Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been ordered by the Department of Homeland Security to stop his “controversial” program of arresting illegal aliens based solely on the fact that the people being arrested are illegal aliens. According to the Department of Homeland Security the illegal aliens must commit an additional crime before they can be arrested.
Sheriff Arpaio says that he will continue to enforce his “controversial” policy even with the threat from Janet Napolitano, who is having him investigated for racial profiling. According to Janet Napolitano Sheriff Arpaio will still have the authority to check the immigration status of those who have been arrested for committing other crimes but he is not to check immigration status on people who have not committed a crime other than breaking into the country illegally.
It would seem to me that checking the immigration status of a person only after they have committed a crime in addition to entering the country illegally is the same as closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, to use a cliche. If a person can be arrested for the primary offence of illegally migrating to the United States and is captured before he or she is able to commit another crime it would be beneficial to all of the citizens and LEGAL aliens in the United States. Why wait until another crime has been committed before doing anything about the people who are here illegally?
This policy makes no sense, but I wouldn’t expect anything less from Janet Napolitano. To use another cliche; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Isn’t that the case here? Wouldn’t it be better to find, arrest, and deport illegal aliens before they commit crimes against American citizens?
Unfortunately Janet Napolitano finds it more important to protect Mexicans who are illegally crossing the Mexican border from the perceived crime of racial profiling; she finds it more important to enforce a politically correct policy to protect illegal aliens than she finds it important to protect the citizens and LEGAL aliens of the United States. This seems to be at odds with the very title of the department that she is in charge of. She is putting the rights of illegal aliens above the rights of the people that she is supposed to be protecting.
I tip my hat to Sheriff Joe Arpaio and say to him, “keep up the good work, most Americans agree with you– thank you.”
Nancy Pelosi says the Value Added Tax is on the table
Nancy Pelosi is now on the record as saying that a Value Added Tax is on the table in order to pay for the healthcare reform bill. The Value Added Tax (VAT) is a tax that is put on manufacturers as value is added to the product that is being manufactured.
Nancy Pelosi has also said that this VAT, if implemented, will not affect middle class Americans. This is bullshit. If a tax is implemented on a manufacturer that tax will be passed on to the consumer. A tax is nothing more than an expense to a manufacturer and the manufacturer always passes the expenses incurred in the production of their goods on to the consumer.
It is really simple to understand, the VAT will amount to a national sales tax. Americans will pay more for every purchase they make. When Barack Obama was running for president he claimed that the middle class would not see ANY tax increase, that promise was already broken with the cigarette tax increase and if the VAT ever passes he will have broken his no new taxes pledge yet again.
Democrat leaders fight against posting bills online
While running for president Barack Obama promised that he would run the most honest, open, and transparent government in history, part of this promise was his pledge to post all bills online for the public to read for five days before congress voted on them. This cooling off period was supposed to be implemented so that the public could have input on all legislation before it was voted on and signed by the president.
Needless to say there has not been one bill that has been voted on and signed by the president that has been posted online by the administration for the public to read before the final vote was taken. The most notable example of this was the massive stimulus bill that not only was the public not able to read, congress didn’t bother to read it either.
Now there is a move underway by the Sunlight Foundation to pass legislation that would require congress to post bills online for 72 hours before they can be voted on. Some house members have also taken up the transparency effort of the foundation. There is currently a petition in the house, with unanimous Republican support, that would require a 72 hour online review period.
You would think that because Barack Obama promised a five day review period prior to his signing of any legislation that Democrats would be in favor of helping the president keep his promise but you would be mistaken, Democrat leaders oppose this attempt at transparency.
Needless to say this effort by the Sunlight Foundation and most Republicans is an attempt to get the healthcare reform bill posted online before the vote. The Democrats know that they more people read about the healthcare reform bill they more they oppose it. Just last week senate Democrats put an end to any chance this bill had of being posted online prior to the vote, they know that public support is already waning and posting the bill would only toughen the opposition. They would rather help the president break his transparency pledge than let the American people read what is eventually going to end up in this bill.
That fact alone should be enough to drain away all support for this bill with the exception of the far left. If this bill was so wonderful the Democrats would have no problem keeping the president’s promise to post online all bills but they know that the majority of Americans are against this bill and they are trying to keep the most insideous aspects of this bill hidden. Suddenly being transparent is not such a good idea.
We were promised the most open, honest, and transparent government in history but the actions of this administration are at odds with the transparency campaign promise. We were promised change but all we have is more of the same.
New report reveals the federal government’s hostile takeover of the banking industry
A new report was released on Monday that claims the government forced the nine largest banks to accept TARP money whether they wanted, or needed, to or not– or else. These banks were given an offer that they just couldn’t refuse– literally.
Officials at Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and other federal regulators felt strongly that the nine institutions should not be permitted to reject the government’s capital infusions
But what if the banks refused the billions of taxpayer dollars?
If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance
There would be no refusing, you will take the money and like it.
Furthermore, former Secretary Paulson told SIGTARP that, if necessary, the government would make clear to the nine executives that they had no choice but to take the money
The government chose nine banks that didn’t need TARP money and forced them to accept it. The question is why? The answer that you will get from the federal government is that by giving healthy banks extra money they will be able to give out loans and this would stimulate the economy. The truth in my opinion is much more nefarious than that.
We know that if a company accepts federal bailout money that company is subject to strict government regulations– including but not limited to executive pay restrictions. By forcing and threatening these banks into accepting federal bailout money the government is in effect forcing government regulations upon the banks. This was nothing more than a hostile takeover of the banking and mortgage industry designed to ensure that the federal government would be able to gain control over the banking industry.
White House says withdrawal from Afghanistan is not an option
When General McChrystal proclaimed that more troops were needed in Afghanistan or the mission would fail President Obama was left with three options; give the general the troops needed to secure victory, ignore the general and continue to fight with the current troop levels, or withdraw from Afghanistan.
I support giving General McChrystal the troops that he needs to win this war, but if Obama is not willing to commit more troops than I find it more acceptable to withdraw from Afghanistan than I do to fight a war that the commanding general admits is not winnable under the current circumstances.
Today the White House has stated that withdrawal from Afghanistan is not an option. This means that the president is now faced with two options; giving the general the troops needed to secure victory, or continue to fight a war under the conditions that the commanding general admitted will fail. Now that Obama has seemingly made the decision to stay in Afghanistan, a decision that I agree with, I can only hope that he will provide General McChrystal with the troops that he needs to win this war.
We have attempted to fight this politically correct type of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It wasn’t until President Bush finally decided to send the troops necessary to win the Iraq war that we finally were able to secure the victory that is now leading to the draw down of troops in Iraq. This should prove to be a teachable moment to President Obama. Now that we are going to stay in Afghanistan it is time to send in the needed troops and secure a victory.
Obama’s energy adviser: “no climate change bill until next year”
One of the benefits of having the healthcare reform bill stalled in debate(besides the fact that the healthcare bill is stalled in debate) is the fact that it has put other disastrous legislation on hold. With the unanticipated delay in passing healthcare reform the disastrous climate change bill has been put on the back-burner.
One of Obama top energy advisers has said that there will be no climate change legislation this year. Certainly this is good news but a climate change bill has been introduced in congress so while this delay is welcome the bill’s eventual passage is not so uncertain next year.
Once the healthcare reform debate is over the senate and the president will focus their attention on the climate change bill. Democrats had hoped to have this legislation passed and signed before the president makes yet another trip to Copenhagen– this time for the climate change conference– in December. This goal will not be met but the president is a firm believer in the global warming hoax and the pressure will be applied to members of congress, if not before December than after December, to get this bill passed to show the world that we are truly ready to bring down America’s standard of living to levels enjoyed by many other European nations.
The president was hoping that when he made his return trip to Copenhagen he would have more than just an apology for America’s energy use and a promise to curb it, he was hoping to have an actual bill signed to prove he is serious about this cause. He will have to settle at doing what he does best– apologizing for America and promising that he will do better the next time.
Famed atheist crusader Michael Newdow took his quest to New Hampshire. He was representing an atheist family who claimed that their rights were being violated because the Pledge of Allegiance was being said in school. We all know what the offending words in the pledge are– under God. These two little words drive atheists crazy. How people can be offended just by the word “God” whether or not you believe in God is beyond me.
The parents of the children whose rights were supposedly violated are also members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It goes without saying but I will say it anyway; the first amendment guarantees the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion. The first amendment states that congress shall make no law respecting an esablishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This amendment was meant to stop state sponsored religion. It was not meant to wipe the slate clean of all references to God. Just mentioning the word “God” does not constitute the state founding of a religion and it does not prohibit an atheist from the free exercise of non-religion, therefor it does not violate the first amendment.
And a New Hampshire court has agreed with my opinion. The court has dismissed the case and children will still be allowed to recite the Pledge of Allegiance– at least for now, there will be an appeal.
According to New Hampshire law schools are required to set aside time for the Pledge of Allegiance but student participation is voluntary. If you disagree with the pledge for any reason you are not required to recite it. If you are so offended by the word “God” in the pledge that you break out in hives at the mere mention of the word than the school cannot require you to utter those distasteful words.
But that is not good enough for the militant atheists, it is not good enough that their children do not have to recite a pledge that they do not believe in– they want to remove all references to God in all walks of life. They want to trample on the rights of those who do believe in God. They want to force their non-beliefs on the believers. Conveniently they forget the second part of the freedom of religion clause, the part that says congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. They are the ones who are trying to violate the first amendment.
Someone please tell me how children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance violates the first amendment. I guess I just don’t understand. The pledge is not a pledge of religion, the words “under God” are such a small part of the pledge. The pledge was meant as an affirmation of ones belief in his country. The children are not being indoctrinated into religion by reciting the pledge.
I would like to take the time to break down the pledge and what it actually means but I cannot say it any better than Red Skelton did years ago so I will take this opportunity to post Red Skelton’s Pledge of Allegiance below.
Doesn’t that seem to be all too prophetic?
Democrat calls the healthcare reform bill gibberish
Some of the most critical comments about the healthcare reform bill have come from a Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, Thomas Carper of Delaware. He admits that most members of congress will not read it because nobody understands what the hell it says.
I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life
He is admitting that he, and most others will not bother to read the bill because it is too confusing. If this bill is too confusing for the people who wrote the bill to understand than how are we supposed to blindly believe that they are doing what is right for the American people with this bill?
But he goes on:
Carper described the type of language the actual text of the bill would finally be drafted in as “arcane,” “confusing,” “hard stuff to understand,” and “incomprehensible.” He likened it to the “gibberish” used in credit card disclosure forms
He calls the healthcare bill “gibberish” and incomprehensible yet we are supposed to believe that congress knows what the hell they are voting on. This is a man who is on the Senate Finance Committee who is admitting that even he doesn’t understand the language that is in the bill, because of this he sees no need to read the bill. How many others who will be voting for this legislation fall into the category of not understanding the bill that they will be voting on? How many others will blindly vote for this bill without understanding what is in it in order to tow the party line?
Politicians, who supposedly are the best and brightest among the American people, are about to vote on a bill without even understanding the “gibberish” that they are voting for. Is this supposed to give us a warm and fuzzy feeling?
Senators miffed over Harry Reid’s healthcare reform deal
When the Medicare cuts were proposed that were supposed to pay for the healthcare reform bill Senator Harry Reid was not happy. He wanted to ensure that his state, Nevada was protected against the additional costs that would have been passed on to the states.
He was successful in his protest for his state, language was added that guaranteed that the federal government would pay 100% of the Medicare costs for Nevada and three other states. Needless to say senators from the non-exempted states are now looking for the same deal that Harry Reid secured for his state.
I do not hold it against Harry Reid that he was able to secure this deal, after all, he is there to represent the interests of his state and that is exactly what he did. But he may have opened up a can of worms with the senators of the states which are not receiving special exemptions. He may have unwittingly made this version of healthcare reform much harder to pass.
There are now senators from 48 states who want the same deal as Harry Reid. If they do not get it they may not be willing to vote for this bill. The opposition to this bill is more than partizan “bickering,” it is also Democrat versus Democrat.
There is still a long way to go before this bill passes, in a perfect world it will not pass, and as more senators begin to look out for the interests of their states the cost of the bill will rise. If more states are exempted from the Medicare changes that are supposed to pay for this bill the question must be asked, who will pay for this bill? We all know the answer to that question, we will.
Michelle Obama’s “Sacrifice” to bring the Olympics to Chicago
Michelle Obama has made what she calls a sacrifice by flying to Denmark on Air Force One on the taxpayer’s dime. Flying to Europe is a sacrifice that she is willing to make, wait for it, for the children.
When flying to Europe free of charge on Air Force One is a sacrifice I guess I just don’t understand the meaning of the word sacrifice any more. We have been told by the left that Americans would have to sacrifice in order to save the planet from global warming. We have been told we would have to stop driving SUV’s and other gas guzzling cars as a sacrifice to the environment but now we have the First Lady claiming that by flying to Denmark in a private jet that she is the one making a sacrifice.
While many Americans drive SUV’s out of necessity, driving their children back and forth to soccer, baseball, and football practice, and are being asked to sacrifice in the name of a greater good, Michelle Obama calls a joyride to Europe which must do much more serious damage to the same environment that Americans are being asked to sacrifice for a sacrifice that she is willing to make for the children.
I guess I just don’t understand the disconnect here.
