Opinion: Latinos swayed?

• Obama administration says it will stop deporting young illegal immigrants


• Ruben Navarrette: This is a stunt to help improve Obama's chance with Latino voters


• He says some DREAM'ers may benefit from Obama's initiative, but many probably won't


• Navarrette: Obama's immigration record is most impressive to those who follow it least closely

San Diego -- Did you ever wonder why Charlie Brown kept charging at the football, despite the fact that Lucy always pulled it away and he wound up flat on his back? You would think that experience has made him skeptical. It's because he really wanted to believe that, this time, things would work out. And when you really want to believe in something, you have a short memory when it comes to past disappointments.

That's how it is with many Latinos and other immigration reform advocates. They want President Obama to become the person they voted for -- who promised Latinos that he would fix a broken immigration system, stop dividing families, and push through Congress a Dream Act-like legislation that would give undocumented young people a pathway to legal status if they go to college or join the military.

None of that happened, and so Latinos -- who, in 2008, voted overwhelmingly for Obama -- are ambivalent about the president's re-election.

Something had to be done to convince Latinos that the president is on their side.

Today, something was done. Or rather, something was promised. The Obama administration announced that it would stop deporting younger illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children -- provided they meet certain conditions -- and begin granting work permits to them.

Illegal immigrants will supposedly benefit from the new policy if they were brought to the United States before they turned 16, if they are 30 or younger, if they have lived in the country for at least five years, if they have no criminal record and if they attend or graduated from a U.S. high school, or have served in the military.

The policy change could affect as many as 800,000 immigrants -- so-called DREAM'ers -- who would have benefited from the DREAM Act had it not been blocked by Congress. These people have been living in fear of being deported by the same administration that is now offering the pardon.

Confused? Just wait. It gets better. We've only just begun to make our way down this rabbit hole.

The administration is obviously trying to "checkmate" a nearly identical proposal floated by Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, which reportedly would also stop DREAM'ers from being deported and issue them work permits. The Rubio plan would not offer a pathway to citizenship. About this omission, the left was incensed. But Obama isn't offering a pathway to citizenship either, and yet many in the left couldn't be happier. Where is the consistency?

Then there is the inconvenient fact that we're not supposed to even need this kind of policy change because, according to Obama, his administration isn't deporting DREAM'ers at all; instead, it's concentrating its enforcement efforts on criminals. That's exactly what Obama told Univision anchor Jorge Ramos during a March 2011 trip to El Salvador. A couple of weeks later, Obama had to swallow those words when -- during an education town hall meeting in Washington, sponsored by Univision -- he was confronted by a DREAM'er holding deportation papers. So now we're supposed to applaud the administration for not deporting people the president had claimed weren't being deported in the first place.

Of course, the administration is deporting DREAM'ers, along with gardeners, housekeepers, nannies and ice cream vendors who represent no threat to public safety. It's a waste of time for officials to deny that.

Just this week, I wrote in my  about another one of Obama's broken promises. The administration pledged to use prosecutorial discretion to free from deportation proceedings individuals who had been in the country for a number of years, had U.S.-born children, or were otherwise rooted in the United States. That included DREAM'ers. So far, the promise hasn't amounted to much of anything.I expect a similar outcome with DREAM'ers. Some of them may benefit from Obama's new initiative, but many probably won't. That's because the idea behind the DREAM Act -- trading legal status for college attendance or military service -- is still unpopular with most voters in this country. The administration has no interest in antagonizing a wide portion of the electorate in an election year.

It doesn't matter anyway, at least not to the president. All he cares about is his bid for re-election, and whether this latest stunt helps improve the turnout of Latino voters. It might. People get fooled, especially if they're not paying attention. In fact, I've realized that Obama's immigration record is most impressive to those who follow it least closely. In other words, the closer you follow the record, the less impressive it seems.

In the words of Ronald Reagan, the last president to actually grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants and not just talk about it, Latino voters, immigrant advocates and the DREAM'ers themselves should -- in response to this latest promise -- "trust, but verify." And, given the administration's record, they can skip the first part.

Opinion: What's behind dissing Obama?

• Dean Obeidallah: A reporter from right-wing site heckled Obama as he talked about immigration


• He says heckling from Irish-born reporter part of right's campaign to deligitimize Obama


• He says incidents include Wilson's "you lie," Trump seeking Obama's college grades


• Obeidallah: Expect to see more disrespecting of the president as "the other" during campaign

A reporter from a right-wing media outlet heckled President Obama -- not once, but twice -- on Friday as he was unveiling a new immigration policy. If this shocks you, you haven't been paying attention. This is simply the latest page from the right's playbook to delegitimize Barack Obama's presidency.

Some may dismiss it as an isolated incident, but it's not. It goes much deeper. Believe me, I know hecklers -- I'm a stand-up comedian. If someone heckles me once, it can be a mistake: too many drinks, overcome by emotion, etc. But when you heckle twice, you have an agenda.

Neil Munro, the Irish born reporter who heckled President Obama, was not just from some random publication. He works for The Daily Caller, a right-wing website whose editor-in-chief is the bow-tie wearing Tucker Carlson. (You may recall Carlson as the guy who famously sparred with — and was taken down by -- Jon Stewart on CNN years ago.)

Munro's first heckle occurred while President Obama was in midsentence, with Munro yelling out: "Why do you favor foreigners over Americans?" Obama responded: "Excuse me, sir, but it's not time for questions." Munro countered: "Are you going to take questions?"

To which the president answered: "Not while I'm speaking."

Later, Munro again interrupted the president in midstatement. Obama kept his cool; he simply finished his statement. If I had been president, I would have deported Munro back to his country of origin.

A quick perusal of Munro's Twitter feed reveals he does not hide his contempt for President Obama. His tweets range from claims that Obama is using NASCAR and country music to attract "white non-college voters," to slams of Michelle Obama, to allegations that Obama is racially discriminating against blacks in his White House hiring practices.

But this is all not about Munro -- he is just a small cog in the right's campaign to diminish the legitimacy of Obama's presidency. I'm not talking about people disagreeing with policies. I mean specifically the campaign to paint Barack Obama as less than American -- as an "other"--as someone whose presidency is not entitled to the same respect as that of the presidents who came before him.

This crusade began in the days before Barack Obama was even sworn in as president. Back then, Rush Limbaugh, the radio host and self-described "entertainer," announced on his show that he hoped Obama would fail as president. Obama had not even made his first decision as president.

The campaign has continued with the right's birther movement contending that Obama was not born in the United States and hence should not be president. Some, like evangelical leader Franklin Graham, have suggested that Obama is a Muslim (he is a Christian), which to many on the right would mean he's not a "real" American.

We have seen Republican Rep. Joe Wilson yell out at President Obama, "You lie" while Obama addressed a joint session of Congress in 2009. Can anyone remember the last time a U.S. president was called a liar in a joint session of Congress? I can't.

Then there was Republican Rep. Joe Walsh, who last July called on President Obama to"quit lying" in regards to the debt ceiling debate. Can anyone remember something like this with previous presidents? I can't either. And, of course, there's Donald Trump, not only periodically renewing the "birther" fabrication, but also demanding to see President Obama's college grades, implying he doesn't think Obama is intellectually qualified to be president.

So you see, Munro is just doing his tiny part. And no doubt some on the right will exalt him for his "courage." His boss, Tucker Carlson, defended him by saying that no one was upset when then-ABC reporter Sam Donaldson heckled President Reagan. But Fox News' Chris Wallace recalled today that when he was a White House correspondent with Donaldson during the Reagan administration, no one ever heckled the president.

So, yet another lie. But the truth doesn't matter to the far right. It's not about policy or what is good for the United States of America. It's about delegitimizing President Obama for political gain.

In the coming months, as we get closer to Election Day, you may see many more of these kinds of attacks. While they may disgust you, they should never surprise you. It's all in the playbook.

Opinion: Edwards trial a waste

John Edwards was prosecuted by former U.S. attorney George Holding to enhance Holding's political prospects, said Jeff Smith. Jeff Smith: John Edwards trial was a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money on a non-crimeSmith: Prosecution of Edwards was really about George Holding, who will be in Congress He says Holding indicted Edwards for political gains and attentionSmith: The person in this sordid mess who ought to be prosecuted is Andrew YoungEditor's note: Jeff Smith, who represented Missouri's 4th Senate District from 2006-09, is a professor in the Urban Policy graduate program at The New School in New York City. He spent 2010 in federal prison for lying about a campaign finance violation. He is on Twitter: @jeffsmithMO

(CNN) -- Does John Edwards deserve to go to prison? The jury has decided, and he's walking.

Whatever we may think of the Edwards trial, one thing is certain: the prosecution was a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money on a non-crime. Who cares if a billionaire wants to give a multimillionaire some money to hide his mistress (who pays taxes on the gift)?

The prosecution of Edwards was never so much about Edwards as it was about George Holding.

Wait -- who is George Holding? And why should we care?

After winning a recent primary, Holding is likely the next congressman in the 13th District of North Carolina. He initiated the prosecution against Edwards while he was a U.S. Attorney. But he didn't argue the case in court. Instead, after receiving a year's worth of headlines (and Republican praise) for charging Edwards, Holding resigned from the case to run for Congress.

Maybe Holding understood the weakness of the case, which rested upon Edwards' failure to report the money billionaire heiress Bunny Mellon and another wealthy donor gave to him to help hide his mistress. The problem is that if Edwards had reported contributions and then used them for personal expenses, he would have been guilty of a crime, since the Federal Election Commission bars spending official campaign funds on personal expenses. Therefore, according to Holding, Edwards was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't.

To prove his case, Holding had to show that Edwards knowingly broke the law. But if neglecting to report the gifts as campaign contributions constituted a crime, yet reporting such gifts as contributions would violate existing law (by implying that Edwards converted contributions to personal use), then it is impossible to prove Edwards knew he was breaking the law, which would be necessary for a conviction.

That's not very good legal reasoning on which to rest a case -- especially a case unlike any other that had been successfully tried. And since Holding had access to all the available evidence and knew that no witness and no recordings would suggest that Edwards knew he was breaking the law, it is difficult to see how Holding thought he might win, other than hoping that jurors disliked Edwards so much they would convict him.

Or maybe Holding wasn't all that concerned with the legal reasoning. Perhaps he realized that, win or lose, he'd already gotten enough mileage from the case to realize his political ambitions. By the time he indicted Edwards, the well-connected Holding knew that the newly Republican state legislature had drawn a safe district he could win, if only he could get out of the primary. And what better way to appeal to Republican diehards than prosecuting the smarmy, liberal trial lawyer John Edwards? Holding certainly received his reward last month when he won his congressional primary.

The public generally associates politicians with the pursuit of ambition and power. Too often, investigators act from similar motives. Law enforcement officials seek to justify long, expensive investigations into high-profile targets by stretching the law to win convictions and mount the biggest scalps on their walls.

The former head of the St. Louis FBI who investigated me for a campaign finance violation years ago said of his job: "I love the chase. [It] was fantastic. It was me against them. And the smarter they were, the richer they were, the more I enjoyed catching them."

But justice isn't about investigators' adrenaline rushes or personal advancement. It's about the common good. If the central goal of prosecuting "corrupt" public figures is to remove them from public life, then the Edwards prosecution is a clear case of overkill. He is a walking punch line, unfit to run for dog catcher. Why should prosecutors spend millions of dollars and years of time targeting him with novel legal theories?

I am familiar with Edwards' predicament. During my 2004 congressional campaign in Missouri, I approved a meeting between two aides and a man who wanted to send out a postcard highlighting my opponent's dismal attendance record in the state House. In the immediate aftermath, our campaign denied any involvement in the mailing, and then when faced with a Federal Election Commission complaint which gave us a chance to come clean, we maintained our denial. Five years later, through an unlikely set of circumstances culminating in my best friend's wiretap, I ended up in prison for a year.

As a current taxpayer who spent a year loading trucks at a prison warehouse, eating food for which you, dear reader, paid, I can tell you two things. First, I did not want to pay to house, feed and clothe multimillionaire lawyer John Edwards. Second, the only person in this sordid mess whom prosecutors should have considered indicting is someone who was already granted immunity. That's right, Andrew Young, who defrauded the 99-year-old Bunny Mellon by siphoning (or, more precisely, stealing) hundreds of thousands of dollars to build his dream house.

Of course, prosecuting Young wouldn't have gotten George Holding all the publicity that prosecuting John Edwards did, and it definitely wouldn't have gotten him to Congress.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jeff Smith.

June 2, 2012 -- Updated 0215 GMT (1015 HKT) A Romney app went viral for its "Amercia" spelling gaffe. Merrill Perlman says as copy editors get fired, embarrassing mistakes multiply.June 1, 2012 -- Updated 1537 GMT (2337 HKT) Romney's successor as governor says the candidate failed to grow the state's economy and reform governmentJune 1, 2012 -- Updated 1524 GMT (2324 HKT) Christine Owens says with unemployment rate remaining so high, we must not cut off help to the least fortunate Get the latest opinion and analysis from CNN's columnists and contributors.June 1, 2012 -- Updated 1546 GMT (2346 HKT) Jeff Smith says the prosecution of John Edwards was never so much about Edwards as it was about George Holding. June 1, 2012 -- Updated 2316 GMT (0716 HKT) Edward Morrissey says Mayor Bloomberg's proposed citywide ban on soda servings over 16 ounces makes no sense and eliminates free choiceJune 1, 2012 -- Updated 1755 GMT (0155 HKT) Aaron David Miller says the need to stop the killing is urgent, but the options are either imperfect half measures or a costly intervention that nobody wantsJune 1, 2012 -- Updated 1216 GMT (2016 HKT) Ruben Navarrette says candidates should realize that among Latino voters, immigration policy is a key testJune 1, 2012 -- Updated 0157 GMT (0957 HKT) Alan Dershowitz says of course the jury members couldn't make up their mind on most of the charges. No rational person could June 1, 2012 -- Updated 1857 GMT (0257 HKT) Timothy Stanley says the unveiling of Bush's portrait offers a moment to reevaluate a tenure that ended with low approval, but may have been an important presidencyMay 31, 2012 -- Updated 1414 GMT (2214 HKT) Jeff Cruz says President Obama will likely win the votes of Latinos, who care greatly about issues like Social Security and MedicareMay 31, 2012 -- Updated 1554 GMT (2354 HKT) Josh Levs says the brief life of Marina Keegan, a new Yale grad killed in a car crash, offers a shining example of the importance of reaching for dreamsMay 31, 2012 -- Updated 2157 GMT (0557 HKT) Frida Ghitis says the Assad regime is maintaining power by enforcing a reign of terror.May 31, 2012 -- Updated 1309 GMT (2109 HKT) Sen. Frank Lautenberg says that Congress must reform the outdated toxic chemicals law to protect our children's health.Today's five most popular stories

Peliculas Online