A federal immigration judge ruled Tuesday that Barack Obama’s uncle, Onyango “Omar” Obama, may remain in the United States…
Though many conservatives rightfully criticize House Speaker John Boehner for appearing irresolute, one issue he has stood his ground on is amnesty. He has continually refused to even consider a bill that would give immunity to millions of illegal immigrants. Furthermore, he promised that a bicameral conference with a select few legislators would not have the opportunity to implement amnesty despite House opposition.
His stance has come into question this week, however, after reports indicated that he hired a well-known amnesty advocate to serve as his immigration advisor.
Many experts believe that the addition of Rebecca Tallent, who previously served under Sen. John McCain, to Boehner’s staff indicates a shift in his own position. In addition to her time working for McCain, Tallent was also instrumental in passing two previous immigration bills that provided de facto amnesty to many illegals. Most recently, she served as the Bipartisan Policy Center’s immigration policy director.
In a response to the hiring, a number of groups opposed to amnesty spoke out against Boehner’s tacit approval of Tallent’s prior work. The Federation for American Immigration Reform issued a statement concluding that the speaker’s action is only furthering Obama’s agenda.
“President Obama and Senate leaders have already said that they do not care what bill serves as the vehicle to get them to their desired objective of amnesty and massive immigration increases,” the group’s response stated, “just as long as they get there.”
After Boehner’s announcement, the statement continued, it is now clear that “the legislative vehicle will be different, but the destination will be the same.”
Whether he has had a change of heart, is capitulating to the Obama administration, or simply hired the woman he felt was the best fit for the position remains to be seen. Regardless, Boehner must have known that his selection of Tallent would spark outrage among amnesty opponents as the push intensifies to reward those in the U.S. illegally.
Hunger strikes staged in Washington, D.C. recently put more pressure on legislators to pass an amnesty bill. Intentionally or not, adding a supporter of that position into the mix as Boehner’s advisor certainly sends a message.
It is now time for conservatives and anyone in favor of a secure border to send a message in return. By supporting legislators with a proven track record on the issue and bombarding the rest with evidence of their disapproval, Americans can make their voices heard. These lawmakers, after all, are supposed to be working for the people – not Barack Obama.
–B. Christopher Agee
Have an idea for a story? Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org
Last Friday, Representative Jared Polis, a progressive Congressman from Colorado, suggested that to fix the mess created by Obamacare’s implementation, we need to accept amnesty for illegal immigrants. He favors the passage of House Resolution 15, which would provide a roadmap to citizenship for most immigrants who are here illegally. “If we can pass H.R. 15, people who are here illegally will have to get insurance on their own instead of forcing Americans to pay for their insurance,” said Mr. Polis.
In other words, the key to fixing the mess caused by this progressive disaster is more progressive reformation. We just need to get more people under this system so that this system will start working. Apparently, the problem with the healthcare.gov website and hotline is that there is not enough traffic; so increasing the number of people trying to enroll will decrease the wait-time. Who knew? In all seriousness, only a slavish ideologue would call for more of what caused the problem in the first place. It’s the same caliber of cerebral fortitude demonstrated by the Vice President’s famous affirmation that we must spend our way out of debt.
Putting aside the galactic amount of illogical chutzpah Representative Polis exhibits, his words underscore an important truth. The Democratic Spin-Machine will find a way to capitalize on this debacle. With the exception of Nancy Pelosi, they seem to be moving past the denial phase and are already looking for a way to spin this to their advantage. Among the ideas I imagine being tossed around the Obama War Room right now are “Blame Bush”, “Healthcare is Racist”, “Website Designers Were Overly-Concussed Former NFL Players”, “It’s All the Fault of Bush & Cheney”, and “Sinister Plot Hatched by the Koch Brothers and Matt Kibbe and The NRA.”
The truth is, as much as the utter failure of Obamacare feels like conservative Christmas come early, progressives will not let their crown jewel tarnish this easily. Obamacare goes far beyond the European socialist guise it was sold under; it is the vehicle for hard-left statist reformation. As Representative Louis Gohmert discussed recently, he recently found a provision in the Obamacare law allowing the President to create a commissioned and non-commissioned officer corps that will be tasked with being ready to “meet both routine and public health and emergency response missions.” As Rep. Gohmert notes, “It says it is for international health crises, but then it doesn’t include the word ‘health’ when it talks about national emergencies.” What does this have to do with affordable health care? And why would we need additional government forces from the Department of Health and Human Services to deal with non-health related national emergencies?
Both the Commissioned Corps and the Ready Reserve Corps are in addition to the newly-bolstered IRS ranks, currently training with AR-15s. If you remember, AR-15s are the “military style” assault weapons the President believes don’t belong in the hands of non-military personnel. The fact that he trains his accountants with them means one of two things; either a) he no longer believes that non-military personnel should be prevented from possessing these rifles, or b) the IRS is now a branch of our military.
To say that they believe in this law and will fight for it using any means necessary is to acknowledge the Chicago school of politics that spawned the President, Valerie Jarrett, and other members of the Obamas’ inner circle. When the questions get tough, the maxim of Chicago politicians is to find/manufacture dirt on your opponent to deflect attention. After all, it was his former chief-of-staff (now Mayor of Chicago) who famously quipped, “You can never let a serious crisis go to waste.” Has there been a more serious structural crisis in recent memory? So the only question is, how will they distract the nation long enough to enact a “fix” for Obamacare? Thus far, the fingerprints on the steering wheel of this Hindenburg are solely Democratic (and that can’t sit well with DNC leadership.)
The most troubling prospect would be if they decide to bring Boehner and McConnell into the fold. Thus far, the Speaker and the Minority Leader have had to drool in secret over Obamacare’s progressive potential, as the heroic efforts of a conservative few in both the Senate and the House have held their feet to the fire. But neither man is on the side of Liberty, as demonstrated by their unwillingness to derail this monstrosity when their support might have done just that. The truth is that Obamacare represents enormous power over the lives of Americans, and that appeals to progressives on both sides of the aisle. It is possible that this situation becomes so politically toxic to the President and his devotees that they are forced to bring the Republican leadership in both houses of Congress on-board in order to shore up support and position potential blame-targets for future failures.
A patriot would refuse, knowing that this millstone has the potential to set the progressive agenda back a couple of decades; but Speaker Boehner and Senator McConnell will never be known for their stalwart patriotism. If the President, Senator Reid, and Secretary Sebellius sat down with Boehner and McConnell, offering them the opportunity to help “fix” Obamacare, I have no doubt that whatever paltry shred of conservatism still held by the Speaker and the Minority Leader would evaporate faster than a thrill can travel up the leg of Chris Mathews.
The President has no better option; and given the gutless leadership demonstrated by Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, et al, he would likely succeed in recruiting their support, provided the carrot dangled is juicy enough. I fear that getting buy-in from the GOP in both houses would serve everyone nicely, except the American people still stuck under the onerous law they keep trying to fix. This is the hand for which Boehner has been waiting. He doesn’t want to scrap Obamacare; he wants to steer it.
The idea that southern states rejected Federal authority and sought to establish a separate Confederacy is well known. This anti-Federalist sentiment led to the secession of Southern States from the Union and culminated in the Civil War.
The anti-Federalist sentiment of the South was primarily motivated by their desire to preserve the institution of slavery, which they felt was their right. These sentiments were voiced at the time by Southern Senator John Calhoun.
What is not so well known is that illegal immigration has also been created and enabled by a very similar anti-Federalist sentiment and scofflaw attitude.
While these two movements share some similarities, they also share some significant differences. In the South, slavery was established long before the U.S. met to ratify a Constitution. Slavery began in the South in the 1600s, while it was not until the 1770s that the 13 colonies began contemplating breaking away from British rule.
Illegal immigration, by comparison, has only been established and defended by anti-Federalist sentiment for the past 30 years, 200 years after the U.S. Constitution became the law of the land. It was established in direct defiance of existing Federal law. These include a usurpation of Congressional powers of naturalization and a substitution of Federal documents by state-sponsored documents such as state I.D.s and drivers licenses. All of the documents issued by pro-illegal immigration states are established by policies that not only defy Federal policy but are prima facie illegal, while slavery was legal at its inception.
Slavery was defiantly defended, while illegal immigration was, and continues to be, defiantly established and expanded. Illegal immigration is promoted ad hoc while slavery was defended post hoc.
While the defense of slavery, which took place over many decades, has been documented by historians, the anti-Federalist sentiment that established illegal immigration as an institution is not as well known. In fact, journalists and scholars of labor and immigration have taken great pains to avoid the topic of illegal immigration or have taken a position of support.
The anti-Federalist position of the South can be summarized with Calhoun’s theory of nullification. Crafted to enable the South to retain its institution of slavery, nullification was based on the idea that “the states possessed complete and undivided sovereignity…and that they were possessed of the final authority to interpret the Constitution.” (Kelly & Harbison, p. 292). In effect, it allowed Southern states to nullify the authority of Congress and interpret the Constitution to serve their own ends. From 1830 to 1860, this concept became more and more widely accepted among Southern politicians.
The connection to illegal immigration is this: if Chicago and other sanctuary cities and states wanted to encourage illegal immigrants to settle there, they would then simply declare themselves sanctuaries to illegal immigrants, promote their areas to illegal immigration, and shield them from Federal law. Sanctuary cities shield illegal immigrants from Immigration Law the way Southern states shielded the institution of slavery from Federalist intervention. Sanctuary cities and states defy Federal laws.
The first city to formally declare itself a sanctuary to “residents” regardless of citizenship status was Chicago. In 1985, Mayor Harold Washington issued Executive Order 85-1, declaring that all persons would be allow city benefits and jobs regardless of citizenship status. In effect, the Mayors declared that Chicago, not Congress, would decide what immigrants could reside in the City and receive local, state, and Federal benefits.
New York City followed only months later; and from 1990 to 2000, the U.S. grew at a faster rate than it had during any decade of its history. Most of the immigrants were illegal.
After declaring itself a sanctuary city, Chicago, Cook County – the County that contains Chicago – and the state of Illinois started to issue enabling resolutions and laws to facilitate illegal immigration, granting privileges to illegal immigrants that even citizens in the state don’t have.
For example, the State of Illinois declared the matricula consular card, a card issued by foreign consulates in the state, to be as valid a form of I.D. as an official State of Illinois I.D. card. This is clearly anti-Federalist in nature; only ICE and the Dept. of Homeland Security can decide what form of I.D. a foreign national can carry in the U.S. The state of Indiana follows Federal law and requires those applying for drivers’ licenses and state I.D.s to follow DHS guidelines.
In 2006, Chicagos Mayor Richard Daley II said that if Congress passes HR 4437, which made it a felony to be an illegal immigrant, he would “order his police to not enforce it.” Of course, he already orders all City agencies to not enforce Federal law with regard to illegal immigration.
When the Federal government passed the first e-verify law, requiring employers to use the internet to verify the validity of social security numbers, Illinois had the chutzpah to attack the law, stating that it would not enforce e-verify until the Federal government could guarantee the program’s reliability. That illegal immigration is anti-Federalist in nature is proven by the fact that twice, Federal Courts have ruled that immigration is a Federal issue, not a local one.
And of course, most Americans do not know that during its pro-slavery years, the South was run by the Democratic Party, and that illegal immigration was created by Democrats. This not only illustrates the historically anti-Federalist attitude among Democrat-run states; but since both blacks and Hispanics live in highly segregated neighborhoods in the major U.S. cities, it reveals something about how Democrats treat minorities in order to gain their votes in major elections.
It’s a tragic and unfortunate fact that the Democratic Party has not only practiced a highly oppressive strategy to create segregated urban areas for minorities, but that this was done by flouting their Constitutional rights.
(Reference: Kelly, Alfred H., and Harbison, Winfred A. The American Constitution: Its origins and development. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Fifth ed. )
Michael Bargo Jr. is the author of ‘Mexicago: How the Chicago Political Machine created Sanctuary Policy to exploit immigrants and grow government.”
Photo Credit: terrellaftermath
A coalition of patriotic Americans are planning to converge on Washington, D.C. next month in a concerted effort to clean up the messes created by our current crop of leaders. According to Larry Klayman, who is organizing the Nov. 19 event, the desired result will include the resignations of several high-profile politicians.
Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch and a man often credited with inspiring the Tea Party movement, wants to see millions of disgruntled citizens show up for a daylong rally, followed by a camp-out in Lafayette Park until the concerns are addressed.
According to an agenda of the event, known as “Reclaim American Now,” Klayman wants “all patriotic citizens” to show up “and demand the resignations of President Barack Hussein Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and House Speaker John Boehner.”
Klayman will kick off the event with an introduction around 10 a.m. at Lafayette Park, during which he will address many of the concerns conservatives have regarding the future of our nation.
“Barack Hussein Obama has driven our country into the ground and the political opposition has allowed this to happen,” he explained in the agenda. “The nation is on the verge of economic, social, and strategic collapse, as the people’s grievances are being continually ignored.”
In response to the dismissive treatment Americans have received from leaders in D.C., Klayman is calling for “civil disobedience in the style of Mahatma Gandhi in India and South Africa,” which he said “must be employed urgently before the nation goes under for the count.”
Nonviolent solutions are the answer, he explained, noting that “we hope to avoid” an armed revolution.
Driving home the message will be a number of “victims of President Obama’s administration,” each of whom will share their unique stories at the event.
“Such victims will include [but] not be limited to the widows and parents of those who died at Benghazi, other military families whose sons or daughters have been sacrificed based on Obama’s Muslim outreach which favors protecting the Islamic enemy over our own troops, those who have been audited and harassed by the IRS, spied upon by the NSA, victimized by illegal immigration, persecuted by ObamaCare, and those who feel that the U.S. Constitution is being trampled on as a matter of course and that their freedoms are being subverted and destroyed,” the agenda explains.
Other leaders in the conservative movement, including Western Center for Journalism President Floyd Brown, will be on hand to speak at the event.
For more information about the rally and subsequent camp-out, visit the official site.
–Western Journalism staff writer
Have an idea for a story? Email us at email@example.com
Photo credit: eGuide Travel (Creative Commons)
The abusive rhetoric pro-abortion radicals use toward social conservatives seems to constantly escalate. Recent pro-life events have been marred by violent outbursts on the part of protesters who want a free pass to murder babies until the very moment of a complete birth.
Abortion workers themselves often join in the assault, as was illustrated in an incident outside of a Texas facility.
Taking part in a 40-day campaign to stand up for the unborn, Miguel Abaunza stationed himself near El Paso’s Hilltop Women’s Reproductive Clinic earlier this week and prayed. Meanwhile, a nurse named Gloria Martinez spotted him on the sidewalk and reportedly targeted him because of his stance on abortion.
Abaunza said she drove her car off the road and straight toward him. While she ultimately failed to strike him, she reportedly shouted, “One of these days I am going to run over you.”
The peaceful pro-life protester was prepared, he said, since this was not his first encounter with Martinez. He recorded the event on his phone camera and expresses fear she will not stop until he is dead. A number of other activists have similarly accused the nurse of making threatening and obscene comments to them.
Despite the risk of retaliation, the group has no plans to stop their protest. Recently, they celebrated the fact that two pregnant women decided to keep their babies after speaking to them. A social media post encouraged readers to “pray for these courageous mothers!”
As for the clinic, this is not its first controversy. Two years ago, a man found the dismembered body of an aborted fetus in a bag nearby.
Protests in America are a common occurrence, whether in support of homosexuality, illegal immigration, or any number of other pet causes. What should be the highest cause of all — life — is the only one for which activists are routinely targeted by the monsters on the other side.
Instead of extending the same courtesies they expect when engaged in their respective rallies and marches, the left considers pro-life campaigns worthy of the utmost derision. Thankfully, the mission is so vital that protesters choose to face a potentially violent backlash in order to quite literally save lives.
–B. Christopher Agee
Have an idea for a story? Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org
Photo Credit: Planetrussell (Creative Commons)
Imagine a situation whereby the number of abortions will be greatly increased, they will be performed by unqualified individuals, government money will be used to pay for them, and Planned Parenthood will receive the bulk of the windfall.
Now, imagine you’re not imagining. Welcome to California’s AB 154. AB 154 would legalize nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants (who have taken an 8 week course) to provide first trimester abortions—and it would reclassify that procedure of abortion by aspiration (vacuum) as non-surgical. The author and sponsor’s (Planned Parenthood) primary argument for the need for the bill was “access.”
The bill will be signed soon by former Jesuit seminarian Jerry Brown.
One of the Fatima revelations was “War is a punishment for sin.” Ya think? What’s more pathetic–that this bill can even exist (with the support of the California Medical Association), or that the California bishops actually thought it was worthwhile to petition Jerry Brown to not sign it?
From supporting Cesar Chavez and his Commie friends, to letting partial birth abortionist James McMahon be buried with full Catholic honors, to wholeheartedly supporting illegal immigration, to their limp-wristed opposition to AB 154—and their support of Obamacare. By their fruits you will know them (Matthew 7:16).