August 20, 2010
Q: Why are Massachusetts drivers called Massholes? A: Because they suck at driving.
Not much time for blogging this week, so instead of breaking it down by day and blogging on what I’m reading, seeing, hearing daily, I’m just going to give you a quick roundup of my thoughts for the week.
I started the week in Boston. They sell liquor on Sundays in the great state of MA (yay for me!) and I was reminded why Massachusetts drivers are called Massholes…it’s because they suck at driving and drive like assholes. With that said, I was pleasantly surprised to hear some radio hosts and callers talking smack about Obama on my ride into the training I was up there for. They were pissed that Obama was, once again, sticking his nose in a local issue he had no business sticking his nose in-the Ground Zero Mosque, or the “Mosque formerly known as the Ground Zero Mosque” as the AP will soon be calling it. Apparently, those Bostonians are still pissed about the whole Barack-calling-the-Cambridge-police-stupid-thing. Oops! I’m sure there aren’t too many happy New Yorkers, and patriotic Americans in general, too psyched about his nonsensical opinion about the GZM.
The Obamas are on vacation, again. Yup. Not much to say on that one. You know how many vacations I have been on since Obama took office? Zero. Glad to see that he’s feeling the same pain we all are in these tough economic times that him and his colleagues keep making tougher with their retarded, power-grabbing, over-reaching, un-constitutional bills. Uh-oh! I said retarded. Am I going to get in trouble now with the political correctness police? Oh well!
The jobs report is out and EXPECTEDLY it’s not good. Foreclosure rates are on the rise, again, too and Obama’s foreclosure program isn’t panning out the way it was supposed to. Wait, did someone just say we are in a recovery? Maybe I’m confused as to what that’s supposed to mean. Can I get the definition to that word? Is someone going to tell Obama and Biden that the word recovery clearly doesn’t mean whatever they think it means?
Anyway, I don’t have much time this week and probably won’t be blogging next week. Your tax dollars need to be spent! So, I’m on my way to Norman, OK. I’ll try to report back as soon as possible.
August 13, 2010
Tom Coburn for President in 2012
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
What is wrong with CT Democrats? I have to wonder. Years ago they voted Joe Lieberman out of their party for anti-war crazy Ned Lamont. Yesterday, they gave the nomination to a proven liar who lied about his service during the Vietnam War. I’m adding this to my list of reasons that I won’t move back to that state.
What is the one major difference between any disgraced Republican and any disgraced Democrat? The Republican Party, as worthless as it has proven to be, will force a fellow Republican under a cloud of suspicion for ethics violations to resign. Democrats? Not only do they not force their ethically challenged colleagues not to resign, but the colleagues under suspicion boast about how they’re not going anywhere. Message to Charlie Rangel: You’re a billion years old! Could you effing retire already?
And, my Democrat-bashing must continue on one more note, on this fabulous Wednesday. The House passed yet another stimulus bill, yesterday, to save union and Democrat politicians’ teacher and police jobs:
Specifically, the bill stipulates that federal funds must supplement, not replace, state spending on education. Also, in each state, next year’s spending on elementary and secondary education as a percentage of total state revenues must be equal to or greater than the previous year’s level.
Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi did the math and figured out his state will be worse off. Mr. Barbour says the bill will force his state “to rewrite its current year [fiscal 2011] budget. Preliminary estimates of the Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration show that we will now have to spend between $50-100 million of state funds—funds that must be taken away from public safety, human services, mental health and other state priorities and given to education—in order for an additional $98 million of federal funds to be granted to education. There is no justification for the federal government hijacking state budgets, but that is exactly what Congress has done.”
For Texas, and only Texas, this funding rule will be in place through 2013. This is a form of punishment because the Beltway crowd believes the Lone Star State didn’t spend enough of its 2009 stimulus money. Apparently Texas politicians have been clinging to the quaint notion that the government should try to live within its means.
Texans also seem to have an old-fashioned appreciation for the rule of law. On Friday, 22 GOP Members of the state’s Congressional delegation sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “This provision would have Texas violate her own State Constitution,” they wrote. “The Texas Legislature has sole authority to determine State appropriations. Moreover, one Legislature cannot bind a future Legislature. Requiring the State to assure that a future Texas Legislature would commit to spend funds in accordance with these provisions would violate the Texas Constitution.”
Texas Governor Rick Perry is also opposed to this new “assistance” from the federal government. He understands that one-time payments that force permanently higher state obligations are a windfall for government employees. But if given the choice, taxpayers would just say no.
That’s because taxpayers are figuring out that these state bailouts are only making unions more reluctant to share their sacrifice. While Mr. Obama quotes the union figure of 160,000 potential lost teacher jobs, those don’t have to come out of the classroom. According to research by Eric Hanushek of Stanford University, student enrollment grew by 22% from 1990 to 2007, but teacher employment grew by 41%. Since 2000, enrollment has grown by 5% but teacher employment by 10%.
Back to that part about why they really passed this bill:
The unions themselves could have prevented some layoffs had they been willing to adjust their rich benefits. In Milwaukee, for example, nearly all of the 500 teacher layoffs announced earlier this year could have been avoided if the unions had agreed to change health plans that cost $23,000 per teacher per year for family coverage. They could have accepted a still-rich $17,000 plan. The unions chose the layoffs, betting (correctly) that Democrats in Washington would come to their rescue.
Keep in mind that this teacher bailout also amounts to a huge contribution by Democrats to their own election campaigns. The National Right to Work Committee estimates that two of every three teachers belong to unions. The average union dues payment varies, but a reasonable estimate is that between 1% and 1.5% of teacher salaries goes to dues. The National Education Association and other unions will thus get as much as $100 million in additional dues from this bill, much of which will flow immediately to endangered Democratic candidates in competitive House and Senate races this year.
When these people go on recess I wish they would stay on recess and, since they’re so into extending things, why don’t they extend that recess for the next twelve months? I wonder how much money we could save that way. They should spend a year in their districts getting reacquainted with the people they are supposed to represent.
Levi Johnston is such a tremendous loser. I feel sorry for Bristol Palin that she will have to let that tool be a part of her life for the rest of her life, but I guess that’s just one of the negative consequences to having unprotected sex. How does he get a TV show? How is he famous? I love ho he is running for mayor of Wasilla. He should probably concentrate on getting a high school diploma and being a father. Just a thought.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Bruce Walker has a piece over at American Thinker about who should be the Republican presidential nominee in 2012: Tom Coburn (Awesome-O.K.!). Coburn’s book, Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders, is an awesome book that everyone should read. I read it while I was in college, in the summer of 2004. It changed the way I viewed all politics. I met Coburn back in 2005. I asked him if he would consider running for president. He said that his wife wouldn’t let him. So, on that note, I say we start appealing to his wife. I’m going to Oklahoma in a couple of weeks. Anyone know her address?
August 6, 2010
D.C. officially stands for “Douche City”
Monday, August 2, 2010
Time has a new piece up about those greedy, fat-cat bankers trying to stick us for our paper by adding new fees to offset the cost of our government overlords “reforming” the industry to save us all from ourselves. These aren’t dirty tricks; they’re basic economics. Get a clue! Are they supposed to give us credit at a loss to their business?
Fatty-fat-fat-fat Meghan McCain published a post last week about Obama’s appearance on The View. Of course, she thinks it’s great he went on there and that it doesn’t denigrate the office of the presidency. That’s bull. Almost all that Obama does denigrates the office of the presidency. She’s also upset because she thinks he squandered the opportunity to bring more people over to his side. Yeah, because that’s exactly what a true Republican would be upset about: the Democrat president being unable to change minds over to his liberal way of thinking. She doesn’t care what’s on Obama’s iPod, either. What she has yet to realize is that no one else cares what’s on her non-existent mind.
Wednesday, August 5, 2010
I was forced to listen to nonsense on the radio this morning. It was a black* morning radio host talking about the ethics charges mounting against Rangel and Waters. He was lamenting how “they,” although who “they” is isn’t clearly identified, are doing this to bring the black race down and it’s time the black race fought back. I wish I knew what the guy’s name was so I could call him out. Yeah, because that’s what these charges are about. It couldn’t possibly be because the two are morally bankrupt, corrupt, criminals/politicians? Nah! It must be a white versus black thing. Brother, please!
*Yes, I refuse to use the politically correct term of “African-American.” Not every person who is black is of African ancestry. How is that term politically correct? Politically motivated? Yeah, I could see that. Politically correct? Who decided that? Plus, we’re all Americans. Cut the bull and stop balkanizing us by our ethnic and racial heritages.
Apparently, a CNN poll found that one in four Americans still question whether or not Obama is Constitutionally qualified to be president based on questions surrounding his birth. They stated:
It’s surely not what the leader of the free world wants for his birthday. But, for a stubborn group of Americans, conspiracy theories about President Obama’s birthplace are the gifts that keep on giving.
The president celebrates his 49th birthday Wednesday. On the same day, a new national poll indicates some Americans continue to doubt the president was born in the United States.
It could be argued that this is exactly what President Obama wants since he is the only one who could clear this up leaving no doubt or speculation, but he chooses not to. I’m not saying I think that he wasn’t born here. I’m just saying that he is the only person that could unequivocally put this issue to rest, yet refuses. If this isn’t what he wants it is in his power to change it.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
The Other McCain is sporting some Rule 5 action, this morning, with a picture Marcela Hoeven in a bikini. Apparently, Dems are trying to take their Republican opponent down by stirring up the “family values” crowd. I don’t know what they’re thinking here. Is it against family values for a girl to wear a bikini? Is it against family values for a girl to look hot in a bikini? It’s not like they released a porno starring the chick. And, even if they did, why should that matter to her father’s campaign? Marcela is 23-years-old. Whatever! They’re just mad that conservative women are hotter than liberal women who pride themselves on looking like men.
Also, Stacy delved into what I would think of getting a job at the New York Observer at the age of 25 and getting a spot on TV. If I worked hard for that and felt that I had earned that position, I would be pretty psyched about it. If I had to go through life wondering if I am where I am because of who my parents are, not on my insight and ability, I would hate it. Stacy said this girl, Chloe Malle, seemed to be doing pretty well and that, after reading an interview she had given, he knew all he needed to know when she said that she would love to have dinner with her parents (her father having died when she was 10).
I realized a long time ago that just because you were born into a life of wealth, privilege and even fame, doesn’t mean that everything is great. Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, both born into wealth and privilege, became famous for sex tapes and partying. I would prefer my “hard knocks” life to their “privileged” lives any day of the week. Chloe Malle could have used her wealth, privilege and fame in a variety of different ways. She chose to get a good education and work hard to succeed. Does it help that her parents are famous? I’m sure it does. But, that doesn’t mean she’s some idiot who couldn’t have made it on her own, like that idiot Meghan McCain who has no brain and certainly would be a nobody if it weren’t for Stacy’s cousin John.
I would love to write and be published anywhere, if it is earned through my talent and hard work. As for being on TV, I’m not sure fame is my thing. I like my privacy way too much and I don’t need the world knowing who I am and what I look like. Sure, there are ways to find out, but I would have to need a bodyguard or have to worry about who is recognizing me when I’m out on the street. I would hate to be Scott Brown (R-Mass.) who I called a douche-bag on my birthday because I saw him at my local bar. I don’t mind seeing my name in print, but I don’t need the world seeing my face on their TV screens.
Ann Coulter dispels the myth of the 14th Amendment…you know, that part that established citizenship for anchor babies? Apparently, that’s not what they meant when they were drafting, passing, and ratifying it:
The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War to overrule the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves – many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.
The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The drafters of the 14th Amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)
Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it’s amazing the drafters even considered the amendment’s effect on the children of aliens.
But they did.
The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians – because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.
For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898).
And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to 14th Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)
Friday, August 6, 2010
- Elena Kagan, pictured above, has been confirmed by the Senate as a Supreme Court Justice
Scuttle has been confirmed to the Supreme Court! See, we are a progressive nation. Not only did we elect a celebrity, but the first bird ever to sit on the highest court in the land. I wonder if Ariel will be singing at the celebration party?
In all seriousness, though, when I heard that some Republicans had voted for her I asked myself, who? First answer: Lindsey Graham (Traitor-S.C.). And, of course, he was one of them. Other rejects to vote for confirmation who should be voted out as soon as possible: Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Richard Lugar (T-Indiana) and Judd Gregg (T-N.H.). Once again, I see a lot of New England “Republicans” on the wrong side of this vote, their party and the people. At least that douche-bag Scott Brown got this one right. Maybe me calling him a douche-bag and telling him that he sucked really helped, after all. I am now advocating a policy for all to call all traitors douchebags and tell them they suck. Can’t hurt to try, right?
I watched the Desperate Housewives of DC, last night. I know, I’m like a couple of days late. And, it has been confirmed, D.C., formerly known as the “District of Columbia” officially stands for “Douche City.” Shows like that leave me unable to understand this country. Admittedly, I like the Desperate Housewives of New Jersey. Come on, they’re bad ass. Those wives are flipping tables, pulling hair, and acting all mafioso. What are these other chicks doing other than calling each other too skinny and drinking wine? Oh, and showing how douchey DC can really be. No wonder Whoopi wanted to slap a bitch!
Roy Horn, of Siegfried & Roy, has been accused of sexually harassing his male assistants. What is surprising about this, you ask? Um, the National Enquirer finds it shocking. Is anyone really shocked by this? I’m not.
July 30, 2010
Let’s just call Arizona “RAAAAACIST!”
Monday, July 26, 2010
Well, it looks like I missed a week of blogging last week. Sorry! It was my birthday and, as per usual, I might have gotten a little crazy with numerous days of celebrating. Hey, at least I didn’t celebrate for three full weeks like I did last year!
I had a column published over the weekend. Be sure to check it out: Achieving the American Dream.
Barack Obama is schedule to go on The View, later this week. I guess it still hasn’t dawned on him that he’s the President of the United States, not some idiot celebrity. And, he lowers the office of the presidency, again. Shocked? Nope? Me neither.
Oh, and it looks like Obama wasn’t too shocked when the Lockerbie Bomber was released, last year, either. Even though, he expressed his shock and disappointment over the whole affair. Looks like by shocked he meant that his WH had secretly advocated for the release. Oh well! I’m sure Gibbs will tell us that doesn’t matter. It’s old news!
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey is lashing out at the stars of The Jersey Shore. He claims they are not representative of New Jersey; they’re all plants from New York. This is true, to some extent. The only problem is, The Jersey Shore isn’t the only popular New Jersey based show on television, right now, that shows some commonalities among all of the casts: orange/overly tanned skin, big hair, terrible accents, an “interesting” taste in clothing. I’m not saying that everyone from New Jersey is like this, but it’s clear that this isn’t just New Yorkers making New Jersey look bad, either. Jerseylicious is just the most recent show added to the list. But, can anyone say they couldn’t see the females (I use that term very loosely for the likes of Snooki and JWOWW) of today’s Jersey Shore being the females on a future Real Housewives of New Jersey?
- Tuesday, July 27, 2010
It only took me five days to notice this, but James Webb (D-Virg.) had a great piece published in the WSJ called Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege. It’s a must-read. And, once again, reconfirms that Obama is not a post-racial president and that his election and inauguration have not catapulted us into a post-racial era in America. I may not be a big fan of Webb, but I agree with him on this one.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Breaking news over at CNN.com is that U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton has granted an injunction blocking parts of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law, SB1070. In her mind, she thinks the federal government will succeed in their challenge of the “most controversial provisions of the law.” What is so controversial about this law isn’t explained. What I find controversial is that a state law mirroring federal law is controversial at all. I read the ruling and suggest you do the same. To be clear, Arizona is not regulating immigration and, therefore, preempting federal immigration laws. They are just making the federal immigration laws enforceable on the state level. But, why let the truth get in the way? Let’s just call Arizona “RAAAAACIST!”
More liberals came out today, calling Obama “Our Divisve President.” I don’t agree with everything they wrote, but their overall message is right:
The president had a unique opportunity to focus on overarching issues of importance to whites and blacks. He has failed to address the critical challenges. He has not used his bully pulpit to emphasize the importance of racial unity and the common interest of poor whites and blacks who need training, job opportunities, and the possibility of realizing the American Dream. He hasn’t done enough to address youth unemployment—which in the white community is 23.2% and in the black community is 39.9%.
Mr. Obama has also cynically divided the country on class lines. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and corporations behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda.
Finally, President Obama also exacerbated partisan division, and he has made it clear that he intends to demonize the Republicans and former President George W. Bush in the fall campaign. In April, the Democratic National Committee released a video in which the president directly addressed his divide-and-conquer campaign strategy, with an appeal to: “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”
President Obama’s divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership has failed to put forth an agenda that is more positive, unifying or inclusive. We are stronger when we debate issues and purpose, and we are all weaker when we divide by race and class. We will pay a price for this type of politics.
Maybe some on the left will see more clearly who they voted for if more people on the left speak truth to power. It’s kind of hard to write off the critics as just Republican hacks when they worked for Presidents Carter and Clinton. Then again, maybe the whispers of a Hillary Clinton primary challenge have more credibility than I had thought. I guess we’ll have to wait and see. I’ve always said that I preferred Hill to Barry.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The blogoshpere is HOT with reactions to the Arizona illegal immigration ruling, yesterday. Out of what I have read so far, Legal Insurrection has the best break down, but Nice Deb pretty nicely sums up the biggest problem with this ruling:
The rule of law, put simply, is the idea that the law rules men, not other men. Because the law applies to everyone equally, everyone submits to its authority, with the belief that if it ever becomes necessary, aggrieved parties will have their day in court, and “self-help” remedies (like gunfights), which are destructive to social order, will not be necessary. By this admission in her ruling, Judge Susan Bolton fails to comprehend that the Federal Government’s desire (or lack thereof) to enforce certain laws is a factor in whether or not a state may adopt a law that is the mirror of the corresponding Federal law does irreparable violence to this notion, as well as the notion of Federalism itself. The states are supposed to be co-equal sovereigns with the Federal government, granting it authority to perform specifically enumerated tasks, the performance of which is necessary to the maintenance of a viable nation.
What happened today was that a state which is suffering from a co-equal sovereign’s utter failure to perform a task that was specifically assigned to it. That assignment was originally made because of the expectation that the Federal government would secure the nation’s borders and protect its citizens from many of the ills that an enormous influx of illegal aliens would bring. Arizona, and other border states have had an incredible burden placed on their resources as they have had to provide services for people who have no legal right to be here, and from the other associated effects such as wage depression, and the growing amount of narco-crime that has followed the influx of these criminals. [Yes, I used the word "criminals". In my Black's Law Dictionary, it still applies to people who break the law.]
If the Federal government can be so arbitrary and capricious with regard to enforcement of laws relating to a core duty it holds, then we all have reason to fear, because selective enforcement can be applied to any Federal law. If this cannot motivate the average citizen to bring real change to Federal government, then not only are we lost, but we deserve to be. If we accept lawlessness garbed in the authority and mantle of law, then we have surrendered any notion of being a free people.
Shirley Sherrod plans on suing Andrew Breitbart for posting clips of her speech with remarks taken out of context that portrayed her as racist. Does anyone believe that this woman isn’t racist? Seriously? Have you listened to all that she has said since the whole video out of context affair was first exposed?
July 16, 2010
Scott Brown sucks! As does Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Effing New England!
Monday, July 12, 2010
Check out my article posted over the week: The Whoreification of Miley Cyrus!
Oh boy! Meghan McCain interviewed Snooki of The Jersey Shore fame…because, I guess, she was seen complaining about the new tanning tax that went into effect, recently. Blah, blah, blah! Guido’s and guidettes. Blah, blah, blah! Or, something like that was said in the interview. What does it say about our country that these two hookers are more famous and better paid than me? I tell you, it says nothing good.
The NAACP is passing a resolution protesting the rampant racism in the Tea Party movement. Perhaps it’s the Tea Party movement who should be passing a resolution protesting the rampant racism in the NAACP. Just a thought. I think the NAACP would be more deserving of such an honor. I’m just sayin’.
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) has said that he will vote for the Dodd-Frank financial “reform” bill. At last, my fears about Brown have been realized. He may have turned “The People’s Seat” from blue to red, but this shade of red is more in line with communism than conservatism. Warned all of you about jumping on that bandwagon. When are people going to understand that what someone claims to be isn’t always what they turn out to be?
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The NAACP has passed the resolution painting the Tea Party as RAAAAACIST. Well, if that ain’t the pot calling the kettle black!
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Speaking of the Tea Party movement, the North Iowa Tea Party posted a billboard that compares Obama to Hitler and Lenin. Shelby Blakely, an idiot a spokesman for the national Tea Party, says the sign isn’t appropriate. I would have to disagree. What’s inappropriate about the sign? It’s pretty accurate, actually.
Looks like Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston are back together and they are even engaged. Let’s just hope, for the sake of that child, these two can pull it together and make it work out, this time. For some reason, though, I have my doubts.
Apparently, according to Barack Obama, our first “post-racial president,” Al Qeada is racist. Well, so is the Department of Justice’s voting section. Does that put the Obama Administration on par with Al Queda? Oh wait! Is it only OK for the left to associate the right with terrorist organizations? Probably.
Yo, how much is Harry Reid (D-Nev.) hated when people feel the need to protest him from beyond the grave? I mean, I’ve heard of dead people voting for Democrats, but never calling on others to vote against them. Charlotte McCourt’s obituary asks for people to vote against Reid instead of making donations to the family or a family-favored cause, because defeating Harry Reid is their family-favored cause. You gotta love that!
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Scott Brown sucks! As does Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Effing New England!
Friday, July 16, 2010
Sheila Jackson-Lee is crazy. Seriously. I would like to meet each person dumb enough to have voted for her and slap them in the face and take away their right to vote. They are clearly too stupid to be given the privilege.
July 9, 2010
Why Meghan McCain loves Huge…and (SHOCKER ALERT), it’s not because she’s huge!
- Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Not much has tickled my fancy today, until I went over to check and see if my girl Meghan McCain has written anything. She has a piece up about some new show about fat chicks at fat camp called Huge. I haven’t watched the show and don’t plan to, so I’m not going to comment on it. But, of course, weight-obsessed Meghan can’t help herself. She has to applaud the show for delving into our cultural weight issues and how they are addressed in the media. As a fat chick herself, Meghan knows how mean the press can be about fat chicks. Whatever.
It looks like the federal government is going to sue AZ over SB1070 and some morons are scheduled to protest MLB to move the All Star game scheduled for Tuesday, July 13 out of AZ. Isn’t there a better way to waste our money, resources and time? Perhaps Obama should worry about enforcing federal immigration laws already on the book instead of suing Arizon for trying to do so and maybe people living outside of AZ should mind their own business. If the people of Arizona are OK with the bill, which they seem to be based on the 70 percent approval rating of the bill and the governor in the state, maybe the rest of us should mind our own business since it’s not our lives and property endangered by illegals.
Oh, and if NASA isn’t going to stick to it’s true mission, which isn’t reaching out to the Muslim world no matter what Barrack Hussein Obama thinks, it should be defunded. Period.
- Wednesday, July 7, 2010
So much for the supposedly “post-racial president” presiding over our post-racial America:
Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.
Some of my co-workers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. Less charitable individuals called it “payback time.” Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the Voting Section.
Refusing to enforce the law equally means some citizens are protected by the law while others are left to be victimized, depending on their race. Core American principles of equality before the law and freedom from racial discrimination are at risk.
This is dispicable. I’m still waiting for all of those who voted for this guy to apologize to the rest of us. Perhaps if you had made researching your presidential choice a priority rather than pretending you were too busy we all wouldn’t be in this mess. BUt, no, you all don’t have time to care about politics. It’s not your thing, or whatever.
I will not be intimidated and wish I could go to a polling place where these thugs plan on sitting come 2012, since they’re officially allowed to start intimidating again that year. I would show up with my own weapon of choice and protect the innocent voters just trying to do their civic duty, hoping that they understood part of their civic duty is kicking Obama out of office no matter who is offered to us on the Republican ticket. Can’t be any worse than this guy!
Also, I want Alvin Greene to beat Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). He wants to put people back to work by having them make and sell action figures of–wait for it!–Alvin Greene! I told my mom I have no inclination to go work on the hill, but I would go work for this guy. I think he’s fantastic! As he said, “So you see I think out of the box like that. It’s not something a typical person would bring up. That’s something that could happen, that makes sense. It’s not a joke!” Someone who seems to know nothing has to be able to do better for America than all of those idiots who think they know everything. I’m just sayin’.
And, this just in, rain water is forcing the closing of a Mexico-Texas bridge. As this might put a damper on illegal immigration, I think all of those idiotic protesters should leave Arizona alone, at least until the law goes into effect. We have more pressing issues than boycotting AZ. Clearly, we should be boycotting the rain, or at least water in general!
July 2, 2010
My Thoughts for the Week: July 2, 2010
Looks like I took another month off from the blog. I apologize to any regular readers that I might have left. I know I should blog more, but real life keeps getting in the way. No excuse. But, I thought I would try something new. I don’t know if I could keep it up daily, but I think throughout the week I’m just going to blog my instant reactions to the news and then post it on Fridays all at one. We’ll see how that works out. If something gets me really fired up and I feel like dedicating a whole post to it, that’s always an option. That’s one of the things I love about blogging, I’m my own boss and can do whatever I want.
So many things to blog about this week, but I haven’t been doing it as the issues came up so this first week won’t be as fruitful. I’ll try to get on top of this more, next week. Just some quick thoughts about what’s been going on.
First, I dont’ care that Robert Byrd (D-WV) died. He was an old, senile racist who should have never been in the Senate and definitely should have been voted out a long time ago. My condolences to his family, but I’m not about to pretend this man was better than he was. I hope that he’s burning in hell for his sins. I don’t know why people say it’s disrespectful to speak ill of the dead. If they were shitty in life, I hope that they are surrounded by shit in death.
Also, on that note, it is absurd for WV to try to deny a special election to fill his senate seat in 2010, rather than having a replacement hand-picked by the Democrat governor in order to ensure Obama another vote to push forward his socialistic, anti-Constitution, anti-American agenda. But, this is what we have come to expect from that party of corruption that chose an ass as its symbol.
In other news, what’s going on with this SCOTUS nomination? I realize that Obama has two young daughters and has probably been forced to watch his fair share of Disney movies a billion times, but was nominating Scuttle from The Little Mermaid really necessary?
And, yes, to all of those wondering if I would be talking trash about her looks/appearance if she was a male, I would be if that male looked like a Disney cartoon character. But, let’s go beyond her looks.
What’s the point of the confirmation hearings when everyone knows that the people conducting the hearings and voting on the nomination have already made up their minds? Political theater for the masses. Bleh! This woman is not qualified to be a judge, never mind a Supreme Court Justice. Her dealings on the partial-birth abortion matter alone should have ended this charade. But, what do we expect from a president who voted to let babies born alive from botched abortions to be left for dead by medical staff, back when he was a state legislator in Illinois?
The public should take note. It’s official. There is no sound medical reason for a woman to have a late-term abortion. It is never medically necessary to save a woman’s life. Common sense should have told you that. I wonder why people would advocate this position then. Could it be because there is money to be made off of the sale of baby parts?
The oil continues to gush in the golf, oh I mean, Gulf. Pulled an Obama for a second there and got confused. At least, I assume he’s confused since he’s spent more time playinggolf since the leak started than he has spent inthe Gulf. In fact, he’s spent more time playing golf in his first year as president than Dubya did in eight. Yet, those enlightened “scholars” still rank him as number 15 on the list of best presidents ever. I’m no fan of Bush, but that must be some good grass they’re smoking on college campuses these days. What do we expect, though, from a group that ranks FDR as the greatest? News Flash: FDR’s programs exacerbated (ex·ac·er·bate [ig-zas-er-beyt, ek-sas-] –verb (used with object), -bat·ed, -bat·ing. 1. to increase the severity, bitterness, or violence of (disease, ill feeling, etc.); aggravate. 2. to embitter the feelings of (a person); irritate; exasperate.) the economic crisis, which would be the opposite of solving it as he is so often credited with. Kind of like Obama’s stimulus plan has exacerbated our current economic crisis, rather than solve it. But, if failure is your measure of greatness then it’s only a matter of time before Obama takes that top spot. Watch out FDR!
Speaking of failure, Meghan McCain is still making money off of her public display of ignorance and stupidity. For more on this see here, here, and here. For a recap, she’s upset Obama isn’t showing more emotional outrage over the oil spill, she’s obsessed with the “GOP Bad Girls,” and is deeply saddened by Gen. McChrystal’s “reckless interview.” I’m upset that all Meghan does is show emotional outrage (and her cleavage) as she has no brain to offer rational, logical opposition to anything.
For more about liberals who pretend to be Republican/conservative, check Wiegel-Gate. Question: can anyone come up with something more original to name a scandal than just slapping “gate” onto the end of it? Seriously? That’s all I have to say on that topic. Did anyone really think that the WAPO was going to hire an actual conservative to write for them?
Looks like the Dutch just beat Brazil at soccer, proving once again that if you ain’t Dutch you ain’t much. Not that I care about soccer. I’m American!
Anyway, there’s plenty more to cover and I have plenty more to say, but I’m a government employee working in DC and we’ve been granted four hours liberty, today, in order to “facilitate safe travel.” That means, I’m about 30 minutes past my scheduled departure time. I would love to stay and offer my commentary on the news of the day, but I have a date with some beer and my rooftop. It’s the American way!
Happy birthday, America! Safe travels to all of those traveling.
May 26, 2010
How Meghan McCain blew it (and, by “it”, surprisingly, I’m not talking about a man’s…)
I have said before, rarely do I have as much fun on this blog as when I get to trash Meghan McCain. Luckily, I got a little present today when I went to check out if she had written anything lately. It turns out, she has. And, once again, her ignorance is on full display:
I’ve been intrigued by Ron Paul and his so-called revolution ever since the Texas renegade began making waves on the presidential trail in 2008—and his supporters began crashing nearly every major Republican event since he dropped out of that race. I can’t help but interpret the congressman’s cult-like, libertarian-leaning following as yet another indicator of a growing resentment of all people incumbent and in power in Washington.
First of all, let’s be clear. RON Paul is an incumbent who has proudly served in Congress for the better part of the last forty years–he left Congress and returned to his medical practice in 1984 only to return to the House in 1997, where he has been serving the state of Texas and the rest of America ever since. I believe that would make RON Paul the incumbent holder of the office, which would preculde “the congressman’s cult-like, libertarian-leaning following” from being “yet another indicator of a growing resentment of all people incumbent and in power in Washington.”
Meghan opens her blog post by arguing that support of Ron Paul, an incumbent, is an indicator of the growing resentment of “all people incumbent and in power.” He is an incumbent in power but, in her tiny, empty, brain, support of him is just another sign of the growing resentment of incumbents in general. I don’t even need to call her stupid at this point; her stupidity speaks for itself.
Oh, but she goes on:
So, almost by default, my fascination spills over to his son Rand Paul and his recent Senate primary race in Kentucky. Last week, the younger Paul claimed the state’s Republican nomination—thanks, in large part, to vast Tea Party support. Yet less than 48 hours later, he (now infamously) declared on The Rachel Maddow Show that, while he’s against racism and prejudice, he essentially believes that any business owner has a right not to serve a person because of his or her race, and that he would have voted against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To me, what’s most significant about this series of events is how quickly Paul—the Tea Party movement’s first truly notable candidate, both in name and national prominence—imploded on the national stage.
When someone runs for office, essentially, all he or she must do is answer questions about what he or she believes and why these beliefs will best serve the country. Yet anyone watching Paul’s interview with Maddow could see that he was unable to do that. Worse, he managed to confuse voters further about just where his libertarian ideals stand, raising new questions about his extreme libertarian view of how our country should be governed.
I know that Meghan may have been preoccupied promoting gay marriage, tweeting boob shots, and embarrassing herself more generally, she might have missed the fact that Rand Paul is not the first notable, national figure backed by the Tea Party movement. There is room for honest disagreement and discussion about this, but with the qualifiers of being both notable and national I would argue that Scott Brown was the first national and notable Tea Party movement candidate. Remember him? He was the 41st vote against Obamacare. He turned “Teddy Kennedy’s Seat” from blue to red and returned it to it’s rightful owners, The People. Ringing any bells, Meghan?
Meghan needs to settle it down, just a tad. It’s times like these she proves that she doesn’t understand Conservative, Republican, or Libertarian ideologies but rather the caricature of these ideologies as presented by the MSM. It is not racist to believethat the federal government has no right to tell a private business owner who he or she must serve, employ, etc. As the business owner, it should be their choice and in a free market system would be at their own peril.
Many moons ago, when I was still just a young rabble-rouser in college, my friends and I in the College Republicans (obligatory shout-out to Jason Mattera) offered a Whites Only Scholarship. Instantly, we were labeled as RAAAAACIST (remember, there are still five A’s in racist). Everyone kind of missed the point that was our point. All race based scholarships, including ones awarded solely to minority students excluding white, Asian, Native American, etc. students based solely on the color of their skin, were racist.
As we always did after pulling a stunt like this, we followed it up with an educated, conservative speaker on the topic. For the issues we were trying to address this time around, we had booked Reginald Jones with the help of the Young America’s Foundation. He came and spoke to a very large audience and said he supported our scholarship. It was our right to do it and if the minority students had a problem with it, instead of squashing our rights to offer our scholarship, they should exercise their rights to offer their own with criteria determined by them. But, this is all besides my original point.
Mr. Jones also spoke about the rights of private business owners. He didn’t have a problem with a business only hiring whites, blacks, hispanics, etc. He admitted, as a black business owner, he only hired blacks. His choice. If people disagreed with his choice, they could take their business elsewhere. If enough people did that, he would be out of business or have to change his policies, but that choice is his as a private business owner.
If a restaurant were to refuse to serve blacks, they would automatically be constricting their customer base by denying service to potential customers. That would be bad for business. In addition to that, there would be many people of different races and ethnicities so offended by a restaurant’s refusal to serve members of a certain race based solely on their race, they would lose even more customers that way. And, if I decided to open up a business next door with a big sign that let the world know that my restaurant served everybody, I would steal more business from him and eventually he would be forced to close down.
Even if he wasn’t forced to close down, what would be the big deal? If people want to be racist or bigoted, as long as they’re not hurting anyone else or infringing their rights, what should it matter? I don’t care if the local golf course doesn’t allow women, and not just because I don’t play golf, but because I can just go to another gold course that does. This is the kind of freedom of choice that both I and the golf course should be able to exercise in order to be in line with the freedom this great country stands for.
This is what Rand Paul was getting at. The federal government has no right to tell a private business owner who they must serveor employ. The federal government has no more right to tell a black person he must serve whites than tell a white person he must serve blacks. Period. This provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of business owners and their private property. It is an unconstitutional interference in, and manipulation of, the free market system Republicans are supposed to stand for. This is why to anybody who has a brain and understands what the Republican Party claims to stand for could never suggest that Rand Paul imploded on the national stage or that he is a racist or a disgrace to the Tea Party movement. Perhaps he could have better explained his position, but it wouldn’t have matter because morons in the MSM lambasted him, painted him as a racist, and passed it on to slobbering idiots like you who have regurgitated the lie without giving his ideas any critical thought.
Let’s continue with your nonsensical rant:
Paul’s nomination could have been a moment of triumph for the Tea Party movement, as well as for Republicans, but instead it was an embarrassment. And I felt the disappointment firsthand, given that I agree with and support numerous things the Tea Party represents. Like many Americans, I’m angered by the intense spending going on under the Obama administration. But when the movement was given the opportunity to present specific solutions and answer real questions, its leaders nominated someone who—yet again—revealed weird, racist undertones, no matter how he wants to spin it.
I disagree with you that Paul’s nomination is an embarrassment rather than a triumph for the Tea Party movement, Republicans, and the country. Contrary to what you claim to think–as I strongly believe you are incapable of thinking as proven every time you speak, blog, or tweet–Rand Paul did not reveal “weird, racist undertones.” And, a quick question for the brainless wonder, what other candidate has the Tea Party movement nominated that revealed “weird, racist undertones?” The Tea Partiersas racists narrative has been disproven and is growing old. This is just another example of Meghan’s obliviousness to what is going on in this country. She is just a parrot for the left, claiming to be a member of the right.
But, wait, there’s still more:
I respect Paul’s ideological commitment to libertarianism, of which it’s quite obvious he’s a die-hard supporter, even if there are reasons there’s no real libertarian senator. And I, too, believe that the government should stay out of people’s lives as much as possible. Yet Paul seems to be taking these beliefs to an extreme, one that’s making even fellow Republicans uneasy.
With the midterm elections fast approaching, and the 2012 elections around the corner, let’s hope Paul isn’t a canary in the coal mine, if you will, for Republicans, but a cautionary tale. The lesson is clear: If we don’t nominate formidable candidates with wider appeal and a broader message, our party is dead in the water.
Yes, Rand Paul could just be an anomaly; the next Tea Party candidate who rises to national prominence could be the answer to the movement’s prayers. Yet I believe that Paul offers a lens into the Tea Party’s broader problems. While anger over the way the country is run is valid, when it comes to specifics—and to direct, clear solutions—things fall apart.
Paul’s role within the Republican Party (if any) has yet to be determined. But one thing I am sure of is that, until we start nominating candidates who have more realistic views of the complex world we live in and stop seeing things strictly in black and white (no pun intended), we are going to continue losing elections and becoming punch lines for late-night talk-show hosts.
I would love to hear what Meghan thinks are the reasons there is “no real libertarian senator.” I get the impression that she is implying there is no “real” libertarian senator because libertarian philosophy isn’t popular enough among voters to allow a libertarian candidate to win. I don’t think that’s the case, at all. I think that the Republican Party, if it stuck to what it’s supposed to stand for rather than what people like her and her father stand for (Democrat Lite), would be a perfect place for libertarian candidates (read: Ron Paul). Also, to run as a third party candidate instead of on the Republican ticket would lessen their chances of winning, no matter how broad their appeal, because our system is designed to ensure that only the two major parties are represented. RON Paul candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in the last election is a perfect example of this.
No need to worry about RAND Paul being a canary in the coal mine. I have said before, the Tea Party movement is not necessarily a Conservative, Libertarian, or Republican thing. That’s how the press wants to paint it so they can brush it off, just as they tried to paint it as extreme, bigoted, violent, etc. They tried to marginalize and subtract from it. Unfortunately for them, that hasn’t worked because the TPM has broad appeal to people from all political walks of life, even those who have never been political before. The fact is, the government has gone too far and everyone knows it. No amount of fear mongering about those scary Tea Partiers is going to change that and in order to correct course the public will vote increasing numbers of libertarian leaning candidates in no matter what ticket they are on. Republicans should be thankful their primary voters are smart enough to put them ont he Republican ticket so they can correct the Republican Party and put it back on the side of the people instead of ont he side of government power.
People are very specific about what is wrong and how to fix it, and I believe that many of the candidates have been very specific about this, as well. Once again, you are regurgitating the left/MSM meme that the right has no solutions, no plan. That’s garbage. Big government folks like you might think that less government is a non-answer, a solution dodger, but the TPM and those people identifying with it think that is the solution to our problem, smaller government, less restrictions, and more freedom. Government can’t fix a problem, it can only create and exascerbate problems that it originally created.
Here’s what Meghan doesn’t get, Republicans need to stop taking advice from their enemies on who they should nominate; who is “electable.” That’s how they ended up with her father as their presidential candidate in the last election and we all know how well that turned out. The Republican Party needs to offer a stark difference, a real alternative, to what the Democrats are pushing and a libertarian-conservative ideology is just that. Late night talk show hosts are liberal. Let them make jokes. This isn’t about being the most popular kid among the media and show business elite. This is about offering candidates who will scale back government, taxes, and spending and restore our individual freedoms as endowed to us by our Creator. That’s what the Republican Party is supposed to stand for, but I guess Meghan didn’t get that memo.
Why does this woman have a job? Did Congress pass a bill that deemed her too big to fail? She is a perfect example of all that is wrong with America. She has no understanding of our history, generally, and our political history, specifically. She doesn’t even understand or know the history of the political party she claims to belong to. She offers no insight or original thought. Every blog about politics that she posts is just a reiteration of the liberal talking points. Instead of pontificating on subjects she knows nothing about, why doesn’t she just go back to whoring herself out in a more traditional way? Never mind. People aren’t going to pay for what they can already get for free.
May 20, 2010
Scott Brown and Wall Street “Reform” = FAIL
When Scott Brown was first elected, I was a little bit suspicious. I had warned people that backing him was possibly a mistake. Everyone was so excited about a Republican being elected in Massachusetts it was like that forgot that the only people elected in MA are liberals, no matter what letter they choose to throw behind their names. But, not, he was going to stop Obamacare. I guess no one expected the Democrats to do whatever they had to do to win, like they have always done. They’re Democrats, not known for moral codes.
Here is some of what I had said at that time:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that Brown was elected if for no other reason than to stop Obamacare, upset the political landscape with the unexpected, and put a check on the Democrats previously unchecked power. Politics are my sport of choice and I can appreciate a good upset. No matter how liberal Brown turns out to be, there’s still some satisfaction just in seeing “Teddy’s Seat” go from blue to red. Not that I care for the Republican Party or their big-government spending ways, but I hope the red that seat has turned is more in line with the red of Republicans than that of Stalin and Mao Zedong.
Looks like my hopes have been dashed as Brown just changed his vote on the Wall Street “reform” bill from “Nay” to “Yae:”
Wall Street reform cleared a crucial test vote on Thursday, all but assuring final Senate passage of the most sweeping regulatory overhaul since the New Deal.
The Senate voted 60 to 40 to meet the threshold to overcome filibusters and send the measure to a final vote within days. Three Republicans voted for it, and two Democrats voted against it.
The legislation aims to stop bailouts, shines a light on complex financial products and strengthens consumer protection, to a final vote.
Final passage, which will require only 51 votes, is likely to come within days.
“We’ve made great progress … it’s been hard to get to this point,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “It’s been a good debate. It’s been the way the Senate should operate more often than it has.”
The bill failed in a similar test vote on Wednesday. One key change Thursday was that Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., switched his vote to “yes.”
“Senator Brown received assurances from Senator Reid and his leadership team that the issues related to Massachusetts in the financial reform bill will be fixed before it is signed into law,” Brown spokeswoman Gail Gitcho told CNN on Thursday.
When does Brown come up for re-election? It might be the perfect opportunity to change the narrative. It’s not anti-incumbant sentiment sweeping the nation. It’s anti-big government sentiment and I hope that sentiment drives the people to continue to vote these clowns out who vote for bills and legislation they never should have drafted in the first place. But, then again, how could they pay off their biggest donors, otherwise?
Second Grader’s Mom should be deported; Calderon should STFU!
I first saw this clip this morning on The Today Show. For the millionth time, I am at a loss to explain why I allow myself to watch this show in the morning other than to get my blood boiling hotter than the cup of coffee I’m usually drinking when I watch it. I stole this clip from MSNBC, which infuriated me even more. Watch how the First Lady of the United States of America explains how we need to get all of the illegals their papers:
To be clear, I would bet money that this was all set up for the benefit of those who want to push their so-called immigration “reform” on our country the same way Obama has been planting softball questions by children and other sympathetic archetypes in town hall meetings across the country since he started having town hall meetings. This question was not unexpected by Michelle Obama and was no surprise to anyone else in the White House. Don’t be fooled.
I love the honesty that it is an extraordinary circumstance for the real world (even though, as noted above, this was staged and therefore not the real world) to intrude into a policy debate. Such candor about how disconnected our political elite in Washington are from the real world is amazing, but I’m sure he didn’t realize what he was actually saying. You know what real world circumstances I wish would intrude the immigration “reform” policy debate? The real world in which Robert Krentz, known for helping illegals found on his ranch, was shot by illegals trafficking drugs on his ranch.
Now, judging by the girl’s question, maybe she was confused, but pay attention to what she says. She says she thinks her mom says that she has no papers but that “Barack Obama is taking away everybody that doesn’t has papers.” Perhaps these students’ time wouldn’t have been better spent in the classroom perfecting their English, rather than skipping around with The Grinch, but that’s another story for another day. I can’t reiterate enough how clearly staged I think this whole exchange was, but let’s move past that, as well, and on to the Grinch’s response.
The First Lady of the United States of America said that we have to work on getting everybody the right papers. WRONG! No, we don’t. And, it is appalling that she, in her current position, would say such a thing. And, then, you can hear the kids all start clamoring as the girl says, “But my mom doesn’t have papers.” Well, then, little girl, it would seem that your mom is a criminal who disrespected this great nation. She broke the law to get here and she should go back to whatever country she came from and file for citizenship the same way every LEGAL immigrant has done.
I didn’t find this to be a “touching moment.” I found it to be a highly offensive moment. If it touched me, it wasn’t a good touch. And, I love how the female reporters concern is now people are going to try to find out who the mom is of the child. You know, the mom who is in our country illegally? Of course that’s the reporters first concern because that would be their MO. Remember how we really got to know “Joe the Plumber?” He asked a simple question and so the MSM tracked him down and ran front page stories revealing every detail they could find out about him, while trying to discredit him because he asked an unscripted question and the public didn’t react well to Obama’s unscripted answer about “spreading the wealth around.”
Here’s the thing, if this child is telling the truth, her mom is a criminal. The police and immigration services should be asking who her mother is, tracking her down, and deporting her. If the child had said that she heard Obama was putting all of the people who have murdered someone in jail and that scares her because her mom is a murderer, I’m pretty sure that would get a very different reaction. What if she had said that her mom was part of a “hate group” that went around beating gays and lesbians to death with Bibles? Would the press want people looking for her mother then? I mean, Obama is trying to stop these people, right?
As I have said before, I do feel bad for these children that their parents chose to use them as pawns in an attempt to exploit our citizens compassion to gain legal citizenship for themselves, but that is not my fault and not my problem:
Tough break, kid! We all have them. Get over it. Don’t blame Americans because your parent(s) snuck over our border illegally and gave birth to you in hopes that we would allow them to stay because their child was born on American soil and is therefore a US citizen. You are what is commonly referred to as an anchor baby. That’s not my fault.
If you want to place the blame on someone, you better start looking at Mami and Papi. They are the ones who created a situation in which their 12-year-old daughter had to decide between her country and her family. Americans didn’t do that to you and neither did the more abstract America. Your parents used you for their own benefit and now the media wants to pull on our heart strings by making our country (the one Julie chose over her own family) out to be the bad guy.
This is all ridiculous. You should not automatically be a U.S. citizen just because you are born on our soil. This is why illegals cross our border pregnant and have so many children once they are here. They’re hoping that if they ever get caught their childrens’ citizenship status will convince immigration officials to allow them to stay in the country.
Illegals need to turn it around. We don’t owe you. You knew the rules and you decided to go for the gamble. You gambled that if you could sneak around here long enough and give birth to enough kids on our soil that once caught you would be allowed to stay with a nod and a wink.
You took a chance and it didn’t pay off. You had children to legitimize and avoid punishment for your crime. What kind of parents would do that? And, what kind of parents would allow their children to stay behind? Take your anchor babies back to Mexico with you. We don’t want them here.
CNN, stop telling me their sob stories. These parents made a conscious decision to create this situation for their children. I didn’t. I refuse to feel any sympathy for them. As for the children, like I said earlier, don’t be mad at me. Direct your anger toward the responsible parties: sus padres.
Then, in other news:
Mexican President Felipe Calderon asked members of the U.S. Congress on Thursday to reinstate a ban on assault weapons to help clamp down on violence in both Mexico and the United States.
During his speech Thursday to Congress, Calderon said the challenge to Mexican security has “roots on both sides of the border,” including the high demand for drugs in the United States.
Tackling other politically sensitive issues such as immigration, the Mexican leader said, “I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona. It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree” but also introduces the “terrible idea” that racial profiling is acceptable.
Calderon on Wednesday had characterized the Arizona law as discriminatory.
Now, I realize that Obama, and most other politicians in DC, is an insecure little girl sitting in the corner at recess hoping all of the other kids will play with her, but allowing a foreign leader to come into our Capitol and tell us what we should be doing, while condemning one of our states, is despicable. Can you imagine what would happen if Obama went down to Mexico and told them what laws they should reinstate and how they should treat their illegals? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Maybe Calderon should take his wife and go back across that border. Perhaps if he could fix the problems in his own country we would have such a problem with the people of his country crossing over into ours. But, he doesn’t want to fix the problems in his country. He wants his people to keep invading because like those who cross our border illegally, he has no respect for our borders and our laws. It is his responsibility to clamp down on violence in Mexico, not ours. It is our president’s responsibility to clamp down on illegal immigration and the violence happening across our border. I know it gets confusing, but try to keep up.
Calderon, you are the president of Mexico. Stick to your own coutry and worry about your own laws and problems. You have no business coming into my country and telling my leaders what they should be doing to help you. They are here to SERVE me and my fellow citizens and they are not doing that by letting your citizens illegaly cross our borders. I’m sorry, but this is a friendship I’m willing to lose.
Obama, you are the president of the United States of America. Stick to our country, worry about our laws, and try eradicating the problem that is illegal aliens crossing our border from Mexico to traffic people and drugs, killing American citizens along the way. You are here to serve me, not some illegal. You wanted the job and now you’ve got it. Stop effing it up!
I have not spoken about the Arizona law until now. I fully support it. In fact, I support every state passing the same exact legislation. I wish that our elected officials would work to resolve the problems that are their responsibility, like the problem of illegal immigration, rather than sticking their noses in places the Constitution explicitly leaves to the people and the states. Perhaps if Obama wasn’t busy taking over the auto industry, student loan industry, health care, and bailing out Wall Street, he would have time to concentrate on the things that he is actually responsible for, like securing our borders so that our citizens aren’t slaughtered at the hands of illegals who should never have entered our country in the first place. Just an effing thought!
UPDATE: No need to worry about the girl’s mother. It has been reported that she won’t be deported. And, people wonder why we have a border/illegal immigration problem in this country?