The article is supposedly about huge cash payments being made by the current US administration to the current government in Afghanistan, but the opening 3 paragraphs (the most read and critical) are about cash payments made a few years ago by the former George W. Bush administration to the then goverment of Iraq. Former president George W. Bush is mentioned directly by name in the 4th line of the article.
By comparison, throughout the entire article the name Barack Obama, the current president who is actuallymaking the current cash payments to Afghanistan (the subject of the article), is not mentioned at all.
Sarah Hall Ingram, had been serving as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations from 2009 to 2012, the group responsible for targeting people who disagree with Barack Obama for government directed financial punishment . She is now serving as the director of the IRS' Affordable Care Act division. This is the unit with 16,000 new IRS agents responsible for enforcing parts of the health care law, including the fines associated with the so-called individual mandate -- the requirement to buy health insurance. She will now be able to punish people who disagree with Barack Obama by screwing up their healthcare and allowing them to die.
What a wonderful place America is turning into!!!!
Oil and gas production in 2012 was double 2011’s output; and yet US energy related CO2 emissions in 2012 were the lowest in twenty years. And it was all due to free-market driven advances and initiatives having NOTHING to do the absurd big government schemes relating to carbon taxes, carbon credits, renewable energy initiatives, green energy subsidies, wind turbines, solar panels, blah, blah, blah....
There is no doubt that we in the USA need to alter our energy strategy. The question of how we will change it, however, needs to be determined by scientific evaluation of fact and logical analysis of performance and economics; not by emotion, political considerations, and “feel good” methodologies.
"...............although my guess is that this will turn out to have been more boneheaded than sinister."
I think it's pretty sinister, but at least the Washington Post Writers Group and I can agree on one thing; President Obama and his entire administration are indeed a bunch of boneheads.
It is additionally interesting that, in the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Supreme Court indicated that birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment would, in fact, be excluded for “members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory”. While application of the term “hostile occupying force” may seem a bit harsh it is not unreasonable, considering that there are now in excess of 12 million illegal aliens (a number many times the larger than the combined US military forces) occupying the territory of the United States in defiance of our laws; and it is worthy to note that the Court was definitely allowing an exclusion of citizenship for the children of people who are present without permission and against the will of the people of the United States. There may be differing opinions on this issue, and legislative and judicial action will be required; but a change of law in this matter should be able to withstand Constitutional scrutiny.
I am very willing to accept immigration reform that facilitates legal and controlled entry into this country for anyone from anywhere; and once these four principles are accepted, other reforms that are necessary to ease restrictions and bureaucracy involved with legal entry will be facilitated. We will be free to discuss any other reasonable reforms that would facilitate the legal application process. We can discuss and implement laws allowing more legal entries. We can discuss and implement making requirements less stringent. We can discuss and implement streamlining the path to permanent residency and/or citizenship. We can discuss and implement a controlled and legal guest or migratory worker program. We can discuss and implement tougher enforcement and consequences for employers who employ illegal aliens. We can discuss any reasonable reforms, as long as it is recognized that the United States has an absolute right and duty to protect its borders and control entry of any and all persons from other areas of the world. What we cannot have is any law or policy which provides incentive of any kind to enter or remain in the United States illegally, or which provides any hope that by entering or remaining here illegally there will be a path to permanent residence or citizenship.
Fourth and most controversial, the privilege of citizenship can no-longer be granted to children born in the United States when the mother is not authorized to be here legally under the jurisdiction of the United States. These children are here as illegally as the mother and, in my view, altering policy and law in this manner does not conflict with the Constitution for several reasons. The words of the 14th Amendment indicate that birthright citizenship applies to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. A person who is here illegally and without the knowledge of the government of the United States, and who is in the very act of defying the laws of the United States, cannot and should not be considered under the jurisdiction of the United States. I have also seen nothing in the record of the original congressional debate regarding the 14th Amendment that indicates the originators were considering illegal aliens at the time of the amendment. They were considering Native Americans, former slaves, and children of legal immigrants; but they were NOT considering illegal aliens in their debates. In addition, certain Supreme Court decisions that are often cited as supporting the traditional overly-liberal interpretation of the birthright clause actually do not address the situation of children born to illegal aliens in the United States. The frequently cited case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) dealt with the citizenship of a child of non-citizen but legal Chinese immigrants. Another frequently cited case, Plyer v. Doe (1982), dealt with the education of children brought to the US as illegal aliens, but not born here. The ruling in Plyler v. Doe may be seen to have bearing on the interpretation of the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment, but it does not answer the question regarding children born here, and the decision was a 5-4 split of the Court, with the dissent indicating that the Court was overstepping its bounds and that the matter should have been resolved legislatively (in other words, as a matter of law or policy).
I am the grandson and great-grandson of legal immigrants to the United States. It is not lost on me that this great nation is a diverse nation of immigrants and that continued acceptance of immigration is essential to maintain our heritage and to remain the light of freedom for the world. However, while it is necessary to avoid bigotry and xenophobia, it is also evident that reasonable immigration control by reasonable laws is required given the situation of the world. It is my belief that the immigration laws of the United States can be best reformed by finding the political will to predicate changes on four completely reasonable principles addressing application for entry, disposition of immigration law violators (illegal aliens), granting of publicly funded benefits, and birthright citizenship. By addressing these four areas, US immigration law can take away the incentive for making illegal entry into the United States, and greatly simplify enforcement. Border security, another necessity of immigration reform, must also be enhanced simultaneously, and I will not address that topic here; but enhanced security in combination with addressing the four basic principles of policy reform will have the effect of facilitating other modifications that are necessary to ease restrictions and bureaucracy involved with legal entry, and allowing the more liberal changes to our immigration laws that we are currently debating.
First, any reasonable immigration reform policy must recognize that application for legal entry into the United States is something that must always be done from outside the United States, or while visiting the United States legally. No person who is in the United States in violation of immigration law (illegal alien) should ever be granted legal status without leaving and then applying for legal re-entry from the outside via the appropriate and legal procedures. Any policy that conflicts with this requirement invites illegal entry by rewarding it, and is absolutely unacceptable.
Second, any person who has violated immigration laws of the United States and who is caught in the United States illegally must be deported and forever barred from re-entry. There can be no exceptions. This does not mean the United States must engage in “round-ups” or “mass deportations”, it just means that illegal aliens must be deported as they are caught.
Third, any reformed immigration policy must absolutely recognize that no person who is in the United State illegally is entitled to any benefits or services supported by public funds; and that identification and proof of legal status is an absolute requirement for application for any such benefits and services. This does not imply that emergency services and emergency healthcare should be withheld; however, once the emergency situation is resolved, deportation of persons here illegally must follow.
Apparently Tom Corbett was quoted saying the following:
.........."There are many employers that say, 'we’re looking for people, but we can’t find anybody that has passed a drug test,' a lot of them," Corbett said during an interview on Radio PA's "Ask the Governor" program. "And that’s a concern for me because we’re having a serious problem with that."...............
Apparently he was criticized for saying this, and apparently it is, in fact, true that finding employees capable of passing a drug test is a significant problem holding up hiring in PA.
Apparently he was being criticized for saying something that is, in fact, true.
When can we expect to hear about the profuse public apologies from the Democrats for their unfair and unfounded criticism of the Governor, who was just stating the truth????
Because they did not want to admit that Al Qaeda and other terrorist entities were running amok in Lybia, making the situation dangerous and out-of-control; for political reasons the Obama administration deliberately chose to NOT provide adequate military security.
Because they did not want to admit that Al Qaeda and other terrorist entities were running amok in Lybia, making the situation dangerous and out-of-control; for political reasons the Obama administration deliberately chose to NOT withdraw the ambassador and his staff, despite knowing that they were also not providing adequate security.
Because they did not want to admit that Al Qaeda and other terrorist entities were running amok in Lybia, making the situation dangerous and out-of-control; for political reasons the Obama administration deliberately chose to NOT send any security forces to rescue and extract the ambassador and his staff once the violence started on 9/11/2012.
Once they realized that their politically motivated actions had resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans, including the ambassador; for political reasons the Obama administration shifted into full spin and cover-up mode; where they remain until this day.
Karzai opens can of worms with admission of CIA cash
Hmmmmmmmm????
The article is supposedly about huge cash payments being made by the current US administration to the current government in Afghanistan, but the opening 3 paragraphs (the most read and critical) are about cash payments made a few years ago by the former George W. Bush administration to the then goverment of Iraq. Former president George W. Bush is mentioned directly by name in the 4th line of the article.
By comparison, throughout the entire article the name Barack Obama, the current president who is actuallymaking the current cash payments to Afghanistan (the subject of the article), is not mentioned at all.
Hmmmmmmmm...Curious????????
May 18, 2013 at 3:27 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Obamacare is headed for hearings
Sarah Hall Ingram, had been serving as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations from 2009 to 2012, the group responsible for targeting people who disagree with Barack Obama for government directed financial punishment . She is now serving as the director of the IRS' Affordable Care Act division. This is the unit with 16,000 new IRS agents responsible for enforcing parts of the health care law, including the fines associated with the so-called individual mandate -- the requirement to buy health insurance. She will now be able to punish people who disagree with Barack Obama by screwing up their healthcare and allowing them to die.
What a wonderful place America is turning into!!!!
May 16, 2013 at 10:31 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Oil, gas production in 2012 double 2011’s output
Oil and gas production in 2012 was double 2011’s output; and yet US energy related CO2 emissions in 2012 were the lowest in twenty years. And it was all due to free-market driven advances and initiatives having NOTHING to do the absurd big government schemes relating to carbon taxes, carbon credits, renewable energy initiatives, green energy subsidies, wind turbines, solar panels, blah, blah, blah....
http://jerrygraf.wordpress.com/2013/0...
There is no doubt that we in the USA need to alter our energy strategy. The question of how we will change it, however, needs to be determined by scientific evaluation of fact and logical analysis of performance and economics; not by emotion, political considerations, and “feel good” methodologies.
http://jerrygraf.wordpress.com/about/
May 16, 2013 at 9:36 p.m. permalink suggest removal
IRS’ mirror-image scandal
From the editorial above:
"...............although my guess is that this will turn out to have been more boneheaded than sinister."
I think it's pretty sinister, but at least the Washington Post Writers Group and I can agree on one thing; President Obama and his entire administration are indeed a bunch of boneheads.
May 15, 2013 at 6:58 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Immigration reform crucial
It is additionally interesting that, in the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Supreme Court indicated that birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment would, in fact, be excluded for “members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory”. While application of the term “hostile occupying force” may seem a bit harsh it is not unreasonable, considering that there are now in excess of 12 million illegal aliens (a number many times the larger than the combined US military forces) occupying the territory of the United States in defiance of our laws; and it is worthy to note that the Court was definitely allowing an exclusion of citizenship for the children of people who are present without permission and against the will of the people of the United States. There may be differing opinions on this issue, and legislative and judicial action will be required; but a change of law in this matter should be able to withstand Constitutional scrutiny.
I am very willing to accept immigration reform that facilitates legal and controlled entry into this country for anyone from anywhere; and once these four principles are accepted, other reforms that are necessary to ease restrictions and bureaucracy involved with legal entry will be facilitated. We will be free to discuss any other reasonable reforms that would facilitate the legal application process. We can discuss and implement laws allowing more legal entries. We can discuss and implement making requirements less stringent. We can discuss and implement streamlining the path to permanent residency and/or citizenship. We can discuss and implement a controlled and legal guest or migratory worker program. We can discuss and implement tougher enforcement and consequences for employers who employ illegal aliens. We can discuss any reasonable reforms, as long as it is recognized that the United States has an absolute right and duty to protect its borders and control entry of any and all persons from other areas of the world. What we cannot have is any law or policy which provides incentive of any kind to enter or remain in the United States illegally, or which provides any hope that by entering or remaining here illegally there will be a path to permanent residence or citizenship.
May 14, 2013 at 9:21 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Immigration reform crucial
Fourth and most controversial, the privilege of citizenship can no-longer be granted to children born in the United States when the mother is not authorized to be here legally under the jurisdiction of the United States. These children are here as illegally as the mother and, in my view, altering policy and law in this manner does not conflict with the Constitution for several reasons. The words of the 14th Amendment indicate that birthright citizenship applies to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. A person who is here illegally and without the knowledge of the government of the United States, and who is in the very act of defying the laws of the United States, cannot and should not be considered under the jurisdiction of the United States. I have also seen nothing in the record of the original congressional debate regarding the 14th Amendment that indicates the originators were considering illegal aliens at the time of the amendment. They were considering Native Americans, former slaves, and children of legal immigrants; but they were NOT considering illegal aliens in their debates. In addition, certain Supreme Court decisions that are often cited as supporting the traditional overly-liberal interpretation of the birthright clause actually do not address the situation of children born to illegal aliens in the United States. The frequently cited case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) dealt with the citizenship of a child of non-citizen but legal Chinese immigrants. Another frequently cited case, Plyer v. Doe (1982), dealt with the education of children brought to the US as illegal aliens, but not born here. The ruling in Plyler v. Doe may be seen to have bearing on the interpretation of the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment, but it does not answer the question regarding children born here, and the decision was a 5-4 split of the Court, with the dissent indicating that the Court was overstepping its bounds and that the matter should have been resolved legislatively (in other words, as a matter of law or policy).
May 14, 2013 at 9:20 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Immigration reform crucial
Four Principles for Reasonable Immigration Reform
I am the grandson and great-grandson of legal immigrants to the United States. It is not lost on me that this great nation is a diverse nation of immigrants and that continued acceptance of immigration is essential to maintain our heritage and to remain the light of freedom for the world. However, while it is necessary to avoid bigotry and xenophobia, it is also evident that reasonable immigration control by reasonable laws is required given the situation of the world. It is my belief that the immigration laws of the United States can be best reformed by finding the political will to predicate changes on four completely reasonable principles addressing application for entry, disposition of immigration law violators (illegal aliens), granting of publicly funded benefits, and birthright citizenship. By addressing these four areas, US immigration law can take away the incentive for making illegal entry into the United States, and greatly simplify enforcement. Border security, another necessity of immigration reform, must also be enhanced simultaneously, and I will not address that topic here; but enhanced security in combination with addressing the four basic principles of policy reform will have the effect of facilitating other modifications that are necessary to ease restrictions and bureaucracy involved with legal entry, and allowing the more liberal changes to our immigration laws that we are currently debating.
First, any reasonable immigration reform policy must recognize that application for legal entry into the United States is something that must always be done from outside the United States, or while visiting the United States legally. No person who is in the United States in violation of immigration law (illegal alien) should ever be granted legal status without leaving and then applying for legal re-entry from the outside via the appropriate and legal procedures. Any policy that conflicts with this requirement invites illegal entry by rewarding it, and is absolutely unacceptable.
Second, any person who has violated immigration laws of the United States and who is caught in the United States illegally must be deported and forever barred from re-entry. There can be no exceptions. This does not mean the United States must engage in “round-ups” or “mass deportations”, it just means that illegal aliens must be deported as they are caught.
Third, any reformed immigration policy must absolutely recognize that no person who is in the United State illegally is entitled to any benefits or services supported by public funds; and that identification and proof of legal status is an absolute requirement for application for any such benefits and services. This does not imply that emergency services and emergency healthcare should be withheld; however, once the emergency situation is resolved, deportation of persons here illegally must follow.
May 14, 2013 at 9:17 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Too many job applicants can’t pass drug test, Pa. business leaders bemoan
@ Askmeificare
Apparently Tom Corbett was quoted saying the following:
.........."There are many employers that say, 'we’re looking for people, but we can’t find anybody that has passed a drug test,' a lot of them," Corbett said during an interview on Radio PA's "Ask the Governor" program. "And that’s a concern for me because we’re having a serious problem with that."...............
Apparently he was criticized for saying this, and apparently it is, in fact, true that finding employees capable of passing a drug test is a significant problem holding up hiring in PA.
Apparently he was being criticized for saying something that is, in fact, true.
May 12, 2013 at 8:13 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Too many job applicants can’t pass drug test, Pa. business leaders bemoan
When can we expect to hear about the profuse public apologies from the Democrats for their unfair and unfounded criticism of the Governor, who was just stating the truth????
May 12, 2013 at 5:47 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Kerry will answer Benghazi questions
What is so difficult to understand?
Because they did not want to admit that Al Qaeda and other terrorist entities were running amok in Lybia, making the situation dangerous and out-of-control; for political reasons the Obama administration deliberately chose to NOT provide adequate military security.
Because they did not want to admit that Al Qaeda and other terrorist entities were running amok in Lybia, making the situation dangerous and out-of-control; for political reasons the Obama administration deliberately chose to NOT withdraw the ambassador and his staff, despite knowing that they were also not providing adequate security.
Because they did not want to admit that Al Qaeda and other terrorist entities were running amok in Lybia, making the situation dangerous and out-of-control; for political reasons the Obama administration deliberately chose to NOT send any security forces to rescue and extract the ambassador and his staff once the violence started on 9/11/2012.
Once they realized that their politically motivated actions had resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans, including the ambassador; for political reasons the Obama administration shifted into full spin and cover-up mode; where they remain until this day.
The truth is as evident as the nose on your face.
May 10, 2013 at 9:27 p.m. permalink suggest removal