AMERICA HAS NOT EXPERIENCED SUCH BLATANT NULLIFICATIONS OF FEDERAL LAWS SINCE THE EFFORTS OF PRE-CIVIL WAR SOUTHERN STATES -- OR THE 1960s SOUTHERN GOVERNORS WHO DEFIED FEDERAL EFFORTS TO ENFORCE U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION!

There are currently [as of the date of this article] over 550 “sanctuary” jurisdictions established by state and local governments. They aim to prevent federal immigration authorities from deporting illegal aliens, including tens of thousands detained by law enforcement for committing additional crimes.

The nation has not experienced such blatant nullifications of federal laws since the efforts of pre-Civil War Southern states – or the 1960s southern governors who defied federal efforts to enforce U.S. civil rights legislation.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON JUNE 8, 2022:        

https://tribunecontentagency.com/article/victor-davis-hanson-the-subordinate-citizen/

12/17/21: According to a new report from the U.S. Justice Department, almost half of all of the criminals prosecuted in federal courts in 2018 were aliens, charged with crimes ranging from drug trafficking to murder to kidnapping. . .

These federal numbers are only a fraction of the crimes committed by criminal aliens. 

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/federal-report-shows-open-borders-bring-increased-crimes-and-costs-taxpayers

Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States

Updated February 21, 2023

https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States

CHART: WHAT DOES OBAMACARE COST?

Comparing the Costs of Buying Health Care Insurance

5 Ways Obama Has Trampled the Constitution

Can you name just one without looking?

Heritage Foundation: READ MORE

What is at stake could be the very future of American Conservatism.

FORBES: Will Jim DeMint Destroy The GOP Or Save It?

Obama's unprecedented budget deficits pose serious economic risks

HERITAGE FOUNDATION

Heritage Foundation: Did Obamacare slow private-sector recovery?

HERITAGE FOUNDATION

Two serious organizations examine how Obamacare will destroy our economy

The Heritage Foundation shows us how Obamacare Takes a Double Shot at the Economy and the American Dream

The National Center for Policy Analysis tells us What Most Needs Repealing and Replacing

Heritage Foundation: An Open Letter to Paul Krugman

Closing words:

So, Paul, I strongly urge you to engage me from this point on in serious policy debate. This is perhaps a tall request to make of someone whose recent column “Let’s Not Be Civil” is filled with hysterical demagoguery. You and I will likely never agree about the way the economy works, but an intellectually honest debate between us could encourage someone whose views really count to solve the big policy problems that you and I have frequently agreed are grave dangers to the future of this country.

Sincerely,

Bill Beach

Director, Center for Data Analysis

READ THE WHOLE LETTER

Do you love Obama enough to give him $3,000 to $4,000 per year of YOUR hard earned money???

The Senate is now considering a bill that Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., co-authored to create a European-style "cap and trade" system for carbon dioxide emissions, and he just won the endorsement of a key swing senator. International pressure on the United States to adopt such legislation also will increase in December at climate talks in Copenhagen.

That's bad news for taxpayers. The Obama administration reluctantly admitted last month that cap-and-trade would cost the average American family $1,761 a year.

That is a rosy prediction. A Heritage Foundation analysis pegs the cost at an average of $2,979 a year and as much as $4,600 a year by 2035. Jobs will disappear, energy prices will skyrocket, and the American Dream will become an unattainable fantasy for many.

Who Else Will Challenge Gore's 'Truth'?

MISSILE DEFENSE: The Stakes Could Not Be Higher

By National Commander David K. Rehbein

A young girl picking daisies opens one of the most infamous political ads ever devised. It is suggested her life is about to end violently and quickly as a nuclear mushroom cloud appears. President Lyndon Johnson intones, “These are the stakes! To make a world in which all of God’s children can live, or go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die.”

While no one in Washington has the power to mandate love, our leaders can protect us by adequately funding and deploying a national missile defense. Mocked by critics in the 1980’s as a Star Wars fantasy, nobody seems to be laughing as North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il has been test-firing missiles like a kid launching fireworks on the fourth of July. Defense Secretary Robert Gates takes the threat seriously enough to have positioned a military ground-based missile defense system to protect Hawaii from missile attack. While The American Legion applauds this decision, the nation’s largest veterans service organization is concerned that the United States is not doing enough to protect us from, well, nuclear annihilation.

In 2008 delegates at The American Legion National Convention in Phoenix unanimously passed Resolution 94. It urges the U.S. government to develop and continue to deploy a national missile defense system which is in the national interest of the United States and the American people and an essential ingredient of our homeland security.

In recent months, North Korea has repeatedly tested its nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missile capabilities. Moreover, the Iranian President Ahmadinejad has given no indication that he plans to retract his public promises to make his country a nuclear power. While some may naively believe that these leaders are of stable mind and would be deterred by America’s military might and nuclear capabilities, often overlooked is the history these rogue regimes have of proliferating weapons to terrorists.

Referring to the possibility of capturing Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, a top al Qaeda commander said, “God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the Mujahideen would take them and use them against the Americans.”

But despite all of this, the Obama administration has called for a $1.62 billion reduction in missile defense for 2010, nearly a 15 percent decline from the 2009 appropriation. The 2010 Defense Authorization Bill includes a provision to reduce the number of Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Interceptors from 44 to 30. These cuts are hardly signs that Washington is committed to providing an impenetrable national missile defense.

The Heritage Foundation has produced a chilling documentary titled 33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age. A trailer of the film can be viewed at www.legion.org. It makes the sobering point that a ballistic missile fired at the United States could reach its target in 33 minutes or less. It is a moral imperative that our leaders in Washington protect America from this catastrophic possibility.

As Gates recently said about protecting Hawaii with a ground-based system, “We are in a good position, should it become necessary, to protect Americans and American territory.” But is “good” really good enough? As LBJ said of the poor daisy-picking girl, “These are the stakes!”

David K. Rehbein, of Ames, Iowa, is national commander of the 2.6 million-member American Legion, www.legion.org, the nation's largest wartime veterans organization.

http://ourvoice.legion.org/story/1893/missile-defense-the-stakes-could-not-be-higher

The Markey-Waxman "Cap-and-trade" Energy Tax bill

Patriots,

We've got a country to save. We wont be able to fight everything and win, but we can't let what happened with the $787 Billion stimulus pork 'n waste package happen again. But unless we mobilize now, it will.

The Markey-Waxman "Cap-and-trade" Energy Tax bill, in the current form being considered by the House Energy and Commerce committee, would, according to the Heritage Foundation, have the following catastrophic effects by 2035:

1. Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.6 trillion annually;

2. Destroy 1,105,000 American jobs per year on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;

3. Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;

4. Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent;

5. Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;

6. Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500 annually; and

7. Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 26 percent, or $29,150 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants the U.S. House to vote at the end of this week on the Waxman-Markey National Energy Tax (House Bill 2454). We must kill the bill there, in the House of Representatives, before it reaches the Senate where it could passes with near certainty before being signed into law by the President.

We can't settle for calling our own representatives--especially if where you live, your Congressional Representative is a far-Left Liberal. We can't hope it'll be good enough if every single Republican in the House of Representatives votes against Waxman-Markey because Democrats have the majority.

We must target Democrats in order to stop this thing, but not just Any Democrats. Democrats that are moderate-to-moderately Conservative. Fortunately, they already identified themselves by forming the Blue Dog Coalition.

According to Wikipedia, their ideology (largely born out of the necessity to get votes in conservative regions like Texas and other southern states, and states in the heartland like Indiana), "the Blue Dog Coalition is often involved in finding a compromise between liberal and conservative positions. The Blue Dogs are viewed by some as a continuation of the socially conservative wing of the Democratic party prominent during the presidency of Harry S Truman.[citation needed] However, the only stated policy position of the Blue Dogs is fiscal conservatism...

"Despite the Blue Dogs' differing degrees of economic and social conservatism, they generally work to promote positions within the House of Representatives that bridge the gap between center-right and left-wing politics. Blue Dogs are an important swing vote on spending bills and as a result have gained influence in Congress out of proportion to their numbers. They are frequently sought after to broker compromises between the Democratic and Republican leadership, generally lending a more conservative character to US politics."

Here is a complete list of those sitting Representatives in the House, and their telephone numbers. We need to call 'em up, ASAP, and tell them to vote NO on H.R. 2454.

All numbers, area code 202:

* Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration
225-2801
* Baron Hill (IN-9), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy
225-5315
* Charlie Melancon (LA-3), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications
225-4031
* Heath Shuler (NC-11), Blue Dog Whip
225-6401

* Jason Altmire (PA-4), 225-2565
* Mike Arcuri (NY-24), 225-3665
* John Barrow (GA-12), 225-2823
* Marion Berry (AR-1), 225-4076
* Sanford Bishop (GA-2), 225-3631
* Dan Boren (OK-2), 225-2701
* Leonard Boswell (IA-3), 225-3806
* Allen Boyd (FL-2), 225-5235
* Bobby Bright (AL-2), 225-2901
* Christopher Carney (PA-10), 225-3731
* Ben Chandler (KY-6), 225-4706
* Travis Childers (MS-1), 225-4306
* Jim Cooper (TN-5), 225-4311
* Henry Cuellar (TX-28), 225-1640
* Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3), 225-5406
* Lincoln Davis (TN-4), 225-6831
* Joe Donnelly (IN-2), 225-3915
* Brad Ellsworth (IN-8), 225-4636
* Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8), 225-2542
* Bart Gordon (TN-6), 225-4231
* Parker Griffith (AL-5), 225-4801
* Tim Holden (PA-17), 225-5546
* Frank Kratovil (MD-1), 225-5311
* Jim Marshall (GA-8), 225-6531
* Jim Matheson (UT-2), 225-3011
* Mike McIntyre (NC-7), 225-2731
* Mike Michaud (ME-2), 225-6306
* Walt Minnick (ID-1), 225-6611
* Harry Mitchell (AZ-5), 225-2190
* Dennis Moore (KS-3), 225-2865
* Patrick Murphy (PA-8), 225-4276
* Glenn Nye (VA-2), 225-4215
* Collin Peterson (MN-7), 225-2165
* Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL), 225-2611
* Mike Ross (AR-4), 225-3772
* John Salazar (CO-3), 225-4761
* Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), 225-2965
* David Scott (GA-13), 225-2939
* Zack Space (OH-18), 225-6265
* John Tanner (TN-8), 225-4714
* Gene Taylor (MS-4), 225-5772
* Charlie Wilson (OH-6), 225-5705
* Melissa Bean (IL-8), 225-3711
* Mike Thompson (CA-1), 225-3311
* Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), 225-6131
* Jim Costa (CA-20), 225-3341
* Adam Schiff (CA-29), 225-4176
* Jane Harman (CA-36), 225-8220
* Joe Baca (CA-43), 225-2823

It would take a little over three hours to call of these numbers straight through, so feel free to break it up. Just be sure to call as many as you can as soon as you can, especially the numbers at the top!

Feel free to modify this script to suit what feels comfortable to you. It runs about a minute and 42 seconds.

"Good morning,

My name is and I'm calling about the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade bill that the Speaker of the House is urging a vote on as soon as possible, an issue that affects all Americans and not just those in your district. Like those Americans, I care deeply about the environment and being responsible as we try to re-grow our prosperity in this country, but I strongly feel this bill is the wrong way to do it.

According to credible economists and their peer-reviewed academic research, this piece of legislation will kick our economy while it's down. At a time when we should be doing everything we can to make this the best place in the world for people to come and start a business, and create jobs, we're going to make energy so incredibly expensive that they can't afford to hire anyone. And for families already struggling-whether by having to string together two-part time jobs or get by on unemployment-they will see their gasoline, heating and electricity bills shoot through the roof.

I know the sponsors of this bill have said otherwise, but I am telling you, I know other wise. And I am also telling Representative to vote against this legislation. There aren't too many issues more important than this one, and I'm afraid that how each Representative votes on this bill will matter to me and everyone that I know when it's time for us to vote during the mid-term elections next November, 2010.

Thank you for your time."

And for good measure, give Republican House minotiry leader John Boehner's office at a call at (202) 225-6205 to reinforce, and remind his staffer that we're out here, watching, and that we wont tolerate any give from the party in the House on this bill. Remind his staffer that his and their re-election counts on standing strong against this bill.

I truly hope that you'll join me in my mission to stop this madness, and tell everyone you know to help you too.

Thank you for your time.

Dairenn Lombard, Los Angeles
http://dlombard.livejournal.com/

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures

Obama is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Maybe he's studid, but we're not: seeing is believing!

Win $500 by expressing your concerns about all the big government spending

Despite overwhelming public opposition, the so-called "stimulus" was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama. As a result, your portion of the national debt increased by $9,400, Congress created more than 30 new federal programs and spent lavishly on non-stimulative projects, including $650 million alone on digital television converter box subsidies. This takes money out of the pockets of regular Americans to pay for more wasteful spending.

What's your biggest frustration about the government's appetite for more spending in the midst of the tough economic climate?

Find out how to speak up, make a difference, and win $500.

http://stopspendingourfuture.org/

Sponsored by The Heritage Foundation and Americans for Prosperity Foundation

Lifetime cost to the taxpayer of $1.1 million per unskilled worker

Is the presence of illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico, a boon to the U.S. economy, or a drag?

It’s a question that has long divided Bush supporters; the Wall Street Journal editorial page tells us that a lenient immigration policy is absolutely vital for American prosperity, while enforcement-first advocates tell us a strict policy is the only thing that will ensure continued economic health.

Both have plenty of statistics to cite to make their case. But now a scholar at the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector, has found a new and revealing way to get at the answer.

Rector has just published a study, “The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer,” that is ostensibly not about immigration at all. He takes the most detailed look yet at the economics of the 17.7 million American households made up of people without a high-school degree. With numbers from the Census Bureau, the Congressional Research Service, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other government agencies, Rector found what they make, what they spend, and how much they receive in government services.

The reason Rector chose to look at low-skilled workers is that it is estimated that nearly two-thirds of illegal immigrants fall into that category. (By way of comparison, slightly less than ten percent of native-born Americans are in that group.) By focusing on those workers, Rector was able to make use of information on them that is more detailed and precise than information on immigrants as a whole. And any conclusions he reached would be applicable to a large majority of illegal immigrants who are already in this country as well as those who would come here under various immigration reform proposals.

At a cost of $22,449 per household per year — well, multiply that by an adult lifespan of 50 years and you have an average lifetime cost to the taxpayer of $1.1 million per unskilled worker. Increase that population with a wave of unskilled immigrants, and you’re talking a lot of money.

What Does Illegal Immigration Cost?

You'll be surprised...VERY surprised!

Ranked by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal.

The Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal recently released their 13th annual Index of Economic Freedom, which identifies the variables that comprise economic freedom and analyzes the interaction of freedom with wealth. The Index measures 157 countries across 10 specific factors of economic freedom.

10. Canada

Canada’s economy is 78.7% free. A strong rule of law ensures property rights, a low level of corruption, and transparent application of the country’s admittedly thorough commercial code. However, as in many European democracies, government spending is high because Canada maintains elaborate social programs and a welfare state.

9. Switzerland

Switzerland’s economy is 79.1% free. Commercial operations are protected by the regulatory environment and aided by a flexible labor market. The national financial sector leads the world and is both protective of privacy and open to foreign institutions. But as in many other European social democracies, personal income taxes are high.

8. Luxembourg

Luxembourg’s economy is 79.3% free. The average tariff rate is low (though non-tariff barriers include EU subsidies), and business regulation is efficient. The financial sector is regarded as a global financial hub that maintains depositor secrecy. However, total government spending is more than two-fifths of GDP.

7. Ireland

Ireland’s economy is 81.3% free. Entrepreneurship is made easy by the light regulatory hand of government. Inflation is low, but Ireland’s monetary score suffers somewhat from distortionary EU agricultural subsidies. Property rights are well protected by an efficient, independent judiciary.

6. United Kingdom

The United Kingdom’s economy is 81.6% free. The average tariff rate is low, although the government does implement distortionary European Union agricultural tariffs. Support for private enterprise is a world model, and the financial sector is modern and a historic world hub. The judiciary should be the envy of the world.

5. New Zealand

New Zealand’s economy is 81.6% free. A globally competitive financial system based on market principles attracts many foreign banks, helped by low inflation and low tariff rates. A strong rule of law protects property rights, and New Zealand is the world’s second most corruption-free country.

4. United States

The economy of the United States is 82% free. The average tariff rate is low, although there are several non-tariff barriers. Financial markets are open to foreign competition and are the world’s most dynamic and modern. Corruption is low and the labor market is highly flexible.

3. Australia

Australia’s economy is 82.7% free. Its low inflation and low tariff rates buttress a globally competitive financial system. A strong rule of law protects property rights and tolerates virtually no corruption. Businesses enjoy considerable flexibility in licensing, regulation and employment practices.

2. Singapore

Singapore’s economy is 85.7% free. Virtually all commercial operations are performed with transparency and speed, and private enterprise has boomed. Inflation is low, and foreign investment is welcomed and given equal treatment. There are no tariffs. Singapore’s legal system is highly protective of private property.

1. Hong Kong

Hong Kong’s economy is 89.3% free. Income and corporate tax rates are extremely low. Business regulation is simple, and the labor market is highly flexible. Inflation is low, although the government distorts the prices of several staples. Investment in Hong Kong is wide open.

"How could you possibly live in the freest nation in the history of the world and only see oppression?"

"How could you possibly live in the freest nation in the history of the world and only see oppression? How could you live in the least imperialist power in human history and see us as the ultimate in imperialism? How can you live in the least bigoted nation in human history ... and see racism lurking in every dark shadow?" asks conservative comedian and commentator Evan Sayet.

"The modern liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success."

The comedian attributed the trend to a "rejection of all fact, reason, evidence, logic, truth, morality, and decency."

Liberals Have the Mentality of Kindergarteners, Comedian Says

Listen to or download the actual speech (which is a serious presentation of the major flaw in the Modern Liberal movement) at The Heritage Foundation here:

Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals "Think"