Issues of the Day
“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.”
~~~ Adolf Hitler, 1935
“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
~~~ Thomas Jefferson
President may legalize 5M immigrant parents
By: Jack Encarnacao
President Obama appears poised to take executive action that would legalize as many as 5 million illegal immigrant parents of U.S.-born children, a prospect that riles local immigration critics and adds a new dimension to concern about swelling immigrant populations in states like Massachusetts eyed as hosting sites for thousands of children who crossed the border unaccompanied.
The Associated Press reported yesterday White House officials are laying the groundwork for an executive order that would automatically legalize roughly 5 million of an estimated 11 million people who have entered the country without legal authorization or overstayed their visas.
One option would allow immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens to apply for temporary legal status, which would let them work here legally. Another option would grant temporary legal status to parents of young people who have been granted deportation deferrals by the Obama administration.
Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson, a longtime critic of U.S. immigration policy, said the proposed orders encourage parents to cross the border and have a child, which he said is an ongoing problem.
“They snuck in, they had a child, and now because they did that the president’s saying, ‘OK, we’re going to let you stay’?” Hodgson said yesterday. “The tail’s wagging the dog here. There’s no consequence for coming in here illegally.”
The news comes as local officials continue to press for details on the ever-evolving plans to potentially host immigrant children at Westover Air Reserve Base in Chicopee and Camp Edwards in Bourne. Bourne selectmen chair Peter Meier said town officials want a seat at the table if the state negotiates a memorandum spelling out what the feds will pay for emergency services and school costs if children enroll locally.
“We need to get everybody in the room and say, ‘OK, what’s it going to take so we can make this palatable to the most amount of people?’” Meier said.
Gov. Deval Patrick earlier this month proposed housing the children for up to four months in an effort to aid in the “humanitarian crisis” of more than 57,000 unaccompanied Central American kids flocking to the U.S. border.
Howie Carr: Count on Tsarnaevs’ EBT card collection
By: Howie Carr
What’s the over-under on how many EBT cards the Tsarnaev gang had in their heyday? Very conservatively, I’m going to say 15.
It’s difficult to nail down exact numbers, because these are, after all, undocumented Democrats, and God forbid that their privacy rights should ever be violated. As Rep. Shaunna O’Connell (R-Taunton) put it this week, “Deval Patrick can’t run the state, but he sure is good at stonewalling.”
The latest questions concern Khairullozhon Matanov, better known as “The Quincy Cabbie.” Did he or did he not have an EBT card? Calls were placed to his lawyer (who we’re paying for) but he did not return them. According to some law enforcement sources, not only did Matanov have an EBT card, but he also inherited the EBT card of confessed multiple-murderer immigrant Ibragim Todashev.
Todashev is the mixed martial arts fighter who was shot to death in Orlando by an FBI agent. Just before attacking the FBI agent, he had confessed to stabbing three drug dealers to death in Waltham on Sept. 11, 2011.
At least there is one positive thing about EBT cards — you can track where they’re being used. In the hours before he and Speedbump Tsarnaev murdered the three Americans, Todashev was using his infidel-supplied EBT card in Waltham, sources tell me.
They also tell me Todashev was living with the Quincy cabbie before he left for Florida. And that when he left Massachusetts, he paid his back rent by handing his EBT card over to Matanov.
Why not? Drug dealers use EBT cards as a form of currency, so why not terrorists? Terrorists and drug dealers have a lot in common — they’re always on welfare, and they’re usually from foreign lands.
Matanov, you may recall, was an extremely successful cab driver. Using fake names, over three years he wired $71,000 cash in 114 different wire transfers out of the Great Satan to Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Uzbekistan.
Too bad he didn’t save any money for his legal-defense fund. But hey, that’s our job as U.S. citizens. Through their EBT cards, we pay for the pressure cookers to blow us up, and then we pay for their lawyers.
When it came to living high off the infidels, Quincy Cabbie was a piker compared to the Tsarnaevs. Naturally they all had EBT cards — they were “refugees,” after all, seeking “asylum” in America, asylum from work.
Mr. and Mrs. Tsarnaev had been living on Norfolk Street, which is in the Sectioneightistan neighborhood of Cambridge. Then they split up, an old ploy. If you split up, each “refugee” needs his own EBT card, and gets it, naturally, no questions asked. And each of the foreign freeloaders gets more dough, because despite what the old song says, two “asylum-seekers” cannot live as cheaply as one, especially if one of them is addicted to cognac.
Now that the Tsarnaev parents are back in their home country of EBTistan, they’ve reconciled.
Meanwhile, one of the Tsarnaev sisters is coming up for trial on her alleged dine ’n’ dash at an Applebee’s in Dorchester. Must be another one of those quaint customs they brought over from their home country of Shopliftistan.
Sister Bella has been arrested in New Jersey on drug charges. As for Speedbump, the dead terrorist, believed to have murdered seven people before his brother sent him to Paradise by running him over in a stolen SUV, he too had his own personal EBT card.
Anybody want to bet on who the Joker voted for for president in 2012?
Biggest American flag anywhere...
Here’s the story:
Our thanks to Nick…
Victory in Palmer v. D.C.
By Alan Gura
Justice never sleeps…. not even on a Saturday afternoon, when this opinion was just handed down.
In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.
In 2012, I won Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), which struck down Illinois’ total ban on the carrying of defensive handguns outside the home. With this decision in Palmer, the nation’s last explicit ban of the right to bear arms has bitten the dust. Obviously, the carrying of handguns for self-defense can be regulated. Exactly how is a topic of severe and serious debate, and courts should enforce constitutional limitations on such regulation should the government opt to regulate. But totally banning a right literally spelled out in the Bill of Rights isn’t going to fly. My deepest thanks to the Second Amendment Foundation for making this victory possible and to my clients for hanging in there. Congratulations Americans, your capital is not a constitution-free zone.
Border agents say violent MS-13 recruiting at Arizona facility for new Central American arrivals
MS-13 members are infiltrating a federal facility for Central American youths illegally entering the United States -- trying to cross the border with criminal pasts and recruiting others to join the notoriously violent, California-based gang, sources tell Fox News.
Shawn Moran, of the National Border Patrol Council, said the gang leaders are recruiting pre-teens, as they typically do, and following the lead of drug cartels also trying to fill their ranks from among the estimated 57,000 unaccompanied youths and others who have come to the U.S. from Central America in roughly the past nine months.
He said agents have witnessed the recruiting at the Border Patrol’s facility in Nogales, Ariz., and that gang members are using a Red Cross phone bank there to “recruit, enlist and pressure” others illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.
“It makes sense that MS-13 would do the same,” said Moran, vice president for the union, which represents border patrol agents.
He and local union officials also say agents are saying they cannot isolate admitted criminals and gang members, suspected gang members and those engaging in criminal behavior because they are minors.
The Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement each told FoxNews.com earlier this week that they have no knowledge of the MS-13, or Mara Salvatrucha, activities detailed by Moran and others. However, they pointed out that young unaccompanied aliens are held in ICE facilities for only the first 48 hours.
“We know it’s happening because agents are telling us,” Moran told Fox News. “The Border Patrol is trying to downplay it.”
He said agents have overhead the phone bank conversations and that potential recruits are given a phone number to call and say they are “willing to join” the gang.
MS-13 also has a large presence in El Salvador, which has in part led to many Central American youths fleeing that country. So at least some gang members would more than likely be among the tens of thousands of young illegal Central Americans who have recently arrived at the border, sources say.
Texas state GOP Sen. Dan Patrick said earlier this week that roughly 100,000 illegal immigrants living in his state are gang members.
Can we please restore a little common sense to America?
By Bobby Eberle
I often wonder how America finally reached the state that it's in now. Elementary schools will ban Christmas celebrations all in the name of not offending anyone, but the result, of course, is that most people are offended. Prayers are not allowed because an atheist might get spun up... yet what about the rest of us? And now, we have another example of children losing out, simply because common sense has been thrown out the window.
What we have in this story is a group of kids at a vacation Bible school. Mix that with America's military, and what do you get? A bunch of disappointed children and angry parents, that's what.
As reported by Todd Starnes at Fox News, the problem arose when the Bible Baptist Church in Carthage, Missouri was holding a vacation Bible school, and the theme for one particular week was "God's Rescue Squad."
The paramedics came on Monday and on Tuesday, the fire department showed up. The boys and girls were taught how to stop, drop and roll. On Wednesday, the Jasper County Sheriff's Dept. brought their K-9 unit..
But our story picks up with what happened on Thursday. That was the day when the church was supposed to honor the National Guard. They had invited troops from the nearby armory to drop by with one of their Humvees.
But the National Guard did not visit Bible Baptist Church on Thursday night, and the reason why has caused great anger and frustration among church members.
It turns out that the National Guard is not allowed to participate in such functions. That's right. Paramedics can come out. Police officers can come out. But members of the military can't. And why? Because it's against regulations. The local state representative, Republican Mike Kelley, said that "federal policy prohibits them from doing anything with any specific church."
This is just crazy. The whole theme is about people who protect and defend and rescue. In addition to people like police officers and fire fighters, what better example is there than members of our military? Just because you show up an event for kids does not mean you endorse a particular religion. Come on!
The Missouri National Guard did not return my calls for comment - but it doesn't matter. Kelley sent me a copy of the Army regulation.
It states: "Army participation must not selectively benefit (or appear to benefit) any person, group, or corporation (whether profit or nonprofit); religion, sect, religious or sectarian group, or quasi-religious or ideological movement."
The policy also states that troops are to avoid any activities that might involve or appear to involve the promotion, endorsement, or sponsorship of any religious or sectarian movement.
Showing up where invited does not constitute sponsorship. It means you are going where you are wanted. That's pretty plain to see.
Starnes interviewed several Guardsmen who agreed to speak if their identities were not revealed. They all expressed dismay and frustration at what was happening.
"I will never understand why it's okay for the military to march in a gay pride parade but not be allowed to spend an hour talking to children who look up to them (soldiers)," the Guardsman said. "I honestly never thought I'd see the day that this would happen in my hometown."
In June, the Department of Defense gave permission for a military color guard to march in Washington, D.C.'s gay pride parade. It marked the first time in history the U.S. Army Military District of Washington participated in the parade.
So there you have it. It turns out that some functions are okay... assuming they fit the politically correct model that the government is pushing on us. Enough already!
As Netroots Nation Drinks Up Democrat Kool-Aid, AFL-CIO Warns This Could Be A 'Powerful' GOP Year
As Katie Glueck of Politico wrote last Sunday, the faithful liberals who attended Netroots Nation last week are eating up the messaging national Democrats are spewing into the airwaves:
Party leaders have been pushing messages about economic fairness as they look ahead to what will drive midterm turnout — and with this crowd, at least, it’s resonating.
Issues such as raising the minimum wage, ensuring “equal pay” for women and, more broadly, reducing income inequality all played well here.
In an interview, Mary Burke, who is running for governor against Scott Walker in Wisconsin, also pointed to reproductive and voting rights as issues that could drive Democrats to the polls in an off-year. Perhaps the biggest applause line in Warren’s speech came when she melded anti-Wall Street talk with blasting the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Hobby Lobby case, which will allow some private companies to opt out of covering birth control.
Of course, they did. Netroots is the liberal equivalent to our Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Yet, let’s focus on the Burke part for a second.
Hot Air’s Noah Rothman aptly noted the role single women could play in the midterm elections; these ladies could seriously ruin GOP plans to retake the Senate. Then again, the projected turnout rate for unmarried women isn’t good; a one-third drop from 2012 levels.
Wisconsin is one gubernatorial race where single women could deliver the deathblow to incumbent Republican Governor Scott Walker, who’s trying to recover from a ludicrous witch-hunt regarding his campaign finance operations during his 2012 recall election that has since been squashed by the courts.
But what about the working class vote? In fact, this bloc of voters has just as much sway, if not more so, than single women in national elections. Molly Ball of theAtlantic wrote yesterday that, “for the past decade, the working-class vote has determined whether the country swung toward Democrats or Republicans.”
It seems even the unions aren’t too optimistic about this year’s midterm elections. Ball spoke with AFL-CIO political director Mike Podhorzer, who compiled the data with working class voters and found that the GOP wins voters making over $50,000 frequently, while Democrats have a lock on voters making under $50,000. But, the margin of victory is volatile with this bloc of Democratic voters, where a victory by a 10-point or 20-point margin dictates how elections are won, according to Ball:
In 2004, Democrats won the working-class vote by 11 points; George W. Bush was reelected. In 2006, Democrats won the working-class vote by 22 points and took the House and Senate. In 2008, Democrats won by 22 points again, and President Obama was elected. In 2010, the margin narrowed to 11 points, and Republicans took the House back. In 2012, Obama was reelected—on the strength of another 22-point margin among voters making under $50,000.
So, how are things looking this year? Even union man Podhorzer acknowledges that this year will be friendly to elephants.
51 percent of voters making less than $50,000 plan to vote for Democrats, while 40 percent plan to vote Republican. (The rest are undecided, and the GOP wins the more-than-$50,000 vote 49-44.) That's exactly the same 11-point margin that has meant Democratic doom in every election since 2004.
Democrats, Podhorzer said, still need to find a way to frame the election in terms of "who's on your side." They haven't done it so far. If they can't, Podhorzer said, "This is going to be another Republican year, in a powerful way."
By powerful, we can assume he’s envisioning – to his horror –Republicans taking the Senate and increasing their majority in the House. With ISIS wreaking havoc in Iraq, Israel duking it out with Hamas (again), Ukrainian separatists allegedly shooting commercial airliners out of the sky, and the media reporting howRomney was right about Russia back in 2012, it’s looking more likely that this effort to get messaging on track isn’t going to happen soon.
Plus, the Obama administration has to deal with legal challenges to Obamacare, which conservatives have been successful in slowly chipping away key portions of the law in the courts; the latest victory being Halbig v. Burwell.
Oh, and the health insurance premium figures are to be released in the fall of this year, in the days leading up to Election Day.
A REFUGEE ‘SOLUTION’ TO THE BORDER CRISIS
By: John Hayward
Ever since Barack Obama’s manufactured border crisis became big news, I’ve been asking why compassionate liberals support policies that put Unaccompanied Alien Children on a dangerous journey that begins with abuse – including, according to many accounts, sexual abuse – by smugglers, and ends with a dangerous desert crossing. If we’re going to effectively throw the border open, doesn’t compassion demand that we send buses and planes down to Central America to pick the kids up and bring them safely here?
The same idea has officially occurred to the Obama Administration. Instead of letting Unaccompanied Alien Children pile up in border camps, we’ll just declare them “refugees” in Honduras and bring them safely to their new American city of permanent residence! Border crisis solved!
As you read this report from the New York Times, marvel that there are still people who doubt that Obama caused this crisis on purpose, as part of a Cloward-Piven attack on the U.S. immigration system. I’m not sure what else those people need to here, but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will be along in a moment as the closing act for this bleak comedy:
Hoping to stem the recent surge of migrants at the Southwest border, the Obama administration is considering whether to allow hundreds of minors and young adults from Honduras into the United States without making the dangerous trek through Mexico, according to a draft of the proposal.
If approved, the plan would direct the government to screen thousands of children and youths in Honduras to see if they can enter the United States as refugees or on emergency humanitarian grounds. It would be the first American refugee effort in a nation reachable by land to the United States, the White House said, putting the violence in Honduras on the level of humanitarian emergencies in Haiti and Vietnam, where such programs have been conducted in the past amid war and major crises.
Critics of the plan were quick to pounce, saying it appeared to redefine the legal definition of a refugee and would only increase the flow of migration to the United States. Administration officials said they believed the plan could be enacted through executive action, without congressional approval, as long as it did not increase the total number of refugees coming into the country.
Problem: Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive orders touched off a human stampede from Central America. Solution: an even bigger amnesty order that includes curb service – we’ll pick up the lucky refugee lottery winners and bring them here ourselves!
Say, do you suppose the throng of people showing up to claim “refugee” status might be a lot bigger than Obama anticipates, just as the current wave of amnesty-seekers he summoned was bigger than he bargained for, causing him unanticipated headaches? Do you think passengers rebuffed from Obama’s Refugee Express might still take it upon themselves to get across the border, secure in the knowledge that the American system is predisposed toward letting them stay?
It’s amazing that the talking point about how all these unaccompanied minors are here by mistake is still alive. The talking point claims they’ve made a terrible mistake and misinterpreted the generosity of Obama’s DACA orders, which were only supposed to apply to alien minors already in the United States. But critics of Obama’s immigration policies accurately warned that any form of amnesty deal brings more amnesty-seekers. Democrats routinely insult the intelligence of these aliens by portraying them as confused about American law (well, more confused than the average American citizen, anyway) or bamboozled by smooth-talking smugglers looking to drum up business.
But the aliens are not stupid, and they’re not wrong to believe they have an excellent chance of remaining in the United States if they make it across the border. The actual data on deportations over the past few years makes that clear enough. If the odds of a border violator achieving permanent residency were offered at a Vegas gambling table, the casino would go bankrupt. And they know perfectly well that the American political system deals with its resident illegal alien problem solely by offering periodic “pathway to citizenship” amnesty deals to make the problem go away. The one thing the American government does not ever do is engineer mass repatriation, even though our Ruling Class occasionally feels obliged to make laughable boasts about repatriation to keep ornery U.S. citizens quiet.
President Obama was doing that just a couple of weeks ago. Anyone who bet that his “repatriation” bluster was a bag of hot air is a big winner. (It was a sucker bet, because the Administration was quietly dispersing the people Obama supposedly planned to “repatriate” into American cities at taxpayer expense, even as he was speaking.) Now he’s floating the idea of using executive power to open up “refugee” processing centers. The American system always bends toward permissiveness and amnesty, because the simple fact is that our Ruling Class is either actively hostile to border security, or considers it a thankless task which consumes resources they would rather spend elsewhere. A Guatemalan or Honduran who makes plans on that assumption is far more intelligent, and better versed in the realities of American politics, than half of our professional pundit class.
Look at it this way: well over half of the human wave pouring in from Central America is comprised of adults. They obviously didn’t misread the fine print on Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals orders. They’re coming because they have a clear idea of the rewards awaiting them, and the enthusiasm of American politicians to grant them indefinite residency, followed by citizenship.
Even if Obama could be trusted to administer his proposed “refugee” program honestly – and only a fool would extend such trust – it would be utterly overwhelmed by applicants. They would have a fair point: if the term “refugee” is redefined as described by the New York Times, then almost everyone who doesn’t live in a First World nation qualifies. For that matter, quite a few people from American inner cities could claim “refugee” status too – a point some of them have been making in angry man-on-the-street interviews, as they watch the American government turn its back on them to spend billions on people who aren’t even U.S. citizens, pulling even more people into both job-creation and welfare systems that can’t handle the existing demand.
By moving decisions on refugee claims to Honduras, the plan aims to slow the rush of minors crossing into the United States illegally from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, which has overwhelmed the border this year. More than 45,000 unaccompanied minors from those three nations have arrived since Oct. 1, straining federal resources to the point that some agencies will exhaust their budgets by next month, the secretary of Homeland Security has said.
Many of the children, particularly in Honduras, are believed to be fleeing dangerous street gangs, which forcibly recruit members and extort home and business owners. The United Nations estimates that 70,000 gang members operate in the three nations.
Administration officials stressed that no decision had been made to move forward, saying the idea was one of many being discussed by officials at the White House and the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services.
Among the factors surrounding the decision are how many people in Honduras would be eligible to apply for the program, and how many would probably be approved.
The proposal, prepared by several federal agencies, says the pilot program under consideration would cost up to $47 million over two years, assuming 5,000 applied and about 1,750 people were accepted. If successful, it would be adopted in Guatemala and El Salvador as well.
Gang violence and lousy economic conditions make you a “refugee” now? Where are we going to put all the refugees from Chicago, then?
Extending this offer to 1,750 people is a joke. That’s not even five percent of the tidal wave we’re facing. Either the refugee program would immediately swell in size to many times the Administration’s meaningless promises of tight control, or the people of these Central American hell-holes would swiftly conclude it’s an irrelevant distraction and resume doing business with smugglers. Almost the only measurable effect of such a program would be to make the situation worse, by providing fresh evidence that the United States political system is willing to absorb migratory populations, no matter what its citizens have to say.
The one and only thing that will actually slow the tide of amnesty-seekers is decisive action on repatriation – send these tens of thousands of border violators home, and then expanding provisions for granting refugee status becomes sensible. The American people would almost certainly support accepting a few thousand more carefully-screened children and their families every year, if the case for doing so is madehonestly by our politicians. (Are we really supposed to believe Obama will provide transportation to bring the children to America, but separate them forever from their parents, who must spend the rest of their lives in gangster shooting galleries? How is that compassionate or humane?)
Also, this “refugee” program should be accompanied by the immediate cessation of all foreign aid, for any purpose except refugee processing, to the countries involved. If Honduras is officially declared a failed state, there is no reason the American taxpayer should be forced to subsidize its useless government any further.
There is a huge difference between having a rational discussion with the public about how many refugees we can accept, and why we should accept them, versus dumping a vast army of aliens in their laps and sighing that “comprehensive immigration reform” is now inevitable. The latter strategy follows those Cloward-Piven principles of manufactured crisis. It’s a deliberate effort to ensure the American people have absolutely nothing to say about who receives citizenship. It’s designed to make voters feel they have no moral right to participate in the discussion at all.
Which brings us to our closing act, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, working the standup political comedy circuit at National Review:
“The most important thing that we can do to use this crisis as an opportunity is to pass comprehensive immigration reform,” Pelosi told reporters in Texas while discussing the border crisis, per Politico. Of the House Republican Working Group’s proposal, she said she needed to see “what the amount is, hopefully with no offsets, hopefully with no language that changes immigration.”
Pelosi’s allusion to changing current law marks a departure from the original Democratic position, as House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) reminded reporters Thursday.
“You know, the administration started earlier this month by signaling some openness to changes in the 2008 law to accelerate the process of returning these children to their home countries,” Boehner said. “The president called for this change, the Secretary of Homeland Security called for this change, and other administration officials have called for this change. Now, the president and his team have apparently flip-flopped. Now they want billions in new spending, with no commitment to actually solving the problem.”
This isn’t the first time Pelosi has explicitly presented this as a Cloward-Piven moment, a crisis Democrats can use to advance their political agenda. You’re not supposed to tell the suckers they’re getting the C-P treatment, but Pelosi has a way of blurting out what Democrat leaders are quietly told behind closed doors. I ask again: is there anyone who still doubts this border crisis was created on purpose, to shift “comprehensive immigration reform” from its status as a pet obsession of the Ruling Class to the top-five list of American voters’ concerns? They should be even more concerned that not many of their “representatives” from either party care what they think about it.
G’ day…Ciao…….Moe Lauzier