Immigration: 840 Pages of Unreviewable Discretion.

Marco Rubio was quoted in National Review Online saying the Senate immigration bill is only 840 pages. There is no way I want the government to be able to hide its arbitrary actions behind a screen of 840 pages of poorly and hastily drafted law, exceptions and regulatory guidelines.  The bill gives the Executive branch the ability to waive many of the key provisions of the law, according to another National Review article.  Worse, the bill says that these waivers are “unreviewable discretion.”  Remember our current president already thinks he can pick which laws he enforces and which laws he can ignore.  The House should reject this mess and pass a simple bill.  It should greatly expand H1B Visas and create a guest worker program.  People should be able to qualify for either, whether they are in the US or outside.   If they qualify, then their immediate family should get residency permits.  Shirt tail kin should not be allowed to piggy back on this status.  Extended stays on public assistance should be prohibited.  The bill should be 50 pages tops.  The Democrats should have to explain to Hispanics and Asians why the Senate won't vote on it because unions don't like it.  Conservatives would be able to show that we are pro immigration as long as it's legal.  The "Comprehensive Solution" on any issue is always a mirage.  Liberals promise such a solution for two reasons.  If they get it passed, government gets bigger and more complex.  If they fail to get it passed, Liberals can blame conservative obstruction for the failure to achieve the mirage. 

Rubio quote:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346362/marco-rubio%E2%80%99s-radio-row

Ability to Waive provisions:  

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346345/immigration-power-grab

Birthers Have it Backwards

Liberals feel strongly that questioning where the President was born is racist.  They argue that nobody asked about McCain’s birth because he’s white.  For liberals questioning McCain’s birth see the New York Times headline, Feb 28, 2008: "McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out."  As far as the President's birth, I think he was born in Hawaii.  However, I think the reason he won't release his college transcripts is because he probably claimed to be Kenyan in order to have an easier time getting admitted.  Further, in the bio he supplied to his publisher in 1991, he claimed to have been born in Kenya.  (See the link below.)  So like Elizabeth Warren, with her claim to American Indian minority status, I think Obama claimed to be Kenyan when he was not in order to game the system.  

NYT on McCain’s birthplace

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=0

Obama book jacket

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/24/reminder-before-obama-ran-for-president-he-falsely-claimed-to-have-been-born-in-kenya/
Obama's Columbia ID Card
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202467252549549&set=a.1523751900695.2070445.1441543769&type=1&theater

Voter ID and Gun ID

Why ask for a voter's ID?  Is asking for ID racist?  I have lived in Chicago for years.  The Democrats' motto here is "Vote early. Vote often."  The legend goes that Harold Washington was elected mayor by a lot of voters from Indiana. The jokes are that people want to be buried in Chicago so they can stay active in politics after death.  The only reason liberals have for fighting ID laws is because they benefit from fraud.   Anti voter ID suits have a hard time finding plaintiffs that don't have an ID.  As far as ID is concerned, I think you need ID for most of the things you do in life, like cashing a check.  Liberals want ID and background checks for gun buyers.  Is that racist? 

Thoughts of John Locke on Holocaust Day

Recent articles on Holocaust Day have drawn comments that religion is a big contributor to violence and even genocide.  I think the problem is not religion itself, but rather the claim that what any individual believes to be the word of God should be held superior to other views by secular authority and forced on those who disagree.  I got this opinion while reading books by John Locke, starting in philosophy class in college.  The professor didn't think he was much of a philosopher, but I thought he was great.  Locke argued that government derives its power and legitimacy from the consent of the governed.  His views were extremely influential in the formulation of the government the US has today.  Please take a look at the wikipedia entry for John Locke, and in particular his views on religious toleration.   He was a very religious man who argued that human judges could not dependably evaluate competing versions of the word of God.  According to Locke, “No private person has any right to encroach in any way on another person’s civil goods because he declares his allegiance to another church or religion. Anything that a man has as a matter of human rights or civil rights is to remain inviolably his.”  Locke’s argument for toleration lead to the First Amendment provisions for freedom of religion.

Original article on Holocaust Day:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345043/lessons-holocaust-day-dennis-prager?pg=3

Wikipedia entry for John Locke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

Source of Locke Quotation

http://www.egs.edu/library/john-locke/quotes/