BREITBART.COM
2 May 2013
"Where there's smoke, there's fire." That's the message CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson says she gets from the constant evasion, stonewalling and flat-out non-response from the Obama Administration and Sttate Department when she pursues questions about the September 11th attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi.
Attkisson was on "Mornings on the Mall" on WMAL-FM, Washington DC this Thursday morning with me and co-host Brian Wilson.
I asked her what kind of information she gets when the White House refers her questions to the State Department or to the CIA or other agencies then refer her back to the White House in an apparent runaround orchestrated by the Obama White House:
Attkisson: "I get virtually nothing. In fact the White House told me several months ago when I was pursuing a host of unanswered questions that there would be no more answers for me on Benghazi. They flat out said, because I was making regular calls and giving them lists of questions that were outstanding and they just said that was it."
O'Connor: "Lose my number, Sharyl?"
Attkisson: "Yeah. And they'd also say things like 'all those questions have been answered, read the material' and I would say 'well no they haven't, I've looked at the material and these questions haven't been answered,' but they would just keep insisting that they had been."
What questions are Attkisson talking about? She gave us just a few of them:
• "Conflicting reports as to why there was no rescue attempt"
• "Why the guys were left there"
• "Why there was no (according to the administration) no military resources close by on 9/11 in a very very hot spot of the globe in North Africa"
• "And also, still unanswered questions about the spin afterwards, how it came to be that officials said there were probably not terrorists involved when, in fact, they knew all along that there probably were."
Attkisson also revealed that to date none of her Freedom of Information Act requests on the Benghazi story have been responded to and the Administration has yet to release the surveillance video of the attack that they promised last November to release.
Listen to the entire interview here:
Monday, May 20, 2013
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Thank You, IRS
COMMON SENSE LIBERTY
Posted on May 18, 2013 by Terry Noel
Poor IRS, the institution no one loves. Well, I am about to change that. IRS, thank you. Yes, thank you for being so colossally stupid that you let yourselves be caught red-handed doing what you have done surreptitiously for decades.
Not that we have not known about the IRS’s shenanigans for all these many years. It’s just that it seemed the stuff of intrigue–dark and sinister goings-on at some mysterious level of governance unvisited by we denizens of the non-political world. Had it not been for Nixon, we probably would not have noticed at all.
The IRS has never been apolitical. Since Roosevelt, powerful people have used the IRS to intimidate and harass their political opponents. Neither conservatives nor liberals are strangers to using the IRS inappropriately–or illegally. A President who openly sicced the IRS on his/her enemies would be ousted in a heartbeat. Therein lies the problem.
Barack Obama may not have directly ordered the IRS to pick on conservatives and libertarians, but the tenor of his administration offers no buffer to this kind of abuse. His core mentality is that no one knows better than him and no one had better slow him down. His willingness to use government to accomplish his ends borders on the sociopathic.
Those ends grow clearer by the day: more government, bigger government, more intrusive government–no matter what. Obama’s agenda is progressivism* taken to its logical conclusion, and that does not bode well for anyone, least of all the growing list of people who are supposed to benefit from this “noble” experiment. It’s hard to help the poor after one has destroyed everyone else’s incentive to produce anything.
The danger with Obama is that he really believes in the efficacy of government to right every perceived wrong and is seemingly incapable of grasping its limits. In his mind, this justifies most any tactic to git ‘er done. Where some would say that the end justifies the means, Obama simply does not appear to believe that there is such a thing as questionable means.
At least the President has retained enough of a grip on reality to know that some people do think there are limits to the methods by which one achieves his/her political goals. Thus he feigns outrage at actions that he indirectly endorses in speeches constantly. Conservatives and libertarians are the “enemy” in the President’s mind, an attitude not particularly new in American politics. The difference with the current President is that this is not just a political tactic. He seems to honestly believe that opponents to his agenda should not exist, that he should not have to offer any defense whatsoever to anyone at all for anything.
Obama is more than a bad President. The blood of a tyrant courses through his veins. He is appalled that anyone would have the audacity to object to anything he sees fit to do to mold his country (yes, I chose that word deliberately) into a socialist heaven. Socialism always dies, but not before lashing out at its victims viciously–usually the poor. They are the ones standing closest.
The United States “works” to the degree that it adheres to its founding principle–government serves to protect the rights of the individual. “Works” to a progressive means making it easy for government to do more and more. The difference is profound. The former ensures that individuals are not subject to the whims of their leaders by making it difficult for the government to do anything. The latter assumes disagreement to be an impediment to making things better through the power of government.
It is easy to pick on the President. After all, he embodies everything progressives love and libertarians hate. However, it would be a mistake to think that absent Barack Obama everything would be just hunky-dory. He is merely a lighthouse on a rocky island of bad ideas.
The jagged shoal of this mentality is that somehow society, this tangled collection of countless people interacting in countless ways, has a will comparable to an individual’s will.
CONTINUE READING
ALSO SEE Terry Noel article: Obama’s War On the Individual
Posted on May 18, 2013 by Terry Noel
Poor IRS, the institution no one loves. Well, I am about to change that. IRS, thank you. Yes, thank you for being so colossally stupid that you let yourselves be caught red-handed doing what you have done surreptitiously for decades.
Not that we have not known about the IRS’s shenanigans for all these many years. It’s just that it seemed the stuff of intrigue–dark and sinister goings-on at some mysterious level of governance unvisited by we denizens of the non-political world. Had it not been for Nixon, we probably would not have noticed at all.
The IRS has never been apolitical. Since Roosevelt, powerful people have used the IRS to intimidate and harass their political opponents. Neither conservatives nor liberals are strangers to using the IRS inappropriately–or illegally. A President who openly sicced the IRS on his/her enemies would be ousted in a heartbeat. Therein lies the problem.
Barack Obama may not have directly ordered the IRS to pick on conservatives and libertarians, but the tenor of his administration offers no buffer to this kind of abuse. His core mentality is that no one knows better than him and no one had better slow him down. His willingness to use government to accomplish his ends borders on the sociopathic.
Those ends grow clearer by the day: more government, bigger government, more intrusive government–no matter what. Obama’s agenda is progressivism* taken to its logical conclusion, and that does not bode well for anyone, least of all the growing list of people who are supposed to benefit from this “noble” experiment. It’s hard to help the poor after one has destroyed everyone else’s incentive to produce anything.
The danger with Obama is that he really believes in the efficacy of government to right every perceived wrong and is seemingly incapable of grasping its limits. In his mind, this justifies most any tactic to git ‘er done. Where some would say that the end justifies the means, Obama simply does not appear to believe that there is such a thing as questionable means.
At least the President has retained enough of a grip on reality to know that some people do think there are limits to the methods by which one achieves his/her political goals. Thus he feigns outrage at actions that he indirectly endorses in speeches constantly. Conservatives and libertarians are the “enemy” in the President’s mind, an attitude not particularly new in American politics. The difference with the current President is that this is not just a political tactic. He seems to honestly believe that opponents to his agenda should not exist, that he should not have to offer any defense whatsoever to anyone at all for anything.
Obama is more than a bad President. The blood of a tyrant courses through his veins. He is appalled that anyone would have the audacity to object to anything he sees fit to do to mold his country (yes, I chose that word deliberately) into a socialist heaven. Socialism always dies, but not before lashing out at its victims viciously–usually the poor. They are the ones standing closest.
The United States “works” to the degree that it adheres to its founding principle–government serves to protect the rights of the individual. “Works” to a progressive means making it easy for government to do more and more. The difference is profound. The former ensures that individuals are not subject to the whims of their leaders by making it difficult for the government to do anything. The latter assumes disagreement to be an impediment to making things better through the power of government.
It is easy to pick on the President. After all, he embodies everything progressives love and libertarians hate. However, it would be a mistake to think that absent Barack Obama everything would be just hunky-dory. He is merely a lighthouse on a rocky island of bad ideas.
The jagged shoal of this mentality is that somehow society, this tangled collection of countless people interacting in countless ways, has a will comparable to an individual’s will.
CONTINUE READING
ALSO SEE Terry Noel article: Obama’s War On the Individual
Monday, May 6, 2013
USDA Flyer: We Don't Check Immigration Status for Food Stamps
Breitbart.com Big Government
A government watchdog group has discovered that the United States government is advising Spanish-speaking residents that they need not declare their immigration status to qualify for food stamps.
Judicial Watch obtained the Spanish-language flyers through a Freedom of Information Act request and announced on Thursday that the "promotion of the food stamp program, now known as 'SNAP' (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA.
A statement on the flyer—emphasized in bold and underlined—reads, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said of this discovery, the "USDA is actively working with the Mexican government to promote food stamps for illegal aliens." This implication, he asserted, "should have a direct impact on the fate of the immigration bill now being debated in Congress."
“These disclosures further confirm the fact that the Obama administration cannot be trusted to protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws," Fitton said. "And the coordination with a foreign government to attack the policies of an American state is contemptible.”
Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) are working on a bill that would cut such programs.
“Since President Obama came into office, SNAP participation has increased at 10 times the rate of job creation, the annual spending on SNAP has doubled, and one in seven Americans now participates in SNAP,” Thune said. “This explosive growth in both the SNAP enrollment and federal cost of the program is alarming and requires lawmakers to take cost-effective legislative control measures.”
A government watchdog group has discovered that the United States government is advising Spanish-speaking residents that they need not declare their immigration status to qualify for food stamps.
Judicial Watch obtained the Spanish-language flyers through a Freedom of Information Act request and announced on Thursday that the "promotion of the food stamp program, now known as 'SNAP' (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA.
A statement on the flyer—emphasized in bold and underlined—reads, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said of this discovery, the "USDA is actively working with the Mexican government to promote food stamps for illegal aliens." This implication, he asserted, "should have a direct impact on the fate of the immigration bill now being debated in Congress."
“These disclosures further confirm the fact that the Obama administration cannot be trusted to protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws," Fitton said. "And the coordination with a foreign government to attack the policies of an American state is contemptible.”
Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) are working on a bill that would cut such programs.
“Since President Obama came into office, SNAP participation has increased at 10 times the rate of job creation, the annual spending on SNAP has doubled, and one in seven Americans now participates in SNAP,” Thune said. “This explosive growth in both the SNAP enrollment and federal cost of the program is alarming and requires lawmakers to take cost-effective legislative control measures.”
Friday, May 3, 2013
US Labor Dept pays millions for union establishment abroad
Senate Republicans quiz Labor Department on purported payments for labor unions worldwide
Published April 28, 2013
FoxNews.com
Senate Republicans say the Labor Department appears to be spending millions in taxpayer dollars to establish labor unions and promote collective bargaining in foreign countries and are asking top Obama administration officials for a full audit.
The request was sent by Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the leading Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, the top Republican on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
“At a time when our federal budget is deteriorating rapidly … it is troubling to us that the department appears to be spending millions of dollars of taxpayer funds to establish labor unions and promote collective bargaining in foreign countries,” they said in a letter to acting Labor Secretary Seth Harris. The purported activities were conducted by the agency’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs.
The bureau for the past several years has purportedly made numerous awards -- worth millions of dollars -- to the United Nations, the Solidarity Center and other similar groups, “whose stated objective is to help establish labor unions in foreign countries," the senators said.
They also said the bureau recently awarded a Colombian labor organization $1.5 million to help workers improve their collective bargaining rights and $2.2 million to the Solidarity Center, an AFL-CIO organization, to strengthen unions in Haiti and Peru.
In addition, the bureau purportedly awarded a $1.5 million grant to an international development company in 2011 to assist labor unions in Vietnam engage in collective bargaining, the lawmakers said.
The letter was also sent to Government Accountability Office Comptroller General Gene Dodaro. The BILA did not return a request Saturday for a response.
The bureau’s stated mission is to “help ensure that workers around the world are treated fairly and are able to share in the benefits of the global economy.”
The agency also states it focuses on protecting workers’ ability to exercise their rights and addressing the workplace exploitation of children and other vulnerable populations.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/senate-republicans-ask-labor-depart-about-purportedly-paying-for-labor-unions/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2RsVRtShv
Published April 28, 2013
FoxNews.com
Senate Republicans say the Labor Department appears to be spending millions in taxpayer dollars to establish labor unions and promote collective bargaining in foreign countries and are asking top Obama administration officials for a full audit.
The request was sent by Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the leading Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, the top Republican on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
“At a time when our federal budget is deteriorating rapidly … it is troubling to us that the department appears to be spending millions of dollars of taxpayer funds to establish labor unions and promote collective bargaining in foreign countries,” they said in a letter to acting Labor Secretary Seth Harris. The purported activities were conducted by the agency’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs.
The bureau for the past several years has purportedly made numerous awards -- worth millions of dollars -- to the United Nations, the Solidarity Center and other similar groups, “whose stated objective is to help establish labor unions in foreign countries," the senators said.
They also said the bureau recently awarded a Colombian labor organization $1.5 million to help workers improve their collective bargaining rights and $2.2 million to the Solidarity Center, an AFL-CIO organization, to strengthen unions in Haiti and Peru.
In addition, the bureau purportedly awarded a $1.5 million grant to an international development company in 2011 to assist labor unions in Vietnam engage in collective bargaining, the lawmakers said.
The letter was also sent to Government Accountability Office Comptroller General Gene Dodaro. The BILA did not return a request Saturday for a response.
The bureau’s stated mission is to “help ensure that workers around the world are treated fairly and are able to share in the benefits of the global economy.”
The agency also states it focuses on protecting workers’ ability to exercise their rights and addressing the workplace exploitation of children and other vulnerable populations.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/senate-republicans-ask-labor-depart-about-purportedly-paying-for-labor-unions/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2RsVRtShv
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Amnesty as a 'Civil Right'
April 27, 2013
American Thinker
By John T. Bennett
Amnesty "is a matter of civil and human rights," Eric Holder claims. If that's the case, then amnesty opponents are a bunch of Bull Connors.
Holder stated in remarks in an April 24 speech to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund MALDEF) Awards Gala that "creating a mechanism for [illegal aliens] to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows... is a matter of civil and human rights."
Let's just tear down the fence and hand out EBT cards at the border, and bring the American experiment to an end.
We used to celebrate Rosa Parks, an American citizen, for defying segregation and demanding equal treatment as an American citizen. Now, Holder drapes non-citizens in the mantle of civil rights, even though they are driving down American wages -- especially those of low-skilled blacks.
Three members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recently wrote to the Congressional Black Caucus, warning that amnesty "will likely disproportionately harm lower-skilled African-Americans by making it more difficult for them to obtain employment and depressing their wages when they do obtain employment."
The commission cited economist Gordon Hanson, whose research showed that immigration "accounts for about 40 percent of the 18 percentage point decline in black employment rates" between the years 1960-2000.
Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, blasted Holder, saying that his remarks represent "a bizarre understanding of -- if not an insult to -- the history of the civil rights movement in this country."
In his speech, the attorney general claimed, "[I]t is long past time to reform our immigration system in a way that is fair; that guarantees that all are playing by the same rules..."
That's an odd way to describe an immigration bill that would reward people who cheated the system, who refuse to play "by the same rules," and who evidently believe they are entitled to do so. In fact, the amnesty bill is premised on the notion that one set of immigrants should be given preferential treatment simply because they crossed our border illegally or remained on an expired visa illegally.
The Civil Rights movement was based on the principle that all citizens should have access to the rights and benefits of citizenship, regardless of skin color. Amnesty is based on the principle that certain favored classes should be rewarded with citizenship for violating immigration laws and disrespecting our sovereignty. So there are a few morally and legally relevant differences, but we shouldn't let those stand in the way of a frivolous analogy.
Now that civil rights have been evoked, we should deduce that opposition to amnesty must be sinister.
Just ask Sen. Marco Rubio, who wrote in his book American Son, "I begin to wonder if some of the people who speak so disparagingly about immigrants would be just as worked up if most of them were coming from Canada." Of course, the attorney general would hesitate to bestow "civil rights" titles upon the majority of Canadians, but you get the picture.
It can't possibly be that an expanded welfare state, decreasing test scores, lower wages, and a variety of social pathologies are genuine concerns related to immigration.
So let's expunge that white guilt, prove that our hearts are pure, and show the planet that amnesty is a civil right. Let's tear down the "danged" fence that was never completed, put up loudspeakers, and blare Michael Jackson's "We are the World." Put it on repeat and let it play until every single person on earth who wants an American job or welfare has what their diverse hearts desire, or until Treasury's printing presses break down.
What brought us to this lowly state, where we are contemplating economic and cultural self-immolation? Inept compassion, nihilistic political pandering, Western self-doubt, and multicultural dogma -- perhaps these are part of the explanation.
Aside from disregarding the interests of American workers and turning the concept of justice on its head, Holder's recent remarks show a very disturbing set of priorities. For instance, Holder's Justice Department is ordering that a German home-schooling family be deported. This is after the family was granted political asylum here because home schooling is illegal in Germany. If that same family were from south of the border, dependent on the welfare state and depressing American wages, with some refusing to learn the English language, they would be civil rights heroes.
John T. Bennett (MA, University of Chicago, Master of Arts Program in the Social Sciences '07; J.D., Emory University School of Law '12)is a former Army officer with tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and Djibouti. His writing has appeared in Townhall.com, World Net Daily, and the Chicago Tribune, among others.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/amnesty_as_a_civil_right.html#ixzz2RsYwVkJt
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
American Thinker
By John T. Bennett
Amnesty "is a matter of civil and human rights," Eric Holder claims. If that's the case, then amnesty opponents are a bunch of Bull Connors.
Holder stated in remarks in an April 24 speech to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund MALDEF) Awards Gala that "creating a mechanism for [illegal aliens] to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows... is a matter of civil and human rights."
Let's just tear down the fence and hand out EBT cards at the border, and bring the American experiment to an end.
We used to celebrate Rosa Parks, an American citizen, for defying segregation and demanding equal treatment as an American citizen. Now, Holder drapes non-citizens in the mantle of civil rights, even though they are driving down American wages -- especially those of low-skilled blacks.
Three members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recently wrote to the Congressional Black Caucus, warning that amnesty "will likely disproportionately harm lower-skilled African-Americans by making it more difficult for them to obtain employment and depressing their wages when they do obtain employment."
The commission cited economist Gordon Hanson, whose research showed that immigration "accounts for about 40 percent of the 18 percentage point decline in black employment rates" between the years 1960-2000.
Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, blasted Holder, saying that his remarks represent "a bizarre understanding of -- if not an insult to -- the history of the civil rights movement in this country."
In his speech, the attorney general claimed, "[I]t is long past time to reform our immigration system in a way that is fair; that guarantees that all are playing by the same rules..."
That's an odd way to describe an immigration bill that would reward people who cheated the system, who refuse to play "by the same rules," and who evidently believe they are entitled to do so. In fact, the amnesty bill is premised on the notion that one set of immigrants should be given preferential treatment simply because they crossed our border illegally or remained on an expired visa illegally.
The Civil Rights movement was based on the principle that all citizens should have access to the rights and benefits of citizenship, regardless of skin color. Amnesty is based on the principle that certain favored classes should be rewarded with citizenship for violating immigration laws and disrespecting our sovereignty. So there are a few morally and legally relevant differences, but we shouldn't let those stand in the way of a frivolous analogy.
Now that civil rights have been evoked, we should deduce that opposition to amnesty must be sinister.
Just ask Sen. Marco Rubio, who wrote in his book American Son, "I begin to wonder if some of the people who speak so disparagingly about immigrants would be just as worked up if most of them were coming from Canada." Of course, the attorney general would hesitate to bestow "civil rights" titles upon the majority of Canadians, but you get the picture.
It can't possibly be that an expanded welfare state, decreasing test scores, lower wages, and a variety of social pathologies are genuine concerns related to immigration.
So let's expunge that white guilt, prove that our hearts are pure, and show the planet that amnesty is a civil right. Let's tear down the "danged" fence that was never completed, put up loudspeakers, and blare Michael Jackson's "We are the World." Put it on repeat and let it play until every single person on earth who wants an American job or welfare has what their diverse hearts desire, or until Treasury's printing presses break down.
What brought us to this lowly state, where we are contemplating economic and cultural self-immolation? Inept compassion, nihilistic political pandering, Western self-doubt, and multicultural dogma -- perhaps these are part of the explanation.
Aside from disregarding the interests of American workers and turning the concept of justice on its head, Holder's recent remarks show a very disturbing set of priorities. For instance, Holder's Justice Department is ordering that a German home-schooling family be deported. This is after the family was granted political asylum here because home schooling is illegal in Germany. If that same family were from south of the border, dependent on the welfare state and depressing American wages, with some refusing to learn the English language, they would be civil rights heroes.
John T. Bennett (MA, University of Chicago, Master of Arts Program in the Social Sciences '07; J.D., Emory University School of Law '12)is a former Army officer with tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and Djibouti. His writing has appeared in Townhall.com, World Net Daily, and the Chicago Tribune, among others.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/amnesty_as_a_civil_right.html#ixzz2RsYwVkJt
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Friday, April 26, 2013
Janet Napolitano testifies
Posted on April 23, 2013 by Paul Mirengoff in Immigration
Powerline Blog
Janet Napolitano is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the comprehensive immigration bill. Naturally, she supports this legislation, which is a crucial element of her boss’s agenda.
In response to questioning from Sen. Cornyn, Napolitano has admitted that the “90 percent effectiveness rate” standard cannot reliably be calculated because we don’t know who is crossing the border undetected. Yet the 90 percent effectiveness rate is a key criterion for determining that the border has been secured.
Keep this in mind the next time Marco Rubio or one of his fellow Gang members touts the 90 percent effectiveness standard in an effort to persuade us that the border will be secured before illegal aliens receive full amnesty and a path to citizenship.
Sen. Lee points to the huge amount of discretion the legislation confers upon the Department of Homeland Security. Napolitano doesn’t disagree about this. Some have suggested that there are more than 400 instances of new discretionary decisions the Secretary of DHS will be able to make.
Do you trust the DHS Secretary and her successors to exercise this amount of discretion capably and in compliance with the law? I don’t. (See below for more about why I don’t trust DHS.)
Sen. Cruz states that the bill relies on the existence of sound metrics regarding the effectiveness of border enforcement. Napolitano doesn’t disagree.
But Napolitano’s answers to Cruz’s questions suggest that DHS’s metrics are confused and easily manipulated. First, she testifies that the number of apprehensions has stayed the same except in southern Texas where there has been a spike. But then she testifies that apprehensions, border-wide, are at a 40-year low.
I don’t see how both statements can be true.
Moreover, Cruz shows that DHS uses apprehension rates to claim effectiveness whatever they show. If apprehensions increase, that’s considered evidence of effectiveness. After all, people are being caught. But if apprehensions decrease, that’s also considered evidence effectiveness. It is said to show that people have given up on trying to get in.
In the end, Napolitano testifies that there is no one way to determine effectiveness of border enforcement. It’s a combination of factors. I guess we’ll just have to trust the government to chose the factors and weigh them in a sensible way.
But Sen. Sessions’ questions show that DHS cannot be trusted. Napolitano admits to him that the morale of ICE officers — the folks who actually try to enforce our immigration laws — has “plummeted” and is a major concern. In fact, it ranks 279 out of 291 federal agencies, according to a recent study.
Why has morale become so low? Probably because the poltical appointees at DHS prevent ICE officers from doing their jobs. Indeed, ICE officers have sued DHS for precisely this reason. They claim that DHS bars them from doing what the immigration law says they “shall” do.
Napolitano’s response is telling. She says that the ICE officers’ suit highlights a reason for enacting the Gang of 8′s legislation. Why? Because it will change the duties of the ICE officers to reflect what DHS wants them to do.
That’s fine, but it’s no excuse for forcing ICE officers not to carry out their duties under current law. How can we trust an agency that substitutes its judgment about what ICE officers should do for what the law requires of them?
Clearly, we can’t.
READ MORE
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/04/janet-napolitano-testifies.php
Powerline Blog
Janet Napolitano is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the comprehensive immigration bill. Naturally, she supports this legislation, which is a crucial element of her boss’s agenda.
In response to questioning from Sen. Cornyn, Napolitano has admitted that the “90 percent effectiveness rate” standard cannot reliably be calculated because we don’t know who is crossing the border undetected. Yet the 90 percent effectiveness rate is a key criterion for determining that the border has been secured.
Keep this in mind the next time Marco Rubio or one of his fellow Gang members touts the 90 percent effectiveness standard in an effort to persuade us that the border will be secured before illegal aliens receive full amnesty and a path to citizenship.
Sen. Lee points to the huge amount of discretion the legislation confers upon the Department of Homeland Security. Napolitano doesn’t disagree about this. Some have suggested that there are more than 400 instances of new discretionary decisions the Secretary of DHS will be able to make.
Do you trust the DHS Secretary and her successors to exercise this amount of discretion capably and in compliance with the law? I don’t. (See below for more about why I don’t trust DHS.)
Sen. Cruz states that the bill relies on the existence of sound metrics regarding the effectiveness of border enforcement. Napolitano doesn’t disagree.
But Napolitano’s answers to Cruz’s questions suggest that DHS’s metrics are confused and easily manipulated. First, she testifies that the number of apprehensions has stayed the same except in southern Texas where there has been a spike. But then she testifies that apprehensions, border-wide, are at a 40-year low.
I don’t see how both statements can be true.
Moreover, Cruz shows that DHS uses apprehension rates to claim effectiveness whatever they show. If apprehensions increase, that’s considered evidence of effectiveness. After all, people are being caught. But if apprehensions decrease, that’s also considered evidence effectiveness. It is said to show that people have given up on trying to get in.
In the end, Napolitano testifies that there is no one way to determine effectiveness of border enforcement. It’s a combination of factors. I guess we’ll just have to trust the government to chose the factors and weigh them in a sensible way.
But Sen. Sessions’ questions show that DHS cannot be trusted. Napolitano admits to him that the morale of ICE officers — the folks who actually try to enforce our immigration laws — has “plummeted” and is a major concern. In fact, it ranks 279 out of 291 federal agencies, according to a recent study.
Why has morale become so low? Probably because the poltical appointees at DHS prevent ICE officers from doing their jobs. Indeed, ICE officers have sued DHS for precisely this reason. They claim that DHS bars them from doing what the immigration law says they “shall” do.
Napolitano’s response is telling. She says that the ICE officers’ suit highlights a reason for enacting the Gang of 8′s legislation. Why? Because it will change the duties of the ICE officers to reflect what DHS wants them to do.
That’s fine, but it’s no excuse for forcing ICE officers not to carry out their duties under current law. How can we trust an agency that substitutes its judgment about what ICE officers should do for what the law requires of them?
Clearly, we can’t.
READ MORE
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/04/janet-napolitano-testifies.php
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Obama's national curriculum: Rotten to the Common Core (Part 2)
Friday, April 19, 2013
Illinois Review
By Nancy Thorner
Education was first a local issue, then it became a state issue, now the Feds want to get total control. This transition happened over decades as collectivist agitators in our schools chipped away at academic excellence an the name of fairness, diversity and social justice. Changes that have taken place in the past 50 years include:
1. 1st graders are being introduced to the homosexual lifestyle.
2. Gay Pride Day (sometimes called "Day of Silence") will be honored in schools across this nation on April 19th, including at my local Lake Forest High School.
3. Global warming is being taught as settled science instead of the hoax that it is -- with CO2 wrongly targeted as the culprit -- instead of the ideological and political issue that it is to control the populace and to raise taxes.
4. Fossil-fuels are being maligned while green sources of energy like wind and solar have become the flavors of the day, yet we can't run this nation on sunbeams and wind power.
5. Separation of church from the state now rules because of a false interpretation of a ruling in 1962 which completely separated Christian principles from education.
6. History Classes no longer present this nation as a freedom-loving nation to be revered and respected, but instead one that deserves scorn and equal status in the world with every other nation. Likewise, that our Constitution is no longer viable in this day and age and it must be replaced by a "living" Constitution.
7. That Socialism is a fair and acceptable system of government, even though Socialism has failed wherever and whenever it has been tired in the world.
8. That capitalism is bad and big government is good and knows what is best for the American people.
A leftist, progressive government agenda is not what many parents wish for their children, yet Common Core standards will continue to promote such an agenda. It is any wonder why many parents elect to homeschool their children?
We in the West are the only place in which children are indoctrinated in ideas that will destroy the very society generations worked hard (and often died) to create. It was always a country that offered opportunity and freedom to those willing to work hard, save, and even to contribute to voluntarily.
People from around the world continue to wait in long lines to get visas to come here for the American Dream, yet we are considering giving amnesty to millions who broke the law by entering this country illegally.
We are allowing opportunity and freedom be stolen form us through an education system that has lost its soul through the peddling and instilling of progressive ideas and values in the minds of susceptible and gullible school children. What children are learning today will determine what the future hold for this nation.
According to Carbondale High School Superintendent, Steve Murphy, "Standards are a good think when you use them to enlighten people, but when you use those standards to control people they're not." (Pioneer Institute and American Principles Project White Paper. No. 87, May 2012)
You are the voice of your children. Let that voice be heard by those who think they know better than you what is best for your children. It is also essential that you know what children (yours and others) are being taught in their local schools.
Call you state legislators and tell them you want legislation to get Illinois out of Common Core. Contact your representatives in Washington and tell them you want local control with no further federal intrusion into education in Illinois.
Lastly, join others who oppose Common Core here in Illinois and want to take action to stop a complete federal take-over of education.
Related articles are posted at bottom this article
Rotten to the Common Core (Part 1)
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/04/obamas-national-curriculum-rotten-to-the-common-core-part-1.html
Illinois Review
By Nancy Thorner
Education was first a local issue, then it became a state issue, now the Feds want to get total control. This transition happened over decades as collectivist agitators in our schools chipped away at academic excellence an the name of fairness, diversity and social justice. Changes that have taken place in the past 50 years include:
1. 1st graders are being introduced to the homosexual lifestyle.
2. Gay Pride Day (sometimes called "Day of Silence") will be honored in schools across this nation on April 19th, including at my local Lake Forest High School.
3. Global warming is being taught as settled science instead of the hoax that it is -- with CO2 wrongly targeted as the culprit -- instead of the ideological and political issue that it is to control the populace and to raise taxes.
4. Fossil-fuels are being maligned while green sources of energy like wind and solar have become the flavors of the day, yet we can't run this nation on sunbeams and wind power.
5. Separation of church from the state now rules because of a false interpretation of a ruling in 1962 which completely separated Christian principles from education.
6. History Classes no longer present this nation as a freedom-loving nation to be revered and respected, but instead one that deserves scorn and equal status in the world with every other nation. Likewise, that our Constitution is no longer viable in this day and age and it must be replaced by a "living" Constitution.
7. That Socialism is a fair and acceptable system of government, even though Socialism has failed wherever and whenever it has been tired in the world.
8. That capitalism is bad and big government is good and knows what is best for the American people.
A leftist, progressive government agenda is not what many parents wish for their children, yet Common Core standards will continue to promote such an agenda. It is any wonder why many parents elect to homeschool their children?
We in the West are the only place in which children are indoctrinated in ideas that will destroy the very society generations worked hard (and often died) to create. It was always a country that offered opportunity and freedom to those willing to work hard, save, and even to contribute to voluntarily.
People from around the world continue to wait in long lines to get visas to come here for the American Dream, yet we are considering giving amnesty to millions who broke the law by entering this country illegally.
We are allowing opportunity and freedom be stolen form us through an education system that has lost its soul through the peddling and instilling of progressive ideas and values in the minds of susceptible and gullible school children. What children are learning today will determine what the future hold for this nation.
According to Carbondale High School Superintendent, Steve Murphy, "Standards are a good think when you use them to enlighten people, but when you use those standards to control people they're not." (Pioneer Institute and American Principles Project White Paper. No. 87, May 2012)
You are the voice of your children. Let that voice be heard by those who think they know better than you what is best for your children. It is also essential that you know what children (yours and others) are being taught in their local schools.
Call you state legislators and tell them you want legislation to get Illinois out of Common Core. Contact your representatives in Washington and tell them you want local control with no further federal intrusion into education in Illinois.
Lastly, join others who oppose Common Core here in Illinois and want to take action to stop a complete federal take-over of education.
Related articles are posted at bottom this article
Rotten to the Common Core (Part 1)
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/04/obamas-national-curriculum-rotten-to-the-common-core-part-1.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)