Have you ever seen the mission statement of the Department of Justice? It’s pretty much what you would expect
To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.
How’s that work out in practice?
(CNS News) The U.S. Department of Justice gave $342,168,401 in grant money to 10 “sanctuary†states and cities that shield illegal aliens, even violent ones, from deportation by refusing to cooperate with federal immigration officials, according to a Judicial Watch report.
In a recent memorandum to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz revealed that at least 10 state and local jurisdictions that receive grants from the OJP and Office of Violence against Women (OVW) have policies limiting or effectively precluding local officials’ cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“Among them is Connecticut, a trailblazer in the sanctuary movement that received more than $69 million in grants from the DOJ,†said Judicial Watch.
“Connecticut has long protected illegal immigrants with sanctuary policies and even offers them special drivers’ licenses, known as Drive Only. The state also gives illegal aliens discounted tuition at public colleges and universities and authorities work hard to restrict the feds from deporting illegal immigrants.
The DOJ, the top law enforcement agency in the United States, is giving money to states and cities that refuse to cooperate with federal law. From the Judicial Watch statement
The Obama administration rewards sanctuary states, counties and cities that shield violent illegal immigrants from deportation with hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants and one of the biggest recipients recently made headlines for protecting a serial criminal who murdered a young woman. The money flows through the Department of Justice (DOJ), the agency responsible for enforcing the law and defending the interests of the United States. The DOJ is also charged with providing federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime, according to its mission statement, and seeking just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior.
Essentially, the DOJ is rewarding states and cities that refuse to follow the law the DOJ is supposed to uphold.
Perhaps Kathryn Steinle might have something to say about the idea that the Office of Violence against Women providing funds for sanctuary cities.
Teach more republicans want the undocumented here in the USA to have a path to citizenship than want a wall built
Appealing to the most radical parts of the base is no way for the GOP to win a national election
Of course if winning isn’t the object Wellnit all means continue losing national elections
But remember after the SCOTUS rules on gerrymandering congressional districts the GOP will be hurt badly
How is it that in the congressional elections democrats received more votes but somehow ended up with fewer seats in the House??
John asked:
When you have inner-city districts, primarily black districts, which give well over 90% of their votes to Democrats, that’s going to skew the numbers; Republicans with opposition never achieve vote percentages like that.
I remember a statistic from the 2004 election: John Kerry, who lost the popular vote, carried twenty congressional districts by greater percentages than the best district for President Bush. You throw out foul, fetid, fuming, foggy, filthy Philadelphia, and the Republican would always carry Pennsylvania.
Where do you get this crap from, the DNC daily briefing?
What makes not giving money to sanctuary cities radical? Why is wanting the DOJ to obey the law radical?
John, do you believe in this day and age of communicable diseases and terrorists it’s a good idea to have aliens streaming over our borders who are not vetted for illness or terror ties?
Meanwhile, the DOJ blocked any FBI inquiry into the Clinton criminal organization…
Not a smidgen of corruption.
dana typed:
Sure, most caucasian, X-ian, conservatives would prefer an America where only caucasian, X-ian conservatives could vote.
Unfortunately for you, our Constitution lets Negroes, women, gays, Hispanics, atheists and even Muslims vote. And they often hold opinions that differ from caucasian, X-ian, conservative males.
Do you really believe your vote is more valuable than that of a Black janitor in Philly? Or of an unemployed single mother in Malvern? Or a Muslim clerk in Chester?
Back at you, but if you through out all rural votes in the US Democrats would control the House, the Senate and the Presidency.
Teach,
Would you cut all federal funds to cities and states that disagree with federal policies?
(Yes, this is a trap.)
Currently we have a negative immigration rate across our southern border. More “illegals” are leaving than entering.
Now what?
Thanks for all your disinformation, little guy.
Apparently anything you type is nonsense.
There are more illegals in the US than ever before.
Jeffrey wrote:
My vote should be more valuable than that of an unemployed single mother in Malvern! I work and pay taxes.
Clearly, you’ve missed the point: I was pointing out that it isn’t gerrymandering if so many of the votes for Democrats are crammed into one very small area.
And yes, the Democrats do control our major cities, lock, stock and barrel. As our esteemed host has pointed out, those Democrat-controlled cities have become fetid and festering sewers of crime and violence.
Up here, in the mostly rural area in which I live, we have plenty of guns, but very few murders. In the cities, where they have fewer weapons, the murder rate has skyrocketed.
Jeffrey asked our host:
I would cut federal funds to cities and states, period. Cities and states should pay for city and state projects; those things should not be federalized in the first place. We should cut all of that federal spending, and cut federal taxes, giving the smaller levels of government room to raise taxes for projects they believe necessary.
dana typed:
And that tells one all that is needed to know about the American right.
Jeffrey wrote:
Well, it tells you what you need to know about me, anyway. I pay in tax money to the government; the unemployed single mother takes money away from the government. Why should someone who will not work have a vote to take money away from those of us who do?
daan,
Are you actually advocating that only the employed should be allowed to vote??
Should the relative influence of the vote be scaled to the amount of taxes paid in? If I pay 4 times as much in federal taxes as you, should I get 4 votes?
Dana’s point is one of the long known issues with democracy:
“To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, — the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.” Destutt de Tracy’s Treatise on Political Economy
Jeffery and people of his ilk would rather cater to the desires of those not working and taking the produce of working of those who are working.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are more than willing to help people up, give a safety net, and fund projects that work. We are not particularly fond of paying people not to work, be industrious or contribute to society.
In short, most people know that you cannot steal from a person who has nothing, so the left steals from those who have something.
I believe Dana is advocating that only people who pay taxes should vote. I agree. Why should someone with no skin in the game be able to vote my hard earned income away from me to himself? That’s called theft. Either we are in it together and all pay into it or those that don’t pay shouldn’t have a say. On what moral ground do you believe that a person who only takes should have the right to vote away someone else’s money? Everybody pays local taxes so everybody should be able to vote in local elections but if you didn’t pay Federal income tax you should be excluded from voting for federal candidates.
That’s not necessary as long as only the ones paying into the pot get to determine how the pot is spent. Last year I paid 82k federal tax on an income less than 280k, yet a bum on the street can cancel my vote. Do you really believe that to be fair? I’m that middle class guy the dems are always talking about an believe me, I’m being screwed and I bet you are too.
Jeff,
To answer your concerns over voting tied to wealth or working. Our country was founded on that principal. It was not until around 1840 that general voting started to creep in and then really got hot just a little over 100 years ago. You see, the concern at the time and then the justification of that concern is that groups of people will get together and vote away the wealth of workers, just as is happening now. So, yes, we should have qualifications for voting. And don’t start up on how wealthy you are as I seriously doubt you have that much.
Just so you understand, Jeffery:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GvWtYPZVjxg/V6vsuYg7X0I/AAAAAAABBEA/PBTjMaLfmg06ywdoi76BmrxC7TUTQrQHACLcB/s1600/1%2B1%2B13938480_898139726997002_4156201799085370600_n.jpg
No, I would cut funding for those that are VIOLATING federal policies. However, as Dana rightly points out, there really shouldn’t be aid. Los Federales should take less in taxes and let municipalities, counties, and states deal with it. I would think you would approve of this. You seem very upset that republican states get your tax money.
But, hey, you lefties are also the ones saying that federal law overrides local and state, especially when we were discussing Arizona’s HB1070 illegal immigration law, so, you should want all cities and states to follow federal law to a tee.
For once I am stunned by the covians.
The disabled, Social Security recipients, and the unemployed should lose their right to vote. Wow, that’s over 20% of the population!
According to Mitt Romney some 47% of the population don’t pay federal income tax! (He was right, although at full employment it’s closer to 40%). Who makes up the 40% Mostly working people who Congress has decided make too little to pay federal income taxes (but pay federal payroll taxes) and retirees, plus the disabled and students.
But without federal aid Red States would go broke. Massachusetts, New York, California, New Jersey etc are supporting the deadbeat Red States.
I propose that only people who pay $100,000/year in federal taxes be allowed to vote.
Deadbeats who won’t work hard enough to pay at least that much in taxes aren’t worthy of voting anyway.
Who says these people don’t pay federal taxes? I’m disabled with lung disease, and I’m on Social Security and as I stated pay quite a bit in federal taxes. Just so you know all three of these things are subject to federal tax.
Basically what you are saying with your crazy rant is you think people who do not contribute to America should be allowed to vote for America’s policies. Why not let the whole world vote in our elections? A Frenchman has as much stake in America as any other person who does not pay our taxes why shouldn’t the French vote too? And the Italians? etc.
While we are at it, except for SS seniors who are receiving the money that they put into the system, all others should be made wards of the state. This is done in the socialistic countries that Jeff and John love. That means that all welfare and Medicaid recipients would have a government assigned handler, they would have to find some job or education, they would be under strict health monitoring, they could not have children, they could not vote. As I said this is done in the other countries, there are no free rides.
So then exactly whom would you stop from voting?
Something wrong with your reading comprehension? I would not allow people who paid no federal income tax to vote in federal elections.
Jeff,
You do realize that the socialistic programs that you want will come with caveats. In Europe, they have free college, only for a select few, you have to test in. Then, welfare is not free. It has significant restrictions on your freedom.
Hoagie,
You’re playing dumb, at least we hope you’re playing. If one’s only retirement income is Social Security, it is not taxed.
Are you saying that SS retirees should not be able to vote?
The same applies to someone relying on SSDI to survive.
Do you really think a Vietnam veteran living off their SS should not be able to vote?
If someone pays no federal income tax should they be able to run for President. If they’re not eligible to vote should they be eligible to be President? How much did Trump pay in federal taxes?
Retirees paid into the system, and worked all their lives; they ought to be able to vote. The only ones I would exclude are those who will not work.
You see, I clearly saw the trap you tried to set, specifying two people, neither of whom were white, but giving them jobs. Me, I respect anyone who works, whether he is a corporate executive or the guy who has to clean out portajohns on construction sites. It is the people who could work but will not for whom I have zero respect.
The Framers were right, in the original Constitution, when they specified that direct federal taxes had to be apportioned on the basis of population. That way we’d all pay the same in taxes, and one group couldn’t somehow vote themselves other people’s tax dollars. The Sixteenth Amendment was the most pernicious thing ever foisted on free Americans.
Why is it, Jeffrey, that the left support taking money from people who earn it to give it to those who will not work?
Forgot to add “stay at home moms” to the list of those whom conservative extremists want not to vote.
She’s not paying taxes, her husband is. She would be forced to stay at home on election day.
Dana,
Good, because many of the people in the 40-47% who pay no federal income tax are workers who make too little to pay the tax, based on our tax laws. And no doubt, many higher income types abuse the system as well (where are Mr. Trump’s tax returns?).
Many are retired. Many live on SSDI. If your argument is about those on SSDI who shouldn’t be there, you should make that argument.
How would you handle the situation of stay at home moms or wives whose husbands make enough money to support them both and they chose not to work? They are clearly able to work but choose not to. Should they be allowed to vote? Hoagie says no.
What percentage of the US population do you think are Ronald Reagan’s Black welfare queens? Black women who live off direct cash welfare payments/ food stamps?
Finally, do you really believe that our economy will support every healthy adult willing to work?
Jeffrey asked:
Yes, because we are already, in effect, importing Mexicans to do the jobs that Americans won’t take. If we eliminated welfare, made it a choice between working or starving, all of those Americans able to work would have to work, and we wouldn’t have the illegal immigration problem.
Jeffrey wrote:
And those laws are terrible: everyone should have to pay taxes, everyone should have to pay the same in taxes.
Granted our immigration “system” is broken in that we pay people below minimum wage to work 12 hr days picking strawberries, nailing shingles, mowing lawns and serving coffee.
Is your solution for the 61 yr old roofer with osteoarthritis and mild COPD to get back on the roof, or into the fields or starve? Should his 60 yr old wife needing knee replacements go back to the diner or starve?
Dozens of Republicans – including ex-lawmakers and former party staffers – have signed a letter urging Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to “suspend†funding for Donald Trump’s campaign and divert all resources to congressional races, in the latest rebuke of the nominee from inside the party.
The letter, which is in draft form and expected to be sent next week, urges Priebus to focus RNC resources on saving the Republican majority in the House and Senate – effectively casting Trump’s campaign as a lost cause dragging congressional candidates down.
Donald Trump is the result of the furious stupidity of the far right libertarian whackos who have effectively confused the GOP and secondly there were quite a number of DEMS who voted for Trump to ensure that the GOP had an idiot running for the White House.
@John and Jeffery……why are you even at this site posting your drivel? The GOP is imploding on itself….they are literally no longer relevant and what you have to say comes off as adults in a Charlie Brown show …..WAH< WAH< WAH< WAH< WAH.
WAVE ELECTION COMING UP…..The GOP will most likely lose the HOUSE< SENATE AND WHITE HOUSE IN ONE FELL SWOOP.
Good Job Libertarians your inability to compromise has cost the United States any hope at all. Trust me I believe in a lot of what the libertarians believe and thats the problem…..they are like the progressives to the DNC….they have interwoven themselves into the party and now are warping the idea of conservativism to mean libertarianism. Just as the old classical Democrats are now full blown progressives….IE COMMUNISTS/SOCIALISTS.
Well when someone says the GOP is NEO FASCISTS I can almost agree…..The unfortunate thing is the left does not realize how FAR LEFT they have moved……
And EXTREMES never EVER will be able to work or play well together…..
Turn out the lights.
Laim,
My objective is to correct right-wing misinformation and to educate the still educable, and to mock the uneducable.
You are absolutely correct that the far-right and far-left have too much influence on the GOP and Dems, respectively. That said, we still have to find a way to govern and the reasonable Republicans and Dems are outnumbered. You’re right, it will get worse before it gets better.
Trump is the logical outgrowth of what the GOP has been cultivating the past few decades. Clinton would not be my first choice for the Dem candidate, but she is the safe choice compared to Trump.
Repeatedly calling the US President the Founder of ISIS embarrasses and hurts America.
Jeffrey wrote:
Roofers make well above minimum wage, and other than the farm workers, everybody else does make at least the minimum unless they are working illegally.
Well, I’m 63½, and I regularly do things like shovel under conveyor belts, move and reset steel forms, and work sixty feet up in the air!
However, you are doing what I always expect from the left, telling us about the poor, unfortunate people who just can’t work anymore. If it was just a case of can’t work, no one would combitch about welfare. The problem is that the left have created a system which allows those who could work but will not to do just that.
Dana,
Not everyone is blessed with your good health and government funded job.
Well, maybe not everybody is blessed with my good health, and my mostly privately-funded job, but if all we were talking about were people with poor health, this would be an entirely different conversation.
Perhaps you can tell me why, when I’m in the pit shoveling out underneath the tail pulley on the conveyor belt, I should be paid for three out of every four shovelfuls I dig, and some lazy, worthless welfare leech should be paid for the fourth.
It’s forecast to reach 90º F here today, with high humidity, and I need to climb the 60 foot tall silo, to clean the eight cement filters. Why do you think that I should have to clean all eight, but be paid for cleaning six of them, while some good-for-nothing is paid for the other two?
This is why the Democrats have lost the white working class voter. You had to choose between being the party of the working man, which the Democrats were for many years, and the party of the non-working man, and you chose the latter. You can’t be both! For every welfare recipient you support, you are sticking your filthy hands into the pockets of people who work for a living.
Dana,
Do you really believe that 25% of your “earnings” are going to American citizens who refuse to work?
from:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_2014
Total Spending $3.5 trillion
Pensions $0.9 trillion
Health Care $0.9 trillion
Education $0.1 trillion
Defense $0.8 trillion
Welfare $0.4 trillion
Interest on the debt, administrative costs (courts, FBI, CIA, energy, NASA, NSA, Homeland, Treasury etc) make up the rest.
So that’s 11.4% and certainly you don’t want to kick children off food stamps do you? So actually, depending on your tax bracket, there’s much less “welfare” spending than most conservatives imagine. TANF and food stamps are about $0.1 trillion, with housing assistance, EITC and child tax credits making much of the rest. So traditional “welfare” is about 2.9% of your bill, depending on your tax bracket, or about 1 in every 35 shovelfuls of whatever you’re shoveling.
Much of what you and conservatives now whine about is paying for the America we’ve all built together: our infrastructure (roads, schools, clean air, sewage systems, clean water, airports, seaports, bridges), security (national defense, police, fire protection, homeland security, courts) and investments in our future (pensions, food stamps, education, healthcare).
Conservatives and liberals have a basic disagreement on the commonweal. Conservatives tend to ignore the social benefits of living in this great nation: the roads, stable utilities, clean air, public education, clean water, basic security, redress of grievances, freedom, order, basic fairness – these advantages were not, and are not, free. Most of us were born with these advantages – they were earned by our parents and theirs – and we can add to those advantages and pass them to future generations.
If you want to avoid paying your fair share you’ll need to leave this nation.
And of course the system is redistributive – it’s the price we successful folks pay for the privilege of doing well here. You expect the impoverished and the working poor to build their own schools and roads. It just doesn’t work that way.
So with your 35th shovelful, be thankful you’re able to live, work and prosper here.
To add to Dana’s comment…
–http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/what-conservatives-must-do/
Duh!
–http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/what-conservatives-must-do/
Surprise! I just had the pleasure of changing a drive tire on a concrete mixer. I guess that I will get paid for about ¾ of that work, and some lazy scumbag sitting in his recliner will get paid for the other ¼.
Jeffrey wrote:
My fair share would be 1/320,000,000th, but that isn’t what you want to charge me.
Jeffrey, your “logic” fails completely: I’m paying the share of all of those other non-taxpayers for everything, including health care, education, you name it.
That’s the problem with you: you somehow think that my ‘fair share’ ought to include the shares of those people who will not work! Well, not no, but Hell no! The lazy MF sitting in his recliner watching Jerry Springer when he ought to be out working should have the same ‘fair share’ as I do, because he sure as Hell has the same vote that I do, he is just as much of a citizen as I am. Why do you think that my ‘fair share’ ought to be higher than someone else’s?
Why should the government ‘redistribute’ what I have earned to those who will not work? Why should they have any fornicating claim to my labor, when they won’t labor themselves?
There is a word for forcing one person to labor for the benefit of another, Jeffery. It’s SLAVERY. When the government steals the fruit of the working mans labor and “redistributes” it to another it has effectively enslaved that working man and bound him with the shackles of tyranny.
Look at the condition of the modern ghetto dweller. Is he better off being given money? Is he living a better life? Has he more self achievement? Is he producing good offspring? When that which belongs to one person is forcibly taken and given to another the first person fills with resentment and the person receiving it is told he’s “owed” it. Neither condition is for the benefit of the person nor society at large.
Jeffrey wrote:
A concrete finisher I know, who’s in his mid-40s, has a liver which is shot and some spots on his pancreas. He’s still working, but won’t be for long.
Why is his liver shot? Because of way too much alcohol and recreational pharmaceuticals! Me? I don’t smoke or drink or use recreational drugs. Now, why should I have to pay to support a guy who is in failing health that he brought upon himself? I do the right things, so, according to Jeffrey, I should have to pay for the people who have done the wrong things.
drowningpuppies, thanks for that website peekinthewell.net. That blog House of Eratosthenes is great. The guy is a gem.
dana,
Do you object to the socialist process known as insurance? With health insurance, the risk and expense is distributed over many thousands – and part of your premium pays for the expenses of men and women who practice bad habits or are just unlucky.
Homeowners insurance is similar. Some nitwit wires his own rec room and later his house burns down. Part of your premium pays for his negligence.
In nearly 50 years of driving, I’ve had a single accident (minor) that was my fault and my premiums reflect that, yet I’ve paid a lot more in premiums than I likely will ever collect. So much of my premium goes to pay for less responsible drivers.
You will almost certainly collect more in Social Security than you’ve paid in, if you, hopefully, live to a ripe old age. Young workers will be paying your way.
If you are unlucky enough to get cancer or need a transplant you’ll use much more of what you’ve paid into Medicare. Would you eschew treatment rather than use funds that were paid in by several million others?
To recap:
Wealthy conservatives here want (1) their own taxes greatly reduced, (2) want taxes raised on the poor, (3) don’t want the poor to vote unless the poor pay more taxes, (4) want federal spending slashed (5) but want to keep their own personal subsidies (SS, Medicare, SSDI, contracts, clean air and water, highways etc).
You probably should vote for Trump. Don’t overthimk it.