[L] Dr. Kelli Ward [R] Ex Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Arizona GOP candidates for US Senate
Although Democrats need to defend 25 of 33 Senate seats in the 2018 election cycle, including in 10 states in which President Trump carried in 2016, Republicans are worried about losing their slender control of the Senate. Senator Jeff Flake's (R-AZ) decision not to stand for re-election puts another "safe" GOP seat up for grabs. In some respects, the GOP primary might be made up of voters with trollish Trump-eteer tendencies (infamously redubbed by Hillary Clinton as the "Basket of Deplorables") who think that strong immigration stances are the way to win via Arpaio's reputation and rhetoric. Kelli Ward had positioned herself to be a Bannon disruptor of the GOP Establishment, but now is backing away from "Sloppy Steve" after his fall from grace in the "Fire and Fury" fiasco. Establishment Republicans hoping to avoid a repeat defeat akin to the Alabama special election, seem to favor McSally to keep the seat as she has legislative experience and is not an agitating lightning rod. However, when an ex fighter pilot urged her colleagues to "grow a pair of ovaries and get the job done", such a candidate might not be exactly safe for the go along to get along in the so called Senate country club in the District of Calamity (sic).
Republican Presidential hopeful Donald Trump held a news conference before a rally in Dubuque, Iowa. Mr. Trump called on a reporter but Jorge Ramos jumped the journalistic queue and pressed his invariable query advocating immigration regularization for illegal aliens.
Trump rebuffed Ramos for overstepping his recognition. As Ramos lectured the candidate that he could not deport 11 million people and insisting that he had the right to talk, Mr. Trump signaled to security in order to have the unruly Univision anchor escorted from the room.
After the event, Jorge Ramos sought to rally the press against Donald Trump as an extremist . When interviewed by George Stephanopolis of ABC News (which Ramos is affiliated with via Fusion) Ramos claimed:
As a journalist you have to take a stand. I think the best journalism
happens when you take a stand and when it comes to racism,
discrimination, corruption, public life, dictatorship or human rights,
as journalists, we are not only required but we are forced to take a
stand and clearly when Mr. Trump is talking about immigration in an
extreme way, we have to confront him and I think that’s what I did
yesterday.
Be that as it may, Ramos clearly was not called upon in the initial exchange. But because Ramos things that he has the right to do so and it suits his purposes, he will break the rules. Not unlike what what illegal immigrants do.
Clearly, Jorge Ramos is passionate about advocating a comprehensive immigration reform which would result in regularization, which is anathematic to Mr. Trump meteoric campaign. But reporters ought to be reporting and not advocating, especially when questioning at press conferences.
Mr. Ramos seems to think that he has many special rights. Ramos reasserted his Mexican heritage and is a proud participant in American and Mexican elections. The American government does not take a stand on dual citizens voting in foreign elections. But that seems like a special right which emboldens Mr. Ramos and inspires him to yearn for other compadres to share in that privilege of blurred lines.
But is it right for a journalist to be biased against a subject who one is covering? It has long been shown that the media leans left. In the post Fairness Doctrine broadcasting, commentators have clearly partisan perspectives. As long as these biases are clearly disclosed, the audience can discern that the perspective can be jaundiced. But Mr. Ramos was a reporter who argued with his subject out of turn. Does Ramos believe that he has the special right to interrupt or advocate?
There is an idiomatic Castillian (peninsular Spanish) expression "¡Que cara dura!" which can be literally translated as "What a hard face!" but is captured in the Yiddish expression "What chutzpah!". Jumping the journalistic line and then justifying it as taking a stand against extremism epitomizes that idiom. Moreover, posing as a reporter and then acting akin to a "Black Lives Matter" agitator does not seem right. Furthermore, aggressively covering Republicans when his family is involved in the Hillary 2016 campaign is a misappropriated right.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC 4th), the Chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, responded to the Hillary E-Mail controversy on CBS's Face The Nation.
While a litigator in an Article III court wants all relevant information, such a broad request could be framed as a witch hunt or a fishing expedition in the political realm. So now that there is sufficient public pressure, the former Secretary of State may feel compelled (for continued electoral viability) to "step up" and completely surrender the cyber records and not just feign compliance.
Chairman Gowdy, who first came to office as part of the 2010 Tea Party wave elections, may distinguish himself between the bluster and the brashness of the District of Calamity by building a compelling case to discern what happened in the Benghazi bungle of September 11, 2012.
Former Secretary of State Clinton claimed that we should strive to figure out why the Benghazi bungle happened. Could it be due to insecure communications from hdr22@clintonemail.com (or mau-suit@clintonemail.com)? Or a pattern in the Obama Administration to use backdoor, off official communications, to convey inconvenient truths? It does not seem that it was just Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder, as we should not forget the pseudonym Richard Windsor (a.k.a. EPA chief Lisa Jackson ). So much for the Obama Administration being the most transparent regime ever, as they took their anti-secrecy award in 2011 in a closed door presentation.
So a government that is so supposedly cash strapped that it is laying off air traffic controllers, government contractors and risking military readiness continues a campaign for what the politically correct Obama Administration (and the White House stenographers working for the Associated Press) would label "undocumented immigrants." Or as Jay Leno joked, "undocumented Democrats." Nevertheless, this neither inspires confidence in the competency of comprehensive immigration legislation, Executive Branch budgeting skills or public policy prioritization. While this information has prompted Senator John Thune (R-SD) to vow that this USDA program will be cut, these seem like empty words from a minority party in a Senate that did not even bother to pass a budget for three years. When Senator Harry Reid decided to finally pass a budget, after the threat of not being paid unless they did their jobs, the Senate Democrat passed budget featured another $1 trillion tax hike and the budget deficit actually increases.
Rather than appealing to Mexicans, maybe we should target our advertising to give succor to Chavistas, as America is currently being run like a banana republic, albeit without the comfy upscale clothing.
Mini-home malquoted doubleplusungood. Dayorder rectify goodthink for prolefeed bellyfull before Two Minute Hate.
There are times that it just seems apropos to use Newspeak from George Orwell’s seminal novel 1984 to cover the security issues in America, particularly regarding the Department of Homeland Security (Mini-home). In the early days of the Obama Administration, Pentagon officials were warned not to refer to the Long War or the Global War on Terror but instead to bluster bureacratese “Overseas Contingency Operations”. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano tried to avoid refering to 9/11 or terrorism but preferred such euphemisms as “Man made disasters.” The Obama Administration considered what Major Nidal Hasan in the 2009 Fort Hood shootings, where 13 people were killed and 29 injured was not homegrown terrorism or domestic jihad (despite the shooter screaming “Allahu Akbar”) but was a workplace violence incident.
Alas, this “nuanced” approach is not limited to Newspeak. Just before the tax day protests which launched the Tea Party, HomeSec Secretary Napolitano sent out a nine page warning to Law Enforcement Officials on Rightwing Extremism, which including a sweeping threat assessment:
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
So Tea Party types, an older skewing demographic which gather in public places to extol elected officials to “Read the bill!” or “Follow the Constitution” are slimed as extremists with the power of the Federal Government. Yet DHS took a more subdued approach to the Occupy Wall Street movement, despite evidence in a heavily redacted report that there was coordination amongst the anarchists and serious border crimes like human and drug smuggling.
Americans were encouraged by the Obama Administration to follow the successful New York City campaign “If you see something, say something.” This pro-active approach from citizens thwarted the attempted Times Square bomber, uh I mean man-made disaster, of May 2010. But Obama’s Department of Justice under Eric Holder, is aggressively suing states for enforcing Federal Law on Immigration (ala Arizona) and trying to ensure voter integrity in the election process. Moreover, President Obama’s ukase to temporarily suspend deporting illegal aliens who may qualify for the proposed DREAM act legislation has the practical consequence that Border Agents will not try to protect the border or engage in deportation cases. This is especially true considering the DOJ hotline for deportation detainees to rat on their jailors for supposed civil rights violations.
Securing the nation’s borders and defending the nation’s security are two important enumerated responsibilities of the Executive Branch. DHS Secretary Napolitano testified before Congress last week and blithely admitted that terrorists may cross the borders from time to time.
Napolitano claims that the southern borders are heavily staffed., despite the Obama Administration’s new rules of ICE engagement, the toll-free tattle tale line and closing six ICE offices in Texas in Arizona in conjunction with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s 1070 law.
So to translate the Newspeak slug which lead this piece into Obama era oldspeak “It is really not good that the Department of Homeland Security is quoted on something that is no longer operative. The order of the day is to rectify this by issuing alternative rhetoric which Joe-Six packs will whole-heartedly accept as part of their infotainment before the daily ad hominem attacks against our opponents.
President Barack Obama has spent over $100 Million in political ads so far to gain re-election. Some wonks wondered if one of the ads featured the President strolling by some columns, which could have been the Colonnade by the Rose Garden in the White House. This scene had been the site for many images from President George W. Bush’s 2004 campaign. Obama’s Forward walk image was brief file footage and the complaint seemed somewhat picayune.
Thus the Obama campaign rushed out a political ad to respond to what they contend is a misrepresentations by Mitt. An informed voter can watch the Obama Roanoke clip and decide for yourself if lack of teleprompters was to blame, if it was merely inelegant utterances on the stump or if Obama’s opponents are distorting the record. The problem is the setting for Mr. Obama’s video response.
Unfortunately, the Obama’s “Always” ad, was recorded in the West Wing. Jake Tapper recognized that Mr. Obama was seated in his Chief of Staff Jacob Lew’s office. White House officials confirm the setting.
This would seem to be a de facto violation of the 1939 Hatch Act which, in part, prohibits partisan political activity in government offices. This would include using official authority to interfere with an election or engage in political activity in a government office. Congressmen routinely vacate their offices on Capitol Hill to Democrat or Republican Clubs to make campaign calls.
A close viewing of Obama’s “Always” ad begins with a hard cut “Those ads”. Perhaps editors realized that by naming Romney it would have been an overt violation of the Hatch Act.
Obama supporters have made excuses for their candidate’s actions. Some cite the fact that the White House is government housing so there is not an easily accessible safe place for candidate Obama to make partisan retorts. Obama officials noted that prior Presidents, including Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton had shots of them in the Oval Office when proffering partisan propaganda. Melenie Sloan from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government gives Obama’s actions approbation as it did not involve solicitation, but she noted that Americans like to think of the White House as being sacrosanct and above partisan politics.
Between the politization of the Holder Department of Justice for suing states on Voter ID laws on the flimsiest of grounds and not prosecuting aspects of DOMA or Immigration Law which do not strike their political fancy and this flaunting of the spirit of the Hatch Act, it is hard to avoid an impression that in the Obama regime, there is a blending of partisan politics and governance.
As a political animal who supports the rule of law, I urge Mr. Obama to close the Hatch and adhere to the laws on the books.
As the Obamacare cases are now being deliberated by the Supreme Court of the United States, it is worth considering judicial ethics and proper public policy.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan refused to recuse herself from hearing the Obamacare cases, even though she was President Obama's first Solicitor General and her office formulated Obama Administration’s legal defense of the legislation. During her confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee, then Solicitor General Kagan swore that she abide by federal recusal standards (28 USC 455(b)(3)) which requires recusal when a person has “served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.”
Testimony during confirmation hearings suggested that Kagan was protected by an intellectual firewall which protected her from the case, as the DOJ anticipated Kagan's elevation to the High Court. However, an e-mail exchange from Kagan and Lawrence Tribe on the day the House passed Obamacare states “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,”. Participants claim that this was not relevant hangs on the thin reed of the ambiguous title of the email “Re: fingers and toes crossed today!”
In February, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) observed: “Justice Kagan’s involvement in the preparation of the government’s defense of the health-care law began at least as early as January 2010, four months before her nomination and two months before the bill became law. That she would not follow the same course in the health-care case is dubious. These facts require recusal.” Even liberal leaning George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley urged Kagan to recuse herself from hearing the case, but he extended the call for recusal to also include Associate Justice Clarence Thomas because of Justice Thomas's wife, who involvement with Tea Party inspired activism. But Chief Justice Roberts opined that the Supreme Court is not bound by the same ethical standards as lower courts.
It is curious as to what cases Justice Kagan recuses herself. During her first term on the Highest Court in the land, Justice Kagan recused herself from 21 of 39 cases. This term, Kagan readily absolved herself from hearing the Arizona SB 1070 Immigration Case, yet she obviously observed no compunctions against hearing the Obamacare cases. It would be enlightening to understand what are Kagan’s personal parameters for recusal. Are they knowledge of details of the controversy, taking a side on a matter or how politically important is her vote? Considering her juridical leanings as well as history serving as the Solicitor General for the Obama Administration, it would not be surprising if she is just a SCOTUS Proxy for Presidential progressivism.
During the oral arguments on Obamacare, Kagan’s questions could be construed as more like cheerleading for Obamacare than an elevated appellate examination of the law.
But conduct during Supreme Court oral arguments is not always indicative of the Justice’s final vote. Justice Thomas usually says nothing, but from his 1991 confirmation hearings and twenty years of opinions reveal an adherence to natural law.
In Liberty and Tyranny, Mark Levin notes that many who served on the nation’s High Court would not be considered legal luminaries. And as 1987 Borking of Robert Bork showed, there is more to confirmation than being an outstanding legal intellect.
Since the Supreme Court refused to consider the merits of Kagan recusing herself from the Obamacare, the only Constitutional remedy is impeachment. But impeachment by the U.S. Senate is about as rare as rocking horse’s manure. There might have been a campaign in the late 1950s and the 1960s to impeach Chief Justice Earl Warren, but the Senate has never conducted a trial of a Supreme Court Justice. So it is inconceivable that trying to impeach Kagan for bad conduct would be successful.
What is warranted is taking Constitutional duties seriously. First, there is the Advice and Consent of the Senate. Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court was approved by Congress in the summer of 2010 by a 63-37 margin. Granted, Democrats held 60 seats at the time, but this was going into a Teanami election cycle which was devastating to Democrats. Republicans should have held then Socitor General Kagan’s feet to the fire, rather than demur questions that basically deferred to the party in power. Moreover, Kagan’s nomination as well as other court nominations should have been a major campaign issue. Secondly, the Executive Branch must exert its authority before enacting constitutionally questionable laws. There is a famous instance that President George W. Bush signed the McCain-Feingold Act but he also issued a signing statement noting that he had serious constitutional concerns about limiting political advertising but that he would let the courts decide. Thirdly, if the Supreme Court loses its authority as being an impartial admistrator of justice and more like a Judicial Super Legislature, we must learn to narrowly construe their rulings to corollary cases rather than as an expansive social vangard.
Straw polls are both entertaining and interesting but not necessary indicative of the eventual nominee. After all, Rep. Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll this February in Washington for the second consecutive year and the PAUListinians pushed their Libertarian leader to a strong second place finish in the Ames Iowa straw poll in August. But pigs will fly before the 76 year old elder Dr. Paul will be the G.O.P. nominee in 2012.
Straw polls are intended for party enthusiasts rather than the general electorate. Some straw polls shows a candidate’s organizational ability and willingness to “buy” a victory. Ames attracts large crowds which a candidate can bolster by bussing in partisans, as Ron Paul has done the last two election cycles. Another technique is to sponsor a savory “come on”, like tasty barbeque or ice cream on a hot day, to attract people to your tent. The Florida straw poll differed from this model as participants needed to pay $175 to cast a ballot. That is a little too rich for most campaign war chests, which lends credence that Cain’s 37% victory shows enthusiasm to Cain’s message.
Another factor which astute political observers ought to consider is how hard a candidate husks for votes in a straw poll. Despite generally being considered a top tier candidate, former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) did not fight very hard for votes in the Florida straw poll. Romney participated in the Fox News/Google debate in Orlando and did give a speech before CPAC-Florida but did not work the room on Saturday for support. Still, the centrist Romney garnered 14% for a third place finish, which is not bad showing among conservative activists.
On the other hand, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) worked very hard for support from conservatives. Yet Perry only scored a second place with a distant 15% support. What happened? Well, words matter. During the Google debate, Perry ardently defended his support of a Texas law that gives the children of illegal aliens in-state tuition rates. Perry claimed “I don’t think you have a heart” to critics of this Texas tuition policy. Perry underlined his political soft spot on illegal immigration, which is contrary to conservatives and Tea Party sensibilities. But Perry’s sharp riposte alienates those who hold a different primary view. Moreover, it adds to the meme that Perry’s party switch in 1989 was a matter of convenience.
Gov. Perry has been a successful governor of America’s second most populous state for over ten years. While Perry’s actions on HPV forced vaccinations and in-state tuition for the children of illegal aliens may be troublesome topics on his resume, Perry is a solid conservative. What the GOP electorate needs to determine in the primary process is to whether Perry is the right candidate to unseat President Obama. Part of Perry’s appeal has been the late riding to the rescue nature of his candidacy. Perry entered the race in mid-August on the same day of the Ames straw poll and he vaulted past Romney in national surveys. But Perry’s poor performance in three debates over the last five weeks seems to have slowed the bandwagon support tactic. Perry must win the support of the Tea Party and conservatives and do well in the Iowa Caucus to be in it to win it.
The big surprise from the Presidency 5 straw poll was the anemic showing of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN 6th). Granted, Bachmann participated in the debate and spoke before CPAC-FL but did not fight hard for votes. While Bachmann won the Ames straw poll with 28% support, she only won 1% of the Florida straw poll. Part of Bachmann’s appeal in the Hawkeye state may have been a “Favorite Son” phenomenon amongst conservative activists. Yet since Bachmann’s Ames victory, she has been the center of unflattering coverage from the Lamestream Media. More importantly, her attempts to score points against Gov. Perry in the last two debates on HPV may have been one too many kicks at the cat. Bachmann questioned Perry’s Executive Order forcing 12 year old girls to be vaccinated against HPV. This issue scored points on traditional family values and improper constitutional governance. As an afterthought, Bachmann noted that Perry’s Guardasil connections stunk of crony capitalism.
Had well enough be left alone, Bachmann would have raised her profile in the media horse race and softened Perry’s support amongst conservatives and Tea Party types. Unfortunately, Bachmann raised the stakes the day after the Tampa Tea Party debate and charged that the HPV vaccination could cause mental retardation. Bachmann ham handedly claimed during the Orlando Google debate that she was just quoting a supporter when she parroted a supporter. The Presidency 5 straw poll results is that Bachmann may no longer be the darling of the Tea Party for the GOP nomination.
Herman Cain made quite a splash in the first debate of the 2012 GOP Primary cycle in South Carolina as the non-politican businessman turned candidate. Unfortunately Cain seemed to have been pushed towards the back of the bus in coverage by the Lamestream Media which is anxious for a two horse race between a conservative and a centrist. Cain’s stand out answer during the Orlando Google debate on how Obamacare would have killed him as a stage four cancer patient was personal and poignant. Cain received a well deserved ovation from the audience as a personal tribute as well as putting a face on the cruelty and inefficiency of government run health care.
Cain had worked CPAC in Washington and put considerable efforts on the Florida straw poll. But Cain did not just score an “A” for effort. Cain has based his Presidential run on his “9-9-9" plan and the Chilean model. Political junkies like those conservatives voting in the Florida straw poll, understand Cain as giving substance to throwing out the current byzantine tax system for a simplified process with a 9% business tax, a 9% income tax and a 9 cent sales tax. Chile is shorthand for real Social Security reform by following the Chilean paradigm of privatization.
Tax reform and social security reform are big ideas for big problems which America must confront. The electorate needs to be educated as well as convinced on the merits of these plans and then motivated to elect legislators who are committed to enacting the change. As refreshing as it is to hear a plain talking non-politican candidate offer these ideas, messaging is key. Cain’s convincing victory in Florida should start the dialogue, but whether Cain’s communication team can change and sustain the serious conversation is questionable.
Unlike Cocktail Party Republicans, I do not dismiss Cain’s victory as actually meaning “None of the Above”. To me, it means that conservatives are hungry for specifics and real change, not just optics or internecine campaigning. In early September, Romney offered a 59 point plan for reviving the economy, which consists mainly of standard conservative fare, but it has not caught fire in the base. Alas, during debates, frontrunner perries seemed to be more of a game of gotcha between Perry’s book Fed Up! and Romney’s book No Apology: Believe in America.
In order to beat a well funded incumbent who has a weak economy but a large campaign war chest, Republicans must unite and have a few succinct, discrete messages to overcome the onslaught of negative messages and ad hominem attacks emanating from the Oval Office, the liberal stenographers in the Lamestream Media and Obama 2012's Chicago headquarters.
Now is the time for vetting GOP nominees. The conservative base has rejected a premature two-candidate horse race and seems to yearn concise, forward looking campaign issues. There may still be openings for more candidates, but that window will soon be closing. North Eastern Country Club conservatives keep touting Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) as a presidential candidate. And the prospect of former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) jumping into the race is a lightning rod for the right and the left. Filing deadlines are soon approaching so even an unconventional candidacy will have to announce soon.
With his landslide victory in the Florida straw poll, Herman Cain laid waste to Morgan Freeman's assertion that the Tea Party are a bunch of racists. Moreover, Cain’s raised Presidential profile may merit him more than a one dimensional punch line about “Herman Cain delivers” on the opening skit of the 37th season of Saturday Night Live.
While Herman Cain himself may not be the ultimate messenger nor are the specifics of the message written in stone but by raising Cain, Republicans find their way to victory in November 2012
The Dream Act had been kicking around Capitol Hill for a decade but had failed to be enacted. The Dream Act sought to give effective amnesty (couched as conditional permanent resident status) to illegal aliens who graduate high school, can prove their good moral character and either serve two years in the American military or attend college for two years.
In the 111th Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) brought it up seemingly to positively position himself with Hispanic voters during his contentious re-election. The Dream Act failed in its cloture vote by 56-43 vote in September, 2010 when it was added to the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Vote. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) immediately introduced the Dream Act as stand alone legislation, but the bill only had two co-sponsors and was defeated. During the Lame Duck session, House Democrats passed the Dream Act, but the rushed partisan cram down again failed in the Senate. In May 2011, Senate Majority Leader Reid reintroduced the Dream Act, but it was destined to go nowhere when previous co-sponsors, such as Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) refused to sign on again unless there were amendments increasing immigration border enforcement.
Not that the legislative process matters for immigration issues, as President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order in the form of a memo to Immigration and Customers Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton that agents are now to use “prosecutorial discretion” with regards to immigration issues. ICE Agents now should consider factors such as a detainee being: a veteran; long-time permanent resident aliens; residing in the U.S. since childhood; minors and elderly; nursing or pregnant women; those with serious health conditions; and those suffering from serious mental or physical disabilities. So much for the fools who tried to work within the system for legal immigration to America. Obeying the law is optional for both the malfeasors and the enforcers. While outside observers are led to think that ICE has no standards regarding immigration, the memo does mention some negative factors like: those posing clear security risk; gang members; serious felons; and those with egregious immigration violations.
The wording that introduces the prosecutorial discretion is key–“The following positive factors should prompt particular care and consideration”. While it is not mandatory sine qua non “shall”, it is stronger than a discretionary “may”. This is a not so subtle directive from the Oval Office not to bother enforcing immigration law in most instances. It is dubious that localities that are actually enforcing the laws about illegal immigrants, such as in Prince William County, VA or the state of Arizona, will have any assistance of federal agents in their own area of enforcement.
The new ICE provisions should make Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Jose Antonio Vargas feel more secure about his immigration difficulty. But Vargas’ fraudulent immigration status did not seem to bother either his former employer (the Washington Post) or the Secret Service during White House interviews.
If any agency could use some prosecutorial discretion, it should be ICE’s sibling in the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration. The TSA can not bring itself to apply prudent criteria about transportation threats, lest they be accused of racial profiling. So the flying public has to endure invasive security theater, which includes a 45 minute interrogation of a 95 year old woman in a wheel chair who was wearing an adult diaper. Since Umar Farouk Mutallab, the young Nigerian who was the Fruit of the Kaboom attempted bomber from Christmas 2009, tried to secret explosives in his underoos, so there is no discretion if an elderly, frail passenger has a pantload–if she is chosen, she must get the full treatment. And Senator Schumer (D-NY) wants to extend the TSA touch to trains too.
After the Obama Administrations decision about not enforcing aspects of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because Obama thinks that it is unconstitutional. Hence selective enforcement for judicial matters was a tool in the Obama Administration’s toolbox. Now, effectively re-writing Immigration law by selective enforcement obviates the legislative branch.
While the DREAM Act may be over, the nightmare has only begun. When the Roman Republic transitioned into an Empire under Augustus in 27 BC, the Senate still existed but it effectively became neutered. It seems that history will teach us nothing.
Over the summer, there was a media maelstrom when the Obama Administration was battling against Arizona’s S.B. 1070 that echoed current Federal law over illegal immigration. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has stymied Arizona from enforcing their borders. But in Prince William County Virginia, the first fruits of cracking down on illegal immigration have been harvested as the county’s tax bill has been cut in half since 2007.
Amidst progressive cries of racism and civil rights violations, Prince William County adopted a very strict illegal immigration law. When the “undocumented workers” figured out that the county was serious, the indocumentados voted with their feet and seem to have left in droves. Of course, they did not have to migrate very far, as Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD) is happy to welcome them into the Free State’s Casa De Maryland.
The Daily Caller cites a report from the Police Executive Research Forum and the University of Virginia that indicates that aggressive assaults have dropped by 46.7% and violent crime has dropped by 32% since Prince William County stepped up its enforcement of immigration law. But what is truly remarkable is the cost cutting measures that stanching the influx of illegal immigrants allows.
One of the most costly expenses associated with illegal immigration was facilitating the education of limited English students. Between 2002 and 2007, Prince William County ESL costs grew by 250%. The reduction of illegal immigrants allows the county to cut those costs. Since Prince William County assertively enforced Federal immigration law, the county has been able to cut $140 million from their budget and has the lowest number of government workers in the area.
These savings allows Prince William County taxpayers to pay tax bills that are 30% less than their neighboring counties. Adjusted for inflation, Prince William County taxpayers are paying 14% less than what they did in 2007. Corey Stewart, the Chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors, says that these cost saving measures have attracted business, making PWC the second fastest growing county on the East Coast.
At a point where many taxpayers feel overburdened and government spending is unsustainable, it is revealing to see how enforcing the law can create some real savings for Americans.
During a Brown for Governor Rally at UCLA which featured an appearance by former President Bill Clinton, Jerry Brown exuberantly exclaimed before a friendly University crowd:
“We have enough wealth to continue to have a great university and get every kid into this school that can qualify. Now when I say every young man and young woman, I mean everyone – whether they are documented or not. If they went to school, they ought to be here."
This modest proposal overshadows the joint appearance with the beloved impeached chief executive. Clearly Brown thinks that he can lock up the illegals' (and possibly the Hispanic demographic) support by this extravagant promise for a bankrupt state.
Public sector unions (like Teachers Unions) received generous pension packages courtesy of recalled Governor Gray Davis (D-CA). Unfortunately, these legally enforceable promises account for $500 billion in unfunded liabilities. Over the past year, Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger (R-CA) has had trouble implementing unpaid furloughs for state workers because of the budget crisis. Many California taxpayers received IOUs for rebates on State Income Tax filings because there was not enough money in the state coffers. Yet Brown, who was nicknamed Governor Moonbeam during his prior term in office from 1975-83, thinks that there is enough wealth to accommodate every qualified student into the California University System.
Is it any wonder that Brown’s 1992 Presidential campaign used the telephone number 1-800-NUTCAKE?
I doubt that this story will be virtually ignored in the Lamestream Media, as it is easier to cover the Maid Up (sic) agitprop pushed by Gloria Allred or the sexist slur that the Brown campaign leveled against opponent Meg Whitman (R-CA) at the end of a fundraising phone message.
Yet Brown still seems to have a lead over his Republican rival by slightly more than the margin of error. Based on that polling, it may be Back to the Future for California, but the theme will be by the Rolling Stones LP “Sucking in the Seventies”.
Posts
