Sunday, May 29, 2011
According to this New York Times story, Arizona's law ("the Legal Arizona Workers Act") that penalizes employers for hiring Illegal immigrants, passed the tests of the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday of this week.
Several other states have also passed this type of law to protect their states from the influx of illegals who are one of the primary causes of record high unemployment among U.S. citizens.
It's sad that a law that is basic to stopping or at least slowing the flow of illegal immigrants into this country was even challenged, sadder still that the challenge to the law was supported by the Obama administration's Justice Department.
How can a President of the United States, who took an oath to defend our boarders, have the audacity to order his Justice Department to challenge a law that provides such a basic answer to one of the problems caused by illegal immigration?
To me at least,the answer to that question is: we have a president who has an agenda; and that agenda appears to be directed at destroying the America we know and turning it into something resembling socialist Europe.
Obama's administration has unnecessarily cut of our ability to to move toward energy independence by harshly restricting our ability to drill for oil; he has over regulated businesses to the point where too many of them are moving production and customer service overseas; he has interfered with the banking industry to the point where the U.S. dollar has lost the confidence of the world's banks; he has taken over the health care industry and is driving the insurance industry broke -- or more accurately, he is driving the insurance consumer broke; and of course, the point of this article is that he has done virtually nothing to fight the viral illegal immigration problem and is, in fact, hindering attempts to fight it.
The worst news is that we still have a year-and-a-half before we can vote Obama out of the presidency.
But will we?
Friday, May 27, 2011
A list of REAL Conservatives garnered from a list of present and possible contenders in the 2012 presidential election race would contain only two names: Sarah Palin and Herman Cain. What's interesting is that the main opposition to these two candidates (one a present candidate and one a possible) will initially be Republicans and quasi-Conservatives who are scared of real Conservatism.
What insiders (i.e., business as usual Republicans) are scared of is that both of these candidates represent a real American Revolution that is growing and growing outside of the Washington Belt Line; a revolution that seeks a much smaller, much leaner, much more honest government that is led by American's who are committed to making the changes necessary to bring back jobs, strengthen the U.S. Dollar and regain the respect of our friends (and instill fear in our enemies).
There is not much chance of seeing a Palin-Cain or Cain-Palin ticket emerge from the next Republican National Convention but the pressure is on! The Republican leaders know what the people expect of them and they know if they do not make responsible choices in this election season they can kiss their House majority goodbye, forget about a Senate majority and fully expect a larger and even more energized Tea-Party movement.
New York Times Politics: The Simple Case for Taking Herman Cain Seriously
The Atlantic (dot com): Attacking Sarah Palin from the Right
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Mainly those who are, or behave like, terrorists; but also those who refuse to believe (in spite of overwhelming proof) that this country is in danger from terrorists. A third category would be those who just don't trust the U.S. government; the majority of us, for one reason or another, may fit into that category.
Terrorism, however, is not a hoax being perpetrated on the American people by an 'evil government;' it's real and it's ongoing. Bitter pills, like activities allowed by the Patriot Act are, in this day and age, necessity and must be swallowed.
The U.S House of Representatives voted today to extend three provisions of the Patriot Act that were about to expire:
- One provision currently allows law enforcement officials to conduct surveillance on individuals who continually switch communication devices, e.g., disposable cell phones; this is a pattern for those who are behaving illegally and some who may be engaged in terrorist activities.
- A second provision currently allows surveillance on individuals who are suspected (by their patterns of behavior and contacts) to be terrorists, even if they have no known ties to recognized terrorist organizations.
- The third provision currently allows law enforcement to access records of business transactions of individuals who are suspected to be terrorists (e,g., records of credit card transactions for hotels and rental cars and purchases of certain items such as guns, explosives or hi-tech communication devices).
Hold on! you may say. How do I know I won't be suspected of being a terrorist?
You may be if you or those in your social circle are involved in illegal or terrorist activities; but most of us need not worry. The law enforcement agencies who are looking for terrorists are mainly looking at individuals who fit the terrorist profile; they don't have enough staff to chase after common criminals.
Do a Google search on "terrorist profile" and you'll get the distinct impression that the subject is a work in progress. Sure, known terrorists have been profiled and you can be sure that everything known about them has been documented but every day what we know changes based on ongoing investigations and interrogations of known and suspected terrorists.
One thing that is very clear is that stereotypes don't work and virtually every day the old axiom that "not every Muslim is a terrorist but every terrorist is a Muslim" is proved wrong.
A few words about Senator Rand Paul (and why his picture is up there):
Rand Paul tried to be (but failed to be) a roadblock to the passage of the three provisions of the Patriot act that were being considered in Congress. Rand Paul is a Libertarian (and, for the most part, so am I) but he is making the mistake of putting his Libertarian ideals ahead of the safety of the nation. Thankfully he was unsuccessful; the bill passed in the Democratic controlled Senate by a vote of 72 to 23 and passed in the Republican controlled House by a vote of 250 to 153.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the U.S. Congress (and the world) today that he is willing to make "painful compromises" for peace with the Palestinians.
It's hard to believe that Netanyahu with all of his experience could be naive enough to believe that a compromise with the Palestinians would lead to anything but more aggression.
Perhaps, however, he doesn't really believe that compromise with the Palestinians will lead to peace -- perhaps he's playing a political game. I hope that's the case.
Compromising with a government that is devoted to your demise is a fool's game; in that situation you need to be on the offense, not the defense.
Take a moment to feel sorry for the Palestinian people and, indeed, all the people who genuinely want nothing more than peace but who live under the rule of the mad men who want territory, power and riches and who use their religion as an excuse for their inhumanity.