Every year around this time, no matter what circuses spiral around us, we gather together to give thanks to the Lord for all of His Blessings bestowed on us. And so it is that Rush also recounts the real story of the first Thanksgiving: How it happened, what it is, how it came to be. You know, the stuff that isn't being taught anymore!
Excerpts from 'Chapter 6: Dead White Guys, or What the History Books Never Told You, the True Story of Thanksgiving,' from See, I Told You So (a story retold in the first book of his children's series, Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims):
"The story of the Pilgrims begins in the early part of the seventeenth century... The Church of England under King James I was persecuting anyone and everyone who did not recognize its absolute civil and spiritual authority. Those who challenged ecclesiastical authority and those who believed strongly in freedom of worship were hunted down, imprisoned, and sometimes executed for their beliefs. A group of separatists first fled to Holland and established a community."
"After eleven years, about forty of them agreed to make a perilous journey to the New World, where they would certainly face hardships, but could live and worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from?
"From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote.
"There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims -- including Bradford's own wife -- died of either starvation, sickness or exposure." For a long time, many of them continued to live on the Mayflower. There was nowhere else to live. "When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper!
"This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives," and teaching them to grow food and eat and all that, "rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments." The Bible. Remember, these were religious people. They set out on a journey to a place that they had no idea of, and they just found barren wilderness.
The very idea that they survived -- even before they began to prosper, the very idea that they just survived -- was what gave them pause to thank God. That was the original Thanksgiving, and that's not taught. The original Thanksgiving is taught as, "If it weren't for the Indians, Pilgrims would have died. The Indians saved their bacon! The Indians saved them." It's an understandable effort here, but that's not what happened, is the point.
"Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors..." in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community," all 40 of them, "was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well."
It was a commune. It was socialism! Because they wanted to be fair. "They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. "It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California -- and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way," in case you'd like to know. "Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives," and half the people weren't carrying their weight, didn't have to.
"He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage," and they got to keep the bulk of what they produced, "thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! ... "What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation!
"But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years ... the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future. 'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years,'" meaning it was tough for a long time, "'that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote."
Meaning: We thought we knew, but we were wrong.
"'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.'" So what happened was, the hard workers began to see a bunch of slackers. Even in the first Pilgrims, they had a bunch of slackers, and they said, "What the hell are we doing? If everybody's getting an equal share here and half of these people aren't working, to hell with this!" and they threw it out.
William Bradford wrote about it in the journal. "The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work," and they were permitted to use it as they saw fit, "and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result? 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'"
They had surpluses. You know what they did with the surpluses? They shared them with the Indians. Capitalism, as opposed to socialism, produced abundance, the likes of which they had never experienced. They remembered the help they got when they first landed from the Indians. They shared their abundance. That's the first Thanksgiving: A thanks to God for their safety, a thanks to God for their discovery, and a thanks to the Indians by sharing the abundance that they themselves produced after first trying what could only be called today Obamaism or Clintonism or socialism.
That, my friends, is the real story of Thanksgiving.
Happy Thanksgiving, friends...and God Bless!
Related link: The Real Story of Thanksgiving
Here's some food for thought:
IntellectualTakeout: For over 400 years Rome was the world's greatest republic and then, in a matter of decades it was gone, replaced by an empire. Instead of representative leaders elected by citizens, an emperor ruled with supreme executive power. What happened in between the two periods is a mess of political wrangling for power and influence.
After Rome vanquished Carthage and Greece to consolidate power in the Mediterranean around 130 B.C., she was threatened by internal unrest. Noble plebeian and patrician families allied to consolidate power in the Senate and to exclude all others. At the same time, large numbers of indebted farmers lost their land and flocked to Rome. They became a mob with the right to vote and little interest in politics. The ground was laid for a class-based struggle for power and the collapse of the Republic.
Soon, conflict flared between the aristocracy, lead by Sulla, and Marius, leader of the popular party. Sulla marched on Rome, bringing legionaries into Rome for the first time. It was a turning point. From then on, Rome's republic was at the mercy of the leader with the strongest army. As these leaders vied for political control, they bought off public approval through welfare provisions of bread and occasional wine as well as huge gladiatorial competitions. The policy has since become known as "Bread and Circuses." Despite the speeches of Cicero and others, over time the people of Rome lost interest in governing themselves and were content to slip quietly into their role as subjects of an emperor.
Sadly, I can think of more than a few modern examples of bread and circuses in America.
May this serve as a reminder of the dangers of government largess corrupting the soul of a nation.
“The notion that this is simply prosecutorial discretion is simply nonsense. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish our immigration laws and what the president announced this week is a wholesale refusal to follow our immigration laws, to enforce our immigration laws. Number one, for 4 to 5 million people here illegally he is promising to print up and give work authorizations. Essentially, he’s gotten into the job of counterfeiting immigration papers because there is no legal authority to do what he is doing. He is simply giving work authorizations and claiming unilateral authority. But secondly, the memo that he put out — not the speech, the memo that he put out to the Department of Homeland Security — says that they are not to enforce immigration laws other than for violent criminals and a few discreet categories. For most of the 12 million people here illegally, the president is instructing the executive branch to no longer enforce the immigration laws. It is a stunning and sad display of a president declining to take care of his constitutional obligations and take that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Time to listen to sound strategy, GOP!
NRO: Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) proposed a plan to stop President Obama’s administrative amnesty, the first step of which can only be taken by incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.).
“Step number one that I have called for is the incoming majority leader should announce that if the president implements this lawless amnesty, that the Senate will not confirm any executive or judicial nominees, other than vital national security positions, for the next two years, unless and until the president ends this lawless amnesty,” Cruz told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. “If the majority leader would announce that, it would impose real consequences on the president and the administration.” ...
“The second constitutional power we’ve got is the power of the purse,” Cruz continued. “And we should fund, one at a time, the critical priorities of the federal government, but also use the power of the purse to attach riders.”
By riders, Cruz is likely referring to an appropriations bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security but stipulate that none of the funds appropriated may be used to implement Obama’s recent executive orders. And, following Cruz’s thinking, if Obama vetoes that bill next year, it wouldn’t result in a government-wide shutdown because Congress will have passed bills funding other parts of government.
Cruz’s plan is very similar to the one he hoped to execute during the fight to defund Obamacare, with one crucial difference: Republicans now control the Senate, so Harry Reid, in theory, can’t block the bills that would fund the rest of government.
“We’ve got to demonstrate that the campaign words Republicans used on the trail were more than just talk, that we’re willing to honor or commitment,” Cruz said.
There was the attempted stinger at the end by Wallace bringing up the government shutdown (remember, only 17%, folks; big whoop!), but Cruz quickly turned that around on him with the results of the midterm elections.
Cruz also joined Fox & Friends this morning with much of the same discussion...
So...Take Two! No excuses this time to oppose your own guy, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn and the rest of the GOP Senate leadership...you'll run the Senate come January, now act like it! This will all be on Obama.
Something tells me this will still be asking a lot from a hapless McConnell cabal, who generally think it's better to work with political opposition that's destroying the country for the sake of media headlines and campaign coffers, than, you know, to fight for the people who empowered them, not to mention securing the future stability of our republic.
Related links: Sen. Ted Cruz proposes new way to fight ‘Obama’s illegal amnesty’
Ted Cruz: The Senate must block all presidential nominees until Obama rescinds his amnesty
Video: SNL cold open rips Obama on immigration executive order
Umm, more like fired. And that didn't take long!
Breitbart: The New York Times reports that President Barack Obama is about to dismiss Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. The reason given? That the White House recognized that "the threat from the Islamic State would require a different kind of skills than those that Mr. Hagel was brought on to employ." In other words: Hagel was brought on to downgrade the military radically, but now the military turns out to be necessary, after all.
Yet that cannot be the only reason, absent any sign that Obama is committing to a sudden, steep increase in the defense budget, and reversing the non-sequester cuts of recent years. Rather, there are two likely explanations: that Hagel has turned out to be as incompetent as his critics predicted; and that Hagel, always a loose cannon, proved too independent, promising tougher action against ISIS than Obama was prepared to authorize.
Hagel should never have been chosen for the post. He had no firm grasp of national security strategy, was weak on Iran, had a disturbing anti-Israel track record, and fumbled his confirmation hearing badly. Other nominees, including Michèle Flournoy--who would have been the first woman to hold the post--would have been better, but Obama could not pass up the chance to use a Republican as a bipartisan fig leaf to slash the Pentagon.
That said, there is no immediate or urgent failure that ought to have triggered Hagel's departure. Until he began to "go rogue" on ISIS, he had faithfully carried out Obama's policies. Perhaps the threat of ISIS became too urgent for even Hagel to ignore, as senior military leaders began pushing for ground troops.
The real problem is in the White House, not at the Pentagon. Given that, only a greater fool than Hagel would rush to replace him.
Now, Hagel wasn't much of a Republican, but I can't help but think the results of the midterms factored into this timing as well. That's how much of an ideologue this president is.
Related link: Is Hagel’s resignation a first sign of the administration’s implosion?
Superb point! Now WE just need a leader to cut through the RINO gauntlet...
PowerLine: The Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine holds that a president is not required to implement or enforce laws passed by Congress with which he disagrees. Obama’s use of the doctrine sets an interesting precedent for the next chief executive, who likely will be a Republican.
For example, a Republican could adopt the Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine with regard to corporate income taxes by directing the IRS to cease all efforts to enforce those portions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to income taxes payable by corporations. This would be great public policy. My law school tax professor once remarked that there is no intellectually respectable argument for the corporate income tax, other than the fact that it employs an army of lawyers and accountants. Repealing, in effect, the corporate income tax would give the economy an enormous shot in the arm.
Or, if a Republican president didn’t want to go that far, he could stop enforcing those provisions of the tax code relating to taxation of repatriated profits. This is an area where the right policy is obvious, but Congress has failed to act. Without the tax on repatriated earnings, somewhere between $1 and $2 trillion would flow back into the American economy.
Environmental policy is another area where the Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine could be applied. The Environmental Protection Agency, as now operated, probably does more harm than good. A Republican president could suspend enforcement of all federal environmental laws, thereby putting the EPA out of business, and remit all environmental regulation to the states and to private actions sounding in nuisance and trespass. This would result in a major improvement in the nation’s environmental policies. Or, if he preferred, the president could single out for non-enforcement some, but not all, environmental laws.
Under the Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine, a president can’t enact new laws by decree, but he can exercise his discretion by not enforcing existing laws. This means that the doctrine is a one-way ratchet with an inherently libertarian bent. Given a little thought, conservatives could come up with a long list of laws that we would be better off without. Each one would be a candidate for the Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine.
My guess is that if a Republican president applied Obama’s doctrine a couple of times, the Democrats would say “uncle.” There would be bipartisan support for a constitutional amendment to make it beyond dispute that the Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine is defunct. That goal could be accomplished through a constitutional amendment requiring that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” or some such language. But in the meantime, Republican presidents could use Obama’s precedent to good effect.
If not 'Uncle', then certainly 'Impeachment!' But as feckless as Republicans are now, even after achieving a landslide victory just a few short weeks ago, if a president in that same vein (i.e., Jeb Bush) were to find himself in the Oval Office, it's highly unlikely he'd have the stomach or other anatomical parts to act on behalf of the people, and thus the republic.
No, they're too busy attacking conservatives, while playing footsie with progressivism...
"We must demonstrate to Americans we are the Party that will tackle serious challenges and build broad-based consensus to achieve meaningful reforms for our citizens and our future." ~ Jeb Bush 11/20/14
A big, bloated tent, don't you know, with everyone but the base.
"[T]he Constitution doesn’t say, “the President should obey the law until he gets frustrated.” Now, the President’s argument is, "Gee, I was patient for a long time.” Well, who is he to be patient? The Constitution is a larger system in which he's one piece."
Regards of what you think about Newt, he's SPOT ON!
NewsBusters: Following President Barack Obama’s speech announcing his executive order on illegal immigration, CNN political commentator and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich unloaded on the President, likening his speech to statements made by ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber and that those in the “elite” class “really underestimate” the disdain Americans have for unfortified borders.
Responding on CNN in the minutes after it ended, Gingrich opined that it was wrong for the President to go against the incoming Congress as it had “repudiated his policies in the election” a few weeks ago. Gingrich then slammed what viewers just heard as “a Gruber speech” where the President was “simply not telling the country the truth.”
After predicting that it will cause a massive increase in bureaucracy at the Department of Homeland Security, he concluded his first thoughts on the speech by saying that Obama’s decision to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” on his own “is absolutely dishonest and this is a very dishonest speech.”
Following being asked by host Anderson Cooper if he thinks Obama’s executive action will increase illegal immigration, Gingrich pointed out that it would because Obama’s remarks on immigration are heard worldwide and will likely lead to some packing up and coming to the United States for “the next amnesty.”
Related link: Gingrich: "People Are Enormously Offended And Frightened By A President They See As Uncontrollable And Outside the Constitution"
Sometimes, you just need Mark to help cut through all the BS...
On Thursday's Mark Levin Show: We take President Obama's amnesty speech live where he says he will use an Executive Order to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants here for 5 years or more. If this was such a great idea, why didn't he bring it to Congress and go thru the Constitutional process? Instead, Obama ignored the American citizen that is going to be the one suffering here and having to subsidize these illegal immigrants. What's worse is that our Republican Congress refuses to stand up to the President, they refuse to realize that the American people want change from Obama which is why we voted them into power in the Senate, and they won't do anything about it. It is now evident that voting isn't enough anymore, because the politicians disregard us if they don't agree with it. The Democrat Party has now become the Far Left Totalitarian Party and pushed out any moderates that they may have had. Mark says that Obama sounded like a despot in his speech despite how he was trying to portray himself.
Eventually disgusted with Obama's ridiculous speech, Levin had enough, shut him off, and proceeded with the following 3rd hour brilliance...
"You know, I listen to this, and I think to myself, 'Has he said one positive thing about the American citizen, who breaks his or her back to subsidize illegal immigrants who are hiding in the emergency rooms, hiding in the public schools, who are hiding in daylight?'
The fact of the matter is more American citizens pick that fruit and pick those vegetables than illegal aliens. That's a fact. The fact of the matter is the American people are paying confiscatory taxes for people who are here illegally and subsidizing them. It is a net huge loss to our economy. The fact of the matter is we have an enormous number of American citizen and legal immigrant kids who've graduated from colleges and universities with advanced degrees who can't find jobs because of this man.
And now they're gonna have to compete with imported, foreign, high-skilled labor. We have many minorities in this country--blacks in particular, latinos in the country, home-grown--who can't get first jobs, who can't get full-time jobs. They're low-skilled or unskilled. Now, they're gonna be competing for these jobs.
Who does this man think he's fooling?
He goes on, and he paints this picture, 'we're a nation of immigrants for 200 years.' We're a nation of laws for 200 years! We're a constitutional republic.
If he felt this strongly, you'd have to ask yourself why in his first two years when he controlled everything, why didn't he do a damn thing? He did nothing.
He sees this as a political expedient.
He gave that speech, he went back to his advisors, they're smiling, patting him on the back, 'Good job, El Presidente, good job.'
Remember this guy Gruber... Remember what he said about how they sold Obamacare. The stupid American people, the stupid voter. The American people, who don't understand economics. The American people, we'll tax them indirectly, so they don't know what we're doing. The American people, who think they're gonna get to keep their healthcare, when they won't. This is the same president who brought in Gruber, pretends he doesn't know him. He brought him in as the chief architect of Obamacare! Now he just gave this speech, and he still thinks you're stupid. He still rejects the voters.
If he believes he had this overwhelming case to make, that he claims he made tonight, he should've made it to Congress. Congress isn't required to do Obama's bidding anymore than he's required to do their bidding.
So, they can paint the picture of the great would-be citizen, who comes in this country illegally, while he ignores the American citizen all together.
No talk about criminals who come across the border. No talk about diseases, tuberculosis and so forth. No talk about the impact on local school districts and emergency rooms and hospitals and law enforcement. No talk about it at all! He paints a fantasy picture.
We are not against immigration. I don't know anybody who's against immigration.
We are against lawlessness, whether practiced by foreigners, or the man in the White House."
COMMERCIAL BREAK
"Another ruse. I'm not kidding about this. Another complete ruse. He didn't tell you all the facts, did he?
This is unlawful executive amnesty. He lied about prior Republican and Democrat presidents. This is how you know what he's doing is conniving. He didn't tell you they're gonna be eligible for certain government benefits, did he? He didn't tell you there'd be work permits for up to 5 million illegal aliens, competing with low-skilled and unskilled Americans, did he? He didn't tell you he's creating a back door way to citizenship and chain migration for illegal immigrants, did he? He didn't tell you he's going to massively expand some of the most controversial foreign worker programs for IT corporations, did he? No, no, he positioned that as 'we have to stop exporting these jobs for people who go to school here, our colleges and universities, and then go back to other countries. Is that a huge problem?
What about American citizens? Did he say a thing about what we American citizens contribute to the economy of the country? You know there are like 300 million of us?
I love it when they say, 'we're a nation of immigrants.' Yes, but we're also a nation of CITIZENS who come from immigrants! And the vast majority of our immigrant ancestors didn't come to this country the way these immigrants came to the country. The front door, not the back door. I don't care where are ancestors are from.
So the fact of the matter is he doesn't talk about the Constitution once, he doesn't talk about all the subsidies and resources that the American citizen provides for people who come here illegally. It's a one-way street apparently. 'They pick your apples, they pick your grapes, so, eh, that's great, there ya go!' But American citizens do that too!
American citizens do hard jobs! American citizens work in the coal mines that this man is closing! American citizens work in the steel mills that this man is closing! American citizens work on the commercial boats; they bring us our fish that he's shutting down! American citizens work at public utilities that he's shutting down, that create energy! And I could go on and on.
Not a word about the American citizen! NOTHING! Not a word about taxes to subsidize any of this. Nothing. And of course, not a word about voting, eventually."
Mark went on to make the point that our Immigration Laws are not anywhere near as horrible as Obama would have you believe. There's an endless string of visas that allow immigrants here. The simple fact is that the governmental ruling class will not ENFORCE THEM! That is what doesn't work!
But back to the way WE are viewed by this president and his ilk...
"Isn't it amazing, WE THE PEOPLE, the Citizens, we're called all kinds of things. Racist! Extremists! Stupid! They don't give a sh*t, that's what they call us. That's how they abuse us and manipulate us. And here, everybody coming into this country illegally, everybody overstaying whatever visa they have and so forth, they're virtuous, they're noble, they're hard-working, they want to come out of the shadows. What is it? Everybody from Mexico, Honduras, everybody from east Europe and Africa, everybody from the Middle East, is virtuous and noble, and WE THE PEOPLE, who created this society they seek to come into, we're CRAP?!
Obama says he wants to have a discussion. He doesn't want to have any discussion! Look at what he just did! It's a FIAT!"
...
"And I resent the fact that a President of the United States, and he's not the only one, McCain does it, Romney does it, they all do it, talk about the greatness of the illegal alien. Not the greatness of the American citizen, but the greatness of the illegal alien. That is what we constantly talk about. It's really unbelievable.
Citizens here? 'Well, you didn't become successful on your own.' 'You don't pay enough taxes.' 'You don't have skin in the game.' 'What do you want?' Right? 'You don't know how to eat; Michelle will tell your kids what to eat.' 'You don't know what to drive; you're a bunch of schmucks.' Right, Gruber? The American People are stupid; the voters are stupid; don't be transparent; that's how we got away with this! Just like Obama here. He doesn't want to be transparent, because you'll be furious."
Whose leader is Barack Obama, again? It's hard to tell!
This speech was nothing more than lies atop damn lies, and an overarching pathology with multiple paths to backdoor amnesty for millions of illegals, who have no inclination to assimilate into American culture, but will assuredly be intertwined within the welfare state of this president's redistributive makings. Lawlessness, any way you see it.
Related links: Mark Levin: The System Is Collapsing
Amnesty Mark Levin Outlines RINOS 4 Point Plan To Continue To Getting Butts Kicked By Obama Listen
Mark Levin: Lawlessness begets lawlessness...
Illegals Flooding Attorney’s Offices With Calls To See If They Qualify For Obama’s Amnesty
Obama Speaks For 15 Minutes – Refers To Himself 31 Times
White House: C’mon You Guys, Obama Isn’t “Tearing Up the Constitution” On Executive Amnesty
It's times like now that you'd be wholly justified in asking yourselves, 'What the hell did we just vote these guys back into power for?' Erick Erickson lays it out in all its repugnance...
RedState: You people are being played by the GOP. Remember when the GOP wanted to raise the debt ceiling, but claim they would oppose it. They voted to raise it, but then Congress could vote to stop the raise. The President could then veto the stoppage and the debt ceiling would raise. But the GOP could claim they opposed him.
That is happening again. This time it is with amnesty.
The House GOP is going to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government. Then, in January, they will try to defund what they’ve already funded. The President will veto it, but the GOP can say they tried.
They won in a historic wave election against the President with a majority of the public on their side on this issue and they are going to cave.
Already, the House Appropriations Committee has released a statement saying the appropriations process cannot stop the President. The statement reads:
The primary agency for implementing the President’s new immigration executive order is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This agency is entirely self-funded through the fees it collects on various immigration applications. Congress does not appropriate funds for any of its operations, including the issuance of immigration status or work permits, with the exception of the “E-Verify” program. Therefore, the Appropriations process cannot be used to “de-fund” the agency. The agency has the ability to continue to collect and use fees to continue current operations, and to expand operations as under a new Executive Order, without needing legislative approval by the Appropriations Committee or the Congress, even under a continuing resolution or a government shutdown.
Got that? No appropriation can be made from the federal treasury without Congress’s consent, but they cannot stop this.
However, Erickson points to Sean Davis' explanation of how Republicans can indeed defund Obama’s executive order...they just don’t want to.
TheFederalist: President Barack Obama’s executive order on immigration hasn’t even been issued yet, and already congressional Republicans are desperately trying to come up with reasons why they’re powerless to do anything about it.
Here’s what the House Appropriations Committee spokesman told The Hill earlier today:
It would be “impossible to defund President Obama’s executive order through a government spending bill, House Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Jennifer Hing said Thursday.
Congress doesn’t provide funding to U.S. Citizenship and Immgiration Services (CIS), the agency responsible for issuing work permits and green cards. Instead, the agency is funded through fees.
“We cannot, literally cannot, defund that agency in an appropriations bill because we don’t appropriate that agency. That agency is entirely-fee funded,” Hing told reporters.
“As of right now, our understanding is the primary agency responsible for implementing any type of executive order is CIS and we don’t fund CIS. There are no appropriated dollars,” she added.
That is absolute nonsense. The notion that Congress can turn on a money spigot but is banned from turning it off is nonsense. And the worst part is that it’s willful nonsense. There is simply no law whatsoever that says that the House is only allowed to X and Y but not Z on an appropriations bill.
Now why would appropriators be so invested in pushing something completely false about the Congressional power of the purse? Easy. They don’t want another defund/shutdown fight. I get that. I understand that a lot of Republicans think the 2013 shutdown seriously hurt the long-term interests of the party. I don’t agree with it, but I understand that concern. But what’s happening right now is that rather than just saying, “We don’t want another defund/shutdown fight,” appropriators are dishonestly pretending that even if they wanted one, it’s impossible. Which is balderdash.
Indeed. But as such, the GOP is trotting guys out there touting a so-called strategy of funding the government for now, then trying to take it all away in January. 'Cause the Democrats are so eager to help Republicans? On what fantasy island?
In other words, the House Republicans are going to fund the President’s amnesty plan and then try to tell you how much they oppose it. You are being played.
Kinda puts a damper on the 'well, at least the Republicans have the Senate back' line, doesn't it?
Related links: Republican leaders hope to contain outrage in the ranks over Obama immigration moves (RINO BS)
Poll Finds Americans Want Parties to Work Together (more RINO BS)
A time for testing (a worthwhile piece!)
ADDENDUM: Speaking of funding...actually, looting is a more operative word.
ConservativeHQ: One of the issues that killed the Senate’s hated “Gang of Eight” amnesty for illegal aliens bill was that it allowed the amnestied illegal aliens to immediately access public benefits reserved for citizens and legal immigrants.
House conservatives correctly argued that the “Gang of Eight” bill and its various House companion bills would allow illegal aliens immediate access to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and various other welfare programs, such as food stamps.
While the proponents of the “Gang of Eight” bill tried to finesse the issue the bottom line was and is that once the government gives a Social Security number and card to an illegal alien that opens up a whole smorgasbord of federal, state and local benefits – and it also opens up the possibility of registering to vote.
Now the Federation of American Immigration Reform has produced a stunning report that details how Obama’s planned illegal “executive amnesty” will provide the same free ride that the “Gang of Eight” bill did.
“Obama’s executive amnesty isn’t only unconstitutional but costly; from day one it opens up federal and state benefits to individuals who are still illegal aliens, regardless of the label the President puts on them,” FAIR executive director Julie Kirchner told Matt Boyle of Breitbart News in an exclusive interview in advance of the report’s public release.
The seven-page report from FAIR details how either of the two major mechanisms through which Obama would grant the executive amnesty to millions of illegal aliens would ultimately end up with those millions of illegal aliens taking U.S. taxpayer benefits away from struggling Americans almost immediately.
And Republicans still wanna pretend their strategy still has a chance? Please...
ADDENDUM II: Oh, btw...following Obama's speech, this is all the House Republicans could muster up...
What f'n fix?! Better yet, nothing's being enforced to fix in the first place! Pathetic.
Related link: Amnesty Mark Levin Outlines RINOS 4 Point Plan To Continue To Getting Butts Kicked By Obama Listen
“The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” ~ Senator Barack Obama, March 31, 2008
State-run media can attempt to distort past Republican presidents' clean-up executive actions, but there is no precedence for what Obama is about to dictate tonight, which is two-fold: instructions for law enforcement to ignore law, while inviting a further invasion...
NRO: The latest from apologists for President Obama’s planned decree to unilaterally amnesty perhaps 5 million illegal aliens is that Reagan and Bush Sr. did it, so what’s the problem?
...the fallback position of those claiming precedent is to grasp at two actions taken by Reagan and the elder Bush that came in the wake of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) amnesty. Nice try.
The Reagan administration action that amnesty advocates point to is simply irrelevant to the current case and trumpeted only because Reagan’s name is attached to it. In what was a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion shortly after passage of the 1986 law, INS announced that as a practical matter it would look the other way under certain circumstances with regard to minor children both of whose parents received amnesty but who did not themselves qualify for the amnesty. It granted no work permits, Social Security numbers, or driver’s licenses. In the context of trying to implement the convoluted IRCA amnesty, I might well have done the same thing.
George H. W. Bush’s 1990 “family fairness” policy is at least somewhat germane, in that it provided for renewable “voluntary departure” (i.e., amnesty) for certain spouses and children of amnesty beneficiaries, including work authorization. But it is no precedent either...
...both Reagan’s and Bush’s moves were cleanup measures for the implementation of the once-in-history amnesty that was passed by Congress. In other words, it was a coda, a tying up of loose ends, for something that Congress had actually enacted, and thus arguably a legitimate part of executing the law — which is, after all, the function of the executive. Obama’s threatened move, on the other hand, is directly contrary to Congress’s decision not to pass an amnesty. ...
It is absurd for Obama to claim that the very executive overreach that prompted Congress to impose these limits established a precedent for even greater executive overreach today.
Whatever their merits, the Reagan and Bush measures were modest attempts at faithfully executing legislation duly enacted by Congress. Obama’s planned amnesty decree is Caesarism, pure and simple. “Precedent” isn’t the right word for the Obama crowd’s invocation of Reagan. The right word is “pretext.”
There's no enforcement of law passed by Congress here. Separation of Powers, Article I, be damned, so say the Left and this president. What Obama will pronounce tonight is nothing short of brazen, iron-fisted dictatorial fiat for the sake of his party (just like a good little Marxist) that ultimately violates both his Oath of Office and America's sovereignty.
"To what length will you abuse our patience?" ~ Cicero to Catiline in 63 B.C.
Related links: Democrats and Drive-Bys Distort Reagan to Validate Obama's Executive Order on Amnesty
Obama’s royal flip-flop on using executive action on illegal immigration
Reagan and Bush Offer No Precedent for Obama's Amnesty Order
Rick Perry: Texas might sue Barack Obama
ADDENDUM: GatewayPundit adds to the discussion, asking is it a coincidence that Obama announces executive amnesty on National Revolution Day in Mexico?
The Mexican Revolution, began on November 20, 1910, and continued for a decade. The United States, Mexico’s northern neighbor, was significantly affected by the human dislocation that resulted: if someone did not want to fight, the only alternative was to leave the country—and over 890,000 Mexicans did just that by legally emigrating during the second decade of the 20th century.
The Obama administration and minions in the media insist President Reagan also used executive amnesty to allow illegals in the country.
As Rush Limbaugh explained, “This is a bald-faced flat-out lie.”
Ronald Reagan signed a piece of legislation. It was the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. It was 1986. Congress debated and passed a law to grant amnesty to three million illegal immigrants, and Reagan signed it. — Obama is passing amnesty without Congressional legislation.
We might also acknowledge the other significant pandering going on with Obama’s amnesty announcement airing during the Latin Grammys, and Univision will stop the awards program to air it LIVE!
WaPo: President Obama’s announcement Thursday night of his plans to overhaul the nation’s immigration system is scheduled to happen at an opportune time — at least if the White House is hoping to reach a captive audience of Hispanic television viewers.
Obama’s 8 p.m. Eastern time announcement will come at the start of the second hour of the 15th annual Latin Grammys, which begins at 7 p.m. Thursday on Spanish-language TV network Univision. At least 9.8 million viewers tuned in to all or part of last year’s telecast, meaning Univision defeated CBS, Fox and NBC that night.
Univision says it will postpone part of the awards show to air Obama’s speech, while the big four TV networks, ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC, currently have no plans to air the address.
Related links: ABC, CBS, and NBC refusing to air Obama’s speech tonight
"Tune In to See the Constitution Destroyed!" (Limbaugh on Obama Amnesty speech)
ADDENDUM II: Perhaps I was too hasty in saying there was no precedent. It's certainly not a precedent set by Reagan or Bush that Obama's following, but as J. Christian Adams points out, the president's actions tonight do resemble that of a historical nefarious nullifier named John C. Calhoun.
PJMedia: One of the ideas that plunged America into the bloody Civil War was the belief that federal laws could be nullified by those who disagree with them. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina was a chief proponent of the doctrine that Southern states could nullify federal laws if states disagreed with them. In announcing a lawless amnesty edict tonight, President Obama is our modern John C. Calhoun.
Elementary school civics class has taught the same thing for two hundred years: Congress makes the laws, the president enforces the laws, the judiciary interprets the laws. The reason this is so is because individual liberty thrives when government is hobbled by division of power. People live better lives when federal power is stymied.
When President Obama announces that he will be suspending laws to bless the illegal presence of millions of foreigners in the United States, he will have adopted the most basic philosophy of John C. Calhoun: some laws can be tossed aside because his ends justify the lawlessness.
Make no mistake about why Obama wants millions of foreigners to remain in the United States. He told us exactly why in 2008: he aims to “fundamentally transform” America.
One way to transform America is to import populations with cultural and legal traditions foreign to American traditions. Central and South America has a cultural tradition of instability in government, of graft, corruption, and civil strife. People from those countries bring an expectation that the systems are rigged against them, because oftentimes they are.
Obama wants to transform America by transforming who Americans are. Even if these millions are not granted the right to vote (immediately), their children, yet unborn, will be granted it by virtue of being natural-born citizens. Obama is playing the long game.
Obama learned the history of the 20th century: when radical statists take power quickly, openly, and brazenly, Americans will stand in the breach. Whether on the blazing beaches of Saipan, in the Ardennes snow, or in dark alleys in Bucharest, Americans will risk it all. But Americans are less familiar with a slow-moving threat to American values. The long game isn’t as recognizable to us.
The long game is what Putin plays in Eastern Europe, what radical Islam plays everywhere, and what Obama now plays domestically with amnesty. Obama just had to reach back and borrow some ideas from one of the most vociferous defenders of Southern slavery, and nullify laws he took an oath to enforce.
And tonight, Obama adds his name to the long list of consequentialists who brazenly ignore laws to achieve their ends.
'Cause we owe them or something...
Huh, he's never wound this tight even on the likes of MSLSD...wonder why? Oh, right, native tongue and all. Well, guess he didn't realize Americans are still smart enough to have his comments translated into ENGLISH!
NewsBusters: Univision anchor Jorge Ramos was in full “advocate-in-chief” mode during his Al Punto talk show this week.
In advance of President Obama’s executive order suspending the application of standing federal statutes to millions of unauthorized immigrants in the United States, Ramos invited two top supporters of Obama’s plans to his program, with dissenting voices nowhere to be found.
First up was Congressman Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL), who made several eye-popping statements that must be seen in order to be believed.
Gutiérrez asserted the President has “absolute power” to act on immigration, made wild racist accusations against the motives of the historic House and Senate Republican majorities recently elected by the American people and openly affirmed that Obama’s actions are raw repayment of political debt.
Here’s what Gutiérrez had to say regarding what he characterized as the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ demand to collect on presidential political debt:
"The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has spoken with the President on more than one occasion. We have stressed that it be ample and that it be generous. Let me tell you what we said to him. We said, ‘Look, Mr. President. If there is a debt towards our community, a debt that you have been late in repaying, then it must be repaid with interest. We aren’t just expecting that which was owed, but (also) more due to the delays."
Obama should watch out for the proverbial knife in the other hand!
Again, just to point out the differences in tone...when he's talking to Americans on ABC's This Week:
"We just came from an election cycle in which not only that they say the border wasn't secure, but that Isis was coming through and Ebola was coming through. They mixed all of this together and then they say that we're poisoning the well. All I am saying is this, there are 4 million American citizen children; you just heard the Speaker say that this is a fight that he's going to have with the President. He's wrong."
And when he's speaking to his people on Univision's Al Punto:
"...they were the ones that waged a destructive campaign to win the House and the Senate by saying 'those Mexicans come across the border, it isn’t secure. They’re taking our jobs, they bring crime and now they bring Ebola and they bring terrorists'. All lies. We are going to answer their lies with justice from this President."
Unhinged much? And this guy is supposedly a U.S. Representative, folks!
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Further into imperial rule...
NumbersUSA: According to the Washington Post, President Obama will announce on Thursday his plans to grant executive amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. The plan would reportedly expand his 2012 directive, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that granted amnesty and work permits to illegal aliens meeting certain criteria, and extend similar benefits to illegal-alien parents of children who are U.S. citizens or green card holders.
On Friday, he will fly to Las Vegas to rally support for the initiative. In January of 2013, Pres. Obama delivered a speech in Las Vegas calling on Congress to pass "comprehensive immigration reform".
Last year, the Senate passed the Gang of Eight's amnesty bill, S.744, that would grant amnesty to 11-18 million illegal aliens and double annual legal immigration numbers. Facing mass opposition from grassroots activists,
the House refused to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, prompting Pres. Obama to threaten executive action.
Earlier this year, Pres. Obama announced that he would expand his DACA directive by the end of the summer if the House didn't act. But at the urging of Senate Democrats in close midterm races, he announced that he would delay any executive action until after the elections.
A poll conducted by The Polling Company/WomanTrend found that 74% of midterm voters oppose the President moving forward with an executive action and, instead, would like him to work with Congress. Several Members of the President's own party and some in the media have urged Pres. Obama not to take executive action.
Congress? Hello?
He's not even listening to himself! "...in charge of enforcing our immigration laws..." ENFORCING, NOT RECREATING!
But then, he's obviously not listening to what he himself has said at least 22 other times that he doesn't have authority for executive amnesty. I know he's not listening to the citizenry, who OPPOSE what he's about to do, despite his insistence that everyone's hunky-dory with it.
So what are Republicans doing? Nothing... well, other than possibly removing their own chairman from the Senate's Budget Committee because he's too anti-amnesty! That's right, the GOP leadership is surrendering the power of the purse and isn't doing much of anything to stop it, because they might not be liked or something. Never mind that this kind of unconstitutional crap being pulled by Obama is precisely what they were swept into office to prevent! FECKLESS!
So, after Obamacare and amnesty, we won't recognize America...or have much of an opposition party to stand up for American law & order and against tyranny.
Related links: Prez Promotes His Amnesty Show
Don't Be Fooled -- Obama Thinks He's an Emperor
NumbersUSA releases new ad: President Obama know his amnesty and work permits plan is unconstitutional
Mia Love: “It looks more like a dictatorship” when Obama unilaterally decides to grant amnesty
Regime to Fly Immigrant Children Here for Free
How Obama's Amnesty Will Become Citizenship
Democrats and Drive-Bys Distort Reagan to Validate Obama's Executive Order on Amnesty
Poll: Many Latinos Disapprove of Obama's Executive Amnesty
Get ready for even more after amnesty!
President Bill Clinton was coaxed by the Gingrich Republicans to pass welfare reform in the 90's that included work provisions. In 2012, President Barack Obama stripped those out. Now, this young lady has obviously been abusing the system well before that occurred...Obama just made it easier for her!
PreserveFreedom: As you can see in this video, America’s welfare system breeds entitlement.
The woman in the video, Kiara, is 30 years old. She has been on welfare since the age of 18. That’s 12 years she’s been receiving government aid.
She does not have a job and doesn’t think she should get one. When asked how she feels about not having a job, she says, “I’m comfortable with it and I feel like I don’t need to look for one [a job] because I get a check from the government every month.”
This level of LAZY, yet this welfare queen looks like she's doing just fine with an Obama phone, tats and jewelry. Gotta ask, taxpayer funded too?
What about those in our society who really need help? How about our homeless veterans for crying out loud?! These kind of people could care less about the truly needy. It's all about 'me'.
Everything's become an entitlement. Everything become a so-called 'right'. The simple fact is, no one is entitled to ANYTHING! (with perhaps the exception of those who serve, and I'm not talking elected office!) When damn near every privilege these days is referred to as a 'right', it further proves that our liberties, and civil society on whole, are being carelessly flushed away.
And now, we have a president, with one party fervently behind him and another seemingly complacent and cowering, that is about to introduce America to this TIMES MILLIONS! Welfare, Obamacare, the whole enchilada. No borders, Third World, here we come. Lawlessness.
H/t: AG
