SB1070 - Protest Platform for Idiots

With Arizona's passage of it's immigration law, the resulting attack from all sides has been nothing less than intense and nothing short of idiotic.  Forget that 70% of the residents approve of this effort.  A small percentage of pinheads from around the country, although removed from having to deal directly with the consequences of illegal immigration, have wrongly condemned this bill.

Not directly exposed does not mean not directly effected.  While not in immediate danger of being kidnapped or murdered, we all share the cost of providing benefits for those who ignore our border laws.

Look at the state of California, a shining example of liberal douche-baggery, with its cities bankrupt, overrun with illegal immigrants, yet they comically denounce Arizona for attempting to avoid California's death spiral.

Of course you would expect Hispanic groups advocating amnesty to oppose this bill.  Their goal is to throw all borders wide open, with some more idiotic than others who believe California and the southern US rightfully belongs to Mexico.  What a bunch of morons.  As far as I'm concerned, they can have southern California, at least north to the shit-hole known as Los Angeles.  I've been there only once, and will never set foot there again.

These crazy open-border activists present ludicrous interpretations of the new Arizona law.  Some see it as an open invitation for racial profiling, others as a Nazi-like effort to round up immigrants and send them off to some Mexican death camp.

And you always expect the idiots of Hollywood to offer their support or opposition to the social "cause-du-jour".  What pisses me off most are these filthy-rich actors and Hollywood twits, always claiming some connection with the poor, the hungry, the oppressed.  They put together one lame benefit after another in order to donate someone else's money to "their cause".  After which, the return to their plush, million-dollar estates, surrounded by a luxury of wealth made possible by the very system they decry.

Nobody, except perhaps an illegal, could possibly deny that the US has a severe problem with the security of our southern border.  The fact that the federal government has ignored this problem for thirty years has not made it any easier to solve.  Many who have been here illegally for so long now have families, children who are US citizens, and this makes the problem exponentially more difficult.

Even though the subject touches people deeply, it is amazing to me is how many get caught up in the hysteria caused by the misinformation and ignorance of the Amnesty/Open Border/Reconquista idiots.  The most vocal, of course, are the ones with the most to gain.

The solution is simple - secure the border by whatever means necessary.  Show these people that our border is to be respected.  The damned federal government isn't doing its job.  Arizona is trying to stop the flood, and I salute Governor Brewer for taking a stand.

The Sad Case of General Stanley McChrystal

As much as it hurts, I must admit that this is actually something Obama has finally gotten right. There can be no dissention in the chain of command, and even though most agree that Obama should not be in charge of a popsicle stand, he was absolutely correct in relieving McChrystal of his command, if for no other reason but to show our enemy that our resolve and commitment is still strong.

My biggest question is this: why are we waiting until July, 2011, to give up and come home? Why not give up today, right now? It would save countless lives, billions of dollars, and will accomplish exactly the same thing - absolutely nothing.

We have spent over 9 years now, chasing an insanely impossible dream to rid the world of Islamic extremists. Setting a time limit ensures that the idiots who originally pretended this cause was important enough to throw away young American lives on will be the only ones to make themselves believe that their goal was met.

The day after we leave, the Taliban will return, the puppet Afghan government will crumble, and it will be as if none of this had ever happened.  As if we have any right to dictate to any country as to how they should conduct their business in the first place.

Anyone who doubts this is a fool, perhaps an even bigger fool than the idiot Bush, who put us in this mess to begin with.  Assume we do finally catch Bin Laden (if that was indeed the real reason behind the invasion).  Who really thinks that Al-Qaeda or the Taliban will just quit and go home?  There will never be an end to the radical Islamic extremists, who live for a single purpose: the enforcement of shari'a (strict Islamic) law and bring death to all who oppose.

It has been especially sickening to realize the useless waste of lives and resources while being subjected to the populist rhetoric about establishing justice and democracy in Afghanistan, as spewed forth by both parties. Of course, most Democrats saw the presumed righteousness of this conflict only after Obama adopted it in 2009 as the "Good War", the "Bad War" being Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, but now we're splitting hairs.  And we are still fighting both.

So we now have a new General to continue our rousing success in Afghanistan.  When the July 2011 deadline comes, will we have succeeded?  How do we even measure the success of our mission?  I believe it was our Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who claimed that one measure of success in Afghanistan would be when a functional government was established that the people could trust.  I could not help but think that, although this is a noble cause, shouldn't we really establish something like that here, in our own country, first?

Jobs Fo' Shizzle

Jobs, jobs, jobs. Where have I heard that before? I believe it was early in 2009. Poor delusional Joe Biden tries to wrap his feeble brain around the lie that the Obama Spending Bill was anything but a poorly disguised bailout.
Joe's handlers feed him scraps of information, like the 2.8 million jobs saved or created. Jobs created, Joe? Nothing has been created, and no jobs have been saved, either. Merely postponed. The layoff of millions of state employees was delayed by Obama's bailout, nothing more.

Guess what, Joe? When the money is spent, the jobs will disappear. How will you spin that? Somebody underestimated how serious our problem was again? And, as for our Campaigner-in-Cheif, Obama's answer is to travel around the counrty and make more speeches. Predictably vague and empty speeches, where each sentence seems to contradict the next.
In classic Obama double-speak, most speeches sound alike: "...we must reduce our debt to a sustainable level..." is always followed by "...we must increase government spending to sustain the recovery..." Please, would somebody tell this idiot that massive goverment spending means either debt or tax increases - you can't have it both ways. Also remind him that it is impossible to borrow and spend one's self out of debt.

This is the same leadership Obama showed in his two years as a senator, where he voted "present" 163 times. The man is too smart to take a stance, and wants to play both sides of any argument. Too smart, or too spineless - the jury is still out.
Obama is not a leader - he is a dreamer. He should stick with something he has actual experience with - defrauding the taxpayers out of money as a community organizer. Does it seem odd to anyone else that the organizer gets rich while the community stay poor? As people are starting to discover, Obama's economic strategy for this country seems to be another Acorn scam on a national level.

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.

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.