Monday, May 24, 2010

Arizona Rules!

As far as this AZ thing, securing the border is the top priority.  In fact, one of the federal government's primary duties, as per the Constitution (Article 4, Section 4) is to provide the citizens of every state protection against invasion.  How anyone can call the millions of illegal entries each year from Mexico anything but an invasion is beyond reason.

Upon reading S.B.1070, there is no encouragement, implied or otherwise, to racially profile anyone.  That is a paranoid delusion, another piece of misinformation used by the insane supporters of blanket amnesty and open borders for these criminals who invade our country.  Legal immigration and assimilation into the "Great Melting Pot" of America is welcome.

Being proud of your heritage is one thing.  Immigrating to America to become a part of it, to share its freedom and prosperity, is what brought us all here in the first place.  But since the American Revolution, we have had immigration laws to limit and control who and how many come here.  Like it or not, the entire planet cannot live here.

If you get stopped by the police, you are asked for your license and insurance.  If you cash a check, or use a credit card, or rent a car, hotel room, buy a plane ticket, you are asked to prove your identity.  Do we make exceptions for Hispanics, for fear of "profiling", or should all citizens be required to comply with the law?

Since 1965, any non-citizen who is legally in the US is required to carry identification to that effect.  The only people who should worry about S.B.1070 are illegal immigrants.  The biggest problem with the immigration issue is that Washington uses Hispanics, legal and illegal, as political pawns.

What I have a huge problem with is this:  why should the United States be the only country in the world that is not allowed, because of political correctness, to secure its borders and protect its citizens?  There is no place on this earth where you can just waltz through border checkpoints without showing a passport or some sort of ID - except between Mexico and the US.  The reason?  An unholy alignment between business and government.

The Mexican government protests any closing of their northern border for two reasons.  Their economy depends on billions of dollars in remittances, sent from Mexicans from the US.  Additionally, by exporting its workforce, the Mexican government does not have to deal with millions of poor who would other wise drain its resources for food, medicine, and education. 

The US government pretends to take a tough stand on illegal immigration, but in reality turns a blind eye for two reasons.  By allowing lower than minimum wages, the exported Mexican work force keeps prices of agricultural products low.  And by sharing in the cradle-to-grave entitlements this country offers, the politicians hope to add to their base, creating an entire new generation of voters from these "unregistered Democrats."

How could identifying an Hispanic illegal alien along the Mexican border be deemed racist?  Oh, yeah - he's Hispanic, and that means racism.  For the record, what would the odds be of a non-Hispanic illegal alien crossing our southern border?  Forget racial profiling and apply some common sense.  It would be damn near impossible to catch an illegal immigrant in Arizona if being politically correct means you're only allowed to look for white folks.

After all, if a 6 foot tall, bald headed black man, weighing 200 pounds, robs a bank at gunpoint while wearing blue jeans and an Obama T-shirt, you can bet your ass that police are looking for a black male, six foot, 200 pounds, bald head, wearing blue jeans and an Obama T-shirt, last seen running down the street, waving a gun and carrying a cloth bag with a large dollar sign on it.  Is this "profiling" or is it simply good police work?

Some say "that's the whole point - Arizona police will only be looking for Hispanics!"  Wrong.  The law applies to all races so anyone, of any race, who is caught entering this country illegally is subject to arrest and deportation.  Perhaps if Hispanic people from Mexico and Central America would stop sneaking into our country illegally, we could stop looking for Hispanic people sneaking into our country illegally.

Saturday, May 1, 2010

Sometimes, Mr. President, The Truth Hurts

One would think, considering the magnitude of problems this country currently faces, that President Obama would be a very busy man.  But, obvious by his perpetual campaign tour, his top priority is keeping his party's stranglehold on our country intact.

I guess even the busiest world leader needs a break, however.  How sweet of Obama to take time away from his busy schedule to personally address the graduating class at the University of Michigan.

Read it for yourself here, if you have a strong stomach.  Like most Obama's speeches, it is long, boring, and self-serving.  Several passages have a gag factor that is off the scale. Like his comment about the child's letter asking if he wore black coat and had a beard.  "I guess he confused me with the other tall guy from Illinois," Obama quipped.  Funny, but I don't remember Blago having a beard, and I don't remember Daley as being tall.  Must be some other crooked politician from Illinois, then.

Equally as sweet was his condemnation of "over-the-top rhetoric" and "the proper role of government in a democracy." Obama explained his theory that democracy requires government to have an important role.  He went on to explain that you have nothing to worry about with the ever-growing control of the government.  He also touched on the subject of disenchantment with the government.

I suppose Obama had his reasons for only briefly mentioning the importance of the limited role of the federal government.  Apparently he is not of that school of thought, as job growth since he took office has been limited to the public sector.

Obama enlightened the crowd with his assertion that the argument shouldn't be between big government vs. small government, but instead should be how we can create a more efficient government.  Logic would suggest that, in most all cases, a smaller, less bureaucratic system could operate more efficiently.  But Obama seems to suggest his policy is that "big government is here to stay, and it will only get bigger, so get used to it."  Hard to imagine how he could deliver a line like that with a straight face.

He went on to remind the crowd that some things "only the government can do effectively."  If, by effectively, he meant wastefully executed and riddled with fraud and corruption, then I would have to agree.  There are few organizations which excel at mucking things up better than the massive bureaucracy of the federal government.  There has yet to be a single task, either economically or politically, to which government interference has not proven counter-productive.  If you want to guarantee higher costs, longer delays, greater waste, fraud and theft, just ask the government to get involved.

He spoke of the Great Depression, and how our government afterward put in place regulations to assure it would never happen again.  Understandably, he failed to mention anything about the government's systematic dismantling of these same regulations, which allowed our current economic situation to fester.

In his classic style of deception, Obama puts blame for the financial meltdown squarely on the fact that the government wasn't big enough.  He completely ignored the reality that it was the interference of the government over the last 50 years that pushed to inflate the mortgage bubble, eventually setting up the financial collapse.  At least he has stopped, for now, blaming his predecessor for his lack of success.

I believe Mr. Obama's real message here was "don't judge me on what I do, but judge me on how nice my speeches are."  And regardless of what Obama "believes" the proper role of government is, it is actually spelled out for us in the Bill of Rights.  I assume he has actually read it, but I believe he prefers to follow Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" instead.

The single portion of Obama's speech that contained any real truth was his point on civility, the need to "treat others as you would like to be treated, with courtesy and respect."  It would be nice to see Mr Obama follow his own advice.  He speaks of angry, "over-the-top" rhetoric, yet is constantly taking cheap shots at his opponents during his perpetual campaign tour.  And while he now decries massive corporate lobbyist contributions, he seemed to lose little sleep over accepting millions from the largest firms on Wall Street.

The kicker here was the plea for a 'return to civility' in politics.  Apparently Mr. Obama is allowing his critics to get under his skin.  I can only imagine that our President is tired of everyone crying "socialism" every time he takes over another piece of the private sector.  Many observers have noticed how surprisingly thin Obama's skin is.  Well, Mr. Obama, sometimes the truth hurts.

The President needs to get over it, because he hasn't heard anything yet.  If he thinks America will simply lay back and watch him dismantle our Constitution, vastly increase the size of federal government, and stand idly by while he pushes his socialist agenda upon the nation, then I believe 2012 will seem a very, very long time away.  He will be forever reminded that his 52% election victory was in no way a landslide, and is not a "mandate from the people' that he seems to assume.

It will be interesting to see what this generation of college graduates think of Mr Obama when they see how difficult it is to find a job in this economy.  Obama's concern for them is touching, especially his desire to see more of them pursue "public service" careers or "community organizing".  That would be fine, especially to repay the huge amount of debt amassed during their college education.  I'm sure that the New America will one day offer the green jobs, the high-tech jobs of the future that Obama   promised.  Now, if  he will just stop making promises and start delivering, we might have something here.