Feeds:
Posts
Comments
July 31, 5:38 AMImmigration Reform ExaminerDave Gibson

 

The U.S. government recently admitted that over the last several years, at least 46 Afghan soldiers have gone missing in this country. All of the men were being trained by the U.S. military at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas.

There is compelling evidence that suggests these soldiers have been moved throughout the U.S., with many traveling as far as Canada by a network of illegal alien smugglers.

Watch former CIA official Clare Lopez describe this troubling development in the video below:
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt9AlJNuO_M&feature=player_embedded#!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100731/ap_on_go_co/us_waters_ethics

WASHINGTON – A second House Democrat, Rep. Maxine Waters of California, could face an ethics trial this fall, further complicating the election outlook for the party as it battles to retain its majority.

People familiar with the investigation, who were not authorized to be quoted about charges before they are made public, say the allegations could be announced next week. The House ethics committee declined Friday to make any public statement on the matter.

Waters, 71, has been under investigation for a possible conflict of interest involving a bank that was seeking federal aid. Her husband owned stock in the bank and had served on its board.

New York Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel also faces an ethics trial this fall on charges that include failure to disclose assets and income, nonpayment of taxes and doing legislative favors for donors to a college center named after him.

Both Waters and Rangel are prominent members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the trials would be an embarrassment for the group. Dual ethics trials would also be a major political liability for Democrats, forcing them to defend their party’s ethical conduct while trying to hold on to their House majority.

While Rangel is a former chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, Waters is a prominent member of the House Financial Services Committee.

Waters came under scrutiny after former Treasury Department officials said she helped arrange a meeting between regulators and executives at Boston-based OneUnited Bank without mentioning her husband’s financial ties to the institution.

Her husband, Sidney Williams, held at least $250,000 in the bank’s stock and previously had served on its board. Waters’ spokesman has said Williams was no longer on the board when the meeting was arranged.

Waters has said the National Bankers Association, a trade group, requested the meeting. She defended her role in assisting minority-owned banks in the midst of the nation’s financial meltdown and dismissed suggestions she used her influence to steer government aid to the bank.

“I am confident that as the investigation moves forward the panel will discover that there are no facts to support allegations that I have acted improperly,” Waters said in a prior statement.

The committee unanimously voted to establish an investigative subcommittee to gather evidence and determine whether Waters violated standards of conduct.

Waters, like Rangel, could settle her case by arranging a plea bargain with the ethics committee. So far she has decided instead to fight.

___

Online:

House ethics committee: http://ethics.house.gov

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/242187/what-amnesty-memo-means-rosemary-jenks


July 30, 2010 5:52 PM

Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are facing a dilemma: Although they publicly bemoan the fact that Republicans won’t help them pass an unpopular amnesty . . . er, comprehensive immigration-reform bill, they don’t want to force vulnerable Democrats to vote on amnesty this close to the November elections — especially not with unemployment at 9.5 percent.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) may have uncovered the answer to their dilemma yesterday: an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo (reported here on NRO) that outlines steps the Obama administration can take “in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform” — that is, lawfully enacted amnesty — to “reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization.”

The four authors of the memo, titled “Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” are political appointees USCIS chief of policy and strategy Denise Vanison (a former immigration attorney and partner at Patton Boggs) and USCIS chief counsel Roxana Bacon (former general counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association), and two career employees of USCIS director Alejandro Mayorkas, another Obama appointee.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress — and only Congress — the authority to decide federal immigration law, but the Obama administration has come up with an extensive list of ways to ensure that a majority of the illegal aliens in the United States are allowed to remain here.

Here are just three examples of the outrageous proposals in the memo:

● USCIS could grant “parole-in-place,” which comes with a work permit and the ability to obtain a green card, to certain classes of aliens who entered the country illegally. Such classes would include those who entered as minors and those who “have lived for many years in the U.S.” A nice reward for those who have successfully violated the law for the longest period of time.

● For those who overstay their visas, the memo recommends granting “deferred action,” which means that deportation is deferred indefinitely and the illegal alien can apply for a work permit. The memo suggests two particular categories of illegal aliens for deferred action: those who might benefit if Congress were to pass the DREAM Act amnesty (of which there are 2.1 million, according to the Migration Policy Institute) and those “who have resided in the U.S. since 1996 (or as of a different date designed to move forward the Registry provision now limited to entries before January 1, 1972).” The “Registry provision” referred to is an actual federal law, not that it matters to the memo’s authors.

● To make sure no illegal alien is left behind, the memo suggests that DHS could simply stop issuing “Notices to Appear” (the document that starts the removal process for illegal aliens) unless the alien has a “significant negative immigration or criminal history.” Apparently, violating immigration law once or twice is acceptable. These folks wouldn’t be able to apply for a work permit, but since the Obama administration isn’t conducting worksite enforcement against illegal aliens much anymore, that shouldn’t matter.

No wonder Reid, Pelosi, and Obama seem content to avoid a legislative battle over immigration; the Department of Homeland Security is hard at work on ways to implement its own amnesty.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/30/report-romney-nudging-graham-to-strike-immigration-deal-before-election/

posted at 5:42 pm on July 30, 2010 by Allahpundit

A tantalizing bit of 2012 gossip dropped way, way down in an otherwise fun piece about amnesty shills boo-hooing over having (temporarily) lost McCain. Note to Politico: This is what’s called “burying the lede.”

Their hope now is that Republican presidential candidates and former operatives under Bush, a reform proponent, can convince GOP congressional leaders that the issue needs to be dealt with before 2012 — or that they could risk alienating the burgeoning Hispanic vote in the crucial swing states of New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and Florida.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a front-runner for the nomination, has signaled quietly to Graham that Republicans must address immigration before the campaign heats up, according to several sources familiar with the conversation.

Graham’s push against birthright citizenship prompted this response on POLITICO’s Arena from Cesar Conda, a former domestic policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney: “If the Republican Party embraces ending birthright citizenship, then it will be assured losing Latino and ethnic voters — and presidential elections for the foreseeable future.”

Now I’m more confused than ever about why Graham’s pushing the birthright citizenship amendment. If he really is thinking about trying to settle the immigration issue before 2012 — which may be do-able, given the electoral pressure from Latinos that the GOP leadership will be feeling — what does he gain by staking out a position further to the right than he’s ever gone before? I have to assume that it’s precisely because he thinks a deal is likely that he wants to stockpile conservative demands now so that he can give up on them early in the interests of “compromise.” If he sacrifices birthright citizenship in the interests of “being reasonable” but stands firm on securing the border first, it’ll give the Dems some cover on agreeing to the latter. In fact, Politico notes that his comprehensive bill co-written with Schumer already would have made amnesty contingent on first reaching certain benchmarks vis-a-vis border security; Graham’s now insisting that that’s no longer enough, that he wants a separate “borders only” bill before amnesty comes back on the table, but I’ve got a crazy hunch that he’s just staking out a bargaining position there too.

As for Mitt’s role in this, it’s not like he’s nudging Graham to strike a deal on his behalf. Getting immigration off the table would, in theory, benefit whoever the eventual nominee is. But suspicions about him among the righty base plus the fact that it’s Grahamnesty, of all people, that he’s coordinating with here instead of, say, Jim DeMint isn’t going to win him any new fans. Exit question: Any fallout over this for him, or no biggie?

Civil disobedience by students adds a new twist to the immigration debate.

By JOHN-CLARK LEVIN

On July 20, 22 young illegal immigrants in caps and gowns entered the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C., and began sit-ins in the offices of several senators. Twelve soon returned to the atrium, where they formed a circle around a banner reading “Undocumented and Unafraid.” Refusing to be moved, the students were arrested by Capitol Police, as were nine others who had stayed put in the offices of Sen. John McCain and Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Less than two miles away, a similar protest by a separate but allied group was taking place at Lafayette Square in front of the White House. These students went a step further. Openly announcing their immigration status and giving their full names just across the Mall from Immigration and Customs Enforcement headquarters, they forced a difficult choice upon ICE officials.

Take no action, and ICE would undermine the law. But come down hard by deporting the students, many of them still teenagers, and it would risk drawing overwhelming public outcry.

These individuals—plus several hundred more high school and college students of illegal status—had come to the capital to call for passage of the floundering Dream Act. Dream, the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, co-sponsored by 36 senators, including Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) and Richard Lugar (R., Ind.), would offer temporary residency to students who arrived in the U.S. illegally as minors if they attend college. It would grant them permanent residency upon graduating.

Young people have come to the capital every year since 2001 to demonstrate in support of the act. But many senators suggest that the bill remains five votes short of the 60 needed for cloture, and it has slim prospects of being passed during this session of Congress. So in order to draw greater attention to their cause, affected students decided to undertake a risky form of civil disobedience. If arrested, they faced deportation.

Yet ICE has stated that it has no intention of initiating deportation proceedings against the students arrested in the Washington protests. The officials likely wanted to avoid a repeat of what happened last month with a Harvard student named Eric Balderas.

 

0729arizona

Associated Press

0729arizona

Mr. Balderas had deportation proceedings opened against him after authorities discovered his status as he was passing through security at an airport. The case attracted widespread media attention and international backlash. Harvard administrators stated their support for Mr. Balderas, whose case was soon taken up by Mr. Durbin. After less than two weeks, ICE backed down, halting Mr. Balderas’s deportation indefinitely.

Hoping the sit-in will fade from the public view, ICE is sticking to the safe line that the students’ actions in Washington simply “illustrate the need for comprehensive immigration reform,” as spokesperson Gillian Brigham told me.

Yet this strikes many on Capitol Hill as an inexcusable failure to enforce the law. “It’s outrageous,” California Rep. Gary Miller told the Orange County Register. “How can you have a protest right in a U.S. senator’s office, admit you are here illegally in violation of the law, and we pat you on the back and do nothing?”

But even doing nothing stands to strengthen the “Dreamers.” Pictures of these students protesting with impunity are already making an impression on students of illegal status from coast to coast, spreading the movement with the aid of social networking websites.

With that momentum, the activists intend to maintain a continuous presence in the capital. One organizer, Mo Abdollahi, who was brought to America illegally from Iran as a child, told me that the protests will go on “as long as it takes” for Dream to pass. At the same time, Mr. Abdollahi disputes the notion that these actions are deliberate provocations in the mold of Gandhi or King. He says that the Dreamers are “just trying to live [their] lives.” If that means deportation, he says, it is a price they are willing to pay.

Is their goal to force another public deportation crisis like that of Eric Balderas? “We are not deliberately trying to do that,” he claims. If the students’ civil disobedience brings the force of the law down upon them, he says, that is simply a hazard of their activism. Other student leaders told me that there is more calculation behind the actions in Washington. But whether these activists are naïve or calculating, their effectiveness is impossible to dispute.

The protests this month are most significant not because of any direct influence they may have on lawmakers, but because they are drawing other young people with illegal status out into the open, undoing the chilling effect that legal vulnerability has long had on illegal immigrants’ political activism. As the fall elections near, such activism will likely serve as another flash point for an already volatile issue.

Mr. Levin, winner of the 2010 Eric Breindel Collegiate Journalism Award, is an intern at the Journal this summer.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/30/high-seas-segregation/ 

The Navy wants to judge sailors by the color of their skin, not the content of their seamanship.

The latest national security leak is a shocking e-mail from a Navy admiral on “Diversity Accountability.” The message, sent to a list of other flag officers, notes that “a change in focus of this year’s diversity brief is the desire to identify our key performers (by name) and provide insight on each of them.” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, who apparently originated this order, “is interested in who are the diverse officers with high potential and what is the plan for their career progression. He may ask what is being done within to ensure they are considered for key follow on billets within the Navy.”

The message specifies, “This list must be held very closely but will provide ready reference to ensure we are carefully monitoring and supporting the careers of the best and the brightest the Navy has to offer.” That is, the best and the brightest provided a sailor is one of the euphemistically “diverse.” If you are a white male, it might be time to set sail and seek opportunities elsewhere.

In practice, the Navy will be creating a list of privileged “diverse” officers who will enjoy special benefits and career mentoring not available to people of the wrong race, as well as a virtual guarantee of fast-track access to the highest reaches of command. Fifty-six years after the Supreme Court struck down the concept of “separate but equal” treatment of races, the U.S. Navy is erecting a wall of segregation between what will amount to two parallel promotion systems: one for the “diverse” and another for the monotone. If this isn’t illegal, it should be.

How this dual-track system will be implemented is difficult to discern. Will officers doing fitness reports on those on the list be made aware of their subordinates’ privileged status? Will the people on the list have knowledge that the system is looking out for them? If they get a poor fitness report, will they have special means of getting a second look? Will there be repercussions for reviewing officers who did not know they were supposed to just keep the list members on the fast track no matter what? The devil will be lurking in these details.

This type of backward, 20th-century, overtly racial thinking has no place in 21st-century post-racial America. The Navy leadership apparently believes the way to promote racial harmony is by engaging in blatant, invidious discrimination. In practice, however, this system will, in fact, relegate “diverse” sailors to a form of second-class status. Any nonwhite male sailor who – through intelligence, initiative and drive – builds a stellar career will simply be seen as just another special case, just one of “the Listers.” Those sailors may achieve rank, but they will have to work twice as hard to command respect.

In the contemporary naval bureaucracy, this type of politically correct nonsense has run out of control like a loose cannon on deck. The Naval Academy lists racial diversity as the “highest personnel priority,” apparently even over the mission of educating future Navy leaders for warfare on the high seas. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made achieving diversity a “strategic imperative” when he was chief of naval operations. Call us old-fashioned seadogs, but we’d prefer that the Navy‘s top priority be fighting and winning our nation’s wars rather than engaging in social experimentation.

The suggested list of privileged officers is due Monday. The message states that the reporting requirement will not be put into the secretary of the Navy‘s TV4 Taskers tracking system “due to the sensitive nature of the by name list.” No doubt, once the secret list leaks, as it surely will, there will be as much discomfort for the people on the list as for those not on it, especially those unfortunates who met the diversity requirement but for some reason did not make the cut. Maybe they can sue, charging discrimination. Either way, the Navy Department has run aground.

From today’s Investors Business Daily, below – how a failed economy leaving Americans little to lose, cheap instant communications, etc. now make a second American Revolution possible and even thinkable.

   Now, the elites no longer can dismiss such talk as the “nut fringe!”
Matt Maggio,
Internet Gun Show,
=============================================
The Internet is a large-scale version of the “Committees of Correspondence” that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington’s failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.People are asking, “Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?”

Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency.

Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There’s no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.

Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.

Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He’s diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.

He may soon bankrupt us and replace our big merit-based capitalist economy with a small government-directed one of his own design.

He is undermining our constitutional traditions: The rule of law and our Anglo-Saxon concepts of private property hang in the balance. Obama may be the most “consequential” president ever.

The Wall Street Journal’s steadfast Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote that Barack Obama is “an alien in the White House.”

His bullying and offenses against the economy and job creation are so outrageous that CEOs in the Business Roundtable finally mustered the courage to call him “anti-business.” Veteran Democrat Sen. Max Baucus blurted out that Obama is engineering the biggest government-forced “redistribution of income” in history.

Fear and uncertainty stalk the land. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says America’s financial future is “unusually uncertain.”

A Wall Street “fear gauge” based on predicted market volatility is flashing long-term panic. New data on the federal budget confirm that record-setting deficits in the $1.4 trillion range are now endemic.

Obama is building an imperium of public debt and crushing taxes, contrary to George Washington’s wise farewell admonition: “cherish public credit … use it as sparingly as possible … avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt … bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not … inconvenient and unpleasant … .”

Opinion polls suggest that in the November mid-term elections, voters will replace the present Democratic majority in Congress with opposition Republicans — but that will not necessarily stop Obama.

By Joy Tiz  Thursday, July 29, 2010

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25969

The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do. -Joseph Stalin

As the rest of us count the days until the November election, Obama’s boss, unrepentant Nazi collaborator, George Soros, is brewing a scheme to pirate the 2012 presidential election.  Still smarting from the trauma of losing to George W. Bush in 2004, Soros is concocting ever more perfidious schemes for ensuring the outcome of our next presidential election.

Secretary of State Project

The phony philanthropist who thinks he’s God is funding the SOS project, conniving to install regime-friendly operatives in Secretaries of State offices nationwide.  Matthew Vadum unveils the plot: 

The vehicle for this planned hijacking of democracy is a below-the-radar non-federal ‘527’ [Thank you, John McCain] group called the Secretary of State Project. The entity can accept unlimited financial contributions and doesn’t have to disclose them publicly until well after the election.

The founders of the Secretary of State Project, which claims to advance ‘election protection’ but only backs Democrats, religiously believe that right-leaning secretaries of state helped the GOP steal the presidential elections in Florida in 2000 (Katherine Harris) and in Ohio in 2004 (Ken Blackwell).

SoS was co-founded by James Rucker, former director for Moveon.org Civic Action.  Moveon.org is of course, funded by Soros.  Soros is one of the more notable contributors to the SoS project .

SoS was instrumental in abetting freak show refugee, Al Franken’s senate seat depredation by way of Soros factotum, Minnesota Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie:

The SoS Web site lauds Ritchie as ‘arguably the most progressive secretary of state in America,’ and states: ‘Thanks to SoS Project donors, Minnesota’s Mark Ritchie – a true champion for Democracy – was able to defeat a two-term incumbent Republican by less than 5 points. We helped close the gap and make the difference with cable television ads targeting women and seniors.’  (Newsmax)

The fund raising section of the SoS web site  features a photo of former Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris—these people can’t let anything go—and their mission statement:

The right wing is always taking extreme measures to bring down President Obama’s agenda, even carrying guns to town hall meetings.  It’s gone too far.

It’s like these people did summer internships at the Kremlin learning how to execute a disinformation campaign.  The most formidable weapon in the Kremlin’s arsenal is charges of ‘extremism’ (Edward Lucas, The New Cold War).

Ritchie was endorsed by ACORN, as was California’s Secretary of State, Debra Bowen who is also honored by SoS as “one of the most progressive Secretaries of State in the nation.”  Translation:  don’t let this woman near a ballot box.

Obama’s boss has gotten too much of his agenda forced through to be willing to retire in 2012. 

By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN AND GARY A ROBBINS Posted 06:30 PM ET

The Internet is a large-scale version of the “Committees of Correspondence” that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington’s failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

People are asking, “Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?”

Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency.

Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There’s no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.

Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.

Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He’s diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.

He may soon bankrupt us and replace our big merit-based capitalist economy with a small government-directed one of his own design.

He is undermining our constitutional traditions: The rule of law and our Anglo-Saxon concepts of private property hang in the balance. Obama may be the most “consequential” president ever.

The Wall Street Journal’s steadfast Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote that Barack Obama is “an alien in the White House.”

His bullying and offenses against the economy and job creation are so outrageous that CEOs in the Business Roundtable finally mustered the courage to call him “anti-business.” Veteran Democrat Sen. Max Baucus blurted out that Obama is engineering the biggest government-forced “redistribution of income” in history.

Fear and uncertainty stalk the land. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says America’s financial future is “unusually uncertain.”

A Wall Street “fear gauge” based on predicted market volatility is flashing long-term panic. New data on the federal budget confirm that record-setting deficits in the $1.4 trillion range are now endemic.

Obama is building an imperium of public debt and crushing taxes, contrary to George Washington’s wise farewell admonition: “cherish public credit … use it as sparingly as possible … avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt … bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not … inconvenient and unpleasant … .”

Opinion polls suggest that in the November mid-term elections, voters will replace the present Democratic majority in Congress with opposition Republicans — but that will not necessarily stop Obama.

A President Obama intent on achieving his transformative goals despite the disagreement of the American people has powerful weapons within reach. In one hand, he will have a veto pen to stop a new Republican Congress from repealing ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank takeover of banks.

In the other, he will have a fistful of executive orders, regulations and Obama-made fiats that have the force of law.

Under ObamaCare, he can issue new rules and regulations so insidiously powerful in their effect that higher-priced, lower-quality and rationed health care will quickly become ingrained, leaving a permanent stain.

Under Dodd-Frank, he and his agents will control all credit and financial transactions, rewarding friends and punishing opponents, discriminating on the basis of race, gender and political affiliation. Credit and liquidity may be choked by bureaucracy and politics — and the economy will suffer.

He and the EPA may try to impose by “regulatory” fiats many parts of the cap-and-trade and other climate legislation that failed in the Congress.

And by executive orders and the in terrorem effect of an industrywide “boot on the neck” policy, he can continue to diminish energy production in the United States.

By the trick of letting current-law tax rates “expire,” he can impose a $3.5 trillion 10-year tax increase that damages job-creating capital investment in an economy struggling to recover. And by failing to enforce the law and leaving America’s borders open, he can continue to repopulate America with unfortunate illegals whose skill and education levels are low and whose political attitudes are often not congenial to American-style democracy.

A wounded rampaging president can do much damage — and, like Caesar, the evil he does will live long after he leaves office, whenever that may be.

The overgrown, un-pruned power of the presidency to reward, punish and intimidate may now be so overwhelming that his re-election in 2012 is already assured — Chicago-style.

• Christian, an attorney, was a deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Ford administration.

• Robbins, an economist, served at the Treasury Department in the Reagan administration.

Older Posts »