Sgt. Tahmooressi – USA Gov Policy

The House of Representatives has expressed outrage concerning the overwhelming influx of unaccompanied minors, some potentially tied to violent gangs, that have flooded across the southern border. Rep. J. Randy Forbes (VA-R) wrote to the President on June 16 stating:

“I join with a vast number of Americans in expressing outrage at your Administration’s inability and apparent lack of will to enforce he integrity of our borders. In recent days, your Administration stated that at least 60,000 illegal immigrant youth, unaccompanied by their parents, will arrive…in addition to the over 400,000 total individuals that arrived at the border last year.”

Forbes has demanded that Mr. Obama release intelligence reports from the Department of Homeland Security on the issue.

Observers have tied the start of the event to recent White House policies, especially the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

According to DHS:

Many patients are feeling better by visit number five buying cheap cialis https://pdxcommercial.com/willamette-fall-riverwalk/wflpfinal-concept-designmill-h-overlook-view-900/ or six. As a result of the advancements in technology, the viagra from uk find out description results of many of the diagnostic tests can be availed the same day. The person pdxcommercial.com generic cialis needs to contact a healthcare professional who will be able to select the right treatment plan and adjust it to your specific situation. These antioxidants play a vital cialis online from canada role in purifying blood. “DHS will exercise prosecutorial discretion as appropriate to ensure that enforcement resources are not expended on low priority cases, such as individuals who came to the United States as children and meet other key guidelines. Individuals who demonstrate that they meet the guidelines … may request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals for a period of two years, subject to renewal, and may be eligible for employment authorization.”

The program, enacted without the required Congressional approval, was seen by many as an “invitation” to alien youth to come to the U.S., with the encouragement of parents who could use the youngsters’ presence as an “anchor” to eventually gain access to residency. Although the program’s guidelines aren’t applicable to the current influx, the President’s tone, and the refusal by the Administration to provide adequate border security, provides a different impression.

Questions have also been raised about how many of the illegals managed to first cross into Mexico from more southern nations, travel the length of that nation, and wind up in the U.S. Mexico is noted for its strict policy against unlawful entrance into its own territory. The unfortunate story of Sgt. Tahmooressi, the decorated U.S. Marine who mistakenly crossed into Mexico and has been imprisoned for the last 90 months is indicative of this.

Many Republicans have been reluctant to vigorously oppose the President’s unlawful policy for fear of alienating Latino voters. Some political analysts, however, say the GOP has ample reason to be concerned about allowing the surge to go forward. Unopposed by the hyper-partisan Justice Department of Eric Holder, illegal aliens could be encouraged to unlawfully cast votes. New residents from outside the U.S. vote for Democrat candidates in vastly greater numbers than they do for Republicans.

New York City is reviewing legislation that would allow illegals to vote after three years of paying taxes.

The return of any American, particularly a member of the armed forces, from enemy captivity is always a cause of great joy. The U.S. government owes a profound obligation to its citizens to seek their recovery.

But there are substantial questions concerning the matter of Sgt. Bowe Berghdahl. The fact that the five terrorists traded for him included the Taliban army chief of staff, the senior military commander, the deputy intelligence chief, the Herat province governor, and a senior security official means that the forces of the vicious terrorist organization that brought down the World Trade Center have been immeasurably strengthened. More Americans will die on the battlefield and conceivably around the world as well as a result.

The matter has been further muddied by odd Administration statements concerning Sgt. Berghdahl, who apparently was AWOL at the time of his capture. Their comments that he “served his country with distinction” appear to be incorrect, as was a statement calling him a U.S. Marine instead of a soldier.

And then there is the matter of federal law. The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) notes that Section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act requires both an assessment of the danger posed by released terrorists, and a 30-day advanced notification to specified Congressional committees. HASC also stressed that Section 8111 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act also prohibits funds to be used for the release of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay.
However, it may take long time to buy tadalafil from india normalize things in sexual life. If you are at present being getting treatment for erectile dysfunction in India. levitra online Many of the counterfeit websites supply duplicates or forged products that may prove a health hazard for the patients. buy cheap cialis Click Here Surprisingly the tests have been concentrated on the use of cialis prices in australia .
Casting a pall over the entire incident is the unexplained reluctance of the White House to pursue the release of another American service member held captive, in Mexico. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi accidentally crossed into Mexico after being unable to make a U-turn. In his truck were with legal, licensed firearms. Common sense dictated that he be allowed to get back on the correct highway, but for reasons not adequately explained Mexican authorities continue to incarcerate him.

Concerned Americans posted a petition on the White House web site. But this matter, which could be readily remedied by normal diplomatic contacts, remains unresolved and unaddressed by a presidential administration oddly aloof from the issue.

Both the Berghdahl and Tahmooressi matters require a prompt and thorough explanation from Mr. Obama.

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/