American politics is an amusing blood sport to watch. Like President Bush before him, Obama is now the one Democrats don't want to be seen with in an election year. Not even a mere photo-op ala Charlie Crist.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Obama does not have the pulse of the nation. He clearly avoids siding with the American people in his belief that he has the greater wisdom. Such is the way of the fools' errand.
President Obama waded into the NYC mosque controversy, and it was not good.
Millions of Americans are upset that a mosque is being built so close to Ground Zero. Mr. President, there is no changing the majority's view of Islam as being diabolically responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. No mosque should be built there, period.
Perhaps New York City's labor unions can have a say here, and not work on such a project no matter how much their union members stand to gain.
Here's where NYC's labor can do for America what Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Patterson, and the state legislature, city council, the community board and the Landmarks Preservation Commission refused to do for all of us Americans. And, that is to take a strong stand against the Islamization of Ground Zero.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Latinos hyperventilating over Arizona law
The national firestorm over the new state law passed by the Arizona state legislature and signed by the republican governor, Jan Brewer, last week has reignited the heated debate on both sides of the political aisle that has laid dormant for the past two years, as to what to do with illegal immigrants in the United States.
Arizona is a southern border state. It is estimated that 450,000 illegal aliens reside in the state out of a population of 6.8 million. It is also the state illegal aliens, and human and drug traffickers prefer to cross over because of the vast open desert space despite the dangers the desert poses.
American ranchers in the state have fought a never-ending battle to protect their property and livestock from these trespassers, and have urged and implored their elected officials to do something about this growing problem.
Just ask Robert Krentz, a rancher who not only complained about the problem, but also did whatever humanely possible to help those illegal aliens trespassing on his property by providing food and water. I say "did" because it's too late to ask him anything. Mr. Krentz, and his pet dog, was murdered on March 27th by an illegal alien who fled back to Mexico. His murder set in motion the state's response over the lack of a secured border and federal enforcement inaction.
So, what is the real reason why there is so much hostility towards SB 1070 by the supporters of illegal immigration like the ACLU, the National Council of La Raza and LULAC?
The carefully-crafted law, which, by the way, mirrors federal statutes, authorizes police officers to make a reasonable attempt to verify the immigration status of persons they come into lawful contact, and not to harass people based on the color of their skin.
Article 8, Section B states: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state, or a county, city, town or political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code Section 1373 (c)."
Meaning, the law is very explicit. Law enforcement officers cannot stop anyone on the street or enter their homes to ask what their immigration status is without a lawful purpose to engage the individual. Such lawful purposes are anything like running a red light, speeding, a bar fight, smoking weed in public, a car accident, a broken turn signal light, intoxication, shoplifting, robbery, murder. Get the picture?
If you are an American citizen or a legal resident alien, you have nothing to fear.
So stop hyperventilating about being picked on for being latino. We are a nation of laws and order, and there is a serious illegal immigration problem in the nation, and Americans have a right to feel protected in their own homeland.
A special note of remembrance to Border Patrol Agent Robert W. Rosas, killed in the line of duty on July 23, 2009, in San Diego by an illegal alien who was recently sentenced to 40 years in a federal lock-up. May you rest in peace.
Arizona is a southern border state. It is estimated that 450,000 illegal aliens reside in the state out of a population of 6.8 million. It is also the state illegal aliens, and human and drug traffickers prefer to cross over because of the vast open desert space despite the dangers the desert poses.
American ranchers in the state have fought a never-ending battle to protect their property and livestock from these trespassers, and have urged and implored their elected officials to do something about this growing problem.
Just ask Robert Krentz, a rancher who not only complained about the problem, but also did whatever humanely possible to help those illegal aliens trespassing on his property by providing food and water. I say "did" because it's too late to ask him anything. Mr. Krentz, and his pet dog, was murdered on March 27th by an illegal alien who fled back to Mexico. His murder set in motion the state's response over the lack of a secured border and federal enforcement inaction.
So, what is the real reason why there is so much hostility towards SB 1070 by the supporters of illegal immigration like the ACLU, the National Council of La Raza and LULAC?
The carefully-crafted law, which, by the way, mirrors federal statutes, authorizes police officers to make a reasonable attempt to verify the immigration status of persons they come into lawful contact, and not to harass people based on the color of their skin.
Article 8, Section B states: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state, or a county, city, town or political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code Section 1373 (c)."
Meaning, the law is very explicit. Law enforcement officers cannot stop anyone on the street or enter their homes to ask what their immigration status is without a lawful purpose to engage the individual. Such lawful purposes are anything like running a red light, speeding, a bar fight, smoking weed in public, a car accident, a broken turn signal light, intoxication, shoplifting, robbery, murder. Get the picture?
If you are an American citizen or a legal resident alien, you have nothing to fear.
So stop hyperventilating about being picked on for being latino. We are a nation of laws and order, and there is a serious illegal immigration problem in the nation, and Americans have a right to feel protected in their own homeland.
A special note of remembrance to Border Patrol Agent Robert W. Rosas, killed in the line of duty on July 23, 2009, in San Diego by an illegal alien who was recently sentenced to 40 years in a federal lock-up. May you rest in peace.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Castro Approves
Well, at least Cuban dictator Fidel Castro has lived long enough to witness the Democrat party take the path toward socialism in an In-Your-Face approach against the majority of the American people.
Hailing it "a miracle", Castro, who has watched ten U.S. presidents come and go since 1959, wrote in a Cuban daily, "We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama's) government."
The Cuban premier continued, "It is really incredible that 234 years after the Declaration of Independence...the government of that country has approved medical attention for the majority of its citizens, something that Cuba was able to do half a century ago."
Well, here are a few photos of Cuba's system of universal healthcare. Enjoy, and then praise God for U.S. medical care.
Picture 1, Picture 2, Picture 3, Picture 4.
Hailing it "a miracle", Castro, who has watched ten U.S. presidents come and go since 1959, wrote in a Cuban daily, "We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama's) government."
The Cuban premier continued, "It is really incredible that 234 years after the Declaration of Independence...the government of that country has approved medical attention for the majority of its citizens, something that Cuba was able to do half a century ago."
Well, here are a few photos of Cuba's system of universal healthcare. Enjoy, and then praise God for U.S. medical care.
Picture 1, Picture 2, Picture 3, Picture 4.
Monday, March 22, 2010
A Pyrrhic Victory On Healthcare
President Obama and congressional Democrats won a political victory Sunday evening by passing healthcare reform legislation by a vote of 219 - 212. As they say in politics, it's all about winning, whether the win is done via a bipartisan manner or not, as long as legislation is passed on a majority vote, then it's a win.
Congratulations to the Democrats! They won without a single republican vote and 34 Democrats voting against their own party's measure.
That said, this win is, in reality, a Pyrrhic victory for the Democrats for several reasons.
One, the simple House majority vote was not that large. They won by four votes, or a bare minimum. Four votes! What does that say about this legislation? That it's pretty much a bad bill that an entire opposition party could not support, unlike, say, the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s where republicans joined non-Southern Democrats to say, hey, enough!
Two, the federal taxation that is going to have to be collected from all those who work will increase. There is no free lunch folks. Somebody has to pay for Congress's mess!
Three, the Democrats say this reform will pay for itself, but let's be real. When President Bush lobbied the congress in 2003 to pass the Prescription Drug bill, he told us the bill would cost over $400B over ten years. The figure more than doubled three years after passage, and will continue to increase.
Think the real cost Speaker Pelosi mentioned, of $940B, is the actual cost to insure the 30 million uninsured beginning in 2014? This is not taking into account the "Cornhusker" deals offered to members for their votes. It also does not take into account future amendments to put back the cuts into Medicare/Medicaid that Pelosi put in, in order to get the Congressional Budget Office's thumbs up as a deficit reducer.
Four, if anyone thinks this is the end of the healthcare reform debate, guess again. What the Democrats did Sunday evening was merely the beginning of the end of private healthcare insurance as we know it.
For liberal Democrats, a true healthcare victory is one in which the federal government provides universal healthcare coverage for all Americans modelled after the European nationalized healthcare system.
As Cong. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) explained on National Public Radio shortly after his "yes" vote, the passage opens the door for further government expansion into healthcare, and ultimately, universal healthcare.
This legislation, it is said, will cover 30 million uninsured Americans. However, as I recall during the Bush years, Democrats were lamenting the 47 million uninsured. What's happened to the 17 million uninsured? Who are they, and why weren't they covered by this Democrat-led bill?
The answer is simple.
Thinking well into the future, the Democrats' game plan is to launch another endeavor to Insure Those Left Behind. This new political effort will allow the Democrats to use this new uninsured group (perhaps a collection of illegal aliens) as a battle-cry against, to use Pelosi's language, the mean-spirited and evil GOP in 2012.
For millions of Americans who were let down the night of March 21, 2010, November cannot come any sooner.
Congratulations to the Democrats! They won without a single republican vote and 34 Democrats voting against their own party's measure.
That said, this win is, in reality, a Pyrrhic victory for the Democrats for several reasons.
One, the simple House majority vote was not that large. They won by four votes, or a bare minimum. Four votes! What does that say about this legislation? That it's pretty much a bad bill that an entire opposition party could not support, unlike, say, the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s where republicans joined non-Southern Democrats to say, hey, enough!
Two, the federal taxation that is going to have to be collected from all those who work will increase. There is no free lunch folks. Somebody has to pay for Congress's mess!
Three, the Democrats say this reform will pay for itself, but let's be real. When President Bush lobbied the congress in 2003 to pass the Prescription Drug bill, he told us the bill would cost over $400B over ten years. The figure more than doubled three years after passage, and will continue to increase.
Think the real cost Speaker Pelosi mentioned, of $940B, is the actual cost to insure the 30 million uninsured beginning in 2014? This is not taking into account the "Cornhusker" deals offered to members for their votes. It also does not take into account future amendments to put back the cuts into Medicare/Medicaid that Pelosi put in, in order to get the Congressional Budget Office's thumbs up as a deficit reducer.
Four, if anyone thinks this is the end of the healthcare reform debate, guess again. What the Democrats did Sunday evening was merely the beginning of the end of private healthcare insurance as we know it.
For liberal Democrats, a true healthcare victory is one in which the federal government provides universal healthcare coverage for all Americans modelled after the European nationalized healthcare system.
As Cong. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) explained on National Public Radio shortly after his "yes" vote, the passage opens the door for further government expansion into healthcare, and ultimately, universal healthcare.
This legislation, it is said, will cover 30 million uninsured Americans. However, as I recall during the Bush years, Democrats were lamenting the 47 million uninsured. What's happened to the 17 million uninsured? Who are they, and why weren't they covered by this Democrat-led bill?
The answer is simple.
Thinking well into the future, the Democrats' game plan is to launch another endeavor to Insure Those Left Behind. This new political effort will allow the Democrats to use this new uninsured group (perhaps a collection of illegal aliens) as a battle-cry against, to use Pelosi's language, the mean-spirited and evil GOP in 2012.
For millions of Americans who were let down the night of March 21, 2010, November cannot come any sooner.
Monday, February 15, 2010
A political threat on the horizon for Obama
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) decided today that he will not seek reelection this year, paving the way for a republican takeover of this seat the Democrats thought they would still retain.
Clearly, this is a huge deal as the Democrat Congress struggles to keep their control of both houses in a year when the voters are showing their total disgust for the body.
Bayh's departure sends another signal to the political orbit, one that should worry President Barack Hussein Obama.
Will the moderate Bayh, with his $13M campaign treasure and history, challenge the incumbent president in 2012 who is increasingly seen as a weak leader?
The Indiana senator was on Obama's list for vice president despite having endorsed Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy, was the youngest governor elected to his state in 1989 at the age of 33, and has never lost an election.
Clearly, this is a huge deal as the Democrat Congress struggles to keep their control of both houses in a year when the voters are showing their total disgust for the body.
Bayh's departure sends another signal to the political orbit, one that should worry President Barack Hussein Obama.
Will the moderate Bayh, with his $13M campaign treasure and history, challenge the incumbent president in 2012 who is increasingly seen as a weak leader?
The Indiana senator was on Obama's list for vice president despite having endorsed Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy, was the youngest governor elected to his state in 1989 at the age of 33, and has never lost an election.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Thoughts for the day
So, the only Kennedy serving in Washington, Congressman Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), the son of the late senator Ted Kennedy, has some mincy words for Massachusetts junior senator Scott Brown.
As reported in The Hill newspaper, Kennedy calls Brown's election as "a joke", and derides Brown's decision to move up his swearing in by a week.
Well, the people of Massachusetts voted in an election, and the winner was Brown. Does Kennedy think the voters in his father's state are a bunch of nitwits? What does he think of Senator Al Franken (D-MN)?
Sure, Kennedy is upset that Brown cast a vote last night against President Obama appointee to the National Labor Relations Board, but that is his right now.
Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) appeared on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night, and was asked, "Is [Senator Joe Lieberman] a dick?"
Jokingly, Weiner responded, "Yes, Jon."
In a week where we have also learned that White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel referred to wayward Democrat activitsts at "retards" last August in a private meeting with Democrats, what's happened to the Democrats' call for civility?
Speaking of Senator Al Franken, it's getting interesting watching this attack dog going after Obama for not laying the groundwork for easy passage of health care legislation.
However, I think someone should tell this comedian the office of the president is an independent body.
The senate and house leadership cannot agree on whether there should be a public option or whether to raise taxes on cadillac health care plans. And, the American people do not want a government takeover of healthcare.
So, word of wisdom to Franken, keep making us laugh while you serve.
As reported in The Hill newspaper, Kennedy calls Brown's election as "a joke", and derides Brown's decision to move up his swearing in by a week.
Well, the people of Massachusetts voted in an election, and the winner was Brown. Does Kennedy think the voters in his father's state are a bunch of nitwits? What does he think of Senator Al Franken (D-MN)?
Sure, Kennedy is upset that Brown cast a vote last night against President Obama appointee to the National Labor Relations Board, but that is his right now.
The people of Massachusetts voted for change. Accept it, Patrick. The Kennedy Era is pretty much ovah!
* * *
Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) appeared on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night, and was asked, "Is [Senator Joe Lieberman] a dick?"
Jokingly, Weiner responded, "Yes, Jon."
In a week where we have also learned that White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel referred to wayward Democrat activitsts at "retards" last August in a private meeting with Democrats, what's happened to the Democrats' call for civility?
* * *
Speaking of Senator Al Franken, it's getting interesting watching this attack dog going after Obama for not laying the groundwork for easy passage of health care legislation.
However, I think someone should tell this comedian the office of the president is an independent body.
The senate and house leadership cannot agree on whether there should be a public option or whether to raise taxes on cadillac health care plans. And, the American people do not want a government takeover of healthcare.
So, word of wisdom to Franken, keep making us laugh while you serve.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Coming Political Showdown
If 2009 was a good year for President Barack Hussein Obama, 2010 will certainly be a year he will wish he could run away from as quickly as possible.
Yes, the latter half of last year proved to be a little bit bumpy, especially with the Tea Party movement gaining ground over issues on healthcare and the national debt. The elections of two Republican governors in November abruptly ended his third honeymoon, a feat never given to other presidents in their first year.
However, 2010 will be a political revolutionary year for both parties, and here's why. For one, the Democrats are scared as hell of losing power once again. And, it looks like the main reason is Obama, according to the pundits.
But, blaming Obama for all the Democrats' political troubles is merely a scapegoat. Congressional Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for supporting the leadership running that entire body.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is a miserable failure who acts like Mussolini while her counterpart in the senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) looks like a bumbling fool who's been hit about the head a number of times. Neither inspires confide, but they retain their power because nobody in their caucus are willing to stand up against them for fear of retribution through loss of appropriations and committee chairs.
Democrats, however fearful of their leadership, are increasingly concerned of the coming mid-term election because, as history shows, the party that run the White House normally loses control of one or both bodies in Congress. Remember the election of 1994 and 2006?
Last week's testimony before the House Oversight & Government Reform committee, Treasury secretary Tim Geithner faced a tongue-lashing not only by the GOP but by the Democrats regarding his role in the bailout of AIG and others.
Democrats are also becoming more interested with homeland security issues to appear tough on the security front. But, will all this be enough to avert what is projected to be a significant loss in both chambers come November 2nd?
It's quite clear congressional Democrats, like congressional GOPers under Bush, are distancing themselves from President Obama. However, perhaps Democrats ought to distance themselves from Pelosi and Reid, too. Talk about two divisive personalities who are willing to skirt the House and Senate rules to pass healthcare legislation with a bare partisan majority vote rather than a super majority vote.
Said Pelosi with respect to healthcare legislaiton on January 28, 2010: "You go through the gate. If it's closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in. But we're going to get health care reform passed for the American people."
It's such language flying in the face of massive popular uproar that is hurting the Democrats more so than Obama's anti-business rhetoric. The view that the government knows better than the people is a foreign concept liberals have been trying to plant into the American mindset.
So, expect 2010 to be a very turbulent year in politics. As for the GOP, well, there are a few RINOs who could use a pink slip. McCain certainly comes to mind.
Yes, the latter half of last year proved to be a little bit bumpy, especially with the Tea Party movement gaining ground over issues on healthcare and the national debt. The elections of two Republican governors in November abruptly ended his third honeymoon, a feat never given to other presidents in their first year.
However, 2010 will be a political revolutionary year for both parties, and here's why. For one, the Democrats are scared as hell of losing power once again. And, it looks like the main reason is Obama, according to the pundits.
But, blaming Obama for all the Democrats' political troubles is merely a scapegoat. Congressional Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for supporting the leadership running that entire body.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is a miserable failure who acts like Mussolini while her counterpart in the senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) looks like a bumbling fool who's been hit about the head a number of times. Neither inspires confide, but they retain their power because nobody in their caucus are willing to stand up against them for fear of retribution through loss of appropriations and committee chairs.
Democrats, however fearful of their leadership, are increasingly concerned of the coming mid-term election because, as history shows, the party that run the White House normally loses control of one or both bodies in Congress. Remember the election of 1994 and 2006?
Last week's testimony before the House Oversight & Government Reform committee, Treasury secretary Tim Geithner faced a tongue-lashing not only by the GOP but by the Democrats regarding his role in the bailout of AIG and others.
Democrats are also becoming more interested with homeland security issues to appear tough on the security front. But, will all this be enough to avert what is projected to be a significant loss in both chambers come November 2nd?
It's quite clear congressional Democrats, like congressional GOPers under Bush, are distancing themselves from President Obama. However, perhaps Democrats ought to distance themselves from Pelosi and Reid, too. Talk about two divisive personalities who are willing to skirt the House and Senate rules to pass healthcare legislation with a bare partisan majority vote rather than a super majority vote.
Said Pelosi with respect to healthcare legislaiton on January 28, 2010: "You go through the gate. If it's closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in. But we're going to get health care reform passed for the American people."
It's such language flying in the face of massive popular uproar that is hurting the Democrats more so than Obama's anti-business rhetoric. The view that the government knows better than the people is a foreign concept liberals have been trying to plant into the American mindset.
So, expect 2010 to be a very turbulent year in politics. As for the GOP, well, there are a few RINOs who could use a pink slip. McCain certainly comes to mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
