A group of Democrats– while blasting Arizona’s new immigration law– are claiming that the Mexican drug violence at the border, as well as securing the border, are just distractions that are taking away from their efforts to confront the true issue near and dear to them– granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and their families.
The drug war that we have is another distraction from doing what we have to do right. If we do this right, we can move forward on the other issues
Sealing the border is not the entire issue, let’s just stay focused on the issue
Mike Honda is right about one thing; sealing the border is not the entire issue, but it is an issue that needs to be addressed, and it should be addressed before any other talks on immigration reform move forward. Yet he is claiming that this is nothing but a distraction, and that we should be focused on the issue. He makes it sound as if border security has nothing to do with illegal immigration whatsoever.
He is also claiming that the drug war is just a distraction. But what is this “other issue” that he feels is more important than protecting United States citizens who live at the border and who are falling victim to this drug violence? By “other issue” Honda means amnesty for illegal aliens. He feels that all this violence at the border is nothing compared to granting amnesty to many of the people who are committing this violence.
Meanwhile, an Arizona deputy was shot in the stomach after encountering a group of illegal alien drug smugglers at our open border. Maybe Mike Honda should ask this officer– who was just trying to do his job– if the open border or the drug war is nothing but a distraction. Maybe Mike Honda should ask this officer’s family if the open borders and drug war is nothing but a distraction. While he is at it, maybe he can ask the family of the Arizona rancher who was killed on his property by an illegal immigrant last month if the violence is just a distraction.
The people who have to live with this violence every day do not see it as nothing but a distraction, to them it is a part of life. And it is a part of life that they shouldn’t have to deal with because we should have solved this problem long ago. Yet Americans are dying and more of our children are becoming addicted to the drugs that are pouring over our border and we are supposed to be concerned about and concentrating on providing people who are in this country illegally amnesty more so than protecting our citizens and future generations from the drugs that are infiltrating this country?
Barack Obama says immigration reform is off the table
This is a mobile post, please excuse the lack of block quotes for my Barack Obama quote.
Today Barack Obama took immigration reform off of his agenda, at least until after the 2010 election– claiming that politicians probably do not want to take on this divisive issue before the face re-election.
While speaking about this decision, Barack Obama said the following:
“I don’t want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn’t solve the problem,”
I just wish he had the same mindset before he forced congress to pass a healthcare reform bill that will not solve the problem. The truth is simple; he knows that there is a very good chance that Democrats are going to lose at least one house in congress, but if they pass this bill in the same underhanded manner that they passed healthcare reform, the outcome will be certain– Democrats not only will lose control of congress, there will be a slaughter.
Barack Obama may have been willing to lose some Democrat seats in November by pushing healthcare reform down our throats, but he is unwilling to suffer the embarrassing loses that would be certain if they passed an amnesty bill. So the immigration reform bill is dead while congress puts cap and trade on the agenda first (cap and trade must also be defeated, but there will be plenty of time to write about that as the bill moves forward.) But make no mistake about it, if Democrats hold on to congress in November immigration reform will be the first issue that is address. We can not let this happen, we have one chance and one chance only to stop this bill for good– conservatives must take control of at least one branch of congress. This means all of the RINOs that are up for re-election must be defeated also.
Baby survives for two days after failed abortion attempt
This is a mobile post, please excuse any lack of proper formatting. Also I apologize in advance for not being able to link to a past post that I reference in this post, I will do so as soon as possible– probably Sunday.
It is stories like this that drive pro-lifers crazy.
A pregnant woman in Italy decided to have an abortion at 22 weeks. The abortion was carried out, but there was one little problem– the baby survived the abortion. Doctors left the baby unattended to let it die a slow, painful death. The baby was found alive, but it was too late to save him.
Pro-lifers contend that life begins at conception, but a case like this goes well beyond the argument of when life begins– it is quite obvious that this was a human life that was ignored and allowed to die as a result.
If this wasn’t a mobile post I would be able to link to a previous post of mine in which I quoted a person claiming that the original intent of the mother must be taken into account before medical attention can be administered to a baby that survives an abortion.
In other words– if the mother intended to abort the baby and the baby survived, that baby is not to be considered life and is ineligible for medical treatment. As disturbing as that theory is, it is even more disturbing when you realize that that was an argument being made during debate on a bill that would require a doctor to provide medical care for a baby that survived an abortion in Illinois.
It is even more disturbing still because the author of this statement is none other than Barack Obama.
He refused to vote to protect a child accidentally born alive during a failed abortion attempt– in Barack Obama’s America, the scenario that just happened it Italy would be allowed to happen here. It doesn’t matter whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, there are obvious cases of right and wrong– and this is one such case.
Lindsey Graham says immigration reform is dead until 2012
This is a mobile post, please excuse any formatting that may be lacking, such as there being no proper block quotes.
While on vacation I have been ignoring the news. At night, after the day’s activities are over, I take the time to peruse the headlines to see if anything catches my eye. Doing this has lead me to believe that the Obama administration may use Arizona’s new immigration law as a springboard to push comprehensive immigration reform. Naturally, this would include amnesty for illegal aliens. Again, this was just the sense that I was getting from the headlines, having not had the time to read the articles.
Today I saw a headline that caught my eye and I decided to read this story in which Lindsey Graham has declared that there will be no immigration reform bill until 2012. From the article (again, I apologize for the lack of block quotes):
It is impossible for me and any other serious Democrat to get this body to move forward until we prove to the American people we can secure our borders,” Mr. Graham told Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who was testifying at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. “I believe we can do it by 2012 if we’re smart,” he said.
Lindsey Graham is now suddenly realizing that the border needs to be secured before immigration reform can even be debated. Welcome to the party Lindsey, we are glad you could make it even if you are a little late. Did Arizona’s new law finally make it clear to Lindsey Graham that the border needs to be secured because of the increase violence there, and more and more innocent Americans dying there on what seems like a daily basis? If so, Arizona’s new law may have had the exact opposite effect that I thought it would; instead of the administration being able to use Arizona’s new law as a springboard toward amnesty, if Lindsey Graham is to be trusted (and I am not sure he can be trusted) illegal immigration could be dead until 2012. And that is good news because any bill that Lindsey Graham would support would surely include amnesty for the people who entered this country illegally.
Lindsey Graham was the lone Republican willing to work with Democrats on an amnesty bill, without his support there is virtually no chance of bill going anywhere, unless Barack Obama can recruit another Republican to replace him. The obvious choice would be John McCain, but he is too bust trying to rebrand himself as a conservative to go along with amnesty. He is facing a tough primary opponent and will never go along with the position that we know he truly agrees with. Not during an election year. That leaves the usual suspects; Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins– and don’t discount the pressure that will be applied to Scott Brown– these are the three to watch. If they hold true than immigration reform and amnesty for illegals could be a dead issue for awhile.
But then again, there is always reconciliation. Whatever Obama wants, Obama gets. By whatever means necessary because the end justifies the means and Barack Obama and the Democrats will do whatever it takes to pass this. They won’t let a simple thing like a lack of votes stop them. We know this is a fact because we have already seen it firsthand.
This is a mobile post, please excuse any lack of proper formatting that may exist. Hopefully the link I provided will work.
As we all know by now, Arizona has passed a new “controversial” immigration law. Apparently it is “controversial” because they actually call it a crime to be in this country illegally. That doesn’t seem to be too controversial to me, upholding the law seems quite the opposite. The fact that Arizona had to pass a law to declare an illegal act illegal in the first place is what I find disgraceful, but neither party has been willing to tackle this issue in a way that would satisfy the American people and so Arizona had to tackle the issue on her own.
Now that Arizona has done just that, the reaction from Barack Obama has been swift, calling the law “misguided.” And now Janet Napolitano has seconded that language and agrees that the law is misguided. She is now claiming that illegal immigration is a security issue and on that point I agree. But naturally I disagree with her on the answer. She feels it is necessary to “get illegals right with the law.” In other words change the law and grant the illegals amnesty. If you ask me, that is controversial; Arizona’s law is not.
Illegal immigration is probably going to be the next issue that Barack Obama tackles, and if it wasn’t before Arizona’s new law probably ensured that it would be next. Here again we have another issue in which the president holds a position that is at odds with the vast majority of the American people. If Arizona’s law does nothing else it will highlight the differences between people like Barack Obama and Janet Napolitano and the American people.
The American people consider the idea of upholding the law as being common sense, while Barack Obama and Janet Napolitano consider it “misguided.”
Vacation
We are leaving to go on vacation first thing tomorrow morning. We will be making the 24 hour drive south to Florida to go to Universal Studios for the week. Because I cannot leave blogging totally behind, I may have a few mobile posts during the week if anything comes up. There is also the chance that I will manage to use my son’s laptop and a WiFi connection to do a little blogging in the mornings before the rest of the family is ready to begin the day’s activities.
We will be back on Saturday, and if my pen is silent all week I will “see” you again next Sunday.
This post will be stickied, please check below for new posts.
Latest New Hampshire poll numbers (04/24/10)
We have some new poll numbers in for New Hampshire and it is shaping up to be an interesting and exciting election in just a few months.
Governor Lynch’s approval rating is down to 44% with 42% disapproval. This is a huge drop off in the governor’s popularity as he has always had approval ratings that hover anywhere between the lower and upper 60’s. He has fallen fast in just the last several months.
This means that Governor John Lynch– while still the frontrunner– could be beatable this year.
The governor out-polled Stephen, 47 to 36 percent; Kimball, 47 to 35 percent; and Testerman, 47 to 29 percent
Still a nice lead for the governor against the three vying Republicans, but he is under 50% against all of them. After beating the incumbent in a tight race to win for the first time, Governor Lynch has won re-election twice with about 75% of the vote each time. This appears as if it is going to be a much tougher fight for re-election this year; the three Republicans still suffer from name recognition problems, once the campaign begins in earnest and the people realize who the candidates are and what they stand for I think this race will tighten up even more.
In the second congressional district– which is being vacated by Paul Hodes as he runs for Judd Gregg’s vacated senate seat– Republicans looked poised to recapture that seat. The man that Paul Hodes beat to win that seat– Charlie Bass– is vying for the seat and he leads Katrina Swett by a 47-32 percent margin.
Meanwhile in the second district– my district– the race is considerably tighter with GOP frontrunner Frank Guinta beating Carol Shea-Porter by 46-45%. Carol Shea-Porter is only viewed favorably by 41% of those polled, this could help her opponent down the road if her approval rating stays this far under 50%.
There are several other Republican candidates running for both of these congressional seats but the poll did not include them. The poll also didn’t cover the senate race, so I have no numbers about what is going on there. Republicans have won seven out of the last eight special elections and it looks like that trend may continue in November.
New details emerge about Barack Obama’s alleged involvement in the Rod Blagojevich scandal
Yesterday I wrote about the intent of Rod Blagojevich’s defense team to subpoena Barack Obama. Rod Blagojevich was indicted for trying to sell the senate seat that was vacated when Barack Obama became president. Rod Blagojevich has always claimed that he was in contact with an agent who claimed to representing Barack Obama’s interest in filling his previously held seat, while Barack Obama has denied any such involvement in the scandal.
Today, we have learned some details of what Rod Blogojevich is claiming. Below is a list of what Barack Obama is being accused of:
1. Obama may have lied about conversations with convicted fraudster Tony Rezko
Blagojevich’s lawyers allege that Rezko admitted breaking the law by contributing “a large sum of cash” to a public official. Blagojevich’s attorneys say that public official is Obama. Obama said that Rezko never relayed a request from a lobbyist to hold a fundraiser in favor of favorable legislative action. But the point may be moot: regardless of Obama talking/not talking to Rezko, Blagojevich’s attorneys say that Obama refused the request regardless.
Redacted portion: However, the defense has a good faith belief that Mr. Rezko, President Obama’s former friend, fund-raiser, and neighbor told the FBI and the United States Attorneys a different story about President Obama. In a recent in camera proceeding, the
government tendered a three paragraph letter indicating that Rezko “has stated in interviews with the government that he engaged in election law violations by personally contributing a large sum of cash to the campaign of a public official who is not Rod Blagojevich. … Further, the public official denies being aware of cash contributions to his campaign by Rezko or others and denies having
conversations with Rezko related to cash contributions. … Rezko has also stated in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a fundraiser for the official in exchange for favorable official action, but that the public official rejected the offer. The public official denies any such conversation. In addition, Rezko has stated to the government that he and the public official had certain conversations about gaming legislation and administration, which the public official denies having had.Redacted footnote: The defense has a good faith belief that this public official is Barack Obama.
2. Obama may have overtly recommended Valerie Jarret for his Senate seat
Blagojevich’s defense team basically alleges that Obama told a certain labor union official that he (Obama) would support Valerie Jarrett’s candidacy for the Senate seat. Jarrett, referred to as “Senate Candidate B”, is now a senior advisor to the president.Redacted portion: Yet, despite President Obama stating that no representatives of his had any part of any deals, labor union president told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to labor union official on November 3, 2008 who received a phone message from Obama that evening. After labor union official listened to the message labor union official told labor union president “I’m the one”. Labor union president took that to mean that labor union official was to be the one to deliver the message on behalf of Obama that Senate Candidate B was his pick. (Labor union president 302, February 2, 2009, p. 7).
Labor union official told the FBI and the United States Attorneys “Obama expressed his belief that [Senate Candidate B] would be a good Senator for the people of Illinois and would be a candidate who could win re-election. [Labor union official] advised Obama that [labor union official] would reach out to Governor Blagojevich and advocate for [Senate Candidate B] … [Labor union official] called [labor union president] and told [labor union president] that Obama was aware that [labor union official] would be reaching out to Blagojevich.” (Labor union official 302, February 3, 2009 p. 3).
3. A supporter of President Obama may have offered quid pro quo on a Jarrett senate appointment
Redacted portion: Supporter of Presidential Candidate Obama is mentioned in a phone call on November 3, 2008, having offered “fundraising” in exchange for Senate Candidate B for senator (Blagojevich Home Phone Call # 149).4. Obama maintained a list of good Senate candidates
Redacted portion: President-elect Obama also suggested Senate Candidate A to Governor Blagojevich. John Harris told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to President’s Chief of Staff on November 12, 2008. Harris took notes of the conversation and wrote that President’s Chief had previously worked as Blagojevich’s press secretary. Obama agreed of Staff told Harris that Senate Candidate A was acceptable to Obama as a senate pick. (Harris handwritten notes, OOG1004463) President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that “he could not say where but somewhere it was communicated to him that” Senate Candidate A was a suggested candidate viewed as one of the four “right” candidates “by the Obama transition team.”5. Rahm Emanuel allegedly floated Cheryl Jackson’s name for the Senate seat
Redacted portion: President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that he had a conversation discussing the Senate seat with Obama on December 7, 2008 in Obama’s car. President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI “Obama expressed concern about Senate Candidate D being appointed as Senator.[President’s Chief of Staff] suggested they might need an expanded list to possibly include names of African Americans that came out of the business world. [President’s Chief of Staff] thought he suggested Senate Candidate E who was the head of the Urban League and with President’s Chief of Staff’s suggestion.
6. Obama had a secret phone call with Blagojevich
Redacted portion: President-elect Obama also spoke to Governor Blagojevich on December 1, 2008 in Philadelphia. On Harris Cell Phone Call # 139, John Harris and Governor’s legal counsel discuss a conversation Blagojevich had with President-elect Obama. The government claims a conspiracy existed from October 22, 2008 continuing through December 9, 2008.6 That conversation is relevant to the defense of the government’s theory of an ongoing conspiracy. Only Rod Blagojevich and President Obama can testify to the contents of that conversation. The defense is allowed to present evidence that corroborates the defendant’s testimony.
These are some serious charges and I do not believe that Rod Blagojevich would make them lightly. There has to be something to this or he would never risk putting Barack Obama on the stand. Someone is lying in this scandal and while Rod Blagojevich may be a despicable person for attempting to sell a senate seat, if it is proven that Barack Obama was involved in this game, he is equally despicable.
We need to know if the president was involved in such underhanded politics as is being claimed. If Rod Blagojevich is lying than he needs to face further charges for libeling a sitting president of the United States, but if he is telling the truth, Barack Obama is involved in a major scandal. A scandal that will make Scooter Libby look like an altar boy.
This information was supposed to be redacted, but it wasn’t done well enough and the details of the subpoena have come to light. My only fear here is that Barack Obama’s lawyers will be able to stop him from testifying based on this fact.
Arizona governor signs tough new illegal immigration law, Barack Obama vows to fight it
I wrote about the proposal in the Arizona legislature that would pass the strictest illegal immigration measures in the country in this post. This measure would make it illegal for people to enter the country illegally. I know how absurd that last sentence is, I also know how absurd it is that a state must pass a law that reaffirms the fact that an illegal act is actually illegal, but such is life in today’s America. This law also gives the Arizona state police the right to ask for proof of citizenship to those that they feel might be here illegally.
Arizona’s governor– Jan Brewer– had declined to say what she would do when this bill reached her desk, but today she did the right thing and signed this bill into law. Part of her statement:
We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act,” Brewer said after signing the law. “But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation
So today Arizona has tough illegal immigration law on the books and it comes none to soon as violence with Mexican drug lords at the border is reaching a critical stage. Not everyone is happy with this new legislation– the most prominent opponent being Barack Obama, who has vowed to fight this new state law.
Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others, that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona
He went on to say that Arizona’s new law threatens, “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” Barack Obama made these comments in front of newly naturalized American citizens who served in our military defending their new country.
First of all, I would like to give kudos and congratulations to these new Americans. They became citizens the proper way, they earned it. Secondly, I would remind the president that the “fairness we cherish as Americans” does not apply to those that broke the law to enter the country, and as such are not Americans. And lastly, I would like to ask the president a question. How is it fair to these newly minted Americans and to all of those who are standing in line patiently waiting to become Americans the right way that we would provide amnesty to those who jumped ahead of them and entered this country illegally?
The president is calling Arizona’s plan to enforce immigration laws “misguided,” but who really is misguided on this issue? I would claim that those who feel it is appropriate to grant amnesty to people who didn’t follow the proper procedure to enter this country, while the people who are trying to do the right thing are left swinging in the breeze are the people who are misguided– and Barack Obama is one of these misguided people.
Barack Obama, and the Democrats in congress, are preparing to push an immigration reform bill that includes amnesty for illegal aliens. They are going to move full steam ahead on an effort to strip Arizona– and other states– of the right to enforce illegal immigration laws and for this we are supposed to be happy? They are preparing to change the laws so that people who broke the law will be rewarded, while those that are following the law are going to be punished.
Barack Obama also went on to say this:
And so on a day like this, we are also reminded of how we must remain both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws,” he said. “This includes fixing America’s broken immigration system
When Barack Obama says that we are a nation of laws, I agree with him. I also agree with the president when he says that we need to fix our broken immigration system. The problem is that Barack Obama wants to ignore the laws, he wants to change the laws so that there virtually are no laws when it comes to illegally entering the country. What incentive will there be for people to try to become citizens by following the law, when Barack Obama is ready to propose eliminating the penalty for the laws that were broken by the people who did not enter this country following the laws?
And while I agree that our immigration system is broken, I couldn’t disagree with the fix that he intends any more than I do. The system is broken because the laws aren’t being followed and there is no punishment to those that break the laws. We do not need to soften these laws and grant amnesty, we need to enforce the laws that we already have.
Arizona is on the right track and Barack Obama feels threatened by this and it looks as though he is prepared to try to stop Arizona and other states from enforcing immigration laws by eliminating many of those laws. This is the definition of “irresponsibility.”
Democrats promised that they would run the most honest, ethical, and transparent congress in history. They have already failed on the issue of transparency and now they may be failing on the issue of ethics.
When the news broke that Eric Massa was engaged in “tickle fights” with some of his male staffers, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrat leaders claimed that they only learned about these claims when we did.
It turns out that there had been complaints filed against Eric Massa much earlier and that these complaints were ignored. We need to know what these leaders knew and when they knew it. On the surface it appears that the Democrat leadership knew about these accusations but decided to protect one of their own, but after it became apparent that Massa was a “no” vote on healthcare reform they turned on him and demanded his resignation and they got it. But he did not go down quietly and now the accusations are under investigation and Nancy Pelosi may be called on to testify in this investigation.
If she is forced to testify, she will not be alone as Democrat majority leader Steny Hoyer has already been called to testify in this investigation.
Do you remember when the Mark Foley story broke? Democrats– Nancy Pelosi included– were quick to jump on the fact that there were rumors about Foley’s actions, that many in congress knew about them, and that Republicans tried to cover it up. People like Nancy Pelosi quickly jumped on the story and claimed that Republicans knew about Foley almost from the beginning and did nothing. But the quickness of the Democrats claims that Republicans knew about Foley left me wondering how the Democrats knew that Republicans knew about Foley. (Did that sentence make sense? It did as I was writing it.)
I have always been of the opinion that Democrats must also have known about the Foley scandal before it broke, but did not do anything about it until it became politically beneficial to them, shortly before an election. I am not excusing the Republican coverup of the scandal, but I do find it interesting that the Democrats did not find the Foley scandal so outrageous that they had to go public with it, instead they decided to sit on the story for months while an election drew closer.
There are comparisons to the Foley scandal and the Massa scandal. Again, it appears as if the Democrat leadership knew about this scandal in advance. And if Eric Massa could have been counted on to vote “yes” on healthcare reform, I have no doubt that they would have continued to cover up this story.
Hopefully this investigation will eventually call on Nancy Pelosi to testify, the American people need to know whether the Democrats have failed in their promise to run an honest and ethical congress. It certainly seems as if they have failed.
America's Watchtower 