Have you ever seen the mission statement of the Department of Justice? It’s pretty much what you would expect
To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.
How’s that work out in practice?
(CNS News) The U.S. Department of Justice gave $342,168,401 in grant money to 10 “sanctuary†states and cities that shield illegal aliens, even violent ones, from deportation by refusing to cooperate with federal immigration officials, according to a Judicial Watch report.
In a recent memorandum to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz revealed that at least 10 state and local jurisdictions that receive grants from the OJP and Office of Violence against Women (OVW) have policies limiting or effectively precluding local officials’ cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“Among them is Connecticut, a trailblazer in the sanctuary movement that received more than $69 million in grants from the DOJ,†said Judicial Watch.
“Connecticut has long protected illegal immigrants with sanctuary policies and even offers them special drivers’ licenses, known as Drive Only. The state also gives illegal aliens discounted tuition at public colleges and universities and authorities work hard to restrict the feds from deporting illegal immigrants.
The DOJ, the top law enforcement agency in the United States, is giving money to states and cities that refuse to cooperate with federal law. From the Judicial Watch statement
The Obama administration rewards sanctuary states, counties and cities that shield violent illegal immigrants from deportation with hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants and one of the biggest recipients recently made headlines for protecting a serial criminal who murdered a young woman. The money flows through the Department of Justice (DOJ), the agency responsible for enforcing the law and defending the interests of the United States. The DOJ is also charged with providing federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime, according to its mission statement, and seeking just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior.
Essentially, the DOJ is rewarding states and cities that refuse to follow the law the DOJ is supposed to uphold.
Insurance is not a “socialist process”. If anything, since it was originally conceived by capitalists who banded together to cover the losses of their ships at sea it would be a capitalist process. A socialist process would be having the government cover the losses. Several people banding together to achieve a goal is in itself not socialist, comrade Jeffery. It becomes socialist when they band together to produce the same outcome for everybody and if they are forced by government to do so. Then, my comrade contributor, it becomes socialist. But you should know that, with you everything is government force.
Stop right there, comrade, no one here to my knowledge is “wealthy”, we’re all middle class folks and you have absolutely no idea what conservatives want. If you did and had any intelligence and morality you’d be a conservative.
Now comrade, since you don’t know what conservative want let’s look at your points one at a time to see what the comrade THINKS conservatives want an correct him. I can do that comrade, I’m a conservative.
Anyone with any brains would like their taxes reduced but you stated conservative specifically want their own “greatly reduced”. Would you please point out where it is written by any conservative they want their, and only their, taxes “greatly reduced”.
Again comrade, you project your own foolish words onto conservatives. Where do any state they want taxes raised on the poor? The question was if the poor don’t pay taxes should they vote. Our answer is no and we gave a reason. Theoretically all citizens should pay at least a nominal tax. After all they enjoy the same rights and privileges as everyone else. Frankly I’d be happy if the ungrateful bastards would say “thank you” once in a while instead of demanding more. I loathe ingratitude.
We don’t believe it is just nor moral for people who do not support the system to have a say in running it. Do you, comrade? Do you think a Canadian should vote in our election? He contributes as much as the poor and has the advantage of NOT sucking at the teat of our government. I believe we are morally justified to ask that people deciding how the money is spent at least pay into that money. Don’t you? Or should I have a right to tell you how to spend your pay check that I didn’t contribute to?
Again comrade, your listening and comprehension skills need sharpening. First we ask that additional spending be stopped until a full and impartial audit of each agency can be done. We then ask that all possible waste, fraud and abuse be cut out and the budgets reflect that. We then ask that all laws “Sunset” so their need must be verified every few years. At that point the spending will have slashed itself but if further cuts are necessary they should be made.
Of the “personal subsidies” as you call them comrade, SS/Medicare/SSI are the “personal” ones and they are paid for in advance by their recipients or so we were led to believe by the shylock leftists who first developed these Ponzi schemes. In any case they too can be changed for the future and we conservatives believe they should be. It’s the leftists that throw a shitfit when someone mentions privatizing or changing anything. As far as “contracts” are concerned I don’t understand your problem. The federal government creates nothing so if it wants something built it puts out contracts. “Clean air and water” are demanded by leftists and conservatives alike and it amuses me that for some stupid reason because conservatives want judicious use of our tax revenues somehow that translates to wanting to breathe polluted air and drink piss water. We just don’t believe that throwing money at a problem fixes it. Solyndra is a case in point. And once again you end on “highways” so yes, we are all for highways. We love us some highways. And bridges too. Don’t forget bridges.
Jeffrey asked:
I object to the mandatory process of insurance; as a voluntary transaction, I not only support the idea, but buy insurance myself.
That’s my point to comrade Jeffery, Dana. It’s not socialist to do things together it becomes socialist when the government forces people to do things together especially, but not limited to when designed for identical outcome. By comrade Jeffery’s definition a business partnership of five people is “socialism”. The comrades among us have a difficult time distinguishing between voluntary association and forced coercion. In an earlier comment comrade Jeffery stated:”You will almost certainly collect more in Social Security than you’ve paid in,”. But we HAD to, no choice. Now I have one old mutual fund, it was a 50k pay in for 7 tears back in the 70’s. Over the years it grew by ten fold. That’s a lot more than my SS did and I own this. I can leave it to anybody I want. Again, voluntary and much, much more profitable than forced SS.