Maryland apparently has a problem with students not being able to pass their final exams in order to graduate high school. So, guess what kind of a plan the State School Superintendent, Nancy S. Grasmick, introduces to fix their graduation rate. Increased pay to attract top-level teachers? Sadly, no. Hire more teachers? If only. Better classroom equipment and technology? Wrong again.
She offers a way to graduate without passing the tests.
Her new plan is to allow students to complete projects to "show mastery" of a subject rather than pass tests on those subjects.
Two thoughts here. First, Grasmick is fixing the wrong problem! Instead of focusing on the education that her students are receiving (which, if done properly, would allow her students to pass these tests due to legitimate mastery of the subject), she's focusing simply on the number of students passing. Second, this is exactly what's wrong with our educational system today - administrations completely missing the point of education, forcing teachers to waste time on political correctness rather than TEACHING.
What happened to work ethic? What happened to high expectations? We can't possibly expect students nowadays to have to ***gasp*** do homework, or ***GASP*** study, can we? No, that would be unfair and cruel - after all, they're just kids!
Oh, yeah, that's right. Today's adults had to do all that when we were kids, and we turned out pretty well, didn't we? Making the United States known for world leadership in economics, politics, military, freedom, and all that? Hm, maybe there's a connection...
Is it any wonder the U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in math and science? If we want to regain our place as the cradle of innovation and technology, we need to stop fiddle-farting around with political correctness and idiotic policies like Grasmick's projects and start expecting high achievement from students. If we as a society require it of them, they'll deliver.
There's my two cents.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Fun & Frivolity: Stupid Sailors And Muck Spreader Madness
Two fun stories to usher in the weekend.
Stupid Sailors
Vietnamese poachers flying a Malaysian flag as a decoy while sailing in Malaysia's northeastern waters gave the game away by mistakenly flying it upside down. Locals became suspicious and called in the authorities. Oops.
Muck Spreader Madness
A farmer in Germany attacked police officers for trying to confiscate his tractor. He "[made] full use of its attached muck spreader and hydraulic fork", wrecking three patrol cars. There are two funny parts in this story. First is the fact that after wrecking those patrol cars, he drove into a forest and eluded pursuit involving two helicopters and an armored car for 7 hours! I'm thinking those Germans need a little bit of training on how to track (have you ever seen the trail left by tractor tires?). The second funny thing is that a police spokesman said about the incident, "In the countryside we're used to people going at police with muck spreaders, but this was something else." What? Police get attacked by muck spreaders a lot over there??
Have a great (and safe) holiday weekend!
Stupid Sailors
Vietnamese poachers flying a Malaysian flag as a decoy while sailing in Malaysia's northeastern waters gave the game away by mistakenly flying it upside down. Locals became suspicious and called in the authorities. Oops.
Muck Spreader Madness
A farmer in Germany attacked police officers for trying to confiscate his tractor. He "[made] full use of its attached muck spreader and hydraulic fork", wrecking three patrol cars. There are two funny parts in this story. First is the fact that after wrecking those patrol cars, he drove into a forest and eluded pursuit involving two helicopters and an armored car for 7 hours! I'm thinking those Germans need a little bit of training on how to track (have you ever seen the trail left by tractor tires?). The second funny thing is that a police spokesman said about the incident, "In the countryside we're used to people going at police with muck spreaders, but this was something else." What? Police get attacked by muck spreaders a lot over there??
Have a great (and safe) holiday weekend!
Legislative Action Watch
I've been hitting on a lot of legislative topics recently, and encouraging you to take action with your representatives on all of them. I know how tough it is to keep things straight, so I've put together a list of the topics on which I'm contacting my reps. Some are in progress, some are upcoming, but all are important.
Encourage your reps to favor/support:
Encourage your reps to oppose:
There's my two cents.
Encourage your reps to favor/support:
Federal No-Match Campaign
- implement an aggressive 'no-match' campaign on Social Security numbers, identifying the mismatches reported by businesses, and notifying those businesses of the violators
Require Businesses To Verify
- require all employers to e-verify the Social Security numbers (via the no-match campaign) of all new hires; this system must be simple and fast, or it will bog down businesses
Build The Fence!
- $3 billion dollars has been allocated to just border security - it MUST be implemented immediately; focus on the fence first, then add other high-tech wizardry
Local Checks
- require local authorities to check the immigration status of every person arrested (Missouri is already doing it, as I'm sure are some other states); any cities refusing to comply will receive no federal funding
Sanctuary Cities
- withhold all federal funding to self-declared 'sanctuary cities'
Clarify Birthright Citizenship
- support House Resolution H.R.1940 (which ends birthright citizenship being abused by illegals from all over the world), introduced by Congressman Nathan Deal of Georgia
Double Standards
- point out the double standards/hypocrisy of Democrats involved in scandal but still in Congress (Barney Franke, William Jefferson, Dianne Feinstein, and others); ask why Republicans never call for Democrats to step down
Encourage your reps to oppose:
SCHIPHopefully this helps you out - there's a lot of work to be done! Let's get to it!
- I've discussed this several times, so I won't go into the details; it's already passed both houses of Congress, so you need to support Bush's pledge to veto this terrible bill
Mortgage Bailout
- any mortgage bailout is a socialist action, redistributing the wealth of responsible people to irresponsible people and slimy businesses
Mexican Trucking
- opening up America's borders to Mexican trucking; this would eliminate thousands of American trucking jobs and throw open the doors for illegal aliens
Amnesty For Agriculture
- Senate bill S237 and House bill HR371 would grant amnesty to millions of agriculture workers
Amnesty And Tuition
- Senate bill S774 (also called the DREAM Act) would give in-state tuition to illegal aliens, as well as giving them amnesty
There's my two cents.
Uh-oh...Now The 'Consensus' Is Gone, Too!
The funny thing about the panic over the environment is that it isn't so much a science as it is a religion. Al Gore called global warming the "most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced" and denounced balanced reporting on the subject as being biased. Many very reputable scientists have come out in open skepticism against the global warming alarmists, and the biggest common fallback of die-hard environmentalists is to say that a 'consensus' of the scientific community believes in global warming (there's that pesky religion thing again), so it must be true.
The problem with that is that consensus -- by definition -- propels an argument out of the realm of science and into the realm of belief. For example, there was a general consensus in the centuries before Christ that the Earth was flat. The consensus was wrong. There was a general consensus in the early 17th century that the Sun revolved around the Earth. The consensus was wrong. See what I mean? Science isn't subject to consensus. We either figure it out correctly or we don't, but a consensus doesn't apply either way.
Now, there's a new problem for the global warming bunch: Marc Morano writes a blog post titled New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears on the Inhofe EPW Press Blog reporting that a review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 that found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics. In plain words, there is no consensus in the scientific community about the validity of global warming! It's no wonder global warming is essentially a non-issue for Americans. Personally, I think it's a myth largely perpetuated by the MSM to generate splashy headlines and generate sales, but that's just me.
So, now that there isn't even a 'consensus', what's an environmentalist to do? Quite frankly, I don't have a clue, but it should be entertaining to watch. Oh, by the way, according to Al Gore, we've only got about 10 years left before we doom the planet. You have been warned.
There's my two cents.
The problem with that is that consensus -- by definition -- propels an argument out of the realm of science and into the realm of belief. For example, there was a general consensus in the centuries before Christ that the Earth was flat. The consensus was wrong. There was a general consensus in the early 17th century that the Sun revolved around the Earth. The consensus was wrong. See what I mean? Science isn't subject to consensus. We either figure it out correctly or we don't, but a consensus doesn't apply either way.
Now, there's a new problem for the global warming bunch: Marc Morano writes a blog post titled New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears on the Inhofe EPW Press Blog reporting that a review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 that found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics. In plain words, there is no consensus in the scientific community about the validity of global warming! It's no wonder global warming is essentially a non-issue for Americans. Personally, I think it's a myth largely perpetuated by the MSM to generate splashy headlines and generate sales, but that's just me.
So, now that there isn't even a 'consensus', what's an environmentalist to do? Quite frankly, I don't have a clue, but it should be entertaining to watch. Oh, by the way, according to Al Gore, we've only got about 10 years left before we doom the planet. You have been warned.
There's my two cents.
How Is This A Good Thing?
CommonSenseAmerica reports on an impending issue that simply cannot be allowed: Mexican truckers coming freely into the U.S.
The Bush Administration is urging a federal appeals court to allow as many as 100 Mexican trucking companies free access to U.S. highways. Right now, Mexican trucks have to stop short of the border, where their cargo is loaded onto American trucks, and brought into the U.S. for delivery. There are several critical problems with this idea. First, American truckers will lose jobs by the thousands. Second, Mexican trucking companies have a much worse record of maintaining regulatory compliance records. Third, how many of those trucks do you suppose will be loaded to the roof with illegal aliens?
Why is the administration supporting this? Because they don't want to make Mexico mad.
WHAT?!
Who cares what Mexico thinks! Why is Bush more concerned with what Mexico thinks than what has been proven over and over to be a real economic, criminal, and terrorist danger to Americans?
This cannot be allowed!
There's my two cents.
The Bush Administration is urging a federal appeals court to allow as many as 100 Mexican trucking companies free access to U.S. highways. Right now, Mexican trucks have to stop short of the border, where their cargo is loaded onto American trucks, and brought into the U.S. for delivery. There are several critical problems with this idea. First, American truckers will lose jobs by the thousands. Second, Mexican trucking companies have a much worse record of maintaining regulatory compliance records. Third, how many of those trucks do you suppose will be loaded to the roof with illegal aliens?
Why is the administration supporting this? Because they don't want to make Mexico mad.
WHAT?!
Who cares what Mexico thinks! Why is Bush more concerned with what Mexico thinks than what has been proven over and over to be a real economic, criminal, and terrorist danger to Americans?
This cannot be allowed!
There's my two cents.
Housing Bail-out, Clinton Style
It's simple, really: just throw taxpayer money at the problem. Seriously, this is ridiculous! Michelle Malkin has the details, so go check it out on her page.
The bigger problem here is, again, the fact that Clinton's plan (and anyone who is lobbying for a buyout or bailout, or whatever you want to call it) is pure socialism: redistribution of wealth based on what those in power think is "fair". Most of the people who are in trouble should have known better. The concept of the adjustable rate mortgage is not that difficult - you have a period of time (1 year, 3 years, 5 years, etc.) while your interest rate is locked in at a low rate, and after that period of time, it shoots upward. Any normal, intelligent person should be able to figure out that they need to re-finance before that period of time is up. If you can't figure that out, maybe you shouldn't be trying to own a home in the first place!
This bail-out is an awful, awful idea. It's taking money from responsible people -- your money, from taxes YOU pay -- and giving it to people who are too dumb to figure out their mortgage, as well as the slimy mortgage companies that willingly utilized high-risk mortgages (and have already made handsome profits off of them). Don't let it happen! Call your reps in Congress, and call the White House, and tell them to avoid the socialist solution.
There's my two cents.
The bigger problem here is, again, the fact that Clinton's plan (and anyone who is lobbying for a buyout or bailout, or whatever you want to call it) is pure socialism: redistribution of wealth based on what those in power think is "fair". Most of the people who are in trouble should have known better. The concept of the adjustable rate mortgage is not that difficult - you have a period of time (1 year, 3 years, 5 years, etc.) while your interest rate is locked in at a low rate, and after that period of time, it shoots upward. Any normal, intelligent person should be able to figure out that they need to re-finance before that period of time is up. If you can't figure that out, maybe you shouldn't be trying to own a home in the first place!
This bail-out is an awful, awful idea. It's taking money from responsible people -- your money, from taxes YOU pay -- and giving it to people who are too dumb to figure out their mortgage, as well as the slimy mortgage companies that willingly utilized high-risk mortgages (and have already made handsome profits off of them). Don't let it happen! Call your reps in Congress, and call the White House, and tell them to avoid the socialist solution.
There's my two cents.
Iran, Iraq, Israel, and America
Although it's not exactly breaking news, more and more information is coming out about just how involved Iran is in the fighting in Iraq. Kimberly Kagan in The Weekly Standard writes:
So, why does this matter? Well, it's all pointing toward the fact that there is a major conflict with Iran in the making. Actually, the conflict is already in progress, but some people refuse to acknowledge it. Here are some reasons that should make you want to pre-emptively strike Iran:
- Iran pledged to never stop working on nuclear weapons.
- Iran now has the capability to make nuclear weapons.
- Iran has pledged to wipe Israel off the map.
- Iranians would dance in the streets if Israel was nuked.
- Iran has pledged to destroy America, the 'great Satan'.
Given that Iran made good on its first pledge, do you really think they wouldn't carry through on the last two? We could easily accomplish a simple surgical strike to disable Iran's only fuel refinery, then blockade the country and force their economy to a halt, all without sending in ground troops. But, if Iran strikes first, they could go nuclear on us.
If we fail to act, many, many Americans may end up dying needlessly. I hope we don't sit back and let it happen.
There's my two cents.
Iran, and its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah, have been actively involved in supporting Shia militias and encouraging sectarian violence in Iraq since the invasion of 2003-and Iranian planning and preparation for that effort began as early as 2002. The precise purposes of this support are unclear and may have changed over time. But one thing is very clear: Iran has consistently supplied weapons, its own advisors, and Lebanese Hezbollah advisors to multiple resistance groups in Iraq, both Sunni and Shia, and has supported these groups as they have targeted Sunni Arabs, Coalition forces, Iraqi Security Forces, and the Iraqi Government itself. Their infl uence runs from Kurdistan to Basrah, and Coalition sources report that by August 2007, Iranian-backed insurgents accounted for roughly half the attacks on Coalition forces, a dramatic change from previous periods that had seen the overwhelming majority of attacks coming from the Sunni Arab insurgency and al Qaeda.Similarly, Major General James E. Simmons, Deputy Commanding General for Support of Multi-National Forces (Iraq), in an interview with Hugh Hewitt, gives the following first-hand testimony:
HH: [D]o you think Iranian-backed attacks are increasing or decreasing right now?Much more from that interview - read the whole thing.
JS: I believe that the Iranians have supplied, they have surged supplies, training and munitions into Iraq to counter our surge operations that we are conducting.
HH: And what level does that rise to? Are they doubling, tripling their effort?
JS: I would hate to put a number on it, but what we saw was in July, we had the highest number of EFP’s that we have had in theater. Those EFP’s come from Iran. We have still seen a significant uptick in EFP’s, although the numbers are probably going to be lower in August than they were in July. The number of rocket attacks and indirect fire attacks into our FOB’s and our camps has been elevated, and the fires have come predominantly from Shia-dominated areas, and those are Iranian made munitions that are being fired in that.
So, why does this matter? Well, it's all pointing toward the fact that there is a major conflict with Iran in the making. Actually, the conflict is already in progress, but some people refuse to acknowledge it. Here are some reasons that should make you want to pre-emptively strike Iran:
- Iran pledged to never stop working on nuclear weapons.
- Iran now has the capability to make nuclear weapons.
- Iran has pledged to wipe Israel off the map.
- Iranians would dance in the streets if Israel was nuked.
- Iran has pledged to destroy America, the 'great Satan'.
Given that Iran made good on its first pledge, do you really think they wouldn't carry through on the last two? We could easily accomplish a simple surgical strike to disable Iran's only fuel refinery, then blockade the country and force their economy to a halt, all without sending in ground troops. But, if Iran strikes first, they could go nuclear on us.
If we fail to act, many, many Americans may end up dying needlessly. I hope we don't sit back and let it happen.
There's my two cents.
Massive Waste In Louisiana
Lawrence Kudlow writes a very illuminating article on RealClearPolitics.com about the massive waste involved in the Hurricane Katrina cleanup. It's worth reading the whole thing, but here's the short version.
In the past two years, $127 billion have been spent on the cleanup. That's right, $127 billion. Unfortunately, only $52.3 billion is accounted for.
Here are some of the key points:
- $24 billion has been used to build houses and schools, repair damaged infrastructure and provide victims with a place to live
- $7.1 billion went to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild the levees
- $2 billion on local schools
- $2.5 million from the Laura Bush Foundation for America's Libraries
- $16.7 billion from the administration as part of the largest housing-recovery program in U.S. history
So where's the rest of the money? As Kudlow points out, if you divide up the aid money already spent on New Orleans amongst everyone in the city, each person would receive $425,000! So why is anyone still living in a trailer? Why is the housing situation still a mess? Why has the crime rate skyrocketed despite the fact that the population is roughly half of pre-hurricane levels?
And now they're looking for more money?? Don't get me wrong - we needed to help out the residents down there, so I'm not complaining about a load of money being spent to do that. That kind of compassion is one of the things that makes America great. But, I would like to see someone show where the leftover $74.7 billion went before we start sending more taxpayer dollars their way.
And, at the risk of sounding cold and heartless, I'm more than a little frustrated by the 'victims' who still -- two full years later -- have not gotten on with their lives, found new jobs, or gotten back on their feet. Give me a break! The only possible explanation for riding the government gravy train that long is that they're not making any reasonable attempt to get off of it. To add insult to injury, some of them are actually suing the manufacturer who provided them with free trailers to live in. I'm sorry, but I have no tolerance for people who are not only so supremely lazy that they can't manage to find a job in a city full of reconstruction projects, but who also have the sheer audacity to sue those who so generously donated a place to live in their time of greatest need.
Maybe it's time to kick them off the gravy train.
There's my two (heartless) cents.
In the past two years, $127 billion have been spent on the cleanup. That's right, $127 billion. Unfortunately, only $52.3 billion is accounted for.
Here are some of the key points:
- $24 billion has been used to build houses and schools, repair damaged infrastructure and provide victims with a place to live
- $7.1 billion went to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild the levees
- $2 billion on local schools
- $2.5 million from the Laura Bush Foundation for America's Libraries
- $16.7 billion from the administration as part of the largest housing-recovery program in U.S. history
So where's the rest of the money? As Kudlow points out, if you divide up the aid money already spent on New Orleans amongst everyone in the city, each person would receive $425,000! So why is anyone still living in a trailer? Why is the housing situation still a mess? Why has the crime rate skyrocketed despite the fact that the population is roughly half of pre-hurricane levels?
And now they're looking for more money?? Don't get me wrong - we needed to help out the residents down there, so I'm not complaining about a load of money being spent to do that. That kind of compassion is one of the things that makes America great. But, I would like to see someone show where the leftover $74.7 billion went before we start sending more taxpayer dollars their way.
And, at the risk of sounding cold and heartless, I'm more than a little frustrated by the 'victims' who still -- two full years later -- have not gotten on with their lives, found new jobs, or gotten back on their feet. Give me a break! The only possible explanation for riding the government gravy train that long is that they're not making any reasonable attempt to get off of it. To add insult to injury, some of them are actually suing the manufacturer who provided them with free trailers to live in. I'm sorry, but I have no tolerance for people who are not only so supremely lazy that they can't manage to find a job in a city full of reconstruction projects, but who also have the sheer audacity to sue those who so generously donated a place to live in their time of greatest need.
Maybe it's time to kick them off the gravy train.
There's my two (heartless) cents.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
WMDs From Iraq Found In New York
Right Truth posts a link to the story on FoxNews.com revealing that some of the fabled missing WMDs from Iraq have been found...inside UN offices in New York! Also listed are a series of comments from big blogs on both sides of the ideological aisle.
Boy, what the heck else are we going to find if we clean out the UN offices? Osama bin Laden, hiding behind a copier?
There's my two cents.
Boy, what the heck else are we going to find if we clean out the UN offices? Osama bin Laden, hiding behind a copier?
There's my two cents.
Good News From The Iraq War
The good news from Iraq just keeps coming:
Key Enemy In Iraq Calls Temporary Halt To Military Operations.
The radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr said Wednesday that he was suspending for six months his Mahdi Army militia’s operations, including attacks on American troops. He's taking a pounding over there and needs a timeout!
A Surprising Ally In France.
The recent election of conservative Nicolas Sarkozy in France could have far-reaching ramifications. Sarkozy is already stepping up the tough talk on the War on Terror and dealing with Iran:
Military Fatalities Are Lowest In Decades.
The last few years have seen some of the lowest active duty military deaths since 1980. Also, the numbers of minority deaths fall pretty much in line with the percentage of the general population of each minority. Two popular myths of the MSM, straight out the window.
Most Americans Don't Believe The War Is Lost.
54%, to be precise, according to Zogby. Not surprisingly, 66% of Democrats say it's over, while only 9% of Republicans say that. Tell me again - which party is obsessed with defeat?
With the recent legitimate political progress, things are looking up for America...and down for Democrats.
There's my two cents.
Key Enemy In Iraq Calls Temporary Halt To Military Operations.
The radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr said Wednesday that he was suspending for six months his Mahdi Army militia’s operations, including attacks on American troops. He's taking a pounding over there and needs a timeout!
A Surprising Ally In France.
The recent election of conservative Nicolas Sarkozy in France could have far-reaching ramifications. Sarkozy is already stepping up the tough talk on the War on Terror and dealing with Iran:
On Afghanistan, he told the assembled diplomats, "the duty of the Atlantic Alliance as well as that of France," is to "increase efforts." He then announced he would be sending additional trainers to assist the Afghan Army. On Israel, he said he "would never budge" on its security. He warned about Russia, which "imposes its return on the world scene by playing its assets with a certain brutality," and he cautioned against China, which pursues "its insatiable search for raw materials as a strategy of control, particularly in Africa."
Nicolas Sarkozy made headlines this week by telling his diplomatic corps that "an Iran with nuclear weapons is for me unacceptable."If Sarkozy keeps this up, I may have to take back all the mean things I've said about France! I'd be happy to do it.
Military Fatalities Are Lowest In Decades.
The last few years have seen some of the lowest active duty military deaths since 1980. Also, the numbers of minority deaths fall pretty much in line with the percentage of the general population of each minority. Two popular myths of the MSM, straight out the window.
Most Americans Don't Believe The War Is Lost.
54%, to be precise, according to Zogby. Not surprisingly, 66% of Democrats say it's over, while only 9% of Republicans say that. Tell me again - which party is obsessed with defeat?
With the recent legitimate political progress, things are looking up for America...and down for Democrats.
There's my two cents.
Economy Booming
Bloomberg reports that the U.S. economy is ahead of expectations (again, those experts are surprised!):
There will always be bumps in the road (like the current mortgage 'crisis'), but that's normal. What's important is that our economy is -- overall -- charging forward. Don't forget that the Dow Jones average has doubled (from 7,000 to 14,000) over the past decade.
Just to put it in perspective, for the DJIA to go from zero to 7,000 it took 60 years!
Our economy is roaring. Anyone who says otherwise is running office, and is most likely blue through and through.
There's my two cents.
Surging exports and business spending propelled U.S. growth to the fastest pace in more than a year before turmoil in the credit markets forced the Federal Reserve to warn of a bleaker outlook. Gross domestic product rose at a 4 percent annual rate in the second quarter, the Commerce Department said in Washington, up from an initial estimate of 3.4 percent. The median forecast of economists polled by Bloomberg News was 4.1 percent.
There will always be bumps in the road (like the current mortgage 'crisis'), but that's normal. What's important is that our economy is -- overall -- charging forward. Don't forget that the Dow Jones average has doubled (from 7,000 to 14,000) over the past decade.
Just to put it in perspective, for the DJIA to go from zero to 7,000 it took 60 years!
Our economy is roaring. Anyone who says otherwise is running office, and is most likely blue through and through.
There's my two cents.
Illegal Aliens Sexually Assaulting Children In Droves
As if we needed another reason to crack down on illegal immigrants, CommonSenseAmerica posts a list of 27 cases of sexual assault perpetrated by illegal aliens on American children! And those are just within the last two months!
Enough is enough! It's time to crank up the pressure on Washington to protect Americans, especially the youngest and most vulnerable of us.
There's my two cents.
Enough is enough! It's time to crank up the pressure on Washington to protect Americans, especially the youngest and most vulnerable of us.
There's my two cents.
Arellano: Mexican Ambassador?!
Our favorite deportee, Elvira Arellano, is trying a new tactic to get back into the U.S., and this time she's getting the help of the Mexican government. Arellano has asked for a diplomatic visa and is hoping for an appointment as an 'ambassador of peace' so she can come back.
You've got to be kidding me! I don't know that we have any influence on what Calderon (the President of Mexico) does, but I sure hope that the U.S. refuses to officially acknowledge Arellano if she is made 'ambassador'. To me, that would be the height of ignorant stupidity. What if Iran gets the idea of sending an 'ambassador' to visit the White House or Capitol Hill...with a suitcase nuke?
There's my two cents.
You've got to be kidding me! I don't know that we have any influence on what Calderon (the President of Mexico) does, but I sure hope that the U.S. refuses to officially acknowledge Arellano if she is made 'ambassador'. To me, that would be the height of ignorant stupidity. What if Iran gets the idea of sending an 'ambassador' to visit the White House or Capitol Hill...with a suitcase nuke?
There's my two cents.
Clinton's Shady Friends
The New York Times reports that Hillary Clinton is donating the money she received from Norman Hsu to a charity, and will be investigating other campaign contributions facilitated by Hsu.
That's all fine and good, but does giving the money to charity really make what she did okay? If it were a one-time incident, I'd be happy to give her the benefit of the doubt (any normal person would), but the Clintons seem to make it a practice of cultivating shady friends until they're caught, then immediately distancing themselves. For them, this is a pattern of behavior, and should not be tolerated.
There's my two cents.
That's all fine and good, but does giving the money to charity really make what she did okay? If it were a one-time incident, I'd be happy to give her the benefit of the doubt (any normal person would), but the Clintons seem to make it a practice of cultivating shady friends until they're caught, then immediately distancing themselves. For them, this is a pattern of behavior, and should not be tolerated.
There's my two cents.
Edwards Picks His America, Keeps His Own SUVs
Well, well, well. It appears that John Edwards uses SUVs while on the campaign trail, despite the fact that he wants you to give up yours.
Also, if a picture is worth a thousand words, this one is worth some serious cash.
Note that surrounding Edwards' picturesque 28,000 square foot home are at least four SUVs.
Two Americas, Mr. Edwards? I guess we all know which one you live in. Maybe people will start listening to you when you start taking your own advice.
There's my two cents.
Also, if a picture is worth a thousand words, this one is worth some serious cash.
Note that surrounding Edwards' picturesque 28,000 square foot home are at least four SUVs.
Two Americas, Mr. Edwards? I guess we all know which one you live in. Maybe people will start listening to you when you start taking your own advice.
There's my two cents.
Missouri Is Taking Action
I heard an interview with Missouri Governor Matt Blunt on the radio this morning, and it sounds like he's taking Missouri in the right direction, partly based on the recent incidents in New Jersey. He has implemented a policy that requires everyone who gets arrested (for a crime that could land them in prison) to go through a citizenship status check. By checking everyone, Blunt gets past those who would object to profiling (personally, I think a little bit of profiling would go a long way in securing America).
Blunt has also requested authorization from the Department of Homeland Security to allow state law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law. He is still waiting to hear back, but he is expecting the approval. Blunt said that there are around 50 (if I recall correctly) immigration agents in Missouri right now, but over 12,000 state law enforcement officers, so it's a no-brainer on how much improvement this could make on illegal immigration in this state.
Thank you, Governor! I would encourage all of you who feel strongly about immigration to contact his office to say thanks.
There's my two cents.
Blunt has also requested authorization from the Department of Homeland Security to allow state law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law. He is still waiting to hear back, but he is expecting the approval. Blunt said that there are around 50 (if I recall correctly) immigration agents in Missouri right now, but over 12,000 state law enforcement officers, so it's a no-brainer on how much improvement this could make on illegal immigration in this state.
Thank you, Governor! I would encourage all of you who feel strongly about immigration to contact his office to say thanks.
There's my two cents.
How Big Is A 'Minority'?
Heavy-Handed Politics links to a story in the Boston Globe revealing that the University of Vermont has added gender-neutral bathrooms at its new student center. Each bathroom cost about $2,500 to put in, and are intended for people with disabilities or transgendered people.
I'm not sure what kind of a back-handed compliment that is to the 'transgendered', but I suppose the intent was noble. According to Annie Stevens, assistant vice president for student and campus life, "It's about inclusivity and accessibility and the importance of meeting all people's needs, not just a few."
Logically surmising there are very few people who actually required these expensive bathrooms, Heavy-Handed points out the fallacy: "Meeting the needs of 99.9% of the population is just a few?"
When are people going to stop tolerating this ridiculous political correctness for the most miniscule minority possible? Last I checked, most bathroom stalls had doors on them. Problem solved.
There's my two cents.
I'm not sure what kind of a back-handed compliment that is to the 'transgendered', but I suppose the intent was noble. According to Annie Stevens, assistant vice president for student and campus life, "It's about inclusivity and accessibility and the importance of meeting all people's needs, not just a few."
Logically surmising there are very few people who actually required these expensive bathrooms, Heavy-Handed points out the fallacy: "Meeting the needs of 99.9% of the population is just a few?"
When are people going to stop tolerating this ridiculous political correctness for the most miniscule minority possible? Last I checked, most bathroom stalls had doors on them. Problem solved.
There's my two cents.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
'A Strange Way to Woo Religious Voters'
Michael Gerson writes an outstanding op-ed in the Washington Post (I'm a little surprised they ran it, actually) about the Democrats' attack ads on Louisiana Republican gubernatorial candidate Bobby Jindal.
The short version is that the Democrat party has begun actively courting 'religious' voters through various initiatives, but their efforts are hampered by their own attack ads. For example, in Louisiana, Bobby Jindal is a Republican candidate for Governor, and a Catholic (converted from Hindu). He is unabashed in his faith, so the Democrats ran ads that are both theologically ignorant and obviously a smear, saying Jindal "doubts the morals and questions the beliefs of Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Pentecostals and other Protestant religions." Clearly trying to drive a wedge between various Christian denominations (not 'religions'), the ads have made both Protestants and Catholics angry. Furthermore, Gerson notes that the ad "reveals a secular, liberal attitude: that strong religious beliefs are themselves a kind of scandal; that a vigorous defense of Roman Catholicism is somehow a gaffe."
Jindal's response?
An excellent column on how liberalism views religion. Read the whole thing.
There's my two cents.
The short version is that the Democrat party has begun actively courting 'religious' voters through various initiatives, but their efforts are hampered by their own attack ads. For example, in Louisiana, Bobby Jindal is a Republican candidate for Governor, and a Catholic (converted from Hindu). He is unabashed in his faith, so the Democrats ran ads that are both theologically ignorant and obviously a smear, saying Jindal "doubts the morals and questions the beliefs of Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Pentecostals and other Protestant religions." Clearly trying to drive a wedge between various Christian denominations (not 'religions'), the ads have made both Protestants and Catholics angry. Furthermore, Gerson notes that the ad "reveals a secular, liberal attitude: that strong religious beliefs are themselves a kind of scandal; that a vigorous defense of Roman Catholicism is somehow a gaffe."
Jindal's response?
"This would be a poorer society," he told [Gerson], "if pluralism meant the least common denominator, if we couldn't hold a passionate, well-articulated belief system. If you enforce a liberalism devoid of content, you end up with the very violations of freedom you were trying to prevent in the first place."Fortunately, some of Jindal's biggest supporters are not Catholics at all, but Baptists, Evangelicals, and other Protestants, proof of the definition of genuine pluralism -- an adult respect for the strong convictions of others.
An excellent column on how liberalism views religion. Read the whole thing.
There's my two cents.
Australia Has It Right On Citizenship Values
Heavy-Handed Politics posts a story from CNSNews.com about a new test incorporated into Australia's citizenship process that includes questions about "Australian values", history, sports and political institutions, as well as a basic grasp of English. Asserting that Australia has been built on values based on "Judeo-Christian ethics," Prime Minister John Howard's government makes the move amid concerns about extremist views among some Australian Muslims. Naturally, the opposition is screaming about "bigots" and civil rights, but look what happens if accommodation becomes the norm:
Self-censorship. Conservative Thoughts reports on an Opus cartoon that several major newspapers won't run since it may offend Muslims.
God = Allah. A Dutch bishop proposes Christians call 'God' Allah to avoid offending Muslims.
Europe Capitulates. Scotland Yard has allowed a Muslim female officer to wear a different uniform and refuse to shake hands with men; British Prime Minister Gordon Brown forbade his ministers from using the word Muslim in connection with the attacks, carried out by Muslim terrorists; and many more.
England is vanishing. Cal Thomas writes on RealClearPolitics.com that England is approaching critical mass in national identity due to an influx of Muslim immigrants (both legal and illegal) combined with British citizens leaving because "they fear lawlessness and the threat of more terrorism from a growing Muslim population and the loss of a sense of Britishness, exacerbated by the growing refusal of public schools to teach the history and culture of the nation to the next generation. What it means to be British has been watered down in a plague of political correctness." Incidentally, England is currently debating an amnesty program very similar to the one that Americans threw down earlier this summer; it looks likely to succeed over the pond.
Do we want America to follow England or Australia? It's up to us, but we're going to have to overcome the virus of political correctness first.
There's my two cents.
Self-censorship. Conservative Thoughts reports on an Opus cartoon that several major newspapers won't run since it may offend Muslims.
God = Allah. A Dutch bishop proposes Christians call 'God' Allah to avoid offending Muslims.
Europe Capitulates. Scotland Yard has allowed a Muslim female officer to wear a different uniform and refuse to shake hands with men; British Prime Minister Gordon Brown forbade his ministers from using the word Muslim in connection with the attacks, carried out by Muslim terrorists; and many more.
England is vanishing. Cal Thomas writes on RealClearPolitics.com that England is approaching critical mass in national identity due to an influx of Muslim immigrants (both legal and illegal) combined with British citizens leaving because "they fear lawlessness and the threat of more terrorism from a growing Muslim population and the loss of a sense of Britishness, exacerbated by the growing refusal of public schools to teach the history and culture of the nation to the next generation. What it means to be British has been watered down in a plague of political correctness." Incidentally, England is currently debating an amnesty program very similar to the one that Americans threw down earlier this summer; it looks likely to succeed over the pond.
Do we want America to follow England or Australia? It's up to us, but we're going to have to overcome the virus of political correctness first.
There's my two cents.
Could It Be Because He's Innocent?
The only Army officer to face a court-martial in relation to detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib was exonerated this week. Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan was ruled not responsible for training or supervising soldiers who have been convicted of abusing detainees at the prison. The Washington Post laments the fact that no high-ranking officer will serve jail time for the abuse, along with the anti-war left:
Or, could it be that these high-ranking officers were actually...[drum roll, please]...innocent?
There's my two cents.
"The military was not interested in pursuing real accountability," John Sifton, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch.
Or, could it be that these high-ranking officers were actually...[drum roll, please]...innocent?
There's my two cents.
Edwards: Lose Your SUVs
Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards thinks you should give up your SUVs. This is, presumably, to make a smaller impact on the environment.
I wonder if he's going to give up his 'regular' private jet usage or scale back on his 28,000-square foot mansion in North Carolina to help the environment? Which of his 'two Americas' does Edwards want you to live in? Which does he plan to live in himself?
I'll give you three guesses, but none of them really matter.
There's my two cents.
I wonder if he's going to give up his 'regular' private jet usage or scale back on his 28,000-square foot mansion in North Carolina to help the environment? Which of his 'two Americas' does Edwards want you to live in? Which does he plan to live in himself?
I'll give you three guesses, but none of them really matter.
There's my two cents.
Clinton's Suspicious Fundraiser Is A Convicted Felon
Well, it just keep getting better and better. Yesterday's blog about some very suspicious campaign fundraising on behalf of Hillary Clinton was only the beginning of the story. The LA Times reports that Norman Hsu, one of Clinton's 'Hillraisers' (big-time fundraisers) is a convicted felon. When are people going to realize that the constant parade of shady characters in the Clinton's rolodex are an indicator of who they really are??
Where is the outrage? Who is shining the light on these ethical deficiencies? You would think that between the Republican party and the other Democrat presidential candidates, someone would be shouting this out from the hilltops! Do the Clintons really have that much fear instilled in everyone in Washington? What does that fact alone say about them?
There's my two cents.
Where is the outrage? Who is shining the light on these ethical deficiencies? You would think that between the Republican party and the other Democrat presidential candidates, someone would be shouting this out from the hilltops! Do the Clintons really have that much fear instilled in everyone in Washington? What does that fact alone say about them?
There's my two cents.
Religious (i.e. Christian) Censorship In Colorado
Right Truth posts the story of Erica Corder, a high school class valedictorian in the school district of Monument, CO, who mentioned her faith in Jesus Christ during her 30-second graduation speech. For her proclamation of faith, the administration threatened to withhold her diploma unless she sent an apology to the entire high school community.
This kind of religious censorship is blatantly unconstitutional, as well as hypocritical. Right Truth explains:
How does your school handle this issue? Are they unconstitutionally hypocritical, or do they follow the law and allow freedom of religious expression?
It would be wise to know.
There's my two cents.
This kind of religious censorship is blatantly unconstitutional, as well as hypocritical. Right Truth explains:
"This school has definitely taken censorship of Christianity to new heights by threatening to not only withhold Corder’s diploma, but potentially sabotage her chances of becoming a teacher. We never hear of Muslim students being stripped of their diplomas for mentioning Allah in their graduation speeches. Why? Because it’s obvious that the message is their own and not endorsed by any school. But when it’s a Christian, humanist school officials feel an overwhelming, but unconscionable craving to intimidate, harass, subdue, or dematerialize Christians, or some combination, so long as Christianity is suppressed."Current law clearly allows this freedom of religious expression. Liberty Counsel, on behalf of Ms. Corder, is suing the school district to set things right, but the district has so far taken no action. Liberty Counsel has offered to represent for free any school that upholds the law, and similarly will sue any school that violates it.
How does your school handle this issue? Are they unconstitutionally hypocritical, or do they follow the law and allow freedom of religious expression?
It would be wise to know.
There's my two cents.
Iraqi Leaders Agree On Key U.S. Benchmarks
Huge news: Iraqi leaders agree on key U.S. benchmarks, including the easing of restrictions on the Baath party, reaching consensus on provicial elections, the release of detainees, and a draft of a new oil law. Though preliminary, these agreements signal a potential turn in the course of Iraq's political progress, and a devastating defeat for Democrats. It should be fun to watch the Democrat spin machine ramp up on this one.
There's my two cents.
There's my two cents.
Poverty Findings Mostly Good
The AP reports that poverty in America has gone down significantly in the latest census. Only 12.3% of Americans are living below the poverty line, which is $20,444 for a family of four, and unemployment was down (it's around a historic low of 4.6%). The biggest negative is an increase in the number of uninsured, from 44.8 million to 47 million, but overall, the news was good.
The Democrats are going to use the number of uninsured on this report to bolster their attempt to achieve universal health care (all the Democrat presidential candidates have pledged this). The first step is the unnecessary SCHIP expansion, which will likely be taken up when Congress returns from recess in September. I won't go into all the details again, but if you're unaware of the details of the nefariously bloated SCHIP bill, check my previous blogs here, here, here, and here. Suffice it to say that it's a massive expansion of a program that was already too big, and its numbers cannot possibly be attained, which means that massive new taxes must be levied to pay for it.
Translation: YOU will get stuck with the (enormous) bill!
What will you be paying for? Health care for illegal aliens, health care for "children" as old as 25 (and some even older), and health care for people making as much as $80,000 per year.
That's not okay with me.
As I blogged yesterday, this report on the poor is misleading in a couple of ways. First, the supposed need for universal health care. Second, Right Truth exposes the fact that according to this report 45% of all uninsured people in American are illegal aliens. 45%! Just think what a reduction in the illegal alien population would do to help out Americans who legitimately need assistance! Yet another reason to get cracking on real immigration reform (i.e. enforcement)! Third, does it not occur to liberals that a good chunk of the uninsured (specifically, the ones making $75,000 a year) might have chosen to ignore the bloated bureaucracy of HMOs in favor of cash payments for medical services? No, surely not! Why, that would be sacrilege to the liberal mentality of needing the all-powerful government to take care of everything!
Here's another thought: the economy has been leaping forward over the past few years, largely due to Bush's tax cuts. More money in the pocket means more spending, which means more opportunities for businesses to be started or expanded. The backbone of America has always been its small business force - that's where the most productive workers and innovative solutions originate. The small business owners I know tend to be very practical when it comes to their bottom line. Have you ever looked at purchasing health coverage without the benefit of a Fortune company's volume? Man, it's painful! I could easily understand saving the cost of insurance if they are healthy, especially if they don't have children.
Are there some people who truly need coverage that don't have it? Yes, undoubtedly. Should we freak out and embark upon some of the biggest tax hikes in American history as a knee-jerk reaction to this report? Absolutely not.
There's my two cents.
The Democrats are going to use the number of uninsured on this report to bolster their attempt to achieve universal health care (all the Democrat presidential candidates have pledged this). The first step is the unnecessary SCHIP expansion, which will likely be taken up when Congress returns from recess in September. I won't go into all the details again, but if you're unaware of the details of the nefariously bloated SCHIP bill, check my previous blogs here, here, here, and here. Suffice it to say that it's a massive expansion of a program that was already too big, and its numbers cannot possibly be attained, which means that massive new taxes must be levied to pay for it.
Translation: YOU will get stuck with the (enormous) bill!
What will you be paying for? Health care for illegal aliens, health care for "children" as old as 25 (and some even older), and health care for people making as much as $80,000 per year.
That's not okay with me.
As I blogged yesterday, this report on the poor is misleading in a couple of ways. First, the supposed need for universal health care. Second, Right Truth exposes the fact that according to this report 45% of all uninsured people in American are illegal aliens. 45%! Just think what a reduction in the illegal alien population would do to help out Americans who legitimately need assistance! Yet another reason to get cracking on real immigration reform (i.e. enforcement)! Third, does it not occur to liberals that a good chunk of the uninsured (specifically, the ones making $75,000 a year) might have chosen to ignore the bloated bureaucracy of HMOs in favor of cash payments for medical services? No, surely not! Why, that would be sacrilege to the liberal mentality of needing the all-powerful government to take care of everything!
Here's another thought: the economy has been leaping forward over the past few years, largely due to Bush's tax cuts. More money in the pocket means more spending, which means more opportunities for businesses to be started or expanded. The backbone of America has always been its small business force - that's where the most productive workers and innovative solutions originate. The small business owners I know tend to be very practical when it comes to their bottom line. Have you ever looked at purchasing health coverage without the benefit of a Fortune company's volume? Man, it's painful! I could easily understand saving the cost of insurance if they are healthy, especially if they don't have children.
Are there some people who truly need coverage that don't have it? Yes, undoubtedly. Should we freak out and embark upon some of the biggest tax hikes in American history as a knee-jerk reaction to this report? Absolutely not.
There's my two cents.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Fun & Frivolity: Spring Football!
[Cue Handel's Hallelujah Chorus]
Hugh Hewitt reports that a new professional football league is in the works that would run during the spring. The plan is to allow only players who have completed a 4-year degree, placing a bit more emphasis on education in our young sports stars, which would certainly be a good thing.
I would love to see a new league start up, even if it's not as big or talented as the NFL (provided it's not a joke like the XFL was). Just ask my wife how much despair descends upon our house once football season is over - this new league would double the length of the season!
Boo-yah, baby! :)
Hugh Hewitt reports that a new professional football league is in the works that would run during the spring. The plan is to allow only players who have completed a 4-year degree, placing a bit more emphasis on education in our young sports stars, which would certainly be a good thing.
I would love to see a new league start up, even if it's not as big or talented as the NFL (provided it's not a joke like the XFL was). Just ask my wife how much despair descends upon our house once football season is over - this new league would double the length of the season!
Boo-yah, baby! :)
How's This For Political Progress?
You haven't heard this since it is potentially devastating to the Democrats' mission to fail in Iraq. The Washington Post reported on Sunday that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki made a major step forward on the...how should I say it...elusive...goalpost of 'political progress' in Iraq, releasing "a joint statement of broad political unity by two major Kurdish parties, two Shiite parties, including his Dawa Party, and a bloc led by Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, a Sunni."
Whoa! First an avalanche of military success, now some real political progress...what's a Democrat to do? Oh wait, that's right. They'll just ignore it.
There's my two cents.
Whoa! First an avalanche of military success, now some real political progress...what's a Democrat to do? Oh wait, that's right. They'll just ignore it.
There's my two cents.
Some Easy Predictions On Corruption
Larry Craig, a Republican Senator from Idaho, was arrested several months ago for attempting to solicit homosexual contact in an airport bathroom. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct to take care of the incident as quickly as possible, paid his fine, and was given a stay in his jail sentence (10 days) provided he was not arrested again for the same thing in the next year. Though this happened several months ago, the story is just breaking.
I don't know much about Craig specifically, but I do understand how the Democrat party (especially their propaganda division, the MSM) functions. Just to prove how this typically works, I'll offer you these predictions right now:
1. The howl over this 'outrageous corruption' is just beginning. Within a week, Larry Craig will be plastered all over the evening news shows and cable networks.
2. Larry Craig will end up losing his job in disgrace based on this misdemeanor charge (please understand I'm not saying he shouldn't resign!).
3. Dianne Feinstein, William Jefferson, and Barney Franke will remain in Congress despite various indictments and ethical abuses. Also, Jim McGreevey and Bill Clinton will remain in good standing with lefties.
I find the double standards in play here troubling in several respects. First, Craig is reported to have flipped out his Senate credentials when the arrest went down, and said, "Do you know who I am?" What kind of arrogance are these Congresspeople displaying, that representatives on both sides of the aisle feel they're above the law? It's guys like this that give the few good ones a bad name and totally alienate the American people. Men and women in Congress should be held to higher standards. Okay, rant over.
Second, the Democrats and their propaganda division, the MSM, love to throw tantrums about any impropriety (real or perceived) of Republicans, but they don't seem to have any problems with their own indiscretions. I've blogged about this in the past (if you're a new reader, you really should check it out), and this is just one more instance that illustrates it. Never mind the fact that Bill Clinton committed perjury and admitted sexual indiscretions in the Oval Office - that was his own personal business, right? If that worked for Clinton, then wouldn't this incident be Craig's own personal business? It wasn't even in an official government building!
No, of course it's not okay. But, the hypocrisy is astonishing.
Finally, it amazes me that the Democrats who get into trouble like this remain in office, whereas the Republicans usually end up going home - if they don't resign, they get voted out. Does the Republican party really clean its own house so much better than the Democrat party? If not, then why are Feinstein, Jefferson, Franke, and others still in Congress?
It makes one wonder.
There's my two cents.
I don't know much about Craig specifically, but I do understand how the Democrat party (especially their propaganda division, the MSM) functions. Just to prove how this typically works, I'll offer you these predictions right now:
1. The howl over this 'outrageous corruption' is just beginning. Within a week, Larry Craig will be plastered all over the evening news shows and cable networks.
2. Larry Craig will end up losing his job in disgrace based on this misdemeanor charge (please understand I'm not saying he shouldn't resign!).
3. Dianne Feinstein, William Jefferson, and Barney Franke will remain in Congress despite various indictments and ethical abuses. Also, Jim McGreevey and Bill Clinton will remain in good standing with lefties.
I find the double standards in play here troubling in several respects. First, Craig is reported to have flipped out his Senate credentials when the arrest went down, and said, "Do you know who I am?" What kind of arrogance are these Congresspeople displaying, that representatives on both sides of the aisle feel they're above the law? It's guys like this that give the few good ones a bad name and totally alienate the American people. Men and women in Congress should be held to higher standards. Okay, rant over.
Second, the Democrats and their propaganda division, the MSM, love to throw tantrums about any impropriety (real or perceived) of Republicans, but they don't seem to have any problems with their own indiscretions. I've blogged about this in the past (if you're a new reader, you really should check it out), and this is just one more instance that illustrates it. Never mind the fact that Bill Clinton committed perjury and admitted sexual indiscretions in the Oval Office - that was his own personal business, right? If that worked for Clinton, then wouldn't this incident be Craig's own personal business? It wasn't even in an official government building!
No, of course it's not okay. But, the hypocrisy is astonishing.
Finally, it amazes me that the Democrats who get into trouble like this remain in office, whereas the Republicans usually end up going home - if they don't resign, they get voted out. Does the Republican party really clean its own house so much better than the Democrat party? If not, then why are Feinstein, Jefferson, Franke, and others still in Congress?
It makes one wonder.
There's my two cents.
Freedom Of Speech: You Can't Even Buy It!
In a recent blog, I mentioned that a new non-profit group called Freedom's Watch is running a series of TV ads on major news networks in support of the War in Iraq. NBC is refusing to run those ads. Powerline has the story here, but their summary is sufficient: at some of our cable networks, you can't even buy free speech!
I would expect this from CNN, not NBC... Still, it's a problem when you have a media outlet -- which is supposedly unbiased in its reporting of the news -- so blatantly taking one side of a political issue.
There's my two cents.
I would expect this from CNN, not NBC... Still, it's a problem when you have a media outlet -- which is supposedly unbiased in its reporting of the news -- so blatantly taking one side of a political issue.
There's my two cents.
More Campaign Finance Violations?
I blogged a couple months ago about some potential campaign finance violations conducted by Senator Hillary Clinton. Looks like she's at it again. The Wall Street Journal reports some extremely suspicious activity surrounding one of the biggest donor families to Clinton's campaigns over the past two years. The following are some choice excerpts that help outline the scenario.
First, who are these people...?
Are they rich, or what...?
Maybe they saved a lot and made good investments. But...
Maybe it's just coincidence...
Wow, that's a lot of money! Maybe they're die-hard Democrats...
Keep in mind that reimbursing someone else for their 'donations' to political campaigns is just as illegal as contributing your own money over the legal contribution limits. Call me crazy, but do you think this passes the smell test? I don't, either.
There's my two cents.
First, who are these people...?
Six members of the Paw family, each listing the house at 41 Shelbourne Ave. as their residence, have donated a combined $45,000 to the Democratic senator from New York since 2005, for her presidential campaign, her Senate re-election last year and her political action committee. In all, the six Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005, election records show.
Are they rich, or what...?
It isn't obvious how the Paw family is able to afford such political largess. Records show they own a gift shop and live in a 1,280-square-foot house that they recently refinanced for $270,000. William Paw, the 64-year-old head of the household, is a mail carrier with the U.S. Postal Service who earns about $49,000 a year, according to a union representative. Alice Paw, also 64, is a homemaker. The couple's grown children have jobs ranging from account manager at a software company to "attendance liaison" at a local public high school. One is listed on campaign records as an executive at a mutual fund.
Maybe they saved a lot and made good investments. But...
The Paws' political donations closely track donations made by Norman Hsu, a wealthy New York businessman in the apparel industry who once listed the Paw home as his address, according to public records. Mr. Hsu is one of the top fund-raisers for Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.
Maybe it's just coincidence...
The Paw family is just one set of donors whose political donations are similar to Mr. Hsu's. Several business associates of Mr. Hsu in New York have made donations to the same candidates, on the same dates for similar amounts as Mr. Hsu. On four separate dates this year, the Paw family, Mr. Hsu and five of his associates gave Mrs. Clinton a total of $47,500. In all, the family, Mr. Hsu and his associates have given Mrs. Clinton $133,000 since 2005 and a total of nearly $720,000 to all Democratic candidates.
Wow, that's a lot of money! Maybe they're die-hard Democrats...
All but one of the Paws registered to vote as "nonpartisan." A San Mateo County elections official said that members of the Paw family vote "sporadically." No one in the Paw family had ever given a campaign contribution before the 2004 presidential election, according to campaign-finance reports. Then, in July 2004, five members of the family contributed a total of $3,600 to the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat. Five of the checks were dated July 27, 2004. About the same time, Mr. Hsu made his first donations to a political candidate, contributing the maximum amount allowed by law to Mr. Kerry in two separate checks.
Keep in mind that reimbursing someone else for their 'donations' to political campaigns is just as illegal as contributing your own money over the legal contribution limits. Call me crazy, but do you think this passes the smell test? I don't, either.
There's my two cents.
Iran Wants Iraq
Iran is ready to pounce on Iraq if we fail. How about that retreat now, Democrats?
How about we give up the fight, let Iran -- which is a demonstrably brutal dictatorship, in addition to a fanatical Islamic state -- take over. That way, they'll have twice as much power when it comes to the oil industry, as well as approaching the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Great idea.
There's my two cents.
How about we give up the fight, let Iran -- which is a demonstrably brutal dictatorship, in addition to a fanatical Islamic state -- take over. That way, they'll have twice as much power when it comes to the oil industry, as well as approaching the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Great idea.
There's my two cents.
Another Amnesty, Courtesy of Democrats
You better believe it, people, there's another one coming! Right Truth has the scoop on another amnesty bill that could soon pop up in Congress, sponsored by Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein. This one would specifically target illegal aliens in agriculture jobs. Get ready, it looks like the Senate needs another slap-down by the American people!
Right Truth also includes some additional links that you should check out.
I caught a debate on The O'Reilly Factor last night about Elvira Arellano. I'll post more about it when the transcript is available, but the general idea is that Arellano is now saying that her illegal activities were the fault of the U.S. for not securing our borders well enough.
Yes, I kid you not - it's our fault that she's a felon!
That got me thinking. One of the real problems with this debate (one that makes Arellano's case somewhat sticky) is the so-called 'anchor baby' phenomenon. Basically, illegals sneak over the border just in time to have a baby; the child, born on U.S. soil, is automatically granted U.S. citizenship. At that point, the illegal alien can play the sympathy card: don't rip apart my family, you have to let me stay here (i.e. the baby becomes an anchor). The sticky part is that we definitely want intact families, but it's illegal for the parent to be here.
We need to clarify the piece of the Constitution that grants citizenship in this way. The 14th Amendment was originally intended to grant citizenship to slaves born in the U.S., giving them equal rights as Americans. The 'Equal Protection' clause has been misinterpreted to allow anyone born on U.S. soil that same right. This clause has been abused mightily by people from all over the world for a very long time. I firmly believe we need to clarify that amendment to eliminate this misinterpretation. Removing the incentive of anchor babies would have an effect similar to that of removing the incentive of jobs.
If you agree, take action. Right Truth has linked to a petition in support of this change. House Resolution H.R.1940, ending birthright citizenship, was introduced in the House by Congressman Nathan Deal of Georgia. Sign the petition here, and contact your Congressmen to ask for their support. Given the Democrat leadership of the House right now, it isn't very likely that the bill will come up for consideration, but support is increasing in the current political climate in America. Everyday people swamped the Senate this summer, demanding accountability on illegal immigration; we can make it permanent with actions like this.
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE: Here is the transcript of the interview I mentioned. It begins with a clip of Arellano making a statement from Mexico:
Guest host Michelle Malkin then talks with Reverend Walter Coleman, the pastor who gave sanctuary to Ms. Arellano in Chicago. One of his statements, when asked whether Arellano's son would rather stay in the U.S. or return to be with his mother, is:
Malkin points out that federal authorities are trying to fix the problem by actually enforcing our laws. Coleman protests that Arellano never had a chance to argue her case, but Malkin points out that Arellano was caught, processed through deportation hearings, deported, caught again (this time after stealing an American's identity), and ordered deported again.
Coleman said Arellano's sanctuary was an "act of civil disobedience against an unjust law".
I have to say that this conversation disgusts me. It's amazing how our laws can be ignored whenever it is convenient for them (i.e. when entering illegally, or through "civil disobedience"), but then they turn around and hold up the citizenship of an anchor baby as the end-all-be-all authority on what happens to her and her son. This double standard is yet another example of why so many (legitimate) Americans are outraged by illegal immigration.
According to Arellano's logic (and I use the term loosely here), if I steal something from my neighbor, it's actually his fault because he didn't adequately protect his house from illegal entry.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Right Truth also includes some additional links that you should check out.
I caught a debate on The O'Reilly Factor last night about Elvira Arellano. I'll post more about it when the transcript is available, but the general idea is that Arellano is now saying that her illegal activities were the fault of the U.S. for not securing our borders well enough.
Yes, I kid you not - it's our fault that she's a felon!
That got me thinking. One of the real problems with this debate (one that makes Arellano's case somewhat sticky) is the so-called 'anchor baby' phenomenon. Basically, illegals sneak over the border just in time to have a baby; the child, born on U.S. soil, is automatically granted U.S. citizenship. At that point, the illegal alien can play the sympathy card: don't rip apart my family, you have to let me stay here (i.e. the baby becomes an anchor). The sticky part is that we definitely want intact families, but it's illegal for the parent to be here.
We need to clarify the piece of the Constitution that grants citizenship in this way. The 14th Amendment was originally intended to grant citizenship to slaves born in the U.S., giving them equal rights as Americans. The 'Equal Protection' clause has been misinterpreted to allow anyone born on U.S. soil that same right. This clause has been abused mightily by people from all over the world for a very long time. I firmly believe we need to clarify that amendment to eliminate this misinterpretation. Removing the incentive of anchor babies would have an effect similar to that of removing the incentive of jobs.
If you agree, take action. Right Truth has linked to a petition in support of this change. House Resolution H.R.1940, ending birthright citizenship, was introduced in the House by Congressman Nathan Deal of Georgia. Sign the petition here, and contact your Congressmen to ask for their support. Given the Democrat leadership of the House right now, it isn't very likely that the bill will come up for consideration, but support is increasing in the current political climate in America. Everyday people swamped the Senate this summer, demanding accountability on illegal immigration; we can make it permanent with actions like this.
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE: Here is the transcript of the interview I mentioned. It begins with a clip of Arellano making a statement from Mexico:
The United States is the one who broke the law first by letting people cross over without documents. By letting people pay taxes. For me it has been very hard, but I know I am not alone.
Guest host Michelle Malkin then talks with Reverend Walter Coleman, the pastor who gave sanctuary to Ms. Arellano in Chicago. One of his statements, when asked whether Arellano's son would rather stay in the U.S. or return to be with his mother, is:
[H]e's 8 years old. And that's what he wants. He wants to continue his life in this country. And he wants to be with his mother. And I think that as a country, we have to take responsibility. We, for years, left our borders open. We invited people to work. They worked. We invited them to pay taxes. They paid taxes. And then all of a sudden, we're swept with a little bit of fear and hate and see the numbers multiplying. And let's see, well let's kick them all out of here. Well, we've got families here that are mixed status. Husbands and wives and U.S. citizen children. And we've got to take responsibility to fix the law.
Malkin points out that federal authorities are trying to fix the problem by actually enforcing our laws. Coleman protests that Arellano never had a chance to argue her case, but Malkin points out that Arellano was caught, processed through deportation hearings, deported, caught again (this time after stealing an American's identity), and ordered deported again.
Coleman said Arellano's sanctuary was an "act of civil disobedience against an unjust law".
I have to say that this conversation disgusts me. It's amazing how our laws can be ignored whenever it is convenient for them (i.e. when entering illegally, or through "civil disobedience"), but then they turn around and hold up the citizenship of an anchor baby as the end-all-be-all authority on what happens to her and her son. This double standard is yet another example of why so many (legitimate) Americans are outraged by illegal immigration.
According to Arellano's logic (and I use the term loosely here), if I steal something from my neighbor, it's actually his fault because he didn't adequately protect his house from illegal entry.
Yeah, that makes sense.
CAIR = Terrorism
The Holy Land Foundation is currently being investigated for financing terrorist operations as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee. CAIR, which portrays itself as a civil rights group (the same group representing the Flying Imams), has been linked with HLF as part of the trial proceedings, and is also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Conservative Thoughts poses the question of why this didn't rate as front page news.
This is a huge story, one that could have far-reaching ramifications. No one seems to want to think about the terrorist cells or enablers that are already here in the U.S., but it needs to happen before catastrophe strikes. The HLF investigation looks to be the largest terrorism financing case in U.S. history, though you probably haven't seen much about it since it's been largely unreported in the MSM. As Conservative Thoughts says: "When conservative bloggers talk about the lying media, they are often not talking about falsehoods, but more commonly are referring to lies by omission or burying articles deep in the back pages."
More on CAIR
Let's look some more about CAIR in particular. They say they're a civil rights group protecting Muslims' rights, but is that the truth? Do they want to be Americans, or do they want America to become Muslim like them? CAIR has a history of double standards. They attack anyone who speaks against Muslims, while refusing to condemn Hamas or other terrorist activities. Though they claim to be against terrorism, the best they can come up with is a luke-warm condemnation of vague 'behaviors'.
Even aside from the HLF case, let's look at their track record. When Robert Spencer, a leading authority on Islam and jihad, was slated to speak to the Young America's Foundation, they threw a temper tantrum and tried to have him silenced. When that didn't work, they tried to defame him.
Isn't it good to know that a civil rights group fights against free speech, and then resorts to insults and slander when that doesn't work?
But wait, there's more. CAIR has accepted money from the HLF, CAIR is at least loosely associated with numerous terrorist groups, CAIR's executive director had been identified as part of a Hamas leadership meeting, CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator along with HLF, and numerous CAIR officers have been convicted of terrorist activities.
[Thanks to Michelle Malkin and Powerline for staying on top of things!]
It's time America wakes up to the danger posed by CAIR. Though they may not be blowing themselves up to kill Americans (yet), they are most certainly anti-American, financing and enabling the radial jihadists who do.
There's my two cents.
This is a huge story, one that could have far-reaching ramifications. No one seems to want to think about the terrorist cells or enablers that are already here in the U.S., but it needs to happen before catastrophe strikes. The HLF investigation looks to be the largest terrorism financing case in U.S. history, though you probably haven't seen much about it since it's been largely unreported in the MSM. As Conservative Thoughts says: "When conservative bloggers talk about the lying media, they are often not talking about falsehoods, but more commonly are referring to lies by omission or burying articles deep in the back pages."
More on CAIR
Let's look some more about CAIR in particular. They say they're a civil rights group protecting Muslims' rights, but is that the truth? Do they want to be Americans, or do they want America to become Muslim like them? CAIR has a history of double standards. They attack anyone who speaks against Muslims, while refusing to condemn Hamas or other terrorist activities. Though they claim to be against terrorism, the best they can come up with is a luke-warm condemnation of vague 'behaviors'.
Even aside from the HLF case, let's look at their track record. When Robert Spencer, a leading authority on Islam and jihad, was slated to speak to the Young America's Foundation, they threw a temper tantrum and tried to have him silenced. When that didn't work, they tried to defame him.
Isn't it good to know that a civil rights group fights against free speech, and then resorts to insults and slander when that doesn't work?
But wait, there's more. CAIR has accepted money from the HLF, CAIR is at least loosely associated with numerous terrorist groups, CAIR's executive director had been identified as part of a Hamas leadership meeting, CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator along with HLF, and numerous CAIR officers have been convicted of terrorist activities.
[Thanks to Michelle Malkin and Powerline for staying on top of things!]
It's time America wakes up to the danger posed by CAIR. Though they may not be blowing themselves up to kill Americans (yet), they are most certainly anti-American, financing and enabling the radial jihadists who do.
There's my two cents.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Quote: The Fruits Of Compromise
"To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last - but eat you he will."
-- Ronald Reagan --
Quote posted at Heavy-Handed Politics.
-- Ronald Reagan --
Quote posted at Heavy-Handed Politics.
The Truth About Poverty In America
In anticipation of the release of the latest Census Bureau report tomorrow, Robert Rector writes a devastating piece about the politically charged issue of "poverty" on National Review Online. Democrat Presidential candidate John Edwards has been trying to capitalize on his 'Two Americas' theme for years, and it just doesn't hold water. The truth inside this report will not help his cause, though he'll give it a good try.
But, poverty doesn't mean quite what Edwards is implying.
Based on various government reports, these are some facts about the Census Bureau's "poor":
Home Ownership. 46% of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Air Conditioning. 80% of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36% of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Lack of Overcrowding. Only 6% of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person. The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Car Ownership. Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31% own two or more cars.
Color TV. 97% of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
VCRs/DVDs. 78% have a VCR or DVD player.
Cable/Satellite TV. 62% have cable or satellite TV reception.
Conveniences. 89% own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Nourishment. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
Without a doubt, there are obviously a number of people who experience legitimate poverty. But, Rector points out several ways that poverty in America can be reduced:
Similarly, Rush Limbaugh, in the February 2007 edition of his newsletter (The Limbaugh Letter), presents a load of statistics showing how the "poor" reportedly earn $8,316 per year but spend $19,059. Does this mean they're in debt? No, it means they get a lot more in government aid than people like John Edwards care to admit.
While government assistance is certainly not a bad thing, there are definitely some changes that need to be made. Marriage and employment should be rewarded, not penalized. Illegal immigration should be stopped. Success should not be defined by how many people are on welfare rolls, but rather by the number of people who work themselves off of it.
This poverty issue is a prime example of liberalism versus conservatism. Is it better to give handouts and create dependents, or is it better to incent people to work and establish a stable family environment which allows them to provide for themselves?
Two Americas, indeed.
There's my two cents.
In the past, Edwards has claimed that poverty in America is a "plague" which forces 37 million Americans to live in "terrible" circumstances. According to Edwards, an amazing "one in eight" Americans lack "enough money for the food, shelter, and clothing they need," caught in a daily "struggle with incredible poverty."
But, poverty doesn't mean quite what Edwards is implying.
Based on various government reports, these are some facts about the Census Bureau's "poor":
Home Ownership. 46% of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Air Conditioning. 80% of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36% of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Lack of Overcrowding. Only 6% of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person. The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Car Ownership. Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31% own two or more cars.
Color TV. 97% of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
VCRs/DVDs. 78% have a VCR or DVD player.
Cable/Satellite TV. 62% have cable or satellite TV reception.
Conveniences. 89% own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Nourishment. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
Without a doubt, there are obviously a number of people who experience legitimate poverty. But, Rector points out several ways that poverty in America can be reduced:
In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year — the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year — the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year — nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.
As noted above, father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation’s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.
One problem here is that our welfare system is hostile to both employment and marriage. Programs such as food stamps, Medicare, and public housing reward idleness and penalize marriage. Illegal immigration also contributes:
One quarter of all poor persons in the U.S. are now first generation immigrants or the minor children of those immigrants. Roughly one in ten of the persons counted among the poor by Census is either an illegal immigrant or the minor child of an illegal. Immigrants tend to be poor because they have very low education levels. A quarter of legal immigrants and fifty to sixty percent of illegals are high-school dropouts. By contrast, only nine percent of non-immigrant Americans lack a high school degree.
Similarly, Rush Limbaugh, in the February 2007 edition of his newsletter (The Limbaugh Letter), presents a load of statistics showing how the "poor" reportedly earn $8,316 per year but spend $19,059. Does this mean they're in debt? No, it means they get a lot more in government aid than people like John Edwards care to admit.
While government assistance is certainly not a bad thing, there are definitely some changes that need to be made. Marriage and employment should be rewarded, not penalized. Illegal immigration should be stopped. Success should not be defined by how many people are on welfare rolls, but rather by the number of people who work themselves off of it.
This poverty issue is a prime example of liberalism versus conservatism. Is it better to give handouts and create dependents, or is it better to incent people to work and establish a stable family environment which allows them to provide for themselves?
Two Americas, indeed.
There's my two cents.
The Rise Of Marxism
You may not realize the full effect of the blogosphere on current events, but I assure you it is not insignificant (just ask Dan Rather or John Kerry). One of the biggest far-left blogs is the Daily Kos (which I refuse to link to here), and it receives literally hundreds of thousands of visitors per day. When the Daily Kos posts something, it gets noticed. The founder claims of controlling the Democrat party leadership, and he's got a decent argument: all the major Democratic presidential candidates attended the YearlyKos convention, even though they skipped the Democratic Leadership Council convention, a much more moderate organization that typically hosts the Democrat presidential candidates.
That makes the following story all the more disturbing: a right-wing conservative blog, LittleGreenFootballs, posts about the Daily Kos openly advocating Marxist theory despite the fact that over 100 million people have lost their lives as a result of it.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that if Marxist thought comes back into the mainstream of the Democrat party, it will cause an incredible amount of damage. Hopefully true mainstream Democrats are much more sane than to allow that.
There's my two cents.
That makes the following story all the more disturbing: a right-wing conservative blog, LittleGreenFootballs, posts about the Daily Kos openly advocating Marxist theory despite the fact that over 100 million people have lost their lives as a result of it.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that if Marxist thought comes back into the mainstream of the Democrat party, it will cause an incredible amount of damage. Hopefully true mainstream Democrats are much more sane than to allow that.
There's my two cents.
Dems Don't Want Political Progress, Either
David Limbaugh writes an extremely illuminating column on Townhall.com showing how the Democrats -- now conceding that military progress in Iraq is undeniable -- don't even want to achieve political progress there. Case in point:
Limbaugh goes on, saying that if they truly wanted to see political progress, they would have praised the Iraqi elections in January 2005 instead of complaining that too few Sunnis participated. They wouldn't complain about the U.S. imposing its will on Iraq before turning around and call for a change in Iraqi leadership. They wouldn't chant incessantly about Iraq being another Vietnam, and then criticize Bush for drawing historical similarities between the two conflicts in support of victory now (rather than repeat the defeat from before).
Limbaugh concludes:
This issue is a no-brainer, and is ripe for the taking of a solid pro-America presidential candidate. Like immigration reform, whoever can best claim this one and frame it properly will have an edge on every Democrat candidate running for President.
There's my two cents.
The Democrats' latest ploy of shifting the goal posts to dampen Gen. Petraeus's anticipated report of military successes in Iraq by emphasizing the slow progress on the political side makes it increasingly hard to deny they are working for defeat at all costs.
Limbaugh goes on, saying that if they truly wanted to see political progress, they would have praised the Iraqi elections in January 2005 instead of complaining that too few Sunnis participated. They wouldn't complain about the U.S. imposing its will on Iraq before turning around and call for a change in Iraqi leadership. They wouldn't chant incessantly about Iraq being another Vietnam, and then criticize Bush for drawing historical similarities between the two conflicts in support of victory now (rather than repeat the defeat from before).
Limbaugh concludes:
"The more the Democratic leaders try to sabotage our mission in Iraq, the more they will ingratiate themselves to their rabid antiwar base, but the harder it will be for them to avoid their own quagmire in November 2008, when national security issues will be front and center."
This issue is a no-brainer, and is ripe for the taking of a solid pro-America presidential candidate. Like immigration reform, whoever can best claim this one and frame it properly will have an edge on every Democrat candidate running for President.
There's my two cents.
'Surge Working, Dems Move The Goalposts'
Freedom's Zone's blog post title neatly sums it up. Now that the surge is almost universally accepted as working, the Democrats have moved the goalposts, as predicted weeks ago. Everyone knows that the Democrat leadership has been against American victory in Iraq for a very long time - they've positioned themselves in such a way that they cannot accept a victory in Iraq, because it would be a resounding political defeat for them. Now that the military victory is resounding (thank you, U.S. troops!), the only choice the Democrats have is to change what they consider to be the markers of 'success'.
It's truly sad how they've abandoned the side of American troops (and victory) in favor of their own political power.
There's my two cents.
It's truly sad how they've abandoned the side of American troops (and victory) in favor of their own political power.
There's my two cents.
Elections With A Twist
The Washington Post reports on a move by California Republicans to change how the state awards its 55 electoral votes. Under the current format, the winner of the state's popular vote takes all 55 electoral votes. If the new initiative goes through, one electoral vote would be issued for each congressional district, with the statewide winner receiving two more electoral votes.
This would cause a monumental shift in election strategy. For example, in the 2004 election, Bush would have received 22 electoral votes instead of 0, and Kerry would have only gotten 33. Maine and Nebraska currently use a system like the proposal; Colorado voters soundly defeated such a proposition in 2004.
Democrats in California are obviously distressed about the initiative since California has tilted left for the past four elections. They're confident in defeating the initiative, since history shows a well-funded "no" campaign almost always defeats a well-funded "yes" campaign.
Supporters could make a strong run at it, though, since initial polling shows 47% in favor (with Democrats evenly split). When the political implications were pointed out, Democrat support fell off sharply, and Republican support rose just as sharply. Overall, the support is currently at 49% for and 42% against.
I'm no expert here, but my first impression is that this system could be good for three reasons. First, it eliminates the whining about winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote. Not a big deal, but I'm really tired of hearing that overused complaint. Second, this sort of a system would make the "calling" of states for certain candidates far more complicated, thus reducing the chances of TV networks broadcasting erroneous predictions and affecting voter turnout in the last couple hours of election nights. Let the votes be counted first, then announce the results. Makes sense, right? Third, it seems to me this would reflect a much more accurate picture of the voters' intentions, especially in states which are almost evenly split like Missouri. Here, we have a very Republican rural base and a very Democrat metropolitan base, and the state usually comes down to a very slim majority in one direction or the other. It would be a much more accurate picture of the true wishes of the voters if the electoral votes would be split the same way. And isn't that what elections are all about?
There's my two cents.
This would cause a monumental shift in election strategy. For example, in the 2004 election, Bush would have received 22 electoral votes instead of 0, and Kerry would have only gotten 33. Maine and Nebraska currently use a system like the proposal; Colorado voters soundly defeated such a proposition in 2004.
Democrats in California are obviously distressed about the initiative since California has tilted left for the past four elections. They're confident in defeating the initiative, since history shows a well-funded "no" campaign almost always defeats a well-funded "yes" campaign.
Supporters could make a strong run at it, though, since initial polling shows 47% in favor (with Democrats evenly split). When the political implications were pointed out, Democrat support fell off sharply, and Republican support rose just as sharply. Overall, the support is currently at 49% for and 42% against.
I'm no expert here, but my first impression is that this system could be good for three reasons. First, it eliminates the whining about winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote. Not a big deal, but I'm really tired of hearing that overused complaint. Second, this sort of a system would make the "calling" of states for certain candidates far more complicated, thus reducing the chances of TV networks broadcasting erroneous predictions and affecting voter turnout in the last couple hours of election nights. Let the votes be counted first, then announce the results. Makes sense, right? Third, it seems to me this would reflect a much more accurate picture of the voters' intentions, especially in states which are almost evenly split like Missouri. Here, we have a very Republican rural base and a very Democrat metropolitan base, and the state usually comes down to a very slim majority in one direction or the other. It would be a much more accurate picture of the true wishes of the voters if the electoral votes would be split the same way. And isn't that what elections are all about?
There's my two cents.
Welcome to Iraq City, USA...
Democrat Senators Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin recently called for Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to step down or be replaced. However deficient he may be in forming political alliances within Iraq, al-Maliki rightly chastised the Senators, calling for them to "start making sense again" and saying they had spoken "as if Iraq is one of their cities."
Basically: go away, you idiots.
Good call. If only we could say that here in the U.S., too.
There's my two cents.
Basically: go away, you idiots.
Good call. If only we could say that here in the U.S., too.
There's my two cents.
Conservative Non-Profit Fights Back
Newsmax posts a story about a new non-profit organization being formed to fight the far-left propaganda produced by MoveOn.org, George Soros, and others. The intent of the new organization is to counteract disinformation in the media.
Freedom's Watch is starting out with a bang - a $15 million campaign to bolster support for the Iraq war surge strategy, the biggest ad campaign in U.S. history. Ads will run for several weeks on outlets like Fox News Channel and CNN; other issues will follow, but the main focus is on global terrorism.
The sad reality is that things often depend more on the perception than the reality. The MSM is overwhelmingly liberal and far-left, so their perception comes across most of the time. If this organization truly has the deep pockets needed for such an undertaking, and is truly dedicated to getting a conservative pro-American message out to the American people, this could provide a huge boost in the arena of public perception, which would then translate into reality.
All I can say is: YES YES YES YES!!!! It's about time!!!
As Freedom's Watch starts digging in, you can expect a smear campaign from the far-left rivaling that of the 7-year assault on President Bush.
There's my two cents.
Freedom's Watch is starting out with a bang - a $15 million campaign to bolster support for the Iraq war surge strategy, the biggest ad campaign in U.S. history. Ads will run for several weeks on outlets like Fox News Channel and CNN; other issues will follow, but the main focus is on global terrorism.
The sad reality is that things often depend more on the perception than the reality. The MSM is overwhelmingly liberal and far-left, so their perception comes across most of the time. If this organization truly has the deep pockets needed for such an undertaking, and is truly dedicated to getting a conservative pro-American message out to the American people, this could provide a huge boost in the arena of public perception, which would then translate into reality.
All I can say is: YES YES YES YES!!!! It's about time!!!
As Freedom's Watch starts digging in, you can expect a smear campaign from the far-left rivaling that of the 7-year assault on President Bush.
There's my two cents.
Hillary Clinton: Surge Working, But Too Late
Well, this is a great statement to make, on a number of levels. Last week, Hillary Clinton admitted that the Iraq surge was working, but that it was too late, and we still needed to bring our troops home.
Really? Now that we're winning, it's time to quit?
What an astonishingly stupid thing to believe, and an even more astonishingly stupid thing to say out loud. I suppose that belief is one reason Clinton is the least popular presidential candidate (from either party) in a recent Gallup poll of the U.S. military, and has the highest negatives of any candidate with the general public.
But wait, there's more! In that same statement she also said, "We can't be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war. We have to win." Hm, that's odd...didn't her husband, former President Bill Clinton -- who said he was 'obsessed with bin Laden' and later was proven to have lied about it -- actually decide not to take Osama bin Laden into U.S. custody when the Sudan offered him to us back in 1996? Also, didn't the Clinton administration gut the military, slash its budget, and erect the 'wall' that prevented the CIA from talking to the FBI, drastically reducing the possibility of averting 9/11?
Let's think about this for a moment...obsessed with bin Laden...fighting the next war...cripple our ability to fight...no thanks, we don't want bin Laden...
It looks like Hillary is seeking to dethrone John-I-voted-for-the-war-before-I-voted-against-it-Kerry as the biggest flip-flopper in politics today.
There's my two cents.
Really? Now that we're winning, it's time to quit?
What an astonishingly stupid thing to believe, and an even more astonishingly stupid thing to say out loud. I suppose that belief is one reason Clinton is the least popular presidential candidate (from either party) in a recent Gallup poll of the U.S. military, and has the highest negatives of any candidate with the general public.
But wait, there's more! In that same statement she also said, "We can't be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war. We have to win." Hm, that's odd...didn't her husband, former President Bill Clinton -- who said he was 'obsessed with bin Laden' and later was proven to have lied about it -- actually decide not to take Osama bin Laden into U.S. custody when the Sudan offered him to us back in 1996? Also, didn't the Clinton administration gut the military, slash its budget, and erect the 'wall' that prevented the CIA from talking to the FBI, drastically reducing the possibility of averting 9/11?
Let's think about this for a moment...obsessed with bin Laden...fighting the next war...cripple our ability to fight...no thanks, we don't want bin Laden...
It looks like Hillary is seeking to dethrone John-I-voted-for-the-war-before-I-voted-against-it-Kerry as the biggest flip-flopper in politics today.
There's my two cents.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Most Americans Want Crackdowns On Illegal Immigration
A recent Rasmussen Reports poll has all kinds of goodies in it about what Americans want from immigration enforcement. Check it out:
- Universal ID. 71% favor requiring all foreign visitors to carry a universal identification card
- Central database. 74% favor the creation and funding of a central database to track all foreign visitors
- The Fence. 56% want the government to continue building a fence along the Mexican border
- No more sanctuary. 58% favor cutting off federal funds for "sanctuary cities" that offer protection to illegal immigrants
- Employer crackdown. 79% favor strict measures requiring employers to fire workers who provide false identification documents
- ID to rent. 74% believe that proper identification should be required for anyone to rent an apartment
This, my friends, is a mandate. Again, I submit to you that whichever candidate best claims this no-brainer issue and follows through on these points will gain a strong measure of support with the conservative Republican base for the 2008 election.
There's my two cents.
- Universal ID. 71% favor requiring all foreign visitors to carry a universal identification card
- Central database. 74% favor the creation and funding of a central database to track all foreign visitors
- The Fence. 56% want the government to continue building a fence along the Mexican border
- No more sanctuary. 58% favor cutting off federal funds for "sanctuary cities" that offer protection to illegal immigrants
- Employer crackdown. 79% favor strict measures requiring employers to fire workers who provide false identification documents
- ID to rent. 74% believe that proper identification should be required for anyone to rent an apartment
This, my friends, is a mandate. Again, I submit to you that whichever candidate best claims this no-brainer issue and follows through on these points will gain a strong measure of support with the conservative Republican base for the 2008 election.
There's my two cents.
Your Efficient Government
Guess how much our super-efficient government spends to make a penny worth one cent? Naturally, 1.7 cents. Way to go.
This is precisely the reason I don't ever want to hear about 'needing' to raise taxes again. If someone could actually streamline the government to run as tightly and cleanly as a private business, we could probably drop our tax rates to less than 10% without shutting down any program currently in existence and still have enough left over to buy several African countries. Until it's been proven that all unnecessary costs have been driven out of wasteful government spending, tax increases should never, ever, ever happen.
There's my two cents.
This is precisely the reason I don't ever want to hear about 'needing' to raise taxes again. If someone could actually streamline the government to run as tightly and cleanly as a private business, we could probably drop our tax rates to less than 10% without shutting down any program currently in existence and still have enough left over to buy several African countries. Until it's been proven that all unnecessary costs have been driven out of wasteful government spending, tax increases should never, ever, ever happen.
There's my two cents.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Christian = Bad, Jew = Bad, Muslim = Good
A few days ago I blogged about a new CNN series called "God's Warriors" in which Christianity, Judaism, and Islam were examined and compared. Right Truth posts an article by Phyllis Chesler with a summary, so go check it out. Part One is here, Part Two is here.
I couldn't muster up the masochism required to watch the series myself, but I was shocked -- SHOCKED -- to learn that CNN is portraying Christianity and Judaism as bad, while Islam is the best thing since sliced bread.
There's my two cents.
I couldn't muster up the masochism required to watch the series myself, but I was shocked -- SHOCKED -- to learn that CNN is portraying Christianity and Judaism as bad, while Islam is the best thing since sliced bread.
There's my two cents.
Oops!
As reported by the Anti-Mullah blog a couple weeks ago, here's a story about a couple illegal alien would-be criminals who got more than they bargained for:
See? We don't need gun control, we just need more smart shooters! Just think of the deterrent it would be if even half of all Americans were even half this capable! I bet you any amount of money we'd see a huge drop-off in home invasions.
Lock 'n' load! :)
There's my two cents.
Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza,26, probably believed they would easily overpower a home alone eleven year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two story home.I love it!
It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana, and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.
Patricia was in her upstairs bedroom when the two men broke through the front door of the house.She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.
Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buck shot from the girl's knee crouch aim.
He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.
When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.
It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen .45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery.
The victim, 50 year old David Burien, was not so lucky as he died from stab wounds to the chest.
Patricia staved off a robbery and potential rape because her parents taught her how to use a gun. Her parents just didn't hide a gun in the house and not educate her on the power that a firearm provides.
Ignorance can be deadly, but fortunately for this Montana family, knowledge was power.
TWO ILLEGALS THAT WILL BE SENT BACK.....IN A BOX!
See? We don't need gun control, we just need more smart shooters! Just think of the deterrent it would be if even half of all Americans were even half this capable! I bet you any amount of money we'd see a huge drop-off in home invasions.
Lock 'n' load! :)
There's my two cents.
Quote: Should We Compromise On Security?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin --
Quote posted at Heavy-Handed Politics.
-- Benjamin Franklin --
Quote posted at Heavy-Handed Politics.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Fun & Frivolity: Giant Lego Man
Here's a smile for your weekend. Workers at a drink stall in Amsterdam fished a giant, smiling Lego man out of the sea earlier this month. I wonder if some of the patrons of the drink stand initially thought they'd had one too many...?
Friday Quick Hits
Quick Hit #1: RU-486 Approval More Than Meets The Eye. Michelle Gress writes on NRO that a recent Time article reveals a disturbing amount of journalistic deception and suspicious political motivation in the approval of RU-486. The drug -- the only one "approved by the FDA that is designed to end human life, rather than improve it" -- isn't nearly as safe as it's made out to be, and its approval process was suspiciously cloudy. Read the article for all the details.
Quick Hit #2: "Israel Is Standard Bearer Of Satan". A Breitbart.com report from last week quotes the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, calling Israel the "standard bearer of Satan" and predicting the Jewish state would soon fall apart. Is this a thinly veiled threat? Should we take the chance that this self-admitted anti-Semite maniac will use restraint once Iran develops nuclear weapons?
Quick Hit #3: More MSM Propaganda. The MSM recently had a cow over an old lady in Iraq whose house was allegedly raked with gunfire by U.S. troops. Along with the story was a picture of the woman holding up two bullets. The problem was that the bullets were unfired. Hm. The blogosphere quickly jumped all over it, not only pointing out the obvious fact that the bullets couldn't possibly have hit her house (since they hadn't been fired), but also showing that those bullets weren't even the kind used by U.S. forces. Why is the MSM so anxious to accuse Americans of wrongdoing? Because they hate America.
Quick Hit #4: Test Your Global Warming Knowledge. Beware, this global warming quiz is based on actual fact, not media/political spin.
Quick Hit #5: Newest Poll Numbers Show Increasing Support For Iraq War. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows that the number of Americans who believe we're winning the War in Iraq has increased to 39% from a month ago. Similarly, the number of Americans believing that the terrorists are winning has dropped to 32%.
I hate to just barely touch on these things, since they're all pretty heavy duty topics, but the constraints of time (and actually having a life) dictate that I simply present them to you to let you ponder them. But hey, you're all smart...you can handle it! :)
There's my two cents.
Quick Hit #2: "Israel Is Standard Bearer Of Satan". A Breitbart.com report from last week quotes the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, calling Israel the "standard bearer of Satan" and predicting the Jewish state would soon fall apart. Is this a thinly veiled threat? Should we take the chance that this self-admitted anti-Semite maniac will use restraint once Iran develops nuclear weapons?
Quick Hit #3: More MSM Propaganda. The MSM recently had a cow over an old lady in Iraq whose house was allegedly raked with gunfire by U.S. troops. Along with the story was a picture of the woman holding up two bullets. The problem was that the bullets were unfired. Hm. The blogosphere quickly jumped all over it, not only pointing out the obvious fact that the bullets couldn't possibly have hit her house (since they hadn't been fired), but also showing that those bullets weren't even the kind used by U.S. forces. Why is the MSM so anxious to accuse Americans of wrongdoing? Because they hate America.
Quick Hit #4: Test Your Global Warming Knowledge. Beware, this global warming quiz is based on actual fact, not media/political spin.
Quick Hit #5: Newest Poll Numbers Show Increasing Support For Iraq War. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows that the number of Americans who believe we're winning the War in Iraq has increased to 39% from a month ago. Similarly, the number of Americans believing that the terrorists are winning has dropped to 32%.
I hate to just barely touch on these things, since they're all pretty heavy duty topics, but the constraints of time (and actually having a life) dictate that I simply present them to you to let you ponder them. But hey, you're all smart...you can handle it! :)
There's my two cents.
Hope For Iraqi Peace In Kurdistan
OneNewsNow reports on some quiet success in Northern Iraq, where two Kurdish factions have established a firm peace in the midst of "very good" security. A State Department spokesman said that "ten years ago, no one would have thought the two Kurdish factions could work together in relative peace." The only coalition forces in the area are 1,000 Koreans, whose main duty is civil affairs. Like the rest of Iraq, they still face struggles, but the fact remains that this region's example provides a definite hope for the future of the rest of Iraq.
Again: security comes first, THEN the political progress can be made. This is proof, and is exactly what's happening in the rest of Iraq.
There's my two cents.
Again: security comes first, THEN the political progress can be made. This is proof, and is exactly what's happening in the rest of Iraq.
There's my two cents.
Democrats' Worst Nightmare
According to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, what do you think is the worst part of a potential terrorist attack between now and the 2008 election? Would it be the loss of life? The loss of property? The damage to U.S. infrastructure or the economy? The damage to our national morale?
Nope. It would provide an advantage for Republicans in 2008.
No further comment needed.
There's my two cents.
Nope. It would provide an advantage for Republicans in 2008.
No further comment needed.
There's my two cents.
Mortgage Bailout Is Bad And Unfair
The Los Angeles Daily News posts a column this week about why a government bailout of the current mortgage 'crisis' would be a very bad idea. Read the column for all the details, but the short version is this: although some people will undoubtedly get hammered through no fault of their own, most of the people now in trouble with their mortgage knew the risks they were taking when they signed the papers. To use government funds to secure them would be, in effect, taking money from people who have managed their assets well and distributing it to the people who haven't. It would also reward the mortgage companies who made loads of money off of risky subprime loans.
As with anything in life, there are inherent risks. You risk your physical safety every time you cross the street, you risk your health every time you eat out at a restaurant, you risk your finances when you invest in the stock market. The only difference here is that some people took a risk with something that really shouldn't be risked - their home. Should taxpayers be expected to 'bail out' people who invest in the stock market but end up losing that investment? No, that would be ridiculous.
It's the same with this. Enacting such a bailout would be enacting the essence of socialism - redistributing wealth based on subjective 'fairness' rather than merit, skill, or ability. It's un-American.
There's my two cents.
As with anything in life, there are inherent risks. You risk your physical safety every time you cross the street, you risk your health every time you eat out at a restaurant, you risk your finances when you invest in the stock market. The only difference here is that some people took a risk with something that really shouldn't be risked - their home. Should taxpayers be expected to 'bail out' people who invest in the stock market but end up losing that investment? No, that would be ridiculous.
It's the same with this. Enacting such a bailout would be enacting the essence of socialism - redistributing wealth based on subjective 'fairness' rather than merit, skill, or ability. It's un-American.
There's my two cents.
Arellano: All That's Wrong About Illegal Immigration
Debra Saunders writes on RealClearPolitics.com in a withering assault on Elvira Arellano, the convicted felon illegal alien who was recently deported after she came out of hiding in a Chicago church. She shows how Arellano is what the media typically portrays as the poor Mexican just trying to make a better life. Arellano said:
The problem is that she is a criminal. She snuck across the border (more than once, which makes her a felon), and was convicted of using a false Social Security number (another felony). Supporters say the U.S. government shouldn't separate Arellano and her 8-year-old son (who is a U.S. citizen), but Saunders points out that in the spirit of family unification, "she should have stayed in Mexico with her family. Now, she is free to bring her son to Mexico to live with her." Saunders also points out that "it's odd how citizenship -- her son's, that is -- suddenly is all important for Arellano, when it was a niggling detail when she chose to violate U.S. law."
Part of the reason Arellano has been allowed to stay in the country so long was that she got direct help from Illinois Democrats Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. Luis Guttierez, who sponsored private bills on her behalf. Now that public scrutiny is on Arellano, they are suddenly unhelpful.
Saunders concludes with a very important aspect of this debate:
That leads us to Ann Coulter's scathing piece on Townhall.com that perfectly illuminates all that's wrong about illegal immigration. Coulter begins her article this way:
Coulter then admits she would rather see ICE concentrate on illegal aliens who have committed heinous crimes:
- Carranza and Godinez: illegal immigrants who shot four promising college kids execution style in Newark, killing three of them, possibly after sexually molesting two of them (both men had prior convictions, Carranza's being the rape a 5-year-old girl)
- Ruben Hernandez-Juarez: an illegal alien charged with sexually molesting a 6-year-old boy in Martin County, Fla.
- Alejandro Bautista: an illegal alien in Cook County, Ill., who was convicted for sexually molesting two teenaged boys
- Alejandro Xuya-Sian: the illegal alien who hit a pedestrian with his car in New York and dragged him for nearly a mile before dislodging the victim from his car, throwing him aside and driving off again
- Alberto Barajas-Enriquez: illegal alien who is charged with beating his Michigan neighbor to death with a golf club because the neighbor complained about the constant barking of Enriquez's dog. Asked by police how many times he struck his victim with the golf club, Enriquez said, "Let's see ... five, six ... uh, put me down for a seven."
- Lucio Sanchez-Martinez: the illegal alien in Ohio charged with sexually molesting a sleeping 8-year-old girl
Coulter explains that she limited the list "to those who were charged or convicted of heinous crimes last week. For illegal aliens charged with child molestation, I had to limit it to two days last week."
Now, Coulter returns to Arellano herself:
Coulter goes on a devastating tirade against the Democrat party, which is clearly the party that most strongly advocates on behalf of these people, speculating that "they're losing the demographic war. Christians have lots of children and adopt lots of children; liberals abort children and encourage the gay lifestyle in anyone with a flair for color" and that's why Democrats are desperate to give voting rights to illegal aliens and felons.
The column contains Coulter's signature sharp wit, and is well worth the read. While I agree with Coulter's assessment, I would also take it in a slightly different direction, pointing out that these are all the reasons illegal immigration is bad: blatant, repeated disregard for American law, no sense of cultural or community responsibility, and a desire simply to leech off the prosperity and generosity (via government handouts) of Americans rather than a genuine desire to assimilate into America. The American people inherently understand these things; the Democrat leadership and the 'intellectual elite' do not.
Something must be done about this problem, and our government's leaders must be forced to do it by US, the American people, regardless of how much they may kick and scream in protest. It's for America's future that we fight, even against our own leaders, who are more concerned about politics and personal power than the good of the country.
There's my two cents.
"We immigrants need representation," Arellano complained last year, according to The Associated Press. "The millions of Mexican immigrants who are living in the U.S. are being treated like criminals. I'm not a criminal. I'm a mother who worked to support my son in this country."
The problem is that she is a criminal. She snuck across the border (more than once, which makes her a felon), and was convicted of using a false Social Security number (another felony). Supporters say the U.S. government shouldn't separate Arellano and her 8-year-old son (who is a U.S. citizen), but Saunders points out that in the spirit of family unification, "she should have stayed in Mexico with her family. Now, she is free to bring her son to Mexico to live with her." Saunders also points out that "it's odd how citizenship -- her son's, that is -- suddenly is all important for Arellano, when it was a niggling detail when she chose to violate U.S. law."
Part of the reason Arellano has been allowed to stay in the country so long was that she got direct help from Illinois Democrats Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. Luis Guttierez, who sponsored private bills on her behalf. Now that public scrutiny is on Arellano, they are suddenly unhelpful.
Saunders concludes with a very important aspect of this debate:
"It's bad enough that so many non-citizens freely break this country's duly enacted laws. But when they feel that they can break our laws openly and without consequence, they have to go. Or all respect for the law will go."
That leads us to Ann Coulter's scathing piece on Townhall.com that perfectly illuminates all that's wrong about illegal immigration. Coulter begins her article this way:
Mickey Kaus has raised the intriguing possibility that, since Bush's amnesty plan went down to humiliating defeat once Americans got wind of what the elites had planned for us, the Bush administration might respond by intentionally targeting highly sympathetic illegal aliens for deportation "in as clumsy, heartless and lawsuit-inspiring a fashion as possible, in order to create the maximum number of negative headlines."
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff described anti-amnesty Americans as being satisfied with nothing less than "the death penalty" for illegal aliens and recently warned of "some unhappy consequences" unless illegal aliens were granted amnesty. Yes, that Michael Chertoff -- the guy in charge of keeping us safe from foreign invasions.
So it was curious when we were treated this week to a weeping Mexican woman on TV, claiming the U.S. government was tearing her from her infant son and saying she knew the American people would be outraged if she were deported. (I note that her message might have been more effective in English.)
Coulter then admits she would rather see ICE concentrate on illegal aliens who have committed heinous crimes:
- Carranza and Godinez: illegal immigrants who shot four promising college kids execution style in Newark, killing three of them, possibly after sexually molesting two of them (both men had prior convictions, Carranza's being the rape a 5-year-old girl)
- Ruben Hernandez-Juarez: an illegal alien charged with sexually molesting a 6-year-old boy in Martin County, Fla.
- Alejandro Bautista: an illegal alien in Cook County, Ill., who was convicted for sexually molesting two teenaged boys
- Alejandro Xuya-Sian: the illegal alien who hit a pedestrian with his car in New York and dragged him for nearly a mile before dislodging the victim from his car, throwing him aside and driving off again
- Alberto Barajas-Enriquez: illegal alien who is charged with beating his Michigan neighbor to death with a golf club because the neighbor complained about the constant barking of Enriquez's dog. Asked by police how many times he struck his victim with the golf club, Enriquez said, "Let's see ... five, six ... uh, put me down for a seven."
- Lucio Sanchez-Martinez: the illegal alien in Ohio charged with sexually molesting a sleeping 8-year-old girl
Coulter explains that she limited the list "to those who were charged or convicted of heinous crimes last week. For illegal aliens charged with child molestation, I had to limit it to two days last week."
Now, Coulter returns to Arellano herself:
Arellano has already snuck into the country illegally twice (that we know of). After being deported in 1999 -- under an administration that, astonishingly, was more serious about enforcing immigration law than the current one -- she illegally ran across the border again a few days later.
Only after 9/11 was she arrested again and convicted for using a stolen Social Security number to get a job as a cleaning woman at an airport. In lieu of jail time, Arellano was to be deported. Instead she took refuge in a left-wing "church" and began to bellyache about being thrown out again.
Despite living in this country illegally for a decade, Arellano hasn't mastered the most rudimentary English. She doesn't want to assimilate and become a "Mexican-American." She wants to be a Mexican-Mexican living in and off America.
So far, the only thing Arellano has contributed to America is one illegitimate child.
Coulter goes on a devastating tirade against the Democrat party, which is clearly the party that most strongly advocates on behalf of these people, speculating that "they're losing the demographic war. Christians have lots of children and adopt lots of children; liberals abort children and encourage the gay lifestyle in anyone with a flair for color" and that's why Democrats are desperate to give voting rights to illegal aliens and felons.
The column contains Coulter's signature sharp wit, and is well worth the read. While I agree with Coulter's assessment, I would also take it in a slightly different direction, pointing out that these are all the reasons illegal immigration is bad: blatant, repeated disregard for American law, no sense of cultural or community responsibility, and a desire simply to leech off the prosperity and generosity (via government handouts) of Americans rather than a genuine desire to assimilate into America. The American people inherently understand these things; the Democrat leadership and the 'intellectual elite' do not.
Something must be done about this problem, and our government's leaders must be forced to do it by US, the American people, regardless of how much they may kick and scream in protest. It's for America's future that we fight, even against our own leaders, who are more concerned about politics and personal power than the good of the country.
There's my two cents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)