Thursday, September 29, 2011
SCHOOL OF FREEDOM THE FOUNDING OCMENTS RELIGIOUS CIVIL LIBERTY
(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)
There are three documents that are rarely mentioned today that we need to recognize as we begin this year of study of the Constitution of the United States. Throughout the world today most of the people still do not have the freedom or the protection of their God given rights that the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution made part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.
The first of those three documents, the Magna Carta[1] was written in England in 1215 AD, almost eight hundred years ago. It was a written response to the disastrous governance of the worst and most disliked king in British history - King John, who ruled from April 1199 to October 1216. King John was so disliked that he has been the subject of many plays, including Wm. Shakespeare's "The Life and Death of King John." [2]
Winston Churchill said of King John's reign as king, "When the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns". John's loss of British power, property and prestige, his personal immoral behavior his battles with the Pope and his excommunication, and, finally, his doubling of heavy taxation to pay for a series of war finally prompted the English barons to meet, write the Magna Carta and in effect forced King John to sign it.
The years it took to upset the English people enough to actually DO something about tyranny in their government is a reminder of Thomas Jefferson's line in the Declaration of Independence: "All experience hath shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by altering forms to which they are accustomed."[3]
The first provision of the Magna Carta, the earliest of the documents about our liberty states:
"GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. " It also required King John to "at once restore to any man whom we have deprived or disposed of lands, castles, liberties or rights, without lawful judgment of his equals" and prohibited government officials from taking "movable goods" from citizens. "
The second English document that was known to the founding fathers was England's Habeas Corpus Act[4], which was passed by the English parliament in 1679 to end a practice of false arrests without legal authority.[5] Public pressure on the English Parliament caused them to adopt this act. In 1787, when the US Constitution was passed in the Constitutional Convention, Habeas Corpus protection was written in Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2.[6]
The third English document the founding fathers referred to and felt parliament and King George III were ignoring was the English Bill of Rights of 1689[7], which enumerated "their ancient rights and liberties" as follows:
1. That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
3. That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
4. That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
8. That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
9. That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
10. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
11. That jurors ought to be duly impaneled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
13. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.
On October 14, 1774, the First Continental Congress passed the Declaration and Resolves[8] that was drafted and introduced by John Sullivan[9], delegate from New Hampshire. Sullivan later became a General in the Revolution. He wrote:
"The good people of the several colonies of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Newcastle, Kent, and Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North- Carolina and South-Carolina, justly alarmed at these arbitrary proceedings of parliament and administration, have severally elected, constituted, and appointed deputies to meet, and sit in general Congress, in the city of Philadelphia, in order to obtain such establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties, may not be subverted: Whereupon the deputies so appointed being now assembled, in a full and free representation of these colonies, taking into their most serious consideration, the best means of attaining the ends aforesaid, do, in the first place, as Englishmen, their ancestors in like cases have usually done, for asserting and vindicating their rights and liberties, DECLARE,
"That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following RIGHTS:
Resolved, N.C.D. 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty and property: and they have never ceded to any foreign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.
Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural- born subjects, within the realm of England.
Resolved, N.C.D. 3. That by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those r rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them, as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy.
Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances, cannot properly be represented in the British parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed: But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, we cheerfully consent to the operation of such acts of the British parliament, as are bonfide, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country, and the commercial benefits of its respective members; excluding every idea of taxation internal or external, for raising a revenue on the subjects, in America, without their consent.
Resolved, N.C.D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.
Resolved, N.C.D. 6. That they are entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their colonization; and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several local and other circumstances.
Resolved, N.C.D. 7. That these, his Majesty's colonies, are likewise entitled to all the immunities and privileges granted and confirmed to them by royal charters, or secured by their several codes of provincial laws.
Resolved, N.C.D. 8. That they have a right peaceably to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition the king; and that all prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations, and commitments for the same, are illegal.
Resolved, N.C.D. 9. That the keeping a standing army in these colonies, in times of peace, without the consent of the legislature of that colony, in which such army is kept, is against law.
Resolved, N.C.D. 10. It is indispensably necessary to good government, and rendered essential by the English constitution, that the constituent branches of the legislature be independent of each other; that, therefore, the exercise of legislative power in several colonies, by a council appointed, during pleasure, by the crown, is unconstitutional, dangerous and destructive to the freedom of American legislation.
In effect, John Sullivan described a government, which he and others believed, was totally out of touch with its citizens and was ignoring the rights Englishmen had enjoyed for hundreds of years by 1774.
[1] http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation/mc_trans.html - Magna Carta
[2] http://shakespeare.mit.edu/john/john.1.1.html - The Life and Death of King John - Shakespeare
[3] http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm - Declaration of Independence
[4] http://www.constitution.org/eng/habcorpa.htm - Habeas Corpus Act of 1679
[5] http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm - Legal Definition of Habeas Corpus
[6] http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9 - Article 1 Sec 9 US Constitution
[7] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp - English BIll of Rights 1689
[8] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolves.asp - Declaration and Resolves
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sullivan - John Sullivan - bio
There are three documents that are rarely mentioned today that we need to recognize as we begin this year of study of the Constitution of the United States. Throughout the world today most of the people still do not have the freedom or the protection of their God given rights that the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution made part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.
The first of those three documents, the Magna Carta[1] was written in England in 1215 AD, almost eight hundred years ago. It was a written response to the disastrous governance of the worst and most disliked king in British history - King John, who ruled from April 1199 to October 1216. King John was so disliked that he has been the subject of many plays, including Wm. Shakespeare's "The Life and Death of King John." [2]
Winston Churchill said of King John's reign as king, "When the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns". John's loss of British power, property and prestige, his personal immoral behavior his battles with the Pope and his excommunication, and, finally, his doubling of heavy taxation to pay for a series of war finally prompted the English barons to meet, write the Magna Carta and in effect forced King John to sign it.
The years it took to upset the English people enough to actually DO something about tyranny in their government is a reminder of Thomas Jefferson's line in the Declaration of Independence: "All experience hath shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by altering forms to which they are accustomed."[3]
The first provision of the Magna Carta, the earliest of the documents about our liberty states:
"GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. " It also required King John to "at once restore to any man whom we have deprived or disposed of lands, castles, liberties or rights, without lawful judgment of his equals" and prohibited government officials from taking "movable goods" from citizens. "
The second English document that was known to the founding fathers was England's Habeas Corpus Act[4], which was passed by the English parliament in 1679 to end a practice of false arrests without legal authority.[5] Public pressure on the English Parliament caused them to adopt this act. In 1787, when the US Constitution was passed in the Constitutional Convention, Habeas Corpus protection was written in Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2.[6]
The third English document the founding fathers referred to and felt parliament and King George III were ignoring was the English Bill of Rights of 1689[7], which enumerated "their ancient rights and liberties" as follows:
1. That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
3. That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
4. That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
8. That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
9. That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
10. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
11. That jurors ought to be duly impaneled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
13. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.
On October 14, 1774, the First Continental Congress passed the Declaration and Resolves[8] that was drafted and introduced by John Sullivan[9], delegate from New Hampshire. Sullivan later became a General in the Revolution. He wrote:
"The good people of the several colonies of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Newcastle, Kent, and Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North- Carolina and South-Carolina, justly alarmed at these arbitrary proceedings of parliament and administration, have severally elected, constituted, and appointed deputies to meet, and sit in general Congress, in the city of Philadelphia, in order to obtain such establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties, may not be subverted: Whereupon the deputies so appointed being now assembled, in a full and free representation of these colonies, taking into their most serious consideration, the best means of attaining the ends aforesaid, do, in the first place, as Englishmen, their ancestors in like cases have usually done, for asserting and vindicating their rights and liberties, DECLARE,
"That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following RIGHTS:
Resolved, N.C.D. 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty and property: and they have never ceded to any foreign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.
Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural- born subjects, within the realm of England.
Resolved, N.C.D. 3. That by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those r rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them, as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy.
Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances, cannot properly be represented in the British parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed: But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, we cheerfully consent to the operation of such acts of the British parliament, as are bonfide, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country, and the commercial benefits of its respective members; excluding every idea of taxation internal or external, for raising a revenue on the subjects, in America, without their consent.
Resolved, N.C.D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.
Resolved, N.C.D. 6. That they are entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their colonization; and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several local and other circumstances.
Resolved, N.C.D. 7. That these, his Majesty's colonies, are likewise entitled to all the immunities and privileges granted and confirmed to them by royal charters, or secured by their several codes of provincial laws.
Resolved, N.C.D. 8. That they have a right peaceably to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition the king; and that all prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations, and commitments for the same, are illegal.
Resolved, N.C.D. 9. That the keeping a standing army in these colonies, in times of peace, without the consent of the legislature of that colony, in which such army is kept, is against law.
Resolved, N.C.D. 10. It is indispensably necessary to good government, and rendered essential by the English constitution, that the constituent branches of the legislature be independent of each other; that, therefore, the exercise of legislative power in several colonies, by a council appointed, during pleasure, by the crown, is unconstitutional, dangerous and destructive to the freedom of American legislation.
In effect, John Sullivan described a government, which he and others believed, was totally out of touch with its citizens and was ignoring the rights Englishmen had enjoyed for hundreds of years by 1774.
[1] http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation/mc_trans.html - Magna Carta
[2] http://shakespeare.mit.edu/john/john.1.1.html - The Life and Death of King John - Shakespeare
[3] http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm - Declaration of Independence
[4] http://www.constitution.org/eng/habcorpa.htm - Habeas Corpus Act of 1679
[5] http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm - Legal Definition of Habeas Corpus
[6] http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9 - Article 1 Sec 9 US Constitution
[7] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp - English BIll of Rights 1689
[8] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolves.asp - Declaration and Resolves
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sullivan - John Sullivan - bio
Sunday, September 25, 2011
OATH KEEPERS WILL CHINA PULL THE PLUG
b-small
Quick Links
Oath Keepers Site
Join Oath Keepers
National And State Chapter Forums
Donate
Contact Oath Keepers
Youtube
Facebook
Twitter
Is China Ready To Pull The Plug?
There are two mainstream market assumptions that, in my mind, prevail over all others. The continuing function of the Dow, the sustained flow of capital into and out of the banking sector, and the full force spending of the federal government are ALL entirely dependent on the lifespan of these dual illusions; one, that the U.S. Dollar is a legitimate safe haven investment and will remain so indefinitely, and two, that China, like many other developing nations, will continue to prop up the strength of the dollar indefinitely because it is "in their best interest". In the dimly lit bowels of Wall Street such ideas are so entrenched and pervasive, to question their validity is almost sacrilegious. Only after the recent S&P downgrade of America's AAA credit rating did the impossible become thinkable to some MSM analysts, though a considerable portion of the day-trading herd continue to roll onward, while the time bomb strapped to the ass end of their financial house is ticking away.
The debate over the health and longevity of the dollar comes down to one very simple and undeniable root pillar of economics; supply and demand. The supply of dollars throughout the financial systems of numerous countries is undoubtedly overwhelming. In fact, the private Federal Reserve has been quite careful in maintaining a veil of secrecy over the full extent of dollar saturation in foreign markets in order to hide the sheer volume of greenback devaluation and inflation they have created. If for some reason the reserves of dollars held overseas by investors and creditors were to come flooding back into the U.S., we would see a hyperinflationary spiral more destructive than any in recorded history. As the supply of dollars around the globe increases exponentially, so too must foreign demand, otherwise, the debt machine short-circuits, and newly impoverished Americans will be using Ben Franklins for sod in their adobe huts. As I will show, demand for dollars is not increasing to match supply, but is indeed stalled, ready to crumble.
China, being the second largest holder of U.S. debt next to the Fed, and the number one holder of dollars within their forex reserves, has always been the key to gauging the progression of the global economic collapse now in progress. If you want to know what's going to happen tomorrow, watch what China does today.
Back in 2005, China began a low profile program to issue government debt denominated in the Yuan, called Yuan bonds, or "Panda Bonds". This move was almost entirely ignored by establishment economists. They should have realized then that China was moving to strengthen the Yuan, expand its use in other markets, and recondition their economic structure away from export dependency and towards consumerism (as they have done with the establishment of the ASEAN trading bloc). Of course, in the MSM at that time, there was no derivatives bubble, no credit crisis, no debt implosion. America was on cloud nine. China, through inside knowledge, or perhaps a crystal ball, knew exactly what was about to happen, and insulated itself accordingly by generating distance between its system and the soon to derail retail based society of the U.S. This dynamic has not changed since the 2008 bubble burst, and Chinese activity is still the ultimate litmus test for economic volatility.
Today, there is widespread confusion in markets over the direction of America's financial future. In the wake of the credit downgrade, most investors unaware of the bigger picture are desperately clinging to any and every piece of news no matter how trivial, every rumor from the Fed, and every announcement from the government no matter how empty. China's economic news feeds have been tightly regulated and filtered, even more so than usual (which is cause for concern, in my opinion), while distractions in Europe abound. Let's take a step by step journey through these issues, and see if we can't produce some clarity...
Continue Reading: CLICK HERE
Support Operation Sleeping Giant, Join Oath Keepers and get involved.
Operation Sleeping Giant
Join Oath Keepers
Oath Keepers is growing FAST, but like General Patton, we are outpacing our own supply lines. Your donations are "fuel" for our advance! If you would like to support the Oath Keepers vital mission to teach the current serving about their oath and about the Constitution so they will stand firm and do what is right, and our second mission to remind veterans of their oath and obligations.:
Quick Links
Oath Keepers Site
Join Oath Keepers
National And State Chapter Forums
Donate
Contact Oath Keepers
Youtube
Is China Ready To Pull The Plug?
There are two mainstream market assumptions that, in my mind, prevail over all others. The continuing function of the Dow, the sustained flow of capital into and out of the banking sector, and the full force spending of the federal government are ALL entirely dependent on the lifespan of these dual illusions; one, that the U.S. Dollar is a legitimate safe haven investment and will remain so indefinitely, and two, that China, like many other developing nations, will continue to prop up the strength of the dollar indefinitely because it is "in their best interest". In the dimly lit bowels of Wall Street such ideas are so entrenched and pervasive, to question their validity is almost sacrilegious. Only after the recent S&P downgrade of America's AAA credit rating did the impossible become thinkable to some MSM analysts, though a considerable portion of the day-trading herd continue to roll onward, while the time bomb strapped to the ass end of their financial house is ticking away.
The debate over the health and longevity of the dollar comes down to one very simple and undeniable root pillar of economics; supply and demand. The supply of dollars throughout the financial systems of numerous countries is undoubtedly overwhelming. In fact, the private Federal Reserve has been quite careful in maintaining a veil of secrecy over the full extent of dollar saturation in foreign markets in order to hide the sheer volume of greenback devaluation and inflation they have created. If for some reason the reserves of dollars held overseas by investors and creditors were to come flooding back into the U.S., we would see a hyperinflationary spiral more destructive than any in recorded history. As the supply of dollars around the globe increases exponentially, so too must foreign demand, otherwise, the debt machine short-circuits, and newly impoverished Americans will be using Ben Franklins for sod in their adobe huts. As I will show, demand for dollars is not increasing to match supply, but is indeed stalled, ready to crumble.
China, being the second largest holder of U.S. debt next to the Fed, and the number one holder of dollars within their forex reserves, has always been the key to gauging the progression of the global economic collapse now in progress. If you want to know what's going to happen tomorrow, watch what China does today.
Back in 2005, China began a low profile program to issue government debt denominated in the Yuan, called Yuan bonds, or "Panda Bonds". This move was almost entirely ignored by establishment economists. They should have realized then that China was moving to strengthen the Yuan, expand its use in other markets, and recondition their economic structure away from export dependency and towards consumerism (as they have done with the establishment of the ASEAN trading bloc). Of course, in the MSM at that time, there was no derivatives bubble, no credit crisis, no debt implosion. America was on cloud nine. China, through inside knowledge, or perhaps a crystal ball, knew exactly what was about to happen, and insulated itself accordingly by generating distance between its system and the soon to derail retail based society of the U.S. This dynamic has not changed since the 2008 bubble burst, and Chinese activity is still the ultimate litmus test for economic volatility.
Today, there is widespread confusion in markets over the direction of America's financial future. In the wake of the credit downgrade, most investors unaware of the bigger picture are desperately clinging to any and every piece of news no matter how trivial, every rumor from the Fed, and every announcement from the government no matter how empty. China's economic news feeds have been tightly regulated and filtered, even more so than usual (which is cause for concern, in my opinion), while distractions in Europe abound. Let's take a step by step journey through these issues, and see if we can't produce some clarity...
Continue Reading: CLICK HERE
Support Operation Sleeping Giant, Join Oath Keepers and get involved.
Operation Sleeping Giant
Join Oath Keepers
Oath Keepers is growing FAST, but like General Patton, we are outpacing our own supply lines. Your donations are "fuel" for our advance! If you would like to support the Oath Keepers vital mission to teach the current serving about their oath and about the Constitution so they will stand firm and do what is right, and our second mission to remind veterans of their oath and obligations.:
Friday, September 23, 2011
RENEW AMERCIA NEWS LETTER
RenewAmerica Newsletter
September 22, 2011
Latest columns
The candidates and debates: a candid review
Wes Vernon
The Rick Perry/Mitt Romney political "horserace"
Chris Adamo
Who is to share the pain?
Rudy Takala
The heart of political disagreement
Robert Meyer
Christian giving
Dan Popp
A new chorus for the mob
Cindy Simpson
The Security Sex
Selwyn Duke
Marriage matters
Ken Connor
Michelle the menu micromanager
Jeannie DeAngelis
Talking about the HPV vaccine is now called fear mongering and morally indefensible
Cynthia A. Janak
Obama's platform: breaking the 8th and 10th commandments
Bryan Fischer
Will Bishop Zurek become Planned Parenthood's person of the year for sabotaging Father Pavone and Priests for Life?
Michael Gaynor
America, Canada and Mexico: headed for a payday?
Michael Bresciani
Texas redistricting: forget about 'justice,' Obama's DOJ is all about politics
Warner Todd Huston
ObamaCare's individual mandate: A new twist on old-fashioned central control
Monte Kuligowski
"Sticks and stones" and Down syndrome eugenics
Kurt Kondrich
The 'Yes We Can' 2012 Tchotchke Mart
Jeannie DeAngelis
HPV studies -- Inclusion and exclusion roulette wheel
Cynthia A. Janak
Why would anyone live in the U.P. of Michigan? [a change of "pace"]
Curtis Dahlgren
Obama's anti-Wall Street rhetoric blamed for mounting protests
Jim Kouri
Martin Luther King's 2011 memorial stirs memories of 1968
Wes Vernon
Five wars, 63 years of terrorism, and Israel survives
Alan Caruba
Homosexuals in high places -- 'gay' Irish senator David Norris and 'the Greek thing,' Part II
Randy Engel
What happened to the Constitution?
Henry Lamb
HPV reports to FDA -- oversight, errors and/or omission. That is the question.
Cynthia A. Janak
McGinniss book about Palin: yet another attack on America
Lloyd Marcus
The town government with more cars than employees
Warner Todd Huston
The let-illegals-drive-without-a-license bill
Jeannie DeAngelis
Netanyahu: Time for action, not just words!
Larry Klayman
HPV -- Let the safety challenges begin
Cynthia A. Janak
Lessons from my plumber
A.J. DiCintio
Thank goodness for NFL football!
Paul A. Ibbetson
The vision that started a lifetime of prophetic ministry
Michael Bresciani
Fr. Frank Pavone: a rush to judgment
Judie Brown
Tank this book!
Mark Ellis
That presidential look: the bad, the beautiful and voting-booth realities
Selwyn Duke
Can the bagpipes and catch the terrorists?
Jeannie DeAngelis
Bachmann, HPV, and Perry -- Thank you for bringing the HPV vaccines back into the spotlight
Cynthia A. Janak
Are Evangelical Christians warmongers?
Chuck Baldwin
Colombia's intelligence director facing 25 years in prison
Jim Kouri
Michigan House moves to ban union dues deducted from teachers' paychecks
Warner Todd Huston
Democrat, thy name is Judas
Hassan Nurullah
Tea Party Express V: a spiritual thing
Lloyd Marcus
COLLEGE ORIENTATION 101, Week 4; "ammo for the soul"
Curtis Dahlgren
More columns
September 22, 2011
The candidates and debates: a candid review
WES VERNON, RA ANALYST — As this is written, we're looking forward to the next Republican debate. It's early in the election cycle, but not too early to be thinking about which candidate is (1) right on the issues, and (2) electable... (more)
September 21, 2011
Why young Americans can't think morally
DENNIS PRAGER — Last week, David Brooks of the New York Times wrote a column on an academic study concerning the nearly complete lack of a moral vocabulary among most American young people. Here are excerpts from Brooks's summary of the study of Americans aged 18 to 23... (more)
September 21, 2011
Barack Obama's desperate Hail Mary
DR. MILTON R. WOLF — "We are witnessing the unmistakable collapse of an American presidency." I wrote those words in this space almost one year ago, and events continue to prove them true. It seems the president himself now recognizes this reality. Thus his desperate Hail Mary... (more)
September 21, 2011
Rick Perry is right about Social Security
WALTER WILLIAMS — During the recent GOP presidential debate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said that Social Security is a "monstrous lie" and a "Ponzi scheme." More and more people are coming to see that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, but is it a lie, as well? Let's look at it... (more)
September 21, 2011
Rivals ask: is Perry weak on the right, or left?
ASSOCIATED PRESS — Rick Perry's Republican rivals are struggling to find a coherent, easy-to-grasp argument against the Texas governor, who tops GOP presidential polls despite attacks from all sides. In fact, it's the "all sides" nature that complicates the opposition's message. Republican voters who watched last week's presidential debate and its aftermath might wonder... (more)
September 21, 2011
Rick Perry on Mitt Romney: 'Sounding like a Democrat'
POLITICO — The two top candidates in the GOP race, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, are telegraphing their punches on an issue that will likely be dominant at tomorrow's presidential debate - Social Security - which takes place in senior-heavy Florida... (more)
Perry hits Romney: "We don't need Obama lite"
New Rick Perry ad slams Obama as "President Zero"
Perry’s immigration views could turn off GOP base
September 21, 2011
Obama 'looks like Alfred E. Neuman' in goofy wave
WORLDNETDAILY — A photo at the United Nations is turning into a diplomatic embarrassment for President Obama who was caught waving in the image, covering the face of another world leader... (more)
September 21, 2011
Ground Zero mosque opens in New York
LOS ANGELES TIMES — An Islamic community center that fueled angry demonstrations because of its proximity to the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has opened quietly in Lower Manhattan, drawing no protesters but bringing words of regret from the developer for not consulting with Sept. 11 survivors during its planning... (more)
September 21, 2011
No to the Palestinian 'state'
NATIONAL REVIEW — There is no such thing as a Palestinian state, and the United Nations can't conjure one into existence. That apparently won't stop the Palestinians from seeking recognition as a state in the Security Council this week. We should veto the Palestinian effort without hesitation... (more)
September 21, 2011
Rasmussen poll: 56% favor repeal of Obamacare
NEWSMAX — A majority of respondents to a Rasmussen Reports telephone survey said they would like to see a repeal of President Barack Obama's national healthcare law, which will go into effect in 2014. Of the 1,000 U.S. voters polled Sept. 16 and 17, 56 percent "somewhat" favored repeal, while 44 percent "strongly" favored it... (more)
September 21, 2011
Freedom in education: Slowly but surely
ERIC RETZLAFF — Sometimes an idea's time has come, and sometimes not. Back in 1985, as a Schenectady Gazette staffer, I wrote a column contending that the quasi-monopoly misnamed "public education" wasn't really the best thing for education and for the country. This wasn't anywhere near a mainstream idea at the time. I argued, and still argue, on two counts... (more)
September 21, 2011
USA Today/Gallup poll: Americans shift economic blame to Obama
NEWSMAX — President Barack Obama's claim that he's not to blame for the country's faltering economy is falling on deaf ears. For the first time since Obama took office, a majority of Americans say he deserves a great deal or moderate amount of blame for the economy, a new a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds... (more)
September 21, 2011
Obama: taxing the economy to death
DONALD LAMBRO — One thing should be clear about President Obama's preposterous, job-killing proposal to raise taxes on a comatose economy that's barely breathing, let alone fully functioning. It is dead on arrival on Capitol Hill... (more)
September 20, 2011
Obama's global green tax
PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY — We are now beginning to grasp the definition and the scope of the words "new world order," an expression inserted into the U.S. political vocabulary by the first President Bush. He never defined it, leaving that task to his successors, and President Barack Obama is only too glad to expand its meaning... (more)
September 20, 2011
Pat Boone calls Obama's birth certificate 'a fraud'
WORLDNETDAILY — Iconic singer, actor and WND columnist Pat Boone is unconvinced by President Obama's release of an image of a Hawaiian "Certificate of Life Birth" in support of his claim to be constitutionally eligible for the presidency. "I was in Kenya about a year and a half ago, and everyone there says, you know, your president was born here," he told an interviewer for the San Francisco Chronicle... (more)
September 19, 2011
Supreme Court justice to Kelo defendant: 'I'm sorry'
HARTFORD COURANT — If a state Supreme Court judge approaches a journalist at a private dinner and says something newsworthy about an important decision, is the journalist free to publish the statement? I faced that situation at a dinner honoring the Connecticut Supreme Court at the New Haven Lawn Club on May 11, 2010... (more)
September 19, 2011
Martin Luther King's 2011 memorial stirs memories of 1968
WES VERNON, RA ANALYST — The unveiling of Martin Luther King's memorial -- now set for October 16 -- brings to mind all the controversies surrounding his crusade, as well as the general political upheaval that made 1968 the pivotal turning point of the late -- and perhaps the entire -- 20th century... (more)
September 19, 2011
UN session hostile to Israel will end Obama's Jewish support
GARY BAUER — If last week's special election in New York exposed President Obama's "Jewish problem," then this week's session of the United Nations General Assembly will expose how unserious he is about solving it... (more)
September 19, 2011
AttackWatch.com is the administration's latest propaganda arm
DAVID LIMBAUGH — President Obama's official re-election campaign has set up a website ostensibly to defend him against false attacks, but its obvious purpose is to smear Republicans and propagandize. What could be more shameless?... (more)
September 19, 2011
How Palin could beat Obama now
JOSEPH FARAH — Lots of folks are still wondering whether Sarah Palin is going to jump into the 2012 Republican presidential campaign. But if she really wants to make history, I have a bigger and better idea for her. First of all, let's explore her options... (more)
September 19, 2011
Pentagon: Ready for gay ban repeal Tuesday
ASSOCIATED PRESS — The Pentagon says the military is adequately prepared for the official lifting Tuesday of the legal ban on gays serving openly. Press secretary George Little said Monday that the ban will end at one minute after midnight. At that time, revised Defense Department regulations will take effect, to reflect the new law that will allow gays to serve openly... (more)
September 22, 2011
Latest columns
The candidates and debates: a candid review
Wes Vernon
The Rick Perry/Mitt Romney political "horserace"
Chris Adamo
Who is to share the pain?
Rudy Takala
The heart of political disagreement
Robert Meyer
Christian giving
Dan Popp
A new chorus for the mob
Cindy Simpson
The Security Sex
Selwyn Duke
Marriage matters
Ken Connor
Michelle the menu micromanager
Jeannie DeAngelis
Talking about the HPV vaccine is now called fear mongering and morally indefensible
Cynthia A. Janak
Obama's platform: breaking the 8th and 10th commandments
Bryan Fischer
Will Bishop Zurek become Planned Parenthood's person of the year for sabotaging Father Pavone and Priests for Life?
Michael Gaynor
America, Canada and Mexico: headed for a payday?
Michael Bresciani
Texas redistricting: forget about 'justice,' Obama's DOJ is all about politics
Warner Todd Huston
ObamaCare's individual mandate: A new twist on old-fashioned central control
Monte Kuligowski
"Sticks and stones" and Down syndrome eugenics
Kurt Kondrich
The 'Yes We Can' 2012 Tchotchke Mart
Jeannie DeAngelis
HPV studies -- Inclusion and exclusion roulette wheel
Cynthia A. Janak
Why would anyone live in the U.P. of Michigan? [a change of "pace"]
Curtis Dahlgren
Obama's anti-Wall Street rhetoric blamed for mounting protests
Jim Kouri
Martin Luther King's 2011 memorial stirs memories of 1968
Wes Vernon
Five wars, 63 years of terrorism, and Israel survives
Alan Caruba
Homosexuals in high places -- 'gay' Irish senator David Norris and 'the Greek thing,' Part II
Randy Engel
What happened to the Constitution?
Henry Lamb
HPV reports to FDA -- oversight, errors and/or omission. That is the question.
Cynthia A. Janak
McGinniss book about Palin: yet another attack on America
Lloyd Marcus
The town government with more cars than employees
Warner Todd Huston
The let-illegals-drive-without-a-license bill
Jeannie DeAngelis
Netanyahu: Time for action, not just words!
Larry Klayman
HPV -- Let the safety challenges begin
Cynthia A. Janak
Lessons from my plumber
A.J. DiCintio
Thank goodness for NFL football!
Paul A. Ibbetson
The vision that started a lifetime of prophetic ministry
Michael Bresciani
Fr. Frank Pavone: a rush to judgment
Judie Brown
Tank this book!
Mark Ellis
That presidential look: the bad, the beautiful and voting-booth realities
Selwyn Duke
Can the bagpipes and catch the terrorists?
Jeannie DeAngelis
Bachmann, HPV, and Perry -- Thank you for bringing the HPV vaccines back into the spotlight
Cynthia A. Janak
Are Evangelical Christians warmongers?
Chuck Baldwin
Colombia's intelligence director facing 25 years in prison
Jim Kouri
Michigan House moves to ban union dues deducted from teachers' paychecks
Warner Todd Huston
Democrat, thy name is Judas
Hassan Nurullah
Tea Party Express V: a spiritual thing
Lloyd Marcus
COLLEGE ORIENTATION 101, Week 4; "ammo for the soul"
Curtis Dahlgren
More columns
September 22, 2011
The candidates and debates: a candid review
WES VERNON, RA ANALYST — As this is written, we're looking forward to the next Republican debate. It's early in the election cycle, but not too early to be thinking about which candidate is (1) right on the issues, and (2) electable... (more)
September 21, 2011
Why young Americans can't think morally
DENNIS PRAGER — Last week, David Brooks of the New York Times wrote a column on an academic study concerning the nearly complete lack of a moral vocabulary among most American young people. Here are excerpts from Brooks's summary of the study of Americans aged 18 to 23... (more)
September 21, 2011
Barack Obama's desperate Hail Mary
DR. MILTON R. WOLF — "We are witnessing the unmistakable collapse of an American presidency." I wrote those words in this space almost one year ago, and events continue to prove them true. It seems the president himself now recognizes this reality. Thus his desperate Hail Mary... (more)
September 21, 2011
Rick Perry is right about Social Security
WALTER WILLIAMS — During the recent GOP presidential debate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said that Social Security is a "monstrous lie" and a "Ponzi scheme." More and more people are coming to see that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, but is it a lie, as well? Let's look at it... (more)
September 21, 2011
Rivals ask: is Perry weak on the right, or left?
ASSOCIATED PRESS — Rick Perry's Republican rivals are struggling to find a coherent, easy-to-grasp argument against the Texas governor, who tops GOP presidential polls despite attacks from all sides. In fact, it's the "all sides" nature that complicates the opposition's message. Republican voters who watched last week's presidential debate and its aftermath might wonder... (more)
September 21, 2011
Rick Perry on Mitt Romney: 'Sounding like a Democrat'
POLITICO — The two top candidates in the GOP race, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, are telegraphing their punches on an issue that will likely be dominant at tomorrow's presidential debate - Social Security - which takes place in senior-heavy Florida... (more)
Perry hits Romney: "We don't need Obama lite"
New Rick Perry ad slams Obama as "President Zero"
Perry’s immigration views could turn off GOP base
September 21, 2011
Obama 'looks like Alfred E. Neuman' in goofy wave
WORLDNETDAILY — A photo at the United Nations is turning into a diplomatic embarrassment for President Obama who was caught waving in the image, covering the face of another world leader... (more)
September 21, 2011
Ground Zero mosque opens in New York
LOS ANGELES TIMES — An Islamic community center that fueled angry demonstrations because of its proximity to the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has opened quietly in Lower Manhattan, drawing no protesters but bringing words of regret from the developer for not consulting with Sept. 11 survivors during its planning... (more)
September 21, 2011
No to the Palestinian 'state'
NATIONAL REVIEW — There is no such thing as a Palestinian state, and the United Nations can't conjure one into existence. That apparently won't stop the Palestinians from seeking recognition as a state in the Security Council this week. We should veto the Palestinian effort without hesitation... (more)
September 21, 2011
Rasmussen poll: 56% favor repeal of Obamacare
NEWSMAX — A majority of respondents to a Rasmussen Reports telephone survey said they would like to see a repeal of President Barack Obama's national healthcare law, which will go into effect in 2014. Of the 1,000 U.S. voters polled Sept. 16 and 17, 56 percent "somewhat" favored repeal, while 44 percent "strongly" favored it... (more)
September 21, 2011
Freedom in education: Slowly but surely
ERIC RETZLAFF — Sometimes an idea's time has come, and sometimes not. Back in 1985, as a Schenectady Gazette staffer, I wrote a column contending that the quasi-monopoly misnamed "public education" wasn't really the best thing for education and for the country. This wasn't anywhere near a mainstream idea at the time. I argued, and still argue, on two counts... (more)
September 21, 2011
USA Today/Gallup poll: Americans shift economic blame to Obama
NEWSMAX — President Barack Obama's claim that he's not to blame for the country's faltering economy is falling on deaf ears. For the first time since Obama took office, a majority of Americans say he deserves a great deal or moderate amount of blame for the economy, a new a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds... (more)
September 21, 2011
Obama: taxing the economy to death
DONALD LAMBRO — One thing should be clear about President Obama's preposterous, job-killing proposal to raise taxes on a comatose economy that's barely breathing, let alone fully functioning. It is dead on arrival on Capitol Hill... (more)
September 20, 2011
Obama's global green tax
PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY — We are now beginning to grasp the definition and the scope of the words "new world order," an expression inserted into the U.S. political vocabulary by the first President Bush. He never defined it, leaving that task to his successors, and President Barack Obama is only too glad to expand its meaning... (more)
September 20, 2011
Pat Boone calls Obama's birth certificate 'a fraud'
WORLDNETDAILY — Iconic singer, actor and WND columnist Pat Boone is unconvinced by President Obama's release of an image of a Hawaiian "Certificate of Life Birth" in support of his claim to be constitutionally eligible for the presidency. "I was in Kenya about a year and a half ago, and everyone there says, you know, your president was born here," he told an interviewer for the San Francisco Chronicle... (more)
September 19, 2011
Supreme Court justice to Kelo defendant: 'I'm sorry'
HARTFORD COURANT — If a state Supreme Court judge approaches a journalist at a private dinner and says something newsworthy about an important decision, is the journalist free to publish the statement? I faced that situation at a dinner honoring the Connecticut Supreme Court at the New Haven Lawn Club on May 11, 2010... (more)
September 19, 2011
Martin Luther King's 2011 memorial stirs memories of 1968
WES VERNON, RA ANALYST — The unveiling of Martin Luther King's memorial -- now set for October 16 -- brings to mind all the controversies surrounding his crusade, as well as the general political upheaval that made 1968 the pivotal turning point of the late -- and perhaps the entire -- 20th century... (more)
September 19, 2011
UN session hostile to Israel will end Obama's Jewish support
GARY BAUER — If last week's special election in New York exposed President Obama's "Jewish problem," then this week's session of the United Nations General Assembly will expose how unserious he is about solving it... (more)
September 19, 2011
AttackWatch.com is the administration's latest propaganda arm
DAVID LIMBAUGH — President Obama's official re-election campaign has set up a website ostensibly to defend him against false attacks, but its obvious purpose is to smear Republicans and propagandize. What could be more shameless?... (more)
September 19, 2011
How Palin could beat Obama now
JOSEPH FARAH — Lots of folks are still wondering whether Sarah Palin is going to jump into the 2012 Republican presidential campaign. But if she really wants to make history, I have a bigger and better idea for her. First of all, let's explore her options... (more)
September 19, 2011
Pentagon: Ready for gay ban repeal Tuesday
ASSOCIATED PRESS — The Pentagon says the military is adequately prepared for the official lifting Tuesday of the legal ban on gays serving openly. Press secretary George Little said Monday that the ban will end at one minute after midnight. At that time, revised Defense Department regulations will take effect, to reflect the new law that will allow gays to serve openly... (more)
WHO BENEFITED FROM JOD GROMTH IN TEXAS
Who Benefited from Job Growth In Texas?
A Look at Employment Gains for Immigrants and the Native-Born, 2007 to 2011
By Steven A. Camarota, Ashley Monique Webster
September 2011
Memorandums
Download a pdf of this Memorandum
Steven A. Camarota is the Director of Research and Ashley Monique Webster a demographerat the Center for Immigration Studies.
Governor Rick Perry (R-Texas) has pointed to job growth in Texas during the current economic downturn as one of his main accomplishments. But analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) data collected by the Census Bureau show that immigrants (legal and illegal) have been the primary beneficiaries of this growth since 2007, not native-born workers. This is true even though the native-born accounted for the vast majority of growth in the working-age population (age 16 to 65) in Texas. Thus, they should have received the lion’s share of the increase in employment. As a result, the share of working-age natives in Texas holding a job has declined in a manner very similar to the nation a whole.
Among the findings:
Of jobs created in Texas since 2007, 81 percent were taken by newly arrived immigrant workers (legal and illegal).
In terms of numbers, between the second quarter of 2007, right before the recession began, and the second quarter of 2011, total employment in Texas increased by 279,000. Of this, 225,000 jobs went to immigrants (legal and illegal) who arrived in the United States in 2007 or later.
Of newly arrived immigrants who took a job in Texas, 93 percent were not U.S. citizens. Thus government data show that more than three-fourths of net job growth in Texas were taken by newly arrived non-citizens (legal and illegal).
The large share of job growth that went to immigrants is surprising because the native-born accounted for 69 percent of the growth in Texas’ working-age population (16 to 65). Thus, even though natives made up most of the growth in potential workers, most of the job growth went to immigrants.
The share of working-age natives holding a job in Texas declined significantly, from 71 percent in 2007 to 67 percent in 2011. This decline is very similar to the decline for natives in the United States as a whole and is an indication that the situation for native-born workers in Texas is very similar to the overall situation in the country despite the state’s job growth.
Of newly arrived immigrants who took jobs in Texas since 2007, we estimate that 50 percent (113,000) were illegal immigrants. Thus, about 40 percent of all the job growth in Texas since 2007 went to newly arrived illegal immigrants and 40 percent went to newly arrived legal immigrants.
Immigrants took jobs across the educational distribution. More than one out three (97,000) of newly arrived immigrants who took a job had at least some college.
These numbers raise the question of whether it makes sense to continue the current high level of legal immigration and also whether to continue to tolerate illegal immigration.
Introduction
One of the most important issues in the unfolding presidential election is the nation’s lack of job growth. The U.S. labor market has been afflicted with high unemployment and low employment rates for more than three years. As Republicans go through the process of selecting the party’s nominee, job growth in Texas during the current economic downturn has been the subject of much discussion. GOP frontrunner Rick Perry has argued that he has a proven record of job creation in his state, even during the current economic downturn. Most of the debate over the state’s job growth has focused on what types of jobs have been created. The extent to which foreign-born or immigrant workers vs. native-born workers benefited from increased employment in the state has received little attention. This Memorandum examines job growth in Texas. The findings indicate that most of the increase in jobs in Texas since 2007 went to foreign-born (immigrant) workers, both legal and illegal, not U.S.-born workers.
Data and Methods
The two primary employment surveys collected by the United States government are referred to as the “household survey” (also called the Current Population Survey or CPS) and the “establishment survey.” The establishment survey asks employers about the number of workers they have. In contrast, the CPS asks people at their place of residence if they are working. While the two surveys shows the same general trends, the figures from the two surveys do differ to some extent. Because the CPS asks actual workers about their employment situation, only it provides information about who is working, who is looking for work, and who is not working or looking for work. Moreover, only the CPS asks respondents about their socio-demographic characteristics such as race, education level, age, citizenship, and year of arrival in the United States. Thus the CPS can be used not only to compare job growth among immigrants and the native-born, it can also be used to examine the share of different groups who are employed or unemployed or to make comparisons about any other measure of labor force attachment. For these reasons, this report uses the public-use files of the CPS to examine employment in Texas by quarter.1
Findings
Growth in Employment. There are two ways to examine the share of employment growth that went to immigrants vs. natives in Texas during the economic downturn. One way is to compare the increase in total employment to the number of newly arrived immigrants holding a job. The second way is to compare the increase in employment to net growth in the number of immigrants holding a job. While there are differences in these two comparisons, no matter which method is used, the data show that a disproportionate share of job growth went to immigrant workers.
The Impact of Newly Arrived Immigrants. The left bar in Figure 1 shows the share of population growth among the working age (16 to 65) accounted for by newly arrived immigrants in Texas between the second quarter of 2007, before the recession began, and the second quarter of 2011, which is the most recent quarter for which data are available.2 Newly arrived immigrants (legal and illegal) are defined as those who indicated in the CPS that they came to the United States in the second quarter of 2007 or after.3 The population growth of 28.9 percent is for those of working age (16 to 65). There were 358,000 working-age (16 to 65) immigrants in 2011 who indicated that they had arrived in the United States in 2007 or later. This equals 28.9 percent of the 1.24 million overall increase in the size of the working-age population in Texas between the second quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2011. The second bar in Figure 1 shows employment relative to the number of newly arrived immigrants holding a job. There were 225,000 immigrants holding a job in 2011 who indicated that they had arrived in the United States in 2007 or later. This equals 80.6 percent of the 279,000 overall increase in employment in Texas between 2007 and 2011. Of new arrivals, 93 percent indicated they were not U.S. citizens.4 The newly arrived can be described as new foreign workers.
The above analysis shows that newly arrived immigrants took most of the net increase in jobs in Texas. This is the case even though new immigrants accounted for a modest share of population growth among the working age (16 to 65). Put a different way, since natives accounted for the overwhelming share of the growth in the number of working-age people in the state, it would be expected that they would receive roughly the same share of the net increase in jobs, but this was not the case. We report figures for the working-age population because about 96 percent of all workers in America fall into this age group, making this population the pool of potential workers from which employers draw.
Legal vs. Illegal Immigration. It is well established that illegal aliens do respond to government surveys such as the decennial Census and the Current Population Survey. While the CPS does not ask immigrants if they are legal residents of the United States, the Urban Institute, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the former INS, the Pew Hispanic Center, and the Census Bureau all have used socio-demographic characteristics in the data to estimate the size of the illegal-alien population. We follow this same approach.5 Our best estimate is that, of Texas immigrants holding a job in 2011 who indicated that they arrived in the country between 2007 and 2011, half are illegal immigrants. It should be noted that no estimate of illegal immigration is exact. It is possible that somewhat fewer or somewhat more of the newly arrived are illegal immigrants. If our estimate is too high, then more are legal immigrants; if our estimate is too low, then more are illegal immigrants. Assuming our estimates are correct, of recently arrived working-age immigrants in the state, 113,000 are in the country illegally.6 The other half of the recently arrived immigrants (112,000) are legally in the country. Compared to the overall increase jobs in Texas from 2007 to 2011, 40 percent went to new illegal immigrants and 40 percent went to new legal immigrants. This means that in Texas — one of the few states that experienced job growth after 2007 — native-born workers benefited little from this growth. These numbers raise the question of whether it makes sense to continue to allow so many legal immigrants into the country and also whether it makes sense to continue tolerating illegal immigration. Certainly both policies have consequences for the labor market.
Net Changes in Number of Immigrants. Figure 2 uses a different method to examine the share of job growth that went to new immigrants in Texas. Rather than looking at new arrivals, Figure 2 compares overall job growth in the CPS to the net increase in immigrant employment. The left bar shows that the net increase in the number of working-age immigrants accounted for 30.6 percent of the net increase in the overall size of the working-age (16 to 65) population in Texas from the second quarter of 2007 to the same quarter in 2011. The net increase in working-age immigrants was 379,000 and this was equal to 30.6 percent of the 1.24 million increase in the total working-age population in Texas over this time period. This, of course, means that the net increase in the number of native-born Texans accounted for 69.4 percent of population growth among 16 to 65 year olds over this period. The bar on the right side of Figure 2 reports the share of net employment growth accounted for by the net increase in immigrants working. The net increase in immigrant workers was 150,000 and this equaled 53.6 percent of the 279,000 overall growth in employment from 2007 to 2011.
The immigrant share of employment growth is less than when we examine new arrivals (Figure 1). But it is still the case that immigrants accounted for less than one-third of population growth from 2007 to 2011, but more than half of all the job growth in Texas. Thus, whether we calculate the impact of immigration in Texas by looking at the share of jobs taken by newly arrived immigrants (Figure 1) or by looking at the net increase in immigrant workers (Figure 2), in both cases a disproportionate share of job growth in Texas went to immigrants.
It is worth noting that the net increase in immigrants is different from the number of new arrivals because net figures are impacted by immigrants leaving the state each year as well as the movement of immigrants into Texas. Net figures also reflect the small fraction of immigrants who die each year. Moreover, we are looking at those 16 to 65 or those who are employed, who are generally in this same age group. Therefore, some people enter these populations by reaching working age each year, while others age out of these populations. Still others who are of working age are no longer working. Thus, net figures reflect many factors, while the number of new arrivals simply shows those coming into the United States and settling in Texas. What is important about these results is that, in Texas, we can say that although natives accounted for the overwhelming majority of growth in the number of potential workers — persons 16 to 65 — most of the increase in jobs went to immigrants.
In terms of evaluating the nation’s immigration system, looking at new arrivals may be more relevant than net changes because those arriving in the country directly reflect both those admitted legally as well as the level of new illegal immigration. In contrast, net changes reflect many factors such as deaths or a decision to leave the country.
The Unemployment and Employment Rate. In addition to looking at job growth, there are other ways to examine the labor market. Table 2 reports a variety of employment figures by state for the second quarters of 2007 and 2011. But no matter what measure is used, it is difficult to find evidence to support the argument that things are very different in Texas than in the rest of the country for the native-born population. In the second quarter of 2011, the unemployment rate in Texas was 8.1 percent for natives, ranking the state 22nd out of 50 states in terms of the lowest rate. If we compare the growth in unemployment from 2007 to 2011, the rate roughly doubled in Texas, which is very similar to what happened in the country as a whole. The share of working-age natives holding a job in Texas was 66.6 percent in 2011, ranking Texas 29th in the nation. Both the unemployment rate and the employment rate represent a significant deterioration for natives since 2007. A deterioration that roughly parallels what took place in the rest of the nation.
What Types of Jobs? Some commentators have expressed concern that most of the job growth in Texas is for low-wage jobs requiring relatively little education. While that issue is outside of the scope of this analysis, the CPS does show that immigrants gained jobs across the educational distribution. For example, overall 55.2 percent (154,000) of the net increase in jobs since 2007 in Texas went to workers (immigrant and native-born) who had no more than a high school education. That is, they either did not graduate high school or did graduate, but had no additional schooling. Of the net increase in jobs for these less-educated workers, 63 percent went to immigrant workers even though they accounted for only 44.2 percent of population growth among those of working-age who have no more than a high school education. Of the net increase in jobs for workers with education beyond high school, 42.1 percent went to immigrants. This compares to their 21.8 percent share of population growth among working-age individuals with more than a high school education. When examined in this way, immigrants made gains across the educational distribution out of proportion to their population shares.
Some may still feel that less-educated immigrants who work at the bottom of the labor market do not really compete with natives. There is a long debate among economists on this topic. It is true that 56.8 percent of newly arrived immigrants had no more than a high school education. However, there are more than three million native-born Texans working in the state who have no more than an high school education. Moreover, between 2007 and 2011 the number of native-born Texans with a high school degree or less who were not working increased by 259,000 over this time period. The unemployment rate for these less-educated, U.S.-born Texans rose substantially after 2007 and stood at 11.2 percent in the second quarter of 2011. There are a very large number of natives who work in lower-skilled occupations. And less-educated natives who generally work at such jobs have done very poorly in Texas, as they have throughout the country. It would be very difficult to find evidence that less-educated workers were in short supply in the state.
It must also be remembered that many immigrants are more educated. When we look at the number of newly-arrived immigrants in Texas, we find that 43.2 percent (97,000) of those that took a job in Texas had at least some college. If we look at the net gain in employment among more educated immigrants, rather than new arrivals, the growth was 53,000, which means that more-educated workers accounted for one-third of the net growth in immigrant employment. Thus it would a mistake to assume that immigrants are only competing for jobs at the bottom end of the labor market.
Conclusion
This analysis shows that job growth was significant in Texas. But, depending on how one calculates the impact of immigration, between 2007, before the recession began, and 2011 more than three-quarters or more than half of that growth went to immigrants. This is the case even though the native-born accounted for more than two-thirds of the growth in the working-age population. Some may argue that it was because so many immigrants arrived in Texas that there was job growth in the state. But if immigration does stimulate job growth for natives, the numbers in Texas would be expected to look very different. The unemployment rate and the employment rate show a dramatic deterioration in the Texas for the native-born that was similar to the rest of the country. Moreover, if immigration does stimulate job growth for natives, why have states that received so many new immigrants done so poorly in recent years? (See Table 2.) For example, unemployment in the top-10 immigrant-receiving states in 2011 averaged 8.7 percent, compared to 8.1 percent in the other 40 states. Moreover, unemployment is 7.2 percent on average in the 10 states where the fewest immigrants arrived since 2007. These figures do not settle the debate over the economics of immigration. What they do show is that high immigration can go hand in hand with very negative labor market outcomes for the native-born. And conversely the native-born can do relatively well in areas of lower immigration.
There is a long and complex debate among economists about whether the native-born population benefits economically from immigration, which cannot be settled here. There is also significant debate about whether the impact of immigration can be measured by comparing different parts of the country that have varying levels of immigration. What we can say about Texas is that there has been significant job growth in the state since 2007, and that immigrants (particularly newly arrived non-citizens) were the primary beneficiaries of this growth. This is an important finding and should be part of any discussion of the performance of the Texas economy.
End Notes
1 For each quarter the CPS includes about 18,000 native-born Americans and 3,600 immigrants in Texas.
2 Comparing the same quarter is important because it controls for seasonal factors that may impact employment. All figures in this report are seasonally unadjusted because they are computationally simpler and easier for other researchers to replicate.
3 The Census Bureau groups year-of-arrival data in order to preserve the anonymity of survey participants. This makes it more difficult to look at post-2007 arrivals in the 2011 data because those who indicated they came to the country in 2008 to 2011 are coded as one group, and those who indicated they arrived in 2006 to 2007 are coded as another group. To calculate recently arrived immigrants in 2011, we look at those who arrived in 2008 to 2011 and add 37.5 percent of those who indicated they arrived in 2006 and 2007. By taking only 37.5 percent of the 2006-2007 arrival cohort we are counting just three of the eight quarters between 2006 to 2007. So, for example, the data for 2011 show 169,000 employed immigrants who said they arrived in the country in 2008 to 2011. The 2011 data also show 150,000 immigrants who said they arrived in 2006 and 2007. We add 37.5 percent (56,000) of 150,000 to 169,000 for a total of 225,000 immigrants in 2011 who said they arrived between 2007 and 2011. It is worth noting that even if we use only the 169,000 immigrant workers who indicated that they arrived in 2008 to 2011, and exclude the three quarters in 2007, this would still equal 76 percent of overall job growth in Texas. Thus, including the 2006-2007 cohort of immigrants makes little difference to the overall results. To calculate the impact of newly arrived immigrants on the overall working-age population (16 to 65) in Texas we employ the same basic approach.
4 The 7 percent who are naturalized citizens are those who are re-entering the country or who naturalized very quickly after arriving because they married American citizens or otherwise were able to expedite their naturalization, such as those in the military.
5 To distinguish legal from illegal immigrants in the survey this report uses citizenship status, year of arrival in the United States, age, country of birth, educational attainment, sex, and marital status. We use these variables to assign probabilities to each respondent. Those individuals who have a cumulative probability of 1 or higher are assumed to be illegal aliens. The probabilities are assigned so that both the total number of illegal aliens and the characteristics of the illegal population closely match other research in the field, particularly the estimates developed by the Department of Homeland Security/legacy INS, the Urban Institute, and the Pew Hispanic Center. This method is based on some very well established facts about the characteristics of the illegal population. For example, it is well known that illegal aliens are disproportionately young, male, unmarried, under age 40, have few years of schooling, etc. Thus, we assign probabilities to these and other factors in order to select the likely illegal population. In some cases, we assume that there is no probability that an individual is an illegal alien.
6 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that the illegal immigrant population grew by 90,000 in Texas between January 2008 and January 2010. Texas is one of the only states in the country where the size of the illegal population increased over this period. The DHS estimate is similar to our estimate of 112,000 new illegal immigrant workers arriving from abroad and settling in the state from 2007 to 2011. The DHS estimates are only through January 2010, while our figures go through the second quarter of 2011. Moreover, DHS numbers are a net increase, which tends to be lower than new arrivals. See Table 4 in “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2010”, at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_20...
A Look at Employment Gains for Immigrants and the Native-Born, 2007 to 2011
By Steven A. Camarota, Ashley Monique Webster
September 2011
Memorandums
Download a pdf of this Memorandum
Steven A. Camarota is the Director of Research and Ashley Monique Webster a demographerat the Center for Immigration Studies.
Governor Rick Perry (R-Texas) has pointed to job growth in Texas during the current economic downturn as one of his main accomplishments. But analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) data collected by the Census Bureau show that immigrants (legal and illegal) have been the primary beneficiaries of this growth since 2007, not native-born workers. This is true even though the native-born accounted for the vast majority of growth in the working-age population (age 16 to 65) in Texas. Thus, they should have received the lion’s share of the increase in employment. As a result, the share of working-age natives in Texas holding a job has declined in a manner very similar to the nation a whole.
Among the findings:
Of jobs created in Texas since 2007, 81 percent were taken by newly arrived immigrant workers (legal and illegal).
In terms of numbers, between the second quarter of 2007, right before the recession began, and the second quarter of 2011, total employment in Texas increased by 279,000. Of this, 225,000 jobs went to immigrants (legal and illegal) who arrived in the United States in 2007 or later.
Of newly arrived immigrants who took a job in Texas, 93 percent were not U.S. citizens. Thus government data show that more than three-fourths of net job growth in Texas were taken by newly arrived non-citizens (legal and illegal).
The large share of job growth that went to immigrants is surprising because the native-born accounted for 69 percent of the growth in Texas’ working-age population (16 to 65). Thus, even though natives made up most of the growth in potential workers, most of the job growth went to immigrants.
The share of working-age natives holding a job in Texas declined significantly, from 71 percent in 2007 to 67 percent in 2011. This decline is very similar to the decline for natives in the United States as a whole and is an indication that the situation for native-born workers in Texas is very similar to the overall situation in the country despite the state’s job growth.
Of newly arrived immigrants who took jobs in Texas since 2007, we estimate that 50 percent (113,000) were illegal immigrants. Thus, about 40 percent of all the job growth in Texas since 2007 went to newly arrived illegal immigrants and 40 percent went to newly arrived legal immigrants.
Immigrants took jobs across the educational distribution. More than one out three (97,000) of newly arrived immigrants who took a job had at least some college.
These numbers raise the question of whether it makes sense to continue the current high level of legal immigration and also whether to continue to tolerate illegal immigration.
Introduction
One of the most important issues in the unfolding presidential election is the nation’s lack of job growth. The U.S. labor market has been afflicted with high unemployment and low employment rates for more than three years. As Republicans go through the process of selecting the party’s nominee, job growth in Texas during the current economic downturn has been the subject of much discussion. GOP frontrunner Rick Perry has argued that he has a proven record of job creation in his state, even during the current economic downturn. Most of the debate over the state’s job growth has focused on what types of jobs have been created. The extent to which foreign-born or immigrant workers vs. native-born workers benefited from increased employment in the state has received little attention. This Memorandum examines job growth in Texas. The findings indicate that most of the increase in jobs in Texas since 2007 went to foreign-born (immigrant) workers, both legal and illegal, not U.S.-born workers.
Data and Methods
The two primary employment surveys collected by the United States government are referred to as the “household survey” (also called the Current Population Survey or CPS) and the “establishment survey.” The establishment survey asks employers about the number of workers they have. In contrast, the CPS asks people at their place of residence if they are working. While the two surveys shows the same general trends, the figures from the two surveys do differ to some extent. Because the CPS asks actual workers about their employment situation, only it provides information about who is working, who is looking for work, and who is not working or looking for work. Moreover, only the CPS asks respondents about their socio-demographic characteristics such as race, education level, age, citizenship, and year of arrival in the United States. Thus the CPS can be used not only to compare job growth among immigrants and the native-born, it can also be used to examine the share of different groups who are employed or unemployed or to make comparisons about any other measure of labor force attachment. For these reasons, this report uses the public-use files of the CPS to examine employment in Texas by quarter.1
Findings
Growth in Employment. There are two ways to examine the share of employment growth that went to immigrants vs. natives in Texas during the economic downturn. One way is to compare the increase in total employment to the number of newly arrived immigrants holding a job. The second way is to compare the increase in employment to net growth in the number of immigrants holding a job. While there are differences in these two comparisons, no matter which method is used, the data show that a disproportionate share of job growth went to immigrant workers.
The Impact of Newly Arrived Immigrants. The left bar in Figure 1 shows the share of population growth among the working age (16 to 65) accounted for by newly arrived immigrants in Texas between the second quarter of 2007, before the recession began, and the second quarter of 2011, which is the most recent quarter for which data are available.2 Newly arrived immigrants (legal and illegal) are defined as those who indicated in the CPS that they came to the United States in the second quarter of 2007 or after.3 The population growth of 28.9 percent is for those of working age (16 to 65). There were 358,000 working-age (16 to 65) immigrants in 2011 who indicated that they had arrived in the United States in 2007 or later. This equals 28.9 percent of the 1.24 million overall increase in the size of the working-age population in Texas between the second quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2011. The second bar in Figure 1 shows employment relative to the number of newly arrived immigrants holding a job. There were 225,000 immigrants holding a job in 2011 who indicated that they had arrived in the United States in 2007 or later. This equals 80.6 percent of the 279,000 overall increase in employment in Texas between 2007 and 2011. Of new arrivals, 93 percent indicated they were not U.S. citizens.4 The newly arrived can be described as new foreign workers.
The above analysis shows that newly arrived immigrants took most of the net increase in jobs in Texas. This is the case even though new immigrants accounted for a modest share of population growth among the working age (16 to 65). Put a different way, since natives accounted for the overwhelming share of the growth in the number of working-age people in the state, it would be expected that they would receive roughly the same share of the net increase in jobs, but this was not the case. We report figures for the working-age population because about 96 percent of all workers in America fall into this age group, making this population the pool of potential workers from which employers draw.
Legal vs. Illegal Immigration. It is well established that illegal aliens do respond to government surveys such as the decennial Census and the Current Population Survey. While the CPS does not ask immigrants if they are legal residents of the United States, the Urban Institute, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the former INS, the Pew Hispanic Center, and the Census Bureau all have used socio-demographic characteristics in the data to estimate the size of the illegal-alien population. We follow this same approach.5 Our best estimate is that, of Texas immigrants holding a job in 2011 who indicated that they arrived in the country between 2007 and 2011, half are illegal immigrants. It should be noted that no estimate of illegal immigration is exact. It is possible that somewhat fewer or somewhat more of the newly arrived are illegal immigrants. If our estimate is too high, then more are legal immigrants; if our estimate is too low, then more are illegal immigrants. Assuming our estimates are correct, of recently arrived working-age immigrants in the state, 113,000 are in the country illegally.6 The other half of the recently arrived immigrants (112,000) are legally in the country. Compared to the overall increase jobs in Texas from 2007 to 2011, 40 percent went to new illegal immigrants and 40 percent went to new legal immigrants. This means that in Texas — one of the few states that experienced job growth after 2007 — native-born workers benefited little from this growth. These numbers raise the question of whether it makes sense to continue to allow so many legal immigrants into the country and also whether it makes sense to continue tolerating illegal immigration. Certainly both policies have consequences for the labor market.
Net Changes in Number of Immigrants. Figure 2 uses a different method to examine the share of job growth that went to new immigrants in Texas. Rather than looking at new arrivals, Figure 2 compares overall job growth in the CPS to the net increase in immigrant employment. The left bar shows that the net increase in the number of working-age immigrants accounted for 30.6 percent of the net increase in the overall size of the working-age (16 to 65) population in Texas from the second quarter of 2007 to the same quarter in 2011. The net increase in working-age immigrants was 379,000 and this was equal to 30.6 percent of the 1.24 million increase in the total working-age population in Texas over this time period. This, of course, means that the net increase in the number of native-born Texans accounted for 69.4 percent of population growth among 16 to 65 year olds over this period. The bar on the right side of Figure 2 reports the share of net employment growth accounted for by the net increase in immigrants working. The net increase in immigrant workers was 150,000 and this equaled 53.6 percent of the 279,000 overall growth in employment from 2007 to 2011.
The immigrant share of employment growth is less than when we examine new arrivals (Figure 1). But it is still the case that immigrants accounted for less than one-third of population growth from 2007 to 2011, but more than half of all the job growth in Texas. Thus, whether we calculate the impact of immigration in Texas by looking at the share of jobs taken by newly arrived immigrants (Figure 1) or by looking at the net increase in immigrant workers (Figure 2), in both cases a disproportionate share of job growth in Texas went to immigrants.
It is worth noting that the net increase in immigrants is different from the number of new arrivals because net figures are impacted by immigrants leaving the state each year as well as the movement of immigrants into Texas. Net figures also reflect the small fraction of immigrants who die each year. Moreover, we are looking at those 16 to 65 or those who are employed, who are generally in this same age group. Therefore, some people enter these populations by reaching working age each year, while others age out of these populations. Still others who are of working age are no longer working. Thus, net figures reflect many factors, while the number of new arrivals simply shows those coming into the United States and settling in Texas. What is important about these results is that, in Texas, we can say that although natives accounted for the overwhelming majority of growth in the number of potential workers — persons 16 to 65 — most of the increase in jobs went to immigrants.
In terms of evaluating the nation’s immigration system, looking at new arrivals may be more relevant than net changes because those arriving in the country directly reflect both those admitted legally as well as the level of new illegal immigration. In contrast, net changes reflect many factors such as deaths or a decision to leave the country.
The Unemployment and Employment Rate. In addition to looking at job growth, there are other ways to examine the labor market. Table 2 reports a variety of employment figures by state for the second quarters of 2007 and 2011. But no matter what measure is used, it is difficult to find evidence to support the argument that things are very different in Texas than in the rest of the country for the native-born population. In the second quarter of 2011, the unemployment rate in Texas was 8.1 percent for natives, ranking the state 22nd out of 50 states in terms of the lowest rate. If we compare the growth in unemployment from 2007 to 2011, the rate roughly doubled in Texas, which is very similar to what happened in the country as a whole. The share of working-age natives holding a job in Texas was 66.6 percent in 2011, ranking Texas 29th in the nation. Both the unemployment rate and the employment rate represent a significant deterioration for natives since 2007. A deterioration that roughly parallels what took place in the rest of the nation.
What Types of Jobs? Some commentators have expressed concern that most of the job growth in Texas is for low-wage jobs requiring relatively little education. While that issue is outside of the scope of this analysis, the CPS does show that immigrants gained jobs across the educational distribution. For example, overall 55.2 percent (154,000) of the net increase in jobs since 2007 in Texas went to workers (immigrant and native-born) who had no more than a high school education. That is, they either did not graduate high school or did graduate, but had no additional schooling. Of the net increase in jobs for these less-educated workers, 63 percent went to immigrant workers even though they accounted for only 44.2 percent of population growth among those of working-age who have no more than a high school education. Of the net increase in jobs for workers with education beyond high school, 42.1 percent went to immigrants. This compares to their 21.8 percent share of population growth among working-age individuals with more than a high school education. When examined in this way, immigrants made gains across the educational distribution out of proportion to their population shares.
Some may still feel that less-educated immigrants who work at the bottom of the labor market do not really compete with natives. There is a long debate among economists on this topic. It is true that 56.8 percent of newly arrived immigrants had no more than a high school education. However, there are more than three million native-born Texans working in the state who have no more than an high school education. Moreover, between 2007 and 2011 the number of native-born Texans with a high school degree or less who were not working increased by 259,000 over this time period. The unemployment rate for these less-educated, U.S.-born Texans rose substantially after 2007 and stood at 11.2 percent in the second quarter of 2011. There are a very large number of natives who work in lower-skilled occupations. And less-educated natives who generally work at such jobs have done very poorly in Texas, as they have throughout the country. It would be very difficult to find evidence that less-educated workers were in short supply in the state.
It must also be remembered that many immigrants are more educated. When we look at the number of newly-arrived immigrants in Texas, we find that 43.2 percent (97,000) of those that took a job in Texas had at least some college. If we look at the net gain in employment among more educated immigrants, rather than new arrivals, the growth was 53,000, which means that more-educated workers accounted for one-third of the net growth in immigrant employment. Thus it would a mistake to assume that immigrants are only competing for jobs at the bottom end of the labor market.
Conclusion
This analysis shows that job growth was significant in Texas. But, depending on how one calculates the impact of immigration, between 2007, before the recession began, and 2011 more than three-quarters or more than half of that growth went to immigrants. This is the case even though the native-born accounted for more than two-thirds of the growth in the working-age population. Some may argue that it was because so many immigrants arrived in Texas that there was job growth in the state. But if immigration does stimulate job growth for natives, the numbers in Texas would be expected to look very different. The unemployment rate and the employment rate show a dramatic deterioration in the Texas for the native-born that was similar to the rest of the country. Moreover, if immigration does stimulate job growth for natives, why have states that received so many new immigrants done so poorly in recent years? (See Table 2.) For example, unemployment in the top-10 immigrant-receiving states in 2011 averaged 8.7 percent, compared to 8.1 percent in the other 40 states. Moreover, unemployment is 7.2 percent on average in the 10 states where the fewest immigrants arrived since 2007. These figures do not settle the debate over the economics of immigration. What they do show is that high immigration can go hand in hand with very negative labor market outcomes for the native-born. And conversely the native-born can do relatively well in areas of lower immigration.
There is a long and complex debate among economists about whether the native-born population benefits economically from immigration, which cannot be settled here. There is also significant debate about whether the impact of immigration can be measured by comparing different parts of the country that have varying levels of immigration. What we can say about Texas is that there has been significant job growth in the state since 2007, and that immigrants (particularly newly arrived non-citizens) were the primary beneficiaries of this growth. This is an important finding and should be part of any discussion of the performance of the Texas economy.
End Notes
1 For each quarter the CPS includes about 18,000 native-born Americans and 3,600 immigrants in Texas.
2 Comparing the same quarter is important because it controls for seasonal factors that may impact employment. All figures in this report are seasonally unadjusted because they are computationally simpler and easier for other researchers to replicate.
3 The Census Bureau groups year-of-arrival data in order to preserve the anonymity of survey participants. This makes it more difficult to look at post-2007 arrivals in the 2011 data because those who indicated they came to the country in 2008 to 2011 are coded as one group, and those who indicated they arrived in 2006 to 2007 are coded as another group. To calculate recently arrived immigrants in 2011, we look at those who arrived in 2008 to 2011 and add 37.5 percent of those who indicated they arrived in 2006 and 2007. By taking only 37.5 percent of the 2006-2007 arrival cohort we are counting just three of the eight quarters between 2006 to 2007. So, for example, the data for 2011 show 169,000 employed immigrants who said they arrived in the country in 2008 to 2011. The 2011 data also show 150,000 immigrants who said they arrived in 2006 and 2007. We add 37.5 percent (56,000) of 150,000 to 169,000 for a total of 225,000 immigrants in 2011 who said they arrived between 2007 and 2011. It is worth noting that even if we use only the 169,000 immigrant workers who indicated that they arrived in 2008 to 2011, and exclude the three quarters in 2007, this would still equal 76 percent of overall job growth in Texas. Thus, including the 2006-2007 cohort of immigrants makes little difference to the overall results. To calculate the impact of newly arrived immigrants on the overall working-age population (16 to 65) in Texas we employ the same basic approach.
4 The 7 percent who are naturalized citizens are those who are re-entering the country or who naturalized very quickly after arriving because they married American citizens or otherwise were able to expedite their naturalization, such as those in the military.
5 To distinguish legal from illegal immigrants in the survey this report uses citizenship status, year of arrival in the United States, age, country of birth, educational attainment, sex, and marital status. We use these variables to assign probabilities to each respondent. Those individuals who have a cumulative probability of 1 or higher are assumed to be illegal aliens. The probabilities are assigned so that both the total number of illegal aliens and the characteristics of the illegal population closely match other research in the field, particularly the estimates developed by the Department of Homeland Security/legacy INS, the Urban Institute, and the Pew Hispanic Center. This method is based on some very well established facts about the characteristics of the illegal population. For example, it is well known that illegal aliens are disproportionately young, male, unmarried, under age 40, have few years of schooling, etc. Thus, we assign probabilities to these and other factors in order to select the likely illegal population. In some cases, we assume that there is no probability that an individual is an illegal alien.
6 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that the illegal immigrant population grew by 90,000 in Texas between January 2008 and January 2010. Texas is one of the only states in the country where the size of the illegal population increased over this period. The DHS estimate is similar to our estimate of 112,000 new illegal immigrant workers arriving from abroad and settling in the state from 2007 to 2011. The DHS estimates are only through January 2010, while our figures go through the second quarter of 2011. Moreover, DHS numbers are a net increase, which tends to be lower than new arrivals. See Table 4 in “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2010”, at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_20...
THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT
Imprimis: Over 1.9 million readers monthly
It's FREE! Click here to sign up today.
Home > News & Events > Imprimis > Imprimis Archive > Imprimis Issue
PDF 09/2011
September 2011
Edward J. Erler
Professor of Political Science,
California State University, San Bernardino
Edward J. Erler is professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute. He earned his B.A. from San Jose State University and his M.A. and Ph.D. in government from Claremont Graduate School. He has published numerous articles on constitutional topics in journals such as Interpretation, the Notre Dame Journal of Law, and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. He was a member of the California Advisory Commission on Civil Rights from 1988-2006 and served on the California Constitutional Revision Commission in 1996. He has testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of birthright citizenship and is the co-author of The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration.
The following is adapted from a speech delivered at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar on May 24, 2011, in Dallas, Texas.
The Constitution and Limited Government
Two cases that are currently making their way to the Supreme Court may well in the short term decide the constitutional issue of the reach and extent of the federal government. At stake, in other words, is the future of limited government. And together, these two cases present an exceedingly odd situation. In the case of the Arizona illegal alien law, the federal government is suing a state for constitutional violations; and in the case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—that is, Obamacare—more than half the states are suing the federal government, contesting the Act’s constitutionality. It is indeed a litigious season.
But the Supreme Court’s decisions in these two cases may not be the last word, because both of them present eminently political issues that will have to be decided ultimately by the American people.
The administrative state, of course, always seeks to extend its reach and magnify its power. This is an intrinsic feature of a system where administration and regulation replace politics as the ordinary means of making policy. If there are to be limits to the reach of the burgeoning administrative state, they will be political limits imposed by the people in the ordinary course of partisan politics. The advent of the administrative state poses the greatest challenge to limited government, because it elevates the welfare of the community—whether real or imagined—over the rights and liberties of individuals. The task today is to confine the federal government to its delegated powers. The minions of the administrative state seek to destroy constitutional boundaries in their desire to replace politics with administration. This is tantamount to denying that legitimate government derives from the consent of the governed, or that limited government rests on the sovereignty of the people.
One of the proofs offered in the Declaration of Independence that King George was attempting to establish an “absolute Tyranny” over the American colonies was the fact that “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.” Obamacare certainly fits the description of the activities denounced in the Declaration. The number of regulations and the horde of administrators necessary to execute the scheme are staggering. We have only to think here of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. It is a commission of 15 members appointed by the President, charged with the task of reducing Medicare spending. This commission has rule-making power which carries the force of law. The Senate, it is true, will have the power to override its decisions—but only with a three-fifths majority. There are no procedures that allow citizens or doctors to appeal the Board’s decisions. The administrative state—here in the guise of providing health care for all—will surely reduce the people under a kind of tyranny that will insinuate itself into all aspects of American life, destroying liberty by stages until liberty itself becomes only a distant memory.
The advent and extraordinary success of the Tea Party movement, with its emphasis on restoring limited government, has made this a propitious time to rethink what the Framers meant by limited government and how they understood the relationship between limited government and the protection of rights and liberties. It is rare to see a people acting spontaneously in a political cause. The Tea Party movement must be regarded as a testament to the independent spirit—the freedom-loving spirit—of the American people.
How did the Framers understand limited government? In the first place, limited government was not for the Framers identical with small government, as the Tea Party sometimes tends to believe. The identification of limited government with small government was the position of the Anti-Federalists who opposed the ratification of the Constitution. Limited government, for the Anti-Federalists, meant government that was too weak to threaten the rights and liberties of the people. Small government was, therefore, both the necessary and sufficient condition of political freedom. Consequently, the Anti-Federalists preferred a purely confederal form of government in which the states assumed priority.
The Federalists, on the other hand, regarded confederal government as an attempt to do the impossible: to create a sovereignty within a sovereignty. Conflicting claims to sovereignty would be debilitating and would render the government of the whole ineffective—as was surely the case under our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation.
The Framers of the Constitution settled upon a novel design for government, one that Madison said was “partly national, partly federal.” For some purposes, Madison explained, we will be one people; for others, we will be multiple peoples. With respect to the national features—those things that concern the nation as a whole—the federal government will have sovereignty—complete and plenary power to accomplish the objects entrusted to its care in the Constitution. Those objects are principally found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. National defense, for example, is exclusively delegated to the federal government. And since the exigencies that face nations in foreign affairs are unpredictable and innumerable, the federal government must have sovereignty to fulfill this delegated trust. And if that trust is to be fulfilled, the federal government must also be accorded the necessary means to achieve that end. If this entails large government—and today it surely does—then large government must be compatible with limited government. Similar reasoning applies to all the objects delegated to the care of the federal government.
The Declaration of Independence provided the authoritative statement of America’s political principles. For the first time, government was said to derive its legitimacy—its just powers—from “the consent of the governed.” This was a turning point in world-historical consciousness: no longer would it be possible to argue that sovereignty belonged to governments or kings—even if kings claimed appointment by divine right.
In order to form just government, the people delegate a portion of their sovereignty to government to be exercised for their benefit. The fact that only a portion of sovereignty is ceded by the people is the origin of the idea of limited government. The people delegate only some of their sovereignty to government, and what is not granted is retained by the people—the people, for example, always reserve (and can never cede) the ultimate expression of sovereignty, the right of revolution. The Declaration describes this right as “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish” government when it becomes destructive of its proper ends—namely, the protection of the safety and happiness of the people. This right of revolution, as understood by the Founders, was the right that secures every other right, because it serves as a constant reminder of the sovereignty of the people.
The Anti-Federalists never understood these revolutionary implications; they seemed to believe still that governments, not the people, were the ultimate repositories of sovereignty, and that the only way to secure the rights and liberties of the people was to weaken the power of government—as if freedom existed only in the exceptions to government power. But as Madison wrote, “Energy in government is essential to that security against external and internal danger and to that prompt and salutary execution of the laws which enter into the very definition of good government.”
What limits the federal government is not a limit on its power to act, but the limited range of objects entrusted to its care—the enumerated powers of government. The powers not delegated to the federal government nor forbidden to the states in the Constitution (e.g., ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts) are reserved to the states. These are the police powers, which are generally described as the power to regulate the health, safety, welfare and morals of the citizens of the states.
In cases of conflict, the supremacy clause of the Constitution gives preference to the federal Constitution and laws made in pursuance of the Constitution. The supremacy clause was described by Madison as an essential improvement over the Articles of Confederation. Where there is no final authority to arbitrate disputes between the federal government and the states in this “compound Republic,” government will be paralyzed. Madison confessed, however, that the exact boundary between the powers of the federal government and the state governments will be impossible to determine in advance. The precise lines of demarcation will have to be worked out in practice. The Supreme Court—and through the supremacy clause, the state courts—will have to determine conflicts on a case by case basis.
An illustration of the difficulties of drawing clear lines between federal and state authority in our “compound Republic” is the Arizona illegal immigration bill, passed in April 2010. The law allowed police officers to verify the immigration status of any person after a valid stop or arrest if there “is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States.” Everyone remembers the hysteria that was unleashed when the bill passed. The President called the law irresponsible, saying that it threatened “basic notions of fairness.” Others said the provision of the bill relying on “reasonable suspicion” would mandate racial profiling; and some of the more hysterical commentators even insisted that the law was tantamount to genocide. The Assistant Secretary of State felt compelled to apologize to members of a Chinese delegation visiting the United States for this egregious assault upon human rights. One can only imagine the bemused looks on the faces of the Chinese delegation.
The President ordered the Justice Department to intervene. And to the surprise of many, the Justice Department’s lawsuit did not seek to enjoin the law based on racial profiling or equal protection or due process, arguing instead that the law conflicted with the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration. Perhaps someone had explained to the Attorney General that “reasonable suspicion” has been a part of our due process jurisprudence for many years. It means that a police officer can question on suspicion that is less than probable cause; reasonable suspicion, of course, must be something more than a hunch or a guess or an intuition—it must be based on articulable facts. In addition, the Supreme Court in 1975 ruled that ethnicity could be one of the factors determining reasonable suspicion. The Arizona law, in contrast, disallowed any use of ethnicity in determining whether a person could be asked about his immigration status.
In United States v. Arizona, the Federal District Court judge enjoined the operation of the law because it intruded upon the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration and control foreign policy. On appeal from the District Court, one piece of evidence adduced by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Arizona law was an unconstitutional impingement upon the federal government’s exclusive power to conduct foreign policy was the fact that the President of Mexico and the heads of several other Latin American countries had expressed severe criticisms of the bill both in the press and in amici briefs! Rarely do we encounter such humor in court opinions, however unintended the humor might be.
The Constitution, of course, does not specifically grant control over immigration to the federal government. Instead Congress has power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Control over naturalization, however, seems to imply control over immigration—so uniform rules governing immigration would seem, by necessary implication, to fall within the scope of federal power. The real question here—although it was not addressed by the District Court or the Court of Appeals—was what power, if any, devolves upon state governments when the federal government fails to carry out its obligations. The District Court had candidly noted that the Arizona law was passed “against a backdrop of rampant illegal immigration, escalating drug and human trafficking crimes, and serious public safety concerns.” In the face of federal inaction or manifest indifference, does Arizona have the reserved power—indeed the obligation—to secure the safety of its citizens? The President’s recent remarks that the border has been secured and that it is now time to think of providing a path to citizenship for illegal aliens is, in reality, a statement of declared indifference to the people of the State of Arizona and to all the border states similarly situated. Surely those states have the constitutional right, sustained by their police powers, to protect themselves through laws that are as unobtrusive as the Arizona law. But in the District Court’s judgment, the Arizona law invoked “an inference of preemption” because it placed an “impermissible burden” on federal “resources and priorities” and inevitably “will result in the harassment of aliens.” The burden on federal resources stems from the fact that there will be an increased number of requests to verify immigration status. This increased burden will in turn force the immigration services to reallocate resources away from other priorities. Such is the logic of the District Court.
These reasons seem trivial when compared to the real and pressing dangers that Arizona faces as a result of federal inaction and indifference. Surely this is not what the Framers had in mind when they crafted the supremacy clause, while at the same time reserving to the states the essential responsibility of protecting the safety and welfare of their citizens. Madison wrote in The Federalist that “the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” This extensive power reserved to the states should weigh heavily on preemption decisions. In this light, the Arizona law seems to have been a clear exercise of the state’s police powers, and any burden imposed on the federal government to have been incidental and insignificant.
Obamacare is another issue that tests our understanding of the Constitution and the role of limited government. In federal courts, the Obama administration has defended the bill as a legitimate exercise of Congress’ power to regulate commerce. At issue here is the individual mandate that forces individuals to purchase health care insurance and carries a penalty for failure to do so. Congress has the power to regulate commerce; but does it, as here, have the power to create commerce—i.e., to force individuals to engage in interstate commerce by purchasing health care insurance from private providers? Another way to look at the issue would be to ask whether, under the commerce clause, Congress has the power to regulate inactivity, i.e., the refusal to buy insurance. This would indeed be a novel extension of commerce clause jurisprudence and utterly impossible to square with any notion of commerce that was held by the framers of the Constitution.
In addition to the commerce clause argument, the Obama administration maintains that the individual mandate is authorized by Congress’ power to tax and spend for the general welfare. Congress’ power here is extensive. Over the years, the Court has generally deferred to Congress in determining what constitutes the general welfare. This is proper, since Congress represents the nation and what promotes the general welfare is essentially a political question. If Congress determines that a universal health care system serves the general welfare, then the courts will not interfere. The power to “lay and collect Taxes,” however, has been subject to judicial scrutiny. While Congress may tax for the purpose of raising revenue, it may not use the power of taxation for the express purpose of regulation. A tax that is merely a subterfuge for regulating activities will not be allowed, although a tax that only incidentally regulates behavior will pass constitutional muster as long as the principal purpose is raising revenues.
Madison argued that the general welfare clause was actually a limitation on the federal government. Taxes could be imposed and money spent only for the general welfare—meaning the welfare of the whole of the American people. It is true that Alexander Hamilton had a more extensive view of the general welfare clause, but throughout much of our history Madison’s view prevailed. Today, however, the idea that the general welfare clause was ever intended as a limit on the reach of government has been destroyed by the progressive architects of the welfare state.
In any case, if the individual mandate is to be defended under the general welfare clause, what the plain language of the bill calls a penalty must be regarded as a tax for the express purpose of raising revenue. If the penalty can be sold as a tax, the Obama administration argues, then Obamacare is authorized by the general welfare clause. In the Florida District Court case, the Justice Department made the wholly tendentious—not to say absurd—argument that since the IRS was charged with administering the individual mandate and collecting the penalties, this was sufficient to convert a penalty into a tax. But as Florida District Court Judge Roger Vinson remarked: “Besides the fact that President Obama confidently assured the American people that there would be no new taxes to support the medical insurance scheme, no amount of administrative indirection should be allowed to convert a penalty into a tax for raising revenue. This is not a revenue raising measure and therefore cannot be justified under the general welfare clause.”
But here is a somber thought: If, instead of using the individual mandate, Congress had relied on its general revenue-raising powers, under current Supreme Court doctrine, it is almost certain that Obamacare would be constitutional. It would be an example of Congress spending money for the general welfare.
In conclusion, the only certain method of defeating universal health care and other cases of federal overreach—as it appears that the American public desires to do—is political opposition. A political party dedicated to genuinely limited government—not small government—is an urgent political task. Whether the Tea Party is up to this task remains to be seen—but it is probably our best hope. The Tea Party will have to learn, however, that the task today is not to weaken the power of government—it is to confine the government to the exercise of its delegated powers and to restore to its full vigor the partly national, partly federal form of government that was the legacy of the Founders.
It's FREE! Click here to sign up today.
Home > News & Events > Imprimis > Imprimis Archive > Imprimis Issue
PDF 09/2011
September 2011
Edward J. Erler
Professor of Political Science,
California State University, San Bernardino
Edward J. Erler is professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute. He earned his B.A. from San Jose State University and his M.A. and Ph.D. in government from Claremont Graduate School. He has published numerous articles on constitutional topics in journals such as Interpretation, the Notre Dame Journal of Law, and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. He was a member of the California Advisory Commission on Civil Rights from 1988-2006 and served on the California Constitutional Revision Commission in 1996. He has testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of birthright citizenship and is the co-author of The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration.
The following is adapted from a speech delivered at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar on May 24, 2011, in Dallas, Texas.
The Constitution and Limited Government
Two cases that are currently making their way to the Supreme Court may well in the short term decide the constitutional issue of the reach and extent of the federal government. At stake, in other words, is the future of limited government. And together, these two cases present an exceedingly odd situation. In the case of the Arizona illegal alien law, the federal government is suing a state for constitutional violations; and in the case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—that is, Obamacare—more than half the states are suing the federal government, contesting the Act’s constitutionality. It is indeed a litigious season.
But the Supreme Court’s decisions in these two cases may not be the last word, because both of them present eminently political issues that will have to be decided ultimately by the American people.
The administrative state, of course, always seeks to extend its reach and magnify its power. This is an intrinsic feature of a system where administration and regulation replace politics as the ordinary means of making policy. If there are to be limits to the reach of the burgeoning administrative state, they will be political limits imposed by the people in the ordinary course of partisan politics. The advent of the administrative state poses the greatest challenge to limited government, because it elevates the welfare of the community—whether real or imagined—over the rights and liberties of individuals. The task today is to confine the federal government to its delegated powers. The minions of the administrative state seek to destroy constitutional boundaries in their desire to replace politics with administration. This is tantamount to denying that legitimate government derives from the consent of the governed, or that limited government rests on the sovereignty of the people.
One of the proofs offered in the Declaration of Independence that King George was attempting to establish an “absolute Tyranny” over the American colonies was the fact that “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.” Obamacare certainly fits the description of the activities denounced in the Declaration. The number of regulations and the horde of administrators necessary to execute the scheme are staggering. We have only to think here of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. It is a commission of 15 members appointed by the President, charged with the task of reducing Medicare spending. This commission has rule-making power which carries the force of law. The Senate, it is true, will have the power to override its decisions—but only with a three-fifths majority. There are no procedures that allow citizens or doctors to appeal the Board’s decisions. The administrative state—here in the guise of providing health care for all—will surely reduce the people under a kind of tyranny that will insinuate itself into all aspects of American life, destroying liberty by stages until liberty itself becomes only a distant memory.
The advent and extraordinary success of the Tea Party movement, with its emphasis on restoring limited government, has made this a propitious time to rethink what the Framers meant by limited government and how they understood the relationship between limited government and the protection of rights and liberties. It is rare to see a people acting spontaneously in a political cause. The Tea Party movement must be regarded as a testament to the independent spirit—the freedom-loving spirit—of the American people.
How did the Framers understand limited government? In the first place, limited government was not for the Framers identical with small government, as the Tea Party sometimes tends to believe. The identification of limited government with small government was the position of the Anti-Federalists who opposed the ratification of the Constitution. Limited government, for the Anti-Federalists, meant government that was too weak to threaten the rights and liberties of the people. Small government was, therefore, both the necessary and sufficient condition of political freedom. Consequently, the Anti-Federalists preferred a purely confederal form of government in which the states assumed priority.
The Federalists, on the other hand, regarded confederal government as an attempt to do the impossible: to create a sovereignty within a sovereignty. Conflicting claims to sovereignty would be debilitating and would render the government of the whole ineffective—as was surely the case under our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation.
The Framers of the Constitution settled upon a novel design for government, one that Madison said was “partly national, partly federal.” For some purposes, Madison explained, we will be one people; for others, we will be multiple peoples. With respect to the national features—those things that concern the nation as a whole—the federal government will have sovereignty—complete and plenary power to accomplish the objects entrusted to its care in the Constitution. Those objects are principally found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. National defense, for example, is exclusively delegated to the federal government. And since the exigencies that face nations in foreign affairs are unpredictable and innumerable, the federal government must have sovereignty to fulfill this delegated trust. And if that trust is to be fulfilled, the federal government must also be accorded the necessary means to achieve that end. If this entails large government—and today it surely does—then large government must be compatible with limited government. Similar reasoning applies to all the objects delegated to the care of the federal government.
The Declaration of Independence provided the authoritative statement of America’s political principles. For the first time, government was said to derive its legitimacy—its just powers—from “the consent of the governed.” This was a turning point in world-historical consciousness: no longer would it be possible to argue that sovereignty belonged to governments or kings—even if kings claimed appointment by divine right.
In order to form just government, the people delegate a portion of their sovereignty to government to be exercised for their benefit. The fact that only a portion of sovereignty is ceded by the people is the origin of the idea of limited government. The people delegate only some of their sovereignty to government, and what is not granted is retained by the people—the people, for example, always reserve (and can never cede) the ultimate expression of sovereignty, the right of revolution. The Declaration describes this right as “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish” government when it becomes destructive of its proper ends—namely, the protection of the safety and happiness of the people. This right of revolution, as understood by the Founders, was the right that secures every other right, because it serves as a constant reminder of the sovereignty of the people.
The Anti-Federalists never understood these revolutionary implications; they seemed to believe still that governments, not the people, were the ultimate repositories of sovereignty, and that the only way to secure the rights and liberties of the people was to weaken the power of government—as if freedom existed only in the exceptions to government power. But as Madison wrote, “Energy in government is essential to that security against external and internal danger and to that prompt and salutary execution of the laws which enter into the very definition of good government.”
What limits the federal government is not a limit on its power to act, but the limited range of objects entrusted to its care—the enumerated powers of government. The powers not delegated to the federal government nor forbidden to the states in the Constitution (e.g., ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts) are reserved to the states. These are the police powers, which are generally described as the power to regulate the health, safety, welfare and morals of the citizens of the states.
In cases of conflict, the supremacy clause of the Constitution gives preference to the federal Constitution and laws made in pursuance of the Constitution. The supremacy clause was described by Madison as an essential improvement over the Articles of Confederation. Where there is no final authority to arbitrate disputes between the federal government and the states in this “compound Republic,” government will be paralyzed. Madison confessed, however, that the exact boundary between the powers of the federal government and the state governments will be impossible to determine in advance. The precise lines of demarcation will have to be worked out in practice. The Supreme Court—and through the supremacy clause, the state courts—will have to determine conflicts on a case by case basis.
An illustration of the difficulties of drawing clear lines between federal and state authority in our “compound Republic” is the Arizona illegal immigration bill, passed in April 2010. The law allowed police officers to verify the immigration status of any person after a valid stop or arrest if there “is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States.” Everyone remembers the hysteria that was unleashed when the bill passed. The President called the law irresponsible, saying that it threatened “basic notions of fairness.” Others said the provision of the bill relying on “reasonable suspicion” would mandate racial profiling; and some of the more hysterical commentators even insisted that the law was tantamount to genocide. The Assistant Secretary of State felt compelled to apologize to members of a Chinese delegation visiting the United States for this egregious assault upon human rights. One can only imagine the bemused looks on the faces of the Chinese delegation.
The President ordered the Justice Department to intervene. And to the surprise of many, the Justice Department’s lawsuit did not seek to enjoin the law based on racial profiling or equal protection or due process, arguing instead that the law conflicted with the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration. Perhaps someone had explained to the Attorney General that “reasonable suspicion” has been a part of our due process jurisprudence for many years. It means that a police officer can question on suspicion that is less than probable cause; reasonable suspicion, of course, must be something more than a hunch or a guess or an intuition—it must be based on articulable facts. In addition, the Supreme Court in 1975 ruled that ethnicity could be one of the factors determining reasonable suspicion. The Arizona law, in contrast, disallowed any use of ethnicity in determining whether a person could be asked about his immigration status.
In United States v. Arizona, the Federal District Court judge enjoined the operation of the law because it intruded upon the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration and control foreign policy. On appeal from the District Court, one piece of evidence adduced by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Arizona law was an unconstitutional impingement upon the federal government’s exclusive power to conduct foreign policy was the fact that the President of Mexico and the heads of several other Latin American countries had expressed severe criticisms of the bill both in the press and in amici briefs! Rarely do we encounter such humor in court opinions, however unintended the humor might be.
The Constitution, of course, does not specifically grant control over immigration to the federal government. Instead Congress has power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Control over naturalization, however, seems to imply control over immigration—so uniform rules governing immigration would seem, by necessary implication, to fall within the scope of federal power. The real question here—although it was not addressed by the District Court or the Court of Appeals—was what power, if any, devolves upon state governments when the federal government fails to carry out its obligations. The District Court had candidly noted that the Arizona law was passed “against a backdrop of rampant illegal immigration, escalating drug and human trafficking crimes, and serious public safety concerns.” In the face of federal inaction or manifest indifference, does Arizona have the reserved power—indeed the obligation—to secure the safety of its citizens? The President’s recent remarks that the border has been secured and that it is now time to think of providing a path to citizenship for illegal aliens is, in reality, a statement of declared indifference to the people of the State of Arizona and to all the border states similarly situated. Surely those states have the constitutional right, sustained by their police powers, to protect themselves through laws that are as unobtrusive as the Arizona law. But in the District Court’s judgment, the Arizona law invoked “an inference of preemption” because it placed an “impermissible burden” on federal “resources and priorities” and inevitably “will result in the harassment of aliens.” The burden on federal resources stems from the fact that there will be an increased number of requests to verify immigration status. This increased burden will in turn force the immigration services to reallocate resources away from other priorities. Such is the logic of the District Court.
These reasons seem trivial when compared to the real and pressing dangers that Arizona faces as a result of federal inaction and indifference. Surely this is not what the Framers had in mind when they crafted the supremacy clause, while at the same time reserving to the states the essential responsibility of protecting the safety and welfare of their citizens. Madison wrote in The Federalist that “the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” This extensive power reserved to the states should weigh heavily on preemption decisions. In this light, the Arizona law seems to have been a clear exercise of the state’s police powers, and any burden imposed on the federal government to have been incidental and insignificant.
Obamacare is another issue that tests our understanding of the Constitution and the role of limited government. In federal courts, the Obama administration has defended the bill as a legitimate exercise of Congress’ power to regulate commerce. At issue here is the individual mandate that forces individuals to purchase health care insurance and carries a penalty for failure to do so. Congress has the power to regulate commerce; but does it, as here, have the power to create commerce—i.e., to force individuals to engage in interstate commerce by purchasing health care insurance from private providers? Another way to look at the issue would be to ask whether, under the commerce clause, Congress has the power to regulate inactivity, i.e., the refusal to buy insurance. This would indeed be a novel extension of commerce clause jurisprudence and utterly impossible to square with any notion of commerce that was held by the framers of the Constitution.
In addition to the commerce clause argument, the Obama administration maintains that the individual mandate is authorized by Congress’ power to tax and spend for the general welfare. Congress’ power here is extensive. Over the years, the Court has generally deferred to Congress in determining what constitutes the general welfare. This is proper, since Congress represents the nation and what promotes the general welfare is essentially a political question. If Congress determines that a universal health care system serves the general welfare, then the courts will not interfere. The power to “lay and collect Taxes,” however, has been subject to judicial scrutiny. While Congress may tax for the purpose of raising revenue, it may not use the power of taxation for the express purpose of regulation. A tax that is merely a subterfuge for regulating activities will not be allowed, although a tax that only incidentally regulates behavior will pass constitutional muster as long as the principal purpose is raising revenues.
Madison argued that the general welfare clause was actually a limitation on the federal government. Taxes could be imposed and money spent only for the general welfare—meaning the welfare of the whole of the American people. It is true that Alexander Hamilton had a more extensive view of the general welfare clause, but throughout much of our history Madison’s view prevailed. Today, however, the idea that the general welfare clause was ever intended as a limit on the reach of government has been destroyed by the progressive architects of the welfare state.
In any case, if the individual mandate is to be defended under the general welfare clause, what the plain language of the bill calls a penalty must be regarded as a tax for the express purpose of raising revenue. If the penalty can be sold as a tax, the Obama administration argues, then Obamacare is authorized by the general welfare clause. In the Florida District Court case, the Justice Department made the wholly tendentious—not to say absurd—argument that since the IRS was charged with administering the individual mandate and collecting the penalties, this was sufficient to convert a penalty into a tax. But as Florida District Court Judge Roger Vinson remarked: “Besides the fact that President Obama confidently assured the American people that there would be no new taxes to support the medical insurance scheme, no amount of administrative indirection should be allowed to convert a penalty into a tax for raising revenue. This is not a revenue raising measure and therefore cannot be justified under the general welfare clause.”
But here is a somber thought: If, instead of using the individual mandate, Congress had relied on its general revenue-raising powers, under current Supreme Court doctrine, it is almost certain that Obamacare would be constitutional. It would be an example of Congress spending money for the general welfare.
In conclusion, the only certain method of defeating universal health care and other cases of federal overreach—as it appears that the American public desires to do—is political opposition. A political party dedicated to genuinely limited government—not small government—is an urgent political task. Whether the Tea Party is up to this task remains to be seen—but it is probably our best hope. The Tea Party will have to learn, however, that the task today is not to weaken the power of government—it is to confine the government to the exercise of its delegated powers and to restore to its full vigor the partly national, partly federal form of government that was the legacy of the Founders.
PATRIOT POST
The Patriot Post
PDF Version Printer Friendly Patriot Archives Comment Support The Patriot
Subscribe to The Patriot Post — It's Right and It's FREE: click here.
Digest · September 23, 2011
Government and Politics National Security
Business and Economy Culture and Policy
The Oath Accountability Civil Action
Join the tens of thousands of Patriots who have already signed on to the Oath Accountability Civil Action for Constitutional Integrity.
To enforce our Constitution's limits on the central government, we believe a formal legal action is necessary. This action, if successful, would require that all members of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, first and foremost, abide by their oaths "to support and defend" our Constitution, under penalty of law, and comport with its enumerated limitations on the federal government. The current scope of federal activities provides abundant evidence that many members of those three co-equal branches have long since abandoned their oaths, and, at present, there is no recourse for prosecution to enforce compliance.
To that end, we urge you to join this action with Patriots across the nation in this effort to establish legal standing as citizens, particularly those in our Armed Services who defend their oaths with blood and life. If we are unsuccessful in our effort to seek remedy for the lack of any proscription against, and penalty for breach of oath, it will be because the judiciary refuses any such accountability regarding the wanton violation of our Constitution. Such rejection would in effect condemn Americans once again to the abuse previously characterized in American history as "Taxation Without Representation."
Our goal is 500,000 signatures. Please join us, and encourage other like-minded Patriots to do so. A large support base will be necessary if the federal judiciary refuses to hear this action and we are forced to take it to the national legislature for codification into federal law.
The Foundation
"The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men." --Alexander Hamilton
Government & Politics
Chicago-Style Government
The Era of Obama was supposed to be a time of Hope and Change, transparent and accountable government, and bipartisan song-singing -- indeed, as Obama himself put it, "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Reality has been wholly different. A recession that, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, ended in June 2009 but has given way to crippling economic stagnation, with no end in sight. Promised transparency quickly gave way to unaccountable czars and closed-door dealings, and bipartisanship was cast aside for the Democrat partisan ramrodding of hard-left legislation through the chambers of Congress. We don't pretend to speak for the planet, but nothing much seems healed.
Amid that bleak picture, there are (at least) three administration scandals that continue to simmer, despite the fact that the Leftmedia and Obama Re-Election Outlets (but we repeat ourselves) have given them scant attention. First is the story of Solyndra's bankruptcy following a $535 million federal loan guarantee from the Obama Department of Energy (part of the 2009 "stimulus"). The hastily issued loan to the California-based solar cell producer was greater than the amount given to 35 states to complete their respective lists of "shovel-ready" infrastructure jobs. When even that wasn't enough, Solyndra sought another $469 million. "Green energy" sure does seem to require an awful lot of green.
Solyndra went bankrupt when its unworkable business model collapsed. Yet, consistent with leftist cronyism, certain creditors who happened to be Democrat donors were placed in front of the taxpayers in the line of recovery -- much as unions were placed in the front of the line for the GM and Chrysler bailouts. Lost in the cover-up are the 1,100 workers abruptly laid off in August who will have a tough time finding jobs, as California is already reeling from high unemployment and is hardly a climate conducive to economic recovery.
Former employees are beginning to tell all, too. "After we got the loan guarantee, they were just spending money left and right," said former Solyndra engineer Lindsey Eastburn. "Because we were doing well, nobody cared. Because of that infusion of money, it made people sloppy." No wonder Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison and CFO W.G. Stover Jr. have announced that they will invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when they testify before Congress today.
Second is the administration's widening venture socialism scandal involving wireless network company LightSquared, which is financed by billionaire Democrat donor Philip Falcone. Military, civilian and government experts are objecting to LightSquared's potential to interfere with the military's GPS network. Air Force Commander Gen. William Shelton blew the whistle last week, claiming that the White House pressured him to modify testimony before Congress to make it more favorable toward LightSquared. He didn't.
LightSquared executives insist that their proposed system's wavelength won't interfere with the adjacent wavelengths used by the military's GPS on the available broadcast spectrum. Despite industry-wide protests, however, LightSquared received fast-track approval for an FCC waiver granting them the right to construct a 4G wireless network for far less capital than the billions the government would extract from its competitors. To address the industry's concerns about GPS interference, LightSquared proposed that everyone else pay to retrofit their GPS devices instead of revising its network to avoid broadband spillover.
Prior to its current incarnation, LightSquared was known as Skyterra, and its ownership included major Obama backers going back to 2004. Obama sold his Skyterra stock in 2005. Along with so much in the president's background, the Leftmedia seem content to characterize such connections as coincidental.
Finally, and most serious, is the continuing cover-up of Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious. As our readers well know, this project of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has resulted in more than 2,000 American weapons illegally crossing into Mexico, not only under the nose of the ATF, but with its consent, fueling the raging drug war south of the border. Reports this week indicate that a third gun linked to Fast and Furious was recovered at the scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry's murder in December. Furthermore, according to Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee investigating this scandal, Fast and Furious guns were used in at least 200 murders in Mexico -- and that's a conservative estimate. The administration is in full rear-covering mode, and the Leftmedia have, predictably, remained virtually silent.
Is it too much to ask that the media start doing their jobs? It's high time the Chicago thugs in the White House are held accountable for their actions.
What can be done about the thugs in Washington?
Obama's Novel Debt Plan: Raise Taxes
On Monday, Barack Obama put forward his plan for the congressional debt-reduction super committee to consider. Not surprisingly, it's heavy on tax increases and light on actual debt reduction. To read the full story, don't miss Mark Alexander's essay, Taking Down Socialist 'Tax Fairness' Rhetoric.
News From the Swamp: Spending and Jobs
Late Thursday night, the House barely passed a short-term continuing resolution to authorize spending for FY2012. The vote was 219-203. Earlier in the week, Republican leaders were dealt a defeat by conservative members of their own caucus when a similar CR failed with 48 Tea Party conservatives opposed. Those 48 wanted to stick with the House's April spending deal, while the leadership was putting forward the August bipartisan agreement. Some two dozen Republicans were brought back into the fold with an amendment that included $100 million in cuts to the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, the Department of Energy program responsible for the Solyndra debacle.
In the Senate, Barack Obama's much touted jobs bill is lacking the support it needs to pass -- among Democrats. Reports are that Democrats Mark Begich (AK), Jim Webb (VA), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Barbara Mikulski (MD) outright oppose the bill, with some others not entirely decided yet. Administration officials met with several Democrats on the Hill this week to try to persuade them, but even if all Democrats are on board, the president's bill is in trouble.
Quote of the Week
"We're home alone. There's no adult in charge." --Larry Summers, former director of Obama's White House National Economic Council, as quoted in Confidence Men, Ron Suskind's newly released book about the Obama economic team
From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File
A number of federal agencies and departments are proudly making an effort to cut costs in these trying economic times by taking stock of their stationery and office equipment and buying in bulk. The plan adopted by the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice and Treasury is expected to save $600 million over four years. Wow. We hate to criticize cost savings, but this amount won't even register on the chart compared to the government's multi-trillion-dollar debt. Sure, buying in bulk makes sense, but the trouble with government is that it took them so long to figure out basic business economics. Perhaps the whole thing is merely an offset for the new Washington Post report that, "In the past five years, the Office of Personnel Management has made more than $601 million in benefits payments to deceased federal annuitants."
New & Notable Legislation
The Senate Appropriations Committee has added a measure to the 2012 appropriations package that would provide for taxpayer-funded abortions in the District of Columbia. The House version maintains the abortion ban that has been in place since April, so now all eyes are on what deal may be hammered out. The National Right to Life Committee estimates that removing the Dornan Amendment, which prevents congressionally appropriated funds for abortion, would mean an additional 1,000 abortions a year in DC alone paid by taxpayers. The ban was originally in place from 1996-2009, but Barack Obama lifted it when he took office. Republicans reinstated it earlier this year after winning the House, but once again it's up for debate.
Hope 'n' Change: Finding Out What's in It
Add CLASS (Community Living Assistance Services and Support) to the growing list of Obama administration scandals. CLASS was ostensibly designed to be the long-term care component of ObamaCare. Its real purpose was to allow the administration to claim that the health care reform package was "deficit neutral." CLASS would collect premiums upwards of $75 billion during a 10-year period beginning in 2012, but those premiums would not go back to the citizens who paid them. Instead, they would be funneled into other parts of ObamaCare that are short on cash. When the bill for CLASS comes due in 2021, taxpayers will take a big hit to keep the "deficit neutral" ObamaCare afloat -- unless, of course, 2012 provides opportunity for repeal.
CLASS recently folded up shop, but a public airing of several internal emails regarding the program reveals that the White House knew all along that it was unsustainable, and that they had no way to fix it. A congressional investigation led by Sen. John Thune (R-SD) notes that, within the Department of Health and Human Services, "the program was repeatedly referred to as 'a recipe for disaster' with 'terminal problems.'" The only viable solution to fix CLASS would be for Congress to repeal it immediately. It doesn't work, it never worked, and it never will work.
From the Left: Staying in Touch With the Little Guy
Remember the flap about Nancy Reagan's red dress? Well, in hard-times America, the current First Lady showed up at a DNC fundraiser (the one for millionaires at $35,000 a plate) wearing jewelry including a Lotus cuff priced at $15,000 with 2.9 carats of diamonds, her Gothic cuff at $15,350 with 2.17 carats in diamonds, and the Quatrefoil bracelet at $11,800 with 1.73 carats in diamonds. Total value -- $42,150.
Let them eat cake. No coverage in the Leftmedia for our modern-day Marie Antoinette.
National Security
Palestinian Statehood Takes Center Stage
The muddled mess that is the Middle East continued to churn this week, threatening to splatter the rest of the world, via the United Nations, with its toxic ooze. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is pushing the UN Security Council to grant Palestinian statehood during the current General Assembly meeting. On Wednesday, however, Barack Obama tried to head off Abbas by giving yet another of his platitudinous speeches and declaring the painfully obvious: "Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations. If it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now." Interestingly, it was this same Obama who, at last year's UN meeting, breezily said that he wanted a sovereign Palestinian state established by this year's UN meeting. So in the span of one year, a completely inept Obama managed to stab both the Israelis and the Palestinians in the back.
The Palestinians won't get their state just yet, as the U.S., even under Obama, cannot allow it. (That doesn't mean he doesn't support the idea.) However, reports are that the Security Council needs only two more votes for statehood from countries such as Bosnia (the Muslim country we created in the Clinton years), Gabon and Nigeria, which would force the U.S. to veto it. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has introduced legislation to defund the UN if it votes to recognize a Palestinian state.
Ultimately, what the Palestinians want out of a UN vote isn't so much a state as much as another weapon in their arsenal to ultimately destroy Israel. "We are going to complain that as Palestinians we have been under occupation for 63 years," Abbas said this week. In other words, that "occupation," began with the creation of Israel in 1948, and it won't end until Israel is destroyed. So goes the Middle East "peace process."
What do you make of the Palestinians' efforts?
It Would Be a Comedy of Errors If It Weren't So Serious
This week, the Obama administration proved yet again that Hope 'n' Change is no substitute for wisdom and experience. After dragging out discussions for almost two full years on whether to provide new F-16 fighter-bombers to Taiwan, the White House decided instead to upgrade Taiwan's existing F-16s without providing new aircraft. In typical fashion, Obama managed to anger both Taiwan and China. Our largest foreign creditor is angry over any U.S. upgrades to Taiwan's military, while Taiwan is rightly angry that the United States caved in to communist pressure and stiffed a democratic ally. China was going to complain no matter what -- why not get our money's worth and provide new F-16s to a friendly democracy?
Meanwhile, in another transparently cynical move to placate the president's leftist base, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the administration remains committed to closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. The January 2010 deadline for doing so flew by without fanfare, so now they promise to close it by Election Day 2012. Holder at least had the courtesy to provide the obvious motivation -- the election. Obama's base has been increasingly disenchanted with his performance lately, and he obviously wants some highly visible leftist dream to come true just in time for the election. Congress will have a great deal to say about Guantanamo's final disposition, but for the White House even to float this idea -- and so explicitly tie it to the next election -- is dangerously amateurish.
Department of Military Correctness: Orientation Genie Out of the Closet
At the stroke of midnight Tuesday, the Pentagon laid out the welcome mat for homosexual members of the military and for those in civilian life to join. After an 18-year "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" interregnum during which homosexuals were allowed in the military as long as they stayed "in the closet," the long-standing ban on their serving openly in the United States military formally came to a close. Obviously this came as a relief to service members such as "J.D. Smith," who in real life is Air Force First Lieutenant Josh Seefried. He adopted the pseudonym last year when he founded OutServe, a heretofore underground network of homosexual service members that has grown to 4,300 members. It's estimated that there are around 65,000 such members of the military, a presumption likely drilled into the 2.3 million active-duty and reserve members around the world who sat through an hour-long sensitivity course on accepting homosexuals within their ranks earlier this year.
Critics saw the change as an attempt to "reshape social attitudes" and warned that the number of military personnel may drop further than the 14,346 members discharged over the years by running afoul of the old DADT rules. Those who had been so discharged will be eligible to rejoin but won't have any specific preference over others who want to re-enter the service, the Pentagon announced.
It isn't clear whether benefits given to the spouses and families of married service members will eventually be extended to same-sex partners. A proposal to allow Navy chaplains to conduct "marriage" ceremonies in states where civil unions are allowed was scrapped after lawmakers objected.
Click Here
Post our new End of An Error sticker on every vehicle you own!
It's coming and we KNOW you are ready! Share these great stickers by the droves with anyone you know who will post it! End of an Error sticker is made of high quality vinyl and measures 6" x 4".
Business & Economy
Income Redistribution: Bonuses for GM Workers, the Shaft for Taxpayers
Last week General Motors and its UAW workforce reached a tentative four-year labor agreement, which is likely to be ratified overwhelmingly by the rank and file. As usual, the devil is in the details. Despite the fact that the automaker is still on the hook for billions of dollars to the federal government, which remains the owner of about one-quarter of GM's stock, the agreement includes a provision that UAW workers will receive a $5,000 "signing bonus" in lieu of a cost-of-living increase this year and maintain their health care and pensions. Newly hired workers will get a significant raise from their current $14 per hour to perhaps $17 per hour over the life of the contract. All workers will have "improved" profit sharing. In addition, the automaker will reopen the former Saturn assembly line in Spring Hill, Tennessee, which was idled in 2009.
Undoubtedly union leaders are thrilled about these concessions from the company, but they also knew whom to thank. As UAW Bob King noted, "None of this would have been possible without the efforts of President Obama, who invested federal funds to help turn the company around, protect the auto supplier base, and keep good-paying jobs in America." Unfortunately, those efforts have cost taxpayers roughly $15 billion that is yet to be repaid.
Have you driven a Ford lately?
Regulatory Commissars: Don't Create Jobs
With all the talk of saving and creating jobs, we find it disturbing that someone has been punished for doing just that. Peter Schiff, president and CEO of EuroPacific Capital, committed the unpardonable offense of hiring more brokers than regulations allow. "In my own business, securities regulations have prohibited me from hiring brokers for more than three years," Schiff testified before Congress. "I was even fined $15,000 expressly for hiring too many brokers in 2008. In the process I incurred more than $500,000 in legal bills to mitigate a more severe regulatory outcome as a result of hiring too many workers. I have also been prohibited from opening up additional offices. I had a major expansion plan that would have resulted in my creating hundreds of additional jobs. Regulations have forced me to put those jobs on hold."
Furthermore, says Schiff, "[T]he added cost of security regulations [has] forced me to create an offshore brokerage firm to handle foreign accounts that are now too expensive to handle from the United States. Revenue and jobs that would have been created in the U.S. are now being created abroad instead." As National Review's Andrew McCarthy quipped, "He's in finance. I guess he should have tried solar panels."
In related news, the EPA's overzealous regulators will soon cost another 500 workers their jobs. Texas energy company Luminant will be forced to stop generating energy at two of its power plants and shutter three lignite mines, thanks to requirements within the EPA's recently mandated Cross-State Air Pollution Rule in 2012. In a statement, the company said that while it is "launching a significant investment program to reduce emissions across our facilities" it couldn't otherwise comply with the "unrealistic deadline" without eliminating the 500 jobs. Also, it has taken the step of suing the EPA to overturn the edicts.
Click Here
Reagan Centennial T-Shirt
"America's best days are yet to come. Our proudest moments are yet to be. Our most glorious achievements are just ahead. " Ronald Reagan's optimism will be a sure hit for those reading the back of your blue Ronald Reagan Centennial t-shirt, available now at The Patriot Post Shop. Buy your collectible Reagan Centennial shirt today!
Culture & Policy
Around the Nation: Ground Zero Mosque 'Opens'
In August 2010, we noted the controversy over the building of an Islamic cultural center (a.k.a. mosque) two blocks from Ground Zero. It was sometimes called The Cordoba Initiative, which was a thinly veiled religious reference to the long-ago Muslim conquest of the Christian city of Cordoba, Spain. Most commonly, however, the project is known by the more palatable -- and secular -- Park51.
On Wednesday, the project launched its first public exhibit featuring the work of New York City photographer Danny Goldfield. For the past seven years, Goldfield has been working on a collection of photographs of children from every country in the world who are living in New York City. The exhibit is a sorry attempt to soften the blow of the timing of the mosque's opening. Who could be opposed to children? Not only is it less than two weeks since the 10-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, but it also comes during a week of tense meetings between Barack Obama and Israeli and Palestinian leaders.
Last year, in the midst of the heated debate, Obama felt it was his duty to impart his wisdom on the subject. What he said, of course, completely missed the point. Everyone knows that Park51 is legally viable, but that knowledge does little to assuage the hurt and rage of the thousands of people directly affected by 9/11, let alone the millions of Americans who were forever changed by that day. Against their protests, construction continued, but apparently the message didn't go completely ignored, considering the whitewash that is taking place now. "Looking forward to welcoming you to the NY Children's opening," Park51 tweeted, "We have a surprise guest to cut the ribbon. Make sure you're there!"
On Sept. 27, PBS will air the documentary "The Man Behind the Mosque" profiling developer Sharif El-Gamel. Last January, Park51 booted Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam best known for his statements that America brought the terrorists attacks upon itself. Despite the feel-good PR, this mosque is nothing more than a thumb in the eye from the very extremists who want to punish the "Great Satan."
Village Academic Curriculum: No Such Thing as a Free Lunch
Reading, writing, 'rithmetic and recipes? Since the launch of the federal school lunch program in 1946, the government has required schools to provide low-cost or free lunches to qualifying students. Now, under the new child nutrition law signed by Barack Obama late last year, the feds are mandating that schools make these meals more nutritious. In other words, not only are Washington bureaucrats subsidizing school lunches, they're also packing them. And that's not all. For the first time, the government is now inserting itself into the pricing process, and, as happens when Washington steps in, costs are going up. As The New York Times notes, under the law "school districts are required to start bringing their prices in line with what it costs to prepare the meals, eventually charging an average of $2.46 for the lunches they serve." Although the law says that price increases should be capped at 10 cents per year, some school districts have raised prices by as much as a quarter.
Districts across the country are preparing for backlash against the price hikes, but it's Washington bureaucrats who really should be taken to task for assuming "food service" is found anywhere in the Constitution. They say it's bad having two cooks in the kitchen. It's downright scary, though, when one of them is Barack Obama.
In related news, the administration will soon detail plans to revamp No Child Left Behind through waivers, not through Congress. Specifically, the White House wants to waive the requirement that students be proficient in math and reading by 2014 or risk sanctions.
Click Here
Support The Patriot Post with these great logo items!
For 200 years, the Bonnie Blue flag, with the single white star in a blue field, has signified states' rights. Our Patriot Post and Patriot Post Shop seal was developed from this theme and design. We are regularly adding to this selection of high-quality items, a great way to show where you stand! All purchases at The Patriot Post Shop support our Mission of Service to America's Armed Forces.
Faith and Family: City Orders Halt to Home Bible Study
The city of San Juan Capistrano, California, was founded as a mission in the late 1700s. Now, more than 200 years later, a couple in that city is facing fines for holding weekly Bible studies in their home. CBS Los Angeles reports, "Homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm ... were fined $300 earlier this month for holding what city officials called 'a regular gathering of more than three people.'" They could face another $500 fine for every additional gathering. According to Section 9-3.301 of the city code, "religious, fraternal, or service organizations (non-profit)" cannot meet in residential areas without obtaining a conditional use permit. We question, however, whether the city would have enforced this ordinance against a similarly sized "fraternal" gathering.
The Fromms appealed the fine to the city but were denied, and now the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) is taking the ruling to the California Superior Court. PJI President Brad Dacus noted, "An informal gathering in a home cannot be treated with suspicion by the government, or worse than any other gathering of friends, just because it is religious. We cannot allow this to happen in America, and we will fight as long and as hard as it takes to restore this group's religious freedom." If the court has any understanding of our nation's foundation of religious liberty, it will agree.
Share your thoughts on this banned Bible study
Catholic Archbishop Writes in Support of Marriage
Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York sent a letter to Barack Obama this week to seek an end to the administration's campaign against traditional marriage and religious liberty. Dolan specifically sited the Obama Justice Department, which claims that supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Bill Clinton, are motivated by "prejudice and bias." Such language presents a threat to religious liberty. "The institution of marriage is built on this truth," Dolan wrote, "no other relationships provide for the common good what marriage between husband and wife provides. The law should reflect this reality." Dolan further warned, "The Administration's failure to change course on this matter will ... precipitate a national conflict between Church and State of enormous proportions and to the detriment of both institutions." When has "conflict ... to the detriment" of anything stopped Obama before?
And Last...
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) was censured by the House (333-79) just nine months ago for several ethics violations, including tax evasion. Yet Thursday, Rangel hosted a ceremony to unveil his official portrait in the Longworth House Office Building. The list of speakers at the ceremony included Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), as well as New York Democrat senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer. After getting an "OK" from the FEC, Rangel paid for the $65,000 portrait using campaign cash.
Truly, this is beyond words. These people really do live in a parallel universe -- one in which, as Pelosi once put it, they "drain the swamp" apparently by hanging portraits of swamp creatures. What next? Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize? Oh, wait...
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team
PDF Version Printer Friendly Patriot Archives Comment Support The Patriot
Subscribe to The Patriot Post — It's Right and It's FREE: click here.
Digest · September 23, 2011
Government and Politics National Security
Business and Economy Culture and Policy
The Oath Accountability Civil Action
Join the tens of thousands of Patriots who have already signed on to the Oath Accountability Civil Action for Constitutional Integrity.
To enforce our Constitution's limits on the central government, we believe a formal legal action is necessary. This action, if successful, would require that all members of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, first and foremost, abide by their oaths "to support and defend" our Constitution, under penalty of law, and comport with its enumerated limitations on the federal government. The current scope of federal activities provides abundant evidence that many members of those three co-equal branches have long since abandoned their oaths, and, at present, there is no recourse for prosecution to enforce compliance.
To that end, we urge you to join this action with Patriots across the nation in this effort to establish legal standing as citizens, particularly those in our Armed Services who defend their oaths with blood and life. If we are unsuccessful in our effort to seek remedy for the lack of any proscription against, and penalty for breach of oath, it will be because the judiciary refuses any such accountability regarding the wanton violation of our Constitution. Such rejection would in effect condemn Americans once again to the abuse previously characterized in American history as "Taxation Without Representation."
Our goal is 500,000 signatures. Please join us, and encourage other like-minded Patriots to do so. A large support base will be necessary if the federal judiciary refuses to hear this action and we are forced to take it to the national legislature for codification into federal law.
The Foundation
"The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men." --Alexander Hamilton
Government & Politics
Chicago-Style Government
The Era of Obama was supposed to be a time of Hope and Change, transparent and accountable government, and bipartisan song-singing -- indeed, as Obama himself put it, "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Reality has been wholly different. A recession that, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, ended in June 2009 but has given way to crippling economic stagnation, with no end in sight. Promised transparency quickly gave way to unaccountable czars and closed-door dealings, and bipartisanship was cast aside for the Democrat partisan ramrodding of hard-left legislation through the chambers of Congress. We don't pretend to speak for the planet, but nothing much seems healed.
Amid that bleak picture, there are (at least) three administration scandals that continue to simmer, despite the fact that the Leftmedia and Obama Re-Election Outlets (but we repeat ourselves) have given them scant attention. First is the story of Solyndra's bankruptcy following a $535 million federal loan guarantee from the Obama Department of Energy (part of the 2009 "stimulus"). The hastily issued loan to the California-based solar cell producer was greater than the amount given to 35 states to complete their respective lists of "shovel-ready" infrastructure jobs. When even that wasn't enough, Solyndra sought another $469 million. "Green energy" sure does seem to require an awful lot of green.
Solyndra went bankrupt when its unworkable business model collapsed. Yet, consistent with leftist cronyism, certain creditors who happened to be Democrat donors were placed in front of the taxpayers in the line of recovery -- much as unions were placed in the front of the line for the GM and Chrysler bailouts. Lost in the cover-up are the 1,100 workers abruptly laid off in August who will have a tough time finding jobs, as California is already reeling from high unemployment and is hardly a climate conducive to economic recovery.
Former employees are beginning to tell all, too. "After we got the loan guarantee, they were just spending money left and right," said former Solyndra engineer Lindsey Eastburn. "Because we were doing well, nobody cared. Because of that infusion of money, it made people sloppy." No wonder Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison and CFO W.G. Stover Jr. have announced that they will invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when they testify before Congress today.
Second is the administration's widening venture socialism scandal involving wireless network company LightSquared, which is financed by billionaire Democrat donor Philip Falcone. Military, civilian and government experts are objecting to LightSquared's potential to interfere with the military's GPS network. Air Force Commander Gen. William Shelton blew the whistle last week, claiming that the White House pressured him to modify testimony before Congress to make it more favorable toward LightSquared. He didn't.
LightSquared executives insist that their proposed system's wavelength won't interfere with the adjacent wavelengths used by the military's GPS on the available broadcast spectrum. Despite industry-wide protests, however, LightSquared received fast-track approval for an FCC waiver granting them the right to construct a 4G wireless network for far less capital than the billions the government would extract from its competitors. To address the industry's concerns about GPS interference, LightSquared proposed that everyone else pay to retrofit their GPS devices instead of revising its network to avoid broadband spillover.
Prior to its current incarnation, LightSquared was known as Skyterra, and its ownership included major Obama backers going back to 2004. Obama sold his Skyterra stock in 2005. Along with so much in the president's background, the Leftmedia seem content to characterize such connections as coincidental.
Finally, and most serious, is the continuing cover-up of Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious. As our readers well know, this project of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has resulted in more than 2,000 American weapons illegally crossing into Mexico, not only under the nose of the ATF, but with its consent, fueling the raging drug war south of the border. Reports this week indicate that a third gun linked to Fast and Furious was recovered at the scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry's murder in December. Furthermore, according to Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee investigating this scandal, Fast and Furious guns were used in at least 200 murders in Mexico -- and that's a conservative estimate. The administration is in full rear-covering mode, and the Leftmedia have, predictably, remained virtually silent.
Is it too much to ask that the media start doing their jobs? It's high time the Chicago thugs in the White House are held accountable for their actions.
What can be done about the thugs in Washington?
Obama's Novel Debt Plan: Raise Taxes
On Monday, Barack Obama put forward his plan for the congressional debt-reduction super committee to consider. Not surprisingly, it's heavy on tax increases and light on actual debt reduction. To read the full story, don't miss Mark Alexander's essay, Taking Down Socialist 'Tax Fairness' Rhetoric.
News From the Swamp: Spending and Jobs
Late Thursday night, the House barely passed a short-term continuing resolution to authorize spending for FY2012. The vote was 219-203. Earlier in the week, Republican leaders were dealt a defeat by conservative members of their own caucus when a similar CR failed with 48 Tea Party conservatives opposed. Those 48 wanted to stick with the House's April spending deal, while the leadership was putting forward the August bipartisan agreement. Some two dozen Republicans were brought back into the fold with an amendment that included $100 million in cuts to the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, the Department of Energy program responsible for the Solyndra debacle.
In the Senate, Barack Obama's much touted jobs bill is lacking the support it needs to pass -- among Democrats. Reports are that Democrats Mark Begich (AK), Jim Webb (VA), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Barbara Mikulski (MD) outright oppose the bill, with some others not entirely decided yet. Administration officials met with several Democrats on the Hill this week to try to persuade them, but even if all Democrats are on board, the president's bill is in trouble.
Quote of the Week
"We're home alone. There's no adult in charge." --Larry Summers, former director of Obama's White House National Economic Council, as quoted in Confidence Men, Ron Suskind's newly released book about the Obama economic team
From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File
A number of federal agencies and departments are proudly making an effort to cut costs in these trying economic times by taking stock of their stationery and office equipment and buying in bulk. The plan adopted by the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice and Treasury is expected to save $600 million over four years. Wow. We hate to criticize cost savings, but this amount won't even register on the chart compared to the government's multi-trillion-dollar debt. Sure, buying in bulk makes sense, but the trouble with government is that it took them so long to figure out basic business economics. Perhaps the whole thing is merely an offset for the new Washington Post report that, "In the past five years, the Office of Personnel Management has made more than $601 million in benefits payments to deceased federal annuitants."
New & Notable Legislation
The Senate Appropriations Committee has added a measure to the 2012 appropriations package that would provide for taxpayer-funded abortions in the District of Columbia. The House version maintains the abortion ban that has been in place since April, so now all eyes are on what deal may be hammered out. The National Right to Life Committee estimates that removing the Dornan Amendment, which prevents congressionally appropriated funds for abortion, would mean an additional 1,000 abortions a year in DC alone paid by taxpayers. The ban was originally in place from 1996-2009, but Barack Obama lifted it when he took office. Republicans reinstated it earlier this year after winning the House, but once again it's up for debate.
Hope 'n' Change: Finding Out What's in It
Add CLASS (Community Living Assistance Services and Support) to the growing list of Obama administration scandals. CLASS was ostensibly designed to be the long-term care component of ObamaCare. Its real purpose was to allow the administration to claim that the health care reform package was "deficit neutral." CLASS would collect premiums upwards of $75 billion during a 10-year period beginning in 2012, but those premiums would not go back to the citizens who paid them. Instead, they would be funneled into other parts of ObamaCare that are short on cash. When the bill for CLASS comes due in 2021, taxpayers will take a big hit to keep the "deficit neutral" ObamaCare afloat -- unless, of course, 2012 provides opportunity for repeal.
CLASS recently folded up shop, but a public airing of several internal emails regarding the program reveals that the White House knew all along that it was unsustainable, and that they had no way to fix it. A congressional investigation led by Sen. John Thune (R-SD) notes that, within the Department of Health and Human Services, "the program was repeatedly referred to as 'a recipe for disaster' with 'terminal problems.'" The only viable solution to fix CLASS would be for Congress to repeal it immediately. It doesn't work, it never worked, and it never will work.
From the Left: Staying in Touch With the Little Guy
Remember the flap about Nancy Reagan's red dress? Well, in hard-times America, the current First Lady showed up at a DNC fundraiser (the one for millionaires at $35,000 a plate) wearing jewelry including a Lotus cuff priced at $15,000 with 2.9 carats of diamonds, her Gothic cuff at $15,350 with 2.17 carats in diamonds, and the Quatrefoil bracelet at $11,800 with 1.73 carats in diamonds. Total value -- $42,150.
Let them eat cake. No coverage in the Leftmedia for our modern-day Marie Antoinette.
National Security
Palestinian Statehood Takes Center Stage
The muddled mess that is the Middle East continued to churn this week, threatening to splatter the rest of the world, via the United Nations, with its toxic ooze. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is pushing the UN Security Council to grant Palestinian statehood during the current General Assembly meeting. On Wednesday, however, Barack Obama tried to head off Abbas by giving yet another of his platitudinous speeches and declaring the painfully obvious: "Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations. If it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now." Interestingly, it was this same Obama who, at last year's UN meeting, breezily said that he wanted a sovereign Palestinian state established by this year's UN meeting. So in the span of one year, a completely inept Obama managed to stab both the Israelis and the Palestinians in the back.
The Palestinians won't get their state just yet, as the U.S., even under Obama, cannot allow it. (That doesn't mean he doesn't support the idea.) However, reports are that the Security Council needs only two more votes for statehood from countries such as Bosnia (the Muslim country we created in the Clinton years), Gabon and Nigeria, which would force the U.S. to veto it. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has introduced legislation to defund the UN if it votes to recognize a Palestinian state.
Ultimately, what the Palestinians want out of a UN vote isn't so much a state as much as another weapon in their arsenal to ultimately destroy Israel. "We are going to complain that as Palestinians we have been under occupation for 63 years," Abbas said this week. In other words, that "occupation," began with the creation of Israel in 1948, and it won't end until Israel is destroyed. So goes the Middle East "peace process."
What do you make of the Palestinians' efforts?
It Would Be a Comedy of Errors If It Weren't So Serious
This week, the Obama administration proved yet again that Hope 'n' Change is no substitute for wisdom and experience. After dragging out discussions for almost two full years on whether to provide new F-16 fighter-bombers to Taiwan, the White House decided instead to upgrade Taiwan's existing F-16s without providing new aircraft. In typical fashion, Obama managed to anger both Taiwan and China. Our largest foreign creditor is angry over any U.S. upgrades to Taiwan's military, while Taiwan is rightly angry that the United States caved in to communist pressure and stiffed a democratic ally. China was going to complain no matter what -- why not get our money's worth and provide new F-16s to a friendly democracy?
Meanwhile, in another transparently cynical move to placate the president's leftist base, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the administration remains committed to closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. The January 2010 deadline for doing so flew by without fanfare, so now they promise to close it by Election Day 2012. Holder at least had the courtesy to provide the obvious motivation -- the election. Obama's base has been increasingly disenchanted with his performance lately, and he obviously wants some highly visible leftist dream to come true just in time for the election. Congress will have a great deal to say about Guantanamo's final disposition, but for the White House even to float this idea -- and so explicitly tie it to the next election -- is dangerously amateurish.
Department of Military Correctness: Orientation Genie Out of the Closet
At the stroke of midnight Tuesday, the Pentagon laid out the welcome mat for homosexual members of the military and for those in civilian life to join. After an 18-year "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" interregnum during which homosexuals were allowed in the military as long as they stayed "in the closet," the long-standing ban on their serving openly in the United States military formally came to a close. Obviously this came as a relief to service members such as "J.D. Smith," who in real life is Air Force First Lieutenant Josh Seefried. He adopted the pseudonym last year when he founded OutServe, a heretofore underground network of homosexual service members that has grown to 4,300 members. It's estimated that there are around 65,000 such members of the military, a presumption likely drilled into the 2.3 million active-duty and reserve members around the world who sat through an hour-long sensitivity course on accepting homosexuals within their ranks earlier this year.
Critics saw the change as an attempt to "reshape social attitudes" and warned that the number of military personnel may drop further than the 14,346 members discharged over the years by running afoul of the old DADT rules. Those who had been so discharged will be eligible to rejoin but won't have any specific preference over others who want to re-enter the service, the Pentagon announced.
It isn't clear whether benefits given to the spouses and families of married service members will eventually be extended to same-sex partners. A proposal to allow Navy chaplains to conduct "marriage" ceremonies in states where civil unions are allowed was scrapped after lawmakers objected.
Click Here
Post our new End of An Error sticker on every vehicle you own!
It's coming and we KNOW you are ready! Share these great stickers by the droves with anyone you know who will post it! End of an Error sticker is made of high quality vinyl and measures 6" x 4".
Business & Economy
Income Redistribution: Bonuses for GM Workers, the Shaft for Taxpayers
Last week General Motors and its UAW workforce reached a tentative four-year labor agreement, which is likely to be ratified overwhelmingly by the rank and file. As usual, the devil is in the details. Despite the fact that the automaker is still on the hook for billions of dollars to the federal government, which remains the owner of about one-quarter of GM's stock, the agreement includes a provision that UAW workers will receive a $5,000 "signing bonus" in lieu of a cost-of-living increase this year and maintain their health care and pensions. Newly hired workers will get a significant raise from their current $14 per hour to perhaps $17 per hour over the life of the contract. All workers will have "improved" profit sharing. In addition, the automaker will reopen the former Saturn assembly line in Spring Hill, Tennessee, which was idled in 2009.
Undoubtedly union leaders are thrilled about these concessions from the company, but they also knew whom to thank. As UAW Bob King noted, "None of this would have been possible without the efforts of President Obama, who invested federal funds to help turn the company around, protect the auto supplier base, and keep good-paying jobs in America." Unfortunately, those efforts have cost taxpayers roughly $15 billion that is yet to be repaid.
Have you driven a Ford lately?
Regulatory Commissars: Don't Create Jobs
With all the talk of saving and creating jobs, we find it disturbing that someone has been punished for doing just that. Peter Schiff, president and CEO of EuroPacific Capital, committed the unpardonable offense of hiring more brokers than regulations allow. "In my own business, securities regulations have prohibited me from hiring brokers for more than three years," Schiff testified before Congress. "I was even fined $15,000 expressly for hiring too many brokers in 2008. In the process I incurred more than $500,000 in legal bills to mitigate a more severe regulatory outcome as a result of hiring too many workers. I have also been prohibited from opening up additional offices. I had a major expansion plan that would have resulted in my creating hundreds of additional jobs. Regulations have forced me to put those jobs on hold."
Furthermore, says Schiff, "[T]he added cost of security regulations [has] forced me to create an offshore brokerage firm to handle foreign accounts that are now too expensive to handle from the United States. Revenue and jobs that would have been created in the U.S. are now being created abroad instead." As National Review's Andrew McCarthy quipped, "He's in finance. I guess he should have tried solar panels."
In related news, the EPA's overzealous regulators will soon cost another 500 workers their jobs. Texas energy company Luminant will be forced to stop generating energy at two of its power plants and shutter three lignite mines, thanks to requirements within the EPA's recently mandated Cross-State Air Pollution Rule in 2012. In a statement, the company said that while it is "launching a significant investment program to reduce emissions across our facilities" it couldn't otherwise comply with the "unrealistic deadline" without eliminating the 500 jobs. Also, it has taken the step of suing the EPA to overturn the edicts.
Click Here
Reagan Centennial T-Shirt
"America's best days are yet to come. Our proudest moments are yet to be. Our most glorious achievements are just ahead. " Ronald Reagan's optimism will be a sure hit for those reading the back of your blue Ronald Reagan Centennial t-shirt, available now at The Patriot Post Shop. Buy your collectible Reagan Centennial shirt today!
Culture & Policy
Around the Nation: Ground Zero Mosque 'Opens'
In August 2010, we noted the controversy over the building of an Islamic cultural center (a.k.a. mosque) two blocks from Ground Zero. It was sometimes called The Cordoba Initiative, which was a thinly veiled religious reference to the long-ago Muslim conquest of the Christian city of Cordoba, Spain. Most commonly, however, the project is known by the more palatable -- and secular -- Park51.
On Wednesday, the project launched its first public exhibit featuring the work of New York City photographer Danny Goldfield. For the past seven years, Goldfield has been working on a collection of photographs of children from every country in the world who are living in New York City. The exhibit is a sorry attempt to soften the blow of the timing of the mosque's opening. Who could be opposed to children? Not only is it less than two weeks since the 10-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, but it also comes during a week of tense meetings between Barack Obama and Israeli and Palestinian leaders.
Last year, in the midst of the heated debate, Obama felt it was his duty to impart his wisdom on the subject. What he said, of course, completely missed the point. Everyone knows that Park51 is legally viable, but that knowledge does little to assuage the hurt and rage of the thousands of people directly affected by 9/11, let alone the millions of Americans who were forever changed by that day. Against their protests, construction continued, but apparently the message didn't go completely ignored, considering the whitewash that is taking place now. "Looking forward to welcoming you to the NY Children's opening," Park51 tweeted, "We have a surprise guest to cut the ribbon. Make sure you're there!"
On Sept. 27, PBS will air the documentary "The Man Behind the Mosque" profiling developer Sharif El-Gamel. Last January, Park51 booted Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam best known for his statements that America brought the terrorists attacks upon itself. Despite the feel-good PR, this mosque is nothing more than a thumb in the eye from the very extremists who want to punish the "Great Satan."
Village Academic Curriculum: No Such Thing as a Free Lunch
Reading, writing, 'rithmetic and recipes? Since the launch of the federal school lunch program in 1946, the government has required schools to provide low-cost or free lunches to qualifying students. Now, under the new child nutrition law signed by Barack Obama late last year, the feds are mandating that schools make these meals more nutritious. In other words, not only are Washington bureaucrats subsidizing school lunches, they're also packing them. And that's not all. For the first time, the government is now inserting itself into the pricing process, and, as happens when Washington steps in, costs are going up. As The New York Times notes, under the law "school districts are required to start bringing their prices in line with what it costs to prepare the meals, eventually charging an average of $2.46 for the lunches they serve." Although the law says that price increases should be capped at 10 cents per year, some school districts have raised prices by as much as a quarter.
Districts across the country are preparing for backlash against the price hikes, but it's Washington bureaucrats who really should be taken to task for assuming "food service" is found anywhere in the Constitution. They say it's bad having two cooks in the kitchen. It's downright scary, though, when one of them is Barack Obama.
In related news, the administration will soon detail plans to revamp No Child Left Behind through waivers, not through Congress. Specifically, the White House wants to waive the requirement that students be proficient in math and reading by 2014 or risk sanctions.
Click Here
Support The Patriot Post with these great logo items!
For 200 years, the Bonnie Blue flag, with the single white star in a blue field, has signified states' rights. Our Patriot Post and Patriot Post Shop seal was developed from this theme and design. We are regularly adding to this selection of high-quality items, a great way to show where you stand! All purchases at The Patriot Post Shop support our Mission of Service to America's Armed Forces.
Faith and Family: City Orders Halt to Home Bible Study
The city of San Juan Capistrano, California, was founded as a mission in the late 1700s. Now, more than 200 years later, a couple in that city is facing fines for holding weekly Bible studies in their home. CBS Los Angeles reports, "Homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm ... were fined $300 earlier this month for holding what city officials called 'a regular gathering of more than three people.'" They could face another $500 fine for every additional gathering. According to Section 9-3.301 of the city code, "religious, fraternal, or service organizations (non-profit)" cannot meet in residential areas without obtaining a conditional use permit. We question, however, whether the city would have enforced this ordinance against a similarly sized "fraternal" gathering.
The Fromms appealed the fine to the city but were denied, and now the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) is taking the ruling to the California Superior Court. PJI President Brad Dacus noted, "An informal gathering in a home cannot be treated with suspicion by the government, or worse than any other gathering of friends, just because it is religious. We cannot allow this to happen in America, and we will fight as long and as hard as it takes to restore this group's religious freedom." If the court has any understanding of our nation's foundation of religious liberty, it will agree.
Share your thoughts on this banned Bible study
Catholic Archbishop Writes in Support of Marriage
Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York sent a letter to Barack Obama this week to seek an end to the administration's campaign against traditional marriage and religious liberty. Dolan specifically sited the Obama Justice Department, which claims that supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Bill Clinton, are motivated by "prejudice and bias." Such language presents a threat to religious liberty. "The institution of marriage is built on this truth," Dolan wrote, "no other relationships provide for the common good what marriage between husband and wife provides. The law should reflect this reality." Dolan further warned, "The Administration's failure to change course on this matter will ... precipitate a national conflict between Church and State of enormous proportions and to the detriment of both institutions." When has "conflict ... to the detriment" of anything stopped Obama before?
And Last...
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) was censured by the House (333-79) just nine months ago for several ethics violations, including tax evasion. Yet Thursday, Rangel hosted a ceremony to unveil his official portrait in the Longworth House Office Building. The list of speakers at the ceremony included Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), as well as New York Democrat senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer. After getting an "OK" from the FEC, Rangel paid for the $65,000 portrait using campaign cash.
Truly, this is beyond words. These people really do live in a parallel universe -- one in which, as Pelosi once put it, they "drain the swamp" apparently by hanging portraits of swamp creatures. What next? Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize? Oh, wait...
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)