IGNORING THE U.S CONSTITUTION

 “Congress seems to want to cure every ill known to man except unconstitutional government and high taxes.” ~Charley Reese

      President_Naturalization.jpg

 BillofRightsVOid.jpgFriday, August 19, The Federal Election Commission released two draft advisory opinions indicating that it might allow a naturalized, Guyana-born American citizen to file papers and raise funds for run a Presidential run in 2012.

New York City lawyer Abdul Hassan, under this ruling, could conceivably be permitted to go through the initial steps to run for president. Hassan was born in the South American country of Guyana in 1974, and asked the FEC in July whether he could legally raise funds for his presidential candidacy.

Faced with the possibility of deciding a substantial question of a constitutional nature, one would think the FEC would simply tell him to, “get lost” and petition the judicial branch for such a substantial pivotal answer. Do you think they did that? No. . The hacks at FEC readily and willingly stepped up and responded, “although the Commission can respond to the questions asked in [his] advisory opinion, the Commission cannot make any determination as to whether [Hassan] can, as a naturalized citizen, serve as President.”

FEC told Hassan in a July 18 e-mail response that he could be a candidate, may solicit funds and would be required to file disclosure reports. But opinions differ on whether he may receive federal matching funds.  In the FEC’s first draft opinion, they advise Hassan that he would not be able to receive matching funds citing the constitutional provision. Yet, in the second draft opinion, they dodge the question entirely, characterizing it as a, “hypothetical question.”

Read more

Tin-Eared Bureaucrats

“Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status.” ~Laurence J. Peter

refugees_manchvegas.jpg

Barbara Seebart, New Hampshire State Refugee Coordinator didn’t appear to grasp Mayor Ted Gatsas’ assertions that the City of Manchester is not prepared to absorb another 300 refugees. The Board of Mayor and Alderman voted in favor of a moratorium this month given the city’s current financial situation.

Seebart, told the mayor she would pass along his concerns to the hacks in Washington DC, but then ended her response to Gatsas with this little gem: “I look forward to our continued collaboration in assuring refugees are successfully resettled in Manchester.”  As reported in today’s edition of the New Hampshire Union Leader.

Gatsas promptly responded to Seebart asserting, “I continue to question how success is measured with regards to resettlement by both yourself and the International Institute of New Hampshire; to date that question has yet to be sufficiently answered.”

 On July 7, the Union Leader reported that Seebart expressed concerns about scarce case management after refugees have been in the Queen city 6-9 months, as well as concerns with the economy and potential welfare law changes. Yet her above statement seems to indicate a tin ear.

On July 10 International Institute of New England Board Chairman William Gillett, in the Union Leader argued against a moratorium stating, “To suggest that refugees resettling in Manchester “are going to suffer because there are not enough resources for them” ignores completely the conditions and lives that the refugees have fled…” Gillett further arrogantly opines, “Any lack of adequate resources is a failure of will, not a failure of ability.” Another tin ear.

The city has cut back on many services; The city has laid off workers; and, the tax payers are facing another tax increase.  Gillett’s organization is not shy about spending the tax payers dollars, either. Gillett points out that, “A significant amount of federal money flows in to Manchester to support refugee resettlement. These funds target refugee employment assistance, health care, English language and citizenship classes and, specifically, the educational needs of refugee children in the Manchester schools.  organization…” What he wants us to believe is that such federal funds are sufficient to do all that he says they are intended to do. Not true. And Gillet’s own organization’s report reflects that where IINH states, “

Read more

Share to...