Then and Now

Obama's push for amnesty has some similarities to that of George W. Bush.

First, both had an amnestia interruptus problem.  For Bush it was 9/11.  In fact, Presidente Fox was in the White House a week before 9/11 and both were talking about some sort of legalization program within months.  For obvious reasons, legalizing foreigners would not have been very popular after they discovered who flew the planes into the WTC and Pentagon.  And how they got into the country.

For Obama the problem was the economy.  You cannot sell amnesty when the headlines are screaming double-digit unemployment.  And his chief-of-staff, Rahm Emmanuel, was NOT a fan of amnesty.  For him, it is the third-rail of politics.

So, Obama's promise of amnesty in the first year didn't happen.  But when you compare Obama's amnesty push of 2013 with GWB's of 2006, some things are the same and some are different.

What's the same?
The crowds are back.  At least the photos of protesters show big crowds.  Bush had the same thing in April/May of 2006.  Hundreds of thousands turned out.  For Bush those crowds would dwindle.  They tried additional May Day parades but by the time Obama took office they were a footnote at best.

Additionally, Bush made speeches at Hispanic Prayer Breakfasts, the convention of the National Restaurant Association and meetings of Contractors/Home Builders to push for amnesty.  Obama has taken the same sort of approach to grab headlines and rally the troops.

Gang activity is back.  In 2007 it was Ted Kennedy and his Gang of 12.  Schumer has his Gang of Eight.

What's different this time around?

They are mastering the optics (or at least the MSM is doing a better job of cropping and framing).
There are still some Mexican flags in the streets, but more are sporting the red-white-and-blue.

And they are exploiting the children more this time.  More placards are cropping up with the "Stop separating families," theme.

And more of the cards are talking about citizenship.  That is a detail that has been pushed by the unions.  They don't want temporary work permits.  They want a path to citizenship.  I firmly believe this is a dream of the politicians more than the people themselves.  I say that because the Mexican naturalization rate has been (and still is) pathetically low.  It ranges in the 20-25% range.  Despite national drives, threats of fee increases, lowering the requirements, even grants to pay the application fee...Mexicans in particular don't care about becoming US Citizens.

This is a BIG issue for the politicians.  If they want to tap into this huge minority voting block they have to make them citizens first.  The Democrats are OK with this because they get the family vote, the anchor babies and the undetected voter fraud.  (If a guy has a valid Social Security number he is automatically registered through Motor Voter.  Nothing else is really required.  Don't get your undies in a bunch here; I'm not saying huge numbers of non-citizens vote.  I'm just saying they have the DOCUMENTS to be able to vote.)

Another difference this time around is the REAL unemployment rate.  In 2006 there were 22 million unemployed people competing with the garden variety illegal alien.  I would characterize them as 18-64 with a high school diploma or less.  In 2012 that number is 27.7 million.  The number of illegal aliens filling those jobs is around 8 million.  That number still doesn't get the attention it deserves, but more people are starting to figure it out.

Three members of the United States Commission on Civil Rights wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Marcie L, Fudge, letting her know in no uncertain terms that the illegal aliens were making it harder for minority citizens to get jobs.

Yet another way things are different this time is the approach by the White House.  Bush had two cabinet members on the Hill lobbying on his behalf for amnesty.  Chertoff and Gutierrez were both active with congress and the press.  Bush himself was floating plans and ideas in front of Ted Kennedy.  He'd send over plans he had worked up about fees, fines, enforcement triggers...

In other words, GWB was an active negotiator.

Obama is more aloof when it comes to policy.  Or at least he's letting others do the heavy lifting.  But Obama is a master at forming a parade.  He has been out recruiting for the cause.  Recently he hosted 13 religious leaders at the White House.  This resulted in a photo op and nice statements about compassion from these ministers.

He gave the Chavez award to the author of the Utah Compact, a model for state-level amnesty.

Note, Obama is telling us that CONSERVATIVES want amnesty.

Also joining the parade is a joint effort by The Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO.  (Talk about strange bedfellows!)

The parade also has a statement from the Attorneys General of 35 states pushing for amnesty.  And the usual collection of Police Chiefs from liberal cities.

The Obama ground game is better than the one GWB had going.

This time around we have the DREAMers who have "Come out."  I guess it worked for gays.  Obama has fallen short of his goal of getting these DREAM applicants to register and apply for the path.  He's got maybe 60% of the turnout he expected.  But those who are out make nice poster children for his cause.

Time will tell what the outcome will be this time.  Congress ignores the general public and continues to pander to special interests.  They don't care about their low approval rating which is below 10%.  All of them (from both parties) want a slice of the brown vote.

And the mid-terms are still a year away.  This is the amnesty silly season.  May Day parades.  Nice weather for protesting.  Obama needs to get this thing done before Labor Day 2013 or it won't happen.

Let's hope it doesn't happen.

The economic bubble

Our wild and crazy politicians have teamed up with the Fed to see just how much hot air it takes to burst the bubble.

And Wall Street is playing along by responding to every tidbit of news to run up the DOW.  (But these are institutions and funds playing the speculation to deliver good numbers.  These trades are based on perception rather than real value.)

All this Fiscal Cliff talk only nibbles at the edges of the problems.  Key among them are government debt and our valueless money.

According to Washington, the Holy Grail is GROWTH.  The QE3 program, for example, was initiated to stimulate housing growth.  The assumption of QE3 is that people won't buy/build houses because the interest rates are too high.  Since when is a 4% mortgage rate too high?  And how is qualifying buyers based on a 3.5% rate good for the market?  Didn't we just have a collapse because people were in homes they couldn't afford?

But the conventional wisdom says more mortgages, more jobs, more money in the economy...

But even if you are successful in getting more people qualified to pay a mortgage, how does that fix the problems of government spending, public sector pensions, a service economy that doesn't work and the national debt?

Well, in a few words, it doesn't.  It just makes the bubble larger and thinner.

Mama Mia, what a story

The embellished résumé has been a problem ever since there were résumés.  And politicians embellishing their backstory has been around since there have been politicians.

The Internet has improved our memory for such tall tales.  After all, a candidate for a small local office tells his story and it goes on the record.  That story shouldn’t change. And politicians have been held accountable for such things as military service (or lack thereof) and academic degrees.

The most famous tale is Obama’s.  He’s been around the world.  And he’s sealed his college records.  Now why would he do that?  He’s already told us he was a lousy student at Occidental College.  And he seemed to have done well at Harvard.  Some think it has to do with his minority student status; that maybe he claimed to have been something other than a U S Citizen.  Of course, that doesn’t prove he was born in Kenya, but the alternative explanation is worse; that he fibbed about his citizenship to claim a foreign student spot.

And there is written evidence that his publicist claimed he was born in Keyna in an effort to sell his books.

Then there was the Elizabeth Warren story.  Oy vey!  The story goes like this.  Warren’s mother told her she was part Cherokee and she went with it.  Boy, did she go with it.  She claimed to be a “woman of color” in order to get a teaching job.  And she milked that story until she gained tenure. 

She rode that trail of tears all the way to the U S Senate.

Now my mother used to call me her Superman.  She even sewed me a red cape.  But she wouldn’t let me play on the roof of the garage.  And my brother used to remind me that, “Just because you have rust in your shorts doesn’t mean you’re a man of steel.”

What mother told you may be an embellishment not suitable for the political arena.  And if you’ve told mother’s story in an earlier campaign, expect to have to back it up later on…or admit it was just a quaint family story.

Enter Mia Love.  Back in January of 2011, before she was a candidate for Congress, Mia was the subject of a Deseret News story by Lee Benson.  It was a fluff piece really.  Benson wanted to highlight Mia Love because she’s black and successful.  What could be better for Martin Luther King Day?

And Mia told her story about how she was the reason her parents got to stay in the United States and she was the reason her siblings got to emigrate from Haiti.  It was quite a detailed account, claiming that her birth in December of 1975 was just in time for the deadline of January of 1976.

Mia went on the run for Congress.  She even spoke at the GOP convention.  What could be better than a woman who is black and successful?  And she spoke about her parents coming from Haiti with $10 in the pockets, but not a peep about her role in their immigration.

Along comes Mother Jones, claiming that Mia was an anchor baby.  Now, that’s a non sequitur.  Mia never said her parents were ever illegal, only that her birth qualified them to remain and bring over her brother and sister.

Here’s the critical part: Mia denied she ever told that story.  She got all indignant and claimed the liberals were picking on her.  She claimed her opponent planted the lie.  By extension, she implied that the reporter made up the story.  (It’s funny that she never said anything when the story ran in January of 2011.)  Further, she would not allow people to talk to her parents.

So if she’s stonewalling, let’s play a little game.  Let’s think about possible endings to the story.  What is she hiding from?  Let’s SPECULATE:

Ending #1: Mia wanted to distance herself from the “anchor baby” label, even though her parents were legal throughout.

Ending #2: Her parents are illegal aliens and never did legalize.

Ending #3: Her parents are Obama supporters.

Ending #4: Her siblings are illegal aliens.

Ending #5: Her parents are green card holders but never bothered to become citizens.

Ending #6: The story was nothing more than an anecdote she liked to tell with no basis in fact.

Ending #7: Lee Benson is a liar who never liked her and made it all up, knowing that someday Mia would be more than the mayor of a small town in the Utah desert.

Ending #8: Have at it.  You make up your own ending.

Here are the stories:

The original:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700101394/Kings-dream-certainly-thrives-along-the-shores-of-Utah-Lake.html?pg=all

The exposure:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54960191-78/campaign-citizenship-family-haiti.html.csp

…or this one:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865563132/Questions-raised-about-Mia-Loves-immigrant-parents-story.html?pg=all
The reporter’s side of the story:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765609953/Mia-Loves-amnesia-raises-some-concerns.html?pg=all

Baiting the narcissitic voter

Recently, the defeated Mitt Romney summed up his loss to Obama by declaring that the democrat won by offering "gifts" to swing voters.  And they responded.

Some went to the polls thinking, "Obama is more likely to preserve Medicare than Romney.  I'll vote for Obama."

Others thought, "Obama is sure to deliver amnesty to my illegal alien family members, so he gets my vote."

Still others mulled over the entitlements of food stamps, unemployment benefits, free cell phones, child tax credits for illegal aliens, mortgage forgiveness, free college, school loan relief...and voted for Obama over Romney.

Strangely, Romney wasn't a real hard-liner when it came to entitlements.  In fact, if he did what he was talking about on the campaign trail, he would be a bigger spender than GWB.  Maybe he wouldn't set records like Obama has, but he didn't talk like a slash and burn candidate.

As for taxes, if you listened closely Romney was proposing a plan to give you your money back with one hand and take it away with the other.

And just like the campaign, we see this fiscal cliff rhetoric as more of the same dabbling in the sand with a tidal wave at our backs.  No one is paying the least bit of attention to the debt clock.  It looms so large that both parties are pretending it doesn't exist.

Obama is stuck in a loop like a pull-string doll.  "All I am asking is that the richest 3% of Americans pay a little bit more."  The GOP response is that we must cut spending, meaning a few hundred billion to make them look fiscally responsible.

The truth is Washington hasn't even tried to be fiscally responsible for decades.  Those Washington shut-down days were alarms that went unheard by our elected leaders.  Efforts to require a balanced budget have been replaced with years of no budget at all.

Why?  Because telling Americans the truth is a negative message.  Politicians do not win elections by telling people, "No."  Responsible parents know that you have to deny some things to your children.  They always want a pony and a trip to Disneyland and a car and a spring break trip...but it is neither wise nor affordable to give it to them.

Apparently, no one in Washington has ever raised children.  So fate will take over and teach us all the austerity lesson.  Time will tell if the children will, like the Greeks, take to the streets demanding their entitlements from a broke treasury.

But for now it seems that bread and circuses will win the day.  The blinders are firmly in place.
The trapeze performers were better last year, don't you think?

After the election

It’s always interesting to note the things that happen after the election.  This year is no exception.

1)     The head of the CIA resigns over an adulterous relationship.  The administration knew about it since July.

2)     Syria and Israel escalate their hostile intentions.  (Could it be a Romney win would have changed this outcome?)

3)     The stock market immediately falls back to its level before the summer run-up.

4)     The Elmo puppeteer admits to a homosexual relationship with a young man half his age.  In typical “he said-he said” fashion, they are debating the boy’s age (under 18 or over).

5)     An energy breakthrough is announced.  The United States will be the world’s #1 oil producer within a decade, thanks to fracking and shale.

6)     Obama returns to his hard line position on taxes while claiming to fix the fiscal cliff.

7)     Jesse Jackson Jr faces pressure to resign, proving it really is about politics, not the will of the people.

8)     The media is now looking into the Benghazi scandal, now revealing that the compound may have been home to a secret prison and the attack was a jailbreak.

Just think what Obama can do without having to worry about winning another term.

Debate answers on illegal alien crisis

Below is a very direct question that speaks to the crux of the illegal alien question.  Obama dances around his lack of effort.   Romney talks about enforcement of work permit laws and a hybrid DREAM Act.  These are important statements because they are made late in the campaign and to a large, general audience.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA AND FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY PARTICIPATE IN A CANDIDATES DEBATE, HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORK

OCTOBER 16, 2012

SPEAKERS: FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY, R-MASS.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

CANDY CROWLEY, MODERATOR

QUESTION: Mr. Romney, what do you plan on doing with immigrants without their green cards that are currently living here as productive members of society?

ROMNEY: Thank you. Lorraine? Did I get that right? Good. Thank you for your question. And let me step back and tell you what I would like to do with our immigration policy broadly and include an answer to your question.

But first of all, this is a nation of immigrants. We welcome people coming to this country as immigrants. My dad was born in Mexico of American parents; Ann's dad was born in Wales and is a first-generation American. We welcome legal immigrants into this country.

I want our legal system to work better. I want it to be streamlined. I want it to be clearer. I don't think you have to -- shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to figure out how to get into this country legally. I also think that we should give visas to people -- green cards, rather, to people who graduate with skills that we need. People around the world with accredited degrees in science and math get a green card stapled to their diploma, come to the U.S. of A. We should make sure our legal system works.

Number two, we're going to have to stop illegal immigration. There are 4 million people who are waiting in line to get here legally. Those who've come here illegally take their place. So I will not grant amnesty to those who have come here illegally.

What I will do is I'll put in place an employment verification system and make sure that employers that hire people who have come here illegally are sanctioned for doing so. I won't put in place magnets for people coming here illegally. So for instance, I would not give driver's licenses to those that have come here illegally as the president would.

The kids of those that came here illegally, those kids, I think, should have a pathway to become a permanent resident of the United States and military service, for instance, is one way they would have that kind of pathway to become a permanent resident.

ROMNEY: Now when the president ran for office, he said that he'd put in place, in his first year, a piece of legislation -- he'd file a bill in his first year that would reform our -- our immigration system, protect legal immigration, stop illegal immigration. He didn't do it.

He had a Democrat House, a Democrat Senate, super majority in both Houses. Why did he fail to even promote legislation that would have provided an answer for those that want to come legally and for those that are here illegally today? What's a question I think the -- the president will have a chance to answer right now.

OBAMA: Good, I look forward to it.

Was -- Lorranna -- Lorraine -- we are a nation of immigrants. I mean we're just a few miles away from Ellis Island. We all understand what this country has become because talent from all around the world wants to come here. People are willing to take risks. People who want to build on their dreams and make sure their kids have an even bigger dreams than they have.

But we're also a nation of laws. So what I've said is we need to fix a broken immigration system and I've done everything that I can on my own and sought cooperation from Congress to make sure that we fix the system.

The first thing we did was to streamline the legal immigration system, to reduce the backlog, make it easier, simpler and cheaper for people who are waiting in line, obeying the law to make sure that they can come here and contribute to our country and that's good for our economic growth.

They'll start new businesses. They'll make things happen to create jobs here in the United States.

Number two, we do have to deal with our border so we put more border patrol on the -- any time in history and the flow of undocumented works across the border is actually lower than it's been in 40 years.

What I've also said is if we're going to go after folks who are here illegally, we should do it smartly and go after folks who are criminals, gang bangers, people who are hurting the community, not after students, not after folks who are here just because they're trying to figure out how to feed their families. And that's what we've done. And what I've also said is for young people who come here, brought here often times by their parents. Had gone to school here, pledged allegiance to the flag. Think of this as their country. Understand themselves as Americans in every way except having papers. And we should make sure that we give them a pathway to citizenship.

And that's what I've done administratively. Now, Governor Romney just said, you know he wants to help those young people too, but during the Republican primary, he said, "I will veto the DREAM Act", that would allow these young people to have access." His main strategy during the Republican primary was to say, "We're going to encourage self-deportation." Making life so miserable on folks that they'll leave. He called the Arizona law a model for the nation. Part of the Arizona law said that law enforcement officers could stop folks because they suspected maybe they looked like they might be undocumented workers and check their papers.

You know what? If my daughter or yours looks to somebody like they're not a citizen, I don't want -- I don't want to empower somebody like that. So, we can fix this system in a comprehensive way. And when Governor Romney says, the challenge is, "Well Obama didn't try." That's not true. I have sat down with Democrats and Republicans at the beginning of my term. And I said, let's fix this system. Including Senators previously who had supported it on the Republican side. But it's very hard for Republican's in Congress to support comprehensive immigration reform, if their standard bearer has said that, this is not something I'm interested in supporting.

CROWLEY: Let me get the governor in here, Mr. President. Let's speak to, if you could...

ROMNEY: Yes.

CROWLEY: ...the idea of self-deportation?

ROMNEY: No, let -- let -- let me go back and speak to the points that the president made and -- and -- and let's get them correct.

I did not say that the Arizona law was a model for the nation in that aspect. I said that the E-Verify portion of the Arizona law, which is -- which is the portion of the law which says that employers could be able to determine whether someone is here illegally or not illegally, that that was a model for the nation. That's number one.

Number two, I asked the president a question I think Hispanics and immigrants all over the nation have asked. He was asked this on Univision the other day. Why, when you said you'd filed legislation in your first year didn't you do it? And he didn't answer. He -- he doesn't answer that question. He said the standard bearer wasn't for it.

I'm glad you thought I was a standard bearer four years ago, but I wasn't.

Four years ago you said in your first year you would file legislation.

In his first year, I was just getting -- licking my wounds from having been beaten by John McCain, all right. I was not the standard bearer.

My -- my view is that this president should have honored his promise to do as he said.

Now, let me mention one other thing, and that is self-deportation says let people make their own choice. What I was saying is, we're not going to round up 12 million people, undocumented illegals, and take them out of the nation. Instead let people make their own choice. And if they -- if they find that -- that they can't get the benefits here that they want and they can't -- and they can't find the job they want, then they'll make a decision to go a place where -- where they have better opportunities.

But I'm not in favor of rounding up people and -- and -- and taking them out of this country. I am in favor, as the president has said, and I agree with him, which is that if people have committed crimes we got to get them out of this country.

ROMNEY: Let me mention something else the president said. It was a moment ago and I didn't get a chance to, when he was describing Chinese investments and so forth.

OBAMA: Candy?

Hold on a second. The...

ROMNEY: Mr. President, I'm still speaking.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: Mr. President, let me finish.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: I've gotta continue.

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY: Governor Romney, you can make it short. See all these people? They've been waiting for you. (inaudible) make it short (inaudible).

ROMNEY: Just going to make a point. Any investments I have over the last eight years have been managed by a blind trust. And I understand they do include investments outside the United States, including in -- in Chinese companies.

Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension?

OBAMA: I've got to say...

ROMNEY: Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?

OBAMA: You know, I -- I don't look at my pension. It's not as big as yours so it doesn't take as long.

ROMNEY: Well, let me give you some advice.

OBAMA: I don't check it that often.

ROMNEY: Let me give you some advice. Look at your pension. You also have investments in Chinese companies. You also have investments outside the United States. You also have investments through a Cayman's trust.

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY: We're way off topic here, Governor Romney.

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: I thought we were talking about immigration.

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: I do want to make sure that...

CROWLEY: If I could have you sit down, Governor Romney. Thank you.

OBAMA: I do want to make sure that -- I do want to make sure that we just understand something. Governor Romney says he wasn't referring to Arizona as a model for the nation. His top adviser on immigration is the guy who designed the Arizona law, the entirety of it; not E-Verify, the whole thing. That's his policy. And it's a bad policy. And it won't help us grow.

Look, when we think about immigration, we have to understand there are folks all around the world who still see America as the land of promise. And they provide us energy and they provide us innovation and they start companies like Intel and Google. And we want to encourage that.

Now, we've got to make sure that we do it in a smart way and a comprehensive way, and we make the legal system better. But when we make this into a divisive political issue, and when we don't have bipartisan support -- I can deliver, Governor, a whole bunch of Democrats to get comprehensive immigration reform done, and we can't...

ROMNEY: I'll get it done. I'll get it done. First year...

OBAMA: ... we can't -- we have not seen Republicans serious about this issue at all. And it's time for them to get serious on it.

CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me move you on here please. Mr. President, (inaudible).

OBAMA: This used to be a bipartisan issue.

So many questions

Jose Antonio Vargas was stopped by police near the Minneapolis Airport last week because he was wearing headphones while driving.  He would probably have been educated about the law and sent on his way…except when they ran his drivers license they discovered that it had been cancelled by the state of Washington.

Why?  Because Vargas himself made headlines in June of 2011 declaring that he was an illegal alien.  He had been using a doctored Social Security Card for years.  It turns out that the government takes a dim view of such things.

And so a courtesy stop turned into a quick investigation by ICE.  Within three hours ICE let him go, not because he’s here legally but because they claimed to have bigger fish to fry.

So, here are the questions:

Why didn’t someone catch up with him and confiscate his drivers license?

How many times did he board an airplane with a known invalid license?  Isn’t that against the law?  Or is TSA too busy feeling up grannies and children?

What liability does the government have for allowing Vargas to travel around the country and rent cars?  (By the way, the rental company immediately towed his car once it was determined that his license is invalid.)

Does our government condone his various speaking tours by not enforcing the law?

After all that, why would ICE fail to detain him?  Does he have some sort of special immunity because he’s a DREAM Act advocate?  Forget the official explanation that he wasn’t “bad enough” to deport.  Here’s a guy criss-crossing the country speaking out against the law of the land and that’s not taken into account here.  He’s simply ignoring the law.

Who is funding the Vargas tour?  How is he legally paying taxes?

This has been a bad couple of weeks for Homeland Security.   Twice they have shown the failure of their very mission – to improve communication within and between law enforcement agencies.

The first case was when two different sets of Border Patrol agents fired on each other in the Arizona desert, resulting in the death of an agent and the wounding of another.

Where was the communication between responding teams?  If BP agents can’t even communicate properly, what hope do we have that these expensive inter-agencies will work when we need to talk between the local police/fire departments and federal agencies?

And regarding Vargas, why did he still have a license?  How long can someone go with a cancelled license?  (Apparently at least 15 months.)  Why wasn’t he placed on the No Fly list?  Where’s the communication between ICE and TSA?  Where does the PC/Affirmative Action mania in this country come into play when it comes to immigration enforcement?

So many questions…and sadly, Mitt Romney isn’t asking any of them.