On Friday, Jeff Sessions exhorted his colleagues in the Senate to use the Constitutional powers of Congress, even urging them to stop hiding under their desks.
Senator Sessions held the Immigration and Nationality Act while he spoke on the floor.
The GOP members apparently need a reminder that they can and must stand up against the dictatorial president. You get the feeling Sessions is frustrated with the lack of resolve in an institution that has a lot more power available to it for use, but the new ruling party, which was elected to oppose Obama, remains somnolent.
Republican Senators, the hour is late. Listen to the best man among you.
SESSIONS: Is there any country in the world that says it’s appropriate for a business to hire somebody who entered their country unlawfully? What kind of logic can support such a reasoning? For the President is not an imperial master. The Congress of the United States is not helpless when it confronts the President.
Colleagues, we’ve got to get out from under our desk here! Are you afraid to say to the President of the United States we don’t agree with this and we’re not going to fund this? Is that the world we’re in? Are we hiding under our desks, that the President may go on television and attack us? Because we won’t agree with his ideas? Surely not. Surely not.
So the Congress has the power to appropriate money. It goes back to the historic development before America became a nation, that the parliament took over the power of money from the king. Parliament passed the laws not the king. And we adopted that and we created a constitutional order instead of a king to decide how we operate and the parliament, the congress of the United States was empowered to handle the money. And what obligation, colleagues, does this Congress of the United States have to give the President of the United States money to undermine the laws of the United States. What power does he have to compel us to do so? Zero.
We’re going to continue to work to improve immigration law and make it better and serve the national interest of the United States, not special interests, not activist groups and not big businesses, but the average working American’s interest.
The topic of attacks against free speech was a theme in a recent SunTV segment of JihadWatch between Michael Coren and Robert Spencer. Jihadists are determined to end Western criticism of Islam, aka blasphemy which can be punished by death according to Muslim scriptures.
COREN: These issues don’t direct involve terrorism, it’s not always the issue of terrorism, it’s our freedom of speech being eroded and decayed. Artwork violating Islamic blasphemy law removed from a Paris exhibition — this is not Egypt or Syria or Iraq or Saudi Arabia; this is France, the home of art, avant garde, expressionism, breaking artistic barriers. They’ve changed their policy because they’re frightened of what some Muslims might say?
SPENCER: Well, they’re afraid of what some Muslims might do, Michael, what they’re afraid of is that Islamic jihadis might strike them the way they struck at Charlie Hebdo. So what you have here is a victory of terrorism. The terrorists wanted France and the rest of the free world to conform to Islamic blasphemy law, and they showed that they are willing to kill to make that happen, and in response all too many Western institutions and activities like this one are curtailing their acts and conforming to Islamic blasphemy laws to avoid suffering the same fate. It is a collapse of courage on a massive scale.
COREN: What sort of artworks were so offensive?
SPENCER: There was an artwork of a woman who was stepping on a prayer mat with shoes and this is not allowed, shoes when you go into a mosque, and so this is considered to be so possibly disrespectful and inflammatory to Muslims that it was voluntarily removed by the people running the exhibit.
Winning through intimidation — that’s the Islam strategy. And it works because people know violence will follow if intimidation alone doesn’t do the trick.
Sheriff Clarke has become a popular guest on Fox News recently, presumably because of his plain-spoken voice for police issues and a ground-level view of law enforcement. At the hearing he critiqued the Holder Justice Department for its “almost hostility toward local law enforcement” both in “public statements made about the profession and policy decisions that treat police officers as adversaries instead of allies in the pursuit of justice.”
Senator Ted Cruz discussed prosecutorial discretion (Obama’s excuse for amnesties for five million) with legal scholar Turley, who thought any law could be shut down entirely under such a principle.
Senator Jeff Sessions spoke up for the separation of powers which means Congress must grow a spine and defend its rights from the President who would be King.
SESSIONS: I believe Congress has a duty to defend its legitimate constitutional power. It has several powers of its own. One of them is the power of the purse. One of them is the power of confirmations. I don’t see any need for this Congress to confirm somebody, be it the chief law enforcement officer of this nation who is at that table insisting that she intends to execute a policy that’s contrary to law and to what Congress desires and to what the American people desire, and says that someone here unlawfully is as much entitled to a job in this country as somebody who’s here lawfully is just beyond my comprehension. Are we through the looking glass? …
The real question is fundamental: What are we going to do to defend our Constitutional heritage? What will this Congress be able to say to subsequent Congresses if we acquiesce to these kind of activities? I think it has permanent ramifications for the relationship of the branches of government.
Regarding the confirmation of Loretta Lynch — who thinks “everyone in this country” has the right ro work “regardless of how they came here” — that process will take a little time. Judiciary Chair Charles Grassley appeared on C-SPAN this morning and said she would have to answer written questions over the next week or thereabouts, meaning there is no hurry to vote on her immediately.
So there is time to phone your Senators and mention that you think immigration should be legal, controlled and reduced.
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is a cultural and Islamic practice that is performed commonly on young girls with the hope that it will make them uninterested in sex when they get older. It is sometimes fatal because of unsanitary conditions, and may cause lifetime pain in victims.
Doctors at one English hospital have dealt with 1,500 cases of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in just five years, it emerged today.
Figures from Birmingham’s Heartlands Hospital reveal that staff see six patients who have been subjected to the barbaric procedure every week.
Nationwide, 15 new cases of FGM are reported to hospital around the country every day. But the victims of the shocking practice are clustered in certain areas, which explains the high rate in Birmingham. Heartlands saw 349 cases in 2013, following 288 cases in 2012, 316 in 2011 and 317 in 2010. It is thought to be one of the centres which has seen a large number of the 463 cases now being identified in England every month.
NSPCC Head of Child Protection Operations John Cameron said: ‘These figures show the NHS is consistently seeing a high number of FGM cases every month. FGM is a live public health issue and it is vital all health professionals are trained to spot the signs of FGM and that girls who are subjected to this brutal practice get the post-traumatic support they deserve.
‘We need to ensure doctors, midwives and other healthcare professionals are working effectively together with children’s services to support and protect FGM victims and their family members.’
The records show the number of women recorded as having been subjected to the practice, even if they were in hospital for another reason. Campaigners have pointed out that the numbers may be just the tip of the iceberg, as only those women who have sought specific medical treatment are included in the data. Continue reading this article
Sessions’ office posted a one-minute clip of his longer cross-examination in committee of Loretta Lynch, the President’s choice to be Attorney General. He interrogated her about illegal aliens’ non-existent right to take American jobs.
SENATOR SESSIONS: Let me ask you this: In the workplace America today, when we have a high number of unemployed, we’ve had declining wages for many years, we have the lowest percentage of Americans working. Who has more right to a job in this country? A lawful immigrant who is here, a green card holder, a citizen, or a person who has entered the country unlawfully?
NOMINEE LYNCH: Senator, I believe the right and the obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here, and certainly if someone is here regardless of status I would prefer that they be participating in the workplace than not be participating in the workplace.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, issued the following statement after the conclusion of today’s Judiciary hearing to announce that he would vote against the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be the next Attorney General:
“President Obama’s executive amnesty represents one of the most breathtaking exertions of executive power in the history of this country. After Congress rejected the President’s favored immigration legislation, the White House met with the interest groups who had crafted that bill and implemented the major provisions of the legislation that Congress had rejected through executive fiat.
The legal opinion attempting to justify this circumvention of Congress was issued by the Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel. At the outset of this nomination process, I said that no Senator should vote to confirm anyone for this position—the top law enforcement job in America—who supported the President’s unlawful actions. Congress must defend its constitutional role, which is clearly threatened.
Unfortunately, when asked today whether she found the President’s actions to be ‘legal and constitutional,’ Ms. Lynch said that she did. I therefore am unable to support her nomination.
My concerns are furthered by Ms. Lynch’s unambiguous declaration that ‘the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.’ Continue reading this article
Last October, when I blogged about Orchard Supply Hardware’s new retail robots, their description gave the impression of limited functionality: Greeter Robots Are Unveiled in Hardware Stores. These days, they are called “sales assistants.” Apparently the machines are working out.
Below, an OSHbot helps a customer find a desired gizmo. The smart machine costs $50,000 and doesn’t require coffee breaks, healthcare or vacations. Or sleep: after business hours, it cruises around and updates its database of where items are located in the store.
Naturally, the OSH management thinks the smart machines are a great addition to the business.
In the article below, New York Post reporter Diane Francis asks what people are supposed to do to earn a living in the future, a vital question that goes unasked by the masters of the universe who run Washington.
She mentions without name a futurist who thinks the worldwide job-loss catastrophe will be overwhelming, apparently futurist Dr. Thomas Frey who compiled a rather stunning list of disappearing occupations and correlating prediction: 2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030.
I have no idea whether that prediction is reasonable, but the B-number certainly gets one’s attention. There’s no doubt that a workplace revolution is going on that is huge and will change the world in ways we cannot imagine.
Also, hardly a day goes by when some media expert can’t figure out why the economic recovery is jobless. They should listen more closely to business, which says it has become “more efficient” during the recession: that means human workers have been replaced by robots and computers.
The Post article doesn’t mention the connection to immigration, but America certainly does not need to import foreign workers when there are fewer jobs now and in coming years. The robotically adjusted number of immigrants needed for American jobs in the future is ZERO.
The world’s first robotized sales assistants were rolled out last month in California. They are nifty, cute — and terrifying.
Nicknamed OSHbots, the two machines cost $50,000 apiece, are 5 feet of plastic on wheels and carry built-in natural language processors, computers, product scanners and navigation tools.
Named after the Orchard Supply Hardware store where they work in San Jose, they greet customers, ask if they need help, identify items, then offer to guide them to the appropriate aisle without bumping into anyone or anything.
At night, they do inventory by cruising the store to identify missing products and update their store map.
The OSHbots will never ask for a raise or call in sick. They also have the recall of a National Merit Scholar, but, on the other hand, they can’t open a box or climb a ladder to reach a hammer. And if you went up to one and shouted “Fire,” it would respond that “Fire extinguishers are on aisle 4 and I can take you there” . . . in English or Spanish.
So far, OSHbots are primitive, as are other automated services, such as Google’s driverless cars. But they won’t always be. Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and others are investing billions to make machines smarter than people.And then what happens to America’s 13 million-member retail work force when OSHbot 2.0 or 3.0 arrives on the scene? Are Google and the others going to support the displaced workers?
SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS: The biggest danger to me is that we will say we’ve fixed the matter when we’ve fixed the border and nothing else has to be done, and the special interest forces that are so effective in blocking things that will actually work will redouble their efforts and block the things that need to be done. I do believe this bill is not strong, won’t make a big difference, Border Patrol agents have just hammered it and said it’s not going to be effective. It takes fencing — we passed a bill 5-6 years ago — 6-year fence act, requiring 700 miles of fencing. We only have 30-something now. This will take it to ‘80 or so.
So, see that’s not a big deal. It doesn’t add any Border Patrol officers, doesn’t end the catch and release, it may not be McCaul’s jurisdiction, but we’ve got to be sure that this idea where you capture people at the border and then they’re released in the United States, asked to come back to court, and of course they never come back to court that’s got to end, and this bill doesn’t deal with that.
He went on to say the requirement for an entry-exit visa system is already on the books, along with the border fence, but it needs to be enforced, not ignored, by the executive branch.
Senator Sessions further remarked that the immigration system needs to be lawful and “I’m going to be laying out details how to get there. This can be done, Laura, it’s not that hard. A lot of people think it’s hopeless; it is NOT hopeless. Enforcing current law would be effective.”
It’s disappointing that the key issue of immigration enforcement that sent more Republicans to Washington last November is being blown off first thing. On Tuesday I noted disapproval from a trusted authority: America’s Senator Jeff Sessions Slams Feeble Border Security Bill. In his press release, Senator Sessions criticized Mike McCaul’s bill: “We need reforms that actually work, protecting the jobs and communities of the American citizens we represent.”
Sessions also listed the measures needed in a comprehensive border bill:
• Mandatory E-Verify
• Mandatory detention and repatriation for illegal entrants
• Expedited deportation for border-crossers
• Close asylum loopholes
• Bar access to welfare and tax credits
• Penalties for the Administration’s continued failure to implement the biometric entry-exit system as required by law
• Penalties for the Administration’s continued failure to build 700 miles of double-layer border fence
• Refusing visas to countries with high overstay rates or that will not repatriate their citizens
(Perhaps a third edition could include the public health lessons learned from last summer’s kid invasion, where all sort of communicable diseases such as TB were introduced into America and its schools.)
Border Patrol agents’ labor union announced their opposition Friday to the House GOP’s new border security bill, calling it “window dressing” that doesn’t add any new agents or updated their firepower to get the job done in sealing off the U.S.-Mexico border.
The agents’ opposition could be a major problem for House GOP leaders who have scheduled a vote on their bill for Wednesday, but who are facing a revolt among some conservative lawmakers who say the bill needs to go much further.
The legislation, written by House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul, would direct the Homeland Security Department to build about 50 miles of more fencing, to fly more drones and add more technology sector-by-sector along the border, and to come up with a strategy for catching 100 percent of illegal immigrants or smugglers trying to cross.
But the National Border Patrol Council said the bill needs to be more specific in calling for an additional 5,000 agents on the southwest border — there are about 20,000 now — and for updating training to a 20-week course, and to acquire more M-4 rifles and other gear so they can operate out in the field.
“This legislation speaks about metrics but frankly does not provide either the strategy or the resources necessary to achieve them,” said Shawn Moran, spokesman for the union. “We need real solutions on the border where the trends are moving in the wrong direction with increased apprehensions, more aggressive action from smugglers and drug cartels, and continued threats from terrorists.” Continue reading this article
While much of Washington wrings its hands about how kindly to treat “Americans” who have fought for the headchopper ISIS bunch in the Middle East, Ted Cruz has a better idea, namely to turn the Islamic State into a roach motel as far as US citizens are concerned: you can get in, but you can’t get out, at least to the United States.
Below. ISIS fighters are bloodthirsty even by Islamic standards.
Blasts Obama’s foreign policy as ‘detached from reality’
Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) will file legislation on Friday to ban American citizens who fight alongside the Islamic State (IS) and other terror groups from returning to the United States, where they pose a significant terror threat, according to sources in the senator’s office.
Cruz, who first proposed the legislation last year, seeks to strip those Americans who travel abroad to fight with IS (also known as ISIL or ISIS) of their U.S. citizenship rights and stop them from coming back stateside.
The bill, known as the Expatriate Terrorist Act (E.T.A.), tightens and updates existing regulations by which a U.S. citizen effectively renounces his or her citizenship.
Cruz said that he is filing the bill partly in response to President Obama’s Tuesday State of the Union address, which he described as “detached from reality” on the foreign policy front.
“President Obama’s approach to foreign policy refuses to acknowledge the threats our enemies pose to our national security—it is detached from reality and making the world a more dangerous place,” said Cruz, who also is releasing a new video that takes aim at Obama for misleading the nation about these threats in his annual address.
Cruz said stripping American IS fighters of their citizenship is a step toward securing the country and restoring the country’s image.
“We’ve seen the grave consequence of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry foreign policy unravel with respect to Iran, Russia, and now Yemen,” Cruz said. “These consequences are not confined to faraway lands. They directly threaten America and our allies.”
“That is why this week, I am re-filing the Expatriate Terrorist Act, which prevents Americans who have fought abroad for designated terrorist groups from returning to the United States,” he said. “I look forward to working with senators on both sides of the aisle on this and additional measures to secure our nation and restore America’s leadership in the world.” Continue reading this article
At any rate, Sessions now runs two subcoms rather than one biggie. I have no idea whether that is an equitable trade-off in the Washington merry-go-round of power. Clearly the Alabama Senator intends to make it work. One gig is running the Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee but the more important position for the friends of American sovereignty is as Chair of the newly renamed (by Sessions) “Immigration and the National Interest”subcommittee.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) issued the following statement today after being named Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on Armed Services and the Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee on Judiciary:
“I am honored to have the opportunity to chair these two crucial subcommittees.
My focus as Chairman of the Strategic Forces subcommittee will include: ensuring a modernized nuclear arsenal, strengthening our ballistic missile defense programs, advancing our space program, producing an American-built rocket engine to end U.S. dependence on Russia’s RD-180, and developing the technology and strategies necessary to deter any aggression, including cyber-attacks, against the United States or her interests.
America faces a litany of global threats and emerging dangers; it is more important than ever to have the most sophisticated and cost-effective defense programs that deliver the capabilities promised.
My focus as Chairman of the Immigration subcommittee will be to advance the core interests of the nation and its people. On no issue have special interests had a tighter grip than on the issue of immigration.
That is why I am renaming the subcommittee ‘Immigration and the National Interest,’ as a declaration to the American people that this subcommittee belongs to them. Senator Vitter, a strong voice for the national interest, will be serving as Republican Deputy Chairman. The financial and political elite have been controlling this debate for years; this subcommittee will give voice to those whose voice has been shut out: the voice of the dedicated immigration officers who have been blocked from doing their jobs; the voice of the working families whose wages have been reduced by years of record immigration; the voice of the American IT workers who are being replaced with guest workers; the voice of the parents who are worried about their schools and hospitals; and the voice of all Americans who believe we must have a lawful system of immigration they can be proud of and that puts their interests first. Continue reading this article
Americans should pay attention to the likely murder of special prosecutor Alberto Nisman in Argentina. There is more to the case than the investigation of a 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85. The evidence leads to the involvement of Iran in jihadist attacks then and now.
The Buenos Aires terror attack in 1994 looked like a small preview of New York City in 2001.
Claudia Rosett appeared on Fox News on Thursday to explain the background of Nisman’s findings, with a warning about how Iran’s terror network extends to the United States today.
CLAUDIA ROSETT: One of his warnings was that they infiltrate using agents sent as taxi drivers, as students, as diplomats, as businessmen, and they operate under those covers for years, but they are ready when Iran decides to execute an attack. And the New York City Police Department former head of intelligence testified in 2013 to Congress that they have found Iranian diplomats conducting what looked like hostile reconnaissance surveillance on New York City on more than half a dozen occasions over the past 12 years, including subway tracks, train tracks at Grand Central, the Wall Street heliport.
In other words, Alberto Nisman’s warning was not only a case about a long ago bombing in Argentina; it was a warning about terror attacks in the making today.
Keep this goal in mind as the Obama administration bends over backwards to get a nuclear treaty deal with Iran, which is a dangerous appeasement of a tireless enemy. Recent satellite photos have been reported showing new Iranian missiles capable of sending a warhead “far beyond Europe” yet Obama thinks the mullahs can be trusted not to nuke us when they are able.
In Rosett’s detailed Forbes article on Tuesday, she quoted Nisman’s explanation of how Iranians were sent essentially as sleeper agents to Argentina, told to blend in as ordinary immigrants until a time when they were needed to “export the Islamic revolution.”
Beyond puzzling over the circumstances, is there any response the U.S. can make to the sudden death this past weekend of Argentine special prosecutor Alberto Nisman?
Nisman spent the past decade seeking justice for the victims of the 1994 terrorist bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center, which killed 85 people and wounded many more. Nisman compiled a massive case, accusing Iran and its Lebanese terrorist affiliate, Hezbollah, of the attack. He indicted a member of Hezbollah and a number of former high-ranking Iranians officials. And he found himself increasingly at cross-purposes with the machinations of Argentina’s President Cristina Kirchner.
Last week, Nisman filed a criminal complaint almost 300 pages long, accusing Kirchner, her foreign minister Hector Timerman, and a number of others, of orchestrating a cover-up of Iran’s responsibility for the 1994 attack. A summary of the complaint, sent out last week by Nisman’s office, accused Kirchner of secretly cutting a deal with Iran to concoct a story that would exonerate Iran and its fugitives from the 1994 bombing, thus opening the way for Argentina to trade grain for Iranian oil, at the cost of “sacrificing a lengthy and legitimate quest for justice.”
Nisman was due to testify Monday to Argentina’s Congress about his allegations. He never made it. On the eve of his testimony, the 51-year-old Nisman was found dead in his Buenos Aires apartment, shot in the head.
Argentine officials swiftly declared that Nisman’s death looked like suicide. There’s plenty of skepticism about that. But with the case under Argentine jurisdiction, there may be little that Americans watching from afar can do. It is telling, perhaps, that even when Nisman was alive, the U.S. couldn’t do much on his behalf. In 2013, U.S. lawmakers invited Nisman to come to Washington, to testify about his findings at a House hearing on “Threat to the Homeland: Iran’s extending influence in the Western Hemishere.” Nisman wanted to go testify. But Argentina’s chief public prosecutor denied him permission, on grounds that it had nothing to do with the mission of the Argentine attorney general’s office.
At the hearing, panel chairman Rep. Jeff Duncan expressed his regret that Nisman could not come. Duncan noted that based on information that omitted Nisman’s findings, the State Department had recently reported that Iranian influence in Latin America and the Caribbean was “waning.” Duncan added: “In stark contrast to the State Department’s assessment, Nisman’s investigation revealed that Iran has infiltrated for decades large regions of Latin America through the establishment of clandestine intelligence stations and is ready to exploit its position to ‘execute terrorist attacks when the Iranian regime decides to do so.’ “
What America can do — and should do — is pay much closer heed to Nisman’s urgent warnings. For years, while laboring at an investigation that amassed more than a million pages of documents, he sounded the alarm over Iranian terror networks which he found extended way beyond Argentina — and in some cases all the way to the U.S. Continue reading this article
Now we learn that nearly a million kids got a free-to-them dinner or an after-school feeding last year.
Perish the thought that parents should be responsible for feeding the kiddies; the government can do that job so much better, particularly with the First Lady heading up the nutrition aspect of the nanny state.
In addition, what about the valuable tradition of families eating dinner together? A 2013 Gallup poll found that 53 percent of adults with children younger than 18 say their family eats dinner together at home six or seven nights a week. But the government wants to intrude further into family affairs.
Actual financial hardship has become less necessary to qualify for handouts because poor kids getting free food might experience damage to their self-esteem. So some schools hand out government meals to all kids regardless of need, as happened in Nashville last year:
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Many of the students at Kingsley Elementary School in a low-income neighborhood of Los Angeles eat breakfast and lunch provided by the school. For the nearly 100 enrolled in the after-school program, another meal is served: supper.
The nation’s second largest school district is doubling the number of students served dinner, with an eye toward eventually offering it at every school. It’s a growing trend: Nationwide, the number of students served dinner or an after-school snack soared to nearly 1 million last year.
“When kids are hungry, they don’t pay attention,” said Bennett Kayser, a member of the Los Angeles Unified School District board, which was announcing the expansion Thursday. “This is something that should have started years ago.”
Thirteen states and the District of Columbia began offering students dinner as part of a pilot program expanded to all states after the 2010 passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. Schools where at least half the students are low-income and qualify for free or reduced-price lunch are reimbursed for each supper by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, at a rate often significantly higher than the cost of the meal.
In the 2014 fiscal year, 104 million suppers were served to students, up from about 19 million in 2009. Participation is still lower than in the nation’s long-running breakfast and lunch programs, which serve more than 12 million and 31 million students, respectively.
The introduction of dinner to school routines is unique in that it could take the place of what many consider a near-sacred ritual: The family dinner. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.