Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category

How stupid does Max Baucus think you are..?

October 3, 2009

Siege Warfare & Health Care Reform

Smelling what they rightly sense is their own blood in the water from the public backlash against the so-called “public option,” congressional Bolsheviks (i.e., Democrats) have retreated to lick their wounds from the loss of their erstwhile health care reform centerpiece. Or have they?

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) certainly doesn’t think so. Using a tried-and-true leftist tactic — two steps forward, one step back, gaining position under the guise of “losing” ground — Baucus re-grouped by championing his health care bill, the core of which rests on mandatory health insurance and massive Medicaid spending. How massive? Weighing in at $1 trillion, the bill is threefold the total cost of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” programs of the ’60s.

Democrats want to cover everyone up to 33 percent above the federal poverty level (about $30,000 for a family of four), adding more than 11 million new bodies to Medicaid rosters by 2019. The total covered would be 70 million people, or roughly one-quarter of America’s population. Oh yeah: “Everyone” includes illegal aliens, or so say at least 21 House Democrats who signed a statement from the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus affirming the same. The Congressional Anglo Saxon Caucus has yet to weigh in.

As an added bonus, those not covered under Medicaid must purchase health insurance (the so-called “individual mandate”) or face fines up to $25,000 and/or one year in prison for tax evasion. You may recall the “individual mandate” as the “not-really-a-tax” tax (an IRS “excise tax,” to be precise), which President Barack Obama lamely defended last week when confronted by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos with his promise not to raise taxes on middle class families “by a single penny.” At $1,900 per person for the tax-that’s-not-a-tax, and not withstanding his creative wordsmithing, Obama would be into most Americans for a couple hundred thousand pennies’ worth of broken promises.

However, since entitlements are leading the charge toward national bankruptcy with the lion’s share of the nation’s $12 trillion debt and $100 plus trillion in existing un-funded liabilities, isn’t it required of citizens to ask whether more entitlement spending is warranted when we can’t even fund existing programs? This question is even more relevant at the state level, where all but two states face either substantial or severe shortfalls. Notably, Medicaid is on average the second largest element of state budgets, trailing only slightly behind K-12 education.

Let’s also not miss the salient lesson from this sordid vignette: The fight for freedom is a constant struggle against siege warfare. In this case, under the guise of health care “reform,” statists would redistribute wealth while accruing power to the government, and if they can’t accomplish their goal one way (the “public option”), they will do it another (Medicaid with the “individual mandate”). The only way to counter this constant siege against liberty is to remain vigilant and vocal against these Trojan horse ruses.

As if to punctuate this lesson, Sens. John Rockefeller (D-WV) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) both promised to raise amendments to the Baucus bill adding — you guessed it — the “public option.”

SOURCE

How Much Will The Anti-gun ObamaCare Bill Cost?‏

October 3, 2009

Senator Baucus Thinks You’re Too Dumb to Understand Legislation
— Don’t let your two U.S. Senators go along with his arrogance

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org


Friday, October 2, 2009

It didn’t seem like such an unreasonable request.  Before the Senate Finance Committee passes one of the most important pieces of legislation in our lifetime, we (the American people) wanted to see two things:

* First, the actual language of the latest anti-gun ObamaCare bill.

* Second, a definitive Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reading of the cost of the legislation, based on its specific language.

But, incredibly, this simple request is too much for Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who intends to force the committee to vote on the bill with nothing but a “quickie guesstimate” of the cost — a “guesstimate” which CBO will have to reach WITHOUT EVEN HAVING ACCESS TO THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION.

That’s right.  The committee has virtually finished consideration of the health care bill — the most important in our lifetime — AND THERE IS STILL NO LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE.

Shouldn’t we at least have a cost estimate that is based on what is actually in the bill?  Yes, but a full CBO cost estimate would take two weeks — and this is inconsistent with efforts by liberal Democrats to cram this bill quickly down the throats of the American people.

Moreover, don’t you realize that “legislative language is very complex” and the American people are just too stupid to understand it.

Well, are the members of the committee too stupid as well?  And what about the CBO?  Is it too stupid?

A Third World country would be embarrassed by the sleaze, corruption, and fraud being used to pass the most expansive government intrusion into health care of our lifetime.

It’s time to put an end to these disgusting tricks.

ACTION:  Call your two U.S. Senators.  Ask them to oppose any ObamaCare legislation — at least until we have two things:

1. The actual legislative language.

2. A definitive Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reading of the cost of the legislation, based on what’s in the bill.

You can call your two Senators toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

You can also use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

I would urge you, in the strongest terms, to resist considering any health care bill from the Senate Finance Committee until we have at least two things:

* First, the actual legislative language.

* Second, a definitive Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of the cost of the legislation, based on legislative language.

It has been reported that, incredibly, this simple request is too much for Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who intends to force the committee to vote on the bill with nothing but a “quickie guesstimate” of the cost — a “guesstimate” which CBO will have to reach WITHOUT EVEN HAVING ACCESS TO THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION.

It is unfathomable to me that the committee has virtually finished consideration of the health care bill — the most important in our lifetime — AND THERE IS STILL NO LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE.

Contrary to Senator Baucus’ assumptions, the American people are not too stupid to understand legislation which will affect whether they live or die.

Neither are the members of the committee nor the CBO.

A Third World country would be embarrassed by the sleaze, corruption, and fraud being used to pass the most expansive government intrusion into health care of our lifetime.

Please vote against the legislation under these circumstances.

Sincerely,


—————————–

Olofson Update

You may recall that Gun Owners Foundation is taking David Olofson’s case to the Supreme Court.  Olofson was railroaded by the federal government.  The feds claim that when David loaned a friend a semi-auto AR-15 that malfunctioned at the range, he was guilty of illegally transfering a machine gun.  A major step on the road to the Supreme Court has now been taken, as GOF has filed its Petition for Certiorari.  You can read that document at: http://gunowners.com/Olofson-Petition-for-Certiorari.pdf

Get set to get rammed!

September 29, 2009

No, I’m not talking ancient naval warfare, or homosexual proclivities either. Although some may believe that what is about to happen in the Senate is in fact akin to the latter for some of the poor souls in various Graybar Hotels.

In broader terms, the big task for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is to get 60 votes in the Senate in order to block a Republican filibuster. But Reid could also implement a legislative option known as reconciliation, which would only require 51 senators.

By that method the gangsters in the Senate can get passed the opposition, and get your butt in their sling. Such shenanigans, akin to Harry Reid posing as a Second Amendment supporter in Nevada are pure dirty politics that are designed to further the political agenda of elitist, not supportive of what you, the American people want, need, or should have foisted upon them. Read about that in it’s entirety HERE.

For my part I am looking forward to “Judgment Day” 2010. They big government “Better than Thou” type’s are in for yet another wake up call. Hopefully followed by  a complete Tar & Feathering of the programs that they have forced upon this nation.

Some people just never learn. It’s a fact friends. Hence;

“‘Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because President Clinton failed to pass national health care.’ I’m not sure if this is another example of the left’s wishful-thinking method of analysis or if they’re seriously trying to trick the Blue Dog Democrats into believing it. But I gather liberals consider the 1994 argument an important point because it was on the front page of The New York Times a few weeks ago in place of a story about Van Jones or ACORN. According to a news story by Jackie Calmes: ‘In 1994, Democrats’ dysfunction over fulfilling a new president’s campaign promise contributed to the party’s loss of its 40-year dominance of Congress.’ That’s not the way I remember it. The way I remember it, Republicans swept Congress in 1994 not because Clinton failed to nationalize health care, but because he tried to nationalize health care. HillaryCare failed because most Americans didn’t want it. … But just to check my recollection, I looked up the Times’ own coverage of the 1994 congressional races. Republicans won a landslide election in 1994 based largely on the ‘Contract With America,’ which, according to the Times, promised ‘tax cuts, more military spending and a balanced-budget amendment.’ Far from complaining about Clinton incompetently failing to pass health care, the Times reported that Republicans were ‘unabashedly claiming credit for tying Congress up in knots.’ These claims were immediately followed by … oh, what was that word again? Now I remember … LANDSLIDE!” –columnist Ann Coulter

So? What should a hard left Democrat be doing in these trying times in preparation for what awaits them? Invest of course!


The DREAM Act in the 111th Congress

September 26, 2009

Here we go yet again. Figure it out politicos, the American people are against this.

NumbersUSA
310 Sixth Street, SE  Washington, DC 20003  (202) 543-1341  http://www.numbersusa.com
The DREAM Act in the 111th Congress
(S. 729 and H.R. 1751*)
In-State Tuition for Future Illegal Aliens
• The bills retroactively repeal the federal ban on in-state tuition for illegal aliens, thus
nullifying the lawsuits already decided in favor of the federal ban, but currently under
appeal.
The Amnesty
• To qualify for lawful permanent resident status, an applicant must be inadmissible or
deportable and must:
• Have been physically present in the US for the five years preceding the date of enactment
(the bill does not specify how aliens are to prove this, or even whether they have to prove
it);
• Have been under the age of 16 upon entry into the US;
• Be a “person of good moral character,” but only AFTER the application is filed;
• Not have been convicted of an aggravated felony or more than two misdemeanors (though
being charged with such crimes is fine);
• Not be a known terrorist or national security risk;
• Not be a known/convicted smuggler or human trafficker (all other immigration violations
are fine, and this one can be waived for humanitarian or family unity purposes);
• Not have abducted a child and taken the child to a different country (in the Senate bill only);
and
• At the time of filing an application, have been admitted to an institution of higher
education, or have a high school diploma or a GED.
* The House and Senate versions of the DREAM Act are almost identical, with four important
exceptions:
 H.R. 1751 would allow illegal aliens of any age over five (since they have to have been present
in the United States for five years) to apply for amnesty, while S. 729 requires applicants to be
under the age of 35.
 H.R. 1751 does not disqualify from amnesty international child abductors or aliens who have
received final orders of removal or exclusion, while S. 729 does.
 H.R. 1751 limits the availability of waivers of the requirements for amnesty to cases of “extreme
hardship,” while S. 729 makes waivers available for humanitarian and family unity purposes, as
well as for the “public interest.”
 S. 729 authorizes fines and up to five years in prison for “willfully and knowingly” falsifying or lying
on an amnesty application; H.R. 1751 includes no such penalties.
NumbersUSA 2
The Senate version also requires that applicants:
• Have never received a final order of removal or exclusion unless the alien successfully
played the legal system and found a way to remain in the US under color of law, or the
final order was issued before the alien turned 16; and
• Be under 35 years of age as of the date of enactment.
• Neither bill includes a requirement that an amnesty applicant produce either
documentation or any other evidence that the individual actually satisfies the criteria listed
above.
• There are no numerical limits on how many illegal aliens may be granted amnesty, and
they cannot be counted against any existing immigration cap.
• There is no end date on the application period, so there is nothing to stop illegal aliens who
enter the country in the future from applying if they are willing to lie about when they
entered.
• No alien who files an amnesty application may be removed from the United States before
the application is adjudicated completely. There are no exceptions to this, so as long as an alien
files an amnesty application before he flies a plane into the World Trade Center or goes on a killing
spree in the local mall, he cannot be removed from the country until USCIS (hopefully) denies his
application and he has exhausted all appeals.
“Conditional” Permanent Residence
• Aliens granted amnesty would be given conditional permanent resident status for six
years. This conditional status could only be terminated if DHS determines that the alien:
• Is no longer a person of good moral character;
• Has been convicted of an aggravated felony or three or more misdemeanors;
• Is a terrorist, human smuggler, or (in the Senate version) international child abductor;
• Has become a public charge (there are no regulations defining this term in immigration
law, so this provision is not currently enforceable); or
• Received a dishonorable or other than honorable discharge from the military.
• Should an alien’s conditional status be terminated, the alien would return to whatever
immigration status he or she had prior to getting amnesty. This means the alien would
have to be put through removal proceedings and exhaust all available appeals before being
removed, even though the alien admitted to being inadmissible or deportable in the
application for amnesty.
The Path to Citizenship
• When the amnestied aliens complete their six years of conditional permanent resident
status, they can petition USCIS to have the conditions removed and become regular lawful
permanent residents. The petition may be filed any time within the six months leading up
to, or the two years following, the end of the six-year period. Each amnestied alien must
indicate in the petition that he or she:
• Has demonstrated good moral character since filing for amnesty;
• Has not been convicted of disqualifying crimes;
• Is not a terrorist, human smuggler, or (in the Senate version) international child abductor;
NumbersUSA 3
• Has not been absent from the US for more than 365 days during the six years (or he/she
can explain such absence and why it doesn’t indicate abandonment of US residence); and
• Has completed at least ONE of the following:
• A degree from a US institution of higher education or at least two years toward such a
degree; or
• At least two years of military service and, if discharged, was honorably discharged.
• For those aliens who have not completed two years of college or service in the military
during this six-year period, DHS may waive this requirement and remove their conditional
status if the alien:
• Satisfies the other requirements;
• Demonstrates “compelling circumstances for the inability to meet the last requirement; and
• Demonstrates that his/her removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to the alien or the alien’s spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen or lawful
permanent resident.
• Alternatively, upon “a showing of good cause,” DHS may extend the six-year period of
conditional status to give the alien more time to complete one of these requirements.
• While amnestied aliens must successfully petition to have their conditional status removed
before they may naturalize, their six years of conditional residence counts toward the
naturalization requirement. Thus, these aliens will be able to apply for naturalization
immediately upon the removal of conditional status.
• Since conditional permanent resident status can only be terminated for one of the reasons
in the section above, and since neither bill includes either a requirement that amnestied
aliens petition to have their conditional status removed or a provision that terminates the
legal status of aliens who do not seek to have the conditions removed, there is nothing to
prevent an alien from simply remaining in conditional status permanently. This would be
especially helpful to aliens who would not meet the criteria for removal of the conditions.
The only major benefit they would be denied would be the opportunity to naturalize.
Handling the Additional Workload
• USCIS would bear the brunt of the massive amnesty workload this bill would generate.
The bill’s authors undoubtedly are aware that USCIS announced a few years ago its
successful completion of the Backlog Elimination Program, which was instituted before
DHS was even created, to address the rapidly growing backlog of immigration benefits
applications processed by USCIS. USCIS reported that the backlog had reached a high of
almost four million applications by January, 2004. Then-USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
announced on September 5, 2006, that the backlog had been reduced to 140,000. (Of course,
most of that reduction was achieved by redefining the word “backlog,” and the rest was
the result of shortcuts on security checks.) The bill’s authors also are undoubtedly aware of
the fact that USCIS recently raised immigration fees by unprecedented amounts so that it
would have the resources to stay current on applications. Perhaps the bill’s authors are
even aware of the fact that USCIS reports that it had 3.2 million applications pending as of
January, 2009, despite the alleged success of the Backlog Elimination Program and the fee
hikes.
• This could explain why the bill gives exclusive jurisdiction to DHS (meaning USCIS) to
grant or deny amnesty applications, except where an alien is put in removal proceedings
either before or after filing an amnesty application. In these cases, the Attorney General
NumbersUSA 4
would have exclusive jurisdiction. While this likely would result in lawsuits alleging
disparate treatment of applications by the two agencies, at least is will spread the workload
around a bit, assuming there are still some enforcement efforts that result in illegal aliens
being placed in removal proceedings.
• The Attorney General also would be required to stay removal proceedings for all illegal
aliens who appear to meet the requirements for amnesty, are at least 12 years old, and are
enrolled full time in school.
Americans Need Not Apply
• The good news for illegal alien students is that if their removal proceedings are stayed,
they are automatically authorized to work in the US, regardless of whether they apply for
and are granted amnesty. This is in addition to all the illegal aliens who are actually
granted amnesty and automatically given work authorization with their conditional
permanent resident status.
Law Enforcement Provisions
• Under the Senate bill, “willfully and knowingly” lying on an amnesty application is
punishable by a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
• None of the information provided by illegal aliens in their applications may be used for
any purpose except the adjudication of the application, with two exceptions:
• The AG or DHS must provide such information if a law enforcement agency is
investigating or prosecuting a criminal or terrorism-related offense that would make an alien
inadmissible, and such agency requests the information in writing; and
• Coroners attempting to identify the dead are the only others granted access to the
information.
Moving to the Front of the Line
• Both bills require USCIS to adjudicate all amnesty applications on “an expedited basis” but
prohibit the agency from requiring a higher fee from amnesty applicants for such
expedited processing. This means that every illegal alien who applies for amnesty would
move to the front of the line, ahead of the millions of people who are in line to come to the
United States the right way.
Bonus Reward for Illegal Students
• Amnesty beneficiaries would be eligible for certain student loans and federal work-study
programs.
Assessing the Damage
• Within seven years after enactment, the GAO would be required to submit to Congress a
report on the number of aliens amnestied, the breakdown of approvals versus denials, and
the number whose conditional status had been removed.

SOURCE

Fire and Fury in the Rocky Mountain Empire?

September 24, 2009

I once listened to a somewhat famous politician call the Rocky Mountain West an Empire. He cited, among other things, fierce independence and an outright distrust of Government.

“Leave us well alone!” was the title of a fellow student that was in a Political Science course that I took, and yes, her thesis was on western politics as opposed to far western, as in West Coast, and Eastern, as in the eastern states that make up New England. Is it just regional pride? Possibly, but, I have another hypothesis.

Before the United States was founded a group of men came west. Those men are generally referred to as “The Mountain Men.” Most were, shall we say “social outcasts?” They came from places like Georgia, and Alabama, and notably Tennessee and Kentucky. They too were a fiercely independent group of men. They fought with, and often joined Native American tribes taking wives, and eking out a living in a very unforgiving place, and time in history. They were rebels simple, and pure. Some time later there was “The War of Northern Aggression.” Which was followed by a great migration of people to Oregon, Washington, and California. Most of those people came from places such as New England. Others came, and stayed, and tamed the harsh environment. Those people,for the most part, were from the Confederation, and they brought with them the same streak of courage and independence that the Mountain Men had brought. Texan’s settled Montana. The Mormon’s sought freedom in Utah, and so on. The underlying theme being a quest for freedom and liberty. In that most free of earthy nations.

Today while surfing the net I came across an essay worthy of classical journalism. The kind that is just not seen these days. It is indeed a long read. As tomes should be! Read it at…

Dems lose footing in the Rocky Mountain West

An American? The answer is yes! obamacare and more…

September 23, 2009

“Obama and his commissars are labeling Americans who just happen to oppose Cap & Trade, billions for clunkers and to the havoc the leftists are trying to wreak on our health care system, as brainless sheep. Large groups of citizens rise up to voice their grievances and he calls them mobs, claims that grass roots are really made of Astroturf and tells his minions to ape the Soviets and rat out their friends and neighbors. Some people I know refer to what Obama is doing as social engineering. I think it’s something even worse: socialist engineering. I wonder if anyone else has noticed that whenever a black conservative voices an opinion, the liberal claque insists that he’s not an authentic black, and when a white conservative voices an opinion, Obama’s sycophants insist he’s not an authentic American. When Obama was running for the presidency, a few of us Paul Revere wannabes were warning you: ‘The reds are coming! The reds are coming!’ Naturally, Obama, a born and bred race hustler who learned his lessons well from Jeremiah Wright, wanted you to believe that the only reason people could possibly have for opposing him was his race. But it was never about the color of his skin. It was always about the color of his politics.” –columnist Burt Prelutsky

“I traveled on the Tea Party Express tour bus as a singer/songwriter, entertainer and spokesperson; 16 states, 34 rallies in two weeks. I experienced vicious racial verbal attacks, not from the tea party protesters. The racial hate expressed against me all came from the left, people who support President Obama’s radial socialist agenda. … These racists are outraged by my opening lines I boldly proclaimed at each rally. ‘Hello my fellow patriots! I am NOT an African-American! I am Lloyd Marcus, AMERCIAN!‘ … The tea party audience’s passionate response to my proclamation was a surprise to me. I did not know so many Americans disapproved of hyphenating pushed on us via political correctness. … Liberals’ response to my YouTube videos, columns and performances on the Tea Party Express have been extremely racist, vicious and hate-filled. In their incredible arrogance, they vilify me for loving my country and not viewing myself as a victim of white America. In the sick minds of liberals, as a black man in America, I must support President Obama regardless of his policies. I must resent white America. I must feel entitled to the earnings of other Americans. My belief that my success or failure is totally in the hands of myself and my God is anathema to them. As to the claim that the tea party protesters are racist, they are not. Quite the opposite. At every rally, with thousands in attendance, I was overwhelmingly showered with affection and thanks for standing up for America. … These protesters are not racist. They are decent hard working ordinary Americans who love their country and disapprove of the radical changes planned by the Obama administration.” –singer, songwriter and columnist Lloyd Marcus

“Hospitals across the country are going bankrupt because the federal government forces them to provide free services to illegals. This situation appears to have angered some segment of the population, in particular, American citizens who pay taxes to support the hospitals, but then are forced to spend hours writhing in pain in hospital waiting rooms. With Americans in a boiling cauldron of rage about the government’s impotent response to the tsunami of illegal immigrants, last year, both political parties ran candidates for president who favor amnesty for illegal immigrants. And now Democrats have the audacity to tell us to our faces that national health care won’t cover illegals. Not only that, but they tell us we must not be able to read if we think it does. … [S]ection [246 of the bill], which liberals keep brandishing like a DNA-stained dress, states: ‘Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.’ In other words, illegal aliens are excluded from precisely one section of the thousand-page, goodie-laden health care bill: Section 246, which distributes taxpayer-funded ‘affordability credits’ to people who can’t afford to pay for their own health care. Even this minor restriction on taxpayer largesse to illegals will immediately be overturned by the courts. But the point is: Except for vouchers, the bill does not even pretend to exclude illegals from any part of national health care — including the taxpayer-funded health insurance plan. Moreover, liberals won’t have to wait for some court to find that the words ‘nothing in this subtitle shall allow’ means ‘this bill allows,’ because the bill contains no mechanism to ensure that the health care vouchers aren’t going to illegal aliens. Nor does the bill prohibit the states from providing taxpayer-funded health care vouchers to illegals. Democrats keep voting down Republican amendments that would insert these restrictions — just before dashing to a TV studio to denounce anyone who says the health care bill covers illegal aliens.” –columnist Ann Coulter

And then we have…

“On Thursday, the administration scrapped its missile defense plans for Eastern Europe. The ‘courageous’ Czechs and Poles will have to take their chances. Did the ‘threat from Iran’ go away? Not so’s you’d notice. The dawn of the nuclear Ayatollahs is perhaps only months away, and, just in case the Zionists or (please, no tittering) the formerly Great Satan is minded to take ’em out, Tehran will shortly be taking delivery of a bunch of S-300 anti-aircraft batteries from (ta-da!) Russia. Fancy that. Joe Klein, the geostrategic thinker of Time magazine, concluded his analysis thus: ‘This is just speculation on my part. But I do hope that this anti-missile move has a Russian concession attached to it, perhaps not publicly (just as the U.S. agreement to remove its nuclear missiles from Turkey was not make public during the Cuban Missile Crisis). The Obama administration’s diplomatic strategy is, I believe, wise and comprehensive — but it needs to show more than public concessions over time. A few diplomatic victories wouldn’t hurt.’ Golly. We know, thanks to Jimmy Carter, Joe Klein and many others, that we critics of President Obama’s health care policy are, by definition, racist. Has criticism of Obama’s foreign policy also been deemed racist? Because one can certainly detect the first faint seeds of doubt germinating in dear old Joe’s soon-to-be-racist breast: The Obama administration ‘needs to show more than public concessions over time’ — because otherwise the entire planet may get the vague impression that that’s all there is. Especially if your pre-emptive capitulations are as felicitously timed as the missile-defense announcement, stiffing the Poles on the 70th anniversary of their invasion by the Red Army. As for the Czechs, well, dust off your Neville Chamberlain’s Greatest Hits LP: Like he said, they’re a faraway country of which we know little. So who cares? Everything old is new again.” –columnist Mark Steyn

SOURCE

San Fran Nan is worried again?

September 17, 2009

Seems that Madame Speaker is concerned. Concerned about what? Losing her job perhaps? I seriously doubt that, but the Golden State of my birth has a notoriously fickle electorate. Even in the Bay Area at times. However, as I stated, I doubt it. What she probably does have valid fear about is quite simply what she, and those like her have done that could provoke some to resort to violence as a means of secession. Her astounding support of anti liberty legislation may only be topped by Frank Lautenberg, Chuck Schumer, and the late Ted Kennedy. I would speculate that the only reason for that would be her relative newness to Washington.

Nancy apparently wants to blame all these troubles on race and “astro turf.” Why not be honest Nancy? Why not point out your horrible record when it comes to sexism via legislated mysandry, your taxation policy votes, and yes, your rabid hate for the Bill of Rights? Then after you realize that you have been one of the most detrimental people ever to serve in office at any level we can give voice to all those that never had a chance to live because of you and your support for mass murdering profiteers…

Read on…

Pelosi worried about angry health care rhetoric

By LAURIE KELLMAN (AP) – 46 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the anti-government rhetoric over President Barack Obama’s health care reform effort is concerning because it reminds her of the violent debate over gay rights that roiled San Francisco in the 1970s.

Anyone voicing hateful or violent rhetoric, she told reporters, must take responsibility for the results.

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, suddenly speaking quietly. “This kind of rhetoric was very frightening” and created a climate in which violence took place, she said.

Former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White was convicted of the 1978 murders of Mayor George Moscone and openly gay supervisor Harvey Milk. Gay rights activists and some others at the time saw a link between the assassinations and the violent debate over gay rights that had preceded them for years.

During a rambling confession, White was quoted as saying, “I saw the city as going kind of downhill.” His lawyers argued that he was mentally ill at the time. White committed suicide in 1985.

Pelosi is part of a generation of California Democrats on whom the assassinations had a searing effect. A resident of San Fransisco, Pelosi had been a Democratic activist for years and knew Milk and Moscone. At the time of their murders, she was serving as chairwoman of her party in the northern part of the state.

On Thursday, Pelosi was answering a question about whether the current vitriol concerned her. The questioner did not refer to the murders of Milk or Moscone, or the turmoil in San Francisco three decades ago. Pelosi referenced those events on her own and grew uncharacteristically emotional.

“I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made,” Pelosi said. Some of the people hearing the message “are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume,” she said.

“Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe,” she added. “But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”

Pelosi’s office did not immediately respond to a request for examples of contemporary statements that reminded the speaker of the rhetoric of 1970s San Francisco.

The public anger during health care town hall meetings in August spilled into the House last week when South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” at Obama, the nation’s first black president, during his speech. On a largely party-line vote, the House reprimanded Wilson.

SOURCE

Sotomayor takes her place on high court bench

September 8, 2009

Like this is something we should be proud of..? All the lipstick in the world will not pretty up this pig. A sexist racist that refuses to follow the Constitution that she swore to uphold ?

Read this trash puff  piece here.

Ted Kennedy: This is no puff piece

August 27, 2009

Between the blogs and MSM one might think that Christ had risen again, and once again been crucified. I’m not one of those people, not by a long shot. I call the shots as I see them when it comes down to the wire, and Ted Kennedy came down to the proverbial wire. Still, I wanted to do so in an honest and forthright manner. While still recognizing the man’s numerous faults.

Once again, Mark Alexander beat me to the essay. (Punch being inappropriate phraseology at this time, at least in my thinking.) Also, for the left wing preacher that lam-blasted me when I opined about the now late Senator? I’m not a Christian in your sense, I am a cold blooded Libertarian with Conservative tendencies. I refuse to speak well of a man that caused so much pain and death while he lived a life of opulence, and depravity.

Alexander’s Essay – August 27, 2009

Lion of the Left

“The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families. … Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.” –John Adams

Teddy Kennedy

Have you ever attended a funeral service out of respect for a friend or colleague, and left perplexed as to whom the eulogy was referring? Just once, I would like to go to a service for some disreputable rogue and have a clergyman deliver a eulogy that was faithful to the facts rather than full of fiction. (Hopefully, that won’t be my own!)

I am certainly not suggesting that we should stand in judgment of any man, for that is the exclusive domain of our Creator. However, we should never abandon our responsibility to discern right from wrong.

On that note, Edward “Teddy” Kennedy (22 February 1932 — 25 August 2009) died this week at age 77.

Kennedy spent the last 47 of his years as a senator, having been perpetually re-elected by the people of Massachusetts. This made him the third-longest serving senator — behind Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Strom Thurmond (R-SC) — in that chamber’s august history.

Of course, a fawning Leftmedia will inundate us with non-stop coverage of Kennedy’s life, featuring interviews with his political sycophants up to, and probably well after, his interment at National Cemetery. The airways and printed pages are already sodden with accolades, mostly framing the senator’s life as one of great personal tragedy but great public success.

Let’s take a look at both.

Kennedy was born into great wealth, privilege and political influence, the fourth son and ninth child of Joseph and Rose Kennedy. He never worked a day in a private-sector job, and like his brothers before him, he owed his political career to his father’s considerable political machinations.

But, the mainstream media’s reference to TK’s life as one punctuated by personal tragedy is an understatement.

Before the age of 16, he had suffered through the death of his brother Joseph Kennedy Jr. (his father’s heir apparent), who died when his B-24 bomber exploded over Surrey, England, during World War II, and the death of his sister Kathleen Agnes Kennedy, who died in an airplane crash in France.

In 1941 his father ordered a lobotomy for Ted’s sister, Rosemary Kennedy, then age 23, because of “mood swings that the family found difficult to handle at home.” The procedure failed and left Rose mentally incapacitated until her death in January 2005 at age 87.

Ted, like his brother John, developed a reputation as a serial womanizer in college. Unlike his Ivy League brothers, however, Ted was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, though allowed to return a few years later to complete his undergraduate degree.

Thanks to some election-night manipulation of returns by Old Joe, JFK was elected president in the closest race of the 20th century (49.7 percent to Richard Nixon’s 49.5 percent). That paved the way for TK’s victory in a 1962 U.S. Senate special election in Massachusetts.

The thrill of victory was brief, however. On 22 November 1963, during a political visit to Dallas, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

In June 1964, Ted Kennedy was flying with friends on a private plane that crashed on a landing approach, killing the pilot and a Kennedy staffer. Kennedy survived but suffered severe injuries.

On 4 June 1968, Robert Kennedy, then a candidate for the Democrat Party’s nomination for president, was assassinated after a Los Angeles political event. The political baton then went to Teddy, the last of the four Kennedy brothers, but his alcohol abuse and philandering would keep the presidency out of reach.

In 1969, on one of his infamous junkets to “the island” (Martha’s Vineyard and Chappaquiddick), Kennedy’s moral lapse would cost a young staffer her life, and would cost him any chance of becoming president.

On the night of 18 July, Kennedy left a party with an attractive young intern en route to a private secluded beach on the far side of Dike Bridge. Kennedy lost control on the single-lane bridge and his vehicle overturned in the shallow tidal water. (Note: I drove across this bridge in a large 4×4 truck a few years after this incident, and it was not difficult to keep it out of the water — but then, I was not intoxicated.)

Kennedy freed himself from the vehicle leaving his passenger, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne to suffocate in an air pocket inside the overturned car. After resting at the water’s edge, he walked back to the party house, and one of his political hacks took him back to his hotel.

Mary Jo Kopechne

Nine hours later, after sobering up and conferring with political advisors and lawyers, Kennedy called authorities to report the incident. Kopechne’s body had already been discovered.

With the help of Father Joe’s connections, Kennedy was charged only with leaving the scene of an accident. In his testimony, he claimed, “I almost tossed and turned… I had not given up hope all night long that, by some miracle, Mary Jo would have escaped from the car.” He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve two months in jail — sentence suspended.

With Joan, his pregnant wife of 10 years, and their three children by his side, he claimed that charges of “immoral conduct and drunk driving” were false and he was promptly re-elected to his second full Senate term with a landslide 62 percent of the vote. However, his responsibility for the death of Kopechne would all but disqualify him from ever holding national office. Indeed, the moral composure of the nation differs significantly from that of his Massachusetts supporters and defenders.

Kennedy’s political advocacy swung evermore to the left in the years that followed, and his personal conduct led the way.

In January 1981, Joan announced she had had enough, and they divorced.

Two Senate terms later, Kennedy was partying at the family’s Palm Beach compound with his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, who was charged with the rape of Patricia Bowman during that evening. The Kennedy machine was able to undermine Bowman’s charges by assassinating her character ahead of the trial.

Not surprisingly, Kennedy was an ardent backer of his friend Bill Clinton after the latter lied about sexual encounters with a subordinate White House intern in 1998.

In turn, Clinton awarded Kennedy the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which, along with the Congressional Gold Medal, is the highest civilian award in the U.S. It is designated for individuals who have made “an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.”

Setting aside all of his personal tragedies, what about the tributes and rave reviews of Kennedy’s public life, his success as a legislator?

According to Barack Obama, “Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States Senator of our time.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists, “No one has done more than Senator Kennedy to educate our children, care for our seniors and ensure equality for all Americans. Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid adds, “Ted Kennedy’s dream was the one for which the Founding Fathers fought and for which his brothers sought to realize. The Liberal Lion’s mighty roar may now fall silent, but his dream shall never die.”

Oh, really?

Kennedy has a very long legacy of legislative accomplishments, but not one of them is expressly authorized by our Constitution, that venerable old document he has repeatedly pledged by oath “to support and defend.”

Kennedy’s long Senate tenure was, in fact, defined by hypocrisy.

For example, consider that this fine Catholic boy’s advocacy for abortion and homosexuality was second to none.

In regard to Operation Iraqi Freedom, consider his claim during the Clinton years: “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” A few years later, with his cadre of traitorous leftists at his side, Kennedy claimed, “The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought.”

Who can forget Kennedy’s outrageous 2006 inquisition into the integrity of then Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito? In 1987 when Ronald Reagan nominated Alito to be a U.S. District Attorney, Kennedy’s vote was among the Senate’s unanimous consent. And when Sam Alito was nominated for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990, he again received Kennedy’s vote and unanimous consent from the Senate. But after impugning Alito’s character in his Supreme Court hearings, Kennedy blustered, “If confirmed, Alito could very well fundamentally alter the balance of the court and push it dangerously to the right.”

Of course, Kennedy was an expert at “borking” judicial nominees. Indeed, he is responsible for the coining of the term. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated an exceptional jurist, Robert Bork, to the Supreme Court. During Bork’s confirmation hearings, Kennedy proclaimed, “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.” Despicable.

No agenda was more sacred to Kennedy than opposing Constitutional Constructionists in order to convert the Judiciary into what Thomas Jefferson called the “Despotic Branch” stacked with jurists who subscribe to the notion of a so-called “Living Constitution”.

But among über-leftists like Kennedy, there is perhaps no greater hypocrisy than the fact that they are among the wealthiest of Americans but pretend to be advocates for the poor. Of course, they never give up their opulent trappings and lifestyles while pontificating what is best for the masses. (I have written on the pathology associated with this hypocrisy under the label “Inheritance Welfare Liberalism, or “rich guilt” if you will.)

And there is a long list of Kennedy legislation that has proven disastrous.

Second only to the looming disaster of his pet nationalized health care promotion, Kennedy led the charge for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, ending quotas based on national origin. He argued, “[O]ur cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. The ethnic mix of our country will not be upset. …[T]he bill will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area…”

How did that one turn out?

Kennedy also had some dangerous dalliances with the Soviets in 1983, endeavoring to undermine Ronald Reagan’s hard line with the USSR. Fortunately, his efforts did not prevail.

But Kennedy did have one thing in common with his older brothers: He had powerful oratorical skills.

At the 2004 Democrat Convention to elect his lap dog, John Kerry, Kennedy, who wrote the book on political disunity, declared to delegates, “There are those who seek to divide us. … America needs a genuine uniter — not a divider. [Republicans] divide and try to conquer.”

Fortunately, the American people weren’t buying his rhetoric — at least not until the 2008 convention, when Kennedy joined Barack Obama’s “hope ‘n’ change” chorus: “I have come here tonight to stand with you to change America…. For me this is a season of hope — new hope for a justice and fair prosperity for the many, and not just for the few — new hope. And this is the cause of my life — new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American — north, south, east, west, young, old — will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege.”

Predictably, and before the man has even been laid to rest, there is already a rallying cry from Ted Kennedy’s grave: The Left and their mainstream media talkingheads are exhorting us to fulfill the late senator’s misguided mission to nationalize health care. (I checked, and the Constitution doesn’t authorize this either.)

As I contemplate the life of Ted Kennedy, I am left with two primary conclusions.

First, Ted Kennedy was no JFK.

In his 1961 Inaugural Address, John Kennedy said famously, “My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” Ted Kennedy inverted that phrase to read, “Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you,” and in the process, turned the once-noble Democrat Party on end.

Second, a man who can’t govern his own life should never be entrusted with the government of others.

One of our most astute Founders, Noah Webster, wrote, “The virtues of men are of more consequence to society than their abilities. … In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate — look to his character.”

In Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, the first use of “government” is defined in terms of self-government, not the body of those who govern.

Despite the Left’s insistence that private virtue and morality should not be a consideration when assessing those in “public service” (unless, of course, they are Republicans), the fact is that the two are irrevocably linked.

Finally, in 1968, when Ted Kennedy delivered the eulogy for his brother, Robert, he said, “My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life…”

I would hope that whoever is slated to deliver Ted Kennedy’s eulogy follows that advice because we do a disservice to him and our country to suggest Kennedy was anything more than he was.

I do not know who will bestow his final tribute, but I do know it will not be Mary Jo Kopechne.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

Mexico, obama’s new residence for excuses

August 22, 2009

Last Sunday, the Mexican government fired 1,100 customs officials in a move to wipe out rampant corruption in the agency charged with securing the transport of goods and people across the U.S.-Mexican border. Army troops temporarily took control of the ports of entry (POE’s) along the 2,000-mile border.

Using more than 36,00 Mexican Army troops, President Felipe Calderon continues his war on the barbaric drug cartels that control and ravage much of Mexico. Last year, 5,600 people died at the hands of the cartels. The focus on the POE’s is not just the interdiction of human and drug smuggling but also of the flow of firearms into Mexico where they are tightly controlled. Calderon has complained frequently that guns from the United States provide the cartels with most of their firepower, though we have noted the dubious nature of this claim on more than one occasion.

During his visit to Mexico last week, Barack Obama praised Calderon’s efforts, but the Apologizer in Chief also readily blamed his own country for the violence. He pledged to dry up the flow of weapons into Mexico as well as to cut American demand for drugs. His strategy to stop the movement of guns includes reinstating (and, no doubt, enhancing) the 1994 ban on so-called “assault weapons” that expired in 2004. In addition, he promised an additional $1.6 billion for the Merida Initiative, a joint effort to fight against drug trafficking, money laundering and other crimes in Mexico and Central America.

But according to recent reports by the National Drug Intelligence Center, the Mexican cartels have been regulating “traffic” into and out of Mexico for some time, both at the POE’s and the virtually uncontrolled borderlands from San Ysidro, California to Brownsville, Texas. The problem always comes back to our wide-open border that four successive administrations have made little attempt to control. Calderon’s willingness to wage war on the cartels is truly admirable, but all things considered, it could end up as tilting at windmills.

SOURCE