his own testimony, and common sense, without that gun, Wilson felt at a serious disadvantage.

After Brown moved down the street, Wilson got out of the car to pursue the suspect.  Wilson needed to take Brown into custody or maintain pursuit until back up arrived.  Simply watching Brown and Johnson walk away would have been a dereliction of duty.

In what can only be described as a deranged act of aggression, Brown, who was about 30 feet away, turned and moved toward Wilson – again refusing an order to drop to the ground.  While 30 feet sounds like a long way, measure it out.  Brown would have been in contact with Wilson in as little as two or three seconds.  He actual got within 8 feet of Wilson, virtually to the point of contact, before he was taken down.

There are two things that may have contributed to Brown’s seemingly irrational behavior.  He was carrying enough marijuana to get himself another felony charge.  Also, his blood test indicated marijuana in his system.

We can know from the physical evidence that Brown’s motivation went beyond escaping.  Whether he wanted to kill Wilson or not, we can never know.  But, we do know that Brown was hell bent on doing some serious harm.

The Witnesses

What were the various motivations of the witnesses with the conflicting and inaccurate accounts?  To better explain that, you have to understand a range of motivations.

The judicial system recognizes two categories of witnesses.  “Interested witnesses” have a vested interest in the outcome of the case.  They have reasons to lie, so their statements are suspect and more intense scrutinized against the physical evidence and other testimony.  Certainly Wilson falls into that category.  But, his testimony was consistent from beginning to end, supported by a number of credible witnesses and up held by the physical evidence.

Another “interested witness” was Johnson.  He gave a most damning account of the confrontation, with Wilson gunning down Brown while the latter was in a submissive act of surrender.  In Johnson’s sworn statement, Brown had been wounded, was standing with his hands in the air and was needlessly killed by Wilson.  Johnson had every reason to incriminate Wilson as retribution for his dead friend.  As a petty criminal, himself, he may well have harbored hatred against cops.

However, his statement was countered by other witnesses and the physical evidence.  I think there is no doubt that Johnson was lying – and may have directly or indirectly encourage copycat accounts on the part of other witnesses.  His testimony was so inconsistent with other accounts and the physical evidence that he is the most likely witness to be charged with perjury.

Then there were those witnesses who were not in the so-called “interested” category, but gave incriminating accounts against Wilson.  They seemed to be motivated by a variety of things.  Sticking up for a brother.  Getting back at the police.  Maybe just wanting to be the center of attention.  Even honestly misinterpreting what they thought they saw. Some repeated what they heard and pretended it was what they had witnessed – such as claiming that Brown was shot in the back.  Once placed under oath, with the threat of perjury hanging over their head, several recanted their false statements.  For others, the forensic evidence clearly repudiated their testimony.

The Brown Family

Why do they remained convinced that justice was not served?  The Brown family was motivated by grief.  The strong love of a parent for a child does not diminish even if he misbehaves – even seriously.   Because of that love, and a social tradition of animosity toward police, the Brown family wanted revenge, pure and simple.  They refuse to accept that their son was a petty and violent criminal. They bestow on their dead son an undeserved sense of innocence and victimhood.

The natural sympathy for their loss is compromised in seeing the vicious outburst of the father upon hearing the Grand Jury decision.  It went beyond disappointment and anger.  He profanely shouted, calling out for violent revenge.  He called for the crowd to burn the place down.  In his moment of madness, he was inciting to riot.  The reaction of the family is emotional and bitter, but not credible.

The General Community

For the most part, the African-American citizens of Ferguson were motivated by the subtext of perceived or real racism in their community.  As with all people, their perception was their reality.

Based on the bits and pieces of evidence and testimony spun out and interpreted by the press and black activists, they believed that this was yet another case of police abuse.  They called for justice, but repeatedly declared their own verdict in advance.  Their desire was to keep a watchful eye on the process based on long standing grievances.  Their motivation was both to draw attention to the shooting and to the larger issues in a peaceful but noticeable manner. Their calls for justice was seriously compromised by a predetermination that an indictment was the only acceptable result of justice.

Then there are the violent rioters.  They have to be broken down into two groups.  First are those with absolutely no interest in the Wilson case or the subtext of racism.  They are motivated by the same things that drive all thieves.  They were there to use the cover of the mass protest to loot – knowing that police restraint generally takes them off their normal duty of protection.  It was this unfortunate excessive restraint by police that actually encouraged the pillaging.

The second group was composed of violent vandals.  Self gain was not their motivation.  It was an internal rage against what they believed to be an unfair system.   They are acting out perceived past grievances against themselves, their family, friends and the general community.  In some cases, they are simply caught up in the mob action.  The issues of the second group are best addressed by social policy and interaction before it boils over in acts of violence. Unfortunately, at the moment, they become criminal, themselves.

I would not have so strictly restrained the police in stopping criminal activity.  I would still hold up the rule of minimum force, but if lethal action is the only way to stop the looting and arson it should be used.  Being killed is and should always be the job risk of those who engage in violent crime.  I do not endorse shooting looters on sight, as was the historic custom, but the option should not be entirely eliminated if non-lethal methods fail.

Public Officials

Finally, what was the motivation of officials to order the police to be passive and to not engage the National Guard during the first riot – despite repeated requests to Governor Nixon by local officials?  Why did they stand by as businesses were burned to the ground, windows were shattered, stores were looted, cars were smashed and burned, and even police vehicles were destroyed (and in one case a police assault rifle was taken)? It seems to me that the underlying motivation was public relations.

There have been reports that Missouri Governor Nixon was acting on advice from the Eric Holder’s Justice Department to hold back the National Guard on the first evening because of “optics” – even as local police were begging for intervention.  The state and local police were operating on a misguided belief that stopping criminals worsens the situation.  Certainly, a more protective approach might have created greater injury to criminal rioters, and perhaps even some fatalities.  On the other hand, it also might have ended most of the looting and arson and arguably prevented the second round of criminal violence.


In the next DAILY OBSERVATION, I will deal with the spread of the demonstrations across the nation, and the motivations of those who organized and promoted them.


Today, I am taking a vacation from the serious stuff to concentrate on all the things we can all be thankful for —  most of all family and good friends …the good fortune to be born in America … each new day.  Oh!  And the weather in Florida (okay, I had to rub it in).

DAILY OBSERVATON (part 1): The Officer Darren Wilson Verdict from a Legal Standpoint.

I feel compelled to deal with Ferguson, Missouri today.

I am inclined to think that the Grand Jury made the correct decision.  They are the only people who reviewed all the evidence and heard all the witnesses.  The rest of us are all armchair quarterbacks – even the so-called experts on television.

The overview provided by Prosecutor Robert McCulloch seemed to explain the weight of the evidence.  Some criticized him because he did not sound impartial.  Well duh!  He was explaining the evidence in terms of the Grand Jury decision.  Furthermore, all the threats of violence and pressure demanding an indictment suggests to me that the evidence and testimony must have been overwhelming to overcome the natural intimidating affect on the grand jurors.

Many argue that a prosecutor can indict a “ham sandwich.” That does not mean he should have done so.  Those advancing that argument are actually endorsing prosecutorial abuse.  They believe that the role of a prosecutor is to get an indictment against anyone for anything at anytime.  That is tyranny.

My own opinion, and that of more experienced speculators, is that Prosecutor Robert McCulloch initially reviewed the evidence and determined that the state had no case – any jury would have found Officer Darren Wilson not guilty.  This seems to be corroborated by the evidence, the Grand Jury and most professional prosecutors who appears on television on all the networks.

Some complain that McCulloch “pre-judged” the case.  That is what he is supposed to do.  He looked at the evidence, himself, and realized that there were no grounds for indictment.  He simply wanted that opinion reinforced or repudiated by a Grand Jury.

In a normal case, the prosecutor would have simply dropped the case.  McCulloch well understood that such an action would be among the most provocative to the mob demanding an indictment and conviction.  Wisely, McCulloch allowed 12 impartial citizens to see all the evidence he had seen.  This was both appropriate and prudent.  The Grand Jury gave the outcome a lot of credibility and legitimacy – even though the hardliner lynch mob was not satisfied.  Contrary to many public statements, this is not unprecedented, and is a legal requirement in some communities.

For all the social interpretations of this case, it was simply a matter of attempting to apprehend a suspected (and later show to be) criminal who resisted arrest in a most violent manner.  Michael Brown’s strong armed robbery of the convenience store, and his aggressive actions to resist arrest – or, as some evidence shows, overpower, harm and perhaps kill Office Wilson, were the causes of his death.

What happened after the verdict was announced, however, is an atrocity.   More on that in the next DAILY OBSERVATON.

Here is my take on campaign finances as published in the Miami Herald on November 21, 2014

Miami Herald


Campaign money

There’s a myth that campaigns are too expensive. Nonsense. Campaigns use money to inform voters. Limiting contributions is like limiting charitable giving. Both provide a public service.

Campaigns are funded voluntarily. They get no more money than people are willing to give. Both sides usually have sufficient funds to get their messages out. Government funding is a bad idea because contributions would be imposed on us in the form of taxation, and we have no choice in who gets the money.

The money is not hoarded, but employs printers, temporary workers, factory workers, graphic artists and even bakers and candlestick makers. The $4.8 billion spent in 2014 boosted the economy. The billions spent to inform voters hardly seems excessive.

Larry Horist, Boca Raton

DAILY OBSERVATION: Obama is Now a Two Time Offender. Or, Maybe Three Time.

In a previous DO, I noted the distinction between the President’s authority under “prosecutorial discretion” and breaking the law.  In issuing documents to allow illegal aliens to work he has broken the law.  On my Facebook, I asked how Obama’s action is any different than some sleaze ball in the ‘hood printing up fraudulent work visas?  The law has not changed.  Is that local crook also merely nullifying the law?

Now there is a second obvious superseding of the law.  In ordering the Department of Homeland Security to “establish a new program” to allow the undocumented to stay free of prosecution and deportation (under Obama’s authority of prosecutorial discretion) and to issue work documents (new law, ergo unconstitutional), the President has now committed Count 2 in unconstitutional action.

Creating such a major program requires the action of Congress AND the funding by Congress.  Such multi billion dollar program needs to get an impact analysis by the Government Accounting Office.  It needs an analysis regarding the impact on job numbers.  We are talking about millions of new job seekers.

Then there is a possible Count 3.  Is it the President’s intent to aid and abet fraudulent voting?  There is no secret that the President, most Democrats and a lot of pundits see Hispanics as a hopefully captive voting block, like African Americans.  Personally, I think they may be surprised, but that for a future blog.

We can stop all the pretense about illegal registration.  The number of fraudulent votes in controlled Democrat regions is well known — from multiple balloting, unqualified voters, abuse of the absentee (now early) ballots, bribes for votes, ghost voters and even the dead. Many of the illegally arriving immigrants, including the gangbangers and drug cartellians, are being placed in the care of the big city Democrat machines — Chicago, New York, etc.  Part of their initiation to America will be the learning the ways of illegal voting.

This is historic and well established.  So, where does Obama come in?  Even though Obama does not grant voting rights (a constitutional breach too far), he does provide them with all the necessary, arguably illegal, documentation to register to vote. As sure as Obama is lying when his lips are moving, you can rest assured that a goodly number of those covered by Obama’s personal version of amnesty will be casting votes in 2016.  Wanna bet?

DAILY OBSERVATION: Obama’s Secret Weapon to Reduce Unemployment

In 2008, our newly elected President made a promise (yeah, another one).  He told the American public that if Congress would only pass his trillion dollar “stimulus package,” the 10 percent unemployment rate would drop to 6.7 percent IN SIX MONTHS.  It took six years.

In making that promise, over the skepticism of Republican legislators, Obama was either clueless of basic economics and job creation or he was lying to get the money to pass around to Wall Street Cronies while parading as a populist.  Subsequent history suggests both are true.

Despite the President’s job retarding programs (corporate taxes and Obamcare), regulations (EPA running amok) and inactions (Keystone pipeline), the unemployment rate has ever so slowly dropped.  To achieve even this, Obama had a secret weapon that has been unreported and underappreciated.

No, I am not referring to the Labor Department’s cooking the books to make an 18 percent unemployment rate look like a 6 percent unemployment rate.  That skullduggery is not secret anymore.  That is a bit like me adjusting the dial on my bathroom scale to make my 200 pounds show on the dial as 180.

Then what is Obama’s secret weapon, you say?  Republican governors.

Yep!  Across the nation Republican governors have produced real job growth with state policies that, to some extent, were able to counter the job suffocating policies coming out of the White House.  States such as Texas, Wisconsin and Florida have been outpacing the nation in job creation.  Bringing down Obama’s job numbers are such Democrat strongholds as California and Illinois.

To be even more precise, it is those Democrat Machine urban centers that have fared the worst.  Chicago is facing major budget shortfalls and Detroit … well … what can one say.  If Detroit were an answer on Jeopardy, the question would be: “What is the largest city in America to go bankrupt.

Since most minorities live in Democrat run regions, with sub rosa racist policies, Blacks and Hispanics suffer the worst unemployment numbers under the policies of the first minority president – no small irony.

Methinks that Obama should go to a meeting of the Republican Governors’ Association and first  thank them for making him look better (or, less bad, if you prefer) and then get guys like Florida’s Rick Scott, Wisconsin’s Scott Walker and Texas’ Rick Perry (now Greg Abbott) to teach him how the free market works.

Here is my view on CAMPAIGN SPENDING as published in the Florida Sun-Sentinel on November 10, 2014

Super PACs threw more money behind Democrats

In a recent Sun Sentinel “South Florida 100,” Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) suggested we should be “disgusted” by the $4 billion spent on the recent federal election. This lament is hypocritical since the biggest donors were Democrats — contrary to the Democrat’s mythical narrative.

So-called super PACs provided $228.4 billion to Democrats and $109.5 billion to Republicans. The Democrats are the party of billionaires. Thomas Steyer gave an astonishing $74.2 million to Democrats. The closet Republican was Paul Singer at a paltry $9.7 million. The much maligned Koch brothers gave only $2.3 million each — earning them the 23rd and 25th spots on the “deep pockets” list.

Democratic billionaires who produced that $228.4 billion include James Simons, George Soros, David Bonderman and Laurie Michaels, Reid Hoffman, Jon Stryker, Pat Stryker, John Doerr, Robert and Ann Bass, Marc Benioff and Laurene Powell Jobs.

In terms of organizations donating, the National Education Association topped the list at $20 million, all to Democrats. The Democratic Governors Association donated $8.1 million compared to the Republican counterpart, which kicked in only $2.9 million.

Happily, this also proves that money is not the determining factor in winning elections. Politics will always attract major donations, but we should at least disregard the pitiful “poor” mouth prevarications of the Democrats. By all measures, they are the rich man’s party.

Larry Horist, Boca Raton

Copyright © 2014, Sun Sentinel

DAILY OBSERVATON: Obama’s Immigration Move is Style Over Substance – and Unconstitutional

There is no secret why President Obama acted now.  He had reneged on addressing immigration at least two times in the past.  He was locked in by both his unfulfilled longtime and pre-election promises.  If he did not act, the ire of the Latino community would have put his popularity numbers in the bottom third percentile.

Where he miscalculated is the shellacking he took in the election.  He lost the Senate, and the national agenda is about to be taken over by Republicans.  He was going to get the GOP immigration bills on his desk – the bills that Harry Reid had blocked in the Senate.  They will be more popular with the public, provide a permanent repair of the broken immigration system and give the Latino community a certainty Obama denies them.

The President made a grand symbolic gesture that produces little change.  He is scamming the Latino community by promising security while giving only a temporary, perishable and highly dubious fix.

While he does have traditional presidential authority over “prosecutorial desecration” (deciding not to deport), he has no authority to change the law with regard to employment.  It is against the law for illegal aliens to take jobs, and it is illegal for anyone to hire them.

Ordering the government to give documents suggesting employability status to Illegal aliens is clearly beyond his constitutional power.  It is still illegal for businesses to hire undocumented workers.  Obama is either violating his oath to uphold the Constitution or he is aiding and abetting criminal activity – or both.

Illegal aliens have no more long range security than they had before Obama’s desperate action.  They have no access to citizenship.  No guarantee against future deportation. No guarantee of jobs.  Perhaps he thinks they are too stupid to notice that lack of change.

Rather than provide clarity and certainty, the President has further muddied the waters and provoked unnecessary public discord with a constitutional crisis. He has further fouled the environment of political discourse and negotiation.  He has again proven his gross ineptness.