Skip to content

So Much For Change

September 20, 2017

Chuck Baldwin

9/14/2017

Source …..

Every new President is elected by people who believe they are voting for someone who is going to change things. People who wanted a change from the policies of Lyndon Johnson elected Richard Nixon. People who wanted a change from the policies of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford elected Jimmy Carter. People who wanted a change from the policies of Jimmy Carter elected Ronald Reagan and G.H.W. Bush. People who wanted a change from the policies of G.H.W. Bush elected Bill Clinton. People who wanted a change from the policies of Bill Clinton elected G.W. Bush. People who wanted a change from the policies of G.W. Bush elected Barack Obama. People who wanted a change from the policies of Barack Obama elected Donald Trump. And for all of the “change” people have voted for, not much has changed.

Before Trump was elected, especially after World War II, spending levels of the federal government increased exponentially during every single presidential administration, regardless of which political party the President was from. (The last President to completely pay off the national debt was Andrew Jackson–seventh President of the United States from 1829-1837.) From Republican to Democrat to Republican and back to Democrat again, nothing changed: the size and scope of the federal government continued to mushroom. And now that we are back to another Republican president, nothing has changed again. Under Donald Trump–and for the first time in U.S. history–our country is over $20 trillion in debt.

From CNS News: “The federal debt officially surpassed $20 trillion for the first time on Friday, as the debt subject to the legal limit set by Congress jumped $317,645,000,000 in one day–following President Donald Trump’s signing of a spending-and-debt-limit deal that will fund the government through Dec. 8.

“At the close of business on Thursday, Sept. 7, according to the Daily Treasury Statement for Friday, the total debt of the federal government was $19,844,587,000,000 and the portion of it subject to the legal limit set by Congress was $19,808,747,000. After President Trump signed the legislation suspending the debt limit, the total debt immediately jumped to $20,162,177,000,000 and the portion of it subject to the limit jumped to $20,126,392,000,000, according to the Daily Treasury Statement for Sept. 8, 2017.

“That means the total debt jumped $317,590,000,000 on the day it officially topped $20 trillion for the first time and that the part of the debt subject to the legal limit jumped $317,645,000,000 on that day.”

See the report:

It’s Official: Debt Tops $20 Trillion For First Time; Jumps $317,645,000,000 In 1 Day

So much for change.

Likewise, before Trump was elected, the federal government was increasingly (and illegally) spying on the American people–especially since the administration of G.W. Bush. From the Republican Bush to the Democrat Obama, unconstitutional spying on the American citizenry grew constantly.

Anybody who was paying attention knew that the federal government was illegally surveilling the American public, but none of us knew just how bad it was–until the revelations of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Snowden risked (and continues to risk) his life in order to let his fellow citizens know just how massively the federal government is spying on us.

From Reason.com:

“As former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed to the world in 2013, the U.S. government routinely spies on its own citizens.

“‘I, sitting at my desk, could wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president,’ Snowden told the journalists crowded into his hotel room before the publication of his leaked documents.

“The leaks exposed lies from government officials about the mass surveillance of American citizens, with former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testifying before Congress that the NSA didn’t ‘wittingly’ collect any data on millions of Americans.

“Four years after the Snowden leaks, the government is still collecting Americans’ private information. Though the NSA claims it ended bulk collection of domestic phone calls, the agency is still operating several other far-reaching domestic spying programs.

“Now there’s a way to end these unconstitutional practices. The NSA gets its authority to spy on U.S. Citizens from Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. The law will expire this year after it hits its five-year sunset. Lawmakers will soon be deliberating over whether to renew Section 702 for another five or maybe even make it permanent.

“Watch the video . . . to see why it’s vital that they let Section 702 lapse.”

See the report (and watch the video) here:

End Warrantless Deep State Spying: Don’t Renew 702

Does anyone remember when Donald Trump complained about the Obama justice department spying on him? Well, one would think that a man who was elected President on the promise that he was going to change things and drain the swamp in Washington, D.C., and who himself was victimized by the illegal spying of the executive branch of the federal government (the same branch of government that he, Trump, now controls) would want to put a stop to this pervasive and pernicious spying on the American people. Right? Wrong.

Instead of thanking Snowden for his courage in blowing the whistle on this illegal activity and setting about to change the way this criminality goes unchecked in Washington, D.C., President Trump calls Snowden a traitor and wants to have him EXECUTED. And you can bet your bottom dollar that Trump will push Congress to extend the sinister section 702 of the FISA Amendment Acts–perhaps indefinitely.

So much for change.

And again, from G.H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to G.W. Bush to Barack Obama, U.S. foreign policy has conducted war on just about the entire world. The U.S. military has dropped more bombs, fired more missiles, launched more drone attacks, and sent more troops to invade more foreign countries than the rest of the world’s militaries combined.

Barack Obama was elected on the promise of ending America’s endless foreign wars, but all he did was escalate them. Donald Trump was likewise elected on the same promise. Trump used to condemn Obama for his incessant interventionist wars. But as soon as Trump became President, he not only continued these wars, but he is escalating them to a level that has brought the United States (and the entire world) to the brink of global nuclear war.

Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts recently quoted a column by Global Research writer Stephen Lendman. The column is titled (I don’t like the crude language in the title, but I DO understand the author’s frustration with the American people for allowing their government to take them to the brink of nuclear war) “If you don’t see that Washington is driving to war with Russia you are a dumbs### American.”

After quoting Lendman’s column, Roberts writes, “The Russian Operational Command has already concluded that Washington is preparing a surprise nuclear first strike against Russia. What do you think this latest Washington outrage, a first in diplomatic history that goes beyond even Adolf Hitler, tells the Russians?

“The American people should be extremely concerned that ‘their’ government is crazy off the scale. I mean really, we are confronting total insanity in Washington.

“The insane government in Washington has the entire world on the brink of nuclear armageddon.”

See the column here:

Paul Craig Roberts – Washington Driving War With Russia

So much for change.

Before Trump was elected, Barack Obama granted amnesty to over 800,000 illegal aliens via DACA. After campaigning against amnesty for illegals, Trump has now told Congress that he wants them to pass legislation ensconcing DACA into law within the next six months, thereby granting permanent amnesty to over 800,000 illegal aliens.

Again, so much for change.

P.S. As many of my readers know, I was recently victimized (for the umpteenth time) by a vile, slanderous lie from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and one of its toadies in the mainstream media (the Idaho Statesman newspaper in Boise). Read the story here:

The SPLC And Mainstream Media Keep Spreading Hate

After the article slandering me (and Liberty Fellowship) was published, scores of people sent letters, emails, phone calls, etc., of outrage to the Idaho newspaper, and I sent them a formal letter demanding they print a public retraction of this libelous slur against me. I’m still waiting–but not holding my breath.

The next Sunday, I preached a message to the folks at Liberty Fellowship (and to those who watch us online) entitled “My Answer To The SPLC And Liberal Media.” I strongly urge readers to get this DVD and even get extra copies for friends and loved ones who constantly hear these sick and slanderous accusations from the SPLC and their lackeys in the mainstream media. It’s time we started answering these liberal propagandists–and that is exactly what I have done in this message.

Find my DVD message “My Answer To The SPLC And Liberal Media” here:

My Answer To The SPLC And Liberal Media

 

Advertisements

A ‘Read-My-Lips’ Moment for Trump?

September 20, 2017

Patrick J. Buchanan

9/15/2017

Source …..

“Having cut a deal with Democrats for help with the debt ceiling, will Trump seek a deal with Democrats on amnesty for the ‘Dreamers’ in return for funding for border security?”

The answer to that question, raised in my column a week ago, is in. Last night, President Donald Trump cut a deal with “Chuck and Nancy” for amnesty for 800,000 recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program who came here illegally as youngsters, in return for Democratic votes for more money for border security.

According to preening Minority Leader Pelosi, the agreement contains not a dime for Trump’s Wall, and the “Dreamers” are to be put on a long glide “path to U.S. citizenship.”

Trump denies this is amnesty, and says the Wall comes later.

Fallout? Among the most enthusiastic of Trump backers, disbelief, disillusionment and wonderment at where we go from here.

Trump’s debt-ceiling deal cut the legs out from under the GOP budget hawks. But amnesty would pull the rug out from under all the folks at those rallies who cheered Trump’s promise to preserve the country they grew up in from this endless Third World invasion.

For make no mistake. If amnesty is granted for the 800,000, that will be but the first wave. “There are reasons no country has a rule that if you sneak in as a minor you’re a citizen,” writes Mickey Kaus, author of “The End of Equality,” in The Washington Post.

“We’d be inviting the world. … (An amnesty) would have a knock-on effect. Under ‘chain migration’ rules established in 1965 … new citizens can bring in their siblings and adult children, who can bring in their siblings and in-laws until whole villages have moved to the United States.

“(T)oday’s 690,000 dreamers would quickly become millions of newcomers who may well be low-skilled and who would almost certainly include the parents who brought them — the ones who in theory are at fault.”

Trump is risking a breach in the dam. If the populists who provided him with decisive margins in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania feel betrayed, it’s hard to blame them.

Why did Trump do it? Clearly, he relished the cheers he got for the debt ceiling deal and wanted another such victory. And with the rampant accusations of a lack of “compassion” for his cancellation of the temporary Obama administration amnesty, he decided he had had enough heat.

It is not easy to stand up for long to the gale force winds of hostile commentary that blow constantly through this city.

Trump’s capitulation, if that is what turns out to be, calls to mind George H. W. Bush’s decision in 1990 to raise the Reagan tax rates in a deal engineered for him by a White House-Hill coalition, that made a mockery of his “Read my lips! No new taxes!” pledge of 1988.

For agreeing to feed the beast of Big Government, rather than cut its rations as Reagan sought to do, Bush was called a statesman.

By the fall of ’92, the cheering had stopped.

Can Trump not know that those congratulating him for his newfound flexibility will be rejoicing, should Bob Mueller indict his family and his friends, and recommend his impeachment down the road?

What makes pre-emptive amnesty particularly disheartening is that the Trump policy of securing the border and returning illegal immigrants to their home countries appears, from a Census Bureau report this week, to be precisely the prescription America needs.

In 2016, paychecks for U.S. households reached an average of $59,039, up 3.2 percent from 2015, a year when they had surged.

U.S. median household income is now at its highest ever.

Yet there are inequalities. Where the median family income of Asian-Americans is above $81,400, and more than $65,000 for white Americans, the median family income of Hispanic families is $47,675, and that of African-American households far less, $39,490.

Consider. Though black Americans are predominantly native-born, while high percentages of Hispanics and Asians are immigrants, from the Census numbers, Hispanics earn more and Asians enjoy twice the median family income of blacks, which is below where it was in 2000.

Still, black America remains steadfastly loyal to a party that supports the endless importation of workers who compete directly for jobs with them and their families. Writes Kaus, “The median hourly wage (of DACA recipients) is only $15.34, meaning that many are competing with hard-pressed, lower-skilled Americans.”

Looking closer at the Census Bureau figures, Trumpian economic nationalism would appear to have its greatest appeal to the American working class, a huge slice of which is native-born, black and Hispanic.

The elements of that policy?

Secure the border. Halt the invasion of low-wage workers, here legally and illegally, from the Third World. Tighten the labor market to force employers to raise wages in our full-employment economy. Provide tax incentives to companies who site factories in the USA. Impose border taxes on the products of companies who move plants abroad.

Put America and American workers first.

Will any amnesty of undocumented workers do that?

 

Join the RightBook Revolution!

September 19, 2017

https://rightbook.us/signup

Come on people-it is time to see the beast for what it is. I’ve been saying this for years. Facebook is un-American, sleazy, and always lies to us. Zuckerberg & Company is the king of BS. He tries to smokescreen our brains with his philanthropy and tour of the USA. Enough BS already!

It is time for all of us and our friends to see him and Facebook for what it is – a money machine that is manipulating our minds, selling our data, and eroding our Republic.

Let’s get our friends out of that swamp and tell them to join the RightBook Revolution: No Fake News. No Russian BS. No Zuckerberg.

Join theRightBook Revolution!
Simply click in the signup link below:
https://rightbook.us/signup

 

Trump Advocates For Christian Baker At SCOTUS

September 14, 2017

9/14/2017

Source …..

I don’t know about you, but I dread continually having to point out what the federal government and its agencies are doing wrong. This week, I’m glad to say I get to bring something they are doing right.

President Donald Trump’s DOJ filed an amicus brief with the High Court Thursday in support of the Christian baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in Colorado in 2012.

Jack’s business was attacked based on his religious convictions. The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees protection for one’s religious belief and the freedom to act on that belief, so long as it doesn’t bring physical harm or danger to anyone. Those simple words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” guarantee an American’s protection from government tyranny.

Practicing his Christianity by not participating in a sinful ceremony, Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in 2012. The homosexual couple then filed a complaint, which was upheld by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC). The CCRC found Philipps in violation of Colorado’s public accommodation laws for refusing to sell the gay couple “wedding cakes or any product” that he normally “would sell to heterosexual couples.”

The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the CCRC’s ruling, which Phillips is now appealing before the Supreme Court.

The question to be asked, though, is if Mr. Phillips, or any of us for that matter, are only free to believe and not act, what is the point in your religion?

Attorney General Jeff Session’s team argued,  “The government may not compel an unwilling speaker to join a group or event at odds with his religious or moral beliefs, otherwise, a graphic designer whose clients include ‘a Jewish affinity group’ could also be forced to make fliers ‘for a neo-Nazi group.’”

Just like in the case of Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman and dozens of other wedding vendors,  Jack offered to sell the men anything in his store, but that did not satisfy them — nor did the long list of area bakeries who would have gladly baked a cake for this homosexual couple.

Instead, they wanted to force Jack to use his creative talents to celebrate a message that violates his beliefs.

Referring to public accommodations laws, the AG’s offices rightfully emphasized that they “must yield to the individual freedoms that the First Amendment guarantees.”

This type of discrimination is exactly what Samuel Alito warned when the Supreme Court attempted to redefine marriage for everyone in Obergefell.  Alito stated, “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

In conclusion, the President and his DOJ are fulfilling their constitutional oaths to the people and their God.  Now it is time for the Supreme Court to use it’s constitutional authority to stop this crusade against the freedom to exercise one’s religion, which it was responsible for starting.

 

Amnesty: Democrats’ Dream Act Would Kill Donald Trump’s RAISE Act

September 14, 2017

Neil Munro

9/12/2017

Source …..

Democratic and business groups are pushing President Donald Trump to accept a 2017 “Dream Act” — but the legislation would greatly expand the size the DACA amnesty, welcome more criminals, eliminate existing education expectations, sideline American youths, and greatly expand the financial costs paid by Americans.

For example, the Democrats’ Dream act would provide a near-automatic amnesty path to citizenship to a low-wage school dropout who was convicted of two felonies, providing he also enrolls in a neighborhood education program — and it would likely impose a $2 trillion cost on taxpayers over the next 50 years.

Those easy-citizenship proposals are the reverse of Trump’s promised “RAISE Act,” which would benefit 320 million Americans by cutting low-skill immigration, raising wages and reducing taxpayers’ long-term costs by $1 trillion per decade.

If Trump accepts the Dream Act, it will be a triple-victory for Democrats because Trump will also lose the chance to get funding for his border wall, or to pass his immigration-reform RAISE Act. Defeating the border wall and the RAISE Act are already a huge priority for Democrats and business executives because they would sharply reduce the annual inflow of future Democratic voters and of taxpayer-funded consumers.

The Dream Act of 2017 was drafted by Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin and GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham. They were two of the original eight authors of the 2013 “Gang of Eight” amnesty-and-cheap-labor bill which cost Democrats nine Senate seats in 2014, doomed Sen. Marco Rubio’s presidential ambitions, and helped Donald Trump win the 2016 election.

Amnesty advocates “talk about amnesty for valedictorians and those who were ‘brought here through no fault of their own,’” said Robert Law, policy director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform. He continued:

The talking points on the DREAM Act never match the actual legislative text … In fact, the DREAM Act would grant amnesty to individuals with a history of criminal offenses and minimal education and English language requirements. Washington is bad at bailouts, and amnesty is the worst kind of bailout.

“We already know that the Obama Administration allowed gang members and other violent criminals as old as 36 to participate in DACA, failed to deport those denied DACA, and declined to confiscate fake or stolen identity documents from DACA applicants, among other problems,” said Rosemary Jenks, the director of government relation ay NumbersUSA. She continued:

Apparently, that’s not enough for Sens. Graham and Durbin, who want to get rid of the upper age limit altogether, relax the criminal restrictions further, and actually make it illegal for DHS to use information provided by the aliens to enforce immigration law.

The fine print shows that the amnesty bill has no numerical limits, no age limits, loopholed education requirements, weak verification requirements, easy opportunities for fraud and a huge cost.

Structure

The bill includes a two-stage process. The first stage provides temporary green cards, dubbed “Permanent Resident Status on a Conditional Basis,”  to an unlimited number of illegals who apply for the benefit.

After two or three years,  the federal government will then convert the temporary green cards into citizenship for illegals who displace Americans from the military, take university slots from American teenagers, or win a job sought by an American. Under this fast-track procedure, many of the illegals will quickly get their citizenship and then be allowed to vote in the 2024 presidential election.

Numbers

Section 3 of the bill includes this paragraph: “(e) Exemption From Numerical Limitations.—Nothing in this section or in any other law may be construed to apply a numerical limitation on the number of aliens who may be granted permanent resident status on a conditional basis under this Act.”

Former President Barack Obama’s 2013 “DACA” amnesty has provided benefits to almost 800,000 illegals since 2012, but the pro-amnesty Migration Policy Institute says 3.34 million illegals would meet the Durbin-Graham act’s “minimal threshold [which] represents those potentially eligible to apply based on meeting only the age-at-arrival and years of U.S. residence criteria.”

That 3.3 million number includes 1.1 million people who have not graduated from high-school, but who can use the loopholes in the legislation to get citizenship.

The Graham-Durbin act also expands the DACA amnesty by adding roughly 400,000 people living in the United States under “Temporary Protected Status,” bumping the numbers past 3.6 million. The TPS migrants were allowed to stay in the United States after disasters in their home countries, but few have extensive educational credentials. Their U.S.-born children of TPS migrants have been given citizenship.

The post-amnesty inflow could also spike the numbers much higher as the former illegals become citizens and gain the power to bring in their siblings, and parents.

If each beneficiary only brings in an average of 1.1 new people, then the Graham-Durbin bill could bring in eight million people, or ten times as many people over the next ten years as the advertised number of 800,000.

The Dream Act also does not include any funding or legal upgrades to block another rush of migrants, even though prior amnesties have encouraged subsequent waves of unskilled illegals to walk, drive or fly into the United States. The 1986 double-amnesty, for example, included a side-amnesty for farm workers, but, as the Atlantic reported in 1995:

Backed by Congressman Leon Panetta and Senator Pete Wilson, both from California, the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) program was expected to grant legal status to 350,000 illegal immigrants. Instead more than 1.3 million illegal immigrants–a number roughly equivalent at the time to a sixth of the adult male population of rural Mexico–applied for this amnesty, most of them using phony documents in what has been called one of the greatest immigration frauds in American history. More than a million illegal immigrants were eventually granted legal status; many were soon joined illegally by their wives and children. Instead of shrinking the farm-labor force, IRCA has guaranteed an oversupply of workers.

The bigger-than-expected 1986 amnesty expanded the subsequent family “chain migration” by at least 743,000 between 1989 and 2012, according to a 2013 analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies.

Similarly, illegal immigration surged to back up to roughly 1.5 million per year after Obama’s 2012 DACA amnesty, which also encouraged at least 100,000 unskilled Central Americans to cross the Texas border and ask for amnesty. “President Obama’s refusal to enforce our immigration laws and decision to unilaterally create immigration programs encouraged more illegal immigration and contributed to the surge of unaccompanied minors and families seeking to enter the U.S. illegally,” said a September 5 statement from Rep. Bob Goodlatte, a former immigration lawyer and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

The Graham-Durbin amnesty expansion is very different from Trump’s popular RAISE Act, which would reduce legal immigration by roughly 400,000 people a year, or 4 million fewer people in 10 years. The bill was drafted with two GOP Senators, Georgia Sen. David Perdue and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, both of whom won election following the 2013 “Gang of Eight” disaster.

The RAISE act cuts immigration by narrowing the family relatives that new immigrants can bring in via “chain migration.”  RAISE stands for Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment. Advocates for the RAISE Act routinely say it should be combined with other bills which set penalties for employers who hire illegals, and with streamlined immigration enforcement rules.

In a world of political options, Graham-Durbin Dream Act is an extra 8 million legal immigrants in 10 years, and RAISE is 4 million fewer immigrants in 10 years. That’s a difference of 12 million immigrants is just one decade — and a massive windfall for progressives, CEOs and Wall Street.

Costs

Trump’s RAISE Act is expected to save taxpayers $1 trillion in long-term expenditure every ten years, according to a recent study by the Heritage Foundation.

But the Graham-Durbin Dream Act likely will cost more than $2 trillion, largely because most of the applicants are not skilled enough to get a job that pays more in taxes than they receive.

This estimate of the Dream Act’s cost is drawn from a 2013 report by the Heritage Foundation estimated that taxpayers would be hit by a $6 trillion cost over 50 years for amnestying 11 million illegals. If Durbin-Graham act boosts the immigrant population by just 4 million people over ten years, Heritage’s data suggests that it would cost roughly $2 trillion over the next several decades.

That’s good news for some because the extra immigration and resulting government expenditures will be a multi-trillion dollar stimulus to business groups who want to sell food, entertainment, and services to the imported consumers.

The draft bill also includes an obscure sentence allowing states to grant valuable university slots, tuition grants and in-state tuition rates to current and future illegals who miss the Durbin-Graham amnesty. The sentence says “Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) is repealed,” so allowing state Democratic politicians and allied university lecturers to offer the incentive of free university education to foreigners debating whether to become illegal immigrants.

The bill does not offer compensation to the next wave of American college students who will be crowded out of good slots and financial grants by the next wave of illegal immigrants.

Criminals

The Graham-Durbin bill relaxes the existing rules against the legal immigration of criminals.

To be denied the amnesty, a person must have been convicted of three separate felonies that have nothing to do with immigration, which were committed on three different occasions, and also have served at least 90 days in jail — despite the commonplace courtroom practice of allowing felons to plea-bargain their way out of expensive jury trials if they quickly plead guilty of low-penalty misdemeanors.

The exemption for immigration felonies means that officials must ignore any applicants’ record of immigration crimes, tax fraud, workplace fraud and even identity theft that has hurt Americans.

The Graham-Durbin bill also includes this obscure language:

With respect to any benefit under this Act, the Secretary may waive the grounds of inadmissibility under paragraph (2), (6)(E), (6)(G), or (10)(D) of section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) for humanitarian purposes or family unity or if the waiver is otherwise in the public interest

An expunged conviction shall not automatically be treated as an offense under paragraph (1). The Secretary shall evaluate expunged convictions on a case-by-case basis according to the nature and severity of the offense to determine whether, under the particular circumstances, the Secretary determines that the alien should be eligible for cancellation of removal, adjustment to permanent resident status on a conditional basis, or other adjustment of status.

In plain language, according to a statement provided to Breitbart News by NumbersUSA, criminal applicants can also claim exemptions for humanitarian, “family unity” or “public interest” reasons in cases of criminality, smuggling, student visa abuse, and unlawful voting.

Already, at least 2,000 DACA recipients have lost their DACA status by breaking the law. The Dream Act does not include any funds for the many Americans who will be victimized by Dream Act migrants.

The RAISE act does not lower the normal barriers against criminals getting green cards.

Work Skills 

Obama’s DACA amnesty supposedly excluded high-school dropouts. But the Durbin-Graham legislation includes several loopholes to deliver citizenship to unskilled people.

First, the 1.12 million dropouts identified by the Migration Policy Institute would be eligible for the “conditional” status if they merely enroll in a state-run education course for “a general educational development exam, a high school equivalence diploma examination, or [an]other similar State-authorized exam.” The legislation does not include any provisions to exclude fake education courses, and students do not actually have to pass a high-school test to win conditional status.

Dropouts who work as low-skill, low-income day laborers can meet the three-year employment rules by simply getting a document from “a labor union, day labor center, or organization that assists workers in employment,” the act says.

Illegals who don’t work at all can still become citizenship by getting a hardship exemption. The draft laws says a hardship exemption could be granted to a person with a disability, women who are raising children, or if a person’s removal “would result in extreme hardship to the alien or the alien’s spouse, parent, or child who is a national of the United States or is lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” In turn, an illegal could provide the hardship by simply submitting “a least 2 sworn affidavits from individuals who are not related to the alien,” said the draft law.

Many business groups, especially the leisure and hospitality businesses in Graham’s home state, want to hire large numbers of low-skill immigrants to keep their costs low.

The Durbin-Graham offer of amnesty comes a year after the National Academies of Sciences reported that the integration of Hispanic immigrants is slower than during the 1960s. It also comes as economic experts worry about the drop in annual productivity growth since the early 2000s.

The Durbin-Graham bill’s support for low-skill immigration is another contrast with Trump’s RAISE Act, which creates a points system to ensure only the most productive people are offered citizenship. Under RAISE, points are awarded for education credentials, youth and business experience, for example, so using immigration to nudge up the average productivity and wealth of Americans.

Verification 

The Dream Act has very few safeguards against fraud, even though prior amnesties has prompted massive fraud.

In any amnesty, illegals face huge incentives and massive social-pressure from immediate relatives to win citizenship for themselves, the relatives and all their descendants – — especially if Americans are carelessly giving away the huge benefit without setting safeguards, moral obligations or penalties for prior lawbreaking.

There is some evidence that many DACA applicants have already engaged in massive fraud. Breitbart News reported:

In an interview with LifeZette, former USCIS manager of the agency’s investigative unit, Matt O’Brien, alleged that the fraud rate for DACA is roughly “40 to 50 percent” and potentially even “higher”:

“Based on what I had seen and what I discussed with my colleagues, the fraud rate is 40 to 50 percent. It’s possible that it was higher,” he told LifeZette this week.

According to O’Brien, the DACA program was riddled with fraud and abuse from the beginning, where illegal alien applicants for the program allegedly lied on applications and were rarely caught by USCIS officials:

“There’s a huge rate of fraud in this program,” he told LifeZette this week on the subject of DACA.

USCIS employees did quick checks of DACA applications, he said, rather than thorough reviews, “in order to get the DACAs all racked and stacked quickly.”

He and the investigators working under him, called adjudicators, often found evidence that someone had lied about his DACA qualifications, but the office of the chief counsel at USCIS, he said, almost always dismissed the adjudicator’s recommendation to deny the application.

“I would say 98 percent of the time, they defaulted to approving them,” he said.

The numerous loopholes in the Graham-Durbin legislation invites massive fraud. For example, the legislation offers citizenship to people who were aged 17 or younger when they first illegally entered the United Staes — but it includes no mandate for a third-party medical test of their age. That lack of a scientific test has already caused many problems in Europe, especially in Sweden, where thousand of male migrants, many with extensive facial hair, demanded and received a fast-track procedure because they were supposedly aged 17 or younger.

The law also sets lax rules for verifying a person’s identity and current age, even though the reward for cheating is the million-dollar prize of U.S. citizenship for themselves and all their descendants. For example, illegals can submit birth certificates from their home-country to claim their age at crossing the border was 17 or younger, but the legislation does not set any rules to protect against the use of fake birth certificates.

The Durbin-Graham law also requires that beneficiaries must have lived in the United States for at least four years as an illegal. To prove this residency, the law says the illegals can ask their friends to supply “2 or more sworn affidavits from individuals who are not related to the alien who have direct knowledge of the alien’s continuous physical presence in the United States.”

Those loose rules provide no protection for Americans against a 23-year-old illegal who crosses the border in 2018 and then backdates his arrival to 2012 with affidavits from two friends. A 30-year-old can do the same trick in 2018 if they also can buy a fake birth certificate showing their age to be 23.

The draft legislation does not set an upper age on applicants, inviting people whose age is in the 50s to claim they arrived as teenagers in 1980. Such fraud could dramatically expand immigration levels from the initial forecasts.

The draft does say that “An alien applying for permanent resident status on a conditional basis under this section shall undergo a medical examination.” But it does not say what the examination is for, or what age or medical conditions would exclude a would-be immigrant. Instead, it delegates all the details to the Department of Homeland Security which shall “prescribe policies and procedures for the nature and timing of the examination.”

The law also says the DHS secretary gets to define the documentation needed to justify claims:  “The security and law enforcement background checks of an alien required under subparagraph (A) shall be completed, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, before the date on which the Secretary removes the conditional basis of the alien’s permanent resident status.” That delegation of power ensures that lobbyists can persuade a future DHS secretary to eliminate most security checks, as critics allege was done by Al Gore in the run-up to the 1996 election, and by Obama’s deputies when the DACA program was implemented in 2012.

The Graham-Durbin legislation does not set any rules for countering the use of fraudulent documents from bribed home-country officials. It does not give the DHS any extra responsibility, incentive or funds to prevent fraud, even as it also overloads the agency with unreliable foreign paperwork from up to 3.6 million citizenship-seeking foreign illegals. It does not impose extra jail time to deter illegals from using fraud to gain the million-dollar prize of citizenship. Even with its 2016 funding, the overload DHS did not have enough agents to find and repatriate the 953,507 illegals who were already ordered home by a judge, including 182,786 convicted criminals, according to federal data.

In contrast, the RAISE Act inserts clear new sections into existing law and offers few loopholes to temp lobbyists, illegals or DHS officials. Here is the section which ends “chain migration:”

“(a) Spouses And Minor Children Of Permanent Resident Aliens.—Family-sponsored immigrants described in this subsection are qualified immigrants who are the spouse or a child of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”

Voting

The Dream Act puts the illegals on a five-year fast-track to the voting booth, because it treats the illegals as green card holders from the moment they get the initial “conditional” approval.

The inflow of new citizens — ranging from a minimum of 800,000 up to 8 million will further shift the state and federal governments to the left, boosting spending and regulation. For example, California’s politics are now dominated by the pro-immigration Democratic party, and there are no GOP members in statewide offices, because of prior immigration, amnesties, and naturalizations.

Nationally, the inflow of new citizens from the Graham-Durbin act will boost Democratic voting power in swing-states, such as North Carolina and Florida, and in Democratic-trending states, such as Texas and Georgia. Nearly all of the illegals will vote Democratic because 90 percent of the likely DACA beneficiaries are from Mexico, which has a tradition of big governments, deep economic divides and a religious tradition of economic redistribution.

The distribution of extra voters likely will match the current distribution of the 800,000 DACA recipients. The MPI estimates that roughly 30 percent of DACA illegals live in Democratic-dominated California, but Texas hosts roughly 14 percent, Florida has 5 percent, Georgia has 4 percent, North Carolina has roughly 3 percent, while Virginia and Colorado have roughly 2 percent. If 4 million people get citizenship in 10 years, and half turn out to vote in 2028, then each percentage point of the share provides roughly 24,000 additional votes to the Democratic Party’s 2028 presidential candidate.

If only 4 million people use the Dream Act to get citizenship in 10 years, and half turn out to vote in 2028, then each percentage point of the DACA share provides roughly 24,000 additional votes to the Democratic Party’s 2028 presidential candidate. In Florida, that would add 120,000 Democratic votes, which is greater than Donald Trump’s 113,000-vote margin of victory in 2016.

Current Practices

Four million Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for good jobs. However, the government imports roughly 1 million legal immigrants to compete against Americans for jobs.  Not all do go to work, for example, or else file for government aid, almost 100,000 legal immigrants per year are close to retirement.

The government also hands out almost 3 million short-term work permits to foreign workers. These permits include roughly 330,000 one-year OPT permits for foreign graduates of U.S. colleges, roughly 200,000 three-year H-1B visas for foreign white-collar professionals, and 400,000 two-year permits to DACA illegals. Some of those imported white-collar workers gain outsourced jobs at Jan’s alma mater, Stanford University.

That Washington-imposed policy of mass-immigration floods the market with foreign laborspikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized  Americans and their families.

Amid the huge inflow of new workers, the percentage of working Americans has declined steadily for the last few decades:

 

There is no “Liberty vs Safety” Debate

September 14, 2017

Michael Boldin

9/11/2017

Source …..

…For us, it’s no debate at all.

With today being the anniversary of a horrible tragedy that led to more and more violations of the Constitution and liberty, I thought it was a good time to revisit some important thoughts from the Founders.

While many people are familiar with at least some version of Ben Franklin’s famous 1755 quote, he was far from alone:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Whenever there’s a tragedy, people across the political spectrum call for the government to “do something.” They don’t care if that “something” means violating the Constitution – they’ll just say the document is outdated, or the Founders couldn’t have foreseen the tragedy that happened.

Because of this, the awful politicians in D.C. become even more dangerous.

James Madison, for example, not only thought it was possible that politicians would stoke fear as an excuse to attack liberty, he considered it the norm.

Last year, I made a brief video on this. Like Madison, I believe the lesson is timeless.

There was also Patrick Henry. In a 1788 speech, he said:

“When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different; liberty, sir, was then the primary object.”

I made another video to point out Henry’s view – along with Franklin’s quote:

The bottom line? There is no “liberty vs safety” debate. We can only be safe when we’re free.

Thank you for reading, for watching – and for your support!

 

WashPo: DACA Illegals Needed Because Blacks, Latinos Can’t Do the Jobs

September 14, 2017

Neil Munro

9/11/2017

Source …..

There is no evidence that unemployed Africa-American and Hispanic-Americans youths can do the jobs done by “DACA” illegal immigrants, the liberal Washington Post told its readers September 6.

Reporter Tracy Jan headlined her article “The Truth” as she argued that lower-skilled Americans cannot do the jobs filled by DACA illegals.

Here’s the problem: immigrant and native-born workers are imperfect substitutes. There is no evidence that the unemployed Americans, be they black, white or Hispanic, have the skills necessary to hold the same jobs occupied by the young beneficiaries of the five-year-old Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

To decorate her claim, she quoted Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He is the president of the American Action Forum advocacy group, an advisor to the Chamber of Commerce, and the former top policy aide to the GOP’s losing candidate in 2008, immigration-booster Sen. John McCain. She wrote:

“It is one thing to say that there are hundreds of thousands of minorities the same age that are unemployed, and a very different thing for them to have the same education, skills and experience as the employed DACA workers,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin … “And if they do,” he added, “it begs the question as to why they don’t have those jobs in the first place.”

The dismissive comments by Jan and Holtz-Eakin comment also evoke one of the more damaging dismissals in the 2013 push to pass the doomed “Gang of Eight” amnesty-and-cheap-labor bill:

“There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it,” a [Sen. Marco] Rubio aide told [Ryan Lizza, a New Yorker reporter]. “There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly.”

Pro-American immigration reformers noted the racial angle to the Holtz-Eakin comments.

A few details about Holtz-Eakin. His American Action Forum was created by GOP donor Fred Malek. In turn, Malek gets his wealth from extensive investments in hotels, which gain greatly from a large scale supply of immigrant workers and immigrant customers. Since 2014, those investments are managed by Malek’s Thayer Investment Group as a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management. Malek is also a former president of Marriott Hotels. The Washington Post’s Tracey Jan does not mention this cheap-labor conflict of interest, which could color public deference to Holtz-Eakin’s status as an expert.

The American Action Forum did not return emails from Breitbart News.

The WashPo’s article was written by Jan to debunk the pro-American September 5 statements by President Donald Trump’s press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, amid the announcement of plans to end President Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty. Huckabee Sanders said:

It’s a known fact that there are over 4 million unemployed Americans in the same age group as those that are DACA recipients; that over 950,000 of those are African Americans in the same age group; over 870,000 unemployed Hispanics in the same age group. Those are large groups of people that are unemployed that could possibly have those jobs.

Holtz-Eakin’s response to that statement was his suggestion that African-Americans and Latin-Americans may not have  “the same education, skills and experience as the employed DACA workers.” Jan boosted that claim with a similar claim by another AAF employee, Jackie Varas, who said:

“Many DACA recipients are also more skilled than other immigrants because they possess a college education, so they don’t compete with low-skilled Americans,” Varas said.

Jan justifies those ‘Americans-can’t-do-it’ claims by citing a study from another business group about the education credentials held by the DACA illegals:

Of the DACA-eligible immigrants over 21 years old, 12 percent have bachelor’s degrees, 3 percent have advanced degrees, 84 percent have completed high school and some college, and 2 percent did not graduate from high school, according to an analysis by New American Economy.

That “84 percent” claim is wildly overstated, even assuming zero fraud in Obama’s very lax review process.

For example, an August survey reported that only 35 percent of education-enrolled DACA beneficiaries older than 25 have four-year college degrees. That survey also showed that 55 percent of 3,063 surveyed DACA illegals (95 percent of whom were aged from 18  up to 35) were not even enrolled in education courses – and the survey was itself skewed because it only interviewed people identified by pro-DACA immigration groups.

An August 2017 study by the pro-immigration Migration Policy Institute showed only 5 percent of 832,000 DACA illegals had four-year college qualifications, and that 396,000 DACA beneficiaries claimed to have only a high school credential and were not in higher education. The same report showed that 8 percent of DACA beneficiaries were working as computer experts, managers, media people or healthcare practitioners, while 46 percent were working in normal blue-collar jobs, such as food, industry, construction, transportation, landscaping or farming and fisheries.

So at a minimum, 396,000 High School graduate DACA-approved workers are competing directly for the jobs sought by the 950,000 young African Americans and the 870,000 young Hispanics cited by Huckabee Sanders.

The 2017 MPI survey also showed another 398,000 young illegals could qualify for DACA but avoided the amnesty. Even without high-school credentials, they could have joined the DACA amnesty and gotten work permits just by claiming to be enrolled in education classes. Nationwide, companies are employing roughly 8 million illegals, mostly for blue-collar jobs, and often via fly-by-night sub-contracting firms.

The available population of illegal workers — including the roughly 400,000 young DACA-approved illegals — ensures that American employers can reduce or stop their efforts to recruit, train, educate, hire and pay the 4 million lower-skilled unemployed Americans described by Huckabee Sanders. That logic is especially true for companies  — such as the Thayer Lodging Group and its subcontractors — which rely on blue-collar labor.

That is a huge civic problem which Trump and his pro-American supporters promised to help repair via immigration reform. The current immigration system, said Trump:

has placed substantial pressure on American workers, taxpayers and community resources, and among those hit the hardest … are minority workers competing for jobs against brand new arrivals. It has not been fair to our people, to our citizens, to our workers … [this RAISE act] will give Americans a pay raise by reducing immigration… [and] it will restore the sacred bonds of trust between America and its citizens.

Jan inadvertently provides the industry-drafted evidence to back up Trump’s argument, when she wrote:

Moody’s Analytics analysis of Trump’s proposed economic policies last year showed that removing all undocumented immigrants from the labor force would trigger an economic recession within one year.

Another American Action Forum study found that if all undocumented immigrants were deported, there would not be enough American workers to fill all of the jobs that would be left open. And even if all available native workers filled the open slots, the country would still be short 4 million workers.

But the Moody’s analysis says Americans’ wages would rise when the labor supply drops, and the AAF study says that the departure of all 11 million illegals would free up to 2.8 million jobs for young Americans:

Fully enforcing current law towards all undocumented immigrants would cause private sector employment to decline by 4 million to 6.8 million workers … The negative consequences of removing all undocumented workers from the private sector would be particularly harmful to the industries that employ these workers, such as agriculture, construction, and leisure and hospitality.

The hospitality industry includes the Thayer Lodging Group.

More broadly, Jan’s ‘minorities-can’t-do-it’ column spotlights the self-serving alliance between business interests and progressives in the debate over labor supply and immigration. They are allied because they have a shared political interest in raising the inflow of cheap workers, government-supported consumers, and government-dependent voters — regardless of the cost imposed on other Americans.

Notably, Jan’s article was published in the Washington Post, whose owner — Amazon’s Jeff Bezos — gains greatly from the importation of cheap new workers and government-aided consumers.

The column was unwisely picked up by many other liberal outlets, and also damaged a Washington Post column by Jared Bernstein, a former chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden, often has championed the interests of American employees. He linked to Jan’s article when he wrote:

As an economist, my knee-jerk response was to counterattack based on the economic falsehoods that the administration continues to push: e.g., the evidence-free claims that DACA recipients take jobs from native-born workers.

Not “evidence-free claims”: Just business-funded claims that match the self-interest of progressives and executives.

Under current rules, 4 million young Americans enter the workforce each year to search for decent jobs. But each year, the government also hands out 1 million green cards to new immigrants who compete against Americans for good jobs.

The government also hands out almost 3 million short-term work permits to foreign workers. These permits include roughly 330,000 one-year OPT permits for foreign graduates of U.S. colleges, roughly 200,000 three-year H-1B visas for foreign white-collar professionals, and 400,000 two-year permits to DACA illegals. Some of those imported white-collar workers gain outsourced jobs at Jan’s alma mater, Stanford University.

That Washington-imposed policy of mass-immigration floods the market with foreign laborspikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized  Americans and their families.

Amid the huge inflow of new workers, the percentage of working Americans has declined steadily:

Agenda: Grinding America Down

September 10, 2017

Deplorables Republic

7/16/2017

Source …..

When Idaho Legislator Curtis Bowers wrote a “letter to the editor” about the drastic changes in America’s culture, it became the feature story on the evening news, people protested at the Capitol, and for weeks the local newspapers were filled with responses. He realized then… he’d hit on something. Ask almost anyone and you’ll hear, “Communism is dead! The Berlin Wall came down.” Though the word communism isn’t used anymore, this film will show the ideas behind it are alive and well. Join Bowers for a fascinating look at the people and groups that have successfully targeted America’s morality and freedom in their effort to grind America down. It’s a well documented AGENDA. More; http://bit.ly/2umSRRk Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg can best be described as a “useful idiot.” For those of you who aren’t aware of what the definition is of a useful idiot, see the following from the Urban Dictionary: http://bit.ly/2urA9Ik Term invented in Soviet Russia to describe people who blindly supported the likes of Lenin and Stalin while they committed atrocity after atrocity. Today, it refers to brainwashed liberals and leftists the world over (usually college students that aren’t necessarily idiots, but just misinformed, naive, and ignorant of facts due to being indoctrinated with liberal/socialist propaganda through their public education) who believe that George W. Bush has committed more crimes against humanity than leftist darlings like Saddam Hussain, Yasser Arafat, and Osama Bin Laden, and still defend Communism, the cause of over 100 million deaths to this day. See also, idiotarian Hundreds of useful idiots gathered at their college campus to burn American flags, pass out Communist pamphlets that apologize for Stalin and Mao, and to pledge support to their hero, Saddam Hussein. Useful idiots need to be shown the facts, mainly that the United States and Israel are the greatest defenders of freedom and justice in the world. Until then, rational people can have fun laughing at their ignorance.

 

James Madison and the Necessary and Proper Clause

September 10, 2017

Mike Maharrey

7/16/2017

Source …..

“Necessary and proper” ranks among the most abused clauses in the Constitution. It has been dubbed the “elastic clause” because of the perception that it allows the scope of federal power to expand. The federal government began abusing this clause within years of ratification. In 1800, James Madison countered these early abuses, forcefully arguing that it’s not elastic at all and doesn’t give the government any additional powers.

The necessary and proper clause simply states that Congress has the power, To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

During the ratification debates, anti-federalist warned that the central government would abuse the clause to expand power, but supporters of the Constitution swore it would not. Even Alexander Hamilton argued that necessary and proper didn’t add to the government’s power. In Federalist #33, Hamilton addressed both the necessary and proper clause and the also oft-abused supremacy clause.

“It may be affirmed with perfect confidence that the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same, if these clauses were entirely obliterated, as if they were repeated in every article. They are only declaratory of a truth which would have resulted by necessary and unavoidable implication from the very act of constituting a federal government, and vesting it with certain specified powers.”

It didn’t take long for proponents of centralized federal power to turn to the necessary and proper clause to justify unconstitutional actions. In 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Two of the acts relating to aliens gave the executive branch broad authority to deport non-citizens living in the U.S. without due process. Opponents argued the Alien Acts violated the Fifth Amendment and unconstitutionally vested judicial powers in the hands of the president. The Sedition Act essentially outlawed criticism of the president and Congress. It was a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Among their many arguments, supporters of the Alien and Sedition Acts pointed to the necessary and proper clause to justify this usurpation of power. James Madison took them to task in his Report of 1800.

The Report was a lengthy defense of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798. Madison drafted these resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. They asserted states “have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose” when the federal government engages in a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of undelegated powers. They also laid out a case condemning the acts as unconstitutional. In the Report of 1800, Madison addressed every justification used by supporters of the Alien and Sedition Acts in exacting detail, including their appeal to the necessary and proper clause. Madison echoed what Hamilton had written years earlier, arguing that the clause does nothing to expand the powers of the general government,

“The plain import of this clause is, that Congress shall have all the incidental or instrumental powers, necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the express powers; whether they be vested in the government of the United States, more collectively, or in the several departments, or officers thereof. It is not a grant of new powers to Congress, but merely a declaration, for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution, those otherwise granted, are included in the grant.”

Madison went on to offer a simple 2-step process to determine the constitutionality of any federal action.

First:

“Whenever, therefore a question arises concerning the constitutionality of a particular power; the first question is, whether the power be expressed in the constitution. If it be, the question is decided.

If the a delegated power exists authorizing the federal action, that settles the issue. Nobody argues that the federal government can run the Post Office. Article 1 Sec. 8 explicitly authorizes this. But if we find no delegated power, Madison prescribes a second step.

“If it [the power] be not expressed; the next enquiry must be, whether it is properly an incident to an express power, and necessary to its execution. If it be, it may be exercised by Congress. If it be not; Congress cannot exercise it.”

In other words, if the federal action is absolutely necessary to carry out a power clearly spelled out in the Constitution, and it is a proper, or customary, way of doing so, then, as Madison put it, “it may be exercised by Congress. If it be not; Congress cannot exercise it.

Legal documents delegating power to an agent often contain a necessary and proper clause. It has a precise, specific legal definition that was well-understood in the founding era. in simplest terms, a necessary and proper clause authorizes an agent to exercise powers not explicitly spelled out in the legal document, but necessary to execute the specific authority given to him. It serves as a kind of shorthand and eliminates the need to list every incidental power the agent can exercise.

Imagine I enter into a contract with somebody to manage my grocery store. If I stipulates that she has all of the powers “necessary and proper” to running a grocery, I don’t have to to specify that she has the authority to pay a guy to clean the floors, or to hire a mechanic to fix a freezer when it goes down, or to pay the Coca Cola vendor, Those powers are proper and customary to running a grocery store. But necessary and proper powers wouldn’t give my new manager the authority to give away all of the food items in my store and turn it into a pornography shop. That would not be necessary, nor would it be proper.

Judges and elected officials have expanded the meaning of necessary and proper far beyond its meaning. They have effectively turned it into the anything and everything clause. Madison clearly argues this was not the intent.

 

Jackie Mason: Celebrities Can Solve DACA By Taking In 9 Dreamers Each

September 10, 2017

Daniel Nussbaum

9/8/2017

Source …..

In these trying times, Jackie Mason is the Voice of Reason.

In this week’s exclusive clip for Breitbart News, Jackie challenges Hollywood celebrities to take the advice of Cher, who suggested this week that Americans should shelter and protect DACA recipients in their own homes after President Donald Trump announced he was sending the legislation back to Congress for action.

“This is becoming the most ridiculous situation you ever heard,” says Jackie. “Did you hear about Cher? She just announced that she’s asking very celebrity to house one of these illegal children in their own homes, as if it will solve the whole problem.”

“Which means there’s about 11 celebrities that’ll house about nine children, and this’ll solve the whole problem for 800,000 illegal immigrants,” he added.

Jackie’s not sure what the furor surrounding the DACA issue is all about anyway, as the president has simply referred the legislation back to Congress, not rescinded the program outright.

“He’s sending it to Congress, and he’ll wait for them to do something about it. You know what means? That nothing’ll happen,” predicts Jackie. “When did they ever do anything about anything? When did they do anything about the health care bill, which they had on their minds for seven years? Seven years for a health care bill, how long do you think this is gonna take? Probably 32 years.”

Jackie says when it comes to doing nothing, Congress are the “greatest experts in the world.”

“Do you know why this country hasn’t had a balanced budget since the day it was created?” he asks. “Because Congress gets paid whether this country loses money or not. We could solve the whole problem. You know what we should do? Put ’em on commission!”

Watch the video here …..

 

%d bloggers like this: