This morning, President Obama announced that the U.S. will stop deporting DREAM Act-eligible youth. The move protects one million undocumented students, providing them an opportunity to live and work legally in the country they call home. President Obama’s decision helps the economy by allowing currently undocumented students, who already boost the economy, to build careers in the United States.

Conservatives are enraged. Here’s a roundup of the ten worst conservative attacks (so far):

On the President’s decision to grant certain rights to illegals…This is yet another example of executive overreach! tinyurl.com/c9sz3x8

— Allen West (@AllenWest) June 15, 2012

This is a classic Barack Obama move of choosing politics over leadership.

— Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) June 15, 2012

Steve King: “Obama is planning to usurp the Constitutional authority of .. Congress and grant amnesty by edict to 1 million illegal aliens”

— Katrina Trinko (@KatrinaTrinko) June 15, 2012

Obama betrays young, black Americans, to pander to Illegal Aliens. Impeach, Indict, Convict.

— FloridaTEAParty (@TEAParty_FL) June 15, 2012

If a maneuver, amazingly bold / cynical

— davidfrum (@davidfrum) June 15, 2012

Rep Diane Black R-TN labels immigration move a “pro-amnesty power-grab” by President Obama

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) June 15, 2012

Sen. DeMint uses the A-word: “This is amnesty. It ignores the law and invites more people to come here illegally.”

— Rick Klein (@rickklein) June 15, 2012

Obama’s backdoor amnesty plan is nothing more than a blatant political ploy.dewhurstfortexas.com/latest-news/st… #txsen

— David Dewhurst (@DavidHDewhurst) June 15, 2012

Obama Admin to stop deporting young illegal aliens? And you wonder why American teens can’t find jobs #afire @NumbersUSA @RealSheriffJoe

— WND News (@worldnetdaily) June 15, 2012

The announcement by Napolitano that young illegals will not be deported is an impeachable offense committed by President @BarackObama

— Sam Thiessen (@SamThiessen) June 15, 2012

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who has sponsored his own version of the DREAM Act, said this of President Obama’s decision: “Today’s announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem. And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one.”

–Ben Sherman

If you’re concerned about possible racial profiling and police misconduct resulting from New York City’s controversial “stop-and-frisk” policy, there’s an app for that.

In response to potential civil rights issues stemming from stop-and-frisk tactics — which are often criticized for disproportionately targeting young black men — the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) has created a smartphone app to help bystanders record police misconduct. Since the app’s release last week, more than 75,000 people have downloaded it.

NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman explains that the app is necessary because, while New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has continued to defend the stop-and-frisk policy, city residents need to be empowered to make improvements in their own communities:

LIEBERMAN: Stop and Frisk Watch is about empowering individuals and community groups to confront abusive, discriminatory policing. The NYPD’s own data shows that the overwhelming majority of people subjected to stop-and-frisk are black or Latino, and innocent of any wrongdoing. At a time when the Bloomberg administration vigorously defends the status quo, our app will allow people to go beyond the data to document how each unjustified stop further corrodes trust between communities and law enforcement.

The Stop-and-Frisk Watch app allows bystanders to record video of police encounters and send those videos straight to the NYCLU’s servers. The app also shows users if there are other people using the app nearby, helping facilitate community groups working together to oppose police brutality, and contains a section called “Know Your Rights” that details the legal requirements for police confrontations.

NYCLU is also working with other labor, civil rights, and community organizations to organize a silent march against New York’s stop-and-frisk policy to coincide with Father’s Day this weekend.

In a speech today to the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took the stunning view that attempts to let voters know who is paying for political messages amounts to a “political weapon” aimed at intimidating political critics.

Though Justice Anthony Kennedy’s controversial 5-4 majority opinion Citizens United case specifically endorsed the idea of campaign finance disclosure, calling it “the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations,” McConnell embraced the partial-dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas — which argued that even that was unconstitutional.

McConnell told the group:

MCCONNELL: Now, to most people the idea of disclosure sounds perfectly reasonable. and throughout my career I, too, have consistently called for full and timely disclosure for all contributions to candidates and parties. Candidates and to parties. But what we’re talking about here is entirely different. What this bill calls for is government-compelled disclosure of contributions to all grassroots groups, which is far more dangerous than its proponents are willing to admit. Because disclosure is forced upon some but not all, it’s not an act of good government. It’s a political weapon. And that’s precisely what those who are pushing this legislation have in mind. This is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to expose its critics to harassment and intimidation, either by government authorities or through third-party allies, and that should concern every one of us. Those pushing the DISCLOSE Act have a simple view: if the Supreme Court is no longer willing to limit the speech of those who oppose their agenda, we’ll find other ways to do it.

Watch the video:

McConnell’s attack on the DISCLOSE Act is disingenuous. The bill would do nothing to force any “grassroots group” to disclose its donations unless it spends $10,000 or more on campaign-related disbursements during an election cycle. And as long as they keep a separate “segregated account” for their political expenditures, those groups would only have to disclose the source of the money being used for campaign spending.

And though McConnell attempts to draw a distinction between full disclosure of direct contributions to candidates and parties and disclosure of outside groups, his point makes little sense. The whole point of disclosure is allowing voters to know who is speaking and to evaluate the credibility of that person or interest. If disclosure were only about harassment and intimidation of political opponents, surely disclosure of donations to political candidates is just as likely to lead to such harassment of donors. And, of course, we have existing laws that make bonafide harassment a crime.

If McConnell really believes disclosure is nothing more than a political weapon, by logical extension his career-long backing of “full and timely disclosure for all contributions to candidates and parties,” must amount to an effort to expose his own critics to the same sort of harassment and intimidation.

Today’s big announcement by the Obama administration that they would suspend all targeted deportations of young undocumented immigrants who would have been eligible under the DREAM Act has touched off a firestorm in conservative circles.

Fox News’ morning program America’s Newsroom invited Rep. Allen West (R-FL) to share his thoughts on the announcement, and he wasted no time floating unfounded conspiracy theories and misinformation:

“I can start to ask questions about what is going to happen as far as their right to vote. Is this one of those backdoor opportunities to allow people in the next five months to get the opportunity to vote? Will we see Janet Napolitano and the president come out with a new edict that says ‘since we allow this people to be here legally, we’re now going to allow them to have the opportunity to vote?’… Why is it being done at this point in time? Why have we not allowed a national debate on this issue to really get a sense about what the American people feel?”

Watch it:

In fact, the DREAM Act has been up for debate for over a decade. Some version of the DREAM Act has been introduced in every Congress since 2001. And despite West’s insistence that the American people have not been heard, polls show that most Americans support the DREAM Act, which goes even further than President Obama’s executive order he will unveil today. That hasn’t stopped West’s fellow Republicans from blocking the passage of the law at every turn, most recently in 2010 when 55 Democrats and Republicans in the Senate voted in favor of the bill only to be blocked by a Republican filibuster.

This is not the first time West has reacted poorly over undocumented immigration. Last year he likened the problem to a military invasion by a foreign country, and his first hire after he won his election in 2010 was a radio host with a history of offensive, xenophobic statements.

Miami Mayor Tomás Regalado (R) became the latest Florida Republican to buck Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) yesterday, attacking his error-riddled and likely illegal attempt to purge people his administration said were non-citizen voters from the voter rolls.

In an interview with NPR’s Michel Martin, Regaldo dismissed Scott’s notion that Florida is any kind of haven for wide-spread voter fraud:

REGALADO: I think that in Florida – and especially here in South Florida – we walk a very thin line in terms of communities. I mean, we are a real melting pot. And I think it’s not fair just to use one brush and paint everybody, because the perception that we’re getting throughout the country is that a bunch of Latino people just go out and vote right after getting off the plane or the raft when they come here. And that’s not the case. Problem are, the laws. I mean, you can go and get your voter ID with your driver’s license, and no questions asked. Well, the law has to be changed. But, you know, I doubt that we have a massive fraud going on here in Florida…

MARTIN: Have you expressed that to the governor, who shares your political party?

REGALADO: I have not spoken to the governor. And, you know, and I understand the governor is trying to cater to the conservatives, but that’s not the way to do it. I mean, I don’t see thousands of people not citizens voting here in South Florida. I mean, throughout the years, we have seen in the United States – remember Chicago many years ago – people that were dead voting and all that. But other than that, those are unique cases. I don’t think that there is, like, this massive fraud. What we should do is encourage people to register and vote if you are citizens, because the problem is that all these controversies about voters and investigators and Justice Department and police after the voters is scaring people to vote. The people are going to say, well, it’s too much trouble. So I might as well don’t even bother to vote. And that’s wrong because…

MARTIN: Why do you think you and Mr. Scott have such different perspectives on this issue?

REGALADO: Well, I don’t know. I guess he comes from the private sector. He was elected directly from the street to the highest position in the state of Florida, and he has taken his role very seriously. But I’m telling you, I’ve been first as a journalist, and then 17 years as a city commissioner and then three years now as mayor, and I’ve talked to so many people and I’ve seen so many people and I’ve campaign in so many places, that people are good. You know, nobody’s out to defraud the system in the United States by being a – what do you gain? You don’t gain nothing by voting, not being a citizen, so I think that we should be more proactive in informing the people of their rights and their duties. I do think that this controversy will make more people to stay out of the polls.

Listen to the interview here.

Regalado’s concern about the disproportionate impact of Scott’s purge on the Florida voters of Latino descent comes as a stark contrast to fellow Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who has backed the effort and said he “wouldn’t characterize it as an effort to purge Latinos from the voting rolls.”

President Obama will announce a new immigration policy this morning that will allow some undocumented students to avoid deportation and receive work authorization.

Under the “deferred action” policy, a Department of Homeland Security directive, students in the U.S. who are already in deportation proceedings or those who qualify for the DREAM Act and have yet to come forward to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials, will not be deported and will be allowed to work in the United States.

An estimated 1 million young people could benefit from the deferral. To be eligible, applicants have to be between 15 and 30 years old, live in the U.S. for five years, and maintain continuous U.S. residency. People who have one felony, one serious misdemeanor, or three minor misdemeanors will be ineligible to apply. “Deferred action” will last for two years and can be renewed.

Obama is expected to speak about this new policy later today.

Republicans blocked the DREAM Act in 2010, and this year, House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) has already said he would not hold a hearing on the DREAM Act in his committee.

Obama’s announcement will create a smart policy to help protect young adults at risk of deportation who have spent years establishing their homes in the United States while boosting the U.S. economy.

Despite the fact that public support for medical marijuana is currently at all-time high, and may be legal in up to 24 states and the District of Columbia by the end of this year, the Department of Justice continues to crack down on medical marijuana on the federal level.

The DOJ has been targeting the landlords of medical marijuana shops in California as an indirect way to tamp down medical marijuana use. Although medical marijuana is legally under California state law, it is still illegal under federal law.

Federal prosecutors are pressuring landlords to either shut down their shops or risk losing their property under a civil statute originally designed to allow the government to seize drug-trafficking organizations’ assets. Greg Baldwin, a former federal prosecutor specializing in white-collar criminal defense, explains the logic behind the DOJ’s indirect approach:

BALDWIN: Filing asset-forfeiture lawsuits against these commercial properties is a very clever way to handle an otherwise horribly difficult and controversial situation. If you bring criminal charges against these medical marijuana businesses, the federal government gets pilloried in the press for attacking California law and sick people.

Although the DOJ is attempting a slick PR move, the intentions are clear. The Obama Administration has continued to restrict medical marijuana despite the fact that 3/4 of the American public believes the federal government should back off enforcement against medical marijuana in states where the drug is legalized. There’s a reason the federal government is worried about risking media attention for bringing criminal charges against medical marijuana shops, and it’s because it realizes the public is not on its side.