Thursday, June 6, 2013
Moving My Stance From FaceBook to Here
I've decided it's time to publish my opinions in a friendlier environment. Living in Los Angeles, and being a musician as well, I spend a lot of time with people who do not share my views and quite frankly, don't want to read or discuss them. Prior to the latest Presidential Election, I thought it important that I continue on FB in hopes of convincing at least a few to see the dangers at hand. Now well beyond the Election, it seems the only thing I accomplish is to further alienate them and that's not what FB is about. However, this is my Blog and I CAN speak my mind here without concern because, unlike FB, you're here because you want to know what I think...I like that.
Feel free to share your views with me here as well. Know that I'm not defensive by nature, but I am very staunch in my opinions and I like to think that my opinions come from research and study. That doesn't mean I'm right but it does mean I've given it some thought. :-)
My reason for writing here is that I still strongly believe we are in grave danger of losing the freedom and liberty we hold dear in this country I love. As Merle Haggard wrote in The Fightin' Side of Me, "If you don't love it, leave it, let this song that I'm singing be a warning. When you're running down my way of life, you're walking on the fighting side of me."
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Well, here's more food for thought. Obama signs an Executive Order essentially granting asylum to the under-30 illegal immigrants, right? I'm still scratching my head on how he can go against our democracy so blatantly and still remain in favor, but I'll save that line of thought for another time. My issue is this and it is a drum I have always beaten regarding right and wrong: When you make decisions based on the symptoms instead of the cause and effect changes accordingly, the foundation of the good intentions are built on shifting sand and cannot endure the litmus test of truth. Huh you ask?
Obama granted amnesty to these young illegals which means they can freely apply for a 2-year work permit without fear of deportation and can renew their work permit an unlimited number of times - in other words without even an end game. "The president also made clear the change was not amnesty, immunity or a path to citizenship." Walks and talks like amnesty to me, but I digress. Anyway, let's look at this and see what SHOULD happen legally if our INS properly performs their duties.
These under-30 illegals can now come out of hiding and apply for work permits without fear of deportation, right? What if you're the illegal family of these children/young adults? Chances are good these "legal illegals" are living in the same house as the illegal-illegals, right? The other illegals don't fall under this umbrella of protection, right? Now the INS has an address where known illegal-illegals are hiding. Shouldn't it be incumbent on them to properly carry out their duties to identify and deport those who are in this country illegally? Isn't that why they were hired and why our tax dollars are being used? It becomes quite a powder keg for Obama, demanding either repeal of the Executive Order or an order for the INS to stand down and not do their job at all. We should demand that they do the job for which our tax dollars are being used, don't you think? And don't even try to throw the "it's not fair" or "race card" in on this discussion. It wasn't fair that they illegally gained access to the opportunities and welfare of our country while so many law-abiding people are dealing with a complicated system for legal entry and opportunity, it it? And the race card doesn't apply as the law clearly defines illegals without regard to color or origin. Just because the law ends up targeting a certain race in no way means the law was written only for such, so the race card is invalid. For example, just because the prison population has a higher percentage of Black and Hispanic doesn't mean it was racially designed to do such...it's a reality, not an ideology.
Now, back to my earlier "drum." I'm sure the Liberals would cry foul over this claiming it's inhumane, against their civil rights and basically unconstitutional with regards to unlawful search and seizure, BUT ----- once you commit an illegal act, you bear the consequences of that act. Simply living out a life illegally does not grant immunity for your illegal act and that's not any different than a murderer living responsibly for years after the crime. In the same manner, what a person has built or accomplished cannot override the fact that it was done on an illegal foundation. Everything AFTER the illegal act cannot and should not be taken into consideration in reaching a decision of deportation.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the law is clear - you enter illegally, we find you, we return you to where you were legal. The only breakdown I see is in the lack of resolve our of Federal government to enforce the democratically-decided laws. Even worse, when a sovereign state attempted to enforce it, the Feds tried to handcuff them and when that didn't work, Obama dissolved the Memorandum of Agreement. This is the epitome of a refusal to acknowledge the sovereign rights of each state to protect and care for their people and is EXACTLY what the anti-Federalists feared during the drafting and ratification of our Constitution.
Okay, I've jumped off my soapbox. Your turn......
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Let's elect Lt Col Allen White as our next president. I think 4 years of him in the White House might not solve all of our crises, but I do believe it would at least get our focus back on the USA and our vision of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As a minimum, at least it would end our constant global apologies and cow-towing to those who wish to do us harm.
What ya think? Let's hear from you.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Carnival Splendor Engine Fire?
A friend sent this article to me recently. Ironically, just this morning I was wondering what was ever discovered about the so-far unexplained missile launch off our coast. I wasn't buying the Pentagon's explanation of an aircraft...I live by one of the busiest airports in the world (LAX) and I think most people in this area know what an aircraft contrail looks like.
If the following article is even close to true (which I believe it's scary close), then we are in an unannounced Cold War with China that could easily escalate to a global scale. I've said it before, and I will keep beating this drum --- OBAMA IS THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO THE U.S. His true agenda (still unknown) and lack of political/financial expertise will topple this once-great country of ours.
Why did it take the US Navy 11 hours to respond to this, if true? If true, it rings eerily similar to Clinton's retaliatory strikes against terrorism during his Presidency. What's really wagging the dog here?
ARTICLE:
Carnival Splendor attacked by EMP missile???
A new report circulating in the Kremlin today prepared for Prime Minister Putin by Director Anatoly Perminov of the Russian Federal Space Agency states that an Arkon-1 military satellite monitoring the western coastal regions of North America detected an EMP anomalous event occurring on November 8th at 0600 Pacific Standard Time (-8 hours GMT) that bore the direct signature of a YJ-62 subsonic anti-ship missile fired from a Chinese Peoples Liberation Navy Type 041 submarine (NATO code name Yuan-Class) known to be patrolling approximately 200 kilometers off United States coast.
Nearly 11 hours after this EMP event this report further says, Arkon-1 then detected a BGM-109 (Tomahawk) subsonic cruise missile launched from a US Navy Ohio-Class submarine operating off the coast of California on a training mission from its home port located at US Navy s Kitsap Base in Washington State and was enroute to the largest American Naval Base on the US west coast in San Diego, California.
Note: A Russian military intelligence (GRU) addendum to this report states that the training mission the Ohio-Class submarine was on is related to a new US law passed this year allowing for the first time in history for women to serve on US Navy subs and was an operational exercise testing female Naval Officers competence prior to their first operational deployment
The immediate effect of the Chinese Navy’s firing of their EMP missile, this report continues, was the catastrophic crippling of the US based cruise ship Carnival Splendor that stranded its nearly 4,500 passengers and crew in a dead in the water boat and prompting the Americans to send the US Navy’s Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier, warplanes, and supply aircraft to protect it from further attack after all of its electronic systems were destroyed.
An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) such as was used upon the Carnival Splendor is a burst of electromagnetic radiation that causes rapidly changing electric fields (or magnetic fields) that when coupling with electrical/electronic systems produces damaging current and voltage surges destroying all non-hardened electrical systems.
The US Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) had previously warned that American ships were vulnerable to such attacks with EMP Assessment Group Leader of Blaise Corbett stating that the consequences of failing to take appropriate precautions to protect fleet mission critical systems can ultimately prove catastrophic to the Navy’s mission.
The purpose of this Chinese EMP upon an American ship, this report says, was twofold: 1.) A test of the EMP weapon itself that in a war against the Americans and would be used against their Naval Fleet and Marine Forces operating out of California and the west coast of the US, and 2.) A test of the response time for American retaliatory measures against any Chinese warship attacking the US and/or its interests in the Pacific.
The GRU further states that the timing of this attack was timed even more crucially due to China s testing of America Ts response time during a period when their President, as Commander In Chief of all US Military Forces, was out of the country, as Obama was as he was in India at the time.
The Americans response time of nearly 11 hours between the EMP attack on the Carnival Splendor and the US retaliatory strike, the GRU states, virtually assured that the Chinese submarine responsible for the attack escaped, but which they further point out may have been intended by the Americans so as not to escalate this crisis.
To the geo-political reason(s) for a Communist Chinese attack upon the Americans just days before the crucially important G-20 Summit in South Korea, which both Presidents Hu and Obama will be attending, this report says was due to the United States, in essence, declaring total economic war upon the rest of the world by its printing of nearly $1 Trillion US Dollars in order to monetize its staggering debt and that China warned:
If the United States can increase the volume of dollars and it can transmit inflation to other countries to lessen the pressure of debt, then it will bring about a catastrophic influence on the world.
If the following article is even close to true (which I believe it's scary close), then we are in an unannounced Cold War with China that could easily escalate to a global scale. I've said it before, and I will keep beating this drum --- OBAMA IS THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO THE U.S. His true agenda (still unknown) and lack of political/financial expertise will topple this once-great country of ours.
Why did it take the US Navy 11 hours to respond to this, if true? If true, it rings eerily similar to Clinton's retaliatory strikes against terrorism during his Presidency. What's really wagging the dog here?
ARTICLE:
Carnival Splendor attacked by EMP missile???
A new report circulating in the Kremlin today prepared for Prime Minister Putin by Director Anatoly Perminov of the Russian Federal Space Agency states that an Arkon-1 military satellite monitoring the western coastal regions of North America detected an EMP anomalous event occurring on November 8th at 0600 Pacific Standard Time (-8 hours GMT) that bore the direct signature of a YJ-62 subsonic anti-ship missile fired from a Chinese Peoples Liberation Navy Type 041 submarine (NATO code name Yuan-Class) known to be patrolling approximately 200 kilometers off United States coast.
Nearly 11 hours after this EMP event this report further says, Arkon-1 then detected a BGM-109 (Tomahawk) subsonic cruise missile launched from a US Navy Ohio-Class submarine operating off the coast of California on a training mission from its home port located at US Navy s Kitsap Base in Washington State and was enroute to the largest American Naval Base on the US west coast in San Diego, California.
Note: A Russian military intelligence (GRU) addendum to this report states that the training mission the Ohio-Class submarine was on is related to a new US law passed this year allowing for the first time in history for women to serve on US Navy subs and was an operational exercise testing female Naval Officers competence prior to their first operational deployment
The immediate effect of the Chinese Navy’s firing of their EMP missile, this report continues, was the catastrophic crippling of the US based cruise ship Carnival Splendor that stranded its nearly 4,500 passengers and crew in a dead in the water boat and prompting the Americans to send the US Navy’s Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier, warplanes, and supply aircraft to protect it from further attack after all of its electronic systems were destroyed.
An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) such as was used upon the Carnival Splendor is a burst of electromagnetic radiation that causes rapidly changing electric fields (or magnetic fields) that when coupling with electrical/electronic systems produces damaging current and voltage surges destroying all non-hardened electrical systems.
The US Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) had previously warned that American ships were vulnerable to such attacks with EMP Assessment Group Leader of Blaise Corbett stating that the consequences of failing to take appropriate precautions to protect fleet mission critical systems can ultimately prove catastrophic to the Navy’s mission.
The purpose of this Chinese EMP upon an American ship, this report says, was twofold: 1.) A test of the EMP weapon itself that in a war against the Americans and would be used against their Naval Fleet and Marine Forces operating out of California and the west coast of the US, and 2.) A test of the response time for American retaliatory measures against any Chinese warship attacking the US and/or its interests in the Pacific.
The GRU further states that the timing of this attack was timed even more crucially due to China s testing of America Ts response time during a period when their President, as Commander In Chief of all US Military Forces, was out of the country, as Obama was as he was in India at the time.
The Americans response time of nearly 11 hours between the EMP attack on the Carnival Splendor and the US retaliatory strike, the GRU states, virtually assured that the Chinese submarine responsible for the attack escaped, but which they further point out may have been intended by the Americans so as not to escalate this crisis.
To the geo-political reason(s) for a Communist Chinese attack upon the Americans just days before the crucially important G-20 Summit in South Korea, which both Presidents Hu and Obama will be attending, this report says was due to the United States, in essence, declaring total economic war upon the rest of the world by its printing of nearly $1 Trillion US Dollars in order to monetize its staggering debt and that China warned:
If the United States can increase the volume of dollars and it can transmit inflation to other countries to lessen the pressure of debt, then it will bring about a catastrophic influence on the world.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
US Government Files Lawsuit Against AZ SB1070
Well, I didn't think it would actually come to this. From everything I've read, coupled with the intense scrutiny AZ law enforcement has been under the past 2 years because of Sheriff Arpaio's "Tent City," I am VERY confident that SB1070 goes far above and beyond in ensuring it does NOT authorize racial profiling, nor does it supplant Federal Law.
I find it interesting that the Obama Administration did NOT file suit against AZ for racial profiling. Isn't that exactly what all of the opponents to this Bill are screaming from every mountain top? I have not heard dissension of any other aspect of this Bill, yet the Federal Government's lawsuit doesn't address it EVEN though those were the first words out of Pelosi, Holder and Obama - RACIAL PROFILING!!!
It's clear they're just playing "Hot Button" politics. Why else would a government sue a state for doing nothing more than enforcing the Federal laws? Don't forget where the Federal government is getting the funds to litigate this lawsuit - YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS!!! With our government farther in debt than ever before, money that can be better utilized will be expended in frivolous lawsuits against one of our own - could the situation be more ludicrous?
Following is a statement released by Gov. Jan Brewer regarding our government's action against her state. If you'd like more information, check out their website at www.keepazsafe.com.
STATEMENT
Statement by Governor Jan Brewer
PHOENIX – “Today I was notified that the federal government has filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona. It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels. Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice. Today's filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds. These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.
“The truth is the Arizona law is both reasonable and constitutional. It mirrors substantially what has been federal law in the United States for many decades. Arizona’s law is designed to complement, not supplant, enforcement of federal immigration laws. Despite the Department of Justice’s claims in paragraph 62 of today’s lawsuit, Arizona is not trying ‘to establish its own immigration policy’ or ‘directly regulate the immigration status of aliens.’ Arizona Revised Statutes § 11-1051(E) states that the federal government, along with local law enforcement officers authorized by the federal government, can only determine an alien’s immigration status.
Subsection (L) of that same section goes on to state that the law ‘shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration.’
“The irony is that President Obama’s Administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of ‘sanctuary’ policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local ‘sanctuary’ policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials.
“The best thing government can do is to create a stable, predictable environment, governed by an easily understood set of rules or laws. We do not need to make this more complicated than it already is. We must first and foremost create a secure border. Enhanced trade,economic opportunity and freedom will surely follow.
“I am pleased that President Obama and the Department of Justice did not pursue the
baseless claims of illegal racial profiling in the lawsuit. When signing S.B. 1070, I said, ‘My signature today represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law — both against illegal immigration AND against racial profiling.’ Arizona’s law expressly prohibits unconstitutional racial profiling.
However, words are not enough. For this reason, I ordered the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST) to develop training on the new law for Arizona’s police officers. AZPOST has completed the training course and has published it for the all world to see at www.azpost.state.az.us/SB1070infocenter.htm.
AZPOST has done its job professionally and served Arizona well. “I will not stop fighting to protect the citizens of Arizona, and to defend Arizonans in federal court. I have set up a legal defense fund to pay the substantial legal fees that Arizona has been, and will be, forced to incur as a result of all of these lawsuits.
Contributions to the Border Security and Immigration Defense Fund can be made at www.keepazsafe.com. My legal team will not hesitate to assert the rights of the State of Arizona in this matter. Arizona will ultimately prevail against the lawsuits – including this latest assault by the Obama Administration. Our laws will be found to be constitutional – because that is exactly what they are.”
I find it interesting that the Obama Administration did NOT file suit against AZ for racial profiling. Isn't that exactly what all of the opponents to this Bill are screaming from every mountain top? I have not heard dissension of any other aspect of this Bill, yet the Federal Government's lawsuit doesn't address it EVEN though those were the first words out of Pelosi, Holder and Obama - RACIAL PROFILING!!!
It's clear they're just playing "Hot Button" politics. Why else would a government sue a state for doing nothing more than enforcing the Federal laws? Don't forget where the Federal government is getting the funds to litigate this lawsuit - YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS!!! With our government farther in debt than ever before, money that can be better utilized will be expended in frivolous lawsuits against one of our own - could the situation be more ludicrous?
Following is a statement released by Gov. Jan Brewer regarding our government's action against her state. If you'd like more information, check out their website at www.keepazsafe.com.
STATEMENT
Statement by Governor Jan Brewer
PHOENIX – “Today I was notified that the federal government has filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona. It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels. Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice. Today's filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds. These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.
“The truth is the Arizona law is both reasonable and constitutional. It mirrors substantially what has been federal law in the United States for many decades. Arizona’s law is designed to complement, not supplant, enforcement of federal immigration laws. Despite the Department of Justice’s claims in paragraph 62 of today’s lawsuit, Arizona is not trying ‘to establish its own immigration policy’ or ‘directly regulate the immigration status of aliens.’ Arizona Revised Statutes § 11-1051(E) states that the federal government, along with local law enforcement officers authorized by the federal government, can only determine an alien’s immigration status.
Subsection (L) of that same section goes on to state that the law ‘shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration.’
“The irony is that President Obama’s Administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of ‘sanctuary’ policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local ‘sanctuary’ policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials.
“The best thing government can do is to create a stable, predictable environment, governed by an easily understood set of rules or laws. We do not need to make this more complicated than it already is. We must first and foremost create a secure border. Enhanced trade,economic opportunity and freedom will surely follow.
“I am pleased that President Obama and the Department of Justice did not pursue the
baseless claims of illegal racial profiling in the lawsuit. When signing S.B. 1070, I said, ‘My signature today represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law — both against illegal immigration AND against racial profiling.’ Arizona’s law expressly prohibits unconstitutional racial profiling.
However, words are not enough. For this reason, I ordered the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST) to develop training on the new law for Arizona’s police officers. AZPOST has completed the training course and has published it for the all world to see at www.azpost.state.az.us/SB1070infocenter.htm.
AZPOST has done its job professionally and served Arizona well. “I will not stop fighting to protect the citizens of Arizona, and to defend Arizonans in federal court. I have set up a legal defense fund to pay the substantial legal fees that Arizona has been, and will be, forced to incur as a result of all of these lawsuits.
Contributions to the Border Security and Immigration Defense Fund can be made at www.keepazsafe.com. My legal team will not hesitate to assert the rights of the State of Arizona in this matter. Arizona will ultimately prevail against the lawsuits – including this latest assault by the Obama Administration. Our laws will be found to be constitutional – because that is exactly what they are.”
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Root Cause of Federal Inabiity To Secure Border
COMMENT: Talk about political double-talk?!?!? The only reason Obama is addressing this issue (above the more pressing Gulf issue I might add) is for political purposes, yet he has the audacity to claim it hasn't been reformed yet because of GOP political pressure. What, what? The Republican's (and majority of Americans) don't want to see immigration reform without border security. Obama claims our borders are too vast to secure, yet he is still pushing immigration reform - that amounts to a never-ending cycle of amnesty and illegal overpopulation. I shall comment throughout this article as there are simply too many "hot buttons" to cover before.
ARTICLE:
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press Writer Darlene Superville, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Thursday blamed immigration policy gridlock on "political posturing and special interest wrangling."
In a speech, Obama took Republicans to task, in particular 11 GOP senators who supported recent efforts to improve the immigration system. He did not name any, but told his largely supportive audience at American University that those lawmakers had succumbed to the "pressures of partisanship and election-year politics."
COMMENT: I wish he would have gone on to specifically state what those pressures actually were - probably would learn that they would NOT be re-elected if they granted any form of amnesty without first securing our borders adequately. end comment
Seeking to build new momentum on an issue many advocates hoped would be resolved by this point, Obama laid out his rationale for a comprehensive approach to fixing what he and others, Republicans included, say is a broken immigration system.
He said the problem cannot be solved "only with fences and border patrols" but said the government should be held accountable for its responsibility to secure the border. Obama also said that businesses should face consequences for knowingly employing illegal immigrants. And he said those who enter the country illegally should own up to their actions before they can begin the process of becoming citizens.
COMMENT: What kind of "mamsy-pamsy" statement is this? "...should own up to their actions before they can begin the process..." Does he really think the 11M+ illegals are going to raise their hands and take responsibility BEFORE being granted amnesty? They're not interested in becoming US citizens (just look at how they fly the Mexican flag ABOVE the US flag in our own country); they just want to take what they can from America and ship it back to Mexico. end comment
"The question now is whether we will have the courage and the political will to pass a bill through Congress, to finally get it done," the president said. "I'm ready to move forward, the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward. But the fact is that without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem."
COMMENT: Who destroyed the bipartisan support? He lays the partisan atmosphere at the feet of the Republican party, but ObamaCare demonstrated how much the Dems really care about bipartisanship. The atmosphere was bipartisan when the GOP was the majority, but it doesn't work that way now that Congress is Demoncrat controlled. end comment
"Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes," he said. "That is the political and mathematical reality."
In response, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, one of the 11 Republican senators Obama alluded to in his talk, said he had a good reason for his position this time around.
"My constituents have said do everything you can to secure the border first," Kyl told Fox News Channel. "It's our job to secure the border, whether or not we end up passing so-called comprehensive immigration reform."
COMMENT: To quote Obama, Kyl's statement IS the "political and mathematical reality." end comment
White House officials say recent developments influenced Obama's decision to give his first formal speech on the issue as president, most notably Arizona's enactment of a tough anti-immigrant law and the reaction to it across the country. But advocates also have been pressing him to give such a speech as a demonstration of his commitment to seeing the effort through.
Obama didn't dwell on the Arizona law in the speech. He called it an understandable byproduct of public frustration with the government's inability to tighten the system, but also said the law is ill-conceived, divisive and would put undue pressure on local authorities.
The law requires police enforcing another statute to clarify a person's immigration status if there's reason to believe that person is in the U.S. illegally. Immigrant advocates want the Justice Department, which is reviewing the law, to sue Arizona to block it from taking effect this month.
In the speech, Obama extolled America's history as a melting pot of immigrants and lauded their many contributions to the nation.
But an Associated Press-GfK Poll conducted in May found 57 percent saying illegal immigrants are mostly a drain on society and 38 percent said they believe immigrants make a contribution. Eight in 10 said the federal government should do more to keep immigrants from illegally entering the U.S.
Obama has endorsed a proposal by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that would require illegal immigrants to admit they broke the law, pay fines and back taxes and perform community service to eventually obtain legal status. But Graham since has balked at acting on immigration this year, and no other Senate Republican has come forward.
COMMENT: Why do I feel like Jimmy Carter's back in the White House? The proposal above is just as naive as Carter wanting to unilaterally disarm our nuclear weapons as a testament of faith that the Russians would do the same. What makes anyone believe they will (1) Admit they broke the law, (2) Pay fines and back taxes and, (3) Perform community service? Pay fines with what money? How would we even determine what back taxes they owe? They're being paid under-the-table by employers who know they're breaking the law. Lastly, I don't believe the majority are serious about becoming citizens, so why would they agree to community service? end comment
Some Republicans, like Kyl, are pushing a "border security first" approach focused on enforcement.
"It won't work," Obama said. He said there now are more "boots on the ground" on the U.S.-Mexico border than ever before and that "our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols."
COMMENT: Oops! He just admitted that a major portion of his reform is not possible. So what is possible? Granting amnesty? YEP Allowing all of them on government programs? YEP Getting them all into the tax-payer supplemented side of ObamaCare? YEP Preventing influx that necessitated AZ SB 1070? NOPE!!! end comment
Obama recently ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to the border to boost security and asked Congress for an additional $600 million to support personnel and improve technology there. More than 500 of those Guard troops are headed for Arizona.
COMMENT: Why send 1200 troops and ask for another $600M if you're convinced the borders are too vast to secure? Does anyone REALLY believe Obama has a clue what he's doing? Does anyone TRULY believe the rhetoric?
ARTICLE:
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press Writer Darlene Superville, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Thursday blamed immigration policy gridlock on "political posturing and special interest wrangling."
In a speech, Obama took Republicans to task, in particular 11 GOP senators who supported recent efforts to improve the immigration system. He did not name any, but told his largely supportive audience at American University that those lawmakers had succumbed to the "pressures of partisanship and election-year politics."
COMMENT: I wish he would have gone on to specifically state what those pressures actually were - probably would learn that they would NOT be re-elected if they granted any form of amnesty without first securing our borders adequately. end comment
Seeking to build new momentum on an issue many advocates hoped would be resolved by this point, Obama laid out his rationale for a comprehensive approach to fixing what he and others, Republicans included, say is a broken immigration system.
He said the problem cannot be solved "only with fences and border patrols" but said the government should be held accountable for its responsibility to secure the border. Obama also said that businesses should face consequences for knowingly employing illegal immigrants. And he said those who enter the country illegally should own up to their actions before they can begin the process of becoming citizens.
COMMENT: What kind of "mamsy-pamsy" statement is this? "...should own up to their actions before they can begin the process..." Does he really think the 11M+ illegals are going to raise their hands and take responsibility BEFORE being granted amnesty? They're not interested in becoming US citizens (just look at how they fly the Mexican flag ABOVE the US flag in our own country); they just want to take what they can from America and ship it back to Mexico. end comment
"The question now is whether we will have the courage and the political will to pass a bill through Congress, to finally get it done," the president said. "I'm ready to move forward, the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward. But the fact is that without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem."
COMMENT: Who destroyed the bipartisan support? He lays the partisan atmosphere at the feet of the Republican party, but ObamaCare demonstrated how much the Dems really care about bipartisanship. The atmosphere was bipartisan when the GOP was the majority, but it doesn't work that way now that Congress is Demoncrat controlled. end comment
"Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes," he said. "That is the political and mathematical reality."
In response, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, one of the 11 Republican senators Obama alluded to in his talk, said he had a good reason for his position this time around.
"My constituents have said do everything you can to secure the border first," Kyl told Fox News Channel. "It's our job to secure the border, whether or not we end up passing so-called comprehensive immigration reform."
COMMENT: To quote Obama, Kyl's statement IS the "political and mathematical reality." end comment
White House officials say recent developments influenced Obama's decision to give his first formal speech on the issue as president, most notably Arizona's enactment of a tough anti-immigrant law and the reaction to it across the country. But advocates also have been pressing him to give such a speech as a demonstration of his commitment to seeing the effort through.
Obama didn't dwell on the Arizona law in the speech. He called it an understandable byproduct of public frustration with the government's inability to tighten the system, but also said the law is ill-conceived, divisive and would put undue pressure on local authorities.
The law requires police enforcing another statute to clarify a person's immigration status if there's reason to believe that person is in the U.S. illegally. Immigrant advocates want the Justice Department, which is reviewing the law, to sue Arizona to block it from taking effect this month.
In the speech, Obama extolled America's history as a melting pot of immigrants and lauded their many contributions to the nation.
But an Associated Press-GfK Poll conducted in May found 57 percent saying illegal immigrants are mostly a drain on society and 38 percent said they believe immigrants make a contribution. Eight in 10 said the federal government should do more to keep immigrants from illegally entering the U.S.
Obama has endorsed a proposal by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that would require illegal immigrants to admit they broke the law, pay fines and back taxes and perform community service to eventually obtain legal status. But Graham since has balked at acting on immigration this year, and no other Senate Republican has come forward.
COMMENT: Why do I feel like Jimmy Carter's back in the White House? The proposal above is just as naive as Carter wanting to unilaterally disarm our nuclear weapons as a testament of faith that the Russians would do the same. What makes anyone believe they will (1) Admit they broke the law, (2) Pay fines and back taxes and, (3) Perform community service? Pay fines with what money? How would we even determine what back taxes they owe? They're being paid under-the-table by employers who know they're breaking the law. Lastly, I don't believe the majority are serious about becoming citizens, so why would they agree to community service? end comment
Some Republicans, like Kyl, are pushing a "border security first" approach focused on enforcement.
"It won't work," Obama said. He said there now are more "boots on the ground" on the U.S.-Mexico border than ever before and that "our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols."
COMMENT: Oops! He just admitted that a major portion of his reform is not possible. So what is possible? Granting amnesty? YEP Allowing all of them on government programs? YEP Getting them all into the tax-payer supplemented side of ObamaCare? YEP Preventing influx that necessitated AZ SB 1070? NOPE!!! end comment
Obama recently ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to the border to boost security and asked Congress for an additional $600 million to support personnel and improve technology there. More than 500 of those Guard troops are headed for Arizona.
COMMENT: Why send 1200 troops and ask for another $600M if you're convinced the borders are too vast to secure? Does anyone REALLY believe Obama has a clue what he's doing? Does anyone TRULY believe the rhetoric?
Friday, June 25, 2010
Amnesty As An Executive Order?
COMMENT:
I really like the "positives" this proposed Executive Order contains - would stop the immigration protests and make the controversial SB1070 in Arizona effectively null and void. Do they think nobody else is coming across the border now? Is the amnesty for those in the US now, or does it somehow extend to everyone who comes across the border in the future? If not, then Arizona's Bill will be just as effective next week as this week - they're still coming in!!!
What about the economic impact of this Executive Order? Obama just commissioned a panel to examine why the Federal deficit is exploding (results not expected before December). I hope it doesn't contain rocket scientists because that would be a waste of their time. Here's a great way to explode the deficit - take 11 million illegals and give them a blank check to legally get into the welfare and healthcare system. Yep, add 11 million people to the Obamacare portion that the taxpayers have to fund 100% - that's a lot of money that won't go to running our country, BUT it's precisely what Obama's goal has been all along with Obamacare...have the few pay for the majority and have HIS majority dictate how the healthcare system runs.
The only way to float it at all is to have the government handle ALL of the insurance. Yep, bye bye private insurance carriers and bye bye to you keeping your plan, and bye bye to more of your hard-earned money going to cover this "black hole of Federal money."
ARTICLE:
Jody Brown - OneNewsNow - 6/23/2010 2:25:00
Is Barack Obama drafting an executive order that would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens?
Illegal alien climbing fenceFox News is reporting that a group of Republican senators have asked President Obama to clarify reports that he is drafting a plan to issue blanket amnesty for millions of people who are in the U.S. illegally. The plan would reportedly be unilateral in nature -- circumventing Congress entirely as the administration struggles to gain support on Capitol Hill for what the administration calls "comprehensive immigration reform" -- and be issued in the form of an executive order.
In a letter to the president, says Fox News, Senators Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), David Vitter (Louisiana), Jim Bunning (Kentucky), Saxby Chambliss (Georgia), Johnny Isakson (Georgia), James Inhofe (Oklahoma), and Thad Cochran (Mississippi) have urged the president to "abandon" what they describe as a plan to "unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens...."
The letter, sent to the White House on Monday, argues that such a move "would further erode the American public's confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books."
Fox News points out that an executive order granting a blanket amnesty would likely stem the high number of immigration-related protests across the country -- and would effectively make null and void the controversial bill signed into law recently by the governor of Arizona that allows state authorities to enforce federal laws regarding illegal immigration.
According to the report, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimated last year almost 11-million people live in the United States illegally.
I really like the "positives" this proposed Executive Order contains - would stop the immigration protests and make the controversial SB1070 in Arizona effectively null and void. Do they think nobody else is coming across the border now? Is the amnesty for those in the US now, or does it somehow extend to everyone who comes across the border in the future? If not, then Arizona's Bill will be just as effective next week as this week - they're still coming in!!!
What about the economic impact of this Executive Order? Obama just commissioned a panel to examine why the Federal deficit is exploding (results not expected before December). I hope it doesn't contain rocket scientists because that would be a waste of their time. Here's a great way to explode the deficit - take 11 million illegals and give them a blank check to legally get into the welfare and healthcare system. Yep, add 11 million people to the Obamacare portion that the taxpayers have to fund 100% - that's a lot of money that won't go to running our country, BUT it's precisely what Obama's goal has been all along with Obamacare...have the few pay for the majority and have HIS majority dictate how the healthcare system runs.
The only way to float it at all is to have the government handle ALL of the insurance. Yep, bye bye private insurance carriers and bye bye to you keeping your plan, and bye bye to more of your hard-earned money going to cover this "black hole of Federal money."
ARTICLE:
Jody Brown - OneNewsNow - 6/23/2010 2:25:00
Is Barack Obama drafting an executive order that would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens?
Illegal alien climbing fenceFox News is reporting that a group of Republican senators have asked President Obama to clarify reports that he is drafting a plan to issue blanket amnesty for millions of people who are in the U.S. illegally. The plan would reportedly be unilateral in nature -- circumventing Congress entirely as the administration struggles to gain support on Capitol Hill for what the administration calls "comprehensive immigration reform" -- and be issued in the form of an executive order.
In a letter to the president, says Fox News, Senators Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), David Vitter (Louisiana), Jim Bunning (Kentucky), Saxby Chambliss (Georgia), Johnny Isakson (Georgia), James Inhofe (Oklahoma), and Thad Cochran (Mississippi) have urged the president to "abandon" what they describe as a plan to "unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens...."
The letter, sent to the White House on Monday, argues that such a move "would further erode the American public's confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books."
Fox News points out that an executive order granting a blanket amnesty would likely stem the high number of immigration-related protests across the country -- and would effectively make null and void the controversial bill signed into law recently by the governor of Arizona that allows state authorities to enforce federal laws regarding illegal immigration.
According to the report, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimated last year almost 11-million people live in the United States illegally.
What Have You Done For Me Lately?
COMMENT: Americans seem to be waking up, many voters seem to be swallowing their pride, and admitting that they got sucked in by his silver tongue, just like many did with Clinton. The difference seems to be that it didn't take near as long, mainly because at least Clinton did some positive things for the country (budget) albeit at the expense of our military. Added to Obama's dilemma is that he basically abandoned the majority who voted for him...people are quickly viewing his rhetoric as hollow, and now not he's not even being overwhelmingly viewed as honest - ominous clouds for Democrats but new hope for America!
ARTICLE:
Thu Jun 24, 2:28 pm ET
The White House has been fond of citing turning points lately, most recently when describing the administration's handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Now President Obama faces a turning point of his own — and not for the better.
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds Obama's approval rating to be the lowest it's been since he took office 18 months ago. According to the poll, only 45 percent approve of the job Obama is doing in the White House, compared with 48 percent who disapprove. And the numbers only get worse from there: Sixty-two percent of respondents believe the country is on the wrong track — the highest number recorded since just before Election Day in 2008 — and just one-third believe things are going to get better, a 7-point drop since a month ago and the lowest such number in the Obama presidency.
The fallout from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill appears to be the biggest drag on Obama's numbers. Fifty percent disapprove of his handling of the crisis — including one in four Democrats. But generally, the poll finds increasing doubts about Obama as a leader. Just 49 percent of those polled give Obama positive ratings when asked if he has "strong leadership qualities" — that's a decline of 8 points since January and nearly 20 points from when he first took office. Less than half rate him positively when asked if he's "honest and straightforward." In January '09, 63 percent gave him positive marks for "being firm and decisive in decision-making." That number is now at 44 percent. Asked about his "ability to handle a crisis," only 40 percent rate him positively, an 11-point drop since January. You can read the full poll results here.
Obama's biggest problem: He's lost the middle — the so-called independent and moderate voters who are generally given the most credit for his win back in 2008. According to the poll, 52 percent of self-described independent voters disapprove of the job Obama is doing. He's even losing parts of his base. The poll finds Obama with 17 percent disapproval among Democrats — the highest number of his presidency.
None of this is good news for Democrats up for re-election this fall. Beleaguered Democrats had been counting on Obama's coattails to help them, as polls have also showed a historic trend away from the Democratic Party. According to this new poll, the GOP has a 2-point edge over Democrats in the generic congressional ballot — but among voters who describe themselves as most interested in the 2010 midterms, the GOP jumps to a 21-point lead over Democrats.
— Holly Bailey is a senior politics writer for Yahoo! News.
ARTICLE:
Thu Jun 24, 2:28 pm ET
The White House has been fond of citing turning points lately, most recently when describing the administration's handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Now President Obama faces a turning point of his own — and not for the better.
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds Obama's approval rating to be the lowest it's been since he took office 18 months ago. According to the poll, only 45 percent approve of the job Obama is doing in the White House, compared with 48 percent who disapprove. And the numbers only get worse from there: Sixty-two percent of respondents believe the country is on the wrong track — the highest number recorded since just before Election Day in 2008 — and just one-third believe things are going to get better, a 7-point drop since a month ago and the lowest such number in the Obama presidency.
The fallout from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill appears to be the biggest drag on Obama's numbers. Fifty percent disapprove of his handling of the crisis — including one in four Democrats. But generally, the poll finds increasing doubts about Obama as a leader. Just 49 percent of those polled give Obama positive ratings when asked if he has "strong leadership qualities" — that's a decline of 8 points since January and nearly 20 points from when he first took office. Less than half rate him positively when asked if he's "honest and straightforward." In January '09, 63 percent gave him positive marks for "being firm and decisive in decision-making." That number is now at 44 percent. Asked about his "ability to handle a crisis," only 40 percent rate him positively, an 11-point drop since January. You can read the full poll results here.
Obama's biggest problem: He's lost the middle — the so-called independent and moderate voters who are generally given the most credit for his win back in 2008. According to the poll, 52 percent of self-described independent voters disapprove of the job Obama is doing. He's even losing parts of his base. The poll finds Obama with 17 percent disapproval among Democrats — the highest number of his presidency.
None of this is good news for Democrats up for re-election this fall. Beleaguered Democrats had been counting on Obama's coattails to help them, as polls have also showed a historic trend away from the Democratic Party. According to this new poll, the GOP has a 2-point edge over Democrats in the generic congressional ballot — but among voters who describe themselves as most interested in the 2010 midterms, the GOP jumps to a 21-point lead over Democrats.
— Holly Bailey is a senior politics writer for Yahoo! News.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
"Anchor Babies" Next Step For Arizona
COMMENT: I'm going to stand up right now and say "I AGREE" with the proposal being introduced in Arizona. I 100% agree with their contention that babies being born to illegal immigrants to establish themselves in this country is WRONG! They come across the border in the middle of the night when they're realistically too far along in pregnancy to be traveling, let alone under those conditions, to have their baby on American soil so the baby can be an American citizen. I don't think anyone who manipulates our Constitution should be rewarded, and I don't think squirting a baby out in the good ole U.S. of A. makes that child a U.S. citizen automatically. As stated in the following article, the 14th Amendment was intended to help slaves being released to establish citizenship - can that possibly in any way be paralleled with running across the border to have a child? I'll say it again, anyone who uses loopholes in our Constitution to selfishly serve their own purpose should NOT be rewarded. Enough from me -here's the article.
ARTICLE:
By ADAM KLAWONN / PHOENIX Adam Klawonn / Phoenix – Sat Jun 12, 10:00 am ET
"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.
Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. (See the battle for Arizona: will a border crackdown work?)
But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave. (See pictures of the Great Wall of America.)
The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.
But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right." He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.
Those who oppose the bill say it would lead to more discrimination and divide the community. Among them is Phoenix resident Susan Vie, who is leading a citizen group that's behind an opposing ballot initiative. She moved to the U.S. 30 years ago from Argentina, became a naturalized citizen and now works as a client-relations representative for a vaccine company. "I see a lot of hate and racism behind it," Vie says. "Consequently, I believe it will create - and it's creating it now - a separation in our society." She adds, "When people look at me, they will think, 'Is she legal or illegal?' I can already feel it right now." Vie's citizen initiative would prohibit SB 1070 from taking affect, place a three-year moratorium on all related laws - including the anchor baby bill - to buy more time for federal immigration reform. Her group is racing to collect 153,365 signatures by July 1 to qualify for the Nov. 2 general election.
Both sides expect the anchor baby bill to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court before it is enacted. "I think it would be struck down as facially unconstitutional. I can't imagine a federal judge saying this would be OK," says Dan Barr, a longtime Phoenix lawyer and constitutional litigator. Potentially joining the anchor baby bill at the Supreme Court may be SB 1070, which Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law in April. It is set to take effect July 29, but at least five courtroom challenges have been filed against it. Pearce says he will win them all.
ARTICLE:
By ADAM KLAWONN / PHOENIX Adam Klawonn / Phoenix – Sat Jun 12, 10:00 am ET
"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.
Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. (See the battle for Arizona: will a border crackdown work?)
But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave. (See pictures of the Great Wall of America.)
The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.
But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right." He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.
Those who oppose the bill say it would lead to more discrimination and divide the community. Among them is Phoenix resident Susan Vie, who is leading a citizen group that's behind an opposing ballot initiative. She moved to the U.S. 30 years ago from Argentina, became a naturalized citizen and now works as a client-relations representative for a vaccine company. "I see a lot of hate and racism behind it," Vie says. "Consequently, I believe it will create - and it's creating it now - a separation in our society." She adds, "When people look at me, they will think, 'Is she legal or illegal?' I can already feel it right now." Vie's citizen initiative would prohibit SB 1070 from taking affect, place a three-year moratorium on all related laws - including the anchor baby bill - to buy more time for federal immigration reform. Her group is racing to collect 153,365 signatures by July 1 to qualify for the Nov. 2 general election.
Both sides expect the anchor baby bill to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court before it is enacted. "I think it would be struck down as facially unconstitutional. I can't imagine a federal judge saying this would be OK," says Dan Barr, a longtime Phoenix lawyer and constitutional litigator. Potentially joining the anchor baby bill at the Supreme Court may be SB 1070, which Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law in April. It is set to take effect July 29, but at least five courtroom challenges have been filed against it. Pearce says he will win them all.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The Jury Is Back - AZ SB 1070 Does NOT Racially Discriminate
COMMENT: Finally someone has taken the time to read the Bill before condemning it! This has to be the hardest-to-read 10 pages in the history of literature. This lawyer claims that Arizona's bill is indisputably constitutional. I had no doubt that it was as Arizona has been under a legal microscope for years because of Sheriff Arpaio's no-nonsense policies in the jails of Maricopa County. When the Bill was first signed, they interviewed Sheriff Arpaio about Reverend Al Sharpton coming down there to "get arrested" by him. He stated that, "9 Federal authorities have spent the last year and a half looking at everything he does and they haven't found one think wrong yet, let Al come on down." He added though that he wouldn't call him Reverend until he could figure out what church he's the pastor of. hahaha
Anyway, here's the article:
A California based lawyer is dismissing claims by many that the Arizona law aimed at cracking down on illegal aliens amounts to racial discrimination.
Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), does not think opponents of Arizona’s immigration bill have a real argument. He notes that all attempts to dismantle the measure are merely political.
Brad Dacus PJI"If Arizona was caught in violating basic due process rights -- if they were pulling people over without cause -- then that would be one thing," he contends. "But the law is indisputably constitutional, and any contentions against it are purely politically based."
Last week, the Los Angeles Unified School District voted against the Arizona law and sought to place a dent in the state's economy by ending funded employee travel to the neighboring state. The school district also pushed for history and civics classes to discuss the measure "in the context of unity, diversity and equal protection for all."
The city of Los Angeles, which had more than $26 million in contracts with Arizona this year, showed its disapproval of the bill by proposing a boycott against the state, calling for actions like ending pension and municipal bonds. Gloria Molina, the city's supervisor, called the immigration bill unconstitutional. She believes it goes "too far" and says she must defend the Constitution.
Dacus argues that the Arizona law is constitutional, and he does not think that actions against the state have legal basis.
"This boycott by the city of Los Angeles is purely political and has no legal foundation to support its legitimacy," he explains. "The law passed by Arizona is a duplicate of the federal statute. The only difference is that the federal government isn't enforcing their statute. This law is to explicitly prohibit any issue of race as a basis of pulling someone over."
The boycott would end contracts with Arizona-based companies and would demand review of other contracts with the state that may be canceled.
Anyway, here's the article:
A California based lawyer is dismissing claims by many that the Arizona law aimed at cracking down on illegal aliens amounts to racial discrimination.
Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), does not think opponents of Arizona’s immigration bill have a real argument. He notes that all attempts to dismantle the measure are merely political.
Brad Dacus PJI"If Arizona was caught in violating basic due process rights -- if they were pulling people over without cause -- then that would be one thing," he contends. "But the law is indisputably constitutional, and any contentions against it are purely politically based."
Last week, the Los Angeles Unified School District voted against the Arizona law and sought to place a dent in the state's economy by ending funded employee travel to the neighboring state. The school district also pushed for history and civics classes to discuss the measure "in the context of unity, diversity and equal protection for all."
The city of Los Angeles, which had more than $26 million in contracts with Arizona this year, showed its disapproval of the bill by proposing a boycott against the state, calling for actions like ending pension and municipal bonds. Gloria Molina, the city's supervisor, called the immigration bill unconstitutional. She believes it goes "too far" and says she must defend the Constitution.
Dacus argues that the Arizona law is constitutional, and he does not think that actions against the state have legal basis.
"This boycott by the city of Los Angeles is purely political and has no legal foundation to support its legitimacy," he explains. "The law passed by Arizona is a duplicate of the federal statute. The only difference is that the federal government isn't enforcing their statute. This law is to explicitly prohibit any issue of race as a basis of pulling someone over."
The boycott would end contracts with Arizona-based companies and would demand review of other contracts with the state that may be canceled.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
And Obama Bowed Before Him.....
COMMENT:
We live by a different set of ideals and rules. I learned that while living in Egypt. In the villages of Egypt, Saturdays are still a time of public punishment, including hand amputations and public hangings. America likes to call Saudi Arabia our strongest ally in the Middle East, but make no mistake - Israel is our only ally because they are the only nation in that region that doesn't ascribe to the laws of the Koran. Islamic countries govern much as the ocean tides...they move toward democratic, westernized ideals for a short time, but then revert back to very strict Islamic rule.
For those out there who believe Islam is a religion of peace, simply look at the examples of what happens EVERY time a country begins following the strict rule of Islam. I've posted on my blog before the true tenets of Koranic teaching, including lesser and greater jihads (worry about the lesser in this phraseology) and how America's arrogant way of thinking that everyone wants to be like us and enjoy our freedoms will lead to our destruction.
Okay, I'm jumping off my soapbox; here's the story that prompted this dissertation - enjoy.
ARTICLE:
By ABDULLAH AL-SHIHRI, Associated Press Writer Abdullah Al-shihri, Associated Press Writer – 57 mins ago
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – A Saudi court convicted a man and sentenced him to four months in prison and 90 lashes for kissing a woman in a mall, a government-owned daily reported Thursday.
Saudi religious police arrested the man and two women after seeing them on mall cameras "engaging in immoral movements in front of other shoppers," the Al-Yom newspaper said.
The man, who is in his 20s, was seen with a woman "sitting on one of the chairs, exchanging kisses and hugs." It was unclear what the other woman was doing. Neither the man nor the women were identified by name.
The kingdom's powerful religious police, under the control of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, enforce Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islam, which prohibits unrelated men and women from mingling.
Zealous officers routinely jail unrelated couples found sitting together in restaurants or coffee shops.
The policemen also patrol public places to ensure women are covered and not wearing makeup; shops are forced in most places to close several times a day for Muslim prayers and men go to the mosque and worship.
Such kissing busts have increased as economic pressures have made it harder for young couples to marry and as the ultraconservative kingdom grapples with a push to relax its strict social mores.
Young men often must pay more than $50,000 in dowry and gold before their brides' families will accept marriage — a huge burden in a country where economists put male unemployment at over 20 percent.
But the Saudi establishment remains divided on how far separation rules should go.
King Abdullah has been encouraging change in the oil-rich kingdom since becoming crown prince in 1982, and has intensified his efforts since assuming the thrown in 2005.
Male and female students can study together at the newly opened King Abdullah Science and Technology University, launched by the Saudi monarch last year. Abdullah dismissed a prominent hard-line cleric who criticized the policy.
But in April, the head of the religious police fired the chief of the Mecca branch for suggesting that women and men should be able to mix freely, showing that such reforms have their limits.
The newspaper said the man sentenced for kissing will receive his 90 lashes in three batches, and is banned from malls for two years.
The women will be tried in another court.
COMMENT:
I find that last, tiny little statement at the end to be very intriguing. In Islam, the woman is less than the man AND is normally viewed as much more culpable for their actions. If the man received 4 months and 90 lashes, I'm certain the reason her sentence was not publicized was to prevent a worldwide outcry. If she hasn't already received it from her family, I'm sure she can look forward to at least genital mutilation and stoning, probably at the hands of her own parents. My guess is she will be executed for disgracing her family - welcome to the wonderful world of Islam.
We live by a different set of ideals and rules. I learned that while living in Egypt. In the villages of Egypt, Saturdays are still a time of public punishment, including hand amputations and public hangings. America likes to call Saudi Arabia our strongest ally in the Middle East, but make no mistake - Israel is our only ally because they are the only nation in that region that doesn't ascribe to the laws of the Koran. Islamic countries govern much as the ocean tides...they move toward democratic, westernized ideals for a short time, but then revert back to very strict Islamic rule.
For those out there who believe Islam is a religion of peace, simply look at the examples of what happens EVERY time a country begins following the strict rule of Islam. I've posted on my blog before the true tenets of Koranic teaching, including lesser and greater jihads (worry about the lesser in this phraseology) and how America's arrogant way of thinking that everyone wants to be like us and enjoy our freedoms will lead to our destruction.
Okay, I'm jumping off my soapbox; here's the story that prompted this dissertation - enjoy.
ARTICLE:
By ABDULLAH AL-SHIHRI, Associated Press Writer Abdullah Al-shihri, Associated Press Writer – 57 mins ago
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – A Saudi court convicted a man and sentenced him to four months in prison and 90 lashes for kissing a woman in a mall, a government-owned daily reported Thursday.
Saudi religious police arrested the man and two women after seeing them on mall cameras "engaging in immoral movements in front of other shoppers," the Al-Yom newspaper said.
The man, who is in his 20s, was seen with a woman "sitting on one of the chairs, exchanging kisses and hugs." It was unclear what the other woman was doing. Neither the man nor the women were identified by name.
The kingdom's powerful religious police, under the control of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, enforce Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islam, which prohibits unrelated men and women from mingling.
Zealous officers routinely jail unrelated couples found sitting together in restaurants or coffee shops.
The policemen also patrol public places to ensure women are covered and not wearing makeup; shops are forced in most places to close several times a day for Muslim prayers and men go to the mosque and worship.
Such kissing busts have increased as economic pressures have made it harder for young couples to marry and as the ultraconservative kingdom grapples with a push to relax its strict social mores.
Young men often must pay more than $50,000 in dowry and gold before their brides' families will accept marriage — a huge burden in a country where economists put male unemployment at over 20 percent.
But the Saudi establishment remains divided on how far separation rules should go.
King Abdullah has been encouraging change in the oil-rich kingdom since becoming crown prince in 1982, and has intensified his efforts since assuming the thrown in 2005.
Male and female students can study together at the newly opened King Abdullah Science and Technology University, launched by the Saudi monarch last year. Abdullah dismissed a prominent hard-line cleric who criticized the policy.
But in April, the head of the religious police fired the chief of the Mecca branch for suggesting that women and men should be able to mix freely, showing that such reforms have their limits.
The newspaper said the man sentenced for kissing will receive his 90 lashes in three batches, and is banned from malls for two years.
The women will be tried in another court.
COMMENT:
I find that last, tiny little statement at the end to be very intriguing. In Islam, the woman is less than the man AND is normally viewed as much more culpable for their actions. If the man received 4 months and 90 lashes, I'm certain the reason her sentence was not publicized was to prevent a worldwide outcry. If she hasn't already received it from her family, I'm sure she can look forward to at least genital mutilation and stoning, probably at the hands of her own parents. My guess is she will be executed for disgracing her family - welcome to the wonderful world of Islam.
Americans Are Throwing Pebbles In The Stream Too!!!
Those who have followed this blog for awhile know one of my mantras is about Obama "pebbles" tossed into the stream of change. Well, with each Primary the majority is speaking out about the way this country is being governed. With each Primary, more incumbents (Democrat, Republican, whatever) are getting nervous about election day.
I'm finding it very comforting that despite the rhetoric emanating from the White House of "knowing what Americans want," the arrogance of condemning without knowing the facts (AZ SB1070, BP response, Boston police), liberal media spoon-feeding the public information and censoring anything that doesn't fit the liberal agenda, the vocal MINORITY convincing us that gays and Mexicans have rights but God-fearing people don't ----- despite all of this, REAL Americans are speaking out in the polls and sending a strong message that it's all a bunch of crap!!!
For the first time in an election, I categorically refused to place my mark beside anyone who was an incumbent. Additionally, I refused to throw my hat in the ring with any candidate who had a liberal background (Art teacher, LAUSD Superintendent, Civil Rights Lawyer, etc.). Is that biased? Yes. Is that fair? No. Is it what this country needs? YES! It's the right thing to do because our government is so imbalanced presently that common sense has taken a vacation. Ideals that only 10 years ago would not even be discussed are now being forced on the American people --- "don't ask, don't tell" policy repealed without public vote, persecution of God in the US of A, bowing to violent leaders, apologizing to the world, unknowledgeable condemnation at the highest level of our government.
Right now "far-right-of-center thinking" is required to regain the balance. Once balance is achieved, then and only then will central thoughts and actions be effective. The majority is speaking out in these primaries and all I can say is, "Thank God common sense and wholesome ideals seem to be making a comeback." I just hope it's not too late to save this country I love.
I'm finding it very comforting that despite the rhetoric emanating from the White House of "knowing what Americans want," the arrogance of condemning without knowing the facts (AZ SB1070, BP response, Boston police), liberal media spoon-feeding the public information and censoring anything that doesn't fit the liberal agenda, the vocal MINORITY convincing us that gays and Mexicans have rights but God-fearing people don't ----- despite all of this, REAL Americans are speaking out in the polls and sending a strong message that it's all a bunch of crap!!!
For the first time in an election, I categorically refused to place my mark beside anyone who was an incumbent. Additionally, I refused to throw my hat in the ring with any candidate who had a liberal background (Art teacher, LAUSD Superintendent, Civil Rights Lawyer, etc.). Is that biased? Yes. Is that fair? No. Is it what this country needs? YES! It's the right thing to do because our government is so imbalanced presently that common sense has taken a vacation. Ideals that only 10 years ago would not even be discussed are now being forced on the American people --- "don't ask, don't tell" policy repealed without public vote, persecution of God in the US of A, bowing to violent leaders, apologizing to the world, unknowledgeable condemnation at the highest level of our government.
Right now "far-right-of-center thinking" is required to regain the balance. Once balance is achieved, then and only then will central thoughts and actions be effective. The majority is speaking out in these primaries and all I can say is, "Thank God common sense and wholesome ideals seem to be making a comeback." I just hope it's not too late to save this country I love.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
"PC" Is A One-Way Street?
COMMENT:
I guess it is when Americans feel so tongue-tied by it that they won't even use the same words and phrases that the terrorists employ. It seems almost as if our government officials are trying to will jihad into extinction simply by not saying the word - as if the word itself invokes some form of magic against us. I think it rather idiotic to think relations are improved by not using the word for fear of offending American Muslims, and I really don't think the terrorists are concerned about hurting anyone's feelings, be it Americans or Muslims. Anyway, a fairly long read but I think it's important to truly understand Muslims and the Koran, so here's an article by OneNewsNow with quotes from an authority on the subject.
ARTICLE:
Most Americans are sympathetic to public references to Islam and to Muslims that do not offend patriotic American Muslims or affix to the Islamic religion the rantings of al-Qaeda. But sensitivity to the need to be civil to Muslims doesn't -- or shouldn't -- obviate the need for intellectual honesty when discussing or analyzing America's Islamist political foes.
At a recent briefing to scholars and reporters at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counter-terrorism, went into contortions to avoid admitting what seems commonsense to most Americans: there is a connection between some parts of Islamic thought and the repeated assertions of Osama bin Laden and his supporters and sympathizers that they are waging "jihad" against the United States. Brennan said the religious views of America's Islamist terrorist adversaries shouldn't even be discussed. Yet to accept that view would be like asking the State Department to examine the views of Adolf Hitler during Word War II and avoid mentioning his hatred of the Jews.
Brennan said the White House and State Department were avoiding reference to "jihadists" even though terrorist adversaries of the United States often call themselves exactly that. He said that jihad was "a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself and one's community." True, this is the "greater jihad," as defined by Mohammed himself -- but it is not the whole meaning of jihad at all. In fact, serious and respected scholars of Islam such as Professor Bernard Lewis assert that by far the largest proportion of Islamic historical references to jihad refer to what is called the "lesser jihad" -- the duty of Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims in order to subdue all countries and communities for Allah.
The Koran, Islam's holy book, is quite explicit about this. Surah 9, for example, the "surah of the sword," explicitly calls on Muslims to "fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and his Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the book [i.e,. Jews and Christians] until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection" (Surah 9:29). Just in case readers didn't get that message, Surah 2:216 says "jihad is enjoined for you, though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know" (Surah 2:216).
Brennan claimed that the extremists were victims of "political, economic, and social forces," and that they should not be described in "religious terms." But if America's Islamist opponents describe themselves in religious terms, why shouldn't we take seriously what they are saying?
In addition to the Koran, other sources of Islamic interpretation of jihad include the "hadith," anecdotal stories illustrating Mohammed's life; and the "sharia," the corpus of Islamic religious law. Though there are four main schools of law within Islam, there is almost a complete overlap among all of them in the interpretation of jihad.
In Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik -- the authoritative source of Islamic rulings of the shafi school of Islam -- it states: "jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word 'mujahadan,' signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self....The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus, is such Koranic verses as [2:216] 'fighting is prescribed for you,' [4:89] 'slay them wherever you find them,' and [9:36] 'fight the idolaters utterly' and such hadiths as the one related by Bukari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said...the hadith reported by Muslim, 'to go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.'"
Brennan's unawareness of key Islamic explanations of jihad is baffling when you consider that he once headed the CIA in the entire Middle East and he spent a year learning Arabic at university in Cairo.
Even today, jihad is used by Islamist movements as justification for their politics. Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that currently rules Gaza and which seeks the entire destruction of Israel, openly describes itself as fighting a jihad against the infidel. Back during World War I, the entire Ottoman Empire officially declared jihad against Great Britain and all the Entente powers allied with her against Germany and her allies (which included the Turks). I don't think the supreme mufti in Constantinople was trying to get the Muslims of the world to simply become purer in their behavior: he wanted them to kill Brits.
There is certainly a need to be cautious in discussing Islam, especially since many Muslims live in the United States and indeed love the United States. But to avoid the word "jihadis" when it is employed by terrorists themselves is rather like visiting Lenin's tomb in Moscow and failing to mention that Lenin was a communist. Come to think of it, Arab-language specialist Brennan went into contortions during his first mention of Jerusalem, a city he says he loves. He called it "Al-Quds," the Arabic term that didn't come into existence until the era of Islam in the 7th century AD. Jerusalem is the English word that comes from Hebrew Yerushalayim. In fact, this city had been inhabited by Jews for hundreds of years before Mohammed claims to have visited it.
Is the White House listening? Less political correctness and more honesty and common sense, please.
COPYRIGHT AMERICAN FAMILY NEWS NETWORK 2010
I guess it is when Americans feel so tongue-tied by it that they won't even use the same words and phrases that the terrorists employ. It seems almost as if our government officials are trying to will jihad into extinction simply by not saying the word - as if the word itself invokes some form of magic against us. I think it rather idiotic to think relations are improved by not using the word for fear of offending American Muslims, and I really don't think the terrorists are concerned about hurting anyone's feelings, be it Americans or Muslims. Anyway, a fairly long read but I think it's important to truly understand Muslims and the Koran, so here's an article by OneNewsNow with quotes from an authority on the subject.
ARTICLE:
Most Americans are sympathetic to public references to Islam and to Muslims that do not offend patriotic American Muslims or affix to the Islamic religion the rantings of al-Qaeda. But sensitivity to the need to be civil to Muslims doesn't -- or shouldn't -- obviate the need for intellectual honesty when discussing or analyzing America's Islamist political foes.
At a recent briefing to scholars and reporters at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counter-terrorism, went into contortions to avoid admitting what seems commonsense to most Americans: there is a connection between some parts of Islamic thought and the repeated assertions of Osama bin Laden and his supporters and sympathizers that they are waging "jihad" against the United States. Brennan said the religious views of America's Islamist terrorist adversaries shouldn't even be discussed. Yet to accept that view would be like asking the State Department to examine the views of Adolf Hitler during Word War II and avoid mentioning his hatred of the Jews.
Brennan said the White House and State Department were avoiding reference to "jihadists" even though terrorist adversaries of the United States often call themselves exactly that. He said that jihad was "a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself and one's community." True, this is the "greater jihad," as defined by Mohammed himself -- but it is not the whole meaning of jihad at all. In fact, serious and respected scholars of Islam such as Professor Bernard Lewis assert that by far the largest proportion of Islamic historical references to jihad refer to what is called the "lesser jihad" -- the duty of Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims in order to subdue all countries and communities for Allah.
The Koran, Islam's holy book, is quite explicit about this. Surah 9, for example, the "surah of the sword," explicitly calls on Muslims to "fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and his Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the book [i.e,. Jews and Christians] until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection" (Surah 9:29). Just in case readers didn't get that message, Surah 2:216 says "jihad is enjoined for you, though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know" (Surah 2:216).
Brennan claimed that the extremists were victims of "political, economic, and social forces," and that they should not be described in "religious terms." But if America's Islamist opponents describe themselves in religious terms, why shouldn't we take seriously what they are saying?
In addition to the Koran, other sources of Islamic interpretation of jihad include the "hadith," anecdotal stories illustrating Mohammed's life; and the "sharia," the corpus of Islamic religious law. Though there are four main schools of law within Islam, there is almost a complete overlap among all of them in the interpretation of jihad.
In Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik -- the authoritative source of Islamic rulings of the shafi school of Islam -- it states: "jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word 'mujahadan,' signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self....The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus, is such Koranic verses as [2:216] 'fighting is prescribed for you,' [4:89] 'slay them wherever you find them,' and [9:36] 'fight the idolaters utterly' and such hadiths as the one related by Bukari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said...the hadith reported by Muslim, 'to go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.'"
Brennan's unawareness of key Islamic explanations of jihad is baffling when you consider that he once headed the CIA in the entire Middle East and he spent a year learning Arabic at university in Cairo.
Even today, jihad is used by Islamist movements as justification for their politics. Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that currently rules Gaza and which seeks the entire destruction of Israel, openly describes itself as fighting a jihad against the infidel. Back during World War I, the entire Ottoman Empire officially declared jihad against Great Britain and all the Entente powers allied with her against Germany and her allies (which included the Turks). I don't think the supreme mufti in Constantinople was trying to get the Muslims of the world to simply become purer in their behavior: he wanted them to kill Brits.
There is certainly a need to be cautious in discussing Islam, especially since many Muslims live in the United States and indeed love the United States. But to avoid the word "jihadis" when it is employed by terrorists themselves is rather like visiting Lenin's tomb in Moscow and failing to mention that Lenin was a communist. Come to think of it, Arab-language specialist Brennan went into contortions during his first mention of Jerusalem, a city he says he loves. He called it "Al-Quds," the Arabic term that didn't come into existence until the era of Islam in the 7th century AD. Jerusalem is the English word that comes from Hebrew Yerushalayim. In fact, this city had been inhabited by Jews for hundreds of years before Mohammed claims to have visited it.
Is the White House listening? Less political correctness and more honesty and common sense, please.
COPYRIGHT AMERICAN FAMILY NEWS NETWORK 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
COMMENT: Like many other great articles before, I cannot take credit for this one and I don't even know who wrote it, except for the first name of Maxine. But you know, when an article strikes a chord, it needs to be shared.
ARTICLE:
I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it was, as I filled it lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.
But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue.
Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table ..
Everywhere!
Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.
And others birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.
After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore. So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.
Soon, the back yard was like it used to be .... Quiet, serene....and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.
Now let's see. Our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care and free education, and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.
Then the illegal's came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; your child's second grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English.
Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to 'press one ' to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than 'Old Glory' are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.
Just my opinion, but maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.
ARTICLE:
I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it was, as I filled it lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.
But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue.
Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table ..
Everywhere!
Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.
And others birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.
After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore. So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.
Soon, the back yard was like it used to be .... Quiet, serene....and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.
Now let's see. Our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care and free education, and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.
Then the illegal's came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; your child's second grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English.
Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to 'press one ' to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than 'Old Glory' are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.
Just my opinion, but maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
I Told You So......
COMMENT: I normally dislike that statement, but I'm going to get a little "Limbaugh-arrogant" and say it because of the article below. Throughout the health care debate, my question was, "Why not regulate costs and impose temporary freezes, then watch other systems (i.e., Canada) to see how effective government-run health care truly is." I was the continual naysayer regarding how wonderful the Health Care Reform Bill would be (cost, coverage, effectiveness), and how it would negatively impact the economic "health" of our country. I continually questioned the urgency of passing the Reform...the deadlines were politically constructed and not of any true substance. Now read what Canada is looking to do......
SOARING COSTS FORCE CANADA TO REASSESS HEALTH MODEL
Reuters
TORONTO (Reuters) – Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada's provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.
Ontario, Canada's most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate "incentive fees" to generic drug manufacturers.
British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit -- an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.
And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.
It's likely just a start as the provinces, responsible for delivering healthcare, cope with the demands of a retiring baby-boom generation. Official figures show that senior citizens will make up 25 percent of the population by 2036.
"There's got to be some change to the status quo whether it happens in three years or 10 years," said Derek Burleton, senior economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank.
"We can't continually see health spending growing above and beyond the growth rate in the economy because, at some point, it means crowding out of all the other government services.
"At some stage we're going to hit a breaking point."
MIRROR IMAGE DEBATE
In some ways the Canadian debate is the mirror image of discussions going on in the United States.
Canada, fretting over budget strains, wants to prune its system, while the United States, worrying about an army of uninsured, aims to create a state-backed safety net.
Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all "medically necessary" hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets, or some C$183 billion ($174 billion) last year.
Spending has been rising 6 percent a year under a deal that added C$41.3 billion of federal funding over 10 years.
But that deal ends in 2013, and the federal government is unlikely to be as generous in future, especially for one-off projects.
"As Ottawa looks to repair its budget balance ... one could see these one-time allocations to specific health projects might be curtailed," said Mary Webb, senior economist at Scotia Capital.
Brian Golden, a professor at University of Toronto's Rotman School of Business, said provinces are weighing new sources of funding, including "means-testing" and moving toward evidence-based and pay-for-performance models.
"Why are we paying more or the same for cataract surgery when it costs substantially less today than it did 10 years ago? There's going to be a finer look at what we're paying for and, more importantly, what we're getting for it," he said.
Other problems include trying to control independently set salaries for top hospital executives and doctors and rein in spiraling costs for new medical technologies and drugs.
Ontario says healthcare could eat up 70 percent of its budget in 12 years, if all these costs are left unchecked.
"Our objective is to preserve the quality healthcare system we have and indeed to enhance it. But there are difficult decisions ahead and we will continue to make them," Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan told Reuters.
The province has introduced legislation that ties hospital chief executive pay with the quality of patient care and says it wants to put more physicians on salary to save money.
In a report released last week, TD Bank said Ontario should consider other proposals to help cut costs, including scaling back drug coverage for affluent seniors and paying doctors according to quality and efficiency of care.
WINNERS AND LOSERS
The losers could be drug companies and pharmacies, both of which are getting increasingly nervous.
"Many of the advances in healthcare and life expectancy are due to the pharmaceutical industry so we should never demonize them," said U of T's Golden. "We need to ensure that they maintain a profitable business but our ability to make it very very profitable is constrained right now."
Scotia Capital's Webb said one cost-saving idea may be to make patients aware of how much it costs each time they visit a healthcare professional. "(The public) will use the services more wisely if they know how much it's costing," she said.
"If it's absolutely free with no information on the cost and the information of an alternative that would be have been more practical, then how can we expect the public to wisely use the service?"
But change may come slowly. Universal healthcare is central to Canada's national identity, and decisions are made as much on politics as economics.
"It's an area that Canadians don't want to see touched," said TD's Burleton. "Essentially it boils down the wishes of the population. But I think, from an economist's standpoint, we point to the fact that sometimes Canadians in the short term may not realize the cost."
SOARING COSTS FORCE CANADA TO REASSESS HEALTH MODEL
Reuters
TORONTO (Reuters) – Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada's provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.
Ontario, Canada's most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate "incentive fees" to generic drug manufacturers.
British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit -- an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.
And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.
It's likely just a start as the provinces, responsible for delivering healthcare, cope with the demands of a retiring baby-boom generation. Official figures show that senior citizens will make up 25 percent of the population by 2036.
"There's got to be some change to the status quo whether it happens in three years or 10 years," said Derek Burleton, senior economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank.
"We can't continually see health spending growing above and beyond the growth rate in the economy because, at some point, it means crowding out of all the other government services.
"At some stage we're going to hit a breaking point."
MIRROR IMAGE DEBATE
In some ways the Canadian debate is the mirror image of discussions going on in the United States.
Canada, fretting over budget strains, wants to prune its system, while the United States, worrying about an army of uninsured, aims to create a state-backed safety net.
Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all "medically necessary" hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets, or some C$183 billion ($174 billion) last year.
Spending has been rising 6 percent a year under a deal that added C$41.3 billion of federal funding over 10 years.
But that deal ends in 2013, and the federal government is unlikely to be as generous in future, especially for one-off projects.
"As Ottawa looks to repair its budget balance ... one could see these one-time allocations to specific health projects might be curtailed," said Mary Webb, senior economist at Scotia Capital.
Brian Golden, a professor at University of Toronto's Rotman School of Business, said provinces are weighing new sources of funding, including "means-testing" and moving toward evidence-based and pay-for-performance models.
"Why are we paying more or the same for cataract surgery when it costs substantially less today than it did 10 years ago? There's going to be a finer look at what we're paying for and, more importantly, what we're getting for it," he said.
Other problems include trying to control independently set salaries for top hospital executives and doctors and rein in spiraling costs for new medical technologies and drugs.
Ontario says healthcare could eat up 70 percent of its budget in 12 years, if all these costs are left unchecked.
"Our objective is to preserve the quality healthcare system we have and indeed to enhance it. But there are difficult decisions ahead and we will continue to make them," Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan told Reuters.
The province has introduced legislation that ties hospital chief executive pay with the quality of patient care and says it wants to put more physicians on salary to save money.
In a report released last week, TD Bank said Ontario should consider other proposals to help cut costs, including scaling back drug coverage for affluent seniors and paying doctors according to quality and efficiency of care.
WINNERS AND LOSERS
The losers could be drug companies and pharmacies, both of which are getting increasingly nervous.
"Many of the advances in healthcare and life expectancy are due to the pharmaceutical industry so we should never demonize them," said U of T's Golden. "We need to ensure that they maintain a profitable business but our ability to make it very very profitable is constrained right now."
Scotia Capital's Webb said one cost-saving idea may be to make patients aware of how much it costs each time they visit a healthcare professional. "(The public) will use the services more wisely if they know how much it's costing," she said.
"If it's absolutely free with no information on the cost and the information of an alternative that would be have been more practical, then how can we expect the public to wisely use the service?"
But change may come slowly. Universal healthcare is central to Canada's national identity, and decisions are made as much on politics as economics.
"It's an area that Canadians don't want to see touched," said TD's Burleton. "Essentially it boils down the wishes of the population. But I think, from an economist's standpoint, we point to the fact that sometimes Canadians in the short term may not realize the cost."
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Media Coverage and Israel
COMMENT:
Okay, having lived in Egypt for a year while in the Air Force, I saw first-hand how the national medias in that region were extremely biased toward Israel. Everything, and I literally mean everything, has an "it's Israel's fault" spin to it. The latest confrontation regarding the Gaza strip is a great example of that and, sadly, also an example of how our own media is getting more biased daily.
I first noticed a dfiscrepancy in the reporting yesterday, with this flotilla not using the approved channels - this struck me as a little odd to say the least. IF a flotilla's true mission is humanitarian aid, WHY would it travel in unauthorized areas when authorized areas are so close? The logical answer seems to be that it had a second, covert, mission and all appearances are that the covert mission was provocation. In the Middle East, ANY action by Israel against ANY Arab is wholeheartedly believed as wrong action by Israel. Even in Egypt, which is viewed as the official "mediator" of negotiations in the region, the overwhelming consensus is that Israel needs to be eliminated (call that the moderate view in the Middle East).
In a Judeo-Christian United States (upon which this nation was founded), benefit of the doubt went to Israel and fair, accurate reporting of the facts predominated. However, in today's "get God out of every facet of life" United States, our media is as free as the rest of the world to condemn without getting all of the facts, and free to report only the portions that support the agenda. Don't forget that getting God out of the U.S. necessitates separation from Israel - the symbolic Godhead of Judaism. Obama has made it very clear in his 1-1/2 years that his Church of Christ involvement was clearly a smokescreen and not where his true beliefs lie. No true member of that denomination could consistently take such harsh, exclusionary action against Christians.
If you look at our near history, this is an ever-increasing trend with our government of rushing to judgment. Don't believe me? How quick was our President to condemn the police officer and side with the Black Harvard professor? He condemned the entire police department without getting the facts and making a fair assessment. How about the Arizona Law? Three high-ranking officials (including Obama) condemn it, yet admit they haven't even read the 10-page Senate Bill.
With that said, below is another side of the Israel issue by Sarah Palin:
ARTICLE:
The media, as usual, seems to be reporting only one side of the Israeli Flotilla incident. Don’t trust the mainstream media to give you both sides of a story fairly… you must seek out fair reporting to ensure you have all the information.
As far too many in the media, and in various governments, rush to condemn Israel, we must put the recent events off Israel’s coast into the right perspective. This “relief” convoy was not about humanitarian aid, as the liberal mainstream media keeps reporting. The whole operation was designed to provoke Israel, not to provide supplies to Palestinians held hostage by Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Anyone who sees the video of Israeli commandos being attacked as they land on that ship knows the people aboard were vicious thugs, not “peace activists.” The media insults our intelligence with their outright mis-characterization of who these enemies are.
Israel delivers thousands of tons of humanitarian supplies every week to Gaza. These ships could have offloaded their cargoes at a nearby Israeli port if they really wanted to help the people of Gaza. Instead, they chose to incite confrontation and violence. Israel has a right to prevent arms shipments to Gaza that will be used to target innocent Israelis, so they were legitimately checking the cargo on the flotilla. Turkey has chosen to condemn Israel but we should be asking some serious questions about Turkey’s role in this whole affair. Why is a fellow member of NATO sponsoring such a dangerous publicity stunt? As one expert points out: “Three ships of that six-ship pro-terror convoy flew Turkish flags and were crowded with Turkish citizens. The Ankara government – led by Islamists these days – sponsored the ‘aid’ operation in a move to position itself as the new champion of the Palestinians. And Turkish decision-makers knew Israel would have to react – and were waiting to exploit the inevitable clash. The provocation was as cynical as it was carefully orchestrated.”
We can only hope the Obama Administration does not join the anti-Israel chorus in the aftermath of this staged confrontation. Please, Mr. President, we need to let Israelis know we stand with them in their fight against terrorists and those who arm and support them. America and her ally, Israel, stand by waiting for your response.
- Sarah Palin
Okay, having lived in Egypt for a year while in the Air Force, I saw first-hand how the national medias in that region were extremely biased toward Israel. Everything, and I literally mean everything, has an "it's Israel's fault" spin to it. The latest confrontation regarding the Gaza strip is a great example of that and, sadly, also an example of how our own media is getting more biased daily.
I first noticed a dfiscrepancy in the reporting yesterday, with this flotilla not using the approved channels - this struck me as a little odd to say the least. IF a flotilla's true mission is humanitarian aid, WHY would it travel in unauthorized areas when authorized areas are so close? The logical answer seems to be that it had a second, covert, mission and all appearances are that the covert mission was provocation. In the Middle East, ANY action by Israel against ANY Arab is wholeheartedly believed as wrong action by Israel. Even in Egypt, which is viewed as the official "mediator" of negotiations in the region, the overwhelming consensus is that Israel needs to be eliminated (call that the moderate view in the Middle East).
In a Judeo-Christian United States (upon which this nation was founded), benefit of the doubt went to Israel and fair, accurate reporting of the facts predominated. However, in today's "get God out of every facet of life" United States, our media is as free as the rest of the world to condemn without getting all of the facts, and free to report only the portions that support the agenda. Don't forget that getting God out of the U.S. necessitates separation from Israel - the symbolic Godhead of Judaism. Obama has made it very clear in his 1-1/2 years that his Church of Christ involvement was clearly a smokescreen and not where his true beliefs lie. No true member of that denomination could consistently take such harsh, exclusionary action against Christians.
If you look at our near history, this is an ever-increasing trend with our government of rushing to judgment. Don't believe me? How quick was our President to condemn the police officer and side with the Black Harvard professor? He condemned the entire police department without getting the facts and making a fair assessment. How about the Arizona Law? Three high-ranking officials (including Obama) condemn it, yet admit they haven't even read the 10-page Senate Bill.
With that said, below is another side of the Israel issue by Sarah Palin:
ARTICLE:
The media, as usual, seems to be reporting only one side of the Israeli Flotilla incident. Don’t trust the mainstream media to give you both sides of a story fairly… you must seek out fair reporting to ensure you have all the information.
As far too many in the media, and in various governments, rush to condemn Israel, we must put the recent events off Israel’s coast into the right perspective. This “relief” convoy was not about humanitarian aid, as the liberal mainstream media keeps reporting. The whole operation was designed to provoke Israel, not to provide supplies to Palestinians held hostage by Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Anyone who sees the video of Israeli commandos being attacked as they land on that ship knows the people aboard were vicious thugs, not “peace activists.” The media insults our intelligence with their outright mis-characterization of who these enemies are.
Israel delivers thousands of tons of humanitarian supplies every week to Gaza. These ships could have offloaded their cargoes at a nearby Israeli port if they really wanted to help the people of Gaza. Instead, they chose to incite confrontation and violence. Israel has a right to prevent arms shipments to Gaza that will be used to target innocent Israelis, so they were legitimately checking the cargo on the flotilla. Turkey has chosen to condemn Israel but we should be asking some serious questions about Turkey’s role in this whole affair. Why is a fellow member of NATO sponsoring such a dangerous publicity stunt? As one expert points out: “Three ships of that six-ship pro-terror convoy flew Turkish flags and were crowded with Turkish citizens. The Ankara government – led by Islamists these days – sponsored the ‘aid’ operation in a move to position itself as the new champion of the Palestinians. And Turkish decision-makers knew Israel would have to react – and were waiting to exploit the inevitable clash. The provocation was as cynical as it was carefully orchestrated.”
We can only hope the Obama Administration does not join the anti-Israel chorus in the aftermath of this staged confrontation. Please, Mr. President, we need to let Israelis know we stand with them in their fight against terrorists and those who arm and support them. America and her ally, Israel, stand by waiting for your response.
- Sarah Palin
Friday, May 28, 2010
Strange Having A Job Again....
Just a note to let you know I haven't forgotten about this blog. I started my new job Tuesday and am concentrating my brain cells on learning that instead of wasting them on our current regime in D.C.
Plus, there's really no concern anyway, right? I mean, now that the Obama Administration has taken responsibility for the oil in the Gulf. I heard his rhetoric today (did anyone else notice there was only 1 microphone on his lectern?) I heard he was controlling the media, but looks now like it's exclusive coverage only. Also, wasn't the size of the crowd for his news conference just a tad small? Where were all of his supporters? I don't think I've EVER seen a US Presidential news conference draw so few...might be a telltale sign of his continued decline --- we can only hope.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand. So Obama says "the buck stops here," and "we have assumed responsibility of the situation," and "we will take all necessary steps," and my favorite, "we will still look to BP for their expertise in this crisis."
The reality is that nobody knows how to fix this, and that's because the domino-effect failure of all of the fail-safes was inconceivable. I heard a talk show host saying that the Navy could send their submarines down there to assist. He said, "I don't know, but I'm sure they can go down that far." I don't know, and won't pretend I do, but I am pretty sure if they could, the next question would be, "Okay, we're here, now what?" Any idea how much pressure we're talking about at 5,000 feet underwater? I did a free-fall dive to 150 feet and my body compressed enough to reduce my waist size by over 2 inches...multiply that by 33 and you begin to understand the problem. Now realize that it's not linear, but rather exponential, and you really grasp the challenge.
It seems that BP is making progress with this "heavy mud" approach. Hopefully, it will work and this crisis will change to a recovery and restoration operation. However, I don't think it's coincidental that our government "assumed responsibility" once an idea starts showing promise.
Plus, there's really no concern anyway, right? I mean, now that the Obama Administration has taken responsibility for the oil in the Gulf. I heard his rhetoric today (did anyone else notice there was only 1 microphone on his lectern?) I heard he was controlling the media, but looks now like it's exclusive coverage only. Also, wasn't the size of the crowd for his news conference just a tad small? Where were all of his supporters? I don't think I've EVER seen a US Presidential news conference draw so few...might be a telltale sign of his continued decline --- we can only hope.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand. So Obama says "the buck stops here," and "we have assumed responsibility of the situation," and "we will take all necessary steps," and my favorite, "we will still look to BP for their expertise in this crisis."
The reality is that nobody knows how to fix this, and that's because the domino-effect failure of all of the fail-safes was inconceivable. I heard a talk show host saying that the Navy could send their submarines down there to assist. He said, "I don't know, but I'm sure they can go down that far." I don't know, and won't pretend I do, but I am pretty sure if they could, the next question would be, "Okay, we're here, now what?" Any idea how much pressure we're talking about at 5,000 feet underwater? I did a free-fall dive to 150 feet and my body compressed enough to reduce my waist size by over 2 inches...multiply that by 33 and you begin to understand the problem. Now realize that it's not linear, but rather exponential, and you really grasp the challenge.
It seems that BP is making progress with this "heavy mud" approach. Hopefully, it will work and this crisis will change to a recovery and restoration operation. However, I don't think it's coincidental that our government "assumed responsibility" once an idea starts showing promise.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Serious Threats Through Mexico
Okay, so if you don't think illegals coming into our country through Mexico should be diligently caught, detained, and deported - check out this news report (I apologize for it not being a direct link; haven't figured out how to do that yet):
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html.
So how diligent should we be? What would be a good ratio regarding catching people trying to cross the border illegally? 1 out of 100, 1 out of 1,000. Personally, I like even odds, so for me 1 out of 1 sounds appropriate.
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html.
So how diligent should we be? What would be a good ratio regarding catching people trying to cross the border illegally? 1 out of 100, 1 out of 1,000. Personally, I like even odds, so for me 1 out of 1 sounds appropriate.
Friday, May 21, 2010
You've GOT To Be Joking, Right?
COMMENT: The size of the cross was the reason cited for its removal, even though it was clearly a replica (made of metal pipe) of the original cross stolen in April. What I find amazing though is that if the reason cited here is correct (1/2 inch larger than the original), we're talking about it being 90-1/2 inches tall instead of 90 inches - are you serious?!?!?!?! Exactly how wrong is this ordeal anyway? How much government money has been spent to visit, investigate, and litigate this issue?
Ironically, I took a motorcycle ride through that area last Saturday. What amazed me about the entire region was the number of "God" references and symbols we saw along our route. There were crosses on hillsides made of stones, a rock wall along the border of a person's property that was built with different stones embedded to state, "Jesus is Lord." One of our riders had a "Jesus" patch on his vest and received 3 separate comments from the locals (all positive). What I'm getting at is that the people in this region of our great country not only are not offended by the Mojave Cross, they are proud of it and proud of their faith. What gives a man residing in Seattle the right to waste government money litigating this case?
ARTICLE:
Replica cross in Mojave Desert is taken down
Associated Press - 5/21/2010 7:25:00
Associated Press MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE, CA - Authorities say a Mojave Desert cross that replaced the stolen one honoring America's war dead was illegal, so it's been taken down too.
Linda Slater, a spokeswoman for the Mojave National Preserve, says a maintenance worker spotted the replica cross Thursday morning in the federal park. Nobody claimed credit for putting it up.
The new cross was a half-inch larger than the original one, which was stolen more than a week ago. That cross was the subject of a lawsuit arguing that a Christian symbol didn't belong on public land. (See related article)
Congress had reacted by transferring land under the cross to private ownership.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to order removal of the cross while a lower court decided whether the land transfer was legal. But Slater says the new cross wasn't covered by the Supreme Court ruling, so workers removed it Thursday afternoon.
Ironically, I took a motorcycle ride through that area last Saturday. What amazed me about the entire region was the number of "God" references and symbols we saw along our route. There were crosses on hillsides made of stones, a rock wall along the border of a person's property that was built with different stones embedded to state, "Jesus is Lord." One of our riders had a "Jesus" patch on his vest and received 3 separate comments from the locals (all positive). What I'm getting at is that the people in this region of our great country not only are not offended by the Mojave Cross, they are proud of it and proud of their faith. What gives a man residing in Seattle the right to waste government money litigating this case?
ARTICLE:
Replica cross in Mojave Desert is taken down
Associated Press - 5/21/2010 7:25:00
Associated Press MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE, CA - Authorities say a Mojave Desert cross that replaced the stolen one honoring America's war dead was illegal, so it's been taken down too.
Linda Slater, a spokeswoman for the Mojave National Preserve, says a maintenance worker spotted the replica cross Thursday morning in the federal park. Nobody claimed credit for putting it up.
The new cross was a half-inch larger than the original one, which was stolen more than a week ago. That cross was the subject of a lawsuit arguing that a Christian symbol didn't belong on public land. (See related article)
Congress had reacted by transferring land under the cross to private ownership.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to order removal of the cross while a lower court decided whether the land transfer was legal. But Slater says the new cross wasn't covered by the Supreme Court ruling, so workers removed it Thursday afternoon.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Perhaps I'm Not On An Island After All
Living in California, I very often feel as if I'm the only one who is concerned about our current government and who strongly defends the Constitution in the spirit and intent with which it was written. However, it appears from the recent Primaries that Americans are making their voices heard about the way this country is being managed by our government. Virtually every race was not divided along party lines nearly as much as along how the incumbents supported or opposed legislation over the past 1-1/2 years.
As of now, our democratic process seems alive and well with a united voice showing displeasure over uncontrolled spending and invasive government. What we saw in the Primaries is essentially the heart and soul of the Tea Party Movement.
As I stated before, the Tea Party is not about Republican, Democrat, or any other party line - it's about fiscal responsibility, government limitation, and freedom of the states to govern their areas. This is why they chose the "Tea Party" as their battle cry...their displeasure mirrors the early settlers' concerns about governments (not ours at that time, but rather the British).
As of now, our democratic process seems alive and well with a united voice showing displeasure over uncontrolled spending and invasive government. What we saw in the Primaries is essentially the heart and soul of the Tea Party Movement.
As I stated before, the Tea Party is not about Republican, Democrat, or any other party line - it's about fiscal responsibility, government limitation, and freedom of the states to govern their areas. This is why they chose the "Tea Party" as their battle cry...their displeasure mirrors the early settlers' concerns about governments (not ours at that time, but rather the British).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)