2013 Senate Immigration Bill Equals Skepticism
By Rhonda Deniston
The 2013 Immigration Reform Bill leaves American’s with a sense of skepticism, lack of confidence and trust in government. First, the bill is touted as a bipartisan effort; can we really call 68-32 bipartisan? Fifty-four Democrats, and fourteen Republicans, noting three times more Democrat’s as Republicans, cast votes in favor of passage.
The bill on its surface sounds pretty wonderful. However, there are problems with some of the primary measures in the bill. The bill calls for doubling the size of the Border Patrol (BP). The problem seen with this is that already the BP has been limited in its capability by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). There has been many reports that BP and local law enforcement have had their hands tied by DHS and have in many cases been rendered impotent by DHS. It seems meaningless to double the size of BP if they are not allowed to preform their duties adequately. Furthermore, there has been no talk of what to do with illegal immigrants once they are detained. Does the bill call for more facilities to detain foreign intruders; or do we let DHS release illegal immigrants into the general population due to budget constraints, to include criminal aliens?
In addition the bill promises 700 miles of border fencing. Border fencing has already been promised under the Secure Fence Act in 2006 authorizing 700 mile of fence then, as well as in 2010. Here we are in 2013 and 700 miles of border fence being promised as if it is a new idea. Furthermore, the President would have veto power to again delay, deter or refuse this fencing, leaving the American people with a sense of distrust and no confidence in government.
The bill also calls for DHS to “establish” a biometric tracking system to track visa over-stays. Establish doesn’t effectively mean implement, which seems more like just a play on words than any active enforcement. Also, the Senate bill restricts the number of agricultural visas. Restricting agricultural visas will not support the need for unskilled labor and the unintended consequence of this restriction is, more illegal immigration in order to meet the demand for agricultural help. It makes more sense to let temporary workers have work visas rather than legalization. In addition, the bill includes E-verify, great idea, but those who continue to hire illegal immigrants are not going to use E-verify anyway. Strict penalties should be imposed on employers who partake in these kinds of practices, but who will enforce employers fines for misconduct or will government continue to turn a blind eye?
The biggest concern Americans view is the promise that the border will be secure first. However, the executive branch under the Senate Bill has the power to certify whether the border is secure or not. As seen in the past the American people hear echoes that the border is more secure now than ever before. Some how the American people are not buying that statement any longer. The power to certify whether the border is officially secure should be by congress, not the president. The American people fear the border will not be secure and that mass amnesty will take place as a result of full passage of the bill and the border will never be secured.
The prediction is that the House of Representatives will not pass the Senate version of the bill. Moreover, we can expect to see the House produce a bill of their own; a bill that would entertain the idea of rewarding cities and states with grants for enforcing border security, rather than demonizing and punishing states for doing the job the federal government should be doing effectively in the first place.
Will our borders truly be secured first as promised; or will Americans see mass amnesty and will our borders continue to stay wide open to the demise of American sovereignty? The Senate version of immigration reform is certainly believed to be genuine, and from the heart with good intentions. However, who is listening to what American’s want? Americans fear just like the healthcare bill, that we will have to pass the bill before we really know what is in it, and that it will be passed against the will of the people. The government has consistently sold the American one version of an idea and has a long track record of doing exactly the opposite. We can expect the American people are no longer going to sit back and allow a lack of accountability in government.
By Rhonda Deniston 10-14-12
The nation has just passed over the one-month marker of the heinous, murderous, terror attack that took the life of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other brave American citizens at the consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya. The American people have heard so many versions of the events that took place this past September 11, 2012, while the Obama administration is quickly losing credibility, confidence and trust of the American people. Early reporting of the attacks on our citizens and US sovereign soil indicated the attack was of a spontaneous protest in retaliation of an anti-Islam video that was posted weeks before the September 11, attack. The State Department in addition to the White House refused to acknowledge the event was an act of terrorism and an act of war led by al-Qaida . According to an October 11, article printed for the Daily Caller, Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice was quoted, “was not a preplanned, premeditated attack” on the consulate (qtd. Antle). Even as the story regarding the attack in Benghazi unraveled, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney reiterated the attack was due to an anti-Islam video posted on You Tube.
Furthermore, with new information and details regarding the consulate attack in Benghazi are now discrediting the State Department and White House, statements earlier were claims of spontaneous protest that lead to the slaying of Ambassador Stevens. According to an interview by Greta Van Susteran of Fox news, Congressman and House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa stated, “multiple career officials said the didn’t have enough resources or were losing resources need to protect the interest of the consulate, and warnings were not heeded,” leading up to the tragedy (Van Susteran). Issa also stated that there was correspondence from Ambassador Stevens prior to his death that indicated the situation in Benghazi was deteriorating (Van Susteran). Issa also made remarks that al-Qaida was in Libya and gaining a foothold, and he had concerns over cover-ups and bad policy (Van Susteran). Additionally, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta now acknowledge it was a planned act of terrorism by al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (Antle).
Now criticism is being directed towards the administration and the State Department, along with questions as to why the request for protection from consulate officials was denied. According to Brietbart News, multiple US federal government officials have confirmed that prior to the September attack there had been numerous request for an increase in security and again the consulate was denied resources (Brietbart). Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah accused the White House of lying about crucial details of the Benghazi attack, as well as charging the death of four American to the administration lack of prioritizing the victims protection in order to maintain the appearance of normalcy for political gain (Strauss). In addition Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, expressed outrage during a House Oversight hearing over the administration insistence that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneous and provoked by a You Tube video (Hayward).
One opinion that can be offered as to what really happened in Benghazi. The Obama Administration failed the four American’s that perished during the attack, as well as a failure to the American people. This administration in its ongoing attempt to downplay terrorism and the war against terror has backfired in the deadliest manner. The administration once again has shown through a series of misjudgments their lack of leadership in protecting American interest. This administrations record in the area of security can no longer be covered up with left leaning public opinion polls and false statistics. Just like our northern, southern and sea borders here in the US are wide open and unsecure. What the American people can take away from the Benghazi attacks is not a sense of security, but rather a sense of insecurity.
Furthermore, even the New York Times now acknowledges the White House in the early days following the attack that the apology tour had already hit the road. Embracing the apology premises and insistence that an anti-Islam movie was the key ingredient to the September attack (Douthat). However, in the days to follow it became clear to the rest of the world that the attack was a premeditated attack by al-Qaeda, damaging the administration at the worst of times, during re-election. It is more than obvious now that the White House missed the warning signs, revealing to the world our weaknesses in security, all in the name of politics, agendas, political correctness and the downplaying of the real world treat of terrorism.
In closing, the Obama administration has an up hill battle to fight between now and November 6. One can no longer campaign on a motto of hope, change and moving forward. Slogans are not records or good policies. This administration has a record of unsecure borders and now the threat of a global war on terrorism that cannot be erased with apologies. The American people have been given an opportunity to see the truth. Terrorism is not black or white, republican or democrat, gay or straight or rich or poor, terrorism is everyone’s concern. We need real leadership and security moving forward.
Antle, James III. “Obama lied, people died.” Daily Caller. 11 Oct. 2012. Web. 13 Oct 2012
Van Susteran. Greta. “Issa: We owe it to Benghazi victims to get the truth.” On the Record. 10 Oct. 2012. Web. 13 Oct. 2012
“Obama admin ignores request for increased security to Libya.” Brietbart News. 2 Oct.
Strauss, Daniel. “Chaffetz defends voting cut funds for Embassy security.” The Hill. 10 Oct. 2012. Web. 13 Oct. 2012
Hayward, John. “Rep. Gowdy Rips Obama Administration over Benghazi.” Human Events. 11 Oct 2012. Web. 14 Oct. 2012
Douthat, Ross. “The mystery of Benghazi.” The New York Times. 13 Oct. 2012. Web. 13 Oct 2012
by Karen Lugo
September 24, 2012 at 4:00 am
American freedoms must not be extorted away by the tantrums of raging mobs. "Caving in to bullies only accelerates the rate and scale of their ambitions." — Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law
The United States faces mounting pressure from the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation
to comply with demands for "legislation against incitement to religious hatred, violence, discrimination on the basis of religion,in particular for Muslims
The response to both marauding rioters and fatwa-driven
heads of Islamic states must be a confident and unequivocal defense of First Amendment guarantees as enshrined in the Bill of Rights and confirmed by America's highest Court.
Just a year and a half ago the Supreme Court considered
whether there should be a special free speech "funeral exception" to protect military families from demonstrators shouting epithets such as, "Thank God for dead soldiers" as these families bury their fallen daughters and sons. The near-unanimous ruling affirmed the full spectrum of public debate, including speech as "distasteful" as the Phelps cult's hateful jeers. This decision, denying the Snyder family compensation for emotional pain, was a bitter pill for many to swallow, but the Court properly refused to react to pain "by punishing the speaker."
The current talk of caving in to murderous Islamists and censoring the latest speaker, or filmmaker, is in direct violation of the same First Amendment free speech protections that applied to the funeral demonstrators. If it is safe to presume that military families who are confronted with vile demonstrators will not react violently, why the desperation to placate the offended party when thuggery is part of the equation?
rationalize that Islamists, according to arbitrary blasphemy protestations, can be expected to "act out." They therefore claim that the Brandenburg
rule, as it excludes expressions "likely to incite or produce imminent lawless action" from the zone of protected speech, should apply to speakers who offend Muslims. This generalized approach, however, ignores the instruction provided by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg
when it clarified the standard as akin to "preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action." The Court was careful not to convey a vague and easily manipulated "likely to incite" standard.
Also lost in this desperate attempt to tamp down the tantrums is the absurd premise that legal culpability for a bad act can be shifted to a third party. For example, if the threatened riots had resulted from Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris's suggestion about an "everybody draw Mohammed day," she would have been in the impossible position of defending against the legally contorted charge that she may or may not reasonably have known that she was saying something sufficiently offensive to incite mob mania. The potential for upping-the-ante if feigned offenses can be leveraged into crimes would only be limited by Islamist inventiveness.
Unseemly haste to placate the violent mobs on their terms reveals just how desperate leaders are to put off a reckoning until another day. What we forestall along with the inevitable confrontation, nevertheless, is the audacity that accrues to the thugs as American pundits and politicians focus on censoring the filmmaker.
, killing at least twenty.
In Great Britain a debate over historian Tom Holland's documentary Islam: The Untold Story
scheduled for two days after the Cairo and Benghazi attacks was canceled. France recognized Charlie Hebdo
's right to publish risqué cartoons of Mohammed but did shut down twenty embassies in Muslim countries for fear of riots.
As constitutional law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh writes
, caving in to bullies only accelerates the rate and scale of their ambitions. After performing a straightforward cause-and-effect analysis, Volokh concluded that it would "actually be safer — not just better for First Amendment principles, but actually safer for Americans — to hold the line now, and make clear that American speech is protected."
Even if accelerated tantrums and murder are the initial response, civilized society would be better off hanging tough. The future of American rule of law depends on facing down these particular bullies at this time. Otherwise, Prof. Volokh's trifecta will prevail: "kill Americans, visibly force America to change its ways, and on top of that suppress the blasphemy or other behavior that you dislike, win win win." The key to implementing this trifecta is the visible
component of the formula. If America sacrifices prestige and moral authority on the world stage to buy temporary relief, Western states know exactly how to score the transaction: civilization loses, barbarians win.
Military families, Christians, Jews, tea party activists, and various other groups must suffer insult with a stiff upper lip so that discourse can run the full range of parody and ridicule. The kind of free, unfettered, and robust speech that sustains a free and independent people entails give and take all the way around, and the worthwhile benefit is a full vetting of ideas and policies.
Patrick Henry did not say, "Give me liberty, or . . , ahh . . , uhm . . , I will apologize for even asking." Our examples, our founding leaders, spoke in clear and certain terms.
Daniel Webster surveyed America's founding era in 1826 and exhorted subsequent generations to cherish the "newly awakened and unconquerable spirit of free inquiry and diffusion of knowledge such as has been before altogether unknown and unheard of." He warned that if "these great interests fail, we fail with them."
No matter how objectionable or socially repugnant is the material in controversy, American freedoms must not extorted away by the tantrums of raging mobs. Our destiny must remain subject to American sovereign will and be determined by time-tested deliberative processes.Karen Lugo is Co-Director, Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court Got it Right in Upholding Key Provision of SB 1070
By Rhonda Deniston
The Supreme Court in a unanimous decision upheld Arizona’s immigration Law SB1070's key provision. Law enforcement can constitutionally inquire about immigration status during stops when there is reasonable suspicion to believe an individual is undocumented. The Supreme Court got it right. Law enforcement at a local, state and federal level have always had broad discretion regarding reasonable suspicion. When an officer considers the totality of the circumstances, along with good training and experience gives officers the ability to make good judgment. Had the Supreme Court struck this provision down regarding immigration cases, it could have very well affected law enforcements ability to have broad discretion regarding other crimes as well hindering law enforcement from effectively doing their job.
However, immigration status inquiries are already set to be challenged in court, this may not be the end of this issue. Although, we are not likely to see the outcome of the challenges for some time, and there is no guarantee the Supreme Court will revisit this issue. It is rare a Supreme Court ruling is reversed. Both sides on the issue are claiming victory from the Supreme Court ruling, but there is no victory when you have a broken immigration system and a federal government that refuses to enforce immigration laws, secure the border or have a reasonable path to citizenship. At the end of the day this comes down to law enforcements ability to continue the use of reasonable suspicion with broad discretion.
By Rhonda Deniston
San Diego Occupy May Day march can best be describe as more of a union fest, rather than a grassroots movement of angry anti-Wall Street protesters looking out for the average working person. The event started at City College in downtown San Diego with about sixty students marching approximately thirteen blocks, stopping for about fifteen minutes to sit in the middle of 4th Street downtown, blocking traffic before eventually meeting up with two bus loads of janitors from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), along with a handful of American Federation of labor-Congress of Industrialized Organizations (AFL-CIO) and a few other random union members, altogether the head count was close to two hundred people. Not much of an impression, not to mention there were no original San Diego Occupiers anywhere to be found at this march.
The event was fairly unorganized, a few speakers spoke on behalf of migrant and immigrant workers, janitors and taxi drivers. The leader of the taxi drivers was unable to attend because he was visiting with friends and family in Kenya according to an unknown woman speaking at the mic; seriously you cannot make this stuff up.
In addition, there was a table set up, full of communist publications with titles such as the communist manifest and Karl Marx, as well as weekly newspaper titled “The Militant” full of communist and union propaganda. To get a better feel that the Communist Party was openly part of the union and occupy movement, they were kind enough to fly a large Russian Communist flag, as a lovely back drop for their indoctrination mission at the march. Interestingly, this all comes on the heal of Obama’s new campaign slogan “Forward.” Historically, the slogan forward reflects the conviction of radicals and Marxist, as they move forward past capitalism, to socialism, and eventually Communism.
See picture slide show, click on HOME page above.............
By Karen Lugo
When an opinion on sociological trends or a critique of a group ideology results in criminal charges of hate speech, liberal democracy is in danger.
The Danish supreme court has just highlighted that danger. While deciding to acquit Lars Hedegaard, president of the Danish Free Press Society
, of intending
to speak hatefully for public dissemination, the court emphatically affirmed a statute according to which anyone who “publicly or with the intent of public dissemination issues a pronouncement or other communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years.”
The prosecution of Hedegaard resulted from remarks that he made during an interview and contends were electronically distributed without his permission
. Although Hedegaard explained that he did not intend to accuse the majority of Muslim men of abusive behavior, Denmark’s Office of Public Prosecutions deemed his reflections on the incidence of family rape and the commonness of misogyny in Muslim-dominated areas to be criminally insulting.
The trial-court judge did not find that the prosecution met its burden to demonstrate that Hedegaard meant his comments for public distribution. But the Office of Public Prosecutions appealed to the Copenhagen Eastern Superior Court, in which Hedegaard was convicted
. This reversal was based upon the elastic legal standard that Hedegaard “ought to have known” of the potential for dissemination of his remarks.
Upon receiving the guilty verdict, Hedegaard noted
that “the real losers [were] freedom of speech and Muslim women,” and wondered how women could be protected “if we risk getting a state sanctioned label of racism” when drawing attention to their plight.
After two years of arguments, the seven-member supreme court declined to apply the lower court’s “ought to know” standard, but affirmed the statute under which Hedegaard had been prosecuted, with its many ambiguities and invitations to abuse. As Hedegaard has said
, the result still logically means that one can be criminally liable for speech deemed racist or offensive if one does not “demand written guarantees that nothing be passed on without express approval.”
Regulating speech in this fashion is devastating to the ordered development of a democratic society. First, as Hedegaard’s trial demonstrated, truth is not a defense. In fact, sociological data that would substantiate his observations were not admissible in court. As Hedegaard complained, “the defendant is not allowed to present evidence or call witnesses who might confirm his contention that the Islamic treatment of women is incompatible with the norms of a civilised society.”
Second, the highly general categories of legal offense do not merely seek to protect races of people — hard enough to define — but now cover beliefs, dogmas, and doctrines. Destructive ideologies that cry out for inspection are thus invited to propagate behind a veil.
“If our Western freedom means anything at all,” Hedegaard argued
before the court, “we must insist that every grown-up person is responsible for his or her beliefs, opinions, culture, habits and actions. The price we all have to pay for the freedom to disseminate one’s political persuasion and religious beliefs is that others have a right to criticise our politics, our religion and our culture.”
America is not as far behind Europe in policing thought and speech as it may seem. To be sure, when the U.S. Supreme Court has heard cases, such as Snyder v. Phelps
, involving the right to speak candidly on matters of public concern, it has consistently upheld the right of individuals to discuss and debate — even protecting cruel and “hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” American appellate courts have also been vigilant in fending off speech restrictions that are vague or so broad as to invite oppression and arbitrary enforcement. Yet not all appointed or elected rulemakers are as inclined to respect public debate. Four Democratic New York state senators have recently argued
for a “more refined First Amendment,” declaring that speech should be “a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.” These legislators justified their proposed speech restrictions in the context of cyberbullying; there is always some hideous incident to use as the rationale for censoring speech.
Many public universities indoctrinate incoming freshmen to understand that the First Amendment has a unique meaning on campus. They are told that an individual’s right to speak is balanced against any other person’s right not to feel insulted. No wonder it is difficult to reorient students to the rough-and-tumble world of robust debate on matters of public policy when they emerge from the campus cocoon.
And although they are not currently targeting “hate speech,” the Senate and the House are going after corporate campaign speech
and speech by telephonic device
Speech restrictions undermine our very ability to sustain the social contract. In the rare event that they are needed, they must be fine-tuned to apply only to speech that threatens imminent harm. The public good requires that we rely on free speech itself — shame and moral opprobrium — to correct those who insist on saying what is rude or crude. Otherwise, as Hedegaard warns
us, “ the prosecutor lies in wait.”— Karen Lugo is co-director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and founder of the Libertas-West Project.
A Constitutional Attorney Has Read the Entire H.C. Bill
By Michael Connelly
A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire proposed healthcare bill. Read his conclusions and pass this on as you wish. This is stunning!
The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret .Constitutional Attorney
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of theU.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.
The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide...
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have privatse insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law It doesn't stop there though.
The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights... Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas
AFTER HAVING READ THIS, PLEASE FORWARD....
WE MUST HOLD CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.
THIS MUST BE REVERSED!
Has Obama Crossed the Line with his Hypocritical Comments of Supreme Court and its Authority?
By Rhonda Deniston
As Senator, President Obama taught courses in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago and regularly referred to himself as a “Constitutional Law Professor.” For one making such claims, it would only be proper to hold that individual to a higher standard regarding interpretation of Constitutional Law. It is fair to say that Obama’s comments regarding “Judicial Activism” is highly hypocritical, not so much from a judicial perspective, but rather activism in of itself.
What easily comes to mind in the case of activism is ACORN and Moveon.org; two groups associated with Obama whose practices of activism are commonly used. Can these examples compare and are they equal? Let the reader decide. The point being made that Obama and his administration have made it a regular practice to control the conversation and the direction of the country, driving his agenda through activism! It is hard to deem the authority of the Supreme Court and its justices in determining the Constitutionality of Obama’s healthcare law as “Judicial Activism.” It is the role of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of a law or action relevant to a case under review.
Furthermore, Obama’s warnings to the Supreme Court are greatly concerning. These comments suggest the Supreme Court should not cross Obama and his agenda. Obama more or less publically challenged the Supreme Court, with his continued use of bullying and intimidation tactics. Our Founding Fathers were brilliant in their implementation of separations of power. Obama has time and time again used his authority to overreach and power grab the powers of the legislative branch via executive order. Obviously Obama is confused about the authority of the Supreme Court, as well as the balance of powers in our form of government.
Moving to the point of Obama hypocrisy. Obama’s own words in a recent press conference, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (1) Passed by strong majority? In March of 2010 the Healthcare bill nearly passed by a 219-212 vote in the House of Representatives. Obtaining those last few votes with arm-twisting, waivers and brokered sweetheart deals by and for Democrat Congressman, many which lost their congressional seats a few months later due to public outrage over the bill, is hardly what many would define as a “Majority.” To add one last point about unelected people. Is the EPA not unelected in addition to unchecked power, are Obama’s 45+ Czars not unelected in addition to unchecked power? I think the hypocrisy debate has been proven in the case. Obama has continued his normal practice of laws, interpretations and exceptions to the rules as strictly one sided.
Contrived, Calculated, Deception of the National Popular Vote Campaign
By Rhonda Deniston
A National Popular Vote (NPV) would guarantee the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the entire United States. This is the actual statement you will find on the National Popular Vote website and the statement could not be more true. The NPV website also states a NPV preserves the Electoral College and ensure every vote in every state matters, this is where NPV idea gets a little shady and deceptive. Those that would like you to believe a NPV protects less populated states and provides protections that give those states a bigger voice, is nothing more than a fallacy. The NPV is a deceptive concept, that steals elections, tips balance of power and would change America in a direction that would make the Founding Fathers roll over in their graves.
Currently, there are nine states signed on to the NPV, Vermont, Maryland, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, California and Hawaii, combined equal 132 of 270 electoral votes needed to take the White House. Ironically, all these states are heavily dominated Democrat states. Starting to see a trend here? A NPV seems reasonable, right? Sure, who ever gets the most votes, wins. The problem with this is that this is not how it works. When a state signs on to the NPV, in essence that state has given up their voting rights and have collectively join in with the other NPV states creating a compact, or rather states entering into agreement. The NPV combines all of the NPV states electoral votes. This is not about individual votes being counted and the most votes wins.
This is how the NPV works; lets say eight of the nine states already signed on to the NPV all vote for Barrack Obama in the 2012 election, the ninth state, lets say it is California with fifty-five electoral votes, the states majority votes went to who ever the Republican candidate is and not for Obama; California would surrender their fifty-five electoral votes to the NPV compact, despite California voters leaning toward another candidate because California agreed to give their electoral votes to the candidate that got the popular vote in NPV states. A NPV compact is not illegal, but it is a crafty way to skirt the constitution and undermine our current system of voting. Our Founding Fathers made no mistake in when they developed our system of election; the Founding Fathers took great care to prevent direct election of the president.
A NPV system opens up the door to massive voter fraud and power grabs. Ask yourself this, if the NPV is so grand why have nine states already signed on quietly, with no public debate or publicity? Why are the NPV states all connected to one political party and not a mix of political affiliation? Why are high paid lobbyist persuading legislators to enact NPV into law? Why are voters not involved in the decision making process regarding their states voting rights? If it smells like a rat, walks like a rate and looks like a rat, is a rat!!! If enough states enacted the NPV system, totaling 270 electoral votes, why would there even be a need for an election? It could take as few as eleven of the most populated states to decide the presidency, leaving the rest of the country disenfranchised. Assured that the NPV is contrived and deliberately deceptive, the NPV campaign slogan “Every Vote Equal” is hugely deceptive in everyway!
Why I support Newt Gingrich for 2012 Presidential Primary.
By Rhonda Deniston
Image this, its 3am in the morning; an Iranian Warship is heading toward the east coast of the United States, armed with nuclear warheads, the phone rings at the White House…………… It is Newt Gingrich that I want answering that phone.
Critics call Newt’s foreign policies stark, hawkish and apocalyptic. Stating Newts’ policies exaggerate the scale of contemporary threats and his foreign policy would make the United States more militarized and confrontational (Larison). Exactly, this is why it is Newt that I want answering that phone at 3am and why I know he is the man for the job when it comes to foreign policy. Like Ronald Reagan, Newt recognizes that peace comes from strength.
In addition, his proposed idea on immigration policy makes sense, not to mention Newt is the only candidate that has a solution, rather than non-action opinion in regard to immigration. I do not believe that Newt Gingrich is pro-illegal alien. His plan is not perfect but is a good solid constructive start. Here is his plan as I interpret it; year one, he will secure the border, in the meantime all undocumented immigrants will be required to register in the United States. Once the border is secure, then his administration will start to address registered undocumented immigrants and enforcement of unregistered undocumented immigrants if detained will be deported, finally restoring enforcement of our existing immigration laws and policies and allowing Border Patrol agents and INS to do their job. Over the next several years Newts administration will began and implement a system that will deal with and process the registered undocumented immigrants and find a path in which they will be able to stay in the US or be returned to their country of origin. This is a win-win for both sides, its not blanket amnesty, its not offering automatic citizenship but rather legal status and offers the opposition to border security the peace that many undocumented immigrants will be dealt with in a dignified and humanist manner as well as knowing that families will not ripped apart by INS raids, as well as allowing not all but many to stay in the country.
Newt is committed to repealing Obamacare, intends to create a robust job creation plan, unleash an American energy independence plan and production, save medicare and social security, balance the budget (Newt has a record of balancing the budget) revitalize our national security system, restore the proper role of the judicial system, and enforce the Tenth Amendment of states rights.
Newt is also committed to repealing the job-killing Dodd-Frank legislation, stop over regulation of the EPA, stop job-killing polices of the National Labor Board, remove obstacles to drill for oil and natural gas in America in a responsible environmentally safe manner, abolish the death and capital gains tax, reduce corporate tax to 12.5%, and stop wasteful government spending.
I honestly have a very favorable opinion of all of our presidential candidates. Each candidate has great ideas and passion to set this country back on the right track. Each one is sincerely committed and has so much to offer, it is really easy to see why conservative voters are so split on what candidate to support. Do not let someone lead you to believe that we have no real choice in this election and that we are settling for a candidate, because that in certainly no the case. We are split, not divided. We have exceptional choices and it is hard too choose. I have spent a lot of time and consideration in deciding my choice of whom to support. I have set aside Newts past, he has made poor choices no-doubt and he doesn’t deny it, but I have to look at today and those poor choices have given Newt Gingrich the wisdom to become a great and humble leader. His wisdom, experience, knowledge, courage and tenacity are the qualities that will make him the President that will change America for the better and bring a brighter future to our children.
At the end of the day, I fully support and encourage all registered voters to vote in this important primary election for the candidate that hits on the issues that matter most to them. Do your research, look at your candidates record, listen to their ideas and converse with your friends, family, and neighbor’s and listen to opposing views, you might just learn something new. Remember, that our goals as conservatives is too beat Obama in 2012, our future depends on it.
In summary, I see Newt Gingrich as the candidate with the most experience in foreign policy; in the era of foreign and domestic terrorism, this is crucial. Newt has combated communism in his past and with the rise of communistic and Marxist ideology in America disguised as progressivism, we need a president that understands and clearly sees this threat. Gingrich has a clear vision on job creation, smaller government, energy independence, and cutting taxes and regulations. Newt understands the challenges facing America in the 21st Century. Newt is also the only presidential candidate while exploring his bid for a presidential candidacy that reached out to Tea Party leaders across the country, listen to our concerns and developed his campaign plan based on many of the concerns Tea Party leaders expressed during these discussions. Newt understands the needs and concerns of everyday America’s.
I hope that my observations of Newt and thoughtful consideration of why I have decided to support him, helps all of you understand him a little better. In the end, it is up to you, the voter to decided best for you which candidate you support and stay engaged in the process. No matter, who gets the nomination it is important that as conservatives we stand solid together and behind the nominee, as we defeat Obama in 2012.
Larison, Daniel. “Newt Gingrich Dangerous, Self-Aggrandizing Foreign Policy.” The Week. Dec. 8, 2011. web