I seem to remember some politicians promising us that newly legalized immigrants would not be able to receive welfare benefits. I must have been mistaken, seeing that a Senate panel just approved welfare payments for those they want to legalize. But on the bright side, if any of the formerly illegal aliens is convicted of drunk driving three times they can be deported. (Not that this administration would do so. They regularly ignore laws, or parts of laws, that don’t jibe with their agenda.)
The SenateJudiciary Committee voted Monday to allow illegal immigrants who get legal status to begin collecting tax-welfare payments, as the panel spent a fourth day working through amendments to the massive immigration bill and party-line splits began to emerge.
In one major change, the committee voted 17-1 to make a third drunken-driving conviction a deportable offense for the newly legalized immigrants if at least one of those offenses occurs after they are approved for legal status….
Overall, the committee continued to maintain the delicate balance struck by the “Gang of Eight” senators who negotiated the 867-page bill: Quick legal status for illegal immigrants, but delaying citizenship rights until after the administration spends more money on border security, puts in place a new electronic verification system to check workers’ status, and enacts an entry-exit system to check visas at airports and seaports.
In previous days’ action, two Republican members of the Gang of Eight — Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona — joined with Democrats to block a series of GOP amendments to stiffen the bill’s security.
Any Republican that works with Democrats on this is a fool. The Democrats intend one thing. To get more Democratic voters into the nation. And what better way than to make government benefits available to these new immigrants. And while I know that these immigrants will not be able to vote, legally, I wonder something. If they do not have to show ID, because that would be RAAAAACIST, well, what is there to stop them from voting. And what is to stop Democrats from trying to grant them the right to vote? Patriotism? Yeah, that is a good one.
Lastly, anyone with any common sense knows that no immigration reform will ever work unless the border is secured FIRST! And we already know the Congress has no real interest in doing that. Any plan passed now will only further bloat our national debt, empower Democrats, and further weaken our national sovereignty. And if you disagree then you are a Tea Partier who wears fur and shows ID when you vote.
Senate Democrats have decided that holding the Internal Revenue Service accountable is not a priority right now.
On Tuesday the Democratic leadership in the chamber blocked a resolution by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to investigate the federal agency and fire all people responsible for improperly targeting conservative organizations.
“President Obama should terminate the individuals responsible for targeting and willfully discriminating against Tea Party groups and other conservative groups,” the resolution states.
His resolution also demanded an investigation “to determine if other entities in the administration of President Obama were involved in or were aware of the discrimination and did not take action to stop the actions of the Internal Revenue Service.”
The freshman senator asserted that he introduced the legislation to protect the First Amendment rights of the American people, and not to drive attention to the partisan nature of the scandal.
“This resolution is not about Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal,” Paul said in a statement. “It is about arrogant and unrestrained government vs. the rule of law. The First Amendment cannot and should not be renegotiated depending on which party holds power.”
“Each senator took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, yet Senate Democrats chose to block my resolution and thus refused to condemn the IRS for trampling on our First Amendment rights,” he continued. “I am incredibly disappointed in Washington’s party politics and I am determined to hold the IRS accountable for these unjust acts.”
While Paul is personally a member of the Tea Party movement, he had previously acknowledged that he was offended by the IRS’s actions.
“I’m offended when any kind of government entity targets people for their political or religious beliefs,” Paul said at an Iowa GOP fundraiser, “so it’s, you know, particularly offensive, since I’m one of the groups they were targeting. They didn’t audit me personally, but, you know, government should never be used to bully people.”
Several House Democrats are calling on Congress to recognize that climate change is hurting women more than men, and could even drive poor women to “transactional sex” for survival.
The resolution, from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and a dozen other Democrats, says the results of climate change include drought and reduced agricultural output. It says these changes can be particularly harmful for women.
“[F]ood insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health,” it says.
Climate change could also add “workload and stresses” on female farmers, which the resolution says produce 60 to 80 percent of the food in developing countries.
The chances for regional conflict also increase with climate change, the resolution says, because changing weather patterns could lead to migration and refugee crises. It said these sorts of potential conflicts over land will have a disproportionate impact on “the most vulnerable populations including women.”
More broadly, the resolution says climate change will hurt “marginalized” women, such as refugees, sexual minorities, adolescent girls, and women and girls with HIV. It also cites Hurricane Katrina as evidence of how climate change can affect women, noting that the storm displaced “over 83 percent of low-income, single mothers” in the region.
In a statement to The Hill, Lee said women are critically underrepresented in the development of climate change policy.
“My resolution will affirm the commitment to include and empower women in economic development planning and international climate change policies and practices,” she said. “This will help communities adapt to climate impacts, and embark on a path towards clean and sustainable development.”
The resolution calls on Congress to recognize the effects on women, and to use “gender-specific frameworks in developing policies to address climate change.”
It says Congress recognizes the need for “balanced participation of men and women” in climate change adaption efforts, and that Congress will support women who are vulnerable to climate change.
Finally, it encourages the president to “integrate a gender approach in all policies and programs” related to climate change, and to ensure these policies “support women globally to prepare for, build resilience for, and adapt to climate change.”
That these nimrods spout such nonsense is bad. That a significant number of Americans believe them is far worse
Via CNS News:
Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) said that if the sequester goes into effect, women who are victims of domestic violence will be “forced to stay in their homes with their abuser” at the “hands of the GOP.”
The automatic across-the-board cuts, known as the sequester, are set to take effect on Friday – a 1.2% reduction in increased federal spending in 2013, or about $44 billion out of $3.6 trillion.
“The harm is real,” Edwards said. “230,000 victims will be calling crisis hotlines and those calls will go unanswered. 230,000 calls to crisis hotlines around the country.”
“So can you imagine that in the middle of the night a woman is being battered, she has her two children, she wants to get to safety, she places a phone call to a hotline and that line goes unanswered,” she said. “That’s what sequestration means to victims of domestic violence.”
Of course, the sequestration is a reduction, a 1% reduction in spending INCREASES, that is not really a cut in spending at all. The Democrats are trying to scare all of us into panic mode. And, when the dire calamities they predict do not happen? It will not matter, the Democrats will just go on saying they DID happen because of those evil Republicans.
The important thing to understand about the Democrat Party is that they have no moral or philosophical principles of any kind. The Democrat Party is about power for its own sake, and everything that Democrats claim to stand for is negotiable, subject to change if necessary to win elections. For example, if racism will win election for Democrats, then they will use racism to win elections:
Go read what the miscreants are up to now
Yep, Michelle Malkin dared to make a video mocking Democrats, the media, and Michelle Obama. Of course, the Left now has the vapors!
Personally, I thought the Bob Menendez Dance was the best one. And Michelle Malkin is definitely a lot easier on the eyes, love that wig, than the FLOTUS!
Matt at Conservative Hideout lays it out very clearly.
In yet another example of self defence using a firearm, a man used a gun to defend himself, and his toddler son from home invaders. Yet, the national media chose to take a pass on covering it.
Funny how these stories NEVER make it to national news isn’t it? Media bias anyone? But Matt has more thoughts
My last post about guns and self-defense caused a big stink on some sites, where people took issue with the comment that the liberals would prefer people to be dead, as it is better for the narrative. Allow me to expand a bit: Democrats, liberals, regressives (whatever you want to call them) will not stop at taking ugly guns-they want them all. So, at some point, their desire is to have a 100% disarmed populace. When considering that, any example of the lawful use of firearms is detrimental to the confiscation narrative. However, dead civilians, and especially dead children, are easily exploitable-they are convenient emotional justifications to ban guns. However, if they ever did get all the guns, and only criminals had them, there would be even more dead children. But, I would wager that those dead children would no longer be worth covering. Dead children only have propaganda value in certain contexts
I hate to say it, but I believe Matt is correct. I have seen and heard too many Liberals dismiss self-defense, mock the very idea that self-defense is even possible, and even question if self-defense with a gun is moral. For the left, the only important thing is destroying the Constitution and replacing it with a Marxist Utopia. Anything that aids that cause is moral in their demented minds.
Good people can debate what to do about the 11 plus million illegals in this nation. But, as with most other issues, Liberals do not want to debate, they want their way, and they want to shove it in our faces. Five Democrats, including Michelle Obama, are bringing illegal aliens to the SOTU tonight. That shows how serious they are about enforcing any immigration law. Democrats see one thing when they look at illegal immigration. They see a voting block that they feel will cement their future electoral success. Who cares about laws, or sovereignty, or national security when there are voters to be brought in to keep Democrats in control?
A number of Democrats, including First Lady Michelle Obama, are bringing illegal immigrants as guests to the State of the Union on Tuesday.
But a spokeswoman with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency declined to comment to The Daily Caller on Tuesday about whether the agency approves of this occurring at the Capitol, where Obama is set to give his annual address on Tuesday night.
“I don’t have any comment for you on this,” Gillian Christensen, a spokeswoman with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said after TheDC inquired whether the agency was aware of this and whether it was possible the guests could be arrested.
At least five Democrats are bringing illegal immigrants to the State of the Union, according to reports.
A certain blogger, infamous for his love of bad beer, cool hats, driving Liberals crazy, and who likes to yell ROLL TIDE at inappropriate times, sums up the Democrats like this
Now, personally, I would have left the whole sodomy thing out, what consenting adults do tends to be something I do not care about. Well, OK, I admit, Salma Hayek wrestling Alyssa Milano in baby oil MIGHT pique my interest, but that is beside the point. The real point is that as Stacy McCain writes, the problem is that there is a hate deficit between Democrats and Republicans
In a Twitter colloquy with Susan Cloud, producer of the Mark Davis radio show, I found myself compelled to explain and defend my previous criticisms of National Review. The problem, really, is that Republicans just don’t hate Democrats the way Democrats hate Republicans.
Most Republicans are born and raised Republicans, and are spiritually attuned to the sentiments of bourgeois respectability that are core values to the decent, honest people the GOP represents. By contrast, Democrats owe their power to the vilest dregs of humanity — corrupt union goons, Marxist academics, criminals, drug addicts, sexual perverts and race hustlers — who have no respect for the values of decent, honest people.
In politics, this represents a tremendous advantage to Democrats, who elect to high office vicious thieves like Charlie Rangel without any sense of embarrassment, and then applaud Rangel’s lies without shame. The Democrats are a gang of brazen criminals who have contempt for their victims — you, the respectable citizens who vote Republican.
Having been born and raised a Democrat, I was never taught to be embarrassed of my politics the way most Republican children seem to be taught. And these nice Republican types who grew up groveling and apologizing — “Please, Professor, don’t give me a bad grade for disagreeing with you!” — are the weak link in the chain, the essential cause of the Republican Party’s feebleness.
Nailed it! We are too nice, too timid, too afraid of causing offense. Of course, niceness is a virtue, but, many Republicans do take that too far. Our “leadership” seems to suffer from this timidity far more than the Conservative base does. what they do not get is this, the media, and the Left will label us extremists no matter what we say. So, we ought to accept that confidence, knowledge, and deeply held values expressed with conviction, and defended with passion are going to appeal to many Americans. I keep hearing Republicans ask how we can better deliver our message. the first step, I would think, is to BELIEVE in our message first, that tends to help the delivery greatly!
Not doing too much blogging today, I am exhausted, but, I did see this at The Other McCain, where Stacy notes Obama and his fans are happy about higher taxes on the evil rich
Ace has examined the reported terms of the deal, which would raise taxes on those earning more than $400,000, if indeed it is a deal, but deal or no deal, President Obama refused to be distracted from his most important second-term priority, scapegoating Republicans:
Barack Obama held a last-minute press conference today to bash Republicans and gloat about his election victory. At one point in his speech he bragged about how he’s going to be able to raise taxes on wealthy Americans.
His supporters cheered — as if they earned it.
Of course those tax hikes will do nothing at all to address the deficit, but, Democrats love to play that class warfare game so there you are. The Democratic leadership gets to tell
the suckers ah, Democratic base that they are making those rich bastards pay their “fair share” and the sheep, ah Democratic base love to see the rich punished. Amazingly the walking brain donors, ah Democratic base are convinced that other people making less money benefits them somehow.
Under the proposed accord being hammered out by Biden and McConnell, households earning less than $450,000 would largely escape higher income tax bills, though couples earning more than $300,000 a year and individuals earning more than $250,000 would lose part of the value of their exemptions and itemized deductions, under the terms of the emerging agreement.
Low-income households would also benefit from a five-year extension of credits for college tuition and the working poor first enacted as part of Obama’s stimulus package in 2009. And businesses would see a variety of popular tax breaks extended, including a credit for research and development.
The tax on inherited estates would rise from 35 percent to 40 percent, though Democrats agreed to keep in place the current exemption for estates worth up to $5 million. And nearly 30 million households would be protected from paying the costly alternative minimum tax for the first time — either on their 2012 tax returns or at any time in the future. The developing agreement calls for a permanent fix.
The two sides also appeared to have reached consensus on unemployment benefits, with Republicans acceding to Democratic demands to keep benefits flowing to the long-term unemployed for another year. Medicare payments would not be cut for doctors next year, and the cost of preserving those programs would not be offset with other spending cuts.
Especially galling to me is the Death Tax, or tax on inherited estates. Why should an heir pay 40% of property ALREADY taxed? This is yet another reason we need ONE, as in JUST one tax rate, for ALL income, period!
I would argue that eventually, the Left wishes to ban all guns, then other instruments of “violence” like knives. Of course, they would not go after all knives first. No, they would treat that as they did with guns, Dianne Feinstein wants to have a new assault weapons ban”, because the first one was a complete flop, and Democrats LOVE to reintroduce failed policies, because that is being progressive or something. So, just as Democrats will start with guns that look mean, they would start with knives that look mean too.
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase – and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.
They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.
The research is published in the British Medical Journal.
The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.
Hmmm, in the UK they started with gun control, and now………….. Ultimately, they will run out of weapons to ban, so they will get around to criminalizing self-defense.
Or maybe he means the obvious, George Soros, and anything he touches is weird, and corrupt
The Free Beacon’s Matthew Continetti observes how little attention was paid to the recent meeting of the Democracy Alliance, a left-wing fundraising network backed by billionaire George Soros:
More likely the media simply ignore data that complicate their preferred narrative. When it comes to the fraught relationship between money and politics, that narrative is as follows: Money in politics is corrupting only because rich businessmen trade campaign donations to Republicans for low taxes and fewer environmental regulations.
Continetti points out a little-noted development:
Earlier this year the Democracy Alliance scraped away groups that were not affixed like barnacles to the hull of the Democratic Party and left alone the groups that were.
The media is loath to dig in and actually investigate stories like this. If the question is why, just consider one word as the answer IDEOLOGY! Certainly the media has no qualms about looking into the connection between Republicans and rich people while totally ignoring all the rich Democrats. And make no mistake, the media bias factor IS a big advantage. Yes new media has made inroads, but the gap is still very significant. This, naturally explains why the left has always been eager to apply “fairness” to talk radio, and to marginalize blogs. they are not looking to compete, they are looking for one party, one ideology rule!
He gets no respect from those Conservative bloggers, no respect I tell ya!
Stacey McCain continues to badger poor Nate Silver, who some think is THE big cheese among poll analysis. Nate, I think, has been built up past his abilities, as he continues to not see the obvious. As McCain puts it Nate Silver approaches a clue and almost gets it:
Nate Silver approaches a clue and almost gets it:
Missed it by that much, as Maxwell Smart might say.
His headline summarizes exactly what Republican poll-mongers have been saying since September, as they see poll after poll with crazy oversamples of Democrats. As for example, the NBC/WSJ/Marist poll that has Obama winning Ohio by 6 points — SIX FREAKING POINTS!— about which Ed Morrissey says, “all you need to know is this: the D/R/I is 38/29/32. In 2008, the exit polls showed a split of 39/31/30, and in 2010 36/37/28.”
Stop for a second and think about that: What this poll is telling us is that partisan ID has shifted 2 points toward Democrats since 2008, which was the best year for Democrats since LBJ won a landslide in ’64. Therefore, we must choose between two alternative explanations:
- Obama is headed toward a world-historic victory based upon the remarkable popularity of the Democratic Party; or
- The poll sample is fucked-up beyond all comprehension.
The issue, the problem with Nate Silver’s model is this, he is using polls that use bad sampling. Samples 2008 and 2010 are decidedly different, and frankly, the numbers from 2008 are likely outdated. A LOT has changed since 2008, not so much from 2010. The economy still stinks, the same issues that caused Democrats to lose badly two year ago remain, excitement levels about voting are still higher among Republicans than Democrats, and Romney continues to hold solid majorities among Independents. Yet, Nate Silver ignores all of that
This morning, because the sun rose in the East, Nate Silver again increased his odds of Obama winning reelection. Silver now estimates Obama’s chances of reelection at a precise 83.7%.
Not 83.6% mind you, not 83.8%, no 83.7%!