Obama’s dream turns into our Nightmare

229 replies [Last post]
S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008

Last week President Obama violated his Oath of Office specifically his pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution Clause 4 of the Constitution empowers Congress to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”. The key part of this is the establishment of LAW. What is a LEGAL Immigrant and what is not.

The Law is very clear. If you enter the United States by any other means other than the established LEGAL methods then by definition you are therefore a criminal. You broke the Law.
When you break the Law in the United States there is supposed to be a penalty not a benefit. The President’s act of signing an Executive order allowing ILLEGAL Aliens to enter the US, take jobs, educational positions and then send the profits from their Criminal endeavor back to their home Country, effectively not only negates any penalties it incentifies the Criminal act itself.

Just last year the President said this:
With respect to the notion that I could suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know we have three branches of government. Congresses passes the law. The executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws and then the judiciary has to interpret the law. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system, that for me through simply an executive order ignore those mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.

Yet this is exactly what he just did. The President does not tell Congress what to do. He can promote an agenda and then threaten to veto anything contradictory to that agenda, however the Constitution is also very clear on the separate but equal powers of the Branches of Government.

This President believes, he actually believes, the Constitution does not apply to him. He has created one Constitutional crisis after the other.

One must remember what the President said. In his own words:
”To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf”.

So in his opinion since the Constitution just doesn’t go far enough to tell him how much control Government can have he has decided to extend that opinion to mean anything that they feel they should do.

Remember Congressman Pete Stark? “The Federal Government can do most anything it wants in this Country”.

This does seem to be the mantra of the new Dictatorship of Obama.

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
Obama: Traitor-in-Chief

A dictator doesn't care about the rule of law or a nation's legal citizens. Everything Obama does is not for the American people, but is a calculated political power grab. Obama is a traitor to American sovereignty and to the American people. Obama thinks he is above the law. It's past time to have his a** hauled out of the White House in handcuffs and to be thrown in prison where he belongs.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
As stated before, Grizz...

...in less temperate political climates throughout the world, he would be risking assassination via these types of acts. I am appalled there is less uproar about his - consistent - circumvention of Congress, just because they aren't cow-towing to his will/desires. It is quite apparent his study of Constitutional law was a means to an end of how to overcome and/or overthrow it...

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
Obama: The most inept President in history

The most inept President in hisory, Barack Obama, gave a press conference this evening that was nothing short of incomprehensible gobbledy-gook. He is in way over his head, and he proved it once again this evening. He ia an embarassment to the U.S. and should just resign.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Like DM says .....VOTE

it will make all the difference right?

I got my pitchfork someone got the Tar?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Children brought to this country illegally
Quote:

Congresses passes the law.
The executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws and then the judiciary has to interpret the law. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system, that for me through simply an executive order ignore those mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

Has Congress or law enforcement done its' job? It appears that for years those who wanted cheap labor have been favored over the implementation of the laws that already exist.

So you think that children of illegals that have been raised as Americans, worked hard in school, and have never been arrested should not be allowed to have a job, but it's OK for American jobs to go to people in China and India?

What's wrong with this picture?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Yes Davids mom...

when caught, the parents and kids should be sent back to where ever they came from.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Lack of Law enforcement

When it benefitted American business-these laws were not enforced. These children have been raised as Americans, graduated from high school, and some have served in the military. Their parents broke the law, they didn't. Because of their parents illegal act, they cannot get a job? This is a two year stop gap measure until the American people achknowledge that we have a dysfunctional legislative branch. Our biggest waste of taxpayer money is Congressional salaries. If the parent committed murder 16 years ago, would we send the child to jail?

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Yes, DM...

...if the parent committed a murder and the child knew of it and still has not reported it, they could very well be jailed for it. Apples & oranges, really, though. I'm intrigued by those who are not legal residents of the US serving in the military; to my knowledge you MUST be a legal res (holding a I-155 card) or citizen. I don't know how illegals could possibly do that, unless they had forged documents (I was a recruiter for the Army at one time, so I do have some knowledge on this subject).

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
KC

No one is denying that illegals have served. Why?. I too wonder how this happened. Maybe all recruiters were not as thorough as you? Selective law enforcement?

Apples and oranges? Most of these kids were not aware of their status until they couldn't get a legal drivers license .
Romney is between a rock and a hard place on this one. . . And Mitch McConnell is waiting for his marching orders before he makes a statement. It appears we're going to be exposed to 'top this' political mess until November. In the meantime, Americans are looking at the economy. Romney might as well move on regarding the Hispanic vote. I'm sure the Latino business men and women will be polite to both candidates. The legal Hispanic Americans will vote.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Good point, DM...

...about the kids not knowing their status; depends on the family(ies), I guess. The only way an illegal alien served was w/ forged documents, but maybe (and I doubt this) the other services had some other special deals (all rules initially stem from DoD, so I doubt this, too). Personally, I think it just sounds good to say in a speech, unless you know the difference. I'd like to see an interview w/ an illegal that served and see what they say about how they did it.

Yes, the POTUS's unconstitutional decree has pretty much bought him the pro-illegal alien votes. He was really well trained by the Daley machine in Chi-town (now you know why he settled there and not his 'HOME' state of Hawaii!). ;P

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Illegal Lawyers

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/11/california-florida-consider-law-lice...

Apparently California and Florida are considering issuing law licenses to illegals. It's no longer illegals doing jobs that Americans don't want we're now competing with them for the good jobs. We've allowed them to attend our schools and now the grants for our kids to go to school are going broke. We've allowed them to take our jobs and now unemployment is 10.8% in Atlanta. They've lived here getting free health care and you know what kind of shape that we're in there. I understand that there are also other factors involved here but my point is that we just can't afford to support these people any longer. If they are to be allowed to stay they must undergo some sort of background check and registration so that we can deport the criminals and mentally ill. Those allowed to stay must be forced to pay taxes. The students that attend our schools must pay out of state tuition. And the boarders must be closed so that we can control who comes in.

Quote:

Romney is between a rock and a hard place on this one

I actually disagree. I think most Americans favor immigration control. The Hispanic population is estimated at 14%. While Obama may pick up the Latino vote I think he'll lose much more than that with the remainder of the electorate with his actions against Arizona and Florida and now his most recent announcement. But that is just my opinion.

loanarranger707
loanarranger707's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/14/2006
What makes illegals illegal

What makes illegals illegal is the absence of a piece of paper.

I know it is hard for someone who has never had to deal with the government to understand that getting the right piece of paper is sometimes impossible.

People sometimes run into laws that are incomprehensibly complex, incomplete, contradictory and illogical. People sometimes run into government bureaucrats who are overwhelmed, slow and indifferent. Intelligent people (including immigrants) oftentimes shortcut their way around the government when they have to. People like that can make good lawyers and even help the dummies who would wait two hours at a defective red light when driving. When you’re told you have to wait 20 years before you can get a visa, you step on the gas.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Where is Tonto?

Cause he usually kept the Lone Ranger in check...

What makes a Illegal illegal? Breaking our Immigration laws by willfully crossing our Boarders without permission and then stealing our Citizens future by taking very low paying jobs under the table to send that money back to their Country of origin.

That's why they are called ILLEGALS.

Your analogy is synonymous with what makes a marriage... apiece of paper?

Don't think so...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35 Dude
Quote:

I think most Americans favor immigration control

I certainly agree with you! However, Gov. Romney has made some contradictory statements that will be brought out during this campaign regarding immigration. We'll see. Unfortunately I think too many Americans have been turned off by the 'politics' already displayed regarding this election campaign. Much of what you feel should be included in immigration reform is in the 'Dream Act'. If we look at our current health care program - it's not only illegals who are getting 'free health care' by going to our ER rooms - and having no insurance. We are paying the cost for them also. I'm not arguing here - just disgusted that our elected leaders have allowed this to go on for so long - while the ''business leaders;pharmaceutical companies; and insurance guys continue to make BIG profits!

Quote:

We've allowed them to take our jobs and now unemployment is 10.8% in Atlanta.

Americans don't work for below minimum wage. The illegals received jobs because they saved the business guys money! Check out the unemployment rate by demographics in the Atlanta area. 10.8% is not the highest percentage of unemployment. Actually I see more 'Americans' back at work in the landscape business. Let's hope the same will happen in the construction business.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM-Minimum Wage
Quote:

Americans don't work for below minimum wage. The illegals received jobs because they saved the business guys money! Check out the unemployment rate by demographics in the Atlanta area. 10.8% is not the highest percentage of unemployment. Actually I see more 'Americans' back at work in the landscape business. Let's hope the same will happen in the construction business.

You are correct. But as you point out since the landscape business can no longer find enough illegal workers to work below minimum wage they are forced to employ 'Americans' at legal wages. I too hope the same will happen in the construction (and other) business. I also hope that these people (illegals) will be sent home or forced to pay taxes so that 'American' students can get the help that they need to finish college. HOPE, Pell etc are going broke. We just can't afford to support the illegals any longer.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
DM - Immigration

Your point is well taken that much of what is being demanded is in the DREAM Act. That only matters to the extent that it is Obama's legislation and therefore cannot be supported. ” Obama’s dream turns into our Nightmare"? Really? Obama has almost doubled the rate of deportations, last year to an enormous number of over 397,000 of which 55% had criminal records. At the same time, illegal immigration has significantly decreased because of better and smarter enforcement.

The blather about Obama abandoning the Constitution is just a silly tempest in a teapot. Obama deferred deportations for kids in school without criminal records if they register, pay taxes, and a list of other provisions. At the same time the administration is prioritizing deporting illegal aliens with criminal records. Good for him. It's a perfectly legitimate (and legal, our Constitution is safe) allocation of law enforcement resources and he is deporting almost twice the number of illegal immigrants as any previous administration.

Of course, nothing that Obama proposes can be supported no matter how successful and no matter if it was originally a Republican idea. Obama implemented his policy and Marco Rubio now cannot introduce his immigration plan in the Senate. Why not? Because Rubio's plan did the exact same thing and he's just another political hack who knows he could not stand up against the backlash of his constituents if he supported the Obama plan. Obama just ended any Rubio shot as the Vice President in the most delightful way imaginable. He implemented Rubio's ideas before Rubio introduced his legislation and that required Rubio and the Republicans to disavow them! Masterful politics.

Speaking of political cowards, will Mitt ever, ever say what his immigration plan is? What a leader he's turning out to be. The political winds are blowing in all directions so Mitt cannot decide what is his most advantageous position therefore he cannot make a decision. None of the Republican political hierarchy can. They don't care about illegal immigrants nearly as much as they care about opposing Obama. That is really good news for Obama since now the Republican position must be to deport everybody right now.

Twenty years from now, the Rs will be complaining about the Hispanics working on the Democratic Party's hacienda.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Jeff C

It is becoming obvious to all that the Republican Party and their anti-Obama stance may backfire now that the Obama/Romney Healthcare bill has been found constitutional.
The empty schools and business areas throughout our country validates the largest voluntary exit of illegals that we have ever known. This administrations record on criminal deportations is admiral. Thanks for sharing the numbers.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
DM

Just curious, are you so politically naive that you really believe this is the first time the party that is not-in-power has been against the sitting president and his initiatives? I mean, you do remember how your party so hated Bush 43 and everything he did and stood for, right? I remember it. I know, I know, that was different. That was purely partisan and this time it is because Barry is black, not politics at all.

By the way, I was wondering how this administrations record on criminal deportations is "a Commander in chief of the navy"? I mean, you being a retired teacher and all......

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Moc

Commander in chief of the Navy?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
DM

What MOC is inferring:

This administrations record on criminal deportations is admiral.

It should read ......deportations is admirable.

Anyways, enjoy the day.

Veritas
Veritas's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
Obama's bogus deportation numbers

Barry is famous for not only lying but magical math.

""The statistics are actually a little deceptive," Obama said last month during a discussion with Hispanic journalists. There has been "a much greater emphasis on criminals than non-criminals." And "with stronger border enforcement, we've been apprehending folks at the borders and sending them back. That is counted as a deportation even though they may have only been held for a day or 48 hours." CNN

Those have never been counted in any deportation logs until Obama.

"Significantly larger increases in the total number of deportations occurred during George W. Bush's administration. Fewer than 120,000 people were deported in 2001, when Bush took office.

Analysts say much of the change over the last decade has been due to the implementation of controversial federal-led measures such as Secure Communities initiative and the Criminal Alien Program, which are designed to root out undocumented immigrants accused or convicted of various criminal acts. Both measures predate Obama's presidency."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/19/politics/deportation-record/

Obama's numbers don't add up with actual records.
http://trac.syr.edu/foia/ice/20120104/

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Veritas exactly numbers don't lie but people who make up

the numbers do.
Look at the "unemployment" numbers. It's clear that the real numbers are higher then reported but they have to make it look better so....

Inflation same thing....

So we get bogus deportation numbers to make Obama "look" tough on illegal immigration all the while suing States trying to clean up their voter roles or close their borders.

On a side note Phoenix Arizona is the Kidnapping capital of America. But Obama has told us the borders have never been more secure.

From the New York Times if you can believe that:
"Terrorists may well be entering the country by crossing from Mexico or Canada. But it is just as likely that they are coming in the way the Sept. 11 hijackers did: at airports, slipping through the Swiss-cheese security system now in place."

Oh wait that was when BUSH was president sooo..... that explains that.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Hey Jeff another Constitutional question for you...
JeffC wrote:

The blather about Obama abandoning the Constitution is just a silly tempest in a teapot. Obama deferred deportations for kids in school without criminal records if they register, pay taxes, and a list of other provisions. At the same time the administration is prioritizing deporting illegal aliens with criminal records.

I will keep this short and sweet... Show me where in the Constitution a President has the authority to ignore existing LAWS and to direct other inter-Governmental agencies to do the same?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
I hear crickets......

*

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
It's not a Constitutional question

There are an estimated 12-14 million illegal immigrants in the country. Your contention is that it is somehow unconstitutional for the administration to prioritize enforcement procedures? Is your position that anything short of a massive deportation program aimed at all illegal immigrants at once is the only Constitutionally acceptable process?

There are literally hundreds if not thousands of cases of deferred prosecutions by the Justice Department. What's different about this one?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
*

*

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
I guess you are right Jeff

it's not a Constitutional question because Obama doesn't believe in following it.

He doesn't have the LEGAL authority to tell ICE not to enforce the LAW nor does he have the authority to grant amnesty to those not yet convicted of a crime Jeff.

You really should read the Constitution Jeff, it is only the document that made us (past tense) the greatest Country on Earth.

Again I will ask... Show where he has this authority? Can he just tell law-enforcement agencies to ignore any LAWS HE DEEMS unnecessary?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
You read it SL

There is a difference between reading the Constitution and understanding it.

Of course the President has the authority to defer prosecutions and he also can pardon whomever he wants at any time.

You didn't answer either of my questions.

Is it your contention that it is somehow unconstitutional for the administration to prioritize enforcement procedures given law enforcement resources that cannot possibly prosecute 14 million illegals all at once?

Quit letting Hannity and O'Riley think for you.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
JeffC: It's not prioritizing

It's legalizing based on an executive order and it's actually discrimination in a really strange way that only the government can invent. Obama's own speeches on the issue show quite well he lied repeatedly on this and has no moral leadership on immigration any more than the total anti-illegal or pro-illegal lobbyist groups.

Obama's action was pure pandering and political BS because him and his fellow dems are starting to sweat it about November 2012 and aren't above anything if it might mean some more votes/turnout.

Sorry if congress won't do anything about immigration because they are ineffective and useless, but a sitting Prezbo deciding what the law "should" be is ridiculous. This isn't prioritizing deportations; it's a de facto attempt to enact the Dream Act that failed.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Politics NUK_1

I looked up the actual law and it explicitly gives the administration the right to issue an administrative stay. I cited the code in my response to SL if you're interested in the exact wording of the law. Anyway, it is not a case of the administration deciding what the law "should" be nor is it the Constitutional Crisis of some people's fervent imagination.

It is, as you say, a de facto attempt to enact the Dream Act.

Also, a very serious threat in Marco Rubio has been completely neutered in the most amazing way. Obama not only enacted policies that were in Rubio's proposed Senate bill, but in doing so forced Rubio and the entire Republican Party officialdom to oppose the measures. Since Mitt was waiting to sway with the winds on the reaction to Rubio's legislation, he now is completely baffled as to how to proceed on immigration. The Rs natural inclination, as the Obama people knew and expected, was to oppose anything Obama proposed.

Here is the funniest thing. Children of illegal immigrants who have been in the country since they were three years old and are now in high school are almost certainly not going to ever be deported regardless of which political party is in power. By Obama putting it into policy and the Rs denouncing it, the Rs have antagonized Hispanics over a policy that they were all prepared to implement and follow had Rubio introduced his bill in the Senate.

Excellently played politics by Obama and unbelievable clumsiness by Mitt and the Republican hierarchy.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Yep that's what Politicians do play politics even if it hurts US

and we keep on applauding.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Jeff obviously you don't know it as well as you think you do....

The President cannot "Pardon" anyone unless that person has first been convicted.
Since he is hindering the prosecution of the criminal act of illegally entering the United States he therefore cannot pardon someone that has not been through the Judicial Process.

I know you wish it were so Jeff but simply speaking the President's job is not to be a dictator... Jeff the President does not have the authority to "re-prioritize" laws period. By re-prioritize you mean to not enforce and therefore hindering and or stopping the enforcement of a Constitutional LAW.

Again which Article or Amendment can you point to that gives him this authority?

Stop allowing Media Matters to think for you Jeff...It's your argument make it or not. Simply disagreeing is not making the argument. Jeff if you believe Obama has the authority to "re-prioritize" as you say it where does he get that power?

Using your logic Obama should stop all enforcement of all laws...
There are 683,396 police officers in the USA give or take a few hundred.
There are 10.3 million felons in the USA so by your logic the Police can't get them all so why try?

If you know the Constitution so well Jeff this should be easy for you.

Here let me help you:

Article II Section 3

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Does the President have the "authority" to re-prioritize laws aka ignore them?

"If the President feels a law is unconstitutional or otherwise ill-advised, the President can veto the law instead of signing it. At this point Congress can respond in various ways. It is also argued that the President has a duty not to sign a law which in a given circumstance would be unconstitutional, because the President takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution. (Article II, Section 1). The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of whether a law is constitutional or not (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)."

So Jeff just where is that authority to re-prioritize based on HIS opinion?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Oh great Constitutional scholar S. Linsey
S. Lindsey wrote:

The President cannot "Pardon" anyone unless that person has first been convicted.

There was a case several years ago that you might remember. President Gerald Ford pardoned former President Richard Nixon. Nixon was never charged and had not been convicted.

It was in all the papers.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Well Jeff you still have not answered the question...

Where does the President have the authority to tell a Law Enforcement entity to not enforce the Constitutional laws of the land?

Again Jeff stop dodging the question I gave you my answer and cited incontrovertible facts in favor of that argument.. You have given me opinions.

Jeff granted a conviction is not necessary BUT it is highly irregular and very rare on this I was too quick on the trigger but the argument still stands.

However on the Illegal issue most are not only here illegally of course but also take another's identity in order to secure work... A Presidential pardon cannot be issued for Civil Liability. Since it is unknown how many stolen ID's, SOCs and Tax records there really are the President cannot issue a blanket pardon.

"There are, however, things that a pardon cannot cover. The first and most obvious is impeachment, since it is specifically excepted in the Constitution. Civil liability cannot be excused — a harm against another can still be considered a harm even if there is no longer any criminal liability. Contempts of court cannot be pardoned, as they are offenses against the dignity of the court, and not necessarily offenses against the law."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pard.html

Now I am no Constitutional Scholar Jeff, but then again I don't believe the Constitution guarantees the right to vote either.

Now back to your assertion that the President can "re-prioritize"/ignore a Constitutional law and direct other Governmental entities to not enforce that law. I am still waiting for that argument...

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Good God, SL!!!!

President Obama is obviously a nice guy; let him do what he wants!! As long as he's well-spoken and a good family man, he can run the country however he deems fit...right?!? Quit muddling the issues with silly Constitutional restraints! Doesn't it make sense that 1 man can make things run smoother than 454 can?!?

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
KC Andy & Recommended Reading

If you ever want to feel better about your established opinion of the current POTUS, read "The Amateur" by Richard Klein. A Top-place fixture on the NY Times "Best Seller" list. Therein you will find hard criticism from all angles, all relationships. Reveals just how little the electorate knew about this man (realizing that some only cared about one thing anyway).

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Will do, AHG...

...planned on picking that one up. Thanks for the recommendation.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Our Constitution/ The Right to Vote
Quote:

Now I am no Constitutional Scholar Jeff, but then again I don't believe the Constitution guarantees the right to vote either.

The more this person shares, the more he proves that his assessment of himself is usually right on!

Please peruse the following amendments to our Constitution:

15,19, 26

A Constitutional Right to Vote
The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have a constitutionally protected right to vote. While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no affirmative right to vote exists.
The 2000 Presidential Election was the first time many Americans realized the necessity of a constitutional right to vote. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore (2000), wrote, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." The U.S. is one of only 11 other democracies in the world with no affirmative right to vote enshrined in its constitution.
Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal.
In November 2004:
At least 1.2 million Americans voted incorrectly because of poor ballot design.
Due to inconsistent and unequal provisional ballot counting policies, 500,000 votes or 30% of all provisional ballots cast were never counted. In Delaware only 6% were counted while 97% of those cast in Alaska were counted.
Americans did not receive absentee ballots in time to return them on Election Day. In Broward County, Florida 58,000 absentee ballots were not delivered on time.
Hundreds of thousands had difficulties registering to vote. Partisan voter registration organizations "lost" voter registration forms, leaving an untold number of eligible voters unregistered.
Minorities and students experienced higher levels of voter intimidation and harassment than other groups.
Over 1,100 voting machines malfunctioned. In North Carolina a voting machine lost 4500 votes, which should have required a revote in one state election; however, partisan politics prevented citizens from having an opportunity to make their voices heard.
In Washington, the governor's race required three recounts and was decided by less than 200 votes. Questions remain regarding votes that were lost and then discovered. Provisional ballots may have been counted as normal ballots and potentially ineligible voters cast ballots.
More than nine million American citizens are denied the same right to vote that they would enjoy if living in another part of the country. Several states deny voting rights for life to anyone once convicted of a felony. Children of American families living abroad often cannot vote when they reach voting age. American citizens living in Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands can be drafted into the military but are unable to vote for their Commander in Chief. Congress governs the District of Columbia more directly than any other state, yet the more than a half million citizens living in the District have no voting representation in Congress.

Something to think about:

The addition of a Right to Vote Amendment to the U.S Constitution would:
Guarantee the right of every citizen 18 and over to vote
Empower Congress to set national minimum electoral standards for all states to follow
Provide protection against attempts to disenfranchise individual voters
Ensure that every vote cast is counted correctly
Many reforms are needed to solve the electoral problems we continue to experience every election cycle. The first is providing a solid foundation upon which these reforms can be made. This solid foundation is an amendment that clearly protects an affirmative right to vote for every U.S. citizen.

Support H.J. Res. 28, the proposed amendment to add a right to vote.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Constitutional Right To Vote in Federal Elections

Seems to be an awful long post to say "Steve, you're right!--but shouldn't we change that?"

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Country's business
Quote:

Support H.J. Res. 28, the proposed amendment to add a right to vote.

So much has been focused on not passing anything that Obama proposes, that important business of our country has been sadly neglected.

Constitutional Amendment - Provides that all U.S. citizens who are eighteen years of age or older shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. Allows the United States or any state to establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections. Requires each state to: (1) administer public elections in the state in accordance with election performance standards established by the Congress; and (2) provide any eligible voter the opportunity to register and vote on the day of any public election. Requires Congress to reconsider election performance standards at least once every four years to determine if higher standards should be established to reflect improvements in methods and practices regarding election administration.

Can't get this out of committee. Sad. Our most important tool - and our Congress just can't get around to discussing it! I guess there are some who don't want a Federal (Constitution) law regarding voting. This is why some states will always be monitored regarding their voting standards.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
HJ Res 28

Been around since 2003! In case no one has noticed, Constitutional changes don't come easy--and perhaps rightly so.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
AHG

In case no one has noticed? Are you kidding? It took over 200 years and a lot of grief for women and people of color to vote in this country! Rightly so? Really? Geez. And now, according to some in this discussion, they don't want to celebrate the PROGRESS that has been made. Why? Possibly because they see this progress as a hinderance to their entitlement? To those who may be reading this stuff - get out in the community and see how great Fayette County really is. The United States still has problems with race relations - but has come a long way and is not the country that existed after WWII. I have met a number of people in Fayette County who feel like My_Choice and hate to think that some of the statements here represent the majority of citizens in Fayette County.
Either some of the contributors here write the talking points found on some websites - or they are incapable of thinking for themselves. At least re-word some of the misinformation you are regurgitating! The web - and social net-works are going to play a big part in correcting misinformation in this election cycle. Dirty tricks will be and are being noted from both parties. This year - dirty tricks may backfire. We'll see. As has been noted, the extreme right and extreme left in this country are about as non-American as one can get. The Russian leader of years past had it right - America is capable of destroying itself from within. (Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev)

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Dm didn't you notice that the Dems held both Houses?

So exactly what did not get passed that the Dems wanted and voted for?

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Because, SL...

...IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!!!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
KC I know...***sigh***

I wonder in November if it will be Bush's fault again?

Snow Bunny
Snow Bunny's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/20/2010
Of course it will.. If it

Of course it will.. If it is not his fault, it's Rush Limbaugh's or Bill O'Reilly's, or Sean Hanity's, or Fox News. According to the Democrats, it's my fault because I'm a proud Republican.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Blind spots!

The Congress-both Dems and Repubs have put politics above the need of the American people in a time of crisis! The my way or the highway attitude of both parties has us stalled at a time we need to move forward at a faster pace. I'm glad there are proud Republicans. Does it really help to denigrate proud Democrats? We need leaders who serve proud Americans.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Yes or No answers

Teachers/professors who are satisfied with asking Yes or No questions are considered lazy by many. Questions that encourage the research of why the person is answering the question Yes or No - and giving researched reasons are the foundation of obtaining a valued education. The Supreme Court gives OPINIONS. But of course, the opinions of SL are immutable - right?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
No more then yours DM

Do I have the "Right" to have an opinion and offer the same?
Do you have the "Right" to disagree?

Well the answer is yes to both... but the Constitution does not guarantee the "Right" to vote. Glad to see you agree...

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Hey Jeff

do you think those 12 - 14 million illegal immigrants are paying taxes? Do you think they are paying SS taxes?

Just asking.....

If they are paying taxes city, county, state, and federal I guess they are not really getting much for it. Of course we aren't getting much for it either I guess.

So, how about this as a solution to our illegal immigration problem. Let's tell them all that they can stay, but of course they can't vote, the only catch is they have to register as an illegal. In return, they can stay here for a specific period of time and pay taxes into the system, specifically the SS system. Then we tell them they can actually get paid for these contributions, naturally because they aren't citizens they wouldn't get paid as much as US citizens. Here's the catch though, in order to get this payment from the government out of SS, they would have to return to their home country within a certain time period, let's say 15 years. They would never qualify as citizens, even if their children were born here their children couldn't be citizens either. We seem to be the only country on the planet that makes a person a citizen simply because they were born here.

This would do two things simultaneously, it would save the SS system and it would give these folks an incentive to return to their home country. Now if they wanted to stay past the 15 year maximum, I have an answer for this too. But before we get into that, what do you think Jeff, think it's workable solution?

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
PTC-O & Illegal Immigrants

Tell you what they DO do--they send Milliions of $$ to Mexico every yr!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
AHG - You're

right about that, but what does that tell you? You think they want to invest in the narco state?

No, I think most of them want to go back home and buy a cow or something. Let's give them a reason to leave and if they come back their SS check is cut off. Without a financial incentive, they're here forever.

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
PTC, don't know about the cow but their dream is to own a

"cement" house and this is what most of them do with the money they send back home. Some time ago there was a big article (human interest type story) in the AJC about all of the concrete block houses that were being built with the money sent back. To have a concrete block house was a sign you had made it.

Just had an idea, maybe Mr. Drake can go over to Mexico and help them set up a C-Splost (C for cement, of course). Then we would all be happy, the illegals could go home to their cement houses, Mr. Drake could furnish the cement and we will be able to return to some form of normalcy---of course there are those who say we will be paying $15 for an ear of corn -- but what the hay--would just as soon pay it for an ear of corn as for roads that go nowhere and Marta that goes to a few somewheres, mostly deeper and deeper into debt.

susieq
susieq's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2006
MYTMITE

Oh, how I wish the Citizen had a "like" button.

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Thanks, I think. LOL

I do think Mr. Drake protests too much. On the other hand, he may just be the most civic minded altrustic person we will ever come in contact with. For someone with no axe to grind, no dog in the fight, nothing to gain, etc., etc., etc., he sure spends a lot of time trying to convince people. And according to his own post we are only a small fraction of those he is trying to persuade. Ah, what a fine, upstanding citizen. Maybe he will run for mayor, or senator or president or maybe his heart is in cement and he will just continue to be a cheerleader from the sidelines.

efdrakejr
efdrakejr's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2009
Selective Listening

Mr. Drake has often said on these pages that as the Executive Director of the Georgia Concrete Paving Association, his member companies will benefit from the TSPLOST and it is reasonable to believe that he hopes that trickles down.

He also understands your skepticism, based on said position, but he truly thinks this is a worthwhile measure that will benefit Fayette County and all of Metro Atlanta.

P.S. He is pretty civic minded and altruistic as well.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mr. Drake - We

Can't afford your definition of altruism Mr. Drake, to take other's money for the "greater good". Or are you suggesting that you have 8 billion dollars to give to our community? If not, then I would say that you are operating solely in your own interest, which of course is not at all altruistic.

We're not buying it Mr Drake.

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Mytmite thinks Mr. Drake may be taken with his own importance or

sufferning from some personality disorder, i.e., his referring to himself as Mr. Drake. Mytmite thinks that Mr. Drake is hoping for more of an avalanche than a trickle if T-SPLAT passes.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
MYTIME - Mr. Drake

Perhaps if Mr Drake can get a 1% sales tax instituted in Mexico to build concrete houses he can sell more concrete down Mexico way, solve the immergration problem, help the balance of trade, and fulfill his altruistic tendencies without trying to burdening us with more taxes to fill his pockets. Why he could even move there and live in a concrete house of his very own.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Davids mom

That's right, the parents broke the law and the kids are caught up in it, and yes that sucks. But you know what, nations have immigration laws. Break those laws and you can run the risk of getting the boot.

Those parents brought their kids here knowing full well what could happen. It not the law's fault. They are responsible.

But hey, we have this clown in DC along with the "dreamers" that wants everyone to feel "oh so sorry" for those kids. They worked to so hard in school and they have so much potential and other such stuff. But you know what, poor little Tamekia who worked her butt off in an intercity school and can contribute as a US Citizen will soon have to compete against Julio (a non citizen). But hey that's OK because......well because the current liberal mindset has just turned its back on us citizens.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Too that, Cyclist...

...they've excelled in a school system that THEIR sh**hole country couldn't provide and WE have. That's ok, they can just illegally suck off America because it's close and the politicos & businesses allow it. Punish the f**k out of these employers (and businesses that ask/provide 'Spanish or English'?) & expose the politicians. It starting to happen and the vote-mongering Dems are scared s**tless...as should illegal-pandering businesses.

I'm soon to close my Bank of N. GA accounts and move elsewhere, because the first question at their ATM is 'Espanol or English'?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Executive Order - For two years...

the US will not enforce the Voting Rights Act. After all, it's just a law like......well like immigration laws. Very slippery slope that this clown in DC is treading.

Does anyone remember when this clown said we are a nation of laws? But that was before his family of moochers became celebrities.

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
Uh oh, Cy, you had

to bring that up again. Sigh...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5nOwmxQmLzQ

I guess Jesus (Hussein) Christ doesn't pay your bills if you live in Africa. The look on the reporter's face says it all.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
MLC

You have to admit, ole Barry comes from fine stock.

Auntie looks like she needs her some free grille work too, from heaven of course......

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
moc

Of course.....amen

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
KC

Where you gonna go?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Inner-city Kids/Cy

are supportive of their classmates who are caught up in what you correctly identify as a situation that sucks. These kids saw their parents work in below minimum wage jobs hoping that an immigration process that encouraged illegal workers to come to our country would be justly corrected so that proper work permits could be legally obtained. It appears that business needs in this country superseded law enforcement. Sad attempt to divide two voting groups of Americans who may not agree with your opinion regarding this situation. The Tamikas and Juanitas are united on this issue. Kids raised as Americans deserve a chance and don't deserve deportation because of their parents illegal act. (An act that this country used and encouraged until this economical situation.).

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Sorry DM - illegals can't join the military

As a veteran of two branches of our armed forces, I can say with certainty that an illegal immigrant cannot join the military. Only people who are citizens, or those with certain types of visas can join. If youre a citizen, none of this conversation applies. If you have a visa, youre not here illegally, so, same thing.
The lack of law enforcement by Obummers predecessors does not give him the right to bypass congress and summarily declare certain people who are violating the law (willfully or not) to be immune from prosecution.
it would be no different than if a new sherrif got elected and summarily stated that from now on the speed limit in school zones would not be enforced for any reason. Then you, DM, come along and defend the action by saying that the sherrifs before him didnt really enforce them anyway. Is that the country you want to live in? the Prez can just make it up as he goes along without regard for law, the constitution or the will of the people?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Obama's Immigration Plan

Those people living here illegally must also be held accountable for their actions and get on the right side of the law by registering and undergoing national security and criminal background checks, paying taxes and a penalty, and learning English before they can get in line to become eligible for citizenship.

And if they don't learn English, pay a penalty, register, undergo a security and background check; can they be deported or do we have to once again change our nation's laws to accommodate them? When does this end?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Oh- you want illegals to

Oh- you want illegals to register, pay state, federal and local taxes, etc, etc, etc - rather than deport them? Are you offering them a work permit program? Keep the cheap labor, since it's obvious Americans aren't going to work in our fields.
Hmmm sounds l ike the Dream Act that Republicans had input, but wouldn't vote for it under Obama. Oh well . Don't confuse the legals with the illegals. There are legal Hispanics in Fayette County. I know, I know Obama's relatives! He's also related to Cheney ! Let's deport him to France !

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Dm you need to re-read Cy's comment

He said they need to do all that BEFORE they get in line for Citizenship, but you already knew that just twisting it around a little aren't we?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
S. Lindsey and twisting

Gee does that happen often? :-)

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Davids mom

Oh- you want illegals to register, pay state, federal and local taxes, etc, etc, etc - rather than deport them?

No Davids mom; that's what Obama wants. It's on his White House website. Look it up if you don't believe me. Of course, there is no mention of what the consequences are if an illegal fails to do comply with the "new" law.

And we are a nation of laws so sayeth Barrack Hussein Obama.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
It would be, DM...

...a blatant, obvious, and ILLEGAL attempt to score points/VOTES of the (legal) Hispanic population. He's really showing his Chicago/Daley roots here. Very, very, VERY, unbecoming of an elitist (oh, and of a sitting POTUS) such as he. Richard Nixon would be proud...!

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Speaking of Richard Nixon, could we be so lucky as to see a

replay of that? Obama has certainly set the table up for a similar scenario with this immigration thing and the much more volatile Fast and Furious stonewalling. All we need is a whistleblower, a Deep Throat, to leak a couple of Fast and Furious documents showing Obama participated in this silly political posturing that cost Brian Terry his life. Whoever his Erlichman and Halderman's are must be wrapped up in this as well and can go to prison for a few years. Let's think, who in the White House is so political to come up with Fast and Furious? Hmmmm.

And the big difference between Obama and Nixon is that Nixon's GOP supporters (the ones who actually convinced him to resign) had no likely Republican successor, just Ford to finish out Nixon's term. So they knew a Dem was coming in next election. Obama's Democrat supporters must surely recognize 2 things - Obama could actually lose in November and unlike Nixon, the Dems have a successor waiting in the wings that many say is actually more popular - Hillary Clinton.

Think about it. Democrat operatives skilled in dirty tricks could ferret out some incriminating documents, get them in the Washington Post and New York Times (well maybe not, but somewhere) and then all the Dems in Washington that are having private concerns about Obama in general can send a few Senators over to the White House and get him to resign for the good of the party. As a trained political animal - even more so than Nixon, he should agree, Hillary sweeps in to save the day,

Romney doesn't have a chance of winning against her and running mate VP Elijah Cummings (and then we would get Secretary of State Bill Clinton, Secretary of Interior Barney Frank, heading up Homeland Security Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Secretary of Defense Hank Johnson). But I would rather have Hillary for 2 terms than Obama for even a few months - by far.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
RWM

Are you getting your insight from the same source as your info on the decline of the influence of Mrs. Jarrett?

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Thanks Mom, correct Jarrett is Obama's Ehrlichman

Valerie Jarrett - everything is about politics and reelection. That's her for sure, tossed from the binLaden meetings for interrupting the military brass. Thanks, I forgot her name, as we all will unless she gets convicted on Obama's Watergate.

Can't you just see her coming up with the rationale behind Fast and Furious? It started as a Second Amendment attack - to cause an incident that would give the White House an excuse to tighten gun controls - without involving the pesky lawmakers. Yep, I can see her fingerprints all over that and the cover-up as well. I'm betting the documents Holder is so frightened of have her name on them and something like "I talked to BO and he says go on F&F" Wanna bet?

These people are so full of themselves and drunk with power that they actually believed they could pull off Fast and Furious even though there had to be many career professionals that objected to it. That's where Obama's Deep Throat is going to come from - the rank and file who served alongside Brian Terry. Yea, Valerie, you and Prezbo got your incident. Why don't you push ahead for some more gun control? Call it the Brian Terry Act. Invite his parents to the White House right before the election. Good photo op.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Jarrett ?

Actually, more like Bush's Condoleeza Rice.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
WOW comparing Conde with Jarrett

One a very intelligent politically savvy representative of the United States the other a Political hack.

That even goes too far for you DM or is Conde not black enough for you?

Dondol
Dondol's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Lindey, Actually in Lib circles Conde

is considered an Uncle Tomette. She worked for the Evil Bush, that's enough for them no matter what her education or experiences.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Condoleeza

Is highly respected for how she stood up to Cheney and stood by her principles. She is considered a role model for young black women who are capable of thinking for themselves.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Rice & Her Legacy

Don't think historians will treat her too kindly in either of her positions. And she can write what she wants in a book, it won't change what happened or didn't happen.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Condoleeza's book

I'm the one here who recommended that you read it. Have you?

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Come on Moms, don't veer off into outer space

The discussion is about Obama's Watergate and the part his most trusted political advisor may have played in it. Granted comparing Jarrett to Rice is a clever way of bringing Bush into the discussion - even though that happens a lot, I didn't see how it could here, but congrats - you did it.

Condoleeza Rice is a respected professor, was National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State, following Colin Powell and preceeding Hillary Clinton. Valerie Jarrett is a political campaign asst. manager who has a role in the White House as a special advisor - like Karl Rove, David Plouffe and David Axelrod. It is a place they all hide their trusted campaign workers with a government salary until the next campaign begins. Of course Obama's campaign never stopped. And that is the real point - Fast and Furious makes no sense at all except possible to a twisted political mind anxious to make a point about gun control. I just can't see Condoleeza Rice saying to Bush "Hey, let's
run some guns over the border so we can make some obscure political point" but I sure can see Valerie Jarrett doing it and getting support from Plouffe and Axelrod.

They are both black females. Maybe that's how we should compare people by gender and skin color and just assume that everyone in those large groups are exactly alike. Geeeez.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
RWM - accomplished women leaders

Let's don't short change the accomplishments of Mrs. Jarrett. Ms. Rice is an accomplished conservative who has served this country in two very important capacities. Mrs. Jarrett is a liberal who is serving the president of our country in an advisory capacity. The sitting presidents that these ladies served valued their advise.

Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett

Valerie B. Jarrett is a Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama. She is also the Chair of the White House Council on Women and Girls.
Prior to joining the Obama Administration, she was the Chief Executive Officer of The Habitat Company. She also served as Co-Chair of the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Team, and Senior Advisor to Obama's presidential campaign.

Ms. Jarrett has held positions in both the public and private sector, including the Chairman of the Chicago Transit Board, the Commissioner of Planning and Development for the City of Chicago, and Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard M. Daley. She also practiced law with two private law firms.  

Jarrett also served as a director of corporate and not for profit boards, including Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Stock Exchange, Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and Chairman of the University of Chicago Medical Center Board of Trustees.

Jarrett received her B.A. from Stanford University in 1978 and her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1981. 

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Ah, didn't know that, DM...

...that Jarrett was part of the Daley machine in Chicago. Makes much, much more sense now how they could have come up w/ this Fast & Furious scheme. Looking forward to seeing it play out...thanks for the info!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
KC

There are those who dismiss your opinion by stating - he's from a southern state, you know how 'they' are. Of course I would never say that!

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Good point, DM...

...but just look at what they turned a poor 'ol Hawaiian kid into!! Happy 4th of July - let freedom ring!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
KC -Our President

Still difficult to call the POTUS an African-American - eh? LOL! I'm a Californian - but I'm still classified as African-American in this country. When I travel - I'm ' an American' - and proud of it! I have been puzzled by the non-citizen in the military issue - and did a little research. I've included here a statement by Colin Powell (a Republican)

"My parents, Luther and Maud Ariel Powell, emigrated from Jamaica in the 1920s, and settled in a neighborhood in the South Bronx, New York. My father worked as a shipping clerk; my mother, a seamstress. I grew up surrounded by two cultures, and took pride in my immigrant roots. Upon graduating from college, I took a commission in the Army, and found, in that institution, opportunities to strive and succeed beyond my imagination.
I am proud that much of that military success can be attributed to the contributions of immigrants. The burden of defending our ideals and freedom has always been shared by those who were not yet citizens. I have witnessed time and again the bravery and valor of soldiers defending a country that they consider their adopted home. They are grateful for the opportunities the United States provides, and we are grateful for their sacrifices ...
While we ensure our national security and secure our borders, we must also recognize the socially, economically, and culturally revitalizing force immigrants play in America. America's diversity is the basis for its greatness, and we're a country that prides itself on our openness to change.

-- Gen. Colin Powell testifying before Congress.

There are many interesting articles regarding non-citizens in our military.

In order for a non-citizen to enlist in the military, he/she must first be a legal immigrant (with a green card), permamently residing in the United States. It's important to note that the military cannot and will not assist in the immigration process. One must immigrate first, using normal immigration quotas and procedures, and -- once they've established an address in the United States -- they can find a recruiter's office and apply for enlistment.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Oh yes, DM, there are many...

..., and have been many, non-citizens in our military; they just have to have a 'Green Card' (the ones I enlisted had more of a DL-looking card called the I-155B card) that establishes them as a legal, permanent resident. Before the current wars, they could only serve for 8 years, but it has since changed and they can now do 20+ years and earn a retirement pension.

As for the POTUS, I thought you'd revel in my non-'color'ful description of him! I'm confused; I thought it's about the person, not the color, right?