Tag Archives: Rahm Emanuel

Far left protesters descend on Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s home

How did you spend your Fourth of July? If you were a far-leftist in Chicago, you might have been protesting outside Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s house. Yes, they were protesting austerity cuts in Chicago. But, don’t forget to play a little “Where’s Waldo” with this video. Who can spot the infamous purple and gold SEIU shirts and caps? Of course, they were there with their cameras (and possibly their cash for the protesters?) to document this holiday scene.

(H/T Gateway Pundit)

Rahm Emanuel admits mistake, reinstates tactical teams to deal with high murder rate

Chicago has proven that gun control doesn’t work. Only good guys with guns can defeat bad guys – period.

Chicago’s mayor, Rahm Emanuel is now resurrecting police tactical teams to deal with urban violence, by far the leading cause of gun violence in America.

Mayor Emanuel had decimated the Targeted Response Unit and the Mobile Strike Force units in order to live up to his campaign promise to put 1,000 more officers on patrol. Unfortunately, he dismantled the most effective units against gun violence that Chicago had.

Realizing his mistake, Mayor Emanuel is re-instating the policy of his predecessor and recreating the teams he spent his first year tearing apart.

Now that Chicago has seen more than 500 murders in the first year of Emanuel’s policies, his idealistic approach to policing has been realized as naive – even by him.

The Insufferable Left Wing Crusade Against Chick-Fil-A

Public Enemy #1…If You’re Liberal

I’m shocked at Chick-fil-A.  They advocate for a traditional family unit as described in the bible.  This is very controversial and marginalizing their bases of operation is critical in stopping bigotry and would be a critical victory for the gay rights movement.  That’s literally what liberals think about this whole kerfuffle surrounding what Dan Cathy, President and COO of Chick-fil-A, said about the company’s stance on gay marriage.  After a report was released by Equality Matters, a branch of the liberal Media Matters for America, the contents revealed that “Chick-fil-A donated more than $3 million between 2003 and 2009 to Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. In 2010 alone, the company gave nearly $2 million to such causes, according to the report.”  Wow.  People who are opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage.  I’m shocked. Yet, I’m not convinced that Dan Cathy said anything that could be classified as anti-gay.

As reported in the LA Times:

Chick-fil-A is very much supportive of the family, according to Dan Cathy, president of the popular fast food chain. That is, the biblical definition of the family unit, he said. And that doesn’t include Adam and Steve, suggests Cathy, whose father S. Truett Cathy founded the Atlanta-based company. In a new interview with Baptist Press, Cathy puts on the record what critics say his company’s actions have indicated for years. Well, guilty as charged, he said in the interview when asked about Chick-fil-A’s backing of families led by a man and a woman. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives,” Cathy said. The chain, according to the report, has 1,608 restaurants, sales of more than $4 billion and employees who are trained to focus on values rooted in the Bible. Chick-fil-A’s across the country shut down on Sundays. We don’t claim to be a Christian business,” Cathy said. But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles.

I didn’t hear any epithets or anti-gay rehtoric.  All I heard was that Mr. Cathy and the company he works for doesn’t support gay marriage.  There is a difference.

Well, this has set off the biggest left wing overreaction  that I haven’t seen in a long time and it’s downright hilarious as it is disturbing. Apparently, Big Bird lobbied heavily to get The Muppets to cut ties with the company and donate all their proceeds to GLAAD.  It’s sad to see a great cornerstone in children’s entertainment become so easily swayed by the nonsense spewed by left wing activists.  They’ve whored themselves out to the radical left and I blame Swedish Chef for not being vocal enough in stopping this inane move by the Jim Henson Company. I personally feel that Mr. Snaffalupagus should have curb stomped Bird Bird.  We all know he was a closet liberal.

It’s all your fault!

However, more politicians are getting their panties in a bunch over this.  As Chicago is drowning in its own blood, Mayor Rahm Emanuel decided to put a hold on everything and declare war on chicken sandwiches. In fact, “he said the comments disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents, and therefore building the restaurant in Chicago would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.”  Have you had their sandwiches Mr. Mayor? They’re F-ing delicious!

In Boston, which is known for their tolerance since the city desegregated their schools in the 1970s, Mayor Menino “sent a letter to Chick-Fil-A’s President Dan Cathy. In the letter Menino calls out Cathy for his  prejudiced statements against same-sex marriage and said that having a branch of the restaurant chain across from City Hall would be an insult.”

Menino got the Human Rights Campaign slobbering all over him in their statement:

We applaud Mayor Menino for calling out Chick-fil-A’s anti-LGBT practices. We have been asking people to make their own decisions about whether to continue supporting Chick-fil-A based on the facts available, and Mayor Menino has done just that. Mayor Menino’s rebuke of Chick-fil-A sends a strong messages that their habit of supporting hateful organizations that demonize LGBT Americans are out-of-step with not just Bostonians, but the majority of fair-minded Americans. Chick-fil-A is on the wrong side of history, and we look forward to seeing more and more elected officials and businesses speak out against their discriminatory practices.

So will HRC condemn Mayor Emanuel’s public embrace of Louis Farrakahn? As Kyle Becker of the Independent Journal posted today:

The Weekly Standard reports, Farrakhan was careful to couch his opposition to gay marriage as ‘not homophobic’:

Males coming to males with lust in their hearts as they should to a female,” he said. “Now don’t you dare say Farrakhan was preaching hate; he’s homophobic. I’m not afraid of my brothers and sisters or others who may be practicing what God condemned in the days of Lot. That’s not our job to be hateful of our people. Our job is to call us to sanity.”

Farrakhan goes on to call out clergy who support gay marriage, saying they are placing society’s needs over God’s.

“Is this the book that you believe in, but now you(‘re) backing down from an aspect of it because people will get offended?” he asked.”

Nothing Mr. Cathy said was anti-gay.  Again, he’s for traditional marriage, which half the country supports.  It’s not controversial.  Some people are simply against gay marriage and the Left needs to get over it.  However, I’m glad to see that some liberals are noticing that this isn’t the right battle.  Adam Serwer of Mother Jones stated:

Menino and Moreno have it wrong. Blocking construction of Chick-fil-a restaurants over Cathy’s views is a violation of Cathy’s First Amendment rights. Boston and Chicago have no more right to stop construction of Chick-fil-As based on an executive’s anti-gay views than New York City would have had the right to block construction of an Islamic community center blocks away from Ground Zero. The government blocking a business from opening based on the owner’s political views is a clear threat to everyone’s freedom of speech—being unpopular doesn’t mean you don’t have rights.

While we may disagree concerning the Ground Zero Mosque, Serwer hits it on the head concerning the threat this could pose to our  First Amendment rights.  It’s also anti-capitalist.  This Chick-Fil-A “controversy” is a convenient smoke screen initiated by the left to hide the president’s record since they’re running out of excuses.  While I plan to attend National Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on August 1st, I will take pleasure as I sink my teeth into that chicken sandwich that the Olympics will overshadow this trivial episode in American politics.

Green Libs and Rahm

I am Bam.

I am Bam.
Bam I am.

That Bam-I-am!
That Bam-I-am!
I do not like
that Bam-I-am!

Do you like
green libs and Rahm?

I do not like them,
Bam-I-am.
I do not like
green libs and Rahm.

Would you like them
on Wall Street?

I would not like them
on Wall Street.
I would not like them
eating meat.
I do not like
green libs and Rahm.
I do not like them,
Bam-I-am.

Would you like them
in the House?
Would you like them
as your spouse?

I do not like them
in the House.
I do not like them
as my spouse.
I do not like them
on Wall Street.
I do not like them
eating meat.
I do not like green libs and Rahm.
I do not like them, Bam-I-am.

Anthony Weiner

Would you like them
as a Weiner?
Would you like them
for your deener?

Not as a Weiner.
Not as my deener.
Not in the House.
Not as my spouse.
I would not like them Barney Frank.
I would not like them they smell rank.
I would not like green libs and Rahm.
I do not like them, Bam-I-am.

Would you? Could you?
With Joe Biden?
Like them! Like them!
Mouth be widen.

I would not,
could not,
with Joe Biden.

You may like libs.
You will see.
You may like libs
Eat a pea!

I would not, eat a little pea.
Not with Biden! You let me be.

I do not like them as a Weiner.
I do not like them for my deener.
I do not like them in the House.
I do not like them as my spouse.
I do not like them on Wall Street.
I do not like them eating meat.
I do not like green libs and Rahm.
I do not like them, Bam-I-am.

A Pelosi! A Pelosi!
A Pelosi! A Pelosi!
Could you, would you,
with Pelosi?

Not with some Botox! Not with a pea!
Not with Pelosi! Bam! Let me be!

I would not, could not, as a Weiner.
I could not, would not, for my deener.
I will not like them in the House.
I will not like them dirty louse.
I will not like them on Wall Street.
I will not like them with some meat.
I do not like green libs and Rahm.
I do not like them, Bam-I-am.

Say!
With Eric Holder?
Here with Eric Holder!
Would you, could you, with Eric Holder?

I would not, could not,
with Eric Holder.

Would you, could you, with Debbie Downer?

I would not, could not,
with Debbie Downer.
Not in the House. Not on TV.
Not as a Weiner. Not as my deener.
I do not like them, Bam, you see.

Not with a Barney. Not as a Frank.
Not as a Weiner. Not with his crank.
I will not like them on Wall Street.
I do not like them eating meat!

You do not like
green libs and Rahm?

I do not
like them,
Bam-I-am.

Could you, would you,
with Michelle?

I would not,
could not,
with Michelle!

Would you, could you,
were she in Hell?

I could not, would not, with Michelle.
I will not, will not, though she’s in Hell.
I will not like them Barney Frank.
I will not like them they smell rank.
Not as a Weiner! Not as my deener!
Not in the House! Not as my spouse!
I do not like them on Wall Street.
I do not like them eating meat.
I do not like green libs and Rahm.
I do not like them, Bam-I-am.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them ANYWHERE!

I do not like
green libs and Rahm!
I do not like them,
Bam-I-am.

You do not like them.
So you say.
Try them! Try them!
And you may.
Try them and you may, I say.

Bam!
If you will let me be,
I will try them.
You will see.

Say!
I still hate green libs and Rahm!
I do! I hate them, Bam-I-am!
And I won’t like them as a Weiner.
And I won’t like them for my deener.
And I won’t like them in the House.
Or on Wall Street. Or as my spouse.
Or with some Botox, or with a pea.
They are so awful, bad, you see!

So I won’t eat them like a pea,
While watching Biden on TV.
And I won’t like them in the House.
And I won’t like them filthy louse.
And I won’t like them like a Weiner
And I won’t like them for my deener.
AND I won’t like them here or there.
Say! I don’t like them ANYWHERE!

I do so hate
green libs and Rahm!
Screw You!
Screw You,
Bam-I-am!

—PolarCoug (With an assist compliments of Dr. Seuss!)

From Immigrants to Democrats: The Citizenship USA Program

Attempting to Naturalize as many new Americans as possible for votes is nothing new to the Democratic Party. Though it looks like the Obama Administration may conduct this goal through a blanket amnesty, the Clinton Administration tried to create more Democrats a different way, by taking  advantage of a program called Citizenship USA.

Heres a little background. In 1995 the INS decided it was overwhelmed with a backlog of Citizenship applicants and decided to form an program called Citizenship USA to speed the process up from a 3 year wait, to a 6 month wait. Meaning an applicant could become an American Citizen within 6 months of turning in paperwork. The Clinton White House sought to take advantage of this program and to turn these new American Citizens into instant Democrat Voters.

The Acting Inspector General Robert L. Ashbaugh conducted an Investigation into Citizenship USA and heres a link to his full report titled,”An Investigation of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Citizenship USA Initiative

The report found that Immigrants were rushed through the Naturalization process with inadequate files, no background checks, and no finger print checks.

From the Reports Conclusions (emphasis mine):

As detailed throughout this report, naturalization processing before CUSA already suffered from systemic weaknesses. INS lacked standards for the consistent evaluation of an applicant’s “good moral character” and other qualifications for citizenship. INS had become reliant on the use of temporary files, thus preventing adjudicators from learning as much as possible about an applicant’s background, including information concerning possible grounds for disqualification. Applicant criminal history checks were poorly administered.

Adjudicators were trained and instructed to concentrate primarily on the minimal statutory criteria. In addition, their inquiries were limited by the frequent unavailability of the crucial tools of naturalization processing: applicant criminal history checks and permanent files. The procedures on which INS relied to make these tools available to adjudicators, clerical and automated processes, experienced even greater strain as production expectations increased. As a result of all these factors, naturalization processing integrity was compromised during CUSA.

We found that INS was willing to take these risks primarily because the agency had long tolerated a degree of error in its processes. As we described earlier in this report, INS managed the fingerprint check according to an analysis that balanced flaws in the system against the resources required to redress them, and thereby accepted a certain level of error. In view of the use of this approach in administering one of the most significant checks in the naturalization system—the check against the possibility of bestowing citizenship on someone with a disqualifying criminal record—it was no surprise that a similarly tolerant perspective informed INS’ remaining safeguards, particularly when the rate of processing was increased.

Thus, implicit in the idea of backlog reduction was a general acceptance of the status quo in naturalization processing. We found that it was not an ignorance of the problems so much as an acceptance of them. As Commissioner Meissner told the OIG when discussing why INS moved forward with its plans for CUSA knowing of the problems that then existed in making applicants’ permanent files available to naturalization adjudicators, “the assumption was this: . . . we have been doing it this way for years and years and years, and things need to improve. But they are not going to—you know, we are not going to create an entirely new system in a flash, and so we will do the best we can with what we have.”

Furthermore, before the implementation of CUSA those vulnerabilities had not been the subject of widespread public outcry, and thus there was no outside stimulus for INS to mend its ways. What was of immediate concern to the public and to Congress were the unconscionable delays in processing naturalization applications, and it was on those delays that INS singlemindedly focused its attention.

We’re hearing similar arguments today about a legal immigration process that takes too long, is too cumbersome and is unmanageable.

However, of greatest concern is the fact that INS has not made progress toward developing and implementing adjudicative standards, including the standards for English testing and the evaluation of good moral character. INS recognized before CUSA that such standards were missing and that their absence diminished the quality of naturalization processing during CUSA.

Obviously the program was designed to do nothing but quickly Naturalize Americans. Any flaws already in the INS process were escalated by the need to process individuals within the time frame of the program. Now lets look into the Clinton White House’s involvement and the drive for new Democrats.

From the Report’s section on White House/NPR (National Performance Review program under direct supervision of Vice President Al Gore) Involvement in the CUSA Program:

Two distinct themes emerge from the allegations raised by members of Congress with respect to the CUSA initiative. First, that the quality of naturalization adjudications was compromised during CUSA. Second, that these compromises resulted from political pressures engineered by the White House. Previous chapters in this report have addressed the first issue; in this chapter, we examine allegations concerning White House pressure on INS and its CUSA program.

As we discuss in earlier sections of this report, our investigation found that the poorly managed CUSA program was initiated by INS (without White House input) as a legitimate response to a growing backlog of naturalization applications. White House officials became involved in CUSA in early 1996— before INS had made significant inroads into its naturalization backlog—by making the program a target of aggressive “reinvention” efforts by the National Performance Review (NPR).2 During an approximately 6-week period in
March and April 1996, NPR officials visited the INS Key City Districts and attempted to shake up INS bureaucracy by suggesting changes to INS’ hiring procedures.

We found that this White House/NPR interest in CUSA added to the significant pressure that already existed on INS to meet the ambitious backlog reduction and case processing goals it had set for itself and publicized widely. INS’ single-minded focus on processing cases to meet these goals, in turn, led to a series of mistakes, shortcuts, and mismanagement that adversely affected the quality of naturalizations conducted during the CUSA program as discussed throughout this report.

As part of our investigation, we examined the reasons for the White House/NPR involvement in CUSA. We found evidence that White House officials were interested in INS’ naturalization program for a variety of reasons, including “political” reasons that related to the November 1996 election, but from the evidence available we did not find that those interests resulted in any improper actions. We describe both the evidence that we found that relates to the reasons for the White House and NPR involvement in CUSA as well as White House officials’ explanations for their actions.

Although he says he found nothing improper, I’ll let you decide. First their findings:

One of the most pointed criticisms of the CUSA program made by Members of Congress was that the White House created or influenced CUSA in order to increase the number of Democratic voters. The White House strongly denied this allegation, arguing that its involvement in CUSA was motivated by a desire to assist INS to deliver on promises it made to individuals who were entitled to better services. As part of this investigation, we identified events and communications that pertain to the allegation, and we set them forth here because of the seriousness of the charge and the interest in the question. Given our finding that the involvement of the White House had little direct negative impact on CUSA, the propriety of the motivations behind this involvement is a political question beyond the scope of the OIG’s inquiry.

To what extent, if any, did this heightened White House involvement reflect a desire to increase the Democratic turnout at the 1996 general election? Certainly the possibility that White House involvement in CUSA could be perceived as improper occurred to many people, including Commissioner Meissner, who recalled having voiced her concerns to (Rahm)Emanuel and to both Attorney General Reno and Deputy Attorney General Gorelick.

We found several pieces of evidence showing that the White House was aware of and interested in the connection between naturalization, voting, and the 1996 election. The evidence includes:

· The September 26, 1995, memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Gorelick, drafted by Gerri Ratliff, to Kevin O’Keefe at the White House. The memorandum discussed INS naturalization initiatives and included a page entitled “Talking Points Re Voter Registration” that discussed INS’ limited role in facilitating voter registration at naturalization ceremonies. The memorandum noted that due to INS’ limited resources, it would have to rely on partnerships with other organizations to expand voter registration opportunities.

· A 1-page cover letter dated September 28, 1995, from O’Keefe to Ickes forwarding Ratliff’s memorandum. The cover letter included two paragraphs on voter registration, including the statement that “the pace of naturalization will limit the number of new voters.

· Statements that INS employees in New York said Lyons made specifically referencing the November 1996 election.

· Farbrother’s March 28, 1996, e-mail to the Vice President noting that INS was not going to be able to “produce a million new citizens before election day.”

· Kamarck’s April 4, 1996, memorandum to the Vice President stating that “[o]nly by working 7 days a week and longer hours can we hope to make a significant enough dent in the backlog that it will show up when it matters.”

We also found evidence that more specifically refers to, or could be interpreted as referring to, the potential benefit to the Democratic Party of naturalizing a million new citizens in FY 1996.

· The March 13, 1996, O’Keefe memorandum to Ickes discussing that Skinny Sheahan, “our best field organizer,” was trying to figure out how to handle voter registration at a large naturalization ceremony in Chicago.

· A conversation between Farbrother and Kamarck in which, according to Farbrother, Kamarck spoke of the President’s desire to involve NPR because of his belief that the large number of people in California waiting for naturalization represented likely votes for him in the 1996 election.

· The memorandum written for Ickes by Stephen Warnath of the DPC expressing the Hispanic Caucus’ prospective view that “faster naturalization means more potential Democratic voters in the next election.

· The letters written by Daniel Solis and Father Vega to various White House officials that included comments about how enhanced naturalization efforts could increase the number of potential Democratic voters in the 1996 election.

The timeline of events within the report exposes quite alot of evidence as well, here is one excerpt:

Daniel Solis, head of United Neighborhood Organization (UNO) in Chicago,7 told the OIG that he attended a September 1994 Democratic Party fundraiser in Chicago and was seated near the President at the dinner afterwards. In the course of an approximately 10-minute conversation about naturalization, Solis said he told President Clinton that there were approximately 5.5 million potential new citizens in the United States. Solis told the OIG that the President commented that there should be an effort to register these people to vote, to which Solis responded that they had to be naturalized before they could vote. Solis said that he told the President that research showed that newly naturalized citizens tended to vote at a higher rate than other citizens and also tended to vote for incumbents. Solis said President Clinton asked him to send information about this issue to Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, who was also attending the Chicago event.

The report also greatly details Rahm Emanuel’s involvement in the program and dismay at his refusal to answer the IG’s inquiry:

Whether Emanuel’s interest was real and reflected political acumen or merely politeness is a question that his refusal to be interviewed has made more difficult to answer.

Now for some statements from outside the investigation. WorldNetDaily Reports:

A former INS official who attended meetings with Rahm Emanuel when Emanuel was a White House aide says the hard-charging Democrat relaxed rules to naturalize even criminal immigrants and secure their votes for President Clinton ahead of the 1996 presidential election.

Emanuel coordinated with Hispanic community organizers in Chicago to rubberstamp immigrants for citizenship, the INS official said in an exclusive interview with WND.

It turns out the long-time Chicago political operative was the behind-the-scenes catalyst for Citizenship USA, a project run out of then-Vice President Al Gore’s office.

Rahm was doing it under the guise of Al Gore’s Reinventing Government program,” said the official, who helped direct INS security policy. “He was definitely the point man and was past his neck in the scandal at INS.”

Emanuel, now caught up in the corruption scandal involving Democrat Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, refused to cooperate with an investigation into the citizenship project by the Justice Department Inspector General.

“He got every rule changed in the hiring of adjudicators so they could naturalize more Mexican nationals to vote for Bill Clinton, not to mention getting the rules changed to naturalize anyone,” regardless of their criminal background, said the official, who’s still employed by the federal government and requested anonymity to avoid reprisals.

They had immigration ceremonies at stadiums with DNC (Democratic National Committee) staff registering them as voters right there,” he added.

At one Chicago ceremony held inside Soldier Field, some 11,000 new citizens were sworn in.

Another former INS official, William Carroll, said Emanuel “took midnight trips to INS headquarters to meet with (Commissioner) Doris Meissner about Citizenship USA.”

He said that in March 1996 he and other INS district directors were given “marching orders” by headquarters to push through as many new citizens as possible ahead of the election, even if no criminal and national security background checks were completed.

INS deportation officer Tom Conklin said that he and other agents were pressured to rubberstamp immigrants “with two or three arrests for crimes like burglary.”

According to a November 1993 interview with Mother Jones magazine, Emanuel began pushing Clinton to be proactive on the issue of immigration right after he took office, and years ahead of the 1996 re-election campaign.

“I just wanted to be ahead of this issue and have our staff on it, defining it constantly,” Emanuel said, eyeing Texas and California, two key states in 1996 where immigration was a hot issue.

If Democrats can be this dirty on Immigration, is a blanket amnesty in order to get Democrat Votes that much of a stretch. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had a direct involvement in this travesty of justice, and I’m sure, he has no problem trying it again.

Here is Obama’s speech on Immigration Reform

“The politics of who is and who is not allowed to enter this country, and on what terms,  has always been contentious, and that remains true today. And it’s made worse by a failure of those of us in Washington to fix a broken immigration system.”

“In fact because we don’t do a very good job of tracking who comes in and out of the country as visitors large numbers avoid Immigration Law simply by overstaying their visas. The result is an estimated 11 million Undocumented Immigrants in the United States.”

“More fundamentally the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are going through the process legally.”

“For example there are those in the Immigrants Rights Community who have argued, passionately, that we should simply provide those who are illegally with legal status or, at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until, we have better laws. And often this argument is framed in moral terms, Why should we punish people who are just trying to earn a living? I recognize the sense of compassion that drives this argument but I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.”

“The 11 million who  broke these laws should be held accountable. Now if the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people. They know its not possible. Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive. Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation. Because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric.”

“Finally we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally. They must be required to admit that they broke the law, they should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship.”

“We can create a pathway for legal status that is fair, reflective of our values, and works.”

Obama has no intention of deporting the illegal immigrants, and his administrations policy on ICE’s Silent raids confirms this. Instead of rounding up and deporting the illegal immigrants working  at different businesses, the illegals are instead fired by their employer and left with either welfare or crime to sustain themselves.

In July an Obama Administration memo titled “Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Reform” was discovered.

SUBJECT: Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform

This memorandum offers administrative relief options to promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United Slates without authorization. It includes recommendations regarding implementation timeframes and required resources.

You already have the Obama Administration looking for ways to change regulations in order to keep Illegal Immigrants in the United States if Congress does not tackle Immigration Reform, you have ICE’s Silent Raids forcing illegal immigrants out of a job but not deportating them. And you have Rahm Emanuel as the White House Chief of Staff and his philosophy of “Never waste a crisis.” Amnesty is quite possible and so is a Democrat voter drive: is immigration another crisis that we must not waste?

Rahm Emanuel: White House Chief of Staff

Rahmy

Time to look at the White House staff to get a clearer picture of what’s behind the policies of this administration. First up, White House Chief of Staff Rahm “deadfish” Emanuel. We will get into the deadfish later. First here’s the WhiteHouse.Gov bio:

Rahm Emanuel is the White House Chief of Staff. Prior to joining President Barack H. Obama’s administration, Emanuel served in the House of Representatives, representing the fifth district of Illinois, and was Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. As an advocate for Chicago’s working families, Emanuel served on the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees taxes, trade, Social Security, and Medicare issues.

Appointed by then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel served as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the 2006 cycle. Under his leadership, Democrats gained 30 seats in the House without losing a single incumbent, and ushered in a new Democratic majority for the first time in more than a decade.

In January 2007, the new majority elected Emanuel to serve as Democratic Caucus Chair, the fourth-highest-ranking member of the House Democratic Leadership. As Chair, Emanuel led the Democratic Caucus in fulfilling its campaign promise to pass legislation reflecting the values and priorities of the American people.

Before being elected to Congress, Emanuel worked at the Chicago investment bank Wasserstein Perella. He was a core member of the Clinton White House from 1993 to 1998, starting as the national finance director for the 1992 campaign and eventually becoming Senior Adviser to the President for Policy and Strategy. In 1989, Emanuel was a senior adviser and chief fundraiser for Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley’s campaign. He also played an important role in Paul Simon’s 1984 campaign for the Senate.

Emanuel graduated from Sarah Lawrence College in 1981 and received a Master’s Degree in Speech and Communication from Northwestern University in 1985. He and his wife, Amy Rule, have three children, Zach, Ilana, and Leah.

Oh my, Why he’s a Paragon of Democratic Party Knighthood. Yea ok, lets look deeper. From Discover The Networks:

Emanuel’s interest in politics began when, as a college undergraduate, he worked on the congressional campaign of Chicago Democrat David Robinson. He proceeded thereafter to work as a fundraiser for a number of successful Illinois candidates before being drafted by the presidential campaign of Arkansas governor Bill Clinton in 1991.

Emanuel proved to be a shrewd tactician for Clinton, urging the latter, during the 1992 New Hampshire primary race, to focus more on fundraising efforts than on campaigning. The money Clinton collected would enable him to run an effective ad campaign aimed at countering the emerging controversies about the candidate’s past adulterous relationships and his draft-dodging activities during the Vietnam War.

Emanuel’s aptitude for fundraising continued to help the Clinton campaign throughout the primaries and into the general election. Of notable importance was Emanuel’s ability to connect with Jewish donors, who contributed heavily to Clinton’s then-unprecedented $72 million war chest. According to political consultant Steve Rabinowitz, “[Emanuel] schmoozed many, many millions all over the country, including money from traditional Democratic Party givers, who are disproportionately Jewish, and new Democratic givers.”

On November 4, 1992 — the night after Clinton had been elected President — Emanuel and other campaign aids convened for a celebratory dinner. At one point in the evening, the discussion turned to the topic of certain individuals who, in the estimation of Emanuel and his cohorts, had somehow betrayed the Clinton cause. One such person was Nathan Landow, a fundraiser who had backed the candidacy of Clinton’s Democrat rival Paul Tsongas. Another was William Donald Schaefer, the Democrat governor of Maryland who had endorsed Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush. In a fit of anger, Emanuel, wielding a steak knife, stood up amidst his dinner companions and proceeded to stab the table repeatedly, screaming: “Nat Landow! Dead!… Bill Schaefer! Dead!…”

On another occasion, the tempestuous Emanuel mailed a 30-inch decomposing fish to a pollster who had annoyed him.

During Clinton’s first five years in the White House, Emanuel continued to serve as an aid to the President. Perhaps his most high-profile assignment was as choreographer of the 1993 Rose Garden ceremony following the Oslo Accord, an event that featured the famous handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat.

Shortly after Clinton’s electoral victory in 1992, Emanuel began pushing the new President to exploit the issue of immigration for his political advantage. Heeding Emanuel’s advice, in September 1994 Clinton met with Daniel Solis, president of the Chicago-based United Neighborhood Organization (UNO), a Hispanic advocacy group. Solis told Clinton that if he could somehow swiftly naturalize the ever-growing number of non-citizen immigrants residing in the U.S., he would have a “great opportunity” to increase the pool of potential voters who might support his re-election bid in 1996. Clinton instructed Solis to stay in contact with Emanuel on this matter; Solis and Emanuel soon coordinated a scheme — which was titled “Citizenship USA” and was headquartered in Vice President Al Gore’s office — to fast-track the naturalization process for both legal and illegal immigrants before the 1996 election. According to one INS security official:

The goal was to speed up the process and turn as many legal residents and illegals into Clinton voters as possible…. Rahm was doing it under the guise of Al Gore’s Reinventing Government program. He [Emanuel] was definitely the point man and was past his neck in the scandal at INS…. He got every rule changed in the hiring of adjudicators so they could naturalize more Mexican nationals to vote for Bill Clinton, not to mention getting the rules changed to naturalize anyone [regardless of their immigration status or criminal history]…. They had immigration ceremonies at stadiums with DNC (Democratic National Committee) staff registering them as voters right there.”

At one Chicago ceremony held inside the Soldier Field football stadium, approximately 11,000 new citizens were sworn in en masse.

A former INS district director, William Carroll, stated that in March 1996 he and his colleagues had been given “marching orders” to naturalize as many new citizens as possible in advance of the November election, even in the absence of criminal and national security background checks of the applicants.

INS deportation officer Tom Conklin concurred that he and other agents had been pressured to approve the citizenship applications of immigrants “with two or three arrests for crimes like burglary.”

Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine subsequently conducted an investigation of Emanuel’s role in the citizenship scheme. Fine concluded that “the INS had compromised the integrity of naturalization adjudications as a result of its efforts to process applicants more quickly and meet a self-imposed goal of completing more than a million cases by the end of fiscal year 1996.” According to Fine, the Clinton administration had followed “inadequate procedures for checking criminal histories and fingerprints.” Fine added that Emanuel had refused his request for an interview.

In 1998 Emanuel left his advisory position at the White House to work as an investment banker at the firm of Wasserstein Perella, where he earned $16.2 million during a two-and-a-half-year stint.

In 2000 Emanuel was again called upon by Bill Clinton, this time to serve on the Board of Directors for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). During his tenure on the Board, Freddie Mac was plagued by such major scandals as accounting fraud and illegal campaign contributions to congressional candidates. Emanuel resigned from the Board in 2001.

In 2002 Emanuel ran for public office and was elected as the Democrat Representative for Illinois’ 5th congressional district, easily defeating Republican opponent Mark Augusti.

In January 2005 Emanuel was named Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for the 2006 election season. Such was his success in engineering important victories for the Democratic Party in that year’s mid-term elections, that Illinois Republican Representative Ray LaHood said of Emanuel: “He legitimately can be called the golden boy of the Democratic Party today. He recruited the right candidates, found the money and funded them, and provided issues for them.”

Emanuel’s strategy in 2006 was to focus not only on fundraising, but also on an aggressive propaganda campaign deriding Republicans for such transgressions as their mismanagement of the Iraq War, their allegedly inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina, and their scandals involving figures like Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, and Jack Abramoff. Most notably, Emanuel recruited numerous moderate and conservative Democrat candidates — a number of whom were military veterans — to run for election in Southern and Midwestern districts where doctrinaire leftists would have stood little chance of winning.

As a result of the foregoing strategies, Democrats in 2006 gained 30 congressional seats, there by seizing control of the House of Representatives and setting the stage for Nancy Pelosi to become Speaker of the House.

Emanuel was elected Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, making him the fourth highest ranking member of the Democratic leadership in the House.

Emanuel went on to become a close advisor to Senator Barack Obama, particularly during the latter’s run for the White House in 2008. On November 6, 2008, President-elect Obama named Emanuel to serve as his White House Chief of Staff.

Shortly before Obama’s November 4, 2008 election victory, Emanuel had conversations with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s Chief of Staff John Harris about who would fill Obama’s vacant Senate seat if Obama were to win the presidency. According to one source, Emanuel gave Harris a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama. The names on the list included Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes, and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois—all Democrats. Sometime shortly after the election, Emanuel telephoned John Harris to add the name of Democratic Attorney General Lisa Madigan to the approved list.

In December 2008 it was revealed that Blagojevich, who was authorized by Illinois law to name a successor to Obama, had been secretly taped telling political confidantes that he was aiming to sell the Senate seat in exchange for campaign cash, a lucrative job, an ambassadorship, or a Cabinet post. After these charges against Blagojevich became public, Emanuel refused to respond to reporters’ questions about any involvement he may have had with the governor’s office over the Senate pick.

In December 2008 it was reported that Emanuel, cognizant of the fact that the economic recession in which America was mired presented an opportunity for the Democratic Party to enact sweeping legislation under the guise of an economic recovery plan, had said the following in a candid moment: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste — and what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”

(Video Link)

In February 2009 it was learned that Emanuel had lived rent-free for years in the Capitol Hill townhouse of Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro — and that he had failed to make mention of that fact on any of his financial-disclosure forms, as congressional ethics rules require for such arrangements (which are classified by the IRS as gifts that are subject to taxes).

Following is an overview of Emanuel’s congressional voting record from 2003 through 2008, as per key pieces of legislation covering a wide array of issues.

Abortion and the Rights of the Unborn

In April 2000, June 2003, and October 2003, Emanuel voted against legislation to ban the late-term abortion procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion (a.k.a. “intact dilation and extraction”). According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, in the year 2000 this procedure was performed approximately 2,200 times in the United States.

In February 2004 Emanuel voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which proposed to make it an added criminal offense for someone to injure or kill a fetus while carrying out a crime against a pregnant woman.

In April 2005 and September 2006, Emanuel voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, whose purpose was to prohibit the transportation of a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion without a parent’s (or a legal guardian’s) consent.

In December 2006 Emanuel voted against the Abortion Pain Bill, which mandated that abortion providers, prior to performing an abortion on a fetus older than 20 weeks, inform the mother that: (a) the fetus might feel pain during the procedure, and (b) the use of some pain-reducing drugs may have health risks associated with them.

As a result of his unwavering support for the unrestricted right to abortion-on-demand under any and all circumstances, Emanuel has consistently received ratings of 100 percent from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. These ratings indicate that Emanuel’s votes and stated positions on abortion-related matters have mirrored, literally without exception, the positions of these organizations. Indeed, since at least 1995 Emanuel has supported the agendas of Planned Parenthood 100 percent of the time.

Gay Marriage

In September 2004 Emanuel voted against a bill that would have prohibited same-sex marriage. In July 2006 he voted against a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in America exclusively as the union of one man and one woman.

TaxesIn May 2003 Emanuel voted against a $350 billion tax cut. This bill contained, among other things, a provision to eliminate the so-called “marriage tax penalty” by making the standard deduction for married couples twice that of a single filer.

In May 2004 he voted against a proposal to extend the alternative minimum tax relief that had been available in 2003 and 2004.

Also in May 2004, he voted against a proposal to make the $1,000-per-child tax credit permanent rather than letting it decline to $700 in 2005. Four months later he voted against another bill calling for a five-year extension on the $1,000 child tax credit.

In October 2004 he voted against a ten-year, $145 billion tax cut for domestic manufacturers and small corporations.

In April 2005 he voted against a proposal to permanently repeal the estate tax.

In November 2005 he voted against a bill calling for a $49.91 billion reduction in federal spending over a five-year period. Twelve months later he voted against a similar five-year proposal for $56.1 billion in federal spending reductions; that bill also called for the retention of a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends.

In May 2006 he voted against $69.96 billion in tax cuts and credits through 2010, including reductions of 15 percent on capital gains taxes and 5 percent on dividends taxes.

In June 2006 he voted against a proposal to reduce estate taxes beginning in 2010; that proposal would have set the new rates at 15 percent for estates worth up to $25 million, and 30 percent for estates valued at more than $25 million.

The most notable exception to Emanuel’s generally doctrinaire espousal of high taxation occurred in January 2008, when he voted in favor of a bill giving single taxpayers a tax credit of up to $600, and joint filers a tax credit of up to $1,200.

In 2007, Americans for Tax Reform, which generally “opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle,” gave Emanuel a grade of 5 percent.

That same year, FreedomWorks, an organization that “fights for lower taxes, less government and more economic freedom for all Americans,” gave Emanuel a rating of 10 percent.

Also in 2007, the National Taxpayers Union, which seeks to “reduce government spending, cut taxes, and protect the rights of taxpayers,” gave Emanuel a grade of F.

In 2005-06, the National Tax Limitation Committee, which lobbies against “intrusive, coercive government,” gave Emanuel a rating of 6 percent.

Citizens Against Government Waste, an organization that seeks “to eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government,” gave Emanuel a rating of 4 percent in 2007.

And also in 2007, the Business-Industry Political Action Committee, which “identifies and supports pro-business candidates,” gave Emanuel a 7 percent rating.

Fossil Fuels

In May 2006 Emanuel voted against a proposal to provide funds for offshore oil exploration along the Outer Continental Shelf; instead, he favored a continuation of President Clinton’s 1998 moratorium on oil drilling.

In October 2005 and June 2006, Emanuel voted against the construction of new oil refineries.

MortgagesIn September 2007 Emanuel voted in favor of a bill calling on money lenders “to use risk-based pricing to more effectively reach underserved borrowers.” In other words, he was endorsing subprime loans to under-qualified borrowers—the very practice that eventually would lead to the cataclysmic collapse of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the mortgage industry.

Emanuel has received a 100 percent rating from ACORN, the political cult that for many years has played a major role in pressuring banks to make subprime loans.

Military CommissionsIn September 2006 Emanuel voted against a bill authorizing the President to establish military commissions to try enemy combatants captured in the war on terror. In Emanuel’s view, such tribunals trample on the civil rights and liberties of defendants who, he contends, should be entitled to all the rights and protections afforded by the American criminal court system—where the standards that govern the admissibility of evidence are considerably stricter than the counterpart standards in military tribunals.

Counter-Terrorism & Homeland Security

In July 2005 Emanuel voted in favor of reauthorizing the post-9/11 anti-terrorism measure known as the Patriot Act.

In September 2006 he voted against an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978; this amendment called for allowing the government to use electronic surveillance to investigate suspected terrorist operatives.

In August 2007 he voted against a bill permitting the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to monitor foreign electronic communications which are routed through the United States—provided that the purpose of such monitoring was to obtain “foreign intelligence information” about suspected terrorists. In June 2008 he voted in favor of a bill specifically prohibiting this type of surveillance.

The Center for Security Policy, which is committed to “promoting international peace through American strength,” has given Emanuel ratings ranging, over the years, from 17 percent to 35 percent.

The American Security Council, which “serves as educational secretariat of the Congressional Caucus on National Security,” gives Emanuel a 10 percent rating.

Iraq War / War on Terror

In June 2006 Emanuel voted against a resolution which stated that it was not in America’s national security interest to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq, and that a better course of action would be to withdraw the troops only upon the “completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq.”

In February 2007 he voted to disapprove of President Bush’s decision to move ahead with the so-called troop “surge”—the deployment of some 21,500 additional U.S. soldiers in an effort to quell the violent insurgents in Iraq.

In May 2007 Emanuel voted in favor a proposal to expedite the transfer of all prisoners currently being held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center, most of whom are, as Gordon Cucullu writes in The American Enterprise, “not innocent foot soldiers” but rather “Islamic fundamentalists from across the Middle East, rabid jihadists who have dedicated their lives to the destruction of America and Western civilization.”

That same month, Emanuel voted in favor of an amendment to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 90 days.

In July 2007 he voted to begin dramatically reducing the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq by April 1, 2008.

In June 2008 he voted in favor of exploring the possibility of impeaching President Bush on grounds that he had lied about U.S. intelligence on Iraq so as to justify the March 2003 American invasion.

Heres Rahm Emanuel advocating for negotiations with Iran with Bill Maher

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=1IuxxtHSmAM&feature=related

Illegal Immigration

In May 2004 Emmanuel voted “No” on requiring hospitals to report (to the federal government) illegal aliens who receive emergency medical treatment.

In February 2005 he voted against the Real ID Act, which proposed to: set minimal security requirements for state driver licenses and identification cards; require asylum applicants suspected of affiliating with terrorist groups to prove that they are indeed seeking to escape persecution in their homeland; and ensure that physical barriers to prevent illegal immigration would be expeditiously constructed where needed along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In December 2005 he voted against a bill calling for: the construction of some 700 miles of fencing along America’s southern border; the establishment of a system requiring business owners to verify the legal status of all their employees; the detention of any person attempting to enter the U.S. illegally after October 1, 2006; an increase in the penalties on anyone attempting to smuggle illegal aliens into the U.S.; the annual provision of $250 million to pay state and local police agencies for their assistance in enforcing federal immigration laws; and funding for a program to deport “removable criminal aliens” in prison following the completion of their sentences, rather than releasing them into American communities.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the foregoing provisions, has given Emanuel a perfect grade of 100 percent.

In June 2006 Emanuel voted in favor of an amendment prohibiting the U.S. government from tipping off Mexican officials as to the whereabouts of operatives working for the Minuteman Project, a nonviolent organization of American citizens who alert the U.S. Border Patrol to the presence of unauthorized border-crossers in the Southwestern states.

In September 2006 Emanuel again voted against a bill authorizing the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico.

That same month, he voted against a proposal to grant state and local officials the authority to investigate, identify, and arrest illegal immigrants.

The U.S. Border Control, which “is dedicated to ending illegal immigration by securing our nation’s borders and reforming our immigration policies,” gives Emanuel a rating of 8 percent.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which “seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest [about 300,000 a year],” gives Emanuel a rating of 0.

By contrast, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which promotes open borders and an expansion of rights and liberties for illegal aliens, gives Emanuel a 100 percent rating.

Guns

In April 2003 and again in October 2005, Emanuel voted “No” on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers as punishment for violence that is committed with guns.

Already you can see much of Obama’s political stances and policies in agreement with Rahm Emanuel. The attack on Arizona’s SB1070 seems to be inviting Emanuels previous Immigrant scheme for Democratic voters. He served on the Board of Fannie/Freddie, who are conveniently exempt from Financial Reform and continue to ask for, and recieve, taxpayer funded bailouts. The voting record is also extremely similar.

Here is Rahm Emanuel talking about a mandatory service plan, something Obama also advocated for during his campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=HtDSwyCPEsQ&feature=related

An audio interview on the mandatory service plan

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=l0B7dOQwKm0&feature=related

Speaking on “Face The Nation” on the future of President Elect Obama in 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=Dp3Db90JktY&feature=channel

And here he is at the end of Obama’s first 100 days in office in an intervie w with Katie Couric trying to defend TARP and Obama’s economic policies

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=-gDlzhHBoFg&feature=related

Stay Classy Rahm, a compilation

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=jP22Gb1vC2k&feature=related

So I’d say Rahm Emanuel is a hot headed radical. Tick him off, and if he’s not stabbing the table with a knife chanting your name and die, he just might mail you a decomposing fish. Regardless of your wishes, or your family needs, you will be forced to serve under a mandatory service plan. Illegal Immigrant? No Problem! Just vote Democrat. You can see why Obama has Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, they have similar views, and not one of those views is good for America or Freedom.