Third Party & Independents Archives

No Policy Has Become The Policy

Inflation is up, caused largely by the FED printing money, some $600B of late and approx $2.1T over the last 4 years. Supposed to kick start the economy, jobs, etc. Hasn’t happened but, it has helped the stock market and sent inflation through the roof. But, you won’t hear that from gov’t. The gov’t is suggesting an inflation rate of something on the order of 6% while the real rate is something close to 11%. Nothing beats inflation to eat up a dwindling pay check.

Likewise, the gov’t pegs unemployment around 8% while the real number is somewhere between 15-25% depending on the inclusion of those no longer seeking work, are underemployed, etc. A recent report noted that fewer than half of the working population is working.

Say, has yore representative stopped by the barn to talk with you about the ‘new world order’? No? Well, it’s only been 30 years in the making, there’s still time don’t you think?

How about the North American Union? Nope, me neither. Gov’t is a powerful entity. Gov’t can wage war on a whim, big bad fishing boats attacking us in Vietnam, WMD’s under every tree in the Iraqi desert. Gov’t can start and stop trillion dollar programs, set the policy for energy, education, defense, healthcare, national security and so on.

I can recall the Regan era, when the policy of ‘greed is good’ was initiated. That policy was to globalize the economy. To do so, a couple of things were required. It was necessary to intertwine world economies so that no one country would want to reneg on the deal. It was necessary to circumvent US sovereignty and the US Constitution which was best handled by utilizing the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund as pseudo gov’t organizations to make and enforce the rules and carry out central planning.

It was relatively easy to merge up major US corporations to conglomerate strength, pump them full of corporate welfare, replete with tax credits/loopholes and relocate them to foreign lands to engage in the ‘wild, wild west of trade’. Thus, we had the era ‘too big to fail’, recovery act, TARP and the like to ensure their continued success with the risk of taxpayer money.

One of the more difficult tasks was to balance the ‘well being’ of countries relative to prosperity, health, security, etc. That meant the US middle class worker would have to take a big hit. And, take a big hit they did but, still the hourly wage is something like $22/hr, way to high to compete in the globalised world. But, one can only be amazed at the effort put forth to get wages down.

High wage jobs were moved offshore and millions of immigrants have been moved in to put pressure on remaining jobs. Even wealthy ladies fly in and give birth to new citizens. How ironic is that? Move the better jobs offshore and import millions to compete for the remaining jobs. Since there has been no policy from any administration from Regan forward, one can correctly deduce that no policy is ‘the policy’. Indeed, the main thrust of the NAU was to have unimpeded and open borders for N. America.

Now, that we are ‘poor’ and in debt people can no longer afford healthcare, many have lost their home and retirement for many is now a pipe dream at best. Yet, the Corpocracy is pushing a healthcare policy that puts the costs beyond the ability of the now new middle class with many small-mid size corporations throwing in the towel in supporting healthcare for employees. The effect being that, as planned, healthcare will continue to be just one of many aspects the Corpocracy is using to break the middle class.

A glaring example is the energy policy or rather the lack of an energy policy, which is ‘the energy policy’. The US has energy resources coming out our ears but it can’t be developed, Can’t use the coal, or natural gas, or shale, or crude, or hydrogen, or, or , or. . . . What we are allowed to do is continue to buy the $4-5/gal import stuff which most agree will do much to break the middle class. Or, we can use food stock to produce ethanol while creating strife and rebellion around the world. Some time ago the President said he would encourage the EPA to take ‘jobs’ into account when doing environmental studies. And, just recently a congressperson asked an EPA deputy if jobs were being considered. After a little stammering the answer was no. That’s much like the Border Patrol response when it comes to immigration. Not enough troops, not enough money, to rough to build fences, impedes wildlife, Interior Dept want let us come on federal land, and so on.

The heat is on. A myriad of ways to break the back of the middle class is baked in the cake. There will supposedly be a big debate about adjusting taxation and entitlements. But, I suggest any new policy will be to affirm the old policy. At some point folks will become more amenable to taking on a lesser paying job, IMO. Suze Orman relates that the new norm for the ‘American dream’ is to rent a home and be debt free. 'We've gone a long way babe'

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by Roy Ellis at April 18, 2011 7:29 PM
Comments
Comment #321799

“A glaring example is the energy policy or rather the lack of an energy policy, which is ‘the energy policy’. The US has energy resources coming out our ears but it can’t be developed, Can’t use the coal, or natural gas, or shale, or crude, or hydrogen, or, or , or… . What we are allowed to do is continue to buy the $4-5/gal import stuff which most agree will do much to break the middle class.”

Roy,

Energy sources in the US will be developed when it becomes economically feasible to do so. A vast number of currently leased reserves are going undeveloped due to cost factors. Foreign oil is simply cheaper. Most of the available oil reserves in the US are costly to extract and refine. US oil companies are better off purchasing foreign oil and selling it in the US rather than attempting to extract it in the US. Its all about cost.

But, that isn’t the cause of the current run up in oil prices. That is not a problem of supply and demand, it is a speculative run up. There is no evidence of a supply problem with oil.

Posted by: Rich at April 18, 2011 9:25 PM
Comment #321814

“You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html

“U.S. Gov’t Agency Plans $2.84 Billion Loan for Oil Refinery—In Colombia”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-plan-284-billion-loan-oil-refinery

Kind of makes a person wonder who Obama is working for, don’t it?

Posted by: Frank at April 19, 2011 8:43 AM
Comment #321815

Here is an interesting set of polls:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_04172011.html

Posted by: Pilot at April 19, 2011 9:59 AM
Comment #321817

“Kind of makes a person wonder who Obama is working for, don’t it?”

Not really Frank, Unless you believe the ImEx Bank just came into existence last year. In fact up until the Obama administration it’s focus was on corporate welfare. It has now shifted to jobs for small business. The reason for the loans, I repeat loans not grants, is to allow for US products to be exported to the projects, why is that such a bad thing? It seems to me the conservative biased CNS “news” link only tells part of the story.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 19, 2011 10:26 AM
Comment #321821

How long has it been since America built a new refinery? Does Obama care? I don’t think so.

If you don’t like the report, attack the scource, typical lefty move.

Posted by: Frank at April 19, 2011 10:45 AM
Comment #321822

Frank it is not a matter of liking or not liking the report. It is more a matter of getting the story right. Where was CNS and it’s half truths and misinformation when the ImEx bank was on the budget subsidizing Boeing? Oh it was a conservative administration so it was ok, right? But now that it is off the budget supporting the loans with the profits it has made and helping small business it is “news the liberal media doesn’t want you to know” as CNS states?

How foolish to believe this kind of nonsensical partisan BS perpetrated by CNS and its ilk. It allows you to attack Obama for …well for believing such nonsense. Such a typical conservative move. ;)

Posted by: j2t2 at April 19, 2011 11:03 AM
Comment #321824

Boeing is an American company and the refinery belongs to Columbia and the oil wells belong to Brazil.

We are facing a financial crisis in America and the rising cost of fuel is making things worse and while Obama has concern for the businesses of foreign nations, he seems to have no concern for the energy problems in America. When diesel and gas get to 6 or 7 dollars a gallon, the problems we face now will be nothing compared to the problems we will face then. As a supporter of Obama, I would assume you want hime re-elected. Well, if things continue to get worse, he don’t stand a snowballs chance in hell of being re-elected. Those are the facts…

Posted by: Frank at April 19, 2011 11:24 AM
Comment #321834


The belief that drilling for more oil in the U.S. will significantly lower oil prices is testament to America’s failed education system.

Posted by: jlw at April 19, 2011 2:06 PM
Comment #321857

I agree there is no shortage of oil. As I know it oil speculation by the US oil Cartel in Atlanta and the hedgefunds on Wallstreet are setting the price.
Saudi Arabia is working to keep prices high or perhaps stable as the world uses less oil due to the recession.

Don’t know where Trump is going with his suggestion that the Saudi’s are the problem for the high price of oil/gas.

Seems reasonable that bringing more energy online would work to increase interests in furthering that effort and would also work to hold speculation down on existing crude. Also, makes very good sense to me that subsidizing US energy development would be a great benefit as would many other ‘made in America’ ventures. Then, it makes less cents when you have to use foreign companies and sale some of the product overseas (WTO).

I read where the great socialist, Bernie Sanders, near closed down gift shops around the Smithsonian as all their gift products, flag lapel pins, liberty statues, etc, were made overseas. Bernie did buy a couple of ‘Rosie the Riveter’ lunch boxes, made in China of course.

With inflation, immigration, gas prices, tuition costs, healthcare cost, entitlements trimmed and debt repayments how long do you think it will take the middle class to take that $10-12/hr job and like it? That should bring oil prices down. Small price to pay for all this peace and prosperity brought about by globalisation.

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 19, 2011 3:10 PM
Comment #321858

jlw, I’m more than happy to provide the facts:

“The Associated Press
updated 7/23/2008 12:24:59 PM ET 2008-07-23T16:24:59
Share Print Font: +-WILKES-BARRE, Pa. — Republican John McCain on Wednesday credited the recent $10-a-barrel drop in the price of oil to President George W. Bush’s lifting of a presidential ban on offshore drilling, an action he has been advocating in his presidential campaign.

The cost of oil and gasoline is “on everybody’s mind in this room,” McCain told a town-hall meeting in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

He criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for opposing drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Ten days ago, Bush lifted a 1990 presidential ban on offshore drilling and urged Congress to do likewise. “The price of oil dropped $10 a barrel,” said McCain, who argued that the psychology of lifting the ban has affected world markets.

A barrel of light, sweet crude fell $1.86 to $126.56 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. That is down from more than $140 a barrel earlier in the summer.”


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25816555/ns/politics-decision_08

Posted by: 1776 at April 19, 2011 3:13 PM
Comment #321860

Oil, like other commodities is traded on world markets. One major factor in determining the price of commodity contracts is supply and demand.

Let’s pretend that the USDA announced a program to encourage America’s farmers to plant more corn, soybeans, or wheat. Would jlw’s education suggest that prices for those commodities would rise or fall on that announcement?

Consider that the crops are not yet in the ground, but the perception is that they will be planted and a crop produced. Without a corresponding increase in demand, there will be a surplus of those crops.

And, if there was a corresponding increase in demand, there would be price stability as supply was increased to meet the demand.

How is oil, the commodity, different?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 19, 2011 3:28 PM
Comment #321874

It’s not Royal, that is why they call the investments “Futures”. I’m curious if a nation, who mines gold, announced they were opening up new gold mines which had never been opened before and were going to begin mining, would it affect the price of the gold futures?

Posted by: 1776 at April 19, 2011 4:20 PM
Comment #321879

“Boeing is an American company and the refinery belongs to Columbia and the oil wells belong to Brazil.”

True enough Frank. The money loaned to the Brazilian and Colombian companies are used to buy equipment produced in America. It helps to create and/or stabilize jobs. The money doesn’t come from taxes and the money is loaned not given to these companies. What is the problem with that?

“We are facing a financial crisis in America and the rising cost of fuel is making things worse and while Obama has concern for the businesses of foreign nations, he seems to have no concern for the energy problems in America.”

That is the mistaken logic that CNS has led many to believe. The concern is for American business, hence the loans. American products will be shipped to these countries for use in the wells and refineries.

If one believes the Bush announcement was the cause of the $10/barrel drop in oil prices would not it have been logical for the prices of oil to drop by $10/barrel with the recent announcement of the big discovery and deep water drilling off the coast of Brazil? Perhaps there is more to the story than the Bush announcement, just saying…

Posted by: j2t2 at April 19, 2011 4:41 PM
Comment #321883

The products produced in America and sold to Columbia or Brazil are a mere drop in the bucket. Re/oil; we will never know how it affects price because Obama will never open drilling, so it’s a moot point.

Posted by: Frank at April 19, 2011 5:00 PM
Comment #321884

Frank,

The allegation that Obama is lending Brazil billions of US tax dollars to finance its oil exploration has been repeatedly debunked. The US Export-Import Bank has made arrangements for US commercial lenders to finance the purchase by Petrobas of US oil engineering and drilling equipment. No US tax payer funds are involved. The financing can only be used to purchase US make equipment. The financing arrangement is for the benefit of US exports. It is a loan arrangement consistent with the mission of the US EX-IMP Bank, i.e., to promote US exports and jobs. http://www.exim.gov/brazil/pressrelease_082009.cfm

Posted by: Rich at April 19, 2011 5:11 PM
Comment #321891

“The products produced in America and sold to Columbia or Brazil are a mere drop in the bucket.”

Then why complain about “Obama lending the money” for the good of American exports if it is only a drop in the bucket?

” Re/oil; we will never know how it affects price because Obama will never open drilling, so it’s a moot point.”

Frank, if the announcement by GWB of opening drilling off the coast would cause such a dramatic fluctuation in price why wouldn’t a major discovery and announcement of drilling off the coast of Brazil not cause the same or near the same $10/barrel drop in prices? It seems you want to bash Obama for the rise in oil prices but the fact is it is the speculators that are driving up prices or the Brazilian announcement would have dropped the price much like the conservatives claim Bush’s announcement did.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 19, 2011 6:32 PM
Comment #321893

Actually j2t2, there was a drop in oil prices when the Tupi oil fields were discovered. There was another 50% drop in oil prices in 2008, due to the economy. No matter how you look at it, the speculators control the price of oil. When Brazil discovered oil in 2006 the price of oil dropped. At first it was easy to get to the oil, but after that it was discovered that the oil fields wouldn’t reach full production until 2020 and only after millions were spent to drill deep enough. On the other hand, the price of oil dropped in 2008 because of the economy, but investors were claiming the price would climb again very soon. And it has. At this point OPEC is cutting back on the production of oil because they say there is a surplus of oil on the market right now. All oil prices are controlled by speculation and not by production directly. If it is announced that production will increase, nothing will happen to the price of oil unless the speculators believe it will effect their profits. At this point commodity buyers will sell, and the price of oil will drop. I know this goes against the ideals of the left, because they want to make the oil companies the bad guy.

Posted by: Frank at April 19, 2011 7:23 PM
Comment #321897

“If it is announced that production will increase, nothing will happen to the price of oil unless the speculators believe it will effect their profits. At this point commodity buyers will sell, and the price of oil will drop. I know this goes against the ideals of the left, because they want to make the oil companies the bad guy.”

Frank,

Why do you think that liberals would disagree with the analysis? Speculation in the commodities market is a significant factor in the explosion of commodity prices, including oil. In fact, some have called it a financial bubble. The oil companies will certainly profit from the speculative rise, at least in the short term. The common Joe will suffer. The Saudis were insistent in 2008 and today that the run up in oil futures is unrelated to supply and demand. I suspect that they fear the negative impact on the world economy that they have so heavily invested in with their oil profits.

Posted by: Rich at April 19, 2011 7:59 PM
Comment #321919

Instead of waiting for the government to get its act together and “save” us, I’ve come up with a fully private-sector solution to the high unemployment problem.

I’ve written a proposal that uses entrepreneurship on a massive scale to tackle the ongoing high unemployment problem, which has left millions and millions of Americans grasping at the last vestiges of the American Dream. Long-term unemployment is at record levels and the pace of the tepid “recovery” from the Great Recession will require years to return the country to full employment. In the mean time, government coffers are depleted while straining to address the extreme hardship, and tax revenues are greatly diminished because so many jobless folks cannot pay taxes.

My proposal describes an entrepreneurial mechanism through which we can fund a massive number of new business ventures (to create a massive number of new jobs) by tapping the financial power of Wall Street. It is a private-sector proactive approach to remedy the high unemployment problem. Titled “A Modest Proposal to Save the American Economy: Entrepreneurial Blitzkrieg as Job Creation Vehicle,” the proposal has been published online at Salem-News.com (and various other places):

http://salem-news.com/articles/march232011/solving-unemployment-jpb.php

The “Modest Proposal” is perhaps a bit cynical, proposing to hand a new form of financial nitroglycerin to the same folks who crashed the economy in 2008, or perhaps a bit Robin Hood, with its ideal of empowering the American proletariat via new business creation. Nonetheless, the approach described in the proposal uses existing financial industry architecture to transfer enormous sums of funding from those who have it (Wall Street) to those who need it (Main Street) – without requiring government tax incentives or subsidies. This is an entrepreneurial mechanism that perhaps even Ayn Rand (gasp!) would embrace.

Joseph Patrick Bulko, MBA

Posted by: Joseph Patrick Bulko, MBA at April 20, 2011 6:55 AM
Comment #321941

“Actually j2t2, there was a drop in oil prices when the Tupi oil fields were discovered.”
Frank, no where near the $10/barrel, in fact during the following month the price of oil was up. The fluctuation between the first week of Oct and the first week of November was a very small.

http://www.nyse.tv/crude-oil-price-history.htm

“There was another 50% drop in oil prices in 2008, due to the economy.”
I agree, it was the same drop from the all time high of $145 that McCain, according to 1776, credited GWB and his off shore drilling announcement instead of the economy tanking. Which was what I took exception to.

“No matter how you look at it, the speculators control the price of oil.” Frank it seems we agree once again as I have always said it was the speculators who drove up the price of oil, then and now. It is hedge fund speculators who have no intentions of taking delivery of the oil that artificially drive up prices.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 20, 2011 12:59 PM
Comment #321988

Watched O’rilley this evening. His guest, the guy that was fired from CNN for being factual on immigration, noted that the Executive could order the Commodoties agency to declare that a 50% margin was required for hedgefunders in buying oil contracts. Would be more effective still, if other foreign govt’s took the same approach. The Saudi cartel seems to be betting that the world can’t use any less oil than is being used now so they can hold the price up while pumping less. Were the Pres to suggest drilling right now, doubtful that would change the cartel’s position over the short run.

And Joseph, MBA – Good Grief Goseph, Git a Grip on it! The Corpocracy has us by the short hairs. Your wages are going down good buddy. As part of globalisation the corpocracy wants US wages ‘harmonized’, ‘balanced’ with the economies of the world.

To wit: Recall in the 80’s when Regan/govt/corpocracy promised secure borders with amnesty? That corporations were fattened up on tax payer dollars, merged up, conglomerized and relocated on your dollar? That 2.9M jobs were shed while 2.4M were created around the world? That since Ronnie there has been no real attempt to create ‘jobs’?

Just my opinion but, I remain convinced that the world economy was brought to its knees by the corpocracy to set the scene for reshuffling the deck, harmonizing, balancing, etc. And, one of the final scenes is in play. (cake is in the oven and all that). Your wages are going down good buddy.

The Corpocracy has no interest in creating jobs. They are busy making fistfuls of money overseas. Look at the stock market, experience the ‘jobless recovery’. Long lines this week to take jobs at McDonald’s, etc.

Jobs out, immigrants in, by the millions. And, at 8:15PM this evening Reno was on TV repeating Ronnie’s words from the 80’s that more troops are coming to the border, winning the drug war, just hold on, wait a while longer. I don’t think so, It’s the NAU thing you know.

Joseph, rather than flogging the blog re job creation why not use your time more magnanimously? Why not support www.tenurecorrupts.com . www.voidnow.com , www.foavc.org and yes, a 3rd party designed for the 21st century, www.republicsentry.com? I like the idea of removing from the scene those folks who brought us this globalisation as we know it.

Otherwise, there is no way in hell anybody is going to create ‘jobs’ until workers wages are ‘harmonized’. Think decades, Joseph.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 20, 2011 10:10 PM
Comment #321990

Reno related that immigration at the border was ‘way down’. No warm fuzzy here. What happens in 10-20 years if the economy picks up again? It’s perhaps more likely that US’un’s will be fleeing these borders looking for work over there. That is Soro’s plan, I do believe.

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 20, 2011 10:21 PM
Comment #321996

Roy Ellis said. “Reno related that immigration at the border was ‘way down’.”

Perhaps the reason immigration is down is because Napolitano has sent orders to the border to stop arresting illegal aliens? In any case, when Sheriff Dever testifies under oath before the Congress, I guess we will know; unless he has no problems with lying under oath. I wonder if any of Napolitano’s people will be required to testify.

Fox News interviewed a border patrol supervisor about an hour ago, when he was questioned about Napolitano and company telling Sheriffs to not arrest illegal aliens, due to the fact it looks bad on paper, he would not give a straight answer. He kept talking about what the duty of the border patrol and law enforcement was, but nothing about what they were actually doing.

“A sheriff in Arizona says he has information that Border Patrol officials have repeatedly been told to reduce — sometimes stop — their arrests of illegal aliens at the U.S./Mexico border.

According to Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever, Border Patrol officials have told him that the government is pressuring them to “scare people” instead of arrest them.

“The senior supervisor agent is telling me about how their mission is now to scare people back,” Dever said in an interview with FoxNews.com. “He said, ‘I had to go back to my guys and tell them not to catch anybody, that their job is to chase people away. … They were not to catch anyone, arrest anyone. Their job was to set up posture, to intimidate people, to get them to go back.”

Foxnews.com has more details:

Dever said his recent conversation with the Border Patrol supervisor was the latest in a series of communications on the subject that he has had with various federal agents over the last two years. Dever said he plans to relay the substance of these conversations when he testifies under oath next month before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

But an official with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection vehemently denied Dever’s accusations.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/az-sheriff-claims-feds-demanding-border-agents-reduce-illegal-alien-arrests/

All one has to do is Google “releasing illegal aliens”, and you will find a disturbing history of this administration.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 21, 2011 10:07 AM
Comment #322007


Napolitano and the Democrats, with the acquiescence of the Republicans. It is a one way street called corporate globalization and both political parties are traveling it holding hands.

There will be no need for borders in the New World Order.

Roy, Reagan wasn’t the mastermind, but the strategy was masterminded during his Administration. If you remember, we were given the carrot first, the 1990’s. Then the stick, massive government debt, unfunded wars, and the greatest Tea Pot Dome scandal in American history.

The new American motto: work for less and spend more.

Posted by: jlw at April 21, 2011 12:20 PM
Comment #322046

The lyrics to a song that was sung to Obama by supporters who paid $35,800.00 each to attend an Obama fundraiser in SF. They were escorted out of the place after singing to him. They may be willing to vote for him in 2012, but how many will just stay home?

“Dear Mr. President we honor you today sir
Each of us brought you $5,000
It takes a lot of Benjamins to run a campaign
I paid my dues, where’s our change?
We’ll vote for you in 2012, yes that’s true
Look at the Republicans - what else can we do
Even though we don’t know if we’ll retain our liberties
In what you seem content to call a free society
Yes it’s true that Terry Jones is legally free
To burn a people’s holy book in shameful effigy
But at another location in this country
Alone in a 6x12 cell sits Bradley
23 hours a day is night
The 5th and 8th Amendments say this kind of thing ain’t right
We paid our dues, where’s our change?”

http://drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 21, 2011 5:41 PM
Comment #322068

Conservativethinker,

If the Obama administration has been soft on immigration enforcement, as you suggest, then why has the Obama administration racked up record number of deportations, illegal alien criminal prosecutions and business enforcement actions?

Posted by: Rich at April 21, 2011 7:24 PM
Comment #322079

Partisan warfare has all the effect of the proverbial ant crawling up the elephants leg with rape on its mind. I do believe that this and preceding administrations have been soft on immigration enforcement since 1776 or thereabouts.

There was a time in our history when the country needed immigrants leading to the big melting pot and all that. But, this is 2011 and busted flat in Baton Rouge and else where. Resources are hard to come by, gov’t has sent jobs overseas in search of globalisation, Immigration has gone from ‘give me your poor and huddled yearning to breathe free’ to an immigration policy mandated by Corpocracy (WTO). The Corpocracy reserves the right to take every piece of personal information you have, birth date, SSN, drivers lic. #, where you shop, what you buy, where you go, where you have been, etc and sell it to the highest bidder. Yet, the cops can’t ask someone where they are from. Remarkable, by any stretch, but moreso, in that people tolerate it, seem to love it.

Az and Ga have been bold enough to beg the courts to ask such an outrageous question. For good reason, IMO. Ga. GDP is $18B and they put out $2.5 to support the illegal alien population. Your own gov’t working to break the back of the middle class worker to superimpose their central planning for ‘one world’ . Then there are anchor babies and one way H1B visas - - - no end to it. I suggest some laws be changed. Let’s get back to states rights on immigration and some other things. I do believe changing the constitution is better than simply ignoring it in furtherance of globalisation.

You might want to stick your head up and measure the ‘peace and prosperity’ of globalisation as provided by a bunch of mega corporations. I believe their ‘piece and prosperity’ translates to plenty of cheap sex and a stock market over 14k.

As for me, I’m clinging to my guns, my religion, and my Constitution.

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 21, 2011 9:07 PM
Comment #322080

Conservativethinker,

If the Obama administration has been soft on immigration enforcement, as you suggest, then why has the Obama administration racked up record number of deportations, illegal alien criminal prosecutions and business enforcement actions?

Posted by: Rich at April 21, 2011 07:24 PM

Tell me Rich, where does the left get their numbers? Let me show you the real figures:


“According to the newly released figures, administrative arrests of violators of immigration laws fell 68 percent from 2008 to 2009, criminal arrests fell 60 percent, criminal indictments fell 58 percent and convictions fell 63 percent.

Fiscal 2008 ran from Oct. 1, 2007, through Sept. 30, 2008. Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008, and ran through Sept. 30 of this year. Mr. Obama took office Jan. 20.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/19/work-site-arrests-of-illegals-fall-dramatically/?page=2

For liberals, this means there were more arrests of illegal aliens during Bush’s last year in office than there was in obama’s first year. But obama got serious in fiscal year 2010 and had an increase of 1% over 2009, but still less than Bush in fiscal year 2008.

“President Obama’s new immigration enforcement strategy led to a record number of criminal aliens being deported last year, but removals of other illegal immigrants fell to the lowest rate since 2007, before the Bush administration began a crackdown.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported 392,862 aliens in fiscal year 2010, slightly less than a 1 percent increase over 2009 but short of the agency’s goal to remove 400,000 this year.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/6/more-criminal-aliens-deported-last-year/?page=1

Nice try. Maybe you better go back to Google.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 21, 2011 9:32 PM
Comment #322087

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported 392,862 aliens in fiscal year 2010, slightly less than a 1 percent increase over 2009 but short of the agency’s goal to remove 400,000 this year.”

Conservativethinker,

You understand of course that the deportations for 2009 were a record number of deportations. So, while the administration failed to achieve its 400,000 goal, it still achieved a new record number of deportations in 2010. In 2010, the Obama administration increased emphasis on conviction and deportation of illegal aliens that have committed crimes in the US. If you are truly interested in the data regarding immigration enforcement, the following is an excellent non-biased source: http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/234/

Posted by: Rich at April 22, 2011 6:48 AM
Comment #322088

Conservativethinker,

From the most recent TRAC report on federal criminal enforcement of immigration laws. http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/245/

“These unusually sharp increases in federal immigration prosecutions — for both the districts in the southwest and those in the rest of the country — directly challenge the repeated claims by members of Congress, scores of other politicians and government officials throughout the nation that the Obama administration was not actively enforcing the immigration laws.”

“(The incorrect and passionate claims that the Obama government was not enforcing the immigration laws are further undermined by the steady growth in deportations reported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). On a year-by-year basis, these have increased steadily, up 35 percent over the last four years — from 291,060 in FY 2007, 369,221 in FY 2008, 389,834 in FY 2009 and 392,862 in FY 2010.) “

Posted by: Rich at April 22, 2011 7:07 AM
Comment #322089

Conservativethinker,

The following is a link that describes the Obama administration’s approach toward controlling the hiring of illegal immigrants by businesses. It is commonly referred to as “silent raids.” It seeks to reduce employment opportunities for illegals by tightening hiring screening and fining businesses for hiring illegals. http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/20/obama-administration-intensifies-crackdown-illegal-workers?test=latestnews

Posted by: Rich at April 22, 2011 8:00 AM
Comment #322341

Glenn Beck relates that the President recently gave a campaign speech that went something like this; some may have come by Ellis Island, Some by slave ships and some by crossing the Rio Grande but we are all brothers/sisters and I will support their move to freedom.

Ron Paul related on CNBC this morning that the FED had sent 1/3 of the trillions doled out over the last few years to foreign banks. We’d like to ask ‘under what conditions’ but nope, can’t question, or audit, the FED.

Bernanke is giving the first ever report on the FED today, starting around noon I think.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 27, 2011 9:12 AM
Post a comment