Thorner: The Perils of Congressional Bipartisanship

By Nancy Thorner –

Bipartisanship in Congress can be a good thing when and if it can happen in a nation that is so divided.  Bipartisanship certainly sounds ideal. There are many Americans who desire bipartisanship and complain when Democrats and Republican don’t work together.

In December of this year bipartisanship occurred twice, but both attempts produced results that were less than stellar.

Bipartisanship occurred on Friday, December 20, 2019 when President Trump signed two spending packages totaling $1.4 trillion to avert a government shutdown at midnight. The $1.4 spending measure represents a difficult month-long battle by Democrats and Republicans over spending priorities.

Notably, the Pentagon would get $738 billion for military activities – $22 billion more than last year. Spending for so-called “discretionary” programs was up from $1.36 trillion last year to $1.4 trillion, separate from “mandatory” programs like Social Security retirement benefits which are automatically funded.

With government spending $984 billion more than it took in during the last fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is projecting annual budget deficits averaging $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

Our rapidly rising U.S. national debt now stands at $23.1 trillion, a level that some experts fear could eventually hobble the economy, yet neither party seems to care about our expanding national debt.  Republicans push for more defense spending, while Democrats demand more for domestic spending in turn for granting Republicans more defense spending, vice versa. Notwithstanding, both Republican and Democrats legislators make sure their pet “pork” projects are funded to brag about to their home districts.

Read here to view how the $1.4 trillion government-wide spending package, some 2,313 pages long, is crammed full of an unusually large load of unrelated provisions (pork) as legislators catch a ride on the last train out of Congress this year.

USMCA

There was also bipartisanship practiced in the USMCA trade deal. It passed the U.S. House the day after Trump’s impeachment notice by the House on December 19, 2019 by a vote of 385 Yeas to 41 Nays and was treated as a major accomplishment by the Trump administration. If passed by the U.S. Senate and signed into law, this 239-page bill would both approve and implement the now 2,410-page United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which is intended to replace the original 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Thorner’s previous article about USMCA,  Is the USMCA American’s European Union? was published at IL Review on Friday, December 6, 2019. It was critical of the treaty in regard to this nation’s sovereignty.  It further questioned Trump’s knowledge of what was contained in the treaty and the possibility that Trump was being spoon fed an incorrect bill of goods by his trade negotiators.

In that Nancy Pelosi decided to rally behind the revised USMCA to pass the trade deal on December 19, 2029, after Democrats had secured enough concessions on labor standards, pharmaceuticals and the environment, should have hoisted a red flag and given Trump all he needed to investigate further.

Also of note is that while Nancy Pelosi held a press conference with House Democrats on October 10, 2019, to announce how the new changes made to USMCA cleared a path for the Democrats to support the trade scheme, simultaneously the U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, and Mexico’s Deputy Foreign Minister Jesús Seade Kuri held aceremony in Mexico City, to sign the Protocol of Amendment to the USMCA – a 27-page document of all the changes agreed to by Nancy Pelosi and her House Democrats.

Chrystia Freeland, who served as principle negotiator for Mexico enthusiastically described the USMCA as a “progressive trade agreement.” Even prior to the changes added by House Democrats, Freeland had described the integration scheme as a “very progressive agreement.”

 

CFR involvement in negotiation

 

In that Trump’s Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer was a Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) member speaks volumes and gives credence to Freeland’s statement pegging USMCA as a “very progressive agreement.”

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) supports globalism and one-world government and has welded a very large amount of power in U.S. and international politics. Some of its conservative critics have described it as “the most visible manifestation of” the establishment .  Advisors H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both with CFR ties, worked to undermine Trump’s America First policies.  It was Robert Lighthizer who led the USMCA trade negotiations with Mexico and Canada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats to craft the revised USMCA.

 

Egregious issues found in USMCA

This article by Christian Gomez in The New American, What’s Really in the USMCA? (Updated), was updated on December 19, 2019, to reflect the House vote for USMCA and the recent changes that were made to the treaty.

There should be great concern over the enforcement of the “very progressive” elements in USMCA.  Below are some of the most egregious issues contained in the USMCA as noted in Christian Gomez’s article. There is no way to comprehend what USMCA is all about unless each bold titled heading is thoroughly read in the article itself.  The explanation given just presents an inking into the egregious issues.

 

Economic Integration – Seeks to merge the economies of North America into one, akin to a North American Union, much like the European Union.

 

Environment: Where in the original 1994 NAFTA did not contain a chapter on the environment, USMCA in Chapter 24 promotes the United Nation’s concept of “sustainable development,” the cornerstone of the UN’s Agenda 21/Agenda 2030 program to address the purported problem of anthropogenic climate change. USMCA must then logically follow the 17 U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which are promoted by U.N. and all its affiliated agencies.

Article 24.15 of USMCA clearly states that “The Parties recognize the importance of conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, as well as the ecosystem services it provides, and their key role in achieving sustainable development.

 

Energy Integration:  Although the USMCA does not contain a chapter specifically about energy, the type of energy integration noted in aside letter covering energy written by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, would lead to the creation of a new regional regulatory energy body or authority, a kind of North American department or ministry of energy, which would supersede the U.S. Department of Energy, Canada’s Department of Natural Resources, and Mexico’s Secretaría de Energía (Secretariat of Energy)

 

Migrant Workers: Opens the door for a Mexican, a Canadian, or even a U.S.-based company to sue the U.S. government for restricting the number of employees that such a company would want to bring across the border into the United States and could thus serve as a beachhead for a cross-border migration invasion similar to that experienced in the European Union.

 

“Gender Identity”:  If a man applies for a job and goes to the interview dressed as a woman with a demand to be addressed as if he were a lady and demonstrates even the mildest aptitude to do the job, the employer would be required to hire that individual or risk a lawsuit. This alone should be a deal breaker for Christians.

 

Collective Bargaining: The USMCA may force Congress to pass national “collective bargaining” legislation, circumventing state “right to work” laws. Under the USMCA’s Chapter 23, Congress may also be forced to do same with labor laws.

 

Regional Government: The erosion of U.S. sovereignty is most apparent in Chapter 30 of the USMCA entitled “Administrative and Institutional Provisions,” which establishes the creation of a “Free Trade Commission”. Giving powers accorded by Article 30.2 to the Free Trade Commission makes the USMCA a “living agreement,” much like the TPP, thus allowing the Free Trade Commission to make future changes to the agreement without the approval of Congress.

 

International Law and Treaties:  Not only does the USMCA subordinate the U.S. to an EU-style regional commission, it also subordinates the United States to international law.  According to the chapter’s Article 24.18, under “Sustainable Fisheries Management,” the United States, Mexico, and Canada are required to base their fishing management practices in accordance with the Law of the Sea Treaty. In the name of protecting fishes and other marine life, the United States would have to surrender its sovereignty over all of its waterways and miles of coastal oceans (including everything under, on, in, and above them) over to the jurisdiction of UN international law.

Here is the USMCA Issues Index  (Revised 12/14/2019) to easily find where in the trade agreement — with specific chapters and page numbers, annex pages, and side letters — to find all the aforementioned progressive issues found in USNCA and to show others where to find them in the agreement.

 

Additional thoughts

As  J.W. Bryan writes in his article The Unseen Angers of the USMCA Trade Deal on December 14th, 2019:

“If Trump knows of the existence of the CFR, it’s very possible that he views it much the same as Reagan did. When asked about why he had so many CFR people in his administration he said something like this, “Well I don’t see any harm in people getting together to discuss international issues and problems.” This raises the question as to whether he was naïve or was simply dodging the question.”

The CFR’s hands are all over the USMCA trade agreement. There is no doubt that CFR membership could, and probably has discussed what they’d like to have included in the texts of the agreement.  I’m sure the CFR desires are included in the USMCA; Mr. Lighthizer has seen to that. If it is ratified it will give more impetus to the advancement of UN Agenda 2030 and Sustainable Development.”

Not much can be done about the uncontrolled spending by both Republicans and Democrats, but if you believe that the issues described and indexed above are indeed part of an “America first” agenda that will “Make America Great Again” or “Keep America Great,” as President Trump has pledged, then the USMCA is right for you. If you disagree, then this article and index should serve as a warning of what’s to come in event that the U.S. Senate passes H.R. 5430, to approve and implement the USMCA in 2020.

 

Additional article for reference

 

Trump’s Economic Policies Explained — Differences Between NAFTA & USMCA Are Shocking by Noah Adamitis, December 27, 2019.

 

Sorry, but this USMCA trade deal is a pile of hot garbage by Brad Polumbo, December 20, 2019.

 

USMCA is tinted by special interest side deals by Tim Worstall, a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute. You can read all his pieces at the Continental Telegraph , December 19. 2019.

Monday, December 30, 2019 at 09:52 AM | Permalink

Thorner: UN’s Climate Change strategy is a wealth confiscation game

By Nancy Thorner – 

In a UN Climate Statement on November 1, 2019, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa announced: “We are pleased to announce the COP Bureau has agreed that COP25 will take place from 2-13 December in IFEMA – Feria de Madrid in Madrid, Spain.”

Not mentioned in her announcement was how COP 25 had to change locations from Chile to Spain at very short notice (after it had already changed locations from Brazil to Chile), after riots erupted around Chile in protest to energy price hikes to pay for her climate change programs, thus forcing Chilean President Sebastian Pinera to put troops on the streets and cancel his plans to host COP 25.

Stated goals of COP 25

On November 30, 2019, Alex Newman wrote the following about the goals of the UN COP 25 “Climate” Summit prior to its December 2nd, 2019 beginning in Madrid, Spain (Alex Newman is a foreign correspondent for The New American who has traveled the world reporting on the UN’s climate agenda.):

“Organizers of the summit made clear that they have big plans to advance global governance and “green” policies at the planetary level. “COP25 is the first summit of a new cycle,” boasted Spanish “Minister for the Ecological Transition” Teresa Ribera, who is playing a key role organizing and running the upcoming UN summit.

As Robera said in an interview, “In Madrid, global climate negotiations are entering a new phase, with a focus on reaching more ambitious climate action by everyone, because what we have on the table is nowhere near enough to prevent average temperatures from rising more than 1.5C, let alone 2C. Everyone, including governments, regions, cities, and social and economic agents” must be aligned with the embattled UN Paris Agreement. “We cannot delay climate action any longer…. This is what societies are demanding.”

The UN and most of its member governments are seeking to finalize rules for an emerging global “carbon market.” Under the controversial plan, humanity will pay for emissions of the gas people exhale, commonly known as carbon dioxide or CO2, as part of Western governments’ plans to reduce their people’s emissions of the essential-to-life gas.

Another key item on the agenda is “climate financing,” organizers said. After all, totally restructuring the economy of the world, as leading UN officials claim is required, will take a lot of money.”

Hypocrisy of climate attendees

As reported by Mark Morano of  Climate Depot:  “UN climate summit delegates and activists attending lined up daily for hamburgers at the conferences’ onsite Burger King despite the UN warnings that eating meat is not climate-friendly.”  See:  Flashback: UN admits Cutting CO2 ‘not enough’ – ‘We must change food production to save the world

There is also the issue of air travel to and from COP 25?  Of concern to environmentalists is that air travel produces greenhouse gases – mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) – from burning fuel, which contributes to global warming when released into the atmosphere.

According to the provisional list (pdf) published by the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), a grand total of 26,706 participants registered for COP25. This breaks down into 13,643 people representing specific parties, 9,987 from observer organizations – such as scientists, business groups and various non-governmental organizations – and 3,076 journalists.  How many flew in private jets to Madrid?

Nancy Pelosi’s boondoggle delegation to Madrid

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a bicameral Congressional Delegation found it necessary to spent two days at COP 25. There were 15 in all in her delegation who traveled by air on the taxpayer’s dime.

Despite President Trump’s decision to remove this nation from the Paris Accords, Pelosi gave this message of assurance on behalf of the U.S. Congress at the end of their stay in Madrid:

“Today, our delegation concluded a successful two-day visit to COP25 in Madrid with a message on behalf of the U.S. Congress of ‘We’re still in,’” Speaker Pelosi said. “Combating the climate crisis is the existential threat of our time and it was essential that our delegation stand with international partners, who are continuing to build upon and solidify their commitments to meet the Paris Agreement’s goals.”

The Pelosi delegation trip was expensive, probably costing millions of dollars in travel, lodging, food, and security. Yet this was just the tip of the iceberg.  Are we to feel better because Speaker Pelosi purchased carbon offsets to cover all air travel involved in this Congressional Delegation visit to COP25?

Some sound science and climate realism at COP 25

Reported by H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow on Energy Policy, in Climate Change Weekly #344, The Heartland Institute, one of the world’s leading free-market think tanks based in Arlington Heights, Illinois, challenged COP 25 in Madrid by bringing a heavy dose of sound science and climate realism.

Headlining Heartland’s event were four distinguished men and nineteen-year-old German YouTube personality Naomi Seibt:

• Award-winning physicist Will Happer, Ph.D. and former top science advisor to President Donald Trump. Happer’s presentation documented human greenhouse gas emissions are having much less impact on global temperatures than predicted by alarmist climate theory and are certainly not causing a climate crisis.
• Meteorologist Anthony Watts, a Heartland Institute senior fellow, showed the majority of official temperature stations are corrupted by artificial heat sources and other factors, giving the appearance of more warming than is measured by global satellites instruments and weather balloons.
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration hurricane researcher Stanley Goldenberg explained there is no evidence indicating hurricanes are becoming more frequent or severe as the planet warms. Goldenberg pointed out how even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges this.
• Chilean civil engineer Douglas Pollack noted the Chilean government’s climate policies have made the nation’s electricity prices the highest in South America. The government’s price increase for the country’s Metro system — the main mode of transportation for the urban poor in order to pay for its switch to being run on expensive renewable power — was the last straw that resulted in protests and riots in Chile.
• Naomi Seibt presented an account of how she transformed from believing in a climate crisis to being a climate realist. After fact-checking the assertions of her teachers and the media, she realized propaganda was triumphing over science in the climate change debate

View a full video of Heartland’s Climate Reality Forum presentations. The five individuals noted above are featured, along with other distinguished Heartland COP 25 speakers.

Also reported was that CFACT blanketed the delegations with their latest hard-hitting 36 page climate skeptical “talking points” which were well received.  Reported was that on a one-on-basis delegate were surprising candid in admitting how much of their official narrative is nonsense designed for a few to make a buck.

 

Outcome of UN COP 25

 

The marathon COP 25 talks went into over time extending more than 36 hours past the expected conclusion on Friday, December 14, making COP 25 the longest UN climate conference to date. There were rifts over how to tackle the climate crisis and who should pay for it.

The Washington Post devoted an entire article to highlighting poor countries and slamming the wealthy or developed nations for not helping smaller countries deal with the climate crises before negotiators managed to seal a vague agreement in a last-ditch effort on Sunday, December 16.  Activists were hoping for a bolder approach to curbing climate-changing greenhouse gases.

This statement was made by UN Secretary-General António Guterres on the outcome of the UN Climate Change Conference COP25 in Madrid (Guterres, is an admitted socialist. Before taking the reins at the UN, he led the Socialist International, the world’s most powerful alliance of Socialist and Marxist political parties.):

“I am disappointed with the results of #COP25.  The international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation & finance to tackle the climate crisis. But we must not give up, and I will not give up.

I am more determined than ever to work for 2020 to be the year in which all countries commit to do what science tells us is necessary to reach carbon neutrality in 2050 and a no more than 1.5 degree temperature rise.”

Read here a powerful, riveting, and damming account of what really happened at the two-week COP 25 summit as written by  Alex Newmanon Monday, December 16, 2019:

Following are highlights from Alex Newman’s article:

• “Throughout the United Nations COP25 “Climate” summit in Spain, America, the GOP, and President Donald Trump — not carbon dioxide or even “climate change” — were public enemy number one. Indeed, the U.S. government, the American people, their elected officials, and what remains of the free-market system that ushered in unprecedented global prosperity were all viciously and relentlessly attacked.”
• “Globalists, communists, Islamists, socialists, environmentalists, and crackpots of all varieties dropped the mask in a carefully orchestrated show. Incredibly, even the many prominent Americans who spoke at the summit demonized their own nation and the freedom that made it so successful.  John Kerry spoke from one of the most prominent stages at the UN suit declaring that he was ashamed of being an American. Not a single conservative, pro-America speaker could be found among the 25,000 attendees.”
• If CO2 were the real enemy, the UN summit would have been praising America non-stop as our nation’s emissions of the essential gas continues to plummet, and would have instead gone after Communist China which is by far the largest emitter of CO2.

The hatred expressed against this nation at COP 25 is because President Trump dared to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord, meaning that the U.S. government will not be forking over billions of dollars of climate “reparations” under the guise of “ loss and damage.” In short, poor and middle-class American taxpayers would end up paying Third World kleptocrats for supposedly causing bad weather, forest fires, and other natural disasters.

Until China and India play by the same rules as the rest of the world, when we have some real science or breakthroughs that can actually produce carbonless energy (start with new nuclear powered power generating facilities), when there is solid proof that climate change is man induced, and or that we can do something about it, our nation should not play the UN’s wealth confiscation game.

Friday, December 20, 2019 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

Thorner/O’Neil: Beware of Ballot Fraud in 2020 Presidential Election

By Nancy Thorner –

California is the most populous state in our nation, arguably because it is a large state, but it is undeniably beautiful as well, with majestic mountains, the magnificent Pacific Ocean coast, and lush valleys that produce an abundance of fruit and vegetables. No matter what type of weather one prefers, California has it in one county or another. But perhaps the most important reason American citizens should be interested, if not concerned, about California is because it also has become the epic center of societal and political change, which is then often copied by our other states.

As to political unrest, a few years ago there was a strong effort by some California counties to succeed from the state and form their own state. There have also been serious efforts to split the State into three different States, because there is such a diversity of needs from counties that border Mexico and those that border Oregon.  A year ago there was a strong effort to  recall California Governor Gavin Newsom.  Many California citizens believed he was unwilling to be fair and/or as concerned about some counties as he was of others.

California as a left-leaning, progressive state

 

It is well known that specific states tend to always vote for a specific party.  In California Democrats largely dominate their media sources and influence how they vote.  Perhaps this should be expected, but it is not expedient for our citizens.

Democrats also dominate with the number of registered voters. In the November 6, 2018 general election, 43.5% were Democrats, 24.0% were Republicans, and 5.0% were affiliated with other political parties.

One might conclude from those stats that the Democrat candidate would always win over the Republican, but this is not always so.  Some attribute this to the fact political parties change but voters do not. One example is the abortion issue.  Democrat candidates tend to support the abortion law giving women the right to abort a pregnancy, while Republican candidates tend to want stronger abortion restrictions.

California’s Democratic domination in Sacramento is also abetted with help from the California Teacher Unions, other influential Unions, a few major financial donors who choose to remain anonymous to the public, along with high level businessmen and corporations who are exceedingly interested in the State’s political affairs for business purposes. They are often best friends to specific elected officials, making it highly unlikely those in positions of power in California pay much attention to their constituents. These officials are polite and will listen to those who vote for them, but they pay far more attention to big donors and anyone in a position to help their election.  Few citizens pay attention to this important factor, largely because they haven’t the time to investigate if the candidate kept promises once in a position of power.

 

California’s ballot harvesting law

California is host to many problems, especially one that has to do with the election process. In 2016 Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a change to Section 3017 of the Election Code that allows any person to collect a mail-in ballot from voters to turn in the mail ballot to a polling place or the registrar’s office. Prior law restricted the practice to just relatives of or those living in the same household as the voter.

Although there are those who deny after every election that voter fraud should be an issue of concern, after the 2018 election the Heritage Foundation decided to do some research on the issue and developed an “election fraud database”

Heritage’s efforts provided 1,132 proven instances of election fraud, including 983 that ended in a criminal conviction, 48 that led to civil penalties and 79 in which defendants were enrolled in a diversion program.  22 cases proved official or judicial findings of fraud. This should be absolutely unacceptable to every American, but the media and even those in positions of authority seem to downplay the issue more than they seek to expose and prosecute offenders. This apparent lack of attention to the problem and/or any significant consequences for those found guilty, encourages the problems to increase every election period.

What the Heritage Foundation uncovered is most likely just the tip of America’s election fraud iceberg. The Heritage database is not comprehensive, so the actual volume of voter fraud is likely far higher. Exactly how much higher is anybody’s guess. Furthermore, many states lack the robust procedures needed to detect and prevent fraud, and many prosecutors opt not to pursue election fraud cases in favor of other priorities once an election is over.

 

Methodology of ballot harvesting

The original purpose of the “harvesting of ballots” law was to help those in hospitals, nursing homes, or anyone unable to complete and send their ballot to the County Voter Registrar.  There was, however, always the concern that these people could easily be persuaded by those around them to vote in a specific way.

Consider how easy it is for someone close to a handicapped or elderly person to “help” them mark their ballot.  If a patient has serious health issues or dementia, they are not capable to make decisions that require research.

Consider also how easy it would be to “gather ballots” from neighbors and rest homes and simply throw away those that are registered to a Party opposite of your own?  There would be no way to detect the violation.

It would also be easy to go door to door into specific neighborhoods, claim you are a neighbor a few blocks away, and sweetly offer to help elderly or young busy moms fill out their ballots and/or take them to the Registrar’s office?

Even people we trust, such as a good neighbor, friends, and/or relatives can be tempted to throw your ballot away if it is filled out in direct opposition to their ballot choices.

There are no limits regarding the number of ballots any one person is permitted to “gather.”  Neither is there a viable system in place to check or detect whether all “harvested” ballots were filled out by the correct person or if the “gathered” ballots were turned in to the Registrar at all.

How many times have we heard about missing bags of ballots or dozens of bags of ballots that appear without any indication of who or where they came from?  Some states have had large bags of ballots dropped off at the Registrar’s office close to the deadline of being acceptable, without any indication of who gathered them. The Registrar is required to accept all ballots, even if fraud is suspected, because ballots must be proven to be illegal in order to be eliminated.

Ballot harvesting in Orange County, CA

Prior to the legalization of “Ballot Harvesting” in California, Orange County was comprised mostly of Republicans and was considered a Republican stronghold in the state.  After the “harvesting law” was enacted this previously Republican county went from red to blue. Long time politicians who were well respected lost their position to Democrats, some of whom had never held a political position.  With a lack of fervor to detect fraudulent voting in CA, it is easy to believe those with a strong reason for a specific candidate will harvest ballots when the risk of detection is so minimal.

Popular elected Republican candidates in California saw their advantage shrink, and then disappear, as late-arriving Democrat votes were counted in the weeks following the election In Orange County.  Many Republicans were shocked when every House seat went to a Democrat after an unprecedented “250,000” vote-by-mail drop-offs were counted.

As Neal Kelley, Voter Registrar in Orange County at the time told Fox News, “Anecdotally there was a lot of evidence that ballot harvesting was going on. People were carrying in stacks of 100 and 200 of them. We had had multiple people calling to ask if these people were allowed to do this.”

As outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan told the Washington Post at the time, “We were only down 26 seats (nationally) the night of the election and three weeks later, we lost basically every California race. Point being, when you have candidates that win the absentee ballot vote, win the day of the vote, and then lose three weeks later because of provisionals, that’s really bizarre.”

Orange County has introduced a new plan they believe will better serve constituents. Voting centers will be established throughout the County.   Hart InterCivic System  and their technology will be used, and it is believed the system will be easier for voters and more reliable than the past methods.  Hopefully this action will help curtail the ballot harvesting that took place in the 2018 mid-term elections.

Thinking ahead to 2020

It is not too early to think about the 2020 national presidential election and how media sources and surveys of citizens are not always accurate.  While every American citizen has the right to vote, there are some to whom this privilege is legally denied.  The problem is that all states are not consistent in requirements. It is therefore important for every first-time voter to check the rules and requirements before submitting a ballot.

Many Americans believe the upcoming presidential election in 2020 will determine the future of this nation; whether we will remain a Constitutional Republic or drift toward Socialism and abandon our U.S. Constitution.

Republican efforts to address voter fraud focus on laws requiring in-person voting and photo IDs, while Democrats generally support efforts to expand mail-in voting and to legalize ballot harvesting. Democrats have long argued that elections where mail-in ballots are heavily used usually go off without a hitch, at least for Democrats!

Patriots at all levels of government must be aware that ballot harvesting apparently offers opportunities for those lacking integrity to cheat in order to win elections. Many Republicans believe Democrats engaged in ballot harvesting in other states besides CA in the 2018 mid-terms, as in Florida and Arizona.

The Presidential Election of 2020 will decide which party has the most incentive to encourage their friends, neighbors, and relatives to vote?  Winning is exceedingly important in the next election for both parties.

Voter fraud will become less of a problem in November of 2020 if large numbers of patriots vote who understand what awaits this nation if Democrat-Socialists should manage to keep the House and take the Senate.

Also, what is your Voter Registrar doing to prevent illegal voting?

It is important to express your political views to those within your sphere of influence. We all must do whatever is legally permissible and physically possible to elect those whom we trust to positions of authority.  Our nation will continue to prosper so long as patriots are willing to help elect the best and brightest; the most honest and trustworthy to govern us.

Monday, December 16, 2019 at 11:18 AM | Permalink

Thorner: Time to end the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional DACA program

By Nancy Thorner – 

Much has been said and written about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, but few individuals outside of D.C. remember how the federal program was first illegally and unconstitutionally instituted by former President Barack Obama.

As long as the Democratic Party held power, President Obama was willing to work with Congress to pass major legislation, but when the Democratic Party lost the majority necessary to pass legislation in 2010, Obama changed tactics and begin to rely more upon executive authority.

Through executive authority, President Obama announced the DACA program in a Rose Garden speech on June 15, 2012 to mend our nation’s immigration policy by making it fair, more efficient, and more just for certain young people sometimes called “Dreamers.” The action was necessary, explained Obama, because Congress had chosen not to act.Janet Napolitano, as Homeland Security Secretary at the time, issued a memorandum to guide the actions of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as to those who came to the U.S. at a young age against their will and who also weren’t a danger to society.

The memo provided the following enforcement standards:

• An immigrant came to the United States under the age of 16;
• has continuously resided in the United States for [at] least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
• is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces or the United States;
• has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety; and
• is not above the age of 30.

Napolitano was careful to emphasize this was not a legislative act but rather an act of discretion. Her memorandum did not confer a “substantive right, immigration status, or pathway to citizenship, because only Congress acting in its legislative capacity could confer such privileges; however, because of “inaction” by elected representative to pass the DREAM Act, Obama’s Executive order was deemed necessary.  Inaction, however,  is not a valid choice under the Constitution.

Criminal arrest histories of DACA recipients

Following is a June 2018 report showing Criminal Arrest Histories of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) requestor population. The data contains both criminal and civil information of those approved and denied under DACA, even though they did not necessarily result in actual convictions.

Among the findings of the release:

• Almost 8-percent of total DACA requestors (59,786 individuals) had arrest records as of the date the systems were queried, which included offenses such as assault and battery, rape, murder, and drunk driving, among others. “Requestors” includes individuals approved and denied DACA.
• Of those individuals whose DACA requests were approved and had one or more arrests or apprehensions, 53,792 were arrested or apprehended prior to their most recent approval.
• Approximately 13-percent (7,814) of approved DACA requestors with an arrest had an arrest after their grant was approved and prior to renewal.
• 54.8-percent of DACA requestors with more than one arrest (17,079) most recently had a DACA case status of “approved” as of the date the systems were queried.
• 199 individuals who requested DACA had 10 or more arrests. Of those, 51 most recently had DACA case status of “approved,” as of the date the systems were queried.
• Of the total 888,765 DACA requestors, 797,297 had no arrests or apprehensions, and 710,842 were approved.

As to the age of DACA recipients: Those applying had to be at least 15 years old but younger than 31 as of June 15, 2012.  It’s now seven years past that date, yet some of the DACA recipients who renewed their status are now in their late 30’s.

USCIS data also shows that the median age of active DACA recipients as of June 30, 2019, was 25 years old. The vast majority — 82.3% — are still under 31. But 98,060 (14.8%) are between 31 and 35, and 18,640 (2.8%) are between the ages of 36 and 38.

Misgivings about DACA were expressed by former USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna:

“The truth is that we let those with criminal arrests for sexually assaulting a minor, kidnapping, human trafficking, child pornography, or even murder be provided protection from removal. Yet the courts rule that we are unable to change this policy – even though those with criminal histories are getting through the system and permitted to remain in the country, despite having a high number of arrests for any types of crimes before or after receiving DACA protection.”

Nearly 60,000 immigrants with arrest records — including 10 accused of murder — have been allowed to stay in the United States under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

 

Questionable wisdom of DACA program

Hans A. von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, wrote about the questionable wisdom of the policy of allowing DACA recipients to spend the rest of their lives in the U.S. to eventually become citizens, as many Democrats in Congress advocate.  Following are von Spakovsky’s thoughts about DACA.

“The media portrayal of DACA beneficiaries paints a uniformly rosy picture of highly educated, fluent individuals.  But that is not in accord with the facts.

For example, according to the most recent figures only 49 percent of DACA beneficiaries have attained a high school education – despite a majority of them now being adults.

Almost no background checks were conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, resulting in illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds being accepted into the DACA program, including members of the MS-13 criminal gang.

And one study estimates that perhaps as many as a quarter of DACA-eligible illegal immigrants are functionally illiterate in English, while another 46 percent have only “basic” English ability.

Providing amnesty and potential citizenship to DACA recipients and other illegal immigrants before we have a secure border will only encourage even more illegal immigration, just as the 1986 amnesty in the Immigration Reform and Control Act did.

That law provided citizenship to almost 3 million illegal immigrants and was supposed to solve the problem of illegal immigration. Yet within 10 years, there were another almost 6 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.

The federal government should be concentrating on enhancing immigration enforcement and border security to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into the country and reduce the number of them already in the interior of the U.S.

Until we achieve those goals, it is premature to consider any kind of benefits for any immigrants in the U.S. illegally.”

 

The end of DACA?

On Sept. 5, 2017, the Trump administration announced it would slowly end the program. Obama attacked Trump as being “heartless” and “cruel” for ending his DACA program. Unfortunately for Obama and the Democrats, there was plenty of evidence that DACA was a disaster and left our country vulnerable. President Trump was only doing what a good leader would do and protect his citizens.

On November 12, 2019, the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against termination of DACA. The conservative majority of justices seemed inclined to endorse the Trump administration’s claim that maintaining the unconstitutional program exceeds the scope of presidential authority, although it is not yet clear when the court will rule on the matter.

As senior legal Heritage fellow Hans A. von Spakovsky related:

“The Supreme Court has a duty to take up the Trump administration’s DACA appeal and throw out actions by lower courts that are not in accord with the Constitution and federal immigration law. That action would send this issue of whether the DACA program should exist back to where it belongs – not to the president, as President Obama mistakenly believed, but to Congress.”

Friday, December 13, 2019 at 10:00 AM | Permalink

Thorner: Is the USMCA America’s European Union?

By Nancy Thorner –

According to the official USTR: “Under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump, the United States has reached an agreement with Mexico and Canada in the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is a mutually beneficial win for North American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses. When finalized and implemented, the agreement will create more balanced, reciprocal trade that supports high-paying jobs for Americans and grows the North American economy.”  (Until there is a Congressional vote on the new, balanced USMCA agreement, NAFTA remains in effect.)

USMCA was released early on October 1, 2018 on the USTR website for the public to read. As to the size and scope of USMCA, the government site lists all 34 chapters and their annexes. In total, the USMCA is a whopping 1,809 pages —1,572 pages for the treaty itself, 214 pages for annexes, and 23 pages for side letters. In comparison, NAFTA was over 1,700 pages long — 741 pages for the treaty itself, 348 pages for annexes, and 619 pages for additional footnotes and explanation.

Should the mammoth size of the agreement set off alarm bells that much more is involved than “free trade”?  Obamacare was likewise a mammoth-sized agreement to which Nancy Pelosi said at the time, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

The full text of the agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada signed on November 30, 2018 can be viewed here , while the main USMCA webpage is found here . 

Stated highlights include:

• Creating a more level playing field for American workers, including improved rules of origin for automobiles, trucks, other products, and disciplines on currency manipulation.
• Benefiting American farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses by modernizing and strengthening food and agriculture trade in North America.
• Supporting a 21st Century economy through new protections for U.S. intellectual property, and ensuring opportunities for trade in U.S. services.

President Trump in a Rose Garden signing of USMCA on November 30, 2018 said:  “This is a terrific deal, for all of us. Once approved by Congress, this new deal will be the most modern, up-to-date, and balanced trade agreement in the history of our country, with the most advanced protections for workers ever developed.”

An April 2019 headline on the website of the White House claimed that “USMCA will boost economic growth and create jobs.” Big business has gotten behind it with large marketing campaigns from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many GOP politicians are on board to pass it.

Similarly, Democratic lawmakers Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and then House Speaker designate Nancy Pelosi heaped praise on the agreement when speaking to reporters after meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, U.S., December 11, 2018.

Might USMCA have a downside?

In that USMCA is promoted as a “free trade” agreement, big business has also gotten behind it with large marketing campaigns from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Many GOP politicians are also on board to pass it, but might they not know the true nature of USMCA?  As true with so many “free trade agreements” before it, the USMCA seems subordinate to the WTO, which is referenced nearly 90 times throughout the agreement?

Christian Gomez, a contributor to The New American magazine, wrote two articles for the New American in which he questions whether USMCA is really a “big win” for America?  As Gomez suggests, “Heralded as a replacement for the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the “new” United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) accelerates the globalist’s longstanding agenda for regional integration and eventual world government under the guise of ‘free trade.'”

In his two New American articles Mr. Gomez takes a deep thorough dive into the text of the USMCA agreement to find what’s really in the agreement and how it would affect our nation’s sovereignty.

Following are some of the finding cited by Gomez in his articles as to why NAFTA is a deeply flawed treaty and would undermine American sovereignty.  They seem worthy of consideration.

From Article 1: What’s Wrong With the USMCA? by Christian Gomez , published in New American on Monday, November 5, 2018 (The hyperlinks were added for clarification.):

• Among some of the new chapters included in the USMCA that were not in the original 1994 NAFTA are Chapter 23 on labor and Chapter 24 on the environment.
• Article 23.3 of the USMCA’s Chapter 23 on Labor obligates each country to “adopt and maintain in its statutes and regulations, … the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.” It is unclear how such provisions could conflict with states that have “right-to-work laws,” potentially opening the door to their abolition or repeal either through the USMCA’s implementation legislation or a future decision from a USMCA dispute resolution panel.
• In the case of the auto industry, at least 40 percent of automobiles made in North America will have to be made by workers earning a minimum of $16 per hour, which is significantly higher than the current average wages for autoworkers in Mexico.
• Although the USMCA does not include a separate chapter on gender-related issues, as was originally outlined among Canada’s goals, such language is sprinkled throughout the labor chapter, further advancing the LGBTQ agenda.  For example, under “Sex-Based Discrimination in the Workplace,” in the USMCA’s labor chapter, all three countries are required to promote and “implement policies” protecting “gender identity.”
•  Under Article 23.12, all three countries agree to cooperate on “addressing gender-related issues in the field of labor and employment,” as well as on “addressing the opportunities of a diverse workforce, including: … promotion of equality and elimination of employment discrimination in the areas of age, disability, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity … and protection of migrant workers.”
•  Chapter 23 of the USMCA could also serve as a beachhead for a cross-border migration invasion similar to that experienced in the European Union. In language that is virtually identical to that found in the TPP, Article 17.5 of Chapter 17  of the USMCA states: “No party shall adopt or maintain … a measure that … imposes a limitation on … the total number of natural persons that may be employed in a particular financial service sector or that a financial institution or cross-border service supplier may employ … in the form of numerical quotas or the requirement of an economic needs test.”
• Provisions from USMCA’s Chapters 17 and 23 have the potential to undermine President Trump’s border security measures and further open our nation’s borders. Article 23.8 on “Migrant Workers” requires each country to “ensure that migrant workers are protected under its labor laws, whether they are nationals or non-nationals” of the country they are residing in.

From Article 2:  USMCA steppingstone to an EU-style North American Union by Chrstian Gomez, published in New American on Tuesday, 23 July 2019 (Hyperlink added for clarification.):

• Under Article 32.10, if either the United States, Mexico, or Canada pursues a free trade agreement with a “non-market country,” or country with which neither has signed an FTA, they are required to inform the two other USMCA countries at least three months prior to commencing such negotiations. Upon request of any one of the other two USMCA countries, the country pursuing an FTA with the designated “non-market country” is required to “provide as much information as possible regarding the objectives for those negotiations. This includes providing the full text of the FTA to the other USMCA countries, no later than 30 days before it is signed.
• Article 32.I0.5 stipulates that if one or both of the other USMCA countries objects to the one’s new FTA with a “non-market country,” it may formally withdraw from the USMCA, thereby cutting off preferred access of its markets to the USMCA country that entered into the FTA with the “non-market country. This disincentive virtually establishes a de facto unanimous-approval requirement by all three countries if any one wishes to pursue a new FTA with a country with which none of the three has signed an FTA. Projecting the lines, this “non-market country” disincentive may spawn the establishment of a North American Customs Union with common tariff rates among all three countries for non-market countries

USMCA not a done deal

As reported on November 20, 2019, the trade deal intended to replace NAFTA hangs in the balance as Mexican attempts to reform their labor unions undergo scrutiny.  According to Jesus Seade, Mexico’s deputy foreign minister, said the countries had some remaining areas of disagreement.

View here:  YouTube presentation: USMCA: What They Are Not Telling You About USMCA.

Read here:  5 Reasons why USMCA Won’t Pass Easily, Feb.21, 2019.

Read here: Trump’s Trade Deal Steals a Page From Democrats’ Playbook, Dec.1, 2019.

Might President Trump not have been informed or well advised of all the negative aspects of USMCA?  He certainly could not have read the massive document.

Might it be true as Christian Gomez shared in his New American article of Tuesday July 23, 2019:  USMCA steppingstone to an EU-style North American Union?

“If we Americans are to preserve our God-given rights — afforded by our national sovereignty — then we must convince Congress to reject the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which is a steppingstone toward an EU-style North American Union.”

Friday, December 06, 2019 at 11:53 AM | Permalink