The Blame-Game and Lies About the Border Immigration Crisis

The explosion of unaccompanied children crossing our southern border -- up 92% just this year under Obama's watch -- has caused the President and the Democrats to find anyway possible to blame the Republicans -- and even George W. Bush -- for this crisis.

Obama blames the Republicans for not passing immigration reform. However, there isn't a single,  change in the proposed policies -- from either the Democrats or the Republicans -- that would have prevented or stopped this current wave of children from asking for asylum from violent countries like El Salvador, Honduras, or Guatemala.

They are coming here because they are aware of an existing law --  the Trafficking Victims and Violence Protection Act -- which mandates that border agents must accept any child into this country who is seeking asylum from violence in their own country.  And, they can't be deported without having  a legal hearing as to whether or not they were truly endangered. Even if we added 700 miles of new fencing, any of these children could go to a cross-border checkpoint, and our agents must accept them.

Now, with regard to the Trafficking Victims and Violence Protection Act, there are those who are attempting to blame George W. Bush for its reauthorization in 2008. But, there are three facts that aren't being told about the 2008 law.  First, it was originally signed by Bill Clinton in 2000 and had to be renewed several times because it always carried an automatic sunset date.  The 2008 renewal not only pertained to human trafficking, but also included a new amendment covering asylum for unaccompanied alien children fleeing violence. That amendment was written and promoted by a Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein, in her role as the Chairperson of the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee.  Bush may have signed it into law but the "unaccompanied rule" was a Democrat-led initiative. Secondly, it expired in 2011 and had to be reauthorized and signed by President Barack Obama in 2013.  This 2013 reauthorization seems to have been the impetus for the current wave of children exploding into the crisis we are now seeing.

So, it's pretty simple.  If the Trafficking Victims and Violence Protection Act is repealed or amended, the problem would, in all probability, go away.  However, none of our politicians -- on either side of the political aisle -- are going to put their name on a law that would heartlessly return children to a life of violence and possible death.  Personally I don't see any way of ever stopping this.

However, what I am afraid of, is that many politicians will push for reuniting these children with their parents in "this" country and not their own.  If this does happen, it will create a new method for immigrants to gain legal access into the U.S. by simply sending their kids to the border.  Thus, they will succeed in bypassing our existing legal immigration laws.  And, the surge of aliens into our country will only be amplified.

References:

Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victims_of_Trafficking_and_Violence_Protection_Act

Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/surge-in-unaccompanied-child-immigrants-spurs-white-house-reaction/

Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Feinstein Amendment to Protect Unaccompanied Alien Children: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=7b292e44-b306-86d0-a0b4-981389abaf5d

U.S. State Department Guide on Trafficking Laws: http://www.state.gov/j/tip/laws/

Feinstein's 'Torture' Report: Why Now?

Seven years after the whole world knew the U.S. conducted harsh interrogations, and five years after Obama banned it by executive order, Senator Dianne Feinstein wants to do one more autopsy on the topic by declassifying and releasing a summary report that she had previously commissioned.  In her explanation in wanting to do so, she said it would "ensure that an un-American, brutal program of detention and interrogation will never again be considered or permitted."  Of course, the release of the report will only serve to put the total blame on the Bush Administration and all other Republicans who will naturally be guilty by association for such an "un-American" and "brutal program."

But here's the back story on this whole "interrogation" mess.

First of all, Feinstein could have released such a report at any time over the last five years that she has served as chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence.  But, she only elected to do so this year, an election year, when the Senate Democrats are in serious trouble.

Of course, what that report won't show is how complicit Democrats were in allowing those interrogation techniques; going all the way back to 2002.  Nor, will it take us back to the emotions of the days and weeks following 9/11 or recreate the shock and fear we experienced.  Americans demanded any and all measures that would make us feel safe again. Of course, this response was no different than this country's detention of Japanese Americans during World War II.  Another dark time in our past that should never be repeated.

Knowing Obama and how totally political he is, he will probably issue an executive order that declassifies the report and, as such, exposes interrogation techniques that could be used sometime in the future,  against our own soldiers, or by one country against another.  This is why the report has been classified all along.  Simply, there are some things that should not be common knowledge. 

References:

Hill (Democrats) Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

Hayden thinks Feinstein's 'emotional' opposition to CIA interrogations taints report: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/06/hayden-thinks-feinstein-emotional-opposition-to-cia-interrogations-taints/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/06/hayden-thinks-feinstein-emotional-opposition-to-cia-interrogations-taints/

Dianne Feinstein: The Leaker Who's Upset With Other Leakers

This week, the big Capital Hill flap is over security leaks regarding specific details about secret operations such as those associated with the Bin Laden killing; Obama's drone "Kill List"; and, the Stuxnet virus that threw Iran's nuclear program into disarray. On the political right, Senators John McCain and Saxby Chamblis are leading the charge for an investigation. On the left -- interestingly enough -- it is Senator Dianne Feinstein who is upset over the leaks. I suppose its good that there are calls for an investigation on a bi-partisan basis. But, at the same time, I find it a bit laughable that Dianne Feinstein seems so irate over the leaking of national security information.

Back in 2009, she shocked the U.S. intelligence community when she took it upon herself to release to the press the fact that the United States was conducting drone strikes originating out of Pakistan air bases: Dianne Feinstein Leaks Classified Info About Pakistan Drone. Prior to that, back in 1995, Feinstein -- as the then-Mayor of San Francisco -- stood before live TV cameras and completely disclosed intentionally withheld information about the famed Night Stalker serial killer case. Her release of that information may have actually delayed the eventual arrest of Richard Ramirez, by forcing him to move back to Los Angeles where he was able to kill again. I guess when it comes to confidential and secret information being leaked, it takes a leaker to know a leaker. And, for that, Feinstein is probably more qualified than anyone else to head up an investigation into the current spate of national security leaks.

The Fairness Doctrine: Unintended Consequences

It might just be a totally false belief by the Democrats that the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine (See definition) will benefit them by getting a nemesis like Rush Limbaugh off the air. Take note of these comments by an FCC Commissioner (See Full Story). It just might be the popular Huffington Post and the Daily KOS who gets whacked under that law, too.

Another couple of fat targets for the Fairness Doctrine will be the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). For years, these taxpayer supported radio and television networks have had unimpeded left-wing slants to their broadcasting. These bastions of liberal voice might just have to become a lot more conservative in their programming. You've got to know that every conservative watchdog group in America will be itemizing every time a liberal like Bill Moyers gets airtime and there isn't any offsetting conservative programming. PBS and NPR will ultimately be forced, by the courts, to provide conservative alternatives. Can you picture Nancy Pelosi's face when someone like Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter is forced to get their own show on PBS or NPR! There won't be enough porcelain receptacles on Capital Hill to handle all the nausea and vomiting from the Democratic lawmakers. TUMS will be in short supply for all the heartburn.

ABC, CBS, and NBC will have to watch it, too. There just might have to be a "This Week with Rush Limbaugh" to offset that Clinton guy, George Stephanopoulos. Then, let's not forget about the Chris Matthews Show on NBC. How about an NBC show titled: "The Laura Ingram Show". "60 Minutes" might have to dedicate a few more minutes to conservative viewpoints to offset their liberal pablum. Maybe they will have to call it "90 Minutes" to be fair. Maybe a separate show called "60 Minutes Too!"

I just think the left of the left like Senators Durbin, Kerry, Boxer, and Feinstein and our dear Speaker of the House, little miss Pelosi, haven't really thought through the consequences of reimplementing the Fairness Doctrine. But, "thinking things through" has never been a Democrat's or, for that matter, any politician's long suit. That's why history is littered with so many bad laws that had to be repealed. They are being so blinded by the hatred for Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio personalities that they don't realize that they might be shooting themselves in the foot.

My guess is that, if a Barack Obama is elected, we will the see the ugly face of the Fairness Doctrine. It will become another law that sees too much time in the courts; both in defending it and using it for some biased advantage. Ultimately, it will be rescinded. As for Rush Limbaugh. He will probably keep hammering the Democrats for many years to come and will be untouched by the Fairness Doctrine. Others like Sean Hannity or Laura Ingram might not fare as well but will eventually return to talk radio when the "Doctrine" dies another death. That's just my viewpoint.


Image by Joe Gratz's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing. All rights retained. (Click to View Other Works).

Accentuating the Negative (For Poltitical Gain)

All too often, our politicians are complete morons.

I think back to the stupidity of Democratic U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, when she was the mayor of San Francisco in 1985, and she decided to publicly release police-only-known information about Richard Ramirez, the famous serial killer know as the Night Stalker. In doing so, she forced Ramirez to flee San Francisco and go to Los Angeles where these facts were little known and where he could (And did!), with some anonymity, kill again.

All too often our politicians, for purely political gains, release information that can be detrimental to our society. Recently, Senator Schumer, of New York, did just that. In a June 26 letter, he decided to warn that IndyMac Bank in California was at risk of bailout or collapse because of it's high sub-prime mortgage loans. Instead of being a benefactor to those who banked at IndyMac, he caused depositors to "run" on the bank and, subsequently, on Friday, the Bank went under and had to be taken over by the Federal government (See Full Story). Those with FDIC insured accounts with less than $100,000 will be saved by the Feds (Actually, by you and I as taxpayers!). However, those with amounts over $100,000 may only get 50 cents on the dollar for any savings above $100,000. This could be a lot of seniors and people close to retirement who had their life savings in that bank.

(Please Note: I think it would be more appropriate that a Senator from California release any problematic information about a California-based bank like IndyMac. It should not come from some Senator, like Schumer, from another State like New York. However, if you are the Chairman of Democratic Senatorial (re-election) Campaign Committee and an Obmaa supporter, like Schumer, you must think it's OK to trash a bank that is not in your own State. After all, all's fair in love and politics!)

With the political mindset of a left-wing politician like Schumer, it was important to highlight another risk in our mortgage morass so that the Bush Administration (and, I am sure, John McCain) would look "bad". Of course, this helps the Democrats and (let's never forget) it helps Barack Obama. But, a lot of people will be hurt in that process. Schumer's defense in what he did is that people are trying to, once again, shoot the messenger. But, what a leading Senator says in this country has a lot to do with what people will do. And, their reaction to his comments was to yank their money and leave that bank as quickly as possible.

I firmly believe that all the negative talk that came from the Democrats over the last 4 years about the Iraq War (pre-Surge) may have actually cost American lives by emboldening our enemy; in just the same way that the IndyMac Bank was affected by Schumer's ill-timed letter. But, only God knows how many soldiers died at the hands or our own American politicians! Sadly, they continue to make these life-altering blunders and they keep their jobs and their fat salaries and their fat retirement pay.

How stupid are we as Americans?!

As an aside. The FDIC insurance coverage level of $100,000 has been stuck at that rate for as long as I can remember. At least 40 years. During that same time frame, salaries have nearly tripled. This is another case where our elected officials, who manage to vote in their own raises every year, let important "ceilings" just rot until it is too late to do something about it. This like the previous estate tax ceiling, which had be left unchanged for over 50 years, is a typical example of our government's inaction. No level of tax deduction, tax exemption, or Federally mandated pay schedule, like the minimum wage, should be left without a cost of living adjustment associated with it. That just makes common sense.

Update: The original photo of Chuck Schumer was taken off this site because I erroneously thought is was a "public domain" image of the Senator. I am usually careful in this regard but, in my haste, I was wrong. The current image is in the public domain.

image in the public domain and royalty free