Donald Trump Meets GOB Bluth

Watch this- (just the first 30 seconds will suffice)

And then this -

Let's Connect! https://www.facebook.com/AuthorErinAnnMcBride 

http://twitter.com/erinannie 

https://instagram.com/erinannie17 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/erinmcbride 

https://www.goodreads.com/erinmcbride 

https://www.pinterest.com/erinannie/ 

 http://www.amazon.com/Erin-Ann-McBride/e/B0094UQZSS/

Are Americans Happy With Their Country?

I don't know how reliable the survey source is, but the results are still interesting. 

A recent online poll of more than 2,000 adults by TransferWise, a UK peer-to-peer money transfer service, revealed that 35 percent of American-born residents and emigrants would consider leaving the US to live in another country.

This percentage greatly increases for those age 18 to 34. More than half of millennials, a whopping 55 percent, said that they would consider leaving the U.S. for foreign shores. Among them, 43 percent of men and 38 percent of women noted that a higher salary would be a factor in their relocation decision.

That all being said, only .001 percent of the population actually renounced citizenship in 2014.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 

If that many Americans are unhappy with the country, maybe the politicians should address the reasons why.

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

California Passes Law to Allow Non-Citizens to Serve on Juries

In italics: the Associated Press report. 

In normal font: my [incredulous] thoughts

The California Assembly passed a bill on Thursday that would make the state the first in the nation to allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.

What the heck?? WHY??? 

Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, said his bill, AB1401, would help California widen the pool of prospective jurors and help integrate immigrants into the community.

It does not change other criteria for being eligible to serve on a jury, such as being at least 18, living in the county that is making the summons, and being proficient in English.

Does not change other criteria? It change the most important and significant criteria!!! YOU HAVE TO BE AN AMERICAN!!

 

From the California Courts official website: (written prior to the new law being passed)

California law says you are qualified to be a juror if you:

• Are a U.S. citizen
• Are at least 18 years old
• Can understand English enough to understand and discuss the case
• Are a resident of the county that sent you the jury summons
• Have not served on a jury in the last 12 months
• Are not currently on a grand jury or on another trial jury
• Are not under a conservatorship
• Have had your civil rights restored if you were convicted of a felony or malfeasance while holding public office

No one is exempt because of his or her job, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or economic status. If you are qualified, please follow the directions on your summons and call in or report as instructed. You will receive additional information when you report for service. Even if you are qualified to be a juror, you might still have what is called an "undue hardship." An undue hardship is a difficult situation that prevents you from being able to serve. If you face an undue hardship, you may be able to be excused from jury service or postpone service.

The bill passed 45-25 largely on a party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and will move on to the Senate. One Democrat - Assemblyman Adam Gray, of Merced - voted no, while some other Democrats did not vote.

Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill said there is no correlation between being a citizen and a juror, and they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge. Republican lawmakers who opposed Wieckowski's bill called it misguided and premature.

No correlation between being a citizen or a juror? Jury duty has always been considered a patriotic duty!!!

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said there is no shortage of jurors.

"Jury selection is not the problem. The problem is trial court funding," Harkey said before the vote. "I hope we can focus on that. Let's not break something; it's not broken now. Let's not whittle away at what is reserved for U.S. citizens. There's a reason for it."

Wieckowski's office said the bill is the first of its kind in the nation and suggested that courts regularly struggle to find enough prospective jurors because jury duty is often seen as an inconvenience, if not a burden. His office did not cite any statistics but pointed to a 2003 legislative report that said numerous articles have noted high rates of non-participation.

Note to the AP: those two paragraphs would have made more sense in reverse order. 

But I digress. 

"high rates of non-participation"

So launch a freaking marketing campaign encouraging patriotism, civic duty, and the importance of a fair and just trial!!

It will be a lot cheaper than the lawsuits you are going to get down the road when people start appealing that their jury was not American or their peers!

A 2007 survey by the Center for Jury Studies said 20 percent of courts across the country reported a failure to respond or failure to appear rate of 15 percent or higher. The center is run by the National Center for State Courts, a Virginia-based nonprofit dedicated to improving court systems.

It's not clear, however, if that rate translates to a shortage of jurors in California.

Sigh. 

 

Noting that women were once kept off juries, Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, said the judicial system should be changed to allow a person to be judged by their peers.

"This isn't about affording someone who would come in as a juror something," Perez said. "But rather understanding that the importance of the jury selection process of affording justice to the person in that courtroom."

Keeping women (or any minority race for that matter) off of juries was about discrimination and unequal rights.  Not including non-Americans on juries is not discrimination! We're talking about a court system designed to uphold the Constitution! 

I will be reasonable here and try to see the other side of this argument. If it is an area that is heavy on immigrants, and the basis for our jury system is a trial of our peers, I can almost see the argument for it. And although the AP says nothing of it, I will assume the law made a point to allow LEGAL immigrants. (I'm sure a few people will read it and jump to illegal immigrants, just like I did, out of habit.) 

Legal, long-term immigrants, are (if they choose to be) very much a part of the community, and in most cases "peers." Especially in states like California. 

 

An estimated 10 million Californians are summoned for jury duty each year and about 4 million are eligible and available to serve, according to the Judicial Council, which administers the state's court system. About 3.2 million complete the service, meaning they waited in a courthouse assembly room or were placed on call.

In 2010-2011, the most recent year available, only about 165,000 people were sworn in as jurors.

 
Some details on immigrant numbers in the U.S. and California.
"The number of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the country hit a new record of 40 million in 2010, a 28 percent increase over the total in 2000." (Source: Center for Immigration Studies)
"We estimate that 28 percent of all immigrants are in the country illegally. Roughly half of Mexican and Central American and one-third of South American immigrants are here illegally." (SOURCE: CIS)

Source: http://cis.org/sites/default/files/2012-profile-t1.jpg)

 California had 227,876 immigrants become LEGAL permanent residents in 2009.  (Source: California Watch)

I can almost talk myself into this idea that legal immigrants, especially if they are long-term permanent residents, should be on a jury. (Note use of terminology here. I said SHOULD, not could. I am sure many could, in the sense that they have the requisite familiarity of the laws.)

But then I think of Amanda Knox and her trial in Italy.
What if Italy's laws allowed for non-Italians to serve on juries? Her whole family, plus you and me, could all move there, become permanent residents, make sure we live in the right jurisdiction, and hope to be put on her jury! All just to make sure she gets off!
The thought is preposterous, right? Americans serving on Italian juries? Even if a long-term, legal resident there, we don't expect it to happen. 

Okay, so maybe that's not the most applicable example.

Here is a more realistic one-
Illegal immigrants in certain neighborhoods commit a lot of certain types of crimes. (Don't try and argue that I'm being racist or biased here. We all know that crime is much higher among illegals.) In fact, in a small neighborhood in Southern California, it is not completely out of the realm of realistic possibility that the criminal court docket will have a large number of cases involving young, illegal immigrants.
What if a very large group of sympathetic legal immigrants made it a point to live in that same area?
Oh wait, they probably already do.
But here's the thing, now they have motivation for doing so. And not just local Californians, but anywhere across the U.S. If you want to really make a difference in culture and laws, the court system is the way to do it. So why not start suddenly congregating large groups in an area where they can make a difference on juries?
And I'm not trying to imply that all immigrants will be naturally sympathetic to illegal immigrants. (In fact, I think they may have more reason to be biased against each other than other demographics.)
Not all immigrants are from the same country. Legal immigrants come from all over the world all the time. And I welcome that! I am fine with that! (All thoughts of the Boston Bomb Brothers aside.)
But! Can immigrants on a jury uphold the U.S. Constitution and not hold a defendant to the standards of "the old country?" This is my sticking point, right here. Can immigrants, who may or may not be interested in becoming citizens (it is a long process and many legal residents may be interested in becoming citizens and just are not there yet), be expected to not allow for prejudices from previous cultures to influence their decisions?
I realize it is biased to say that they cannot. But! I really have to believe that. How can they look at someone from their own country, on trial in a different country, and not give some allowances for previous culture, while enforcing the current one?
I am a die-hard, red-blooded, patriotic American and defender of the Constitution. I just cannot stomach or accept the idea that a non-American has the right to judge me in a court of law. The court system is based on an American document. It should be defended by actual Americans!
Is this just a case where we need to open our minds to the idea of change? Would it be so bad if immigrant (legal or illegal) defendants had someone on the jury from a different country (their own or otherwise)? Does it make it a more legitimate jury of peers?
But I can't help but come back to the reverse thought- would I expect foreigners to serve on juries in other countries?
I feel that there are 2 sides to my response. The one that sounds a little prejudiced and biased against immigrants, although I truly do not mean to be so. I have no problem with foreign born residents! I welcome it! I love diversity! But am I biased in thinking that their previous culture will color their ability to serve on a jury? Am I wrong to think so?
I really have to keep thinking on that. Because I do feel that maybe there is some unjust discrimination in that way of thinking.
(It hearkens to the old idea that women were not capable of serving on juries because of their natures.)
But I absolutely cannot let go of the idea of anyone but an American serving on an American jury! It just doesn't work! I can't accept it. If I am to be held accountable to the laws of this country, I expect to be judged by the citizens of this country.
The end.

Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' Constitution!

And the backlash begins...

Does the President have the authority and ability to completely bypass Congress to do whatever he wants to do?

Not according to the Constitution- that he has sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend."

Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision was included to make sure that the president could not simply choose, as the British King had, to cancel legislation simply because he disagreed with it. President Obama cannot refuse to carry out a congressional statute simply because he thinks it advances the wrong policy. To do so violates the very core of his Constitutional duties.

That's a little gem from former Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel attorney John Yoo, a liberal, by the way, in today's National Review.

"It's the right thing to do" is not a valid reason to completely ignore the Constitution and bypass Congress.  No matter how 'feel good' it is, and no matter how many votes it gets you from a much needed voting bloc.

Of course, President Obama has had no problem not upholding his Oath of Office on more than one occasion, hasn't he? Jennifer Rubin does a great job of outlining his misdeeds in the Washington Post today.

Here's a few statements from some of the elected legislators that President Obama chose to ignore with his new directive-

U.S. Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA-07)
“America is a beacon of freedom in the world and it is no wonder that hundreds of thousands of people each year apply to complete the legal and proper steps to become citizens or permanent residents of this amazing land.  After all, who wouldn’t want to raise their family in the land of opportunity and under the rule of law?  Unfortunately, President Obama’s decision to cease the deportation of potentially millions of illegal immigrants and instead grant them legal work permits—while millions of legal U.S. residents remain unemployed and unable to find work—undermines both the rule of law and the economic opportunity that is America.”
“As of 2011, more than 13.7 million U.S. citizens were unemployed, and today our national unemployment levels remain disappointingly high at 8.2 percent.  How can the President and his Administration offer the few American jobs that are available to those who have come to America illegally rather than those U.S. citizens who have always paid their taxes and played by the rules?”
“With today’s decree, President Obama demonstrates the same contempt for America’s laws that those who enter illegally do.  He is undermining the balance of power laid out by the U.S. Constitution, going far beyond his power within the Executive Branch and advancing his election-year politics at the expense of the American economy and the American people’s trust.”
“I am tremendously proud of America’s history as a nation of immigrants, and I am committed to continuing and improving the legal avenues that allow another generation of legal immigrants to become U.S. citizens.  But, as every new American citizen knows, we are a nation of laws, and the U.S. Constitution extends lawmaking power to Congress and Congress alone.  This executive power grab—whether proposed by President Obama, President Romney, or President Reagan—is an unconstitutional act, and I will fight it with every tool at my disposal.”

U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa., and Chairman of the Immigration Caucus

Since he delivered the State of the Union address in January, President Obama has often spoken about “fairness” and how “everyone should play by the same rules.”

Those buzzwords have become a mantra of his policies and his re-election campaign.

But on Friday, President Obama unilaterally changed the rules regarding amnesty for at least 800,000 illegal aliens – though some estimates put the number of those affected in the millions –and he discarded any pretense of acting fairly.


President Obama says his administration will not deport illegal aliens under the age of 30 if they meet certain criteria. Those illegal aliens will be allowed to apply for two-year work permits that can be renewed indefinitely.


Thanks to President Obama, some illegal aliens will be rewarded for breaking American immigration laws with federal permission to stay in the United States permanently.


That is de facto amnesty.


The president not only ignored the will of Congress, which has wisely and repeatedly refused to grant such amnesty, and the separation of powers enumerated in the United States Constitution, he changed the rules and unfairly punished American citizens and those who are legally in this country.


President Obama’s amnesty announcement directly hurts:


* American citizens and legal immigrants who are looking for work. The national unemployment rate has been over 8 percent for the last 40 months, yet President Obama’s decision lets at least 800,000 illegal aliens compete for very scarce jobs. About 15 percent of American workers are unemployed or underemployed; now, they face a tougher challenge to find work because of President Obama’s amnesty announcement;* Young Americans and young legal immigrants applying for college, scholarships, and financial aid. At least 800,000 illegal aliens can now compete for college admission spots, college scholarships, student loans, and federal and state grants;
* Would-be legal immigrants, who have been patiently waiting – playing by the rules, President Obama might say – to enter the United States to live, study, and work. Now, they see that lawbreakers are rewarded for their brazenness, while they wait to enter the United States through the front door;
* Law enforcement officials, who will face an uptick in fraudulent documentation, as illegal aliens who do not meet President Obama’s new criteria will create or purchase fake paperwork that will get them work permits and de facto amnesty;
* Those who actually believe in fairness and the rule of law, who should be offended by President Obama’s blatantly political amnesty announcement. It would seem the president agrees, or did agree. During a town hall meeting in March 2011, he said, “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that.” But that was 2011, and this is an election year, so the president chose to ignore his obligation.
* The U.S. Constitution, which is damaged by President Obama’s deliberate contravention of the role of Congress in making laws. During that same town hall meeting, the president said, “Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”


So it’s clear that President Obama understands – or understood, in March 2011 – his role and the role of Congress and the courts in setting and enforcing American immigration policy. Yet on Friday, he decided to ignore those roles.


Constitutional experts across the political spectrum say President Obama has dangerously expanded the use executive power since he took office by bypassing Congress and unilaterally altering federal drug enforcement, No Child Left Behind standards, Internet gambling policies, and more. Now, he adds immigration policy to that list – despite his public statements 15 months ago.


It is clear to me that President Obama not only overstepped his constitutional authority, but he acted with the knowledge he does not have that authority in the first place.


While I hope President Obama carefully reconsiders and reverses his position, I understand he will not in an election year.


I sincerely hope the next President of the United States strictly enforces all of our existing immigration laws.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ):
“Immigration reform is an important and complex issue that deserves a debate among the American people and in Congress. The announcement by President Obama is a politically-motivated power grab that does nothing to further the debate but instead adds additional confusion and uncertainty to our broken immigration system. Further, I find it interesting that after promising to enact comprehensive reform in the first year of his Presidency, the President chose to make this announcement in the middle of his heated re-election campaign. Rather than unilaterally deciding for the American people what they want and how they believe this problem should be addressed, I encourage the President and his Administration to finally reach out to Congress and propose legislation on this important issue.”

U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
“Today’s politically motivated announcement from the Obama Administration that it is going to immediately stop deporting illegal immigrants who came to this country and instead grant them work permits is an outrageous abuse of power by the Executive Branch.  With this announcement President Obama has completely bypassed the Congress, which is charged with writing our immigration laws, in order to grant possible amnesty to many illegal immigrants. This policy shift is in direct conflict with the law of our land.
Not only do I believe President Obama lacks the authority to make such a change to our immigration laws but I find it particularly egregious that he would want to hand out work permits to nearly 1 million illegal immigrants when many Americans are struggling to find work themselves.
America is a land of great opportunity and promise.  Our nation was founded by those who sought a better life and our strength and diversity come from our immigrant heritage.  However, our nation was also founded upon a set of principles, among them the rule of law and fairness and today’s announcement by the Obama Administration is contrary to these very principles.”   

I read the news so you don't have to

Welcome to another edition of "I read the news, so you don't have to!" Thanksgiving weekend is a fairly slow political news weekend, while the candidates let their staffs get some sleep, and the candidates pose for family photos. Or if you are President Obama you can catch up on college basketball.

Categorized by candidate, here are a few headlines-

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich spent Thanksgiving defending his stance on immigration. Apparently the crazy old man actually thinks we should let families stay together. An ironic position for a Republican to take on the weekend we celebrate a bunch of Europeans immigrating to a new land for a better life. He told a group in immigrant heavy and friendly Florida, "I am not for amnesty for 11 million people. I’m actually not for amnesty for anyone. I’m not for a path to citizenship for any people who are out here illegally. But I am for a path to legality for those people whose ties run so deeply in America that it would truly be a tragedy to try and rip their family apart." (Source: CNN)
He also added, "I think the vast majority [of illegal immigrants] will go home and should go home and then should reapply. I do not think anybody should be eligible for citizenship. I am suggesting a certification of legality with no right to vote and no right to become an American citizen unless they go home and apply through the regular procedures back home and get in line behind everybody else who has obeyed the law and stayed back there." (Source: MSN)

Former mathematician, minister, radio talk show host, and pizza aficianado Herman "the Hermanator" Cain, was the subject of a profile piece by MSNBC but otherwise stayed out of the limelight. Warning- reading this piece gives away all the spoilers in Mr. Cain's autobiography. He's American, he's black, and he's (mostly) conservative.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann can be found attacking Gingrich on immigration. She called him <gasp> a "liberal" that supports amnesty for illegal aliens. She cited a letter, co-signed by Gingrich and 14 other conservatives and published in the Wall Street Journal in 2004, offering support for President George W. Bush’s proposal at the time for a guest-worker program. (For an updated point of view from Mr. Gingrich please see approximately 10 lines up.)
Because Mr. Gingrich has clearly changed (or do we consider this a more educated or clarified opinion?) his position on amnesty, I present him with this lovely golden flipflop award. Wear it proudly, Mr. Former Speaker.

Rick Santorum could not be found in any new national news stories. Sorry Mr. Santorum.

Rick Perry could be found in a few stories, but nothing that was actually interesting. The Des Moines Register did let us know that the Gov. Perry released a Thanksgiving web video. It is worth noting that Perry is trailing the front-runner (Gingrich this week) in Iowa by over 16 points, according to the latest polls.  And in case you were curious, in a national election, Obama would beat Perry by about 9%.

Jon Huntsman also failed to make the national news, but apparently he did speak to the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Or as the Manchester Union Leader reported it the "New Hampshire House or Representatives." Maybe they were just confused. 

Texas Congressman Ron Paul was also not to be found making any national headlines this weekend. But since I have been criticized for not covering Mr. Paul enough, here's a few facts about him. According to polls conducted by reputable national organizations, he is currently polling at his highest ever in Iowa at 13% (that is 9% behind the front runner, and puts him in 4th place. In national polls he is bringing his 8%, which is 15.8% behind the front runner, and at 5th place. He's not faring much better in New Hampshire or South Carolina either. However, if you take polls conducted among Christian home-schoolers in Iowa, he's in first place. (No, seriously.)

Which brings us to former Governor Mitt Romney. Romney was found in headlines all over the place thanks to the unhappiness from his first TV spot. Now before you go calling me biased for Mitt, let's review a few things. I, like so many others, absolutely agree that his TV spot was wrong, and he took Obama's quote on the economy completely out of context. I'm a little disappointed in straight arrow Mitt for that one. So let's see how his team is spinning and defending this foul ball.
In Slate.com we read, " The Romney campaign could have cared less."We want to engage the president," explained Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom in the spin room. "We look at him as our rival. It's all deliberate; it was all very intentional..." Romney adviser Ron Kaufman, an RNC committee member and longtime operative, simply said that the ad "worked."
Politico quoted Romney campaign strategist Stuart Stevens as saying, "It is now my goal for every ad we make to so upset the White House that they will force [White House Press Secretary Jay Carney] to go out with his light saber and do his thing." He also pointed out that Democrats have been more than willing to target his candidate in harsh terms. “These guys have attacked Romney in one form or another hundreds — yes, hundreds — of times over just the last few weeks,” Stevens said. “Everyone from multi-millionaire investment banker and brother to Ari, Rahm, to Wesley Clark to the legions of interns they have tweeting away as if they are trying to write Moby Dick by tweet every week.
The Washington Post story title even read, "Romney ad misleads its way to desired result." 
I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed in the Romney camp for intentionally misleading anyone (even if this ad only ran in a small media buy in New Hampshire). Isn't it just a little too soon for the smoke screens and mirrors? I expected a cleaner campaign from you, Governor. I get why you did it, I just wish you hadn't.