It’s been a long, hot week, and I’m a bit testy. With that in mind, let’s discuss where we are.
Saying that our president is doing a bad job is like saying the citizens of Pompei experienced traffic congestion the morning Mount Vesuvius blew. It’s true, but it’s also an incredible understatement. 100% of Barry’s presidency has resided somewhere between doing nothing or making things worse. Honestly, I’ll have a major award for anyone that can point to one good thing this man has done since he’s gotten into office. We’re still sitting just shy of 10% national unemployment…and that doesn’t count the people who are no longer even looking for work. Our debt and deficits literally make history ever single day, and all B.O. thinks we should do is spend more. In fact, his own freakin’ debt commission stated the debt will destroy this country. Not possible? Look at Greece, or Spain, or Portugal.
His Department of Justice is choosing to sue Arizona for enforcing federal law, while refusing to prosecute sanctuary cities for explicitly violating federal law. How about a lawsuit against Chicago for its new gun restrictions? Don’t understand my point Mr. President? How about we put the restrictions in terms you can understand. It would be similar to Illinois telling a young pregnant girl she can have an abortion, but only after she pays $1,000.00 cash to watch a video of an abortion procedure, with her parents and grandparents, after which she takes a test consisting entirely of identifying still images from the video, and then, after the abortion, being forced to keep the dead baby in a jar under her pillow for nine months after the abortion. Oh, and she’d need to go to Wisconsin to get the abortion. Now, I bet a law like that would receive a lawsuit. Guns and abortion are both “fundamental rights” that are protected by the constitution, right?
How ’bout that financial overhaul bill that everyone on the left is so damn excited about? While it doesn’t do anything about fixing what actually went wrong with the economy in the first place, Fannie Mae is out there offering first time home-buyers loans with a little as $1,000.00 down. And now I get to go sit in traffic on the highway because the idiots hired by the state of Illinois, with federal funds I’m sure, decided to strike after tearing up the damn road. They apparently didn’t get the memo that the economy sucks while health care costs and premiums are still going up, as a result of despite Obamacare. And on January 1, 2011, those of us who actually pay income tax can look forward to it skyrocketing.
And what is our esteemed president’s response:
The president said in the interview he believes voters “are going to say the policies that got us into this mess, we can’t go back to.” He also said Washington “has spent an inordinate amount of time on politics — who’s up and who’s down — and not enough on what we’re doing for the American people.”
It’s official. We didn’t elect a President. We didn’t even elect a petty dictator. We elected a buffoon. And by “we” I mean somebody else because I didn’t vote for him. The liberal policies that got us into this mess are still out there, alive and well. “What we’re doing for the American people?” Are you serious? How about what you’re doing to the American people? Here’s what Barry’s done to the American people since he’s become president: increased unemployment. increased deficits and debt. increased health care costs and premiums. increased economic uncertainty. increased claims of racism. increased divisiveness. increased entitlements. increased taxes. Here’s what he’s done for the people of America: been a really active (and bad) golfer.
Some call it an attempt to distract us from the economy…as if that’s possible. Others call it a noble attempt to stop racism…tell that to J. Christian Adams. I simply call it a monumental waste of my tax dollars. As many of you probably know by now, Obama’s DOJ filed suit against the State of Arizona yesterday for its immigration law. You know, the one that requires Arizona cops to make an effort to identify criminals and then arresting them…novel concept. According to our esteemed government attorneys, any and all aspects of immigration are within the exclusive purview of the federal government. Thus, in legal terms, Arizona’s law violates the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution…or so the argument goes. I haven’t read the complaint, and I’m not sure I will, but the Wall Street Journal apparently has, so that’s got to count for something right?
The suit, filed in Phoenix, said that the state had ‘crossed a constitutional line’ that interferes with the federal authority over immigration. It alleges that the state law would burden federal agencies, diverting resources from such higher priorities as tracking illegal immigrants implicated in terrorism cases, drug smuggling or other crimes.
If this is the best the federal government’s got, then I want my money back. Now, courts can do all kinds of strange things, like deny unopposed motions for example, so I guess anything’s possible. That being said, how the hell can enforcing federal law interfere with federal law? In fact, the feds are doing more interfering than Arizona, due to their refusal to enforce their own law. Oh, and when did the Supremacy Clause include a section about not diverting resources from higher priorities? That’s called the “let’s throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” argument.
‘Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility,’ Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement. ‘Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.’
As an initial point, this is the equivalent of the Chicago police department sitting outside my front door and watching my family be attacked by an intruder, and then arresting me when I kill him. But Holder’s right. Setting immigration policy is within the exclusive purview of the federal government. I’m not so sure about enforcement though. After all, what constitutes “enforcement?” The State of Arizona certainly can’t deport the illegals. But can they arrest them for being here illegally and hold them until I.N.S. deports them? My gut tells me they can…but that may just be the Chipotle I ate last night…which was awesome by the way. The learned, ivory tower types have thrown in their two cents as well:
‘I think the federal government is going to win and the Arizona law is going to be shown to be unconstitutional,’ said Karl M. Manheim, professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. ‘States don’t have any power to regulate immigration.’
This opinion begs the question though: does the Arizona law “regulate” immigration? I think the federal govt. would have a difficult time arguing that the law does any regulating. It’s simply a criminal statute piggy-backing on a federal statute which already defined who is here illegally. Arizona’s law hasn’t made being here illegally more illegal than it was before.
As usual though, Gov. Jan Brewer hits the nail on the head with respect to the practicalities of the lawsuit:
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer called the federal lawsuit ‘a massive waste of taxpayer funds’ and said the money ‘could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.’
She said that the Obama administration, if worried about a patchwork of laws, could have chosen to sue local governments that adopted ‘sanctuary” policies instructing police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials.
She is absolutely correct. The Obama Administration doesn’t give a rat’s ass about a “patchwork of laws.” Controlling the border is right in the wheelhouse of the federal government, and its failure to do the controllin’ is the sole reason why states are being forced to pick up the slack. In fact, the DOJ’s complaint constitutes an admission of this.
Of course, as the article goes on to point out, this is all about politics. Obama doesn’t care about immigration. If he did, he would have pushed a bill through Congress before he lost his filibuster-proof majority. Instead, he has continued to dither on the issue, now hoping that the lawsuit will bring the democrats the hispanic vote in November. I personally doubt that the immigration law is going to bring the Dems any more votes then they already have…but we’ll see.
In the meantime, be sure to send a little love note to your Congressman, thanking him or her for the wise use of your tax dollars. After all, the only reason the Arizona law was enacted in the first place was because they have failed to do their jobs…again.
Give ’em some credit here because this one took guts. Senate Republicans filibustered a bill (for the third time) that would have extended unemployment benefits beyond 99 weeks. Their reasoning is that at some point, the government faucet must be shut off. Although a little late, they’re absolutely right. The debt and deficits being run up by Democrats must stop before this country enters the death spiral that is making its way through Europe. As the Democrats continue to cry about “hurting those most in need,” someone needed to be the adult, and the Republicans (finally) took the reins.
The unemployment benefits reflect a larger issue that, I believe, is coming to a head: Who are we? People can legitimately argue about things like whether this nation was founded on Christian principles or whether the writers of the Constitution would consider internet porn to be “protected speech.” What cannot be legitimately argued, however, is the fact that this nation was founded on the principle of individual self-determination. That is, the idea that we, as individuals, have the right to make our own breaks. Self-determination does not mean we each have the right to have a car, or a house, or health insurance. It simply means, at least in America, that we all get the inherently equal opportunity to seek those things, if we so choose. If you win, great; if you lose, you can try again. The government’s job is to set the boundaries and get out of the way.
At some point, largely due to the influence of liberalism, that all changed. Now, we don’t argue about whether the government should be providing unemployment benefits, but how much and for how long. We no longer discuss whether anyone actually “deserves” a house, but instead, how much government aid they should receive to get/stay in one. Many of this nation’s citizens not only believe they’re entitled to food, clothing, and shelter, but also the latest cell phone, plasma t.v., and shiny car. And if they can’t afford them, then the government should provide them (or take from those who have them). After all, that’s “fair.”
There are entire classes of people in this country who are supported by the federal government from the cradle to the grave. And I’m not talking about those who are disabled and literally can’t work. I’m talking about able-bodied persons who can work, but don’t. This is drastically different than only a few decades ago. My grandparents, for example, realized that, if they didn’t work, they didn’t eat. That wasn’t an opinion, it was a fact of life. Today, working for food is closer to an option.
Barack Obama’s policies aren’t just childish, they’re drastically accelerating a change in what America fundamentally is. Everyone now has a right to healthcare, whether they can afford it or not. Executives who make too much money should have their salaries cut. Those who got in over their head with the house they bought will be bailed out with what amounts to subsidies. What used to be America has become a nanny state; and while this used to simply be annoying, it’s now becoming disastrous.
While many argue about the cause of the economic collapse, there is no questioning the fact that the liberal ideal of a house for every person who wants one started it. Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act, and its various amendments, which compelled banks to give loans to those who couldn’t afford to pay them back certainly had a hand in it. Who gets the blame though? Irresponsible home owners? Of course not. 100% of the guilt was heaped upon Wall Street.
How about the cost of illegal immigration? There is no question that one of the largest contributors to rising health care costs are the illegal immigrants who use emergency rooms as their primary care providers. Should we hold them accountable for being here illegally? Liberals don’t think so. Instead they simply blame the greedy insurance companies for high costs, or farmers for employing the illegals.
Our economy is stuck, with unemployment remaining just south of 10%. What does Obama do about it? He “stimulates” the economy by spending money we don’t have, and sends the overwhelming majority of it to other government employees. Does he cut taxes, which have a much better track record of stimulating growth? Of course not. To make matters worse, his spending will only lead to the eventual raising of taxes on practically everyone that pays them (which, as it turns out, isn’t all that many).
I’ve never been part of the “love it or leave it” crowd. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But at some point, we need to make a choice. America is one thing, and it is not another. Despite its current appearance, this country has never been about taking money from person A and giving it to person B in the name of fairness. It isn’t about bailing anyone or anything out as a result of bad choices. And it isn’t about punishing success because some have only experienced failure. If we, as a people, want to keep it that way, then a certain percentage of the population should be shown the door.
It hasn’t been a good week so far for the President, and it’s only Tuesday. First, word leaks out that his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual is quitting, due to conflicts with Obama’s “idealistic inner circle.” Yeah, get in line. Next, we find out that Barry’s budget director Peter Orszag will be exiting the Cabinet in July while leaving, as Ed Morrissey says, “a substantial legacy — as in a trillion-dollar-plus deficit and a $2.2 trillion math error.” Next, Obama and his Administration are blasted by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan for their strategy there, in a Rolling Stone article of all places.
While all of this is going on, the Pelosi-led House of Representatives won’t pass a 2010 budget–the first time since 1974. Why not? Because the Democrats in charge don’t have enough votes to pass a budget that increases both spending and taxes during an election year. Want more? Obama plans to sue the state of Arizona over its immigration law, while simultaneously refusing to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. Finally, the President’s ill-conceived, job-killing Gulf oil moratorium has been blocked by a Federal judge.
Amazingly, in light of everything going on, it’s admirable that he can still find time to golf.
Well, I’m pretty sure the border won’t be secured under this administration. In fact, I wouldn’t be shocked if we just started giving illegal immigrants cash at the border. The payout had better fairly compensate them for their trip though.
So, if I’m reading this right, an illegal immigrant is being paid an unfair wage. So he calls up the U.S. government, and says he’s being paid an unfair wage. Won’t the fact that the worker is here illegally come up at some point? What then? Do they send him back?
Apparently a group of evangelical leaders are in Washington D.C. meeting with Nancy Pelosi to discuss a position they share: amnesty for illegals. Some are confused about the pro-amnesty position of so-called “conservative” evangelicals, including one of my favorite bloggers Allahpundit at Hot Air. He states,
I’m fascinated by the prospect of this blowing up into a running doctrinal debate among prominent Christian conservatives, with border enforcers on one side and holier-than-thou amnesty shills on the other trying to the answer the WWJD question.
Except … are there any prominent Christian conservative pols who oppose a “path to citizenship”?
Well A.P., while I may not be prominent (yet), I am a Christian conservative who is against amnesty. There is some confusion out there about why Evangelicals would be pro-amnesty. I have two potential answers. First, the confusion can be found in the over-use of the term “Evangelical.” It has come to describe far too many Christian denominations. Second (and this answer/opinion will likely offend some) modern evangelicals are more interested in getting butts in the pews then they are delivering actual doctrine (that may offend someone). It’s no coincidence that the mega-church movement has largely marched in lock-step with the rise of modern evangelicals. Also, while evangelicals may be conservative politically, they are not necessarily conservative doctrinally.
Simply put, the Bible teaches us to follow the law of the person whom God has placed in a position of authority (with some obvious exceptions). While I really don’t like playing the “W.W.J.D.” game, I’m willing to bet a nickel on non-citizens obeying the law and having to stand in line. In any event, at the end of the day, Leith Anderson, president of the National Evangelical Association, has the same interest in the illegals that the politicians do: they constitute numbers.
More pandering. I can at least accept it from a state like California, which has its own illegal immigration problems. If Councilman Reyes thinks Arizona should sink into the quagmire that is California’s budget nightmare, then so be it. But to have to listen to a Kennedy issue edicts on Arizona policy from behind a walled compound in the northeast makes me vomit in my mouth a little. Instead, the Kennedys should simply continue campaigning on global warming while objecting to a wind farm being placed within their line of sight.
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D.-R.I.) said last week that Mexican President Felipe Calderon had been “right on” in criticizing Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law…“Well, he’s right on,” Kennedy told CNSNews.com. “I mean, it violates the spirit of our own Constitution.
Well, I’m convinced. I’m not sure what the “spirit of our Constitution” is, but I’m quite certain it doesn’t include people residing here illegally. Rep. Kennedy then does what a liberal does best, completely ignore the statute in question, and brings up some completely irrelevant history:
“So, you know, we had a tragic history in this country,” said Kennedy. “The most shameful parts of our history were when we had our slave trade, when we, when we, the Trail of Tears–what we did to our Native Americans. And, you know, the proudest moments in our history are when we had the Civil Rights Act, when we moved forward on integration and expanding the opportunities for all of our citizens.
Don’t forget about the internment of the Japanese-American citizens during World War II. That was racial profiling at its best. Rep. Kennedy, I’m failing to see the similarities between approaching those suspected of being here illegally and the slave trade. In fact, I’ll go one step further and say there’s absolutely no similarity between the two.
“So, this idea of, you know, racial profiling, takes us backwards and really goes to the worst character of our nation and it’s, it’s demeaning to our country that we would move in that direction,” said Kennedy. “It’s beneath us as a people.”
Is it too much to ask of our elected representatives to actually read something before offering an opinion on it. The statute says, very specifically, that racial profiling may not be used as a basis for questioning someone. “It’s beneath us as a people” to enforce our own laws? A more appropriate statement would be: it’s beneath us as a people to fall for a liberal’s crying racism at every possible moment simply to gain votes.