The US Report

New book 'Dr. Feelgood' details meth treatments for JFK and celebs of his day

2013-06-18T18:34:15Z

The photo of Kennedy and others during his 1962 visit to Los Alamos is documented in an intriguing booklet posted at the government agency’s website.Media haven’t made a big fuss about the new book Dr. Feelgood, perhaps for a number of reasons. After all, among the doctor’s most dedicated patients were the 35^th president of the U.S. and the First Lady.

Did President John F. Kennedy and quirky celebs like artist Andy Warhol know what Dr. Feelgood, whose real name was Max Jacobson, was really doing with the pharmaceutical cocktail he presented as “an energy formula”?

JFK wasn’t the only U.S. president to seek treatment from Jacobson. Presidents Harry Truman, a Democrat, and Richard Nixon, a Republican, were also listed in office records as Dr. Feelgood’s patients.

Those elite names are but one reason the new book weaves a riveting tale of power, wealth and various falls from grace.

Authors Richard A. Lertzman and William J. Birnes provide a biography of the physician whose life began in a small village on the Polish border. Their book provides a number of anecdotes suggesting JFK’s ability wasn’t quite what it seemed as he navigated crises abroad and at home. Most familiar with the body of works on JFK already know the charismatic young president had serious health problems and found himself almost overwhelmed by the demands of the U.S. presidency his father helped him obtain.

Much of the Kennedy myth was obliterated by Seymour Hersh’s groundbreaking book The Dark Side of Camelot.

More recently, the remarkably detailed Mary’s Mosaic by Peter Janney finished off whatever was left of Camelot.

Lertzman and Birnes recount how Dr. Feelgood assisted JFK as he prepared to debate Richard Nixon. That debate is iconic now, because Nixon was actually believed to be the stronger debater yet he lost to an upstart who certainly wasn’t an intellectual heavyweight. The doctor gave JFK an injection directly into his throat and the American public had no idea the drugs helped Kennedy shine.

Those same drugs also led Kennedy to march around a hotel stark naked said the authors.

The book explains how the impact of Dr. Feelgood’s “energy formula” actually led to the official War on Drugs, one of the most expensive, unjust and ineffective programs taxpayers have funded in modern times.

The authors wrote:

"Starting in the 1940s, usage of amphetamine tablets or Benzedrine by actors and singers to enhance their energy was common, and the drugs were available over the counter...Many actors used different forms of amphetamine, but Jacobson really took what would become known as 'speed' to a whole new level." [64]

As you read books like Dr. Feelgood, you’ll marvel at how well Democrats colluded with media to present one image to the public while a sordid tale played out behind the scenes. The only positive that came out of the abuse of methamphetamine in the 1960s might not be viewed as a positive by everyone—the proliferation of usage of legal drugs like Adderall which contain amphetamines.

Media haven’t given Dr. Feelgood much attention, an unspoken statement about media’s incestuous kinship with Democrats in power. I highly recommend it as a great summer read and a permanent addition to your library.

The authors conducted many first person interviews, and with one very small but unimportant exception, the sources are very credible.

(Review by Kay B. Day/June 18, 2013)

To meet expenses and to be able to stay online, The US Report needs your support. If you’d like to contribute, please use the PayPal link in the sidebar. Follow us on Twitter: @TheUS Report.

State scandals: Deceased author pegged Hillary Clinton’s attitude in 2001

2013-06-18T14:42:45Z

Imagine for a moment that you are working for the federal government and officials attempt to Hillary Clinton (Snip: C-SPAN)obstruct your investigations into wrongdoing.

That’s what happened to Aurelia Fedenisn who alleged State Department staffers were “using drugs, soliciting prostitutes, and having sex with minors.” Fedenisn’s revelations are the latest in scandals emerging about the State Dept. formerly headed by Hillary Clinton.

The late Barbara Olson perfectly predicted Mrs. Clinton’s perspective on these and other matters in a book released in 2001 after the author died on a hijacked plane during the 9/11 attacks.

Fedenisn, inspector general investigator for State, blew the whistle when she told a legacy TV network officials had "’influenced, manipulated, or simply called off’ several investigations into misconduct.”

Fedenisn’s attorney told media that after the media started investigating her claims:

“’[I]nvestigators from the State Department's Inspector General promptly arrived at Fedenisn's door. They talked to both kids and never identified themselves,’ he said. ‘First the older brother and then younger daughter, a minor, asking for their mom's place of work and cell phone number ... They camped out for four to five hours.’"

Investigations are still ongoing about the meltdown at the Special Mission Compound in Benghazi (Libya) where security in the troubled region was so lax that four Americans died at the hands of terrorists. Mrs. Clinton and President Barack Obama bungled the narrative after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2012, giving Americans false information claiming the attacks were caused by an obscure filmmaker who insulted Muslims.

Democrats claimed Republicans cut funding, but that wasn’t the case in Benghazi. The SMC, according to the Accountability Review Board report, wasn’t eligible for security upgrades because it was a temporary facility. No media reported that fact. The ARB was led by Mrs. Clinton’s handpicked officials.

Now Fedenisn’s whistleblowing has led some media to claim people with criminal records were even hired to work at State. That is conceivable, because it is very difficult to recruit employees to serve in dangerous areas. The Government Accountability Office issued a report in October, 2012, indicating State still had “foreign service midlevel staffing gaps…despite significant increases in hiring.”

The late Barbara Olson pegged Mrs. Clinton perfectly in the book The Final Days:

“Hillary Rodham Clinton remains, in her own mind, one of the anointed, and her quest remains how best to impose her ideas…on the public. She is quite willing to act outrageously, stone wall and obfuscate, then proclaim that it is time to ‘move on.’” [Pg. 216]

That’s exactly what Clinton did when she testified before Congress. Peppered with questions about the SMC in Benghazi, Clinton responded angrily. “What difference at this point does it make?”

One responsibility of the Secretary of State in a job description posted at the government website stipulates that the secretary “ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries.”

Media largely ignored another State Dept. lapse. Agence France Presse reported on May 28 that two "U.S. Embassy personnel" were shot outside a strip bar in Caracas, Venezuela.

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/June 18, 2013)

To meet expenses and to be able to stay online, The US Report needs your support. If you’d like to contribute, please use the PayPal link in the sidebar. Follow us on Twitter: @TheUS Report.

'New York Times’ savior reaps benefits from ‘ObamaPhones’

2013-06-18T13:00:05Z

‘ObamaPhone Lady’ was one of a number of themes in the reelection of President Barack Obama in 2012. A woman touting her “free” cell phone was captured on video against the backdrop of a Mitt Romney campaign event. OPL shares something in common with a Mexican billionaire; both benefit from taxes levied on Americans who pay their own cell phone bills.

Any American who pays his or her own phone bill also helps pay for ObamaPhone Lady’s device as a result of a federal program begun in the 1980s. After Democrats took control of the Senate and the House in the last two years of President George W. Bush’s term, they broadened the free phone program to cover cell phones. Originally only landlines were covered.

Now Project Veritas has shared content from an investigation indicating the program invites fraud.

Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim enjoys sizable profits from selling the “free” TracFones, according to The Guardian (UK).

Slim, viewed as a crony capitalist by some critics, was the savior of The New York Times. He bailed out the paper in 2009 to the tune of around $250 million.

Every customer who pays his or her own cell phone bill also pays a variety of other charges both state and local.

The federal charges pay for the free phones.

Project Veritas’ investigation indicated that ObamaPhone recipients can sell the devices for drugs, purses or whatever they want. It’s possible non-citizens get the phones as well because there’s no rigorous vetting process as long as you report a low income.

The federal tax consumers pay to fund the handout is actually a double tax because Americans pay payroll and many also pay income taxes.

Obviously returning the program to a landline only basis would provide low income earners with a means of communicating with employers, their children’s schools, and healthcare providers.

Expanding the program catered to the “Gimme” bloc in the electorate. That bloc includes those who report low incomes as well as corporate cronies.

If you do pay for your own phone, pat yourself on the back, because you’re helping to fund a free phone for the likes of ObamaPhone Lady and you’re also helping enrich corporate cronies like Slim.

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/June 18, 2013)

To meet expenses and to be able to stay online, The US Report needs your support. If you’d like to contribute, please use the PayPal link in the sidebar. Follow us on Twitter: @TheUSReport.

Did CBS personality Palmer take a page from Kos on tea party?

2013-06-17T20:09:17Z

After hurling a major insult at the tea party movement, Elizabeth Palmer is zooming through the blogosphere.

Palmer made a silly analogy. Did she take a page from the founder of Daily Kos, the left of left blog Democrats often model their politics on?

Markos Moulitsas, Kos’ founder, wrote a book titled American Taliban. If you’re not a hardcore leftwinger or one of those librarians who purchases thousands of copies of a book because it was written by a leftwinger, you probably never heard of it. You probably never heard of Palmer either. If so, you are missing absolutely nothing.

Kos’ book, said The Atlantic Wire, argued “that elements of the U.S. conservative movement are akin to the Taliban.”

Yes, you are right if you’re thinking we can’t make this stuff up. Even liberals called Kos out for his outlandish claims.

Enter Mrs. Palmer who spouted her analogy between the U.S. tea party movement and Islamist fundamentalists in Iran after a “moderate” was elected president:

“’Well, he was seen as the most reform-minded of all the candidates who ran this time, that being said, they were all very conservative. In US terms it was as if all the candidates for the presidency came from the Tea Party,’ she said when asked if Rowhani is ‘in the mold of Ahmadinejad.’”

Yes, you are right for the second time. We can’t make this stuff up either.

Palmer isn’t that stupid, surely. She probably saw an opportunity to score a point and negatively brand the government reform movement.

In countries with Muslim majorities, Islam is the repository for politics, governance and faith. It’s all rolled into one. There is no “reform” in the sense we view it here in the West. There can only be “reform” within acceptable standards set by spiritual leaders who put their own spin on Muslims’ sacred texts.

Furthermore, in countries like Iran, the government controls media and freedom of expression.

The tea party movement certainly—even painfully—understands what it is like to have government control media and freedom of expression, and to be vilified by those who disagree with all but the socialist model.

Palmer, by the way, is a Brit by birth. Great Britain doesn’t permit the wide scope of freedom of expression we enjoy here in the U.S.

The new Iranian president may be categorized as a “reformer” by Western and other media. But he will likely stick to protocol on everything from public protests to blasphemy.

There is no valid basis for comparing any major U.S. political movement with movements in countries ruled by mullahs.

Palmer knows that.

Sarah Palin called it right when she said Palmer “put the BS in CBS.”

Palmer was one of the media talkers who got a kick out of an Iraqi throwing a shoe at President George W. Bush. There’s an account at Townhall for those who forget the incident:

“Reporter Elizabeth Palmer quoted Muntadhar al-Zeidi's shoe-tossing words at Bush – ‘This is your goodbye kiss, you dog!’ She added that ‘By showing the kind of contempt formerly reserved for Saddam Hussein to President Bush, al-Zeidi's (became) an instant hero.’ Palmer snidely concluded ‘al-Zeidi should do jail time, said the Iraqi bloggers, because he missed.’"

Just imagine Palmer’s angst if someone dared to throw a shoe at a Democrat president instead of peacefully protesting his policies.

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/June 17, 2013)

To meet expenses and to be able to stay online, The US Report needs your support. If you’d like to contribute, please use the PayPal link in the sidebar. Follow us on Twitter: @TheUSReport.

CNN poll approval for data mining proves devil is in details of question

2013-06-17T18:19:08Z

A recent CNN/ORC poll makes a tidy point.

How people respond to a question is directly related to what you ask—the devil is in the details given in the question.

Here’s one sample question from the poll—important words are bolded:

19. And for the past few years the Obama administration has reportedly been gathering and analyzing information from major internet companies about audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails and documents involving people in other countries in an attempt to locate suspected terrorists. The government reportedly does not target internet usage by U.S. citizens and if such data is collected, it is kept under strict controls. Do you think the Obama administration was right or wrong in gathering and analyzing that internet data?

‘Right’ received 66 percent of responses; ‘wrong’ drew 33 percent.

Note how the question runs pre-emptive defense for the government policy that essentially mines everything. ‘Suspected terrorists’ are the target—not you. And if authorities err and grab your data, rest easy. “It is kept under strict controls.”

How much do you want to bet there’d be a different answer if the question was put another way? Or if the questioner mentioned that President Barack Obama is not only following President George W. Bush’s model, Obama has expanded it.

On page 11 of the survey, there’s a question about the Patriot Act. You need a gong inserted here. I’d wager most Americans cannot write two informed sentences about that Act.

There was a response, however, that gives those of us battling the erosion of liberty some (dare I say it?) hope. The question:

30. Do you think the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens, or not?

“Yes, it has,” said 62 percent. Another 37 percent said no. That 37 percent, by the way, could be classed as the lowest information voters in the land regardless of educational level or income.

The problem with data mining is the complete lack of transparency about the matter at a time when numerous government agencies have either gone rogue or demonstrated complete ineptitude.

The problem with polls is it’s all about how you ask the question and obviously, you can direct a response to fit whatever you want to promote. Or, for that matter, protect.—(Commentary by Kay B. Day/June 17, 2013)

The US Report, an independent blog, appreciates readers who have made a contribution to help us meet expenses in order to keep publishing. TUSR is not sponsored by a political party, PAC or other group. If you’d like to contribute, please use the PayPal link in the sidebar. Follow us on Twitter: @TheUS Report.

Are Graham, others right about why GOP lost in 2012?

2013-06-17T14:01:13Z

Republicans are “in a demographic death spiral” and will fail in their effort to win the presidency if the party blocks an immigration overhaul.—The Hill [Remarks by Sen. Graham]

Leading Republicans, including the dynamic Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), insist we need to pass what many call amnesty for illegal aliens. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), known for sometimes taking a stance against party doctrine, recently said that Republicans are “in a demographic death spiral.” We won’t win in 2016 unless we pass an “immigration bill.”

Did the GOP lose in 2012 because of immigration? I don’t think so.

I think we lost for a number of reasons. Chief among them was the stark contrast in campaigns. Plus in the advantage of our incumbent president who had the manpower and tax dollars of the federal government at his command.

Shutting down grassroots groups—groups key to registering voters—was an effective tool on the part of the Internal Revenue Service and the agency’s Washington commandos (whoever they were). We now know that numerous conservative groups were obstructed in their attempts to get tax exempt status, effectively slamming the door on contributions they might have otherwise got to fund their efforts.

There are more ways to analyze demographics on the 2012 election than I can count. You can turn to a George Mason University analysis for some useful information.

In the voting eligible population (VEP), 58.2 percent turned out to vote. Had the GOP managed to increase turnout—popular talk show host Rush Limbaugh noted that 3 million Republicans sat this one out—that certainly might have helped.

I came away from the figures and from an analysis of exit polls done by the Roper Center at the University of Connecticut with one standout question—the obvious generational gap between President Barack Obama the Democrat and Gov. Mitt Romney the Republican.

Obama drew the lion’s share of the youth vote, in age groups ranging from 18-44 years. Romney took the majority of the vote for those older than 45.

Race mattered. The largest minority group, blacks, voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

What else mattered? The debates. The narratives. Media coverage including blatant soft advocacy for the incumbent.

In 2012, hispanics accounted for 10 percent of the votes in the Roper analysis. Other analyses may place the figure a bit higher or lower.

But the bottom line is that it is a false argument to claim that a single group gave Obama the presidency.

Most races hinge on the persona of the candidate and the messaging the candidate takes to the people.

Republicans failed on messaging, angered the Ron Paul libertarian sector of the party, didn’t even attempt to persuade blacks (currently at an unemployment rate of roughly 13 percent), neglected any messaging to voters younger than 45. We conducted a campaign that didn’t pass muster and often sounded like a broken record by repeating a single meme—jobs.

Above all, we refused to go after Democrats aggressively despite Benghazi writing on the wall and shrinking wallets across America.

The current immigration bill S. 744 (Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act) has good points and some seriously bad ones. Among the good is the effort to curb chain migration. Among the seriously bad is the Senate’s refusal to guarantee border security before blanket amnesty regulations set in.

We’ve been here before, most recently in 1986. Congress lied to us then and we face the current meltdown of the bureaucracy as a result.

If we can’t handle processing immigrants who’ve come here legally, how are we to handle millions who presumably will attempt to gain legal status?

Above all, how are we going to afford this bill?

Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, takes a dim view of S. 744:

Political doublespeak may alter some people’s perception of reality, but it cannot change reality itself. The reality is that the Gang of Eight bill would bestow immediate amnesty on some 12 million illegal aliens, and citizenship within 13 years. American taxpayers would spend trillions of dollars on social benefits for this largely low-income population. And the American labor market would be flooded with tens of millions of new permanent and temporary workers over the coming decade.

Graham may truly believe only hispanics can save the GOP, but here’s what I know.

The GOP can save itself by nominating, rather than anointing, a candidate capable of uniting the party and uniting the country. We can save ourselves by nurturing those grassroots groups whose volunteers will knock on doors and register people to vote.

Above all, we can save ourselves by drawing a sharp contrast in what we believe in and what we will offer Americans—all of us. We can refrain from exploiting the color of a person’s skin, a tradition dating to the earliest years of the Democrat Party.

And we can point out the disastrous consequences of a government grown so large that Secret Service agents feel comfortable hanging out with prostitutes and the powerful IRS felt at ease stomping on the neck of freedom of speech.

There is much work we can do and immigration doesn’t have anything to do with it. Graham’s declaration is a perfect example of what is wrong with my party. Hopefully, we have leaders somewhere who will recognize that and push for change within the party founded on premises of freedom for all, even as our personal freedoms wilt and die on the vine.

Republicans lost in 2012 because we brought a bubble wand to a street fight. Dems knew better. They brought cannons.

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/June 17, 2013)

To meet expenses and to be able to stay online, The US Report needs your support. If you’d like to contribute, please use the PayPal link in the sidebar. Follow us on Twitter: @TheUS Report.

Where are the enviro-activists on use of chemical weapons in Syria and elsewhere?

2013-06-14T18:31:00Z

Map: CIA World Fact BookSyria is top of the fold right now, with the country allegedly crossing the figurative “red line” President Barack Obama warned the Assad regime about.

The White House said Syria has used chemical weapons in the country’s civil war and now the U.S. will aid the “rebels.”

The problem, of course, is that we really don’t know exactly whom we would be aiding. Plus in the fact that many of the so-called “rebels” may not even be Syrians—they could hail from anywhere in the region because fighting is a big part of the jobs sector in countries like Syria.

One rebel group the U.S. likely won’t assist is the Jabhat al Nusra Front—the group’s leadership in Syria has allied with al Qaeda. That is to say the U.S. (allegedly) won’t assist the group knowingly.

Meanwhile, the regime of Bashar Assad said the U.S. has “fabricated information”—the rebel groups are the ones using chemicals.

Who is telling the truth?

A question for me is an issue that hasn’t been discussed. We talk about the use of chemical weapons as a human rights issue.

However, chemical weapons are also an environmental issue, not just for the human beings enviro-activists hold in such low esteem, but for ecosystems.

What does the use of chemical weaponry do to ecosystems?

What do chemical weapons do to the atmosphere? Carbon pales when placed beside Sarin, right?

Chemical weaponry doesn’t do the planet any favors, that’s for sure.

Maybe it’s time to go after human rights violators on environmental grounds where applicable. How about the enviro-activists head to Syria for a nice protest?

Hey, PETA, how about cruelty to human animals?

Incidentally, Syria’s most frequent trade partners are Iraq, Saudi Arabia and China. Syria has experienced political unrest off and on since gaining its independence from France in 1946.

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/June 14, 2013)

9/11 footnote surfaces in 1999 account of NSA Echelon snoop controversy

2013-06-14T14:00:54Z

This radome in Yorkshire (UK) encloses a microwave antenna. [Photo: Matt Crypto via Wikipedia]

"As long as the rules are conformed with, I think we're OK. The question is whether NSA's really obeying the rules."—John Pike/Oct. 21, 1999 [Fox News]

Government spying is nothing new. There’s the positive aspect of that practice—keeping Americans alive by staying a step ahead of enemy nations.

There’s the negative aspect as well. Listening systems are maintained and used by government employees and contractors. Obviously, when a program is top secret, oversight is a challenge. How do we know our privacy isn’t being trampled?

We have short memories, but considering the current discussion about NSA snooping, it’s useful to recall that we had a similar controversy in the 1990s.

My memory is long (just ask my husband), but I’d forgotten the term Echelon completely until a fellow named Bob called in to The Cindy Graves Show on WBOB AM 600. I do a weekly news analysis for Graves and sometimes I host the show.

So credit goes to Bob for reminding us when he phoned in the other day that Echelon was a similar issue.

Echelon is “an automated global interception and relay system operated by intelligence agencies in five nations, led by the U.S. National Security Agency.”

Echelon, said The Washington Post, “may intercept as many as 3 billion communications each day, including phone calls, e-mail messages and satellite transmissions.”

For many years, if you mentioned such a program in conversation, you’d pretty much be considered a tin-foil hat type. Now we know the stuff of conspiracy enthusiasts was real.

It took many years for Echelon’s existence to be confirmed. By 2001, the European Parliament was so concerned, hearings were held and a report was published.

Most governments were concerned about theft of trade secrets more than intrusion on individuals’ privacy although the latter was an issue of concern. WaPo said what sparked the public outcry came from the EP report—“all e-mail, telephone and fax communications are routinely intercepted by the United States National Security Agency.”

The report also declared the existence of Echelon was “no longer in doubt.”

By the end of President Bill Clinton’s second term, many of us had lost faith in him. This tends to happen with presidents as they approach the final days, regardless of party. Clinton, however, had drawn controversy for sexual exploits as well as his foreign policy, among other matters.

Bear in mind that in a second fatwa 1998, Osama bin Laden officially declared war on the U.S. and Israel. Bin Laden parsed his fatwa in political terms, claiming that Muslim lands had been occupied. The Gulf War was still an issue in the Mideast. Bin Laden called for the killing of all Americans, civilian or otherwise:

We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.

Clinton took it somewhat seriously, but he did not put a stop to al Qaeda at a time when the movement might have been diluted. President George Bush took office in 2001 after an extended dispute about the election. Bush followed Clinton’s policy. After all, if a president who took office after a controversial election had engaged in war against a leader Clinton downplayed, we can imagine the public furor here at home.

What’s worth pointing out is another of those footnotes we come across from time to time. We ask ourselves What if? and we wonder if we’d heeded the signs, would thousands of Americans not been killed in the 9/11/2001 attacks and the war that finally came after an attack on our homeland.

Clinton’s administration obstructed the sharing of information between spy agencies and law enforcement. His administration also endorsed trying suspects who were de facto enemy combatants—the Blind Sheikh is one example—in civilian courts.

In 1999, a Florida congressman had questions about Clinton’s reluctance to approve “new surveillance programs.”

In the WaPo story cited here, there’s a footnote of sorts that offers the flip side of the coin on spying:

“Indeed, the NSA's troubles in Congress began this spring when Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, asked the agency for internal documents about its compliance with FISA because he thought NSA lawyers were too cautious in approving new surveillance programs.—(Nov. 13, 1999)

The underlying issue in all of this relates to how much trust we can put in a government that has grown so large it cannot be managed or overseen effectively. That lack of trust cost us dearly, more than once. Will it happen again with the latest NSA snoop controversy?

Bob’s mention of Echelon rekindled memories of the end of Clinton’s tenure and the controversy about spying at a time when enemies of the West were making preparations to hit the U.S. hard.

GlobalSecurity.org has mention of Echelon:

“ECHELON consists of a global network of computers that automatically search through millions of intercepted for pre-programmed keywords or fax, telex and e-mail addresses. Every word of every message in the frequencies and channels selected at a station is automatically searched. The processors in the network are known as the ECHELON Dictionaries. ECHELON connects all these computers and allows the individual stations to function as distributed elements an integrated system. An ECHELON station's Dictionary contains not only its parent agency's chosen keywords, but also lists for each of the other four agencies in the UKUSA system. [NSA, GCHQ, DSD, GCSB and CSE]”

Goss’ 1999 complaint is worth reviewing, considering the fact the war goes on, because what bin Laden began may have been interrupted, but it certainly has not been neutered. (Analysis by Kay B. Day/June 14, 2013)

Ed. Note: Graves' show airs on WBOB 600 AM weekdays from 12-1 p.m. The show is also streamed live on the Web at wbobradio.com.

Why Bible thumping on behalf of open borders doesn’t work in immigration debate

2013-06-13T18:02:24Z

Maybe it’s because I’m Lutheran, but hearing political messages—obvious or implied—in sermons is a given. Lutherans nowadays skew liberal on social issues and immigration is no exception.

I’ve come to the conclusion that if I want access to the Pearly Gates, I should support the new immigration bill S.744 (the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act).

Absent a robust security policy and metrics on the U.S. borders, I do not support the bill and I do not want to pay for what will surely be exorbitant taxpayer costs as a result of its passage.

The Bible is often quoted by politicos to support an argument, but having read that good book, I recalled enough passages about “boundaries” and walls tumbling down to know that security in ancient times was just as important as it is today.

That aside, I came across a very articulate article, A Biblical Perspective on Immigration Policy. Written by James R. Edwards, Jr., PhD, for the Center for Immigration Studies, the article details ancient practices regarding migrants and travelers.

Edwards wrote:

“In short, the Old Testament teaches fair treatment of resident foreigners, with certain requirements of the aliens related to religious and civil legal standards. It also instructs that aliens were to assimilate to the Hebrew culture. Boundaries are meaningful, as well, and foreign presence among the Hebrews on several occasions was a curse. Few details of immigration procedures, standards, or other policy prescriptions appear. To infer some open-borders or mass-amnesty mandate from what actually appears in Scripture is wrong.”

Edwards’ article is well worth a read, especially if you have to listen to a Democrat in the pulpit on matters like immigration.

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/June 13, 2013)

Reid nixes border security for immigration bill despite rise in OTMs at southern border

2013-06-13T13:11:54Z

Politicians refused to uphold the legal commitments in the 1986 Amnesty bill. (Snip: U.S. Government/LOC)If you’re well versed on immigration matters past and present, you’re keenly aware that after the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, the U.S. government refused to uphold a legal commitment to secure the border. It appears that will not change if a new immigration bill makes its way through both the U.S. House and Senate.

The 1986 amnesty, coupled with chain migration and policy from presidents from both major parties who didn’t secure the border, led to millions of illegal aliens remaining in the U.S. There is no census of illegals although heads are counted when the national census is taken. We have no idea about the particulars of those millions. We don’t even really know how many millions there are.

Many of us welcome immigrants, but we want the border secured. If not, U.S. sovereignty will continue to erode and more entitlement costs will be placed on taxpayers’ backs. Costs for healthcare, education, law enforcement and fraud are all impacted by the non-enforcement of immigration laws.

Meanwhile, those who have followed the law jump through hoops and wait a long time before they can become citizens. Talk to any immigrant who came here legally and you’ll learn it cost him money and a whole lot of patience.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has de-prioritized border security. Part of the reason may be the philosophy of his faith. Reid is a Mormon and the Church of Latter-day Saints was instrumental in getting an amendment passed that gave churches a pass if the alien acted as a volunteer for the church. This amendment, written and pushed by former Republican Robert Bennett (Utah), provided a pass for churches using aliens as volunteers who can’t work for pay but who can be provided for otherwise by the church.

The church took credit for asking for the amendment:

“Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, released a statement saying the church asked Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican, to sponsor the provision, which she called a ‘narrow exception to the immigration act.’”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has devoted much time to immigration matters, and it was his amendment Reid blocked. The amendment specified requirements for border security. Grassley said something that all Americans should pay close attention to. In a statement about his concerns over what amounts to a lax approach to border security, Grassley said (boldface added):

"The number of individuals from noncontiguous countries – otherwise known as Other Than Mexicans or OTMs --- should be a concern. As of April 2, 2013, the OTM numbers on the southwest border were up 67 percent from fiscal 2012 to fiscal 2013. We know that some of the OTMs include terrorists who enter the United States via the southern border. Secretary Napolitano has testified before Congress to that fact."

If no real measures are taken for border security—if the only tenet in the bill is political and not a genuine effort at security, Americans will face this same problem again, just as we face it now.

And the reason we are facing it now can be attributed to perpetual politicos like Reid. He was there for the amnesty in 1986, part and parcel to a bill that deceived Americans. A principal actor in the 1986 sham was Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and he’s back at the front of the pack again in 2013. Both men were in the House at the time IRCA passed.

If border security is not addressed in a genuine manner, our country will see more negatives than positives from this latest amnesty, particularly at a time when unemployment for both blacks (13 percent) and hispanics (9 percent) are at their highest levels since the administration of President Jimmy Carter (D).

Obviously, competition for jobs will increase. It’s likely that competition for low cost housing will also increase and schools will be required to accommodate children who arrive as a result of chain migration.

Reid could care less. For him, it’s quite possibly about his faith and otherwise, it’s about millions of potential future votes.

As for Schumer, he even blocked a measure that attempted to do something about billions in income tax credit fraud.

Americans deserve a smarter bill than the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744) pushed by two Democrat senators who were part of the 1986 Amnesty failure.

The Black American Leadership Alliance, with that 13 percent unemployment in mind, has scheduled a march in Washington, D.C., Say No to Amnesty, on July 15.

(Analysis by Kay B. Day/June 13, 2013)