Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Crime, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Immigration, Law, National Security, The United States | Tags: A New Federal Agency, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton
Hillary is moving farther and farther to the left to compete with Bernie Sanders as she pushes for votes in New York. The former Secretary of State announced that she would make it easier for immigrants to become citizens in a meeting with New York activists. She promised to “make it a priority to create a new federal agency which would knock down ‘all the barriers’ to citizenship, especially for all those Americans in Waiting who are in the country illegally.”
“The hassle of becoming a citizen is sometimes overwhelming,” Clinton said, referring to the millions of immigrants in the United States who are eligible for citizenship but have not applied. “We should not add a series of barriers.”
“I’m using this campaign to knock down all the barriers,” she added.
Clinton touted her plan to create a new federal agency called the Office of Immigration Affairs to streamline services to both legal and illegal immigrants in the Manhattan meeting, which was timed just ahead of a New York primary in which support of the Latino community will be important.
We are not in urgent need for more citizens, and the path to citizenship should be somewhat difficult. We need future citizens who really want to become Americans, who are willing to learn the language, learn something about our history, and something about our customs and laws. That is not a barrier to becoming a citizen, Hillary, but a blessing for the citizen to be, and an important thing for our country.
Hillary apparently, once upon a time, passed the bar exams and became a practicing lawyer. Surely she had to read the Constitution at some point. But then Obama claims to have taught Constitutional Law, (he apparently taught Alinsky instead) and has been engaged for over seven years in finding ways to get around the Constitution with executive orders and administrative law.
We have a federal agency that deals with exactly those problems. It’s called Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and could use some support from the administration. The last thing this country needs is another federal agency. If our elected officials and office seekers fail to take the rule of law seriously, I suppose they don’t see it as important for new citizens either. Do we need another president who fails to enforce our laws—just the ones she or he likes?
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Humor, Media Bias, News, Politics, Progressives | Tags: Hillary Clinton, PJ Media, Uncle Bill Whittle
Hey kiddos, it’s time for Uncle Bill to read a story– its a charming tale about a super breed of woman, a true leader from birth, Hilary Clinton! Gather round!!
(h/t: P J Media)
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Economics, Foreign Policy, History, Humor, News, Politics, Progressives, The United States | Tags: CBS's Scott Pelley, Hillary Clinton, Longstanding Habit
You have probably heard about this, but you shouldn’t miss hearing it direct from her lips. Scott Pelley didn’t seem to be taken in either.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Crime, Domestic Policy, Intelligence, Law, National Security, The United States | Tags: "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy", Carly Fioriana, Hillary Clinton
Carly Fiorina, if you remember, did so well in the “undercard” debates that she moved up into the main debate — two debates ago — and she did well, though she remarked that people were just getting to know her, which was true. At that point, she ceased to exist. She appeared as an effective candidate, and I thought she seemed a potential Margaret Thatcher, and wanted to know more about her.
But she disappeared from public notice. She was busy campaigning, and appeared on some radio shows, notably Hugh Hewitt’s, but there was not a mention of her in the mainstream media. With no buzz about her candidacy, she became invisible. The media had apparently determined that since Hillary was running as “the first woman.” she did not need any female competition, particularly competition from someone so competent that she made Hillary look bad, and not only that, but who expressed her eagerness to debate Hillary.
That’s what the left-leaning press does. Invisible and with no mention in the press, interest waned, and it was back to the undercard debate. That’s the media exerting their influence over the outcome of an election. The Trump attention evolved into overkill, and people realized what was going on.
Hillary, they say, is the most qualified candidate in the campaign. Depends on what you mean by “qualified.” She has had a number of important titles, but a singular lack of specific accomplishment in any of the occupations. Her jobs have been a succession of scandals from Whitewater to Benghazi to jeopardizing national security and the lives of the people who make our nation secure — with an attempt to hide all of her correspondence from public view. Why? No one knows.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Crime, Environment, Immigration, National Security, Politics, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, The New York Times
After the attack in Paris, and before the attack in San Bernardino, Hillary Clinton offered up the Leftist Bluebook formula: “Let’s be clear: Islam in not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”
A few days back, President Obama jetted to Paris spewing clouds of CO2 which he believes to be destroying the planet and uttered the undying words “a declaration that for all the challenges we face, the growing threat of climate change could define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other. What should give us hope that this is a turning point that this is the moment when we finally determined we could save our planet, is the fact that our nations share a sense of urgency about this challenge and a growing realization that it is within our power to do something about it.”
The New York Times felt so strongly about “weapons of war” that they put their editorial right on the front page. “End the Gun Epidemic in America It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.” They should be embarrassed. They hauled out all their best adjectives and strong words — Moral outrage, national disgrace, “America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing.” Barbara Boxer offered her testimony on the efficacy of California’s strong gun laws.
If the terrorist couple in San Bernardino had managed to get away, they had already produced an armory of 12 pipe bombs. They were made from Christmas tree lights, toy cars and other ingredients that anyone can buy anywhere. quite effective at killing and maiming. France has very strict gun laws, which essentially eliminate the possibility of guns in the hands of anyone but police. So does Britain, there even the police are unarmed. A young unarmed soldier was attacked and brutally killed on a public street with machetes.
The Times’ fatuous comment was — “at least they ‘re trying. The United States is not.” Pompous editorial, petty conclusions. A lot of killings have been prevented by civilians who are licensed to carry. The rate of gun crime has been going down steadily since the mid 1990s. With Obama releasing big numbers of people sentenced for non-violent crimes, it may well start back up again. There is a reason why the number of crimes has gone down, most likely, more people serving time for crime.
The Wall Street Journal summed it up nicely
President Obama entered the White House believing that the “war on terror” was a misguided overreaction driven by political fear, and his government even stopped using the term. Seven years later Mr. Obama is presiding over a global jihadist revival that now threatens the American homeland more than at any time since the attacks of September 11, 2001. …
The FBI director said more than once that the investigation is in the early stages, but he deserves support for speaking frankly about the evidence and dangers. Every instinct of this Administration, starting with the President, has been to minimize the terror risk on U.S. soil—perhaps because it contradicts Mr. Obama’s political belief that all we have to fear is fear of terrorism itself.