Race-Based Caucuses Should Be Abolished

September 6, 2011 By

It is past time for the Con­gres­sional Black Cau­cus, as well as the Demo­c­ra­tic and Repub­li­can Con­gres­sional His­panic Cau­cuses to be abol­ished. The reason?

They are racist.

 In this day and time it is morally rep­re­hen­si­ble and coun­ter­pro­duc­tive to have cau­cuses solely based on race. Just the very names are racist. How would the “minori­ties” feel if there was a Con­gres­sional Cau­casian Cau­cus, which allowed only white mem­bers no mat­ter the makeup of the constituency?

Exactly. They wouldn’t like it one bit, and would raise total hell about it.

Well, when you have a Demo­c­ra­tic Rep­re­sen­ta­tive from Cal­i­for­nia who tries to gain mem­ber­ship into the Con­gres­sional Black Cau­cus (CBC) so he can rep­re­sent his con­stituency - which is 60% black — be rejected because he is white, and ONLY because he is white, it’s quite obvi­ous the group is racist in their mem­ber­ship and agenda.

Recently, some mem­bers of the CBC have been try­ing to race-bait and stir up racial strife once again.  Regard­ing the Tea Party, Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Max­ine Waters (D-CA) said the fol­low­ing:

I’m not afraid of any­body.  This is a tough game. You can’t be intim­i­dated. You can’t be fright­ened. And as far as I’m con­cerned, the ‘tea party’ can go straight to Hell.

And if this wasn’t enough, Andre Car­son (D-IN) said “some of them in Con­gress right now of this tea party move­ment would love to see you and me … hang­ing on a tree.”

Frankly, this is the kind of rhetoric that dri­ves wedges between races and classes of peo­ple, and that is exactly what these mem­bers of Con­gress want.  They want their con­stituents to hate every­one that isn’t black.  They want their con­stituents to remain deaf, dumb and blind to what they are doing.  They want their con­stituents to stay “on the gov­ern­ment plan­ta­tion” if you will.

Wake up, Black Amer­i­cans!  Wake up, His­panic Amer­i­cans!  Wake up, AMERICANS!  Do you really want to be rep­re­sented by peo­ple like this, who are so full of hate?  It is time to fully real­ize Dr. King’s Dream:

I have a dream that my four lit­tle chil­dren will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the con­tent of their character.

I have a dream today…

And when this hap­pens, when we allow free­dom to ring, when we let it ring from every vil­lage and every ham­let, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s chil­dren, black men and white men, Jews and Gen­tiles, Protes­tants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spir­i­tual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

It is time that our Nation is truly free from all oppres­sion and racism.  Vote these peo­ple out that would race-bait and stir up racial strife.   Let’s abol­ish all racial cau­cuses.  Like the unions, they have lived out their use­ful­ness.  (If they were ever “use­ful” at all.)

That is the only way our coun­try can move toward being “colorblind”.

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: , , ,

The Liberals’ Idea of America

August 9, 2011 By

Lib­er­als detest Amer­ica.   Let me be more spe­cific:  Lib­er­als detest cap­i­tal­ist, rep­re­sen­ta­tive repub­lic Amer­ica.  The lib­eral agenda is two-fold:  First, destroy the cap­i­tal­ist eco­nomic sys­tem that has served our coun­try greatly the past two hun­dred and thirty-five years; Sec­ond, destroy the rep­re­sen­ta­tive repub­lic that our found­ing fathers fought, bled, and died for.

Why would they do this?  It’s sim­ple.  The want to insti­tute their own vision of Amer­ica – a social­ist utopia where all are rich, every­thing is free, and the work­ing class rules.  Sounds great, right?  Let’s look at this in some detail.

Gina Miller, a local jour­nal­ist and audio blog­ger, had a won­der­ful piece this morn­ing on a local news talk radio sta­tion, News­Ra­dio 104.9 FM.   She does a won­der­ful job explain­ing just how deranged and non­sen­si­cal the Com­mu­nist Party USA’s agenda is.  I just want to present you with some quotes as an exam­ple of how far out in left field these peo­ple are.

This past Sun­day morn­ing on “This Week”, Cokie Roberts of ABC News said the fol­low­ing:

 This group of peo­ple in New York [Stan­dard and Poor’s] is actu­ally talk­ing about more gov­ern­ment rather than less gov­ern­ment, Con­gress­man. In fact, the rea­son they like France and Great Britain is because they’re par­lia­men­tary sys­tems where the major­ity gets what it wants no mat­ter what.

And the prob­lem that we have here is the Con­sti­tu­tion of the United States of Amer­ica which actu­ally does require peo­ple to come together from dif­fer­ent per­spec­tives whether it’s divided gov­ern­ment or not. We have divided branches of gov­ern­ment under any circumstance.

As Noël Shep­pard said in his arti­cle, WOW!  You can’t get more plain and straight to the point than that.

It is quite clear that lib­er­als detest the checks and bal­ances sys­tem of our gov­ern­ment, espe­cially when they don’t “own” all three branches.  They would like to see noth­ing more than a Stal­in­ist style of gov­ern­ment, where every­thing is owned by those in power – i.e., them.   What they fail to see, or per­haps can’t see, is that in every coun­try where socialism/communism has been imple­mented, total ruin has fol­lowed.  Per­haps that is what they ulti­mately want.  Per­haps they are so hate-filled they would rather bring the great­est coun­try in the world to her knees just to snuff out the last bas­tion of cap­i­tal­ism and democracy.

This is why we must be vig­i­lant daily to fight for our coun­try and our rights under the Con­sti­tu­tion.  Lib­er­als will stop at noth­ing to destroy our way of life, and they will vil­ify any­one who gets in their way.  The great­est exam­ple of this has been the past week’s debt debate.

The “talk­ing points” from the left for the past week and a half has been how the “Tea Party” has been “hold­ing hostage” the gov­ern­ment.  Every­one from Vice Pres­i­dent Joe Biden to Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, has called “Tea Party” mem­bers “ter­ror­ists” and “hostage tak­ers”.  A “jour­nal­ist” (if you can call him that), Fareed Zakaria of Time and CNN said the following:

So, instead of accept­ing some com­pro­mise that can get through the demo­c­ra­tic process, what they’re say­ing is we’ll blow up the coun­try if you don’t lis­ten to us. We’ll hold hostage the credit of the United States, the good stand­ing of the United States and we’ll blow it up.

They have also been say­ing how the credit rat­ing down­grade by Stan­dard & Poor’s is the “Tea Party” down­grade.  How is that so when the Democ­rats hold the Sen­ate and the White House?  And where is the civil­ity in rhetoric that they called for ear­lier this year?

I will not sit idly by and watch those in power try to destroy this coun­try.  I urge all of you to get out there and edu­cate those you know as to what is going on.  Let’s take this coun­try back from those who would seek to destroy it.  I will leave you with two quotes:

 Think what you do when you run into debt; you give another power over your liberty.

I am for doing good to the poor, but I dif­fer in opin­ion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not mak­ing them easy in poverty, but lead­ing or dri­ving them out of it. In my youth I trav­elled much, and I observed in dif­fer­ent coun­tries, that the more pub­lic pro­vi­sions were made for the poor, the less they pro­vided for them­selves, and of course became poorer. And, on the con­trary, the less was done for them, the more they did for them­selves, and became richer.

–Ben­jamin Franklin

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: , , ,

The Hypocrisy and Idiocy of Obama

March 31, 2011 By

I have not writ­ten about our Dear Leader in some time.  I’ve been bit­ing my tongue.  Now, with his com­plete and utter screw-ups that he has engaged in recently, I can’t hold back any longer.

If you thought George W. Bush was an idiot and a “war crim­i­nal”, just look at what Obama has done in the past month.    He has engaged the United States in an ille­gal war.  (No, it’s not a “kinetic mil­i­tary oper­a­tion”.)  Barack Hus­sein Obama sent in our troops with­out so much of a hint of approval from Con­gress.  To make mat­ters worse, there is quite a bit of con­fu­sion as to the endgame.  From Hillary Clin­ton to Barack Obama to Sec­re­tary Gates, not one of them gives the same answer as to what the pri­mary objec­tive is.   Also, as I have said before, we have no man­date to be in Libya.  By con­trast, the Iraq War, believe it or not, was not an ille­gal war.  At least Bush had Con­gress’ approval.

He also is speak­ing out of both sides of his mouth regard­ing energy pol­icy.  First, he stated on March 19 while on vaca­tion in Brazil (also while the ille­gal Libyan War is going on): 

By some esti­mates, the oil you recently dis­cov­ered off the shores of Brazil could amount to twice the reserves we have in the United States.  We want to work with you.  We want to help with tech­nol­ogy and sup­port to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start sell­ing, we want to be one of your best cus­tomers.  At a time when we’ve been reminded how eas­ily insta­bil­ity in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be hap­pier with the poten­tial for a new, sta­ble source of energy.

Then he says just the other day:

I talked about reduc­ing America’s depen­dence on oil when I was run­ning for Pres­i­dent, and I’m proud of the his­toric progress that we’ve made over the last two years towards that goal, and we’ll talk about that a lit­tle bit. But I’ve got to be hon­est. We’ve run into the same polit­i­cal grid­lock, the same iner­tia that has held us back for decades.

That has to change. That has to change…When I was elected to this office, Amer­ica imported 11 mil­lion bar­rels of oil a day. By a lit­tle more than a decade from now, we will have cut that by one-third. That is some­thing that we can achieve. (Applause.) We can cut our oil depen­dence — we can cut our oil depen­dence by a third.

Cut­ting our depen­dence on oil — by expand­ing our depen­dence?!  How idi­otic is this?  We have so many more oil reserves right here at home than Brazil has.  Yet when approached with the idea of open­ing up drilling here in the U.S., Obama makes a joke about “Drill, Baby Drill”.  Let’s just pose this ques­tion:   Why is Obama more inter­ested in Brazil­ian oil than he is Amer­i­can oil?

I truly hope that Obama doesn’t win another term in 2012.  I hon­estly don’t think our coun­try can take any more of this.

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: ,

Glenn Beck’s Challenge to America

January 10, 2011 By

Glenn Beck issued a chal­lenge to all Amer­i­cans tonight to denounce all forms of vio­lence – regard­less of where it comes from.   Glenn, I accept:

  • I denounce vio­lence, regard­less of ide­o­log­i­cal motivation.
  • I denounce any­one, from the Left, the Right or mid­dle, who believes phys­i­cal vio­lence is the answer to what­ever they feel is wrong with our country.
  • I denounce those who wish to tear down our sys­tem and rebuild it in their own image, what­ever that image may be.
  • I denounce those from the Left, the Right or mid­dle, who call for riots and vio­lence as an oppor­tu­nity to bring down and recon­struct our system.
  • I denounce vio­lent threats and calls for the destruc­tion of our sys­tem – regard­less of their under­ly­ing ide­ol­ogy – whether they come from the Huta­ree Mili­tia or Frances Fox Piven.
  • I hold those respon­si­ble for the vio­lence, respon­si­ble for the vio­lence.  I denounce those who attempt to blame polit­i­cal oppo­nents for the acts of madmen.
  • I denounce those from the Left, the Right or mid­dle that sees vio­lence as a viable alter­na­tive to our long estab­lished sys­tem of change made within the con­straints of our con­sti­tu­tional Republic.

Signed,

R. Eric Lee

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: ,

Progressivism Hatred: A Decade in Review

January 10, 2011 By
bushbeheaded.jpg

Michelle Malkin has done what I was going to do today.  She has com­piled a list of hatred and vit­riol that comes from the lib­eral side of the polit­i­cal aisle from 2000 to 2010.  It is in response to all of those (e.g. Keith Olber­mann, Jane Fonda, Bill Maher, et. al.) who imme­di­ately jumped on the band­wagon to blame Repub­li­can and Con­ser­v­a­tive polit­i­cal fig­ures like Sarah Palin for the shoot­ing that took place this past week­end in Tuc­son, instead of where it really belongs – squarely on Jared Lee Loughner’s shoul­ders.  Go take a look – it’ll turn your stomach.

 

bushbeheaded

Remem­ber this?

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: ,

Tragedy in Tucson: What Can We Learn?

January 9, 2011 By
GabrielleGiffords_thumb.jpg

 

GabrielleGiffordsYes­ter­day a sense­less, cow­ardly act occurred in Tuc­son, Ari­zona.  A 22 year-old, pot-smoking psy­chopath went to a meet-and-greet held by U.S. Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Gabrielle Gif­fords at a local Safe­way super­mar­ket and opened fire on those attending.

Six peo­ple were viciously mur­dered, includ­ing a fed­eral judge and a 9-year-old girl:

  • John Roll, 63 – U.S. Dis­trict Court of Ari­zona judge who had served the legal sys­tem for nearly 40 years
  • Christina Tay­lor Green, 9 – Born on Sep­tem­ber 11, 2001, she was described by fam­ily mem­bers as being “excited” about the polit­i­cal process, and she was just elected to the stu­dent coun­cil at her school.  She was invited by a neigh­bor to the event so Christina could learn more about politics.
  • Gabe Zim­mer­man, 30 – A Tuc­son native, engaged to be mar­ried, he was the direc­tor of com­mu­nity out­reach for Rep. Gabby Giffords.
  • Dor­win Stod­dard, 76 – A retired con­struc­tion worker, he tried to shield his wife and was shot in the head.  His wife was struck three times in the legs and is expected to make a full recovery.
  • Dorothy Mor­ris, 76
  • Phyl­lis Scheck, 79

There are those out there, espe­cially in the media of the left-leaning per­sua­sion, that were quick to blame those like Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.  This is just irre­spon­si­ble and despi­ca­ble.  Nei­ther Sarah Palin nor the mem­bers of the Tea Party no more pulled the trig­ger than Mickey Mouse did.  Only one per­son is respon­si­ble, and that per­son is in fed­eral cus­tody.  He is charged with the following:

  • One count of attempted mur­der of a mem­ber of Congress
  • Two counts of mur­der in the first degree
  • Two counts of attempted murder

It is imper­a­tive that we as Amer­i­cans fully real­ize that this inci­dent was not polit­i­cally charged and is not the fault of any­one else, either on the left or the right, other than the shooter him­self.  It has become quite appar­ent from all the infor­ma­tion avail­able from var­i­ous sources (e.g. MySpace, YouTube, Face­book, etc.) that this guy was unsta­ble and com­pletely inco­her­ent.  He appar­ently has no firm polit­i­cal con­nec­tions or affil­i­a­tions.  He was a loner and a lone wolf.

I said it ear­lier on Twit­ter, but I want to reit­er­ate it here.  Any­one who would use this tragedy to score polit­i­cal points is just as psy­chotic as this shooter is.  This is not a polit­i­cal event; it is a human tragedy.  It should be treated as such, and our prayers as a nation should be with the fam­i­lies of those who died and with those who are still recov­er­ing from this hor­ri­ble attack.

Read more here:

Mother of Girl Shot Dead in Ari­zona Ram­page Remem­bers her “Beau­ti­ful Girl”

Sus­pect Slapped with Mur­der Charge in Tuc­son Shoot­ing Spree

Filed Under: Crime, Politics Tagged With: , , , ,

The Shirley Sherrod Saga: Why the NAACP is No Longer Relevant

July 21, 2010 By

I’m sure you have all heard of Shirley Sher­rod, the USDA offi­cial who was forced to resign because of a story she told to the NAACP in March at a Geor­gia ban­quet.  Here is a link to the video in case you haven’t watched it.

The story Ms. Sher­rod was telling was one about her per­sonal strug­gle with racism and how she over­came it to do the right thing:  Help a farmer (who just hap­pened to be white) who was strug­gling and in need.  Accord­ing to Andrew Bre­it­bart, the whole pur­pose of post­ing the video online was not to out Ms. Sher­rod as racist, but to show the hypocrisy of the NAACP in its con­dem­na­tion of the Tea Party as “racist”.  The video shows the crowd cheer­ing as Ms. Sher­rod explains that she “didn’t give [the farmer] the full force of what I could do”.

Ms. Sherrod states she was called and told by the White House and to sub­mit her res­ig­na­tion by Black­berry imme­di­ately, because of the video.  The NAACP, who had full pos­ses­sion of the entire video, even jumped on the band­wagon con­demn­ing her:

We con­cur with US Agri­cul­ture Sec­re­tary Vil­sack in accept­ing the res­ig­na­tion of Shirley Sher­rod for her remarks at a local NAACP Free­dom Fund banquet.

Racism is about the abuse of power. Sher­rod had it in her posi­tion at USDA. Accord­ing to her remarks, she mis­treated a white farmer in need of assis­tance because of his race.

We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farm­ers of color and female farmers.

Now it appears the head of the USDA is recon­sid­er­ing her ouster.  Also, the NAACP is say­ing they were “snookered”:

With regard to the ini­tial media cov­er­age of the res­ig­na­tion of USDA offi­cial Shirley Sher­rod, we have come to the con­clu­sion we were snook­ered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Bre­it­bart into believ­ing she had harmed white farm­ers because of racial bias.

Hav­ing reviewed the full tape, spo­ken to Ms. Sher­rod, and most impor­tantly heard the tes­ti­mony of the white farm­ers men­tioned in this story, we now believe the orga­ni­za­tion that edited the doc­u­ments did so with the inten­tion of deceiv­ing mil­lions of Americans.

The fact is Ms. Sher­rod did help the white farm­ers men­tioned in her speech. They per­son­ally credit her with help­ing to save their fam­ily farm.

This goes beyond the pale.  The NAACP had full, unfet­tered access to the video from the begin­ning, yet they blame their knee-jerk reac­tion on the Tea Party and Bre­it­bart.  The NAACP has long out­lived its use­ful­ness and is no longer a non­profit, civil rights group.  They are, and have been for sev­eral years, a polit­i­cal entity and should have their tax-exempt sta­tus revoked.  The very racism they say lives within the Tea Party in fact per­me­ates the NAACP, and they should be called out on it.

Shirley Sher­rod should have not only her job back, but get a pro­mo­tion because of the reac­tion by the Obama Admin­is­tra­tion.  I com­mend her for rec­og­niz­ing what she did sev­eral years ago was wrong and over­com­ing it.

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: ,

What Patriotism Means

July 20, 2010 By
Patri­o­tism means to stand by the coun­try.  It does not mean to stand by the pres­i­dent.  — Theodore Roo­sevelt (1858−1919)
 
Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: ,

In Honor of the New Black Panther Party Hooplah.

July 9, 2010 By

It’s a beau­ti­ful day in this ‘hood,
A beau­ti­ful day for a cracka.
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?…

It’s a crack­aly day in this beauty wood,
A crack­aly day for a beauty.
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?…

I’ve always wanted to have a cracka just like ya.
I’ve always wanted to live in a ‘hood with ya.

So, let’s make the most of this beau­ti­ful day.
Since we’re together we might as well say:
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?
Won’t you be my cracka?
Won’t you please,
Won’t you please?
Please won’t you be my cracka?

Filed Under: Humor, Politics Tagged With: ,

More from Obama’s Immigration Speech

July 2, 2010 By

I down­loaded a tran­script of Pres­i­dent Obama’s immi­gra­tion speech yes­ter­day at Amer­i­can Uni­ver­sity in Wash­ing­ton, D.C.  You can read it in its entirety here.

But as I was read­ing it, a cou­ple of more pas­sages grabbed my atten­tion.  Here’s the first one:

Into this breach, states like Ari­zona have decided to take mat­ters into their own hands. Given the lev­els of frus­tra­tion across the coun­try, this is under­stand­able. But it is also ill con­ceived. And it’s not just that the law Ari­zona passed is divi­sive -– although it has fanned the flames of an already con­tentious debate. Laws like Arizona’s put huge pres­sures on local law enforce­ment to enforce rules that ulti­mately are unen­force­able. It puts pres­sure on already hard-strapped state and local bud­gets. It makes it dif­fi­cult for peo­ple here ille­gally to report crimes -– dri­ving a wedge between com­mu­ni­ties and law enforce­ment, mak­ing our streets more dan­ger­ous and the jobs of our police offi­cers more dif­fi­cult.  (Empha­sis mine.)

This is curi­ous, as S.B. 1070 is mod­eled after the fed­eral law.  Does Obama think the fed­eral law is unen­force­able as well?  That’s what this pas­sage would lead you to think.  And for the record, if the fed­eral gov­ern­ment would do its job to secure our bor­ders, the states wouldn’t have to step in and fill the void, putting pres­sure “on already hard-strapped state and local budgets”.

The final sen­tence in that pas­sage just irks me to no end.  It also irks me that Obama said, when refer­ring to the ille­gal immi­grants in this coun­try, “The over­whelm­ing major­ity of these men and women are sim­ply seek­ing a bet­ter life for them­selves and their chil­dren.”    Here’s you some sta­tis­tics (and this is from 2006):

  • 95% of war­rants for mur­der in Los Ange­les are for ille­gal aliens.
  • 83% of war­rants for mur­der in Phoenix are for ille­gal aliens.
  • 86% of war­rants for mur­der in Albu­querque are for ille­gal aliens.
  • 75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Ange­les, Phoenix and Albu­querque are ille­gal aliens.
  • 24.9% of all inmates in Cal­i­for­nia deten­tion cen­ters are Mex­i­can nation­als here illegally.
  • 40.1% of all inmates in Ari­zona deten­tion cen­ters are Mex­i­can nation­als here illegally.
  • 48.2% of all inmates in New Mex­ico deten­tion cen­ters are Mex­i­can nation­als here illegally.
  • 29% (630,000) con­victed ille­gal alien felons fill our state and fed­eral pris­ons at a cost of $1.6 bil­lion annually.
  • 53% plus of all inves­ti­gated bur­glar­ies reported in Cal­i­for­nia, New Mex­ico, Nevada, Ari­zona and Texas are per­pe­trated by ille­gal aliens.
  • 50% plus of all gang mem­bers in Los Ange­les are ille­gal aliens from south of the border.
  • 71% plus of all appre­hended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mex­ico, Ari­zona, Nevada and Cal­i­for­nia were stolen by Ille­gal aliens or “trans­port coyotes”.
  • 47% of cited/stopped dri­vers in Cal­i­for­nia have no license, no insur­ance and no reg­is­tra­tion for the vehi­cle. Of that 47%, 92% are ille­gal aliens.
  • 63% of cited/stopped dri­vers in Ari­zona have no license, no insur­ance and no reg­is­tra­tion for the vehi­cle. Of that 63%, 97% are ille­gal aliens
  • 66% of cited/stopped dri­vers in New Mex­ico have no license, no insur­ance and no reg­is­tra­tion for the vehi­cle. Of that 66%, 98% are ille­gal aliens.
  • BIRTH STATISTICS 380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the U.S. in 2005 to ille­gal alien par­ents, mak­ing 380,000 babies auto­mat­i­cally U.S.citizens.
  • 97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the Amer­i­can taxpayers.
  • 66% plus of all births in Cal­i­for­nia are to ille­gal alien Mex­i­cans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

Con­tin­u­ing his den­i­gra­tion of Ari­zona, Obama said, “These laws also have the poten­tial of vio­lat­ing the rights of inno­cent Amer­i­can cit­i­zens and legal res­i­dents, mak­ing them sub­ject to pos­si­ble stops or ques­tion­ing because of what they look like or how they sound.”  Again, this is a bla­tant lie.  The law absolutely pro­hibits pro­fil­ing.  Law enforce­ment offi­cers can only ask for papers if the per­son in ques­tion is already in the process of com­mit­ting a crime.

Pres­i­dent Obama does go on and say that blan­ket amnesty would be “unwise and unfair”, but also that mass depor­ta­tions of 11 mil­lion peo­ple is impos­si­ble.  On those points, I agree.  But then, he says this:

But our bor­ders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the prob­lem only with fences and bor­der patrols. It won’t work. Our bor­ders will not be secure as long as our lim­ited resources are devoted to not only stop­ping gangs and poten­tial ter­ror­ists, but also the hun­dreds of thou­sands who attempt to cross each year sim­ply to find work.

Did he say, “No we can’t”?  What ever hap­pened to “Yes We Can”?  The laws are there, Mr. Pres­i­dent, to stem the tide of ille­gal immi­gra­tion.  It’s time for the fed­eral gov­ern­ment to step up and do their job and enforce the laws that are already on the books, instead of try­ing to re-invent the wheel.

Filed Under: Illegal Immigration, Politics Tagged With: ,
« Older Posts