The Obama administration will insist on measures to give legal status to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants as it pushes early next year for legislation to overhaul the immigration system, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday.

Good deal. We would be adding 12-20 million illegal aliens on the the federal health care roles if the Democrats health system legislation passes. 12-20 million who will be on the welfare role, who will want free money, who will demand free services, overload our schools and medical systems, etc and so on. By about February, we should start hearing the stories out of our southwestern states about massive numbers of people illegally crossing the borders and people overstaying their visas.

In an address at the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy group in Washington, Ms. Napolitano sought to dispel any notion that the administration — with health care, energy and other major issues crowding its agenda — might postpone the most contentious piece of an immigration overhaul until after midterm elections next November.

Liberal policy group? They are a massively far left group, about as far left as one can get. To put it plainly, this would be like a Bush appointee speaking to the neo-Nazi group Stormfront.

You really can’t call these folks in the White House liberals. That is insulting to liberals. They are completely tone deaf to the American People, and are basically telling you, the American People, to STFU and GFYS with all their policies.

I wonder how many Islamic terrorists will be provided blanket amnesty as they sneak into our country, just in time for KSM’s trial?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The ruling by the court in Strasbourg, which Italy said it would appeal, said crucifixes on school walls — a common sight that is part of every Italian’s life — could disturb children who were not Christians.

That is, Muslim colonists might not like that Italy has been a Christian country since Constantine converted to Christianity in the 4th century.

Even some commies are aghast:

Paola Binetti, a Catholic in the opposition Democratic Party, the successor of what was once the West’s largest communist party, said: “In Italy, the crucifix is a specific sign of our tradition.”

Education Minister Mariastella Gelmini concurs:

The history of Italy is marked by symbols and if we erase symbols we erase part of ourselves.

This of course is exactly why progressive Eurocrats want crucifixes banned. The objective is not just to suppress Christianity, which is hardly even defended anymore; it is to eradicate Western civilization. That’s why no effective measures are taken to save Europe from the ongoing Muslim demographic conquest — and why amnesty will soon open the door to massive Third World colonization of the USA.

On a tip from mega. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

In a poll released by Rasmussen Reports, 37% of voters would vote for a yet unspecified Republican candidate for Governor in 2010 versus 36% for an unnamed Democrat. 27% are yet undecided. This is HUGE for the DPRM.

From Rasmussen Reports…

Men like Republicans more, women prefer Democrats. Support for the GOP candidate is highest among voters ages 30 to 64.

Voters not affiliated with either major party prefer the Republican candidate by a more than two-to-one margin, but 55% of those voters are undecided. Married voters also go for the Republican by nearly two-to-one compared to those, unmarried.

Sitting two-term Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm is facing forced retirement as the DPRM limits Governors to 2 terms.

Other news out of the DPRM poll shows that the Emperor’s Death Care scheme isn’t doing so well among the electorate in the DPRM. In a state which has been in the pocket of the liberal party for decades thanks to the overwhelming control of labor unions, support for the Death Care scheme is down to 45% with 48% opposed. This might seem like a tight split among those in the DPRM but when you take into consideration the strong weight that big labor and the Democrat Party play into the politics of that state, this is a stunning defeat for the Emperor in my humble but not-so-silent opinion. Nationally, the Emperor’s plan is opposed by 51% of the people with the same 45% support as garnered in the DPRM.

Economic conditions in Michigan are so bad that many are looking to leave the state.

More than one-out-of four voters (28%) in the state say they are at least somewhat likely to move out of Michigan, with 13% who say they are very likely to do so. But 67% say that a move as unlikely, with 39% saying it’s not very likely and another 28% saying it’s not at all likely for them.

The incumbent Governor’s numbers are dismal. Just 40% of the citizenry approve of Jennifer Granholm’s job performance and 60% disapprove. I think it’s telling that there are no undecideds in this area of the poll.

Those who strongly disapprove outnumber those who strongly approve by a 47% to 18% margin.

Some of you may ask why I call Michigan the Democratic People’s Republic of Michigan (DPRM). Michigan is the prime example of what happens when you leave the big government hounds of the Democrat Party in charge for too long and allow big labor unions to dictate political will. The people in Michigan are not so much an electorate as they are subjects. As in they are subjected to political abuse on a daily basis.

It’s not that I wish to belittle the people of Michigan but rather it is my goal to “nudge” them into seeing with their own eyes for a change. Prompt them to recognize the problems within their state and take action against the cause. Because the cause is liberal politics and big government.

In other news out of Rasmussen Reports, the Emperor’s Presidential Index is at -12 as his party is seen to be less trusted than Republicans on 10 key issues.

Health Care:

The people favor Republicans in the area of health care by a 6 point margin. 46% trust the Republicans to better handle the issue of health care as opposed to 40% for those pushing a government run system.

Education:

The people favor Republicans in the area of education by a 5 point margin. 43% of Americans trust Republicans with the issue of education as opposed to 38% who trust Democrats.

Social Security:

The people favor Republicans in the area of Social Security by a 8 point margin. 45% of Americans trust the Republicans to on the issue of Social Security as opposed to 37% trusting Democrats.

Taxes:

Here’s no surprise. The people favor Republicans in the area of taxes by a massive 15 point margin. 50% of Americans trust Republicans on the issue of taxes as opposed to 35% who trust Democrats.

Economy:

Again, no surprises here. The people favor Republicans in this area as well by a margin of 14 points. 49% of American trust the Republicans to better handle the economy as opposed to the 35% who actually are misguided enough to trust Democrats and their tax and spend ways.

Abortion:

The people trust Republicans more by a margin of 12 points on the issue of abortion. 47% trust that the Republican approach to the issue of abortion as opposed to the Democrats who are trusted by a mere 35%. So much for liberalism’s most central issue.

Immigration:

The people are more trusting in Republicans on the issue of immigration by a margin of 7 points. 40% trust Republicans over their Democrat colleagues on the issue with Dems snagging 33% support for their efforts.

National Security:

I know this is going to shock the hell out of your Obamabots, but the American people trust Republicans with National Security by a margin of 23 points. A full 54% trust Republicans more as opposed to the 31% who favor Democrat’s surrender in order for the world to like us policies.

Iraq:

Again, another shock for the defense-challenged liberals. Republicans again edge out Democrats by 19 points. For all their bitching during the Bush years about the Iraq war, the Dems haven’t make any progress in either war. Rasmussen’s polling numbers indicate that 50% of those surveyed trusted Republicans to handle the situation in Iraq as opposed to the dimwitted 31% who put their faith in the Party of pacifists.

Government Ethics:

In spite of all the “culture of corruption” rhetoric that still lingers from the 2006 midterms, the American people favor Republicans to better handle government ethics over Democrats by a margin of 4 points. Both numbers are rather dismal however Americans trust Republicans (33%) over Democrats (29%). Who is throwing around dangerous rhetoric now Nancy?

With Republicans being seen as more trustworthy on so many social issues, what does this say for the direction of the country? What does it say about Obamamania and the love affair with Democrats? I’m banking on the fact that said love affair is over and Obamamania is dead.

[Content Restricted]

Correction – In the original posting of this piece, I stated, “The people are more trusting in Republicans on the issue of immigration by a margin of 17 points.” This figure is incorrect. The spread is actually 7 points. It has been corrected in the body of the piece.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Today the White House stepped up its attack on Fox News, announcing that the network would no longer be able to conduct interviews with officials as a member of the Press Pool. The Pool is a five-member group consisting of ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC organized by the White House Correspondents Association. Its membership is not subject to oversight by the government.

Fortunately, the rest of the press pool stood up to Hugo Chavez, er, Barack Obama, and said that would not work. So, as Doug points out, the reporters were limited to a two minute interview each, instead of the standard whine, in a (typical) petulant act. Regardless of what one thinks of Fox News, this is the behavior of a dictator in waiting.

On to the good

ICE has launched a new initiative to audit hiring records and I-9s — the form every new hire fills out to verify identity and employment eligibility – of current and past employees.

Last year, 503 companies nationwide received inspection notices. This year, Homeland Security notified 652 companies in one day.

“It is one of those things causing indigestion among the employment community,” said George Ports with Capital Associated Industries Inc., an employer association in North Carolina with approximately 1,000 members.

I have to give the Obama administration kudos for this. We could probably dig in to their motives, but, regardless, this is something that opponents of illegal immigration have been yammering about for a long time: if you want to stop most of the illegals, you have to go after the companies who hire them, and make it painful to the offenders.

Tony Asion, director of the statewide advocacy group El Pueblo, says he’s already hearing of unintended consequences.

“What (companies) do is deny the job (to a Latino), and it could very well be to a legal U.S.-born Latino who is here,” he said.

It could be a legal immigrant, able to work. Perhaps if people like Asion would stop backing the “rights” of illegals, there wouldn’t be so much bias.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Department of Justice has for the second time rejected Georgia’s system of using Social Security numbers and driver’s license data to check whether prospective voters are citizens.

The Justice Department first rejected Georgia’s request for preclearance for the checks in May. The state in August asked the Justice Department to reconsider that rejection.

Georgia and a number of other states with a history of discriminatory voting practices must preclear any changes to election rules with the Justice Department under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Of course they did. Why would we want to know if a person is legally eligible  to vote, especially when they tend to vote Democrat. Yet, Democrats are the same people who whined incessantly about voter fraud in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Heck, they accused Republicans of voter fraud even when they won in 2006.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

On the website of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) a press release from Obama’s U.S. Census Bureau Director, Robert Groves, can be found. That press release appears to make obvious that the Bureau plans to count illegal aliens in our census. The press release was issued to America’s Hispanic organizations to urge them to help with the coming census.

In that press release, Groves says the following (my bold):

We have the enormous challenge of convincing everyone in the country to participate in the national count – regardless of race, ethnicity or citizenship status. To reach the Latino community, we are counting on community-based initiatives like ya es hora to partner with us in spreading the word that the 2010 Census is easy, important and safe,” said U.S. Census Bureau Director Robert Groves.

Notice that Graves says “regardless of citizenship status.” With this comment it is clear that Graves intends to count illegals in our census.

The Census Bureau intends to work closely with groups that cater to illegals in this country to calculate the national count. The Census Bureau hopes to have success by launching a campaign that will “enhance the Bureau’s efforts to count Latinos through a sustained and aggressive community education initiative to mobilize hundreds of local organizations.”

Why is this such a big deal? Because this will add to the federal funds that will flow to areas that now have officially counted, lower income people, federal funds that will naturally flow into the coffers of Democrats and their cohorts.

Worse, it will add false numbers to our national count and will be one more step toward legalizing people that have broken our laws to get here. Once these people become instant American citizens they will, of course, largely vote Democrat and we will have millions more voters that will be amenable to voting for programs of federal giveaways and freebies to themselves. The Democrat’s power will grow exponentially and our country will be lowered even further as a result.

Illegal aliens should not be counted in the census. Their presence here is illegal and must not be used to direct federal dollars to the areas in which they serve as illegal squatters. Unfortunately, it looks like Obama’s Census Bureau intends to illicitly count illegal aliens as American citizens.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has stripped Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio of his authority to arrest suspected illegal immigrants based solely on their immigration status.
But Arpaio said Tuesday he plans to continue his controversial “crime suppression operations,” despite DHS’s decision to not renew an agreement that would allow the sheriff to continue immigration enforcement on the streets. …
Arpaio said he believes DHS made the changes to stop his “crime suppression operations,” which are saturation patrols in designated areas where deputies would find illegal immigrants by stopping them for traffic infractions and minor violations.
The Department of Justice and other federal agencies are investigating the sheriff’s office on accusations of racial profiling during the crime suppression operations.
In a Pulitzer Prize-winning series published in July 2008, the Tribune found the sheriff’s office’s illegal-immigration sweeps violated federal regulations intended to prevent racial profiling. The five-part series also found that the sweeps diverted resources from core law-enforcement functions, which in some cases caused response times to increase.

Ed Morrissey:

The DHS does not have the authority to dictate resource allocation of county sheriffs anywhere. The people of Maricopa County make the determination of whether their sheriff has allocated resources to their liking, not the federal government. Arpaio stands for election every four years, and so far no challenger has come within 10 points of Arpaio. If Maricopa County residents are unhappy with Arpaio’s management of resources, they’re not demonstrating it.
If the Maricopa County Sheriff Department violated civil-rights rules, then the Department of Justice has the duty to investigate and to take corrective action. So far, though, no one has proven anything of the sort — and that still wouldn’t be the jurisdiction of DHS.

The ACLU have tried and failed to prove he has violated any civil liberties and still the left go around shouting he does. But the left never need evidence. They only need things to fit their pre-imagined mold.

Yid With a Lid:

Too many people on the liberal side of the fence argue that illegal immigration is a racial issue. People who want to protect the US borders are inspired by racism, trying to keep out Hispanics (this is a different kind of racism than you are accused of if you disagree with the POTUS)

Of course fighting immigration is not a race issue. Illegal immigration is a law and order and anti-terrorism issue. People forget that the Jhadist Hosam Maher Husein Smadi who was arrested [by] the FBI after trying to blow up a building in downtown Dallas was in this country Illegally.

At a time when our southern border is becoming a war zone, and Illegals are trying to commit terror attacks, President Obama’s Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security have decided to strip Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who in the last three years has handed over 22,616 illegal immigrants to Immigration for deportation, of his authority to capture Illegal Immigrants. [...]

Snooper:

News to the masses…the SHERIFF of EVERY county in the United States CONTROLS what does and what does NOT take place in his county. Period. The Fed CANNOT take powers away or grant powers to ANY Sheriff in the United States. Period. That’s the Law and if the DHS Obama GOONS want to change that, they need to address the United States Constitution. Period. This is a travesty.

This whole thing is ridiculous. Just the fact DHS is going after someone doing the job they are failing to do blows my mind.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

An Arizona sheriff known for aggressively cracking down on illegal immigration has been stripped of some of his special power to enforce federal immigration law, and he claims the Obama administration is taking away his authority for political reasons. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose office faces racial profiling allegations over crime and immigration sweeps in some heavily Latino areas of metro Phoenix, said officials from Washington won’t let him renew a deal that let his deputies make federal immigration arrests.

“Let them all go brag that they took away the sheriff’s authority. Let them all do that. That doesn’t bother me. I don’t have an ego. I will continue doing the same thing,” the Republican sheriff said, noting he can still enforce state immigration laws. “What has changed, other than the politics and the perception emanating from Washington?”

The U.S. government, which does most of the nation’s immigration enforcement, is changing its rules for allowing local police to enforce more expansive federal immigration laws. Nationally, more than 1,000 local police and jail officers have been granted the power since 2002 to make immigration requests and speed up deportations. Arpaio has more officers with the special powers than any other local police agency in the country. For more than two years, 100 of his deputies have made immigration arrests and another 60 jail officers have identified inmates who are illegal immigrants.

Even though federal officials declined to let the sheriff keep making immigration arrests, Arpaio last week renewed a deal that will let his jail officers determine inmates’ immigration status. Arpaio said federal officials offered no explanation of why his powers were cut in half. Vinnie Picard, a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which grants the special powers, declined to comment on the curtailment of Arpaio’s powers or whether any of the other 62 participating local agencies across the country have been denied renewals.

The agencies face an Oct. 14 deadline to renew their agreements. So far, at least three agencies have dropped out of the program.

Giving federal powers to local police helps supplement the small staff of federal agents who enforce immigration laws in the country’s interior, said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors tougher immigration enforcement. He said it’s hard to tell whether the limits on Arpaio’s authority will extend to other agencies and would hamper the movement for local police to confront illegal immigration. “I suspect there is some effort there to send a warning to other police departments: Don’t get too aggressive with this, because we will yank it out from under you,” Mehlman said.

Joan Friedland, immigration policy director for the National Immigration Law Center, said the federal government wasn’t making a serious attempt to rein in Arpaio, because his jail officers still have the power to question jailed people about their immigration status. “All he has to do is get people to the jail, rather than being able to question them about their immigration status on the street,” said Friedland, whose group advocates for low-income immigrants.

For his part, Arpaio said he plans to continue cracking down illegal immigration by enforcing state laws that prohibit immigrant smuggling and ban employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Arpaio said his deputies can still detain suspected illegal immigrants who haven’t committed state crimes, as long as his officers call Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to pick them up.

Critics say some of Arpaio’s deputies racially profiled people during immigration sweeps. Arpaio maintains that people pulled over in the sweeps were approached because deputies had probable cause to believe they had committed crimes. His office is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice over allegations of discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures.

Arpaio’s approach to immigration has frustrated other public officials. The mayor of Mesa complained in 2008 that Arpaio didn’t warn his city of raids by deputies who were looking for illegal immigrants working at his city’s library and City Hall. And as Arpaio’s sweeps began to draw heavy criticism in 2008, then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, cut off immigration enforcement dollars to his office.

Napolitano, who as the country’s homeland security secretary now oversees the federal government’s immigration agencies, had said it wasn’t an attempt to change Arpaio’s approach to cracking down on illegal immigration. Rather, she said the funding was reallocated to try to clear a backlog of thousands of outstanding felony warrants across the state. [And who believes that?]

SOURCE

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Three more happenings on the Hill this week involve the Senate defeating an amendment that would require illegal aliens from having to show legal ID to get their “free” healthcare, the House saying no to the healthcare co-op idea and going full tilt for the so-called public option, and Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) tipping in Obama’s bi-partisan sentiment by saying that no Republicans are allowed to have a say in the final debate.

First up was the Senate’s defeat of the illegal ID requirement. Senator Grassley offered an amendment that would require immigrants to supply full ids to prove that they could legally access government healthcare.

On party lines the Grassley’s amendment was defeated 10 to 13.

Democrats claimed that the amendment was “a solution without a problem.” But Republicans contend that Democrats simply don’t want to prevent the possibility of illegals being turned away from “free” government healthcare services.

Next up was Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s going “all in” on the public option. She wants to foster the defeat of any talk of the “co-op” policy. Pelosi said that the states might be able to create healthcare co-ops, but she wouldn’t allow that idea to replace the public option in her bill.

It’s either a government sponsored “insurance” policy or she stands against it.

And finally, we get another fine example of the loving, more civil, more serious Democrats that really, really care about bi-partisanship. Following the more civil, more caring example of his president, Senator Tom Harkin said that there is no place at the table in the Senate for Republicans in the healthcare debate. Apparently Harkin thinks Republicans should just shut up and let Obama tell them all what to think.

Aren’t you glad that Obama is so interested in “reaching across the aisle”?

Me too.

And there’s your update on the doings on the Hill this week thus far.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post