Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Graham. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Graham. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Bảy, 7 tháng 9, 2013

Lindsey Graham: Either we kill some camels in Syria or Charleston could get nuked by Iran!

The adjectives for this level of idiocy escape me.

South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham says he’s convinced that Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons on his own people...

He says if there is no U.S. response, Iran will not believe America’s resolve to block Iran from developing nuclear weapons [and] those nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists could result in a bomb coming to Charleston Harbor.

He says he’s working to convince South Carolinians weary of war that the situations in Syria and Iran are linked. Graham says Syria could destabilize the entire Middle East...

So, Lindsey, firing a "shot across the bow" -- in Obama's words -- will somehow deter a nuclear Iran?

So, Lindsey, launching an attack "just muscular enough not to get mocked" will subdue Iran?

You're a joke, Senator Graham. You're a joke and a disgrace. And you need to go. My hope for 2014 is that a primary challenger will emerge and defeat you.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Thứ Sáu, 12 tháng 7, 2013

Massive Billboard Rips Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham, along with John McCain and Marco Rubio, were the primary co-conspirators with malevolent Statists like Chuck Schumer and Robert ("Hey, little girl!") Menendez in crafting the latest Amnesty bill. And some of his constituents are more than a little peeved.

A brand-new Georgia billboard proclaiming South Carolina’s alleged affinity for illegal aliens is raising eyebrows this week.

The sign, posted in Canton, Ga., declares: “South Carolina welcomes the undocumented. Sen. Lindsey Graham says his state has a labor shortage and wants more immigrants. For job tips, call his office at (864) 646-4090. Located in Pendleton, S.C. Only 2 hours from Atlanta!”


Sen. Graham, R-S.C., sits on a bipartisan committee that just passed a sweeping immigration-reform bill.

“These people must have been off the planet for the last five years,” said D.A. King, an immigration activist... “We don’t need more workers. We need more jobs.”

Isn't it amazing that 20 million people who stole into this country illegally are honored and catered to while the hundreds of millions citizens who pay the bills are ignored and tormented?


Hat tips: BadBlue News and BB.

Thứ Năm, 27 tháng 6, 2013

Hugh Hewitt Shreds John Hoeven: "If I were La Raza, I could make sure this fence never gets built"

I'm guessing that Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) regrets agreeing to discuss the Corker-Hoeven Amendment -- the faux border security measure passed by the Senate -- with Hugh Hewitt. Hewitt, an expert attorney with a strong legislative and Constitutional background, quickly determined that the border security aspects of Corker-Hoeven are just as enforceable as, well, our current immigration laws.

And read to the end, because I've included Hewitt's interview with Ted Cruz in which he truly gets to the bottom -- and I do mean bottom -- of this abysmal cluster of a miserable bill.

HH: Now Senator... I just wanted to be up front about it. I do not like your amendment at all, because I think it guts the border fence.

JH: No, we actually require a total of 700 miles of border fence, and also 20,000 more border patrol agents, $4.5 billion technology plan on the border that includes sensors, radars, drones, helicopters, planes... in addition to a national, mandatory national E-verify and electronic entry/exit systems at airports and seaports.

HH: But Senator, I want to stay focused just on the fence, if you don’t mind, in our few minutes.

JH: Okay, all right. Yeah.

HH: At Section 5b, it says the Southern Border Fencing Strategy, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this act, the secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a strategy to be known as the Southern Border Fencing Strategy, to identify where 700 miles of fencing, including double layer fencing, infrastructure and technology, including ports of entry, should be deployed along the southern border.

First question, of those 700 miles, how many miles must be double layered?

JH: Well, it requires what’s called the pedestrian fencing. That’s the minimum, okay? But it requires 700 miles of fencing, and then you’ve got about a 2,000 mile border there, obviously. The Secretary can determine where on that 2,000 miles the fence is most effective, or DHS can, but they have to make it 700 miles of fence. It can’t be the vehicle barricades.

HH: But is it fair to say that there is a zero mile minimum for double layered fencing?

JH: It doesn’t. It has to be at least the pedestrian fencing. It doesn’t specify that it has to be the double layer. That’s correct, Hugh.

HH: Okay. Now how big does the pedestrian fencing have to be?

JH: I’d have to look back at the specs, but it’s, you know, I mean, it’s impressive fencing. It’s not the double layer you’re talking about, but it’s a significant barrier.

HH: Now Senator Hoeven, there aren’t any specs. This is my problem. I’ve read…

JH: No, see, there’s existing pedestrian fence on there, and so when we say pedestrian fence, it has a definition as to the fencing that’s already there. So…

HH: But it doesn’t, it actually doesn’t. I’ve been through the law very carefully. I bring my lawyer’s, not my MBA to it, but I look at it as a Constitutional lawyer. They actually don’t have to do anything. In fact, I was going to ask you, what if they don’t turn in a strategy in 180 days? What’s the law’s penalty?

JH: They’d be breaking the law.

HH: But what’s the penalty?

JH: Well, you’d obviously have to enforce the law, but I mean, it’s like, it would be like saying any law, what…they have to follow the law. They’re required to follow the law, and we would undertake an action to make sure that they do. That’s...

HH: That’s true, but they would also not have their permanent residence revoked. And I was all in favor of this law, don’t get me wrong. If you guys had written in the requirement for the fence, I’d be selling this law. But as I read this, I go on to read, limitation on requirements notwithstanding paragraph 1, nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing in a particular location along the southern border if the secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the southern border at such locations.

JH: Right, and when I read through that with my lawyer, he said because the earlier section is the controlling section that requires a minimum of 700 miles of fencing, this only gives some discretion as to where on that 2,000 [mile] border is placed so it’s put in the most effective areas. And I’m happy to go back and check on the controlling section and find out exactly what the sanctions are. I don’t know what it is off the top of my head, but I’m happy to go back and check it and get back to you.

HH: Senator, you’ve got to fire that lawyer, because honest to God, I have been doing Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act litigation for 22 years. I still do it. I’ve argued it before the 9th Circuit. There is absolutely nothing here that compels the construction of a fence. And the savings provision, and I want to read that for the audience…

JH: But the section you’re talking about, Hugh, again, just modifies the controlling section that requires a minimum of 700 miles. And I’ll go back and check on that section for you, and we’ll be back in touch.

HH: Okay, Senator, okay, that’s simply not correct, but I’ll let you check on it... Nothing in this paragraph, meaning the entire section 5, may be construed to create or negate any right of action for a state or local government, or other person or entity affected by this subsection. As you know, Senator, because you were the governor of a big state, whenever you need to cross a water of the United States, or impact critical habitat for an endangered species, you need the permission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, you need the permission of the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, and if you don’t get it, or even if you do get it, citizens can sue to block that. That’s why no ‘notwithstanding any contrary legal authority’ language was omitted from this, and I do not understand why you guys didn’t make this fence mandatory on a schedule without regard to any other law?

JH: Well, Hugh, again, we require the fence. Like I say, it’s one of the triggers that has to be met before there’s any green cards. And furthermore, the only discretion we put in was to try to get it in the places where it would be most effective on that 2,000 miles border. But it doesn’t mitigate the requirement that at least 700 miles are built. So…and remember, that’s just one of the five triggers that we have in place to defend the border.

HH: Well, see if you understand where I’m coming from, because if in fact I’m right, and they don’t come up with a plan, or when they come up with a plan, they want to put in a minimum pedestrian fencing that is easily breeched and easily crossed, and not double fence… And it doesn’t have to be any particular height. It just must obstruct a pedestrian, and it’s not the traffic barrier. So it’s better than a traffic barrier, but it really doesn’t work, Senator. And 700 miles, do you have, I mean, why is that a magic number for you guys, because it’s a 2,000 mile border, and I’ve never seen anything that said it had to be 700 miles, nothing.

...Senator, this is where I’m at a loss. It would have been so easy to write a specific mandatory, absolutely as to mapping, construction standards, specifications, timeline, citizen standing to enforce, the denial of citizen standing to obstruct. It would have been so easy to write it, that given the fact that it is so opaque, so that someone like me, who’s a fence proponent looks at it and says this doesn’t do it, and I wanted to support this bill. I really did. No one can deny that. I’ve had Senator Rubio on the show like 15 times. But then this comes up, and I look at it and say you guys weren’t serious about this, and that…

...Senator, Bill Kristol and I agree on this. We don’t want this to go to a conference. We do not trust a conference. We do not believe that if this is the best that the Republicans could to on security, on the border fence and other issues, we don’t want the House to pick this up. I think you guys killed immigration reform by not taking conservative demands for border security seriously in substituting, and I debated this with Senator McCain once. We wanted a fence, an honest to God, big, double layered fence with an access road with specs spelled out, and you guys blew through it in five paragraphs, and anyone can avoid this. Anyone with a, I mean, maybe not your lawyer, but I certainly can go to work for the enviros to stop this, and if I was a La Raza type, I could make sure this fence was never built, even it was only three feet and it could be hopped over. I mean, it’s a disaster...

JH: 20,000 border agents, we’re going to double the number of border patrol agents on the border.

HH: I don’t care, because anything, and I want you to understand, anything that can be turned on can be turned off. Anyone that can be forward deployed can be sent backward. It’s sort of like the DREAM Act. The President didn’t want to enforce the immigration laws last year, so he didn’t enforce them. You can’t not enforce a fence once it’s built, and I’m just curious, last question, Senator…

...Senator, I appreciate your time. Send me anything. Send me your lawyer, because I would really love to spend…

JH: I’m going to do it, Hugh. We’re going to check it out and we’ll be in touch.

HH: And let him come on the air with me and tell him to get his resume ready.

Hewitt had earlier interviewed the enormously popular senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, a formidable litigator in his own right and a staunch opponent of this Amnesty bill.

HH: ...look back at your time as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist and ask yourself if he would recognize the federalism doctrine employed today by Anthony Kennedy in the DOMA case.

TC: I don’t think he’d recognize it at all. It was, well, let’s be fair. He actually would recognize it, but he would be deeply disappointed, because it’s part and parcel of a pattern we’ve seen the past several decades of the Court of repeatedly the Court substituting its own policy judgments on contested area of social dispute for the preferences and decisions democratically expressed through the people. And I think the decisions today were regrettable. In the state of California, the people of California went, and they voted in Proposition 8 about how to define marriage in the state of California. And the Supreme Court today allowed instead for the courts to set aside that judgment of the voters of California, and impose a very different definition of marriage than the definition that the voters of California chose, which is a traditional marriage of one man and one woman.

...The only way I think to do so [fix this judicial activism] is to insist upon nominees who will follow the law, who don’t view being on the federal bench as an invitation to be a platonic philosopher-king, to have nine unelected lawyers decreeing what our answer should be, what our policy position should be on every hot button issue of the day. I think it is a much sounder approach to say let the people decide, let’s vote on it, and you know what? The people in California will come to different decisions than will the people in Texas or Florida or Vermont, and that’s the beauty of our federalism. We’ve got 50 states, and people with different values, different morays. And why had this all over to unelected federal judges to impose their values on all 50 states?

HH: Now Senator, in our brief time, I want to talk to you about the immigration bill, which I used to be in favor of, but I now oppose after Corker-Hoeven, the amendment which gutted the fence. And I’m going to talk to Senator Hoeven next hour about this. But am I correct, do you agree with my legal analysis that there’s absolutely nothing compelling the construction of even one mile of double layered fencing, and probably not even a single mile of any kind of new fencing?

TC: No, that’s exactly right. I mean, as you know, federal statute has required since 2006 the construction of 700 miles of double fencing, and the federal government simply hasn’t complied. They’ve constructed about 36 miles. And the amendment that was touted as a border security amendment weakens the requirement of federal law, and just like the prior requirement, we can expect with considerable certainty that it will be disregarded as well.

HH: There is in the Corker-Hoeven amendment a savings clause, which also, I think, preserves citizen standing to bring Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act challenges against fence construction, and an empowerment of the secretary of Homeland Security to simply declare herself not bound by any report that comes back. Am I reading this wrong? Because I think I’m reading it the way a litigator opposed to the fence would read it, and they would laugh, Ted Cruz, at this.

TC: I think you’re exactly right, and you know, this bill has roughly a thousand waivers in it. And I mean, much like Obamacare, just about every major provision gives Janet Napolitano or another member of the Obama cabinet the ability to waive any of the law enforcement in the border security provisions. And we have certainly seen with the IRS, with Benghazi, we’ve certainly seen ample reason to trust waivers given to this cabinet and their fidelity to law. And I think this current bill, if it is passed, if the House passes it, I don’t think the House is going to pass it, but if it did, I think it would make the problem worse. It continues the pattern we saw in 1986 of legalization first and then border security maybe someday in the future. And what happens is the border security never happens.

HH: Now Senator Cruz, I agree with Bill Kristol that I hope the House does not pass anything. I don’t want a conference. I do not trust it. I watched your colloquy today with Patty Murray trying to preserve the conference on the budget from running amok, and I was not satisfied that she was being candid with you. I think you’ve got their number on this. Would you trust a House-Senate conference on the immigration bill?

TC: Well, it was, there would certainly be considerable reason to have concerns, especially the one danger of something passing in the House that really does damage on immigration is it something comes out of conference and ends up passing with all the House Democrats and a tiny handful of Republicans. And that’s one way this Gang of 8 bill could pass, and I think it would do enormous damage. You know, one of the most perverse aspects of this bill, as you know, is its intersection with Obamacare puts in effect a $5,000 federal tax penalty on U.S. companies that hire U.S. citizens or legal immigrants, and basically sets up a hiring preference for those who are here illegally. And I think that would only drive up unemployment, particularly among young people, among African-Americans, among Hispanics. And it really is indefensible to put a penalty on hiring U.S. citizens, and on hiring legal immigrants who follow the rules and come in the right way. And it’s indefensible to give essentially a preference to those who broke the law and came here illegally.

HH: Senator Cruz, continue the good fight. 30 seconds, I know you’ve got to run. Do you see support gathering or falling away from the Senate bill?

TC: I think support is falling away from the Gang of 8. For one thing, people are coming together enormously. We’ve launched a national petition at www.securebordersnow.com. Over 100,000 people have signed up in the last week insisting we actually fix the problem. Secure the borders first. Don’t go down the road of legalization first and never securing the borders.

Sign the petition now.


Passage of the Amnesty Bill Will Spell the End of Our Republic

Guest post by James Simpson

On Monday, June 24, 2013, the U.S. Senate passed a cloture motion (which ends debate) on the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven Amendment to the Gang of Eight's horrifying illegal alien amnesty bill - mislabeled "immigration reform."

The true purpose of this amnesty proposal is to capture future votes for the Democratic Party. Those who do not acknowledge that blatantly obvious fact either suffer from some debilitating mental illness or are working for the other side.

On rare occasions, even the Left admit the objective. Eliseo Medina, the honorary Chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, and International Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), said in 2008:

...If we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have ...even two out of three, if we get 8 million new voters... we will create a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.

The "governing coalition for the long term" refers of course to the "permanent progressive majority" Democrats have fantasized about for decades.

The number of illegals in this country is repeatedly cited as 11 million. This is almost certainly an underestimate. In reality the number is 20 to 30 million or more, according to a 2007 study in Social Contract. Bear Stearns estimated about 20 million in 2005. When amnesty passed in 1986, official estimates were 1.2 million illegals. There were actually 2.7 million - more than double. Within ten years, INS estimated the illegal population had grown to 10 million. It is delusional to believe the number has only increased by another 1 million in the 17 years since. Furthermore, when amnesty passes, the newly-legal aliens will invite their relatives to come, further inflating that number through chain migration.

Herein lies the real reason Democrats are slavering for this amnesty bill to pass and are tickling themselves pink that there are Republicans stupid and gullible, (or corrupt) enough to help them realize their dream. And make no mistake, an increase of 30 million in the Democrat Party voter base will guarantee Democrat majorities in the U.S. House, Senate and Presidency for the foreseeable future.

Despite the impossibly bizarre belief by some Republicans that amnesty will make illegals "like us," a high level Congressional source recently acknowledged to me that passage of this bill will spell the end of our Republic and that we literally have only weeks to stop it. Despite House Speaker John Boehner's somewhat ambiguous assurances, this bill is likely to get a vote in the House.

The original Gang-of-Eight bill was really bad, as became readily apparent quite quickly. The overtly fraudulent Schumer-Corker-Hoeven Amendment was offered as a fig leaf to reassure fools that the original bill -- which already promised in-and-of-itself to enhance border security - would actually enhance border security. But in reality it makes things worse. The amendment:

  • Legitimizes illegal immigration: Section 2302 says if you overstay your visa in the future you can still apply for a green card and become a citizen. It is permanent lawlessness... They cannot do that legally under current law!
  • Has no requirement to deploy technologies: The Corker amendment would give the Secretary of Homeland Security full discretion as to how technology would be deployed, or whether it would be deployed at all.
  • Has no fencing requirement: Similarly, building a fence is left to the discretion of DHS. (Note: since a fencing law, with money attached, passed years ago, and has been blithely ignored by the Obama administration, the amendment simply codifies Obama's open defiance of current law.)
  • Increases fees on visas for legal immigrants, but keeps the same low fees and fines for those applying for amnesty - favoring illegal over legal immigrants.
  • Under the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment, the American taxpayers are on the hook for $38 billion. (The Gang-of-Eight claims the bill is fully funded by immigrant fees).
  • Delays promised hiring of 20,000 new Border Patrol agents until somewhere between 2017 and 2021.

The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven Amendment, by the way, is one of the factors that convinced Bill O'Reilly to support this legislation. Bill reminds us of P.T. Barnum's timeless adage, "there's a sucker born every minute," but only on Fox News does one get a prime-time show, and only in the U.S. Senate do they get hailed as "moderates."

In a conference call Monday evening, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that most people don't realize this bill operates in tandem with Obamacare and amounts to de facto affirmative action for illegals. He said that Obamacare will raise the cost of American citizen or legal immigrant workers by roughly $3,000, but the amnesty bill exempts illegals . This creates an incentive to fire legitimate employees or reduce them to part-time status and replace them with illegals.

He added soberly that if American people do not stand up now, no senator or group of senators has the clout to stop this thing from passing.

In this same conference call, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-OK) said that the Congressional Budget Office predicts the bill will lower wages and raise unemployment. He also said the bill doubles the number of guest workers allowed. Because approximately 40 percent of illegals here have overstayed their visas, this will increase the number of visa overstays.

But it gets even worse than this. Betsy McCaughey has pointed out other horrors:

The 1993 National Voter Registration Act, aka Motor Voter, calls for voter registration at public assistance, motor vehicle and other public offices, and allows groups like ACORN to engage in voter registration activities. Is there any doubt that these community organizations will take advantage of their taxpayer funded operations to register all these budding democrats once they become eligible? Will they even wait for that?

Of course all Democrats voted to invoke cloture on the amendment. Following are the mindless (or corrupt) Republicans who went along with them:

Lamar Alexander, Kelly Ayotte, Jeffrey Chiesa, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch, Dean Heller, John Hoeven, Mark Kirk, John McCain, Lisa Murkowski, Marco Rubio, and Roger Wicker.

No matter what state you live in and whether or not your senators are Republican or Democrat, let them know just what you think of this lousy bill and their betrayal of the public interest: call 202-224-3121 and ask for your Senator.

Furthermore, sign Ted Cruz's petition. About 100,000 have signed to date. Call and email Senators and House members. Urge your friends and neighbors to do the same. If this passes the Senate our last chance will be the House. We need to let them know now what we think.



James Simpson blogs at American Thinker.

Thứ Ba, 25 tháng 6, 2013

Eric Sevareid’s Law

Excerpted from Thoughts on Immigration into the United States, by Albert A. Bartlett:

When we’re searching for solutions to the problem of growing demand exceeding supply, we should never forget Eric Sevareid’s Law. Sevareid was a national journalist, and he observed that:

“The chief source of problems is solutions.”

As an example: the actions of the Congress to encourage domestic production of ethanol from corn were offered as the solution to the problem of impending shortages of automotive fuel that are the result of population growth. Corn is being diverted from the food supply to the fuel supply. As a direct consequence, the price of corn has risen rapidly and this affects the prices of all manner of food items. The higher food costs are the new problem caused by the solution to the problem of the impending shortage of automotive fuel. In the U.S. and abroad, this higher cost of food is a hidden tax on all who eat.

Ronald Reagan, in one of the finest speeches of the last century, put it this way: "For three decades, we've sought to solve [these] problems... and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan."


Hat tip: Lee.

Thứ Sáu, 21 tháng 6, 2013

BETSY McCAUGHEY: The Rubio-Schumer Amnesty Bill Will Be "the End of the Two Party System in America"

Interviewed last night on the Mark Levin Show, former New York Lt. Governor and current legislative expert Betsy McCaughey offered several startling insights into the catastrophic Rubio-Schumer Amnesty bill.

1. The word comprehensive is a synonym for unread.

2. Sec. 2106 of the bill outsources the job of guiding aliens through the amnesty process from DHS to Democrat front groups. These partisan, activist groups -- like La Raza and the SEIU -- are certain to utilize the aliens for their own (likely illegal) voter registration and absentee ballot schemes to benefit the progressive agenda.

McCaughey says that this particular section of the bill will "be the end of the two party system in America."

Funding for these groups comes from the American taxpayer. Worse yet, these left wing activitists effectively become a fifth branch of government, performing many of the roles that the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) perform today.

3. Sec. 2531 of the bill sets up a "Citizenship Foundation" run by another bunch of community organizers. This foundation will develop "citizenship preparation" programs to teach American history and civics. Suffice it to say that these new educational materials will teach the progressive agenda and dependence on government; not the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, private property rights and the beauty of the free market system.

4. A TV ad starring Marco Rubio insists that aliens with provisional status will have to support themselves. That's a lie: Sec. 245C(b) of the bill waives the "public charge" requirement for the unemployed, students, those in job training, those caring for a child, and anyone over 60. Which means no one will be required to support themselves and virtually every alien will be permitted to begin drawing tens of thousands of dollars each year in federal benefits.

5. Finally, many of the bill's key provisions are described as "emergency legislation". This is Congress' method for avoiding its own "Pay As You Go" law (which requires that mandatory spending programs are offset by reductions in other programs or tax increases). Amnesty is anything but an "emergency".

I'll put it simply, in terms even Johnny Boehner, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Mitch McConnell can understand: anyone who supports this madness is a traitor to the American citizenry.

As Karl Denninger puts it -- and McCaughey confirms -- this bill will destroy America.

Contact your Senator now and demand that they kill this bill. Before it kills us.


Thứ Năm, 20 tháng 6, 2013

Crime Pays: And the Rubio-Schumer Amnesty Bill Proves It

You and I are second-class citizens. The illegal immigrant -- who stole into this country without clearing customs, without a background check, without any medical screening, and without being fondled by the TSA -- is noble and virtuous. The illegal immigrant must receive preferential status over you and I.

It's true: the federal government believes you and I exist to serve the illegal immigrant.


You and I, who pay everyone's freight, are no longer citizens. We are the subjects of a ruling class: a federal leviathan grown so large and centralized and authoritarian and uncontrollable that it no longer operates with the consent of the government. It exists to feed itself. And it would appear that it simply can not be satiated.


Hat tips: @AnitaMonCrief and Mark Levin.

Thứ Ba, 18 tháng 6, 2013

THE RUBIO-SCHUMER SHAMNESTY BILL: Why Gun Owners Should Be Very, Very Concerned [GOA]

Guest post by GOA


As you probably know, the immigration amnesty bill is on the Senate floor.

This is a status report on where we are, and we will attempt to give you regular follow-ups over the next two weeks.

For starters, why should gun owners care about immigration amnesty?

First: It will add up to a net 8.4 million anti-gun voters in the next 13 years or so. This could make comprehensive gun control and confiscation inevitable within our lifetimes.

Second: Victory feeds on itself; but so does defeat. If anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer passes this bill out of the Senate with a strong bipartisan majority, he has already said he intends to bring gun control back by the end of the summer. Obama would emerge from the fight reenergized to take away your guns.

Third: If people get used to having to have the government's permission to get a job -- even to clean your house or mow your lawn -- it will be a lot harder to fight universal background checks and gun registries.

Fourth: There is the concern that the bill will create a de facto National ID card. In a Saturday New York Times article entitled, “Fears of National ID with Immigration Bill,” some in Congress have openly worried about the “potential for another sprawling data network that could ultimately be the equivalent of a national ID system.” Gun Owners of America has long opposed anything that smacks of this because of the danger that such data collection poses to gun owners’ privacy.

Here's where we are:

Most Republicans -- in our opinion, foolishly -- "threw the vote" on the motion to proceed to the bill. It would have been better to have an early show of force, but this is not the end of the world.

For the last week, the Senate has been debating Grassley and Cornyn amendments which would require border security before illegal aliens could get legal residence and/or a green card.

Why is this important?

In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill. The supposed trade-off was that illegal aliens would be granted amnesty, but illegal immigration would be stopped.

Illegal aliens were, in fact, granted amnesty. But, fueled by this first round of amnesty, 12 to 20 million more illegals flooded into the country. The border was never secured.

Now, Chuck Schumer is telling Marco Rubio, that this new bill will grant amnesty, but, in return, secure the border. But when Grassley and Cornyn offer amendments to require border security before amnesty, what does Schumer say? In effect, "border security is unachievable, so Schumer's supposed wonderful amnesty program would never happen under that condition."

Huh? Isn't this tantamount to saying that Schumer is lying to Rubio? Besides, as the DHS, ICE, IRS and NSA scandals suggest, Obama cannot be trusted to obey the law, once he's gotten his 8.4 new anti-gun voters.

But there will be follow-up votes on more anemic "border security" measures which will supposedly be the "candy" to pick up the votes necessary to send this bill from the Senate with 70 or more votes. If that happens, it will be harder to stop in the House.

Supposedly, these "poison candy" amendments are being considered by Senators like Tom Coburn and Bob Corker.

ACTION: Contact your Senators. Tell them the anti-gun amnesty bill needs to be plucked up by the roots without trying to sweeten it with phony "border security" measures.

Click here for a pre-filled form letter you can send instantly.

Thứ Hai, 17 tháng 6, 2013

"If they pass an immigration bill that even remotely resembles this one, we can say goodbye to the GOP"

Guest post by the Commenter


Nothing better illustrates the divide between the Republican establishment and the base than this issue. Health care, taxes, abortion, gay marriage, all are small change compared to immigration. The GOP leadership's failure to understand this is practically inexplicable.

I still maintain that the GOP leadership has a very small constituency - these people could not win an election without the GOP rank and file and the independents who have basically walked away from the Party due to the leadership's continued bungling and missteps. That is another story - how the GOP leadership has caused so many people in the Party to leave in disgust. Although that started with Bush's out of control spending, it really got rolling with Bush's amnesty plan.

Bush's approval rating went to 13% when he got behind amnesty. Rank and file Republicans, who are so much more conservative than the leadership, see this issue as a matter of right and wrong, and they clearly viewed Bush as wrong. And, as a direct result of this issue more than anything else, they stayed home in 2006, and again in 2008.

These people simply never learn - it is maddening.

In fact, Bush basically lost any ability to run the country after pushing amnesty. He literally tore apart the party. Many people forget that the country was on a path to a permanent conservative majority in 2000. Bush more or less single-handedly changed the direction of the nation with bone-headed move after bone-headed move - starting with his inexplicable failure to rein in spending. I mean, wasn't the guy a Republican? Aren't we for limited government?

You can read Rove's book in order to gain a good understanding of the foregoing. Karl "Deficits Don't Matter" Rove blames Republicans in Congress, but that is a very thin excuse indeed since Bush did nothing about it and enthusiastically joined in the spending spree. In fact, his book proves how completely disconnected both Rove and Bush were from any notion of conservative values. Bush was given a great trust by the American people, and he blew it in the worst way. But his spending pales in comparison to his destruction of the conservative majority by pressing ahead with amnesty.

But it was also Bush's inability or unwillingness to respond to Democratic media critics, leaving it to those of us who knew the Democrats were more than able to use their powerful control of the media, as well as their ability then and now to set the nation's agenda. This ineptitude destroyed Bush's Presidency and his party.

I've never forgiven Bush, and never will forgive him, for the foregoing - I could care less that he is supposedly a decent man. After all the guy more or less set us on a path to what we have today. The election of Obama is more than anything else the result of Bush and Rove's arrogance, blindness, and - call it what it is - stupidity.

You get the feeling in Rove's book that he was so rattled by the Plame scandal that he ran from Washington with his tail between his legs. The fact that he came back into the spotlight says a whole lot about the man's lack of character. And Rove is still - still - hard at work destroying the Republican party - by going after the Tea Party. Rove thereby demonstrates that he is incapable of learning from his mistakes. And Bush's silence since the Obama election is an indication that he has no problem with the direction of the country. To think I voted for the man - we would have been better off had Gore or Kerry won, and maintained control of Congress.

But, back to immigration. What this issue says is that the Republican leadership has again shown it has no ability to think strategically - it remains bound to the old rules of politics, and acts like the past couple of decades have never happened. It has no real adherence to a consistent policy, no passion for the issues, and it doesn't understand its own constituency.

More than that, the Republican leadership doesn't have a constituency - there is no large group of rank and file Republicans out there supporting the leadership's policies. The leadership may have access to money but informed voters can't be bought as easily as uninformed voters - as both Romney and Karl Rove learned in the last election. But Rove should have known better - he had seen the same thing in 2006. How deaf, dump and blind can one person be? And how troubling is it that the monied elite still fund Rove's repeatedly failed agenda?

In fact, the rank and file is far more conservative than the leadership, which for some reason doesn't understand its own - it is living in the past when Republcans were comfortable as a minority party where it was expected to make some noise and then give in to the Democrats.

The GOP leadership has time and again shown that it is incapable of running the party - it is frightening indeed that the nation's last hope is with these people. This is not the place to recite the litany of horribles committed by the leadership (I could start with the Boehner's absolutely disastrous record as House leader), but if they pass an immigration bill that even remotely resembles this one, we can say goodbye to the GOP.

And with the GOP gone, the Democrats will have free rein and will ultimately destroy this nation. As I've written before, the Democrats are quite comfortable with poverty, since it means all the votes - there is no bottom for the Democrats since they don't care - prosperity is not even remotely on the agenda (look what they have done in places like Detroit, D.C., California, etc.).

It is too depressing to think about - but I'll say this again - if the GOP passes this bill, they will lose the rank and file completely. Not only will the GOP never win another national election they will lose control of Congress - permanently until the country is torn apart.

I could go on, but what's the point? The Senate will do what it will do, and it doesn't appear that the fact that the people in the party and those independents supporting the (supposed) goals of the party makes not one whit of difference to the blind, arrogant despicable people at the top. And no amount of spending will put the party back together again.


Note: This article is an amalgam of several excellent comments related to Heather Mac Donald's article "The Real Risks of Amnesty. Related reading: Politico lets the cat out of the bag: immigration "reform" would give Democrats a permanent majority

Thứ Năm, 13 tháng 6, 2013

What is Lindsey Graham Hiding?

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) doesn't believe in the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from random search and seizure, is a joke to Graham. How can I tell? Because he's defending the random collection of billions of domestic phone calls as lawful and proper.

“I don’t think you’re talking to terrorists, I know you’re not, I know I’m not, so we don’t have anything to worry about,” Graham said. “I’m glad the activity’s going on but it is limited to tracking people who are suspected to be terrorists and who they may be talking to.”

Well, Lindsey, FreedomWorks is asking you to turn over your email password. You know, since you're not talking to terrorists, what do you have to hide? You should lead by example.

Sign the petition and demand Senator Lindsey Graham reveal his email passwords. If Lindsey Graham is so eager to surrender our privacies as citizens, he should go first!


Thứ Tư, 12 tháng 6, 2013

CALL THE GANG OF EIGHT'S AMNESTY BILL WHAT IT REALLY IS: Comprehensive Democrat Importation Reform

On the left side of the aisle stands Barack Obama, the racial separatist group called La Raza ("The Race"), Chuck Schumer, the government of Mexico, the SEIU, Bob Menendez, the AFL-CIO, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Standing side-by-side with the Left are the "Republican" elements of the permanent Beltway ruling class: Karl Rove, The Wall Street Journal, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham. These are the monied elites who are using threats, promises, payoffs, twisted arms, and every other tool at their disposal to bring the likes of Marco Rubio, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Rand Paul to their side.

For the "Republican" establishment, it's about remaining in power. It's not about the country. It's not about stopping the importation of a permanent underclass of welfare recipients certain to vote Democrat. It's not about preserving American exceptionalism. It's not about rescuing the private sector from the damage decades of Democrat policies like "Great Society" and Obamacare have wrought.

It's not about the American people. You and I, my friends, are second-class citizens. Our voices are not nearly as important as those who have entered the country illegally.

The Heritage Foundation says the Senate's massive bill would "grant amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants" while "recycling the flawed and failed ideas of the past".

Mickey Kaus warned earlier this week that 2016 hangs in the balance for the Republican Party on this bill: "If the conservative public were paying attention, the flaws and crude deceptions of the Schumer-Rubio bill would be common knowledge. They are so obvious, especially in the border enforcement area, that even Sen. Rubio pretends to be dissatisfied with his own bill."

The Senate Majority Leader has been very blunt: "Harry Reid indicated on Wednesday that he will not allow the Gang of Eight immigration bill to require stricter border security measures."

Ann Coulter: "It must be fun for liberals to manipulate Republicans into focusing on hopeless causes. Why don't Democrats waste their time trying to win the votes of gun owners? ... But rich businessmen don't care. Big Republican donors -- and their campaign consultants -- just want to make money. They don't care about Hispanics, and they certainly don't care what happens to the country. If the country is hurt, I don't care, as long as I am doing better! This is the very definition of treason."

Congress is about to fundamentally transform the very makeup of the American electorate into a permanent Democrat underclass addicted to government benefits.

You and I aren't going down without a fight. I urge you to call your Senator and two other Senators now (clicking will open a new window).

Tell them this bill is an IQ test for Republicans. Tell them in no uncertain terms that this bill must be stopped -- and anyone who supports it will be damaged goods from this point forward. No money. No support. And primaried, guaranteed. Call now. There is no time to waste. And thank you for your help.


Thứ Ba, 11 tháng 6, 2013

The Merry Band of Chuck Schumer Republicans Keep Pushing the Amnesty Train Down the Tracks

I've got a very basic question for Marco Rubio, John McCain and the rest of the Schumer Republicans: why pass any new immigration law when the current administration won't enforce our existing laws?

Daniel Horowitz at RedState briefs us on the latest Amnesty news from Capitol Hill:

The Senate just voted 82-15 to proceed with debate on the amnesty/immigration deform bill. Every Democrat voted yes, laying waste to the notion that there are still moderate red state Democrats. 15 Republicans voted to stand with We the People against the La Raza foreign lobby/K Street juke box:

Barrasso, Boozman, Crapo, Cruz, Enzi, Grassley, Inhofe, Kirk, Lee, Risch, Roberts, Scott, Sessions, Shelby, Vitter

McCain, Murkowski, and Coburn were not present for the vote. The former two would have voted for it anyway. [Update: Coburn voted yes on the second procedural motion to proceed.]

The rest of the Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, all voted to proceed with debate, thereby sealing the fate of the bill and ensuring that a phony cosmetic compromise is hatched to pass the bill and pressure the House.

We will hear a lot of statements about the need to proceed with debate in order to “strengthen” the bill. It’s akin to advocating for debate on Obamacare so we can fix the beast. This bill is beyond fixing, and even if there was a way to fix it, Democrats along with McConnell and Cornyn have made it clear that their idea of tweaking the bill is strengthening the enforcement after legalization. Rubio actually plans to offer amendments to place provisions in the bill that he originally claimed were a part of the legislation to begin with (the Zuckerberg ads still tout that original speech).

We will hear the establishment say that the status quo is unacceptable. Yes, the status quo of constant amnesty before enforcement is unacceptable. But just because the status quo is bad doesn’t mean we should make it worse just for the purpose of passing “something.” By that same logic, we should have passed Obamacare because there were problems with our current healthcare system. The status quo of Obama promulgating cap and trade regulations by executive fiat is unacceptable, so we need to pass a compromise cap and trade bill to fix the problem.

Now that we have brought the amnesty-first supporters out of the shadows, we need to call the following members and ask them what part of enforcement first don’t they understand:

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Blunt (R-MO)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Chiesa (R-NJ)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)

Coburn (R-OK)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Fischer (R-NE)

Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)

Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Rubio (R-FL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA))
Wicker (R-MS)

Remember, Alexander, McConnell, Cochran, Graham, and Cornyn are up for reelection.

As we noted yesterday, it is quite evident that Democrats have 60 votes to pass any amnesty bill. They are aiming to work with McConnell and Cornyn to insert one or two shiny objects into the bill, so they can bring along another 15-20 Republicans into the fold. This way they will have the GOP share in the blame of another failed amnesty, and place enormous pressure on the House to jump off the cliff instead of following the prudent enforcement-first approach of the House Judiciary Committee - a position supported by the vast majority of the country.


To add insult to injury, we discovered today -- thanks to Judicial Watch -- that the Department of Homeland Security isn't even performing rudimentary background checks on those illegals impacted by the Obama "DREAM Act". You may remember the Obama "DREAM Act"; it was the Executive Action the president engaged in extra-constitutionally because a Democrat Congress wouldn't pass the real DREAM Act. Remember "If Congress doesn't act, I will"?

So instead of sane policies like securing the border, our ruling elites -- with but a few exceptions -- simply pass more laws and regulations that are certain to be ignored by the Executive Branch. Millions of more poverty-stricken, poorly educated, undocumented Democrats will come "out of the shadows" and jump to the front of the line behind the legal immigrants who are trying to follow the process.

I say no more. Nothing passes. Nothing. Not until we have border security. Call and write your nearest Senators using the list above.

Tell them in no uncertain terms: don't pass any Amnesty laws when our current immigration laws are being ignored by a lawless administration.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Thứ Năm, 23 tháng 5, 2013

NEW HERITAGE INFOGRAPHIC: The Gang of Eight's Amnesty Scam

While the country focuses on an endless series of scandals emanating from the Executive Branch, the Senate is quietly preparing to vote on the Gang of Eight's Amnesty bill.

...It will go to the Senate floor after the Memorial Day recess. Heritage has pointed out the problems with this “comprehensive” approach — including the staggering costs of amnesty and a failure to secure the border.


This bill would be an unmitigated economic disaster. As the brilliant Milton Friedman said long ago, "open borders are incompatible with a welfare state."


Thứ Bảy, 27 tháng 4, 2013

Someone Break the News to Marco Rubio: Amnesty Costs 70 Times More Than Enforcement

I respect Marco Rubio. I supported him in his Senate run. Most importantly, I believe he means well.

But the allure of power has proven too strong for him. Ensconced in the Beltway Bubble, Rubio's fallen for what I call "the legislation delusion". Roughly translated, it is the belief that complex, multi-faceted legislation can solve humanity's problems.

Obamacare is the quintessential example of law run amok: it represents tens of thousands of pages of regulations, arbitrary thresholds, segmentation of families into static classes, and other symptoms of a master planner's delusions.

What the Statist terms "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" is similarly -- and fatally -- flawed. It represents dizzyingly complex regulations, dependent upon arbitrary conditions, restrictions, and dictates all requiring millions of pages of flowcharts. It is the product of the proverbial "Mastermind": one who believes he or she can better orchestrate mankind than the entirety of the civil society.

And, as history has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, Masterminds must always turn a blind eye to the financial ramifications of their plans. One need only review the cost of Amnesty.

The cost of amnesty: $999 billion. The cost of attrition by enforcement: as little as $14 billion. Amnesty would cost up to 70 times as much as enforcing existing law.

$999 billion cost of Amnesty (Mass Legalization)

Source: The Heritage Foundation
Summary: The Heritage Foundation issued two studies in 2007 pointing out that the big problem with mass legalization is that (a) most illegal aliens are low-skilled and therefore do not earn enough money to pay enough taxes to cover the government benefits they receive; and (b), amnesty would eventually make them eligible for the full array of welfare and medical benefits offered by local, state and federal governments. They found the cost of allowing illegal aliens to remain in the United States, and eventually to become citizens, would be $3.7 trillion through the year 2056. That works out to a present cost of $1 trillion, at a 5 percent discount rate. In other words, immediately upon passage of an amnesty bill, the United States government would need to put $1 trillion into an investment earning 5 percent per year if it were honest about paying for the costs of amnesty.

$14 billion cost of attrition through enforcement option #1.

Source: Congressional Budget office Estimate for H.R. 4437.
Summary: This option is the bill H.R. 4437 sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner that passed the House of Representatives in 2005. This bill would have been so effective in combating illegal immigration that some 1 million illegal aliens marched in cities around the United States on May 1, 2006 to protest it. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $1.9 billion over the 5 years 2006-2010, which we extrapolate out to the year 2056 using a linear model to account for cost increases. Then we use a discount rate of 5 percent to bring the future costs back to a single present cost figure. The resulting cost was actually $13.5 billion, which we round up to $14 billion to facilitate comparison to the other cost figures.

$177 billion cost of attrition through enforcement option #2.

Source: Congressional Budget Office Estimate for H.R. 4088.
Summary: This option is the SAVE Act (Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act) that was introduced in the House of Representatives in 2007. This is a strong attrition through enforcement bill. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $40.7 billion over the 10 years 2009-2018, which we extrapolate out to the year 2056 using a linear model to account for cost increases. Then we use a discount rate of 5 percent to bring the future costs back to a single present cost figure.

We conservatives are immigrants. We are first-generation immigrants or the descendants thereof. But we, as opposed to those whom the "Gang of Eight" would legalize, have followed a lawful process. We and our forebears have come to America's shores through Ellis Island and other ports of entry, applied for citizenship, and have become the law-abiding citizens that have shaped the country.

That is not what "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" represents: it instead grants legal status to those who have broken the law, stolen their way into the country without background checks, without any vetting of their connection to drug cartels or terrorism, and without even a modicum of examination.

There is only one acceptable response to the Gang of Eight's master plans. Seal the border, prove it is sealed over a substantial period of time, and then -- and only then -- will the American people countenance "amnesty" or whatever term the Statist uses to describe legalized lawbreaking.


Chủ Nhật, 21 tháng 4, 2013

And now, a public service announcement on immigration from Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Brought to you courtesy of the Sunday talk shows, which iOwnTheWorld watches so you don't have to.


As Dave Cutler wrote recently, we need comprehensive immigration law enforcement. Passing more laws -- when our current ones aren't enforced -- makes no sense, unless you're a Democrat or a miscreant. But I repeat myself.


Thứ Bảy, 20 tháng 4, 2013

The Gang of Eight's Immigration Deception [Cutler]

Guest post by Michael Cutler

The “Gang of Eight,” aka the “Eight Gangsters,” are concocting Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation. Purportedly this legislation is needed to address the presence of the officially-estimated population of 12 million illegal aliens.

While the legislation is referred to as being “Comprehensive,” there is nothing truly comprehensive about their approach, other than the fact that it would provide nearly all illegal aliens who are in the United States, or who will arrive in the months to come, with lawful status and ultimately, a pathway to United States citizenship. It would also increase the number of visas for many thousands of foreign workers and allow them to compete unfairly with American workers.

A History of Deception

The “one time” amnesty of 1986 was supposed to involve approximately one million illegal aliens. Over 3.5 million actually came forward. If history were to repeat itself, Comprehensive Immigration Reform would involve between 30 and 40 million aliens.

And that is just one of the deceptions inherent in the coverage of the current debate. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) was on ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday, and expressed concern that pledges to secure the border between the U.S. and Mexico won’t be kept, leading to a massive influx of illegal aliens.

“It looks like…it will give amnesty now, legalize everyone that’s here effectively today and then there’s a promise of enforcement in the future,” Sessions said about the proposed legislation. “Even if you pass laws today that appear to be effective, it doesn’t mean they’re going to be enforced.”

“And we have in this administration,” he added, a failure to enforce. So that’s a big deal right now.”

The Border Deception

Another deception is the claim that the United States has just four border states. Any state that has a seaport or international airport is as much a border state as are those states found along America’s northern and southern border. Simply stated, there are 50 border states.

The “debate” over Comprehensive Immigration Reform has, by design, centered on whether the southern border is secure. It most certainly is anything but secure, but that is hardly the only problem in our current immigration system. While that border must be secured against the illegal, un-inspected entry of aliens and cargo, it is not a more serious problem than the fact that there are millions of illegal aliens present in the United States who ran across the U.S./Canadian border, jumped ship or stowed away on vessels, or violated their terms of supposedly lawful admissions into the United States.

It is certainly not more serious than the fraud permeating the immigration benefits program.

While attention is being intentionally drawn to the U.S./Mexican border, attention is purposely being drawn away from the myriad other abysmal failures of the immigration system.

The Terror Deception

The lack of integrity in the adjudications process was the focus of clear concerns of the 9/11 Commission, and the 9/11 Commission staff noted it in their report, 9/11 AND TERRORIST TRAVEL: Staff Report of the National Commission onTerrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

This paragraph is found on page 98 under the title “Immigration Benefits:”

“Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.”

Page 47 of the above-noted report contained the following paragraph:

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida. Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.”

The “Eight Gangsters” expect that there would be no way to verify material facts contained in applications for Comprehensive Immigration Reform filed by “Undocumented Aliens.” They craft legislative prerequisites for aliens to deceive their colleagues and the American people. Aliens who game the system will be able to falsely claim they meet those requirement. For example, let’s examine the requirement that aliens must have been present in the United States for a designated period of years. Without a record of their entry into the United States, and without the means to conduct field investigations, an alien could easily enter the United States well after any cutoff date, while fraudulently claiming to have been here for years.

The "Unobtainium" Deception

Engineers who are engaged in cutting-edge programs refer to materials that don’t exist but that would be essential to the construction of advanced design aircraft, spacecraft and the like, as being “unobtainium.” Where immigration is concerned, the term “unobtainium” could be used to refer to the verification of claims made in applications for immigration benefits. There is no way to verify information concerning material facts contained in those applications.

There has been no mention as to how the USCIS would process these amnesty applications. There are not enough personnel available to conduct face-to-face interviews with all of the applicants. Today, that beleaguered, inept and incompetent agency is processing alien “DREAMERS” without in-person interviews, and without the capacity to conduct field investigations to verify claims made in those applications.

Immigration fraud compromises national security and deprives hardworking Americans the opportunity to find decent jobs at a time when such jobs are already in short supply.

Yet fraud largely goes undetected and unpunished. Think of it as a case of “Mind over matter.” If the administration doesn’t mind, it would not matter if aliens lie on their applications with impunity, and, in fact, tacit immunity!

The Fraud Deception

Aliens who succeed in gaming the system provide encouragement to other aliens, who are consequently emboldened to file their own fraud-laden applications, further exacerbating the backlog of applications, applying more pressure on the over-burdened system to move the applications still more quickly. It takes minutes to approve an application, but it may take hours or days to deny an application. The only way to clear the burgeoning backlog of applications is to approve nearly every application. This encourages more fraud and further compromises not only the integrity of the immigration system, but national security and the safety and well-being of all Americans as well.

Today, record numbers of Americans, especially young Americans and members of the American minority communities, are unemployed and underemployed. It is outrageous that the “Eight Gangsters,” such as Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), are calling for more work visas for foreign workers as a “solution” to the immigration crisis. This is the equivalent of addressing drunk driving by raising the acceptable blood alcohol level for motorists. While fewer drivers would be legally drunk, the carnage on the highways would actually increase as more drivers drank more—with impunity!

As I noted at the conclusion of my prepared testimony for the hearing on immigration conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 20, 2013:

Inspiring a Flood of New Illegals

“Law enforcement is at its best when it creates a climate of deterrence to convince those who might be contemplating violating the law that such an effort is likely to be discovered, and, that if discovered, adverse consequences will result for the law violators. Current policies and statements by the administration, in my view, encourage aspiring illegal aliens around the world to head for the United States. In effect the starter’s pistol has been fired, and for these folks, the finish line to this race is the border of the United States.”

The true solution to the immigration crisis lies in addressing all of the failures that induced and enabled millions of illegal aliens to enter the United States and work illegally or, in all too many instances, acquire lawful status by committing fraud. More agents must be hired for ICE and they must be given the resources and leadership to do an effective job. Aliens must come to understand that those who commit fraud and other violations will be identified and face prosecution and deportation.

Rather than Comprehensive Immigration Reform, America really needs COMPILE (Comprehensive Immigration Law Enforcement)!



Michael W. Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Thứ Ba, 9 tháng 4, 2013

RED ALERT -- TAKE ACTION NOW: Mark Levin warns Senate will try to erase the Second Amendment on Thursday

The Right Scoop headlines its audio snippet: "Mark Levin goes NUCLEAR: An up and down vote on the 2nd amendment is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!":

Mark Levin says that on Thursday the Senate intends to vote to change the 2nd amendment without any pretense of going through the amendment process, on a bill that hasn’t even been written yet. He says that this isn’t republicanism, it’s democratic tyranny. And the senators arguing to filibuster are being demonized, but Levin says that an up and down vote on the 2nd amendment is unconstitutional, that there is no up and down vote on the Constitution.

Write your Representatives now. The Second Amendment isn't up for debate or modification. This lawlessness must end.

Thứ Bảy, 9 tháng 3, 2013

Senators Cruz and Paul respond to John McCain's classless insults

The scourge of the GOP Senate -- the ludicrous "J-Linz" twins (John McCain and Lindsey Graham) -- appear highly exercised over the fact that some other Republican Senators actually received a little bit of media attention. After Paul's epic filibuster, McCain threw an egotistical fit, calling the Senator from Kentucky and his conservative ally Ted Cruz "whacko birds".

According to The Shark Tank, both Cruz and Paul had more dignified responses to McCain's temper tantrum.

This past weekend in Miami, Florida, we caught up to one of the elusive and endangered Senate “Wacko Birds” ... Ted Cruz, and asked him what his thoughts were about being called such a term.

Cruz looked at me and the Miami Herald’s Marc Caputo, chuckled, and responded, “I take that as a badge of honor.”

Earlier in the week, Senator Paul responded to McCain’s not-so-senatorial use of words by saying ,“I treat Sen. McCain with respect. I don’t think I always get the same in return.”

And isn't it interesting that Democrats never attack one another, but the old RINO establishment spends more time attacking Constitutional Conservatives than they do fighting the soft tyranny of the modern Fabian Democrats.

John Edwards was right about one thing: there really are two Americas. There's the ruling class and the rest of us.


Chủ Nhật, 10 tháng 2, 2013

Lindsey Graham fetches a pair of pliers and a blowtorch, vows to get all medieval on Chuck Hagel and John Brennan

While I haven't exactly been Lindsey Graham's biggest fan over the last six or so years, I have to give him credit for fighting back against two of the most radical nominees in recent memory.

Lindsey Graham said today that he didn’t want to see Chuck Hagel and John Brennan in office before the Obama administration gave more answers on Benghazi.

“I don’t think we should allow Brennan to go forward for the CIA directorship, Hagel to be confirmed to secretary of defense, until the White House gives us an accounting,” Graham said on Face the Nation. “Did the president ever pick up the phone and call anyone in the Libyan government to help these folks? What did the president do?”

In response to Bob Schieffer’s question about whether he would put a hold on the nominations if he didn’t get answers from the White House, Graham responded, “Yes, I’m going to ask my colleagues, just like they did with John Bolton, Joe Biden said no confirmation without information.”

Given credible reports that Chuck Hagel received funds from a Hamas-linked terror group and John Brennan recently converted to Islam, substantial vetting of this pair is required.


Hat tip: A.C.