Hotel owner Steve Wynn:
Via American Thinker:
As I have said, this is a deliberate strategy. Nothing discourages business more than uncertainty, and the Obama administration has introduced a climate of uncertainty in this country that is unprecedented in our history. Even during war, no American ever seriously believed anyone would come along and attempt to change the fundamental structure of our society. But it is happening now before our eyes!
Sign, sign, every where a sign:
(Newser) – Janet Napolitano pushed back against immigration alarmists yesterday, even as she touted the the White House's latest efforts to secure the border. The Obama administration will deploy an unmanned aerial drone in Texas, and allow local police communities to temporarily “deploy” to assist the National Guard along the border, the Washington Post reports. But Napolitano said there was no crisis, asserting that the “border is as secure now as it has ever been," despite the people "looking to score political points" by suggesting otherwise.
Alarmists? These signs are pretty alarming and the federal government put the damn things up:
The signs read in part:
"Danger - Public Warning
Travel not recommended
-- Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area
-- Visitors may encounter armed criminals and smuggling
vehicles traveling at high rates
-- Stay away from cash, clothing, backbacks and
-- If you see suspicious activity, do not confront!
Move away and call 911"
Border security in the Obama administration. KEEP OUT. Unfortunately they're talking to law abiding American citizens.
And the power grab continues. In Deal, New Authority Over Wall Street.
A deal brokered by a bunch of politicians - most of whom probably couldn't fill out the EZ tax form. As made clear by one of two unusually honest comments by Chris Dodd, the authority is not just over Wall Street:
"This is about as important as it gets, because it deals with every single aspect of our lives."
Chilling words. Especially coming from Chris Dodd:
In March of this year, the NY Post called it a cavalcade of scandal surrounding soon to retire Chris Dodd of Connecticut. The "Controversies" section of his wiki is the longest section there.
Today there is nothing noble in the leaving of Chris Dodd. He has become a poster boy, a caricature, really, for everything that American politics is at its worst and should not ever be. He neither deserves, nor has earned the entitlements he'll get for life from American taxpayers. But as greedy and crooked as he's always been, he'll take them just the same. You can count on it. This is Chris Dodd we're talking about.
Our lives in the hands of a crook. What could go wrong?
Dodd is not running for re-election (even greedy crooks sooner or later overplay their hands) but he is doing as much damage as he can on his way out. Ramming through a 2,000 page bill, giving "broad new powers" to the federal government. Powers over "every single aspect of our lives." In his second unusually honest comment, Dodd admits he has no idea how it will all work:
“It’s a great moment. I’m proud to have been here,” said a teary-eyed Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee led the effort in the Senate. “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we’ve done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done.”
Interesting side note. The Washington Post article no longer includes this entire quote. Here's how it looks now:
Weary lawmakers wrapped up their work minutes before sunrise. "It's a great moment," said a teary-eyed Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who as chairman of the banking committee led the effort in the Senate. "It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done."
The damning quote, DODD: 'No one will know until this is actually in place how it works'..., was featured (and as of right now still is) on Drudge Report, linking to the Washington Post article:
NEARLY 2,000 PAGES: The legislation would redraw how money flows through economy...
Government would have broad new powers to seize...
DODD: 'No one will know until this is actually in place how it works'...
How very kind of the Washington Post to scrub Dodd's accidental truth from its story. I guess it is time for Dodd to retire. He forgot he was not supposed to tell the truth to the American people. These little slips of the tongue are dangerous for a corrupt, lying politician.
One thing he did not forget, however, was to take care of his benefactors:
"Most of us believe that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a large role in causing the financial meltdown, says Senator (Jim) DeMint, "certainly the housing bubble with subprime loans, the securitized subprime loans that brought down the worldwide financial system."
Now, as the Congress debates a new financial regulation bill, many republicans propose getting rid of Fannie and Freddie altogether, or at least restructuring them.
Democrats only partly agree. Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a key player on financial issues, recently conceded there was cause for concern. "Look, this program needs to be fixed," he said. "There's no question about you need an alternative housing finance system. that is without question."
But Sen. Dodd rejects the idea of dealing with Fannie and Freddie in the legislation now working its way through Congress.
So, Democrats want to wait to talk about Fannie and Freddie. And the current financial bill does not address them at all.
Dodd tops the list of political contributions from Fannie and Freddie. There will be no dealing with them on his watch.
While Fannie and Freddie live to see another day, the rest of us are not so lucky. While no doubt there are abuses on Wall Street they pale in comparison to the abuses in Washington, D.C.
Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Of course I've never really learned that lesson. It seems Peggy West and I have something in common:
MILWAUKEE - The Milwaukee County Board spent part of the day debating a measure that would call for the county to boycott doing business with companies in Arizona.
Communities around the nation have passed similar measures in response to a law in Arizona that makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.
There was an odd moment during the debate when Supervisor Peggy West stood up and seemed to be confused about her geography. "If this was Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this saying that they had a major issue with undocumented people flooding their borders, I would have to look twice at this. But this is a state that is a ways removed from the border," West said during debate.
I do know where Arizona is so I thought I'd help Peggy out with this handy map.
(Peggy, the orangy part is Mexico)
West said she simply misspoke. I can certainly understand - and sympathize with that. But her explanation (for objecting to Arizona's immigration law) is a little "odd":
West claims that the point she was trying to make is that because Texas has a much larger border with Mexico, she might feel differently about such a law in that state. "Had Texas come out with the legislation, having the largest border, I think that I would be more receptive to the fact that there was a problem. But having it be Arizona, having it be the second largest boarder and knowing there are troops on the border in Arizona, it didn't seem to me that this legislation was particularly necessary at this moment in time," West said.
Arizona. The Avis of border states.
The DISCLOSE Act is the Democrats big legislative “fix” to pushback against the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that eliminated a number of campaign finance restrictions on first amendment grounds. It just passed the House this afternoon — even with 36 Democrats voting against it.
House Republican Leader John Boehner’s already declaring that the legislation will “Shred Our Constitution for Raw, Ugly, Partisan Gain.” Normally, I’d automatically dissmiss such a press release as hyperbole, but this time I’m not so sure. For one thing, the DISCLOSE Act does this:
A Democratic amendment tucked into campaign finance legislation Wednesday night also drew fire from Republicans and their allies, who contend it gives special treatment to Democrat-allied labor unions. The language in question would exempt from disclosure requirements transfers of cash from dues-funded groups to their affiliates to pay for certain election ads. It was inserted into the bill by Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Administration Committee and a big union backer.
This sleazy bill, in a shameless bargain, already exempted the NRA:
Politico and others are reporting that the NRA has reached a deal to withdraw its opposition to the bill in exchange for an exemption for the NRA from its disclosure provisions. The exemption would apply to “organizations which have qualified as having tax exempt status under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code for each of the 10 years prior to making a campaign-related disbursement, that had 1 million or more dues-paying members in the prior calendar year, that had members in each of the 50 states, that received no more than 15 percent of their total funding from corporations or labor organizations, and that do not use any corporate or union money to pay for their campaign-related expenditures.”
The NRA loophole was expanded to include the Sierra Club, Humane Society and AARP. Smaller, grassroots organizations will get no such relief:
Under the bill, all groups subject to the law’s requirements would have to list all donors of $600 or more with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Groups must also post a hyperlink on their website to the FEC, where a list of the names of their donors can be accessed.
Furthermore, every time an organization runs a campaign ad, its CEO must appear in the ad and twice state his name and the organization’s name. The top five funders of the organization behind the ad – even if they had nothing to do with the ad’s funding – must also have their names listed in the ad.
In addition, the most “significant” donor to the organization must list his name, rank, and organization three times in the ad. Critics of the bill say that the disclaimers effectively consume valuable air time bought by these groups that would otherwise be used to inform voters about a candidate’s record.
The bill also effectively silences these organizations. So the influential, big money political donors get a free ride and the little guy gets a sock in his mouth.
Fortunately there is some hope for a return to sanity in the Senate:
Senator Mitch McConnell has signalled that Republicans would very strongly oppose the measure. While no Senate Democrats have come out opposing it, 10 of their number refused to co-sponsor the legislation (S 3295), sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), meaning some might join a GOP filibuster.
The Democrats are going all in to try and hold on to their majority in Congress. These ridiculous, over-burdensome, unconstitutional restrictions on free speech are a means to an end and to the Democrats the ends always justify the means. And, not to be outdone in the whatever-it-takes-to-win department, Obama has a plan of his own, guaranteed to bring in the votes:
The Obama administration has been holding behind-the-scenes talks to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security can unilaterally grant legal status on a mass basis to illegal immigrants, a former Bush administration official who spoke with at least three people involved in those talks told FoxNews.com.
The issue was raised publicly by eight Republican senators who wrote to the White House on Monday to complain that they had heard the administration was readying a "Plan B" in case a comprehensive immigration reform bill cannot win enough support to clear Congress.
The White House would not confirm or deny the claim. But the former Bush official said the discussions are real.
"The administration at the very minimum is studying legal ways to legalize people without having to go through any congressional debate about it," the source said, calling the senators' claim credible. "Whether somebody pulls the trigger on that, that's another issue."
I don't think Obama would hesitate pulling the trigger. The Democrats need the votes and he needs the Democrats. As an added bonus, he would no doubt take great pleasure in one-upping Governor Brewer by granting legal status to thousands of illegals in Arizona.
Several Senators have learned of a possible plan by the Obama Administration that would provide a mass Amnesty for the nation's 11-18 million illegal aliens. Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), eight Senators addressed a letter to the President asking for answers to questions about a plan that would allow DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to provide an amnesty if they can't secure enough votes for a bill in the Senate.
Here is the text of the letter signed by Sens. Grassley, Hatch (R-Utah), Vitter (R-La.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Chambliss (R-Ga.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Cochran (R-Miss.).
Dear President Obama:
We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come. We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a “case-by-case” basis.
While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.
The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.
We would appreciate receiving a commitment that the Administration has no plans to use either authority to change the current position of a large group of illegal aliens already in the United States, and ask that you respond to us about this matter as soon as possible.
PINAL COUNTY, AZ - On a single day in April, in a special cell block deep inside the Pinal County Jail, nearly 400 inmates sat awaiting trial or extradition after being detained trying to cross the Arizona border from Mexico.
Only about half of them were actually from Mexico.
On that one day in April, according to records obtained by ABC 15, Homeland Security officials were holding inmates from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Lebanon, and the Sudan.
“They’re coming from all over,” Arizona Senator Jon Kyl said. “And one wonders whether some of them are coming in here to commit acts of terror.”
The report says officials are also concerned about Venezuela emerging as a terrorist “hub,” with the government there issuing travel documents that can be used to obtain a U.S. visa.
None of this is news. We have known about this for years but there seems to be no sense of urgency in addressing the problem. Our federal government has steadfastly refused to seriously address border security. When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer decided to take matters into her own hands, all hell broke loose. The state is now being sued by the federal government. While Arizona burns, Obama sues.
Arizona Senator Jon Kyl lets us in on Obama's agenda:
As the Obama administration prepares to sue the state of Arizona to block its copycat enforcement of federal immigration law, Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl reveals that in a private meeting President Obama put his party's agenda above the nation's sovereignty.
Last Friday, Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting:
"I met with the president in the Oval Office (regarding securing the southern border with Mexico)," Kyl said, "just the two of us . .. here's what the president said. 'The problem is,' he said, 'If we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.'"
If we secure the border? The nation's security is a bargaining chip for politically motivated legislation with political consequences?
(The White House is denying the story.)
Meanwhile, our borders are still open. Terrorists, gang members and drug dealers know it and our national security is at risk. I don't think suing the only person who's doing something about it is the answer. I could be wrong.