-Marlith- (CC)

The state’s regional Education Service Centers will no longer issue lesson plans – and will forbid their use after Aug. 31 – for a popular online curriculum system that became a lightning rod for conservatives who criticized it as anti-American, legislators announced Monday.

The move is expected to leave school districts across the state, including some in the greater Houston area, scrambling to replace CSCOPE, as the program is called, before the start of next school year. Districts that lack the staff or budget to design their own curriculum tend to rely on it.

The CSCOPE plans are in use at 877 districts, or 78 percent of school districts in Texas, said Kyle Wargo, the executive director of Regional Service Center 17 in Lubbock.

“Since we are a small district, we don’t have the resources to hire specialized people in that area,” said Somerset Independent School District Superintendent Saul Hinojosa, who credits CSCOPE with helping the district raise its test scores.

However, while Hinojosa claims CSCOPE helped to increase test scores, that does not necessarily mean that it helps students learn. Debates over the efficacy of standardized tests as a metric to determine how well students learn continue to rage, and in Texas, there are at least some teachers that believe that the end of CSCOPE will mean a better learning environment for their students.

KLTV.com reports that many teachers despised CSCOPE’s rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to education. After seven years of CSCOPE, those teachers are thrilled to be set free from the tyranny of the ready-made lesson plan.

Bill Martin, director of the Tyler Sylvan Learning Center, said the end of CSCOPE means teachers “get control back over their classroom again.”

“They get to use lesson plans that they feel are best suited for their class and their students in their class,” Martin told KLTV.com.

Martin added that he doesn’t know “a single teacher that likes CSCOPE. Not a single teacher.”

If reports that parent requests to see CSCOPE materials were met with demands to pay exorbitant fees were true, the end of this program should also mean a return to school districts obeying Texas laws, requiring that parents be given course information and learning materials on request. Of course, to conservatives, this means the end of students being taught to compare Boston Tea Party Activists to terrorists.

The most telling comment in the piece is how Obama has talked about “going Bulworth” and just saying what he actually thinks. This is a reference to the Warren Beatty/Halle Berry film about a California senator who decides to tell everyone what he believes, no matter the consequences. The New York Post has taken it to mean Obama wants to come out and admit he’s a socialist, which the Bulworth character is. This could be true, but it also reveals a problem with our political system.

Politicians have a problem with being 100-percent honest. Big surprise, but a David Axelrod quote following the Bulworth revelation is even more telling. Axelrod told The Times, “But the reality is that while you want to be truthful, you want to be straightforward, you also want to be practical about whatever you’re saying.”

It’s not that politicians can’t tell the truth, it’s that they don’t think the public wants to know the truth.

The sad part is…they’re probably right.

More people would rather be told that things are “going to be okay,” instead of hearing the horrific reality of the situation.

The 2012 election is a perfect example of this. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were vilified for discussing the nation’s $16-trillion in debt. Columnists like Paul Krugman claimed the nation’s debt isn’t an issue, while Obama told David Letterman “we don’t have to worry about it short term.” Letterman asked only one follow up but that shouldn’t be surprising. He’s not Jake Tapper.

When Romney spoke his mind in the “infamous” 47-percent quote, he was said to “not represent all Americans” and to have “written off half the nation.” Obama, again, told Letterman about how he wanted to represent the “entire country,” but didn’t talk the substance of Romney’s quote, why he may have said it or the context.

Guaranteed: more people saw Obama make those comments than any of Romney’s speeches on the debt.

However, it’s not just Romney who was vilified. Ron Paul was called a “dangerous man” for some of his positions. A look at the jokes the late night talk show hosts said about Paul, shows they saw him more as a “crazy uncle” and not a real candidate. Now, Paul is a horrible messenger from time to time (see his Chris Kyle tweet and his September 11^th comment) but he’s at least willing to speak his mind and tell the truth. Something refreshing in politics.

As much as people claim to want the truth, the reality is much different. The truth hurts and people prefer “flowers and sunshine” to reality. There’s a difference between pointing out problems and solutions, and just telling people it will be okay. This is why politicians use double-speak and seem distance. A majority of people don’t want reality.

There is a way for conservatives and libertarians to break through this. Outreach. Real outreach, not the failed attempt of Project ORCA by Romney’s team during 2012. Get out in the community and be with people. See what they experience. Explain to them how freedom and liberty is important and show them how it can make their lives better. Support what Deneen Borelli and Wayne Dupree are doing in the Black community and what “True the Vote” is trying to do with the Hispanic community. Talk to friends. Engage them.

And keep politicians accountable. It’s not always pragmatic to change one’s mind. Sometimes it’s simply political. Get them to explain why they do what they do. Get them to tell the truth.

It’s the only way to prove Axelrod and his ilk wrong.

And to make sure Bulworth isn’t “just” a movie but reality.

While all the so-called “Republican strategists” and conservative pundits debate the depth of the Obama Administration’s “evil deeds,” and while everyone in the conservative blogosphere is screeching “impeachment” at the top of their cyber-lungs, we who possess level heads; who deal in facts and realism instead of emotion and appearance, understand that the probability of impeachment is next to zero. This is because for all the misdeeds and ethical lapses of this administration; with the very serious issues they have exploited for political gain –  including those that took place at the expense of American lives and the sanctity of constitutional rights, “high crimes and misdemeanors” have not been executed by Mr. Obama, personally, that anyone can prove.

Additionally, there are two reasons why impeachment would never result in the removal of President Obama from office.

First, we have a Democrat majority in the US Senate. And while impeachment happens in the US House of Representatives, the trial conducted due to impeachment is held in the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. In the end, anyone who believes that a Democrat controlled Senate would vote to convict, thus executing Mr. Obama’s removal from office, is smoking something that is now legal in Colorado.

Second, the Republican establishment and elected leadership would never agree to move on impeachment for fear of losing a messaging battle with the Progressive machine that would leave them with the scarlet letter of “racist” around their organizational neck. Moving on the impeachment of Mr. Obama on charges of “high crimes and misdemeanors” would energize the Progressive base, motivate the race-baiter activists and give the Progressive-sympathetic mainstream media a reason to re-champion Mr. Obama, thus destroying any advantage the GOP may have thought they gleaned from the Obama-induced “scandals.”

And while there are some in this administration that very well should don orange jumpsuits for a period of time, the responsibility of prosecuting these people to conviction is predicated one of two events.

There can be an appointment of a special prosecutor – which requires an appointment of one by…wait for it…US Attorney General Eric Holder. With Mr. Holder’s contempt for Congress and anything not Progressive or “social justice,” and with his track record of biased prosecutions and non-prosecutions, pigs will fly before we see a special prosecutor appointed by Mr. Holder.

Then there is the option of the Department of Justice taking up the prosecution. Again, this would require action on behalf of Attorney General Holder. And again, because he would be – in at least one if not two of the “scandals” – implicated as a “wrong-doer,” well, pigs…wings…you get the picture.

I know, it sounds as if conservatives can’t win for losing. But that’s not the case. There are two opportunities that could not only seal Mr. Obama’s fate, but that could save the United States from one-hundred-plus years of Progressive incremental victories.

First, in light of the fact that the IRS is at the center of a scandal of mammoth proportions, a scandal that reeks of Progressive and/or Chicago-Progressive thug politics, the forces that champion comprehensive and radical tax reform could combine forces to affect true and real reforms in the tax code in either a flat tax, with absolutely no deductions, loopholes or exceptions; or a consumption tax. Either could completely replace the existing Progressive tax code (have you figured out why they call it that yet?) and literally neuter the IRS completely. Truly, it would be just desserts for an agency that has moved from the honest collection of taxes under a dysfunctional and politically charged tax code to a tyrant agency that routinely attacks the innocent, striking fear into the hearts of the law abiding.

But second, and frankly I believe more important, is the opportunity to spotlight the Progressive Movement for the tyrannical, oligarchical elitist, Fabian socialists that they really are; to educate the no- and low-information voters – in real time and with “in-the-news” issues that directly affect them – on how the Progressives actually despise the masses, even as they say they champion the worker (if they really champion the worker how come their signature achievement in Mr. Obama’s tenure – Obamacare – is set to raise the taxes on union health insurance plans in 2018 by 40%?).

If, by the grace of God Almighty, conservatives can dispose of the egos and join in an effort to communicate, if establishment Republicans can lose their penchant for “know-it-all,” “my-way” inside-the-beltway arrogance to provide the national apparatus by which to communicate, and if the TEA Parties can enjoin cohesively with both of the aforementioned to move the message; to educate; to inform the no- and low-information voters, in a non-aggressive and non-inflammatory way – if conservatives of all stripes can craft and move a message that defines the Progressive Movement for exactly who they are and exactly what their goal is for our country, then we have an opportunity to send their movement into a thousand years of darkness.

Imagine.

Of course, to do this would require conservatives to – at least for the moment – work together, something the “too-many-chiefs-and-not-enough-Indians” Conservative Movement does very poorly.

So, Conservatives of all stripes, establishment Republicans and TEA Partiers, it’s the bottom of the ninth and the score is tied. We’re at bat, their pitcher is tired and they have exhausted their bullpen.

How about it?…

When: Friday, April 12, 2013

Where: Getting Hammered with Steve Hamilton and Stevie J. West

Tonight: Hammy is out of the country and Stevie has taken over The broadcasting studios of Casa de Hammy. Special co-hosts Tabitha Hale and Dave Tripani join Stevie to talk to Jen Knight and Brandon Combs about the Calguns Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition.

1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.

 a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?

Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.

Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.

Since gay marriage has been thrusted into the political limelight again, Jacobson has resurrected his posts about Kagan from three years ago.  Now, when Jacobson posted about Kagan’s remarks, he was criticized by some conservatives, including Hot Air’s Allahpundit, over the semantics.  National Review’sMaggie Gallagher went a bit further, and called Jacobson’s post “shameful.”  Thankfully, Gallagher’s colleague at National Review, Ed Whelan, provided Jacobson with her letter to then-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania) at the time to clarify the issue.

In a March 18, 2009 letter (embedded below, at pp. 11-12), which is not publicly available but which Whelan kindly provided to me, Kagan supplemented her written answers at the request of Arlen Specter. Here is the language in the letter seized upon by my critics to show that Kagan really didn’t mean what she said, and really just was opining as to the current state of the law:

Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation’s citizenry and its elected representatives. By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

These sentences do make it seem as if Kagan walked away from her prior written statement that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

But these sentences are not the full supplemental response. Immediately preceding these sentences was the following language:

I previously answered this question briefly, but (I had hoped) clearly, saying that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” I meant for this statement to bear its natural meaning.

When the full supplemental statement by Kagan is read in context, there is nothing to suggest that Kagan was walking away from her written statement that there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Of additional interest is that when the Massachusetts Supreme Court found a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage, 18 Harvard Law School professors signed onto an amicus [i.e., friend of the court] brief supporting that ruling. But not Kagan.

Now, it’s Justice Kagan, and I wonder if she still thinks that “there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”  Then again, she could just hop on the bandwagon like everyone else.   Sorry Politico, but this is the real ‘gotcha‘ story.

(H/T Legal Insurrection)

Elena Kagan March 18, 2009 Letter to Arlen Specter

It seems idiotic.  Feminists have long clamored that there aren’t enough women in Congress, corporate board rooms, sports, etc., but seem perfectly content with cannibalizing their own when one manages to make it to the top.

Katie Roiphe of Slate wrote last week that:

The main critiques of Sandberg and Mayer boil down to the fact that they are “not like us.” And yet, it is precisely because they are not like us that we should admire them, or at least be pleased, abstractly, about their existence on earth.

It also seems like a feminist mistake to expect women entrepreneurs to create little utopias instead of running extremely successful businesses. Mayer was attacked recently for her decision not to allow employees to work at home. She is a woman, this line of thinking goes, how could she think women should have to work away outside of their houses, away from their children? But why should Marissa Mayer have some special responsibility to nurture her employees with a cozy, consummately flexible work environment just because she is a woman? Isn’t her responsibility to run a company according to her individual vision? If we want powerful female entrepreneurs shouldn’t we allow them to pursue entrepreneurial power?

Roiphe cited Anna Holmes of the New Yorker, who took Maureen Dowd and Jodi Kantor of the New York Times to task for taking Sandberg’s quote (“I always thought I would run a social movement”) out of context to make her look “arrogant.”

The original, quite reasonable quote was: “I always thought I would run a social movement, which meant basically work at a nonprofit. I never thought I’d work in the corporate sector.” But even if she had said the sentence, as a standalone aspiration, why should out-scale over the top ambition in a woman be considered arrogant or unappealing? Why is there so much resentment and mockery aimed at women with grand visions?

Hanna Rosin, also of Slate, noted how Mayer doesn’t consider herself a feminist, and thinks women of that mold are “militant,” with “a chip on their shoulder.”  Gasp!  It’s a duel between the individualist, independent-thinking woman and the collective tyrants of the secret circle.  Sandberg has stated that women themselves may be the problem when it comes to advancing in the workplace, as Norah O’Donnell reported on 60 Minutes. Rosin used Sandberg’s new book to convey this point.

… [the] tension between the individual and the collective is at the heart of the debate over Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg’s “lean in” idea. Sandberg is publishing a book of advice to young women executives at the same time as she launches a “consciousness raising” movement complete with specific instructions on how to run lean-in circles. But that kind of collective action feels at odds with the advice in the book. In the book, out next week, Sandberg tells women how to negotiate for higher salaries and promotions, how to nurture their own ambition, how to behave at work if they want to advance. It is all excellent advice, but it’s not the stuff of a consciousness-raising movement. It’s advice for this age of meritocracy, when feminist success largely means professional advancement, one woman at a time. What happens if you’re up against another woman for a promotion? In Sandberg’s world, you go for it.

Hence, why – ironically – independent women, like Mayer and Sandberg, are anathema to the feminist establishment.  They aren’t thinking like a feminist. They’re thinking about their careers, and their own interests.  Men do the same thing.  In fact, anyone who wants to get ahead will do the same thing.  As Robert Frost once said, “I do not want to live in a homogenous society, I want the cream to rise.”

This problem that feminists have with women succeeding relates to their movement as a whole.  It’s a common criticism that the third – and current – wave of feminism lacks a clear vision for the 21st century. What issues, if there are any, are left for women to campaign on that haven’t already been addressed.  There’s nothing new in the arsenal.  All that is left is what needs to be built on, and that isn’t necessarily a compelling call to arms.

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner wrote in her book the F-Word: Feminism in Jeopardy – Women, Politics, and the Futurethat the third wave is lost in the wilderness.

The lack of a cohesive movement is the crisis of the third wave.” Or as one of the young women she interviewed remarks, “In a nutshell, my problem with the third wave is that I think we’re a whiny bunch of elitists who think we’re so smart, but we’re not doing anything but power knitting. The lack of a political movement is huge, yet we feel so smug.”

What seems to frighten feminists about Sandberg and Mayer – and Rosin and Roiphe write this as well – is that feminism really didn’t help them rise to the top.  Furthermore, Rosin wrote that the crowd that Sandberg is trying to attract, of which Mayer is also a member, really don’t see much feminism has to offer in terms of advancing their careers.

Roiphe added:

the word feminist is of little use to us now, but if we are interested in female power then we should let our powerful women pursue power, without harassing them with our distaste for that pursuit. We should not expect them to be warmer, fuzzier, more nurturing than their male counterparts because to do so is to impose sexist expectations.

Could the feminist bashing of successful women be a manifestation of that frustration?  Is the “not being needed” angst driving this madness?  If so, the feminist establishment has a mindset of “these ladies have to go,” and hopefully the next crop will be more palatable to the cause. That’s one way to destroy a movement.  It’s something conservatives should’ve considered when they excluded GOProud at CPAC this year.

Either way, I say let women be women.  Better yet, let them be “American” – or “capitalist” – in their economic pursuits, which is grounded in being more aggressive, more competent, and more productive than your competition.  If a woman rises to the top, so be it.  She should be congratulated. We’re a meritocracy, and everyone should get a boost from the increased competition.  As for feminists, I suggest they go moan in a corner someplace else.  I want the economy to roar back –with men and women alike – and feminism isn’t helping anyone.

Trump has given millions to Democratic candidates, and his invitation to speak at CPAC places the American Conservative Union in an untenable position concerning its decision to exclude Gov. Christie and gay conservative groups, like GOProud, from sponsoring the conference.  Frankly, I was for GOProud sponsoring the event.  Their platform is very much aligned with  the Tea Party, and they support states’ rights in deciding the issue of marriage, which is the valid constitutional avenue in addressing this issue.  However, back to the Donald.

 …made more than $1.3 million in donations over the years to candidates nationwide, with 54 percent of the money going to Democrats, according to a Washington Post analysis of state and federal disclosure records.

Recipients include Senate Majority LeaderHarry M. Reid (Nev.), former Pennsylvania governor Edward G. Rendell, and Rahm Emanuel, a former aide to President Obama who received $50,000 from Trump during his recent run to become Chicago’s mayor, records show. Many of the contributions have been concentrated in New York, Florida and other states where Trump has substantial real estate and casino interests.

[...]

The Democratic recipients of Trump’s donations make up what looks like a Republican enemies list, including former senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), Rep. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.), Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and the late liberal lion Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.).

The biggest recipient of all has been the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee of New York,which has taken in more than $125,000 from Trump and his companies. Overall, Trump has given nearly $600,000 to New York state campaigns, with more than two-thirds going to Democrats.

I understand he’s protecting his business interests, but don’t put on a show and act like you’re entering the GOP tent to save it from collapsing.  His excuse for contributing to Democrats is that they’re the only game in town.

“Everyone’s Democratic,” he [Trump] told Fox News in an interview about his potential [2012] candidacy. “So  what am I going to do — contribute to Republicans? One thing: I’m not stupid. Am I going to contribute to Republicans for my whole life when they get heat when they run against some Democrat and the most they can get is 1 percent of the vote?”

If you believe in the Republican Party – and more importantly conservatism – then you do contribute to get that “1 percent of the vote.”  It’s called integrity, Mr. Trump.  The ACU’s decision to allow this unprincipled charlatan to speak is puzzling, frustrating, and hypocritical.  Who on their PR team thought that inviting this man would be a good morale boost for conservatives?  It just shows you the numerous obstacles the conservative movement needs to address, with one of them being selecting better speakers for conferences.  And that’s just on the surface.

During the hey-day of the TEA Party movement in the 2009/2010 election cycle you were right there with Republicans, Independents, and Libertarians; telling the federal government you have had enough of their big spending, “sit down and shut-up peasant” attitude.  You were a part of the 67% of We the People who assembled peacefully and voiced our desires as to how OUR EMPLOYEES should conduct OUR BUSINESS.

You are a Catholic, a Methodist, a Baptist, an Evangelical, a Lutheran, etc. who believes in God, believes in the salvation of Jesus Christ, believes in the freedom and responsibility to conduct your lives accordingly. You are an agnostic, Wiccan, pagan, etc. who are “religious” polar opposites of Christians.  You want to worship whatever or whoever you wish, in peace.

You are a homosexual, bi-sexual, cross-dresser, etc. who wants to live your life as you want to live it. You aren’t the one out creating publicity stunts to get attention.  You are the one who just wants to live your life in private and mind your own business, and have others mind their own business.  Your skin has any one of a variety of tints but your blood is always red.  You live by the “Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

You are a union member who is forced to pay dues to a small group of people who control the job market.  This is called extortion and is illegal when not conducted by government and their henchmen.  You are a secretary, salesman, or customer service person at a store somewhere.  You want to live your life, have a job, and raise your children; and to be free to eat what you want; to go where you want, when you want, without government controlling every aspect of your life.  You want to be free to express your values and faith openly.

You are people who believe in the values instituted by our founding fathers, understand what they believed, know what they established, and desire to pass those values and beliefs on to your children and grandchildren.  You believe in the Bill of Rights as stated in the Constitution; that those rights are “God given” and do not come from the benevolence of government. You are part of the 67% of We the People who make up the TEA Party.  I know you have courage, I have seen it.

The Democrat Party favors the confiscation of firearms, do you?    The party believes in open borders and clamping down on law abiding citizens in favor of people who break the law, do you?  The party elites believe only they are intelligent enough to know what you can eat, how you can spend your money, and on and on and on. Do you believe you are intelligent enough to make decisions on how and where to spend your money, feed your kids, spend your leisure time?  The party doesn’t believe it but I do.  I know you are intelligent, I have seen it.

Both political parties have joined forces to thwart the TEA Party mindset, not just the organizations but those who make up the rank and file.  You are a threat to a dictatorship being implemented by allies on both sides of the political aisle.    You are a veteran who has served your country with honor and dignity.  You are a part of those being declared “enemies of the state” or “potential domestic terrorist”.  You and I, the grassroots element of America, are being pushed out of everything, by both political parties, in favor of a central government control system that threatens all of us equally.

We are in this together, you and I, the common man/woman who desires the freedom to make our own choices in life.  You and I are much alike.  We have the same basic beliefs, as did our founders.  They had many differences, slavery being one of them.  Some were Christian, some atheists, some essentially agnostic; but they managed to forge a great nation.  We have many differences but we have much more in common.  If our founders could come together and find a way to establish the United States of America why can we not come together and do it again?  And when I say “come together” I mean unite behind the Constitution and the men and women who built this grand nation.

I address this to the rank and file Democrat voter but not you alone.  Every bit of this applies to Republicans, Independents, and Libertarians.  We must come together based on the values we share, the values we know are essential to the future of America as a Republic.

You are part of the 67% of We the People who stood up in 2009 and said, “We have had enough of this”.  It is time to stand up again.  I tried to make a difference from within the Republican Party and found out it is hopeless.  Even people at the county level are dug in with the liberal party establishment.  The “party first” mentality must end if we are to save our nation for future generations.

It is time for a new generation of founding fathers, and the foot soldier who made it possible.  Everyone remembers George Washington but who remembers the common people in the days leading up to and through the Revolution?  You and I are the foot soldiers Washington depended on to succeed.  We are the people who banded together to throw off the bonds of tyranny and establish the greatest nation to ever exist.  WE are those who will not be known in perpetuity but we are the ones who must make the future.

You and I, WE THE PEOPLE, are the ones ultimately responsible for the future.  I know you have the courage, I have seen it.  I know you have the intelligence, I have seen it.  I know you are patriots, I have seen it. You picked up your own trash at rallies and were polite to policemen, and other officials, and each other. You treat others with kindness, consideration, respect, and friendship.   You have the same values and desires for your nation as I do.   Do you have the willingness to step up again as you did in 2009 and be part of a new movement to restore the United States of America?

I have offered a solution to our political party problems.  Some will say “it can’t be done”, “we don’t have enough time”, “I don’t like that group”, etc.  I say it can be done and it is up to us to do it.  Let us come together to restore liberty and limited government as designed by our founders. We are no less courageous, no less intelligent, and are no less capable than were those 237 years ago.  The question is: “are we as determined to live free as our founders were”?

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

February, 27, 2013

The big deal they are making over this sequester nonsense is giving me a headache.  I have made this point on several social network site discussions so I thought I would put it all together on one place.  Obama, his cabinet minions, and all of the members of Congress come out and say; Social Security checks will stop, meat plants will shut down, the FBI won’t be able to track terrorists, the Border Patrol won’t be able to secure the borders, airports will nearly shut down, pony rides in national parks will end, the sun won’t come up on March 2, and on and on and on.  And the RINO’s in Congress aren’t doing any better.

This is such tripe that it is actually embarrassing, and infuriating at the same time.  This is the best we have to govern our nation?  For anyone who doesn’t already know, let me lay out a few facts that you won’t hear on any “news media” outlet, including FOX News. The “media” covers the false flag talking points arguing but not the facts. NOTHING IS BEING CUT!!!!  That is just the truth of it.  The “baseline budgeting” system our government runs under calls for about 1.8% – 2% increase every year.  This is how they do it, every year.  They build in an automatic increase in every department in government, and they do it for the very reason you are seeing played out again for the 300^th time in the last 25 years.

Follow me here because this is the crux of the game being played by both political parties.  Spending goes UP, every year, in spite of the “horrendous cuts” they are “forced” to make.  The federal government is expected to spend approximately $3.7 trillion in 2013, yet they are wringing their hands and fretting over cutting $85 billion out of that total, which is 1.1% by the way.  According to figures released by the Heritage Foundation the federal government spent $3.6 trillion in FY 2012. If we take $85 billion off of the projected $3.7 trillion in 2013 we still find the government spending $3.615 trillion in 2013.  What the “the sky is falling” politicians are telling us is that spending $61.5 billion MORE,  1.66% more, in 2013 than they spent in 2012 is somehow a cut in spending, and will cause untold calamities if it happens.  How does that work?  I must have had a defective education because that doesn’t look they are spending less to me.

The “hawks” on defense want social items cut and the “hawks” on social items want defense cut.  So, they come to a “compromise”, eventually.  They posture and argue and pound their chests for their cause and in the end some things may get cosmetic ”cuts” (read less increase than planned) but spending overall still goes up.  They have “fought” on television, on radio, on the floors of the chambers and told us how ”terrible” life will be if we cut their pet project.  Both political parties get their sound bites in so low information voters on both sides of the aisle get just enough to think someone actually cares about what affects them and hence can count on that vote the next time it is needed.

The question I have, and one that never gets answered, is “if the country is going to almost totally shut down because we “cut” $85 billion, why are they spending $3.7 TRILLION and where does the rest of it go?”  This “spending cut” is going to cause firemen, policemen, and teachers to be laid off?  Since when does the federal government pay for these services?  Isn’t that why I pay county property taxes and state taxes?  Social Security checks won’t go out, pony rides in national parks will end (sad face), soldiers won’t have what they need to fight, and 700,000 federal employees in the Defense Department will be laid off? WHY??? Won’t the $61.5 billion MORE they plan to spend this year cover those social security checks, pony rides, soldier supplies, and employees just like they did last year?  Every politician and every bureaucrat comes out and cries about how their particular area is going to die a death of financial starvation, yet government is going to spend more money than last year.  Sorry, I guess I am just too stupid to understand their logic; at least they think so.

And to spending cuts, I have yet to hear Obama speak about cutting back on his vacations to Hawaii and Spain, golf with Tiger Woods, a special Leer jet for his dog to go to Martha’s Vineyard, or a junket on Air Force One to Nevada or wherever  to announce another of his “green energy” or “jobs” scams that he could have announced from Washington.  I haven’t heard about ‘Ole Nan’ giving up her first class jet for a broom.

Rand Paul recently returned $600,000 that he was authorized as a Senator but didn’t spend.  Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has been doing this for years.  A side question is “how much money do they get for ‘office expenses’?”  Apparently too much!!

I also haven’t heard anything about cutting congressional or White House staff, not to mention the pay raises they seem to get quite often.  We hear the horror stories about how We the People will suffer due to “cutbacks” but never how Congress or the Executive Branch plan to do with less.  It is always We the People who must do with less while they spend more on themselves, with never a true cut in government spending. Rush recently mentioned on his radio show that 7 of the 10 richest counties surround or are very near Washington, D.C. (De Cesspool). No recession in or near Washington!!!

In the real world they are scamming liberal and conservative voters alike.  The people running OUR government take We the People for being so stupid we can’t figure this out.  The sad fact of the matter is that about 51%, at least, buy into this lie. How do people like Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Diane Feinstein, Sheila Jackson Lee, Charles Rangel, Hank (Guam might tip over) Johnson, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, etc. continue to get elected?

Much of the problem comes from the Republican Party yet these same people who turn their backs on conservatives get elected time and again. WHY????  I don’t know of a single major promise Republicans have made in 20 years that they have actually followed through on, yet they continue to receive the same support from the same people.

The problem is that we have no other options. It is either ultra-liberal Democrats or very-liberal Republicans.  We vote time and again for the lesser of two evils because that is all the options we have.  That has to change if we are going to salvage the Republic established in 1791 and defended for all these years by the blood of American patriots.  The biggest problem facing America is career politicians and bureaucrats who could care less what We the People think or what the Constitution says.  A 3^rd party encompassing the 67% of We the People who make up the TEA Party could cure these problems.  Where are the leaders to step up and lead????

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

February 24, 2013

is a partnership of public policy, advocacy, and grassroots organizing nonprofits dedicated to achieving a better, fairer, healthier North Carolina through the development of an integrated communications and civic engagement strategy.  Ultimately, Blueprint aims to influence state policy in NC so that residents of the state benefit from more progressive policies such as better access to health care, higher wages, more affordable housing, a safer, cleaner environment, and access to reproductive health services.

According to documents included with the memo and interviews, the strategy outline was produced by Myers Research and Strategic Services for Project New America. It was originally provided to Progress North Carolina, a liberal nonprofit that has aggressively attacked McCrory during the 2012 campaign and his early term in office. Progress North Carolina shared the memo with Blueprint NC, a nonprofit that coordinates the activities of liberal-leaning nonprofits. In turn, Blueprint NC distributed it to its member organizations.

An electronic version of the memo appears to contain at least three separate documents. One is an email from outgoing Blueprint NC Communications Director Stephanie Bass describing the material and emphasizing that it is “CONFIDENTIAL to Blueprint, so please be careful – share with your boards and appropriate staff, but not the whole world.”

Sean Kosofsky, Blueprint NC’s director, said his group did not pay for or commission the research. “We were just forwarding it on,” he said.

The second document is a “talking points memo” that outlines strategies for progressive groups. Policy wins for the political left, the memo said, would likely be defined as “mitigating” legislation, rather than pushing their own agenda items.

“The most effective way to mitigate the worst legislation is to weaken our opponents’ ability to govern by crippling their leaders (McCrory, Tillis, Berger, etc…)” the memo reads, referring to the governor, House Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger.

The memo goes on to describe a “potential two-year vision” during which the groups would “eviscerate the leadership and weaken their ability to govern.” The bulk of the document is a poll memo that talks about how to frame opposition to conservative tax and education policies. The survey was conducted between Jan. 29 and Feb. 2.

Given how progressives handled Americans for Prosperity rallying in support of Michigan’s Right-to-Work legislation last December, I think we can all imagine what “crippling their leaders” means for this cadre of left-wingers. Conservative nonprofit groups also draft memos outlining political strategy, but seldom does it contain explicit orders to go after someone personally. However, another interesting development, with the leaking of this memo, centers on WRAL itself.

The Civitas Institute, a conservative organization operating within North Carolina, posted on their blog yesterday that Binker left out key facts in his piece about BluePrint, namely that the A.J. Fletcher Foundation, another civic engagement nonprofit in the state, gave the progressive group $35,000.  Additionally, the Foundation gave:

$380,000 to the NC Justice Center which initially housed BlueprintNC when it was formed (the foundations 990 IRS reports are not current so there may be more) . The Goodmon family which owns WRAL has 4 family members on the board of the Fletcher Foundation including Barbara the President and Jim the chairman of the board. The Executive Director was formerly the head of the NC center for Voter Education, one of the original members of BlueprintNC. In addition Chris Fitzsimon, former WRAL reporter,  is head of the liberal NC Policy Watch, the original lead attack group in the Blueprint coalition. Fitzsimon is also provided free airtime on Goodmon owned WRAL-FM from which he launches daily attacks on political opponents. The Fletcher Foundation has been a long time funder of Policy Watch is now housed in the Justice Center.

WRAL is also actually doing one of the items in the strategy memo. The memo on page 3 calls for tracking McCrory “Campaign Promises” and “slam him when he contradicts his promise.” WRAL appears to have taken that for action by launching their “Promise Tracker“, complete with cute little ”Skull & Crossbones” symbols.

Then again, how could this group operate surreptitiously – and methodically – in planning to bring North Carolina’s Republican leadership to its knees?  As LaborUnionReport wrote about Blueprint on RedState, the organization likes to keep a low profile.

Blueprint has been created as a strategic initiative – focused on creating collaborative change and not focused on a public identity beyond our partners. Blueprint does not seek recognition for itself, but prefers that its partners be recognized for the good work that they do. [Emphasis added.]

Also, Blueprint’s allies seem to be the depraved spawn of ACORN.

Report added:

In 2010, Blueprint NC’s “partners” were  identified by the Civitas Institute which revealed a conglomeration of national and state “progressive” organizations—including the AFL-CIO’s A. Philip Randolph Institute, as well as the anti-life group NARAL.

[...]

In fact, Blueprint NC’s Director, Sean Kosofsky, is a NARAL alum, according to this bio:

Sean Kosofsky is currently the Director of Blueprint North Carolina. He is the former Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice NC, and has been an active visible LGBT leader since 1994. He was the Director of Poliyc for 12 years for Michigan’s leading LGBT rights organization, Triangle Foundation.

Blueprint NC also appears to be very well funded. The Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, which was established in 1936 as a memorial to the youngest son of the founder of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, gave Blueprint NC $850,000 for “general operating support” in 2010.

The [Z. Smith Reynolds] Foundation is apparently still giving Blueprint NC money—to the sum of $400,000, according to a report in Friday’s [Charlotte] Observer. However, due to the light being shined on Blueprint NC’s strategy (and, consequently, the[ Z. Smith Reynolds] Foundation), that support may now be in jeopardy.

Nevertheless, the strategy detailed in this memo could easily be executed in other states by affiliates of BluePrint – which is probably their plan.  The ‘Obamafication’ of the Democratic Party, and the liberal movement in general, has led to a progressive crusade to forcefully drag our nation to the far left.  Conservatives, at present, seem to be incognizant of the ramifications of this highly-coordinated campaign, and don’t seem to be in rapid response mode in countering this liberal grassroots operation.

The progressive left has all the advantages in digital strategy, voter targeting, and youth outreach.  Republicans are dreadfully behind the curve in this technological front that is critical in turning the tide against the liberal leviathan that has been unleashed against us. In the meantime, Civitas is holding their leadership conference on March 1, and I hope the various panels discuss BluePrint and this memo in order to fight back.

Excerpts of the memo are below.  Full memo at the bottom of the page.

Blueprint NC Secret Memo by

The fact of the matter is that Dorner is a mass murderer, plain and simple.  There is NO excuse that can be made to justify what he did, or is there?  I find the justifying circumstances in the Tulsa case I mentioned to actually be more valid and horrendous than in Dorner’s but the killer here isn’t being made into a folk hero.  WHY, you ask???  I will get to that in a bit.  Right now, let’s review the Dorner case.

Dorner was fired from the LAPD, ostensibly, for reporting the misconduct of another officer, breaking the “code of silence” imposed on law enforcement. Not unlike the “code of silence” imposed by the Mafia and their subordinate and successive gangs is it?  This goes back and forth enough to make one’s head spin.  I heard a blip on television of Marc Lamont Hill, a “professor” at Columbia University, actually calling Dorner a hero.  I don’t understand why any television “news” outlet would put this simple-minded racist, Marc Lamont Hill, on the air and allow him to spout the trash he spouts.  It also boggles my mind that this quack is teaching kids, or rather indoctrinating them.  Hill called Dorner a “modern day Django”. Django, it seems, is a movie about a black man “having fun killing white people”.  To “Professor” Hill, Dorner is a hero for going out and killing white people who had nothing to do with his situation.  Sure, that makes perfect sense.  After all, killing white people because they are white is not a racial hate crime is it?  Every childhood movie hero of mine made his fame by killing innocent bystanders because of the color of their skin, yeah right!!!!

Now back to the Tulsa killings in April, 2012.  Jake England should also be considered heroes by “Professor” Hill.  They went out and avenged the senseless murder of England’s father by a black man.  England killed blacks because a black man killed his father.  Seems perfectly rational when you go by the “Professor” Hill theory!!!!  All England did was “avenge” a wrong done to he and his family.  Since a black man committed the offense, black people, not anyone in particular just any black person, should pay the price of revenge.

According to the standard set by “Professor” Hill and all of the other left-wing nuts, any action taken is acceptable if justified by “having been wronged” by a group or class of people.  The little caveat of “while I don’t condone killing innocent people” just doesn’t quite work for me when it is tacked on in front of praising a mass murderer. “I don’t condone killing innocents” either but England suffered much more than Dorner, and by Hill’s theory, had even more justification to commit the acts he committed.  It shouldn’t matter that the five people he shot had nothing to do with his father’s murder, they were black and that should be enough, using the “Professor” Marc Lamont Hill theory.

Our Republic is going downhill fast, due in part to the kind of rationale shown by “Professor” Hill and the other nuts who justify Dorner’s actions.  There is always a perfectly rational explanation for anything that is done by a black person or a Marxist with a “cause”.  If Timothy McVeigh had been black or a leftist he would have been hailed by the left as a “modern day whoever” for killing innocent civilians as revenge for the actions of Janet Reno and Bill Clinton in the Ruby Ridge (Randy Weaver and family)  and Waco (Branch Davidian) murders.  I don’t remember any conservative applauding McVeigh for killing 168 people, including many children, who had absolutely nothing to do with either of the Janet Reno murder scenes.  McVeigh is simply considered a mass murderer by people from both political spectrums, as he should be.

People getting on television and trying to justify the unjustifiable due to a particular political spin is reprehensible, to coin a word popular with liberal/progressives.  Cold blooded murder is not justifiable under any circumstances yet we find justification every time a liberal/progressive supported group or person commits any horrendous act.

This “my side is always right” attitude we see from the left is destructive in more ways than one.  It justifies bad behavior on any scale by using a false flag argument that revenge is acceptable when the cause is one they agree with.  We are seeing the left condone the use of drones to kill American citizens who have a belief in the Founding Fathers and the Constitution of the United States of America because they don’t like anyone to the right of Marxism.

The difference between the Dorner and England cases is miniscule in the commission of crimes but vast in the reaction from those who seek to destroy liberty in America.  To use a cartoon I saw a few days ago, “taking away my guns for a crime committed by someone else is like taking my car away because someone in another state drove drunk”.  There is another one about the neighbors and the number of kids they have but I won’t use it.  I don’t drink alcohol and I don’t go on murder sprees so why should I be punished for the crimes of others?  The attitude of the left is one of subjugation to their agenda and this is no different.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

February 19, 2013

The story is about a Vietnam veteran who lost a son in Iraq or Afghanistan, not really sure which, but where isn’t important.  The story is what is important.  Bob Revere is a mayor of small town America who watched his son go off to war and saw him return in a casket.  The story line revolves around Christmas but the underlying reality of today’s America is what matters.

Bob Revere is a Medal of Honor recipient from Vietnam who takes a stand for freedom when the ACLU, and the media naturally, threatens his town with lawsuits and other strong-arm tactics over acknowledging that Christmas is celebrated as the birth of Jesus Christ.  Revere embodies the spirit of America and what we are losing because We the People have allowed ourselves to be intimidated into acquiescing to the views of a very small minority of people who are agnostic, pagan, and/or just downright evil.

Anyone that knows me can tell you that I am about as tough and hard-nosed as anyone can be but I found myself teary eyed through the entire movie.   It made me swell with pride and ache with sadness and concern at the same time.  This movie took me back 42 years to my time in the military.  It took me back to a time when friends died on distant battlefields in third world hell holes that no one remembers or cares about today.

I think of friends who died in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Central America, and South America; in unknown and unacknowledged counter-insurgency operations all around the globe.  Many died in places no one ever knew about because the operations were so highly classified that company and group commanders didn’t know where they were or what they were doing.

It made me think of the sacrifices made by the 1.3 million who have died since the beginning of our Republic and the countless millions who have suffered crippling injuries, both physical and mental, to preserve the ideals founded in 1776 and written into the Declaration of Independence; and later, in 1791, written into The Constitution of the United States of America.  It made me think of the millions more, like myself, who were fortunate enough to serve in the military without the debilitating injuries so many suffered through, and still suffer through today.

Our nation is losing the freedoms so many have sacrificed so much to provide for us.  Like Bob Revere we have become comfortable with giving in to tyranny without realizing we are doing so.  In one line in the movie Revere says “that’s just the way it is, kid” when talking to his grandson.  Many sit in comfy homes, with plenty to eat, with warm roofs over our heads, and do little or nothing to honor the sacrifices of so many who deserve to be honored. Honoring them is more than a parade on Memorial Day or Veterans Day.  While these things are important, they aren’t the most important things we can do.

Little by little, a government run by dictatorial minded thugs intimidates us into giving away the legacy left by those who have put their lives on hold, or sacrificed themselves, for an ideal that was more precious to them than their own lives.  We give in to the threats of lawsuits by bullies because we want to “just get along and live in peace”.  During the Benghazi hearings Hillary Clinton said “at this point, what difference does it really make?”.  My blood boiled when I heard those words come out of the mouth of one of the most despicable people to ever sit in a seat of government.

What difference does it really make, indeed!!  The more important question is “What difference do I make?”.  What difference do I make  in the bigger picture of liberty for my children, my grandchildren, my great grandchildren.  Like Bob Revere, I served my country honorably in the military.  But again, like Bob Revere, that isn’t enough.  Our future generations need us more than we have ever needed anyone.  The “greatest generation” fought Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini in World War II to defeat the most evil forces on earth at the time, all to preserve my chance to live free.  Like Revere’s grandson I hadn’t been born yet when my father joined millions of other men to put their lives in harm’s way for a future generation they would birth.  The wars of my day, I thought, were for freedom of our country but they really weren’t, at least not directly as World War II had been.  The wars against Communist expansion were more about the freedom of others living in countries far away from our shores, yet stopping the expansion of evil, in the long run, was necessary for the protection of our land also.

We are in a war today, right here in America.  It isn’t a shooting war, yet, but is a war none the less.  Our war is against the principalities and powers of darkness as described in the Holy Bible, powers that control our government.   We are fighting a war for the very soul of a nation and a future of liberty for our children and future generations.  If we lose this war it will be decades before there will be a chance for freedom, if that chance ever comes.  We are fighting corrupt politicians like Bob Menendez who has sex with underage girls, paid for by our tax money and protected by a corrupt political system that values their power more than they value morality and what is right.  Menendez is only one of many corrupt politicians and bureaucrats who demean the values America stands for, yet sit back and condemn those of us who value honesty, integrity, and morality.

The TEA Party rallies and recent gatherings at state capitols to support the 2^nd Amendment are encouraging but more needs to be done.  People have finally become alarmed enough to stand up and be counted even though they know a despotic government is recording their words, their actions, their phone calls, e-mails, and internet site comments.  All this is being done to intimidate us into silence or to build a lists of “enemies of the state” to be arrested and murdered when the time comes for the final takeover.

Some cower in silence, and/or temper what they post, out of fear of reprisal from the government.  I have been told numerous times that I should stop writing the articles that I write and posting what I post on social network sites, or tone down the rhetoric out of concern for who might be reading and taking notes.  I am critical of despots in government, regardless of political affiliation, and that is dangerous I am told.  The media is already in the pockets of the despots but the independence minded patriots are not, and will not be intimidated into silence.

We the People can win the war against tyranny but we can’t do it by being silent.  We don’t need to run out into the streets shooting guns and yelling, but we cannot win by sitting silently and allowing the thugs in government to run roughshod over our freedoms either.

Go to the movie theater and watch this movie, or better yet buy the DVD and watch it with your children and neighbors. Pass it around to those who will watch it and stand up for freedom.  No one who has fought for freedom, or anyone who has lost a loved one in that fight, will be able to sit through this without tears.  I can’t imagine how anyone who loves freedom will be able to watch without being touched deeply.  I sit here and write this with tears in my eyes, thinking of the sacrifices of so many and how close we are to throwing all of those sacrifices away out of apathy.

Please share this article with everyone you know, make it go viral in honor of those who have given all for your freedom and those who are still sacrificing for liberty today.  You can watch the trailer here.  Also, go to www.standusa.com and join in the community of Americans taking a stand for liberty, I have.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

February 10, 2013

On NumbersUSA’s website, they lay out the details of the package:

 1. Create a tough but fair path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States that is contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether legal immigrants have left the country when required;

2. Reform our legal immigration system to better recognize the importance of characteristics that will help build the American economy and strengthen American families;

3. Create an effective employment verification system that will prevent identity theft and end the hiring of future unauthorized workers; and,

4. Establish an improved process for admitting future workers to serve our nation’s workforce needs, while simultaneously protecting all workers.

It doesn’t sound like snake oil, but anything from government that sounds too good to be true – tends to be that way.  Case in point, the passing of Obamacare.  However, to low-information voters, or those who aren’t privy to immigration data, it represents, as Jenks said:

…part of the problem with the immigration debate because when you see an outline of a proposal, and you don’t know a whole lot about the issue, it tends to look pretty reasonable.  It’s only when you get into the details that things start to fall apart. So, you know for example – the bottom line is that this proposal is virtually identical to the proposal from the Gang of Eight in 2007. And I actually like Sen. Sessions’s title for them better, which is “masters of the universe.”  They basically have been meeting behind closed doors.  They don’t allow anyone else into the meetings – anyone who might disagree with them – and then they come out with this grand announcement, and assume that everyone will fall in line and vote for it. But the problem is that this proposal is not well thought out in terms of what’s best for America. And part of the reason for that is that involved in their little secret meetings, and closed-door negotiations, are groups like the AFL-CIO, the Chamber of Commerce, and organized religion, the ethnic advocacy groups – special interest groups have all had their say, but the one group that’s always left out of these negotiations is the America people. So, here we go again – starting this whole process, and we’re looking at essentially the same proposals with the same meaningless so-called triggers that aren’t actually triggers – and massive amnesty.

Closed-door negotiations? It’s a bit ironic that comprehensive immigration reform that intends to keep us an open, immigrant friendly nation needs to be fleshed out in secret meetings.  However, what shocked me was the involvement of the AFL-CIO.  The Democratic wing that’s beholden to union interests have usually opposed illegal immigration since they allow, for example, contractors to underbid union contracts.  Why are they for amnesty? Jenks explains that:

basically, the unions have an interest in amnesty because immigrants, legal or illegal, is the only growing population of union-dues paying members. If they want to continue their dues, the need to legalize the illegal population to keep them here, keep them unionized, and keep them paying dues.  So in exchange for that amnesty, they’ve made a deal with the Chamber of Commerce, in which the unions give up on guest workers – to get amnesty – and the Chamber gives them amnesty to get guest workers.  So, everybody wins, except the American worker.

However, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) did say, at the close of the press conference yesterday, that the proposal will tie  immigration the influx of legal immigration to the nation’s unemployment rate.  However, Jenks wasn’t convinced that this item in the package will be taken seriously.

 Well, the fact that they’re talking about giving expedited amnesty to AG workers [agricultural workers] and to dreamers – and then some kind of extended amnesty to all of the rest of the eleven million illegal aliens in the country, despite the fact that we have 7.9% unemployment tells me whatever they have in mind for the future is certainly not going to happen because they’ve already vastly exceeded the ability of our economy to employ these people. We’ve already got twenty million Americans who can’t find full-time jobs.  So, we’re going to add eleven million more?

The growth industries in the U.S. economy are mostly highly skilled, high-tech occupations.  So, why would we then be giving a massive amnesty –expedited amnesty – to AG workers, and creating a new guest worker program for low-skilled labor?  It doesn’t make sense.  We should be reforming our legal immigration system to meet the needs of the 21^st century. Instead of doing that, they’re basically just packing on a whole bunch of new programs that will continue to flood the labor market, primarily the low-skill labor market, and increase the competition for our own most vulnerable workers. And who’s going to pay for it?  The taxpayers.

Yet, Brad Plumer posted on The Washington Post’s WonkBlog yesterday – and said that illegal immigration has “slowed since 2007.”  So, what’s the big deal?  Isn’t that a positive indicator?

there has been – it appears – through some Census data – that the number of new illegal aliens coming into the United States slowed somewhat during the recession, but there’s also evidence that the number has started to pick up again.  It’s entirely possible that’s because of all this talk of amnesty – but the bottom line is illegal immigration is going to be affected by some small degree by economic changes in the United States.  But the fact is that the illegal population has stayed at about an estimated eleven million. It hasn’t actually dropped.  We still have a huge problem, and you can’t stop illegal immigration by redefining it as legal.   That’s not a long-term solution.

What alternative policy does NumbersUSA endorse to solve this crisis?  Jenks said that since its inception, NumbersUSA has supported the proposals laid out from the 1995 U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, which was chaired by former Texas Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.  Jordan, a Democrat, and her commission had these key points in their report.

• a scale back of family chain-migration by implementing a prioritization of family relationships to determine who will be admitted through family-based immigration. Spouses and minor children of US citizens would continue to be admitted as first priority;
• elimination of other family-based admission categories, including:
  • Adult, unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens;
  • Adult, married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens;
  • Adult, unmarried sons and daughters of legal permanent residents; and
  • Siblings of U.S. citizens.
• a focus on the admission of highly-skilled individuals to support the national interest by bringing to the U.S. individuals whose skills would benefit our society. Recommended the elimination of the admission of unskilled workers and elimination of the diversity visa lottery;
• immigration admissions level of 550,000 per year, to be divided as follows:
  • Nuclear family immigration 400,000;
  • Skill-based immigration 100,000;
  • Refugee resettlement 50,000.
• Stressed deportation is crucial. Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.

Without a doubt, amnesty will be unpalatable to Republicans in the House.  As a naturalized citizen, who immigrated via adoption from South Korea, I want America to remain an open nation.  However, there are rules.  It’s unfair to the legal immigrants to be cast aside because millions of illegals broke the law.  They’ve waited patiently, and now they’re about to be cut in line.  There’s something unethical about it, but we shall see how conservatives react to this new amnesty push – even with the stringent standards attached to the pathway to citizenship.

Originally Posted on PJ Tatler.