In what may become the second arm of a federal pincer strategy aimed at judicially nullifying state laws, leading Democrats in Congress have proposed a new bill that may void the various state statutes enacted recently to combat the growth of the illegal alien population.
As has been thoroughly covered in The New American, the Obama administration has filed suit in several federal courts challenging the constitutionality of laws passed by state legislatures that have drawn the attention of the media for their more controversial provisions.
To date, the complaints filed by the Department of Justice (typically with the Department of Homeland Security listed as a co-plaintiff) have named as defendants the Attorneys General of the states whose laws they are seeking to set aside.
This latest effort by the federal government to redraw the lines of power laid out by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution would authorize the Department of Justice to file suit against state and local governments suspected of using racial profiling to carry out the new anti-illegal immigration laws passed by legislators.
”I do not choose to run for Congress in 2012.” With those words, the denouement of the often combative 16-term congressional career of Barney Frank began. In a statement released to reporters, the only openly homosexual member of Congress announced his intention to avoid the complications that his candidacy would have faced because of redistricting in his home state of Massachusetts.
The Federal Reserve Bank and five other central banks across the world cut the "temporary U.S. dollar liquidity swap arrangements" rate for central bank borrowing nearly in half, from just over 1.00 percent to a bit more than 0.50 percent, according to a November 30 Federal Reserve Bank press release. Stock and commodities markets rallied all day with the news, with the Dow Jones Industrial Index gaining 490 points on the day.
The swap rate is the interest rate the Federal Reserve charges foreign central banks to borrow dollars from the Fed. A lower interest rate makes it easier for European and Japanese central banks to go further into debt.
"The purpose of these actions is to ease strains in financial markets and thereby mitigate the effects of such strains on the supply of credit to households and businesses and so help foster economic activity," the Federal Reserve claimed. In plain English, that means the central banks' answer to the European debt crisis is to make it much easier to borrow more money and get deeper into debt. That's a bit like a bunch of doctors agreeing that the solution to the pain in a patient's eye is to push the ice pick further into his eye.
The European Central Bank and the national central banks of Canada, Switzerland, Japan, and the U.K. also lowered their swap rates. This will have the effect of burgeoning the money supply, meaning existing money will purchase less and less goods for an equal price — inflation.
“New Company Policy: We Are Not Hiring Until Obama Is Gone.” Those words are plastered across every truck owned by U.S. Cranes LLC of Waco, Georgia — not as a threat but as a recognition of the fact that, as owner Bill Looman told ABC News, “overregulation and the cost of complying with federal mandates has [sic] caused many of his customers to shut their doors.” As a result, he has been forced to lay off three of his nine employees.
“I’ve got people that I want to hire now, but I just can’t afford it,” Looman, whose company operates cranes at construction sites, told Atlanta’s WXIA-TV. “And I don’t foresee that I’ll be able to afford it unless some things change in D.C.”
“The way the economy’s running, and the way my business has been hampered by the economy, and the policies of the people in power, I felt that it was necessary to voice my opinion, and predict that I wouldn’t be able to do any hiring,” he added.
His chosen method of voicing his opinion was to place his “not hiring” message on his company’s trucks and post photos of the signs on his personal Facebook page about six months ago. Until recently, the response was overwhelmingly positive (although he did receive a perfunctory visit from the Secret Service after someone reported him to the FBI as a threat to national security). Then last week “one of the photos went viral on the Internet,” according to WXIA; and that is when all the controversy began.
Despite the best efforts of the Occupy Wall Street protesters to sabotage Black Friday Christmas shopping, the National Retail Federation reported that shoppers spent a whopping $52 billion over the weekend after Thanksgiving. OWS had hoped to launch protests that would stop the frenzy of consumerism, but alas, the lure of spending prevailed.
“The only solution is World Revolution” So declares occupywallst.org, the “official” website of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. The website’s heading for November 23 reads: “Occupy Wall Street — NYC Protest for World Revolution”
And right below that is the OWS logo, the communist clenched fist symbol alongside the blaring declaration, “OccupyWallStreet — the revolution continues worldwide!”
Revolution. Lots of talk about revolution amongst the OWS demonstrators and the websites, blogs, publications, and media networks that support them. But what is it they are actually calling for? “Revolution” is one of those words that have many meanings. Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign uses the term but with decidedly different intentions and objectives in mind than the bulk of the OWS protesters. Dr. Paul’s “revolution,” for instance, calls for abolishing the Federal Reserve System, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — for starters. The Fed, Fannie, and Freddie are three of the institutions most responsible for the housing bubble/mortgage meltdown, the bailouts, and the transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall Street insiders at Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, AIG, Citibank, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, et al.
The Fed, Fannie, and Freddie are not capitalist institutions; they are socialist, fascist, Marxist institutions. The Fed is a central bank with virtual monopoly control of credit, as called for by Karl Marx in the The Communist Manifesto (plank number five in his ten-plank program).
Arthur Christmas adds a whole new spin to the classic tale of Santa’s busy Christmas Eve as the deliverer of presents and joy to every child in the world. In this version, Santa Claus is simply a figurehead, and the true genius behind the success of Christmas Eve is Santa's eldest son, Steve, and the millions of elves found in Santa’s highly technological workshop.
So how does Santa’s youngest son, Arthur Christmas, fit into this scenario? Therein lies the ingenious, touching, and captivating plot of this wonderful Christmas film.
It’s Christmas Eve and Santa Claus (Jim Broadbent) has just traveled around the entire world in his high-tech spaceship, which has replaced the antique sleigh formerly pulled by eight reindeer. At the helm of this impressive new vehicle, however, is not our beloved Santa Claus, but Santa’s son Steve (Hugh Laurie). It becomes clear early in the movie that Steve has pushed his father to the back burner and replaced him in virtually every aspect of the entire Christmas operation. Santa's role has been diminished to a few quick cameos in the homes of several children just to show he was there.
Meanwhile, Santa’s younger son Arthur (James McAvoy) plays an extremely vital role in Santa’s workshop. He reads every single letter sent to the North Pole from the anxious children across the world, and sees to it that each child receives the very present requested from good old Saint Nick. This role seems to serve Arthur just fine, as his whimsical spirit and loving, optimistic nature allows him to see the beauty and Christmas spirit of every letter sent to Santa. At the same time, it is a safe job for someone such as Arthur, who is both clumsy and fearful of virtually everything.
Rick Santorum is widely heralded as a real “conservative.” Rush Limbaugh has praised him on the air on multiple occasions, and another nationally syndicated radio talk-show host, Bill Bennett, has had Santorum guest host for him regularly. To hear the Limbaughs and Bennetts of our generation tell it, a real “conservative” is one who favors “limited” or “constitutional government” and “individualism.”
Thus, presumably, Santorum must be an enemy of just the sort of Big Government ideology to which Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are beholden.
But is this correct? A look at Santorum’s positions on the issues of the day readily reveals that his rhetoric aside — and the rhetoric of the party of which he has been a fixture for decades — Santorum is no less a champion of Big Government than President Obama himself.