Thursday, April 23, 2015


By Nancy Thorner – 

The results of CNN poll on April 20, placed former Governor Jeb Bush, as of yet an undeclared candidate, at the top of the Republican Party’s presidential picks for 2016.  With no competition Hillary won the top spot for the Left.  Although name recognition is helpful in attracting supporters, in regard to Jeb Bush, how much is really known about him?  Jeb describes himself as a “Conservative Reformer”, but it will be remembered that his brother’s presidency exhibited “Compassionate Conservatism”.  After G.W. was elected president conservatives were not at all pleased with what his compassionate conservatism was all about.

It would be negligent not to explore and investigate Jeb Bush, the candidate. Is Bush really the conservative he vigorously touts as being when he served as a two-term Florida governor? There are reports that claim Jeb Bush governed as a conservative, but a number of years have passed since Jeb completed his second term in 2007.

As detailed in Part 1 of “Jeb Bush, a Conservative, a Moderate, or a Globalist,” Bush didn’t allow challengers to stand in his way when running and winning the governorship two times in Florida.  As such it is fair to use past behavior to present insight into Jeb Bush’s possible conduct in his yet-to-be-announced presidential bid.  A  Crowley Political Report on Feb. 26 questioned whether Jeb Bush would act like a bully if and when he declares himself a GOP presidential candidate. Since Bush vowed that he would run for president only if he could do so “joyfully”, the bully concept cannot be dismissed.

Noted in a New York Times article is that behind the scenes Bush and his aides have pursued the nation’s top campaign donors, political operatives, and policy experts with an eye to rapidly locking up the highest-caliber figures, making it all but impossible for other Republican candidates to assemble a high-octane campaign team. In each of his governor elections in 1998, and 2002, Bush attempted to corner the market, willing to “joyfully” hurl a fastball straight to the noggin of anyone who dared to get in his way.  This Times story is worth reading for more insight in the “Bush way of campaigning joyfully.”

As observed when Jeb Bush made an appearance in Nashua, New Hampshire, on April 18, Bush may very well mirror his actions that twice helped him win the governorships of Florida.  As reported on April 18, ties between Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (a 43-year-old son of Cuban immigrants) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (a 62-year-old member of one of the nation’s most powerful political dynasties), political allies for more than a decade, are fraying as the Republican presidential campaign picks up steam.  In public, mentor Bush and protege Rubio, have avoided criticizing each other since Rubio announced his candidacy, but Bush allies have started quietly spreading negative information about Rubio’s record.  So far Rubio’s team has declined to respond in kind.

As Al Cardenas remarked, a Bush adviser also close to Rubio: “Sparks are going to fly. For the first time in our country’s history you’ve got two guys from the same town in the same state from same party running in the same primary.” A well connected individual in Florida told Thorner that it was Jeb Bush who pushed Rubio into supporting amnesty in the Senate, which in turn hurt Rubio with the Republican conservative base. Jeb wasn’t pleased when Rubio withdrew his amnesty position.

Early on there are cues pointing to likelihood that Jeb Bush is being endorsed and funded heavily by the Republican establishment.  As Phyllis Schlafly relates in her book. “A Choice Not An Echo.” in early 1936 a little group of secret kingmakers (prominent financiers and industrialists) laid long-range plans to control the Republican Party. This group has used every trick to dictate the choice of the Republican presidential nominee up to now.  It was the kingmakers who were responsible for derailing and destroying Senator Barry Goldwater in the election of 1964. In the eyes of the kingmakers, it was anyone but Goldwater, preferring, as they did, the continuation of the policies of Democrat incumbent Lyndon Johnson to those of Goldwater.

With this in mind, there is every reason to believe the kingmakers of today, although faces have changed, are partial to Jeb Bush as the 2016 Republican presidential nominee. The perception being, Bush is himself a loyal Republican Establishment member and also a confirmed globalist, following in the steps of his father (G.H.) and brother (G.W.). Writing in the Christian Science Monitor Mark Sappenfield had this to say about Jeb Bush as a yet undeclared candidate:

“Bush III is not yet in the presidential race, though he is apparently raising enough money to singlehandedly send Richard Branson to Jupiter, so there’s not much mystery about his intentions”. . . “Bush’s hundreds of millions are as good an indicator as any right now of where the establishment’s money is (literally).”

To some it might seem conspiratorial to imply that the mechanics are already being set in motion to ensure that Jeb Bush is the 2016 Republican candidate.  Consider this:  Even before Jeb Bush has officially declared his candidacy for 2016, he is preparing to give the traditional campaign a makeover by turning some of his campaign’s central functions over to a separate political organization (a PAC) that can raise unlimited amounts of money.  Not that other candidates haven’t done so, but for Bush the potential benefits are enormous. Campaigns can raise only $2,700 per donor for the primary and $2,700 for the general election. A super PAC, however, enables a candidate to raise unlimited cash from individuals, corporations and groups such as labor unions.  This means that in theory a small group of wealthy Bush supporters could pay for much of the work of electing him by writing massive checks to the super PAC.

Bush, when he finally does declare, would begin a White House bid with confidence that he will have the money behind him to make a deep run into the primaries. Even if Bush should stumble early on, spooking small-dollar donors and starving his own campaign of money, he would still have the means to carry on.  It is perceived that the ability of the super PAC to legally raise unlimited amounts of money far outweighs its primary disadvantage, that of not being able to legally coordinate its actions with Bush or his would-be campaign staff.

On the whole, conservatives aren’t happy with the broken campaign promises of those they elect to office, such as now exists in the 114th United States Congress where Republican Party members are failing to live up to their campaign promises.  Few would dispute that our vote for president stands above all others in importance.  This is especially true in 2016 given the precarious state of this nation and its descent into financial insolvency and moral bankruptcy.

Does Jeb Bush have what it takes to turn this nation around as a conservative reformer?  It’s going to be extremely difficult to convince many American, other than establishment Republicans who want to win at any cost, that Bush’s views on Amnesty, Common Core, and Climate Change are not Democrat-lite in their scope.

Part Two will explore Jeb Bush’s positions on  Amnesty, Common Core, and Climate Change, as expressed by Bush himself, in his still unannounced campaign.

Friday, February 13, 2015

Illegal-cheat-sheet (1)

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

Our current immigration rules outline acceptable reasons for border agents to follow, when deciding whether undocumented aliens can cross into the United States. What has and is continuing to happen with the unprecedented 60,000 currently asking for entry is an example of how our laws are being violated by “gaming the system”. The aliens were given a “cheat sheet” (see above), which has been found at the border, with prepared instructions on how to answer designated questions asked by border agents how to provide the right answers, which will in turn guarantee them entry.  One of the more important questions they are being asked is their reason for wanting to leave their country of origin.  The aliens were told to claim it was due to poverty and/or fear of their government or gangs. Those answers are the “triggers” or the “loop holes” in our immigration law, which were originally written and intended for specific purposes (such as preventing sex trafficking) and certainly not for qualifying half the world’s population for entry into America.

If this loophole is not quickly corrected, we can expect a steady stream of immigrants to invade our country, creating a disaster we are not equipped to handle, and which our established immigration law was enacted to avoid. There are some concerned that within a short period of time, the parents of these children will be allowed to join their children under family unification. We certainly suspect others who see the success of the masses already here, will be eager to try the plan themselves. Quick action to shore up the loopholes, and resolve this problem is required by our government, or the precedent created will cause great harm to America.

It has been suggested that President Obama and his “no borders supporters” might perceive this increase in child immigrants to be a politically opportune moment.  President Obama has pushed Congress to act on long-stalled proposals to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws, and he has indicated the changes would ease requirements for illegals to gain citizenship.   Should immigration reform pass, the flood of those invading the U.S. will become even more massive, as the hope of amnesty entices them to make the difficult trip north.  That phenomena happened when President Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in 1986.   Although closing the border was stipulated in that 1986 bill, the border security promise never kept.

While President Obama advocates for amnesty, it appears there are already those in place who will protest increased border security.  An Obama-appointed judge has recently ruled that a fence protecting the border is discriminatory against minorities!  Sadly, some in our judicial system are more concerned with citizens from other countries then they are in protecting our own.  According to liberals, sealing the border is bigoted and racist.  Apparently that opinion allows them to disregard our immigration laws and previous agreements to secure the border.   Agreements and promises are ignored, and the unprecedented onslaught continues.

For those who put compassion above all else, they should consider the dangers of transporting unattended children so far without their parents.  Some die before reaching their destination, due to the multitude of dangers they encounter.   Also, it is important that we discover who set up and financed those dangerous trips. Most parents were obviously not in a position to do so, and if they did do so, how then can the child claim poverty.      How did they get through Mexico without passports and the right papers?  Mexico has much more stringent rules about authenticated passports. Yet, they breezed through Mexico.  There is much more to this story that we do not yet know, indicating serious mischief by top officials.  We are learning that these children rode what are called death trains, where it is common to jump on top of moving trains, and then struggle with hunger, illness and exposure to the elements as they ride a train 3,000 miles to our border.  Worse yet, Sen. Ted Cruz said the children are being placed in ‘unspeakable’ peril when the traffickers, known as ‘coyotes,’ take over. ‘We just heard stories of little boys and little girls, forced by these drug dealers to cut off the fingers or cut off the ears of other little boys and little girls, in order to extort money from their families,’ Cruz said – See more at:

Who will step forward with inconvenient facts?

Another problem not being discussed is that agents are now being pulled away from their patrol stations elsewhere along the border, resulting in dangerous gaps in coverage, and thus allowing drug traffickers to exploit the situation.   While we are caring for citizens here illegally from other countries, we are harming American citizens by inadvertently allowing an increase of illegal drug supplies and criminals into our country.

Will this tragedy be just one more example of a liberal media effectively protecting the Obama administration from the full extent of a White House involvement?  Will they turn this horrendous situation into some kind of a humanitarian effort in which our government is to be applauded?  Too often the “spin” effectively hides important facts with irrelevant fluff.  Will the media investigate or sufficiently explore the impact this mass immigration will have on our population, such as the exorbitant costs to taxpayers who will now be responsible for the immigrants’ expenses, their education, their very lives?

Will the use of this immigration crisis open the door to universal citizenship for illegal aliens

There are good reasons for our immigration laws; they protect our citizens.  Our porous southern border is harming Americans due to the importation of drugs, sex trafficking, criminals, and contagious illnesses, including one known case of swine flu in San Antonio, directly linked to the border surge.

What is not being discussed is that due to the unprecedented number of immigrants in America, our Country’s demographics are changing too.  One example of America’s future can be seen in what has happened in Santa Ana, CA, which is the county seat of Orange County.  Fifty years ago Hispanics made up barely 15% of Santa Ana’s population, which were mostly farm workers.  Today, Hispanics make up 79% of Santa Ana’s population and Whites now are a mere 10%.  If the current lack of immigration enforcement continues, Santa Ana will not be an exception.

Democrat officials have done very little to stop this invasion by illegals, which many attribute to the fact Hispanics vote for Democrat candidates by large percentages.  It has been said that Democrats don’t see people, they see voters. Republicans see overcrowded classrooms, higher taxes to support the massive welfare programs needed to support them, and cultural changes due to the problem Hispanics do not assimilate.  They remain loyal to their birth country, and send much of their money to Mexican relatives.  Santa Ana schools have even used Mexican textbooks in their classes; books that are favorable to Mexico, not the United States.

The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) made some interesting observations about the border crisis, saying:  “Congress must take immediate action to protect our homeland from this invasion. The orchestrated surge exposes a crises in leadership which by design fosters lawlessness which is bound to end in anarchy. The humanitarian issue is a false argument put forth by the administration which is very likely the reason the administration will not allow interviews of the minors by the press.  The administration does not want the truth to get out.  The truth would dispel the deception.  Whatever America does, whatever NAFBPO does, should protect American and Americans first to the maximum extent possible.  That means consequences for the lawbreakers to stop the invasion and return the invaders to their home country.  Period!  Anything less is political posturing.”  Possibly their most potent statement was this: “America is undergoing the most intensive campaign of political deception ever launched against Americans by her political leaders.” 

It is incomprehensible why all of America isn’t absolutely demanding that all the children be returned to authorities in their home country, and stop this potential precedent that has more potential to harm instead of help America.  They should not just be returned to their parents, but to their respective government officials so that they will have the burden of and responsibility for locating parents and reuniting these families. No asylum, no amnesty, no sheltering them in our cities.  This is a critical national security issue.  We urge all concerned citizens to ask their Congressional representatives to take immediate action to protect our homeland from this invasion, by demanding this of their elected officials.

University of California Professor Darrell Y. Hamamoto, a Professor of Asian American Studies at the University of California, Davis, warned on June 25 that “the influx of illegal immigrants into the United States through mass uncontrolled illegal immigration is part of a plan to create a new underclass of people who can be re-educated from the ground up in order to create a subservient underclass who can be controlled much more easily.”

Hamamoto’s warning is noteworthy given his position at one of the most liberal institutions in the United States. He has received backlash from his vocal stance against the mass influx of unaccompanied children across the border.  Even so Professor Hamamoto’s concerns are so profound that he has had no reservations in going public.

Many concerned citizens are recognizing another potential aspect of the recent wave of “Unaccompanied Alien Children”, claiming it is one more application of the left’s long-championed Cloward Piven strategy, which has been used multiple times in the past to accomplish liberal goals.  It has been suggested that Obama is using the hordes of unaccompanied children sent to our southern border as pawns to implement his goal of universal citizenship for illegal immigrants, by referencing the intentionally created crisis as a humanitarian one.

The big question which everyone must consider is whether the liberal’s goal to help other country’s citizens will be realized or whether American citizens will refuse to be influenced by emotions, and instead be motivated by logic and wisdom.  America is $17 trillion in debt, with a myriad of problems that will take great efforts to correct, including security concerns and continuous problems with a significant jobless rate and homeless population.  Close to 50 percent of Americans are on some type of financial assistance program.  We simply cannot take on the “needy” of this world, without soon suffering a similar fate ourselves.

Thorner & O’Neil: Part 1: Surge of immigrants: humanitarian issue or political deception?

Technorati Tags: Illinois Review

Monday, April 28, 2014


Ed Ingold said…

When President Reagen agreed to amnesty for 1 million immigrants, the final count was 4 million. People swarmed across the border to take advantage of the program. President Obama demands amnesty for 11 million immigrants. Does that mean 44 million this time?

We don’t know who is actually in the country now. In lieu of a firm headcount, the Census Bureau makes estimates. Furthermore, starting with the 2010 census, President Obama moved the Census Bureau from the Department of Commerce to the White House, under Rahm Emanual at the time.

Mark Weyermuller

Weyermuller: Do Illinois Republicans Want Amnesty?

Are Illinois republicans supporting immigration reform for illegal aliens?  The “establishment” Republican party held a press conference Tuesday with over 400 people in attendance at Chicago Club. This major public policy event, sponsored by the Illinois Business Immigration Coalition, was attended by over 400 people.
The IBIC Principles for immigration reform are visa expansions for high skilled, low skilled, and agricultural workers, legalization and citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants.
Illinois Review contributors were here, including Nancy Thorner covering the “pro-American/Anti-Amnesty Rally” outside across the street in Grant Park while I was inside the venue watching the press conference.  Read more in her Illinois Review story including the large police presence watching these flag waving harmless law abiding patriots.  Former congressman Joe Walsh helped lead the rally outside.  Their  theme was “Save the American Worker.”
Inside the posh Chicago Club, the event was hosted by Exelon’s CEO John Rowe.  He was joined by Illinois Chamber of Commerce President Doug Whitley. They introduced a variety of  business leaders to discuss the moral, economic, and political aspects of reform.  They included Carol Segal, co-founder of Crate and Barrel, Doug Oberhelman, CEO of Caterpillar, Sue Gin, CEO Flying Food Group, Joe Green, CEO of FWD,US, and Sergio Suarez, CEO of NAIMA.
Next up, a variety of Illinois politicians and candidates spoke. They were all seated together in the second row (see photo).  Each spoke for about two minutes including Dennis Hastert, Jim Edgar, Christine Radogno, Jim Durkin, Judy Barr Topinka, Tom Cross, Jim Oberweis, and Bruce Rauner.  Appearing on video were Aaron Schock and Adam Kinzinger.  Also up front introduced but not speaking were Bob Dold, Darlene Senger, and Evelyn Sanguinetti.  It was a “Who’s Who” of Illinois Republicans past and present.
I don’t believe the words “amnesty, open borders, or  illegal  alien” were ever used in this 60 minute presentation.  One reporter next to me called it a “dog and pony” show.  Others felt this was pandering by the Republican party without any serious legislative plan which would have to have democratic support.  It was obviously well organized and well orchestrated. Over 100 media people attended yet there was no mention on the 10:00 pm local news on 2,5, or 7 but I did see it several times on CLTV.  There was a fair amount of print and internet coverage.  The Blackhawks, Chicago Cubs 100th anniversary, and the surge of violence on Chicago Streets seemed to dominate most local news.
Both Jim Oberweis and Bruce Rauner spoke of “pro-reform” yet seemed to hedge on specifics.  Oberweis received the least applause after his remarks. In my opinion, much of this was all about votes.  In fact it was much about “Hispanic votes.”
Two hours before this event downtown, I attended another conservative event at a private catholic school in Wicker Park (3 miles away). Presidential hopeful Kentucky Senator Rand Paul spoke to 300 conservatives on school choice sponsored by the Illinois Policy Institute.  There were virtually no republicans who attended both events other than me.  Perhaps this shows the divide in the Illinois Republican Party between conservatives (some call the tea party) and the establishment.
Whether you call these residents illegal aliens or undocumented workers, most would agree that something should be done with some type of reform.  The question is what to do. With an election approaching in November, politicians are jumping on the band wagon to win hearts and minds, then ultimately votes. The election is Tuesday, November 4, 2014.

Story and photos by Mark Weyermuller


Image 7
(L-R) Oberweis, Durkin, Cross, Rauner, Topinka, Edgar, Hastert

By Nancy Thorner and Mark Weyermuller – 

On Wednesday the Illinois Business Immigration Coalition hosted a discussion about immigration reform at the Chicago Club.

Republican leaders shared their support for reform, including former U.S. House Speaker Denny Hastert, former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar, State Senator Christine Radogno, State Representative Jim Durkin, State Comptroller Judy Barr Topinka, State Rep. Tom Cross, State Senator Jim Oberweis, and ILGOP gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner.

Outside, a group opposing amnesty, protested the meeting.

One of the protesters was radio personality Joe Walsh, who criticized the event at “that fancy club across the street,” saying those who would be speaking are the “elite who were trying to push down all of our throat amnesty for illegals.”

“There are far too many elitists inside the Republican Party,” Walsh shouted into a bullhorn. Democrats are pushing for the legalization of 16-22 million illegal immigrants because ‘they are their voters,'” Walsh said.

Inside the Club, both Jim Oberweis and Bruce Rauner spoke of being “pro-reform,” yet hedged on specifics.

With Chicago Police on hand, Rosanna Pulido of the Illinois Minuteman Project – who was an avid fan of Jim Oberweis in 2002 – urged protesters to stand up for American jobs. Other speakers included Rick Belsada of the Chicago Minutemen Project, Susan Tully as National Field Director of FAIR, David A. Dewar of

Ms. Pulido indicated how outrageous it was for Republican millionaires and corporate CEOs to be lobbying for amnesty to give work visas to illegal aliens when Chicago-area unemployment stood at 9 percent and twenty million Americans could not find a job. “We do not need more workers with such a dismal unemployment rate?  What we need is for Republican candidates to support the Republican platform!” Pulido said.

Joe Walsh, a former U.S. congressman in the 10th District defeated by Tammy Duckworth in 2012, remarked Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner is pushing for amnesty, in contrast to grassroots America. Walsh warned Boehner not to “sell us down the river” like the Democrats have.

Said Walsh: “If elected politicians don’t stand up for the rule of law what good are they?” Walsh believes “in his bones” that should amnesty be granted, a third party will be formed the day after.

Paul McKinley, an African American that lost the election to replace Jesse Jackson Jr, remarked that Chicago is “the Murder Capitol of the World” and as a “Sanctuary City.” “If we break the law we go to jail; for illegals there is no jail time,” McKinley said.

Others attending the protest were 9th CD candidate David Earl Williams III, Carl Segvich, GOP Illinois’ David Diersen, and talk show host Bill Kelly.

Anti-Amnesty Rally 012  Anti-Amnesty Rally 015

It was House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-23 District, CA) who left the “cat out of the bag” as to how the House will deal with immigration reform, when according to an interview McCarthy gave to eyewitness News in Bakersfield, CA on Wednesday, January 22, “Republican leaders are calling for the first time to give legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States,” signaling that amnesty will be part of the House Republican “piecemeal” immigration strategy. McCarthy’s district just happens to include a huge Hispanic population. Hispanics now equal the number of whites in California.

A clue to what John Boehner really had in mind was when in December of last year Boehner hired an adviser who had helped Sen. John McCain push comprehensive immigration, Rebecca Tallent, a well-known expert in the field of immigration.

What is the piecemeal deal now being considered by top House Republicans? It is a set of principles and standard by which the GOP can proceed on the path to full-scale reform. At an upcoming House Republican Conference annual retreat beginning on January 29th to discuss their legislative agenda, immigration reform will undoubtedly be front and center in the lead up to the endorsement of piecemeal immigration reform by House Republicans.

The two shiny objects in the Republican piecemeal approach to immigration which seem to glitter with so much promise in the eyes of Republican Party Leadership and many establishment members are twofold, the Dream Act and amnesty for agricultural workers.

1. Dream (or KIDS) Act: The stand-alone House version of this bill has not yet been unveiled, but the Gang of 8’s DREAM plank would legalize between 2-3 million individuals currently in the country illegally. Once legalized, they could then sponsor family member–those abroad and those who are currently in the country illegally–resulting in a “chain migration” that could triple the number of amnesty recipients.

Although this act might initially sound like the compassionate thing as it represents a law for children, but under the Senate bill there is no age requirement in applying for amnesty as long as the child has a high school diploma and was under the age of 16 when they entered unlawfully. Given the president broad use of executive power, he has board discretion to waive various requirements of a bill by giving special exemptions for hardship or public interest.

Consider also that each new citizen would be eligible for a host of mean-tested welfare program as a cost that might well amount to billions each year. The House version might vary, but most likely it will contain the same framework.

2. Agriculture Jobs Amnesty: H.R. 1773 (The “Agricultural Guest Worker Act”) would grant amnesty to all current illegal agricultural workers and welcomes 500,000 new workers each year (permitting the Secretary of Agriculture full discretion to raise the cap to accommodate a number of elusive considerations). Not unlike the DREAM Act, H.R. 1773 creates a new center of gravity from which chain legalization and government subsidies will follow.

Are House establishment Republican about to put hood-winked again by their naivete in believing that any piecemeal approach to immigration would survive once their proposed bills did go to conference with the Senate’s version produced by the Gang of Eight (S. 744).

Remember the recent Ryan/Murray budget proposal and its final conference product.

Consider what Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) had to say on August 7, 2013:

We would prefer a big comprehensive bill but any way the House can get there is okay by us. If they pass individual, smaller bills they will get agglomerated.

Why would President Obama support a piecemeal approach to immigration reform? President Obama. according to The Wall Street Journal, said he would be willing to accept a series of immigration bills instead of a single piece of comprehensive legislation that overhauls immigration policy, so long as the outcome would be the same as the Senate’s Gang of Eight bill.

Statement such as the above should raise the antenna of House Republicans. They have for Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), who in voting “no” on the Senate bill believes that the Republican-controlled House should be dubious and remain on alert. Sessions’ statement of warning:

It’s not step-by-step if the individual bills are combined into a comprehensive proposal in a backroom negotiation and delivered to the president’s desk.

Instead, the House must insist that enforcement is accomplished before advancing any other immigration bills.

It would be wise for members of Congress when attending their annual retreat on January 29th to vocally oppose any plan to unveil and pass piecemeal immigration bills during this Congress, for in the conformation process such bills could be capitulated and even ignored by President Obama.

Ignoring the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and big Republican donors who are in favor or amnesty and who are pushing the House to rally to their cause is a big order for establishment Republicans to fulfill. Are they really up to the challenge given their propensity to be liked and with policies that are Democrat-lite in nature?

Michell Malkin makes the case why Republican legislators should not be wooed by what is literally a wolf in sheep’s clothing — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — in her article of January 24, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce vs. America.

When businesses get in the government handout line, it’s not a “public-private partnership.” It’s corporate welfare. Venture socialism. Whatever you call it, it stinks as much under Democrat administrations as it does under Republican ones.

Always beware of Washington business-boosters wearing false free-market facades.

Malkin goes on to explain in her article, among many troubling facts about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

1. How the chamber is one of the staunchest promoters of mass illegal immigration, and joined with the AFL-CIO and American Civil Liberties Union to oppose immigration enforcement measures.

2. How the chamber opposed E-verify and sued Arizona over its employer sanctions law.

3. How the chamber supported a pro-ObamaCare, pro-TARP, pro-stimulus, pro-amnesty Democrat in Arizona over his free-market GOP challenger.

The two shiny objects are destined to become tarnished objects to sully the Republican Party brand and cause irreparable damage, if the House Republican Party leadership insists on following through – egged on by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and wealthy Republican donors – with its doomed piecemeal approach to illegal immigration.

Get active and call your Illinois U.S. representative. If Republican, there are six Illinois Republican U.S. congressmen. Tell them not to support the piecemeal amnesty strategy that the Republican establishment hopes to have approved at next week’s Republican House annual retreat.

It’s better to do nothing than to go to conference with the Senate and find that the final outcome would be essentially the same as the Senate’s Gang of Eight bill.

Part 1: Republicans pin their hopes on elusive shiny objects

Sunday, January 26, 2014 at 04:00 PM | Permalink

Dismantling the Regulatory State is a Good Place to Start:
Part 2: Fasten Your Seat belts for Another Unbridled Year of Rules and Regulations

Turning to 2014, how will the year stack up for issuing federal rules and regulation sans Congressional involvement? Fasten your seat belts, for federal agencies are off to a running start! It will be a bumpy ride. Expect contentious fights ahead over many new rules stemming from ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, Immigration, EPA regulations, Energy, Climate Change, and a host of other issues.

In the first three days of 2014 there were 141 new regulations issued by federal agencies. Of the 141 issued 119 are “rulemaking,” meaning they establish a new rule; twenty-three are “non-rulemaking,” meaning the regulation does not establish a new rule. It is no surprise that the largest group of regulations have to do with energy and environmental issues and were issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Noted here are two of the new EPA regulations set forth during the first three days of 2014:On Friday, January 3rd, the EPA published its final carbon capture regulation rule that is meant to remove potential obstacles in the implementation of carbon capture and sequestration (CSS) technology. These standards are viewed by many as a “war on coal” as carbon capture is costly and unproven

Also on Friday, January 3rd, the EPA proposed new standards for harmful emissions from new woodstoves and heaters. These standards would not take effect until 2015 and would only apply to wood heaters made after that. The claim is made that this rule would significantly reduce the pollution linked to heart attacks, strokes and asthma. The Hill, in its December 29, 2013 report, listed the ten biggest regulatory fights expected to take place in 2014:

1. Emissions standards for existing power plants. Obama has given the EPA until June to propose regulations limiting carbon emissions from existing power plants, the centerpiece of Obama’s climate change plan.

2. Regulations coming to e-cigarettes, cigars. The FDA is working on a regulation that could extend current rules to e-cigarettes, which produce vapor instead of smoke.

3. ObamaCare’s birth control mandate heads to court. The High Court is expected to hear arguments in the spring, agreeing as it did last November to hear a challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s so-called birth-control mandate.

4. Turbulence over plan to allow phones on planes. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) voted in mid-December, 2013, to consider lifting the longstanding ban on in-flight cell phone use. The prospect of loud conversations has sparked fierce opposition. While cell phone use is acceptable for FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, as it means fear about interference is no longer an issue, Transportation Secretary, Anthony Foxx, could step in to prohibit in-flight calls by imposing a new regulation.

5. EPA to assert power over streams and ponds. The EPA has started the process of declaring that it has the power to regulate streams, brooks, and small ponds, as it seeks to clear up uncertainly about its powers under the Clean Water Act. This followed a Supreme Court ruling last year which cast doubt on the extent of the EPA’s authority

6. Smog rule on the way. Obama dealt a blow to environmental activists in 2011 when he killed an EPA attempt to issue new standards on ozone, said to be the main contributor of smog. Obama proclaimed at the time that regulatory burdens could hurt the still-struggling economy, and how new rules were not necessary since the EPA was scheduled to review smog standards in 2013. Significant strides are predicted in 2014..

7. SEC to force executives to disclose pay. This is one of hundreds of regulations under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law that has not yet been implemented as a way to tighten the government’s reins on the financial sector. This is a potentially contentious regulation for companies who do not wish to disclose the gap in pay between their chief executives and average employees. Predicted is that its fate may ultimately by decided in Courts.

8. Calorie count coming to restaurant menus. This is one of the lesser-known provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The provision also includes snacks sold in vending machines.

9. Delays to rearview camera rule under attack. The Department of Transportation is already two years late on a regulation requiring all cars to have rearview cameras or similar technology.

10. OSHA to rekindle combustible dust debate. Although OSHA began work on a rule to regulate combustible dust in 2009, spring is the target date for proposing a new resolution. Businesses complain of the cost involved.

Are you one of many Americans who fails to connect the dots between government spending and how more government affects your life? Must likely you were shocked at the 3,659 rules and regulations issued in 2013, never realizing that the cost of big government affects the broader economy by way of fewer jobs, less income, and more expensive products and services. Regulatory costs in 2013 amounted to $14,678 per family.

Mentioned by Thorner were two Rules and Regulations issued by the EPA in the first three days of 2014. Although the EPA might only cost taxpayers about $8 billion in operational costs, the regulations put forth by the agency cost the economy untold hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Regulations by the EPA were up 44% in Obama’s first term. Other active rule-producing agencies are the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, the Interior, Agriculture, and Transportation.

For your information, check out the Competitive Enterprise Institute report titled, Ten Thousand Commandments, which details the size, scope and cost of the federal regulatory behemoth, all 3,659 of them.

As stated by Daniel Horowitz in The Hidden Tax of the Regulatory State:

Every Republican consultant is now giving advice on how to revive the languishing GOP. Some are pushing amnesty, others are pushing gay marriage, and still others are trying to resurrect compassionate conservatism. But we all know that the best strategy is one that effectively communicates to the American people how big government diminishes their quality of life. The regulatory state is a great place to start.

Dismantling the Regulatory State is a Good Place to Start: Part 1: Obama outshines Presidential peers: 3,659 Rules and Regulations during 2013…


Dennis Michael Lynch

By Nancy Thorner – 

Those of you who were not involved with family picnics or other 4th of July activities in your community on the evening of July 4th might have tuned in, as I did, to the Sean Hannity TV show on Fox News. Hannity’s entire show was devoted to a documentary by filmmaker Dennis Michael Lynch, They Come To America, part two, released May 2013. Part one was released June, 2012.

Not surprising, Hollywood and the mainstream media has tried to silence Mr. Lynch. Film festivals would have nothing to do with his documentary. On a tour with part one in the fall of last year, things went very well at first with hundreds packing the venues, but then due to the subject matter many facility owner feared a backlash from the community and protesters and Lynch’s tour became very limited.

According to Lynch:

Prior to producing and directing this film, I cared less about illegal immigration, and yet for some crazy reason, I risked my life to make a non-partisan documentary about the hottest political topic in America.  What’s crazier is why so many people don’t want you to see it.

Based on what Lynch saw during his travels to produce his two documentaries, an amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants will push America over the cliff.

Although I was aware in general of what was happening at our out-of-control southern border, Lynch’s powerful rhetoric, interspersed with clips from his part two documentary, convinced me that the amnesty reform bill recently passed in the Senate (S744) and now in the House for consideration is the most important issue facing this nation today.

It saddens and angers me that the American people are being duped by their government and the Gang of Eight into believing that border security will follow amnesty.  Dealing with border security is but one of the many inconsistencies in the massive 1,200 page bill which few have taken the time to read.  There are triggers that mandate securing the border, but these triggers/mandates can be withdrawn at any time if Janet Napolitano or another decides that the border is now secure.

Most disappointing is how Republican Gang of Eight member, Senator Rubio, has allowed himself to be used by a powerful pro-Obama Democrat.   Rubio’s much touted  “conservative way toward reform” TV ad was funded and produced by none other than Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, a front group aimed at promoting amnesty.

There is no time to waste, with immigration reform to be taken up in the House after the 4th of July recess,   House Speaker John Boehner has announced that the entire Republican caucus will hold a closed-door meeting on July 10th to discuss a way forward on “comprehensive” immigration reform.

Pro-Amnesty proponents are pushing every trick in the book to make Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens a political reality through legislative tricks (the Hoeven-Corker amendment gave security-first Republicans cover to vote “yes”); dark-of-night votes; outright lies; and buyouts of Republican legislators.  Alaskan senators, Lisa  Murkowski and Mark Begich received a boost  for the Alaskan fish processing industry allowing industry to recruit seasonal workers outside the U.S. through a new W visa program set up in the bill.

Although House Speaker Boehner may have made the statement that the Senate’s Gang of eight Amnesty bill is “dead on arrival” in the House, he also said that he wants the House to consider an immigration bill that has the support of a majority of Democrats land a majority of Republicans.

Is Speaker Boehner so naive to believe that a majority of Democrats will support any immigration bill unless amnesty is provided first?  Might this conflicting political posturing by Boehner have as its aim to give House Republican leaders political cover so they can secretly craft their own amnesty-first bill?

Too many Republicans have been swayed by false statements made by fellow Republicans.  John McCain is urging legislators to vote for amnesty to save the Republican Party, whereas the opposite would result by so doing.

My resolve has only strengthened throughout the July 4th weekend since hearing Hannity’s 4th of July special on Fox TV to alert as many individuals as possible (and legislators) to view the following trailers and perhaps even buy the DVD for their own listening and then share with others.  In one purchasing option for the documentary:  Buy 1 ($19.99) of “They Come to America II” and you will receive 5 DVD copies.

In the two days leading up to the Republican caucus July 10th closed-door meeting, and for as long as it takes, keep contacting  your U.S. representative and House Republican Majority Leader John Boehner imploring them not to consider any immigration bill on the floor of the House of Representatives until our border is secure and existing immigration laws are enforced.

Time is running out!  Besides calling your representative and Majority Leader Boehner, it would be productive to email your U.S. representative the following two links:

Trailers for the film “They Come to America” by Dennis Michael Lynch:

If representatives do look at the two trailers and enough of the American people likewise view or hear about the film, there is no way a U.S. House member could ever conceive of passing anything like the Gang of Eight Bill with its many contradictions and triggers that will never be enforced.  Even Republicans senators who voted for the bill might have a change of heart.  Rep. Peter King did change his mind when he viewed They Came to America, part II. 

Without a secure border first policy terrorists will continue to flow across our southern border.  Lynch reports in his documentary how easy it is for terrorist of many countries to cross our southern border.  Many have already done so.  Working with Texas Border Patrol huge groups of illegals were apprehended from Mexico, China, and the Middle East.  According to Lynch: ” It’s no longer if but when!”

As stated by Lynch:  “Those Republicans who voted for the Gang of Eight amnesty bill have blood on their hands.”

Related articles

Sunday, July 07, 2013 at 12:01 PM | Permalink

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,