Obama: Being an American is not about “blood or birth”

July 1, 2010 By

Umm…What???  That’s exactly what Obama said in his speech today on immi­gra­tion reform.

Being an Amer­i­can is not a mat­ter of blood or birth,  it’s a mat­ter of faith.  It’s a mat­ter of fidelity to the shared val­ues that we all hold so dear.  That’s what makes us unique.  That’s what makes us strong.  Any­body can help us write the next great chap­ter in our history.

Well, I can see where he was try­ing to go with this:  Any­one and every­one is wel­come here, and peo­ple of all dif­fer­ent back­grounds who hold the ideals of free­dom and lib­erty dear is what makes our coun­try unique in the world.  I get this state­ment, and I agree with that sentiment.

How­ever, there is one lit­tle issue that wasn’t addressed here.  It’s called the Con­sti­tu­tion, and more specif­i­cally, the four­teenth amend­ment:

Sec­tion 1. All per­sons born or nat­u­ral­ized in the United States, and sub­ject to the juris­dic­tion thereof, are cit­i­zens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priv­i­leges or immu­ni­ties of cit­i­zens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any per­son of life, lib­erty, or prop­erty, with­out due process of law; nor deny to any per­son within its juris­dic­tion the equal pro­tec­tion of the laws.

So, you see, it is a mat­ter of blood and birth.  It is a mat­ter of the rule of law, which the Pres­i­dent swore to pro­tect, pre­serve, and defend.  Like I have said before:  It’s not legal immi­gra­tion that’s the issue here.  It’s ille­gal immi­gra­tion.  (For those of you who don’t know what that is — it’s where you have peo­ple com­ing over the bor­der from either Canada or Mex­ico with­out going through Immi­gra­tion and Cus­toms Enforce­ment — and staying.…and staying.…and staying.…and never apply­ing for citizenship.)

A nation with­out laws and bor­ders is not a nation — it’s anar­chy.  And appar­ently that is what Obama, his admin­stra­tion, and the Demo­c­ra­tic Party believe in.

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: ,

Obama’s First Oval Office Speech: We need cap and tax!

June 16, 2010 By

Good morn­ing, folks.   As I lis­tened to Obama’s speech (full text here) last night about the oil spill,  I became more wor­ried than I have ever been before.  Instead of reas­sur­ing the peo­ple of the Gulf Coast, where I call home, that the cap­ping of the Deep­wa­ter Hori­zon well and clean­ing up the oil spill were top pri­or­ity, Obama decided to push for green energy leg­is­la­tion.  He decided to play pol­i­tics as usual and give a pub­lic relations/political speech instead of a lead­er­ship speech.

As the pres­i­dent started his speech, emo­tion was nowhere to be found.  It started out sound­ing like a professor’s lec­ture — bor­ing and monot­o­nous.  Then, as he started speak­ing about the clean, renew­able energy he wants for this coun­try, he became more ani­mated.  This is what he really wants for the coun­try.  Charles Krautham­mer summed it up per­fectly when he said that Obama is not a “clean-up guy” — he’s a “dreamer”.

This state­ment by Obama will be the defin­ing state­ment of this cri­sis, and his pres­i­dency:   “And sadly, no mat­ter how effec­tive our response is, there will be more oil and more dam­age before this siege is done.”

In his speech, Obama said the fol­low­ing regard­ing green energy: 

For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addic­tion to fos­sil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this chal­lenge requires. Time and again, the path for­ward has been blocked — not only by oil indus­try lob­by­ists, but also by a lack of polit­i­cal courage and candor.

Well, Mr. Pres­i­dent, I have to say that your admin­is­tra­tion just doesn’t get it.  With this cri­sis, you have “failed to act with the sense of urgency that this chal­lenge requires.”  You have lacked “polit­i­cal courage and can­dor” when it comes to this dis­as­ter.  You are sim­ply unable to sep­a­rate the chaff from the wheat.  What hap­pened with the Deep­wa­ter Hori­zon rig was the fault of BP and your admin­is­tra­tion and not the fault of any other oil com­pany.  What you fail to real­ize is that the off­shore oil indus­try is a sta­ple for this region, and the six-month mora­to­rium you have placed on deep­wa­ter drilling will crip­ple not only our local econ­omy, but the national econ­omy as well.

Accord­ing to the Coun­cil on For­eign Rela­tions, off­shore oil pro­duc­tion from the Gulf rep­re­sents 30% of all U.S. crude pro­duc­tion, and deep­wa­ter drilling rep­re­sents 70% of that.  And, com­pa­nies are being dri­ven to drill deep­wa­ter wells because fed­eral reg­u­la­tions bar any more shallow-water and land drilling.  So this knee-jerk reac­tion to shut down all deep­wa­ter rigs in the Gulf to ensure safety may sound pru­dent on the sur­face, but in fact it will do more long-term eco­nomic harm than this spill itself.

Get with the pro­gram, Mr. Pres­i­dent.  Like I have said before, we don’t need a politi­cian for pres­i­dent — we need a leader.  And you, sir, are not that man.

Filed Under: Gulf Oil Spill of 2010, Politics Tagged With: , , ,

Faces of Anti-Semitism

June 8, 2010 By

 

Here’s another one:

 

 

There is no difference.

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: , ,

Obama to Skip Out on Memorial Day at Arlington

May 25, 2010 By

Boy, oh boy.  When was the last time a sit­ting pres­i­dent didn’t lay the wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Sol­dier?  Accord­ing to the AP, Obama won’t be doing it — Joe Biden will.  Obama and his fam­ily will be going home to Chicago for “vacation”:

The White House says Obama and his fam­ily will travel to their home­town on Thurs­day and stay through the week­end. It will be their first trip back home since a visit for Valentine’s Day week­end in Feb­ru­ary 2009.

He will, however, attend a cer­e­mony at Abra­ham Lin­coln National Ceme­tery in Elwood, Illi­nois.  I know it’s not a require­ment for the Pres­i­dent to do it, but it is a mat­ter of respect and rever­ance for the ser­vice and sac­ri­fices made by our sol­diers.  If it was a one-time deal, I wouldn’t really care.  But this reminds me of the time that, shortly after assum­ing the office, Obama went to Europe and rejected vis­it­ing Nor­mandy to avoid offend­ing the Ger­mans.

I think that, and this is just a guess, Obama is trav­el­ing to Chicago so he can apol­o­gize to Rev­erend Wright for “throw­ing him under the bus”.  I won­der if he will attend Trin­ity United Church of “God Damn America”?

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: , ,

The Audacity of Harangue

May 20, 2010 By
La-Raza-758842

That’s exactly what it was yes­ter­day and today with “Pres­i­dent” Obama and “President” Felipe Calderon of Mex­ico, regard­ing ille­gal immi­gra­tion and the Ari­zona anti–ille­gal immi­gra­tion law.  (That’s what it is, folks — NOT anti-immigration.)

Obama said this:  “We’re exam­in­ing any impli­ca­tions espe­cially for civil rights because in the United States of Amer­ica, no law abid­ing per­son — be they an Amer­i­can cit­i­zen, ille­gal immi­grant, or a vis­i­tor or tourist from Mex­ico — should ever be sub­ject to sus­pi­cion sim­ply because of what they look like.”

And Calderon said this:  “We are and will con­tinue to be respect­ful of the inter­nal poli­cies of the United States and its legit­i­mate right to estab­lish, in accor­dance to its Con­sti­tu­tion, what­ever laws it approves,” he said, “But we will retain our firm rejec­tion to crim­i­nal­ized migra­tion so that peo­ple that work and pro­vide things to this nation would be treated as criminals.”

Crim­i­nal­ized migra­tion?  CRIMINALIZED MIGRATION????  It’s ILLEGAL to come into this coun­try with­out the proper pro­ce­dure and papers.  HEY OBAMA — I have a news flash for you:  A per­son, if they’re com­ing into this coun­try ille­gally, is NOT a law-abiding per­son!!  This law passed by Ari­zona, S.B. 1070, re-affirms what is in our fed­eral law, and does NOT dis­crim­i­nate NOR encour­age racial pro­fil­ing.  It is quite appar­ent that no one that has come out crit­i­ciz­ing this law (i.e. Eric Holder, Janet Napoli­tano, Obama, Calderon, etc.) has actu­ally read said law.  Do your­self a favor before mak­ing an ass out of your­self:  READ THE $@%& LAW!!

I stand by Ari­zona, and from now on I will buy every­thing I can that is made there.  I will sup­port this state whole­heart­edly, and I am hope­ful that my own state and other states will fol­low suit soon.  As per the United States Con­sti­tu­tion, “The Con­gress shall have Power To lay and col­lect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and pro­vide for the com­mon Defence and gen­eral Wel­fare of the United States”.  Also, “The pow­ers not del­e­gated to the United States by the Con­sti­tu­tion, nor pro­hib­ited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respec­tively, or to the peo­ple.”  The right to secure the bor­der of the State is not pro­hib­ited by the Constitution.

Oh, and another thing:  The AUDACITY of our so-called Pres­i­dent, allow­ing noth­ing but a glo­ri­fied drug dealer to address OUR Con­gress, is despicable. S.B. 1070 is noth­ing but a re-statement of the FEDERAL LAW, which Obama and his pre­de­ces­sors have FAILED to uphold, giv­ing the Ari­zona law enforce­ment the abil­ity to ENFORCE the law. I’m so sick and tired of our topsy-turvy gov­ern­ment. Obama’s speech with Calderon yes­ter­day was sedi­tious, and he ought to be thrown out on his..err, ears. It’s high time Obama be impeached for his crimes against the United States.

Some def­i­n­i­tions for you:

Harangue:  a scold­ing or a long or intense ver­bal attack; diatribe.

Ille­gal:  for­bid­den by law or statute.

Impeach­ment:  Impeach­ment, in the U.S. and Great Britain, pro­ceed­ing by a leg­is­la­ture for the removal from office of a pub­lic offi­cial charged with mis­con­duct in office. Impeach­ment com­prises both the act of for­mu­lat­ing the accu­sa­tion and the result­ing trial of the charges; it is fre­quently but erro­neously taken to mean only the removal from office of an accused pub­lic offi­cial. An impeach­ment trial may result in either an acquit­tal or in a ver­dict of guilty. In the lat­ter case the impeached offi­cial is removed from office; if the charges war­rant such action, the offi­cial is also remanded to the proper author­i­ties for trial before a court.

Filed Under: Illegal Immigration, Politics Tagged With: , , , ,

The Best Billboard Ever

February 16, 2010 By
Why yes, yes I do.

If only it were real…

After read­ing Michelle Malkin’s piece this morn­ing, I just had to go to the orig­i­nal site and look at the pho­tos.  By per­mis­sion of the orig­i­nal owner, I’m post­ing the photo here.  I must say — I sure do:

Why yes, yes I do. (Pho­to­shop by: W.E. Messamore)

Some­times I love Photoshoppers.

Filed Under: Conservatism Tagged With: , ,

Teamster Strike Blocks Blood Delivery

December 15, 2009 By

The Amer­i­can Red Cross in Philadel­phia, PA, is accus­ing a local union, Team­sters Local 929, of block­ing a blood deliv­ery to a two-year-old girl, whose life depended on the blood deliv­ery.  Accord­ing to the arti­cle, the union mem­bers refused to move until they were told about the girl.  As a result the Red Cross got an injunc­tion against the union so they would stop inter­fer­ing with blood deliv­er­ies to hos­pi­tals.  The union went on strike Decem­ber 3 after a fail­ure to nego­ti­ate a new contract.

The rea­son for the strike?  Accord­ing to the union, unfair labor prac­tices and pay.  But, accord­ing to the Red Cross, there have been no unsafe labor prac­tice com­plaints by the Team­sters Union. The court that awarded the injunc­tion agreed with the Red Cross. 

The Red Cross is struggling, like other orga­ni­za­tios, through the eco­nomic slump.  As a result,  non-union work­ers are under a pay freeze until June 30, 2010.  This has been a major con­tention dur­ing the con­tract nego­ti­a­tion, and the union refuses to agree to a pay freeze.

“We are sim­ply ask­ing union employ­ees to make the same sac­ri­fices that their non-union col­leagues have already made,” said Anthony Tor­netta, Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Man­ager for the Red Cross Penn-Jersey Blood Region. “Their refusal to do so remains a sig­nif­i­cant issue in these negotiations.”

The union work­ers are cov­ered both by the Inter­na­tional Broth­er­hood of  Team­sters and the SEIU, and being encour­aged to strike by the orga­ni­za­tion Change to Win.  Their mantra?  They will not stop “until every man, woman and child has qual­ity, afford­able care they can count on”.

Change you can believe in.

Filed Under: Health and Fitness, Politics Tagged With: , , ,

The Defense of our Nation

December 14, 2009 By

In the defense of our nation, a pres­i­dent must be a clear-eyed real­ist. There are lim­its to the smiles and scowls of diplo­macy. Armies and mis­siles are not stopped by stiff notes of con­dem­na­tion. They are held in check by strength and pur­pose and the promise of swift punishment.

George W. Bush

Unfor­tu­nately, I don’t think our cur­rent pres­i­dent real­izes this.  He is nei­ther clear-eyed, nor a real­ist.  He con­tin­ues to use diplo­macy as though it’s the be-all, end-all of all argu­ments.  He wants to reduce our nuclear deter­rent, while other nations strive to increase theirs.  He wants to essen­tially cut our defense appro­pri­a­tions.  He is con­sis­tently weak­en­ing us, and he has obfus­cated our pur­pose as a nation — not only in for­eign pol­icy, but in domes­tic issues as well.

We The Peo­ple need to wake up and real­ize what is hap­pen­ing to our coun­try.  Every day we see the vit­riol and hatred increase, not only from the left, but from the fringes of the polit­i­cal right also.   And now it seems as though the fringe left and fringe right are turn­ing on them­selves as well.  What will it take for this coun­try to come together, as we did after 9/11?  Will it take another ter­ror­ist attack, or will it take some­thing worse (i.e., rev­o­lu­tion)?  I pray to God not.

I just con­tinue to see the moral decline of this coun­try, and it sad­dens me.  This is not the coun­try I remem­ber from my child­hood, and it’s cer­tainly not the one from Sep­tem­ber 2001.  We were united.  We all suf­fered — even those of us who didn’t have any imme­di­ate fam­ily or friends to die in the ter­ri­ble attacks of that day.  I saw a patri­o­tism and a love for God and coun­try like I had never seen before.  What happened?

If things do not improve soon, I truly see a rev­o­lu­tion or civil out­burst hap­pen­ing soon — cer­tainly not as wide­spread and dev­as­tat­ing as our Civil War, but still dra­matic in its own right.  We’ve already seen what hap­pens when peo­ple are upset with tuition increases.  What do you think will hap­pen when the peo­ple of this coun­try finally get tired of the con­tin­u­ous “tax and spend” com­ing from Wash­ing­ton?  I fore­see it being far, far worse.

Filed Under: 9/11, Politics Tagged With: , , , ,

Obama’s Nobel Speech: My Analysis

December 10, 2009 By

I didn’t get to watch it, but I have read it — a cou­ple of times.  As a con­ser­v­a­tive and a Chris­t­ian, I will applaud Obama and his speech­writ­ers for devel­op­ing and deliv­er­ing a speech that does, in fact, edify Amer­ica and cham­pi­ons our cause against global ter­ror­ism.  Below are some excerpts of the speech that jumped out at me.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: , ,

Harry Reid: Race-Baiter Extraordinaire

December 9, 2009 By

This would be funny if it wasn’t so bla­tantly wrong and seri­ous.  Actu­ally, I take that back.  It’s NEVER funny to play the “race card”.  Alas, Harry “The war is lost” Reid does it again.  On the Repub­li­cans oppos­ing the “pub­lic option” in healthcare:

“If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said. “When this coun­try belat­edly rec­og­nized the wrongs of slav­ery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’”

WRONG, Harry!  It was the Demo­c­rat Party who opposed the abo­li­tion of slav­ery:

The South­ern Democ­rats endorsed slav­ery, while the Repub­li­cans denounced it. The North­ern Democ­rats said democ­racy required the peo­ple to decide on slav­ery locally. The Con­sti­tu­tional Union Party said the sur­vival of the Union was at stake and every­thing else should be compromised.

Although the bill was sup­ported by a major­ity of both par­ties, it was Democ­rats in key posi­tions that opposed the legislation.

The bill was reported out of the Judi­ciary Com­mit­tee in Novem­ber 1963, and referred to the Rules Com­mit­tee, whose chair­man, Howard W. Smith, a Demo­c­rat and avid seg­re­ga­tion­ist from Vir­ginia, indi­cated his inten­tion to keep the bill bot­tled up indef­i­nitely. It was at this point that Pres­i­dent Kennedy was assas­si­nated. The new pres­i­dent, Lyn­don John­son, uti­lized his expe­ri­ence in leg­isla­tive pol­i­tics and the bully pul­pit he wielded as pres­i­dent in sup­port of the bill.

On June 10, 1964, Robert Byrd, the Demo­c­ra­tic Sen­a­tor from West Vir­ginia (and a mem­ber of the KKK, I might add), deliv­ered a long-winded speech dur­ing a fil­i­buster — 14 hours, 13 min­utes - oppos­ing the leg­is­la­tion.  Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN) also opposed the legislation.

Harry Reid should be forced to apol­o­gize for this bla­tant and out­ra­geous lie, and for play­ing the race card on a total non-race issue.  If he doesn’t, he and all those who sup­port him should be forced out.

It’s time for this dem­a­goguery to stop.

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »