Nancy Pelosi exploits Charlie Hebdo attack to defend Obama's immigration policy

Desperate to prove that there's no level to which she will not sink; Nancy Pelosi has decided to use the Islamic terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo as a way to defend Obama's unilateral immigration orders. It seems that the Republicans are about to pass legislation that would completely fund the Department of Homeland security for the entirety of 2015, while simultaneously blocking funding needed to fulfill Obama's unconstitutional amnesty plans. This, obviously, has Nancy Pelosi in a tizzy.

As USNews reports, she can't believe Republicans would do such a thing - especially in light of the Paris attacks:

On the steps of the Capitol, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and members of the Democratic caucus said the legislation was particularly dangerous in light of the recent attacks in Paris. “You think it would have heightened the urgency to pass a homeland security bill, but Republicans still say 'no' to passing a clean bill unless they can be a menace to immigration,” Pelosi said. However, the legislation has the potential to hurt both Democrats and Republicans, said John Hudak, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. He said if Republicans are viewed as playing politics and the DHS is not funded, there will be political consequences.

Let's set aside the creepiness of invoking the Hebdo attacks as a defense for her Obama's policies. It's ghoulsih, but we've come to expect that sort of thing from Pelosi. The point she's trying to make is more interesting anyway.

---

It's an odd argument for her, because I could have sworn Democrats claimed that the terrorists were disorganized and on the run. Aren't these the same people who constantly complain that the need for Homeland Security was overblown in the first place? Heck, every time someone brings up security as a reason to seal the border, Pelosi's the first one to dismiss a potential terrorist threat as ridiculous fearmongering. Democrats like Pelosi keep telling us that there is no overwhelming terrorist threat, since there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism. There are just a few kooks here and there. Suddenly, however, she's terrified that they're hiding everywhere, ready to pounce, held at bay only by DHS? How very "neocon" of her. More importantly, if the House plan manages to make it to the President's desk, the decision will be his. He will be the one who is defunding DHS in order to protect his precious immigration edicts. All he has to do is sign the bill, put his insanely unpopular executive actions on hold, and poor ol' Nancy Pelosi can feel safe and secure again. Basically, this is going to come down to a public relations battle:

"If they can get a bill to the president’s desk, that creates a difficult scenario for the president because it’s hard for the president, especially in the environment we’re in right now, to veto a homeland security funding bill,” Hudak said. “The politics around the legislation are difficult for both sides because neither side can look like the ones who are negatively affecting the Department of Homeland Security broadly.”

The problem for people like Pelosi is that they're on the wrong side of the fight. The American people have been clear in their disdain for Obama's amnesty goals and they're equally clear in their demand for security. At this point, it's pretty clear that Obama doesn't really care about public opinion but: If the administration seriously vetoes funding for DHS because the budget would damage his amnesty hopes? He'll be staring at a PR nightmare that will make his Paris no-show look like a minor blip on the world's biggest radar. However things shake out, this will be a media battle that will likely emerge as the first real test for the new Republican majority. Hopefully, they're ready for the fight...