Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Shenanigans, and Obamacare…

October 1, 2009

The so-called health care debacle, I mean debate. Is flush with partisan politics that have little if anything at all to do with health. With a fresh infusion of Chicago style politics this is becoming one of the biggest, if not most widespread scandal that has been seen in American politics in years… So what if ACORN changed it’s name?

The words is out… the game is played… the man behind the curtain has been exposed… and it’s now as plain as the nose on your face.  Obama and the leftists in Congress don’t want you to know what’s in ObamaCare… they just made it clear that they just may try to hide all the sordid details from you.

But what’s even worse, Obama and the leftists in Congress may even be trying to muzzle, and intimidate, those who dare to speak out against ObamaCare.

It’s becoming more and more apparent that Obama and the leftists in Congress don’t want the American people to know… or read… or hear anything negative about ObamaCare… and that they may be willing to shut-down debate by any means necessary.

One thing is certain, Obama and the leftists in Congress are leaving the door wide open to enact ObamaCare in the dead of night… under the cover of darkness… shove it down our throats before any of us are any the wiser.

When Senator Jim Bunning offered an amendment that would have required that the language of the bill be made available to the American people 72 hours prior to a vote, Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee squashed it.

Michael Franc, writing for the Heritage Foundation’s blog, The Foundry gives us the sordid and sickening details:

“During the Senate Finance Committee mark up of the Baucus health bill … Senator Bunning of Kentucky put forth an innovative amendment. This amendment stipulated that before voting on the measure in Committee, legislative language would have to be accessible to the public for 72 hours and that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) would need to publish an official tally of how much this bill will cost the American people and what the real impact will be on health costs.”

Franc continued:

“The amendment failed 11-12 on nearly a party line vote. Senator Blanche Lincoln (AR) was the sole Democrat to support this attempt at transparency. The bottom line: when the committee completes its work on this re-make of one-sixth of our economy, Senators will have voted on a phantom – a bill that does not exist with costs that are unknowable until, that is, the unelected legislative draftsmen write the real bill in some back room on Capitol Hill.”

If nothing else that has transpired up to this point has convinced you that ObamaCare must be rejected… thrown aside… taken off the table… these shenanigans should.

It’s time to tell our elected officials that no good can come from ObamaCare… that’s it’s rotten to the core… and that it must be scrapped.

We need every person in receipt of this urgent appeal to use the button below and barrage Barack Hussein Obama and each and every Republican Member of the United States Senate with your personalized faxes. Make no mistake, you’re not going to change America with a couple of faxes or letters or phone calls only directed at your two Senators.  Each of us needs to barrage each and every one of these Republican Senators with a mountain of faxes.  They all need to see that the American people are united. Only then will they wake up and smell the coffee.

Tell them that you believe that the only thing keeping ObamaCare alive is the willingness of some Republicans to negotiate and that ObamaCare would be defeated once and for all if they all stood firm in total opposition to ObamaCare. Tell them that no amount of so-called “compromise” will make government-run health care acceptable to the American people. Let them know that if they spent the same amount of energy to defeat ObamaCare as they are spending negotiating, the job would be done. Demand, once and for all, that they stop negotiating and win this fight against socialized health care for the American people.

Sit Down And Shut Up. ObamaCare Is None Of Your Business… When We Pass It, You Can Learn To Live With It.
It’s bad enough when our federal legislators vote on bills they have not even bothered to read….

But to actually start “negotiations” on 200 pages of notes and ideas… on a bill that has not even been written….

To squash an amendment that would require them to give you 72 hours to read what will likely be thousands of pages before they vote on it… what’s going on here?

It’s as if they’re saying, We Ain’t Gonna Read It And We Don’t Want You Reading It Either.

The American people are not children to be scolded or bullied.

This is the United States… not the old-Soviet Union.

And yet, ObamaCare may actually pass because the willingness of some Republican Senators to “negotiate” is keeping it on life support.

It’s possibly the only thing keeping it alive right now.  If Republican Senators simply walked away… if they left it alone… ObamaCare would likely just wither on the vine.

You can only scratch your head and ask why?

Why negotiate over something the American people have soundly rejected?

And furthermore, in consideration of the tactics being employed by the proponents of ObamaCare, why negotiate with a bully… even a 10 year-old knows better than to do that?

But you can do something other than just scratch your head.

You can send all of these Republican Senators a loud and clear message that it’s time to stop negotiations. It’s time to stand firm in opposition to ObamaCare and defeat ObamaCare once and for all.

We need every person in receipt of this urgent appeal to use the button below and barrage Barack Hussein Obama and each and every Republican Member of the United States Senate with your personalized faxes. Make no mistake, you’re not going to change America with a couple of faxes or letters or phone calls only directed at your two Senators.  Each of us needs to barrage each and every one of these Republican Senators with a mountain of faxes.  They all need to see that the American people are united. Only then will they wake up and smell the coffee.

Tell them that you believe that the only thing keeping ObamaCare alive is the willingness of some Republicans to negotiate and that ObamaCare would be defeated once and for all if they all stood firm in total opposition to ObamaCare. Tell them that no amount of so-called “compromise” will make government-run health care acceptable to the American people. Let them know that if they spent the same amount of energy to defeat ObamaCare as they are spending negotiating, the job would be done. Demand, once and for all, that they stop negotiating and win this fight against socialized health care for the American people.

Is Obama’s Department of Health And Human Services Stomping On The First Amendment… Threatening Those Who Oppose ObamaCare.
But Obama and the leftists in Congress are not simply trying to keep you in the dark when it comes to ObamaCare.

It’s worse… they’re actually trying to squash attempts by some who dare to tell the truth about ObamaCare.

Did you hear about what just happened to Humana?

Humana published a letter to its members warning them of potential drastic cuts to Medicare (specifically the Medicare Advantage program) under ObamaCare and urged its members to contact Congress.

Specifically, Humana said; “if the proposed funding cut levels [in the current health care legislation] become law, millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable.”

It was a very valid point to raise… such proposals are on the table… and it makes all the sense in the world to alert people to what is going on and motivate them to call their elected officials… but it didn’t take the long for our government to come down hard on Humana.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) initiated an investigation and sent an ominous gag-order to Humana:

“As we continue our research into this issue, we are instructing you to immediately discontinue all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your Web sites.”

And Senator Max Baucus demanded that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services launch an “investigation” against Humana as well, claiming the letter put forth “false information,” Baucus rhetorically asked, “does the first amendment include lies?”

Of course, there’s just one small problem with Baucus’ ranting accusation. Humana was voicing an opinion that was well grounded in fact. Even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) made the point.

Bob Ellis with Dakotavoice.com: “Even the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirms what the White House doesn’t want to get out, with CBO head Douglas Elmendorf telling the Senate this on Tuesday.”

The Internet website Blogcritics.com, in an article titled, Obama Violates the First Amendment, goes so far as to say that the HHS action “smacks of fascism.”

“[T]his past week the Obama administration violated its oath to uphold the Constitution by issuing a decree abridging the First Amendment right to speech.”

“In a memo to private health insurers from a senior official at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the Obama administration issued a decree ordering them to stop informing Medicare beneficiaries that health reform legislation before Congress could hurt them and curtail their benefits if enacted. The memo went on to say that the government might take legal action against insurers that are mobilizing opposition to the legislation by sending ‘misleading and confusing’ messages to seniors.

“Say what you will about insurance companies, this is by no means a defense of them. It is instead a rebuke of an administration that is playing fast and loose with basic rights guaranteed to all Americans, including corporations. … Humana has as much right to speak out for or against federal legislation as I do. Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court have no power to abridge Humana’s right to free speech. Obama should know this, given that he is a constitutional lawyer.”

And yet, in spite of these shenanigans, Senate Republicans are still bending over backward to play Let’s Make A Deal.  Are they under some delusion that they can somehow make ObamaCare better or soften the blow if they “negotiate?”

If so, we must disabuse them of that notion here and now. We must tell them that instead of negotiating on ObamaCare, they need to focus their efforts on stopping ObamaCare.

We need to tell them to stand firm… twist some arms… pick-off some Democrats from conservative states and bring them into the fold… dare Harry Reid to shove the reconciliation process down our throats and pass ObamaCare with a simple majority (he’ll do it at the risk of destroying his own party).

The battle to stop ObamaCare is winnable… all these Senators need is a little back-bone.

We need every person in receipt of this urgent appeal to use the button below and barrage Barack Hussein Obama and each and every Republican Member of the United States Senate with your personalized faxes. Make no mistake, you’re not going to change America with a couple of faxes or letters or phone calls only directed at your two Senators.  Each of us needs to barrage each and every one of these Republican Senators with a mountain of faxes.  They all need to see that the American people are united. Only then will they wake up and smell the coffee.

Tell them that you believe that the only thing keeping ObamaCare alive is the willingness of some Republicans to negotiate and that ObamaCare would be defeated once and for all if they all stood firm in total opposition to ObamaCare. Tell them that no amount of so-called “compromise” will make government-run health care acceptable to the American people. Let them know that if they spent the same amount of energy to defeat ObamaCare as they are spending negotiating, the job would be done. Demand, once and for all, that they stop negotiating and win this fight against socialized health care for the American people.

What If They’re Lying To Us Now… What Will Stop Them From Lying To Us Again… And Again… And Again?
It’s clear, someone is not being straight with the American people, and such a display of mendacity simply leads us to ask more questions.

Red Star Can a government that is unwilling to act with transparency… a government that initiates investigations against those with opposing views… be trusted to act in the best interests of the American people… of you… of me?

Red Star If ObamaCare is egregious now, what will it look like in a year… or two years… or five years… will they even bother to tell us… or will every change to ObamaCare be made behind closed doors in a smoke-filled room?

Red Star Do we really want to empower the same government that is fouling-up cash-for-clunkers… the same government that is fouling-up our economy by effectively taking control of private companies… the power to foul-up our health care?

Red Star Do we really want to empower that same government to determine which life-saving treatments we will receive… that our loved-ones will receive… or don’t receive?

Red Star Do we really want government end-of-life counselors who would probably exhibit the compassion of IRS agents counseling us or our loved ones on life and death decisions?

Of course not. But too many of our so-called leaders still don’t get it. They don’t see the bigger picture.

Instead of scrapping ObamaCare… throwing it onto the ash-heap of history… they’re quibbling over what type of government-run health care they believe to be best for you and your family… and no one is fighting for you… for us… for the American people.

When Baucus unveiled his new and improved (and unwritten) version of ObamaCare, legislators (Republicans and Democrats alike) piled on… in no time flat, over 560 amendments (to an unwritten bill that was nothing more than 200 pages of notes and ideas) were put forward.

Senator Lindsey Graham perhaps said it best; “we’re making this up as we go… they’re trying to buy votes… the vision here is to pass something… they don’t give a damn what it is and nobody understands what they’re doing.”

The American people for months have been sending the message loud and clear that they want no part of ObamaCare, period, regardless of what form it takes.

The American people have been telling politicians in Washington that no amount of so-called “compromise” will make Obama’s government-run health care scheme acceptable or palatable.

And yet, these politicians keep talking… they keep amending… they keep “negotiating” … they keep trying to “compromise” and reach “consensus” … in short, they continue to waste time on something that no one wants.

Is that ridiculous, or what?

We need every person in receipt of this urgent appeal to use the button below and barrage Barack Hussein Obama and each and every Republican Member of the United States Senate with your personalized faxes. Make no mistake, you’re not going to change America with a couple of faxes or letters or phone calls only directed at your two Senators.  Each of us needs to barrage each and every one of these Republican Senators with a mountain of faxes.  They all need to see that the American people are united. Only then will they wake up and smell the coffee.

Tell them that you believe that the only thing keeping ObamaCare alive is the willingness of some Republicans to negotiate and that ObamaCare would be defeated once and for all if they all stood firm in total opposition to ObamaCare. Tell them that no amount of so-called “compromise” will make government-run health care acceptable to the American people. Let them know that if they spent the same amount of energy to defeat ObamaCare as they are spending negotiating, the job would be done. Demand, once and for all, that they stop negotiating and win this fight against socialized health care for the American people.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Czar Wars, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

Right Wingnut Extremist’s? G-20

October 1, 2009

Sure looks like it to me… NOT!

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi berated town hall and tea party protesters this month, tearfully warning they’d incite violence. Well, there’s been violence all right, at Pittsburgh’s G-20. But it wasn’t the tea partiers. It takes gall to characterize ordinary Americans, freely exercising their rights of speech and assembly in civic forums, as ‘mobs’ while ignoring a pack of leftist thugs now smashing a U.S. city. But that’s what Pelosi did, directing her righteous tocsin to the Norman Rockwell-like gatherings of Americans who opposed her expansion of government this past summer. ‘I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,’ Pelosi said, choking up, her eyes brimming with tears. ‘This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made,’ she told a congressional forum Sept. 17 in a bid to silence peaceful protesters. Scroll ahead one week to the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh: Some 1,000 hooded rioters descend on the city waving signs such as ‘Smash the G-20’ and ‘Eat the Rich.’ Many take ‘direct action’ to ‘challenge capitalism’ in what organizers brazenly call an ‘unpermitted protest.’ Unlike the town hall citizens, they didn’t ‘hurl’ statements — just tire irons, bricks and rocks, in an effort to damage private businesses. … This kind of violence is nothing new. It was found in Seattle in 1999, where former Obama administration green czar Van Jones got himself arrested. It was repeated at other summits in Turin, Italy; Washington, D.C.; and London. These leftists detest capitalism, abhor private property — and have ties to the Democratic Party. The unwillingness of the Democratic establishment to defend free markets emboldens the rioters. In destroying private property and impeding trade, these anarchists prove their aims aren’t democratic. They resemble the mobs of Castro’s Cuba who engage in violence against citizens to enforce conformity. The outrage of it all raises questions about Pelosi’s real agenda in her one-sided criticism of tea partiers. By criticizing only tea partiers and ignoring rampant thugs, she seeks to repress peaceful dissent. With that setup, it’s no surprise that there’s a mudslide of violence now rolling down on us from an energized radical left.” —Investor’s Business Daily

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Czar Wars, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Right Wingnut Extremist’s? G-20

Whatever happened to “presumed innocent?”

October 1, 2009

“While few would argue that criminals ought to be able to keep the proceeds of their crimes, civil forfeiture allows the government to seize and keep property without actually having to prove a crime was committed in the first place. . . . Proceeds from civil forfeiture at the state and local level usually go back to the police departments and prosecutors’ offices, giving them a clear and unmistakable incentive to seize as much property as often as possible.” – Radley Balko

The government wants to seize the home of a widowed cancer survivor. She hasn’t been charged with any crime, but her now-dead husband once grew marijuana on their property. He used it to ease his chronic pain. Under federal civil asset forfeiture law, that might be enough for the government to take this woman’s home.

Such outrages are nothing new in the War on Drugs, but we’re seeing more abuses as criminal law becomes increasingly federalized. For instance, federal agents are now exploiting the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to seize bank accounts and computers.

The leader of a new Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering task force admits that unlike criminal cases where the suspect is presumed innocent until proved guilty, in civil asset forfeiture cases . . .

* if you lose property to an asset forfeiture seizure you must prove your innocence in order to get it back
* you have no 5th amendment protections — even your silence can be used against you

Civil asset forfeiture is also alive and well at the local level, where police steal money from citizens in order to pay for new equipment.

Under Illinois law, the state can withhold cash, cars, or other property for six months without even a preliminary hearing! Under the law, three innocent people had to wait over a year to get their cars back. They, along with three innocent people who had money stolen from them, have argued the Constitutionality of the Illinois law.

The “good” news is that this law will be argued in the Supreme Court this month in Alvarez v. Smith.

The bad news is that the most positive outcome is likely to be only a reduction of the time you must wait before a preliminary hearing. The Court isn’t expected to strike down the law, even though civil asset forfeiture proceedings clearly violate the 14th Amendment provision that no state “can deprive any person of . . . property, without due process of law.”

Congress can do what the Court will not. Tell your representatives to abolish Civil Asset Forfeiture using our Educate the Powerful System.

Use your personal comments to mention the example of the widow who may lose her home because her now dead husband grew marijuana that he used to ease his pain from cancer.

You can send your message here.

And don’t forget to share this message with your friends:

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/whatever-happened-to-quot-presumed-innocent-quot

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

Now then, what was that saying about absolute power?

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

Supreme Court to Hear McDonald v. Chicago — Monumental Second Amendment Case

October 1, 2009

Yesterday when I first read about this I was a bit stunned. It took seemingly forever to get any real Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court. This has me a bit frightened for my fellow Americans. The Court showed it’s true colors by making ex post facto law the law of the land earlier this year via the Lautenberg abomination. They made it constitutional to change the rules after the game has been played. Having a sexist that practices mysandry from the bench now on the Court does not bode well at all. As well as the general tendency to vote on laws based in political correctness rather then what is clearly written in the Constitution. Molon Labe anyone..?

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the City of Chicago’s ban on handguns, a case that will test the reach of the Second Amendment.

In last year’s historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that: “The Second protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

That ruling shattered years of anti-gun revisionist history and misinformation that claimed the Second Amendment protected a “collective” right of the states to maintain something like the National Guard.

Heller, though, was limited in scope only to Washington, D.C., a federal enclave.  The Court did not address the issue of whether states or localities can prohibit the right to keep and bear arms, or if the Second Amendment was “incorporated” to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court will consider this question in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, a suit filed immediately after the Heller decision.  A lower court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the city, setting the stage for Supreme Court consideration.

The spotlight is sure to focus brightly on new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.  In a case before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in January, 2009, Judge Sotomayor ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states.

When questioned during her confirmation hearings, Sotomayor argued that she was only following Supreme Court precedent, to which she was bound.  Well, now that she is on the Supreme Court, her hands are no longer tied.

Will she now rule that the Second Amendment should not, unlike many other rights in the Bill of Rights, be incorporated to the states through the Privileges or Immunities Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Also during her confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Sotomayor was asked a straightforward question by Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

“Do you believe,” the Senator asked, “that I personally have a right to self-defense?”

This did not seem to be a particularly difficult question.  Sen. Coburn didn’t even ask about defending himself with a firearm.  He only asked if Americans have a basic right to self-protection.  Her answer?  “That’s sort of an abstract question.”

In fact, it’s hard to imagine a less abstract question.  The right to keep and bear arms is afforded special protection in the Constitution precisely because it is a fundamental right.

It is a right that predates the Constitution because the Founders wrote the Bill of Rights not to create new rights, but to protect old ones — our “unalienable” rights — among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

John Dickison, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Pennsylvania, explained an unalienable right this way: it is something “Which God gave to you and which no inferior power has a right to take away.”

And so, if our right to life is a natural right, then the right to self-protection necessarily follows from it.  And self-protection, be it protection from individual criminals or a criminal government, was, to the Founders, synonymous with the right to bear arms.

Interestingly, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted in great part specifically to protect the gun rights of freed slaves.  After the Civil War, many states passed laws to disarm blacks who were former slaves, such as Mississippi’s post-war law: No freedman “shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition.”

Proponents of the Fourteenth Amendment argued that the amendment was necessary, in part, to stop the disarming of the freedmen — lest they be little better off than before emancipation.

One hundred years later, in the 1960s, the Deacons for Defense armed themselves and often successfully defended themselves in areas where civil rights were still not adequately protected and blacks were targets of violence.

If the right to keep and bear arms is found not to be a “fundamental” right, people in places like Chicago and New York City will find themselves on a 21st century plantation, treated more like subjects than citizens.

SOURCE

Then from those stalwarts that sold out the people of the United States on GCA 68, and Lautenberg we have this.

Fairfax, Va. — The National Rifle Association applauds the Supreme Court’s decision, announced today, to hear the landmark Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago. The case will address the application of the Second Amendment to the states through either the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case has major implications for the legality of restrictive gun laws not only in Chicago, but also in other cities across the United States. The decision to hear the case, which will be argued later this year or early next year, gives Second Amendment advocates across America hope that this fundamental freedom will not be infringed by unreasonable state and local laws.

“The Second Amendment applies to every citizen, not just to those living in federal enclaves like Washington D.C. In the historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what most Americans have known all along — that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and that it applies to all Americans. The government should respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens throughout our country, regardless of where they live, and NRA is determined to make sure that happens,” said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president.

In the June ruling that the Supreme Court will now review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments. That opinion left in place the current ban on the possession of handguns in Chicago.

However, the Seventh Circuit incorrectly claimed it was bound by precedent from 19th century Supreme Court decisions in failing to incorporate the Second Amendment. Many legal scholars believe that the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the earlier Ninth Circuit panel decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don’t prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To the contrary, a proper incorporation analysis supports application of the Second Amendment to the States.

“It is an injustice that the residents of Chicago continue to have their Second Amendment rights denied,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “It’s time that the fundamental right of self-defense is respected by every jurisdiction throughout the country. It is our hope that the Supreme Court will find, once and for all, that all law-abiding Americans have the God-given, constitutionally-protected right of self-defense, no matter what city, county or state they call home.”

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Violence, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Get set to get rammed!

September 29, 2009

No, I’m not talking ancient naval warfare, or homosexual proclivities either. Although some may believe that what is about to happen in the Senate is in fact akin to the latter for some of the poor souls in various Graybar Hotels.

In broader terms, the big task for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is to get 60 votes in the Senate in order to block a Republican filibuster. But Reid could also implement a legislative option known as reconciliation, which would only require 51 senators.

By that method the gangsters in the Senate can get passed the opposition, and get your butt in their sling. Such shenanigans, akin to Harry Reid posing as a Second Amendment supporter in Nevada are pure dirty politics that are designed to further the political agenda of elitist, not supportive of what you, the American people want, need, or should have foisted upon them. Read about that in it’s entirety HERE.

For my part I am looking forward to “Judgment Day” 2010. They big government “Better than Thou” type’s are in for yet another wake up call. Hopefully followed by  a complete Tar & Feathering of the programs that they have forced upon this nation.

Some people just never learn. It’s a fact friends. Hence;

“‘Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because President Clinton failed to pass national health care.’ I’m not sure if this is another example of the left’s wishful-thinking method of analysis or if they’re seriously trying to trick the Blue Dog Democrats into believing it. But I gather liberals consider the 1994 argument an important point because it was on the front page of The New York Times a few weeks ago in place of a story about Van Jones or ACORN. According to a news story by Jackie Calmes: ‘In 1994, Democrats’ dysfunction over fulfilling a new president’s campaign promise contributed to the party’s loss of its 40-year dominance of Congress.’ That’s not the way I remember it. The way I remember it, Republicans swept Congress in 1994 not because Clinton failed to nationalize health care, but because he tried to nationalize health care. HillaryCare failed because most Americans didn’t want it. … But just to check my recollection, I looked up the Times’ own coverage of the 1994 congressional races. Republicans won a landslide election in 1994 based largely on the ‘Contract With America,’ which, according to the Times, promised ‘tax cuts, more military spending and a balanced-budget amendment.’ Far from complaining about Clinton incompetently failing to pass health care, the Times reported that Republicans were ‘unabashedly claiming credit for tying Congress up in knots.’ These claims were immediately followed by … oh, what was that word again? Now I remember … LANDSLIDE!” –columnist Ann Coulter

So? What should a hard left Democrat be doing in these trying times in preparation for what awaits them? Invest of course!


Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Get set to get rammed!

Obamonomics 101

September 26, 2009

I was no big fan of George Bush, but this takes the cake!

It was only four years ago that Democrats stopped George W. Bush’s plan to reform Social Security (a case in which the word “reform” actually did mean making it better). At the time, then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) claimed, “Social Security, if we don’t do anything, [is] safe for approximately the next 50 years.” But time flies when you’re spending other people’s money. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that Social Security, for the first time since 1983, will have a cash deficit next year, though even that assumes overly optimistic payroll growth. By 2016, it will be running permanent deficits.

That being said, according to CNS News, “President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year — 2010 — more than the Bush administration spent on [the] war in Iraq from the first ‘shock and awe’ attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.” During the campaign, of course, Obama used the federal debt as a bludgeoning tool against his opponent. “Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned,” Obama warned in March 2008. “This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.” The Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl estimates, “President Obama’s budget will likely produce $13 trillion in deficit spending over the next 10 years — nearly $4 trillion more than forecast.” That’s about 10 times Bush’s last deficit.

Obama also complained about the cost of Iraq — “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war” — but this doesn’t compute either. As another report from The Heritage Foundation indicates, “Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.” Witness liberal “compassion.”

SOURCE

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Obamonomics 101

Can you hear the whining yet..?

September 26, 2009

The infamous campaign finance act that restricted you, me, and others from banding together to make our voices heard took a bit of a hit this past week. No doubt the anti liberty forces will come out railing against this.  Perhaps a little cheese to go with the Whine? Read on…

A three-judge panel of the DC-based Second Circuit Court of Appeals struck down prohibitions on campaign spending by independent political groups, a move one observer warned “could lead to a more negative campaign season.” The rules, which were put into effect following the 2004 campaign, prohibited outside entities from the unfettered use of so-called “soft money” — money not used in direct advocacy for the election of a particular candidate or issue. These rules came in the wake of a huge wave of political spending by tax-exempt organizations recognized under IRS Code, Section 527, such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Club for Growth.

While some think that this ruling will largely benefit conservative groups given the recent overwhelming participation in the Tea Party movement, left-leaning groups also stand to prosper, as unions will once again be free to distribute their massive political war chest to a number of new and existing 527 groups such as Moveon.org. In fact, it was the pro-abortion group Emily’s List that filed the suit, claiming the rules restricted their First Amendment rights. We agree — on that point.

Another victory against current unconstitutional campaign-finance rules is pending in the Supreme Court, where the provision banning corporate purchases of political ads 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election is undergoing scrutiny through the case of “Hillary: The Movie.” We won’t comment on the merits of the film, but given the withering questioning from several justices, it’s possible that McCain-Feingold itself may be on the ropes.

SOURCE

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

The DREAM Act in the 111th Congress

September 26, 2009

Here we go yet again. Figure it out politicos, the American people are against this.

NumbersUSA
310 Sixth Street, SE  Washington, DC 20003  (202) 543-1341  http://www.numbersusa.com
The DREAM Act in the 111th Congress
(S. 729 and H.R. 1751*)
In-State Tuition for Future Illegal Aliens
• The bills retroactively repeal the federal ban on in-state tuition for illegal aliens, thus
nullifying the lawsuits already decided in favor of the federal ban, but currently under
appeal.
The Amnesty
• To qualify for lawful permanent resident status, an applicant must be inadmissible or
deportable and must:
• Have been physically present in the US for the five years preceding the date of enactment
(the bill does not specify how aliens are to prove this, or even whether they have to prove
it);
• Have been under the age of 16 upon entry into the US;
• Be a “person of good moral character,” but only AFTER the application is filed;
• Not have been convicted of an aggravated felony or more than two misdemeanors (though
being charged with such crimes is fine);
• Not be a known terrorist or national security risk;
• Not be a known/convicted smuggler or human trafficker (all other immigration violations
are fine, and this one can be waived for humanitarian or family unity purposes);
• Not have abducted a child and taken the child to a different country (in the Senate bill only);
and
• At the time of filing an application, have been admitted to an institution of higher
education, or have a high school diploma or a GED.
* The House and Senate versions of the DREAM Act are almost identical, with four important
exceptions:
 H.R. 1751 would allow illegal aliens of any age over five (since they have to have been present
in the United States for five years) to apply for amnesty, while S. 729 requires applicants to be
under the age of 35.
 H.R. 1751 does not disqualify from amnesty international child abductors or aliens who have
received final orders of removal or exclusion, while S. 729 does.
 H.R. 1751 limits the availability of waivers of the requirements for amnesty to cases of “extreme
hardship,” while S. 729 makes waivers available for humanitarian and family unity purposes, as
well as for the “public interest.”
 S. 729 authorizes fines and up to five years in prison for “willfully and knowingly” falsifying or lying
on an amnesty application; H.R. 1751 includes no such penalties.
NumbersUSA 2
The Senate version also requires that applicants:
• Have never received a final order of removal or exclusion unless the alien successfully
played the legal system and found a way to remain in the US under color of law, or the
final order was issued before the alien turned 16; and
• Be under 35 years of age as of the date of enactment.
• Neither bill includes a requirement that an amnesty applicant produce either
documentation or any other evidence that the individual actually satisfies the criteria listed
above.
• There are no numerical limits on how many illegal aliens may be granted amnesty, and
they cannot be counted against any existing immigration cap.
• There is no end date on the application period, so there is nothing to stop illegal aliens who
enter the country in the future from applying if they are willing to lie about when they
entered.
• No alien who files an amnesty application may be removed from the United States before
the application is adjudicated completely. There are no exceptions to this, so as long as an alien
files an amnesty application before he flies a plane into the World Trade Center or goes on a killing
spree in the local mall, he cannot be removed from the country until USCIS (hopefully) denies his
application and he has exhausted all appeals.
“Conditional” Permanent Residence
• Aliens granted amnesty would be given conditional permanent resident status for six
years. This conditional status could only be terminated if DHS determines that the alien:
• Is no longer a person of good moral character;
• Has been convicted of an aggravated felony or three or more misdemeanors;
• Is a terrorist, human smuggler, or (in the Senate version) international child abductor;
• Has become a public charge (there are no regulations defining this term in immigration
law, so this provision is not currently enforceable); or
• Received a dishonorable or other than honorable discharge from the military.
• Should an alien’s conditional status be terminated, the alien would return to whatever
immigration status he or she had prior to getting amnesty. This means the alien would
have to be put through removal proceedings and exhaust all available appeals before being
removed, even though the alien admitted to being inadmissible or deportable in the
application for amnesty.
The Path to Citizenship
• When the amnestied aliens complete their six years of conditional permanent resident
status, they can petition USCIS to have the conditions removed and become regular lawful
permanent residents. The petition may be filed any time within the six months leading up
to, or the two years following, the end of the six-year period. Each amnestied alien must
indicate in the petition that he or she:
• Has demonstrated good moral character since filing for amnesty;
• Has not been convicted of disqualifying crimes;
• Is not a terrorist, human smuggler, or (in the Senate version) international child abductor;
NumbersUSA 3
• Has not been absent from the US for more than 365 days during the six years (or he/she
can explain such absence and why it doesn’t indicate abandonment of US residence); and
• Has completed at least ONE of the following:
• A degree from a US institution of higher education or at least two years toward such a
degree; or
• At least two years of military service and, if discharged, was honorably discharged.
• For those aliens who have not completed two years of college or service in the military
during this six-year period, DHS may waive this requirement and remove their conditional
status if the alien:
• Satisfies the other requirements;
• Demonstrates “compelling circumstances for the inability to meet the last requirement; and
• Demonstrates that his/her removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to the alien or the alien’s spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen or lawful
permanent resident.
• Alternatively, upon “a showing of good cause,” DHS may extend the six-year period of
conditional status to give the alien more time to complete one of these requirements.
• While amnestied aliens must successfully petition to have their conditional status removed
before they may naturalize, their six years of conditional residence counts toward the
naturalization requirement. Thus, these aliens will be able to apply for naturalization
immediately upon the removal of conditional status.
• Since conditional permanent resident status can only be terminated for one of the reasons
in the section above, and since neither bill includes either a requirement that amnestied
aliens petition to have their conditional status removed or a provision that terminates the
legal status of aliens who do not seek to have the conditions removed, there is nothing to
prevent an alien from simply remaining in conditional status permanently. This would be
especially helpful to aliens who would not meet the criteria for removal of the conditions.
The only major benefit they would be denied would be the opportunity to naturalize.
Handling the Additional Workload
• USCIS would bear the brunt of the massive amnesty workload this bill would generate.
The bill’s authors undoubtedly are aware that USCIS announced a few years ago its
successful completion of the Backlog Elimination Program, which was instituted before
DHS was even created, to address the rapidly growing backlog of immigration benefits
applications processed by USCIS. USCIS reported that the backlog had reached a high of
almost four million applications by January, 2004. Then-USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
announced on September 5, 2006, that the backlog had been reduced to 140,000. (Of course,
most of that reduction was achieved by redefining the word “backlog,” and the rest was
the result of shortcuts on security checks.) The bill’s authors also are undoubtedly aware of
the fact that USCIS recently raised immigration fees by unprecedented amounts so that it
would have the resources to stay current on applications. Perhaps the bill’s authors are
even aware of the fact that USCIS reports that it had 3.2 million applications pending as of
January, 2009, despite the alleged success of the Backlog Elimination Program and the fee
hikes.
• This could explain why the bill gives exclusive jurisdiction to DHS (meaning USCIS) to
grant or deny amnesty applications, except where an alien is put in removal proceedings
either before or after filing an amnesty application. In these cases, the Attorney General
NumbersUSA 4
would have exclusive jurisdiction. While this likely would result in lawsuits alleging
disparate treatment of applications by the two agencies, at least is will spread the workload
around a bit, assuming there are still some enforcement efforts that result in illegal aliens
being placed in removal proceedings.
• The Attorney General also would be required to stay removal proceedings for all illegal
aliens who appear to meet the requirements for amnesty, are at least 12 years old, and are
enrolled full time in school.
Americans Need Not Apply
• The good news for illegal alien students is that if their removal proceedings are stayed,
they are automatically authorized to work in the US, regardless of whether they apply for
and are granted amnesty. This is in addition to all the illegal aliens who are actually
granted amnesty and automatically given work authorization with their conditional
permanent resident status.
Law Enforcement Provisions
• Under the Senate bill, “willfully and knowingly” lying on an amnesty application is
punishable by a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
• None of the information provided by illegal aliens in their applications may be used for
any purpose except the adjudication of the application, with two exceptions:
• The AG or DHS must provide such information if a law enforcement agency is
investigating or prosecuting a criminal or terrorism-related offense that would make an alien
inadmissible, and such agency requests the information in writing; and
• Coroners attempting to identify the dead are the only others granted access to the
information.
Moving to the Front of the Line
• Both bills require USCIS to adjudicate all amnesty applications on “an expedited basis” but
prohibit the agency from requiring a higher fee from amnesty applicants for such
expedited processing. This means that every illegal alien who applies for amnesty would
move to the front of the line, ahead of the millions of people who are in line to come to the
United States the right way.
Bonus Reward for Illegal Students
• Amnesty beneficiaries would be eligible for certain student loans and federal work-study
programs.
Assessing the Damage
• Within seven years after enactment, the GAO would be required to submit to Congress a
report on the number of aliens amnestied, the breakdown of approvals versus denials, and
the number whose conditional status had been removed.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Immigration, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

Fire and Fury in the Rocky Mountain Empire?

September 24, 2009

I once listened to a somewhat famous politician call the Rocky Mountain West an Empire. He cited, among other things, fierce independence and an outright distrust of Government.

“Leave us well alone!” was the title of a fellow student that was in a Political Science course that I took, and yes, her thesis was on western politics as opposed to far western, as in West Coast, and Eastern, as in the eastern states that make up New England. Is it just regional pride? Possibly, but, I have another hypothesis.

Before the United States was founded a group of men came west. Those men are generally referred to as “The Mountain Men.” Most were, shall we say “social outcasts?” They came from places like Georgia, and Alabama, and notably Tennessee and Kentucky. They too were a fiercely independent group of men. They fought with, and often joined Native American tribes taking wives, and eking out a living in a very unforgiving place, and time in history. They were rebels simple, and pure. Some time later there was “The War of Northern Aggression.” Which was followed by a great migration of people to Oregon, Washington, and California. Most of those people came from places such as New England. Others came, and stayed, and tamed the harsh environment. Those people,for the most part, were from the Confederation, and they brought with them the same streak of courage and independence that the Mountain Men had brought. Texan’s settled Montana. The Mormon’s sought freedom in Utah, and so on. The underlying theme being a quest for freedom and liberty. In that most free of earthy nations.

Today while surfing the net I came across an essay worthy of classical journalism. The kind that is just not seen these days. It is indeed a long read. As tomes should be! Read it at…

Dems lose footing in the Rocky Mountain West

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

On target about gun control?

September 24, 2009

It’s not all that often that today’s print media takes a real look at controversial issues. Once in the proverbial blue moon it does happen though. Gun Control is not, I repeat not, just about guns. It is about others controlling you, your life, and those of any that are dear to you.

By Dave Shadow

What don’t you understand about gun control?

When thinking about this subject, two words come to mind that relate to our condition or position on the subject of gun control.

Some of us fall into one category, and others may slip into the other.

Unfortunately, most of what we think of and how we behave as the average American certainly falls into one of these categories.

I believe that we are very fortunate to live in the best of times, in the best country and finest society that has ever existed since time began. But I also believe that it’s slipping away while we sit idly by and watch it happen. I am not a doomsday prophet or anything like that, but I’d like to think that I see our personal freedoms and constitutional rights situation either more clearly or with more interest than the vast majority of our voting neighbors. Actually, that’s not exactly right; I don’t want to see the situation more clearly. I want to share some thoughts that may make you look at our positions in a different light.

First of all, get the ideas out of your mind that our elected politicians have everything under control and all have of our best interests at heart. Secondly, bear in mind that they work for us; we are not subject to their personal agendas and wishes based on lobbying efforts. We can make differences if we will pay attention, be vocal and vote accordingly.

If we as average, normal, working class citizens will think and talk about subjects that our forefathers felt so imperative to our rights and the eventual survival of our society, we can make a difference. The liberal activists on these subjects are vocal and very active. We must be also!

The two words mentioned above are “apathetic” and “pathetic.”

Most of us have become apathetic over time. The thesaurus defines this word as being “indifferent, lethargic, listless and unconcerned.” We simply let others take charge of the decisions in the everyday workings of our worlds and we rest assured that our legislators will all make those decisions that are good for us. Isn’t that about where we are? We get excited and even upset over bad calls in sporting activities such as ball games, but we let our politicians erode our personal freedoms without even a groan. It’s time to get excited about those things that affect our Second Amendment rights and other personal freedoms before it’s too late!

Just in case you’ve forgotten your grade school class that discussed the Constitution, the Second Amendment was designed to give us the right to bear arms. It says: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This and the Christian principals that were the basic foundations of our country are being misinterpreted and undermined by groups and individuals with undesirable intentions while we sit back and say nothing.

Radical individuals and groups seeking to destabilize the very and basic principals that our great country was based upon make a lot of very elegant noise while we sit back quietly and think that all of this stuff really means nothing to us. Unfortunately, many of these campaigners of “control” speak very eloquently, very loudly, and relentlessly. Couple that with the recruitment of many celebrities and Hollywood stars and you get a very believable group of control advocates, many of who do not see the whole picture or realize the eventual effect that the demonizing of our freedoms will have.

Full Story

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »