Categories
Archives
Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !

4-day plan to solve the border crisis

by Garth Kant
esq-steve-king-110211-xlg-e1406333323175
WASHINGTON – It’s a trap.

That’s what Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, thinks about the plan fashioned by GOP House leaders to solve the border crisis.

He believes it is an attempt to pass so-called Comprehensive Immigration Reform by another name because, not only does it not address the issue of amnesty, it would leave the door wide open for President Obama to extend amnesty to many more millions of illegal immigrants.

Another big problem in King’s eyes is that the revised plan that came out of a GOP House meeting on Friday is a “package,” or collection of many different ideas.

And, he told WND, “A package has no chance at becoming law and has every chance of coming back to us with who-knows-what hung on it. All it becomes is an excuse for us to say we did something.”

Instead, the congressman offered his simplified plan to fix the border crisis in less than a week.

“Monday, I would pass a resolution that was Rep. Trent Frank’s (R-Ariz.) idea, that says, ‘These are all the things the president did to cause this (crisis), and this is what he needs to do to fix it.’ The National Guard should be called up by all the border state governors.”
“Tuesday, I would send the Senate a fix to the 2008 bill (that requires all minors from Central America have lengthy judicial hearings before any deportation) as a stand-alone bill. That would take the fig leaf away from the president and the Democrats. Even though it’s not the cause of this problem (he believes the prospect of amnesty is luring the immigrants), it will take away the excuse.”
“Wednesday, I would send the Senate a stand-alone appropriations bill that gives funds directly to the states to send the National Guard to secure the border.”
“Thursday, I’d put the other good ideas that have been suggested into a much-smaller package bill and send it to the Senate.”
Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, had released her draft of the House leaders’ plan on Wednesday, which contained a litany of proposals but nothing addressing amnesty.
texas-mexico-bordereve King,

However, after a meeting of GOP House members on Friday morning in which conservatives had a chance to register their input, she said the plan had been pared-down to “bare-bones suggestions,” primarily: revising the 2008 law; allowing Border Patrol agents to access federal lands; deploying National Guard troops; assigning more immigration judges; and a call for greater cooperation with Central American countries to repatriate unaccompanied children.

What she called “bare-bones,” King still saw as an over-ambitious attempt to cobble together too many plans in one package.

King said if the House simply passed his four proposals, Congress would have done everything it could and “removed some of the tools people are using to play politics. ”

Otherwise, he said, Congress will have subscribed to the president’s agenda for the rest of his term, which is “open borders.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/4-day-plan-to-solve-the-border-crisis/#Wr0I7TUCcd42UHff.99

Israel please don’t shoot at those Palestinian’s

Israel-defend-ci

ANOTHER PREZ SETBACK–Appeals Court Guts Obamacare

Written by Suzanne Olden on July 24, 2014Obamacare111
Obamacare Redux – US Court of Appeals Guts Obamacare

In a move that has Obamacare opponents doing a serious happy dance, the U.S. Court of Appeals just gutted the hated Act. In a well worded decision, the Court basically told Congress that if you want a law to say something, the words you choose are important. I’m thinking “pass it so we can see what’s in it” just backfired on Nancy Pelosi. In a very big way.

The case revolves around a few things, but basically it was challenged by those saying that the language of the act only allow subsidies for states that set up their own exchanges instead of relying on the federal exchange to step in. Supporters of the law argued that while that may be true, it was just a “typo” and should be ignored.

Sorry, that’s not how it works.

The U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with the challengers and set up another go round over Obamacare in the Supreme Court for most likely the upcoming session. Those in states that didn’t set up their own exchanges may find that the subsidies they thought they were getting will disappear because of Obamacare, much like their old policies did.

When Obamacare passed, only 14 states opted to set up their own health insurance marketplaces. Those states were California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Idaho and New Mexico were originally supposed to have state run sites, but went federal due to different constraints on their plans. The District of Columbia also has its own exchange site. Only those states, and DC, will be able to offer subsidies to people who purchase insurance through their state run exchanges.

In the rule making phase after the law was passed, someone realized there was a problem and wrote the IRS rules for subsidies, which are given in the form of tax credits. Making those subsidies broadly available was important in the left’s cries of “See! There were plenty of people who wanted and needed insurance through Obamacare.”

This, of course, led to the problems recently uncovered with verifying important information such as income and citizenship status. That meant more people received subsidies than probably qualified for them in the first place. Keep in mind that, per HHS records, 5.4 million have signed up in the 36 states that use the federal exchange, and 87% of those who did received federal subsidies. Either way, not being able to extend subsidies to residents in the 36 other states who use the federal exchange means that they will most likely not sign up for coverage, or keep the Obamacare policies they currently have.

The case itself, Halbig v. Burwell, was filed by small business owners. All the issues revolve around four words in the Act. Four. Those words are “established by the state.” The Court looked at the actual written law and the Congressional Record, which has the legislative history. They looked at the legislative history because Defendants Burwell, et al, claimed that the intent of Congress was to extend the subsidies. The Court found no such intent either implied or written in any of the legislative history, nor in the actual act itself.

The decision itself is lengthy, but the important parts discuss choice of wording and how important it is in law. “The crux of this case is whether an Exchange established by the federal government is an “Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the [ACA].” We therefore begin with the provisions authorizing states and the federal government to establish Exchanges. Section 1311 provides that states “shall” establish Exchanges. 42 U.S.C. § 18031(b)(1). But, as the parties agree, despite its seemingly mandatory language, section 1311 more cajoles than commands. A state is not literally required to establish an Exchange; the ACA merely encourages it to do so. And if a state elects not to (or is unable to), such that it “will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014,” section 1321 directs the federal government, through the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to “establish and operate such Exchange within the State.” Id. § 18041(c)(1) (emphasis added).

The phrase “such Exchange” has twofold significance. First, the word “such”—meaning “aforementioned”, see BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1473 (8th ed. 2004); WEBSTER’S THIRD INT’L DICTIONARY 2283 (1981)—signifies that the Exchange the Secretary must establish is the “required Exchange” that the state failed to establish. In other words, “such” conveys what a federal Exchange is: the equivalent of the Exchange a state would have established had it elected to do so…

The problem confronting the IRS Rule is that subsidies also turn on a third attribute of Exchanges: who established them. Under section 36B, subsidies are available only for plans “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the [ACA].” 26 U.S.C. § 36B(c)(2)(A)(i) (emphasis added); see also id. § 36B(b)(2)(A). Of the three elements of that provision—(1) an Exchange (2) established by the State (3) under section 1311—federal Exchanges satisfy only two: they are Exchanges established under section 1311. Nothing in section 1321 deems federally-established Exchanges to be “Exchange[s] established by the State.”

This omission is particularly significant since Congress knew how to provide that a non-state entity should be treated as if it were a state when it sets up an Exchange. In a nearby section, the ACA provides that a U.S. territory that “elects . . . to establish an Exchange . . . shall be treated as a State.”2 42 U.S.C. § 18043(a)(1). The absence of similar language in section 1321 suggests that even though the federal government may establish an Exchange “within the State,” it does not in fact stand in the state’s shoes when doing so.”

The Court went on to conclude that “a federal Exchange is not an “Exchange established by the State,” and section 36B does not authorize the IRS to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal Exchanges”; and that section 36B of the IRS rules “plainly distinguishes Exchanges established by states from those established by the federal government.”

What is really interesting is another small, yet key phrase in the decision: “The government argues that we should not adopt the plain meaning of section 36B, however, because doing so would render several other provisions of the ACA absurd.” Mostly because Obamacare is absurd on its face! Here’s hoping that SCOTUS finds it just as absurd and concurs with the lower court!

Image:http://thecollaboratory.wikidot.com/sociology-of-discrimination

Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/07/obamacare-redux-us-court-appeals-guts-obamacare/#4pdZI4vvgJPep8TK.99

THE TERRORIST THREAD FROM SOUTH OF OUR BORDER

By Scott Stewart

On July 21, Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced he was deploying 1,000 members of the Texas National Guard to the Mexican border to help strengthen border security. The move is the latest in a chain of events involving the emigration of Central Americans that has become heavily publicized — and politicized.

Clearly, illegal immigration flows are shifting from Arizona and California to Texas. In fiscal year 2013, the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol sector surpassed Tucson as the leading sector for the number of apprehensions (154,453 in Rio Grande Valley versus 120,939 for Tucson). Also, between fiscal 2011 and 2013 (all Border Patrol data is recorded by fiscal year), the number of “other than Mexicans” — mostly Central Americans — apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley sector increased by more than 360 percent, from 20,890 to 96,829. (By comparison, the Tucson sector apprehended 19,847 “other than Mexicans” in 2013. Significantly, minors constituted a large percentage of the “other than Mexicans” apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley in 2013: 21,553 (compared to 9,070 in Tucson sector). However, the majority (84 percent) of those labeled Unaccompanied Alien Children by the Border Patrol are teenage minors and not younger children.
Lost in all the media hype over this “border crisis” is the fact that in 2013 overall immigration was down significantly from historical levels. According to U.S. Border Patrol apprehension statistics, there were only 420,789 apprehensions in 2013 compared to 1,160,395 in 2004. In fact, from fiscal 1976 to 2010, apprehensions never dropped below 500,000. During that same period, the Border Patrol averaged 1,083,495 apprehensions per year compared to just 420,789 last year.

Of course, apprehension statistics are not an accurate count of total immigration and do not account for those who cross without being caught, and the statistics are also slightly skewed by the fact that Unaccompanied Alien Minors are far more likely to surrender to authorities rather than attempt to avoid them. In 2011, the Border Patrol apprehended 4,059 unaccompanied children; by 2013 that number had reached 38,759. Year to date, the Border Patrol has apprehended more than 46,000 unaccompanied children and estimates it will apprehend around 60,000 total in 2014. Still, overall, the Border Patrol will apprehend and process hundreds of thousands fewer people this year than it did each fiscal year from 1976 until 2010.

U.S. Border Patrol Apprehensions, Fiscal Years 1976-2013
Click to Enlarge
This type of hype and politicization of the U.S.-Mexico border is not new. It is something that has surfaced at irregular intervals for years now, along with scaremongering using the boogeyman of terrorism, and it appears to be happening again.

I’ve recently done a number of media interviews regarding immigration, and during several of these interviews, reporters have asked me the question: “Does the crisis on the border give terrorists an opportunity to sneak into the country?” While other border security analysts have told reporters that they believe terrorists would take advantage of the border crisis and that the cartels would be willing to work with terrorists for the right price, I disagree. I believe that an analysis of the history of plots directed against the U.S. homeland from overseas and an examination of the changes in the dynamics of transnational terrorism show such claims to be unfounded.

No Link to the U.S.-Mexico Border

As chaos has wracked Mexican towns just south of the U.S. border such as Nuevo Laredo, Reynosa, Juarez and Tijuana, there has been repeated speculation that al Qaeda could partner with some street gang or Mexican cartel to smuggle terrorist operatives or weapons into the United States to conduct a spectacular terrorist attack.

For example, in 2005, rumors were frequently published on a popular web media outlet claiming that al Qaeda had smuggled several tactical nuclear devices into the United States with the help of the Salvadoran Mara Salvatrucha street gang. According to the rumors, al Qaeda was planning to launch a horrific surprise nuclear attack against several U.S. cities in what was termed “American Hiroshima.” Clearly this never happened.

But American fearmongers are not the only ones who can cause a panic. In a 2009 speech, radical Kuwaiti university professor Abdullah al-Nafisi talked about the possibility that jihadists could smuggle anthrax in a suitcase through a drug tunnel on the U.S.-Mexico border, a claim that sparked considerable concern because it came on the heels of other hyped-up anthrax threats.

However, an examination of all jihadist plots since the first such attack in the United States — the November 1990 assassination of the radical founder of the Jewish Defense League, Meir Kahane — shows that none had any U.S.-Mexico border link. Indeed, as we’ve noted elsewhere, there have been more plots against the U.S. homeland that have involved the U.S.-Canada border, including the 1997 plot to bomb the New York Subway and the Millennium Bomb Plot. But by and large, most terrorists, including those behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 9/11 attacks, have entered the United States by flying directly to the country. There is not one jihadist attack or thwarted plot in which Mexican criminal organizations smuggled the operative into the United States.

There was one bumbling plot by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in which Manssor Arbabsiar, a U.S. citizen born in Iran and residing in Texas, traveled to Mexico in an attempt to contract a team of Mexican cartel hit men to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. Instead of Los Zetas, he encountered a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration informant and was set up for a sting. There is no evidence that an actual Mexican cartel leader would have accepted the money Arbabsiar offered for the assassination.

Mexican criminal leaders have witnessed U.S. government operations against al Qaeda and the pressure that the U.S. government can put on an organization that has been involved in an attack on the U.S. homeland. Mexican organized crime bosses are businessmen, and even if they were morally willing to work with terrorists — a questionable assumption — working with a terrorist group would be bad for business. It is quite doubtful that Mexican crime bosses would risk their multibillion-dollar smuggling empires for a one-time payment from a terrorist group. It is also doubtful that an ideologically driven militant group like a jihadist organization would trust a Mexican criminal organization with its weapons and personnel.

Changes in Terrorist Dynamics

Another factor to consider is the changes in the way militant groups have operated against the United States since 9/11. Because of increased counterterrorism operations and changes in immigration policies intended to help combat terrorist travel, it has become increasingly difficult for terrorist groups to get trained operatives into the United States.

Even jihadist groups such as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula have been forced to undertake remote operations involving bombs placed aboard aircraft overseas rather than placing operatives in the country. This indicates that the group does not have the ability or the network to support such operatives. In addition to remote operations launched from its base in Yemen, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has also undertaken efforts to radicalize grassroots operatives residing in the United States, equipping them with easy-to-follow instructions for attack through its English-language magazine, Inspire.

This focus on radicalizing and equipping grassroots operatives is also reflected in the fact that the majority of the attacks and failed plots inside the United States since 2001 have involved such grassroots operatives rather than trained terrorists. These operatives are either U.S. citizens, such as Nidal Hasan, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Faisal Shahzad, or resident aliens such as Najibullah Zazi. Failed shoe bomber Richard Reid was traveling on a British passport (no U.S. visa required) and the would-be underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, had obtained a valid U.S. visa. The operatives had the ability to legally reside in the United States or to enter the country legally without having to sneak across the border from Mexico.

Could a terrorist operative take advantage of the U.S.-Mexico border? Possibly. Is one likely to attempt such a crossing when so much publicity and extra enforcement has been directed to that border? Probably not.

Read more: Examining the Terrorist Threat from America’s Southern Border | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

Before Obama

Gas

WISDOM FROM UNCLE BILL

Clinton

Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !