Kasich Hates Your Republican Values -- He Wants to "Redfine" Them For You

...but don't take my word for it, he said it:

Republican presidential contender John Kasich has split from other conservatives in his party on issues like immigration and same-sex marriage, but he's not denouncing the GOP's values just yet.

"I think I have right to define what the party is, Charlie," Kasich told "CBS This Morning" host Charlie Rose early Thursday. "Look, if I win, I have a right to define what the party is, and along the way I'm defining what it is."

How gracious of the governor not to denounce our values...just yet.

• He's for illegal immigration with absolutely no consequences. (I've seen no statement or policy from him or attributed to him that would lead me to believe otherwise.)

• He's for allowing ISIS to operate in Syria (His policy is a no-fly zone that Russia is currently "violating" by CRUSHING ISIS in Syria.)

• He's pro-Common Core

• He's pro Obamacare (even though he claims he wants repeal, his actions tell a different story/  See: Medicaid expansion) 

• He's opposed to cheap oil (See: Fracking taxes)

• He's a tyrant.  When he doesn't get his way, he goes around the legislature and takes "executive" action (Sound familiar?)

 There are reasons why people like Joy Behar and Rachel Maddow like him.  He's NOT one of us.  He is one of THEM.

My favorite bit is about the Trans-Pacific Partnership:

Kasich said that he believes "it's good for the U.S. not only in terms of economics but in terms of foreign policy. Trade can make a difference in strengthening us around the world."

He added that while he hasn't read the full details of the trade bill, he does support it.

He doesn't need to read the bill to know that he likes it.  Obama likes it and that's good enough for him.

Lastly, there's this:

When questioned about his differing stance on same-sex marriage, Kasich said, "Look, I believe in traditional marriage, but the court has ruled."

The Court ruled on slavery, segregation and women's suffrage too.....  Kasich doesn't really believe in traditional marriage or he'd recognize that the decision doesn't hold up to the values of his party and would insist that the party continue to fight.

Instead, he wants to "redefine" Republican values just as he has "redefined" conservatism in Ohio.  How'd THAT work out for us?

This and That or Matt Checks In

I've been off the grid for a bit, but still keeping up on the news and other goings on as I moved TIB Central Command to its new super secret location. I wanted to take a few minutes of your precious time to comment on a few things that have been thrust upon my radar...

BUTLER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS:

It is no secret that Butler County's government is in no danger of running short of shenanigans, but this latest episode demonstrates just how very little progress has been made in reforming local government. Once again, we learn of backroom deals that benefit politicians and their families and the people whom we have placed our public trust are screwing us. Still. After all these years and after all the examples of what happens when politicians finally get caught, there are still clowns who insist on playing these same old games.

Sure...it happens everywhere. I'm no fool, no matter what the establishment will try to get you to believe. But I took some measure of pride in shining a candle's worth of light in to the dark recesses of Butler County's tomfoolery and it pains me that even after expending so many pixels here on the subject, we really haven't made that much progress in rooting out the disease that plagues the county.

So, yeah, put me down in the column of favoring a ray or three of sunshine on to the dark space that is the Butler County Board of Elections. I can only hope that a few more politicians learn that nepotism and chicanery is no way to run government.

And if, by some strange coincidence, you have been living under a rock (like I have the last few weeks) and have no idea what this is about, go over to the Journal-News site and run a search on Board of Elections.

SIDEBAR: Mike Gmoser is En Fuego. Go get 'em!

"Thingamabobs Have Consequences" by Jonah Goldberg:

...the minimum wage is a boon to robots. If you make human labor more expensive, non-human labor becomes more attractive. If you tell car-wash owners that they have to pay their employees $100 an hour, the owner will most likely search his desk for that business card from that salesman from Acme Robots.

The above is a short excerpt from the opening paragraph from Jonah's G-File "e-newsletter" that hit my inbox today. Since POTUS is trying to divert attention from his crummy website for his even more diabolical signature legislation with more prattle on increasing the minimum wage, I thought it relevant to let someone else say what I've been telling you all for years: Increasing the minimum wage is the best way to increase unemployment amongst the already hardest hit segments of our population...but don't let the truth stop liberals from distracting us from more important stuff with even more promises of "free" stuff. Because that's never been done before...

APOCALYPTIC CONSERVATISM?

My immediate reaction to a National Review (dead tree edition or I'd link to it) piece by Lowery and Ponnuru is to point out that there is a difference between grassroots activists and the "elite" few engaged in party politics. That's why there are so many squabbles between the "Republican Party" and the "Tea Party" people. The GOP has an agenda to win elections. The TP's agenda is all about ideology. As a guy who straddled both worlds, I can say that neither position is necessarily right at any given time. Instead of treating the TP like some doody left on the front yard, maybe the GOP ought to find better ways of explaining their pragmatism to the TP. I've always said that the TP has a problem with patience and their inexperience with politics has been their worst enemy.

The piece was about the defunding Obamacare fight and as usual you can count on National Review to wag their finger at any conservative who dares to stand on principle and fight the good fight for the sake of fighting a good fight against an administration hellbent on destroying our way of life with an agenda so far left it makes Stalin look like a righty. I could appreciate their position more if they would actually promote an alternative strategy other than "Roll over and take it." but they don't.

Say what you want about the new guys with the R at the end of their names (and I have); but, for the most part, they aren't in DC to gain new friends and attend parties. We're in serious trouble in this country and if we don't stop messing around, we're going to lose everything. So while I can understand the thought process behind picking your battles for a political win, I also firmly back ANY fight that stands in opposition to the further destruction of our values and freedom.

A point made in the article is that conservatives alone are not sufficiently strong enough in numbers to win on their own. And that is true. But let me point out that there are more conservatives in this country than any other ideology. That has to count for something. When the establishment continually evaluates their losses as excuses to turn left, somebody needs to remind the establishment that by drawing in more "moderates" you turn off that base of support that makes the party viable in the first place. Democrats don't do this. They don't look at a loss and say, "We need to get more conservative." No. They double down on their principles and give us Obama. Twice. Heck, that Nancy Pelosi still holds a leadership position ought to tell you all you need to know about that.

My advice to both sides is to stop hurting each other and find ways to work on the things that we agree on while we talk about the things that we don't. Rome wasn't built in a day. Show some patience. Politics is a marathon, not a sprint.

BOEHNER ON IMMIGRATION:

Seriously?

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

It's all I got on that... I have no idea what he's doing.

I am not at all pleased with what I've seen so far. Hiring a McCainite Shamnesty Cheerleader isn't encouraging.

Still kinda hoping this is all some sort of grand strategery intended to bluff Obama on the issue, but I know better...

Portman Statement on Immigration Reform Bill

Release:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) today issued the following statement on the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S.744):

“Our immigration system is broken. It can neither keep up with the demand for legal immigration nor stem the flow of illegal immigration. Unfortunately, the legislation the Senate voted on today is not a real fix because it does not include the new enforcement measures needed as part of a comprehensive package. The legislation includes the legalization of millions of those here illegally without adequate border and workplace enforcement to curtail future illegal immigration and ensure those currently here move out of the shadows.

“Border enforcement is important and I appreciate the improvements in the bill, although I supported a more effective ‘trigger’ that would require actual success in securing the border before any green cards were awarded to those here illegally. But even a secure border is not enough without effective workplace enforcement to turn off the jobs magnet. I believe the vast majority of people who come here illegally come for better jobs and a better life, and many will continue to find ways to circumvent border fences or border patrols. In addition, 40 percent of those here illegally came to the U.S. legally and overstayed their visas.

“This is why I worked so hard over the past month to improve the inadequate workplace enforcement system in the bill. The bill mandates over time the use of an electronic employment verification system — called ‘E-Verify’— but does little to address the inadequacies of the E-Verify system itself, including the widespread use of false documents. The best recent study found that an alarming 54 percent of those here illegally were able to pass the current pilot E-Verify program and obtain work authorization. We must do better. To me, implementing an effective E-Verify system is the most critical element in making immigration reform work. Unfortunately, despite many efforts, the bipartisan amendment I worked on with Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) and others across the political spectrum was blocked from a vote on the Senate floor.

“I am hopeful that my colleagues in the House of Representatives will not let this key part of the debate — jobsite enforcement — fall to the wayside. I will continue to push them to strengthen not only E-Verify but also border security. Without addressing the magnet that draws people here illegally, I believe any immigration reform effort will unfortunately fail.”

Obama and Napolitano Illegally End Enforcement in AZ?

Yep, you read that right....Like the petulant manboy he is, Barack Obama and his synchophantic lunatic Secretary of Homeland Insecurity, Janet Napolitano, are suspending a key program to help enforce the law. From Fox News:

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Arizona's immigration law, Obama administration officials announced Monday they are suspending in the state a key program that allowed state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.

The move further weakens efforts by Arizona, and potentially other states, to take the reins on immigration enforcement.

The high court decision Monday struck down three provisions in Arizona's law but left in place a central plank that required local law enforcement during routine stops to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.

Obama administration officials and congressional Democrats immediately raised concerns this could lead to "racial profiling," though Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer adamantly denies it. To address those concerns, Obama administration officials moved Monday to pull back on enforcement cooperation with local jurisdictions -- meaning that even if local police step up immigration checks, they'll have to rely on federal officials to make the arrests.

Federal officials said the program known as 287(g) would be immediately rescinded in Arizona. That program was a partnership between federal and local governments, and allowed local authorities to make immigration-based arrests.

Officials also said Immigration and Customs Enforcement will be selective in responding to the expected increase in calls from Arizona and other police agencies about immigration status of people they pull over.

This President's behavior is beyond the pale. His flouting and selective enforcement of the law is disgusting. For someone who talks about sharing and equality, where is the equal protection under the law? J. Christian Adams showed us the Justice Department doesn't believe whites can be the victims of racist attacks or intimidation...Obama doesn't want to prosecute illegal immigrants who violate our laws...He doesn't want anyone showing id to vote, or to show you are a citizen, but you better have it for union meetings and practically everything else....this man is as close to a dictator as we have had since Woodrow Wilson and FDR....

The Devilish Nightmare of Obama's DREAM is in the Details

Obama's backdoor amnesty with the willful assistance of the Department of Homeland Security is an abdication of the President's responsibility to protect the American people and her borders. Of course, bleeding hearts say, it is just for people who were brought here as babies and through "no fault of their own." B.S. The entire rationale is lies, lies, and damn lies. From the Center for Immigration Studies:

"It will only benefit 800,000 people." The White House is claiming that this administrative DREAM Act amnesty will benefit 800,000 illegal aliens, but the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 1.4 million people will qualify for the amnesty. These estimates assume no fraud, and the number of individuals who will ultimately benefit under the act will be much larger if history is any guide. In 1989, Roberto Suro, writing in the New York Times, described the 1986 amnesty as "one of the most extensive immigration frauds ever perpetrated against the United States Government", noting that "federal officials and immigration experts place the number of fraudulent applications at somewhere between 250,000 and 650,000." And that was when the nation's total illegal alien population was less than half of today's 11 million. Mass legalizations like Obama's new administrative DREAM Act will undoubtedly benefit thousands of people who are technically ineligible under the administration's memo.

"It's for those with no criminal history." Advocates claim this grant of work permits would benefit illegal aliens who are already here working and are leading "law-abiding lives". Yet illegal aliens who hold jobs have acquired their positions through fraud and are not, by definition, leading law-abiding lives. For example, illegal aliens regularly engage in ID theft, Social Security fraud, and I-9 Form fraud. This is in addition to any immigration violations.

The White House claims that before an illegal alien can benefit from its administrative amnesty plan, he or she must pass a background check. There are two problems. First, just because a person does not have a rap sheet, it does not necessarily follow that he or she is not violating a number of laws. Most illegal aliens have not been prosecuted for their ID theft, for example, because the White House has made a decision to not go after these so-called "low priority" offenders. The result is that a background check may turn up nothing, even though the alien could easily be prosecuted if the Obama administration was interested in upholding the rule of law.

Second, an alien's background is potentially unknowable. A background check will likely be a simple name search in U.S. databases. One problem is that the alien has likely been using a number of aliases during his or her stay in the United States, making a background check difficult. Furthermore, a background check is unlikely to include a search of foreign databases, yet the alien may be a serious criminal in his or her home country. Amnesties are notorious for granting legal status to problematic individuals — such as the 1993 WTC bombers — and there is no reason to believe this plan would be any different.

"It's for children." The plan would benefit illegal aliens up to age 30, and anyone 18 or older is an adult. This is not just for youths. Furthermore, this plan will benefit any older illegal alien who can successfully make a fraudulent claim as to his or her age. Illegal aliens are already involved in serious ID fraud and ID theft, so falsifying one's age to the Obama administration shouldn't be too much of a problem. As history shows, amnesties are full of fraud. It is very likely that this amnesty will benefit many people who do not fit into the categories set forth in the administrative memo.

"It's only for those brought here by their parents." Obama's proposal would benefit illegal aliens who snuck into the United States on their own. Like the failed DREAM Act, this plan does not include any language requiring that illegal alien beneficiaries actually be "brought" into the United States by their parents. This is a fictitious description that amnesty advocates have created in the hope that it creates sympathy, and ultimately support, for amnesty. It is well known that teenage aliens frequently enter the United States illegally on their own volition. Put another way, people who knowingly and willingly violated U.S. sovereignty will benefit from Obama's plan. The only reason that "children brought into the United States" are sympathetic is because they did not make the decision to violate U.S. sovereignty. The same cannot be said for many of the potential beneficiaries under this plan.

Even Janet Napolitano's memo contains an inconsistency. She writes that it is for "certain young people who were brought to this country" yet in the nuts-and-bolts section of the memo, she explains that the plan would apply to all illegal aliens who "came to the United States under the age of 16". Legally and morally culpable illegal aliens will benefit under the plan.

"They must have lived in United States for five continuous years." It is well established in immigration law that the "continuous residence" requirement does not actually require an alien to be continuously resident in the United States. Immigration attorneys have been successful in getting immigration courts to whittle this down to a point where it is almost meaningless. For example, an alien seeking naturalization must also prove five years of continuous residency, but that can still be met even if the alien has been absent from the United States for up to six months. And the alien can have multiple six-month vacations over the course of five years. If Obama's administrative DREAM Act follows established precedent, the five-year residency requirement will not mean much.

"It will not lead to citizenship." The entire goal of President Obama's administrative DREAM Act is to put illegal aliens on a pathway to citizenship. The White House knows it cannot get an amnesty through Congress, so its new goal is to provide illegal aliens as many benefits of U.S. citizenship as possible today, so that full citizenship simply becomes a matter of filling out paperwork tomorrow. This plan will result in work permits being granted to illegal aliens. Does anyone really think that once the illegal aliens are granted work permits, the administration won't decree that these illegal aliens also have a right to driver's licenses so that they can get to work? And why shouldn't they be allowed to vote? This is all part of an ongoing agenda to legitimize a population of people who have chosen to violate multiple U.S. laws. It starts small, like recognizing unverifiable foreign consulate cards such as Mexico's matricula consular so that the alien can open a bank account, get a loan, open credit cards, and so forth. Eventually, the illegal alien acquires all of the benefits of U.S. citizenship with few civic responsibilities. It is important to deport illegal aliens at the first possible opportunity.

The dictatorship of Obama must be thwarted! This is an assault on the American way of life as well as the integrity of legal institutions and potentially the voting process....

Time to Call Congress to Support Schweikert Anti-Amnesty Bill

Obama has abdicated his responsibility to enforce our laws and protect our sovereignty and borders by his latest amnesty/vote buying order. He refuses to enforce the law. He has overstepped his Constitutional authority and has bypassed Congress. Congress needs to strike back. Rep. Schweikert is trying to do just that. From the Hill:

Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) on Monday proposed legislation that would block enforcement of President Obama's new policy of letting certain illegal immigrants request temporary relief from deportation.

Schweikert's bill would specifically prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from allowing that relief, which Obama described on Friday as an option for up to 800,000 immigrants who came to the United States illegally at a young age. Schweikert said his bill would prevent Obama from "dictating" immigration law from the White House.

"Last week, the president decided to grant amnesty and hand out work permits to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, while over 23 million Americans remain unemployed and the civilian participation rate is at a 30-year low," he said Monday. "This amounts to an abdication of duty to the American people who are struggling in this economy.

"Instead of working with Congress to secure our border and reform our immigration policy, President Obama sought to circumvent Congress once again."

Rep. Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.) and six other Republicans introduced similar legislation on Monday, the "Prohibiting Back-door Amnesty Act," which would prohibit the implementation of the new immigration policy by DHS.

"President Obama and Secretary Napolitano's decision to end the enforcement of many of our nation's immigration laws is stunning in both its arrogance and shortsightedness," Quayle said. "This end-run around Congress was a direct rebuke to the principle of three co-equal branches of government outlined in our constitution and more broadly, our entire system of laws."

Quayle's bill is cosponsored by Reps. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Tom Graves (R-Ga.), Billy Long (R-Mo.), Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), Reid Ribble (R-Wis.), and Dennis Ross (R-Fla.).

Any of these proposals is better than Obama's dictatorship by executive fiat. Flood the lines, melt the servers...hit DC with support for killing the backdoor amnesty in the cradle!!!!

Big Sis Doesn't Want to Deport Lawbreakers....

The Department of Homeland Security under Janet Napolitano continues to be a joke. Now, DHS is halting all deportations to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. There are so many exceptions to deporting law breakers that even the underwear bomber would probably qualify for staying here, even with his crime. From the Washington Times:

The Homeland Security Department said Thursday it will halt deportation proceedings on a case-by-case basis against illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria such as attending school, having family in the military or are primarily responsible for other family members’ care.

The move, announced in letters to Congress, won immediate praise from Hispanic activists and Democrats who had chided President Obama for months for the pace of deportations and had argued he had authority to exempt broad swaths of illegal immigrants from deportation.

“Today’s announcement shows that this president is willing to put muscle behind his words and to use his power to intervene when the lives of good people are being ruined by bad laws,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat.

In the letters to Congress, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said her department and the Justice Department will review all ongoing cases and see who meets the new criteria on a case-by-case basis.

“This case-by-case approach will enhance public safety,” she said. “Immigration judges will be able to more swiftly adjudicate high priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons.”

The new rules apply to those who have been apprehended and are in deportation proceedings, but have not been officially ordered out of the country by a judge. Miss Napolitano said a working group will try to come up with “guidance on how to provide for appropriate discretionary consideration” for “compelling cases” in those instances where someone has already been ordered deported.

It was unclear how many people might be affected by the new rules, though in fiscal year 2010 the government deported nearly 200,000 illegal immigrants who it said did not have criminal records.

The Obama administration has argued for months that it did not have authority to grant blanket absolution, and Miss Napolitano stressed that these cases will be treated individually, though the new guidance applies across the board.

In June, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that handles interior immigration law enforcement, issued new guidance expanding authority to decline to prosecute illegal immigrants. The goal, ICE leaders said, was to focus on their priority of catching illegal immigrants who have also committed other crimes or are part of gangs.

The chief beneficiaries of the new guidance are likely to be illegal immigrant students who would have been eligible for legal status under the Dream Act, which stalled in Congress last year.

This is blatant Hispandering. Obama is losing voters among independents, African Americans, even some democrats. So, he needs a group of voters. And, if illegal immigrants continue to violate the law by voting in elections they shouldn't, who cares as long as the Annointed One wins, right? And if some of those terrorists who are supporting lil Ahmed happen to be jihadists, that's too bad. Because, as we all know, the real terrorists are the bitter clinger white Judeo-Christians, right, big sis?

Obama Thinks Breaking the Law is Funny...

Gee, what a great example our Chief Executive is. He is making fun of the immigration issue where murderers and drug dealers have been allowed to cross our borders and engage in terrible activity here. From his latest speech designed to divide us:

"We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement," Obama said. "But even though we've answered these concerns, I gotta say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time."

"Maybe they'll need a moat," he said mockingly to laughter from the crowd. "Maybe they'll want alligators in the moat."

"The question is whether those in Congress who previously walked away in the name of enforcement are now ready to come back to the table and finish the work we've started," he said.

Obama also tailored his argument to the times, making his case for immigration reform in newly sharpened economic terms. He argued that the middle class would benefit from bringing illegal immigrants out of an underground economy and drawing on the abilities of immigrants educated in American universities.

More here, here, and here.

Wonder what the family of this man thinks of Obama's joking about a serious issue?
Or what about this federal agent?

Or how about this girl who at 14 was raped by illegal immigrants? Yeah, it is really so funny. Such a big joke, isn't it Mr. Obama? Tell that to the families and parents.

To the PhotoOper in Chief, it is all one big joke. He can't be bothered to take this seriously. He has brackets to fill out, golf to play, and campaign cash to get. After all, he has to pay for all of Michelle's tamales. Oh wait, that is us, the taxpayers.

St. Rep. Combs Proposes Measure to Support the Effort to Control Illegal Immigration

Release:

COLUMBUS—Recently, State Representative Courtney Combs (R-Hamilton) introduced House Concurrent Resolution 11, which articulates Ohio’s support for the State of Arizona in its legal battle regarding the state’s ability to control illegal immigration.

 

Because of the failure of the federal government to secure Arizona’s southern border, the State of Arizona is striving to control through legislation the influx of illegal immigrants crossing its border. The legislation arose after exponential growth of illegal drugs and related crime because the state’s police forces have no course of action or necessary resources to combat the quickly growing number of undocumented individuals. This has caused a strain on service providers to provide housing, food and medical services not only within the state of Arizona, but throughout the nation as well.

 

“Ohioans are fed up with the lack of effort by the federal government in dealing with the growing concerns of illegal immigration,” said Combs. “Illegal immigration is a real problem that deserves immediate attention and steadfast resolve. It is a strain on our health care system, on our education system, and on our public safety system.”

 

HCR 11 asserts that the Ohio General Assembly supports the efforts of the State of Arizona to demand appropriate action from the federal government, and that Arizona’s attempt to control the problem at the state level is a necessary message to the federal government that current immigration policies are simply not effective.

 

The passage of HCR 11 would indicate that Ohio joins the State of Arizona and 15 other states in an effort to gain the support of the federal government in addressing this burgeoning problem.

 

HCR 11 has been assigned to the House State Government and Elections Committee, where it will undergo further debate and deliberation.

Cooking the Books for a Myth: Obama Admin as Tough on Immigration

I just knew that there had to be some fuzzy math going on. From the Washington Post:

“For much of this year, the Obama administration touted its tougher-than-ever approach to immigration enforcement, culminating in a record number of deportations. But in reaching 392,862 deportations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement included more than 19,000 immigrants who had exited the previous fiscal year, according to agency statistics. ICE also ran a Mexican repatriation program five weeks longer than ever before, allowing the agency to count at least 6,500 exits that, without the program, would normally have been tallied by the U.S. Border Patrol. . . . The surge to break the deportation record in the final weeks of the fiscal year consumed the agency, said a high-ranking immigration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly. ”

These people can't take responsibility for things they actually do, which generally foul up the country; but they can take credit for things that are not real. Disgusting!

Reid Trying to Ram DREAM Act Four Different Ways

From Fox News:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pushed four different versions of the controversial immigration bill known as the DREAM Act without a hearing on any of them, drawing outrage from the top Republican on the committee that would have handled the package.

The Nevada senator, who narrowly escaped a defeat in the November election, has pursued an unusual approach to advancing the bill that gives young illegal immigrants who attend college or join the military a pathway to legal status.

Since September, his deputy Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has introduced four slightly different versions all bearing the same name. Reid has moved them all to the calendar -- he appears to be teeing up for a test vote, which could happen sometime later this week, on the latest version introduced on Tuesday.

"Democrat leaders, in their rush to pass an unpopular bill during the lame-duck session, have completely bypassed the Judiciary Committee. They have introduced four separate versions of the same bill and, without any committee review, placed each and every one of them on the legislative calendar," the statement said. "This unusual approach creates a chaotic situation, one that makes it more difficult for the public and their representatives -- as well as the press -- to review this deeply controversial measure."

OK, we have covered why DREAM is really a nightmare. But, obviously, the elitist know it all statists like Reid and Durbin still don't get it. The American people are tired of this political manuevering for something that should at the least get a hearing before being moved forward. Let's hope that the Senate Republican pledge to block anything before budget and taxes holds firm.

DREAM On: We've Seen What Happens to Child Human Shields of Libs

They typically suffer, like with the children being disqualified from health coverage by the SEIU. Well, the Statists are doing their "for the children" dance again, this time on illegal immigration. Mark Krikorian puts the lie to the assertions of the Left:

The core principle behind this amnesty proposal is that it is aimed at those who have grown up here and are, psychologically and emotionally, Americans. In the words of America’s Voice, a hard-left open-borders group, the beneficiaries of the measure are “patriotic young Americans in all but paperwork.”

There’s no doubt that this is the most sympathetic group of illegal immigrants. That is precisely why DREAM has been dangled as bait for the more general amnesty proposals described as “comprehensive immigration reform,” with amnesty advocates brandishing the situation of these young people as justification for a broader amnesty. (Though no one seems to have stopped to ask: If such a comprehensive bill would provide amnesty for all illegals, then why would we need DREAM?)

Nonetheless, now that the amnesty crowd has belatedly decided to move ahead on DREAM as a standalone measure, many in the public and Congress are open to the idea of addressing the situation of such young people. But the DREAM Act, in every one of its iterations over the years, has four fatal flaws.

1. The act is billed as legalizing those brought as infants or toddlers, and yet it covers people brought here up to age 16. The examples used by advocates are nearly always people who were brought here very young. The student-body president at Fresno State University, Pedro Ramirez — who was “coincidentally” revealed to be an illegal alien just as the DREAM Act lame-duck effort got under way — came here at age three. Harvard student Eric Balderas was brought here at age four. Yves Gomes was brought here at 14 months, Juan Gomez at two years, Marie Gonzalez at five, Dan-el Padilla at four, and so on.

So why set the age cutoff at 16? If the point is to provide amnesty to those whose identity was formed here, then you’d need a much lower age cutoff. I have a 15-year-old, and if I took him to live illegally in Mexico (and living illegally is a lot harder to do there than here), he would always remain, psychologically, an American, because his identity is already formed. The Roman Catholic Church and English common law set the age of reason at seven. That, combined with a requirement of at least ten years’ continuous residence here, seems like a much more defensible place to draw the line. Unless, of course, you’re just using those who came as young children to bootstrap a larger amnesty.

2. Next, all amnesties have at least three harmful consequences, and the DREAM Act ignores all three. The first of these is massive fraud. Perhaps one-fourth of those legalized under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act received amnesty fraudulently, including Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader of the first World Trade Center attack. The fraud in that first big amnesty program was so pervasive as to be almost comical, with people claiming work histories here that included picking watermelons from trees and digging cherries out of the ground.

And yet what does the DREAM Act say about fraud? As Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) points out in “Ten Things You Need To Know about S-3827, the DREAM Act,” the measure “prohibits using any of the information contained in the amnesty application (name, address, length of illegal presence that the alien admits to, etc.) to initiate a removal proceeding or investigate or prosecute fraud in the application process.” This is like playing a slot machine without having to put any money in — any illegal alien can apply, and if he wins, great, but if he loses, he can’t be prosecuted even if he lied through his teeth about everything. No amnesty proposal can be taken seriously unless applicants are made to understand, right up front, that any lies, no matter how trivial, will result in arrest and imprisonment.

3. Another problem with DREAM, which all amnesties share, is that it will attract new illegal immigration. Prospective illegal immigrants, considering their options, are more likely to opt to come if they see that their predecessors eventually hit the jackpot. In 1986, we had an estimated 5 million illegals, 3 million of whom were legalized. We now have more than twice as many as before the last amnesty, and they’ve been promised repeatedly that if they hold out a little longer they’ll be able to stay legally. Any new amnesty, even if only for those brought here as children, will attract further illegal immigration.

4. Finally, all amnesties reward illegal immigrants — in this case, both those brought here as children and the adults who subjected them to this limbo. Any serious proposal to legalize young people brought here as infants or toddlers would need to prevent the possibility that their parents and other adults responsible for bringing them here illegally would ever receive any benefit from the amnesty, namely, future sponsorship as legal immigrants.

Serious flaws that should be addressed before moving forward. Krikorian sums it up succinctly:

these young people are simply poster children who have been used for years to try to justify a general amnesty for all illegal aliens. And when the DREAM Act fails, as it will, Pedro Ramirez and his fellows will need to ask the pro-amnesty politicians and lobbying groups why they were sacrificed on the altar of “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Wall Street Journal Favors DREAM Act Debacle

Usually solidly conservative, the Wall Street Journal has gone off the rails again. This time, it is regarding supporting the DREAM Act, a shadow amnesty bill that masquerades as education. It will cripple the economy even more with more entitlements for people who don't even respect our law:

Not only does the Wall Street Journal endorse a bill that would harm American citizens, they also mislead about the bill (WSJ assertions in Italics, refutations are not):

Restrictionists dismiss the Dream Act as an amnesty that rewards people who entered the country illegally. But the bill targets individuals brought here by their parents as children. What is to be gained by holding otherwise law-abiding young people, who had no say in coming to this country, responsible for the illegal actions of others? The Dream Act also makes legal status contingent on school achievement and military service, the type of behavior that ought to be encouraged and rewarded.1. Those covered have to be “younger than 16 years of age on the date the alien initially entered the United States”, but there’s nothing in the bill requiring them to prove that they were brought here by their parents; older children do occasionally cross the border alone.

2. The DREAM Act grants “conditional permanent resident status” – lasting six years – and the minimum requirements are to have “earned a high school diploma or obtained a general education development certificate in the United States”. Not to diminish those who have GEDs, but is that what most people have in mind when they hear the phrase “school achievement”?

3. Many things would be gained from not passing the DREAM Act. If we could encourage those illegal aliens to return home they could help their own countries. The alternative the WSJ wants would continue braindraining Mexico and other sending countries. We’d also free up education slots and possibly discounts for American citizens, something that’s vitally important due to cutbacks in community college budgets that cause many Americans not to be able to obtain retraining.

We’d prefer that border reform start by expanding legal channels of entry for people who come here to work. There would be little need for a Dream Act if more U.S. work visas had been available for the parents of these children. The U.S. focus on border security has, along with the economic downturn, had some effect on reducing illegal entries. But walls, fences and employer crackdowns mainly produce thriving markets in human smuggling and document fraud and make a mockery of the rule of law, especially in some border areas.1. If all the work visas in the world were available and everything else were the same, we’d still have a large illegal alien population, and it would probably be higher due to the network effect.

2. Those making “a mockery of the rule of law” include the WSJ and all the other sources that oppose immigration enforcement.

Supporting the Dream Act also makes political sense for Republicans, who will have a tough time winning national elections without more Hispanic support. Polls show that Hispanic-American priorities tend to match those of other voters—the economy, jobs, education and so forth. Nevertheless, immigration has symbolic importance among Hispanics as a sign of political recognition and respect.The DREAM Act is an openly anti-American bill that would help foreign citizens who are here illegally at the same time as it hurt some American citizens who won’t be able to go to college. Most GOP leaders are certainly corrupt enough to put their political interests well ahead of the interests of the U.S. To some extent many Hispanics are willing to put their ethnic solidarity interests ahead of the interests of the U.S. as a whole; if most GOP leaders weren’t corrupt they’d realize how serious a problem that is and take pro-American steps to counter it.

There is nothing to gain by passing this DREAM act except more debt and less respect for law. The WSJ is thinking purely in terms of cheap labor and political expediency. Shame on them for this.

Senate Dems Endangering Children in Haiti for DREAM Amnesty

In other words, like Saddam and the terrorists, the Democrats are going to use poor children as human shields to get this shamnesty passed:

According to a letter written by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), House Democratic Leadership is thinking of attaching the DREAM Act Amnesty bill to an immigration-related bill he introduced. The Help HAITI Act would allow the Department of Homeland Security to offer permanent residency to orphaned children who came to the United States after the devastating earthquake earlier this year.

Rep. Fortenberry has earned an A-grade from NumbersUSA and is a cosponsor of four of our 5-Great Immigration Bills offered this Congress.

“I’m at a total loss. This is about helping the children in the wake of the earthquake,” Rep. Fortenberry wrote.

“After these families have opened their hearts and homes to some of the world’s most vulnerable children, this security is the least we can give them. The House of Representatives should affirm this by passing the Help HAITI Act, free of unrelated, controversial measures.”

According to Congressional Quarterly, a Capitol Hill publication, even though Rep. Fortenberry didn’t mention the DREAM Act in his letter, one of his aides said that was the controversial bill his letter referred to.

I thought Democrats were for helping people, not using them as human shields and political cover. Oh wait, this is reality, as opposed to the mainstream media smoke and mirrors. My bad. Here is a list of Dimocrap Senators who might be on the fence:

SEN. JIM WEBB OF VIRGINIA 202-224-4024; 703-573-7090. Staff says “he hasn’t made a public statement.”

SEN. KENT CONRAD OF NORTH DAKOTA 202-224-2043; 701-258-4648. Staff says “he hasn’t released a statement.” Conrad has voted against the DREAM Act in the past.

SEN. BYRON DORGAN OF NORTH DAKOTA 202 224-2551. He voted against the DREAM Act in the past. Staff says he “hasn’t taken a public position.”

SEN. MARK PRYOR OF ARKANSAS 202-224-2353; 501-324-6336. He voted no on the DREAM Act cloture vote in September. Staff says he is “likely” to vote no again, though he hasn’t made an official public statement yet.

SEN. JON TESTER OF MONTANA 202 224-2644. Staff says he has voted against the DREAM Act in the past and “he will probably vote against any bill that has amnesty in it.”

SEN. MAX BAUCUS OF MONTANA 202-224-2651. He has opposed the DREAM Act in the past and is a “likely no” again in this session.

SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL OF MISSOURI 202-224-6154. She opposed the DREAM Act in the past and staff says she has made no statement changing her position otherwise.

Melt those phonelines, people! Don't let this stand.
(h/t Michelle Malkin)

Sessions' Memo On Dangers of DREAM Act and How you Can Help Fight It

h/t to Michelle Malkin:

Ten Things You Need To Know About S.3827, The DREAM Act

1. The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children, And It Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans

Proponents of the DREAM Act frequently claim the bill offers relief only to illegal alien “kids.” Incredibly, previous versions of the DREAM Act had no age limit at all, so illegal aliens of any age who satisfied the Act’s requirements—not just children—could obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. In response to this criticism, S.3827 includes a requirement that aliens be under the age of 35 on the date of enactment to be eligible for LPR status. Even with this cap, many aliens would be at least 41 years old before obtaining full LPR status under the Act—hardly the “kids” the Act’s advocates keep talking about.
The DREAM Act requires that DHS/USCIS process all DREAM Act applications (applications that would require complex, multi-step adjudication) without being able to increase fees to handle processing. This mandate would require either additional Congressional appropriations, or for USCIS, a primarily fee-funded agency, to raise fees on other types of immigration benefit applications. This would unfairly spread the cost of administering the DREAM Act legalization program among applicants and petitioners who have abided by U.S. laws and force taxpayers to pay for amnesty. Taxpayers would also be on the hook for all Federal benefits the DREAM Act seeks to offer illegal aliens, including student loans and grants.

2. The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application

Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who meet certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly the Act protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for conditional status” under the DREAM Act—regardless of age or criminal record—providing a safe harbor for all illegal aliens. This loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent the illegal aliens’ removal from the United States. The provision will further erode any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud in the existing system.

3. Certain Criminal Aliens Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act

Certain categories of criminal aliens will be eligible for the DREAM Act amnesty, including alien gang members and aliens with misdemeanor convictions, even DUIs. The DREAM Act allows illegal aliens guilty of the following offenses to be eligible for amnesty: alien absconders (aliens who failed to attend their removal proceedings), aliens who have engaged in voter fraud or unlawfully voted, aliens who have falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, aliens who have abused their student visas, and aliens who have committed marriage fraud. Additionally, illegal aliens who pose a public health risk, aliens who have been permanently barred from obtaining U.S. citizenship, and aliens who are likely to become a public charge are also eligible.

4. Estimates Suggest That At Least 2.1 Million Illegal Aliens Will Be Eligible For the DREAM Act Amnesty. In Reality, We Have No Idea How Many Illegal Aliens Will Apply

Section 4(d) of the DREAM Act waives all numerical limitations on green cards, and prohibits any numerical limitation on the number of aliens eligible for amnesty under its provisions. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that the DREAM Act will make approximately 2.1 million illegal aliens eligible for amnesty. It is highly likely that the number of illegal aliens receiving amnesty under the DREAM Act will be much higher than the estimated 2.1 million due to fraud and our inherent inability to accurately estimate the illegal alien population. Clearly, the message sent by the DREAM Act will be that if any young person can enter the country illegally, within 5 years, they will be placed on a path to citizenship.

5. Illegal Aliens Will Get In-State Tuition Benefits

The DREAM Act will allow illegal aliens to qualify for in-state tuition, even when it is not being offered to U.S. citizens and legally present aliens living just across state lines. Section 3 of the DREAM Act repeals Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) which prohibits giving education benefits to an unlawfully present individual unless that same benefit is offered to all U.S. citizens.

6. The DREAM Act Does Not Require That An Illegal Alien Finish Any Type of Degree (Vocational, Two-Year, or Bachelor’s Degree) As A Condition of Amnesty

DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that the bill is intended to benefit illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and are on their way to earning college degrees. However, the bill is careful to ensure that illegal alien high school drop-outs will also be put on a pathway to citizenship – they simply have to get a GED and be admitted to “an institution of higher education,” defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965.Under the Higher Education Act, an “institution of higher education” includes institutions that provide 2-year programs (community colleges) and any “school that provides not less than a 1-year program of training to prepare students for gainful employment” (a vocational school). Within 8 years of the initial grant of status, the alien must prove only that they finished 2 years of a bachelor’s degree program, not that they completed any program or earned any degree.

If the alien is unable to complete 2 years of college but can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the education requirement can be waived altogether.

7. The DREAM Act does not require that an illegal alien serve in the military as a condition for amnesty, and There is ALREADY A Legal Process In Place For Illegal Aliens to Obtain U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service

DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that illegal aliens who don’t go to college will earn their citizenship through service in the U.S. Armed Forces. However, the bill does not require aliens to join the U.S. Armed Forces (the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard); instead it requires enlistment in the “uniformed services.” This means that aliens need only go to work for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Public Health Service for 2 years to get U.S. citizenship. If the alien is unable to complete 2 years in the “uniformed services,” and can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the military service requirement can be waived altogether. Such claims will likely engender much litigation and place a huge burden on DHS.

Furthermore, under current law (10 USC § 504), the Secretary of Defense can authorize the enlistment of illegal aliens. Once enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces, under 8 USC § 1440, these illegal aliens can become naturalized citizens through expedited processing, often obtaining U.S. citizenship in six months.

8. Despite Their Current Illegal Status, DREAM Act Aliens Will Be Given All The Rights That Legal Immigrants Receive—Including The Legal Right To Sponsor Their Parents and Extended Family Members For Immigration

Under current federal law, U.S. citizens have the right to immigrate their “immediate relatives” to the U.S. without regard to numerical caps. Similarly, lawful permanent residents can immigrate their spouses and children to the U.S. as long as they retain their status. This means illegal aliens who receive amnesty under the DREAM Act will have the right to immigrate their family members—including the parents who sent for or brought them to the U.S. illegally in the first place—in unlimited numbers as soon as they become U.S. citizens (6 to 8 years after enactment) and are 21 years of age.

Additionally, amnestied aliens who become U.S. citizens will be able to petition for their adult siblings living abroad to immigrate to the U.S., further incentivizing chain migration and potentially illegal entry into the United States (for those who don’t want to wait for the petition process overseas). When an adult brother or sister receives a green card, the family (spouse and children) of the adult sibling receive green cards as well.

9. Current Illegal Aliens Will Get Federal Student Loans, Federal Work Study Programs, and Other Forms of Federal Financial Aid

Section 10 of the DREAM Act allows illegal aliens amnestied under the bill’s provisions to qualify for federal student assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) in the form of federal student loans (Stafford Loans, Perkins Loans, Federal Direct Stafford/Ford Loans), federal work-study programs, and other federal education services such as tutoring and counseling.

10. DHS Is Prohibited From Using the Information Provided By Illegal Aliens Whose DREAM Act Amnesty Applications Are Denied To Initiate Their Removal Proceedings or Investigate or Prosecute Fraud in the Application Process

When an illegal alien’s DREAM Act amnesty application is denied, the bill states that the alien will revert to their “previous immigration status,” which is likely illegal or deportable. The bill, however, prohibits using any of the information contained in the amnesty application (name, address, length of illegal presence that the alien admits to, etc) to initiate a removal proceeding or investigate or prosecute fraud in the application process. Thus, it will be extremely hard for DHS to remove aliens who they now know are illegally present in the U.S., because illegal aliens will be able to claim that the legal action is a product of the amnesty application, and DHS will have the nearly impossible task of proving a negative.

What Can You do, especially since there is an upcoming stand alone vote on this travesty? Well, you can target call and email your Senators and especially those Republican fence sitters like:

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN 202-224-2235; 480-897-6289: Staff says he “hasn’t made a public statement” and “hasn’t made up his mind.” He talked a tough border security game to get re-elected, while promising illegal alien activists he would “resolve their issues.” (Refresh your memories here.)
Arizona, you chose to re-elect him. You get what you deserve.

SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE 202-224-5344; 207-874-0883: Staff says she “hasn’t released a statement.”

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS 202-224-2523; 207-945-0417: Staff says she “hasn’t released a public statement.”

SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI 202-224-6665; 907-271-3735: Staff says she’s “still reviewing the bill.”

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK 202-224-6521; 785-233-2503 Staff says he “hasn’t had a chance to look at it” and remains non-committal.

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON 202-224-5922; 214-361-3500: Staff says she “hasn’t released a statement,” but will probably do so later today.

SEN. GEORGE LEMIEUX 202-224-3041; 904-398-8586: Recorded message informs callers that he’s “in a meeting.” He has yet to publicly state his position as open-borders extremists step up pressure.

Thankfully, some fence sitting squishes have said they will vote against it. Let's hope these folks don't pull a Zack Space or Steve Driehaus:

SEN. SCOTT BROWN: Staff says he “does not support ANY taxpayer illegal alien amnesty bills,” including the DREAM Act.

SEN. MIKE JOHANNS: Opposed the DREAM Act. Period.

SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH: Opposed.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: A former DREAM Act champion, he is now opposed.

***

SEN. JUDD GREGG: Staff says he is a likely no vote.

Melt those phonelines, people. While the TSA stuff is going on, we can't lose sight of this travesty in the making.

To Outspoken Students Declaring Illegal Status, Two Words Come To Mind...

DEPORT THEM! Yes, that is right, deport them and give their student aid and other benefits to a student who actually came to this country legally or to an American student. Enough with rewarding bad behavior and failure to follow the rule of law. Check out this story:

Nineteen-year-old José Salcedo took a stand Wednesday that may turn out to be a milestone in his life and in the struggle for legalization by undocumented immigrants.

A keynote speaker at a student rally at Miami Dade College's InterAmerican campus in Little Havana, Salcedo surprised many of his listeners when he revealed he was undocumented.

The Colombia-born Salcedo is no ordinary student. He is Student Government Association president at the InterAmerican campus, student representative on the Board of Trustees for Miami Dade College and a member of the school's Honors College, one of 550 elite students.

Hey, nice credentials pal. Really. But, if you are here illegally, go back to Columbia, apply for citizenship or a visa, and go to the end of the longest line. Sorry, but them's the rules. You do know about rules and like laws and stuff, right?
Salcedo isn't the only one to "come out", if you will:

Pedro Ramirez now says he's not ashamed to admit -- he's an undocumented immigrant.

Ramirez says for past four years he's had to lie about his immigration status because he was afraid of what would happen to him. But now he says he doesn't have to be afraid anymore.

Pedro Ramirez undocumented status had been a secret to his classmates and teachers. But that all changed Tuesday when the Fresno State newspaper the Collegian published this article online.

"For me it's a big relief. I've been holding this in for the majority of my life since I found out in high school." said Ramirez.

Ramirez came to the United States from Mexico when he was three. He says he didn't find out about his illegal status until he applied for scholarships and military grants his senior year.

Having no social security card meant no federal funding. "So I just went through the college route. A lot of my counselors helped me out. They told me of the way that I can get into college without being a citizen." added Ramirez.

Ramirez is receiving his education through a state bill that allows him to pay in-state tuition.

When the political science major decided to run for office last spring he thought nothing of his undocumented status.

"There's no citizenship requirements to be a student officer. It's student government. I'm here to serve the students not the state of California or the federal government." said Ramirez.

But not everyone agrees.

Cole Rojewski also ran for president and lost to Ramirez.

"He misled the students he wasn't up front about it. And no one knew about it. So I think he should step down and have a re-election." said Rojewski.

Action News spoke to many students on campus who has just learned of the news. Their opinions were mixed.

"To me honestly it does not matter. I mean as long as he, whatever he's running for, if he does a good job at it then that is perfectly fine with me." said Christina Esquivel.

"I'm a legal immigrant. And I went through so much pain to immigrate to this country it's a very long process and it bothers me that people would just come in without doing it but I understand it can be difficult." said Isaac Martin.

Hey, nice legal manuevering there, Ramirez, I am sure that you could be an attorney in the Obama Admin's Department of Just-Us Civil rights department.

Why are these people feeling emboldened to come out? Because Obama has vowed to push through something called the DREAM Act, which would reward those who break the law with free college. Here is what the DREAM Act would do:

The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act would essentially repeal part of prior federal law—specifically the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA)—“that prohibits any state from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens unless the state also offers in-state tuition rates to all U.S. citizens.” It would further offer amnesty to those illegal immigrants that came to the U.S. before the age of 16 and have lived here for at least five years if they serve in the military or attend college.

The act is touted as a way to incorporate children of illegal immigrants into American society. However, the DREAM Act would have the following consequences:

It would reward illegal aliens for violating federal immigration laws by giving them in-state tuition while there are state laws that deny legal aliens on student visas such tuition benefits.
It would encourage more illegal immigration by sending the message that the U.S. does not take its immigration laws seriously.
It would offer these benefits on taxpayer dollars while out-of-state students struggle to fund their college educations and the economy flounders.
It would prohibit the government from deporting anyone who files an application for DREAM Act benefits and would prohibit other agencies (such as the Department of Homeland Security) from receiving the information—essentially giving amnesty to individuals regardless of whether they actually qualify for the act’s protections.
It would allow younger illegal immigrants the opportunity, like legal immigrants, to sponsor their immediate family members for a green card. While current law prohibits sponsorship of illegal immigrants living in the U.S., this leaves open the possibility that they could fraudulently, through falsified documents or other means, sponsor their parents who are in the U.S. illegally—creating an even larger amnesty.

This is stealth amnesty, and Harry Reid has played around with inserting it into the Defense Bill in the Senate. Look, everyone should get an education, but it is not a right beyond compulsory schooling. Post secondary education is a choice, not a right. Giving such status to illegals is wrong on many levels, national security being one, but what about our citizens? It will only further cause financial hardship to colleges, leading to higher tuition, leading to fewer students able to afford the cost. Also, it will basically give amnesty to many who broke the law and flaut the law by getting breaks on tuition while our own citizens are sometimes working three jobs to pay their own way plus parents working well into retirement to help students with college. Enough is enough!

VIDEO: Interview with Obama's Beloved Auntie

This interview caused alternating feelings of outrage and amazement.  This woman would benefit from some family who cares and a good lesson in American civics.  She wants something for nothing and rationalizes her way to believing that she has a "right" to whatever she can get her hands on...all without contributing a dime to the very system that has sustained her.  She feels absolutely no obligation to pitch in at all...  This is why Obama ultimately fails because not all of America's CITIZENS, let alone illegal aliens, are treated this way.

Colon Powellyp's Macaca Moment: Is He Bigot, Liar, or Criminal?

The answer is: All three. Colin Powell, former relevant person who betrayed principle and endorsed Obama because "he's down with the struggle", has now shown that he is a criminal, a racist, and a liar, who is willing, just like Obama, to throw anyone under the bus for his mistakes. To wit, on Sunday, Colin Powell, in order to keep his "struggle" streetcred, went to Meet the dePress(ed), where he talked about illegal immigration and shamnesty, which he loves:

POWELL: The American people want their borders to be protected. There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with making sure that people come across our borders, particularly our southern border, in a legal, safe manner. But at the same time we have millions and millions of illegal immigrants in our country, undocumented individuals, who are working, who are doing things we need done in this country. They're all over my house doing things whenever I call for repairs. I'm sure you've seen them at your house.

OK, so, the Colon Powellyp is now making the assumption that people working on his house are illegals. Does he know this? If not, isn't he just making an assumption based on a person's ethnicity or job/social status? Doesn't that make him a bigot? Isn't he guilty of racial profiling. And, of course, if he knows they are illegals, then he is in direct violation of the law and would be subject to enforcement of the one immigration statute dems like to enforce: going after those who hire illegals.

Well, someone must have told the Colon Powellyp that he ticked off la Raza and subjected himself to possible criminal investigation, so he said this in USA Today, "clarifying" his remarks:

"I don't hire illegal immigrants," Powell says in a statement today. "On Meet the Press yesterday, I referred to illegal immigrants working around my house. I was referring to the many service contractors who work in my neighborhood, using mostly immigrant workers, who do good work. Some may well be 'illegal.'

So, because he opened his mouth and stuck his backstabbing, racially bigoted foot in his mouth, he is now throwing contractors under the bus. But, where is the apology? This man is still assuming that the people working on his house are illegals. If a non-Obama supporter said this, there would be rioting. But since the Colon Powellyp has been woken up to the glory of His Self-Centeredness, Obama, then it is ok, he just misspoke. Right.....

And, if the Colon Powellyp is hiring illegals or those contractors who use illegals, he must not care for his African American brethren in the construction business, who are hurting for work......Guess he is not so much down for the struggle as down for whatever issue gets him back in the good graces of the press and back in front of the cameras. Racist. Bigot. Liar. Criminal.

It is time this Powellyp was removed and discarded into the biohazard pile.

GUEST COLUMN: "Reforming Immigration Policy" by Bruce McGary

"Reforming Immigration Policy"

By: Warren County Chief Assistant Prosecutor Bruce McGary

Illegal immigration is a hot topic right now, as a result of Arizona’s recent passage of a law cracking down on illegal immigration there. Because federal immigration policy has failed, more and more states like Arizona are taking steps to protect their borders.


The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and that illegal immigrants continue to outpace the number of legal immigrants. Studies show this is a trend that has held steady since the 1990’s. Most Americans believe the country is not doing enough to keep illegals from entering. Some refer to this as simply “anti-immigration” sentiment. I do not. The problem with illegal immigration is the “illegal” part of it, not the “immigration” part of it. That is, I have no objection to immigration (that’s how our forbearers came here) but I do have a problem with illegality. It’s a County Prosecutor’s job to enforce the law. That is really the crux of the matter for me-failure to enforce the law encourages citizens and non-citizens alike to believe they can ignore our laws with impunity. If the federal authorities are not going to enforce immigration laws, then states need to adopt legislation enabling state and local authorities to do so. Currently, in Warren County law enforcement is doing all we are permitted by law to do and that is to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement when illegal immigrants are booked into the County jail on other charges. Then it is up to the federal authorities to place on holder on an inmate in our jail and take custody of the inmate once released from jail or prison.

America is a land of freedom, but it can only remain that way if we protect our borders. People from all over the world come to America to seek freedom, but as a nation we must insist that they do so legally. Our nation is dependant on the rule of the law to protect our freedoms. The failure to enforce our immigration and naturalization laws is a direct threat to those freedoms because it undermines the rule of the law.

Obama Immigration Reform Relaunch Speech: EPIC FAIL!

You know, I thought this guy was supposed to be brilliant, like you know, the greatest thinker and orator ever!


Well, let me just say, as I listened to the speech replayed and read reax, I was taken back to my full time teaching days and discussions about using other's work as your own, and just copying and pasting quotes. Good gravy, Obama's speech sounded like something a sophomore in high school or at best a freshman in college would write. Think I am the only one? Check this out:

When a president recites Emma Lazarus in a speech on immigration—and recites not merely a fragment or two but virtually the entire length of "the New Colossus"—one is inclined to conclude that his speech was written by someone who has just graduated from high school and has a young head brimming with social studies. This being President Obama, however, one can conclude that he will have written a fair portion of the speech himself, and, in so concluding, one would be struck forcefully by how banal the speech was. It was, if one can say such a thing, the acme of boilerplate, so utterly conventional was it in its narrative of American immigration. The speech was basically a thing of sops: In itself, it was a sop to the organized Latino lobby, which knows that nothing will happen before the November elections, and which knows, also, that next year—with likely GOP gains in Congress—nothing will happen either. (They are grasping, I understand, at Obama's private hints that he will take care of the lobby, in some palliative way, in the lame-duck session of Congress in December.)

The speech was also a sop to the unions, in its attack on businesses that seek to stay competitive by hiring illegal immigrants, thus circumventing a raft of government-mandated additions to the cost of doing business (Exhibit A: the minimum wage): "Those who hire illegal immigrants put law-abiding businesses at a disadvantage." As if on cue, the SEIU's response to the speech consisted of a number of GOP-bashing declarations, including this one: "The GOP isn't on the side of small business owners who follow the law only to see that law skirted by opportunistic employers that exploit immigrants and drive down standards for workers."

Obama concluded with the usual pro forma appeal for bipartisanship—an appeal that sounded particularly anemic

Wow, so much for inspiring oratory.