Recently, someone in the media caught hold of the Obama Administration's rationale for legal execution of American citizens, let alone foreign citizens in foreign countries. To start off with, as has been noted in several places, if President Bush would have released this when Candidate Obama was running for President, he would have called for his resignation/impeachment/burning in effigy because of the "Let me be clear...there is no logical defense of the murder of innocent Americans, nor is there a defense of intentional deaths caused by the same of non-Americans in foreign countries." Please note, this is what I think he'd say...or something like it.
Back in June 2012, Charles Krauthammer dropped some significant knowledge, saying, "This is not to argue against drone attacks. In principle, they are fully justified. No quarter need be given to terrorists who wear civilian clothes, hide among civilians and target civilians indiscriminately. But it is to question the moral amnesia of those whose delicate sensibilities were offended by the Bush methods that kept America safe for a decade — and who now embrace Obama's campaign of assassination by remote control." I couldn't agree more. These people don't deserve our mercy. But the sheer hypocrisy of President Obama, his administration, and his supporters is breathtaking.
Now, the President's supporters claim he never expressly advocated for an elimination of the drone strike program. However, this President rarely expressly advocates for anything, save increases in spending, taxes, regulations and government. His supporters were clear in that they expected him to come to the table to not only reduce "war" but the associated killing.
Instead, this President has ratcheted up the apparatus significantly, while the media and the President's partners in crime have stood by. Where is Code Pink? Or, better yet, where is the media on Code Pink's opposition and the "fracturing of the left" because of this issue? Yeah. Nowhere to be found. A quick Google search turns up 10 "News" articles with both the words "Code Pink" and "Brennan" in them. Despite the trumpeting of the "breaks within the GOP," you have to search to find mostly egghead publications that put the same thing out there about the President and the Dems.
Getting back to the point of this post, there is a great and weighty problem with our morality if we cannot see the problem inherent in this proposition: The President of the United States or his/her designee can choose to eliminate an American citizen anywhere in the world if they feel they have cause. Michael Walsh, in a piece on National Review Online, said "In effect-and especially as employed by the Obama administration-the CIA has become the president's private army..." He further states this power has no restriction as they see it, and is outside the realm of military action, while allowing for the raining of war down in an indiscriminate manner.
Fourth Amendment "search and seizure" ideals are useless to them. You now have the right to remain dead, thanks to a remote control war. Just don't piss 'em off.
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Immigration-21st Century style
This latest effort by our elected officials in Washington comes in the midst of the "reimagining" of our country in a "Social Democratic" regime. That's Charles Krauthammer's explanation, and, regarding our President's plans, it seems to be the best of them out there. Because of the high profile of those involved in this reinvigoration of the issue of immigration, I thought I'd take another look at it.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 is the starting spot for our current law. Two major revisions, the Immigration Amendments of 1965 and the Immigration Act of 1990 have brought us to the point where we are now. According to the Congressional Research Service, there are four pillars to our existing policy. They are the reunification of families, the admission of immigrants with needed skills, the protection of refugees, and the diversity of admissions by country of origin. The final three issues are not really the issues under scrutiny at this time, leaving us with the repercussions of the first of the grouping.
The issue of family reunification is a difficult one, and has a similar argument to that of the parent stealing food from a supermarket because they can't feed their children. In essence, "Why should we punish someone who is doing what they feel they have to do for the survival of their family?" The first answer to that question comes down to the issue of citizenship alone. It is the responsibility of a country to provide conditions conducive to the retention of their citizens. If they aren't doing this, then we are not the default solution. Look at the blood spilled through the centuries by people demanding a stronger voice in their governance, including the creation of a viable and robust economy and freedom within their state. Our country should be encouraging other countries to allow their citizens to prosper under freedom, not throwing open the door for them.
On June 15, 2012, in what I see as a purely political action to attend to a voting bloc, the Department of Homeland Security issued their Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Now, like everything with the Federal government, this process isn't easy. But there are plenty of young lawyers and the like who are interested in bringing as many people through this process as possible, especially in large urban areas. A number of states, including my own, are giving driver's licenses to those who qualify under this status.
The fact that they are illegal immigrants should create a larger natural road block. However, since the 2012 election and the running of the numbers of Hispanics and Latinos by the Democrats, this has become the cause of the day for both sides. Many Democrats see this as the beginning of a permanent voter bloc and Republicans (except for Senator Rubio) are concerned about the same. Senator Rubio's thought process is that these newly accepted immigrants will find the virtue in the policies of the GOP, rather than those of Democrats. He has a better view of that issue than I do, but I just can't see that happening.
Illegal immigration, by itself, is somewhere in the broad area between jaywalking and murder. Because of the sociological, economic and political implications, though, it has a very prominent place at the national table of discussion. I can think of the breaking of no other "major" law, which is desired to be forgiven as easily as illegal immigration. An additional justification is that violation of US Immigration law is a civil and not a criminal offense. Still, though, it is a violation of federal law.
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is one of the leads in an effort to reform immigration law. As detailed in this article from rollcall.com, he has a particularly tough sell ahead of him, and particularly to his own party. Most of that reason is because the GOP doesn't trust that the Obama Administration will deal on an immigration+security deal to beef up security along our Southern border, particularly. They had the rug pulled out from under them when Ronald Reagan was president. Similar to the tax/spend deal that George H. W. Bush had with Democrats, Reagan agreed to amnesty for some 3 million undocumented immigrants, only to have the promise made for increased security be withdrawn.
A continued weak economy also makes it a difficult sell, especially to members of labor unions. The outright legalization of 11 million undocumented immigrants on day one puts additional American jobs at risk in a foundering economy. Interestingly, "Big Labor" seems to have little problem with a major overhaul of immigration law, particularly because it delays or even creates disincentives for entry into the labor market. What they DON'T want is a "robust guest worker program", as a blog on Communities at WashingtonTimes.com notes.
I don't believe our country should be working on changing immigration laws when we aren't even enforcing the ones we have on the books. Similar ideas, on much smaller scales, would be changing a speed limit because no one abides by it anyway, or legalizing marijuana because it's no worse than the legal drugs available and at our disposal. It just doesn't make sense. Just because so many people break the law doesn't mean we should change the law. We should be funding and executing the true enforcement of current immigration law, unlike what our Congress and Executive Branch have done to this point. There is no way we can negatively judge where we are now, because we have not invested the requisite time and effort into doing it right in the first place.
President Obama sees the very weak bipartisan coalition formed around the idea-the concept-of immigration, but there are some defining issues and personalities that make this a fragile coalition. However, unlike his other "signature" efforts of his administration, namely "Cap and Trade" and "Obamacare," this one has the possibility of panning out. However, I predict that when the President sees the potential of a GOP fall apart, he'll do his "bull in a china shop" routine and try to force the entirety of his version of a "DREAM Act" through by executive fiat. This, combined with the current legal challenges to DACA will make true, bipartisan and comprehensive immigration reform a near impossibility during President Obama's second term.
Emma Lazarus' sonnet "The New Colossus" is engraved inside the lower level of the Statue of Liberty. In part it reads, Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" At the time of the dedication of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, our country was only 110 years old. Fewer than 75 million people lived in our country. In order to grow, we required teems of immigrant labor, and our combined public and private organizations provided opportunity to people from around the world. In a 21st Century with a population more than four times that of 1886, where the elected Executive seems bent on a Social Democratic agenda, which nationalizes everything from compensation (unemployment) to commerce (EPA rules), we need to understand that the capacity of the federal government has been exceeded, and the very ability of our country to function properly is being called into question. We do nothing but harm ourselves by trying to imagine that we live in a 19th Century world.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 is the starting spot for our current law. Two major revisions, the Immigration Amendments of 1965 and the Immigration Act of 1990 have brought us to the point where we are now. According to the Congressional Research Service, there are four pillars to our existing policy. They are the reunification of families, the admission of immigrants with needed skills, the protection of refugees, and the diversity of admissions by country of origin. The final three issues are not really the issues under scrutiny at this time, leaving us with the repercussions of the first of the grouping.
The issue of family reunification is a difficult one, and has a similar argument to that of the parent stealing food from a supermarket because they can't feed their children. In essence, "Why should we punish someone who is doing what they feel they have to do for the survival of their family?" The first answer to that question comes down to the issue of citizenship alone. It is the responsibility of a country to provide conditions conducive to the retention of their citizens. If they aren't doing this, then we are not the default solution. Look at the blood spilled through the centuries by people demanding a stronger voice in their governance, including the creation of a viable and robust economy and freedom within their state. Our country should be encouraging other countries to allow their citizens to prosper under freedom, not throwing open the door for them.
On June 15, 2012, in what I see as a purely political action to attend to a voting bloc, the Department of Homeland Security issued their Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Now, like everything with the Federal government, this process isn't easy. But there are plenty of young lawyers and the like who are interested in bringing as many people through this process as possible, especially in large urban areas. A number of states, including my own, are giving driver's licenses to those who qualify under this status.
The fact that they are illegal immigrants should create a larger natural road block. However, since the 2012 election and the running of the numbers of Hispanics and Latinos by the Democrats, this has become the cause of the day for both sides. Many Democrats see this as the beginning of a permanent voter bloc and Republicans (except for Senator Rubio) are concerned about the same. Senator Rubio's thought process is that these newly accepted immigrants will find the virtue in the policies of the GOP, rather than those of Democrats. He has a better view of that issue than I do, but I just can't see that happening.
Illegal immigration, by itself, is somewhere in the broad area between jaywalking and murder. Because of the sociological, economic and political implications, though, it has a very prominent place at the national table of discussion. I can think of the breaking of no other "major" law, which is desired to be forgiven as easily as illegal immigration. An additional justification is that violation of US Immigration law is a civil and not a criminal offense. Still, though, it is a violation of federal law.
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is one of the leads in an effort to reform immigration law. As detailed in this article from rollcall.com, he has a particularly tough sell ahead of him, and particularly to his own party. Most of that reason is because the GOP doesn't trust that the Obama Administration will deal on an immigration+security deal to beef up security along our Southern border, particularly. They had the rug pulled out from under them when Ronald Reagan was president. Similar to the tax/spend deal that George H. W. Bush had with Democrats, Reagan agreed to amnesty for some 3 million undocumented immigrants, only to have the promise made for increased security be withdrawn.
A continued weak economy also makes it a difficult sell, especially to members of labor unions. The outright legalization of 11 million undocumented immigrants on day one puts additional American jobs at risk in a foundering economy. Interestingly, "Big Labor" seems to have little problem with a major overhaul of immigration law, particularly because it delays or even creates disincentives for entry into the labor market. What they DON'T want is a "robust guest worker program", as a blog on Communities at WashingtonTimes.com notes.
I don't believe our country should be working on changing immigration laws when we aren't even enforcing the ones we have on the books. Similar ideas, on much smaller scales, would be changing a speed limit because no one abides by it anyway, or legalizing marijuana because it's no worse than the legal drugs available and at our disposal. It just doesn't make sense. Just because so many people break the law doesn't mean we should change the law. We should be funding and executing the true enforcement of current immigration law, unlike what our Congress and Executive Branch have done to this point. There is no way we can negatively judge where we are now, because we have not invested the requisite time and effort into doing it right in the first place.
President Obama sees the very weak bipartisan coalition formed around the idea-the concept-of immigration, but there are some defining issues and personalities that make this a fragile coalition. However, unlike his other "signature" efforts of his administration, namely "Cap and Trade" and "Obamacare," this one has the possibility of panning out. However, I predict that when the President sees the potential of a GOP fall apart, he'll do his "bull in a china shop" routine and try to force the entirety of his version of a "DREAM Act" through by executive fiat. This, combined with the current legal challenges to DACA will make true, bipartisan and comprehensive immigration reform a near impossibility during President Obama's second term.
Emma Lazarus' sonnet "The New Colossus" is engraved inside the lower level of the Statue of Liberty. In part it reads, Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" At the time of the dedication of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, our country was only 110 years old. Fewer than 75 million people lived in our country. In order to grow, we required teems of immigrant labor, and our combined public and private organizations provided opportunity to people from around the world. In a 21st Century with a population more than four times that of 1886, where the elected Executive seems bent on a Social Democratic agenda, which nationalizes everything from compensation (unemployment) to commerce (EPA rules), we need to understand that the capacity of the federal government has been exceeded, and the very ability of our country to function properly is being called into question. We do nothing but harm ourselves by trying to imagine that we live in a 19th Century world.
Thursday, October 04, 2012
The Morning After
It wasn't a dream. He really DID do that well. If you didn't see last night's debate, you can watch it on C-Span. From the beginning, when Romney coined the phrase "trickle-down government", to the final salvo over the listless words of the President, Romney had his "A" game. Moderator Jim Lehrer couldn't even bring himself to repeat the words "trickle-down government." Hilarious.
Romney effectively pushed back on the President's claim of Romney's $5 trillion in tax breaks for rich folk. Romney schooled him on the issue of tax breaks for moving corporate operations off shore. Obama stuttered and stammered his way through the debate, and the DNC are reduced to saying Romney was a bad guy and pushy.
Nice. Looking forward to the VP debate!
Romney effectively pushed back on the President's claim of Romney's $5 trillion in tax breaks for rich folk. Romney schooled him on the issue of tax breaks for moving corporate operations off shore. Obama stuttered and stammered his way through the debate, and the DNC are reduced to saying Romney was a bad guy and pushy.
Nice. Looking forward to the VP debate!
Friday, September 21, 2012
Romney releases tax 2011 return
Dude paid nearly $2 million for 2011. The guy in charge of his blind trust says they will release effective tax rates for the past twenty years. Now quityerbitchinidiots.
In other news, the love fest for the US goes on in the Middle East and parts of Asia. And, before anyone drops a kidney over the August fundraising numbers, RNC Chair Reince Priebus has some news for you.
In other news, the love fest for the US goes on in the Middle East and parts of Asia. And, before anyone drops a kidney over the August fundraising numbers, RNC Chair Reince Priebus has some news for you.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Fareed Zakaria is still an idiot
Reading through Fareed Zakaria's latest...plagaristic activity?...I can't help but wonder where his mind is. He gets correct the difference between the prior regimes in Libya and Egypt. He even calls out Egypt's President as a radical! But where he screws up is by comparing Romney's call out of President Obama's failed Middle Eastern policies to Muslim death threats against Salman Rushdie during the Reagan administration.
Muslims were calling for Rushdie's life because of the book he wrote, not because of their hatred of the United States. Modern day Muslims are calling for death to America because they hate America. When President Obama said it was a new day for the relationship between the US and Islam. His policies have clearly failed. Have other presidents succeeded? Not necessarily. But they weren't arrogant enough to claim things would be different before they even got into office.
It's time for a change. America needs a president who doesn't kowtow to foreign interests. Let's make the right choice this time and encourage others to do the same.
Muslims were calling for Rushdie's life because of the book he wrote, not because of their hatred of the United States. Modern day Muslims are calling for death to America because they hate America. When President Obama said it was a new day for the relationship between the US and Islam. His policies have clearly failed. Have other presidents succeeded? Not necessarily. But they weren't arrogant enough to claim things would be different before they even got into office.
It's time for a change. America needs a president who doesn't kowtow to foreign interests. Let's make the right choice this time and encourage others to do the same.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Breaking News on Middle East Violence
Fox News just now reported that they have information showing a Libyan, who was released from Gitmo in 2007, is suspected to be at the center of the activity surrounding US embassies in the Middle East. The individual, who has ties to both financing Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, was released to the Libyan government under the condition he would remain in jail in Libya.
On this issue, there are a number of things stand out for me right now.
On this issue, there are a number of things stand out for me right now.
- Following the murder of the US Ambassador to Libya and three others in Benghazi, the destruction of the consulate buildings there, and the attacks on embassies across the Middle East, it is clear the Obama Administration was either lying or was speaking without being fully informed, which is just as bad. They blamed the murders and destruction on a sophomoric and poorly made video, while likely knowing, the entire time, that this was an organized attack on sovereign US soil overseas.
- They STILL ARE SAYING THIS! Wha? So, now, they say this was a terrorist attack, but was not planned. Huh? This makes absolutely no sense.
- If there was any traction to the idea that the Blind Sheik might be released based on humanitarian grounds, this new news will certainly derail that idea. Meanwhile, there is significant disagreement, even amongst the fairly consistent right-of-center pundits at Fox, as to whether this is even a legitimate story.
- The house of cards that make up the Obama Administration is beginning to collapse. Unfortunately, the MSM is in the business of carrying the water for President Obama. They have a vested interested in maintaining the person they helped to the position. People are beginning to understand the inherent bias and are starting to find new and different ways to obtain their information.
Stay informed. Inform others. Encourage the truth to be spoken.
Saturday, September 08, 2012
Saturday reads to catch up on things
From Ace of Spades HQ, a story about the real economy out there. If President Obama wants us to stick with him while he figures out the economy, we'll be off the fiscal cliff.
Another from Ace on the whoppers told by Clinton at the DNC. He's right, these have to be rebutted. And to be rebutted, you have to have knowledge. This is a good one to bookmark.
One speech is all the National Review says President Obama can make...and the videos of him recycling 2008 speeches for 2012 is true. There is nothing new. The guy is an amateur. Investor's Business Daily, which has frequently taken the President to task has a microexamination of his speech...and they still aren't fans.
Politico.com usually is a fan, but this story slices and dices his acceptance speech. Specifically, they say, "It is that Obama made a seemingly deliberate choice to keep his remarks chained tightly to the politics of 2012—a race that has been defined by relentless, almost mechanical efforts to motivate voters with narrow appeals to specific constituencies and to destroy the opposition as a credible alternative." What that tells me is that he is more interested in the politics of destruction that politics that unite. At some point, even the most hard core Democrats have to get tired of it and may give up and give in.
Meanwhile, also at National Review, Mark Steyn thoroughly rebuts college graduate Sandra Fluke. Steyn is one of my favorite conservative writers, and he doesn't pull any punches in this piece. "With respect to Sandra Fluke, I think there’s a third future looming. The paperback edition of my book comes out in a week or so, and you can pretty much get the gist of it from the title: After America. For me, the likely scenario isn’t that the Republicans will be terrorizing rape victims or that the Democrats will finally pass the necessary legislation to make contraception available for the contraceptively starved millions crying out for it, but that America will be sliding off the cliff — literally, as Joe Biden would literally say. And when America slides off the cliff it lands with a much bigger thud than Greece or Iceland. I’m not certain that theRepublicans will be able to prevent that happening. But I know that the Democrats can’t. America owes more money than anybody has ever owed anyone in the history of the planet. But millions of Americans don’t see it, and millions of those who do see it don’t see it as a problem."
Meanwhile, from Hot Air, how the President fiddled his way past the law he signed into law...and this gem explaining that the dog ate his homework.
If you're looking for a psychoanalysis of our President, a Washington Times columnist lays it out for you.
Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks and past bundler for Barack Obama, was apparently so impressed with the "Occupy Unmasked" movie, released by Andrew Breitbart's media group, that he stepped up and has been participating in the forthcoming release.
One of the more interesting speeches delivered at the DNC was from former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. This story from the Washington Examiner will leave you scratching your head at just how base and desperate Democrats are.
And from the New York Times, of all places, is a column written by a hedge fund manager who is upset with the President's characterization of him and the industry. Makes a lot of sense to me!
Finally, one of my pet peeves is when musical artists demand campaigns stop using their music. This time, R.E.M. went too far, and they are shown to be idiots. Musically talented, but idiots.
I'll check in tomorrow, and I hope you check in with me on the Hawkeye Huddle on 600WMT AM after the Iowa, Iowa State game. On Iowa! Go Hawks!
Another from Ace on the whoppers told by Clinton at the DNC. He's right, these have to be rebutted. And to be rebutted, you have to have knowledge. This is a good one to bookmark.
One speech is all the National Review says President Obama can make...and the videos of him recycling 2008 speeches for 2012 is true. There is nothing new. The guy is an amateur. Investor's Business Daily, which has frequently taken the President to task has a microexamination of his speech...and they still aren't fans.
Politico.com usually is a fan, but this story slices and dices his acceptance speech. Specifically, they say, "It is that Obama made a seemingly deliberate choice to keep his remarks chained tightly to the politics of 2012—a race that has been defined by relentless, almost mechanical efforts to motivate voters with narrow appeals to specific constituencies and to destroy the opposition as a credible alternative." What that tells me is that he is more interested in the politics of destruction that politics that unite. At some point, even the most hard core Democrats have to get tired of it and may give up and give in.
Meanwhile, also at National Review, Mark Steyn thoroughly rebuts college graduate Sandra Fluke. Steyn is one of my favorite conservative writers, and he doesn't pull any punches in this piece. "With respect to Sandra Fluke, I think there’s a third future looming. The paperback edition of my book comes out in a week or so, and you can pretty much get the gist of it from the title: After America. For me, the likely scenario isn’t that the Republicans will be terrorizing rape victims or that the Democrats will finally pass the necessary legislation to make contraception available for the contraceptively starved millions crying out for it, but that America will be sliding off the cliff — literally, as Joe Biden would literally say. And when America slides off the cliff it lands with a much bigger thud than Greece or Iceland. I’m not certain that theRepublicans will be able to prevent that happening. But I know that the Democrats can’t. America owes more money than anybody has ever owed anyone in the history of the planet. But millions of Americans don’t see it, and millions of those who do see it don’t see it as a problem."
Meanwhile, from Hot Air, how the President fiddled his way past the law he signed into law...and this gem explaining that the dog ate his homework.
If you're looking for a psychoanalysis of our President, a Washington Times columnist lays it out for you.
Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks and past bundler for Barack Obama, was apparently so impressed with the "Occupy Unmasked" movie, released by Andrew Breitbart's media group, that he stepped up and has been participating in the forthcoming release.
One of the more interesting speeches delivered at the DNC was from former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. This story from the Washington Examiner will leave you scratching your head at just how base and desperate Democrats are.
And from the New York Times, of all places, is a column written by a hedge fund manager who is upset with the President's characterization of him and the industry. Makes a lot of sense to me!
Finally, one of my pet peeves is when musical artists demand campaigns stop using their music. This time, R.E.M. went too far, and they are shown to be idiots. Musically talented, but idiots.
I'll check in tomorrow, and I hope you check in with me on the Hawkeye Huddle on 600WMT AM after the Iowa, Iowa State game. On Iowa! Go Hawks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
