by: Tim Brown
Barack Obama has already said he is not going to enforce the law of the land concerning illegal immigrants, which should make him eligible for impeachment, among other charges. But even as I write this article the Obama administration is preparing to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants by the end of the month. It will just cost them $465.
The Department of Homeland Security today announced details of the application and approval process for the DREAM Act-like program, outlining specific eligibility requirements and a $465 fee. It will begin Aug. 15.
Illegal immigrants younger than 30 who came to the United States before age 16, have lived here for at least five years continuously, attend or have graduated from high school or college, and have no criminal convictions are eligible to submit requests for so-called deferred action (legalese for an official exemption from deportation).
The administration said documentation provided by each applicant will be reviewed individually on a case-by-case basis at one of four service centers run by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. It’s unclear how long each review will take, but some immigrants are expected to receive temporary legal status before Election Day.
While the “dreamers” will not obtain a path to citizenship or the right to vote, Obama’s policy shift – circumventing Congress with executive action – has been widely seen as a politically motivated nod to Hispanics who have long sought the change.
No! Really? a polically motivated nod by this adminstration? I”m shocked! Of course it’s politically motivated.
Janet Napolitano claimed this was a process of compassion and common sense. In a statement, Napolitano said,
“Our nation’s immigration laws must be enforced in a firm and sensible manner. But they are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case.
Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language. Discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here.”
The problem is that they are not enforcing immigration laws and Barack Obama stood in the Rose Garden and declared that he wasn’t. Now we find the administration is going to punish one of their own for doing just what she is talking about: enforcing immigration laws.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith put his finger on what the real issue is when he said,
“Today’s deferred action guidance is another example of how the president’s policies put the interests of illegal immigrants ahead of the interests of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.”
“On the same day the unemployment rate rose to 8.3 percent, the Obama administration announced a requirement for illegal immigrants to apply to be able to work in the U.S. The administration’s guidelines don’t just encourage illegal immigrants to work in the U.S., they actually require them to apply to do so.”
Exactly right Mr. Chairman. Talk is cheap. Now stop him. You guys are Congress after all and you are the ones that make law, not the President.
Not only is Obama looking to stack the deck with illegals, but he’s also making a quick buck at it. I’m wondering just where that $465 per illegal is going to end up. Isn’t anyone else curious?
by: Bryan Nash & the Common Constitutionalist
There’s no reason for kids in Washington, D.C., to cut grass or wash cars this summer. The public school system is paying kids $5.25 an hour to attend summer school. The students being paid are those with poor grades.
Through the “Summer Bridge” program, about 300 students are receiving payment. The program is targeting ninth-graders who are “less likely than their peers to graduate high school within four years,” reported The Washington Examiner.
This isn’t the first time the school system has paid students; but in times past, students with good grades got the money. A Harvard University group paid middle school students between 2008 and 2010 for making good grades. But this time around, students with poor grades are raking in the cash.
“How much will we pay going forward, and who will we pay, and what’s the cutoff to get paid?” asked political consultant Chuck Thies. “It’s critical that we get at-risk students and underperforming students and failing students into the program, but I don’t think incentivizing them with money sends the right message.”
The minimum wage in Washington DC is $8.25. Bets on how long it will take the ACLU to file suit.
by: Clark Barrow
Editorial comments by the Common Constitutionalist [ ]
A looming tax increase or the threat of higher unemployment usually receives a lot of attention in Washington, D.C. Many politicians can’t wait to lead a charge to avoid any hardship on American families. But there is eerie silence on another front that is fast approaching our country: a tidal wave of costly federal regulations.
According to an analysis by the NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business), more than 4,000 federal regulations are scheduled to be implemented over the next four years with a cost of more than $515 billion to the U.S. economy. In our world of trillion-dollar deficits, anything in the billions may not sound like such a big deal anymore, but recent regulations have already added $140 billion, sending the total annual regulatory cost to $1.75 trillion. If no action is taken to stop this, the NFIB estimates that the regulatory costs will quadruple over the next four years.
So what in the world are all these new regulations? Well, most of them have to do with protecting the environment. Unfortunately, the sheer cost of the regulations may produce a severe economic downturn, rather than any valuable environmental impact.
One of the most damaging regulations will force power plants to install expensive pollution control technology, which is expected to cost as much as $90 billion over 10 years – the most expensive regulation in U.S. history. This means higher energy bills that will direct small business funds to utility bills, instead of jobs.
Other regulations include the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, a measure that President Obama postponed in 2011 because of its enormous cost to the economy. Imagine that! Even our own president understood the impact! This far-reaching piece of regulation would establish an unnecessarily strict air quality standard for the entire country at a cost of up to $90 billion. [Years ago freon was effectively banned because it was said to kill ozone. Now we have too much?]
To make matters worse, the science behind these new regulations is not solid. A report by the National Center for Policy Analysis found that the proposed standards produce little, if any, health benefits. Their analysis found that under the current standards, levels of ozone and other pollutants have largely decreased to safe levels. The current standards are working and there is little science to that says tighter standards will meaningfully improve the air quality for anyone. [It matters little to the enviro-weenies whether the “science” is crap. They want to send us back to stone age and they’ll promote any junk science to hasten that journey.]
While the environmental science is not solid, the economic impact is certain – it will be paid with billions of dollars, millions of lost jobs and the lost dreams of millions of Americans.
The solution, as with many of our problems, is to grow our economy. Excessive regulations will only increase the cost of living for Americans, forcing lower-income families to sacrifice the things that contribute to a healthy lifestyle. Progress is good! Advances in environmental protection, health care treatments and nutrition have saved countless lives, but expensive household energy bills will only devour money that could be used for a higher standard of living. [The solution is actually to rid ourselves of most the regulation in this country and the growth will take care of itself.]
Putting aside all of these other figures, the true cost of the proposed regulations can be summed up in the fact that the American Thoracic Society found that the number one risk factor for asthma is poverty, not pollution. It’s time environmental regulations protected us.
[ Isn’t it interesting that progressive administrations can’t be honest with the people. They always postpone harsh mandates and regulations until after elections. It’s as if they know the mandates will kill the economy and thus they would never be reelected. Yet after the election, it doesn’t seem to matter. That’s what I call looking out for the American people. Is that why most of the Obamacare mandates don’t start kicking in until 2013? I wonder.]
from: The Drudge Report and the Common Constitutionalist
Currently, 51% say they support Obama or lean toward him, while 41% support or lean toward Romney. This is largely unchanged from earlier in July and consistent with polling over the course of this year. Across eight Pew Research Center surveys since January, Obama has led Romney by between four and 12 percentage points.
Obama holds only a four-point edge (48% to 44%) across 12 of this year’s key battleground states. While the data does not allow a state-by-state analysis, the overall balance of support in these closely contested states has remained level in recent months, with Obama slightly ahead, but neither candidate holding a significant advantage.
The poll also finds that Romney’s favorability has taken a hit this summer:
By a 52% to 37% margin, more voters say they have an unfavorable than favorable view of Mitt Romney. The poll, conducted prior to Romney’s recent overseas trip, represents the sixth consecutive survey over the past nine months in which his image has been in negative territory. While Romney’s personal favorability improved substantially between March and June – as Republican voters rallied behind him after the primary season ended– his image has again slipped over the past month.
Barack Obama’s image remains, by comparison, more positive – 50% offer a favorable assessment of the president, 45% an unfavorable one. Even so, Obama’s personal ratings are lower than most presidential candidates in recent elections.
Now for the punchline. As is the case with virtually all polls produced by leftist organizations like Pew, the results are horribly skewed toward the democrat. Republican sample size: 459, Democrat sample size: 813. Close to a 2 to 1 ratio. That sounds fair. One must read the fine print.
My advise, don’t read or listen to the polls. Most are crap.
Is it wrong to “Hate” the policies of this administration with their jackbooted thugs at the EPA and their war on everything, including jobs, in the name of JUNK science? Just one more example of tyranny on parade.
by: Moe Lane
Well, your ability to guess why the Murray Energy Corporation today announced that it is closing a mine in Brilliant, Ohio will be largely dependent on whether you rely on local news or not. If you’re just paying attention to local news… you won’t be told at all why a coal mine that employed 239 people at its peak laid off 24 of its remaining 56 employees today, with the remaining to be (hopefully) integrated into the company elsewhere; in fact, you won’t even be told that the mine employed that many people directly. But if you go to the company’s own press release… yeah. That’s a different story.
Regulatory actions by President Barack Obama and his appointees and followers were cited as the entire reason.
“Mr. Obama has already destroyed 83,000 megawatts of coal-fired electricity generation in America,” said Mr. Michael T. W. Carey, Vice President of Government Affairs for Murray Energy. “Electric prices in the recent PJM Interconnection monthly auction were bid up 800 percent (8 times) for 2015-2016 because of this,” he added.
“At its peak, OhioAmerican employed 239 local people in high-paying, well-benefited jobs,” said Mr. Stanley T. Piasecki, General Manager and Superintendent. “University studies show that our Mines can create up to eleven (11) secondary jobs in our communities, for store clerks, teachers, etc., to serve our direct employees. Thus, if one uses the eleven (11) to one (1) multiplier, the Obama Administration has destroyed 2,868 jobs in eastern Ohio with this forced Mine closure,” stated Mr. Piasecki.
Although, to be fair, the local news article did at least link to the press release; it also mentioned another set of layoffs (29) at Murray’s Powhatan No. 6 mine in Alledonia, OH. They just forgot to note that Murray Energy squarely laid the blame for that closure too on the Obama Administration’s War on Coal. And make no mistake: this administration hates coal.