Kamala Harris Identifies a Primary Root Cause of Illegal Immigration to the USA and Fertilizes the Root

Kamala Harris has made a big deal of her task to identify and address the root causes of illegal immigration into the USA.  She has identified a primary root cause: the illegal immigrants leave their home countries because they are very corrupt and gang violence is unbearable.

The violent gangs make huge sums of money selling drugs, dealing in sex trafficing, selling contraband arms, and guiding illegal aliens into the USA.  They infiltrate the USA with their gang members and extract post-immigration services from the illegal aliens they shepard into the USA as payment for their services.  The wealth they gather from these activities make the gangs and drug cartels all the more dominant and lawless in their home countries of Central America, Mexico, and South America.  This dominance makes life for many of the people in these countries a horrible experience.

Just as the Biden administration chooses to ignore the biowarfare that the Chinese Communist Party has inflicted upon the world by unleashing Covid-19 on it, they also ignore the fact that the Chinese Communist Party happily supplies the drug cartels with the chemicals to make and distribute the killing drug fentanyl.  The Chinese government helps the drug cartel predators to prosper.  The Big Guy and his family syndicate have long been in the employ of the Chinese Communist Party, as well as Russian and other oligarchs of several of the lawless countries of far eastern Europe and Asia, so his feckless response to the horrors they visit on civilized nations is to be expected.

What is the Biden administration response to the flood of illegal immigrants over our southern border?  They encourage it.  In the process, they are feeding the drug cartels and all of their heinous gang activities.  They do this in part because they intend to make the illegal aliens into citizens one day and expect to garner most of their votes.  The Democratic Socialist Party is always motivated by a rabid power lust.  There is nothing so important to the leadership of that party as the thrill that comes with forcing others to do their will.  Because they want the US to be inundated with illegal immigrants, they are enriching and empowering the drug cartel gangs.  These gangs make life in their home countries unbearable and push ever more immigrants to enter the US illegally.  The root cause of immigration is thus well fertilized by the Biden administration.

Given the Biden family syndicate relationship with the Chinese Communist Party and many oppressive oligarchs of other countries, one has to wonder if they are also tied into the drug cartels.  Hunter Biden has real expertise in drugs, unlike in natural gas, pipelines, banking, and defense work where he, his uncle, and the Big Guy have made much money in their shady dealings with evil foreign actors.  Such a direct financial link with the drug cartels sure would fit the Biden family syndicate pattern and it would go far in explaining the obviously harmful open-border policies of the Biden administration.  Known immoral behavior patterns should not be ignored.  Serious investigation is needed into the motivation for the open border policies being followed by this generally wrongheaded and immoral administration filled with special interest Swamp Creatures with no regard for the welfare of American citizens.

Hillary Clinton Makes 12 Million Illegal Aliens Citizens

Hillary Clinton, on the campaign trail, accused Donald Trump of wanting to deport 12 million Americans. He has said, though he is not consistent in this, that he wants to deport 12 million illegal aliens.  Hillary, being a Clinton, may well say that she is right because most of the illegal aliens, no undocumented persons, are from either North America (Mexico and Central American states) or from South America, so they are Americans.  But for political reasons, she is trying to create the impression that she is conferring legal status on all of the illegal aliens, whose votes she wants in the future for the Democrats and whose U.S. citizen relatives or countrymen she wants to vote for her now.  Democrats being Democrats, she is actually not at all fussy about whether her voters are really citizens of the U.S. or not.  This is only too evident in past elections and in the opposition to voter identification.

Should Children of Illegal Aliens Born in the US be Automatic Citizens?

Robert Tracinski, who is usually a very astute thinker, has written on this subject in the Federalist.  This is a case where I believe he has used too broad a brush in making his argument in favor of the idea that literally anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen.  One may say it is a classic case of failing to understand context.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." 14th Amendment

First, in the present context of massive illegal immigration, it appears that the US and the states are not acting as though they have jurisdiction over the illegal immigrants. So the idea that this statement implies that every person born in the US is a citizen may be questioned on this basis. It is certainly true that the children of foreign staff of embassies and consulates born in the US are not included.

More importantly, Article I, Section 8 provides Congress the power "To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization...". This means that the 14th Amendment has as its context an established uniform rule of Naturalization and assumes that all persons within the US are there legally, albeit some as visitors and some as residents not yet citizens. This being the case, the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on the children of those legally in the United States who are born in the US, provided their parents and the child are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. This certainly included the one-time slaves of the south, almost all immigrants until relatively recent times, and the people of the conquered or annexed territories such as those of Alaska, Hawaii, the Mexican War, the Oregon Territory, the Louisiana Purchase, the Western Reserve, etc.  Robert Tracinski says that the denial of citizenship to the children of illegal aliens implies its denial to both the former slaves and to all immigrants.  This is not the case at all.

What is not at all clear is that the children of illegal visitors or immigrants to the US should be considered citizens of the US. In my opinion, it is not wise policy to grant them automatic citizenship, because it encourages illegal immigration.

Of course, some will claim that I do not like immigrants because I have made this point. That is not at all so. I favor a much more welcoming legal immigration policy than the one we have now in the law. But I do believe we should have an enforced, liberal immigration policy, which the Constitution implies was needed and desirable.

I have worked hard to promote the legal immigration or visitation rights of a number of very good scientists, who are also very good people. I have also observed that most of our illegal immigrants are in fact hardworking and good people. There is a need to have such people here under legal conditions, while we exclude or imprison felons.

All of my ancestors were legal immigrants of the second half of the 1800s, some of whom were of nationalities sufficiently discriminated against that they were named as examples in the immigration law of 1866 as people not to be discriminated against.

I almost always agree with Robert Tracinski, but not in this case.  It is not at all the case that one is throwing out the Constitution if one does not believe that every child born in the United States is automatically a citizen.

It is the Content, not the Number of Executive Orders that Matters

I just made the following comment to an article by Shadee Ashtari of the Huffington Post called Obama Has Issued Fewer Executive Orders Than Any President In Past 100 Years:

Counting the number of Executive Orders and claiming that all orders are justified by a given President if he has issued fewer than prior Presidents is complete nonsense. It is perfectly reasonable and consistent with the President's position as an executive to issue orders, so long as they do not interfere with the laws passed by Congress and signed by himself or a prior President. It is the content of the Executive Order that is all-important.

A very legitimate Executive Order would establish an interim policy for the enforcement of a law properly passed by Congress in which a real ambiguity was discovered while trying to implement it or in which an unanticipated situation arose which made enforcing the law clearly contrary to common sense. Upon issuing the Executive Order in such a case for an interim policy, the President should take the matter to Congress and ask Congress to resolve the ambiguity or treat with the circumstance with a new law. His interim policy should be carefully constructed not to infringe upon the constitutional powers of Congress by creating an effect Congress cannot readily re-direct with a new law.

Reagan's Executive Order on immigration was an attempt to implement a new law passed by Congress. That law had the unanticipated circumstance that the children of parents given amnesty by Congress were not themselves given amnesty. This was a truly unanticipated result tied largely to the Cuban refugee influx. George H. W. Bush was also trying to deal with unanticipated results of the fairly new immigration and naturalization law, though on a bigger scale. Obama, however, is doing by Executive Order what Congress under both George W. Bush and under Obama has refused to do. That refusal makes it clear that Obama is acting in opposition to many sessions of Congress and not just trying to deal with an ambiguity or unanticipated consequence of a recent law, which Congress has not yet had time to rectify. Congress has had time and has refused, which is it right to do under the Constitution. A President who defies that right is a despot.

There are even more common reasons for Executive Orders.  There are bound to be management issues in running the large executive branch which Congress simply does not wish to micromanage.  Examples might be how shall job performance evaluations be written up, what accounting method will be used to deal with a kind of situation, which federal land will be leased for oil and gas development next, etc.  One of the essential restrictions of a valid Executive Order is that only federal employees in the Executive Branch are required to take actions in response to the Executive Order.  The President cannot order any other American to do anything without the consent and authorization of Congress.

There is a better case, though a weak one, for Obama saying he will not use limited Homeland Security manpower and funding to deport some of the illegal aliens he has decided not to deport.  But, it is 100% clear that Obama is not empowered by the Constitution to have work permits issued to those he is not acting to deport.  That is very clearly a power that would reside only with Congress.

Additional Child Tax Credit for Tax Refunds for Children in Mexico

An Indiana TV station has a most interesting story on the foolish behavior of the federal government and the IRS in particular.  It has revealed that illegal aliens are filing federal tax returns claiming children as dependents living in the U.S., who are actually in Mexico.  According to tax returns, in one trailer in southern Indiana there are supposed to be four illegal male aliens living there with 20 children, most of them claimed to be nieces and nephews.  The only child actually living there, is one daughter of the only illegal alien living there.  Numerous such IRS falsified filings are resulting in tax refunds of $12,000 or more.  The annual cost to the taxpayer is more than $4 billion and the IRS is doing nothing about it.  The IRS agents are clearly too busy trying to keep non-Progressive Elitist groups from tax-exempt status and trying to take over our medical records and control of our health insurance to take possession of our very bodies.

Partisan Immigration Law Enforcement and the Dream Act

As we know, the Obama administration has attacked the people of Arizona and of various communities for attempting to get federal authorities to identify illegal aliens and to turn those so identified over to federal authorities for possible deportation.  We know also that some such identified illegal aliens are being released back onto American streets rather than being deported by federal authorities.  The Obama gang in control of our federal government has been highly motivated to make claims that state and local government efforts to enlist federal authorities in doing what federal law requires is an usurpation of federal powers.

Compare the issues with the Arizona law to the issue of ten states clearly violating federal law by providing tuition preferences to illegal aliens in state colleges and universities.  This is happening in California, Texas, Oklahoma, New York, Kansas, Illinois, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, and New Mexico.  This is a clear violation of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).  That act states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amout, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.

One of the chief ways in which these 10 states defy this federal law is by offering illegal aliens in-state tuition, while demanding that out-of-state citizens and nationals pay the much higher out-of-state tuition.  Where does the Obama gang of hoodlums stand on enforcing this immigration law violation by these ten states?  They are very silent, except that the Democrats have made repeated failed attempts to overturn this provision of federal immigration law.  The most recent attempt is the so-called DREAM Act.

Now, Senator Harry Reid has introduced the DREAM Act earlier this week as an attachment to the defense authorization bill.  It will:

• Provide an estimated 2 million college age illegal aliens citizenship upon completing two years of college studies in the U.S.
• Provide citizenship to illegal aliens who have served in the U.S. military.

Now, I am in favor of such provisions providing alien applicants a fast and assured legal path to residence as a national in the United States, provided they are not illegally in the U.S.  This application would be made from outside the U.S. or could be made by someone on a legal visa to visit or work in the U.S.  The applicant would need to show acceptance at a U.S. college and he would be given a legal student visa, which would be converted into a green card upon his graduation, combined with evidence of employment or an employment contract conditional upon the newly graduated student being given his green card.  Similarly, an alien might be given a one-year or two-year working permit as a visiting worker in the U.S. and if he applies for and is accepted by one of the armed services, he would be supplied a green card upon serving two years in the military.  Alternatively, the one-year or two-year working permit holder might enter college and obtain a green card upon graduation.  The one- and/or two-year working permit visas could be renewed as well, provided the applicant showed gainful employment and was not found guilty of any felonies.  But, all of these paths ought to be for those who are not illegal aliens.  The path to a green card should be a legal path.  Acceptance on a legal path to a green card should be quite generous.

The following Republican Senators are in favor of the easy paths to a green card for illegal aliens under the Democrat DREAM Act:

John McCain, Arizona
Richard Lugar, Indiana
Bob Bennett, Utah, an IIRIRA violating state
Sam Brownback, Kansas, an IIRIRA violating state

Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas, an IIRIRA violating state

Susan Collins, Maine
Olympia Snowe, Maine

Arizona Community Colleges Sued for Asking to See Green Cards

We hear that the Obama administration has been promoting more vigorous crackdowns on employers who hire illegal immigrants.  One might expect that employers would want to respond to that by checking on prospective employees more carefully before hiring them.  Now when I hire someone, I have to see and copy at least two forms of identification for each hire and register them with the New Hire Registry within 10 days of their first day of work.  In every case, my employees have provided a driver's license and a social security card, though other documents can be accepted.  Now, as we have all read, there is a large market supplying illegal immigrants with driver's licenses and social security cards.  It would seem logical that an employer, not being an expert in detecting counterfeit documents, might ask a non-citizen he might wish to employ for a green card.

Big mistake.  The Maricopa Community Colleges in the Phoenix area are being sued by the Obama Justice Dept. for asking non-citizen hires to show their green cards.  The Justice Dept. says that requiring any document beyond those required of citizens is discriminatory.  The government is asking a judge of the Executive Office for Immigration Review in the Justice Dept. to order the Maricopa colleges to pay a civil penalty of $1,100 for each of 247 non-citizen job applicants who were required to provide additional documents.  The county taxpayers probably do not have anything more important to use their income for than to replace the lost $271,700 of education money in their community colleges during this government-induced and prolonged recession!

Government-induced recessions cause high unemployment rates.  The government believes that equality of outcome is the way to judge whether discrimination has occurred.  Since the Bureau of Labor Statistics report of 6 August 2010 for the unemployment rates in July tell us that the government-induced recession has caused 8.7% of white people to be unemployed and 16.6% of black Americans to be unemployed, the government is guilty of mass discrimination by putting so many more black Americans out of work than white Americans.   If black Americans had the same unemployment rate as white Americans, there would be 1,431,000 fewer unemployed black Americans.  Since putting someone out of a job is surely at least 100 times worse than asking them to provide a green card, the government should be fined about $110,000 per extra black American they have put out of a job.  This yields a total "fine" of $157.41 billion.  Now the only effective way to fine the government is to force it to reduce taxes.  So its penalty for discriminating against black Americans by inducing this recession should be a tax reduction of $157.41 billion.  There should be additional fines for the Latino unemployment excess and for all the business losses that have occurred as well!

But of course the government lives by a very different set of rules than it imposes on the People it rules.  You will not see the Justice Dept. suing the government for such a tax break due to its truly discriminatory practices, given its false definition of discrimination.  That very false idea of discrimination is also behind the absurd report to the United Nations Council on Human Rights that claims that a state of the United States, Arizona, is violating the human rights of Americans.  We the People are ruled by an absurd government, which with its many violations of our Constitution and our equal, sovereign individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has established itself as an illegitimate government, as defined in our Declaration of Independence.

Ruling Against Arizona Immigration Law Would Set Broad Precedent Against State Assistance to Federal Law Enforcement

U. S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, "Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?"  I assume in the context it was clear she was talking about those here illegally.  The Obama Justice Department is arguing that the Arizona law be declared unconstitutional because it is preempted by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.  The judge seems critical of this preemption argument in her questioning.  She is being asked to grant a preliminary injunction against the Arizona law to keep it from taking effect while the federal challenge in the courts proceeds.

The Arizona law, SB1070, empowers police to question those they have a "reasonable suspicion" are illegal immigrants and send them to federal authorities for possible deportation.  The government argues that the supremacy clause of the Constitution requires that the Arizona law be ruled unconstitutional.  The fact that the Arizona law in no way contradicts the federal law apparently does not matter to the federal government.  The fact that the Arizona law simply has Arizona police asking the federal authorities to check to see if the person is here illegally and if they are not, they will be delivered to the federal authorities who will decide whether to deport them or not, does not matter.  Clearly, the Arizona law and Arizona police are not taking over the critical decisions of fact or interfering with the decision to deport or not.  They are simply assisting the federal decision makers.

Kneedler also argued that the Arizona law is an interference in foreign policy because it is making foreign governments mad.  Since when do foreign governments get to decide when U.S. laws will be enforced inside the U.S.? 

Kneedler also complained that federal agencies may be overwhelmed with immigration status checks and deportation requests.  The federal government is making the case that they wish to enforce federal law selectively.  That is, for person A, it will be enforced, but not for person B.  Does this mean the personal income tax should be enforced selectively also?  Perhaps the anti-trust laws should be enforced selectively?  Actually, they are.  Should the prohibition against laws abridging freedom of speech be selective?  Clearly the Democrat Congress thinks they should be.  Should the federal laws against murdering Federal judges or Congressmen be enforced selectively?  Ooopps, maybe not that one.

It is a bad principle of law when laws are not enforced equally against all lawbreakers.  If a law is a valid attempt to protect the equal, sovereign rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as all laws are in a legitimate government, then it must be equally enforced.  If it cannot be equally enforced, then it should not be law.

The Arizona law is clearly constitutional.  But, if it is determined by the courts that the law is unconstitutional, this will have a silver lining.  Basically, the finding would set the precedent that state cooperation with federal authorities to enforce federal laws is itself an interference with federal preemption!  Given that most federal laws, unlike immigration law, are unconstitutional because they are not based on powers given to the federal government, which are few and mostly pertain to foreign powers, and that many such laws are actually interferences with the state police power or the rights retained by individuals, it would be a great thing if the states and local governments could use the precedent of the overthrow of the Arizona law as justification for not assisting the federal government in any enforcement of federal law.  Federal authorities would then clearly have the books loaded with laws they could not enforce, except very selectively and infrequently.  That may result in the People understanding that these laws should not be on the books and need in most cases to be repealed.  It may result in many police powers being returned to the states and many rights violations by the federal government being ended.

How did these many federal infringements come about?  Teddy Roosevelt.  He was the first President who believed and even said that if he thought something should be done, he would do it if the Constitution did not explicitly tell him he could not do it.  Since the Constitution was written under the philosophy that the federal government had few powers and they were each carefully enumerated, there was no effort to create a list of the infinite number of powers an illegitimate government or a megalomaniac President might claim, but which were denied to them.  By inverting the purpose of the Constitution, Teddy Roosevelt gave himself a clean slate to become the tyrant he wished to become.  He observed that he saw no problem with a huge concentration of power in the hands of one leader.  Neither did Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or Obama.

Are Democrats Illiterate?

I propose to answer this question scientifically.

All good science begins with careful observation of reality.  So, let us examine the easily observed facts of Democrat behavior with special attention to the ability to read and reading comprehension.

Let us take note that in the last few months, many instances have been documented of Democrat Congressmen indicating that they have no to little idea of the content of the rather short and easily read fundamental documents of the United States of America.  They have failed to attribute our acknowledgment of our equal and sovereign individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to the Declaration of Independence, often mis-attributing that to the Constitution.  They have commonly referred to a General Welfare Clause in very confused ways and wrongly attributed powers to it, which are very, very far from its intent and context in the Constitution.  They have repeatedly made it clear that they do not understand the essays of the Federalist Papers which worked so hard to explain the purpose of the provisions of the Constitution.

They embrace socialism despite its failures among the Jamestown settlers and the early Pilgrims, in New Harmony, Indiana following 1825 when Robert Owen purchased it for his communitarian society, the failure of the socialist experiments in Italy, Germany, the USSR, Cambodia, China, North Korea, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.  The Swedes and the British had to back away from their more extreme adoption of socialism.  Yet, our Democrats are unaware of these problems.  Even in Canada, the more conservative recent management of the economy has allowed Canada a relatively quicker improvement in the recession than we have had in the U.S.  None of these facts are known or understood by the leadership of the Democrat Party, who so much want the U.S. government to duplicate those failed experiments.

The Democrats continue to claim that man is facing a global warming crisis, despite widely available accounts describing the huge failure of the science that was supposed to support that hypothesis.  They continue to believe that ethanol use mandates will help us achieve energy independence and give us cleaner air, though many easily read accounts inform us that this is not so.  They tell us that alternative energy will make America energy-independent and produce jobs, even as they destroy the coal industry and would provide unreliable electric power.  Again, many easily available accounts make it clear that alternative energy is not yet and will not probably be soon ready for prime time use.  They express ignorance of the many warming periods and cooling periods of the Earth's past, despite such records being easily available to the reader.

The Democrats still claim that minimum wage laws are good for those poor victims of discrimination that they, the Democrats champion, the young black male.  They have failed to read the accounts of how this minimum wage law proclivity has caused skyrocketing unemployment among inner city young black males.  They care not about those living in low cost-of-living rural flyover areas who are also badly affected by these thoughtless and cruel laws.

The Democrats have failed to note that the history books and economics have clearly shown that the life of the average man and the poor has been hugely benefited by the free markets of Capitalism.  Yet, they rail against it and the profit motive at every opportunity.  How many times have we heard Obama sneer at the profit motive and at those who have too much income, in his poor opinion.  Yet, the pursuit of wealth by the able has always created more jobs and more life security for the less able.  How has a college graduate and Harvard Law School graduate managed to be so completely ignorant of the literature of history and of economics?

Let us consider the Democrat Congressman in his home lair.  Bills are presented to him for his vote and he votes for them without reading them.  I suppose this could be an irresponsible act of laziness, but it may be that they are not able to read or if they do, they cannot understand what they have read.  In fact, a couple of Democrat Congressmen have actually said that they did not read the bills, such as the health care bill we call ObamaCare, because they would not understand it if they read it!  Given that one Congressman representing an Atlanta, GA district believes that islands float and that putting too many people on an island may make it tip over, the idea that there is a huge lack of reading comprehension takes on an elevated probability.  Obama himself has made many claims about the ObamaCare bill before it was passed and since he signed it into law, which are obviously wrong.  Now, we know he can read, because of his use of teleprompters.  But, this says nothing about his reading comprehension.  Either that is very poor, or he is lying to us almost constantly.

Another recent example of reading disabilities among Democrats is the short Arizona bill which carefully instructs the police to check for lawful presence in the United States when they are checking out another infraction of the law.  The bill clearly states that racial profiling must not be applied, and yet Obama says the law is bad because it will cause racial profiling.  Eric Holder, the Attorney General, says he is considering taking the state of Arizona to court over the illegal discrimination in the Arizona bill.  Yet, he has not read this short bill, so he is either hugely irresponsible or he has a very high threshold of dread for reading.  An Assistant Secretary of the State Department has apologized to the Chinese over and over about how the Arizona bill puts us on the same human rights plane the Chinese are on.  Apparently, he has read the Arizona bill and concluded that illegal aliens will be returned to countries where they will be shot as in Chinese returns of escaped North Koreans or that we will treat illegal aliens as the Chinese treat the Tibetans.  One wonders how he has read such actions into the bill.  Many, many thousands of other Democrats have made very negative assessments of the Arizona bill, implying that they either cannot comprehend what they read or they so dread trying to read and comprehend that they prefer to declare the law un-American to actually reading it.

Having come to the end of my observations on Democrats and reading, I must allow that in the total light of my understanding of human beings, those most complex and mysterious of all entities, I cannot be sure that Democrats cannot comprehend what they read.  The problem is that I know of counter-examples.  Being a scientist, I have worked with many a Democrat.  Some of them can read science and comprehend it, unless, at least in some cases, the science is said to have political and economic implications.  When these scientists read about topics infused with social and political implications, they suddenly have a selective loss of reading comprehension.  All things inconsistent with their allegiance to their dogma fall into their blind spot.  They simply cannot see them.  They cannot comprehend them.

So, I do believe there is a reading comprehension problem and even a thinking comprehension problem.  The Democrat problem is so deep an indoctrination into an ideology heavily laced with emotive feelings of envy, hate, cruelty, tribalism, group identity, self-loathing, self-victimization, guilt, uncertainty, dread, and other joyless feelings, that they cannot comprehend anything that does not fit into that negative worldview.  Where I see harmony, the satisfaction of individual needs and desires, a richness of choices, trades with mutual benefits, and equal opportunity in the free markets, they are only able to see exploitation, deprivation in not having something someone else has, having to make painful decisions about what they want, and any trade must have a winner and a loser.  This different worldview is so basic, I wonder if it is almost always embedded in most people while they are still children.  Thereafter, the Democrat simply cannot comprehend the world as it is so clear to me.

Proposed Republican Policy List for RNC Supported Candidates

It has been proposed that any candidate to be supported for election in 2010 by the Republican National Committee must support at least 8 of the following 10 policies:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

 I am going to comment on those of these that I disagree with or have some reservations about.  Here goes:

5)  I do support legal immigration and I wish to make it much easier for those who wish to immigrate with larger quotas and lower fees.  I do believe that immigrants should be encouraged to learn English and citizens should be required to know English.  I favor guest worker status which is relatively easy to obtain, so large numbers of those who are now illegal will have future options which are legal.  Those who are now illegal, but have otherwise not been convicted of any crime, who can obtain the recommendations of past employers, who are willing to pay a reasonable fee to alter their status to a legal guest worker status, and who then work 5 years as a guest worker with a continued clean record and further employer recommendations, should be able to obtain legal resident status.  These terms are simply approximations to what I think is a reasonable policy which will benefit the United States and I am open to further discussions on this complex issue.  My views may not be considered consistent with the intent of the resolution enforcers, however.

8)  I flat out reject the Defense of Marriage Act as an infringement of the right of individuals to live in accordance with their own chosen values and their own conscience.  I reject it also because marriage is a spiritual state of union between people and government has no proper role in such a spiritual matter.  Spiritual matters are the realm of individuals, who may chose to make their spiritual values those of a religion or give them a different basis.  What government does have a legitimate role in is domestic partnerships or civil unions by means of enforcing a contract between the parties.  These contracts should no more limit the persons by number or gender than do small business partnerships.  The legal contracts should have multiple standard terms for the care and responsibility for children, for the sharing of property, and for the sharing of medical expenses and decision-making.  The sexual orientation of the partners should be of no concern to the government.  Those of a religious conviction are free to be guided by their convictions in their domestic partnership and are free to have it blessed as a marriage by their religious authorities, but such status will have no legal bearing at all.  Government for its part will refrain from attempting to make any definition of marriage and will leave that to the religions and to the sovereign People.

9)  If the denial of health care is done by government edict, I agree with this statement.  However, I do not agree with it in the context that medical providers are to be forced to provide medical care, if that is the intent of this ambiguously worded statement.  While I support a woman's right to an abortion if she chooses one, it is also clear that taxpayers, many of whom disagree with this, have the right not to play a role in paying for abortions.  They have the right to their convictions and any attempt to make them complicit in an abortion is morally wrong.  Furthermore, partial birth abortions are too marginal to birth to be allowed by law.  They should clearly be illegal.  Once a child is no longer a part of a woman's body, it has the rights of any individual not to be murdered.  I am therefore in agreement with this statement with respect to abortions.

These 10 required positions are simply a proposal at this point.  It will be interesting to watch what happens to this proposal and whether any of my concerns will be addressed.

Obama's Misdirection on Illegal Immigrant Health Insurance

Obama has been making speeches in which he claims that the Democrat Congress's health insurance reform bills are being misrepresented. He has claimed over and over that if you like your present health insurance plan, you can keep it. This is true, but for many, it is only true for a very short time span and then it is blatantly false. Another of his common claims of misrepresentation is stated this way:

Let’s start with the false claim that illegal immigrants will get health insurance under reform. That’s not true. Illegal immigrants would not be covered.

Indeed, Section 246 of the House bill, HR 3200, says

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

As pointed out by Ernest Istook, a Distinguished Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, on Human Events.com, this is a magician's misdirection feat. The bill will do the following for illegal immigrants:

• They will receive expanded Medicaid benefits.
• Current law allows illegal aliens emergency medical care through Medicaid, but few states require proof of legal residence, so illegals easily get non-emergency Medicaid. Democrats voted down Republican efforts to close this no-verification path by requiring verification of legal residence in the HR 3200 bill and in the Senate bill.
  

So, illegal aliens will be allowed to do what they do with respect to Food Stamps. Federal regulations require the notification of immigration authorities if an illegal alien is found in a household applying for Food Stamps. The Clinton administration put out an Interagency Notice "that unless a person has already had a hearing and been formally determined to be an illegal immigrant, no government agency really 'knows' that they are illegal -- so they need not be turned in."

So, Obama attempts to use the magician's trick of misdirection to make us think that illegal immigrants will not be provided additional health care by the Democrat health insurance bills under consideration and he is widely backed up in the media. In fact, given that the government commonly calls Medicaid and Medicare health "insurance", he has lied to us in the quoted statement above. What the media say is generally that the claims that illegal immigrants will get added insurance coverage are false claims. But, by the customary technique of the Democrat administrations, illegal immigrants surely will get additional health insurance coverage under the Democrat health reform bills. It is clear that Obama lied in the opening statement above.

This approach to allowing the unallowable is common for Democrats. In 1937, the FDR administration and the Supreme Court, under court packing threats, decided that union violence was just right for America. They did not say union violence was fine. No, they just said that any union violence would be ignored by law enforcement agencies. In this way, a favored group is not offended even though there are many laws requiring that the government protect its citizens from violent acts.

Another instance of this same method was seen recently when Obama's Justice Department refused to prosecute the two Black Panthers who were armed and making intimidating moves against voters during the last presidential election in Philadelphia.

Any increased government involvement in health care will result in more health care spending for illegal aliens, because government refuses to recognize that illegal aliens are illegal. The Democrats have already made it very clear that this is their intention by voting down the Republican proposals for legal residence verification.