It is rather amusing to see the liberals showing their true colors as we get closer the day of reckoning, November 2nd. It reminds me of the republicans making the headlines and losing their seats back in '06. The democrats seem to not have learned a thing. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I've been following Charlie (Tax thee but not me) Rangel, 13 violation by his congressional peers. Why doesn't he retire. As a conservative, I hope he fights this to the end. This would bad for the democrat incumbents who know they are in hot water without this paramount news debacle. The democrats are poised to lose the House, and possibly the Senate. Even if they retain control of the Senate, it will be close to equal. I fear this is what the anointed one wants, so when the state of affairs gets worse, he will conveniently blame the republicans. His administrations' modis operandi is to blame the economy on Bush. I know, it's only been 19 months since ObieWonKenobi took office, however, it is surely George W. Bush's fault, otherwise, he would have to blame himself. Let's face it, the democrats' Keynesian economic theory is a unequivocal failure. Imagine at night, when the liberals are sitting on their big cushiony couch, with a single malt scotch in their hand, wondering how their dream of a socialistic, western European government-run-everything has emerged as a huge disappointment and colossal nonacheivement. Take Maxine Waters, D-CA, has been charged with ethics violations and awaiting a public trial. It was a small conflict of interest, she solicited TARP funds for a bank where her husband sat on the board and owns thousands of shares. We, the American public can't allow Maxine to lose money if that bank failed. My Dad use to say, "don't do as I do, do as I say. He might have heard this from the democrats. "If I did this, I would be in jail. Anyway, I hope Rangel and Waters go on trial and appear on the front page of the state run media's newspapers. This will help the republicans stampede over the democrats. I got such a chuckle when Al 'Sharpie Sharp" Sharpton introduced the race card once again. He said since Rangel and Waters are black congress people, there has to be racism. Not that they broke the law, or anything like that. Pathetic! Where is Jesse Jackson, I'm surprised he hasn't jumped on the bandwagon. Next, we have Pete Stark, D-CA, who inserts foot into mouth, weekly. He said at a townhall meeting in CA, that not hiring an illegal alien could be "unconstitutional." What? Also, he asked a constituent who was he going to kill today concerning the tea party. I think we can agree, the politicians, from both sides of the aisle, have forgotten who they work for. They are eletists who do not care what the American people want. I want to start a campaign for term limits in congress after the republicans take back the House. I realize we would need to win the Senate and Presidency along with the House to accomplish this enormous feat. When they leave their represented state and move to Washington, they become "inside the beltway" politicians. Cocktail and dinner parties influence their decisions. Two terms and out. I am so excited about the Restoring Honor Rally at the Lincoln Memorial in DC on August 28th. Even though the state run media will report that 92 people showed up, I am confident that thousands will attend. We have attended other rallies like the 912 rally and different tea party afilliated protest and it is one of the best times we have ever had. I hope you get involved and join or participate in some type of conservative cause. Correction - the American Movement. If you don't, then don't complain.
Speaking Stark:
Troubled Waters:
It was my staff's fault:
Obama's Immigration Power Play
By W. James Antle, III
8.2.10 @ 6:09AM
Last week, the Obama administration got Clinton-appointed Judge Susan Bolton to at least temporarily throw out key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. Within 24 hours came more evidence that they weren't done eviscerating immigration enforcement yet.
That proof came in the form of an astonishing internal memo outlining ways the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) could effectively legalize at least tens of thousands of illegal immigrants even if Congress fails to enact amnesty. Some would be granted resident status with the USCIS simply giving them green cards. Others would be allowed to evade deportation, possibly indefinitely.
"In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, CIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations," said the memo, which was prepared by four senior officials from different parts of USCIS for the agency's director. Two of the memo's authors are Obama appointees, as is USCIS head Alejandro N. Mayorkas.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) made the 11-page document public last Thursday, arguing in a public statement, "This memo gives credence to our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a back door amnesty plan." In June, Grassley and six other senators sent President Obama a letter asking him to deny rumors that his underlings were contemplating amnesty by executive fiat.
Now we have good reason to believe the rumors were true. One proposal contained in the memo was that the USCIS grant "parole in place," which comes with a work permit and the right to apply for a green card, to various illegal immigrants. Another suggestion was to give "deferred action," delaying deportation indefinitely and preserving eligibility to apply for a work permit, to illegal aliens who would have benefited from the DREAM Act.
That would be the same DREAM Act, incidentally, that Congress has repeatedly failed to pass, much as it has shot down broader-based amnesty proposals.
Finally, the memos' authors suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could simply stop issuing the "notice to appear" letters that begin the deportation process. The only exception would be in cases where the illegal alien is found to have "significant negative immigration or criminal history."
The exposure of this memo understandably generated controversy, which the administration was eager to tamp down. A hastily issued USCIS statement insisted that the memos were just a draft and that "nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions."
"To be clear," the statement continued, "DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigrant population." As the Church Lady used to say, "Well, isn't that special?"
Even if the memo merely shows mid-level bureaucrats engaging in a brainstorming session about how to undermine the immigration laws they are being paid to uphold, it captures the essence of this administration's approach to immigration enforcement. Criminal prosecutions of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants are down and worksite raids have virtually stopped. The DHS official running the Office of Detention and Removal Operations has admitted the administration is, as a matter of policy, trying to avoid arresting illegals.
According to one report, through May administrative arrests were down 81 percent from 2008, criminal arrests down 67 percent, indictments are down 73 percent, and convictions down 75 percent. "I think there have been very few operations that have generated arrests of undocumented workers," David Venturella, the acting director in charge of such operations, was quoted as saying at an Urban Institute event.
But what about reports that the Obama administration is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants? Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) told the Washington Post that they planned to deport 400,000 people this fiscal year, up 10 percent from 2008 and 25 percent from 2007.
Like their predecessors in the generally lax Bush administration, Obama's immigration henchmen can be counted on to periodically ratchet up enforcement when doing so will aid the call for "comprehensive immigration reform." Most of this uptick reflects a recent effort to identify illegal aliens who have committed other crimes.
Yet neither the deportations of criminal aliens nor the ballyhooed audits of companies that hire workers with bogus Social Security numbers really turn off the jobs magnet luring illegal immigrants into this country. Remember: as amnesty advocates are always fond of reminding us, we cannot deport every illegal immigrant in the United States. The main goal of attrition through enforcement is to entice large numbers of illegals to in effect deport themselves.
Focusing on the worst criminals among the illegal population -- and relatively light civil fines of employers who flunk their audits -- while giving de facto amnesty to everyone else will not reduce the number of illegal immigrants here to a manageable level. It will merely allow the Obama administration to appear tough while actually undermining attrition through enforcement.
States like Arizona have learned that serious immigration enforcement is a dirty job the federal government won't do -- and one that the Obama administration won't let anyone else perform, either. Even if they must rely on unaccountable federal judges and bureaucrats, it is amnesty or bust, the will of the people and their elected representatives be damned.
Polls we can live by:
Rasmussen Reports:
27% Stronglt agree of Presidential job performance
42% Strongly disagree
Presidential Approval Index Rating: -15
46% Somewhat agree of Presidential job performance
53% Somewhat disagree
Gallup:
41% Presidential approval rating (lowest ever)
Funny & Pathetic:
A Bleak Picture of Government Debt
By Thomas Sowell
August 3, 2010
Rumors of Congressional Democrats privately expressing disapproval of the Obama administration's actions and policies have been given more credence by such things as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's public criticism of White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. But when two long-time Democratic pollsters, Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen, called President Obama "cynical" and "racially divisive," that was a dramatic statement. It was like saying that the emperor has no clothes.
A much more rhetorically subdued but nevertheless devastating implicit criticism of current government spending policies came from an even more unlikely source: the Congressional Budget Office, whose director is a Democrat.
Without naming names or making political charges, the Congressional Budget Office last week issued a report titled "Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis." The report's dry, measured words paint a painfully bleak picture of the long-run dangers from the current runaway government deficits.
The CBO report points out that the national debt, which was 36 percent of the Gross Domestic Product three years ago, is now projected to be 62 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2010-- and rising in future years.
Tracing the history of the national debt back to the beginning of the country, the CBO finds that the national debt did not exceed 50 percent of GDP, even when the country was fighting the Civil War, the First World War or any other war except World War II. Moreover, a graph in the CBO report shows the national debt going down sharply after World War II, as the nation began paying off its wartime when the war was over.
By contrast, our current national debt is still going up and may end up in "unfamiliar territory," according to the CBO, reaching "unsustainable levels." They spell out the economic consequences-- and it is not a pretty picture.
Although Barack Obama and members of his administration constantly talk about the so-called "stimulus" spending as creating a demand for goods that is in turn "creating jobs," every dime they spend comes from somewhere else, which means that there is less money to create jobs somewhere else.
There is no reason to believe that all this runaway spending is creating jobs-- on net balance. The fact that the unemployment rate remains stuck at nearly 10 percent belies the idea that great numbers of jobs are being created-- again, on net balance.
White House press Secretary Robert Gibbs' recent rant against Rush Limbaugh for criticizing the bailout of General Motors went on and on about how this bailout had saved "a million jobs." But where does Gibbs think the bailout money came from? The Tooth Fairy?
When you take money from the taxpayers and spend it to rescue the jobs of one set of workers-- your union political supporters, in this case-- what does that do to the demand for the jobs of other workers, whose products taxpayers would have bought with the money you took away from them? There is no net economic gain to the country from this, though there may well be political gains for the administration from having rescued their UAW supporters.
The same principle applies to money that came from selling government bonds, thus adding to the national debt. People who bought those government bonds had other things they could have invested in, if those government bonds had not been issued.
As the Congressional Budget Office puts it, if the national debt continues to grow out of control, a "growing portion of people's savings would go to purchase government debt rather than toward investments in productive capital goods such as factories and computers; that 'crowding out' of investment would lead to lower output and incomes than would otherwise occur."
Just paying the interest on a growing national debt can require higher tax rates, which "would discourage work and saving and further reduce output," according to the CBO.
It would probably do no good to send Robert Gibbs-- or Barack Obama, for that matter-- a copy of the government's own Congressional Budget Office report. Spending vast sums of money in politically strategic places helps the Obama administration politically, and that is obviously their bottom line.
I wish Thomas Sowell would run for President.
Quote du jour:
"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Video of the week:
Anthony is a Weiner:
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers
The Same Subject Continued: The House of Representatives
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, February 12, 1788.
Author: Alexander Hamilton or James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
I SHALL here, perhaps, be reminded of a current observation, "that where annual elections end, tyranny begins. " If it be true, as has often been remarked, that sayings which become proverbial are generally founded in reason, it is not less true, that when once established, they are often applied to cases to which the reason of them does not extend. I need not look for a proof beyond the case before us. What is the reason on which this proverbial observation is founded? No man will subject himself to the ridicule of pretending that any natural connection subsists between the sun or the seasons, and the period within which human virtue can bear the temptations of power. Happily for mankind, liberty is not, in this respect, confined to any single point of time; but lies within extremes, which afford sufficient latitude for all the variations which may be required by the various situations and circumstances of civil society. The election of magistrates might be, if it were found expedient, as in some instances it actually has been, daily, weekly, or monthly, as well as annual; and if circumstances may require a deviation from the rule on one side, why not also on the other side? Turning our attention to the periods established among ourselves, for the election of the most numerous branches of the State legislatures, we find them by no means coinciding any more in this instance, than in the elections of other civil magistrates. In Connecticut and Rhode Island, the periods are half-yearly. In the other States, South Carolina excepted, they are annual. In South Carolina they are biennial as is proposed in the federal government. Here is a difference, as four to one, between the longest and shortest periods; and yet it would be not easy to show, that Connecticut or Rhode Island is better governed, or enjoys a greater share of rational liberty, than South Carolina; or that either the one or the other of these States is distinguished in these respects, and by these causes, from the States whose elections are different from both. In searching for the grounds of this doctrine, I can discover but one, and that is wholly inapplicable to our case. The important distinction so well understood in America, between a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government, seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country. Wherever the supreme power of legislation has resided, has been supposed to reside also a full power to change the form of the government. Even in Great Britain, where the principles of political and civil liberty have been most discussed, and where we hear most of the rights of the Constitution, it is maintained that the authority of the Parliament is transcendent and uncontrollable, as well with regard to the Constitution, as the ordinary objects of legislative provision. They have accordingly, in several instances, actually changed, by legislative acts, some of the most fundamental articles of the government. They have in particular, on several occasions, changed the period of election; and, on the last occasion, not only introduced septennial in place of triennial elections, but by the same act, continued themselves in place four years beyond the term for which they were elected by the people. An attention to these dangerous practices has produced a very natural alarm in the votaries of free government, of which frequency of elections is the corner-stone; and has led them to seek for some security to liberty, against the danger to which it is exposed. Where no Constitution, paramount to the government, either existed or could be obtained, no constitutional security, similar to that established in the United States, was to be attempted. Some other security, therefore, was to be sought for; and what better security would the case admit, than that of selecting and appealing to some simple and familiar portion of time, as a standard for measuring the danger of innovations, for fixing the national sentiment, and for uniting the patriotic exertions? The most simple and familiar portion of time, applicable to the subject was that of a year; and hence the doctrine has been inculcated by a laudable zeal, to erect some barrier against the gradual innovations of an unlimited government, that the advance towards tyranny was to be calculated by the distance of departure from the fixed point of annual elections. But what necessity can there be of applying this expedient to a government limited, as the federal government will be, by the authority of a paramount Constitution? Or who will pretend that the liberties of the people of America will not be more secure under biennial elections, unalterably fixed by such a Constitution, than those of any other nation would be, where elections were annual, or even more frequent, but subject to alterations by the ordinary power of the government? The second question stated is, whether biennial elections be necessary or useful. The propriety of answering this question in the affirmative will appear from several very obvious considerations. No man can be a competent legislator who does not add to an upright intention and a sound judgment a certain degree of knowledge of the subjects on which he is to legislate. A part of this knowledge may be acquired by means of information which lie within the compass of men in private as well as public stations. Another part can only be attained, or at least thoroughly attained, by actual experience in the station which requires the use of it. The period of service, ought, therefore, in all such cases, to bear some proportion to the extent of practical knowledge requisite to the due performance of the service. The period of legislative service established in most of the States for the more numerous branch is, as we have seen, one year. The question then may be put into this simple form: does the period of two years bear no greater proportion to the knowledge requisite for federal legislation than one year does to the knowledge requisite for State legislation? The very statement of the question, in this form, suggests the answer that ought to be given to it. In a single State, the requisite knowledge relates to the existing laws which are uniform throughout the State, and with which all the citizens are more or less conversant; and to the general affairs of the State, which lie within a small compass, are not very diversified, and occupy much of the attention and conversation of every class of people. The great theatre of the United States presents a very different scene. The laws are so far from being uniform, that they vary in every State; whilst the public affairs of the Union are spread throughout a very extensive region, and are extremely diversified by t e local affairs connected with them, and can with difficulty be correctly learnt in any other place than in the central councils to which a knowledge of them will be brought by the representatives of every part of the empire. Yet some knowledge of the affairs, and even of the laws, of all the States, ought to be possessed by the members from each of the States. How can foreign trade be properly regulated by uniform laws, without some acquaintance with the commerce, the ports, the usages, and the regulatious of the different States? How can the trade between the different States be duly regulated, without some knowledge of their relative situations in these and other respects? How can taxes be judiciously imposed and effectually collected, if they be not accommodated to the different laws and local circumstances relating to these objects in the different States? How can uniform regulations for the militia be duly provided, without a similar knowledge of many internal circumstances by which the States are distinguished from each other? These are the principal objects of federal legislation, and suggest most forcibly the extensive information which the representatives ought to acquire. The other interior objects will require a proportional degree of information with regard to them. It is true that all these difficulties will, by degrees, be very much diminished. The most laborious task will be the proper inauguration of the government and the primeval formation of a federal code. Improvements on the first draughts will every year become both easier and fewer. Past transactions of the government will be a ready and accurate source of information to new members. The affairs of the Union will become more and more objects of curiosity and conversation among the citizens at large. And the increased intercourse among those of different States will contribute not a little to diffuse a mutual knowledge of their affairs, as this again will contribute to a general assimilation of their manners and laws. But with all these abatements, the business of federal legislation must continue so far to exceed, both in novelty and difficulty, the legislative business of a single State, as to justify the longer period of service assigned to those who are to transact it. A branch of knowledge which belongs to the acquirements of a federal representative, and which has not been mentioned is that of foreign affairs. In regulating our own commerce he ought to be not only acquainted with the treaties between the United States and other nations, but also with the commercial policy and laws of other nations. He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the law of nations; for that, as far as it is a proper object of municipal legislation, is submitted to the federal government.
And although the House of Representatives is not immediately to participate in foreign negotiations and arrangements, yet from the necessary connection between the several branches of public affairs, those particular branches will frequently deserve attention in the ordinary course of legislation, and will sometimes demand particular legislative sanction and co-operation. Some portion of this knowledge may, no doubt, be acquired in a man's closet; but some of it also can only be derived from the public sources of information; and all of it will be acquired to best effect by a practical attention to the subject during the period of actual service in the legislature.
There are other considerations, of less importance, perhaps, but which are not unworthy of notice. The distance which many of the representatives will be obliged to travel, and the arrangements rendered necessary by that circumstance, might be much more serious objections with fit men to this service, if limited to a single year, than if extended to two years. No argument can be drawn on this subject, from the case of the delegates to the existing Congress. They are elected annually, it is true; but their re-election is considered by the legislative assemblies almost as a matter of course. The election of the representatives by the people would not be governed by the same principle. A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent reelections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members, and the less the information of the bulk of the members the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them. This remark is no less applicable to the relation which will subsist between the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is an inconvenience mingled with the advantages of our frequent elections even in single States, where they are large, and hold but one legislative session in a year, that spurious elections cannot be investigated and annulled in time for the decision to have its due effect. If a return can be obtained, no matter by what unlawful means, the irregular member, who takes his seat of course, is sure of holding it a sufficient time to answer his purposes. Hence, a very pernicious encouragement is given to the use of unlawful means, for obtaining irregular returns. Were elections for the federal legislature to be annual, this practice might become a very serious abuse, particularly in the more distant States. Each house is, as it necessarily must be, the judge of the elections, qualifications, and returns of its members; and whatever improvements may be suggested by experience, for simplifying and accelerating the process in disputed cases, so great a portion of a year would unavoidably elapse, before an illegitimate member could be dispossessed of his seat, that the prospect of such an event would be little check to unfair and illicit means of obtaining a seat. All these considerations taken together warrant us in affirming, that biennial elections will be as useful to the affairs of the public as we have seen that they will be safe to the liberty of the people.
PUBLIUS.
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
http://www.gallup.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.cancertutor.com/
http://www.nro,com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.americanspectator.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
Thomas Sowell
W. James Antle, III
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
http://www.goldengateminuteman.org/
C Span
No comments:
Post a Comment