#2
The problem is that the democrats learned long ago to take advantage of their periods of political power by salting the civil service with fellow travelers, and always resisting strongly any efforts at reversing that trend through their amased union power. The US DOJ Civil Rights division is a perfect example of the cumulative effects of this process.
#4
The DOJ is in a lose-lose situation. Even if DOJ wins a lawsuit, sources tell me South Carolina is simply going to cancel all of the special testing, treatment and counseling, thereby saving the state $2 million a year.
Instead, the state will dump infected prisoners into the general population, and nobody will know they have AIDS. Worse, prisoners who come to prison with HIV/AIDS will never know they have the disease and their lives will be shortened because the testing program will end.
Solution: Level the playing field and inoculate everyone with the virus.
#5
B. You point out a train of thought similar to the earlier DOJ flap this week, where they enjoined colleges from a test project using Kindle for text books .... because blind students couldn't use it.
The logic seems to be if a blind person can't use it, put a bag over everyone else's head.
(CNN) -- Changing the Constitution's guarantee of U.S. citizenship for anyone born in the United States is "worth considering" if it helps reduce illegal immigration, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives said Sunday. But it won't be considered. It'll be dismissed by the lefties as "racist" and the Pubs won't stand their ground because they're actually nudibranches.
"It's a serious problem that affects our country, and in certain parts of our country clearly our schools, our hospitals are being overrun by undocumented Democrats. A lot of them came here just so their children could become U.S. citizens. They should do it the legal way," House Minority Leader John It is not pronounced 'Boner!' Boehner told NBC's "Meet the Press." I sometimes sympathize with them, since the "legal way" involves having to jump through hoops and stand on your hands and spit quarters.
The Ohio congressman, who could become speaker of the House if Republicans win back control of the chamber in November, ... even though they wouldn't be obligated to keep him...
is the latest GOP leader to float the idea of changing the 14th Amendment. Several leading GOP senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and 2008 presidential nominee John Maverick McCain ... the former foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution... have said they would support holding hearings into the matter as part of the heated debate over immigration.
The Reconstruction-era amendment guarantees equal protection of law and defines who is a U.S. citizen. The exclusion of the children of illegals, of foreign consuls, and similar groups is also spelled out in case law up until Justice Brennan inserted a footnote into a majority opinion in the 1950s...
Critics of illegal immigration have long accused migrants -- particularly those coming from Mexico or Latin American countries -- of giving birth to children in the United States in hopes that their babies' citizenship will keep them in the country. The amendment has been cited as the foundation of U.S. civil rights law in cases ranging from Brown v. Board of Education to last week's decision that struck down a ban on same-sex marriage in California. Changing it would require a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and the approval of three-quarters of state legislatures.
Boehner said Sunday he's "not the expert on this issue," but "I think it's worth considering." You could take a weekend and read up on it. It does make for interesting reading. You probably have a subscription to West...
"There is a problem," he told NBC. "To provide an incentive for undocumented Democrats to come here so that their children can be U.S. citizens does, in fact, draw more people to our country."
Posted by: Fred ||
08/09/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think they should add to it a passage that revokes the citizenship of anyone that uses the term immigrant when they mean illegal immigrants.
Consider the the first "and" in Section 1 of the amendment. That's important. They didn't use "or". I'm sure by then folks had the difference between the two conjunctions down pretty good in a legal sense, and were pretty good about not dragging their knuckles around when legislating, too. Any talk about needing to rework this amendment is mere distraction from the fact that it is not necessary to rewrite it in order to achieve the desired effect of kicking out all undocumented Donks. I'm sure if the Donks get their hands on a rewrite of this amendment it will only lead to no good. They probably think that being involved in a new amendment will make them super-cool, too. If the Donks want the illegals to stay here, they had better repeal that amendment fast, because the federal government is in breach of contract regarding illegals overrunning this place.
#4
I've read other analyses that agree with yours, Gorb.
Illegal immigration was unheard of in 1867. It didn't exist. People immigrated to the US but none of it was illegal. We didn't conjure up that idea until another generation had passed.
So it's not surprising that the Framers of the 14th didn't explicitly consider immigration.
What they did consider explicitly was that many would try to deny the newly-freed slaves their rights, and they wanted to prevent that. Alas, they failed, and the slaves were dumped on for another hundred years.
One can argue that illegal immigrants are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States (except for deportation) and thus don't benefit from the 14th. It's harder with the anchor babies -- are they also not subject? If born in an American hospital and registered as a live birth, what then? It's an interesting legal question, and I've read opinions on both sides.
What Sen. Graham (RINO-SC) and Boehner are doing, however, is not encouraging a debate on the 14th -- what they're doing is clearing the road for another blanket amnesty.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/09/2010 9:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Inre: "Anchor Babies"
Yes, I think they would fall under the jurisdiction of the US. That is, I believe, the point of a new ammendment: to make them explicitly under the same jurisdiction as their parents.
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
08/09/2010 9:31 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Parkland Hospital in Dallas gave birth to 11,200 anchor babies in 2006. That is 70% of the births that occurred at one hospital.
#7
I think anchor babies are born in the US but not subject to our jurisdiction. Otherwise, the parents would need to jump through all kinds of hoops to take their baby home with them, including adoption papers because they are taking an American citizen out of the country with them.
#8
gorb is right - they are subject to the jurisdiction of thecountry of their parents.
Anchor babies are a lunacy.
One more thing, I wonder what would happen if the Repubs in Congress offered amnesty to illegals but ony if the illegals right to vote was delayed 20 years. Think the Dems would still be pushing for it?
Apparently we're the only suckers in the world to allow this.
Posted by: Black Charlie Chinemble5313 ||
08/09/2010 12:58 Comments ||
Top||
#10
70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland were illegal immigrants. 11,200 per year.
The hospital spent $70.7 million per year on a total of 15,938 babies. Medicaid kicked in 34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds kicked in another 9.5 million. Maybe chickenfeed but when tallied up for the entire country maybe not chickenfeed.
#12
There's a small claque on Wikipedia that's trying to expunge 'anchor baby' from the lexicon as being only used in a hateful way. That's a classic PC tactic to frame and limit discourse by prohibiting trenchant English vocabulary in favor of forced circumlocution. See the 'discussion' page for 'anchor baby'.
#13
Besides, I like the law when it is written in generalities and written correctly as was the style then. Nowadays, when modern libtards get hold of it, their tendencies are to turn it into 1000+ pages splintered between ironclad multi-generational pork, hideously over-detailed indebting garbage, and vaguely worded bureaucracy-generating rubbish that will be used in the Supreme Court to justify the fact that the meaning of the word "regulate" in the Constitution has gone from "to make regular" to "control".
#15
gorb is right -- the originial intent of 14th IIRC was so that the children of recently freed slaves would not be disenfranchised their citizenship.
Just days before Tuesday's runoff, Karen Handel holds a slight edge over Nathan Deal in the GOP race for governor, according to a new statewide poll conducted for the Georgia Newspaper Partnership.
Handel leads Deal 47 percent to 42 percent with 11 percent undecided, and the two are battling for downstate voters who supported someone else in the July 20 primary.
The race for the Republican nomination has been a bruising campaign that has garnered national attention through high-profile endorsements from GOP stalwarts such as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who is supporting Handel, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who endorsed Deal.
It all ends Tuesday, as GOP voters pick a candidate to face Democratic nominee Roy Barnes in November.
While Handel leads overall, the poll found that Deal gets nearly a majority -- 48 percent -- of support from voters who backed a losing candidate in the primary. Those voters, who backed former state Sen. Eric Johnson, state Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine or one of the three other candidates in the primary, could be the key to Tuesday's vote, said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, which conducted the poll.
"Deal really needs to get those Oxendine voters back and the Johnson voters back to the polls and convince them to vote for him," Coker said.
The question is whether those voters are motivated enough to make another trip to the polls. Coker said he would expect fewer than half of all primary voters to return Tuesday and those who supported Handel or Deal are the most likely to vote again.
In the primary, Handel led with 34 percent of the vote, followed by Deal with 23 percent. Johnson took 20 percent and Oxendine, 17 percent.
The poll shows Handel, the former secretary of state, dominating her home base of metro Atlanta, while Deal did especially well in North Georgia, much of which he represented in Congress for 18 years. But Johnson and Oxendine had their best showing in South Georgia, making voters from that region a key for Tuesday's runoff.
"That belt running from Augusta to Savannah and all the way to Columbus and through Macon -- that's where the race is going to be decided," Coker said.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/09/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Anyone endorsed by Huckabee, Romney, McCain, or Graham is suspect. That group of "Establishment, and Establishment ONLY" "leaders" are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/09/2010 19:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I've had Romney and Palin robo calls tonight. Deal is my man
As we are sonorously and endlessly told, the Southern Poverty Law Center is all about exposing the "hate" and working for "civil rights" in America. But a new website, Watching the Watchdogs, has tracked down the salaries and identities of SPLC's top officers and it is interesting to note that they are all white people. Not a "minority" in the bunch. And they are all making a pretty penny, too.
So, what do you have when a "civil rights" organization that tries to fight the "hate" out there, an organization that claims it is all about protecting America's minorities, hasn't hired any minorities? Maybe the word "hypocrites" comes to mind?
In June I also wrote a piece on the SPLC. In it I noted that the entirety of the Old Media use the SPLC as their number one source for information on "hate groups" and the danger of so-called "white militias," but I ask what other sources there are for the "hate groups" that the SPLC claims it is tracking. The answer is, none. There are no other sources and the Old Media simply swallows the SPLC's claims whole.
Continued on Page 49
Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) suggested a novel use Saturday for a 100-square-mile ice sheet that has broken off Greenland.
"An iceberg four times the size of Manhattan has broken off Greenland, creating plenty of room for global warming deniers to start their own country," Markey said in a statement. Sorry. Way too small, Eddie... We started our own country 234 years ago, Ed, and we're not keen on the way you and yours have been handling affairs lately. We could, however, put you GW enthusiasts on Antarctica ...
"So far, 2010 has been the hottest year on record, and scientists agree arctic ice is a canary in a coal mine that provides clear warnings on climate." The last time this happened was 1962. And yet, we're not all dead for some reason...
Some scientists have attributed the breaking off of the ice sheet to abnormally warm temperatures this year. ...and some haven't.
Markey, who chairs the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, co-authored the House version of the climate change bill that's currently stalled in the Senate. Looks like there's more Philistines around then you thought, eh, Eddie?
He said it was "unclear how many giant blocks of ice it will take to break the block of Republican climate deniers in the US Senate who continue hold this critical clean energy and climate legislation hostage." Eddie, why don't you go back to the only real job you ever had, driving an ice cream truck...
#2
Sort have missed something there bud. People like Markey need to suffer the fate of Galileo to comprehend institutional intolerance of contradictory data in a scientific question.
#3
Markey sould watch out. The exkimos put the old and useless on icebergs and left them.
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
08/09/2010 8:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If he's too hot and steamy, he should make a visit to South America right now.
"A brutal and historical cold snap has so far caused 80 deaths in South America, according to international news agencies. Temperatures have been much below normal for over a week in vast areas of the continent. In Chile, the Aysen region was affected early last week by the worst snowstorm in 30 years. The snow accumulation reached 5 feet in Balmaceda and the Army was called to rescue people trapped by the snow."
The reason for this happening is that we are in just the opposite of the greenhouse effect. Summers will be hotter, and Winters colder, because the thermosphere has reduced in size by almost a third. It is the atmospheric blanket that blocks new heat, but also holds in existing heat, moderating surface temps.
#5
It is really starting to piss me off that leftist radicals call conservatives "radicals" for *opposing* radical change.
In a way, conservatives share in the blame because once the leftists force through some radical change, they also force through the idea that it is written in stone, and can never, ever be changed back, no matter how worthless and disastrous it is.
And the conservatives buy into that nonsense, because they don't want to fight over the past, and would much prefer to try and fix the utterly worthless disaster.
#6
Markey is seedy indeedy. I think he should go up and spend some time on the iceberg and gather information about the whereabouts of the iceberg. He can call it his own country if he likes.
#7
In a way, conservatives share in the blame because once the leftists force through some radical change, they also force through the idea that it is written in stone, and can never, ever be changed back, no matter how worthless and disastrous it is.
Welcome to the past century of life in America. The ratchet that is government turns only in a unidirectional manner and has for over a hundred years now. The left has been tremendously effective at implementing their grand vision merely by recognizing the fact that the sane and rational folks can't guard every frontier one hundred percent of the time.
Barry Harry, and Nancy need to watch that and weep. How hard would it have been to give a mealy mouth 15 minute speech to a bunch of kids who could care less and would have been bored to tears. (Although I have never forgotten the excitement of LBJ's lone chopper landing at the 1964 Jamboree a month before Tonkin Gulf). Instead, he insulted the leaders of the next generation and left them with an opportunity to speak truth to power that they will never forget. This is why arrogant elites cannot hope to endure. They just flipped off the wrong bunch of 14 year olds.
#1
To be charitable, a man with a diabolically confused, self-destructive parentage and equaly confused naming convention, possessing a mystical admiration for a paternal muslim heritage, steeped in generations of anti-western tribal hatred, who weds a like minded, America loathing inner-city radical, and writes books about himself.
What could this fellow possibly have in common with an organization founded by Sir Baden Powell? Or more pointedly, what could these young lads and our great nation possibly have in common with him? What could possibly go wrong?
#2
Failed community organizer with pomp and privilege sustained by special interests vs. a successful organized community under assault from the same special interests. Why would there be any animosity? /rhet question
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Just days before Tuesday's runoff, Karen Handel holds a slight edge over Nathan Deal in the GOP race for governor, according to a new statewide poll conducted for the Georgia Newspaper Partnership.
