Obama administration authorizes cutting the Mexican Border patrol
Beginning on October 1st the Mexican border patrol will begin cutting the number of agents stationed at the Mexican border as authorized by the Obama administration. Some of the agents will be relocated on the Canadian border. These agents will be removed from the sections of the Mexican border that are deemed under control.
The border patrol will be reducing their numbers by 384 agents. The theory is that these agents are being removed from sections of the border that the government has under control, however there are still 1300 miles at the Mexican border that are not under control. The removal of these agents will only help to ensure that those parts of the border that are under control will not remain so. If there are still 1300 uncontrolled miles along the Mexican border and if we are going to rmove these agents, which I don’t think that we should, wouldn’t the country be better served to sent these agents to the uncontrolled portions of the Mexican border? That way once the illegal immigrants start crossing over the border in the once secured locations the border patrol will more easily be able to return to their original posts.
We do not need less agents on the Mexican border, we need more. Yet this administraion is taking the people who guard our southern border away from their posts and sending them to the Canadian border. This will incourage illegal immigrants to cross the border in the discarded areas.
Treasury department agrees to investigate Acorn
The news on ACORN gets even better or worse, depending on your viewpoint, for ACORN every day. Today the Treasury Department as agreed to open up a formal “review” of ACORN and other nonprofit organizations.
Here is part of the text from the release by the Treasury Department:
The lack of an appropriate firewall between ACORN’s charitable activities and its political arm has raised significant questions regarding the appropriateness of their status as a taxable nonprofit corporation and their management of federal dollars,” Issa said. “Cutting ties with ACORN is a good first step for the federal government, but since they have been the recipients of taxpayer dollars, we have an obligation to investigate to discover whether or not those dollars were misused in anyway
The clock has run out on ACORN, the jig is up, the shit is about to hit the fan. Insert any other fitting cliche here. Two 20+ year old Patriots have exposed ACORN as the corupt organization that many of us always knew they were in such a manner that it can no longer be ignored by the press and more importantly by the government. In light of the recent videos several government entities have cut their ties with ACORN and now we are going to have a formal review of ACORN.
It will be interesting to see if we have a legitimate review or if the review will be a white washing of the corrupt organization. I am hopeful that this will be a legitimate investigation because I feel that any goverment association with ACORN will prove to toxic to the associated government entity.
This organization has been getting away with too much for far too long and the American people are finally starting to realize that the people who were sounding the warnings were not just fringe radicals. They had legitimate conserns all along.
It will be interesting to see how an administration with such close ties to ACORN handles this situation. It is important for the administration to realize that the American people are awake and they are watching how this plays out.
Today the Massachusetts senate passed a bill that would allow Governor Deval Patrick to appoint a temporary replacement for Ted Kennedy’s senate seat until the special election can be held in January. The bill will now head to Deval Patrick’s desk for his signature. The rumor is that Governor Patrick will declare an emergency to allow him to appoint the replacement without delay.
Before I delve into this topic a little history lesson needs to be provided for those who are not familiar with Massachusetts. In 2004 Massachusetts’ law stated that an interim senate vacancy was to be filled by gubernatorial appointment. There was one problem with this law in the eyes of the liberal state legislature; John Kerry was expected to be elected president and Mitt Romney, a Republican, was the governor. The state legislature was scared to death that a Republican governor would be able to appoint John Kerry’s replacement. That was not acceptable so the push was on to change the law so that the residents of Massachusetts could elect Kerry’s replacement. Needless to say it was rightly assumed that Massachusetts voters would elect another Democrat to John Kerry’s senate seat.
Ted Kennedy led the charge on this issue, he was the leading voice on the issue of taking the appointment away from the governor. The claim then was that it was un-American to not let the people decide who their voice should be in the senate. Needless to say– the law was changed and the decision was taken away from Mitt Romney. A choice that events would prove was never required.
Fast forward to 2009.
Just before Ted Kennedy died he wrote a letter, or probably more accurately someone wrote a letter for him, stating that it was of the utmost importance that Massachusetts had two voices in the senate. In order to ensure that result Ted Kennedy wrote that the governor of Massachusetts should have the authority to appoint an interim senator until a special election could be held. Suddenly the argument went from it being un-American for the people not to elect their senator to it is vastly important that Massachusetts voters have two voices in the senate. It didn’t matter that Massachusetts only had one voice in the senate over the last year that Ted Kennedy was on his deathbed.
Ted Kennedy’s last act was one of stupendous duplicity. He championed changing the senatorial appointment law in 2004 to ensure that no Republican was appointed to John Kerry’s seat but just before his death he set the wheels in motion to overturn his own law to allow a Democrat governor to do what he would have denied Mitt Romney from doing. And today that wish came to fruition.
This is what happens when a state has one party rule, they make up the rules as they go along to ensure that the stay in power.
With that history lesson in the books we must now look at why this change of heart took place in the state legislature. There is no doubt that the voters of Massachusetts will elect a Democrat to replace Ted Kennedy, but that is not the issue at hand. There is one reason and one reason only for the change in Massachusetts law– healthcare reform.
There is still going to be a special election in January for the people to decide who should represent them, this law does not change that. But there is an imminent reason that Massachusetts felt the need to appoint a Democrat to Ted Kennedy’s seat before the January special election– the healthcare reform bill will come up for a vote before January and the federal government wanted to ensure that they would have the votes to pass it. With Ted Kennedy gone and with former grand master of the KKK and current Democrat senator Robert Byrd incapacitated the Democrats need all the votes that they can get. Political pressure was applied to Massachusetts at the federal level from Harry Reid to have this law changed for the sole purpose of gaining a yea vote on healthcare reform, after that bill passes Massachusetts voters will be able to decide their representation.
The state legislature doesn’t give a damn about whether voters have two voices, neither does the federal government. They just want to ensure the passage of the healthcare reform bill.
It goes without saying that as a state rights advocate I find this intrusion by the federal government into what should be a state issue to be repulsive but that is what occurred in this instance. This had nothing to do with giving the people two voices in the senate. If Ted Kennedy truly believed that Massachusetts needed to voices in the senate he would have stepped down as soon as he realized that he would not be able to adequately perform the responsibilities that the voters of Massachusetts entrusted him.
Blue Dog Democrats and conservative Republicans worked tirelessly with the liberal faction of congress to forge a bipartisan healthcare reform bill. While I still disagree with this legislation at least there was an effort being made to make this bill less intrusive to the American citizens.
Now that the bill has made it to the floor and will soon be voted on Nancy Pelosi isn’t happy with the contents that were agreed upon with the Blue Dogs and the conservatives so she is going to change the bill before it is ever voted on.
If Nancy Pelosi has her way most of the concessions that were made in order to gain the votes of the more conservative factions in the house will be abandoned. She is looking to increase the taxes on the rich as well as strengthen the “public option,” two issues that the Blue Dogs and conservative worked so hard on weakening.
The Blue Dog Democrats and the conservative Republicans negotiated this bill in good faith but it now appears that Nancy Pelosi is not willing to adhere to those negotiations. The Blue Dogs and the conservatives were played for fools. While they negotiated in good faith Nancy Pelosi does not seem willing to give an inch, she did not negotiate in good faith. She knew all along that she would not support the bill that was negotiated and now she is trying to change what was agreed upon.
While I do not support the bill as constituted, a deal was made and Nancy Pelosi is not willing to honor it. The vote should be held on the bill as it was fairly negotiated. A deal is a deal.
This is sure to drive away support from the Blue Dogs and conservatives but with Democrats threatening to use reconciliation to pass this bill without any Republican support we have to wonder whether there will be enough opposition to stop it.
If the Democrats do decide to use reconciliation to pass this bill they surely see no reason to vote on the limitations that were agreed to in conference. If they use reconciliation they might as well go for everything that they can and that means a strong government option.
So much for the new age of bipartisanship. It is business as usual in Washington.
The IRS severs ties with ACORN while Steny Hoyer holds off judgement
More good news on the ACORN front. The IRS has now cut its ties with ACORN.
ACORN, still reeling from being caught on video trying to help a “pimp” to avoid taxes and set up an underage prostitution ring, has been removed from participating in the census and has had future funding cut off by both the house and senate now has suffered the indignation of having the IRS also sever ties with this vile organization.
ACORN is losing its hold on the government more and more every day and it has come none to soon. ACORN has been known to be corrupt for years, yet the government has failed to address the problem, but they are finally facing the music and it is about time.
There are not many who are willing to defend this organization any more now that they have been caught on video defending the indefensible. But there is one man who still is holding out judgment on the organization– House majority leader Steny Hoyer is still not ready to withhold all federal funding of ACORN.
Steny Hoyer did vote to stop funding ACORN but he is holding off judgement as to whether ACORN should permanently lose its federal funding until more facts are known. evidently helping people avoid paying taxes and supporting a “pimp” who was trying to set up an underage prostitution ring is not enough of a crime for Steny Hoyer to commit to withholding ACORN funding permanently.
One has to wonder what kind of illegal practices ACORN would have to engage in for Steny Hoyer to deem federal funding inappropriate.
United Nations climate change summit’s large carbon footprint
The United Nations is holding its annual climate change summit. They are trying to persuade people across the world that they need to conserve energy and wean themselves off of their addiction to oil.
The United Nations, and other global warming alarmists, are constantly reminding us that the world will end any minute because of the rising tides and the melting ice caps due to our own excesses unless we act immediately to adopt anti-capitalist ideals in order curb economic and population growth.
The need to act is so urgent that the United Nations needs to engage in their own excesses so that they can hold a climate change summit to tell us that we are too excessive. While the United Nations tells us that we need to stop driving gas guzzling cars and that we need to reduce our carbon footprint these very same people are driving motorcades to the climate change summit.
What a bunch of fucking hypocrites and frauds these people are. They demand that we live our lives one way while they do just the opposite. And to top it all off they do the opposite of what they claim we should do while en route to the summit to discuss how the unwashed masses should live their lives. If they want us to live a certain way the least that they could do would be to set the example and live their lives the same way they demand that we live our lives. If they truly believed that man-made climate change is an imminent danger to the people of the world wouldn’t they at least adhere to the restrictions that they want to impose on the people?
Wasn’t it candidate Obama who told the American people that we cannot set our thermostats to 72 degrees and we could not drive gas guzzling SUV’s? Wasn’t he saying that America needed to set the example that the world could follow? I think it was, yet this hypocritical bastard took a motorcade that was somewhere between twenty and thirty cars long to the United Nations summit on climate change. Shouldn’t he be setting the example that Americans should try to follow?
But the president wasn’t alone, all of the world leaders who are lecturing us on reducing our carbon footprint arrived the the climate change summit in gas guzzling motorcades. It is just so damned frustrating that these people who are using climate change as a way to control human behavior don’t even find it necessary to hide their own anti-environmental, carbon footprint creating excesses. And their excesses are in excess of the excesses that they are railing against on a seemingly daily basis. This is more of the do as I say, not as I do mentality that is seen in excess with the very people who think that we won’t notice that they aren’t quite living up to the expectations they have for us.
Energy secretary Steven Chu: “Americans are like teenagers”
One of the many things that I have been critical of President Obama for is his condescending attitude. When people disagree with him and he tries to defend himself against the criticism he sounds as if he is lecturing the American people. He talks as if the American people do not know what is best for them and that only he knows what is best. In other words; he talks to us as if he is our parent and we are the children that he must raise properly. This is insulting and arrogant sounding to many Americans.
But now the perception that I just described has actually been admitted to by one member of the administration. While talking about the environment and global warming Obama’s energy secretary, Steven Chu, put into words the very perception that I was writing about above.
The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act
There you have it, Steven Chu has called all of us teenage children who need to be taught the proper way to act. How condescending is that statement? This just shows us how this administration feels about us. We did not elect Barack Obama to be our daddy, we elected him to be our president.
This administration truly believes that it must teach us how to act, Steven Chu is now living proof of that. The scary part is that the administration can legislate us into acting the way that it wants us to act. That is what this climate change bill is all about; controlling the people’s behavior.
The Obama administration realizes that Steven Chu let the cat out of the bag and now they are trying to spin this by claiming that Chu was really saying that we need to educate teenagers on ways to save energy.
That is not what he said. You read the quote above I will let you be the judge.
Obama to Letterman: “I was black before the election”
President Obama, thankfully, is finally trying to put an end to all of the talk within his own party that the majority of the people who oppose his healthcare reform efforts are just racists and don’t have legitimate concerns about the reform.
Healthcare reform protesters have faced insinuations from the likes of high ranking Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi that we are Nazis and Jimmy Carter has gone of record as saying a majority of the protesters are racists. The president had remained silent on the issue leading many to believe that he condoned such outrageous accusations. But then last week he finally spoke about the accusations of racism being levied against his opponents when he said that he did not believe a majority of those who oppose healthcare reform are doing so because he is black.
Tonight President Obama took this position one step further on David Letterman’s show when he reiterated a point that I have tried to make in the past. When asked by Letterman if the protests were founded in racism he replied:
I think it’s important to realize that I was actually black before the election
I had tried to make the point in previous posts that while there is still some racism and racists out there that a majority of Americans have moved past race as an issue. I used Barack Obama’s election as proof that most Americans do not look at a person and see race first. In these posts I have been told that I can not use the one example of Barack Obama to prove that racism doesn’t exist. (Although I never claimed that it doesn’t exist.) My point was that as a whole Americans have moved past race and no longer look at people through a prism of race. And tonight Barack Obama has seconded my position.
A majority of white Americans voted for Barack Obama, they did not care about his color. They voted for the man and his positions not for or against his color. Barack Obama would never have been elected if racism was as prevalent as the left would have you believe. To try and paint these same Americans as racists for opposing one of his positions is nothing more than an attempt to smear people just for having a difference in policy.
President Obama has tried to put an end to the name calling that has been going on in his party so the question is, will the members of his party follow his lead and stop calling the protesters racists? President Obama has taken the high road, will the other Democrats do likewise?
It is time to put the focus back on the issue at hand– healthcare reform.
President Obama is open to a newspaper bailout
Just when you thought that all of the bailout talk was over along comes the next possible government bailout– the newspapers.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) has introduced S. 673, the so-called “Newspaper Revitalization Act,” that would give outlets tax deals if they were to restructure as 501(c)(3) corporations. That bill has so far attracted one cosponsor, Cardin’s Maryland colleague Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D).
This bill would give tax breaks to newspapers if they restructure as non-profit organizations. The president has said that he “will be happy” to look at this proposal.
Call me cynical but does anyone else have apprehensions about newspapers getting preferential treatment from the government. There would seem to be a major conflict of interest here. How would newspapers be expected to be impartial if they were receiving federal money?
Obama administration urges New York governor not to run for re-election
There is a report out there that claims President Obama is urging New York Governor David Paterson not to run for re-election. Governor Paterson is unpopular and has been scandal ridden, Obama wants a more popular Democrat to take his place.
I would just like to know what business it is of the president to tell a governor that he should not run for re-election. Frankly this is none of his business, it is up to the voters of New York to decide who should be their governor.
