Category Archives: Congress

Ryan, Trillion Dollar Stab in Trump’s Supporters Back!

Ryan Risking Future of GOP

Never Turn Your Back on a RINO!

Speaker Ryan seems hell-bent on driving the Republican Party back to its comfortable position of being an opposition party! 

His trillion-dollar plus Continuing Resolution today literally and figuratively ignited Trump’s base that was instrumental in keeping the GOP majority in the House and giving the GOP the majority in the Senate in 2016. 

Trump and GOP congressional voters relied on Ryan being honorable and sticking to the campaign pledges that saved their bacon in 2016.  Instead, Ryan stabbed Trump and his supporters in the back by:

  • Not Defunding Planned Parenthood.
  • Not Providing  Any Funding for Trump’s Southern Boarder Wall.
  • Not Adding Language to Take Away Funding for Sanctuary Cities.
  • Not Providing Substantial Additions to Beef Up Our Military!
  • Not Delivering a “Readable” Bill!  Instead this PORKER BILL is over 1,600 Pages Long!  Ryan Is Only Allow Lawmakers 72 Hours to Read this Traitorous Piece of Crap!

 

Democrats Dumfounded that Ryan and the GOP Congress are So Spineless! 

Image result for Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi dancing

Why Win Elections?  The GOP will Surrender Anyway!

 

While Trump has to work with the GOP RINOs, he may as well admit that they will do everything to defeat him and his agenda.  Ryan and the donor class are showing Trump that “Theirs is bigger than His”!

Trump better mount the Bully Pulpit Image result for Trump's bully pulpitand call out Ryan and this travesty now or he can kiss off successfully Repealing and Replacing Obamacare, building the wall, rebuilding the military, or driving through his tax and budget plans. 

RD Pierini

#RDPierini

 

Hat Tips

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/01/spending-bill-language-omits-border-wall-funding-sanctuary-cities-crackdown.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/1665-pages-gop-spending-bill-longer-obamas-stimulus

 

US Senate Should Abolish the 60 Vote Cloture/Filibuster Rules

Senate Filibuster and Cloture Vote Rules = Tyranny of the Minority!

The Senate’s use of a filibuster or the cloture vote to stop a filibuster, IS NOT IN THE US CONSTITUTION!  It is simply a Senate “rule” that was created by the Senate itself.  

Most US Citizens believe that a majority vote in the House or Senate should be the standard for passing legislation. 

They believe that

THE RULE OF THE MAJORITY

in a democracy should be the guiding principle. 

NOT A RULE BY THE MINORITY!

Did you know that the word “filibuster” comes from a Dutch word meaning PIRATE?

Why should a minority of Senators be able to thwart the “WILL OF THE PEOPLE”?  When the people elect a majority of Senators from one political party or ideology, the people expect that the elected majority in the Senate should prevail over the minority.  IF you believe that the minority’s rights are greater than the majority’s rights then should the passing of any legislation by the Senate be approved by 100%, 99%, 90%, 75%, 66% of the senators?  In essence, the current Senate Rule 22 requiring 60 votes to close debate puts control of the Senate in the minority, not the elected majority on regular legislation.

Historical Perspective:

The Senate rule allowing for a filibuster was first adopted by the Senate in 1806 but first used later in 1837.   In 1917, the Senate adopted a rule, (Rule 22), that provided that a filibuster could be stopped by a vote of 2/3rds of the Senate.  The 2/3rds vote requirement remained until 1975. 

During this period, the Southern Democrat Senators used the high 2/3rds vote threshold to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including anti-lynching legislation,  until cloture was finally invoked after a 60 day filibuster. 

In 1975, the Senate modified its cloture rule allowing for a vote of 3/5ths (60 votes) to stop a filibuster.   In 2013 the Senate changed the cloture vote to a simple majority for non SCOTUS judicial appointments. Then, in 2017, the rules were changed for even SCOTUS appointments.

Voting in the Senate should be the same as in the House of Representatives where the simple majority vote carries the issue.

Hiding Behind Senate Rules:

The other obscenity that is created with the phony 60 vote majority to end debate and pass the legislation is when the party who controls lets say 52 votes puts a bill on the floor knowing full well that the minority will block cloture and force the bill to die without a vote.  Then those in the majority strut about saying well we tried by XYZ minority blocked us. 

In more concrete terms, Obamacare repeal votes took place countless times when the Republicans knew full well that the legislation would be blocked by the Senate or Obama.  House Speaker Paul Ryan also hides behind Senate Rules when he re-crafted the Obamacare Repeal and Replace blaming Senate Rules as the reason he had to water down and stage the replacement. 

Democrat Vs Republican:

Republicans wring their hands when us regular folks tell them to do away with the 60 vote cloture rule and vote up or down on everything based solely on a simple majority.  Leadership says that when Democrats are in power they will use this power against Republican and ram legislation through.  

Obama taught us that these insane legislative rules with their false majorities are inconsequential and should be predicated on a simple majority vote.  When Obama lost the majority in the House and Senate, he merely ignored the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by fiat.   If the Republicans did pass a bill, they knew Obama would veto it! 

So, it did not matter what the Republican majority was in the Senate or the House.  Both parties use these rules to hide behind.  The use of these faux votes to prove to their constituencies that they are fighting for them is ludicrous.  We are not THAT dumb!

McConnell:

Do Away with Senate Rule 22 Requiring 60 Votes to Close a Debate;

Man-up; and Vote and Be Accountable!

We The People are Not Fooled!

RD Pierini

@RDPierini

 

 

KKK Leader Rule Still Hamstrings American Voters Wishes

Image result for robert byrd kkk

Robert Byrd:  The Byrd Rule was named after former Klansman and US Senator Robert Byrd.  The Byrd Rule basically laid out the rules surrounding what could and could not be included in “budget reconciliation” and where specific inclusions could be subject to the 60 Vote cloture procedure in the Senate.  It was a further move to insure that a 40% minority in the Senate could thwart the will of the people and the majority of the people’s representatives…

The bottom line, any use of the need to have 60 out of 100 Senators vote to stop debate in the Senate is asinine in the modern era.  

A simple majority of Senators, 51, should be sufficient to represent the will of the people.   This 60 vote filibuster requirement is not a part of the Constitution but merely a Senate “Rule” that was created by the Senate and can be changed or eliminated by the Senate.  The irony of the practice of requiring a 60 vote for stopping the use of filibusters to kill legislation was used extensively by Southern Democrats to kill Civil Rights Legislation!

Paul Ryan Using, or Hiding Behind the 60 Vote Rule?: 

Ostensibly, the demise of the repeal of Obamacare and the replacement of Obamacare fell prey to the 60 vote idiocy of the US Senate rules, including the bill killing Byrd Rule.  Ostensibly, the way the repeal/replacement was structured by Paul Ryan was to circumvent the arcane Senate requiring 60 votes to overcome a fake filibuster by using the Budget Reconciliation Rules of the Senate and thus prohibiting a MINORITY of Congress, specifically the Senate, to kill the Obamacare replacement. 

Was Ryan trying to use the Senate Rules to really pass a viable replacement of Obamacare or was he hiding behind the Senate Rules to insure that the RINO goals of keeping big government in charge of health care?  Only the very few members of the Ryan leadership team really know the answer. 

The sad part is that the American People, who supported the Republican take back of the House and Senate and in November of 2016 the election of Donald Trump who ran on the repeal and replacement of Obamacare, are the losers.  Once again we counted on our Government to do their job and follow the will of the people.  Instead, Ryan and his cronies cow-towed to the will of big insurance, big pharma, and other interest groups to thwart the American People.

What is the Real Lesson?:

The real lesson that the American People have learned in watching this exercise of insanity is that the 60 Vote Cloture rule to end debate and allow a vote on a bill, whether subject to the budget Byrd Rule or not, has to be changed. 

We realize that the 60 vote rule does not make the Senate a great deliberative body but rather a slave to minority rule.  Period!

Same goes for confirmation of Presidential judicial appointments.  a simple 51 vote majority must be implemented or key judicial appointments can be derailed by 40 of the 100 Senators. 

The other use of the 60 vote rule is to try to hide behind a procedure to make themselves look good when they know full well that their vote is a farce.   All of the votes to repeal Obamacare by Republicans have been done with full knowledge that the Senate did not have the votes to stop a filibuster or last year’s when the House and Senate Republicans knew that Obama would veto the repeal vote.  But how many times have you seen Ryan and other puff out their chest and say that they voted to repeal Obamacare but X, Y, or Z stopped it from happening.  GET A MIRROR.  THE HOUSE AND SENATE REPUBLICANS, CONSERVATIVE AND RINO, HAVE ALLOWED THIS FARCE TO CONTINUE SO THEY CAN HIDE BEHIND CIRCA MID 1800’S RULES WHEN CAMPAIGNING FOR OFFICE.

Somehow, we need to force McConnell to repeal the Senate Rules to allow for majority rule.  Ryan and all Republican elected officials need to stand behind this change or nothing will ever change.

Some will say that when the Democrats are in power, they will use this Senate Rule change against us.  Where have you been the last 8 years?  The Democrats do not care about Senate Rules or the Constitution. Period!  Obama would issue an executive order and merely bypass Congress or the Constitution.  Ryan and McConnell would throw up their hands and say they don’t have the votes to overcome the Democrats. 

Enough is enough.  Trump’s agenda is OUR last chance to save this country from Progressive Rule and from the Big Donor, Big money interests that control this nation.   Obama put this country at the mercy of our sworn enemies and into the hands of the global progressive movement seats of power.

We need to stand and stand firm, NOW!

RD Pierini

@RDPierini

 

SCOTUS – Replacement for Congress?

Stop Relying on the Supreme Court to Create Law!

congress

Gutless Wonders In Congress Shirk Their Duty to Legislate and Duck their Responsibility and the Possible Ire of their Constituents by Allowing 9 Unelected Judges to Create Law by Fiat!

 

It is the Job of Congress Alone

U.S. Constitution; Article 1, Section 1

All legislative (having the power to make laws:) Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

The Supreme Court has NO Constitutional Authority to “Legislate”, Period!

U.S. Constitution; Article 3, Section 1.

The judicial Power (1) of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

SCOTUS RESTRICTED ROLE:  The courts below the Supreme Court, inferior courts, are created and maintained solely by Congress.  In 1803, a famous case, Marbury v Madison, formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States (constitutionality) under Article III. This Supreme Court decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches.  CONGRESS STILL HAS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE TO LEGISLATE, CREATE NEW LAW OR MODIFY EXISTING LAW. 

The Supreme Court, or any inferior court, can only judge whether a Constitutionally created law, passed by Congress and signed by the President, is in conformance with or does not violate any Constitutional authorities granted to the Congress by the Constitution, amendments thereto, or governing law.  Any law found to be unconstitutional, at the discretion of the Congress, must be modified by the Congress alone and submitted to the President for approval.  The court cannot, and should not, but has, actually modified the original language of a law by interpreting the language in the law to suit the court.  This is not legal right of the court and has been labeled “Judicial Activism” (2). 

Congress Needs to Pass Real Legislation Dealing with:

  • Freedom of Religion Protection under the 1st Amendment Against Government Overreach on Healthcare.

  • Define Life as beginning at Conception.

  • Pass a real school choice law allowing parents to use vouchers to send their children to a school of their choice.

  • Clarification of LGBT rights Vs the Religious Liberty of individuals.

  • Get the Government out of our Rest Rooms, Showers and Changing rooms.

  • Revise Title 7 and 9 that control schools and universities receiving Federal Funds to get the government out of the day-to-day operations of these institution.

  • Individual Employee Rights Vs Unions Rights regarding dues and Union political activism.

  • Disallow Environmentalists’ “standing in court” to bring lawsuits on behalf of the environment.

  • Mandate that all laws passed by Congress cannot exempt Congress or its members from its provisions.

  • Mandate that all laws passed by Congress, and any resulting regulation, that require funds to be expended to implement the law, be fully paid for by the Federal Government.  (Eliminates unfunded mandates)

  • Create a national standard for Voter IDs to ensure that Federal Elections are properly controlled.

  • Clarify 2nd Amendment protections by creating national “carry permits”; eliminate State and Local taxes designed to restrict gun or ammunition ownership; create Federal restrictions on gun ownership for the mentally impaired.

  • Pass common sense political contribution reform and eliminate PACs and Super PACS.  All persons, including individuals, corporations, LLCs, Unions, tax exempt organizations, can only contribute $1,000 per candidate or initiative. 

  • Require that the President submit and the Congress pass an Annual Budget or the executive and legislative elected officials and staff do not get paid until it is passed.

  • Require that the annual budget be prepared and approved using zero based budgeting and eliminate automatic increases.

  • Require all regulations that have been created undergo a cost-benefit analysis, and then be reviewed by Congress before it is put into effect. 

  • Etcetera!  You get the point.

Otherwise, Our Nation and Our Culture will be Dictated by 9 Unelected People! 

The point being is that Congress needs to step up and do its job as the Founding Fathers intended.  Since Obama was elected, Congress has shirked its duties and stopped passing budgets, allowed SCOTUS to modify legislation that the Congress should have done through the legislative process, and have allowed the President to create legislation via executive fiat.  Congress has the power of the purse and impeachment to use against an out-of-control Executive Branch and they must step up and exercise their duties as prescribed by the Constitution or we all lose. 

We cannot be dictated to by a President, or 9 unelected individuals on the Supreme Court. 

We need to get back to the basics and start acting like a real country again!

Congress-SCotus

RD Pierini

@RDPierini

 

((1)Judicial Power is defined as Authority, both constitutional and legal, given to the courts and its judges (1) to preside over and render judgment on court-worthy cases; (2) to enforce or void statutes and laws when scope or constitutionality are questioned (3) to interpret statutes and laws when disputes arise.)

(2) Case in point was when SCOTUS ruled that the individual mandate to purchase a Obamacare policy was in fact a TAX which is lawful for the Congress to levy rather than an individual mandated payment which is a violation of the Congressional authority under the Constitution.  Chief Justice rewrote Obamacare regarding the mandates when he concluded that: “Part III-B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.”  It is not reasonable! This all the while the Obama Administration, who helped create the bill, maintained that the individual mandate was NOT A TAX, because it did not meet the Constitution’s definition of what taxes could be levied by the Congress.  Roberts must have “divined” that Obama had a mental lapse and didn’t mean what he said!

 

Hat Tips

http://usconstitution.cc/

http://thelawdictionary.org/judicial-power/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/scotus-upholds-obamacare-mandate-as-tax-even-though-its-not-a-tax/

 

Jeff Session’s Litmus Test for Republican Candidates-Should be the Next Debate

Time to ask each Candidate:  Where’s the Beef!

Senator Jeff Sessions laid out 5 questions that each candidate for the Republican nomination for president should answer.  In Fact, the entire debate on Saturday, 2/6, should be these question rather than the sophomoric “gotcha” questions asked by Fox and other moderators.  Who cares about whether X thank Y lied or whether Y didn’t show up to an event.

To channel Donald J. Trump.  This country is in Deep Sh*%!  We need some serious answers to serious questions.

Below are the questions Senator Sessions posed and my comments below each of the questions:

Question 1: How would you vote (or how did you vote) on fast-track, and would you support or oppose advancing a final trade agreement which enters the United States into a new international commission with binding authority on future United States trade policy?

Senator Cruz and Rubio both voted to fast-track the Trans Pacific Partnership, TPP.  Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states: “The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur….”  The TPP must be viewed first and foremost as a treaty, and also be defeated.  The TPP transfers our sovereignty to a to be formed international commission that will have BINDING authority on future US trade policy.  This should be unconstitutional on its face.  While Cruz and Rubio voted to fast-track the agreement, Trump is squarely against it.  Where is the National Review on this one?

Question 2: If the vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership were held today, and you had a vote to cast in Congress, would you vote for it or against it?

All candidates should pledge to vote no on the legislation without reservation.

Question 3: Upon entering office, will you promptly and unconditionally terminate and rescind all of President Obama’s illegal executive amnesties – which provide work permits and entitlements to illegal aliens – including President Obama’s first executive amnesty in 2012, which remains in effect?

All candidates should pledge to immediately revoke all of Obama’s illegal executive orders without reservation.

Question 4: A supermajority of GOP voters say immigration is too high. Every year, on autopilot, we let in another 1 million immigrants on green cards, 700,000 foreign guest workers, half a million foreign students, and 100,000 refugees and asylees. Historical precedent would be to reduce record-breaking immigration, rather than continuing to surge it beyond all historical precedent. Will you support legislation to reduce immigration numbers, and will you oppose legislation that would add to the number?

All candidates should pledge to, at a minimum, reduce current immigration levels.  Even better, they should pledge to stop allowing refugees, from anywhere, including Cuba, until we have established a comprehensive vetting process; further, the H-1B and H1-A visa programs should be stopped until we can accurately assess our US labor pool and stop using these visa programs to compete against US workers; Also, all immigration limits should be indexed against the U-6 unemployment rate.  If the U-6 is <5%, then we would allow immigrants in.  If the U-6 is >5%, then there would be a graduated scale of the number of allowable TOTAL immigrants under all programs to be allowed in.

Question 5: Today, law enforcement are under increasing scrutiny and face excessive criticism from the political elites and the media, and are being targeted by criminals and terrorists. Meanwhile, since 2011, the federal prison population has declined by over 20,000, and is on track to be at its lowest level since 2005. Since 2009, the total state prison population has dropped every year, and is over 56,000 lower than it was then. These circumstances may have contributed to a nationwide spike in crime. The FBI recently reported an overall increase in violent crime and a 17 percent increase in homicides in the nation’s 50 largest cities. At the same time, the CDC reports that heroin and opioid drug overdoses have reached an all-time record high. Do you support efforts by President Obama and some Republicans in Congress to reduce penalties for drug-trafficking and further reduce the federal prison population, or do you think government should do more to keep drug traffickers off the streets?

All candidates should say they do not support Obama’s numbers for the sake of numbers bastardization of our penal system just to reduce the number of people in prison.

Obviously there is a need to provide better and more intelligent support to all law enforcement levels throughout the US including maintaining the military style equipment program for local law enforcement.  Reducing prison populations for the sake of just reducing the number is idiotic. 

We have sufficient info to help create a drug-use prevention program and to structure an enforcement scheme that will help reduce the drug related crime and incarceration rates.  But, so far, there is just too much money in the drug businesses that I fear makes its way into Federal, State and Local elections! 

As a former Mayor, I can tell you that Federal money with specified usage for law enforcement is not effective.  Federal law enforcement block grants are more effective as no 2 police or sheriff’s departments have the same needs.  Further, if equipment is provided, the training on its use must also be provided.

****************************

I’ll bet each of you who have read these 5 questions have probably come up with your own solutions and wonder why the President and the Republican Congress have not made inroads into solving each of these 5 issues.  You may also be surprised at the answers your candidate may give in response to these 5 questions.

The current debates are designed to drive ratings and to allow one candidate to look better than another.  We the People need to demand that the RNC and DNC work with the people to structure the debates so we can get the answers we need to intelligently vote.

Wow, an intelligent vote, the RNC and DNC would be scared to death of that!!!

Hat Tip:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/05/exclusive-test-senator-seeks-answers-presidential-candidates-trade-immigration-crime/

Fake Trump Ad-DECEIT in Emailing-National Republican Senatorial Committee

 

NRSC Logo

The National Republican Senatorial Committee is Fraudulently Spamming Emails with the FAKE Soliciting of Contributions in Support of Donald Trump. 

Below is a copy of the body of the email:

———————————————————————————————————-

Sender2016 Alert [via NRSC] <info@nrsc.org>

SubjectDonald Trump’s opportunity

To:  [Your Name], The Iowa caucuses may be over, but now all eyes are on next week’s presidential primary in New Hampshire. Donald Trump has a tremendous opportunity, which is why it is so important that you stand with Donald Trump right now.  Show your support for Donald Trump with a Donald Trump sticker, yours with your donation of $3 or more.   

Get my Donald Trump sticker now

———————————————————————————————————-

The irony of this fraudulent email is that the US Senate Republicans HATE Donald Trump but have no trouble in hitching their sick bandwagon to his parade.  The Trump Campaign @realdonaldtrump should sue the NRSC but I am sure that McCain and Graham have passed a law making this legal.  How about Cruz and Rubio?  They are members of the US Senate.  Where are they in this?

The Congressional Republicans wonder why we wish there was a way to vote each and every one of them out of office and replace McConnell with a real conservative who actually cares about the agenda of We The People!

Donald Trump is the only candidate for president who is self funding his own campaign which makes this fraudulent email campaign even more evil.  They are trying to raise doubts that Trump is actually NOT self funding as he is soliciting donations for Bumper Stickers.

RD Pierini

@RDPierini

 

 

 

 

Muslim Immigration Rationale In Light of Terrorism Threat

Multiple Agenda in Play

It is logical for people to question the rationale of Western governments who seem to be highly motivated to increase the level of immigration from Muslim countries, regardless of the difficulties to assimilate large non-indigenous groups of people in a short period of time and coupled with the increase in local terrorism being perpetrated by some of the immigrants.  It is compounded further when the Judeo-Christian West is trying to assimilate followers of Islam, whose radicalized followers vow to convert or kill Christians, and, do not share common governance principles.  (Sharia vs Western Judicial System) 

Further, that with the rise of violence and the increasing terrorist attacks being perpetrated by radicalized Muslim immigrants, civil order and personal safety has become a widespread concern for their citizens many of which are emphatically questioning the wisdom of their elected officials.  In order to understand why politicians and world organizations are pushing for increasing immigration, you will need to understand that there are multiple agenda and  goals in play that may or may not seem logical to you. 

Some of what you hear or read are justifications to promote this type of immigration as the real motivations are not put forth.  Also, you may be blamed for being Islamophobic/Xenophobic for disagreeing with your government’s immigration policies.  Don’t fall prey to this intimidation tactic.  You have every right to challenge your elected official’s policies and to demand answers and changes. 

It will also be difficult for many to admit the level of ideological fervor behind much of the decision-making.  Finally, it will also be almost impossible to rationalize how some of the leaders can possibly believe that they can survive their own misguided, ideological decision making.  You will have to challenge yourself to look at the current situation and ask yourself what is the true motivation behind countries seeking to increase levels of Muslim immigration  without providing the safeguards needed to protect their indigenous citizenry and assimilate those newcomers crossing their boarders.  What is their end game?

 

Immigration Vs. Terrorism Threat: 

Size of the Threat:  On the surface, it seems logical that politicians would see the correlation between immigration from Muslim countries and the potential increased threat of violence from radicalized Muslims who enter a country without being properly vetted.  Say for example, that .1% (one tenth of one percent) of Muslims may have been or will be radicalized.  Assume that there are 2 billion Muslims in the world today.  This would mean that there could be 2,000,000 potentially radicalized Muslims in the world.  That is a very large number of people who may be recruited into radical groups with varying ideologies but the common goal to defeat Christianity and the West. 

Is it Islamophobic to equate the current level of terrorism to the increasing radicalization of Muslims?  No.  Radicalized Muslims have been responsible for over 90% of the acts of terror around the world in recent years and the acts are increasing and spreading into the heartlands of Western countries.  Don’t abandon common sense for political correctness.  If 90% of the terrorist attacks were being perpetrated by Christians, it would be equally as appropriate to say that radical Christianity is responsible for the increase in terrorism. 

Finally, it does not matter which radical group terrorist align with.  If a particular group is eliminated, they will join one of the surviving radical groups.  We have allowed our government to segregate Islamic Terrorism into various factions so when the government makes progress against one group, they can run a victory lap.  (Had you even heard of Al Qaeda before 9/11?)  The problem of Islamic Terrorism does not go away just because one group is eliminated.  When bin Laden was killed, Obama said the Al Qaeda was on the run and diminished.  The words no sooner passed his lips when ISIS came to the forefront.  Now, Al Qaeda is back with vengeance in multiple theatres.  We have to focus on the broader Islamic Terrorism threat rather than continuing to focus on differing factions.  That would be like someone thinking that they were at war with the US Navy but not recognizing the rest of the US armed forces units would join the overall fight.

 

Justifying Unchecked Immigration from Muslim Countries

As I stated at the beginning, there is not one single ideology or rationale used by Western Governments to promote and allow unfettered immigration.  The following are some of the stated and not stated justifications.

Natural Population Growth Statistics:  The U.S. and European household family sizes have dropped significantly since the 1960s.  In the US, the family size in 1960 was 3.67 while in 2014 it fell to 3.13, a drop of 17%.  In Europe, by 1995, the average household contained 2.5 people. This is expected to decrease further as the number of one-person households increases from 30% in 2000 to 36% by 2015.  Conversely, the family sizes in Muslim homes in the US are 25% larger than for non-Muslim families.  Use of birth control and the incidence of abortions in the US and Europe are both high contributing to the decline household sizes among Whites, Blacks and Hispanics, with the latter two comprising a disproportionate share of the number of abortions.

European Labor Force Shrinking-Rationale for Immigration:  Europe’s population of 500 million people is aging and many of their baby boomers have or will soon be leaving the labor market.  Within the next 50 years, the European labor force will be reduced by 45 million workers (almost 10% of current population) due to retirement.  Angela Merkel, speaking in Berlin to 4 cabinet ministers in May of 2013, stated; “It’s high time to start tackling the generational challenges.  Projections that Germany will have 6 million fewer working-age people by 2025 mean that we can surely do more to be open to immigration.”  Clearly she sees immigration as the only means to solve Germany’s labor shortage that is looming on the horizon.  As the leading manufacturing country and most affluent in the EU, Germany is committed to maintaining its dominance.   In 2015, Germany allowed over 1.1 million immigrants to enter their country.  The European Union’s 27 member nations have adopted several policies to “control” their newly arrived immigrants but given the increasing levels of terrorism and civil disobedience involving wide-spread sexual assaults and property destruction, they clearly do not have their immigration under control nor are they able to assimilate them into their societies.  The presence of “No-Go” zones in many of the larger cities in the EU are evidence of the lack of assimilation.

US Labor Force Manipulated Shrinkage-Rationale for Immigration:  There are several factors that are contributing to the shrinking US labor force.

  • The US has over 94,000,000 potential workers who have dropped out of the job market since the 2008 recession due to policies that our government is pursuing is also serving to perpetuate this low participation rate.
  • Hardest hit are the US minority populations of Blacks and Hispanics, some of which are refugees or Muslim immigrants.
  • The US has increased the amount of social welfare benefits one can receive, who is no longer in the work force, which further incentivized higher rates of non-labor force participation.
  • The US also has a large segment of its population who are baby boomers and who will be retiring now and in the next few years further reducing the labor force and increasing Social Security outlays.
  • Immigration, legal and illegal, is increasing while the labor participation rate continues to decline among US workers.  Read that line again.  Fewer US citizens are fining jobs so quit looking while our government is bringing more non citizens.
    • H1-A and H1-B visas have increased since 2008 and this labor is replacing US workers who are no longer in the labor force.
    • Illegal immigration is back filling many of the lower wage jobs that are no longer filled by US workers.
    • Refugee programs are also adding workers to the US labor pool providing additional competition for jobs.
    • In short, our high levels of immigration and “temporary” Visas are knocking our own workers out of the workplace, lowering wages due to an excess supply of cheap labor, and is allowing politicians to blame straw men for this phenomena.  (More down below)

Since 2008 we have seen the number of full-time jobs shrink significantly due to changes in the healthcare system and other employment mandates.  This was planned.  The influx of immigrants has had a dampening effect on wages making it more difficult for US workers to find employment that will yield incomes above the poverty line.  This was planned.  Due to increased EPA regulations and other domestic factors, many of the US manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas or to our NAFTA partners.  This was planned.  Due to increased regulations and the tightening of credit due to governmental actions, small business start-ups are way down and small business failures are increasing, again reducing the number of jobs available to US citizens This was planned.

Ideological Causal Factors for Increasing Immigration

I have heard people say that things could not be this upside down unless it is being accomplished intentionally.  Newsflash, It is Intentional.

US Versus European Union Progressive Socialism (PS):  Europe has been moving rapidly towards progressive socialism for years with the goal being the establishment of utopia under the EU Flag and totally centralized in Brussels.  The establishment of the European Union and the centralization of European political power into a single government, is a key component of the PS movement in Europe.  What does this mean?  PS sees the creation of the central government as the only way to create the perfect state where everyone is equal and all needs are met.  Karl Marx borrowed this phrase to describe PS; “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs“.  In other words, EVERYONE, whether they are contributing or not, have free access to all goods and services under PS.  Since this is a very complex model, only a few of the chosen intellectuals would be allowed to participate in governing process.  A concise way to describe the philosophy of PS is:

Progressivism is a broad philosophy based on the Idea of Progress (as defined by progressives), that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization (that they will create) are vital to improve the human condition (as defined by them). “

In the US, the encroachment of PS has been slow but methodical beginning in the 1800’s.  It started as a social movement but quickly morphed into a full-fledged political movement.  Progressivism is often used interchangeably with Liberalism but for now we will just assert that they have many common ideals and leave that for another day.  Progressivism has not been confined to the Democrat liberal party.  Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican President who later joined the American Progressive party.  Oftentimes today, politicians cling to their Republican moniker but ascribe to the Progressive ideals.  Why, Progressivism is founded on the total centralization of power with the power held by a select few.  Ergo, Republican or Democrat Senators and House Members want to be at the core of the seat of power so join forces with the Progressives.  (This is why you are often disillusioned that a “conservative” candidate, when elected, votes contrary to your “conservative” values.)  The US has not been moving towards the PS model as rapidly as Europe UNTILL THE ELECTION OF BARAK OBAMA.  Obama is a died in the wool Progressive with a one world governing view led by intellectuals and like-minded individuals. Period!

Obama and the US progressives have fomented racial tensions, pitted some of the public against law enforcement, and blamed America for all of the woes around the world.  They have destroyed the fabric of our economy and have all but emasculated the middle class.  They are using climate change to over regulate and further damage western economies.  All of these are progressive tools aimed at eliminated the status quo.  All of these are worthwhile topics to elaborate on but that will be for later articles.

Progressivism with Immigration as a Tool

Goal:  Centralization of Political & Military Power

You may think to yourself by now that you should make yourself an aluminum foil hat as this is getting kind of far out.  It gets worse so if you need a break to find the aluminum foil, I’ll wait! 

Below is one scenario describing how the Progressives could use the immigration of Muslims to accomplish the centralization of power.  There are countless permutations of this scenario that could accomplish the same result.

The US and European nations all function under some form of democratic organization.  Elections are held, priorities change from election to election, and life goes on.  The electorate is not happy but busy just trying to live their lives.  At some point, Progressivism demands that a definitive act takes place that can catapult a nation or a group of nations like the EU, into a highly centrally controlled government protected by military force. 

Assume that in a year from now, the US has brought in an additional 2 million or so immigrants from the Middle East and Europe has added to it current high levels of immigration from Muslim countries.  For every million immigrants, there are 1,000 radicalized Islamic terrorists allowed in as our vetting process has not been improved.  Assume that Islamic terrorist attacks rise to a level on one or two per day in various cities across the US and Europe.  The American and European people will be railing against their respective governments to do something to eliminate this threat.

The US and EU then declare martial law in their countries and begin the process of establishing an “interim” governance mechanism.

This does not mean that the Congress will be eliminated or the European Parliaments dissolved.  But it does mean that the government will seize control and an oligarchy formed, perhaps out of a coalition of the Executive and legislative branches with appropriate insertions of intellectuals to insure that the establishment of the new order is established properly.  There will be enough of the old structure in place so the new leaders can say that nothing has really changed except that you are now safe.  This  all won’t be voted on but will be the result of the government “reacting” to a threat to the country that demands that Washington DC in the US or Brussels in Europe declare a state of emergency and martial law.  All military assets will be at the ready to enforce martial law.

Why would leaders or aspiring leaders and the wealthy participate in such an arrangement?

  1. They all feel that they would be included in the resulting society in a leadership capacity.
  2. They all feel that they would in a position to improve their own economic position by being in a leadership capacity.  Why not, Crony economics is alive and well today!
  3. THEY FEEL, THAT WITH TOTAL CONTROL OVER THE MILITARY, THEY COULD CONTROL THE CITIZENRY, INCLUDING THE RADICAL ELEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN IMMIGRATED INTO THE US AND THE EU. 
  4. They feel that the new military backed social order could forcefully assimilate the citizenry and the radical elements into the new utopian society.  Things would be so good that everyone would be happy.
  5. People like George Soros and other wealthy individuals have been funding the growth of Progressivism for decades through various well sounding organizations and think-tanks that they have funded.  They know they will be one of the ruling class.

Where does the UN fit In?

As the tentacles of the Progressive movement spread, ultimately an international body will be needed to include and consolidate the newly formed Progressive governments into a single worldwide organization.  The UN already has the structure in place and the use of its infrastructure for this new venture would not be that difficult to pull off.  It is kind of interesting that this past week that there have been  king about Obama wanting to become the new Secretary.  

Alternative Theory

If you think my theory is a bit too aluminum foil laced, then the only rationale for our leaders to increase Muslim immigration, without proper vetting, in spite of the threat of more terrorism, is that they are just the most ignorant and illogical people God has placed on this earth, ever!  Or, that they are all Muslim and want to convert everyone to Islam.  Or, they have a death wish. Or, Martians came down and are inhabiting the bodies and minds of all world leaders.

I do not believe that Europe is salvageable now without a major, very difficult, transition back to the reestablishment of the European population and culture.  The US is not quite there yet.  The 2016 election will be pivotal as to whether we reverse our current course or we continue and join our European allies in their demise.  

Final Note:  If you think this is far out there, go see or read the Hunger Games!

RD Pierini

Hat Tips:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-08-402_en.htm

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/global-immigration-eu.html

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/regions/europe

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/europe-s-deadly-immigration-policy

http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/blueprints/stein.html

http://www.allied-media.com/AM/

https://www.opendemocracy.net/arab-awakening

Paul Ryan Should Stay Out of the Republican Primary Discussion!

Paul Ryan poked his nose into the Republican Presidential primary today condemning Donald Trump and his stand on immigration by followers of Islam.  Ryan, emerging from an RNC meeting, said of Trump’s moratorium on Muslim immigration, “This is not conservatism. What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for. And more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.”  First of all Mr. Speaker, whoever wins the White House in 2016, and it may well be Trump, you will have to work with him or her for the good of this country.  Weighing in now is premature regardless of your position on Trump’s comments.  Further, you are badmouthing one of contenders in your own party’s primary!  Maybe you want to exercise a little restraint and perhaps focus on the real dangerous positions of Clinton or Sanders.

Think Ahead!  You and the RNC will need the help of the Trump supporters to maintain the lead in the Senate and House.  Alienating a very large portion of the Republican base is not in your best interest.  Also, keep it up and you will force Trump to run as an independent.  Running for Speaker of the House could be interesting with three political parties vying for the Speaker of the House position!  I said in an earlier article that Trump, in a 3 way race against Clinton and Bush, could probably get 180 electoral votes and win the presidency.  Not sure any other combinations of Democrats or Republicans could do that.

The RNC and the Republican establishment best start respecting the Trump following.  You can’t win in 2016 without them.
Hat Tips:

Trump Will Win the Muslim Ban Argument, Again!

 ***Update ***

Told Ya–64% of Likely GOP primary voters agree with Trump’s Ban on Muslim Immigration!!!

An Online Poll Found 37% of General Election Voters (includes Democrats) Favored Trump’s Proposal

It is comical to see the left and right come together every time Trump issues a fatwā, فتوى‎ (just trying to keep things in context).  This time Trump merely wants to suspend the entry into the United States anyone, other than US citizens, (Unless they went overseas to receive Jihadi training), who is a Muslim.  The both sides are screaming Un-American, Fascists, Racists, unconstitutional, and a whole host of other superlatives and rhetorical hyperbole.  It is always amusing when Dick Chaney ends up seated next to the current White House in condemning Trump’s proposals.  Maybe when that happens, someone should call for a time out and revisit the proposal.

Trump Gets the Juices Flowing!

Whether you support Trump or not, you have to admit that he really knows how to create a discussion on whatever topic he deems critical to open debate.  He does not put a fine edge on any of his points nor does he hide behind and PC rhetoric.  He plainly stated: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” 

  • Is this constitutional? Yes, non citizens have no protections under our Constitution.
  • Would the President have statutory authority to enforce such a ban?  Yes!  8 USC 1182: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”)

Here are a couple of examples of restrictions placed on immigration by our government in the past:

  • 1882Chinese Exclusion Act. First federal immigration law suspended Chinese immigration for 10 years and barred Chinese in U.S. from citizenship. Also barred convicts, lunatics, and others unable to care for themselves from entering. Head tax placed on immigrants.
  • 1891: Bureau of Immigration established under the Treasury Department. More classes of aliens restricted including those who were monetarily assisted by others for their passage. Steamship companies were ordered to return ineligible immigrants to countries of origin.
  • 1892Ellis Island opened to screen immigrants entering on east coast. (Angel Island screened those on west coast.) Ellis Island officials reported that women traveling alone must be met by a man, or they were immediately deported. (Hillary would love this one)
  • 1902:  Chinese Exclusion Act renewed indefinitely.  (See 1882 above)
  • 1906:  Procedural safeguards enacted for naturalization. Knowledge of English becomes a basic requirement.  (Just thought I would add this one)
  • 1917:  Immigration Act provided for literacy tests for those over 16 and established an “Asiatic Barred Zone,” which barred all immigrants from Asia.
  • 1922 Japanese made ineligible for citizenship. (This was 19 years before Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese)
  • 1924:  1921 Quotas changed to 2% of each nationality based on numbers in US in 1890. Based on surnames (many anglicized at Ellis Island) and not the census figures, 82% of all immigrants allowed in the country came from western and northern Europe, 16% from southern and eastern Europe, 2% from the rest of the world. As no distinctions were made between refugees and immigrants, this limited Jewish emigres during 1930s and 40s.
  • 1948:  (And here is another of those Un-American concepts)  Displaced Persons Act allowed 205,000 refugees over two years; gave priority to Baltic States refugees; admitted as quota immigrants. Technical provisions discriminated against Catholics and Jews; those were dropped in 1953, and 205,000 refugees were accepted as non-quota immigrants.
  • 2001Patriot Act:  Amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to broaden the scope of aliens ineligible for admission or deportable due to terrorist activities to include an alien who: (1) is a representative of a political, social, or similar group whose political endorsement of terrorist acts undermines U.S. antiterrorist efforts; (2) has used a position of prominence to endorse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support such activity in a way that undermines U.S. antiterrorist efforts (or the child or spouse of such an alien under specified circumstances); or (3) has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends to engage in threatening activities while in the United States.

So, apparently, we have been Un-American, Fascists, Racists, and constitutionally incorrect in the past!  We have banned whole nationalities and indeed races, and stopped a group of Catholics via regulations, etc.

Why was and is all of this legal?  Because our Constitution places the protection of our citizens as the primary duty of our government and any immigration or refugee restrictions the Congress and President deem necessary to protect the nation is not only Constitutional but required by those in our government.

Can and should followers of Islam be set up as a restricted class for immigration scrutiny?  Yes.

Islam is not only a religion, but also establishes a code of laws for its adherents to live by commonly known as Sharia Law.  When polled by the Center for Justice, 51% of the followers of Islam who are living in the U.S. believed that they should be able to choose to live by U.S. laws or Sharia Law.

So, before you succumb to the hyperbole of the media and other Democrat and Republican political types, stop and ask yourself, “if 2 out of a 1000 Muslim immigrants are or will become radicalized while in the US, should our government do more to screen out the 2?”  Unfortunately the number is a lot highter than 2 out of 1000 which is only .2%.

The Center for Security Policy also released their online polling data that showed that “25% of those polled (Muslims living now in the U.S.), agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad.”

So, rather than 2 out of 1,000, would you feel comfortable with 250 out of 1000 becoming radicalized and perpetrating another Paris or San Bernardino style attack or worse?

Just Sayin!  Worth thinking about what Trump said and asking yourself what should we do to keep out elements who wish to destroy this nation?

 

 

 

Hat Tip:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/08/trumps-muslim-ban-not-fascist-not-unconstitutional/

http://www.nationalreview.com/donald-trump-muslim-immigration

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

http://www.flowofhistory.org/themes/movement_settlement/uspolicytimeline.php

Update:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/poll-voters-agree-poll/2015/12/09/id/705164/

House Republicans Will Fold on Obamacare Funding and Kick the Catholic Church to the Curb

     It is nice to know that some of our venerable institutions actually stand and act on principle.  No, I am not talking about the House of Representatives and the Republican Party.  I am talking about the Catholic Church.  Boehner and the rest of the House Republicans will go along with the Democrats in the Senate and Obama and vote for a Continuing Resolution to avoid a “government shutdown”. 

No RINOs Allowed!

     Good thing the British are not attacking us again in Boston Harbor as Boehner and Co. would throw up their hands and surrender.  The House Republicans are literally throwing the Catholic Church, and its 57 Million Voters, to the wolves by allowing funding for Obamacare to go forward.  The Church will be left to waiting on the courts to decide their Religious Freedom argument but that won’t happen in the next 8 days when the contraception/abortion/sterilization mandate kicks in.  Catholics who may be ambivalent on the contraception issue should stand firm against the abortifacients, abortions and sterilization mandate by King Obama and Princess Sibelius. 

     Someone ask me in January whether the Boehner would lead the fight to not fund this government without spending cuts from Reid and Obama and force the curtailing of funding for Obamacare.  I can’t quote my exact retort but suffice it to say the bottom line was NO!  Boehner never has learned how to fight the way the democrats fight nor is he willing to put principle before politics and his own re-election.  The three stooges of the house, Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy will all cave in unison as this nation continues to sink into a morass of debt, zero GDP growth, deepening unemployment, and cultural and racial divide.  127 conservative House Republicans sent a letter to little Johnny Boehner pleading for him to use the appropriations process, that Boehner controls, to defund Obamacare.  They may as well have sent the letter to Obama.

     In our history, it seems as though our creator always would send someone to “bail us out” of our own messes.  This time I am not sure this will be the case.  We have many of the same weak none conservatives running for the house and senate and Romney has not shown himself to be a fighter for conservatism.  If he is elected, the media will pound on him as they did Bush.  It took Bush a little over 3 years before he started to crumble.  Not sure Romney will even get that far.  Just a few questions to ask yourself given that the House GOP won’t even fight to stop funding for Obamacare in the upcoming CR:

  1. Would Romney and the House and Senate Republicans even consider killing the EPA?
  2. Would Romney and the House and Senate Republicans even consider killing the Department of Education and turning back control over education to State and Local entities?
  3. Would Romney and the House and Senate Republicans even consider killing the Department of Energy?
  4. Would Romney and the House and Senate Republicans even consider killing the Department of Interior regulations against on and offshore drilling?
  5. Would Romney and the House and Senate Republicans even consider killing the Department of Interior’s control over Water and turn it over to the Department of Agriculture where they can focus on food production.
  6. Come to think of it, would Romney and the House and Senate Republicans even consider killing the Department of Interior altogether? 
  7. Would Romney and the House and Senate Republicans even consider Consolidating all welfare programs, under a single entity to better control eligibility and eliminate waste.  Then, if someone needs assistance, they get one check for all of their needs rather than one for food from one agency, one for rent from another agency, one for child care from another etc. etc. etc. (Department of Agriculture would no longer be in charge of Food Stamps)
  8. Would Romney and the House and Senate Republicans even consider killing the Federal Reserve or at the very least put some accountability into the Fed’s actions.  The printing of money should only be authorized by Congress who we vote for.  They may not be any brighter than Bernanke but at least we can fire them from time to time.
  9. Would Romney and the House and Senate Republicans even consider killing Dodd-Frank.
  10. Would Romney and the House and Senate Republicans even consider killing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?
  11. Would Romney and the House and Senate Republicans even consider putting forth a Constitutional Amendment to limit House members to 4 terms and Senators to 2 terms?
  12. Would Romney and the House and Senate Republicans even consider putting forth a Constitutional Amendment to limit the Supreme Court members to 9 year terms?
  13. Would Romney and the House and Senate Republicans even consider putting forth a Constitutional Amendment to balance the Federal Budget and limit the size of government to 18% of the GDP?
  14. Would Romney and the House and Senate Republicans even consider putting forth a Constitutional Amendment requiring that all elected, appointed, and staff members of government be subject to every law passed by Congress and signed into law?
  15. Would Romney and the House and Senate Republicans even consider putting forth a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting the use of taxes, penalties, or fines to coerce an American Citizen to Buy, or Not Buy, or Lease, or Not Lease, or Rent or Not Rent, or Use or Not use and good or service or property.
  16. Would Romney and the House and Senate Republicans even consider killing the IRS and replacing our tax system with a flat tax that could not be changed in any way by Congress without a 3/4 vote of both houses. 

I’ll bet you can’t find two that you would think that Romney or the Republicans would even consider.  RINOs are just Progressives in slow motion.  They will both take us to the same miserable place, one will just be slower at it…

RD Pierini

Hat Tips

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/house-gop-leaders-indicate-they-will-fund-implementation-obamacare

http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/will-boehner-fight-or-fold-obamacare-funding