Truman was and remains my favorite Democrat and one of my favorite presidents. Have we hit bottom yet? Or is there a bottom left to hit?
Originally posted on a12iggymom's Blog:
H/T Carl Paledino
View original 239 more words
Truman was and remains my favorite Democrat and one of my favorite presidents. Have we hit bottom yet? Or is there a bottom left to hit?
Originally posted on a12iggymom's Blog:
H/T Carl Paledino
View original 239 more words
What Obama intends to do by His royal decree on amnesty for illegal aliens is murky at best. Here, however, are a few thoughts.
During His November 5th press conference, Obama declined to provide significant details about His contemplated Royal decree on immigration “reform.”
Jeff, you know, I think if you want to get into the details of it, I suspect that when I announce that executive action, it’ll be bright full of detail.”
That’s similar to former House Speaker Pelosi’s “we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it….” However, before the ObamaCare legislation passed we had an idea what it said. Then we had to wait for several years for the multiple Federal agencies charged with implementing it to tell us what it meant to them and then for the courts to decide whether they were correct.
On immigration, I know that concerns have been expressed that, well, if you do something through executive actions, even if it’s within your own authorities, that that will make it harder to pass immigration reform. I just have to remind everybody, I’ve heard that argument now for a couple of years. This is an issue I actually wanted to get done in my first term. And we didn’t see legislative action. [Emphasis added.]
Not even with solid Democrat majorities in both houses?
And in my second term, I made it my top legislative priority. We got really good work done by a bipartisan group of senators, but it froze up in the House. And, you know, I think that the best way, if folks are serious about getting immigration reform done, is going ahead and passing a bill and getting it to my desk. [Emphasis added.]
And then the executive actions that I take go away. They’re superseded by the law that is passed. And I will engage any member of Congress who’s interested in this in how we can shape legislation that will be a significant improvement over the existing system. But what we can’t do is just keep on waiting. There is a cost to waiting. There’s a cost to our economy. It means that resources are misallocated. [Emphasis added.]
Any chance that a “comprehensive” immigration bill that might pass both houses of the current Congress would pass the next congress, to convene in January, seems remote. That’s probably the basis of Obama’s sense of urgency in getting it done now. If legislation did pass and Obama did not like enough of it, He would veto it. And that brings us to this: “And then the executive actions that I take go away. They’re superseded by the law that is passed.” However, no legislation that Obama vetoes would make His executive actions “go away.”
Were Obama to sign legislation, parts of which He does not like but which He thinks are the best He can get or which He plans to ignore, executive amnesty already granted to several million illegal aliens would not “go away,” poof. The Obama
InJustice Department would very likely go to Federal court, seek and get restraining orders on any attempt to make Executive amnesty “go away” via parts of the law that He does not like and therefore refuses to enforce. As I wrote at PJ Media in April of 2011, we learned in the 9th Circuit decision in United States v. State of Arizona that enforcement of Federal immigration laws is the exclusive prerogative of the Federal Government– even when it chooses not to enforce them. As Judge Bea said in his dissent,
The majority also finds that state officers reporting illegal aliens to federal officers, Arizona would interfere with ICE’s [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] “priorities and strategies.” Maj. Op. at 4824. It is only by speaking in such important-sounding abstractions — “priorities and strategies” — that such an argument can be made palatable to the unquestioning. How can simply informing federal authorities of the presence of an illegal alien, which represents the full extent of Section 2(B)’s limited scope of state-federal interaction, possibly interfere with federal priorities and strategies — unless such priorities and strategies are to avoid learning of the presence of illegal aliens? What would we say to a fire station which told its community not to report fires because such information would interfere with the fire station’s “priorities and strategies” for detecting and extinguishing fires?
The majority’s arguments regarding how any of the state officers’ actions spelled out in Section 2(B) could interfere with federal immigration enforcement is consistent with only one premise: the complaining federal authorities do not want to enforce the immigration laws regarding the presence of illegal aliens, and do not want any help from the state of Arizona that would pressure federal officers to have to enforce those immigration laws. With respect, regardless what may be the intent of the Executive, I cannot accept this premise as accurately expressing the intent of Congress. (emphasis in original)
Here’s the SCOTUSblog “Plain English summary” of the subsequent Supreme Court decision:
Arizona had taken the lead, in 2010, in a renewed effort by states to adopt policies that would control many of the aspects of the daily lives of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who had entered the U.S. without legal permission to do so. The law has been challenged by various civil rights groups as a form of racial bias, but that was not an issue before the Supreme Court. The law also had been challenged by the federal government as unconstitutional, on the theory that Arizona was trying to move in on the federal government’s superior power to enforce federal immigration laws. That is the challenge that the Court decided Thursday. In the end, by a vote of 5-3, the Court nullified three of the four provisions because they either operated in areas solely controlled by federal policy, or they interfered with federal enforcement efforts. Nullified were sections making it a crime to be in Arizona without legal papers, making it a crime to apply for or get a job in the state, or allowing police to arrest individuals who had committed crimes that could lead to their deportation. The Court left intact — but subject to later challenges in lower courts — a provision requiring police to arrest and hold anyone they believe has committed a crime and whom they think is in the country illegally, and holding them until their immigration status could be checked with federal officials.
The Arizona case involved Federal Statutes. Since the Executive Branch and its multiple Federal agencies – not the Congress – are in charge of immigration law enforcement, it seems likely that the Supreme Court, after years of litigation, would hold that enforcement and non-enforcement of legislation passed by the Congress and signed by the President are up to the Executive branch — even when the Executive branch refuses to enforce parts of the legislation because Obama does not like them. That’s what happened with the Arizona statute.
Perhaps the current Congress will sing Kumbaya and pass “comprehensive” immigration reform that Obama will like.
Were the next Congress to pass legislation to kill His Royal decree, Obama would veto it and His Royal decree would remain in effect. Perhaps then the only viable means of attack would be for the Congress to refuse to fund pertinent Federal projects.
Unfortunately, it now appears that an omnibus funding bill will pass during the current Congress unless there is sufficient opposition from conservatives and perhaps others, particularly if Obama’s Executive decree on immigration is issued before the funding vote.
What does Chris Matthews say?
Bryan Preston at PJ Tatler had this to say about Matthews’ remarks:
Matthews, an old school Democrat who may hate Republicans but still values the Constitution and the two-party system, gets a lot right in that segment, but he still fails to realize one thing. Obama wants and must have confrontation. He was never interested in being president of all of America. Compromise is not in his make-up. It’s just not there. Those of us who oppose Obama’s agenda, and that may now include some Democrats, are illegitimate to him. So is the Constitution with its restraints on his power. [Emphasis added.]
The trained community organizer has to have division in order to generate anger and get his way. The collision that Matthews fears, Obama embraces.
November 2nd was the tenth anniversary of the Islamic assassination of Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam. Islam is the religion of death and slaughter. Those who understand and therefore oppose it are targets of Islam. Often, in formerly free western nations, they are prosecuted for “hate speech.” Obama, Kerry and other “leaders” of the international community call Islam the “religion of peace” which is not to be disparaged.
Mr. Wilders’ address is in English. For those who would prefer to read it, the text is available at New English Review. Here’s a short excerpt:
Van Gogh warned us in strong language, as clear as the colors that his great-granduncle Vincent used when painting his landscapes.
He was a brave man. When he realized the danger of Islam, he did not run like a coward.
He would have hated to see how our freedom of speech has been restricted in the ten years since his death.
Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, the more Islam we get, the less free our societies become. Not only because of the islamization but also because of the weak appeasers who call themselves politicians. [Emphasis added.]
We are no longer allowed to crack jokes or draw cartoons if Islam feels insulted by it.
If you do so, your life is in danger, as Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks can testify. You might even get arrested, as happened a few years ago with the Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot.
. . . .
Last Summer, my home town, The Hague, witnessed scenes which brought back memories of the darkest period in our history, the Nazi era.
Sympathizers of the Islamic State paraded in our streets. They carried swastikas, they carried the black flags of ISIS. They shouted “Death to the Jews.”
Instead of rounding up these hatemongers, the authorities did nothing. [Emphasis added.]
When we warn against Islam, the authorities call it hate speech and bring us to court. But when the grim forces of hatred march down our streets, the police look on and do not interfere. It is a disgrace. It is a scandal. It is intolerable. [Emphasis added.]
Islam is waging a war against the free West.
Indeed, we are at war. Only fools can deny it. Islam has declared war on us.
America and its allies are currently bombing the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.
My party supports this offensive. I am glad that Dutch and Danish F16s participate in it and that our two nations stand shoulder to shoulder in this endeavor. We should liquidate Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi and the other criminals who are leading the Islamic State.
But we have to do more than that.
Far more important than fighting Islamic State abroad, is the fight to preserve our own security in our own countries, in the Netherlands, in Denmark, in all the other European and Western countries. It is our homes that we must defend. [Emphasis added.]
It is just to bomb the Islamic State in the Middle East. But our first priority must be to protect our own nations, our own freedoms, our own people, our own children, here, at home. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
[T]he future of human civilization depends on us. Now is a time when everyone in the West must do their duty. We are writing history here.
So, let us do our duty.
Let us stand with a happy heart and a strong spirit.
Let us go forth with courage and save freedom!
The Obama Nation and its allies are fighting – sporadically, with no viable strategy and with little effect, against the Islamic State and its cohorts, which they tell us are “non-Islamic.” The Islamic State, et al, are pure Islam and gain more supporters and fighters daily because they are. Until our “leaders” recognize and acknowledge this, Islam will continue to advance and we will continue to retreat at our grave peril. As Mr. Wilders said,
[O]ur leaders still refuse to defend our freedoms because they are either cowards or appeasers. This is why the task of defending freedom has now fallen on us. On you, on me, on ordinary citizens.
Are we cowards and appeasers as well? Or will we eliminate the curse of Islam in our own countries?
Is this video part of the vast right-wing conspiracy damned by Hillary Clinton and her ilk?
The video was posted last year. Has our situation become better, or worse, since then?
My “unprincipled” view
pogroms programs start with facially good intentions and are reported as though they were good by the “principled” media. Then they change focus slowly and few notice; the few who notice and speak about it can be silenced. By the time that more notice and speak, it’s too late. “Our” Government won. Soak, rinse lightly, soak and repeat.
If you haven’t read Matthew Bracken’s Enemies Foreign and Domestic trilogy please do. Then think about such questions as these:
What do proponents of gun control seek as their final solution?
Whose side is the Government on? Your side or its own?
Would a constitutional convention be a good idea, or might it produce an internationalist, statist travesty?
Why, despite their eroding popularity, are the “principled” media still generally supportive of governmental efforts to diminish our rights –and even theirs?
Is unlawful but officially encouraged immigration good, and if so for whom? Is this the extent of it, or is there worse to come?
The leftist view
The video presented above is right-wing conspiratorial nonsense. All good people must not only reject it; they must refuse to watch it and demand that it be taken down so that no more gullible folks can watch it.
Just ask Chris Lehane, author of the 1995 vast right-wing conspiracy meme relied upon by St. Hillary and other Clinton Administration champions. As she wrote in April of this year, the vast right-wing conspiracy is worse today than in 1995.
As for the premise of the memo, I absolutely stand by it. Not only was it right about the right wing then, it is more accurate than ever today.
. . . .
The technology that seemed so novel in 1995 has spread to where anyone with a Wi-Fi connection is able to select from whom, how, where and when they receive information and then leverage it. News no longer comes from three networks and the morning paper, but from tens of thousands of potential sources. By using Google, Bing or other search engines, it is possible to instantaneously seek information and swiftly make decisions based on sources the user selects. People can—and certainly do—opt out of receiving information from specific media outlets while opting in to others. According to the Edelman Trust Barometer, trust in information conveyed through self-selected social media sites—social networking sites, content-sharing platforms, blogs and micro-blogs—surged 75 percent between 2011 and 2012 alone. [Emphasis added.]
It’s not just a few people on the Web spewing Vince Foster-sightings anymore. Today, thanks to this opt in/opt out dynamic, ever-larger segments of the population can believe in completely ungrounded conspiracy theories—such as that President Obama was not born in the United States—despite a massive trove of assiduously documented evidence to the contrary. Take, for example, Fox News’s non-stop coverage of the supposed cover-up surrounding the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, which at times has veered into self-parody—segments hyping shoddy reports produced by the very same people who believe Obama was born in Kenya. Or its coverage of IRS-gate, Solyndra or any other number of fever-swamp-driven pseudo-scandals that mainstream outlets have looked into and found rather less scandalous. And all of these nothingburger stories get duly hyped on zillions of right-wing websites, on conservative talk radio and on the Drudge Report, which boasts more traffic than ever, though it looks pretty much the same as it did during the Clinton years. [Emphasis added.]
Isn’t that terrible? Many people actually reject the news as reported by the principled media in favor of trash reported elsewhere. Obviously, the internet is the source of much evil and very little good; we, the good people, need to regulate it to keep others from becoming anti-Government: our Government is the only thing we all belong to.
Since we all belong to the Government, it certainly will not harm us; just the bad guys who disagree. You aren’t a bad guy, are you? Then don’t worry. Be happy. Would the principled media ever distort facts? Don’t be silly. Only the unprincipled media do that.
How long must offensive speech be permitted? Here’s a horrible example:
Haven’t hate mongers already gone way too far in their pitiful efforts to destabilize our otherwise compliant and happy society? Shouldn’t all good citizens help to stamp out such vile proponents of racist hate – even if some of what they say might seem to be factually accurate? What do facts have to do with it, since their alleged facts are hateful and ignoring them is loving? We need to expand our Federal control over all unprincipled media sources.
We also need to expand our Federal control over education, from preschool through university lest parents — who are not well trained educators — have undue influence over what their children learn. There is much to teach our children, such as the truly peaceful nature of Islam and how to reject and refute the Islamophobic lies that their parents might try to force them to accept. Islam should be portrayed, factually, as superior to such superstitions as Christianity and Judaism. Parents must be restricted to breeding docile citizens upon which we — our Government — can rely with confidence. After serving us – the good people – by breeding children, parents should leave the rest up to our Government — to us.
Civilians don’t need firearms and should’t have them; it’s the job of our government, and only our Government, to protect us from bad guys — including racist right wing nuts who applaud their constitutional “rights.” Individual freedom from Government? That’s an archaic concept based on an ancient document written by a bunch of loony, misogynistic, racist White owners of Black slaves. It absolutely must be replaced by freedom of — not from — Government.
There is a fairly good chance that the November 4th elections will result in Republican majorities in the House and Senate — if pervasive electoral fraud of multiple types is insufficient to prevent it. Republican — even RINO — majorities would be a step, but only a small step, in the right direction. The next step will be for conservatives to demand that RINOs and other Republicans behave responsibly and reverse the Obama transformation of America into a socialist paradise, strong in domestic repression and weak in foreign policy. What’s the chance of that happening? I don’t know. It should be more up to us than it is up to them. Will it be? If not, what can we do? Please think about it.
Addendum — if all else fails:
I wasn’t born in Virginia, but Washington, D.C. in 1941 was still a Southern city. My mother was born in the town of Stuart, in Patrick County, Virginia. The nearby town of Woolwine, also in Patrick County, bore her family name. I have very fond memories of Stuart and the region as they were and of their beautiful place at the foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Are they still substantially as they were or are the gone too?
It’s easy: register and vote
Dim Democrat. That will ensure that your vote is counted, ease the burdens on hard-working voting machines and prevent your vote from being countered by the unlawful vote of someone who is not a U.S. citizen or is dead (or is both).
We have all read the news about “mis-calibrated” voting machines that automatically cast votes for Dims and the encouragements given to critters who are not U.S. citizens to vote. If you simply vote Dim, that is not a concern; its “good” to cheat for Dims because Dims are “good.”
Dead people can vote because it’s their right.
Another species of election fraud?
My wife and I live in the rural highlands of the Republic of Panama and vote via absentee ballot in a County of our last State of residence, Maryland. In accordance with instructions provided by the County electoral commission we requested, individually, that our absentee ballots be posted on the County’s website and that we be sent e-mail notifications of the passwords we would need to get them. After ten days we had heard nothing.
Oh. Did I mention that, in response to a question on the ballot request, we confessed to the egregious sin of being registered Republicans?
After waiting ten days, we jointly called the County election office and eventually spoke with a pleasant young man who checked and told us that neither of our ballot requests had been received. He then transferred our call to a pleasant young woman at the Ztate level. She checked and confirmed what the County guy had said. She then suggested that we email, again but directly to her, our earlier ballot requests. We forwarded our earlier (October 13th) e-mails with their attached ballot requests and, within a very few minutes she sent e-mails noting that both had been received. One day later, our ballots were available on the website. We retrieved them, voted (Republican) and on November 29th sent them by registered, traceable mail from the city of David, here in Panama. They should arrive well before the due date, November 14th. We should be able to determine from the State website whether our ballots were received and counted. We will probably never know for whom they were counted as having been cast.
Had we not bothered to check, we would not have been able to vote. A simple solution might be to demand that the U.S. Department of
InJustice prosecute for election fraud. That’s so simple that it hasn’t a chance of working: even if the Department were so inclined, it is too busy fomenting racial rest, helping illegal aliens, investigating conservatives and other Dim stuff. So, register Democrat in advance of the next election. If it is necessary to be a registered Republican in order to vote in a Republican primary, wait until after you have cast your primary vote and then switch, promptly, to Democrat.
Dim Democrat? I was just joking. Even though it’s often difficult to find a RINO Republican candidate worth voting for, even a RINO would be better than a DIM.
This is the most insane proposal I have encountered thus far, and they just keep coming. Watch out! Incoming! Duck!
(Religion as a motivator? We have been told that the Islamic State is not motivated by any religion. What about the refusal of the Islamic Republic of Iran to permit inspections of its suspected nuke facilities, it massive support for terrorism and its abysmal human rights record? They must be of little if any importance, because none of them could be motivated by the Religion of Peace. An unwritten fatwa? Surely, that has to be binding since they say it is. Right. – DM)
“Iran is a very, very religious culture. It is also a very modern culture. And it is not all like the caricature of the fanatic religion that we see depicted too often … and the fatwa needs to be looked at in that light.”
“I would argue that we ignore the influence of religion as…
View original 656 more words
What, if anything, beyond political pandering, encouraging electoral fraud, augmenting race riots, lying and concealing documents about such travesties as “Fast and Furious” does the Obama/Holder Dept. of Injustice do?
Originally posted on The Last Refuge:
Ferguson Mayor James Knowles confirmed yesterday the source of the leaks to CNN about him, his administration and the police department, was (and is) from the Department of Justice.
In addition last week the New York Times confirmed the source of their article, about evidence in the Mike Brown shooting, was also the DOJ in Washington DC.
Knowing the DOJ are the leakers, watch this video:
In addition Trymaine Lee (MSNBC) is again the recipient of DOJ leaked information today:
[...] The plan, described by a source with direct knowledge of the plans as “extremely delicate,” said the details are still being hashed out in closed-door meetings between Ferguson city and St. Louis County officials who have sought consultation from the Justice Department, which is conducting a civil…
View original 177 more words