Thank You, Heritage Foundation

news

Original Post: Thank You, Heritage Foundation.

I’m sitting at Reagan National Airport waiting for my flight home. I just spent 24 hours meeting the people who keep America free. Well, besides the people in uniform. It’s the Heritage Foundation’s donors and leaders. It’s Heritage Action and its Sentinels. It’s decidedly NOT the ruling class, the two big parties. I had the…

The post Thank You, Heritage Foundation appeared first on Hennessy's View.

Is President Obama Planning Unilateral Action on Amnesty?

stl-tp-logo-dark-200x200

In the spring of 2013, the Senate passed the “Gang of 8” amnesty bill (S. 744), which created a framework to legalize the estimated 11 million people currently living in the country unlawfully. House Republicans wisely recognized the bill for what it was—a comprehensive amnesty package—and refused to act on it. In spite of congressional inaction, President Obama has attempted a variety of unilateral maneuvers to ignore current immigration laws.

Is President Obama planning unilateral action on amnesty?


In June 2012, the Obama Administration authored a memorandum, issued by then-Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to practice “prosecutorial discretion” towards unlawful minors. This process, sterilized by the administration’s labeling it Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), is one of the most flagrant instances of the President using government resources—in this case, law enforcement—to carry out a political agenda.

Press reports indicate the President may attempt to expand DACA after the midterm elections. By providing “legal protections” and work permits to a range of undocumented residents, this action could result in as many as 5 million new unlawful immigrants (roughly 50% of current illegal population) being included under the DACA umbrella.

DACA acted as a beacon of amnesty for an estimated 1.7 million unlawful minors. With these minors in perpetual limbo, the President and his bipartisan congressional coalition went in search of a long-term solution. Though avoiding prosecution or removal is tantamount to amnesty, it is not the official legalization the Left is seeking. The ENLIST Act was the logical next step. This bill would permit unlawful immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors a backdoor promise of citizenship in exchange for military service. In April 2014, Representative Jeff Denham (R-CA) launched a campaign in the House to attach ENLIST to the National Defense Authorization Act. The grassroots megaphone demanded accountability, however, and enough pressure was applied to bring down the bill.

At the beginning of October, the administration issued yet another memorandum that will allow for a limited number of children in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras to apply for refugee status if they have relatives legally residing in the U.S. This policy is problematic in that it requires officials to justify the refugee status by loosening criteria. Although the change may be limited in scope, there is concern the administration would then use this as justification to offer asylum to thousands of children already here illegally (or on the border), amounting to a massive loophole for another administrative amnesty deal.

There is no such thing as a unilateral mechanism for altering U.S. law. President Obama continues to show his disregard for the Constitution by ignoring the separation of powers and administering policies as he sees fit. This practice is unfair to the citizens he purports to represent, as well as to those millions abroad who have applied for legal status the proper way and are waiting their turn.

The United States has a system of legal immigration in place which admits roughly 1 million people each year. Any change to this system that is not in keeping with the parameters of democratic process is nothing more than another entry in the pattern of unfairness endemic to Washington, DC.

The Good Muslim

stl-tp-logo-dark-200x200

Koran / Quran - Whatever

I am a fundamentalist Christian.

Not a very good one, mind you. While I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, far too often I take the precepts within its pages as suggestions rather than commands. I think if I were more obedient I would be more patient, more kind, more generous. I would have more courage to speak the truth and more wisdom to speak it gently.

A fundamentalist Christian should, over time, be more like Jesus of Nazareth. Think what you may about His claims to deity and salvation, Jesus is universally understood to be a good man.

Most Christians who get into the weeds of theology accept the idea of progressive revelation and its implications. I believe, along with the majority of orthodox theologians, that every book of the Bible reveals more about God as scripture was recorded over the millennia. As a Christian, the Old Testament is as relevant today as are the books of the New Testament. It is incumbent upon me to understand how to serve God in light of all revelation.

I do not think that Islam is like this. It is clear that Mohammed revealed two dispensations to the faithful, one of peace and one of war.

When I was a soldier, I was required to follow my last lawful order. A four star general could tell me to do one thing, and a buck corporal could order me to do another if he outranked me. While as a courtesy, I might tell the corporal of my previous orders, the fact is that if the corporals orders are lawful I am to obey.

Many Muslims are adherents to the idea that the last lawful orders from Mohammed are to advance the faith by any means. Violence is just one of those means.

Within Christianity and its cousin Judaism, I see no evidence that the faith was ever to be advanced by violence. In Christianity, attempts to forcibly convert someone is theologically illegitimate. Within Islam, I see no reason why a Jihadi that demands “convert or die” is out of step with Islamic theology.

It seems inescapable that the Muslim who eschews violence as an legitimate means of spreading his faith is on shaky theological ground. Given the scriptures in question, and the majority of Islamic clerics who have the authority to interpret it, those who accept violence are in fact the better Muslim, or at least the more complete Muslim, if being a Muslim is defined by acceptance and adherence to all that which is believed to be Holy Writ.

Over time, I think that we will see that Islam will inevitably become more militant, and the “moderates” we in the West so desperately hope will prevail in the Muslim culture will be revealed to be just so much wishful thinking. If a good Buddhist acts like Buddha, a good Christian acts like Jesus, we ought to expect that a good Muslim acts like Mohammed.

Bad Immigration Policy Is Just Around The Corner

stl-tp-logo-dark-200x200

Just because the media has been quiet about immigration and border security lately doesn’t mean any issues have been settled.  While border crossings may have slowed, the number of illegal immigrants residing in the United States continues to rise.

Don’t let your friends and family forget that as we head toward Election Day.

President Obama still, in cowardice, refuses to move forward with his plan for immigration reform until after the election. He knows the American people will not be happy with any sort of amnesty plan – and he doesn’t want to hurt voter turnout for Democrats.

Just this week, his former opponent Mitt Romney called the decision to wait “a very shameful thing” because Romney believes the President has a responsibility to the people to say what he plans to do before the election.

But his promised executive action on immigration is already being supported by the likes of ex-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who said in a Monday interview:

“If Congress refuses to act and perform its duties, then I think it’s appropriate for the executive to step in and use his authorities based on law…to take action in the immigration arena.”

Of course, Presidents have the ability to use executive action but that doesn’t mean they should do it every time they disagree with Congress – especially on issue as crucial and consequential as immigration policy.

And if you had any doubt about what the President plans to do, information revealed yesterday may put those to rest.  Fox News reported that “the U.S. government ordered supplies to create millions of blank work permits and green cards.”

Of the course the Administration says it has nothing to do with Obama’s coming action – but this revelation is telling.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said today that Obama’s plans for immigration reform are a bad idea and bad public policy.

“It harms to the ability of the Congress to do immigration reform and most importantly, it violates the U.S.  Constitution, “ said Goodlatte, also noting “no one trusts the President to enforce the [current] law.”

Just because the Left doesn’t want to talk about immigration doesn’t mean you have to keep quiet. Bad policy is coming and there’s precious little time to prevent it.

 

 

 

Are Democrats poised to steal the midterms?

Obama_Bummed
The Unablogger

The Unablogger

Something weird is in the air this election season, and I don’t like what I smell. I think it’s a rat.

Most factors point to a big Republican win in the midterms, with the GOP expanding its majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and, more significantly, wining control of the U.S. Senate. Republicans appear poised to take the six net (8 takeaways minus 2 givebacks) Democrat-held seats necessary for a 51-seat “Biden proof” majority, and a Republican wave raising all GOP boats as little as 2 more points would give them 10 net new seats (rescue the two vulnerable seats, plus 2 more where incumbent Democrats are currently slightly ahead) and insulate their senate control against the loss of a few vulnerable seats in 2016.

Yet, something’s in the air. President Barack Obama exudes confidence in the midterm results. He even went out of his way to brand reluctant vulnerable Democrat senators with his mark, stating publicly that his policies are on the ballot because all those Democrats voted for them. Why would as politically savvy a politician as Obama do such a thing? He must be positioning himself to take credit for their wins. What does he know that we don’t?

My fear is that the fix is in.

What could dishonest Democrats possibly do to overturn a massive nationwide Republican wave? Old-fashioned ballot box stuffing, for starters. One way involves hoards of lower-level (i.e., not important enough to be recognized) political operatives voting in the names of others in several hand-picked polling places staffed by party-loyal clerks who won’t challenge their signatures. (In many inner city areas, thee aren’t enough legitimate Republicans to staff polling places, so Democrats fill those slots with their own people, and the bi-partisan checks and balances are out the window.) The operatives vote in the name of a registered voter who the party is confident won’t show up to vote themselves. Voters over age 90 (or known to be incapacitated, or even dead) who haven’t voted in several consecutive elections are a prime source for names. (For examples, see here and here and here.) This is what voter-ID laws are designed to prevent, and it’s why Democrat lawyers fight so hard to get judges to overturn or delay implementation of those laws.

Ballot stuffing, part deux, takes place after the polls close and corrupt Democrat pols get a feel for whether more needs to be done. If more votes need to be manufactured, the election judges take care of it. (As I noted above, many inner city polling places are staffed exclusively by Democrats.) They don’t have to guess who isn’t going to vote, because they have the official list of who really did vote and, more important, who didn’t. Filling out paperwork for those who didn’t vote turns those nonvoters into straight Democrat ballots that count. This can be time consuming, especially if a lot of votes need to be manufactured. But they’ll take whatever time is necessary. Ever notice how the most Democratic precincts are always the last ones to turn in their ballots for tabulation?

Close contests in areas that have significant concentrated pockets of super Democrat support are most vulnerable. Rogue precincts in liberal college towns and inner-city parts of Charlotte, Winston-Salem, and Greensboro can keep North Carolina’s seat in Democrat hands. Little Rock and precincts along the Mississippi River could save Arkansas for the Democrats.

Colorado’s all-mail ballot is tailor-made for fraud. Corrupt politicians are busy voting phony ballots right now. And if they fall short, count on them “finding” new uncounted ballots a few days after the election. It worked six years ago for Al Franken.

Georgia and Louisiana could be a two-part affair because of runoff laws. Democrats may try to steal these elections on election day by creating enough phony ballots to give the Democratic candidate the majority necessary to avoid a runoff. Or the fun could be repeated at (or deferred until) the runoff, when fewer legitimate voters will participate. By then, results from other states will have determined whether these contests will be decisive for senate control. If they are, there will be tons of money, lots of lawyers and plenty of experienced locals to make sure the senate stays under Harry Reid’s thumb. Atlanta provides a treasure trove of inner city votes to manipulate, and plantation country in southwest Georgia can provide backup if needed. In Louisiana, Republicans will need to overcome creative voting in New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

But some old-fashioned fraud may not be necessary for Democrats if high-tech voter fraud can provide an election day surprise or two, especially under the radar in totally unexpected places. This worries me because of what happened on June 10, 2014, in the Republican primary in Virginia’s 7th congressional district. Underfunded Tea Party challenger David Brat upset House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in an election that pre-election polls had universally showed Cantor winning by 13 to 34 points. Brat succeeded where virtually all other (and better funded) Tea Party challengers across the country had failed, and no one seems to know why. With no disrespect to Brat, whom I believe will be a fantastic, principled congressman, I believe Brat was the innocent beneficiary of manipulated vote tabulation on the part of Virginia Democrats. I suspect that VA-7 was a successful test run for a much bigger national prize on November 4. Fast forward to last week’s early voting in the Chicago area, when an observant Republican candidate “caught” his touch-screen voting machine changing his vote from Republican to Democrat. That candidate got that machine pulled out of service (just a “calibration error,” nothing to see here, move along), but what about all the other rogue machines that ordinary people don’t notice? (Say Goodnight, Bruce Rauner. You’re toast.)

Low population states with low-visibility, seemingly uncompetitive Republican-favored senate contests are prime targets for scattered “calibration errors,” because these states have even fewer voters to overcome than VA-7. Possible targets include Alaska (where the senate race is close), as well as seemingly safe states like Montana and South Dakota. Are they as “safely out of reach” as Eric Cantor seemed to be on June 9? And while Oklahoma and South Carolina are larger and would require more fraud to overturn, they are also tempting targets because they are “twofers;” both have two senate seats on this year’s ballot. Democrats would especially love to eliminate South Carolina’s black Republican Sen. Tim Scott, because his presence contradicts their racial narrative.

While blatant voter fraud such as this seems like it would be too risky to try, don’t bet on it. When you don’t know ahead of time what’s going on or where to look, vote fraud is hard to detect and even harder to prove. The only witnesses are people who were involved. Even among innocents, the communities where voter fraud takes place have a long “don’t snitch” tradition that intimidates witnesses, especially vulnerable elderly people. Deadlines for challenges are too short to put together evidence, and confidentiality laws prevent much evidence from being discovered. Furthermore, the Obama Administration has a history, from its onset, of refusing to prosecute the few who are caught. Remember the New Black Panthers case in Philadelphia? And if all else fails, Obama himself, with his pen and his phone, is around for two more years to issue pardons.

For the sake of the country, I hope I’m dead wrong. I want people holding up this article and laughing at me on Election Night. But Obama’s cocky, seemingly misplaced confidence worries me. What does he know about the midterms that we don’t?


How Much Will Obamacare Cost You in the Next 10 Years?

obamacare

$131 billion. These days numbers in the millions, billions and even trillions, have lost their shock value — but they shouldn’t. This is the amount of money the U.S. federal deficit will increase by over the next 10 years, thanks to Obamacare. A new report from the Republican Senate Budget Committee shows why things have gotten so bad.

A top Democrat aide called the report  ”garbage,” but we know better. And it’s not just the money it will cost, it’s the jobs. CBO reports that 2.5 million full-time employees will be forced out of their jobs by 2024 because of the law. It’s a double whammy our country doesn’t deserve.

When Obamacare was first passed, CBO estimated it would actually reduce the deficit but things didn’t exactly go as planned. Even though the Obama Administration claimed the law would be funded by 18 new taxes, that’s not enough — never mind the fact that most people aren’t too keen on this new “revenue.”

The Senate report considers changes made to Obamacare since 2012 and how those unexpected events completely shift the fiscal outcome. For example, not as many people signed up for Obamacare as the Administration hoped. Additionally, millions of people have had the Obamacare mandate penalty waived for a variety of reasons. These things, among others, decrease the amount of money the Administration was counting on for funding.

Meanwhile, the President continues to stress that “this thing is working.” Unfortunately for him, it’s quite clear that the law hasn’t “worked” tangibly or technically from the start. In 2009, Obama promised he would not “sign [Obamacare] if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.”

The future is here, Mr. President, and you have more dimes than one to account for now.

Democrats Have Just One Chance for October Surprise

Obama_Bummed

Original Post: Democrats Have Just One Chance for October Surprise.

The White House and its corrupt Department of Justice has one chance to change the election’s outcome. According to Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight blog, the GOP has a 62.1 percent chance of a Senate majority. With nine days left until the election, and with President Obama’s approval and likability plunging, the Democrats face a huge loss. Apathetic…

The post Democrats Have Just One Chance for October Surprise appeared first on Hennessy's View.

Pass the Internet tax moratorium and oppose Internet sales tax

stl-tp-logo-dark-200x200

Americans from all sectors of society use the Internet for social and economic reasons. Many use it as a means of climbing the economic ladder. That’s why every American has a vested interest in the debate in Washington over the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) and the Internet sales tax (IST).

ITFA, a moratorium on discriminatory state and local taxes on the Internet (i.e. “email taxes”), is something Americans on both sides of the aisle and opposite ends of the political spectrum support.

Some lawmakers are trying to hold the moratorium hostage until they can attach to it a very unpopular tax on Internet sales, the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act (MFA). The MFA would allow states to require out-of-state retailers to collect and remit their sales taxes, regardless of whether they have a physical presence in the state.

Before ITFA’s passage in 1998, 10 states had imposed taxes on Internet usage. Over the past 16 years, Congress has renewed the moratorium four times, most recently in 2007, which means the moratorium is constantly under threat of not being continued should revenue-hungry lawmakers get their way. This year, the House passed a bill by unanimous voice vote extending the moratorium indefinitely, but the Senate failed to do the same, instead extending ITFA only until Dec. 11, 2014.

Tying a critical policy like ITFA to a terrible policy like an Internet sales tax bill is a massive disservice to the people. Political maneuvering to force bad policy on the American people is reprehensible.

That is especially true during a lame duck session of Congress, which is when some lawmakers intend to pull this stunt.

Conservative and liberal economists agree and have produced data demonstrating the economic harm that would result from more state Internet taxes. Businesses would face myriad new cumbersome burdens if the moratorium were to expire. And additional Internet taxes would harm the most vulnerable among us, who have to make tough decisions about how to use their discretionary spending. As popular as the moratorium is, the idea of an Internet sales tax bill is just as unpopular. Only 35 percent of Americans support it.

The IST is particularly onerous for small business owners in Delaware who sell their products on the Internet, because the state doesn’t have a sales tax. Business owners may have chosen to base their business here for that very reason. If enacted, the MFA would force Delaware-based retailers to navigate the tax policies of some 10,000 jurisdictions and 46 state tax authorities. Under the MFA, small businesses in Delaware could face audits from overzealous state and local governments in California, Illinois and New York.

The MFA is simply a political ploy to line the pockets of revenue hungry state governments that don’t want to cut spending. Worse, major retailers are playing politics to drive out competition from small, Internet-based competitors. Many big businesses have a physical nexus in several states and already collect remit sales taxes for online sales specifically because of their physical nexus in a variety of states. They are working to convince small brick-and-mortar companies that they are on the same team – a team that wants to ensure small, online businesses have to bear greater tax burdens.

Congress should not attach a terrible policy like the Internet sales tax to a vastly popular idea like the Internet tax moratorium. The federal government should not impose discriminatory taxes on Internet usage, which is such an integral part of a thriving economy and a means of upward mobility for many Americans. Doing so would only be made worse by combining it with the Internet sales tax to burden Internet-based entrepreneurs in an unprecedented way.

This piece was originally published in the Milford Beacon on October 15, 2014.

The Madison Project Endorses Glenn Grothman in WI-6

stl-tp-logo-dark-200x200

He’s the current state Senator from the 20th district in Wisconsin, having served in that capacity since 2004. In 2011, he was in the middle of the fight against the labor unions in Wisconsin and in support of Governor Scott Walker’s Act 10 bill.

Known as a fiscal hawk and strong advocate of life, he has a proven legislative record in Wisconsin that gives us the confidence that he will fight for conservatism in Washington, DC. In recent months, he has been quoted as saying, “[voters want] conservative candidates who want to stand up to Republican leadership. And that’s me.”

This is why we are excited to endorse Glenn Grothman for Congress today. As part of the conservative revolution in Wisconsin, Glenn has been a tireless champion of lower taxes, education reform and the unborn and we look forward to seeing the same from him in Washington.

The Madison Project Endorses Zach Dasher in LA-5

stl-tp-logo-dark-200x200

Many know him as nephew of Phil and Si Robertson of Duck Dynasty, but Zach Dasher is also a candidate in Louisiana’s 5th Congressional District.

A businessman who has never run for office, Zach is running on a platform of strong, comprehensive conservatism. From marriage to life to reducing the intrusion of government in our lives, Zach checks all the boxes and has an opportunity to replace a Congressman who ran on a platform of conservatism but voted with GOP leadership once he got to Washington, DC.

In a cycle that is bringing a robust group of conservatives into the House of Representatives, we believe that Zach will be a strong addition to that group and we are excited to endorse him in his run for Congress.