Tag Archives: Republicans

Trump administration ends 6-week law enforcement sweep with 1,378 arrests

Under new management, the police are back to law enforcement
Under new management, the police are back to law enforcement

This was reported by Fox News.

Excerpt:

The Trump administration has concluded a six-week nationwide sweep of suspected gang members with 1,378 arrests — the largest such gang sweep conducted by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) to date.

The operation, which ran from March 26 through May 6, targeted gang members and associates involved in transnational criminal activity, including drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, human smuggling, sex trafficking, murder and racketeering.

[…]According to ICE, of the 1,378 total arrested, 933 were U.S. citizens, and 1,095 were confirmed as gang members or affiliates. Also, 104 of those arrested were affiliated with the dreaded MS-13 gang, eight of whom illegally crossed the border as unaccompanied minors.

[…]During the operation, HSI partnered with other law enforcement agencies to seize more than 200 firearms, narcotics like cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl and marijuana and $491,763 in U.S. currency.

Enforcement actions occurred across the nation, but the greatest activity took place in the Houston, New York City, Atlanta and Newark, N.J., areas.

Fox News also reports that illegal immigration is way down under Trump, even before construction of the new wall.

Excerpt:

After years of surging immigration from Central America, law enforcement in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley are finally seeing some relief, thanks in part to President Trump’s strong rhetoric.

[…]“Since January, we have seen a significant decrease in traffic to the point we’re averaging about 150 alien apprehensions a day,” down from as many as 1,000 a day, according to Deputy Chief Raul Ortiz of the Rio Grande Border Patrol Sector. “A big part of the decrease, I think, has to do with a lot of the discussion about the buildup of infrastructure on the southwest border, more agents along the border and some of the message making its way down to those host countries.”

[…]Previously, Central American immigrants turned themselves in, claimed asylum and were released. 

In most cases, the Obama Administration accommodated the claim by placing the applicant on a court docket with a two- to three-year waiting list. In the meantime, most illegal immigrants were free to work while living with relatives. Some set down roots by getting married or having American-born children.

President Trump promised to end that ’catch and release’ policy, saying “anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country.”

Apparently that message got through thousands of miles away. 

Traditionally, the Republican party has been the party of law and order, whereas Democrats are the party of leniency and permissiveness. Republicans like self-defense, Democrats don’t. Republicans support victim’s rights, but Democrats want to shorten sentences and release criminals. Republicans think that punishing criminals deters future crime, and Democrats think that criminals are just not responsible for their criminal acts.

Here is a story from February 2013, when Obama was still President.

Fox News reports.

Excerpt:

The Department of Homeland Security has started releasing hundreds of illegal immigrants held in local jails in anticipation of automatic budget cuts, in a move one Arizona sheriff called politically motivated — and dangerous.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said Tuesday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement released more than 500 detainees in his county alone over the weekend. A spokesman for Babeu told FoxNews.com that ICE officials have said they plan to release a total of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants.

The numbers, though, are in dispute. ICE officials said that it’s unclear how many ultimately might be released and that only 303 have been released from four Arizona facilities so far, though all those are in Pinal County. According to ICE, 2,280 detainees are still in custody in those facilities.

Babeu described the move as a “mass budget pardon” and suggested the administration was going to unnecessary lengths to demonstrate the impact of the so-called sequester.

“President Obama would never release 500 criminal illegals to the streets of his hometown, yet he has no problem with releasing them in Arizona. The safety of the public is threatened and the rule of law discarded as a political tactic in this sequester battle,” he said.

An ICE spokeswoman confirmed the plans without specifying how many illegal immigrants might be released.

[…]In Arizona, Babeu slammed the move, painting his community as a victim of gridlock in Washington.

“Clearly, serious criminals are being released to the streets of our local communities by this mass budget pardon. These are illegals that even President Obama wants to deport. This is insane that public safety is sacrificed when it should be the budget priority that’s safeguarded,” he said.

Did any of those criminals who were released go on to commit crimes? Sure. But what do Democrats care about protecting taxpayers from criminals? They always blame the victims of crime, and stand against law-abiding taxpayers.

Good news: a record 288 pro-life laws were enacted in the last 5 years

Live Action reports on a good news story.

Excerpt:

A report released Monday by pro-abortion research tank, Guttmacher Institute, reveals that states across the country passed nearly as many laws protecting preborn children in the last five years as in the last 15 years.

Guttmacher’s 2015 Year-End State Roundup details how states have enacted a record 288 restrictions on abortion since 2010 — including the 57 pro-life laws passed in 2015 — after a number of pro-life lawmakers secured wins in the 2010 midterm elections.

[…]Laws enacted include bans on abortion after a certain point in pregnancy, restrictions on abortion providers, counseling and waiting period legislation, and efforts to halt chemical abortions via telemedicine.

In 2015, a handful of states attempted to defund abortion giant Planned Parenthood after a dozen videos released by the Center for Medical Progress revealed top-level Planned Parenthood officials discussing the harvesting of baby body parts.

Every one of those pro-life measures was pushed by Republicans, and opposed by Democrats. In fact, Democrats would love to roll back every single restriction on abortion at the state and local levels.

The Weekly Standard reports.

Excerpt: (links removed)

Is performing an abortion no different than pulling a tooth? The idea that there isn’t a difference is the basis of a new federal bill that would wipe hundreds of state abortion laws off the books–striking down everything from late-term abortion limits to health and safety regulations in many states.

The Women’s Health Protection Act, introduced by Democratic Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal, would even invalidate a law used to convict Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell earlier this year, and it could potentially force taxpayers across the country to directly fund elective abortions for Medicaid recipients.

“The basic principle is that there can be no restriction that is not also imposed on a medically comparable procedure. If they single out abortion or reproductive rights, it’s going to fall foul,” Blumenthal said at a November 13 press conference. Blumenthal told THE WEEKLY STANDARD following his remarks that it’s “for doctors to decide” what counts as a “medically comparable” procedure.

Blumenthal specifically condemned health and safety regulations requiring that an abortion “doctor have admitting privileges” at a hospital “or that the hallways in a clinic be a certain width, which has no relation to health or safety.”

The Democrats also responded to the videos showing Planned Parenthood officials discussing selling baby parts.

Life News reports:

Just one day after Planned Parenthood was exposed cutting up a live baby for body parts for sale, Democrats in the House of Representative are launching their own investigation after the Planned Parenthood abortion business. Instead of looking into the abortion giant, they are probing the pro-life group behind the series of expose’ videos.

And the Democrats voted against a bill to de-fund Planned Parenthood, too.

Excerpt:

The Senate voted today for a bill that would de-fund Planned Parenthood after it was caught selling the body parts of aborted babies. Hearings have exposed how the abortion company likely violated federal laws to sell the body parts.

The bill would block, for one year, most federal payments to Planned Parenthood.

[…]Senators voted 52-47 (see below for roll call) for the reconciliation bill which would de-fund Planned Parenthood and repeal major portions of Obamacare.

Here are the no votes:

47 senators voted against unborn children
47 senators voted against unborn children

Remember where the political parties stand on abortion in November.

 

Obama administration pressuring banks to lower mortgage lending standards

Remember the housing bubble and the mortgage lending crisis of 2008? Well guess what – the Democrats want an encore.

Investors Business Daily explains.

Bankers warn the administration’s new “disparate impact” home-lending regulation will wreak havoc in credit markets, replacing merit standards with political correctness.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development issued the controversial new anti-discrimination rule earlier this year. Now enforced by every federal regulator dealing with banks, it has the effect of criminalizing credit standards used to qualify borrowers for home loans.

Last week, the Mortgage Bankers Association and Independent Community Bankers of America jointly filed a Supreme Court brief arguing that under the new HUD rule:

“Virtually every lender in the United States could be sued for using non-discriminatory credit standards simply because variations in economic and credit characteristics produce different credit outcomes among racial and ethnic groups.”

In their 33-page brief, filed in support of a landmark housing case pending before the court, they complain that HUD recently launched 22 separate investigations against lenders alleging that their policies of requiring minimum credit scores “had a disparate impact on minorities in violation of the Fair Housing Act.”

Dozens of similar actions have been brought against lenders by Attorney General Eric Holder. He is basing claims of bias on statistics showing differences in loan outcomes by race while ignoring racially neutral credit-risk factors that explain those differences.

Under disparate impact’s low standard of proof, the government doesn’t have to show lenders intentionally discriminated against borrowers.

For the first time in history, businesses are being ordered to justify the necessity of a certain level of return on investment given the racial impact resulting from the use of credit-score thresholds.

The mortgage trade groups argue the formalized disparate-impact rule also effectively criminalizes other legitimate business practices, including minimum down-payment requirements, sliding loan rates and the charging of brokers’ fees.

Banks today face increased litigation risk simply by complying with sensible lending standards for hedging against risk.

[…]The social engineers and race demagogues in this administration are trying to enforce a balance in financial outcomes that risks another collapse of the housing market. The Supreme Court must put an end to a scheme so reckless, unfair and unconstitutional.

Does that sound familiar? Yes. In the last recession, the government forced banks to make risky loans in order to increase home ownership. That is exactly what gave us the 2008 recession.

Excerpt:

[Democrat] Congressman [Barney] Frank, of course, blamed the financial crisis on the failure adequately to regulate the banks. In this, he is following the traditional Washington practice of blaming others for his own mistakes. For most of his career, Barney Frank was the principal advocate in Congress for using the government’s authority to force lower underwriting standards in the business of housing finance. Although he claims to have tried to reverse course as early as 2003, that was the year he made the oft-quoted remark, “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing.” Rather than reversing course, he was pressing on when others were beginning to have doubts.

His most successful effort was to impose what were called “affordable housing” requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy–in other words, prime mortgages–but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007.

[…]It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies–all under congressional and HUD pressure–followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble–created by all this government-backed spending–collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis.

Reduced lending standards caused the last recession, and now the same party that pushed for reduced lending standards are pushing for reduced lending standards again. Hold onto your hats, there’s a storm coming.

Did Obama really create jobs with his green energy and stimulus programs?

From Hans Bader writing for the DC Examiner.

Excerpt: (links removed)

There are only 140,000 jobs in the whole renewable-energy sector, but in a new ad, Obama is taking credit for a “clean energy industry” that has “2.7 million jobs.”  Obama inflated the number of “clean-energy” jobs by adding people who have nothing to do with clean-energy, like “trash collectors” and bureaucrats.  By inflating the total, Obama was able to paper over his complete failure to live up to his utterly unrealisticcampaign promise “to create 5 million new green jobs.” Most of America’s existing green jobs predate the Obama Administration, which did not create them: “from 2003-2010, the rate of growth for clean jobs was 3.4 percent.”

Indeed, the Obama Administration used federal green-jobs money to outsource American jobs to countries like China: “Despite all the talk of green jobs, the overwhelming majority of stimulus money spent on wind power has gone to foreign companies, according to a new report by the Investigative Reporting Workshop” at American University.   “79 percent” of all green-jobs funding “went to companies based overseas,” with the largest payment going to a bankrupt Australian company.  “Most of the jobs are going overseas,” said Russ Choma at the Investigative Reporting Workshop.

Meanwhile, America actually lost jobs in wind-manufacturing: “Even with the infusion of so much stimulus money, a recent report by American Wind Energy Association showed a drop in U.S. wind manufacturing jobs last year.”  (CBS News recently reported that there are 11 more companies, in addition to Solyndra, that are embroiled in financial trouble after receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer money; five have already filed for bankruptcy).

Obama’s mythical green-jobs are like other imaginary jobs he claimed to have created with the $800 billion stimulus package.  The Obama Administration took credit for jobs created in 440 non-existent Congressional districts, such as Arizona’s 15th and 86th districts (Arizona only had 8 Congressional districts, as ABC News noted with amusement).  The Washington Examiner noted that at least “75,000 jobs” Obama has claimed credit for are “clearly imaginary” or “highly doubtful.” Readers can view its interactive map of “Inflated Jobs by State.”

He’s going to have trouble defending this in a debate, as long as we pick someone who will go after him.

In Canada, a revolt against global warming socialism creates an economic boom

Before we look at Canada, let’s first look at how Barack Obama has decided to appease his green socialism supporters by rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline.

Excerpt:

The Obama administration rejected the long-delayed TransCanada oil sands crude project, a decision welcomed by environmental groups but blasted by the domestic energy industry.

After delaying the project past the November 2012 election, President Barack Obama was compelled by Congress to decide by Feb. 21 on whether to approve the pipeline that would sharply boost the flow of oil from Canada’s oil sands.

[…]Republicans, in turn, blasted Obama for breaking his promise to create jobs by scuttling the $7 billion pipeline.

House Speaker John Boehner, R.-Ohio, said Republicans will keep fighting for the Keystone pipeline because it is “good for the U.S. economy because it would create thousands of jobs.”

“All options are on the table” for fighting for the sands pipeline between the western province of Alberta and Houston, Boehner told reporters. “This is not the end of the fight.”

Republicans in the Senate have said they could legislate an approval of the pipeline that could get around any rejection by President Obama.

Just to be clear, this pipeline would be paid for with billions of dollars from a Canadian company based in Calgary, Alberta – the Houston of the North. They would pay for the pipeline, they would create the jobs here, and it would cost us nothing to take their money. This would not only cut gas prices for consumers, but it would help us to stop sending money abroad to countries that don’t like us very much.

How are the Canadians responding to Obama’s stupidity? They are already talking about building the pipeline to the west coast and selling their oil to China.

Canadian conservatives have no time for global warming nonsense.

Excerpt:

It is a cliché in journalism to declare metaphorical wars at the drop of a news release. In this case, it looks like war is exactly what Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver launched Monday in an unprecedented open letter warning that Canada will not allow “environmental and other radical groups” to “hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.”

[…]Mr. Oliver took straight aim at a troubling trend in Canadian environmentalism — the foreign funding of Canadian green activist groups with the express purpose of shutting down Canadian resource development…  “These groups,” said Mr. Oliver, “seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special interests to undermine Canada’s national economic interest. They attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the largest personal carbon footprints in the world to lecture Canadians not to develop our natural resources.”

And they pulled out of the Kyoto Accord.

Excerpt:

Canada will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the Minister of the Environment has said.

Peter Kent said the protocol “does not represent a way forward for Canada” and the country would face crippling fines for failing to meet its targets.

[…]The protocol, initially adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, is aimed at fighting global warming.

[…]He said meeting Canada’s obligations under Kyoto would cost $13.6bn (10.3bn euros; £8.7bn): “That’s $1,600 from every Canadian family – that’s the Kyoto cost to Canadians, that was the legacy of an incompetent Liberal government”.

They want jobs. They don’t have money to burn on a dozen Solyndras. They don’t pass job-killing regulations on energy companies.

Since 2006, the Canadians have been electing and re-electing Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper. The man has a BA and MA in economics, and he comes from the same fold as Reagan and Thatcher on fiscal conservativism and foreign policy. He has no patience for leftist community organizers like Obama. The Conservatives were re-elected again in 2011, this time with a majority government. Their House of Commons is majority conservative. Their Senate is majority conservative. And Harper has been packing the Supreme Court with fresh conservatives, every time there’s a vacancy. Canada’s economy is booming. And Canadians know how to keep it booming – they are cutting corporate taxes to 15% – less than half of our 35% corporate tax rate. We could be taking their money for the Keystone XL pipeline right now, but we’re not, because we elected an anti-business ideologue instead of an economist.

Related posts

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

%d bloggers like this: