Monday, June 3, 2013

Current Events - June 3, 2013

The Decline of the Obama Presidency

His second term is coming undone not because of scandal but because of decisions made in the previous four years.

John Dos Passos, the novelist and historian, once said: "Often things you think are just beginning are coming to an end." His observation was made in the 1960s. But it's true today of Barack Obama's presidency and the promise of a bright future for his second term.

Mr. Obama's re-election stirred grand expectations. The vote heralded a new liberal era, or so it was claimed. His victory was said to reflect ideological, cultural and demographic trends that could keep Democrats in the majority for years to come. His second four years in the White House would be just the beginning.

Now, six months later, the Obama administration is in an unexpected and sharp state of decline. Mr. Obama has little influence on Congress. His presidency has no theme. He pivots nervously from issue to issue. What there is of an Obama agenda consists, at the moment, of leftovers from his first term or proposals that he failed to emphasize in his re-election campaign and thus have practically no chance of passage.

Congressional Republicans neither trust nor fear the president. And Democrats on Capitol Hill, to whom Mr. Obama has never been close, have grown leery of him. In the Senate, Democrats complain privately about his interference with the biggest domestic policy matter of 2013, immigration reform. His effect, the senators believe, can only be to weaken the fragile bipartisan coalition for reform and make passage of major legislation more perilous.

The Obama breakdown was not caused by the trio of scandals—IRS, Justice Department, Benghazi—now confronting the president. The decline preceded them. It's the result of what Mr. Obama did in his first term, during the campaign and in the two months following his re-election. But the scandals have worsened his plight and made recovery next to impossible.

To be clear, the two problems—the decline and the scandals—are different matters. The scandals have not been linked directly to the president. They are vexing to the administration, but they are not the source of its current impotence. Instead, Mr. Obama's power and influence have been sapped as a direct result of his own choices and decisions. He also suffers from shortcomings normal to a second term, such as a new, less able team of advisers and cabinet members and the arrogance fed by an impressive re-election. 

In his first term, when Democrats controlled the House and Senate, Mr. Obama ignored Republicans—he didn't need their votes to pass the $800 billion stimulus, the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) and Dodd-Frank, with its fresh wave of Wall Street regulations. Then, after Republicans captured the House in the 2010 midterm election, his efforts to reach agreements with them proved futile.

Why did Mr. Obama fail at compromise? For one thing, he is rarely able to mask his contempt for Republicans, especially those with conservative views. For another, he began to question Republicans' motives, insisting publicly that their paramount goal in Washington is to protect the rich from higher taxes. As a tactic for encouraging compromise, his approach was counterproductive.

Robert Merry, the editor of the National Interest magazine and a longtime Washington journalist, recently pinpointed a bigger reason for the impasse after 2010: "It is a deadlock born largely of the president's resolve to push an agenda for which he has no clear national consensus." In other words, Mr. Obama is too liberal to find common ground with Republicans. The spending cuts he offers are illusory, the tax increases specific.

Then, after the November election, Mr. Obama spurned conciliation. He upped the ante, calling for higher spending, a new economic stimulus and an increase in the debt limit without congressional approval. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell laughed out loud when he heard the proposal.

Mr. Obama used his last bit of leverage to prevail over Republicans in the fiscal-cliff budget negotiations late last year. With the Bush-era tax cuts due to expire Dec. 31, the president forced Republicans to accept a hefty tax hike on the top 2% of wage earners. His short-term victory has had long-term political consequences. Republicans vowed to oppose new tax increases, which ruled out a "grand bargain" to reduce the deficit and national debt.

The exclusion of Republicans from a role in crafting ObamaCare has also backfired. By failing to ensure that the GOP had some influence on the health-care law, the president gave them no reason to support its implementation. With ObamaCare more unpopular than ever, House Republicans voted last month to repeal it. The vote was largely symbolic, but it was telling that two Democrats joined the effort. Short of repeal, Republican elected officials across the country are committed to making the law's implementation, beginning this year, as difficult as possible.

Nor is tax reform likely to get anywhere this year or next despite Mr. Obama's support, at least rhetorically, for the idea. He wants to eliminate tax preferences and loopholes so the government can collect more revenue. To win those changes, though, he would need make a bargain with Republicans, offering to cut tax rates, including the top rate on individual income, to generate faster economic growth. That clashes with Mr. Obama's zeal for higher taxes on the well-to-do.

Faced with such obstacles, the president could focus instead on his own domestic agenda—if he had one. He doesn't. He's paying the price for a re-election campaign that was based on attacking his opponent, Mitt Romney, and not much else. In the president's State of the Union address in February, he endorsed a $9 minimum wage and universal prekindergarten for 4-year-olds, but those proposals lack a popular mandate. If he had campaigned for them last year, they might have better prospects now.

More often than not, presidents focus on foreign policy in their second terms. But Mr. Obama's practice is to downgrade foreign policy in favor of domestic concerns. Where he has sought to restrain foreign governments—Russia, Iran, North Korea—he has been unsuccessful. His speech in May on national security and the terrorist threat revived an issue from his 2008 campaign, the closing of the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay. The chance that will happen is slim.

He is also pushing two leftovers from his first year in office, immigration reform and gun control. What's striking about Mr. Obama's handling of both is his complete absence of influence. On gun control, his speeches had zero impact. On immigration, his influence is entirely negative. He can impede a bill. He cannot aid its passage.

All this has left Mr. Obama in a state of weakness. And Democrats are increasingly blaming him. Doug Sosnik, a former senior adviser in the Clinton White House, wrote in a memo last month that Mr. Obama's re-election "was a great political achievement, but the fact that he didn't set out a clear policy agenda for a second term left him without a clear mandate to govern over a politically divided Congress."

Mr. Sosnik, who is now deputy commissioner of the National Basketball Association, added: "There's not a single member of either party [in Congress] who fears paying a political price for not falling in line with the President, making it even more difficult to get members to cast difficult votes."

Mr. Obama's top priority now is winning the House in 2014 while retaining control of the Senate. "I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that we've got Nancy Pelosi back in the speakership," he said last week at a Democratic fundraiser in Chicago. In Mr. Obama's case, "everything" is unlikely to be enough.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324412604578519482313147400.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Holder's Seat Getting Hotter?

Are the long knives finally getting unsheathed for Eric Holder?  Veteran NBC Newsman Tom Brokaw offered this blunt assessment of Holder's viability on Meet the Press:
"Boy, I think it's tough to see how he does in this case," Brokaw said. "But it's up to the president ... He has become obviously the lightning rod for a lot of the criticism just on this panel and certainly in Republican circles. From a political point of view, one of the ways that you can measure the impact of all of this and the fairness of it is think if this had happened in the Bush administration with John Ashcroft as the attorney general. You know full well that the Democrats on the left would be going very hard after them with these issues that are in play."
The New York Times piece cited by both Gregory and Brokaw hints that President Obama's proverbial bus may be revving up its engine:
Over the course of four and a half years, no other member of President Obama’s cabinet has been at the center of so many polarizing episodes or the target of so much criticism. While the White House publicly backed Mr. Holder as he tried to smooth over the latest uproar amid new speculation about his future, some in the West Wing privately tell associates they wish he would step down, viewing him as politically maladroit. But the latest attacks may stiffen the administration’s resistance in the near term to a change for fear of emboldening critics … But that does not mitigate the frustration of some presidential aides. “The White House is apoplectic about him, and has been for a long time,” said a Democratic former government official who did not want to be identified while talking about friends. Some advisers to Mr. Obama believe that Mr. Holder does not manage or foresee problems, the former official said. “How hard would it be to anticipate that The A.P. would be unhappy?” the former official said. “And then they haven’t defended their position.”

Brokaw believes Team Obama may be executing a Beltway "two-step," where named administration officials stand by their man on the record, while deputies telegraph the White House's true sentiments on background.  In this case, the Times reports that West Wing insiders are trying to nudge Holder toward the door, his central crime being political maladriotness.  Their "apoplexy" over the Attorney General isn't on the merits of his terrible decisions and obvious dishonesty, mind you.  They're cool with his behavior -- from pressing for Bush-era recriminations, to backing New York City trials for Al Qaeda leaders, to presiding over and misleading Congress on Fast & Furious, to spying on journalists.  What they can't abide is Holder's lack of political finesse in carrying out his agenda.  These unnamed administration sources say they "wish" Holder would just step down on his own and spare everyone more headaches.  What they fail to mention, of course, is that the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the president.  Barack Obama can pull the plug on Holder whenever he'd like; "wishing" has nothing to do with it. 

 Holder's stewardship of the Justice Department has been controversial, ham-fisted, and exceedingly political.  In the midst of the current scandal, Holder has alternatively pleaded ignorance and innocence -- calling further into question his veracity, and his PR team's latest ploy was an abject embarrassment.  The Attorney General is a lightning rod.  He's an incompetent at best, and a malicious liar at worst.  He's being investigated for perjury, the prima facie case for which is rather strong.  He's been held in criminal contempt of Congress on a separate issue.  And he's carrying out a farcical investigation into himself, which is a public laughingstock.   Why hasn't the president tossed Holder overboard, as he's done with other subordinates who've outlived their usefulness?  Three prevailing theories:  (1) Holder knows too much.  Because the Attorney General knows "where the bodies are buried" within this administration, Obama can't afford to alienate him by offering him up as a sacrificial lamb.  (2) Obama and Holder's relationship is very strong, so the former is treating the latter with extraordinary patience.  Obama places a high premium on political loyalty; in addition to being a close friend and confidante, Holder has been a reliable ally in wielding his power to advance the president's agenda over the years.  (3) Cutting Holder loose in the thick of scandalmania (which appears to be expanding by the day) may accomplish little more than emboldening Obama's critics and fueling the media feeding frenzy.  I personally come down in the middle of options two and three.  Option one would be more compelling if I didn't believe Holder is extremely unlikely to "flip" on Obama under almost any circumstance; he likely sees his legacy as inextricably linked to his boss's, and would therefore do nothing to intentionally harm the Obama presidency.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/06/03/holders-seat-getting-hotter-n1611324

‘Temporary’ farm subsidy program may finally meet the reaper

 The building is one of the finest on Central Park West. Celebrity residents. Park views. Units priced at up to $24 million. It is most definitely not a farm. 

But last year, the U.S. government sent $9,070 in farm subsidies to an apartment here.

Even the woman who got that money isn’t exactly sure why. “I really don’t know,” Lisa Sippel said.

Sippel does own farmland, but it’s in Missouri. Somebody there does the work.

Still, Sippel gets the federal payments, which were originally meant to keep small farmers afloat. “I’m kind of an absentee landlord,” she said.

The money, it turns out, comes from one cockeyed farm-aid program that was supposed to end in 2003. It didn’t: Congress kept it alive and now hands out almost $5 billion a year using oddly relaxed rules. 

As long as recipients own farmland, they are not required to grow any crops there. Or live on the farm. Or even visit it.

The program is one of Washington’s walking dead — “temporary” giveaway programs that have staggered on years beyond their intended expiration dates. Letting them live is an old and expensive congressional habit, still unbroken in this age of austerity.

Now, both the House and Senate are trying to kill off this budget leftover, 10 years late. 

“It’s something that was supposed to die [that] has gotten an extra decade of life. So, do the math,” said Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group, which has fought these subsidies for years. In all, the program has cost at least $46 billion more than it was supposed to.

For elected officials, a temporary program is a little act of political magic; it allows them to take credit for creating a program and also for ending it — all at once. The hard job, of course, is actually letting the thing die. 

That task is pushed off to future officials, who often push it off again. So Washington is now full of “temporary” programs that are old enough to vote. 

The Essential Air Service program, a subsidy for flights to small airports, was supposed to expire in 1988. It’s still alive. The widely popular research and development tax credit has been a temporary measure since 1981. It was renewed, along with more than 50 other temporary programs, in January’s “fiscal cliffdeal.

And — buried among the USDA’s array of aid programs for farmers — there is this death-cheating, farming-optional farm subsidy. 

It has become a case study in how a temporary giveaway turns permanent, but it began in 1996 as an idea to save the government money.

A penny-pinching Republican Congress wanted to eliminate the complex system of subsidy payments that had begun in the New Deal, but it didn’t want to make farmers quit cold turkey. 

So Congress devised a kind of nicotine patch for farm subsidies. The new program would pay out smaller and smaller amounts over seven years. Then it would end. 

To make the changes more palatable to farmers, Congress loosened the requirements for getting the payments. They would be calculated based on a farmer’s past harvests. In the future, farmers could grow the same crops. Or different ones. 
Or no crops at all. The money would still come. 
 
“These are not welfare payments. These are declining market transition payments,” said then-Rep. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the architect of the plan. When those payments finally ended, Roberts promised, Congress would have finally gotten “the dead hand of government out of the business of farming.”
 
Roberts’ seven-year plan held up. For about two years.

Then, in 1998, farm income fell. A drought crippled harvests. The farm lobby howled for help. Congress complied by adding $2.9 billion in extra payments. The declining transition payments would no longer decline before their end date.

In 2002, Congress got rid of the end date, too.

Farm income was on another downswing then. The budget-cutting fever of the 1990s had passed. Congress renamed these giveaways “direct payments” — no longer a transitional measure but an expected, regular transfer from taxpayer to government to farmer.

Roberts voted “nay” as his temporary payments became permanent. 

“I guess we put the seed of reform in the ground, and it sprouted up there for a while, and maybe it grew into a noxious weed,” Roberts, now a senator, said in a telephone interview last week.

In 2008, with Democrats in charge of Congress, the payments were renewed again. This time, Roberts was a “yea.” He worried that if they disappeared, legislators would come up with something more expensive and heavy-handed to replace them.

The payments were renewed one more time in January, through the end of 2013.

But problems have appeared. The features that had made these payments a good short-term political gesture — their relaxed rules and regular cash flow — made them terrible as a long-term aid program.

That’s because farm aid is supposed to be a safety net, ready during hard times.

This was not that. This was an ATM, spitting out money in good times and bad.

“Direct payments make no sense at all,” said Harwood Schaffer, a professor who analyzes farm policy at the University of Tennessee. “When corn is $2 a bushel or $7 a bushel, they get the same direct payments. So at $7 a bushel it simply increases their profit.”

Recent analyses of the program have found that it subsidizes some people who aren’t really farming: the idle, the urban, and occasionally the dead.

The idle include recipients at 2,300 farms that haven’t grown crops at all for the past five years, and 622 that haven’t grown anything for 10, according to the Government Accountability Office

In addition, the program has paid hundreds of millions to people who lived more than 300 miles from the farmland they owned. That’s legal, under the program’s rules, but only if the owner shares in the farm’s financial risks and remains “actively engaged” in farm decisions from afar.

But these rules do not seem to be strictly enforced.

“I am not the farmer. But I have a farmer. And I don’t understand the mechanics of the [payment] whatsoever,” Catharine Snowdon said.

Snowdon lives in Washington’s Georgetown neighborhood, but a trust at her address receives direct payments tied to a farm on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. 
Last year, the government sent $1,208, according to Agriculture Department data compiled by the Environmental Working Group
 
“I think it’s soybeans every year and corn some other years,” Snowdon said when asked about the farm’s management. She said she had never investigated exactly why the payments came. “It’s not a significant amount of money for me to get excited about it.”

The Environmental Working Group found at least 24 addresses in the District, and at least 21 in Manhattan, that received more than $1,000 in direct payments last year.

The Agriculture Department says it is possible for these urban recipients to turn down these payments.
But it’s very rare.

Now, Congress may end the payouts instead. 

In both the House and Senate, committees have passed farm bills that would end these direct payments. They would be replaced with other programs that often require farmers to grow actual crops.

“You got people on Wall Street that probably own farmland,” said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa). “Well, [they] ain’t gonna get ’em anymore.” 

Grassley himself will lose direct payments if the bill passes — he got $8,207 last year for a farm he owns in Iowa. Others on Capitol Hill get more. Last year, the program paid $70,574 to Rep. Stephen Lee Fincher (R) and his wife. Fincher, a fiscal conservative from Frog Jump, Tenn., has also called for the payments to end.

Direct payments seem easier to cut now, because farm income is near record highs. Corn, for instance, is selling above $6.60 a bushel.

“It’s become readily apparent that you couldn’t save them,” said Mary Kay Thatcher of the American Farm Bureau Federation. Thatcher got $1,340 in direct payments last year for her Iowa farm. 

President Obama has also called for eliminating the payments. So it seems that the subsidy that cheated death is almost gone. 

Almost. But not quite.

The House’s farm bill would allow a subset of direct payments — those for cotton farmers — to continue for two years. The reason: There’s a new aid program being set up to help those farmers, but it hasn’t been implemented yet. 

To tide them over, the cotton farmers will continue to get payments. At the House Agriculture Committee, they say there’s no reason to worry about that.

After all, these payouts are only going to be temporary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/temporary-farm-subsidy-program-may-finally-meet-the-reaper/2013/06/02/3e20d25e-c25b-11e2-97fa-0f57decebbbf_story.html

New Details Emerge on IRS Targeting Conservatives
Republicans’ top House investigator revealed details of whistleblower testimony on Sunday that suggest the scandal involving targeting of Tea Party groups by the Internal Revenue Service was more coordinated than the agency has admitted.

One IRS agent interviewed by the committee revealed that orders to target some groups had come directly from Washington, D.C., contradicting statements from the agency’s tax-exempt division chief Lois Lerner and other administration officials.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) did not mince words in an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” calling White House press secretary Jay Carney a “paid liar” who, Issa said, is “still making up things about what happened and calling this a local rogue.”

That claim has the left incensed, with some calling on Issa to apologize and others suggesting Republicans may be “overreaching” in their investigation.

The scandal, though, continued to deepen over the weekend after reports that IRS targeting involved 88 employees, suggesting more involvement by agency officials in Washington than the IRS and the White House have admitted.

Personal stories of groups that were apparently targeted for additional scrutiny also continue to emerge. Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney detailed the chilling effect that IRS targeting had on one northern Virginia Tea Party group:
The Manassas Tea Party sought tax-exempt status in May 2010, partly so it could raise money more easily. It wanted to be what’s called a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, to get a tax exemption for itself and so its donors could remain anonymous. (In that IRS category, the donors themselves can’t claim a tax deduction.)
The IRS gave its approval only last January after demanding volumes of paperwork.
“It was without question stifling,” chairman Dan Arnold said. “We stopped fundraising altogether. We kept our activities at a very low scale. People became less involved because they weren’t quite sure what kind of organization we were.”
The weekend also brought news that former acting IRS commissioner Doug Shulman’s wife is an outspoken left-wing activist who has joined Organizing for Action and Occupy groups to protest conservative political spending.

Susan Anderson, Shulman’s wife, is an employee of the left-wing campaign finance reform group Public Campaign, which minimized concerns about Tea Party targeting after the agency admitted that it had singled out conservative groups.

Public Campaign receives funding from major labor unions and other liberal political groups.

http://freebeacon.com/new-details-emerge-on-irs-targeting-conservatives/

GSA Blows Quarter Billion Dollars on Breaking Lease; Lies to Congress About It

Just a few blocks away from Nationals Park the federal government holds a below-market lease at 2100 2nd Street, SW, Washington D.C.

The 600,000 square foot lease doesn’t expire until May 15, 2018 and is valued at least $48 million in rent and likely represents another $40 million in savings below market rates for commercial real estate.

But, in a time of tight budgets, when taxes have been raised on all Americans to support Washington’s addiction to spending, bureaucrats at the General Services Administration (GSA) have decided to…wait… abandon the cost-effective space, move the employees to a new, higher rent building and pay rent on the vacated building; at the cost to taxpayers of at least $250 million according to sources familiar with the terms of the lease.

And we wonder why the government has such a tough time cutting their budget while having such an easy cutting our household budgets through taxes?  

Sources close to Capitol Hill, however, say there is growing outrage over this specific illustration of the waste of more than $250 million taxpayer dollars.

“The GSA is making a major mistake by neglecting to take advantage of existing below market lease rates for an extended term. It is outrageous that they simply seem to be ignoring a significant cost savings to the taxpayer,” said a source close to Congress. “This is a time we all need to be exercising prudent fiscal responsibility, a basic responsibility of the GSA. They have dropped the ball and had better pick it up soon”.

I guess that’s the reason why the GSA has suddenly gone all “Eric Holder” on Congress, testifying to the House subcommittee responsible for the oversight of federal real estate that the broken lease won’t cost taxpayers a dime, when in fact the opposite seems true. 

From the Washington Business Journal:

The federal government will be on the hook for at least $30 million in lease payments for the Coast Guard's current Buzzard Point headquarters after the agency moves to St. Elizabeths later this year, according to sources familiar with terms of the agency's lease with Monday Properties Inc.

That would contradict congressional testimony from Dorothy Robyn, public buildings service commissioner for the General Services Administration, who told a House subcommittee May 22 that the federal government has an early termination clause with Monday and will not owe any rent.

Sources say the Coast Guard is allowed to terminate its Buzzard Point lease in May 2015, meaning the government would have to pay the lease term until then. There remains disagreement over how much that exposure would be: Some sources say it would be $30 million, while others say it will be as high as $60 million.

That’s not just Contempt of Congress- or even perjury- that’s Contempt of Common Sense, Taxpayers, Economics and, most likely, at least a minor violation of Einstein’s concept of space-time.  

Negotiated in 2008, the lease is estimated to save the government at least $14 per square foot in a real estate market that often fetches $50 per square foot for commercial property.  For all intents and purposes, the lease is a shrewd one to hold at a time that the government is trying to save a few dollars. 

“Not only is the remaining 18 months of vacant/wasted space a problem,” said a person familiar with the lease, “but also that GSA foolishly terminated early a major federal asset that it had for years into the future – very cheap space that is perfectly well suited for numerous federal requirements.  This is possibly the most foolish of all GSA blunders, and hurts the taxpayers the most.”

The government could save a lot of taxpayer dollars if it continued to occupy the building including:

·         $60 million in lease liability in an unoccupied building
·         $40 million they already spent in infrastructure improvements
·         $140-280 million in savings by extending the terms already negotiated at below market rates.

Because of the below-market deal negotiated in 2008, instead of moving out, the government should be moving more people in. 

I know we see this type of government waste every day – but hundreds of millions of dollars are going to be wasted by keeping this building unoccupied – an outrage for sure.

But unlike a lot of other government outrages, this one can still be remedied. 
Congress? Can you hear us?

Because someone has been taking “Eric Holder” lessons from you. 

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2013/06/03/gsa-blows-quarter-billion-dollars-on-breaking-lease-lies-to-congress-about-it-n1611531/page/full

Major Hillary Clinton Supporter Jailed

A major Hillary Clinton supporter was sentenced to more than two years in federal prison on Friday for illegally funneling nearly $200,000 into Clinton’s Senate and White House campaigns, the Associated Press reported.

William Danielczyk, a northern Virginia resident, pleaded guilty to violations of federal campaign finance laws. He admitted to illegally reimbursing employees of his company, Galen Capital, for contributions to Clinton’s campaigns.

According to prosecutors, Danielczyk hoped to secure an ambassadorship or other favorable treatment under a Clinton presidency.

He was sentenced to 28 months in prision.
In imposing his sentence, U.S. District Judge James Cacheris compared Danielczyk’s case to defense lobbyist Paul Magliocchetti, who received 27 months for illegally funneling more than $380,000 to House members controlling the Pentagon’s budget.
Arguing for a lighter sentence, defense lawyer Abbe Lowell said Danielczyk’s case differed from more serious violations in part because Danielczyk did not seek any special favors in exchange for his fundraising efforts.
But prosecutor Eric Gibson disputed that, citing grand jury testimony that Danielczyk had told others he hoped to land an ambassadorship and saw fundraising as a means to achieve it. […]
The scheme was first exposed more than five years ago by The Wall Street Journal. At the time, Danielczyk lied and said he had not reimbursed people for making contributions.
Prosecutor Eric Gibson said the lies to the media were just a small part of Danielczyk’s efforts to hide his scheme, including falsely describing reimbursements to his straw donors as bonuses and “consulting fees” and swapping out a laptop computer with incriminating evidence that he was obliged to turn over to the FBI.
http://freebeacon.com/major-hillary-clinton-supporter-jailed/

Kindergarten and the Kafkaesque

To follow up on the recent story about a five-year-old boy suspended for showing a cap gun to his friend on a school bus, Investor's Business Daily relates a charming collection of similar anecdotes regarding such child abuse at U.S. re-education camps -- oops, I mean public schools. Each tale involves a very young child receiving severe punishment for the offense of imagining he had a gun

In the most recent case in question, a kindergarten student in Maryland shows his cap gun to a friend, and is browbeaten for two hours by school officials, without his mother even being notified, until he wets his pants in fear. In another case, a boy caught with "a quarter-sized Lego toy gun" on his school bus is threatened with suspension from the bus, detention, and the demand of a written apology to the bus driver. Perhaps my favorite story, however, were I a fan of surreal horror, would be that of the seven-year-old boy who bites a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun and then says "bang, bang," for which threatening behavior he receives a two-day suspension.

Needless to say, not one of these cases involves an actual threat or danger to anyone. Nor do any of them even indicate malicious intent on the part of the "offending" child; these were just boys playing, having fun, showing off their toys, or goofing around in the lunch room. In other words, their punishment -- any punishment -- seems disproportionate compared to their alleged wrongdoing.

But that conclusion, though correct from the point of view of common sense, is too easy, and actually misses the point. This is where the lines of communication between ordinary humans and progressive authoritarians break down every time. For in the Kafkaesque world of progressive regulatory theocracy, there is no disproportion at all between these children's offenses and their punishments, once you understand that the children were not being punished for threatening or endangering anyone. Rather, they were being punished for "referencing" firearms in a nonjudgmental -- or even (gasp) approving -- manner. In other words, their offense, in each case, was, in adult terms, nothing less than a thought crime.

The boys' harmless actions were unacceptable precisely because they were harmless. That is to say, in the current moral grammar of progressivism, it is an offense against society to think about guns without hating or fearing them -- just as it is an offense to think about Western history without the Marxist context of systemic oppression, to think of female modesty without its radical feminist critique, or to think of wealth without simultaneously thinking of greed. Thus, just as with these other notions, entertaining the idea of guns in an innocuous way is indecent, immoral, and warrants one's removal from the collective.

No one ever mistook a half-eaten Pop Tart for a weapon. And that is precisely why you are forbidden from saying "bang, bang" while wielding a half-eaten Pop Tart. If this still makes no sense to you, that is because you are not crazy. But try, for a moment, to put yourself into the twisted psyche of a progressive authoritarian, and ask yourself this question: What is the message being sent through such rules, and the lesson being taught through their enforcement?

First lesson: guns are bad -- all guns, in any situation, regardless of who has them, or why. Even your gun is bad in your hands. The gun itself is inherently evil, and not to be trusted. And that means you are not to be trusted if you imagine that guns could ever be an innocuous or innocent toy. Having a gun, or even pretending to have a gun, makes you, ipso facto, a bad child. And the same, by implication, goes for your parents, your grandparents, or anyone else who has a gun, or wishes to have one.


As I have recently explained in theoretical terms, the very nature and purpose of compulsory public education is to soften the minds of each new generation for the tyrannical "paradigm shift" to be put into practice once that generation becomes the voting public. Here is an all-too-perfect practical instantiation of my argument. No governing document, and no natural rights theory, will be any match for the majority opinion issuing from a generation raised according to the "all guns are evil" principle.

Second lesson: it is not just guns themselves that are bad; even the thought of guns is unacceptable. Fake guns, Lego guns, Pop Tart guns, finger guns -- "guns" that no one could ever mistake for a real gun -- are offensive. The psychological aim is clear: you will be punished for imagining guns, until the government (er, I mean your teacher) washes that evil image from your dirty mind forever. Learning how to use contraceptives in your bisexual experimentation is an integral part of the elementary school curriculum; smoking dope like President Obama is just good clean fun; but getting caught with the thought of a gun in your mind is a suspension offense, and the police may need to be called in.


The ultimate goal is not to punish such thoughts; punishment is merely the means. The real goal is to break the young soul to self-censorship and self-accusation regarding all thoughts related to personal efficacy, individual power, independence, and self-defense. A submissive citizen does not "cling" to his weapons. Therefore, future citizens must be taught that such "clinging" is a vice. Submission to the collective is the goal. Seen from that perspective, it is quite logical to try to make children self-conscious about how they eat their Pop Tarts, lest they appear to be "threatening" society. Notice, they are not actually threatening any person; their threat, being imaginary, is abstract. It is a threat to "other students" in the abstract, to the collective. The child is learning to feel guilty if he catches himself in possession of thoughts unacceptable to the state as such; that is, he is learning to submit.

Kafka's world is our world. The nightmare logic of infinite bureaucratic authority which drives a man into admitting his own guilt without even understanding what he is accused of is the mechanism of public school indoctrination. And like Kafka's Josef K., we are all, in the compulsory progressive public school, to learn how to self-accuse, to self-incriminate, to self-condemn. And then, at the end of our submissive life of democratic self-enslavement, socialized medicine will treat us to the ignominy of an ending worthy of Josef K. -- "'Like a dog!' he said; it was as if the shame of it should outlive him."

At a personal level, my initial reaction to these school horror stories is that I had better hurry up and finish the book I am writing about public education before I lose the stomach for it. More broadly, however, I can't help thinking that the old philosophical mindbender, "How do you know you are not dreaming right now?" is getting more difficult to answer all the time. Surely no waking reality ever looked like this.

Supreme Court Makes Controversial Ruling: Taking DNA Swabs Upon Arrest Without a Warrant Is Legal

 A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday said police can continue to take DNA from people they arrest without getting a warrant. The court’s five-justice majority said DNA testing was a legitimate police arrest procedure, like fingerprinting.
 
“Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court’s five-justice majority.

In recent years, the decision has been discussed in lower courts. In 2011, a California court ruled that taking DNA swabs of arrestees was unconstitutional, but a year later the ruling was overturned.

The four dissenting justices of the high court said that the decision allows a major change in police powers.

“Make no mistake about it: because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason,” conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said in a sharp dissent which he read aloud in the courtroom.

At least 28 states and the federal government now take DNA swabs after arrests. But a Maryland court was one of the first to say that it was illegal for that state to take Alonzo King’s DNA without approval from a judge, saying King had “a sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches.”

But the high court’s decision reverses that ruling, which will likely allow states to resume and expand the programs. Kennedy wrote the decision, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. Scalia was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/03/scotus-taking-dna-swabs-upon-arrest-without-a-warrant-is-legal/

Muslim Brotherhood cleric calls for Sunni jihad in Syria

The spiritual mentor of the worldwide Muslim Brotherhood movement has risked further inflaming sectarian tension across the Middle East by using highly charged religious rhetoric to call for a Sunni "jihad" in Syria.

 Yusef al-Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar and has been a leading voice supporting the Arab Spring, warned that Iranian Shia were trying to "eat" Sunni Muslims, who are a majority in the Muslim world. 
 
He referred to Alawites, the followers of the Muslim sect to which President Bashar al-Assad of Syria belongs, as being "worse infidels than Christians or Jews". He also used the deliberately contemptuous term "Nusayris" when talking about them. 
 
He was particularly critical of the roles played by Iran, which is largely Shia, and the Lebanon Shia militia Hizbollah whose name translates as Party of God but which he called "Party of Satan", in supporting the Assad regime. 
 
"There is no common ground between the two sides because the Iranians, especially conservatives, want to eat the Sunni people," he said. 
 
The Syrian opposition is dominated, like Syria itself, by Sunni Muslims, but also includes a number of Christians, Alawites and other minorities. 

However, Alawite militias loyal to the Assads have been responsible for sectarian attacks on Sunni villages, while there are also increasing reports of sectarian attacks by militant Sunni jihadists, many of whom regard the Shia and Alawites as heretics. 

In recent days, a number of Shia shrines have been attacked and desecrated in rebel-held territory, including the tombs of Ammar ibn Yasir in Raqqa and of Hujr bin Uday al-Kindi near Damascus. 

Alawite leaders have openly called for Sunni areas to be "cleansed" - coinciding with attacks by Alawite militias on civilian Sunni towns near Baniyas which killed 300 people. 

The Muslim Brotherhood, though a Sunni, Islamist movement that has given birth to a number of jihadist offshoots, has been held up as a "moderating" force within Arab Spring countries with which the West "can do business". 

Egypt has a Muslim Brotherhood president, while the coalition government in Tunisia is led by a Brotherhood-linked organisation backed by Dr Qaradawi. 

Dr Qaradawi himself, who is Egyptian by birth but has lived in Qatar for many years and is regarded as a key factor in the active role the Qatari royal family has played in backing the Arab Spring uprisings with arms and money, has a controversial record in the West. 

However, his latest comments, made in a mosque in Qatar on Friday, go beyond his previous political sermons. He himself acknowledged he had become more radical. "People involved in reconciliation between the sects... said that I used to be the one calling for reconciliation and doctrinal unity. They asked why I don't take up that call again. 

"Well, I called for reconciliation but I found it did not bring the sects closer. They benefited from it and we failed to take advantage." 

He also apologised for his past words in favour of Hizbollah. "The Shia deceived me," he said. "I was less mature than the Sunni scholars who were aware of the truth of that party." 

He said Sunni Muslims around the world should not wait for the West to help the rebel cause against the "Nusayris", the Iranians and "the party of God". "They are the party of Satan, the party of the tyrant," he said. "The party of God does not kill Muslims, and these people draw close to God by killing Muslims." 

The war in Syria has split the region largely along sectarian lines, with Sunni Gulf and North African states largely supporting the rebels, and Shia Iran and Shia communities in Lebanon and Iraq supporting the regime.
The city of Tripoli in northern Lebanon has already seen fighting between Sunni and Alawite districts, while there has been a rise in sectarian violence in Iraq where many Sunnis have tribal links to Syria but the government represents the majority Shia community and is close to Iran. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10094590/Muslim-Brotherhood-cleric-calls-for-Sunni-jihad-in-Syria.html

National Immigration Forum Funded by Soros and the Left

The National Immigration Forum (NIF), the force behind the so-called “Evangelical Immigration Table” (EIT), is actually a front group for players on the institutional left including billionaire George Soros and the Ford Foundation, according to reporting by Breitbart News and other outlets.

According to the Huffington Post, EIT is running a $250,000 advertising campaign in favor of the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” immigration bill. Even so, EIT admitted to Breitbart News it does not legally exist as an incorporated political entity or non-profit organization but said NIF is the group that "facilitates" its activities.

NIF is a power player in immigration politics, and includes among its leadership some of the most powerful Washington figures on the issue.

In 2009, OSI donated $257,152 to NIF aimed at “implementing immigration reform campaign through communications, policy, and field organizing.”

Also in 2009, OSI donated another $1.5 million to “allow” NIF to “manage and lead Four Pillars Campaign for comprehensive immigration reform, and sustain core policy work supporting and leading policy efforts.”
A year later, in 2010, Soros’s OSI gave NIF another $1.5 million over two separate grants both intended for “general operating support.”

NIF has also received $1 million total from the leftist Ford Foundation, spread over two separate half-million-dollar grants in 2009 and 2011. Those grants were both intended for advocacy in favor of comprehensive immigration reform.

Jim Wallis, the president and CEO of Sojourners, a leading force in the Evangelical Immigration Table group, has admitted to accepting funding from Soros as well. 

World magazine writer Marvin Olasky laid out in a 2010 article how Wallis and his organization, Sojourners, had received $325,000 from Soros groups over three grants from 2004, 2006 and 2007. According to OSI’s 2007 990 form filed with the IRS, available publicly through the Foundation Center, the 2007 money--a total of $100,000--was for Wallis’s Sojourners “to support the Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Campaign.”

Wallis originally denied being funded by Soros when he was first confronted with the accusation, and accused Olasky of lying. “It’s not hyperbole or overstatement to say that Glenn Beck lies for a living. I’m sad to see Marvin Olasky doing the same thing,” Wallis said in 2010 interview with Patheos. “No, we don’t receive money from Soros. Given the financial crisis of nonprofits, maybe Marvin should call Soros and ask him to send us money.”

“So, no, we don’t receive money from George Soros,” Wallis added. “Our books are totally open, always have been. Our money comes from Christians who support us and who read Sojourners. That’s where it comes from. In fact, we’ve had funding blocked, this year and last, by liberal foundations who didn’t like our stance on abortion. Other liberal groups were happy to point out to them that our stance wasn’t kosher on abortion, so our funding was blocked.”

After Olasky and the National Review’s Jay Richards confronted this claim by Wallis, Wallis admitted he made an incorrect statement to Patheos and that he was accepting Soros money. “I should have declined to comment until I was able to review the blog post in question and consulted with our staff on the details of our funding over the past several years,” Wallis said in a statement. 

“Instead, I answered in the spirit of the accusation and did not recall the details of our funding over the decade in question. The spirit of the accusation was that Sojourners is beholden to funders on the political left, which is false. The allegation concerned three grants received over 10 years from the Open Society Institute that made up the tiniest fraction of Sojourners' funding during that decade--so small that I hadn't remembered them.”

While that original Soros funding may have been almost a decade old when it was uncovered, Wallis has subsequently accepted more money from the leftist billionaire. In a 2011 story, Olasky noted that Wallis had confirmed to him he accepted another $150,000 from Soros for a grant that would take hold in 2012.
Interestingly enough, even though evangelicals are receiving funding from Soros and his groups, his official website notes that he “identifies himself as an atheist.”

Soros is also well known for his pro-amnesty, open borders positions on immigration. 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/02/National-Immigration-Forum-lead-evangelical-Jim-Wallis-funded-by-George-Soros-other-bastions-of-institutional-left

The Gang of Eight Needs to Ride Into the Sunset with Their Amnesty Bill

The Gang of Eight’s Amnesty Bill (S. 744) is slated for a vote on June 10th. If there was ever a time to call your Senators and anyone of influence you know to oppose this bill, it’s now. In my state of Idaho, Senators Risch and Crapo take note. The voters are watching you and you better vote conservatively – get your collective arses off the fence already. I understand Crapo has stated he must study the bill first which is understandable, but I would like to make a point of order here. Amnesty does not serve any good and honest purpose. It provides a massive voting bloc for the progressive liberals and cheap, slave labor for corporations. It deprives Americans of jobs and further bankrupts an already bankrupt system. It is one thing to come in legally through the front door… It is quite another to come in the back as an invading force intent on “taking back” what is not yours and undermining our freedoms and constitutional rights. Senator Crapo and Senator Risch, we expect better from you – we expect you to do the right thing and vote ‘No’ on this bill. You sit on finance and budget committees; you know the impact of this legislation. So far, I am not impressed with the way things are turning in Idaho, with health care exchanges going into place for Obamacare and now an apparent ‘softness’ on illegal immigration. Four Mexican nationals were just sentenced in Idaho for involvement in a large methamphetamine trafficking organization in eastern Idaho. Hello? Take a hint already. Is the once great conservative state of Idaho turning into a steaming pile of progressive mashed potatoes? If so, count me out.

We have allowed illegal aliens to draw on food stamps, welfare and social services for years with little or no repercussions. As everyone and his dog steps up with his palms out asking, ‘Please sir, can I have some more?,’ we obligingly dole out more and more of what we don’t have while making Americans do without in the name of fairness.

We also seem to be on a suicidal binge flinging open the southern border to all, including Iranian terror sleeper cells and other terrorists. In a country who has lost her bearings and seemingly her mind, we now even hear the DOJ threatening to prosecute those in social media who speak out against radical Islam. We are upside down where Christians and normal Americans are the bad guys and Islamic militants are the persecuted ones, when in fact it is the opposite. This is a typical Islamic tactic and Obama has it down pat.

The Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill doesn’t fix our broken immigration system — it doubles down on the failed policies that got us here, intentionally. So that no one forgets – the Gang of Eight is made up of Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL). I want you to never forget these names. They are now infamous.

The bill is a rehash of the failed 1986 amnesty bill. It will bring more than 33 million illegal immigrants into the fold of American society… guaranteeing high unemployment, massive government expansion, fiscal indebtedness and chaos into the foreseeable future. It is classic Marxist narrative – making grandiose promises with one hand and breaking every damn one of them with the other. The only ones who win here are the progressive elite and the radical extremists. The rest of us – well, let’s just say that ‘medieval’ doesn’t do justice to what awaits the majority. You think we are in a depression now, well, giddy up… You ain’t seen nothing yet.

While the mouthpiece of this bait and switch, Marco Rubio, claims that the bill will increase border security, it in fact reduces security by implementing a plan for 90 percent effective border control, as measured by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), who insists the border is already secure. Which means, no security at all and DHS will have absolute control over this travesty. They’ve already slipped a national police force into place, imagine what they can do with border security. The most massive database in history is being built using biometric data – you won’t be able to take a leak without it being cataloged. Think about it.

This pricey boondoggle, according to the Heritage Foundation, will be just south (pun intended) of 6.3 Trillion. Better make more printing presses boys and get ready to fry some computers digitizing money. I guess the Fed really believes they never run out of money as long as they can make more. On top of that, the bill does NOT require aliens to pay back taxes. The whole thing is for show because they think Americans are just plain stupid and can’t govern themselves. What a bunch of maroons. 

As far as terrorism is concerned, it is a nightmare. Not only do you have terror cells such as the Iranians previously mentioned, there are Russians and Chinese coming across that border. I’ve seen the video myself – I don’t think they are on vacation folks or that they have our best interests at heart. The bill loosens up asylum rules and lengthens the appeal process for illegal aliens denied asylum. It also eviscerates the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to detain and deport future illegal aliens — this includes potential terrorists and criminals, by prohibiting ICE from detaining aliens unless they prove there is no alternative to detention and by giving the DHS Secretary and immigration judges almost total discretion to let immigration lawbreakers remain here. I’m sure that won’t be abused at all — no corruption to see here folks.

The Gang of Eight needs to ride into the sunset with their damnable Amnesty bill and never, ever come back. I’ll leave you with the most comprehensive reasons out there to oppose this bill – send it to the trash heap along with its authors.


From FAIR:
FAIR’s Top 40 Reasons to Oppose the Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill
S.744 does not secure the border or strengthen national security. Instead, the bill rewards law-breaking and encourages more illegal immigration:

1. S.744 allows DHS to grant legal status (registered provision immigrant, or RPI status) in 6 months, before any measure to secure the border has been taken. (Sec. 3, p. 10; Sec. 5, p. 24)

2. S.744 includes the DREAM Act, which puts illegal aliens who entered the U.S. before 16 on a 5-year path to citizenship. However, unlike previous versions of the bill, there is no age limit and DHS may waive the work/study requirement. (Sec. 2103, p. 112)

3. S.744 grants amnesty to illegal farm workers and gives them green cards in five years. (Sec. 2211, p. 155; Sec. 2212, p. 177)

4. S.744 does not require a biometric exit system at all land, air and sea ports of entry to track aliens who enter and leave the U.S., per current law. Instead, Section 3303 requires only a biographic exit system only at air and sea ports that merely collects information on a form or scans your identification document. (Sec. 3303, p. 556)

5. S.744 does not require any additional border fencing or completion of current border fence requirements. Instead, it requires DHS to submit to Congress a fencing “strategy,” in which DHS recommends what additional fencing is needed along the U.S.-Mexico border, if any. (Sec. 5, p. 24)
FAIR’s Top 40 Reasons to Oppose the Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill


6. S.744 does not require illegal aliens to pay back taxes before getting legal status (RPI status). It only requires RPI applicants to pay back taxes “assessed” at the time of application. (Sec. 2101, p. 70)

7. S.744 does not require illegal aliens to learn English before receiving amnesty or even a green card. Under Section 2101, an RPI alien who applies for a green card that the alien is satisfactorily pursuing a course of study “to achieve an understanding of English and knowledge and understanding” of civics (Sec. 2101, p. 105)

8. S.744 allows illegal aliens who have been deported (for any reason) and/or who have re-entered illegally to apply for RPI status if they have certain family members in the U.S. (Sec. 2101, p. 73)

9. S.744 does not add any additional Border Patrol agents, who patrol the vast territory between ports of entry. Instead, S.744 adds 3,500 Customs and Border Protection officers, many of whom do only customs work, and are stationed at official ports of entry.

10. S.744 does not require any border security measures be taken on the northern border or along the coasts where more illegal aliens are arriving to avoid border patrol agents and drug cartels. Instead, it only requires that DHS prepare a border security strategy for the U.S.-Mexico border.

11. S.744 allows states to grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens—not the aliens who receive amnesty, but all illegal aliens who arrive in the future. (Sec. 2103, p. 119)

12. S.744 does not end abuse of prosecutorial discretion or administrative amnesty by the Obama administration. Instead, it leaves in place policies direct immigration agents to release illegal aliens the Administration deems “low priority.”

S.744 does not improve immigration enforcement or public safety. Instead, the bill undermines immigration enforcement and is riddled with waivers and loopholes:

13. S.744 allows DHS to waive multiple misdemeanor convictions when granting amnesty, so an alien with three or more misdemeanors still may be eligible for legal status (RPI status). (Sec. 2101, pp. 64-67)

14. S.744 also authorizes DHS to waive a broad array of unlawful behavior for the purpose of determining whether illegal aliens are admissible, including:
  • Gang-related crimes and gang membership;
  • Three or more drunk driving offenses;
  • Domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, and violation of protective orders;
  • Committing crimes of moral turpitude;
  • Violating federal or state drug laws;
  • Trafficking in passports;
  • Providing fraudulent immigration services;
  • Trafficking immigration documents, including document fraud;
  • Prostitution;
  • Misrepresenting a material fact to procure visas or other immigration benefits (if done for any purpose other than submitting an amnesty application);
  • Violating student visas;
  • Falsely claiming citizenship; and
  • Illegally re-entering the U.S. after deportation (which is a felony); (Sec. 2101, p. 66)
  • All other grounds not specifically listed in the bill. (Sec. 2101 INA245B(b)(3)(i), p. 65)
15. S.744 is not tough on employers who hire illegal aliens. In fact, the bill exempts certain employers from existing penalties for hiring illegal workers. These include persons or entities that hire individuals for employment “that is not casual, sporadic, irregular or intermittent (as defined by the Secretary).” This will exempt employers who hire day laborers or other temporary workers, giving employers an incentive to hire cheaper, illegal workers instead of legal residents or citizens. (Sec. 3101, p. 415)

16. S.744 also delays implementation of E-Verify to appease big business and illegal workers. The bill provides that mandatory E-Verify won’t go into effect for all employers until four years after DHS issues regulations implementing the mandatory program. That means (based on the amnesty timeframe) it could be at least a decade before E-Verify becomes mandatory for large companies and 14 years before all employers are phased into the program. (Sec. 3101, p. 437)

17. S.744 voids state and local E-Verify laws. (Sec. 3101, p. 511)

18. S.744 prohibits the enforcement of immigration laws against any illegal alien apprehended between the time of enactment and the end of the application period. Under Section 2101, DHS may not detain or remove an alien – for any reason – if the alien is “prima facie eligible,” or at first sight appears to be eligible, for RPI status until DHS has made a decision on the alien’s application. (Sec. 2101, p. 72)

19. S.744 prohibits immigration enforcement actions, including arrests, surveillance, searches, or even interviews by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers in “sensitive locations.” Sensitive locations include hospitals and health clinics; public and private schools of all educational levels including vocational and trade schools; organizations assisting children, pregnant women, victims of crime or abuse, or individuals with mental or physical disabilities; churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship; and such other locations as the DHS Secretary determines.

20. S.744 does not expressly punish or require the deportation of any alien who makes false statements in an RPI application. However, it does create criminal penalties and a $10,000 fine for any federal official who discloses information found in RPI applications in violation of the law. (Sec. 2105, p. 133)

21. S.744 does not require the deportation of a single illegal alien. DHS is never required to deport an alien whose RPI application is denied—for any reason.

22. S.744 allows immigration judges to ignore U.S. immigration law. Section 2313 authorizes immigration judges to “exercise discretion” to decline to order the alien deported AND terminate proceedings if the judge determines deporting the alien “is against the public interest or would result in hardship to the alien’s U.S. citizen or LPR parent spouse or child…” (Sec. 2313, p. 341)

23. S.744 allows the Secretary of DHS to ignore U.S. immigration law. Section 2313 provides that DHS may “exercise discretion to waive a ground of inadmissibility or deportability of the Secretary determines that such removal or refusal of admission is against the public interest” or would result in “hardship” to the alien’s U.S. citizen or LPR parent spouse or child. (Sec. 2313, p. 343)

24. S.744 grants DHS sole discretion in making asylum decisions, taking the process out of the hands of an immigration judge. (Sec. 3404, p. 571) 

25. S.744 allows DHS to contract out the screening, supervision and custody of illegal aliens to community-based organizations. (Sec. 3715. p. 660)

26. S.744 authorizes illegal aliens to bring class action lawsuits against the government for a denial of RPI status. (Sec. 2104, p. 131)

27. S.744 allows the Department of Homeland Security to appoint counsel to illegal aliens fighting deportation at taxpayer expense. (Sec. 3502, p. 583) 

28. S.744 creates a new bureaucracy, the Office of Legal Access Programs, to provide illegal aliens with “legal orientation programs” that help fight deportation. The bill requires DHS to make these programs available to the aliens within 5 days of being taken into custody. Section 3503 also authorizes the Office of Legal Access Programs to provide services, including legal services, to aliens in deportation hearings. (Sec. 3503, p. 585)

S.744 does not prioritize the American worker at a time when 22 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Instead, S.744 hurts the American worker:

29. S.744 doubles legal immigration within a decade after enactment—and triples it if you include the 12 million amnestied illegal aliens. This is the equivalent of adding the population of Canada – nearly 34 million people, virtually all of whom will need jobs—in a decade. Moreover, this estimate relates to legal permanent residents only, not temporary workers. (See FAIR’s estimate by category of admission)

30. S.744 increases the number of guest workers by 50 percent over the decade after enactment. (See FAIR’s estimate by category of admission)

31. S.744 creates a new unskilled guest worker program, through a new W visa, to bring in up to 200,000 additional workers each year. (Sec. 4703, p. 834)

32. S.744 triples the number of so-called skilled (H-1B) guest workers who may enter the U.S. annually. (Sec. 4101, p. 674)

33. S.744 also grants work authorization to the spouses of H-1B and W visa holders.

34. S.744 exempts immigrants (green card holders) with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and math, also referred to as STEM fields, from the cap on employment-based immigration. This will dramatically increase competition for Americans entering or working in those fields. (Sec. 2307, p. 315-16)

S.744 does not prevent American taxpayers from subsidizing illegal immigration. In fact, it makes the current problem worse:

35. S.744 requires that DHS waive the public charge law when determining which aliens are eligible for amnesty. (Sec. 2101, p.65) That law prohibits DHS from admitting any alien who is likely to become a public charge.

36. Moreover, S.744 provides that when an RPI alien applies for legal permanent resident status – a point at which many federal benefits become available—the alien need only demonstrate income or resources equal to 125 percent of the federal poverty level. (Sec. 2102, INA 245C(a) and (b) p. 94)

37. S.744 does not prohibit state and local jurisdictions from giving benefits to newly legalized aliens. Many states, such as California, give benefits to illegal aliens and nonimmigrants (temporary aliens) such as taxpayer funded health care and welfare benefits. (Sec. 2101, p. 92)

38. S.744 creates a “slush fund” for nonprofits that help implement the amnesty. Section 2537 authorizes DHS to award newly-created “Initial Entry, Adjustment, and Citizenship Assistance” (IEACA) grants to nonprofit organizations that help illegal aliens navigate the amnesty process. The bill appropriates $100 million for IEACA grants for the first five years and “such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2019 and subsequent fiscal years.” (Sec. 2537, pp. 397-99)

39. S.744 does not end chain migration, which leads to the admission of large numbers of low-skilled, less educated immigrants. While at first it appears that the bill repeals two family-based categories for admission, it eliminates the effect of doing so by giving family members extra weight in the merit-based immigration program and by including spouses and children of legal permanent residents in the definition of immediate relatives, significantly expanding legal immigration. (Sec. 2301, p. 264; Sec. 2305, p.282)

40. When fully implemented, S.744 will cost U.S. taxpayers $6.3 trillion in federal spending alone over the course of 50 years. (See Heritage Foundation Report, May 2013)
—-
This creates a security sieve in perpetuity, through which slaves and freeloaders will leak in, and prosperity will leak out. This would be a good time to craft a “preemptive sunset clause” for both the bill and the gang: consign them both to the rubbish bin BEFORE they have a chance to cripple the nation. They can shovel their own manure on the way out.

http://www.trevorloudon.com/2013/06/the-gang-of-eight-needs-to-ride-into-the-sunset-with-their-amnesty-bill/

No comments: