Censorship Under The Guise Of Fairness

I addressed the so called “Fairness Doctrine” about a year ago.  Recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi voiced support for the Fairness Doctrine.

For those unfamiliar with the subject, the Fairness Doctrine would force private radio stations to provide equal time to opposing points of view when dealing with political programming.  The marketplace (you) would not be permitted to decide which programs should be on the radio, rather, a federal bureaucracy would make the decision for you (and the radio stations).  More background can be found on the Wikipedia page.

It is, generally, agreed that the result will be a significant cutback in talk radio programming as stations will be, understandably, unwilling to fund poor programing consumers dislike opposite of what they consider a quality, revenue-generating program.  Rather than lose three hours of revenue, the station (or parent company) is more likely to cancel the programs and switch formats (or entirely terminate the station).  Clearly, the Fairness Doctrine is largely designed to shut down conservative talk radio, but will also affect liberal talk stations in their markets.  The doctrine also has the potential to be expanded to political internet sites.

Unsurprisingly, Speaker Pelosi along with some other Democrats are the biggest proponents of government making the decision on what political speech a station can carry and how much it can carry.  In the meantime, Representative Mike Pence has introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR 2905) which will block the imposition of the Fairness Doctrine (and government meddling with what you wish to listen to).  Speaker Pelosi has promptly blocked the bill from coming to the House floor for a vote.

As a result, a discharge petition was filed to force the legislation to the House floor for an up or down vote.

For Utahns: Representatives Bishop and Cannon have signed the petition while Representative Matheson (scroll down for his phone numbers) has not.

For everyone else: Check the discharge petiton (above).  If your Representative has not signed it, contact them and politely ask them to sign it and oppose the imposition of bureaucratic desicions on what political speech you can listen to.  You can find you Representatives by State or by going to the House “Write Your Representative” page and entering your zip code.

ID Verification for Federal Contractors

President Bush has moved the federal government a step a head of Utah and a step in the right direction:

Firms ordered to verify workers

The President signed an executive order requiring firms that contract with the federal government to use the E-Verify system to verify they are hiring legal workers.

Most articles on the subject reference it as a measure to prevent illegal immigration. While it does help, the media (and the administration) miss the fact that E-Verify goes much further than checking immigration status. The program also serves to prevent identity theft.

While the majority of identity theft for employment is illegal immigrant driven, fugitives and deadbeat moms and dads are also notorious identity thieves for employment purposes. Fugitives don’t want to use their personal Social Security Number (obviously, they want to evade identification and capture) and deadbeats don’t want their wages garnished to pay for their child/spousal support. Illegal immigrants use stolen social security numbers to be eligible for work as well (click here for a description note: an illegal immigrant example is used but it applies to all classes of identity theft for employment). I’m sure other classes of identity thieves also use stolen identities for employment for other miscellaneous reasons.

E-Verify will prevent the above from obtaining a job from a legitimate employer receiving taxpayer funds.

Utah will also require State contractors use E-Verify beginning in 2009 (thanks to SB 81) and that is dependent upon the State legislature not messing with the legislation in the 2009 session (a non-election year). Hence, the federal government being a step ahead of Utah. At least the State is using the system for its new hires.

Finally, a large gap continues to exist as identity thieves of all stripes can continue to easily gain employment at the majority of companies (who don’t have government contracts). Some states (Colorado, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Arizona) have already taken measures to address the problem in full, requiring all companies to verify identity and employment eligibility while others(Idaho and Missouri) have already implemented to requirement for State contractors.

Farm Bill (HR 2419) Fiasco - Take Action Now

Rarely do you get much of a second chance when Congress has already passed a bipartisan pork-laden bill. Thanks to the Democrats screwing up (see the link) we have a second chance. The Farm Bill is going to have to be voted on again. In the last round, Republicans rejected conservative values and voted for the bill. Now would be a good time to remind them of the principles they, supposedly, believe in. HotAir has good background (use the links) on this one (A second chance for Republicans to act rather than talk):

…The GOP wants to carry the mantle of clean government and small government, but majorities of Republicans in both chambers voted for a farm bill laden with pork projects, corporate welfare, and farm subsidies that make no sense in a market where food prices have risen significantly.

Memo to the GOP: we don’t believe your rhetoric any longer. Oh, conservatives still want an end to corruption, a reduction in the size and scope of the federal government, and spending discipline to go with lower taxes. We just don’t believe that many elected Republicans want those goals, nor do we think that current Republican leadership has any real commitment to them, either.

Want to dazzle us? Want to start rebuilding your credibility? Then stop talking and start taking action…

For the record, Utah Representatives Cannon (R) and Matheson (D) opposed the bill and upheld the veto. Call both, thank them and encourage them to continue to oppose the bill, in the current form.

Surprisingly, Representative Bishop (R) voted for the bill and did not vote when the veto override vote came up. Bishop has, typically, been a good conservative and I’m not sure what his thinking was on this. The non-vote on the veto may mean he’s changing his mind. Politely contact his office and ask that he oppose the bill.

For those outside of Utah, here are the voting records on the bill: Initial passage vote and veto override vote.

General contact list or, if you are unsure who your Representative is, use the form at the top left of the House site.

Utah Representatives
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT 1st)
Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT 2nd) - phone contact information is at the bottom of the page.
Rep. Chris Cannon (R- UT 3rd)

Stealth Amnesty Provision in War Funding Bill (Action Alert)(Sen. Bennett Upate)

Senators Diane Feinsteing (D-CA) and Larry “Wide Stance” Craig (R-ID) have shoved in an amendment to the Iraq War Supplemental Funding Bill while it was going through the Senate Appropriations Committee (and largely out of public view).

The amendment is set go provide amnesty to illegal immigrant farm workers. Here are some of the detailes provided by John Wallace (emphasis added):

Knowing that the war funding bill is desperately needed to support our troops in battle overseas, the outrageous amnesty plan was covertly attached by Senator Feinstein hoping that no one would notice. If it passes the full Senate next week, this would open the door for even larger waves of illegal immigration in the future! Here’s what the rider calls for:

1. Granting a 3-year work visa to illegal aliens followed by a permanent green card for those who have been working as shepherds, goat and dairy herders.
2. Grant a 5-year work visa to the estimated 1.3 million illegal aliens working in other agricultural jobs – plus all of their family members [this would add up to millions more]. The legislation doesn’t state what happens after 5 years.
3. Grant a tripling of the maximum number of H-2B Visas for lower skilled, non-agricultural seasonal workers.
4. Grant industries an extra 218,000 additional green cards for skilled foreign workers.

As you can tell, the provisions are directly related to war funding…or not. This is yet another example of the amnesty politicians trying to get it slid passed while no one is watching. Additionally, I understand that all you need to qualify is to work only 22 weeks (5 months) out of four years! This will also grant them amnesty from any identity theft they have engaged in.

While Mr. Wallace missed Craig’s involvement it came out later that he was the amendment’s co-sponsor. Michelle Malkin also picked up on the amnesty sneak and her latest post (with background links) on the issue can be found here: Amnesty alert:Tracking the Feinstein/Craig illegal alien farmworker amendment.

ACTION Alert

Call your Senators now! Click here for a contact list (Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121). For those of us in Utah here are our Senators:

Senator Bennett (202-224-5444 or Utah Offices )

Senator Hatch (202-224-5251 or Utah offices)

Politely, but firmly, ask them to OPPOSE any back door amnesty in the war funding bill AND any other amendments unrelated to the bill.

You may also wish to ask their staffer if the Senator has taken a position on the amendment.

UPDATE: Senator Bennett needs lots of calls. He sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee and voted FOR the amendment in committee. Flood him with calls (polite but firm) to drop the amendment. Don’t forget, Bennett also effectively voted for last year’s amnesty debacle.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that Hatch (he hasn’t taken a position on the amendment, yet) has only taken a tougher stand on these issues because of the election year (he’s been weak on this in the past).

Criminal Illegal Immigrant Education (Update)

Apparently, we are helping to pay for criminal illegal alien education programs. The Davis County Clipper had an article on April 10, 2008, entitled “Jail inmates offered education programs” (not available on the web). The article notes three programs in place for the inmates: GED certificate (General Education Development, ie ‘High School diploma’), ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages), and ABE (Adult Basic Education - literacy education).

The programs are administered by the Utah State Office of Education. I found the programs are under the Adult Education department (more information is available at the link).

There are no disqualifications (involving legal residency) for participation in the programs. I understand that the ESOL program is volunteer driven and that no residency criteria is required for the use of Federal (tax) funds. However, all programs are open to those who are here illegally and have engaged in criminal activity.

We have the pleasure of paying for these programs via our tax dollars. At least, only those legally here should have access, but that is not the case.

Further, I would hope that obtaining the GED will not, then, entitle a criminal illegal immigrant who has resided in the state for three years to qualify for our in-state tuition. If so, what a deal: enter illegally (butting in front of those in legal immigration lines), commit a crime, get a taxpayer funded education and then be rewarded with discounted tuition at one of our universities (while legal immigrants and US citizens without criminal records pay the nonresident rate). Good grief.

Your tax dollars at work.

UPDATE:  While I’m still looking for the written administrative rule addressing in-state tuition HS attendance documentation, I am told that High School transcripts are required.  That only partially solves the problem, however (criminals illegal aliens still get tax-funded education and certain criminals will still qualify for the tuition benefit).  See comment 6 for details (and the rest of the comments for background).

Hatch, Bennett, and Earmarks

I called both Hatch’s and Bennett’s offices to ask how they voted on Senator DeMint’s moratorium on earmarks (pork). Both opposed the moratorium. That wasn’t surprising given that both are proud pork-barrel proponents.

What was surprising, was how Hatch’s staffer reacted at my question and subsequent statement that I was disappointed in his vote. Evidently, the issue touched a nerve, as the staffer went into a very defensive and argumentative mode stating that earmarks are great for bringing money into the State for necessary programs and earmarks are not pork. I, politely, noted that if the programs were so expedient, certainly they could be brought up on their own merits rather than being stuck into essential spending bills which are totally unrelated to the program (especially when it benefits a special interest). The staffer stated that earmarks were necessary as agencies waste the money. I countered that if the agency is being wasteful, propose a budget cut. We ended up agreeing to disagree (note: while the staffer was somewhat terse, we both kept our cool during our conversation).

Frankly, I was unprepared for the confrontation. Anyone contacting Hatch’s (and Bennett’s office) should read Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) “All About Pork: The Abuse of Earmarks and the Needed Reforms“. It will guide you through the process and help you avoid having to ’shoot from the hip’ as I did.

By reading the short publication, you will learn earmarks are a new tactic and not Founding Father approved (despite assertions by Senator Harry Reid and other porkers). Additionally, the guide helped me understand why the staffer seemed to take a personal interest in the subject (see pages 7 and 8).

Staffers may bring up the fact that earmarks can be voted on in session. This is only partially true. It is highly unlikely that a legislator is going to risk strong political reprisals by contesting earmarks and most of the debate tends to focus on the mountainous spending bill (especially omnibus bills) which most have not had the time to read (they, likely, won’t know about the earmarks). The staffers are also misleading you, as once the bill is passed and goes to conference committee, things can be added without debate.

With the help of President Bush, this year, the public can find out about some earmarks at the OMB’s earmarks site. However, the data is old (still catching up) and doesn’t show who requested the earmark. CAGW, has a much better suggestion: ask your legislator to list all their earmark requests on their House/Senate website. After all, both Hatch and Bennett boast that they are proud of their earmarks - why not advertise those requests.

Finally, if either Bennett’s or Hatch’s office tries to say that earmarks are for legitimate government operations, ask them how Michael Leavitt’s Oquirrh Institute serves a core federal function, after receiving $550,000 from taxpayers and a $300,000 earmark from Senator Bennett in 2006 (not sure how much, if any, was received in 2007). Not bad for a place that doesn’t even have its own website (site is part of parkcitycenter.org).

Lastly, the pork binge is certainly not limited to the federal government. Locally, there are several projects I can think of that benefit special interests at taxpayer expense. A statement in CAGW’s earmark guide is applicable to all levels:

In recent years, pork-barrel spending has been characterized by a loss of shame. More and more municipalities, universities, and nonprofits see lobbying for earmarks as a legitimate means of raising funds.

Further reading on recent earmark actions:

Study Finds Record Education Earmarks - Universities eating from the trough (also addressed in CAGW’s publication)
Pork pull in the Senate: Moratorium bid fails in the dark
Your Congress at work: raising taxes, dodging pork vote - a nice double whammy

I have also linked up CAGW (including “The Swine Line” blog) and Porkbusters in the blogroll.

White House: Give $1.4 Billion to Mexico (Merida Initiative)

It is called the Merida Initiative.  Malkin (actauly, a reader) broke this one. It appears to be another back room deal in the making. For full background, information and associated links:

The White House wants a $1.4 billion stimulus/national security package…for Mexico

Time to call your Senators and Representative.  It sounds like they won’t know much about it either but it would be nice if they rapidly get informed about this.

Chiming in on the DC Court Case (Second Amendment)

The Supreme Court will soon hear the DC Court Case dealing with the Second Amendment.   A few months ago, Washington DC’s gun ban was overturned by the DC court of appeals which affirmed that the Second Amendment applies to individuals.  Washington DC has since appealed to the Supreme Court.  This is my take on the Second Amendment.

First here is the text of the Second Amendment (with emphasis added):

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Is it the right of the people?  My answer is yes; and this personal right was the intent of the framers of the constitution.

The following from Federalist 46 (written by James Madison under the pseudonym “Publius”). Federalist 46 “The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared” was written to counter the opposition that the proposed Constitution provided for a standing army. Those opposed felt that such a force could be used by the government to oppress citizens (as had been seen in Europe etc) or enforce an oligarchy/despot.  One way Madison addressed the objection was to note the ultimate trump card that citizens carried.  That is, the ability to provide sufficient defense to prevent any tyrant and/or rogue army from infringing our citizen’s rights:

…Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors…

The above clearly shows the framers believed firearm possession (and the ability of credible defense) was a basic right.  Further, the Second Amendment explicitly states that it pertains to “the people”.  The State or states are to be the organizer of citizens (such as into units or formations), designate unit leaders, and provide training (”well regulated”) should a situation warrant such a militia be formed, however, “the people” are to comprise that militia.  Fortunately, we have never come to the point of needing such an ad hoc military force.

Additionally, the right to bear arms as an  inherent individual right is bolstered by the fact that Hamilton (in Federalist 84) argued against incorporating a Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) into the Constitution, which appertains to all levels of government.  He argued that “the Constitution itself, in ever rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a Bill of Rights.”  Hamilton was concerned that enumerating those rights would allow government or deceitful motives to argue that non enumerated, but inherent rights, were not protected by the Constitution.  As a result, we have the Ninth Amendment to address this concern.  That the right of the people to bear arms is enumerated in the Bill of Rights (which, according to Hamilton, was unnecessary), again shows essentially how important, and ‘unalienable’ the right was considered.

The Constitution serves as much to limit government as to establish it.  The Bill of Rights specifies some of those limits (one of which is arms).  If you the Second Amendment only pertains to government, it makes no sense.  Why protect the right to arms if the government already retains that right with standing armed forces?  It would be redundant and pointless. The only reason to enumerate the right is if it were one which could be infringed upon by government or nefarious authorities.  An authoritative government will certainly not infringe upon itself, especially one which intends to suppress the populace (as described by Madison above).

Finally, the crux of the matter, in my opinion, is who’s rights the Bill of Rights was written to protect.  It is not called the “Bill of State Rights” or the “Bill of Governmental Rights” for a reason.  The focus is “the people”.  Hopefully, that will not change when the Supreme Court rules on this issue.

For further reading see also:   History of the militia in the United States - Constitution and Bill of Rights

Social Security Admin and ICE Team Up (E-Verify)

This slipped by me. I was unaware that the SSA and ICE had teamed up to provide this service to employers. As I’ve noted before, E-Verify is a free web-based program employers can use to better ensure they are hiring legal employees and allows them to prevent identity thieves from gaining employment at their business.

More information can be found at:

SSA’s Additional Verification Options page and

ICE’s E-Verify page:

E-Verify (formerly known as the Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility Verification Program) is an Internet based system operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in partnership with the Social Security Administration (SSA) that allows participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees.

E-Verify is free and voluntary and is the best means available for determining employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security Numbers.

What’s New
Photo Tool
E-Verify’s new Photo Screening Tool is the beginning of biometric verification within the E-Verify system. This additional feature will be the first step in giving employers the tools they need to detect identity theft in the employment eligibility process.

The Photo Screening Tool feature allows an employer to check the photo on his or her new hire’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) or Permanent Resident Card (”Green Card”) against the 14.8 million images stored in DHS immigration databases.

The Vanishing Border Fence

Actually, my title is inaccurate - typically, something must exist before it can vanish.

As shocking as it may sound, Congress has, yet again, reneged on promised border enforcement steps. This time, it appears Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) have led the charge to essentially kill the fence promised in late 2006:

Congress is poised to give the President a $516 billion omnibus spending bill that would downgrade previous mandates for a double-layered border fence to be built along the southern border.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 required “two layers of reinforced fencing” be constructed in five separate areas, but Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R.) slipped a provision into a fiscal year 2008 spending bill that weakens the law.

More details, including how much (little) fence has been built, are available at: Omnibus Busts Border Fence.

HotAir is reporting that Duncan Hunter (R-CA) slammed Congress for the gutting the fence (video available at link) and Malkin has also taken them to task:

GOP Majority Leader John Boehner tried to blame the House Democrat majority: “The fact that this was buried in a bloated, 3,500-page omnibus speaks volumes about the Democrats’ unserious approach on border security and illegal immigration,” he said. “Gutting the Secure Fence Act will make our borders less secure, but it’s consistent with the pattern of behavior we’ve seen all year from this majority.” But it’s border state Republicans who’ve been gunning to undermine the law while the ink was still fresh.

Seems like it is worthwhile contacting your Senators and Representative and politely, but firmly:
1. Ask if they support the Hutchinson/Cornyn fence provision in the “omnibus spending bill”.
2. Remind them to uphold their promises, especially on this issue.

For those in Utah:

Click here for Sen. Bennett and Hatch web contact form links and phone numbers.

Utah Representatives
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT 1st)
Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT 2nd)
Rep. Chris Cannon (R- UT 3rd)
*If you are unsure who your Representative is, use the form at the top left of the House site.

Finally, it would be wise to call House/Senate Republican leaders with the same message:
Senator Mitch McConnell (202) 224-2541
Representative John Boehner (202) 225-6205