A Rasmussen poll, just out, shows the race to fill the vacant Massachusetts Senate seat narrowing. Democrat Martha Coakley still leads in the polls by a margin of 50% to 41% ahead of Republican challenger Scott Brown.  However, two months ago Coakley led by a comfortable 25 point margin. Among the ever-dangerous independent voters Brown leads by an overwhelming 65% to 21% margin.  Should Brown pull off a victory, this upset could be a disaster for the Democrat take over of the health care system.  Brown would represent the 41st Republican Senator, ending the Democrats' current lock on the Senate.  Further, Brown has stated publicly that he will filibuster to stop passage of the health care bill,  as well as the Cap and Tax legislation, if elected.

Even with the momentum behind him, Brown is going to require huge amounts of support to upset Coakley, who is backed by the Democrat and SEIU  political machines.   With the Democrats pushing the legislation through behind closed doors, Brown is seen by many as the last best hope of averting the health care fiasco that will result should the Democrats succeed.

Most people don't understand the world's monetary system or banking.  According to Henry Ford that's probably a good thing, since he believed that if they were made to understand it there would be a revolution the following morning.  He was probably right, but let's lift the veil and see what's under there anyway.  

Most people like to think of a bank as a warehouse for money.  They like to think of it as a place where they deposit money and then assume that the money is stored in a secure vault so that they could, if they so chose, go to the bank and ask for the money in cash and the bank would be obliged to give it to them.  That's the way banking should work.  It is not the the way, however, that it does work — not by a long shot.

Imagine that you have several very valuable Persian carpets that you need to store.  You might look for a reputable warehouse facility with good security and a climate controlled environment where you could store them.  If you return to the warehouse some time later to get your rugs, you would rightly be alarmed if the proprietor told you that the rugs are no longer there because he leased them out to a hotel for the rest of the year.  If that were to happen, you would call the police immediately and have the warehouse owner arrested.  No doubt he would be charged with either theft or embezzlement.   He would be tried and  quite possibly sent to prison.  In addition,  you would probably file suit to try to recover your carpets or at least their value from his business or personal assets. I don't suspect that many would argue that it should be otherwise.  The area of law that covers this type of relationship is called a bailment. You as the owner of the carpets are the bailor and the warehouseman, in this case, is referred to as the bailee. This contractual relationship transfers possession of the carpets, but not the ownership of them. Further, under ordinary circumstances, the bailee is not entitled to use the goods that are in his possession.  Yet when it comes to depositing your money in a bank, things do not work this way — far from it.

Unlike a warehouse, where you still hold title to the goods you have stored and those items are expected to be delivered into your possession upon request, banks are not governed by the same laws.  The money that you deposit into a bank becomes an asset of the bank. The bank is then considered to owe you the amount that you deposited, as though you made a loan to the bank.  By law, banks are only required to hold in reserve a fraction of the money deposited and are free to loan out the rest. This system is called "fractional reserve" banking and is now common throughout the world.

 The amount of money that has been deposited in a bank, plus the amount they have on their books as accounts receivable is called their Net Transaction Accounts (NTA).  The percentage of the NTA that must be held in reserve depends on the amount of money that the bank has on its books.  For banks that have NTA values of from $0 to $9.3 million dollars they are allowed to hold 0% of the money in reserve.  Banks that have over $9.3 million but less than $43.9 million must hold 3% of their depositors' money in reserve.  Banks that have over $43.9 million must hold 10% of their depositors' money in reserve.  Even these reserve funds are not kept in the bank.  A bank's reserves are actually a checking account that is kept with the Federal Reserve.  When compared with the laws that govern warehousing and pawn brokers, the banks actions  amount can be viewed as legalized embezzlement, on the one hand,  or the moral equivalent of counterfeiting on the other. 

The underlying theory behind this legalized embezzlement scheme is that not all of their depositors are likely to show up at the same time and ask for their money.  Normally, this is the case, which is why they continue getting away with it year after year.  However, when large numbers of  depositors do show up and ask for their money, it's called a "run on the bank" and the bank will either close its doors to try to avoid paying money out, or the bank will quickly fail, since only a small fraction of the money deposited in the bank is actually available.  The rest of the money has been loaned out to borrowers.  In fact, banks generally try to loan out as much as they are legally allowed to loan and when they can loan no more, the bank is said to be "loaned up." 

But the trail doesn't end there.  When someone borrows money from a bank they are generally issued a check which they then deposit in their own bank.  That money goes onto the books of that bank as an asset and, assuming it is a large bank, it may in turn loan out 90% (remember that 10% must be held in reserve for large banks) of the amount deposited from the first loan. Then that money is loaned and deposited in another bank and the cycle continues until the amount has been carved down to nothing.

While this pyramid embezzling scheme would be bad enough in its own right, recall that I likened it to counterfeiting as well.  Let's look at why this is so.  It turns out that about $9,000 worth of loans (if we follow the money trail through a series of banks) will be granted for each $1,000 deposited.  So where did the other $8,000.00 come from?  It didn't come from anywhere, it is money created, literally, from thin air.  The act of granting the loan creates the money, which is, in fact, just an entry in a banks ledger.  Creating money from thin air, does however increase the number of dollars in circulation. When you hear the phrase "increasing the money supply," this is what is meant.  When you increase the money supply, you create inflation, which appears to the common person as rising prices, but is, in reality, loss of value in each individual unit of money. 

Money, as it turns out, is simply a commodity like any other and when the supply of anything, whether it is  wheat, cotton, silver or money  is increased, its value is reduced.  The only difference is that when you reduce the price of other commodities, it is a boon to the consumer and serves to raise the standard of living.  When you devalue the dollar through inflation, it is a curse  that appears to be rising costs of literally everything and consequently lowers the standard of living.

In summary, through fractional reserve banking, banks are legally allowed to embezzle the money of their depositors, to lend that money to others in order to profit themselves, to create money in a way that is the moral equivalent of counterfeiting, and to increase inflation, thereby lowering the standard of living for all Americans. 

The practice of fractional banking should be outlawed, once and for all, and banks should be required to maintain 100% of their depositors' money in reserve.  They could earn a  profit by charging storage fees,  exactly as the warehouseman does and by selling other products such as checks. Bank runs would then be unnecessary, since people would be certain that their money could be requested on demand,  bank failures would cease, the money supply would not be increased through the practice of loaning up, and the resulting inflation that it causes would cease.

While fractional banking is morally equivelant to counterfeiting, ordinary banks do not literally print dollar bills.  For that you need the biggest of all banks, the Federal Reserve.  That will be the topic of a future article.

Senate Tricks Make it Hard to Find the Senate Health Care Bill

The Constitution requires that all revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives. This would make Harry Reid's health care bill unconstitutional from the very start, but as you may have already guessed, the Constitution is nothing more than an annoyance to Democrats. That's why they have to use trickery to get around it. How does it work?

In order to create revenue or appropriations bills in the Senate, they simply take some piece of legislation previously sent over by the House and completely gut it, inserting whatever language they want as an amendment. In the case of Harry Reid's government health care takeover bill, the bill started its life as H. R. 3590 Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. The bill is now titled H. R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Amendment in Senate). That's how easy it is to ignore the Constitution, and it gets easier with the practice that they get every single day. It truly makes the Oath of Office a very bad joke.

If you've been looking for this horrendous piece of legislation, the best place to read it is here: H. R. 3590

Some hoaxes are innocent pranks played on the gullable just for the humor of it. For example, the 1957 BBC pseudo-documentary showing a Swiss family harvesting spaghetti from their spaghetti trees was done for the humor of it. Afterward, hundreds of spaghetti-loving dimwits phoned in to find out how they could get a spaghetti tree of their own. While they were probably disappointed to find out that spaghetti, like money, does not grow on trees and even a bit miffed at having proven just how empty-headed they were, no real harm was done. Other hoaxes, however, are much more nefarious. Usually these hoaxes are designed to defraud the public of their money or to make the perpetrator famous based on undetected deceit. The man-made climate change fraud tries to accomplish both — on an unbelievable scale.

Thanks to an unnamed Russian computer hacker that pilfered 60 megabytes of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University East Anglia in Great Britain, that fraud has been revealed. If the story "gets legs" as they say in the reporting business, this fraud will make the exposure of the Piltdown Man hoax of 1912 seem trivial. It seems that the climate-change "scientists", if one can call these people that with a straight face, have known like anyone else who has been paying attention, that the earth's rising temperatures leveled off a decade ago and has, in fact, been cooling — rather rapidly. The bad news for them was that not only would they lose face if the real data was used, not only would their computer models be shown to be completely wrong, not only would they be revealed for the con-men that they are, but — god forbid — the research money and the notoriety of being an IPCC big shot would come to an end. Well come to an end it has, and there can be little doubt that today, the Forrest Gump of the scientific world, Al Gore, is having a hissy fit. 

We do not know if the the emails are real, but it has been reported that Dr. Phil Jones of the CRU, from which the emails where stolen says the "emails appear to be genuine."   If that is the case,  then they are clearly damning evidence of a multi-trillion dollar hoax perpetrated on a global scale. Here are a few samples from the emails.

According to one email, Dr. Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit says, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps for each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Who is this Mike that he's talking about?  He's Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University, the guy who came up with the ridiculous hockey stick graph so proudly bandied about by the climate crowd as proof positive of global warming.  Of course, people knew that the data being used by these hucksters was fraudulent, and they began to call them out on it.  Apparently becoming worried, Dr. Jones said in one email to Dr. Mann and Dr. Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts and Malcom Hughes of the University of Arizona: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!" 

Again,  according to an email,  Dr. Mann says, "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" [...] "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."  He went on to say in another, ""I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails."

Clearly he didn't delete enough of them.

In a later email, he tells us what was behind the falsification of data. The email says  that the data would support the argument of the climate-change skeptics.  It appears to have been very important to keep the work of the climate-change skeptics out of the peer reviewed journals, so as to maintain the appearance of "settled science", as Al Gore says.  According to one email Dr. Jones says,  "We will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Even as this is being written, Barrack Obama, is preparing to meet in Copenhagen to sell American down the river under the guise of climate change, and the American taxpayers wait to be soaked yet again by the massive Cap and Tax bill now in the Senate — all based on a hoax.

It may not be time kiss grandma and grandpa goodbye just yet, but it's getting closer. In a strictly party-line vote all Democrats and both Independents voted for cloture on the Obamacare bill. All Republicans voted no, except for George Voinovich (R-OH) who is either too cowardly or simply did not care enough about the subject to vote.

The Senate Bill which aims to nationalize health care in the U. S. by emulating the failed systems of Massachusetts, Canada, most of Western Europe and Cuba should never have even come up for debate. The question is actually: Do you want a health care system like the one in Cuba? The answer is No! That should have been the extent of the debate. Instead, we can look forward to Senators whose blind lust for power at any cost will destroy the American health care system and America along with it.

Make no mistake about it, these people will pass this legislation no matter what the American people have to say on the matter, because they represent only themselves and their desire to control others. They long ago ceased being representatives of the people and believe they have now become our masters. Continuously, they either willfully ignore, or show utter contempt for their constituents.

Those who care about America still have a powerful weapon at their disposal — the power of the vote. Anyone who voted for this bill needs to pay the price for it at the polls. Don't forget this day whether it is next November or in 2012. Beyond that, we need a new form of leadership in this country, representatives that are of the people, not elitist professional politicians who have never worked an honest day in their lives. Surely, there are millions of people working all across America, people of principle, people of character, people of integrity, who must now consider stepping forward and running for office to retake control from the rabble that has overrun our government. The time has come. Stand up! Be heard! Here's how they voted:

Following the failed amendment vote, Sen. Inhofe commented, "Despite the fact that similar legislation had overwhelmingly passed the Senate three times in the past, 47 Democrat Senators changed their position on this issue, bending to pressure from the Obama Administration, setting the stage for military facilities around the United States to temporarily or permanently hold Gitmo detainees. Given the Defense Department’s urgent need for military construction funds, I see no reason to expend these limited funds to construct one or more 'Gitmo Norths'. I am very disheartened and believe this is a cost the American people should not have to bear and a risk this nation cannot accept."

The vote to table Sen. Inhofe's amendment was a partisan vote. Only two Democratic Senators and one Independent voted with Republicans against tabling S. Amdt. 2774. In the future, should any of the funds allocated in H.R. 3082 ever be used to build or modify a facility within the U.S. or its territories for the temporarily or permanently holding of Guantanamo detainees, remember:

Who Voted How on S. Amdt. 2774 -

Before posting the results for the Hamilton confirmation, let's attempt to understand how this judge was confirmed by the senate with only a simple majority. Only yesterday we discovered that once the cloture motion successfully passed with full majority support, only a simple majority was then needed for confirmation. Slick, huh? See, a handful of senators were able to vote for cloture, under the guise that it would be a principled vote to end debate, and then change their vote on confirmation. These turncoats come out smelling like a rose, since the only vote most people will pay attention to over time is the actual confirmation vote. Sort of like vote laundering. You know, "voted for it before I voted against it."

While not many people understand all of the complexites involved in the legislative process, our representatives know exactly what they are doing – or at least they should. Without these 10 Republican senators voting for the cloture motion, David Hamilton would never have been confirmed. Consider that when viewing the final Hamilton confirmation vote. 

Final Confirmation Vote Results: 59-39 (56 Democrats, 1 Republican, 2 Independants)

Confirmation vote results are the same as the cloture motion vote with the following changes:

10 Republican senators that voted against their party in favor of cloture, but later voted in vain against confirmation: Susan Collins, Saxby Chambliss, John Cornyn, Judd Gregg, Orrin Hatch, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe, John Thune. Kay Hutchison was absent on cloture vote, but voted against confirmation.

2 Democrats voted in favor of cloture then absent on confirmation vote: Max Baucus, Robert Byrd.

Note: Richard Lugar (R-IN) was the sole Republican voting for the confirmation of Judge David H. Hamilton.

10 Republican Senators Vote To Advance David Hamilton Nomination 

It looks like the filibuster hold that has successfully delayed a confirmation vote for the anti-Jesus, pro-abortion judicial appointment of David H. Hamilton of Indiana will now come to an end, and a confirmation vote will soon follow. As covered in our previous article, Judge David Hamilton would carry controversial baggage with him to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals should his confirmation vote pass. What is highly disconcerting about this vote that occurred today is that the extremist ideologies Hamilton has expressed from the bench in the past, as well as prior associations, would not bode well with the majority of American people and certainly not with conservative Republicans. It is important that Americans understand the seriousness of each judicial appointment and hold their representatives accountable for the vetting and ultimately the confirmation of those worthy and unworthy to a lifetime bench appointment.

With Cap and Trade, Healthcare, Afghanistan, Gitmo, Japanese bowing etiquette, and so many other important issues overwhelming the media, it is no wonder little time has been devoted to Judge Hamilton's confirmation. Perhaps these senators don't think the American people will even notice that on this day 70 Senators chose to advance the nomination of a judge who once used his judicial powers to rule that it was not okay to mention Jesus Christ in prayer in the Indiana House of Representatives but was okay to use the name of Allah. While that decision was overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, ironically, that is the very court for which Hamilton could now sit.

If the American majority were informed of all of the controversy surrounding this judge, it is unlikely they would have voted today for a motion to invoke cloture much less for confirmation. So why did their representatives? Seven of the ten Republicans voting in favor of this motion will not face reelection until 2012. Gregg, Murkowski, and Thune are the only three who will face reelection in 2010. Chambliss's office has assured us that while he voted for the cloture motion, he would not vote for confirmation. Are other senators thinking along the same lines, intending to vote against confirmation, or could it be they assume their constituents will not remember? Perhaps that is how it has been in the past, but isn't it high time we prove them wrong?

Who Voted How on Motion to Invoke Cloture on David Hamilton Nomination

(A Nay Vote by Republicans Would Have Continued to Delay Hamilton's Confirmation.)

Nay WY Barrasso, John [R]

Nay UT Bennett, Robert [R]

Nay MO Bond, Christopher [R]

Nay KS Brownback, Samuel [R]

Nay KY Bunning, Jim [R]

Nay NC Burr, Richard [R]

Nay OK Coburn, Thomas [R]

Nay MS Cochran, Thad [R]

Nay TN Corker, Bob [R]

Nay ID Crapo, Michael [R]

Nay SC DeMint, Jim [R]

Nay NV Ensign, John [R]

Nay WY Enzi, Michael [R]

Nay SC Graham, Lindsey [R]

Nay IA Grassley, Charles [R]

Nay OK Inhofe, James [R]

Nay GA Isakson, John [R]

Nay NE Johanns, Mike [R]

Nay AZ Kyl, Jon [R]

Nay FL LeMieux, George [R]

Nay AZ McCain, John [R]

Nay KY McConnell, Mitch [R]

Nay ID Risch, James [R]

Nay KS Roberts, Pat [R]

Nay AL Sessions, Jefferson [R]

Nay AL Shelby, Richard [R]

Nay LA Vitter, David [R]

Nay OH Voinovich, George [R]

Nay MS Wicker, Roger [R]

(A Yea Vote by Democrats, Independents, and 10 Republicans Ended the Filibuster Hold and Will Allow a Full Vote.)

(10 Republicans Who Voted Against Their Party:  Lamar Alexander (TN), Saxby Chambliss – 2012 (R), Susan Collins – 2012 (R), John Cornyn – 2012 (TX), Judd Gregg – 2010 (NH), Orrin Hatch – 2012 (UT), Richard Lugar – 2012 (IN), Lisa Murkowski – 2010 (AK), Olympia Snowe – 2012 (ME), John Thune – 2010 (SD))

Yea HI Akaka, Daniel [D]

Yea TN Alexander, Lamar [R]

Yea MT Baucus, Max [D]

Yea IN Bayh, Evan [D]

Yea AK Begich, Mark [D]

Yea CO Bennet, Michael [D]

Yea NM Bingaman, Jeff [D]

Yea CA Boxer, Barbara [D]

Yea OH Brown, Sherrod [D]

Yea IL Burris, Roland [D]

Yea WV Byrd, Robert [D]

Yea WA Cantwell, Maria [D]

Yea MD Cardin, Benjamin [D]

Yea DE Carper, Thomas [D]

Yea PA Casey, Robert [D]

Yea GA Chambliss, Saxby [R]

Yea ME Collins, Susan [R]

Yea ND Conrad, Kent [D]

Yea TX Cornyn, John [R]

Yea CT Dodd, Christopher [D]

Yea ND Dorgan, Byron [D]

Yea IL Durbin, Richard [D]

Yea WI Feingold, Russell [D]

Yea CA Feinstein, Dianne [D]

Yea MN Franken, Al [D]

Yea NY Gillibrand, Kirsten [D]

Yea NH Gregg, Judd [R]

Yea NC Hagan, Kay [D]

Yea IA Harkin, Thomas [D]

Yea UT Hatch, Orrin [R]

Yea HI Inouye, Daniel [D]

Yea SD Johnson, Tim [D]

Yea DE Kaufman, Edward [D]

Yea MA Kerry, John [D]

Yea MA Kirk, Paul [D]

Yea MN Klobuchar, Amy [D]

Yea WI Kohl, Herbert [D]

Yea LA Landrieu, Mary [D]

Yea NJ Lautenberg, Frank [D]

Yea VT Leahy, Patrick [D]

Yea MI Levin, Carl [D]

Yea CT Lieberman, Joseph [I]

Yea AR Lincoln, Blanche [D]

Yea IN Lugar, Richard [R]

Yea MO McCaskill, Claire [D]

Yea NJ Menendez, Robert [D]

Yea OR Merkley, Jeff [D]

Yea MD Mikulski, Barbara [D]

Yea AK Murkowski, Lisa [R]

Yea WA Murray, Patty [D]

Yea NE Nelson, Ben [D]

Yea FL Nelson, Bill [D]

Yea AR Pryor, Mark [D]

Yea RI Reed, John [D]

Yea NV Reid, Harry [D]

Yea WV Rockefeller, John [D]

Yea VT Sanders, Bernard [I]

Yea NY Schumer, Charles [D]

Yea NH Shaheen, Jeanne [D]

Yea ME Snowe, Olympia [R]

Yea PA Specter, Arlen [D]

Yea MI Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]

Yea MT Tester, Jon [D]

Yea SD Thune, John [R]

Yea CO Udall, Mark [D]

Yea NM Udall, Tom [D]

Yea VA Warner, Mark [D]

Yea VA Webb, Jim [D]

Yea RI Whitehouse, Sheldon [D]

Yea OR Wyden, Ron [D]

Not Voting TX Hutchison, Kay [R]

We've already witnessed a number of controversial Czar appointments, and it appears the president is attempting to infiltrate our courts with far-left liberal activist judges as well. Keep in mind that since some judicial appointments are for life, an extensive vetting process for all nominees should be compulsory. You'd think prior rulings, publications, speeches, and all other pertinent background should be thoroughly examined for any nominee before coming to a Senate confirmation vote. Inadequate vetting as happened with former Green Czar Van Jones is inexcusable at the executive level and should not be repeated, especially for a lifelong court appointment. True, some nominees will skate through the confirmation process despite controversy, as happened with Cass Sunstein, but at least there's a good chance he will go away after 2012. Not so if Hamilton is confirmed.

Back in March, Obama's very first judicial nominee was to appoint anti-Jesus, pro-abortion Judge David Hamilton of Indiana to the United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Indiana Senators Luger (R-IN) and Bayh (D-IN) did recommend the judge, for what may be obvious reasons, but conservative groups immediately took exception to Judge Hamilton as clearly being a far-left extremist, unworthy of a lifetime bench appointment.

There has been no vote by the Senate so far for Hamilton, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) intends to change that and has announced plans to call for a cloture vote to cut off further debate putting an end to a filibuster-hold. "We're going to do Judge David Hamilton, 7th Circuit. He's been waiting since April," commented the senator. According to Executive Calendar No. 184 on the lis.gov website, the mandatory quorum required under Rule XXII is ordered to be waived relative to the cloture motion, and the vote will take place sometime on Tuesday, November 17, 2009.

Senator Sessions: Urges No Vote for Judge David Hamilton

While the White House calls Hamilton a moderate judge, Conservatives call him a liberal activist bench legislator. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) wrote a letter on Oct. 30th voicing concerns about the Hamilton nomination. The Sessions' letter covers some concerns over Hamilton's past statements and decisions, including:

• Judge Hamilton stated in a 2003 speech that the role of a judge includes writing footnotes to the Constitution. In explaining this statement to Senator Hatch, Judge Hamilton wrote that he believes the Framers intended judges to amend the Constitution through evolving case law.
  
• Judge Hamilton has also written that empathy should factor into the judicial decision making process.
  
• Judge Hamilton prohibited prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives that expressly mentioned Jesus Christ as violative of the Establishment Clause, yet he allowed prayers which mentioned Allah. The Seventh Circuit reversed his ruling.
  
• Judge Hamilton denied a Rabbi's plea to allow a Menorah to be part of the Indianapolis Municipal Building's holiday display. The Seventh Circuit unanimously reversed.
  
• Lawyers in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary describe Judge Hamilton as one of the most lenient judges in his district in criminal matters.
  
• In United States v. Rinehart, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19498 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2007), Judge Hamilton used his opinion to request clement for a police officer who pled guilty to two counts of producing child pornography.
  
• In United States v. Woolsey, 535 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2008), the Seventh Circuit faulted Judge Hamilton for disregarding an earlier conviction in order to avoid imposing a life sentence on a repeat offender.
  
• … A Woman's Choice v. Newman, 904 F. Supp. 1434 (S.D. Ind. 1995). Through his rulings in this case, Judge Hamilton succeeded in blocking the enforcement of an Indiana informed consent law for 7 years. In reversing, the Seventh Circuit noted that Judge Hamilton had abused his judicial discretion…
  

Judge Hamilton has also served as board member of the Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and as a fundraiser for ACORN. Also, notice in the above-referenced rulings that on several occasions Hamilton had his hand slapped by the same judicial body for which President Obama intends that he would serve: the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Just who will slap his hands now if he gets confirmed to sit on that very bench?

The Center for Immigration Studies predicts a grim future for unemployed Americans. In an article titled Worse Than It Seems, the CIS reports overall unemployment for native-born Americans at 9.7 percent as of June 2009, which is 12.7 million unemployed native-born Americans. That number continues to rise as the most recent jobless rate has now climbed to 10.2 percent, the highest unemployment level since 1983.

There is another part of this equation, now referred to as U-6 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that needs to be considered and includes those unemployed people that want to work but have either given up looking for a job or have decided to take a temporary job. Using information from the June 2009 article, if U-6 individuals are included in the unemployment rate, that number then climbs as high as 16.3 percent, or 21.7 million native-born Americans. For certain segments of the population, including minorities with less than a high school education, their U-6 number climbs as high as 42 percent. 

Those millions of unemployed Americans understand that these statistics represent more than numbers, they represent individuals and families struggling to make scheduled mortgage and loan payments and the ability to buy food, medicine, and other necessities. Add to that the constant worry of not knowing when things will get better. Promises made by politicians about new job creation and an imminent economic turnaround just are not believable anymore, particularly for those who have been out of work for months fearing no light at the end of the tunnel.

Foreign Workers Competing for American Jobs

What isn't being talked about on the news or by politicians is that while millions of native-born American workers are struggling to find employment, there are some 125,000 foreign workers being legally welcomed each and every month into the United States to fill jobs Americans supposedly are unable or unwilling to fill. Many organizations are actually requesting more. Roy Beck, founder of NumbersUSA.com, explains in the video below that over the last 12-month period there were 951,247 green cards issued. Green cards give immigrants work permits that remain good throughout their lifetime. These green card holders can stay in the United States and work throughout their entire life if they choose. In addition to the green cards issued during that same time period, another 947,340 foreign workers were granted temporary work permits. These temporary permits do expire, but the holders of those permits can later apply for a permanent green card.

Combining these two numbers tells us that 1.9 million work permits were granted to immigrants during the past year.  Broken down, that equals 160,000 work permits issued per month. To appease immigrant activists who object that the 1.9 million number may include some immigrants that may already have been in the U.S. with temporary permits, let's go ahead and remove those workers from that number. That still leaves some 125,000 work permits being issued each and every month. 

Let's look at what's going on at one more angle:  According to NumbersUSA.com, 7.3 million jobs were eliminated from the American payroll since the start of 2008, while 2.7 million new foreign workers were granted permanent work permits and temporary work visas by the federal government during that same period. These foreign workers supposedly are needed to perform jobs that Americans cannot or will not do, though it's uncertain who determines what those jobs are. Ask any unemployed American worker at random that question, and you'll likely get a much different answer. Wouldn't it then be fair to say that representing that assumption on their behalf might then be considered an affront to either their work ethic or the intelligence of unemployed American workers — or both?

Immigration Reform Legislation Needed 

Whether affected directly by job loss or just empathetic to fellow tax-paying Americans, we should expect our leaders to commit to returning Americans to work before inviting additional immigrants to compete for limited available jobs. Shouldn't we ask politicians to prioritize their legislative efforts and immediately halt the issuing of visas of any kind until Americans are returned to work?

The SAFE Act Could Protect American Jobs

One thing that can be done immediately is ask that your representatives support the SAFE Act. The SAFE Act (H.R. 2305) was introduced by Rep Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and has 45 cosponsors. This bill, as we understand it, would shut down the Visa lottery which is managed by the Department of State and currently grants up to 55,000 permanent resident visas annually based solely on random drawing and without regard to humanitarian needs, family ties, or what skills they might contribute to this country.  Introduced on 5/7/2009, H.R. 2305 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and then referred on June 12th to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, chaired by Rep Zoe Lofgren. (Zoe Lofgren, represents the heavily Democratic16th District of California based in San Jose, CA. Lofgren taught immigration law at Santa Clara University and worked in the office of her predecessor Don Edwards on the Richard Nixon impeachment. After winning the election in to the House in 1994, she has held her seat without substantive opposition. According to OnTheIssues.org, Lofgren scores a 0% on immigration issues by FAIR.)

Does it make sense that our government continues to invite foreign workers into the United States while making excuses for the lack of opportunity to its own people? 

Stop Importing Foreign Workers Until Americans Are Employed – PLEASE!

There is no longer a need for Americans to fear creeping socialism in America. The days of creeping are over. It has now grabbed America by the throat and is gnawing at its jugular vein. Last night the Democrats in the House of Representatives voted 220 to 215 to socialize American medicine. Of course, they will characterize it differently.

Make no mistake. This bill, H.R. 3962, supported by the economically illiterate, will destroy the health care system in America in order to bring about the real goal of this legislation: to bring America into the fold of European-style socialist nations. Under this bill, the youth of America, brimming with false feelings of altruism, could now be forced to buy insurance or pay a fine of up to $250,000 and serve a jail term of up to five years for failing to buy insurance for themselves. The senior citizens who support this bill because of their love of the bankrupt medicare system could also have their prescription drug coverage cut along with other steep cuts in medicare payments. Congress? Oh, they'll be just fine.  Don't worry about them, they don't have to participate in the system they've created for the rest of us.

The anti-abortion Democrats added an amendment to the Saturday evening voting agenda that will not allow federal funds to be spent on abortions except under special circumstances. There is concern that once the House bill is merged with the Senate bill, the anti-abortion provision could be eliminated or perhaps modified to cover abortions with an additional insurance rider. Regarding the amendment vote, House Republican Leader John Boehner commented, "Just because we pass an amendment to help facilitate the passage of what I think is a bad bill, does not mean that the language that this House votes on is committed to by the Democrat leader in this House." This concession to pro-life Democrats was required in order to get the votes Nancy Pelosi needed for passage. The anti-abortion amendment passed easily on a vote of 240-194. Had the Republicans really wanted to defeat the health care bill, they could have voted en masse against the amendment. That would have caused the defeat of the bill, since the pro-life Democrats would then most likely have voted against the entire bill. But then that would have been playing political games; right?

Because one lone Republican, Joseph Cao of Louisiana, voted in favor of this horrendous bill, will the Democrats and liberal news media now claim that H.R. 3962 was passed with bipartisan support? The gullible Rep. Cao said last night, "Tonight, I voted to keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortion and to deliver access to affordable health care to the people of Louisiana."

What was Cao promised by the Obama administration for his vote? He tells us, "Today, I obtained a commitment from President Obama that he and I will work together to address the critical health care issues of Louisiana including the FMAP crisis and community disaster loan forgiveness, as well as issues related to Charity and Methodist Hospitals. And, I call on my constituents to support me as I work with him on these issues."  Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao was elected in December 2008 to represent a heavily Democratic section of New Orleans replacing Democratic Rep. William Jefferson who had served that area for nine terms. At the time of the '08 election, Jefferson was under indictment on 16 corruption charges and has since been convicted on multiple felony charges. Please remember Representative Cao on election day next November and help put an end to his brief term in office.

Watching the vote live on Saturday night, it was interesting to note that several Democrats waited until after the bill had passed to cast last-minute votes against H.R. 3962, apparently, in an effort to save their seats. Cao's vote in favor of the bill was also a last-minute vote. Being the lone Republican supporting the bill, his vote was easy to identify. The names of those last-minute Democratic votes were not easily identifiable, so it will be interesting to find out who they are. When we find out, we'll be sure to publish their names.

Who Voted How on H.R. 3962

Here's how they voted: