Thick rhetoric

I'm back...because I find the Comprehensive Immigration Reform rhetoric from the White House to be intolerable.
Obama spoke in El Paso on May 10, 2011.  He really didn't lay out a plan; he simply spoke some crowd-pleasing platitudes and took shots at the GOP for not going along with him.
A common argument is the "nation of immigrants" concept.  Who can argue with that?
Well, there was a time when we were inviting just about anyone to fill the prairie with a 40-acre farm.  And a century ago we were looking for craftsmen and laborers to fuel the Industrial Revolution.

But this is what America looks like today (actually 2007, before the recession hit us):

Source Link: http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back1007.html
Note the bottom line.  There are 6.8 million illegal aliens working while we have 22.3 million unemployed adults with no college education plus 10.1 million unemployed teens.  We may have an incentive problem, but we do not have a labor shortage.

From Obama's speech we hear:

"We define ourselves as a nation of immigrants -- a nation that welcomes those willing to embrace America’s ideals and America’s precepts."

Well, I would say embracing our ideals would include becoming a citizen, but only about a third of our foreign-born can be bothered with that step.  And a third, the ones Obama is defending, are not in compliance with immigration laws.

Source Link: http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf
I struggle with the noble characterization of that group and gasp to see figures like that.  When you factor in those who came here illegally but have since benefited from one amnesty program or another, half of the foreign-born living in the United States either are or were illegal aliens.  Half!  This is not a time for legalization; it is a time for enforcement.

And here's more shocking data.  Look at the percentage of illegal aliens from our largest source of immigrants-Mexico:

Source Link: http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf
I'd like to think they are worthy of special consideration, but this data makes me feel like a doormat.

Let's not throw around the word "immigrant" without understanding how it is being used by the White House.

The "You Lie!" pamphlet

By request, here is the text of the "You Lie!" pamphlet I tried to place at the Elgin Public Library.  (I was denied.):

YOU LIE!

Background on the controversy surrounding a statement made by Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) during President Obama’s address to Congress on September 9, 2009

Here’s what Obama said on September 9, 2009:
“Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics…Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points…And out of this blizzard of charges and countercharges, confusion has reigned.
“Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.…
“Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians…
“There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”
Then Rep. Joe Wilson calls out: “You lie!”
Obama responds: “Not true,” then continues on with his speech.
But there is more to this story…

The basis for Obama’s claim comes from HB 3200 (the House version of Obamacare):

"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

So, when efforts have been made to put some teeth into that statement, they have been rejected in committee along party lines.

An example of such a verification of lawful presence is the Dean Heller (R-NV) Amendment, offered on July 16, 2009 and rejected by the House Ways and Means Committee:

In order to utilize the public health insurance option, an individual must have had his or her eligibility determined and approved under the Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) programs under
section 1137 of the Social Security Act.
(Note: The SAVE system is already used by 71 other means-tested federal programs to prevent illegal immigrants and other ineligible non-citizens from accessing them.)

On July 31, 2009 Nathan Deal (R-GA) proposed eligibility verification to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and it was similarly rejected. It said:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no unauthorized aliens shall be eligible for any item or service furnished under this title. The Secretary shall not provide funding under 1903 for medical assistance provided to an individual unless such individual has been determined to be eligible for medical assistance under this title on the basis of…citizenship or…qualified alien status through the immigration status verification system."
The Congressional Research Service, a federal office, reported to Congress and the White House on August 25, 2009 that:
"H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens participating in the Exchange—whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently."
...and...
"H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."
Aftermath
As they say, “The hit dog howls.” Within 36 hours the Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate held press conferences to announce that they were working on language to close the loopholes for benefits to illegal aliens. So much for “bogus claims” and “scare tactics” Obama warned us about.


Historical precedenceSo what if the undocumented receive health care? It’s no big deal.
Well, actually it is a big deal. In 1986 Congress was trying to reform health care. One initiative called EMTALA was passed to give emergency room care to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay.
That one act has created a litany of unintended consequences that has resulted in the closing of several inner-city hospitals due to excessive charity care.
Lawsuits and court rulings have transformed emergency rooms into clinics for every ailment and have stuck hospitals with long-term care of patients that cannot be transferred.

And hospitals in border cities report Mexican citizens in labor driving across the border to take advantage of higher quality (and free) medical care with the added benefit that the baby is automatically a U S Citizen.
At present Congress reimburses hospitals for $250 million to care for illegal aliens through EMTALA. Unfortunately, the public price tag for their care is $4.3 billion a year.
We are wise to examine the proposed legislation and be wary of loopholes and unfunded mandates so as to avoid another, more massive, EMTALA fiasco.

Conclusion
Amendments have been offered that would incorporate existing eligibility standards in the Obamacare bill. Those amendments have been rejected.

Further, the research arm of Congress has told the President that illegal aliens can indeed obtain subsidized benefits under Obamacare.

When Obama addressed Congress he specifically called out those who talk about the illegal alien loophole as making “bogus claims” and using “scare tactics.”

Based on the facts, Rep. Joe Wilson was right to call Obama’s statement a lie.

Failure to address these loopholes will result in long-term negative effects of tax money being used to aid and abet illegal aliens, not to mention the incentive for additional third world immigrants to come to America and take advantage of our medical care.

In addition, the creation of another unfunded mandate is unfair to community hospitals who cannot refuse to provide long-term care to anyone presented at the door of the ER.

Going dark

Is it worth it? I doubt it. Over the past several days a few tidbits of information have converged into my life causing me to question the cost-benefit of an Internet presence, specifically blogging and comment posting.
Those tidbits are:
1) Government projects to install supercomputers around the country to analyze intel.

2) A judge in Illinois having a knee-jerk reaction because a flamboyant defendant gave his customers the judge’s e-mail address and said judge was flooded with e-mails supporting the innocence of the defendant.

3) A recent case in Illinois where the anonymity of a poster was revealed to the court so he could be prosecuted.

4) Obama administration efforts to squelch critics on the Internet.

The downside of these enforcement efforts include:
1) Libel
2) Copyright infringement
3) Contempt of court

Just the allegation of any of these could put you in court. Anyone can sue. And all they have to do is outlast you. And we all know of some crazy rulings.

One would hope that others would come to the rescue, but as Michael Savage learned recently you fight your battles alone.

Frankly, it isn’t worth the risk for an audience of 10, or 100, or even 100,000.

Good night, Mrs. Calabash.

Stopping a Movement

There is a new group afoot called "The Tea Party Is Over." 
Funded by: American Public Policy Committee
Led by: Joseph Sandler, former lawyer for the DNC, MoveOn.org and CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations)
Which is funded by: Patriot Majority
Which is funded by: The SEIU

Do you smell astroturf?

So, what is the mission of The Tea Party Is Over?
"To prevent the Tea Party's dangerous ideas from gaining legislative traction."

Their strategy?
"Our strategy is to spread the truth about their dangerous ideas and prevent their policies from taking root in America."

Well, you have to have "Targets" if you're going to defeat those "dangerous ideas."

Here's one of their "Targets"
"Randy Hultgren

"Hultgren has taken right-wing positions on spending, health care, abortion, and gay rights. He sponsored a bill to remove protections from discrimination because of sexual orientation, and claims the health care bill "will kill people." Call Randy at 630.549.0139 and tell him to reject the dangerous ideas of the Tea Party."

So, exactly what are Randy's dangerous ideas (you know, those "right-wing positions") according to the anti-Tea experts?

Spending- You mean believing that the government should live within its means?  That weird idea that Washington is spending too much and printing too much funny money to cover its bills?

Health care- You mean one of those odd weirdos who does not support socialized medicine in America?

Abortion- I think it's called pro-life; those people who think there are way too many abortions in the United States and that a fetus has human rights as well.

Gay rights- Randy believes in the definition of the traditional family.  How odd is that?  It's funny that this group implies that abortion is a choice, but living a gay lifestyle is not.  I think Randy is against the idea of establishing another protected class, especially based on a belief system.

Good luck with your campaign.  May I suggest you invest in some polling data.  You might find that Randy's "dangerous ideas" are more common than you thought.

Making Sense of Tea

The Tea Party movement is all over the place these days. First, the convention last week. Then an article in Real Clear Politics. Today, ABC News issued poll results centered around Palin and the Tea Party. And, the recent revelation that an Anti-Tea Party movement is starting on K Street to fight back.
First off, the Tea Party Movement is fueled by Internet penetration into the homes of people over 40 who have never spoken out about government before in their lives. It is social networking used to inform people like no other generation in history.

Think of it. We spent our lives watching Dan Rather, only to find out that Dan had an agenda. Now we can read a pdf of an indictment, watch the entire news conference…or congressional hearing…or a committee meeting, read as much detail as we’d like about a study or research the money behind any organization. That’s a lot more information than 30 seconds on a topic sliced and diced by NBC. What’s more, we get to analyze what we’re seeing.

And Obama realizes he is losing control of the message. He’s tried to shut out news groups like Fox, belittled talk show hosts, launched schemes to have people report negative information to the White House, sought equal time for bloggers on the Internet…and come off like Hugo Chavez as a result.

And his Saul Alinski tactics are exposed along the way, making him seem devious as well as frightened.

Since the State of the Union address and the loss in Massachusetts, Obama has tried to co-opt the message of the Tea Party, but co-opting requires some Obama supporters within the Party, and frankly, they are sparse indeed. Obama exemplifies big government.

That co-opting effort takes the form of commiserating with our dissatisfaction with politicians and the power games they play. As Obama said after the Scott Brown victory, "Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.

"People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." ~ Barack Obama, January 20, 2010

Whenever Obama talks about voter dissatisfaction, he can’t help turning it into a chorus of that old tune, “Blame Bush.”

Mark Davis at Real Clear Politics comments that the Tea Party has support from various groups with their own hot-button issues (mine’s Immigration) but at the core is the size and scope of government. There’s room for pro-lifers, anti-Federal Reserve activists, anti-Obamacare groups, Gun Rights activists, Traditional Marriage defenders… “The people drifting toward the Tea Party movement are not extreme. They are, in fact, fighting extremism - the extremism that has brought us a government that takes far too much, spends far too much and runs our lives far too much. At long last, people who might disagree on a number of other things are uniting in a fight for strong but limited government, run responsibly and frugally.”

(Davis can be read here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/11/the_fight_for_responsible_limited_government.html )

Now, the ABC poll taken this month measures the Tea Party popularity as well as Palin’s.

When local anchor Alan Krashesky delivered the poll results, he said the Tea Party had “only” 35% support, as though that were something to be ashamed of. Clearly he doesn’t realize what a feat that was, starting from nothing on April 15th of last year!

Ross Perot got 19% of the vote after two years of campaigning and millions of dollars of his own money. 35% is extraordinary progress for a movement.

Like most, Krashesky makes the mistake of thinking it is a third party. We certainly hope not. And he’d like to bet the whole thing on the success or failure of Sarah Palin. That’s not true either.

The Tea Party will flock to candidates like Scott Brown. And Randy Hultgren. And anyone else with a platform of shrinking government. And we’ll bring our 35% of like-minded voters with us.

Brennan's "Can do" Attitude

I've heard that in DC and Alexandria VA they have removed the snow plows from the streets because it is too dangerous.

C'mon people, the snow is not 100 feet deep.

Not George's GOP

Republicans with a sense of humor? Who knew?

And they're capitalists as well. Send an E-card, ask for a donation. Not bad.

But with so much good material in the last year, how can you refuse?