skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Washington Times says a new State Department and Department of Homeland Security Program will fly immigrant children from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador to their parents in the U.S. for free. Any permanent US resident, parolee or illegal immigrant granted or in the process of being granted a work permit under President Barack Obama’s executive order or his deferred action policy, who have children under age 21 living in Honduras, Guatemala or El Salvador can apply for the program. If the application is approved, the child will be granted special refugee status and flown to the U.S. to receive “resettlement assistance” and will be eligible for taxpayer benefits. If the child has children of their own under 21 they can come into the U.S. too, along with parents of the child who is married to the applicant.
The program was created in response to a surge of unaccompanied Central American children making the perilous trek to illegally cross the U.S. border that began last summer.
I may be a little dense, but I don't see that the surge of unaccompanied Central American children across the border last summer, gives any justification for bringing in more children at taxpayer expense.
In addition, what has the Department of Homeland Security got to do with bringing in more illegal immigrant children from Central America. I suspect that since it's all on the taxpayer dime, the State Department had to tie in with the Department of Homeland Security to get sufficient obtuse funding for the program.
Finally, the federal government, through Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution,does have the power to control immigration and the vesting of citizenship in aliens (naturalization). Congressional laws passed in this regard are constitutional and the application is the responsibility of the Executive Branch (Obama Administration). If the Executive Branch is not properly enforcing the laws passed by Congress, it is Congress's responsibility to either modify the laws making it more clear concerning the President's responsibility. If the president is then not properly enforcing the laws, it is Congress's responsibility to impeach him. This is equivalent to a Chief Executive Officer in a corporation following the requirements of its Board of Directors. If the CEO is a maverick, he is discharged.
Look at the attachment for all federal government responsibilities according to the Constitution and Amendments.
Open Email to Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell:
Dear Sen. McConnell,
Congratulations on the wonderful job you are doing as Senate Majority Leader! Devil Harry Reid is behind us. He has done tremendous damage, but we look to you to recover as much as possible.
I am obtaining my information on your activities from the Washington Times. I am particularly favorably impressed with your procedural system of allowing open discussion on all bills and amendments with the aspect of voting on each amendment, so that it is clear who remains in the Senate as Harry reads Associates. We want to watch out particularly for Charles Schumer. He is the new danger in opposing regain of US economic capability, decrease of government red tape, and leadership in the world.
The Washington Times says you have passed a blueprint Friday morning to govern spending and provide a path for repealing Obamacare. This includes reining in the Common Core education standards, banning the government from assessing a carbon tax and preparing new sanctions against Iran should that nation violate a future nuclear arms deal.
I would like to comment on each of the latter three.
As it exists, local school boards are forced to accept Common Core Education Standards in order to continue receiving federal subsidies of taxpayer money. The difficulty with this is that the federal government has no special capability of what is an appropriate education and should not be forcing that onto local school boards using taxpayer money as a selling point. There should be no subsidies to local school boards. Local school boards should pay for their own operations through local taxes, which usually involve real estate taxes. I abhor this process, because it smacks of socialism wherein many people without personal interest in a school program are forced to pay for it. What we need is not only elimination of education subsidies but elimination also of the Department of Education, which I have been preaching on for several years.
The carbon tax is even worse. It is downright fraud. There is no connection between any of the claims of disastrous climate change with respect to the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, etc.. What more can I say? Hoodwinking the American public to pay for an imaginary danger is not only downright dishonest, it is immoral as well. From a technical standpoint is also unconstitutional, since climate control is not one of the 17 points which were specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.
Finally I have just written separately on the negotiations of the State Department with Iran concerning continuing production of fissionable uranium 235, which is essential for use in an atomic bomb. Latest report is that the State Department is considering allowing the use of these centrifuges for the separation techniques for the collection of U-235 as the bomb raw material, which is absolutely ridiculous. The State Department should advise Iran that they must completely shut down operation of the centrifuges, and melt them down into raw material steel for reuse in construction of bridges buildings, etc. if in subsequent satellite surveillance and other more conventional surveillance techniques it is learned that the centrifuges continue to operate, we should rapidly bomb them out of existence.
I always deny that there is any connection between carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuel burning and global warming/climate change, but the UN and the Obama administration have spent billions of dollars to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
The Washington Times reports that the manatee needs the warm water generated by coal burning power plants as they also emit carbon dioxide.. Here's a quote from the Washington Times, "From November to April, hundreds of manatees huddle in the warm discharge canal of one of Florida’s biggest coal-fired plants, the Big Bend Power Station near Tampa, as camera-toting families point and laugh from a viewing deck at the gentle creatures lolling near the smokestacks. Some two-thirds of Florida’s endangered manatees rely on discharge waters from power plants for winter warmth, according to federal biologists."
This is a real quandary for the Obama administration. How do we protect the manatee as an endangered species, from dying of the cold and still maintain the pressure to eliminate coal burning power plants?
The Obama administration is famous for coming up with ridiculous suggestions. Here is one they might latch onto: We shut down the Big Bend Power Station, continue to push electricity generation from wind turbines, and then use electric heaters to heat the water in the canal near the then defunct power station.
Socialist Bernie Sanders, Senato r from Vermont, is still preaching his socialistic views.
He is against the Republican proposed budget for the following reasons: It would throw millions of Americans off health insurance. It would cut $4.3 trillion from programs like Medicare, food stamps and Medicaid. Education programs would be scaled back. Pell Grants for college students would be frozen. Wall Street regulations would be reduced. It doesn’t address the 11 percent real unemployment. It doesn’t create any jobs. It doesn’t fix crumbling roads and bridges. It doesn’t make college more affordable. It doesn’t raise the minimum wage. It would leave in place tax loopholes that let the wealthy and big corporations avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
Let's look at these things one of the time.
Healthcare insurance is a deception. People don't need healthcare insurance. They need healthcare, which they already have through their own efforts of home treatment and access to emergency rooms and hospitals, where they do not have to pay if they are poor.
Cutting taxpayer subsidies for users of Medicare, food stamps and Medicaid is logical. Users of those facilities should be paying more out of their own pockets, rather than depending upon their neighbors to pay for them. Obviously, there are indigent people unable to cope in our present society, and the rest of us have a responsibility to aid in their continued existence. We call this welfare. However, welfare recipients should not be living on a grander scale in any form than those who pay for the welfare.
Everyone must be responsible for his own advanced education. We already have free education in grammar and high schools. "Free" means taxpayer supported, which is already a socialistic program. For those persons who spend their money on cars, new houses and other items of at least semi-luxury, they have apparently decided to do without the expense of an education or expect, as socialists do, have their neighbors pay for it. Education programs would only be scaled back if there are a reduced number of applicants for college education. That's the free market. However if individuals want to come up with the money, there would be no scaling back. Pell grants are just taxpayer gifts to college students. They should be eliminated. Higher education is a personal responsibility. In fact, we should take another look at whether neighbors should be paying the cost of sending your kids to grammar school and high school. It's not the government's job to make higher education affordable. The market and individual effort will decide what is affordable.
I don't know what Wall Street regulations will be reduced, but it is hardly likely that any Republican proposal will give Wall Street operators an opportunity to fleece the American public. Republicans well know that private companies and corporations are basically responsible for the health of the economy. They obviously will do nothing to hinder the operations of those companies, which would be the case if some sort of fraudulent feeling was engendered in the public mind.
It does indirectly address the 11% real unemployment rate by trying to reduce government restrictions, and allowing companies to grow with the hiring of more people.
It does indirectly fix crumbling roads and bridges. Spending less money on giveaway programs will allow funds for road and bridge maintenance.
There may be some tax loopholes which should be closed, but I don't know of any specifically. However, I do know that the federal government taxes corporations and then subsequently taxes again the stockholders who own those corporations. This double taxation never made any sense to me. Just another gimmick to collect more federal revenue to establish a broader socialistic society.
Sen. Mitch McConnell is the new Republican Majority Leader in the Senate.
He apparently does not believe that carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal is devastating to the climate. With that apparent view, he has decided to fight EPA regulations, which limit the use of coal in generating electricity by power plants.
While he has in the Senate a majority of Republicans, he does not have enough to overcome Democratic filibusters or overriding Presidential vetoes. In view of this, he has decided on a different tack, which involves convincing the various states to not adhere to or cooperate with the EPA on coal burning at power plants. With this approach, I believe he is on solid ground with respect to the Constitution and its Amendments.
Amendment 10 of the Constitution says that powers not delegated to the United States government by the Constitution are reserved to the states, respectively.
Article I of the the Constitution concerns the Legislature; that is, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Section 8 of Article I specifically identifies the powers delegated to the US government. It does this by specifying that the House of Representatives may generate or collect money for specific purposes. Any purposes not mentioned are automatically reserved to the states, as covered by Amendment 10. The specific delegations to the US government are as follows:
1. Borrow money.
2. Regulate commerce.
3. Establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization and uniform Laws on bankruptcy.
4. Coin money regulate its values and fixed the standards of Weights and Measures.
5. Punish counterfeiters of US securities and coin.
6. Establish Post Offices and post Roads.
7. Establish Patent and Trademark system.
8. Establish courts lesser than the Supreme Court.
9. Define and punish piracy and felonies on the seas.
10. Declare war, grant private military rights, and establish rules concerning captives.
11. Raise and support an Army, with funding for no longer two years.
12. Establish and maintain a Navy.
13. Establish rules for regulation of land and naval forces.
14. Call the militia to execute US laws, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions.
15. Organize, arm, and discipline a militia for service in the US, with officer appointment and training authority reserved to the states.
16. Establish a seat of government (DC), forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other useful buildings, with each site no greater than 10 mi.².
17. Make laws for establishing the foregoing powers.
Notice that there is no federal power in the above 17, which allows the federal government to establish rules for carbon dioxide emissions from power plants nor establish laws protecting endangered species. Those rights are exclusively reserved to the states. Any attempts to work these into federal law, such as the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act are unconstitutional.
Sen. Mitch McConnell is on the right track with respect to is working with the states on control of anything involving air.
The US voting public contains a majority of Democrats; 47% Democrats and 41% Republicans.
In order to be sure that all Democrats will vote and subsequently run the country, Pres. Obama has suggested mandatory voting for the US voting public. Since his original proposal, White House representatives have backpedaled amid a firestorm of public objection.
The U.S. Constitution basically specifies that a citizen's voting rights is a privilege providing he meets the qualifications. There is no indication in the Constitution that a potential voter has a responsibility to vote.
Sen. Rubio says that mandatory voting would be a violation of the First Amendment of free speech. Any person deciding not to vote is exercising his free-speech rights. If you force him to vote, he has no free-speech rights.
The likelihood is that Pres. Obama is also looking toward his objective of world government,, which includes elimination of the US as an independent country. If we have mandatory voting in the US, the next step is to have global mandatory voting, with an override of any specific country's vote.
Open Email to Republican Leadership:
Dear Republican Leadership,
I have previously said that in order to avoid another disastrous President for this country, we need to disqualify Hillary Clinton. I further suggested that the best way to do this would be to have her serve jail time and to accomplish this we we can hopefully prosecute her under a federal law concerning her handling of confidential information during her term as Secretary of State.
This past Sunday, the Washington Times reviewed the use of Mrs. Clinton's private email system during her term as Secretary of State, but spent significantly more wordage on ostensible email problems with governors. The Times apparently justifies this approach to determine whether Republicans have the moral high ground in this email dispute.
Let me respectively caution you not to be misled by red Herring considerations of governors email practices and moral high ground. Neither of these have a direct bearing on our objective of trying to have Hillary serve jail time. In other words do not be distracted by miscellaneous aspects of the problem brought up by Democrats/socialists,. Ignore all of that and concentrate on only one point. How can we successfully prosecute Hillary under a federal law so that we can have her serve jail time and be disqualified from the future holding of public office?
