Rev. Jeremiah Wright infamously declared that America’s chickens had come home to roost. He was speaking of the 9/11 attacks, and his opinion brought him well-deserved scorn. The loosest of canons in the Trinity United Church of Christ may have been justified had he said America’s chickens would roost in the Congressional Rotunda or the Obama White House.
Like hens and roosters, our alleged representatives preened and crowed over the debt ceiling deal they hammered together earlier this week. They’ve mugged for the cameras of a cooperative media, patted each other on the back, and flashed the "thumbs-up" sign. After finishing their latest work -- "on behalf of the American people" -- our federal rulers were all smiles while mopping their brows as if they had just dug a four-mile ditch through rocky ground.
Washington may view their latest contribution to American insolvency as reason to spike the football and exchange high-fives all around. But those of us in the great unwashed see their work as one collective mooning from 535 juvenile delinquents, plus one gigantic bird-flipping from the Delinquent-in-Chief. We’ve been had . . . again! Washington dug a ditch, no doubt. But through that ditch will flow a torrent of red ink, drowning yet another generation of unborn Americans in a debt they didn’t create, authorize, or deserve.
The entire debt ceiling debate was predicated on falsehoods. Didn’t our betters tell us a debt ceiling increase was essential to preventing default and maintaining the nation's stellar credit rating? Wasn't increasing our debt the only way to prevent a stock market collapse? Washington employed a scorched earth strategy on the American people, using misrepresentations and utter lies to instill a false fear in the population. Moody’s promised a wait-and-see attitude toward the latest Washington spending spree and Standard & Poor's issued a downgrade, exactly what the debt ceiling increase was promised to prevent. If our credit rating sinks it will join the New York Stock Exchange, which has faltered since government announced it had approved itself for a new series of loans.
Factually, can extending the national debt breed confidence in America's national creditworthiness, considering the current debt isn't being repaid? If you or I attempted a similar stunt we’d be arrested, tried, and jailed for credit fraud. At the least we’d see our credit lines cancelled and be forced to live within our means. However, to our federal house of lords, living within our collective means makes as much sense as the evening news from Jupiter’s third moon. Nothing has changed. Washington will go on pretending it can borrow its way out of debt, which is as logical as trying to dive out of the ocean.
Not even the numbers make sense. Of course, it’s difficult to imagine numbers in the trillions. So let’s put them in perspective. If each dollar of the current $14.57 trillion national debt equaled one second of time, the total debt would equal 462,011 years. And we don’t have a debt problem? The figures Washington elites have tossed about don’t add up, either.
The debt ceiling deal promises spending cuts of $2.1 trillion over 10 years, or $210 billion annually. Conversely, the government can now borrow an additional $2.4 trillion, which will satisfy Washington’s credit appetite only until 2013. We can add another $3.3 trillion in federal tax revenues to what Washington will “borrow” over the next 16 months. If the intent weren't to spend the entire $3.3 trillion, the borrowed funds wouldn’t be necessary. And if the borrowing will only feed the government beast for 16 months, the intent must be to spend all revenues, both collected and borrowed. Thus Congress and the White House plan to blow through $5.7 trillion by January 2013, an average of $356 billion per month.
Math isn’t my strongest subject. Maybe it isn’t yours either. But this much I know; $5.7 trillion dollars spent in less than a year-and-a-half exceeds $2.1 trillion saved over ten years. And we must accept on faith that the promised “cuts” will actually materialize. Faith, in this case, may as well be a synonym for naiveté. You might have faith in the innate goodness of the snarling pit bull inside your neighbor’s fence. But stick your leg through the gate and the dog will gnaw it to the bone. Government is gnawing us, too, in the wallet and elsewhere.
The debt ceiling plan is pure fantasy. J.K. Rowling couldn’t have written it better. The spending reductions don’t exist. They’re a magician’s trick, at best only slight reductions in the rate of growth. The new debt limit, which will undoubtedly be raised again once it's reached, is our rulers' solemn pledge to spend this nation into oblivion.
The federal government is a runaway train, hurtling down a steep grade and gaining speed. With the cliff in sight, Engineer Obama is pushing the throttle full forward while Senators and Representatives from both parties shovel coal into the firebox. If we don’t pull the brake, hard and quick, the most dynamic economic engine the world has ever known will be a smoldering hunk of mangled steel. All the while our federal chickens cluck, strut, and preen over their latest bipartisan compromise.
Rev. Wright may be proven a prophet after all. America’s chickens are coming home to roost . . . in a train wreck.
Showing posts with label lies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lies. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
A ride on the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl
County fairs and traveling carnivals were once the prime entertainment for rural Americans. A staple attraction at those amusements was the Tilt-a-Whirl. For the uninitiated, the Tilt-a-Whirl platform simultaneously tilts and rotates while each passenger car spins independently. The Tilt-a-Whirl can be a dizzying, stomach-churning experience that leaves passengers incapable of determining a proper direction.
Don't fret if you’ve never had the pleasure of riding the Tilt-a-Whirl. You can live the experience, multiplied exponentially, simply by listening to a leftist (Regressive) politician. But be forewarned; the dizziness, nausea, and lack of a coherent direction you’ll experience on the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl is hazardous to your liberty, fiscal solvency, and your very sanity.
Buckle up tight. Your ride on the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl begins with mindless meanderings and banal rhetoric from Nevada’s Sen. Harry Reid. Reid recently accused Republicans of legislating to bar women from cancer screenings. But that’s not all. Reid claimed preventing such screenings was the GOP’s top priority.
Did Reid hit the nail on the head? Did Republicans win the 2010 mid-term elections with a platform built on fiscal responsibility, rejecting Obamacare, and preventing women from getting cancer screenings? Sure they did, I remember it now. Denying cancer screenings to women has always been a winning campaign strategy. Certainly it played a prominent role in the GOP’s November victories and its current House majority.
Sen. Reid has reminded everyone just how determined Republicans are to impose a lingering demise on women. Scare tactics? Nah! Just a little spin, as is common aboard the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl. Are you feeling a little nauseous? Hold on tight; this ride has just begun. And, as the saying goes, you ain’t seen nothing yet!
Rep. Louise Slaughter’s unintelligible drivel makes Sen. Reid seem a Greek orator. According to Slaughter, the current Republican House is the worst ever, a veritable gang of Nazi storm troopers bent on killing women. She didn’t merely insinuate that Republican policies would intentionally deprive women of cancer screenings and lead to premature death, as did Reid. No, not Slaughter. Republican legislators want to kill women outright. Slaughter thinks the Republican attempt to revoke Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer-funded subsidies is akin to how the Nazi regime ruled Germany.
With no due respect to Rep. Slaughter there hasn’t been a single Planned Parenthood facility where "Jew owned" has been painted on the doors and windows. The Gestapo hasn’t stormed Planned Parenthood offices, seized workers, tattooed them with serial numbers, issued them lab coats with the Star of David on the back and carted them off to concentration camps. Also worth noting, just for Slaughter’s information, is the fact that more death results at Planned Parenthood facilities, via abortion, in one hour than at every Republican convention since the dawn of time. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood was born from a mindset (the Birth Control Review, April 1932, p.108) similar to the one that drove Nazi Germany.
However, neither fact nor logic will deter Louise Slaughter from her swirling, spinning, talking points. Thus the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl rages on. Are you dizzy, perhaps queasy and disoriented? Take some Dramamine before the next example of leftwing nonsense.
Sen. Charles Schumer thinks you’re a flea. At least he thinks the conservative legislators you elected are fleas, which makes you a flea by proxy. Schumer sees the conservative legislators this way: "What we have here is a flea . . . wagging a dog." Schumer means a few conservative Republicans (the fleas) are determining the government’s (the dog’s) direction. Nancy Pelosi agrees, encouraging Republicans to take the party back from the radicals, with "radical" identifying anyone opposed to leftist dogma, or who helped depose her as House Speaker. Pelosi extended this advice to the Republican Party "so it doesn’t matter so much who wins elections." Then, Pelosi reasons, America can pursue its shared goals and do what’s right for children and seniors.
Pelosi is correct in one regard. If Republicans adopt her advice it won’t matter a whit who wins future elections. Still, I can’t recall Pelosi expressing indifference to the 2006 election results, which made her Speaker of the House. And I fail to recollect a single instance where Sen. Schumer opposed obstructionism when that tactic benefited his party or his ideological bent.
In these few instances the mindset driving the leftist agenda is laid bare. Conservatives are Nazi sympathizers who hate women and would kill them if possible. Republicans should eschew the conservative doctrines that once distinguished them from Democrats. Conservatives must relinquish their principles and allow Democrats to have their way. Otherwise they are obstructionist, power-mad, Nazi zealots.
The Democrat Party’s survival depends on spin and swirl, wielded expertly by people for whom shame is a non-issue. They are perpetual operators of the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl. Leftists ignore the problems their policies have created and have thus rendered Congress impotent for correcting them.
Don’t think for a minute that Reid, Slaughter, Schumer, and Pelosi are fools. Granted, their rhetoric is sophomoric. But they are masters at manipulating an inattentive electorate, utilizing even the most outlandish of arguments to peddle a totalitarian agenda. The sad realization lies not in leftist politician’s apparent foolishness but in the multitude of useful idiots who swallow liberal vacuity hook, line, and sinker, year after infuriating year.
The ride is finished, for now, and you may disembark the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl. But accept a word of caution on your way out the gate. Dizziness and disorientation are common to your experience, and you’ll likely suffer sufficient nausea to light up the city of Las Vegas. The more you ride the Tilt-a-Whirl the less bothersome these symptoms become. They’re just as severe each time. But liberal politicians are banking on your becoming so accustomed to them you’ll no longer notice the spin.
This column first appeared on AmericanThinker.com.
Don't fret if you’ve never had the pleasure of riding the Tilt-a-Whirl. You can live the experience, multiplied exponentially, simply by listening to a leftist (Regressive) politician. But be forewarned; the dizziness, nausea, and lack of a coherent direction you’ll experience on the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl is hazardous to your liberty, fiscal solvency, and your very sanity.
Buckle up tight. Your ride on the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl begins with mindless meanderings and banal rhetoric from Nevada’s Sen. Harry Reid. Reid recently accused Republicans of legislating to bar women from cancer screenings. But that’s not all. Reid claimed preventing such screenings was the GOP’s top priority.
Did Reid hit the nail on the head? Did Republicans win the 2010 mid-term elections with a platform built on fiscal responsibility, rejecting Obamacare, and preventing women from getting cancer screenings? Sure they did, I remember it now. Denying cancer screenings to women has always been a winning campaign strategy. Certainly it played a prominent role in the GOP’s November victories and its current House majority.
Sen. Reid has reminded everyone just how determined Republicans are to impose a lingering demise on women. Scare tactics? Nah! Just a little spin, as is common aboard the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl. Are you feeling a little nauseous? Hold on tight; this ride has just begun. And, as the saying goes, you ain’t seen nothing yet!
Rep. Louise Slaughter’s unintelligible drivel makes Sen. Reid seem a Greek orator. According to Slaughter, the current Republican House is the worst ever, a veritable gang of Nazi storm troopers bent on killing women. She didn’t merely insinuate that Republican policies would intentionally deprive women of cancer screenings and lead to premature death, as did Reid. No, not Slaughter. Republican legislators want to kill women outright. Slaughter thinks the Republican attempt to revoke Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer-funded subsidies is akin to how the Nazi regime ruled Germany.
With no due respect to Rep. Slaughter there hasn’t been a single Planned Parenthood facility where "Jew owned" has been painted on the doors and windows. The Gestapo hasn’t stormed Planned Parenthood offices, seized workers, tattooed them with serial numbers, issued them lab coats with the Star of David on the back and carted them off to concentration camps. Also worth noting, just for Slaughter’s information, is the fact that more death results at Planned Parenthood facilities, via abortion, in one hour than at every Republican convention since the dawn of time. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood was born from a mindset (the Birth Control Review, April 1932, p.108) similar to the one that drove Nazi Germany.
However, neither fact nor logic will deter Louise Slaughter from her swirling, spinning, talking points. Thus the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl rages on. Are you dizzy, perhaps queasy and disoriented? Take some Dramamine before the next example of leftwing nonsense.
Sen. Charles Schumer thinks you’re a flea. At least he thinks the conservative legislators you elected are fleas, which makes you a flea by proxy. Schumer sees the conservative legislators this way: "What we have here is a flea . . . wagging a dog." Schumer means a few conservative Republicans (the fleas) are determining the government’s (the dog’s) direction. Nancy Pelosi agrees, encouraging Republicans to take the party back from the radicals, with "radical" identifying anyone opposed to leftist dogma, or who helped depose her as House Speaker. Pelosi extended this advice to the Republican Party "so it doesn’t matter so much who wins elections." Then, Pelosi reasons, America can pursue its shared goals and do what’s right for children and seniors.
Pelosi is correct in one regard. If Republicans adopt her advice it won’t matter a whit who wins future elections. Still, I can’t recall Pelosi expressing indifference to the 2006 election results, which made her Speaker of the House. And I fail to recollect a single instance where Sen. Schumer opposed obstructionism when that tactic benefited his party or his ideological bent.
In these few instances the mindset driving the leftist agenda is laid bare. Conservatives are Nazi sympathizers who hate women and would kill them if possible. Republicans should eschew the conservative doctrines that once distinguished them from Democrats. Conservatives must relinquish their principles and allow Democrats to have their way. Otherwise they are obstructionist, power-mad, Nazi zealots.
The Democrat Party’s survival depends on spin and swirl, wielded expertly by people for whom shame is a non-issue. They are perpetual operators of the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl. Leftists ignore the problems their policies have created and have thus rendered Congress impotent for correcting them.
Don’t think for a minute that Reid, Slaughter, Schumer, and Pelosi are fools. Granted, their rhetoric is sophomoric. But they are masters at manipulating an inattentive electorate, utilizing even the most outlandish of arguments to peddle a totalitarian agenda. The sad realization lies not in leftist politician’s apparent foolishness but in the multitude of useful idiots who swallow liberal vacuity hook, line, and sinker, year after infuriating year.
The ride is finished, for now, and you may disembark the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl. But accept a word of caution on your way out the gate. Dizziness and disorientation are common to your experience, and you’ll likely suffer sufficient nausea to light up the city of Las Vegas. The more you ride the Tilt-a-Whirl the less bothersome these symptoms become. They’re just as severe each time. But liberal politicians are banking on your becoming so accustomed to them you’ll no longer notice the spin.
This column first appeared on AmericanThinker.com.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Truth is the first casualty in Steve Israel’s politics
An old proverb regards truth as the first casualty of war. Logically, for truth to become war’s casualty it must be present to begin with. War is then a level above politics, at least in the way Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) practices the craft.
It’s no surprise to find Democrats spinning the standoff between Wisconsin’s Senate Republicans and public employee unionists. But Rep. Israel’s spin is so unbelievable that he has abused even the politician’s privilege of dancing around the truth. He sounds like a cheating child who’s tossing a tantrum because his playmates won’t play fair.
Rep. Israel’s rearrangement of reality was unveiled in a fundraising email from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Israel blasted Wisconsin Republicans’ “blatant assault on worker’s rights,” especially since the reorganization of public employee collective bargaining rules passed without Democrat participation. He called the GOP’s tactics “outrageous” and “unconscionable.”
But what right have employees lost, save the “right” to pay tribute to labor unions in order to earn a living? As for the Democrats’ absence, no one overthrew their caucus and exiled them to Illinois. Democrats ran for the tall grass of their own accord. Oh, and while we’re on the subject of unconscionable, it was Rep. Israel’s congressional colleagues who employed bribery, clandestine Christmas Eve votes, and threats to bypass the voting process altogether in order to enact ObamaCare.
Outrageous and unconscionable? Look in the mirror Steve.
Was anyone inspired at the site of marching Wisconsin teachers? Steve Israel was and thinks you should’ve been, too. But why? These teachers walked out on their pupils, proving their allegiance to unions exceeded their concern for students. These teachers called in sick when they were perfectly fit and trashed the capitol grounds in Madison. Inspirational? Please!
Rep. Israel hailed the “Wisconsin 14” as a reminder to everyone of what it means to be a Democrat. Democrats abdicated their duty to Wisconsin’s taxpayers when they went into hiding. They ran away rather than deal with the consequences of their lost majority. This is what it means to be a Democrat. And Israel calls the “Fleeing 14” heroes? Cowards I say, the whole lot of them. And remember, it was one of their own, Steve Israel, who said Wisconsin Democrats exemplified the party’s highest standards.
The “Fleeing 14” weren’t concerned with public employees. They were concerned with securing continued support from unions in the form of campaign donations. The real issue in Wisconsin wasn’t “worker’s rights.” It was union monopolies. Wisconsin can now become a right to work state where employees can’t be forced to pay tribute to labor unions in order to attain jobs.
In short, Wisconsinites may soon be liberated, free to make their own decisions regarding employment and unionization. Wisconsin’s Republicans upheld the concept of individual liberty and free association, which Democrats routinely oppose. And Steve Israel proved that truth was never part of the Democrat's rhetorical war.
It’s no surprise to find Democrats spinning the standoff between Wisconsin’s Senate Republicans and public employee unionists. But Rep. Israel’s spin is so unbelievable that he has abused even the politician’s privilege of dancing around the truth. He sounds like a cheating child who’s tossing a tantrum because his playmates won’t play fair.
Rep. Israel’s rearrangement of reality was unveiled in a fundraising email from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Israel blasted Wisconsin Republicans’ “blatant assault on worker’s rights,” especially since the reorganization of public employee collective bargaining rules passed without Democrat participation. He called the GOP’s tactics “outrageous” and “unconscionable.”
But what right have employees lost, save the “right” to pay tribute to labor unions in order to earn a living? As for the Democrats’ absence, no one overthrew their caucus and exiled them to Illinois. Democrats ran for the tall grass of their own accord. Oh, and while we’re on the subject of unconscionable, it was Rep. Israel’s congressional colleagues who employed bribery, clandestine Christmas Eve votes, and threats to bypass the voting process altogether in order to enact ObamaCare.
Outrageous and unconscionable? Look in the mirror Steve.
Was anyone inspired at the site of marching Wisconsin teachers? Steve Israel was and thinks you should’ve been, too. But why? These teachers walked out on their pupils, proving their allegiance to unions exceeded their concern for students. These teachers called in sick when they were perfectly fit and trashed the capitol grounds in Madison. Inspirational? Please!
Rep. Israel hailed the “Wisconsin 14” as a reminder to everyone of what it means to be a Democrat. Democrats abdicated their duty to Wisconsin’s taxpayers when they went into hiding. They ran away rather than deal with the consequences of their lost majority. This is what it means to be a Democrat. And Israel calls the “Fleeing 14” heroes? Cowards I say, the whole lot of them. And remember, it was one of their own, Steve Israel, who said Wisconsin Democrats exemplified the party’s highest standards.
The “Fleeing 14” weren’t concerned with public employees. They were concerned with securing continued support from unions in the form of campaign donations. The real issue in Wisconsin wasn’t “worker’s rights.” It was union monopolies. Wisconsin can now become a right to work state where employees can’t be forced to pay tribute to labor unions in order to attain jobs.
In short, Wisconsinites may soon be liberated, free to make their own decisions regarding employment and unionization. Wisconsin’s Republicans upheld the concept of individual liberty and free association, which Democrats routinely oppose. And Steve Israel proved that truth was never part of the Democrat's rhetorical war.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Jared Loughner: Timothy McVeigh reincarnated
The similarities between the 2010 election results and those in 1994 are evident. In 1994 frustrated voters vented their disgust with a Democrat administration’s leftist direction and gave Republicans control of Congress for the first time in decades. What happened in 2010? The American people again rejected a hard-left push from the Democrat Party and Republicans won overwhelmingly. Within months of each election the Left used an unspeakably violent act to falsely portray conservatives as vicious, unstable cranks.
It was Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. It’s Jared Loughner and the Arizona shooting in 2011.
Before anyone concludes that I’m launching a conspiracy theory let me state that I don’t believe the Left orchestrated either the Oklahoma City Bombing or the Arizona shooting. But their reactions to both tragedies prove that they’ve learned Rahm Emmanuel’s lesson quite well: a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Arizona, like Oklahoma City before, has fueled a left-wing crusade the sole intent of which is to denigrate and silence political opposition.
To the Left, human suffering equals political opportunity. It was so with Oklahoma City, and with Hurricane Katrina, and with the Jena Six. They demagogued the massacres in Stockton (CA), Killeen (TX), Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois. Now they’re demagoguing the Arizona shooting. It’s shameless, and it’s time to call the Left on their duplicity.
Democrats and their media allies seized the moment when Timothy McVeigh struck, just like they’re doing now. Before the rubble had cooled at the Alfred Murrah Building they had blamed everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Before Arizona’s first victim was eulogized the Left was blaming Sarah Palin, talk radio and the “new media” for pushing Jared Loughner over the edge.
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) went so far as to blame the Arizona rampage on the First Amendment. He thinks there are just too many media outlets and too much information available to those of us in the great unwashed. We simply lack the intelligence to distinguish his truth from our concocted fantasies. The accusation is perfectly clear. Conservatives are half-cocked knuckle-draggers ready to go off at the slightest provocation. We must be led on a government leash.
The prevailing media sings the chorus with equal intensity. Leftist commentators and journalists dissected the influence that conservative discourse played in driving Loughner’s rage. Their conclusion: Anyone espousing conservative thought, debate, or activism shares culpability for Loughner’s massacre. Even after acknowledging that no evidence exists to link Loughner to conservative positions or personalities, the Left continued to promote the connection.
Democrat strategists used the Oklahoma bombing to silence conservatives and quell the support for a smaller federal government that existed in 1994. There was no factual basis for their argument. McVeigh himself was something of a loner and neo-Nazi sympathizer--not a constitutional conservative. But the accusations had an affect. The game plan is the same with the Arizona shootings and Jared Loughner now. The similarities between the Left’s manipulation of Oklahoma City and Arizona cannot be dismissed, nor can they be allowed to flourish.
Little information has been verified concerning Jared Loughner’s political inclinations. The most credible evidence paints Loughner as a mentally unstable recluse motivated more by occult interests than a political agenda of any stripe. And nary shred of evidence has been presented to link Jared Loughner to conservative causes or right-wing rhetoric. Ironically, there is more hearsay evidence to link Loughner to left-wing radicalism than to right-wing conservatism.
Yet leftists continue to spin the Arizona tragedy for political advantage. It is they who are using incendiary language to divide our nation. It is they who exploit duped followers with blatant lies about political opponents. This time, unlike the spring of 1995, conservatives must hold the line against the Left’s baseless attacks.
Democrats aren’t appalled by the so-called “inflammatory rhetoric” coming from conservative politicians, talk radio hosts, or the TEA Party. They fear the substance behind the arguments. Therefore those voices must be marginalized by whatever means necessary. This time conservatives must stand their ground. History may repeat. But the end result must be changed.
It was Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. It’s Jared Loughner and the Arizona shooting in 2011.
Before anyone concludes that I’m launching a conspiracy theory let me state that I don’t believe the Left orchestrated either the Oklahoma City Bombing or the Arizona shooting. But their reactions to both tragedies prove that they’ve learned Rahm Emmanuel’s lesson quite well: a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Arizona, like Oklahoma City before, has fueled a left-wing crusade the sole intent of which is to denigrate and silence political opposition.
To the Left, human suffering equals political opportunity. It was so with Oklahoma City, and with Hurricane Katrina, and with the Jena Six. They demagogued the massacres in Stockton (CA), Killeen (TX), Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois. Now they’re demagoguing the Arizona shooting. It’s shameless, and it’s time to call the Left on their duplicity.
Democrats and their media allies seized the moment when Timothy McVeigh struck, just like they’re doing now. Before the rubble had cooled at the Alfred Murrah Building they had blamed everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Before Arizona’s first victim was eulogized the Left was blaming Sarah Palin, talk radio and the “new media” for pushing Jared Loughner over the edge.
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) went so far as to blame the Arizona rampage on the First Amendment. He thinks there are just too many media outlets and too much information available to those of us in the great unwashed. We simply lack the intelligence to distinguish his truth from our concocted fantasies. The accusation is perfectly clear. Conservatives are half-cocked knuckle-draggers ready to go off at the slightest provocation. We must be led on a government leash.
The prevailing media sings the chorus with equal intensity. Leftist commentators and journalists dissected the influence that conservative discourse played in driving Loughner’s rage. Their conclusion: Anyone espousing conservative thought, debate, or activism shares culpability for Loughner’s massacre. Even after acknowledging that no evidence exists to link Loughner to conservative positions or personalities, the Left continued to promote the connection.
Democrat strategists used the Oklahoma bombing to silence conservatives and quell the support for a smaller federal government that existed in 1994. There was no factual basis for their argument. McVeigh himself was something of a loner and neo-Nazi sympathizer--not a constitutional conservative. But the accusations had an affect. The game plan is the same with the Arizona shootings and Jared Loughner now. The similarities between the Left’s manipulation of Oklahoma City and Arizona cannot be dismissed, nor can they be allowed to flourish.
Little information has been verified concerning Jared Loughner’s political inclinations. The most credible evidence paints Loughner as a mentally unstable recluse motivated more by occult interests than a political agenda of any stripe. And nary shred of evidence has been presented to link Jared Loughner to conservative causes or right-wing rhetoric. Ironically, there is more hearsay evidence to link Loughner to left-wing radicalism than to right-wing conservatism.
Yet leftists continue to spin the Arizona tragedy for political advantage. It is they who are using incendiary language to divide our nation. It is they who exploit duped followers with blatant lies about political opponents. This time, unlike the spring of 1995, conservatives must hold the line against the Left’s baseless attacks.
Democrats aren’t appalled by the so-called “inflammatory rhetoric” coming from conservative politicians, talk radio hosts, or the TEA Party. They fear the substance behind the arguments. Therefore those voices must be marginalized by whatever means necessary. This time conservatives must stand their ground. History may repeat. But the end result must be changed.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
A five-step program for the Republican majority
The mid-term elections are over. Republicans celebrate their victory while Democrats chase their tails, apparently in a state of denial. The GOP won 239 House seats and control 46 Senate seats with the Alaska race still undecided. Even if Lisa Murkowski prevails she is a Republican who will be at least as dependable as Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.
Republicans also hold 29 governorships and a majority of statehouses, which means they will redraw the congressional districts following this census year. If Republicans have the fortitude they can align congressional districts to favor conservative candidates for the next decade.
Even seat counts don’t tell the whole story of the Republican’s November 2nd dominance. No Republican incumbent lost their Senate seat while Democrats struggled to hold serve in Regressive heavy Washington and Colorado. House Democrats lost one seat in which their candidate was a prohibitive favorite and five where they were expected to win with ease. Republicans lost nary a House race they were favored to win. Republicans won 30 tossup races, unseating Democrat incumbents in 29 of them. Democrats won only 12 such elections. Democrats unseated just three sitting Republican representatives, and one of those was in Hawaii where a Democrat victory is about as rare as spotting a corn stalk in Illinois.
What happens now? Winning elections is one thing; wielding power is quite another. How should the GOP proceed? Where should they flex their newfound muscle? What must Republicans do to prove they are a genuine conservative alternative to the defeated Democrats? Follow the five-step program.
First, Republicans must realize that America voted for conservatism, not liberalism. When a confident football team intercepts a pass or recovers a fumble they try to capitalize immediately on the momentum shift. The GOP’s strategy should be similar. Why allow the losers to define the debate? Introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare. It’s won’t pass the Senate, although some Senate Democrats--like Joe Manchin (WV)--may buck their party and the administration. If repeal does survive the Senate the President will certainly veto it, which Republicans can’t override. So what? Introduce the bill again and again and again. Force the Democrats to defend their collectivist programs.
Second, avoid appeasement; it offers nothing for Republicans. Losing doesn’t equal defeat in the Regressive’s dictionary. In fact, Democrats are likely to be aggressive in defeat. What do they have to lose? Meet the lame duck Democrats with a hefty dose of obstructionism and gridlock. Republicans hold enough Senate seats right now to stonewall Democrats until the 112th Congress is seated. Just do it!
Third, ignore the Democrat’s character assassinations and obtuse rhetoric. Any conservative knows, or should know, that these tactics are the first options for Regressives and their media allies. Deal with it; it’s as common to politics as sand to the Mohave Desert. Conservatives have few friends in the media and none in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Cabal. Why try to impress them? Cater to the people who’ve granted the GOP a second chance at governing, not the Washington elitists. Their agenda is the one you were elected to stop.
Fourth, forget about bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake. There’s no compromise with Regressive Democrats. If the electorate wanted the snake oil Democrats have been peddling they wouldn’t have swept them from power. Obama himself has said that elections have consequences and that victors set the tone. Go for their jugular; don’t give them a hand up. Let the Regressives “reach across the aisle” for a change.
Fifth, the Republican Party must remember where their new lease on life came from. Conservatives are wary and watching for signs of betrayal. If Republicans promote big government, as past Republican Congresses have done, voters have no reason to trust them in 2012.
Republicans aren’t as devoted to statism as are Democrats. But the slow boat to socialism eventually docks in the same harbor. The GOP has a chance to prove that they aren’t a watered-down version of the Regressive Movement. They better make a good showing.
Republicans also hold 29 governorships and a majority of statehouses, which means they will redraw the congressional districts following this census year. If Republicans have the fortitude they can align congressional districts to favor conservative candidates for the next decade.
Even seat counts don’t tell the whole story of the Republican’s November 2nd dominance. No Republican incumbent lost their Senate seat while Democrats struggled to hold serve in Regressive heavy Washington and Colorado. House Democrats lost one seat in which their candidate was a prohibitive favorite and five where they were expected to win with ease. Republicans lost nary a House race they were favored to win. Republicans won 30 tossup races, unseating Democrat incumbents in 29 of them. Democrats won only 12 such elections. Democrats unseated just three sitting Republican representatives, and one of those was in Hawaii where a Democrat victory is about as rare as spotting a corn stalk in Illinois.
What happens now? Winning elections is one thing; wielding power is quite another. How should the GOP proceed? Where should they flex their newfound muscle? What must Republicans do to prove they are a genuine conservative alternative to the defeated Democrats? Follow the five-step program.
First, Republicans must realize that America voted for conservatism, not liberalism. When a confident football team intercepts a pass or recovers a fumble they try to capitalize immediately on the momentum shift. The GOP’s strategy should be similar. Why allow the losers to define the debate? Introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare. It’s won’t pass the Senate, although some Senate Democrats--like Joe Manchin (WV)--may buck their party and the administration. If repeal does survive the Senate the President will certainly veto it, which Republicans can’t override. So what? Introduce the bill again and again and again. Force the Democrats to defend their collectivist programs.
Second, avoid appeasement; it offers nothing for Republicans. Losing doesn’t equal defeat in the Regressive’s dictionary. In fact, Democrats are likely to be aggressive in defeat. What do they have to lose? Meet the lame duck Democrats with a hefty dose of obstructionism and gridlock. Republicans hold enough Senate seats right now to stonewall Democrats until the 112th Congress is seated. Just do it!
Third, ignore the Democrat’s character assassinations and obtuse rhetoric. Any conservative knows, or should know, that these tactics are the first options for Regressives and their media allies. Deal with it; it’s as common to politics as sand to the Mohave Desert. Conservatives have few friends in the media and none in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Cabal. Why try to impress them? Cater to the people who’ve granted the GOP a second chance at governing, not the Washington elitists. Their agenda is the one you were elected to stop.
Fourth, forget about bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake. There’s no compromise with Regressive Democrats. If the electorate wanted the snake oil Democrats have been peddling they wouldn’t have swept them from power. Obama himself has said that elections have consequences and that victors set the tone. Go for their jugular; don’t give them a hand up. Let the Regressives “reach across the aisle” for a change.
Fifth, the Republican Party must remember where their new lease on life came from. Conservatives are wary and watching for signs of betrayal. If Republicans promote big government, as past Republican Congresses have done, voters have no reason to trust them in 2012.
Republicans aren’t as devoted to statism as are Democrats. But the slow boat to socialism eventually docks in the same harbor. The GOP has a chance to prove that they aren’t a watered-down version of the Regressive Movement. They better make a good showing.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The five myths of Regressive politics #2: Conservatives benefit from poverty.
Sometimes you have to hand it to your enemies. Regressives are masterful at portraying themselves as the administrators of “economic fairness.” No Regressive oration would be complete without a splash of class envy. Be it “tax cuts for the greedy rich” or “the rich getting wealthy on the backs of the poor,” the message is the same. Conservatives benefit from keeping poor Americans impoverished. But the Left’s advantage is nullified when conservatives meet their charge head-on.
Conservatism finds no joy in anyone’s economic suffering. Rather, conservatism promotes attitudes that loose people from poverty’s chain. Optimism, resilience, self-reliance and ethics are the qualities that build successful and enduring futures. While setbacks are common they aren’t cause for surrender. The individual remains superior to politicians, bureaucrats and busybody activists who display their so-called generosity in the redistribution of their neighbor’s earnings. These qualities are fundamental to conservative thought.
The notion that honor resides in effort and ingenuity is neither foolish nor outdated. And poverty isn’t a cause for shame but for resolve. Conservatives embrace this concept because the benefits are demonstrable, having lifted some of America’s highest achievers to unimagined accomplishments. That’s why conservatives resist expanding the so-called social safety net. There’s no enmity toward the poor, just toward the entitlements that encourage their economic stagnation.
The old fishing adage fit’s the conservative outlook perfectly. Give a man a fish and you’ve fed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you’ve fed him for a lifetime. Conservatives enjoy teaching people to fish.
Regressive policies ensure that the poor remain poor. According to the Cato Institute, 32-percent of America’s population was impoverished in 1947. The poverty level fell to 13.9-percent by 1965. That’s when Regressives launched Lyndon Johnson’s infamous War on Poverty. Since 1965 the poverty rate has remained relatively constant, hovering between 10 and 15-percent.
If discussing poverty with a few quick statistics sounds cold and impersonal, it shouldn’t. Each number represents millions of Americans whose faith has been diminished and whose futures have been damaged by Regressive policies.
The grandiose promises of the left’s anti-poverty crusade remain predictably unfulfilled, a vapid collection of shell games, pipe dreams and collectivist utopianism. Instead of eradicating poverty, as advertised, Regressives have stifled initiative, fostered dependency and encouraged stagnation. The role of father has been swallowed in statist bureaucracy, the family unit is fractured and inner cities--ostensibly the target of the War on Poverty--are economic disasters.
Regressives toss fish to the poor, much like a marine biologist feeds a seal, thereby ensuring that destitute people, like seals, look to Regressives each time they have a need. There’s nothing compassionate about it. In fact, it’s a heinous immorality.
Conservatism finds no joy in anyone’s economic suffering. Rather, conservatism promotes attitudes that loose people from poverty’s chain. Optimism, resilience, self-reliance and ethics are the qualities that build successful and enduring futures. While setbacks are common they aren’t cause for surrender. The individual remains superior to politicians, bureaucrats and busybody activists who display their so-called generosity in the redistribution of their neighbor’s earnings. These qualities are fundamental to conservative thought.
The notion that honor resides in effort and ingenuity is neither foolish nor outdated. And poverty isn’t a cause for shame but for resolve. Conservatives embrace this concept because the benefits are demonstrable, having lifted some of America’s highest achievers to unimagined accomplishments. That’s why conservatives resist expanding the so-called social safety net. There’s no enmity toward the poor, just toward the entitlements that encourage their economic stagnation.
The old fishing adage fit’s the conservative outlook perfectly. Give a man a fish and you’ve fed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you’ve fed him for a lifetime. Conservatives enjoy teaching people to fish.
Regressive policies ensure that the poor remain poor. According to the Cato Institute, 32-percent of America’s population was impoverished in 1947. The poverty level fell to 13.9-percent by 1965. That’s when Regressives launched Lyndon Johnson’s infamous War on Poverty. Since 1965 the poverty rate has remained relatively constant, hovering between 10 and 15-percent.
If discussing poverty with a few quick statistics sounds cold and impersonal, it shouldn’t. Each number represents millions of Americans whose faith has been diminished and whose futures have been damaged by Regressive policies.
The grandiose promises of the left’s anti-poverty crusade remain predictably unfulfilled, a vapid collection of shell games, pipe dreams and collectivist utopianism. Instead of eradicating poverty, as advertised, Regressives have stifled initiative, fostered dependency and encouraged stagnation. The role of father has been swallowed in statist bureaucracy, the family unit is fractured and inner cities--ostensibly the target of the War on Poverty--are economic disasters.
Regressives toss fish to the poor, much like a marine biologist feeds a seal, thereby ensuring that destitute people, like seals, look to Regressives each time they have a need. There’s nothing compassionate about it. In fact, it’s a heinous immorality.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The five myths of Regressive politics #1: Conservatives are racist.
Whenever conservatives comment on racial issues they’re immediately compared to the Grand Dragons of the Ku Klux Klan. Such an accusation would be laughable if it weren’t so egregious. In reality conservatives are the colorblind idealists. Since all that’s rightly promised to free people is an opportunity to use their talents for their own benefit, conservatives recognize that preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity are themselves discriminatory. Quotas aren’t necessary for success, nor are head starts required.
In reality, applying quota and preference programs to people of color is condescending. Racial quota systems promote the idea that minorities are inferior and needful of preferential treatment. Conservatives recognize the duplicitous fallacy in this argument. Therefore, under conservatism, people are evaluated on their merits, with financial compensation and cultural status reflecting each individual’s contribution to society.
In conservative thought equality means a known starting point, no more. No one is elevated or relegated based on race and no preference is given beyond that which is due to the skills and attitudes a person presents.
The left is correct in one thing; racism does endure in America. However, its home is on the political left. Liberals have no faith in minorities regardless of the preening and crowing they do on behalf of the disenfranchised. Minorities cannot succeed without the left-wing do-gooder’s social justice activism and government assistance. Success can result from welfare and entitlement programs, hiring quotas, college admission preferences, or some other means. But success must be attributable to government.
The true crime of political racism is perpetrated daily on the left. Liberal politicians work diligently to convince minorities that life is worthless and unlivable without expansive government programs, thereby maintaining their grip on power. The fact that these programs are a proven snare, trapping recipients in an endless stream of dependence is immaterial. All that matters is the electoral power that can be attained and the governmental control that can be expanded.
In reality, applying quota and preference programs to people of color is condescending. Racial quota systems promote the idea that minorities are inferior and needful of preferential treatment. Conservatives recognize the duplicitous fallacy in this argument. Therefore, under conservatism, people are evaluated on their merits, with financial compensation and cultural status reflecting each individual’s contribution to society.
In conservative thought equality means a known starting point, no more. No one is elevated or relegated based on race and no preference is given beyond that which is due to the skills and attitudes a person presents.
The left is correct in one thing; racism does endure in America. However, its home is on the political left. Liberals have no faith in minorities regardless of the preening and crowing they do on behalf of the disenfranchised. Minorities cannot succeed without the left-wing do-gooder’s social justice activism and government assistance. Success can result from welfare and entitlement programs, hiring quotas, college admission preferences, or some other means. But success must be attributable to government.
The true crime of political racism is perpetrated daily on the left. Liberal politicians work diligently to convince minorities that life is worthless and unlivable without expansive government programs, thereby maintaining their grip on power. The fact that these programs are a proven snare, trapping recipients in an endless stream of dependence is immaterial. All that matters is the electoral power that can be attained and the governmental control that can be expanded.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
TV ads are annoying, but Senators are worse
If there’s an area in which U.S. Senators excel more than tossing tax dollars down rat holes it must be in blowing hot air. List grandstanding and pandering among their attributes, too. The recently passed Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act (CALM, S. 2847) displayed these Senatorial “skills” for all to see.
If you watch television you’ve noticed the difference in volume between programming and commercials, with commercials being much louder. Condemn those blaring commercials as annoying and I’m right there with you; they’re like raking your fingernails across a chalkboard. But does an annoyance warrant congressional action? Let’s think about that one for a moment.
Congress may claim authority to regulate a television commercial’s volume through their typical mischaracterization of the Constitution. Perhaps they’ll cite the commerce clause, which Congress routinely abuses to legitimize its unwarranted meddling. However, if we look at the Senate’s action in light of how the Founding Fathers viewed proper government we must conclude that Senators missed the mark on the CALM Act.
Governments exist to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But CALM achieves none of those goals beyond what we can do for ourselves. It doesn’t defend our lives, as no one has died from an obnoxiously loud used car commercial. Our liberty isn’t protected since we can mute offending commercials, turn down their volume, or change channels. CALM doesn’t secure our pursuit of happiness, either. We can pursue happiness with or without television and its advertisements.
The CALM Act isn’t about protecting consumers at all. It’s about providing a populist stage whereupon grandstanding politicians can crow to voters about how they stuck it to the Madison Avenue man, as the bill’s sponsoring Senators inadvertently attest.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) claims CALM reduces the stress Americans face. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) says this “common sense” bill “prevents airing ads at unbearable volume levels.” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) explained that viewers shouldn’t fear “losing their hearing” during commercials.
My! Aren’t they the champions of the public interest? Maybe not. Genuine common sense (not the kind Rockefeller touts) shows this bill for the pandering twaddle that it is.
No one has fallen deaf due to an overzealous word from the sponsor. Furthermore, there’s quite a distinction between an annoying noise and an unbearable one. Whining jet engines are unbearable. So are blaring train horns. Include any form of rap music in the mix, too. Television commercials are actually quite tame by comparison.
The most indefensible position comes from Sen. Whitehouse, the bill’s primary sponsor. So, loud commercials add “unnecessary stress” to people’s lives? Talk about an oxymoron. Sen. Whitehouse and his colleagues should look inward if they seek the source of America’s stress.
Congress--your Congress, Sen. Whitehouse--has spent this nation into a black hole. No tax rate can satisfy Washington’s insatiable spending lust. Each American’s share of the gross federal debt is $45,000. Focus solely on children under 18 and each is saddled with $119,000 in unsecured debt. Americans fight radical Islam overseas while politicians seem content to tolerate it here. Healthcare “reform” is a pig in a poke that will increase the aforementioned debt while promising performance similar to Medicare, Social Security and Walter Reed.
Are Americans uneasy, unnerved, and perhaps stressed? Yes Sen. Whitehouse, and justifiably so. But of the problems we face loud TV commercials aren’t high on the stress-o-meter. In fact, they’re almost a respite from the harsh gale emanating from blowhard politicians.
Don’t fall for the Senate’s feint. CALM isn’t about TV viewers. It’s about creating a populist position for politicians seeking public approval. It’s an overblown reaction to a miniscule problem, one that Congress should have no authority to address. That S. 2847 passed unanimously is all the more discouraging. Considering the problems our country faces the Senate should find better things to do with its time.
If you watch television you’ve noticed the difference in volume between programming and commercials, with commercials being much louder. Condemn those blaring commercials as annoying and I’m right there with you; they’re like raking your fingernails across a chalkboard. But does an annoyance warrant congressional action? Let’s think about that one for a moment.
Congress may claim authority to regulate a television commercial’s volume through their typical mischaracterization of the Constitution. Perhaps they’ll cite the commerce clause, which Congress routinely abuses to legitimize its unwarranted meddling. However, if we look at the Senate’s action in light of how the Founding Fathers viewed proper government we must conclude that Senators missed the mark on the CALM Act.
Governments exist to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But CALM achieves none of those goals beyond what we can do for ourselves. It doesn’t defend our lives, as no one has died from an obnoxiously loud used car commercial. Our liberty isn’t protected since we can mute offending commercials, turn down their volume, or change channels. CALM doesn’t secure our pursuit of happiness, either. We can pursue happiness with or without television and its advertisements.
The CALM Act isn’t about protecting consumers at all. It’s about providing a populist stage whereupon grandstanding politicians can crow to voters about how they stuck it to the Madison Avenue man, as the bill’s sponsoring Senators inadvertently attest.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) claims CALM reduces the stress Americans face. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) says this “common sense” bill “prevents airing ads at unbearable volume levels.” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) explained that viewers shouldn’t fear “losing their hearing” during commercials.
My! Aren’t they the champions of the public interest? Maybe not. Genuine common sense (not the kind Rockefeller touts) shows this bill for the pandering twaddle that it is.
No one has fallen deaf due to an overzealous word from the sponsor. Furthermore, there’s quite a distinction between an annoying noise and an unbearable one. Whining jet engines are unbearable. So are blaring train horns. Include any form of rap music in the mix, too. Television commercials are actually quite tame by comparison.
The most indefensible position comes from Sen. Whitehouse, the bill’s primary sponsor. So, loud commercials add “unnecessary stress” to people’s lives? Talk about an oxymoron. Sen. Whitehouse and his colleagues should look inward if they seek the source of America’s stress.
Congress--your Congress, Sen. Whitehouse--has spent this nation into a black hole. No tax rate can satisfy Washington’s insatiable spending lust. Each American’s share of the gross federal debt is $45,000. Focus solely on children under 18 and each is saddled with $119,000 in unsecured debt. Americans fight radical Islam overseas while politicians seem content to tolerate it here. Healthcare “reform” is a pig in a poke that will increase the aforementioned debt while promising performance similar to Medicare, Social Security and Walter Reed.
Are Americans uneasy, unnerved, and perhaps stressed? Yes Sen. Whitehouse, and justifiably so. But of the problems we face loud TV commercials aren’t high on the stress-o-meter. In fact, they’re almost a respite from the harsh gale emanating from blowhard politicians.
Don’t fall for the Senate’s feint. CALM isn’t about TV viewers. It’s about creating a populist position for politicians seeking public approval. It’s an overblown reaction to a miniscule problem, one that Congress should have no authority to address. That S. 2847 passed unanimously is all the more discouraging. Considering the problems our country faces the Senate should find better things to do with its time.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Truth and reality must prevail in immigration debate
With respect to the wisdom of old adages, repeating a lie doesn’t make it the truth. A lie is a lie. The uninformed may accept the lie as truth, but it’s still a lie. And the lie is the preferred tactic for opponents of Arizona’s immigration law.
Arizona’s law neither encourages nor condones racial profiling. Claims to that affect are fabrications. Section 2(B) of SB 1070 states that police must make “lawful contact” with an alien before “reasonable suspicion” of legal status can be established. According to Section 2(E) officers can arrest suspects only when there’s probable cause to believe that a deportable offense has been committed. Police are granted no authority to demand “papers” from Hispanics simply because of their race.
Verifying identity is standard procedure when police interact officially with civilians. Anyone who has been stopped for a simple traffic violation has provided “papers” (identification) to an officer. This is where probable cause and reasonable suspicion come into play; it’s nothing more than common sense. Under Arizona’s law, if a detainee behaves in a manner common to an illegal alien their immigration status is investigated. That’s not racial profiling. That’s behavioral profiling.
Facts and reason are inconsequential to opponents of Arizona’s law, who dutifully repeat the talking points until the lie is considered truth. Even Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon joined the chorus, echoing the sanctimonious twaddle that passes for a defense of illegal aliens.
Calderon stood in our nation’s capital, before our congressional representatives, and belittled any attempt to control the US-Mexico border. Basically, he said that anyone opposed to an open southern border is a knuckle-dragging bigot. Worst of all, our Congress gave him a thunderous ovation for his criticism of Arizona and border control, especially when he addressed them in Spanish.
President Obama also embraced Calderon. Obama will shun the Dali Lama, ditch the Israeli Prime Minister and offend the British without a second thought. But when a foreign dignitary criticizes our country Obama welcomes him like a long-lost brother.
Yet for all this distortion, the lie still hasn’t become truth. What it has become is an effective tool for constructing a political coalition of the ignorant. Democrats are betting that supporting amnesty, open borders and Felipe Calderon while denouncing immigration enforcement measures will enhance the party’s standing with Hispanics.
So, can immigration law please everyone? Only if it doesn’t promote America first, promote cultural superiority, or offend aliens. Reform must also be acceptable to Mexico and Calderon. That’s a tall order, but not impossible. We simply treat aliens and immigrants with the same warmth and courtesy found in Mexico.
Mexico’s immigration law is a constitutional matter. Chapter 1, Article 11 recognizes a right to enter, leave and travel freely inside Mexico. However, that right doesn’t apply to immigrants and “undesirable aliens.” Chapter 2, Article 32 reserves preferred occupations for natural born Mexicans. Chapter 3, Article 33 authorizes the Mexican President to deport foreigners without regard to due process or legal status. That same article bars foreigners from participating in Mexico’s political affairs.
Suppose America amended its immigration laws to mirror those in Mexico’s Constitution? Would Calderon then declare his reverence for our laws? Would Congress reward his support with fervent applause? Don’t hold your breath on either count. Hypocrisy would swell and America would be reviled as even more racist, xenophobic and intolerant than now.
Neither our Constitution nor our Congress exists to alter society for the benefit of illegal invaders, or to cater to smug windbags like Felipe Calderon. Arizona’s immigration law is just what the doctor ordered. It should become the model for every state in the union, opponent’s lies and prevarications notwithstanding.
Arizona’s law neither encourages nor condones racial profiling. Claims to that affect are fabrications. Section 2(B) of SB 1070 states that police must make “lawful contact” with an alien before “reasonable suspicion” of legal status can be established. According to Section 2(E) officers can arrest suspects only when there’s probable cause to believe that a deportable offense has been committed. Police are granted no authority to demand “papers” from Hispanics simply because of their race.
Verifying identity is standard procedure when police interact officially with civilians. Anyone who has been stopped for a simple traffic violation has provided “papers” (identification) to an officer. This is where probable cause and reasonable suspicion come into play; it’s nothing more than common sense. Under Arizona’s law, if a detainee behaves in a manner common to an illegal alien their immigration status is investigated. That’s not racial profiling. That’s behavioral profiling.
Facts and reason are inconsequential to opponents of Arizona’s law, who dutifully repeat the talking points until the lie is considered truth. Even Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon joined the chorus, echoing the sanctimonious twaddle that passes for a defense of illegal aliens.
Calderon stood in our nation’s capital, before our congressional representatives, and belittled any attempt to control the US-Mexico border. Basically, he said that anyone opposed to an open southern border is a knuckle-dragging bigot. Worst of all, our Congress gave him a thunderous ovation for his criticism of Arizona and border control, especially when he addressed them in Spanish.
President Obama also embraced Calderon. Obama will shun the Dali Lama, ditch the Israeli Prime Minister and offend the British without a second thought. But when a foreign dignitary criticizes our country Obama welcomes him like a long-lost brother.
Yet for all this distortion, the lie still hasn’t become truth. What it has become is an effective tool for constructing a political coalition of the ignorant. Democrats are betting that supporting amnesty, open borders and Felipe Calderon while denouncing immigration enforcement measures will enhance the party’s standing with Hispanics.
So, can immigration law please everyone? Only if it doesn’t promote America first, promote cultural superiority, or offend aliens. Reform must also be acceptable to Mexico and Calderon. That’s a tall order, but not impossible. We simply treat aliens and immigrants with the same warmth and courtesy found in Mexico.
Mexico’s immigration law is a constitutional matter. Chapter 1, Article 11 recognizes a right to enter, leave and travel freely inside Mexico. However, that right doesn’t apply to immigrants and “undesirable aliens.” Chapter 2, Article 32 reserves preferred occupations for natural born Mexicans. Chapter 3, Article 33 authorizes the Mexican President to deport foreigners without regard to due process or legal status. That same article bars foreigners from participating in Mexico’s political affairs.
Suppose America amended its immigration laws to mirror those in Mexico’s Constitution? Would Calderon then declare his reverence for our laws? Would Congress reward his support with fervent applause? Don’t hold your breath on either count. Hypocrisy would swell and America would be reviled as even more racist, xenophobic and intolerant than now.
Neither our Constitution nor our Congress exists to alter society for the benefit of illegal invaders, or to cater to smug windbags like Felipe Calderon. Arizona’s immigration law is just what the doctor ordered. It should become the model for every state in the union, opponent’s lies and prevarications notwithstanding.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Nancy Pelosi seeks climate change
Well, well, well. Nancy Pelosi has gone to China . . . and to Shanghai no less. How fitting, seeing that she’s made a career out of shanghaiing the United States, our Constitution, our values, our liberty and just about everything else associated with limited government and a free republic.
Pelosi described her expedition in typical political speak. “The purpose of this trip is to follow up on meetings we’ve had here with representatives of the Chinese government on the subject of climate change and energy and how it relates to our economy,” she claimed in a thoroughly unconvincing attempt at sincerity.
All I can say is bull!
Friend, if you buy the sack of manure that she’s selling you should have gone to China right alongside her. She probably could have sold you the Great Wall while you were there.
On second thought, the purpose of her trip is—in a way—climate change. Pelosi was becoming increasingly uncomfortable in her climate. She needed a change and she needed it fast! It was far too hot for her in Washington, where not even her allies were backing her CIA conspiracy nonsense.
She got out of town to deflect attention from her latest bout with leg-in-mouth disease. No, that isn’t a typo. The House Speaker doesn’t do things halfway. She didn’t stop with the foot. Not Pelosi. She stuffed her entire leg down her throat, burying it right up to her scrawny buttock.
It’s beyond incredible to believe that the CIA lied to her about the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques.
If she’s telling the truth why wouldn’t Democrats pounce on that revelation to completely embarrass the Republicans once and for all? Why would other high-ranking members of the House and Senate know all about the methods employed while she remained in the dark?
Oh, wait; Pelosi in the dark. I think I just answered my own question.
No one cared about waterboarding when the constituents back home were hot for vengeance following 9/11. Only after the initial calls for retribution waned did Democrats, Pelosi included, notice that political hay could be made from the “abuse” of detainees. Now not one Democrat, Pelosi included, knows what to do with the violent cutthroats they claim we have mistreated. And Pelosi, above all, doesn’t have the sense to know when to quit.
Her claims that the CIA lied to her are contradicted by her own party. Leon Panetta, the current director of the CIA, has called her hand on her absurdities, distortions and outright fibs.
Panetta, by the way, isn’t exactly a card-carrying member of the vast right-wing conspiracy or the conservative cabal. You have to know that he—just like Congressional Democrats—would jump at any opportunity to discredit a Republican president’s policies. After all, Obama appointed him and he is a former Clinton adviser. He’s not Rush Limbaugh. It just makes his contradiction of Pelosi’s hallucinogenic fantasies all the more damning.
Pelosi didn’t go to China to talk energy, climate, pollution, policy, or even San Francisco Giants baseball. She went there to hide, to “CHA” if you get my drift.
With even her allies distancing themselves from her she needed a change of scenery. She won’t be home until she thinks the CIA flap has died down, which is enough reason for conservatives to keep it alive.
Pelosi’s trip is about climate change alright. She needed to change her climate to one as far from Capital Hill as possible. It’s the first wise choice she’s made in a long, long time. In the process she may have given America a prime bargaining chip with the Chinese. We’ll let her back in the country if they’ll buy a few trillion dollars more of our national debt.
Even at that, the Chinese may be getting the best of the barter.
Pelosi described her expedition in typical political speak. “The purpose of this trip is to follow up on meetings we’ve had here with representatives of the Chinese government on the subject of climate change and energy and how it relates to our economy,” she claimed in a thoroughly unconvincing attempt at sincerity.
All I can say is bull!
Friend, if you buy the sack of manure that she’s selling you should have gone to China right alongside her. She probably could have sold you the Great Wall while you were there.
On second thought, the purpose of her trip is—in a way—climate change. Pelosi was becoming increasingly uncomfortable in her climate. She needed a change and she needed it fast! It was far too hot for her in Washington, where not even her allies were backing her CIA conspiracy nonsense.
She got out of town to deflect attention from her latest bout with leg-in-mouth disease. No, that isn’t a typo. The House Speaker doesn’t do things halfway. She didn’t stop with the foot. Not Pelosi. She stuffed her entire leg down her throat, burying it right up to her scrawny buttock.
It’s beyond incredible to believe that the CIA lied to her about the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques.
If she’s telling the truth why wouldn’t Democrats pounce on that revelation to completely embarrass the Republicans once and for all? Why would other high-ranking members of the House and Senate know all about the methods employed while she remained in the dark?
Oh, wait; Pelosi in the dark. I think I just answered my own question.
No one cared about waterboarding when the constituents back home were hot for vengeance following 9/11. Only after the initial calls for retribution waned did Democrats, Pelosi included, notice that political hay could be made from the “abuse” of detainees. Now not one Democrat, Pelosi included, knows what to do with the violent cutthroats they claim we have mistreated. And Pelosi, above all, doesn’t have the sense to know when to quit.
Her claims that the CIA lied to her are contradicted by her own party. Leon Panetta, the current director of the CIA, has called her hand on her absurdities, distortions and outright fibs.
Panetta, by the way, isn’t exactly a card-carrying member of the vast right-wing conspiracy or the conservative cabal. You have to know that he—just like Congressional Democrats—would jump at any opportunity to discredit a Republican president’s policies. After all, Obama appointed him and he is a former Clinton adviser. He’s not Rush Limbaugh. It just makes his contradiction of Pelosi’s hallucinogenic fantasies all the more damning.
Pelosi didn’t go to China to talk energy, climate, pollution, policy, or even San Francisco Giants baseball. She went there to hide, to “CHA” if you get my drift.
With even her allies distancing themselves from her she needed a change of scenery. She won’t be home until she thinks the CIA flap has died down, which is enough reason for conservatives to keep it alive.
Pelosi’s trip is about climate change alright. She needed to change her climate to one as far from Capital Hill as possible. It’s the first wise choice she’s made in a long, long time. In the process she may have given America a prime bargaining chip with the Chinese. We’ll let her back in the country if they’ll buy a few trillion dollars more of our national debt.
Even at that, the Chinese may be getting the best of the barter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
