By Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
Jesse Jackson is right.
In response to the face-off in Arizona between President Obama and Arizona governor Jan Brewer last week, Jackson said, “Even George Wallace did not put his finger in Dr. King’s face.” And it’s true; he didn’t. Similarly, not even Josef Stalin wrote two autobiographies the way Obama has. And even Genghis Khan didn’t have a Swiss bank account the way Mitt Romney did.
Of course, Jackson’s non sequitur is a single note in the cacophony of asininity surrounding the wildly overhyped confrontation between Obama and Brewer. An MSNBC host (and putative expert in matters racial) said the photo reminded her more than anything else of the iconic image of Elizabeth Eckford, the 15-year-old black girl who was harassed in 1957 by racists on her way to a desegregated school in Little Rock, Ark. And liberal talk-radio host Stephanie Miller concurred that Brewer was “playing the fragile-white-woman-scared-of-black-man card.” Al Sharpton, Bill Maher, and Maureen Dowd sounded similar refrains.
Lost in all of this is the simple fact that the president instigated the confrontation. He was upset with how an earlier meeting with Brewer was characterized in her book, Scorpions for Breakfast (full disclosure: my wife collaborated on the book). She probably shouldn’t have raised her finger, even if it was only to get a word in edgewise.
But good Lord, given the liberal overreaction to this incident, you’d think the governorship of Arizona outranked the presidency, or that Obama was a beleaguered civil-rights activist sneaking into Arizona by cover of night, and not the president of the United States touching down in Air Force One.
Obama simply messed up a campaign swing by stepping on his message. But his most ardent supporters had to turn the incident into some sort of racial Götterdämmerung. Obama had it right later when he said it was all “not a big deal.”
But this absurd controversy is surely a harbinger of greater inanities to come. As even some Democrats in Washington concede, Obama can’t run on his record. That’s why he’s running against a “do-nothing Congress” and unfairness in the tax code. That’s simply not exciting enough for his supporters, particularly given the fizzling of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
And nothing more excites the base of the Democratic party — or gets more free media — than wildly implausible hysterics over racism, even when there’s so little evidence to support the claim.
Take what appears to be the Left’s strongest claim: Newt Gingrich’s blowout victory in South Carolina was a triumph for his racist “dog-whistle” political rhetoric on child labor and the huge rise in food-stamp use under Obama.
“Dog-whistle politics” is a term imported from Britain that implies politicians use language with two frequencies, one for normal people and one for less savory constituencies. Dog-whistle messages are real. But dog-whistle spotting can be hard — you’re listening for things that, by definition, normal people cannot hear — and prone to wild misinterpretation.
For instance, Gingrich has been talking about food stamps and child labor for a long time. During that time, he also worked harder than most GOP politicians to reach out to minority groups, even to Sharpton. Does he phrase things too provocatively? Absolutely. But he does that about everything from tax cuts to moon bases.
When Gingrich came down like a ton of bricks on Juan Williams in the South Carolina debate on the food-stamp issue, liberals instinctively saw it as a racial transaction, pure and simple. And although I have no doubt that racists enjoyed seeing Gingrich belittle a black journalist, there’s zero evidence that Republicans overall cheered for racist reasons. They’ve cheered Gingrich for attacking white moderators from every outlet, including Fox News.
And to the extent there are racial implications to what Gingrich proposes, they’re no more racist than remarks made by prominent African Americans who see the culture of poverty perpetuating poverty.
But for reasons that say a lot more about the weaknesses of the first black president, liberals yearn to hear racism where it isn’t to make this campaign into something more exciting than a referendum on Obama.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Business As Usual at the New York Times
By Ken Connor
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
For a picture of how low the level of public discourse has sunk in America, look no further than the New York Times. In an editorial following Newt Gingrich's upset victory in the South Carolina Republican Primary, the Times' editorialists dealt from the bottom of the deck, playing the race card in an attempt to deflect attention from the growing public dissatisfaction with the policies of the Obama administration. According to these so-called "journalists," "[V]oters . . . let themselves be manipulated by the lowest form of campaigning, appealing to their anger and prejudices." In other words, Newt beat Mitt because South Carolina Republicans are a bunch of racist bigots.
The evidence for this charge? Gingrich asserted that Mr. Obama "was the greatest food-stamp president in American history" and that his cabinet "looked like Mickey Mouse and Goofy." Inasmuch as the majority of Americans receiving government entitlements, food stamps and otherwise, are white and the President's cabinet has a predominantly pale hue, these statements were a bald act of race-baiting. After all, South Carolina is the home of Fort Sumter and John C. Calhoun, and the Times has never been an organization to let facts get in the way of a good argument. More than 150 years after the Civil War, the Old Gray Lady is still waving the Bloody Shirt from the sheltered confines of her tony West Side Manhattan headquarters.
It is no secret to the few who actually still read the Times that the organization prides itself on its Progressive views. It is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and favors the use of government as an instrument for the redistribution of wealth. It believes that global warming and Darwinian evolution are established, indisputable facts. Anyone who departs from this orthodoxy, i.e. the majority of Republicans, is branded by the Times as an unenlightened, anti-choice, anti-science, homophobic, racist, xenophobic troglodyte. In addition to serving as ideological fodder for its Liberal fan base, these ad hominem caricatures are designed to have a chilling effect on voters who might be inclined to embrace a candidate upon whom the Times does not look favorably. Is it any wonder, then, that Gingrich's attacks on the elite media establishment are resonating with voters in America's hinterlands and "fly-over" states? Any surprise that many conservatives have lost confidence in the once-revered bastions of American journalism and now look to other outlets for news and information?
For all of the faults that may be found with the Republican debates (and there are many), at least the candidates' rhetoric more often than not includes appeals to facts and logic. Liberals might prefer vague allusions to "hope and change" to the sometimes uncomfortable realities of America's current political, economic, and social condition, but South Carolina voters and millions like them across these United States are fed up with meaningless, feel-good rhetoric and are ready for action – with or without the blessing of the New York Times.
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
For a picture of how low the level of public discourse has sunk in America, look no further than the New York Times. In an editorial following Newt Gingrich's upset victory in the South Carolina Republican Primary, the Times' editorialists dealt from the bottom of the deck, playing the race card in an attempt to deflect attention from the growing public dissatisfaction with the policies of the Obama administration. According to these so-called "journalists," "[V]oters . . . let themselves be manipulated by the lowest form of campaigning, appealing to their anger and prejudices." In other words, Newt beat Mitt because South Carolina Republicans are a bunch of racist bigots.
The evidence for this charge? Gingrich asserted that Mr. Obama "was the greatest food-stamp president in American history" and that his cabinet "looked like Mickey Mouse and Goofy." Inasmuch as the majority of Americans receiving government entitlements, food stamps and otherwise, are white and the President's cabinet has a predominantly pale hue, these statements were a bald act of race-baiting. After all, South Carolina is the home of Fort Sumter and John C. Calhoun, and the Times has never been an organization to let facts get in the way of a good argument. More than 150 years after the Civil War, the Old Gray Lady is still waving the Bloody Shirt from the sheltered confines of her tony West Side Manhattan headquarters.
It is no secret to the few who actually still read the Times that the organization prides itself on its Progressive views. It is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and favors the use of government as an instrument for the redistribution of wealth. It believes that global warming and Darwinian evolution are established, indisputable facts. Anyone who departs from this orthodoxy, i.e. the majority of Republicans, is branded by the Times as an unenlightened, anti-choice, anti-science, homophobic, racist, xenophobic troglodyte. In addition to serving as ideological fodder for its Liberal fan base, these ad hominem caricatures are designed to have a chilling effect on voters who might be inclined to embrace a candidate upon whom the Times does not look favorably. Is it any wonder, then, that Gingrich's attacks on the elite media establishment are resonating with voters in America's hinterlands and "fly-over" states? Any surprise that many conservatives have lost confidence in the once-revered bastions of American journalism and now look to other outlets for news and information?
For all of the faults that may be found with the Republican debates (and there are many), at least the candidates' rhetoric more often than not includes appeals to facts and logic. Liberals might prefer vague allusions to "hope and change" to the sometimes uncomfortable realities of America's current political, economic, and social condition, but South Carolina voters and millions like them across these United States are fed up with meaningless, feel-good rhetoric and are ready for action – with or without the blessing of the New York Times.
Will Any Part of Europe Save Itself?
By Rachel Marsden
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
The Fitch Ratings agency has downgraded the credit of another five European countries -- Belgium, Cyprus, Italy, Slovenia, and Spain -- citing "the financing risks faced by eurozone sovereign governments in the absence of a credible financial firewall against contagion and self-fulfilling liquidity crises."
In other words, these self-styled fiscal medics plunged headfirst into deadly disease without making sure they had all their shots. Is every European country that tries to find a clean end by which to lift up this mess now doomed?
Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum chairman, opened last week's annual gathering of the world's economic and political elite in Davos, Switzerland, by proposing the following wisdom at a time when change purses are circling the drain: "My wish is threefold -- that we build by searching for constructive new solutions and models, that we bond by looking for long-term vision, and that we bind by creating the necessary underpinning framework of shared values."
Of all the possible solutions, that's definitely not it. Presumably, Schwab -- bless his heart -- is 13 years old and hasn't gotten "the talk" yet from mom. I definitely would have swooned at such a romantic line in high school, in the days when I was hitting up my parents daily for lunch money and thought I'd marry Johnny Depp. I've since sobered up, I pay my own bills, and Johnny obviously blew me off -- so this kind of talk does nothing for my cynical realist heart. It's the kind of self-flagellating collectivism that got the world into this mess in the first place. Permit me to propose a new mandate: "Focus on saving yourself first, so you can then help others."
The "me first" concept -- or what I now like to call the "Costa Concordia captain's mantra" -- hasn't entirely escaped German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, thank goodness. Amid all Merkel's rhetoric about greater political integration and economic control to "fix" the eurozone mess, Germany and France have still toyed more sensibly with the idea of the highest-rated EU countries issuing new, separate debt bonds at lower interest rates so they can then funnel money to the hopeless ones that are taking on debt faster than they can pay off the interest that gets jacked up higher with each credit downgrade.
Nice to see there's still some instinct of self-preservation. The unspoken truth is that the eurozone can't be saved as a whole. It's only by individual countries getting their act together and crawling ashore that they can ever hope to throw a life preserver to others. But even self-preservation is becoming less feasible as the situation grows direr and there's increasingly less to preserve.
As Fitch points out, a deepening recession could lead to greater public outcry and the rejection of austerity reforms. Italy's post-Berlusconi prime minister, Mario Monti, is currently contending with taxi strikes after proposing to give out more licenses in an attempt to increase competition, jobs and performance in the sector. Monti is also seeking to license more gas stations, notaries and pharmacies in an attempt to spur free-market competition and take power out of the hands of the relatively small few who like to keep business in the family -- literally. Just under one in five notaries are related to someone in the business, according to a Bloomberg report.
Seeing as how these unions in their current form were conceived by a fascist dictator named Benito Mussolini whose heyday was nearly a century ago, perhaps the system's a bit dated. Monti still has to get it through Parliament, and many Parliament members work in these sectors themselves and may not want to vote against their own interests within the socialist system.
Italy also benefits from Monti being a "technocrat" -- which is code for a non-politician who was parachuted in to fix things but isn't tethered to political power at his umbilical cord. Unfortunately, the rest aren't like him, as they face re-election.
Socialism and its accompanying economic devastation thrive on complexity and red tape. If something is so simple that anyone can figure it out, then a socialist is being deprived of an opportunity to make a livelihood out of simplifying or translating socialist nonsense for the layman. A whole system is built up around the complex nonsense, with everyone else getting sucked into the socialist vortex and thrown a few shingles for the sake of giving socialists and their cronies some other people over which to lord and thereby justify their parasitic existence. Before long, economic Stockholm Syndrome takes hold, and they panic at the idea of having to make a living outside of parameters defined by Mussolini.
That's the dragon Europe is now stuck having to slay.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
The Fitch Ratings agency has downgraded the credit of another five European countries -- Belgium, Cyprus, Italy, Slovenia, and Spain -- citing "the financing risks faced by eurozone sovereign governments in the absence of a credible financial firewall against contagion and self-fulfilling liquidity crises."
In other words, these self-styled fiscal medics plunged headfirst into deadly disease without making sure they had all their shots. Is every European country that tries to find a clean end by which to lift up this mess now doomed?
Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum chairman, opened last week's annual gathering of the world's economic and political elite in Davos, Switzerland, by proposing the following wisdom at a time when change purses are circling the drain: "My wish is threefold -- that we build by searching for constructive new solutions and models, that we bond by looking for long-term vision, and that we bind by creating the necessary underpinning framework of shared values."
Of all the possible solutions, that's definitely not it. Presumably, Schwab -- bless his heart -- is 13 years old and hasn't gotten "the talk" yet from mom. I definitely would have swooned at such a romantic line in high school, in the days when I was hitting up my parents daily for lunch money and thought I'd marry Johnny Depp. I've since sobered up, I pay my own bills, and Johnny obviously blew me off -- so this kind of talk does nothing for my cynical realist heart. It's the kind of self-flagellating collectivism that got the world into this mess in the first place. Permit me to propose a new mandate: "Focus on saving yourself first, so you can then help others."
The "me first" concept -- or what I now like to call the "Costa Concordia captain's mantra" -- hasn't entirely escaped German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, thank goodness. Amid all Merkel's rhetoric about greater political integration and economic control to "fix" the eurozone mess, Germany and France have still toyed more sensibly with the idea of the highest-rated EU countries issuing new, separate debt bonds at lower interest rates so they can then funnel money to the hopeless ones that are taking on debt faster than they can pay off the interest that gets jacked up higher with each credit downgrade.
Nice to see there's still some instinct of self-preservation. The unspoken truth is that the eurozone can't be saved as a whole. It's only by individual countries getting their act together and crawling ashore that they can ever hope to throw a life preserver to others. But even self-preservation is becoming less feasible as the situation grows direr and there's increasingly less to preserve.
As Fitch points out, a deepening recession could lead to greater public outcry and the rejection of austerity reforms. Italy's post-Berlusconi prime minister, Mario Monti, is currently contending with taxi strikes after proposing to give out more licenses in an attempt to increase competition, jobs and performance in the sector. Monti is also seeking to license more gas stations, notaries and pharmacies in an attempt to spur free-market competition and take power out of the hands of the relatively small few who like to keep business in the family -- literally. Just under one in five notaries are related to someone in the business, according to a Bloomberg report.
Seeing as how these unions in their current form were conceived by a fascist dictator named Benito Mussolini whose heyday was nearly a century ago, perhaps the system's a bit dated. Monti still has to get it through Parliament, and many Parliament members work in these sectors themselves and may not want to vote against their own interests within the socialist system.
Italy also benefits from Monti being a "technocrat" -- which is code for a non-politician who was parachuted in to fix things but isn't tethered to political power at his umbilical cord. Unfortunately, the rest aren't like him, as they face re-election.
Socialism and its accompanying economic devastation thrive on complexity and red tape. If something is so simple that anyone can figure it out, then a socialist is being deprived of an opportunity to make a livelihood out of simplifying or translating socialist nonsense for the layman. A whole system is built up around the complex nonsense, with everyone else getting sucked into the socialist vortex and thrown a few shingles for the sake of giving socialists and their cronies some other people over which to lord and thereby justify their parasitic existence. Before long, economic Stockholm Syndrome takes hold, and they panic at the idea of having to make a living outside of parameters defined by Mussolini.
That's the dragon Europe is now stuck having to slay.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Let Oakland Protesters Occupy a County Jail Cell
By Debra J. Saunders
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Occupy Oakland is aptly named. When forces occupy a city, they know that occupied turf is not their home. They can maraud, loot, vandalize, abuse the locals, and then leave. They can treat other people's property as their own.
The occupiers don't have to clean up after themselves. They don't have to worry about paying for the workers who clean up after them, either.
Occupiers don't have to exert self-control. They can freely act upon their rage, while defenders of occupied territory must concentrate on protecting what others want to harm.
Occupiers do not have to fear that they will be punished for the damage they have inflicted on the city of Oakland. About the worst that most occupiers might fear is that if they break the law, they will be arrested, held and released. Most won't even have to make bail.
Occupy Oakland protesters broke in to City Hall on Saturday, sprayed graffiti, toppled a historical model of City Hall and children's artwork, stole and then burned an American flag, and otherwise trashed the people's building. Police arrested some 400 people. Mayor Jean Quan likened the activists' behavior to "a tantrum" as she complained Occupy activists have been treating the city "like a playground."
Except that children treat their playgrounds better. And children don't organize their tantrums. But the playground analogy works when you look at what Occupy posts on the Internet: "The march and the pigs played a game of cat and rat, we, the rats with our tiny sharp teeth bared, they, the dumb slow cats with their fancy technology and weaponry."
Oakland cannot afford to police and clean up after Occupy activists. City Hall already has had to eliminate jobs to shave $28 million from a $388 million budget. Quan estimates that since tents first went up in Frank Ogawa Plaza in October, the Occupy tab has exceeded $5 million.
It defies all logic that activists, who see themselves as champions of fairness and advocates for the poor, have chosen to become a fiscal drain on the financially strapped city.
Clearly, the protesters didn't choose Oakland because it is a financial hub or because its downtown is rich and powerful. They chose Oakland because Oakland doesn't fight back.
Quan finally ordered police to remove the illegal Occupy encampment in Frank Ogawa Plaza last fall. When a protester ended up in the hospital, Quan took so much heat that she invited the tents back.
Later, she changed her mind again. Since then, when protesters intermittently have gotten out of control, the police have arrested them for remaining at the scene of a riot or wearing a mask to avoid identification -- and sometimes, rarely, for battery or assault. Then what? We don't know.
When I called Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley's office to find out how many Occupy Oakland arrestees have been prosecuted, a spokeswoman told me the DA does not keep track of Occupy cases as a group.
Throwing objects at cops, occupying city space, blocking people on their way to work or vandalizing city property -- these might as well be minor crimes in the Bay Area.
I know from covering protests gone bad in San Francisco that police frequently complain that prosecutors do not take activist arrests to court. Prosecutors complain that police fail to supply them with the evidence they need to win a conviction.
Occupy Oakland has been choking City Hall and draining its coffers for months. Are there any consequences? It seems, pun intended, there is no there there.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Occupy Oakland is aptly named. When forces occupy a city, they know that occupied turf is not their home. They can maraud, loot, vandalize, abuse the locals, and then leave. They can treat other people's property as their own.
The occupiers don't have to clean up after themselves. They don't have to worry about paying for the workers who clean up after them, either.
Occupiers don't have to exert self-control. They can freely act upon their rage, while defenders of occupied territory must concentrate on protecting what others want to harm.
Occupiers do not have to fear that they will be punished for the damage they have inflicted on the city of Oakland. About the worst that most occupiers might fear is that if they break the law, they will be arrested, held and released. Most won't even have to make bail.
Occupy Oakland protesters broke in to City Hall on Saturday, sprayed graffiti, toppled a historical model of City Hall and children's artwork, stole and then burned an American flag, and otherwise trashed the people's building. Police arrested some 400 people. Mayor Jean Quan likened the activists' behavior to "a tantrum" as she complained Occupy activists have been treating the city "like a playground."
Except that children treat their playgrounds better. And children don't organize their tantrums. But the playground analogy works when you look at what Occupy posts on the Internet: "The march and the pigs played a game of cat and rat, we, the rats with our tiny sharp teeth bared, they, the dumb slow cats with their fancy technology and weaponry."
Oakland cannot afford to police and clean up after Occupy activists. City Hall already has had to eliminate jobs to shave $28 million from a $388 million budget. Quan estimates that since tents first went up in Frank Ogawa Plaza in October, the Occupy tab has exceeded $5 million.
It defies all logic that activists, who see themselves as champions of fairness and advocates for the poor, have chosen to become a fiscal drain on the financially strapped city.
Clearly, the protesters didn't choose Oakland because it is a financial hub or because its downtown is rich and powerful. They chose Oakland because Oakland doesn't fight back.
Quan finally ordered police to remove the illegal Occupy encampment in Frank Ogawa Plaza last fall. When a protester ended up in the hospital, Quan took so much heat that she invited the tents back.
Later, she changed her mind again. Since then, when protesters intermittently have gotten out of control, the police have arrested them for remaining at the scene of a riot or wearing a mask to avoid identification -- and sometimes, rarely, for battery or assault. Then what? We don't know.
When I called Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley's office to find out how many Occupy Oakland arrestees have been prosecuted, a spokeswoman told me the DA does not keep track of Occupy cases as a group.
Throwing objects at cops, occupying city space, blocking people on their way to work or vandalizing city property -- these might as well be minor crimes in the Bay Area.
I know from covering protests gone bad in San Francisco that police frequently complain that prosecutors do not take activist arrests to court. Prosecutors complain that police fail to supply them with the evidence they need to win a conviction.
Occupy Oakland has been choking City Hall and draining its coffers for months. Are there any consequences? It seems, pun intended, there is no there there.
Jan Brewer's Photo With Obama
By Phyllis Schlafly
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
The now-famous picture of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer shaking her finger at President Barack Obama is both appropriate and deserved. In America, we don't have rulers entitled to the deference and obsequiousness other countries show to their kings; our elected officials are ordinary citizens whom we are free to criticize.
Obama apparently took offense at the way Gov. Brewer described her meeting with the president in the Oval Office. She said he had been "condescending," "patronizing" and just wanted to lecture her, instead of showing any willingness to hear Arizona's concerns about border problems. He also didn't answer the governor's five letters.
Her description sounds authentic because that's exactly how he treated her when they met on the tarmac as he was campaigning for re-election. The background of this meeting is the insulting way Obama is treating Arizona by suing that state for trying to enforce laws against illegal aliens, withdrawing National Guardsmen from the Mexican border, initiating a civil rights investigation of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and the scandal of the "Fast and Furious" gun-sale operation.
Fast and Furious was a secret Obama administration program to sell guns to Mexican gangs, so the Democrats could later make a political case for gun control. It backfired when some of those guns were found at the scene of the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the power of states to take steps to enforce laws against illegal immigration. The Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007, which requires Arizona employers to use the Internet-based, E-Verify system to confirm that a new employee is lawfully in the U.S. was upheld by the Supreme Court last year.
Obama is now having his Justice Department sue Arizona to try to get the court to strike down another Arizona law. It authorizes police to question people about their immigration status if the police have reason to believe the person is an illegal alien.
There are many other ways that Obama is trying to frustrate state and citizen efforts to stop the tide of illegal aliens crossing our southern border. He shows no respect for the financial burden this puts on states from problems of crime, illegal drugs, public schools and hospital care.
Illegal aliens from Mexico are believed responsible for more than a third of deliberately ignited wildfires in Arizona over the last five years, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office. Illegal aliens are believed to have started 30 of 77 fires from 2006 through 2010 that were investigated, and that figure doesn't include 2010, the worst fire year in Arizona history, when two fires destroyed more than 60 homes.
In December 2010, Obama's Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano flew to Mexico City to sign a "trusted traveler" agreement. This allows pre-screened Mexican airline passengers to bypass lengthy airport security checkpoints, a plan for which Mexico's interior ministry secretary said 84 million Mexicans are expected to qualify.
I'm curious. Why couldn't Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., have been labeled a trusted traveler so he also could avoid airport hassle?
Word has leaked out which proves that, despite congressional law to the contrary, the Obama administration is granting amnesty to illegal aliens through backdoor procedures. The smoking gun is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Memorandum called "Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform."
This memorandum asserts that because Congress has not passed comprehensive immigration reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of notices to appear, and adopting significant process improvements. These policies will enable thousands of aliens who entered the U.S. illegally to become lawful permanent residents.
For example, USCIS could allow employment authorization for H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B visa holders who are applicants for permanent residence. And where there is no authority for granting residency to an illegal alien, USCIS could grant it anyway by alleging "extreme hardship."
The 72-page "National Drug Threat Assessment 2011" issued by the U.S. Department of Justice National Drug Intelligence Center warns us that "The illicit trafficking and abuse of drugs present a challenging, dynamic threat to the United States. ... Major Mexican-based TCOs (transnational criminal organizations) ... control the movement of most of the foreign-produced drug supply across the U S. Southwest Border. ... The Southwest Border remains the primary gateway for moving illicit drugs into the United States."
Barack Obama wasn't interested in accepting Gov. Brewer's invitation to visit the border himself. He just wants to use executive-branch powers to stop Arizona from doing anything to defend itself.
Obama picked a fight with a female governor and she didn't roll over. Three cheers for Jan Brewer.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
The now-famous picture of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer shaking her finger at President Barack Obama is both appropriate and deserved. In America, we don't have rulers entitled to the deference and obsequiousness other countries show to their kings; our elected officials are ordinary citizens whom we are free to criticize.
Obama apparently took offense at the way Gov. Brewer described her meeting with the president in the Oval Office. She said he had been "condescending," "patronizing" and just wanted to lecture her, instead of showing any willingness to hear Arizona's concerns about border problems. He also didn't answer the governor's five letters.
Her description sounds authentic because that's exactly how he treated her when they met on the tarmac as he was campaigning for re-election. The background of this meeting is the insulting way Obama is treating Arizona by suing that state for trying to enforce laws against illegal aliens, withdrawing National Guardsmen from the Mexican border, initiating a civil rights investigation of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and the scandal of the "Fast and Furious" gun-sale operation.
Fast and Furious was a secret Obama administration program to sell guns to Mexican gangs, so the Democrats could later make a political case for gun control. It backfired when some of those guns were found at the scene of the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the power of states to take steps to enforce laws against illegal immigration. The Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007, which requires Arizona employers to use the Internet-based, E-Verify system to confirm that a new employee is lawfully in the U.S. was upheld by the Supreme Court last year.
Obama is now having his Justice Department sue Arizona to try to get the court to strike down another Arizona law. It authorizes police to question people about their immigration status if the police have reason to believe the person is an illegal alien.
There are many other ways that Obama is trying to frustrate state and citizen efforts to stop the tide of illegal aliens crossing our southern border. He shows no respect for the financial burden this puts on states from problems of crime, illegal drugs, public schools and hospital care.
Illegal aliens from Mexico are believed responsible for more than a third of deliberately ignited wildfires in Arizona over the last five years, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office. Illegal aliens are believed to have started 30 of 77 fires from 2006 through 2010 that were investigated, and that figure doesn't include 2010, the worst fire year in Arizona history, when two fires destroyed more than 60 homes.
In December 2010, Obama's Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano flew to Mexico City to sign a "trusted traveler" agreement. This allows pre-screened Mexican airline passengers to bypass lengthy airport security checkpoints, a plan for which Mexico's interior ministry secretary said 84 million Mexicans are expected to qualify.
I'm curious. Why couldn't Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., have been labeled a trusted traveler so he also could avoid airport hassle?
Word has leaked out which proves that, despite congressional law to the contrary, the Obama administration is granting amnesty to illegal aliens through backdoor procedures. The smoking gun is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Memorandum called "Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform."
This memorandum asserts that because Congress has not passed comprehensive immigration reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of notices to appear, and adopting significant process improvements. These policies will enable thousands of aliens who entered the U.S. illegally to become lawful permanent residents.
For example, USCIS could allow employment authorization for H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B visa holders who are applicants for permanent residence. And where there is no authority for granting residency to an illegal alien, USCIS could grant it anyway by alleging "extreme hardship."
The 72-page "National Drug Threat Assessment 2011" issued by the U.S. Department of Justice National Drug Intelligence Center warns us that "The illicit trafficking and abuse of drugs present a challenging, dynamic threat to the United States. ... Major Mexican-based TCOs (transnational criminal organizations) ... control the movement of most of the foreign-produced drug supply across the U S. Southwest Border. ... The Southwest Border remains the primary gateway for moving illicit drugs into the United States."
Barack Obama wasn't interested in accepting Gov. Brewer's invitation to visit the border himself. He just wants to use executive-branch powers to stop Arizona from doing anything to defend itself.
Obama picked a fight with a female governor and she didn't roll over. Three cheers for Jan Brewer.
Hellish War of Envy
By Charles Payne
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
While Virgil speaks to Geryon, Dante talks to another group of souls nearby squatting on the sand, the Usurers, or moneylenders. Their faces are unrecognizable from the burns and ash, and are identified only by the insignias of the moneybags around their necks.
"The Divine Comedy"
Dante Alighieri
Animosity and outright hatred toward moneylenders and bankers has been a fabric of life since modern day banking evolved in Europe. Despite the clearly positive impact on economic growth and overall quality of life birthed by the flow of money and ability to borrow, societies have held pockets of resentment. That resentment spread to other wealthy individuals and institutions. While the degree of this hatred waxes and wanes throughout time, it always blooms in more difficult economic conditions. Resentment of moneychangers was so intense in his day that Dante had them share the seventh circle of hell, with blasphemers and sodomites.
In fact, Dante was born of ancient urban nobility, and his grandfather and father were moneychangers.
Pew … This Smells Bad
This brings me back to that Pew Research Center report on the conflict between rich and poor. With 66% of respondents saying they believe there are "very strong" or "strong" conflicts between rich and the poor, we are at a place where efforts to redefine American capitalism will be pushed as hard as ever. This has been the plan from day one which is amazing since back a few years ago those that suggested as much were written off as loony tunes. That moment is certainly here and the central issue of 2012. The big guns include president Obama, the media, Hollywood and Warren Buffett.
Warren Buffett's challenge to republican lawmakers to donate money to lower the federal debt, that he would match them dollar for dollar (in case of Mitch McConnell the match would be three dollars), was the tackiest piece of political foolishness I've heard in a long time. The timing was perfect, however, if you are looking to build a head of steam toward changing America into a socialist economy. The usual culprits including Time magazine with Buffett on the cover, singling out individual villains like McConnell, have been planned for a long time. Buffett said in New York Times piece his tax rate was 17.4%, or less than his secretary's, but he did pay $6,938,744. He should have paid more… if he thinks that's the right thing to do.
Instead Buffett is once again providing cover for a new world in which successful people would be punished while non-successful people would have no real incentive to try harder. It's really offensive Buffett wants small businesses and households earning more than $250,000 to pay higher tax rates because he thinks his taxes are too low. Once again he should have paid more… if he thinks that's the right thing to do. But a childish challenge to lawmakers that earn in a year what he earns in a minute is like Mike Tyson challenging a toddler to a sparring session. It's disingenuous, but the idea is to provide cover.
It's all about everyone being rewarded from a giant pot of money even if they have no skin in the game.
"We need a tax system that takes very good care of people who just really aren't as well adapted to the market system, and to capitalism, but are nevertheless just as good citizens, and are doing things that are of use in society." - Warren Buffett
I'm not sure if being good at watching television is one of the skills that should motivate me to skimp on my son's college fund and instead pour money into the general Good Care fund. What about slots, in general it might be a deadly sin but probably worthy of payment in the new world of good citizens. I guest people who squander money and refuse to save can dip into the Good Care fund since it would be clear they aren't adapted to capitalism beyond the point of being consumers only. In this system why struggle through college…heck why struggle through high school? It will be GEDs and free checks from the Good Care fund for everyone.
Everybody Hates the Rich
The Pew report points out that 73% of democrats perceive conflict between rich and poor, up from 55% in 2009. Shockingly a majority of Republicans see that conflict, too, with 55% agreeing up from 38%. And the number that must make the White House drool is independent voters at 68% from 45%. Perception about the road to becoming rich underscores the notion it's about who you know more than how hard you work.
- 46% say the rich know the right people or were born into wealthy families
- 43% say the rich got that way of their own hard work, ambition or education
Interesting, despite this perceived conflict, the report mentions a Gallup survey that says fewer people believe income inequality is a problem that needs to be fixed than felt that way in 1998 (45% vs. 52%).
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
While Virgil speaks to Geryon, Dante talks to another group of souls nearby squatting on the sand, the Usurers, or moneylenders. Their faces are unrecognizable from the burns and ash, and are identified only by the insignias of the moneybags around their necks.
"The Divine Comedy"
Dante Alighieri
Animosity and outright hatred toward moneylenders and bankers has been a fabric of life since modern day banking evolved in Europe. Despite the clearly positive impact on economic growth and overall quality of life birthed by the flow of money and ability to borrow, societies have held pockets of resentment. That resentment spread to other wealthy individuals and institutions. While the degree of this hatred waxes and wanes throughout time, it always blooms in more difficult economic conditions. Resentment of moneychangers was so intense in his day that Dante had them share the seventh circle of hell, with blasphemers and sodomites.
In fact, Dante was born of ancient urban nobility, and his grandfather and father were moneychangers.
Pew … This Smells Bad
This brings me back to that Pew Research Center report on the conflict between rich and poor. With 66% of respondents saying they believe there are "very strong" or "strong" conflicts between rich and the poor, we are at a place where efforts to redefine American capitalism will be pushed as hard as ever. This has been the plan from day one which is amazing since back a few years ago those that suggested as much were written off as loony tunes. That moment is certainly here and the central issue of 2012. The big guns include president Obama, the media, Hollywood and Warren Buffett.
Warren Buffett's challenge to republican lawmakers to donate money to lower the federal debt, that he would match them dollar for dollar (in case of Mitch McConnell the match would be three dollars), was the tackiest piece of political foolishness I've heard in a long time. The timing was perfect, however, if you are looking to build a head of steam toward changing America into a socialist economy. The usual culprits including Time magazine with Buffett on the cover, singling out individual villains like McConnell, have been planned for a long time. Buffett said in New York Times piece his tax rate was 17.4%, or less than his secretary's, but he did pay $6,938,744. He should have paid more… if he thinks that's the right thing to do.
Instead Buffett is once again providing cover for a new world in which successful people would be punished while non-successful people would have no real incentive to try harder. It's really offensive Buffett wants small businesses and households earning more than $250,000 to pay higher tax rates because he thinks his taxes are too low. Once again he should have paid more… if he thinks that's the right thing to do. But a childish challenge to lawmakers that earn in a year what he earns in a minute is like Mike Tyson challenging a toddler to a sparring session. It's disingenuous, but the idea is to provide cover.
It's all about everyone being rewarded from a giant pot of money even if they have no skin in the game.
"We need a tax system that takes very good care of people who just really aren't as well adapted to the market system, and to capitalism, but are nevertheless just as good citizens, and are doing things that are of use in society." - Warren Buffett
I'm not sure if being good at watching television is one of the skills that should motivate me to skimp on my son's college fund and instead pour money into the general Good Care fund. What about slots, in general it might be a deadly sin but probably worthy of payment in the new world of good citizens. I guest people who squander money and refuse to save can dip into the Good Care fund since it would be clear they aren't adapted to capitalism beyond the point of being consumers only. In this system why struggle through college…heck why struggle through high school? It will be GEDs and free checks from the Good Care fund for everyone.
Everybody Hates the Rich
The Pew report points out that 73% of democrats perceive conflict between rich and poor, up from 55% in 2009. Shockingly a majority of Republicans see that conflict, too, with 55% agreeing up from 38%. And the number that must make the White House drool is independent voters at 68% from 45%. Perception about the road to becoming rich underscores the notion it's about who you know more than how hard you work.
- 46% say the rich know the right people or were born into wealthy families
- 43% say the rich got that way of their own hard work, ambition or education
Interesting, despite this perceived conflict, the report mentions a Gallup survey that says fewer people believe income inequality is a problem that needs to be fixed than felt that way in 1998 (45% vs. 52%).
War Through Weakness?
By Cal Thomas
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
One of the memorable slogans from the Reagan administration was "peace through strength." Reagan believed a strong defense was a safeguard against enemy attacks and the best hope of victory should America go to war.
President Obama is taking the opposite approach. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently announced cuts in defense spending of $487 billion over the next 10 years. Supposedly, these cuts will reduce the federal deficit, but Congress always finds new ways to spend money, so I am not optimistic.
The cuts were announced before critical questions were asked: What is America's role in the world in the 21st century? Where does the military fit into that role? The administration thinks a sleeker, more mobile military -- like SEAL Team Six, which has had recent successes taking out Osama bin Laden and rescuing hostages from Somali pirates -- is the way to go, but even the highly-trained SEALs can't confront, say, a nuclear threat from Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or China's increasing military power. The administration says it will preserve its manpower and weapons systems in the Middle East and shift resources to Asia.
Ships and planes take time to build. If America is not building them to ward off present and future threats, someone else -- like the Chinese -- will. The world does not remain stagnant and threats are not always obvious.
Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, says he is "deeply concerned" by the announced defense reductions, including the elimination of "at least 12 new Navy ships over the next five years and retiring at least nine ships earlier than planned."
Akin also worries about what will happen to the estimated 100,000 soldiers and Marines who will become unemployed in a struggling economy.
According to the website U.S. Government Spending.com, defense spending fluctuated in the last century. It hit a peak of 42 percent of GDP during World War II, declining to 10 percent during the Cold War to about 5 percent today.
Reagan's defense buildup followed cuts during the Carter administration. Reagan increased defense spending from 5.6 percent of GDP in 1979 to 7 percent of GDP by 1986. President George W. Bush's administration increased defense spending from 3.6 percent of GDP near the end of the Clinton administration in 1999, to 6 percent in 2010, to confront Islamic extremism.
The Obama administration, usgovernmentspending.com adds, plans to drop defense spending to 4.6 percent of GDP by 2015.
Do these reductions parallel a decline in the threats against America and American interests? Quite the opposite. The administration engages in wishful thinking about the so-called "Arab spring," which is devolving into a religious tornado with the radical Muslim Brotherhood calling the shots in Egypt and elsewhere and the Taliban poised to regain control in Afghanistan.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai have agreed that NATO should pull out all combat forces from Afghanistan by next year, not 2014, as planned. This can only encourage the Taliban, who have recently been sending signals they are not the bad guys most people rightly think they are.
A recent Wall Street Journal story noted that public statements by the Taliban make them sound more "moderate," adding, "The big unknown is whether this new rhetoric represents a meaningful transformation -- or is merely designed to sugarcoat the Taliban's real aims."
It's a safe bet to say it's the latter.
The "big unknown" is what a sound U.S. defense strategy should take into account. As former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once put it, "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns ... there are some things we de not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
It is to protect not only against the "known knowns," but the "unknown unknowns" that a credible defense strategy should be maintained. Cutting our defenses without a plan of action is an invitation to war.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
One of the memorable slogans from the Reagan administration was "peace through strength." Reagan believed a strong defense was a safeguard against enemy attacks and the best hope of victory should America go to war.
President Obama is taking the opposite approach. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently announced cuts in defense spending of $487 billion over the next 10 years. Supposedly, these cuts will reduce the federal deficit, but Congress always finds new ways to spend money, so I am not optimistic.
The cuts were announced before critical questions were asked: What is America's role in the world in the 21st century? Where does the military fit into that role? The administration thinks a sleeker, more mobile military -- like SEAL Team Six, which has had recent successes taking out Osama bin Laden and rescuing hostages from Somali pirates -- is the way to go, but even the highly-trained SEALs can't confront, say, a nuclear threat from Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or China's increasing military power. The administration says it will preserve its manpower and weapons systems in the Middle East and shift resources to Asia.
Ships and planes take time to build. If America is not building them to ward off present and future threats, someone else -- like the Chinese -- will. The world does not remain stagnant and threats are not always obvious.
Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, says he is "deeply concerned" by the announced defense reductions, including the elimination of "at least 12 new Navy ships over the next five years and retiring at least nine ships earlier than planned."
Akin also worries about what will happen to the estimated 100,000 soldiers and Marines who will become unemployed in a struggling economy.
According to the website U.S. Government Spending.com, defense spending fluctuated in the last century. It hit a peak of 42 percent of GDP during World War II, declining to 10 percent during the Cold War to about 5 percent today.
Reagan's defense buildup followed cuts during the Carter administration. Reagan increased defense spending from 5.6 percent of GDP in 1979 to 7 percent of GDP by 1986. President George W. Bush's administration increased defense spending from 3.6 percent of GDP near the end of the Clinton administration in 1999, to 6 percent in 2010, to confront Islamic extremism.
The Obama administration, usgovernmentspending.com adds, plans to drop defense spending to 4.6 percent of GDP by 2015.
Do these reductions parallel a decline in the threats against America and American interests? Quite the opposite. The administration engages in wishful thinking about the so-called "Arab spring," which is devolving into a religious tornado with the radical Muslim Brotherhood calling the shots in Egypt and elsewhere and the Taliban poised to regain control in Afghanistan.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai have agreed that NATO should pull out all combat forces from Afghanistan by next year, not 2014, as planned. This can only encourage the Taliban, who have recently been sending signals they are not the bad guys most people rightly think they are.
A recent Wall Street Journal story noted that public statements by the Taliban make them sound more "moderate," adding, "The big unknown is whether this new rhetoric represents a meaningful transformation -- or is merely designed to sugarcoat the Taliban's real aims."
It's a safe bet to say it's the latter.
The "big unknown" is what a sound U.S. defense strategy should take into account. As former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once put it, "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns ... there are some things we de not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
It is to protect not only against the "known knowns," but the "unknown unknowns" that a credible defense strategy should be maintained. Cutting our defenses without a plan of action is an invitation to war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)