Tag Archives: citizens

The Wrong Solution

Posted on by

On Monday, Hot Air posted an article reporting a suggestion from the Mayor of South Portland, Maine, on how to pay the increasingly high taxes imposed by the city.

The article reports:

In a city that has raised taxes by almost 25% over the past half-decade, the mayor has made the obvious suggestion: use your home’s equity to hand over your wealth to keep the city’s gravy train going.

It’s a brilliant solution if you think about it. You worked all your life to buy your house outright, happy that you can pass along the value to the next generation.

But really, wouldn’t you rather keep the government bureaucrats happy instead? The children of the community are the children of the community, which means that your children belong to the government, just as your home should too.

Included in a quote from the Mayor was the following link:

South Portland Directs $150,000 in State Funds to Help Migrants Currently Staying at Hotel Find Permanent Housing

You don’t suppose that might have something to do with the almost 25% increase in taxes?

The article also notes:

Notice that link in the middle of the quote? City directs $150,000 to help migrants find permanent housing.

Hmm. I wonder if there is some correlation.

This is exactly what you should expect in modern-day America. Governments spending money to help migrants while screwing their own citizens.

Is it any wonder that people are angry? We are constantly being asked to sacrifice our own futures for the benefit of people who aren’t citizens. We are paying the freight for others while being asked to surrender what we have.

Elections matter. Any Democrat you vote for in November will continue to give your money away to people who broke the law coming here.

 

 

Part Of A Trend?

Posted on by

On December 11th, The Daily Caller posted an article about a man who switched his party allegiance from Democrat to Republican. He had worked as an advisor to Bernie Sanders and as a fundraiser for Joe Biden. So why did he change his mind?

The article reports:

But despite my active involvement in the Democratic Party, the concerns I hold regarding the party’s direction in recent years can no longer be ignored. 

I love our country. That is why I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party, a party that is focused on dividing us by radicalizing every issue and undermining our rights enshrined in the Constitution. 

The main reason I am leaving the Democratic Party is its utter disconnect with the American people. The party that once championed the working class has now been overtaken by elites in affluent hubs who couldn’t care less about the struggles of the average American. This shift has left many Americans, including myself, unheard and feeling like an afterthought of the Democratic Party. 

The party’s shortcomings in education have played a significant role in my departure. They have declared war on concerned parents like myself, labeling them “domestic terrorists,” for expressing their opposition to radical curricula that disseminate sexual content to young children. The party’s emphasis on “progressive ideology” in schools, at the expense of parental involvement and a robust STEM education, raises legitimate concerns about the future preparedness of our children. It’s time to shift our focus back to the fundamentals that ensure our children’s success, thereby building a foundation for a more prosperous society. 

Also, the Democratic Party’s shift toward identity politics has steered us away from the timeless belief of judging individuals by their character, and not by the color of their skin or similar characteristics. The weaponization of race and gender identity for partisan political purposes does a significant disservice to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy, and is a detriment to us all.

The article concludes:

This difference between stated values and actual behavior undermines the trust that citizens should be able to place in their government. As I reflect on these issues, I am compelled to seek a political home that aligns with a commitment to judging individuals by their character, fostering accountability, and advancing the well-being of all Americans.

By joining the Republican Party, I am not abandoning my values. Instead, I’m seeking a political home that aligns more closely with my vision for a free, united, and prosperous America. The Republican Party, with its emphasis on individual freedoms, fiscal responsibility, and a commitment to addressing the concerns of all Americans, offers a new path forward — one that I am eager to explore as I re-enter the political arena. 

Please follow the link to read the entire article. He makes a lot of sense.

Regaining Our Rights Guaranteed By The Fourth Amendment

Posted on by

The U.S. Constitution was not written to give Americans their rights. It was written to insure that the government respected the God-given rights of Americans. The Constitution was written to limit the rights of the government–not the rights of Americans. That concept seems to have gotten lost in recent years.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The government in recent years has violated that amendment by spying on Americans without cause or has invented causes (see Carter Page). Now that it has come to light that some Congressional staffers were spied on, Congress has decided to do something about it.

On Friday, Just the News reported:

House Judiciary Committee Republicans are pressing ahead with sweeping reforms to the government’s FISA surveillance powers that among other things would would prohibit the FBI from searching through Americans’ phone records without a court-approved warrant. 

The effort is on track to be wrapped up by the end of the year when several Patriot Act powers expire. Republicans and Democrats are coming together on this matter in rare bipartisan cooperation, lawmakers told Just the News.

“We’ve got, I think, strong agreement amongst members of the Intel Committee and members of the Judiciary Committee. And frankly some Democrats as well, that there needs to be stronger penalties if you abuse the system,” Judiciary Committee Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told the “Just the News, No Noise” television show in an interview aired Friday night.

Jordan said he was focused on what is known as the Section 702 system “where they can create this database” of phone communications metadata that currently can be searched by agents without a warrant. 

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court earlier this year declassified a report revealing that FBI agents had inappropriately searched Americans’ phone records more than 270,000 times over a two year period, alarming civil liberty experts and generating bipartisan condemnation.   

I hate to be cynical, but it seems that Congress is only getting around to dealing with this problem when it affected them. That’s okay. I just hope they successfully end unwarranted government spying on American citizens.

Bringing Common Sense To The Census

Posted on by

Hans A. von Spakovsky at The Heritage Foundation posted an article today about the Supreme Court case dealing with who should be counted in the 2020 census.

The article reports:

In Trump v. New York, the Supreme Court should be looking only at the constitutional and statutory issues: whether President Donald Trump was within his legal authority to direct that noncitizens in the country illegally be excluded from the population used for congressional apportionment. The policy issue is very important, of course. What the president did was fundamentally fair. And, under the Supreme Court’s precedent in Franklin v. Massachusetts, Trump was also within his legal authority to do so.

First on the policy issue and the question of fairness. For the past four years, the political arena has been filled with claims of Russian “interference” in our elections. Special Counsel Robert Mueller actually indicted a number of Russians for involvement in those efforts. If you were to ask members of the public if they believe that any one of the indicted Russians should be allowed to make a political donation to a federal candidate—be it Trump or someone running for Congress—if he were here illegally, I have no doubt they would uniformly say “no.”

If you then ask whether that same Russian should be allowed to be a candidate for Congress, you would receive the same adamant answer. And if you ask whether that Russian should be able to vote in federal elections, including congressional elections, the answer would still be a resounding “no.”

So why would the state of New York or any of the other Democratic-controlled state and local governments who are challenging the president’s action argue that Russians (and other noncitizens) who are not here legally should be included in the population used to apportion the political power of the House of Representatives? Only one reason: to distort the House and give states with large illegal immigrant populations more members of Congress (and more political influence) than they are entitled to receive according to their citizen population. This gives states an incentive to obstruct federal immigration law in order to boost the number of illegal immigrants residing in those states.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. The article also includes constitutional and  logical arguments as to why the census should make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens.