John McCain's CREST ACT: Does it Criminalize Murrieta Style Protests?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

First, I want to say that the first thing we need to do to stem the tide of illegal immigration is to secure the border.  If we don't secure the border, all other attempts to slow down the flow of illegal immigration will largely be a moot point.  The Constitution demands that we secure the border, and common sense reveals that we must secure the border first.

However, that all said, let's address a bill proposed, and supported by, Republicans, that the GOP believes would be a great help in alleviating the problem of illegal immigration at hand.

We have this funny little thing called the First Amendment, which enumerates the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, and that should not be hindered in any way.

The CREST ACT, I was originally led to believe, would disallow by law the protests we saw in Murrieta, and criminalize any action by any border patrol agent (including letting us know if planes or buses are on their way) that may be considered assistance to the protests.

The bill was proposed by the Arizona Senators, including John McCain.

The bill, I originally thought, is bad enough, we expect bills like this from the democrats.  But republicans?  This is what I mean when I separate the GOP into two distinct groups, calling the problem in the Republican Party the Establishment Republicans.

I firmly believe that the problem is the good ol' boys of the establishment side of things are in the majority, and if we are to turn this country around, conservatives, constitutionalists, need to conduct a hostile takeover of the GOP.  If we don't throw the leftists in the party out on their heels, we will not get this country back under control.

I have been calling for, and still call for, a hostile takeover of the Republican Party, a convention of States, and a return of local control over local issues largely accomplished by citizens being active in their local politics.  That is how you turn America around.  The difficulty in all of this is that it seems like the establishment (in both parties) is doing what it can to keep us from protecting our rights, and turning this country back towards being a constitutional republic.  This is not just some political disagreement.  When politicians seek to use their power to force their will upon us, and take away our rights to disagree, it is war.

This is what I received regarding the CREST ACT, originally, by email and on various websites - this specifically from a website called USA Carry:

Proposed McCain bill would criminalize Murietta/Vassar patriots….

This is a discussion on Proposed McCain bill would criminalize Murietta/Vassar patriots…. within the Politics forums, part of the Main Category category; John McCain Strikes again with the introduction of the CREST Act, which hires 150 more attorneys to represent "unaccompanied refugee ...
(A) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘§ 556. Unlawfully hindering immigration, border, or
customs controls

‘‘(a) ILLICIT SPOTTING.—Any person who knowingly transmits to another person the location, movement, or activities of any Federal, State, or tribal law enforcement agency with the intent to further a Federal crime relating to United States immigration, customs, controlled substances, agriculture, monetary instruments, or other border controls shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

‘‘(b) DESTRUCTION OF UNITED STATES BORDER CONTROLS.—Any person who knowingly and without lawful authorization destroys, alters, or damages any fence, barrier, sensor, camera, or other physical or electronic device deployed by the Federal Government to control the border or a port of entry, or otherwise seeks to construct, excavate, or make any structure intended to defeat, circumvent or evade any such fence, barrier, sensor camera, or other physical or electronic device deployed by the Federal Government to control the border or a port of entry —  ‘‘(1) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; and  ‘‘(2) if, at the time of the offense, the person uses or carries a firearm or, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm [such as happened in Vassar, MI, when they protested the possible use of a facility to house UACs - added], shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.  ‘‘(c) CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPT.—Any person who attempts or conspires to violate subsection (a) or (b) shall be punished in the same manner as a person who completes a violation of such subsection.’’

-----

Then I did a little more digging.

According to the Tucson News Now website:

CREST SUMMARY

Amends the Trafficking Victims Prevention Act (TVPA) to increase repatriation of unaccompanied alien children (UACs) from non-contiguous countries.

The CREST Act requires UACs from non-contiguous countries be given the same treatment as those from Mexico and Canada with respect to the option of voluntarily returning to their own country.

In addition, keeping in place the existing screenings, the CREST Act reforms the TVPA to require expedited removal of all undocumented immigrants that are stopped at the border attempting to enter the United States illegally, allowing law enforcement to return them to their home countries within days as opposed months or years.

Requires mandatory detention of UAC until their cases are fully adjudicated.

This Act requires UAC to be under the custody of CBP or HHS until they are repatriated or their immigration cases have arrived at an outcome that allows them to remain in the U.S. Exceptions are made for non-federal custody in cases where the UAC is found to be a victim of trafficking, has special needs, or severe physical or mental health needs. In those cases, they can be released to a biological parent that is legally present in the U.S., has submitted to a biometric criminal history check, is willing to face fines for a failure to appear in immigration court, and a safety and suitability study has been completed.

Increases the number of immigration judges to hear cases and create a separate immigration docket to hear the cases of juveniles.
The CREST Act authorizes the hiring of 100 temporary immigration judges, 150 new immigration litigation attorneys in the ICE Field of Legal Operations, and 100 new asylum offices to reduce immigration case backlogs.

The Act prioritizes the swift resolution of cases involving unaccompanied minor children by requiring the creation of a separate juvenile docket in every immigration court in the United States and requiring the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to bring a resolution to immigration cases, from the issuance of a notice to appear through the exhaustion of appeals, within thirty days.

Increases the number of refugee applications by up to 5,000 for each of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.
This CREST Act requires the administration to carry out in-country processing of refugee applications in these countries and provides funding for the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations at USCIS to fulfill these requirements.

Conditions foreign aid on countries’ efforts to secure their borders.

This Act requires the President to certify that Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador are doing everything they can to prevent the illegal migration of unaccompanied minors or risk losing foreign aid assistance and assist in the repatriation of their citizens.

Increase penalties for human smuggling.

The CREST Act increases penalties for those engaging in human smuggling, including the smuggling of unaccompanied minors.
-----

Okay, except for the part of buying into the "refugee" argument, which is a load of crap and is simply a ploy being used by the Left to tug on heartstrings, the bill doesn't seem so bad after all.

So what is the truth?

-----

Jeff Flake, the other Arizona Republican Senator to introduce this bill, had the following from a news article on his website:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) today formally introduced the Children Returning on an Expedited and Safe Timeline Act (CREST Act), which addresses the mounting humanitarian crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, where tens of thousands of unaccompanied children (UAC) are being apprehended as they illegally cross into the United States.

“This legislation attends to the urgent humanitarian crisis on the border today while also addressing with the root of the problem, deterring future flows of unaccompanied children making the long and dangerous journey north,” said McCain. “This crisis will continue until the parents who paid thousands of dollars to smuggle their children north to the United States see plane-loads of them landing back at home – their money wasted.”

“While President Obama should be doing more to halt the flow of unaccompanied minors crossing the border, Congress also needs to step up,” said Flake. “The McCain-Flake CREST Act would both stem the present tide and prevent future waves of children from making the dangerous journey north.”
In addition to Senators McCain and Flake, the bill is co-sponsored by Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK).
-----

Then I read the text of the bill itself, and received a little "context."  The hysteria surrounding this bill that says the CREST ACT criminalizes Murrieta Style Protests is not entirely accurate.  The context of the language used is not directed towards protesters, but against the illegal aliens, and those that assist them in coming into the United States illegally.  Plus, the bill tries to address a very serious problem when it comes to the illegal immigration debate, and is for the most part in line with Congressman Ken Calvert's bill, H.R. 5079.

Let me explain.

The buses were arriving in Murrieta every 72 hours, and that clock was based on the time it takes to process the illegal aliens.  By law, minor children from non-contiguous countries could not be rapidly processed and sent back home in 48 hours like their Mexican counterparts.  The hearings of OTMs (Other Than Mexicans) were backlogged, and the processing was more time-consuming than the process it takes to deport Mexicans.  Since illegals are still allowed due process, and hearings for these people from non-contiguous countries could not be conducted within 72 hours, and the maximum legal time for holding someone without a hearing is 72 hours, the people had to be released with a piece of paper telling them to report back later to a border patrol station or ICE facility for their hearing.  And, of course, 95-98 percent of the illegals never reported back for their hearing.

The Senate bill by McCain and Flake, and the House bill by Calvert, are designed to address that problem, to strike the non-contiguous designation out of our laws, and treat these people no different than Mexican illegals.  The Senate bill calls for hiring more judges to handle this influx of people at the border, something I suggested we need to do during my interview on NPR, so that we can perform their hearings rapidly, so that they can then be deported as a result of being found guilty of violating the law by crossing the border illegally.  The Senate and House bills are a direct challenge to the 2008 law signed by President George W. Bush that created the special designation of "non-contiguous" allegedly in order to help curb human trafficking, and deal with the problem of the non-contiguous countries refusing to take their people back.

Could this bill, once it becomes law, be used in the way the hysteria suggests?

I don't think so.  Then again, I put nothing past the federal government.  However, before we start believing hysteria, we have to investigate, we have to know what we are talking about, otherwise, the opposition will use our hysterics against us, and label us even more so with the things they love to label us with. . . extreme, racist, dumb, and whatever else they can pull from their evil bag of tricks.

Let's be smart about this.  Let's be informed, and message our commentary in ways that it reveals that we understand the reality behind these issues, and we understand how to carry out our intentions based on the rule of law.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Proposed McCain bill would criminalize Murrieta/Vassar Patriots - USA Carry

U.S. Senators from AZ introduce CREST ACT addressing Border Crisis - Tucson News Now

CREST ACT - Flake.Senate.gov

Ken Calvert Seeks to Close Illegal Immigration Loophole - Political Pistachio

The Spirit Of Israel

by JASmius

Danielle, an Israelite girl asks Bill why Americans stand with Israel.

Three huzzahs for that vid.  But I do have one question for Bill: what makes you think the "anti-Israel president and administration" will ever be "removed from Washington"?  It's far more likely that Obamerika will be as religiously "cleansed" as the Middle East is becoming.  And ethnically cleansed (of "Anglos") as well, come to think of it.

Millions Of Christians Forced To Flee Mideast

by JASmius

Note to United Nations and Obama Regime: THIS is what a "refugee exodus" looks like:

More members of religious communities around the world were forced to flee their homes last year than at any time in recent memory, the United States said on Monday, in its annual report on religious freedom.

....in which "anti-Muslim persecution" was exaggerated and highlighted, and anti-Semitism and Christophobia were grudgingly mentioned, if at all... .

The report said that in much of the Middle East, the Christian presence is becoming "a shadow of its former self." Hundreds of thousands of minority Christians have fled Syria after three years of civil war.

"In the city of Homs the number of Christians dwindled to as few as 1,000 from approximately 160,000 prior to the conflict," according to the report.
In China, seven Christians were sentenced lengthy prison terms for recording and copying sermons. The report also noted China's prosecution of relatives of people who had set themselves on fire in religious protests.

In Egypt, churches and Christian-owned homes and businesses were raided and looted.

"Islamist-led mobs carried out acts of violence, intimidation, compelled expulsions, and punishment against Christians," the report said.

At least 42 churches, schools, orphanages, and other Christian-affiliated organizations were attacked.

"The violence resulted in the looting and destruction of at least 37 churches and the deaths of at least six Christians who were targeted because of their religious identity," according to the report.

Attacks on religion were not confined to the developing world, the report said, with anti-Semitism throughout Europe evidenced in Internet fora and in soccer stadiums "leading many individuals who are Jewish to conceal their religious identity."

But that was last year.  I wonder if the following will be in this year's report:

The BBC reported this month that Islamist militants have threatened Iraqi Christians with death by "the sword" unless they accept Islam or pay a protection fee.

And in Sudan, a Christian woman was sentenced to death for not recanting her faith. She has since been allowed to leave the country and last week had an audience with Pope Francis.

Given O's attempts to bully Israel into letting Hamas off the hook yet again, I wouldn't count on it.

Immigration: Constitutional Authority

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The following is an email I received, and my answer, regarding the illegal alien issue, and how the Constitution defines it, and the authorities granted.

-----

Dear Mr. Gibbs:

I’ve just recently run across your article on “The Federal Lawsuit Against Arizona’s Immigration Law, The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Section 2).” I enjoyed the article immensely, I know that this is an old article, but I believe it is still pertinence even today. As such, I have a question that I’m not sure about.

In the paragraph starting with: “The question, however, is if enforcing immigration laws is even a federal authority in the first place.”…. you end with “However, that is not what the Constitution says. It is very specific that it is up to the federal government to "establish" naturalization rules. It says nothing about applying those rules, or enforcing those rules.

The last sentence saying “the Constitution says nothing about applying those rules, or enforcing those rules.” left me wondering about Article I. Section 8, Clause 18, which gives Congress the power as stated: “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Could not clause 18 be said to be taken as the authority to enact laws and create agencies for enforcing all of the above mentioned enumerated powers in Section 8, such as clause 4, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”…?

Regards,

Brent XXXXXX

-----

Brent,

Thank you for your question about immigration. In Article I, Section 8 of the United State Constitution, as you refer to, it is specifically regarding rules for Naturalization, not immigration. Though related, they are not the same issue. Congress may pass laws regarding making sure that the rules for naturalization are uniform, that is clear, but the Necessary and Proper Clause (or Elastic Clause) at the end of the section does not grant Congress the authority to legislate immigration based on the clause you mentioned. That does not mean that Congress has no authorities regarding immigration, however.

Immigration is a concurrent issue, where both the federal government and the States have authorities regarding the issue, depending on the parameters of the part of the issue we are talking about.

Let's establish some of those authorities.

Article IV, Section 4, of the United States Constitution tasks the federal government with protecting the States from invasion.

An invasion is defined by the American Heritage College Dictionary, in its third definition presented, as "An intrusion or encroachment." The American College Encyclopedic Dictionary's second, third, and fourth definitions define invasion as being: "The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease; entrance as if to take possession or overrun; infringement by intrusion." Based on those definitions, I think it is safe to call illegal immigration an "invasion."

If illegal immigration is an invasion, and Article IV., Section 4 of the Constitution tasks the federal government with protecting the States from invasion, then in line with Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (Necessary and Proper Clause), it would be a constitutional requirement for the federal government to secure the border to protect the States from invasion. After all, it would be necessary and proper to secure the border in order to protect a State against invasion.

Article I, Section 9 explains that in addition to being able to prohibit the import of slaves after 1808 (which led to Congress outlaw the Atlantic Slave Trade), Congress also has the authority to pass legislation to prohibit "migration," specifically giving Congress the authority to prohibit certain groups of such persons from entering the country, which includes those that have contagious disease. This is an important clause, because in reality, prior to the enactment of that clause, the immigration issue was only a State issue. Remember, prior to the Constitution, the States held original authority on all issues. Immigration laws did exist prior to the writing of the Constitution, and prior to the legislation in 1808, but not in regards to "migrants," but in regards to protecting the States from invasion.

Today's immigration laws by the federal government are in place specifically to protect the receiving population against illness, criminals, and other dangerous persons by prohibiting "such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" from entering the country in the first place. That was the whole reason for the creation of Ellis Island. Immigrants were screened, tested, and considered healthy and safe, before they were allowed to enter the country.

What that tells me is that the part of the immigration issue that is the federal government's authority, and duty, is to secure the border and prohibit dangerous persons from immigrating into the United States who may be a part of an invasion.

Through executive branch departments, such as the Border Patrol, and ICE, it is the executive branch's duty to ensure the laws of the union are executed. In Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, in fact, it states that the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

However, what happens once the illegal aliens are within the boundaries of the States? The federal government cannot normally operate within a State without the permission of State officials, such as County Sheriffs, Governor, and legislature. This is why, before federal assistance can come in during natural disasters, a governor must declare a State of Emergency. That is the equivalent of the State saying, "Okay, federal government, you are invited to come into our State to operate during this disaster. We give you permission." Therefore, once the illegal aliens are within the State, unless the State asks for assistance, federal agencies are normally not allowed to operate in the State. There are provisions that allow immigration departments like ICE and the Border Patrol to operate in a State, but understanding that a federal department can not normally do so without State permission reminds us that it is the State's right to protect its own internal affairs, including handling the enforcement provisions of the immigration laws. That brings the Arizona immigration law to mind, but we will get back to that.

The other question folks have is regarding the use of personnel to secure the border. We have a President that refuses to do so with the Border Patrol, and ICE, and he won't deploy the National Guard to the border, as well. What should we do?

I remind people that though the President has full authority over departments that reside within the Executive Branch, that does not mean he can call other troops to the border. The National Guard is a part of the militia. The U.S. Code defines the militia in two parts, the "organized militia," and the "disorganized militia." The National Guard, the State Militias, Naval Militia, and so forth, are all a part of the "organized militia." The unorganized militia consists of the citizens.

The militia is expected to be a "Well Regulated Militia," as provided in the Second Amendment.

The word regulated, as defined by the founders back during the writing of the Constitution, and as provided by the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, which can be viewed online, is as follows: "Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions." This makes sense, when you consider the militia during the Revolutionary War was not in good order. So, a Well Regulated Militia is a militia that is in good order. That is why in Article I, Section 8, Congress is tasked with providing "for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia." In the clause prior, Congress is also given the authority "for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." That same authority is not given to the President.

In Article I, Section 10, in the final clause, the Constitution says, "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." What that means is that if a State is being invaded, the State, and more specifically, the governor, may call forth the militia to defend the State.

So, in short, the executive branch and Congress must secure the borders, but once the invasion enters the State, it is up to Congress and the State to put a force in place to stop the invasion. When Congress calls the militia into action, the President becomes involved as Commander in Chief. Article II, Section 2 states, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States."

When the governor calls the militia into action to protect the State from invasion, the militia was not called into service of the United States, but into service of that particular State. However, when Congress calls the militia into service to protect the State from invasion, then it has been called into the actual service of the United States, and then the President becomes a part of the operation as Commander in Chief. He cannot be the Commander in Chief over the militia if the governor calls the militia into service, because then the militia has been called into service of the State, not of the United States (federal government).

That last part is a clue, also, that immigration, and more specifically, that "invasion," is a concurrent issue where the States have authorities regarding the issue, just as the federal government does.

Which brings us all the way back to the Arizona immigration law. Arizona had every right to protect itself from invasion, and to enforce immigration law, yet this lawless administration sued the State over it. Then, on top of that, Justice Department chief Eric Holder filed the case unconstitutionally, for as I stated in the other article on Political Pistachio that you read, according to Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, "all cases. . . in which a State shall be party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction." In other words, the case must go straight to the Supreme Court, and Holder filed the case in a district court.

I hope this answers all of your questions.

Douglas V. Gibbs
Constitution Radio, KCAA AM1050
Author, 25 Myths of the United States Constitution
www.politicalpistachio.com
www.douglasvgibbs.com
www.constitutionassociation.com

Sources:

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,regulated

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

Evan Sayet Addresses Liberals on Thinking, and Their Progression

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Here's a couple fantastic links to a couple funny, great, and informative videos (and dare I say "brilliant") by Evan Sayet, Conservative Comedian, former writer for Bill Maher (that's enough to turn anyone against liberalism), and a good friend. . .

Liberals Have Turned Thinking into a Hate Crime

How Liberals Reach the Top of their Professions

And of course, I advise you to hang around and spend some time on his website. . . and of course buy the book: Kindergarden of Eden: How the Modern Liberal Thinks.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Children Are Gang Members

'OBAMA WILL TAKE CARE OF US'...

Violent MS-13 gang recruiting at Arizona facility...

Amnesty, work permits for 5 million could be ordered 'within weeks'...

Visa overstays to be excused...

Scott Brown Becomes First Senate Candidate To Run Ad On Crisis...

Sessions to Congress: Block Obama's Amnesty, or Face Cantor's Fate...

POLL: 77% want illegals sent home...

HILL PHONE LINES MELT...

VIDEO: Coyote on jet ski delivers migrants to USA in broad daylight...

PHOTOS: Border militias moving across Texas...

Jerry Brown kicks off trade mission in Mexico...

Border agents hampered by environmental rules...

Migrants from Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka Entering Through Mexico...

More young crossers going straight to port...

OH Sheriff Estimates One-Third County Births Are Illegals...

Feds dump hundreds in Tennessee...

Pittsburgh at 'tipping point' after 'foreign influx'... 

Professors: Guest worker policies freezing Americans out of middle class... 

'Death Train' to increase traveling speeds to deter jumping...

'BORDER PATROL' POINTS LOADED GUN at Iowa Boy Scout Troop...

IN EVENT OF EMERGENCY, ILLEGALS TO BE EVACUATED BEFORE CITIZENS...

'Plan is to get unaccompanied women and children to safer ground'...

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Yellen Just Doesn't Get It, Much Like Greenspan

by JASmius

The drumbeat is becoming an audible snare drum whirrrrr:

Current Fed Chair Janet Yellen has a lot in common with former Chairman Alan Greenspan, and that's not a good thing, says MarketWatch columnist Paul Farrell.

"Sometime after the Great Crash of 2016, Yellen will be testifying before Congress, just like Greenspan was forced to do in 2008," he writes.

That crash will be a "direct result of Federal Reserve policy failures," Farrell says. "She will be forced to explain why the Great Crash of 2016 was a clone of the bank credit crash of 2008 and the 2000 excesses." [emphasis added]

See yesterday's post to spare me the keystrokes of pixelatedly chewing my cabbage twice.  Here, take a look at that five word phrase: "The Great Crash of 2016".  Another huge, existential crisis for Barack Obama to exploit at just the time he'd need it for his intended endgame.

I don't believe in coincidences, especially where this man is concerned.  And neither should you.

Lew: Forbid Tax Inversions, Then Tackle Tax Reform

by JASmius

Sounds like a demand for unconditional GOP surrender, doesn't it?  Or maybe he thinks Republicans really are that gullible:

While some say President Obama should abandon his effort to ban tax inversions and focus on corporate tax reform instead, Treasury [Commissar] Jacob Lew argues that Congress should first ban the inversions and then take up reform.

Does that sound as bass-ackwards to y'all as it does to me?  Just pre-emptively give up the only leverage the GOP might have in exchange for....what?  A "promise" to "take up reform," whatever that would wind up meaning to Barack Obama and Harry (G)Reid (and I think we have a pretty good idea).

Not to let Comrade Lew's cat out of the bag, but this is one more reprise of the "obstructionist, do-nothing Republican Congress" meme that will lead inexorably to O's "If they won't act, I will!" verbal tic to set the stage for President Pen & Phone to wave his scepter and decree what he wants regardless.  Probably as part of the midterm election home stretch.

I get that from Comrade Lew's tiresomely predictable framing of "inverting" U.S. corporations:

Inversions occur when a U.S. company acquires a foreign one and then domiciles itself in the foreign country to escape U.S. corporate taxes, which go as high as 35%.

"It is so important that we reform our business tax code to make the U.S. economy more competitive and to accelerate economic growth and job creation," Lew writes in the Washington Post.

"But one particular tax loophole has become increasingly urgent to address: the fact that the law rewards U.S. corporations with substantial tax benefits when they buy foreign companies and declare that they are based overseas."

The White House has nothing against cross-border merger activity, he explains. "But these activities should be based on economic efficiency, not tax savings."

Even with tax reform, inversion limits are necessary, "because companies always would find countries with near-zero rates to which they could relocate," Lew notes.

Tax savings IS economic efficiency, you dumbass.  Perhaps if False Messiah penned and phoned the U.S. corporate income tax out of existence, companies would no longer have such a mammoth incentive to acquire foreign subsidiaries and domicile themselves overseas to escape your greedy, lethal shakedowns and extortion racket which have ANYTHING but "economic efficiency" as their raison d'etere.

One pair of extended middle fingers deserves another, Comrade Lew.  Especially if O really expects congressional Republicans looking at a blowout victory over your party in just 99 days to cooperate in your ten billion and third demonization of them.

Exit quote from Grover Norquist:

Grover Norquist, president of American for Tax Reform, strongly disagrees with Obama's strategy. "It's the president's fault that he has done nothing in five years to reduce corporate rates, which he said he was going to do," Norquist tells CNBC.

And you believed him?

Hamas Seeks Arms, Tunnel Help From North Korea

by JASmius

Birds of a feather....:

Hamas militants in Palestine are hammering out a new arms deal with communist North Korea to obtain the missiles and communication equipment the militants need to keep up their offensive against Israel, a British newspaper reports, and Hamas has already made an initial cash down payment to set the deal.

In addition, reports the Telegraph, Israeli military commanders believe North Korean experts gave Hamas advice on building tunnels in Gaza that have allowed fighters to move their weapons undetected.

Oh, rest assured, this is not a new alliance:

Hamas, like other Islamist terror groups, long ago forged close links with North Korea, which supports groups opposed to Western involvement in the Middle East. Their cooperation was confirmed back in 2009, when 35 tons of arms heading to Hamas was seized in Bangkok after a cargo plane made an emergency landing, reported the Guardian after the shipment was stopped.

I have a question.  Okay, more than one.

1) How does Hamas figure to receive these shipments from the NoKos?  Subspace transporter?  'cause I'm guessing they're not coming overland, and they're not coming through Israel's Gaza blockade.  Perhaps the Hamastanis placed their order on lay-away, figuring the Israelis would be forced into another premature cease-fire and the coast will be clear in a month or two.  Which, based on the four previous IDF-Hamas clashes since Jerusalem foolishly withdrew from the Gaza Strip nine years ago, would not be an unreasonable assumption to make.

2) How many Americans will even learn of the Hamas-North Korea alliance?  And would it make any difference in the Obama Regime/media-driven framing of the Jews as The Ultimate Neo-Nazi Mass-Murdering Scum?  Or would they see it as an opportunity to start promoting the NoKos as being our newest "partners for peace" in the Middle East?

Keep that question bookmarked, as I'll probably be hyperlinking it not too many days from now.

Israel's Choice

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The headline reads, "Israel has only two choices: Eliminate the Palestinians or make peace."

The statement is based on the premise that the conflict in the Middle East is the fault of the small Jewish State.  The statement is based on the premise that the violence in the region won't end until Israel decides to stop their part of the fighting.

However, the reality of the situation says otherwise.

Current Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, once said, "If the Arabs lay down their arms there will be no more war, but if Israel lays down its weapons, there would be no more Israel."

Islam refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist.  ISIS, as it rips through Iraq, and is turning its crosshairs towards Jordan, has been slaughtering Christians, and will have no remorse if they get a chance to slaughter Jews.

A friend of mine, my good friend Tim "Loki" Kerlin, God rest his soul, once said to me that the only way to stop Islam from destroying civilization, from slaughtering every Jew and Christian, and in the end, every non-Muslim, on this Earth, is to kill them all, first.  I was appalled by his statement.  As much as I recognize the danger of Islam, the genocidal nature of the ideology, I also recognize in the end that the people are not the root of the problem.  The people are irrelevant, just like the Germans were under the onslaught of Nazism, and they are tools that have been deceived to act in a manner that is a danger to civilized society.  Muslims, in the end, are only people that have been deceived, that believe the ravings of a false prophet, and the violent ways of a political system rooted in tyranny, barbarism, and totalitarianism. . . presented in the guise of a religion.

My friend is not the first to come to such a frightening conclusion. Israeli lawmaker Moshe Feiglin has said something similar, and his words are being presented gleefully by the leftist media - because the Left wants you to believe the Israelis are the homicidal, genocidal war mongering ones in this fight.

As a moral people, we are appalled by such statements.  If we feel we must stand against Islam because of the genocidal nature of the ideology, is it reasonable for us to demand violence against them and be genocidal in return?

The good person inside of us immediately says, "No."  We are sickened by such thinking.  The Good Lord tells us to love our enemies. . . but to love them is not to submit to their ideology, to no longer fight the good fight, run the long race, or keep the Faith.  What if a great war is necessary?  What if it is indeed a "kill them before they kill us" scenario?

In the fighting in Gaza, Israel has only targeted military targets, while Hamas has targeted civilian targets.  Israel has sent warnings by radio, television, and pamphlets to ensure women and children have a chance to escape any attacks, while the Muslims are using children, churches, and ambulances as shields for their barbaric attacks.  Islam has repeatedly voiced that their aim is the complete destruction of Israel, the death of all Jews and Christians, and then the death or conversion of all other non-Muslims.

The Religion of Peace.  Islam believes there will be peace one day, when all of their opposition is dead.

Yet, the media blames Israel, and though Islam has proclaimed that every Jew must die, any defensive measures by the Jewish State is labeled as aggressive, and the blame for the violence is being placed on Israel.

Gaza is a part of Israel.  The Jewish Nation gave up the land in the hope for peace, and in return they received more war.  

Israeli lawmaker Moshe Feiglin says the way to stop the fighting is to annihilate the Palestinians.  He believes that they will never stop, will never temper their attacks against Israel, and that the only way for Israel to survive is to completely stop the enemy.  He echoes the words of many Israelis - a feeling that is understandable when you consider the constant barrage of missiles and terrorist attacks Israel receives from her neighbors.

According to "The Week," The last time Israel's military undertook to bomb Gaza into submission, in November 2012, the son of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wrote in The Jerusalem Post, "The residents of Gaza are not innocent, they elected Hamas. The Gazans aren't hostages; they chose this freely... We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza." More recently, Amos Regev, the editor of Israel's most widely distributed daily (the Sheldon Adelson–funded Israel Hayom) called for the destruction of Hamas' fighting capacity until all that's left "would be stones." Parliamentarian and fellow coalition member Ayelet Shaked quoted another writer favorably: "[The Palestinians] are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads... This also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons."

The reality is that Palestinians won't stop until they are eliminated, or Israel is eliminated.  This fantasy the liberal left holds to that Muslims simply want a Palestinian State to coexist with Israel is untrue, and unrealistic.  When the Israeli land was under control of the Ottoman Empire prior to World War I, the Muslims did not want the land.  Muslims did not settle the land.  They only want it now because a Jewish State exists.  Israel's only hope may be, in the end, to rid itself of the enemy.

The current battle over Gaza is one of many skirmishes with the Muslims Israel has had to endure in order to stop Hamas from killing innocent people in Israel with repeated Missile attacks, and terror attacks.  Both Gaza and the West Bank have been a constant battle, not because Israel has occupied the land they rightfully won in wars with the surrounding countries, but because the surrounding countries want Israel to cease existing.  The war will never stop.  The violence will be never-ending.  Islam will never stop assaulting Israel, and Israel will never be able to stop defending themselves.  If ever they do, they will cease to exist.

In "The Week," the writer states that the violence will stop if Israel was to embark on a mission of eliminating the Palestinian threat.  But that is where the writer misses it.  This is not about Palestine.  The Palestinian name didn't even exist before the creation of the current State of Israel in 1948.  Even if Israel was to eventually rid itself of any Palestinian threat, the violence would not end.  "Palestinian self-rule" has never been the issue, or the goal.  The issue is the elimination of Israel, and ultimately worldwide domination by Islam.

Negotiations will never work with the Islamic countries.  Sanctions will never be effective.  Violence is all they know, and the destruction of Israel is their primary aim. . . period.

Israel's choice is clear.  Fight to continue to exist, or lay down their arms and be destroyed.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Lessons for the Living Wage

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Seattle is having a few problems with their massive minimum wage increase.  The liberal left, in an attempt to appeal to the poorly informed, are willing to destroy the free market in the name of a "living wage."  As boycotts and fleeing business infects Seattle's economy as a result of the liberal left pushed minimum wage increase, we are also seeing around the country liberal left minions running around demanding fast food workers make $15 an hour.  Many of those very same liberal left ideologues have also been critical of WalMart because of their average wage being $8.81 per hour.

What would happen if these businesses were forced to increase their minimum wage?

In short, they would go out of business. . . or move out of the country to avoid the idiotic regulations.

That is something that has always amazed me.  The left has always accused the GOP of chasing businesses overseas, yet it is liberal regulations, liberal tax increases, and liberal tactics like minimum wage hikes that actually chase industry giants out of the country. . . while putting out of business the smaller competitors.  Minimum wage increases mandated by government causes massive unemployment, inflation, and economic instability.

Wages, taxes and regulations are simply a cost of doing business, and when the cost of doing business increases, those increases are passed on to the consumer, or alleviated by trying to reduce costs in other areas - such as reducing the work force through layoffs.  Raising the minimum wage does not give people a living wage, it ultimately increases the cost of goods so that all of the unaffected wages become less manageable to survive on while putting many of those that were making the lower wages out of work.

Government increases of wages does not increase the ability for people to live, but makes it more difficult to live.  In other words, it does not raise up the poor, but brings down those that are not, and creates an environment that encourages more dependency upon government programs.

Wage increases by the government are a sure way to increase poverty, eliminate the middle class, and move the United States into a socialist tyranny.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Battle over Seattle's $15 Minimum Wage turns to boycotts - MyNorthwest

From the image above: Wal-Mart has 2,000,000 employees.  Average Employee makes $8.81 per hour.  Paying $15 per hour would give a raise of $6.19 per hour.  That would cost Wal-Mart an additional $12.4 million per hour, which would cost Wal-Mart an extra $99 million per 8 hour day, which would cost Wal-Mart an extra $36.15 billion per year.  Wal-Mart profited $16.8 billion last year.  This raise would cause Wal-Mart to lose $19.35 billion.  A minimum wage raise inflicted on Wal-Mart, without a massive series of layoffs, would put Wal-Mart out of business.

What Happened at the Murrieta Border Patrol Appreciation Day

By Douglas V. Gibbs

On Thursday, the citizens of Murrieta, most of which participated in Illegal Immigration Protests that used civil disobedience to turn around bus loads full of illegal, diseased illegal aliens hosted a lunch in appreciation for the work, and more accurately, the thankless job, that our Border Patrol Agents perform.  We fed an outgoing shift, and incoming shift, and applauded whenever new Border Patrol personnel got in line to make a plate.  The response was phenomenal, and we were told a number of times how much it meant to the personnel that the citizens of Murrieta wanted to show so much love for them.

We were not allowed to take pictures, interview the personnel, or ask them political questions.  We were fine with that.  The purpose of the event was simply to say, "thank you."

Near the end, Diana Serafin and myself were invited into the facility to make a presentation.  Diana presented two framed "Thank you" gifts, one being a basic framed thank you put together by another local advocate.  The other was a framed American Flag and copy of the Constitution, with a metal plate saying "thank you, from We the People of Murrieta."  My gift was a box of pocket Constitutions, accompanied with a few words about how appreciative we are that the Border Patrol has defended the rule of law, and protected the Constitution.

It was simply a way for us to say, "Thank you."

When one considers an accident in front of Temecula Valley High School back in 1992, where a chase by the Border Patrol of a van full of illegals resulted in the death of children and a parent in front of the school, and the blame many residents pointed at the Border Patrol, for those personnel that remembers those days, this appreciation day event had a special meaning for them. . . one of them telling me so, with a tear in his eye.

That makes what we do all the more important.  Our message must be clear.  We support the Border Patrol, and thank them for their service.  It is the illegal immigration flood, and the federal government's refusal to secure the border and protect the American Population from the threats that accompany illegal immigration (like contagious disease and the potential national security threat) that we are against.  It is the refusal of the federal government to follow the rule of law while trying to force their will on our communities regarding this issue that has us up in arms.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Yellen Collapse "Will Be Unlike Any Other"

by JASmius

This is beginning to become a recurring assertion - one might even say a drumbeat:

Another horrific stock market crash is coming, and the next bust will be “unlike any other” we have seen.

That’s the message from Jeremy Grantham, co-founder and chief investment strategist of GMO, a Boston-based firm with $117 billion in assets under management.

Grantham pulls no punches when assigning responsibility for the coming financial carnage. In a recent interview with the New York Times, he calls Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen “ignorant” and says the Federal Reserve all but killed the economic recovery.

Grimly, he adds, “We have never had this before. It’s going to be very painful for investors.”

Grantham isn’t the only one worried about a market collapse.

“We have no right to be surprised by a severe and imminent stock market crash,” explains Mark Spitznagel, a hedge fund manager who is notorious for his hugely profitable billion-dollar bet on the 2008 crisis. “In fact, we must absolutely expect it."

Billion-dollar investor Warren Buffett is rumored to be preparing for a crash as well. The “Warren Buffett Indicator,” also known as the “Total-Market-Cap to GDP Ratio,” is breaching sell-alert status and a collapse may happen at any moment.

I must disagree with my learned colleague Mr. Grantham, actually.  Janet "Old" Yellen is not "ignorant"; Janet "Old" Yellen is in on the scam, serving her big-eared demigod's "fundamental transformation" interests instead of doing everything in her power to bolster the U.S. dollar, which is supposed to be her principle job description.  Yellen is keeping interest rates at Middle Earth-level in order to (1) mask the true size of the federal deficit (i.e. what the Regime says it is plus the geyser of interest payments on the debt that would ensue if the rates on federal debt instruments were at the level the market would set) and (2) create the illusion of an economic recovery that never happened, has never existed, and will never, EVER exist as long as Barack Obama remains in power.  Which is to say, a debt-fueled bubble with less than nothing holding it up, which has to collapse sooner or later, and when it does, with the Dow currently at over a purported 17,000, sweet, merciful crap, that first step is a lu-lu.

Put still another way, an even bigger reprise of the Panic of 2008.  Which, if you'll recall (and my apologies for making you do so), is what put Barack Obama and the Democrats in total power to begin the "fundamental transformation of the United States of America" in the first place.  And if you think that's at all coincidental, I have some high-risk stocks in which I'd like to interest you.  Which would be a total lie because I got out of the market three years ago, which is why I still have my retirement nest egg, off of which we're having to live prematurely for reasons I've, by this time, elaborated way, way too much.

Let's put it this way: Alan Greenspan was "ignorant"; Janet "Old" Yellen is a saboteur.

Constitution Study Radio: First Amendment

I'm broadcasting live on the air! Listen in now at http://tobtr.com/s/6701691

Constitution Association Executive Meeting

Constitution Association members . 5pm at Boston Billies in Menifee.   See you there for a second meeting regarding building the structure of our organization.

U.S. Evacuates Embassy In Libya

by JASmius

Otherwise known as "the new State Commissariat travel warning to prevent a repeat of the Benghazi massacre that officially never happened":

The State Department has shuttered the U.S. embassy in Libya and evacuated American staffers there as the security situation in the capital Tripoli deteriorates amid worsening clashes between rival militias.

The department said in a statement that American embassy staff left Tripoli on Saturday and traveled overland to neighboring Tunisia. Embassy operations in Tripoli will be suspended until the security situation improves, it said. Tripoli has been embroiled for weeks in inter-militia violence that has killed and wounded dozens on all sides. The fighting has been particularly intense at the city's airport.

Secretary of State John Kerry said "free-wheeling militia violence" prompted the move.

This is as opposed to the "pin-wheeling militia violence" in Gaza and the "average, ordinary, everyday, humdrum militia violence" in Iraq, and the "boring, tedious, coma-inducing, like-watching-paint-dry militia violence" in Afghanistan.  Because if there's one thing that bloodthirsty jihadists value, it's violent diversity.

You'll be happy to know that the retreating embassy personnel - who are SO much safer in Tunis (aka the birthplace of the "Arab Spring"), natch - were accompanied by several squadrons of F-16 fighters and Osprey aircraft, or a big enough air armada to conquer several small African countries if they'd felt the urge.  Although not any of the "free-wheeling" ones.

It's almost like the Obama Regime has learned a lesson that was officially never taught.

Maybe it's a time-travel paradox or something.

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs: Evan Sayet, Conservative Comedian

Today's Guest: Evan Sayet.  All I need to say is he is funny as heck, and he is "Brilliant." ... Hmmmm, seems I am not the only person saying that.

President Barack Obama doesn't have time for all of the madness going on in his own country and around the world.  He has a tee time to make, and a fundraiser event to attend.  Perhaps a quick television appearance after that with Letterman or Oprah.  He can't be bothered with world events.

My message to Barack Obama?  Listen to Constitution Radio on KCAA AM1050 at 2:00 pm Pacific.  During the one hour show you will be completely caught up on all of the recent world events, as well as receive a constitutional explanation regarding many of them.  Plus, today we have Evan Sayet, conservative comedian extraordinaire.  Every listener will laugh, and learn something, at the same time, with this guy on the air.  You've got to hear him to believe it.

Are you listening Mr. President?

Ouch, he's in the rough.  Better pull out a wedge for that one.

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs at 2:00 pm Pacific, KCAA AM1050, www.KCAAradio.com, call to listen: 832-999-1050, or call in to join the conversation at 888-909-1050.

Book of the Week by Andrew Breitbart.

Constitution Quest Question of the Week by Constitution Quest Board Game.

5 Big Stories of the Week, July 26, 2014 brought to you by AllStar Collision:

Honorable Mention: Border Patrol Appreciation Day in Murrieta

Honorable Mention: Sacrificing Innocent Blood to Darkness (or as Americans call it: Abortion)

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/07/ted-cruz-s1696-is-extreme-legislation.html

5.  Federal Government Takes Steps to Increase Control

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/sjres19-113/text (Limit political contributions - goes against Citizens United case, and our Freedom of Speech)

http://thecompletepatient.com/article/2014/july/22/michigan-food-dump-meant-send-us-all-message

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-disease-is-statism-fueled-by-human.html

4.  Immigration Issue’s Health Concerns, National Security Concerns, Rule of Law Concerns. . .

http://www.examiner.com/article/border-agents-now-unable-to-go-home-due-to-threat-of-disease

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/07/house-conservatives-oppose-any-border.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/07/ken-calvert-seeks-to-close-illegal.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/07/fontanas-illegal-immigration-battle.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/07/thousands-of-migrants-are-no-shows.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/07/india-invades-oklahoma.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/07/some-illegals-are-trained-assassins.html

3.  Texas Governor Perry to Deploy Forces to Border

http://clashdaily.com/2014/07/finally-perry-deploy-national-guard-border/

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/07/rick-perry-slams-critics-claims-hes.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/07/rick-perry-orders-national-guard-troops.html

2.  Russia Increases Military Pressure on Ukraine

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/07/russia-moving-troops-heavy-artillery-to.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/07/why-putins-russian-allies-downed.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/07/kerry-admits-russian-missile-took-down.html

1.  Hamas, no wait, ISIS, no wait, Syria, no wait, al Qaeda, no wait, the Taliban, no wait, Hezbollah, no wait. . . Well, I guess right now, according to the Media it reads: Israel Ignites War in the Middle East

http://theweek.com/article/index/265043/israel-has-only-two-choices-eliminate-the-palestinians-or-make-peace (Really?  It is amazing how backwards the media is)

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-hamas-fighting-resumes-humanitarian-lull-170517230.html

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-gaza-fighting-enters-13th-day-no-sign-015516409.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/07/pamela-geller-discusses-israel-hamas.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/07/isis-to-christians-leave-convert-to.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/07/why-to-support-israel.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/07/kerry-caught-on-camera-criticizing.html

=============

Did you miss the show?  The podcast is available at kcaaradio.celestrion.net/kcaa-podcasts/gibbs/

Doug and JASmius: American Daily Review and Constitution Radio

At noon time Pacific listen to
American Daily Review
The pre-game show for Constitution Radio!

JASmius and I will go over news of the week, and give you a little news regarding our efforts to turn this country around, and set it back on the tracks built by the United States Constitution.

Then, after the show, we continue to discuss the issues through the lens of the U.S. Constitution on Constitution Radio on KCAA AM1050 (KCAAradio.com) at 2:00 pm Pacific.

Looking forward to having you aboard.

Oh, and don't forget to buy my book: 25 Myths of the United States Constitution

House GOP Billion-Dollar Border Plan "Cover-Your-Butt Legislation"

by JASmius

Why is it only John Fleming seems to understand the political dynamics of this situation?:

A proposal by House Republicans to slash President Barack Obama's emergency aid request to address the illegal immigrant crisis is nothing more than "cover-your-butt legislation," Representative John Fleming told Newsmax.

"It appears to me that it is an attempt to tell our constituents that we did the best we could," the Louisiana-4 Republican said Friday "The problem is that we leave an opening for the Senate to add some really bad things to it and then send it right back to us."

Precisely.  By even putting up a legislative ante, no matter what the details of what's in it, you're conceding, as a propaganda matter, the White House's position and thereby letting Barack Obama off the hook.  This "border crisis" is his creation, in conspiracy with Central American and Mexican leaders, to forcibly impose the results of the "comprehensive immigration reform" that House Republicans wouldn't give him.  Congress had not a "smidgeon" to do with it, much less congressional Pachyderms.  Responding to O's call for almost four billion smackers to subsidize his illegal amnesty at all is to belatedly endorse it and the way he brought it about.

And that's before Harry (G)Reid guts the House version and replaces it with the wildly different, and more expensive, Senate version.  Surely House 'Pubbies should, after almost four years, recognize the dynamic of "controversial" legislation when facing a Donk Senate and White House by now.  The House version will be DOA in the upper chamber, and may expire in the Capitol Rotunda.  The House GOP will be expected to use the $2.7 billion Senate version as their "compromise" starting point, and what would come out the other end of the conference committee alimentary tract would be a bill in the $2.3-2.5 billion range with most, if not all, of the White House's priorities and maybe a token, empty gesture related to easing the deportation process that O will never carry out.  House Tea Partiers will balk and either the "compromise" bill will be voted down - creating the desired media frame-up of "extreme, racist Republican obstructionists" who "want to let these children all die," thus creating back-door justification and public sympathy for O's illegal, unconstitutional border-erasing actions - or Speaker Boehner will pass it with Democrat and RINO votes, triggering precisely the grassroots rebellion that he averted by killing Schumer-Rubio in the first place.

Have I left anything out?  Well, it's not like Pete Sessions would know:

Texas-32 Representative Pete Sessions, chairman of the House Rules Committee, described the proposal as Republicans "putting together our ideas on moving forward to address this issue. Not to solve the problem, but to address the issue.

"What the Republican Conference is putting together is a group of action items — legislation and including appropriations — that will allow this conference to work with the president, with the Senate, to solve the problem at hand."

No, Mr. Chairman, what the Republican Conference is putting together is a group of action items that will, you believe, enable your conference to look like and be seen as "working with the president, with the Senate, to solve the problem at hand."  A visual you seem to think will benefit your conference, despite the fact that the American people are against the Regime/Democrat position on this crisis by a 4.5 to 1 margin.  Maybe that big a polling disparity doesn't hold under the "it's for the children" BS fusillade and fades back to the recent historical public opposition to illegal immigration of 2 to 1.  That's still....2 to 1.  A blowout by any remotely reasonable measure.

And then there's the little matter of Obama and Reid and his minions not seeing any "problem" other than waiting for the public's notoriously short attention span to quickly forget about the border crisis like it has every other Obama scandal.  Astonishing as it is to have to point this out yet again, point it out I must: They don't want to genuinely solve the problem at hand.  And now they have what they've wanted all along: amnesty and an open border as a fait accompli.  Or, to put it even more bluntly, they've won.  The only way to make King Hussein and Dirty Harry and the rest of that Democrat filth pay a political price for it is to not "work with them" but instead stand with the 82% of the American people that have been standing with your conference.

Representative Fleming gets the last word:

Fleming said he will not support any funding request — despite the amount.

"While it's exclusively Obama's problem — created by him, a man-made disaster — we're now going to join hands and accept responsibility for it," he said, referring to the crisis. "We're throwing him a lifeline.

"We're doing it at a time when the American people are very upset with the president for causing this and not really engaging on solving it."

Regardless of what the Republicans approve, neither Obama nor the Senate would support it, the three-term congressman said.

"The president is not going to sign this into law, because it actually does just the reverse of what he's actively doing now. The only value of this law is messaging purposes.

"Call it 'feel-good legislation.' Call it 'messaging legislation.' Call it 'cover-your-butt legislation,' " he said. "Although it has some things in it that are attractive, we all know that it's counter to what the president has done and wants to do.

"He can unilaterally undo what he has done — and we wouldn't have to pass anything."

Hard Starboard Radio: Gaza On The Pacific

Hamas continues to succeed in libeling Israel and stirring anti-Semitism globally - but is the truth finally starting to trickle out?  Is Netanyahu winning?  His strategy to divide Hamas and Fatah, and strengthen the latter, seems to be working; And he may have pre-empted a Hamas "mega-attack"; Why does Israel battle Hamas? Visualize San Diego in the hands of Mexican revanchists - which, these days, doesn't take all that much visualization; Obama enjoys another eighteen holes after setting the world aflame; and Thomas The Tank Engine got a what stuck where?

Probing the caboose on Open Thighs Friday at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.  And I don't want to know why the channel changes every time you have "the big O".

Russia Moving Troops, Heavy Artillery To Ukraine Border

by JASmius

Alternate headline: "Doubts grow about Vladimir Putin's concerns about his international isolation as White House insists 'We've got him with the borscht sanctions!'":

Russia has now amassed around 15,000 troops along the border with Ukraine, the U.S. ambassador to NATO said on Friday, and the [Obam]agon warned that movement of Russian heavy caliber artillery systems across the border into Ukraine is "imminent."

The Pentagon went further, suggesting Russia is escalating the military action there. U.S. Ambassador to NATO Douglas Lute offered the troop estimate during a security forum in Colorado, saying there were "now up again over about 15,000 Russian troops amassed along the border with Ukraine."

Colonel Steve Warren, a[n Obam]agon spokesman, said the U.S. has seen the powerful rocket systems moving closer to the Ukraine border and they could be put into the hands of Russian-backed separatists as soon as Friday. He says he doesn't have an exact timeline.

U.S. officials warned this week that they had new evidence that Russia intended to deliver heavier and more powerful multiple rocket launchers to the separatist forces in Ukraine. Warren told reporters Friday that the delivery could happen at any time, adding "it's that close" to the border.

Warren also said that Russia continues to fire artillery across the border into Ukraine.

"For the last several days Russian forces using Russian artillery from Russian soil have conducted attacks against Ukrainian military positions in Ukraine," said Warren. "This is unquestionably an escalation from a military perspective."

Meanwhile, in the tension-filled depths of the White House Situation Room....

Oh, wait....



Incidentally, do any of you happen to recall the last time anybody on the Left used the term "smart power"?  Would that be round about the last time any of them employed the phrase "reset button"?

"FORE!," on the other hand.....

Send The Illegals Invasion To Beverly Hills & Georgetown

by JASmius

The massive illegal immigrant invasion of our southern border is more than just a national crisis. It's part of the greatest conspiracy in world history—a purposeful attempt to create catastrophe, overwhelm the system, and force the American people to make a dreadfully wrong decision under duress.

Mr. Root is right - his idea is a Saturday Night Live skit.  Pity we lack the power to implement it, just as we lack the power - not the legal authority, but the raw power - to send this invading horde back where it came from.

By the way, Wayne, why do you only defend the "middle class"?  O is "murdering" the entire country; are the poor and the rich acceptable collateral damage in your estimation?

CNN/ORC Poll: 65% Don't Want Obama Impeached

by JASmius

Aaaaaaaaand that's why House Republicans won't impeach him - at least not until after the midterm elections:

One in every three Americans agree with former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s call for President Barack Obama to be impeached, a new survey shows.

The CNN/ORC International poll released Friday also reveals that close to one in two Americans think Obama has excessively expanded the powers of the presidency, CNN reported.

However, Americans [by 57% to 41%] say that Republicans, led by House Speaker John Boehner, should not sue the president for changing an ObamaCare mandate without going to Congress first....

In the poll, 33% of Americans say Obama should be impeached and removed from office while 65% said that he should not face impeachment.

And yet Americans are split down the middle (48%-48%, with the other four percent in tequila comas) on whether The One has penned & phoned himself into a raging tyranny that has rolled up the U.S. Constitution and handed it to Moochelle for tampon usage.  I'm not sure if there's any direct or proportional relationship between these respective numbers, largely because I don't think there's enough collective mental acuity in the respondents to power a bi-valve interior combustion twice-exhausted bi-axle nitrocycle.  But I do know that John Boehner isn't going to allow an impeachment inquiry when the poll numbers against it are that lopsided.  At least not for another four months.

And I cannot say that I blame him.

By the way, please don't come back at me with the media bias objection.  Nobody is more aware of media bias and the big, fat thumb they drop on the left side of the polling scale on a regular basis, the election season psych-ops and the rest.  But those factors affect public opinion at the margins.  If the polling split on impeaching O was the same as the split on whether he's "gone too far" and abused his powers, this would be an entirely different post (though the Speaker would probably be just as reticent about pulling the "I" trigger).

Of course, the public opposes Congress suing the King by almost as big a margin, and Boehner is full speed ahead with that gambit.  But there isn't nearly the political risk in a lawsuit that won't be resolved for years that there is with impeachment.  And while "principle" and "backbone" "cajones" and all of that sort of "fire-eater" stuff are fine and good, we must also remember that (1) all of this takes place in the political arena and (2) America is no longer a constitutional federal republic.  Rather, it is in the transition stage from mobish democracy to socialist oligarchy, and most likely a lot closer to the latter.  If House Republicans resolved today to impeach Barack Obama regardless of public opinion and their own insufficient numbers, all of False Messiah's crimes, scandals, and "failures" would be forgotten in a heartbeat, the media-propelled public backlash in O's favor would be huge, the GOP would go from odds-on favorites to regain the Senate by a large margin to prohibitive favorites to lose the House, and we on the Right would be all the way back at square one, if we weren't already on the cattle cars headed for the Alaska gulag.

That isn't "leftwing propaganda," or what the White House "wants us to think".  It is cold, hard reality.

That being said, the same overall conditions would still exist after November 4th.  The difference is that the next election would be almost two years away.  Remember the Polaroid-esque (or "Instagram-esque" if you're under the age of fifty) nature of American pop culture.  The public was even more opposed to Bill Clinton's impeachment than they are O's, but House 'Pubbies went ahead anyway after the '98 midterms, and it had no specific detrimental electoral effects in 2000.

Again, it's all about doing things at the right time.  If Ted Cruz had held off on his defundageddon crusade last fall until after the ObamaCare Killer Asteroid had impacted, the public would have been much more in favor of a government shutdown showdown.  In the same way, waiting to impeach O until after we have the Senate back and the electoral coast is clear is the sane course of action.

Which makes the damn lawsuit so inconvenient, since it's Boehner's anti-impeachment insurance policy.  Maybe a new Speaker will see the practicability of litigatory and "more direct" anti-Regime action moving "forward" on parallel tracks.


UPDATE: Looks like the White House saw the CNN/ORC poll as well:

A top White House adviser said on Friday Republicans might try to impeach President Barack Obama over his go-it-alone immigration strategy, as Obama prepared to talk about the U.S. border crisis with Central American presidents.

Dan Pfeiffer, one of Obama's longest-serving advisers, told reporters that the executive actions Obama will approve at the end of the summer aimed at tackling illegal immigration will likely generate ire from Republicans who have blocked comprehensive immigration legislation.

Still think Barack Obama doesn't crave his own impeachment?

"Moderate" Muslims? Or Just Silently Approving Ones?

by JASmius

Bill thanks the moderate Muslims for speaking out against Islamic violence.....if there are any.

Temecula Constitution Class: State Prohibitions

Join us at 6:00 pm at Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road (just west of Jefferson), in Temecula for our weekly Constitution Study.  We are working our way through the United States Constitution, and we have gotten to the list of prohibitions against the States in Article I, Section 10.

If the States created the federal government, and it was delegates from the States that wrote the Constitution, then why would they place limitations upon the States in Article I, Section 10?

Join us, and find out the answer.

www.temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com