The Immigration Debate

It's a debate that never ends. Border security and illegal immigration have been front and center due to the new Arizona law. I've been putting a lot of thought into how I wanted to present this post. I could just pick a side and engage in the same argument you see in countless other blogs and protests but I wanted to present a different type of argument regarding this age old issue. By the end of reading this only you can decide for yourself whether or not I've succeeded.

I can't blame the illegals for wanting to come here and for taking such risks in many cases to get here. Would you rather live in Mexico than the U.S? Our dismal economy has actually caused some illegals to leave for economic reasons. Yet Obama and his supporters continue to try and convince us that the economy has been saved due to his stimulus etc. It sure doesn't seem like it.

What we need is a more streamlined process to come here legally. If becoming a legal resident of the U.S. was an easier process and you didn't have to wait in line as long then there would be less of a reason to risk coming here illegally. We could then work on sound policies that encourage the many immigrants we want here to do so the right way.

On the one side you have those who wish to do nothing to crackdown on illegal immigration and create an amnesty program. That argument tends to come from the more left-wing Liberal side simply because they want to turn all of the illegal immigrants into loyal Liberal voters.

This is not surprising given the fact that Hispanics/Latinos are now a larger minority group than African Americans, this was true even in 2005. That divide continues to grow as Hispanics currently have the highest fertility rate in the country.

From The Washington Post: 12/21/07

"Hispanics have the highest fertility rate -- about 2.9 -- followed by blacks (2.1), Asians (1.9) and whites (1.86). But Hispanics do not represent enough of the population to fully explain the trend, and the fertility rate of U.S. whites is still higher than that of other developed countries."

While this story comes from December 21, 2007 the statistics haven't changed much as the above demographics statistics show. The other factor lies with abortions.

"While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely."

That fact comes from this site, but I've checked many sites through google and all present the same statistics quoted above.

Now, how does all of this tie into the immigration debate? It's simple. Liberals already have a lock on a vast majority of the black vote due to a misrepresentation of history and a continuing lie from the left which tries to paint all Republicans and especially all Conservatives as racist. The black community has been led to believe that it's the Republicans holding them down. That's pretty funny considering all of the highest crime, highest poverty, African American communities are completely run by Liberals. Perhaps they'll also find this interesting.

The immigration debate of today is a ploy by the left to try and secure the Hispanic vote for Democrat's much in the way government has been used to shift the African American vote into a virtual lock for Democrats. Many illegal immigrants are forced to work for practically slave wages and the only reason businesses get away with poor treatment of them is because they are illegal.

They use the argument that illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans "just won't do". Well let's see where illegals tend to work:

Service occupations 31.0%
Construction 19.0%
Production, installation, repair 15.0%
Sales and administration 12.0%
Management, business and professional 10.0%
Transportation, moving 8.0%
Farming, other 4.0%

Those statistics come from those right wingers over at MSNBC!! Isn't one of the usual argument's that we'll pay far more for fruits and vegetables if we enforce illegal immigration laws? That argument is usually framed to convince you that most illegal immigrants work on farms. Apparently that isn't the case.

Now for the other side of this argument. Those who support the government cracking down on illegal immigration and therefore support the law in AZ. There's no debating that there's a problem on the border regarding the current drug wars and gang related violent incidents. It's also true that many of the victims are in fact illegals themselves. The violence on the border exists but it's not as widespread as you think.

Perhaps you've heard of Ronald Reagan's amnesty bill signed by him on November 6, 1986. Some have used that as justification for a new amnesty but many factors of the 1986 bill are ignored.

Here are Reagan's comments about signing the bill. There are of course some highlights to the statement:

"New INA section 245A(d)(2) states that no alien would qualify for the lawful temporary or permanent residence status provided in that section if ``likely to become a public charge.'' This disqualification could be waived by the Attorney General under certain circumstances. A likelihood that an applicant would become a public charge would exist, for example, if the applicant had failed to demonstrate either a history of employment in the United States of a kind that would provide sufficient means without public cash assistance for the support of the alien and his likely dependents who are not United States citizens or the possession of independent means sufficient by itself for such support for an indefinite period."

In other words, if you are on welfare or any other government assistance you do not qualify for the amnesty this bill provides.

"Distance has not discouraged illegal immigration to the United States from all around the globe. The problem of illegal immigration should not, therefore, be seen as a problem between the United States and its neighbors. Our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people."

What this means is that illegal immigration isn't specifically a problem between the U.S. and Mexico. The fact that we know terrorists want to infiltrate the U.S. through the borders is proof of that. This is also clearly stating the fact that this isn't a way to discriminate against any one race or ethnicity, like Hispanics.

A good article from Matt Hayes published on June 10, 2004 compares Reagan's reforms to GOP reforms at the time of the article.

"In tandem with the amnesty, Reagan campaigned for employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, sanctions so stringent that many at the time regarded them as draconian."

You see the similarities of today? Punishing businesses that hire illegals = draconian.

"Reagan reasoned that if an employer were fined for hiring an illegal alien (as much as $1 million in the worst cases), any payroll savings achieved by the hiring would be wiped out by the fine. In effect, it would be more expensive to hire illegal aliens than to hire Americans or lawful permanent residents."

So, no amnesty for illegals on government subsidies like welfare, and fines for businesses that create an incentive to offer a better wage to a legal immigrant or American. This would encourage more people to come here legally and discourage those who came here illegally. So what went wrong?

"While Reagan’s 1986 immigration reforms can at least be called rational, they were a failure."

"This is attributed to Sen. Ted Kennedy’s eventual gutting of the enforcement mechanism for Reagan's employer sanctions, and successive administrations refusing to give our Border Patrol the resources it needs to achieve its mission."

So much for the argument about Ronald Reagan's amnesty.

While we have added more Border Patrol agents in recent years they are routinely demonized for doing their jobs by one side and criticized for not doing enough by the other.

In an effort to look like he actually wanted to do something regarding the problem with illegal immigration President Bush began a "virtual fence" program that was initially supported by President Obama as well. The program is a failure.

"The Obama administration will halt new work on a "virtual fence" on the U.S.-Mexican border, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Tuesday, diverting $50 million in planned economic stimulus funds for the project to other purposes."

"In a four-sentence statement, Napolitano said the department will immediately redeploy $50 million of stimulus funds to other technology, including mobile surveillance devices, sensors, radios and laptop computers."

Sounds great right? The problem is that we all know the Obama administration is no more serious about actually stopping illegal immigration than Bush was. We know this because of the way President Obama has been criticizing the new AZ law. This criticism comes even as Rasmussen finds that nationwide voters favor local law enforcement verifying immigration status by a 60% - 31% margin. In Arizona voters favor the new law by a 70% margin. So just like health care the President is criticizing a majority of the people.

In the end it comes down to all of us. It's time to ignore the fringes from both sides. Many who are to the extreme on one side are going to cry racism and try to stir emotions up and try to look like the sympathetic saviors of mankind. Some on the other extreme are going to hold more of a round em up and throw em out position painting all illegals like members of the drug cartels. I believe that if we step back and take a look at the big picture while ignoring the fringes then we can have a real debate and come up with a real solution.

If there's anything we've learned after decades of debate on this issue it's that a solution sure as hell isn't going to come from Washington anytime soon.

Read more...

Wall Street Regulation (TARP 2): MoveOn VS Morris

So the government wants to vastly expand it's regulatory powers even more over Wall Street. This of course is being sold to us in the context of the righteous politician's trying to protect people like you and I from the evil big corporations and their greedy exec's.

Here's MoveOn.org's opinion about how the Democrats are trying to save all of us and the Republicans are just protecting their friends at the big banks.

"It seems hard to believe that anyone would want to oppose Wall Street reform in the middle of a major financial crisis like this. But the Republicans are willing to do it to protect their allies at the big banks."

Dear MoveOn member,

Wall Street is spending $500 million to convince Congress to kill the reform bill that will finally curb their reckless behavior.

That's one investment that's paying off. Every single Republican is now on record opposing Wall Street reform.

That means every single Republican is on record protecting the big banks instead of the countless Americans who lost jobs, money, houses, or their pensions because of Wall Street's behavior.

We have to call them out right away. If we don't, their bogus arguments against reform will stick—just like they did on health care.

We're working on a hard-hitting ad that lays out for the American people exactly whose side Republicans are on. But we need to get it up on the air fast—while this story is hot. Can you chip in $5?

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/wallstreet.html?bg_id=hpc5&id=19921-17182837-Ku6Eszx&t=3

It seems hard to believe that anyone would want to oppose Wall Street reform in the middle of a major financial crisis like this. But the Republicans are willing to do it to protect their allies at the big banks.

They know this is a high risk strategy. Their pollsters say the only way they'll get away with it is if they lie about Obama's plan and say it will cause more bailouts—even though they know that it will do the exact opposite.

But if we don't expose them—their lies will stick. Remember health care?

The truth is that Wall Street reform will:

End the bailouts by forcing big financial companies to put aside money now, so if there's another AIG-like disaster, taxpayers won't be on the hook. We'll use the big banks' own money to shut them down.

Protect consumers by creating an independent watchdog that would finally stop credit card companies, mortgage brokers, and big banks from hiding information in the fine print.

Shut down the "shadow markets" by cracking down on the backroom trading that put our economy at risk. Unlike the stock market, these "shadow markets"—where trillions of dollars of "derivatives" are traded each year—are secret, highly risky, and virtually unregulated.

So we're fighting back. But we need help. Can you chip in $5?

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/wallstreet.html?bg_id=hpc5&id=19921-17182837-Ku6Eszx&t=4

Thanks for all you do.

–Nita, Laura, Daniel, Ilyse and the rest of the team

"But if we don't expose them—their lies will stick. Remember health care?" I find that interesting. Do you mean the lies like Obamacare will increase health care costs? Whose the liar here?

Dick Morris had a pretty good analysis of what financial regulation is really about here.

"Republicans complain, correctly, about the power the secretary of the Treasury is given under the bill to seize any financial institution he deems too big to fail and thinks is at risk of insolvency. They rightly worry about the constraint this provision imposes on business growth and the dictatorial powers it gives the administration to fire management, replace directors, liquidate stock value and sell off parts of the companies they seize."

So far the Dem's haven't been able to get the votes in the Senate. They haven't even gotten every Democrat on board. It's interesting also to see how after health care passed against the will of the American people some Liberals are deciding not to run for re-election since they know they'll lose.

Take Chris Dodd (D - Conn.), for example. Here's some of Ronald Reagan's opinion's of Dodd:

April 28, 1983

"Today named Dick Stone, former Dem. Senator as personal envoy to Central America. Sen. Dodd & other far out liberals & left wingers are all over the tube screaming foul. Dodd calls me ignorant. His claims to expertise on Central America is 2 years as a peace corps volunteer many years ago in Dominica."

This ones even better:

July 18, 1983

"Announced today in Florida that Henry Kissinger will be chairman of the Commission on Central America. One of the press yelled a question at me that Sen. Dodd says commission is a ploy to get around Congress. I wonder which side Dodd is on. He comes down against the U.S. on almost every issue."

Source: The Reagan Diaries

How can we trust corrupt politicians to regulate corrupt businesses? Think about that for a second. The left, like MoveOn.org etc. are trying to paint a picture that the Republican's are all corrupt liar's in Washington and that the Liberals are these perfect player's looking out for all of us. I think a majority of Americans see through that for the BS that it is.

There's plenty of corruption to go around in Washington. That is the secret to the Tea Party movement. It's not a party issue, it's the expanding government, ridiculous spending, special interest frat party going on in Washington that we're so sick of.

It's a message more tied to our founding than any serious movement in recent American history. If the best shot you have against it is that it's supporter's are "tea-baggers" or racist extremist then I don't think we have anything to worry about. A message that weak has no chance of success, much less a chance of swaying an election.

Read more...

Obama's Inheritance And The Key To An Economy Based On Spending

I often wonder how far whining about inheriting a recession will get President Obama. Even some Liberals I know say that if things don't turn around in a big way in the next year then even they will have to turn on Obama.

It's no secret that we are an economy based largely on spending. You spend money on businesses and services, the businesses make money to pay employees and expand to create jobs. There's a profound difference in what kind of spending is healthy for out economy and it is a major difference between Liberals and Conservatives.

Liberals of the Obama mold think that it's government spending that can help a sick economy, Bush felt the same way. Obama can claim that he inherited a recession, fine. Bush's government spending didn't seem to help though so it doesn't make much sense that Obama expects spending far more money will.

The argument about a healthy economy as far as most everyday folks comes down to rests on pretty much one issue, jobs. If you have a job the only other issue becomes whether you make enough money to provide for your family.

Taxes need to be as low as possible so that you take home as much as possible. The more of your money you get to take home, the more you'll be able to spend. Conservatives understand that if you get more of the people's money into the people's own hands then they can spend more which helps our economy.

It's not government spending that helps our economy as progressives believe. If that were true then all of the past bailouts and stimulus packages would have the economy roaring back to life by now. The reason it hasn't is because even though the government has kept right on spending, we have all had to cut back our spending.

If you can't get a job then you have to rely on government assistance to spend any money. If you lose your job you need unemployment, welfare etc. That money has to come from taxes paid by people who do work.

It's pretty simple, if you don't create private sector jobs, (you know, the kind where you don't work for the government, remember those?), then you don't create tax payers that aren't also being paid by those same taxes. The creation of private sector jobs will increase the tax payer base, while not paying those workers with that same tax revenue. The result...INCREASED GOVERNMENT REVENUES.

Look it up, it's historically accurate, that's why so many liberal teachers refuse to stress the positive result of lower taxes despite so much evidence that proves it. Look at the Great Depression. FDR spent more money than ever before and made taxes astronomically high. After 2 terms unemployment had gone up and we were still enduring the Great Depression. That's 8 years of failure and it took a World War to turn unemployed into soldiers and unite the country behind a common cause, winning.

The New Deal gave us social security etc. and now we the back of our country is breaking due to some of those very same programs. Even some of FDR's own "brain trust", FDR's top advisers, began to turn on his spending after several years. The problem is that so many have been given this distorted view of how wonderful the New Deal was, (forgetting that even the supreme court declared much of it, like the NRA, unconstitutional in time).

Obama and modern day progressives stick to these stimulus and other spending programs because they have the belief that it will have the same effect as the New Deal. Well.....IT IS!!! The reason all of these wonderful programs aren't working is because they are cut from the same cloth as the New Deal and the New Deal didn't work.

Cut spending, cut taxes, encourage businesses (rather than vilify them), and create lasting private sector jobs and we will defeat this recession. Do the opposite and we will most likely see a depression that will one day be called The Greater Depression, far more people hurt, far more money spent, far more disastrous economic effect of a far more disastrous government than ever before.

Notice I said "disastrous government" not disastrous president, there's plenty of blame to go around from both parties and recent presidents. I'd like to close with some quotes from some other president's and government officials you may or may not have heard of.

"To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance? Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need to be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good" - Benjamin Franklin

"The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of the wealth], and a community of goods [central ownership of all the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional" - Sam Adams

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he then be trusted with the government of others?" - Thomas Jefferson

"Fellow citizens - a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." - Thomas Jefferson

"If I may, let me explain the situation and what it is we were trying to do with Social Security. I have reneged no pledge. I said during the campaign that we would do nothing to hurt those presently dependent on Social Security checks - that we would not pull the rug out from under those people so dependent. I did say that I would try to restore the integrity to the program. As it is now, the program without change will run out of money for paying benefits to the present recipients sometime late in 1982. Beyond that, however, there is a long-range actuarial imbalance which means that down the road in the next century, but within the lifetime of younger workers today, the program will be several trillion dollars out of balance." - Ronald Reagan

"Taxes are paid in the sweat of every man who labors because they are a burden on production and are paid through production. If those taxes are excessive, they are reflected in idle factories, in tax-sold farms, and in hordes of hungry people, tramping the streets and seeking jobs in vain." - FDR on the campaign trail in 1932

"I regard reduction in Federal spending as one of the most important issues of this campaign. In my opinion it is the most direct and effective contribution that Government can make to business." - also FDR in 1932"

FDR spent more money than all previous presidents combined! It's funny how candidate FDR seemed to know what president FDR forgot, remind you of anyone?

"The suggestion that the voter must cast his ballot for Democratic candidates if he is to be permitted to share fairly in the future distribution of federal money's is an interesting but brazen attempt to corrupt the voters of the nation through the use of their own money." - John Hamilton - former Republican national chairman

His charge is a description of how FDR was disproportionately using New Deal money to influence votes in favor of Democrats.

"Politicians of whatever party seem unable to rise above the temptation of using government expenditures as reasons for persuading voters" - Henry Wallace - FDR's secretary of agriculture

4 months before the '36 election FDR hired 300,000 men through the Works Progress Administration (WPA). In the month after the election 300,000 were fired. Talk about buying votes.

"No depression can be ended by gifts, gratuities, doles, and alms handed out by the Federal Treasury, and extorted from taxpayers that are bleeding at every pore." - Thomas Gore, I know what you're thinking....who? He's a former Oklahoma Senator during the New Deal.

"The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy." - FDR

What the hell happened to this FDR?!! How come you don't hear enough about candidate FDR and only get sold a falsehood of how great President FDR was. He may have been a great wartime president, (he was since he fought to win and we won), but he was an economic disaster for this country.

"To be on relief for a few months was a boon to be extended by a great government to a patient people. But to be told that you are to be on relief for the rest of your days is to destroy the hope and, therefore, the morale of the people." - Joseph Ely, former governor of MA during the New Deal

Good old Massachusetts. Key word being "old" Scott Brown is a plus but modern day Massachusetts usually sucks. At least we had the tea party today though.

"Federal aid, encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." - Grover Cleveland

Ignore everything you just read though because President Obama is a genius and went to Harvard, so did Bush by the way. As you can see they are both much smarter than all of these old fashioned former politicians just look at the results of their programs.

Read more...

Excuses Already?!!

During the week of the health care votes many companies announced layoffs etc. Even the company I work for lay-ed off several hundred workers. The layoffs were announced 2 days after the health care vote. Many companies have done so. I find it fascinating that there are so many liberals trying to make excuses even in victory.

I mentioned in my last post that in time when this health care plan doesn't work it will be blamed on Republicans. I was astounded that the other day I heard this, "this health care bill probably won't help because Obama didn't get everything he wanted."....Well then, if it won't help then why sign it? This is the beginning of blaming Republicans for this bill not being the great fix to health care that the Dem's are promising.

With regards to the layoffs announced right after the bill passed the left here are trying to claim that it has nothing to do with the bill passing. Even though in the weeks prior to the bill passing people were being cut back in hours etc. to "prevent layoffs". As soon as the bill passed it became cut backs and layoffs.

I asked what was so great about the bill and the reply I got from a die hard liberal was that, "26 year old's can stay on their parents insurance since they can't find jobs". My reply was, "I thought Obama's stimulus was working, why can't they find jobs?" He had little to say after that.

The reason is simple, he's a big stimulus and health care supporting liberal. However after that question it left him with a choice to make. Either the stimulus package is working and people are finding jobs, or the 26 year old insurance stipulation is a good thing because they can't find jobs.

"U.S. private employers cut 23,000 jobs in March, missing expectations for an increase in jobs although fewer than the adjusted 24,000 jobs lost in February, a report by a private employment service said on Wednesday."

By the way, many of the layoffs gave workers a few weeks so they won't be reflected in March's numbers. They will show up in the April new claims for unemployment. Many of the new jobs are related to the census. There's a good analysis with a mix of the good and bad at the Wall Street Journal here.

"However, the 2010 decennial Census accounted for 48,000 of the employment boost last month. As those jobs will be lost in the second half of the year, economists cautioned not to read too much into the headline figure. Another 40,000 of the increase came in other temporary jobs."

Do you remember when unemployment was going down in the earlier Bush 43 years? I can't even begin to count how many times I heard unhappy liberals claiming that whenever unemployment went down under G. Bush the only jobs being created were "s**t jobs". Essentially liberals were saying that the only jobs being created were fast food etc. Well then, what do they make of this from the WSJ report?

"The so-called underemployment rate--which includes everyone in the official rate plus those who are neither working nor looking for work, but say they want a job and have looked for work recently -- rose to 16.9% in March from 16.8% the previous month. In January, the underemployment rate stood at 16.5%."

So...while there was some job creation in March, this report shows that Census and "underemployment" are a big factor in that job creation. It reminds me of a line from the movie Fun With Dick and Jane starring Jim Carrey and Tea Leoni which if you haven't seen yet, you should. The line is: "vice presidents are working at Burger King". That line sums up much of Obama's so called job creation, though perhaps not to that extreme. Where are the Bush bashing Obama supporters? Why aren't they calling the job listings at Taco Bell and Lowe's crap jobs?

The answer is simple, everything that Obama fails at is Bush's fault. That will be the excuse straight into 2012. Why do you think the health care bill doesn't take full effect until 2013 or '14? It's because they know this bill will be horrible for the economy and health care. The negative effects won't be in full effect in 2012 so Obama will be able to claim that all of the people who were against Obamacare were wrong about the negative effects this bill would have. He's already started this in a way. Watch.

"2 months from now, 6 months from now you can check it out, we'll look around and we'll see."

Actually Obama that can't be true. Since everyone knows the bill doesn't go fully in effect for a few years it will take a few years to check it out. Perhaps, then we'll indeed see. If it doesn't turn out to be as wonderful as he hopes for, which I of course suspect, who can be blamed? They will claim it isn't working because of all the concession's he had to make for it to pass. They will try to put the public option back in the bill in some sneaky way because they will claim it's got to be used to help fix and improve the bill.

The most common excuse you get when you ask why these kind of big government programs don't work in other areas of the world is that they "didn't do it right". It is believed by many of these people, like the admitted socialist's in this country, that America will be able to get socialism etc. right. To them it's not that the universal health care in other countries can't work, it's that those countries haven't implemented the programs in the right way. They think we can do it right and that's why it will work. I feel bad for those who believe such nonsense.

Many Conservatives bailed on Bush during term 2. Republicans do share the blame for opening the door to big government. Now it's time for the Democrats to do the same. I believe the Reagan Democrats are still here. They are the type you find at the Tea Parties.

Ronald Reagan gave a good answer at a press conference in 1982. Conservatives share the blame for the rise of progressive Republicanism during Bush's 2nd term. Yet we saw the rise of bailout's, deficits, and stimulus programs and turned away from such nonsense. Obama's falling poll numbers indicate that many Democrats have taken a second look at progressive liberalism and decided it isn't quite what they had in mind.

That is a part of why Obama has gone from a 65% approval rating to a %46 according to Rasmussen. That kind of drop in approval after only 15 months takes more than just partisan critics. It doesn't matter how many excuses your supporters come up with.

Read more...

The Day After

So the health care bill has now passed. My wife watched the vote with me and as soon as it passed she gave a nice loud "DAMN IT!!". After a minute she looked at me a little surprised to see my lack of emotion. It was due to a lack of surprise. I figured this would happen.

Being a Massachusetts conservative, I'm used to overwhelming opposition to my views. Today, I feel motivated. As an American I feel like I'm in a boxing match with Congress. Last night Congress hit America with one hell of a left hook. It feels like we have been knocked down for an 8 count.

However, this fight is far from over. For anyone who may feel down about last night's vote. Look at the bright side. Liberals have practically handed control of Congress to Republicans in November. Let's make sure it's Conservatives more than just Republicans. Also, Obama has most likely guaranteed himself to be a one term president.

If you need more inspiration, make sure you let everyone hear this. Reagan's speech back in 1961 seems pretty relevant to today's health care situation. Many on the left honestly don't think they stand for socialism, but that's only because those same people don't seem to understand socialism. Liberals don't understand Conservatism either of course. Well, how can you understand Conservatism if the only people who've ever explained it to you are Liberals?

Liberals trust good intentions rather than actual results. Then they blame the bad results of their own programs on Conservatives, or Republicans. When this health care turns out to be a disaster make no mistake that they will say it's because it didn't go far enough. Then when they want to add more to it, like the inevitable "public option" that is designed to shut private insurance down, they will try to paint the opposition as unreasonable extremist who are in bed with insurance companies.

Just as they say Conservatives who want to reform food stamps or welfare hate the poor and want to starve people. What I want is to stop welfare from being a lifestyle. I want to assist people who need help without killing people's will to help themselves. It's that simple.

I remember what a Conservative America was like. I know why I'm a Reagan Conservative even though I was 6 when he left office. I have studied enough of our past, (even though I'm always still learning), to understand what must be done in our present to preserve a bright future for my kids.

Perhaps this video will help re inspire you. Now dry the tears that may be in your eyes after that video, (I'm certainly not too ashamed to admit mine), and get back in the fight. If I can stand against a tidal wave of Liberal opposition here in Mass then you can surely stand as well.

Read more...

Rush vs. Kevin...Both Were Right, Both Were Wrong

I've got a lot to catch up with due to a computer crash that left me offline for a bit. I just wanted to make a few points about something I caught on Rush's radio show the other day. I don't listen to radio all that much due to my work schedule but I did happen to catch something interesting that I had to comment about.

The subject was food stamps. Rush received a call from a man named Kevin from Ohio. Kevin started with a little anti-Rush ranting and some mocking of Rush listeners etc. but then it got interesting.

Apparently Rush had commented recently about people on food stamps buying alcohol with the food stamps. Kevin pointed out to Rush that you can't buy alcohol with the food stamps, (now "EBT" cards - Electronic Benefit Transfer), since the purchase will not be approved if you try to buy alcohol with the card. This put Rush on the defensive, proving Rush had in fact said that you could. Like the title of this post states, they are both wrong and both right. Let me explain.

You can in fact buy alcohol etc. with the ebt cards but you have to know all of the rules. Some people with EBT cards have what is called "cash benefits". How this works is explained here.

As you can see this clearly tells people with EBT cards how to get cash at an atm or a store using cash back just as those with Debit cards can. Here's where Kevin was wrong.

With the cash benefits getting alcohol etc. is rather simple. All you have to do is go to an ATM or supermarket, withdraw cash with the cash benefits, then take the cash into a liquor store and buy alcohol or whatever else you wish. In my food stamp post last year I explained that cash benefits should be done away with for this very reason.

So even though he didn't realize it, in a way Rush was half right. In another way Kevin was half right. Now you know how it works.

Read more...

Rep. Bill Delahunt (D) - (MA-10) to Retire

The Boston Glob reports that Rep. Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts' 10th district will announce his retirement tomorrow.

Delahunt's seat encompasses the South Shore, as well as the Cape and Islands. The district is the most conservative in the state, and has been trending in that direction. The South Shore itself is a conservative stronghold; Scott Brown carried many towns by a 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 margin. It carries a Cook PVI of D+5. This will be a very competitive race in November, and the Republicans have a great chance for a pickup.

Allahpundit has further analysis.

The only declared candidate at this point is State Rep. Jeff Perry, who represents a few towns on western Cape Cod. He looks to be a fairly solid conservative in the Scott Brown mold. He may even be to the right of Brown - Perry voted against RomneyCare. You can check out his website here.

We will have more info on potential candidates for the seat soon.

Read more...

ObamaCare: Where Do We Stand?

Today, President Obama has officially endorsed using the Senate tactic of budget reconciliation to force an up or down (50 senators plus the vice president to break a tie) vote on healthcare reform. This leaves the Republican minority with only two realistic options to delay or stop the bill from coming to a vote. The first is a series of parliamentary objections - essentially challenging whether or not various portions of the bill are actually budgetary (they aren't, but it will be interesting to see if the Democrat appointed Senate Parliamentarian will agree.) The second (and probably more effective) tool the Republicans have is the ability to offer unlimited amendments to the bill. Each amendment would eat up about 30 or so minutes of floor time, between explaining the amendment and vote time. Offering hundreds or even thousands of amendments could delay a vote for months. The longer this drags out, the worse things get for the Democrats.

But this talk of reconciliation in the senate is a tool of the White House. Their goal is to put all of the focus on the senate, where the Democrats have the upper hand - needing only 51 votes. They want us to focus on reconciliation. Why? Because the real battle is in the United States House of Representatives.

The healthcare bill originally passed the House by a vote of 220-215. The one Republican to vote for it, Joseph Cao of LA-2, has said he will not support the bill again, declaring the abortion language in the bill unacceptable. Bart Stupak of MI-1 has said the same. Jack Murtha died last month. Robert Wexler of Florida and Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii have retired. Shelley Berkley, who represents NV-1 (Las Vegas) has stated she will not support the bill because she does not trust the Senate to pass the "reconciliation fix." That is a loss of 6 votes for the Democrats, enough to stop the bill. In addition, Bart Stupak claims to have 10-15 pro-life Democrats who voted for the bill the first time, but will not without the Stupak language in the bill.

Dick Morris has a list of vulnerable congressmen who voted YES last time, and are wavering this time. Some of these people are ultra-socialist members of the Democratic party from Republican districts that are almost certain to lose, like Alan Grayson (FL-8). Some are moderate Democrats who voted YES last time and are from Republican districts (Zach Space from Ohio, Tom Perriello of Virginia, Earl Pommeroy of North Dakota.)

I think its unlikely to convince any of the socialists like Grayson and Shea-Porter (NH) to switch - they are hacks who will gladly sacrifice their careers to pass healthcare. Those congressmen will not be reelected anyway. But there are many Democrats from Republican districts who can be convinced to change their vote.

I encourage any of you to check out Dick Morris' list and contact your congressman if he or she is on that list. This will be a great insurance policy in the event that some of Stupak's pro-life coalition collapses or if Pelosi is able to find votes elsewhere.

Either way, the place to stop this is the house. Forget reconciliation and the Senate for now.

Update: SusanAnne Hiller at RedState has more info on why the real battle is in the House.

Read more...

Progressives Want To Put The Blue Dogs To Sleep

Progressive groups like moveon.org are on the attack against anyone they consider to be a "Blue Dog" (Conservative) Democrat:

Dear MoveOn member,

If the final health care reform bill doesn't include a public option, it'll be because of conservative Senate Democrats like Blanche Lincoln.

After taking more than $700,000 from Big Insurance and HMO interests, she was one of just a handful of senators who vowed to filibuster health care reform until the public option was removed—and just Friday, she denounced it again.1

But now we've got a huge opportunity to replace her, and to send a powerful message to Washington that obstructing progressive legislation has heavy political costs.

She's up for reelection this year, and Bill Halter, the state's progressive lieutenant governor, is deciding right now whether to challenge her in the Democratic primary.2 Can you sign our petition to Bill Halter telling him we'll have his back if he decides to run?

http://pol.moveon.org/billhalter/?id=19040-17182837-ve9dPhx&t=3

The petition says, "We've had enough of Democrats like Blanche Lincoln who listen to big corporations instead of their constituents. We urge you to challenge her in the primary and we'll work hard to support you if you do."

We asked MoveOn members in Arkansas about this race, and over 90 percent said that we should urge Halter to run and support his campaign.

Jennifer P. from Little Rock told us, "Lincoln never met a special interest she didn't like. It's hard to express just how awful she has been as a senator. I don't know of anyone who will vote for her if she shows up on the November ballot."

By contrast, according to MoveOn member Bill C. from Pocahontas, Halter is "more electable and much more likely to support progressive legislation."

As lieutenant governor, Bill Halter led the successful campaign to establish a state-run lottery with all proceeds donated to tens of thousands of college scholarships for Arkansas students.3 He also recently helped organize a free medical clinic that provided care for more than 1,000 uninsured Arkansans.4 And he's spoken out strongly against anti-gay ballot measures in Arkansas.5

But he's facing a tough fight, because Lincoln has raised millions in campaign contributions from corporate interests and has more than $5 million in the bank.6 So we need to show Bill Halter that progressives will support him if he decides to run.

Click here to sign the petition:

http://pol.moveon.org/billhalter/?id=19040-17182837-ve9dPhx&t=4

Thanks for all you do.

–Adam, Ilya, Michael, Kat, and the rest of the team

On February 24th MoveOn.org organized what they called a "Virtual March" flooding calls into congress:

Dear MoveOn member,

WOW.

News reports said that word of yesterday's Virtual March had Congress preparing for gridlock.1 And we definitely didn't disappoint—phones were ringing off the hook all day with voters demanding real health care reform.

So if you got a busy signal yesterday, no worries—you can try again today and add your message to the 1,124,457 that poured in yesterday.2

If you couldn't get through or haven't called yet, can you call Sens. Kerry and Brown today? Let's keep the momentum going—tell them you're adding your voice to the more than one million yesterday demanding that Congress finish health care reform this year.

Here's where to call:

Senator John Kerry
Phone: 202-224-2742

Senator Scott Brown
Phone: 202-224-4543

Then, please report your call by clicking here:

http://pol.moveon.org/call?tg=FSMA_1.FSMA_2&cp_id=1290&id=19114-17182837-GDtd12x&t=3

Thank you to every one of you who marched yesterday. It was an incredible show of support for finishing health care reform and couldn't have come at a more crucial time.

Americans from all walks of life—members of labor unions like SEIU and the United Food and Commercial Workers, blog readers from Daily Kos, health care supporters from Democracy for America, Health Care for America Now, ProgressNow, Young Americans for Healthcare Reform, and so many others—took action.

There's more to this message but I had to stop there for a moment and show you something. Remember, they were upset with Blanche Lincoln reporting that she took $700,000 from big insurance and HMO, (something I'm not disputing but haven't been able to confirm). Now look at the list of progressive groups listed in the above paragraph. $700,000 from special interest groups are bad according to MoveOn. Let's look at some of those whom they supported that "took action".

SEIU - so...$700,000 is bad, but $2,684,931 is OK.

Health Care for America Now - This one's not as bad, only $210,000 for '09. Ignore that though, they're progressives so it's OK, right? Notice that in '08 they only spent $80,000.....I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they spent $130,000 more in '09. It surely didn't have anything to do with the health care debate raging all last year.

How about Democracy for America, (of course we're supposed to be a republic but never mind that) - apparently they got short changed, no pun intended, by Obama's stimulus. They only spent $30,000 in '09. However, if you look at year '08 they spent $495,000. Also if you look at the chart which shows from '03 - '09 you may notice something.

2004, (election year) was a big year for this group.

2006 wasn't bad either, (congressional election in which Democrats destroyed Republicans, deserved of course since Republicans had virtually stopped being conservative altogether at that point.)

During 2007, (Obama announces run for White House), and 2008, (the presidential election), Democracy for America spent over $1,000,000 on lobbying.

Forget everything you just saw though. Remember, if you are considered a "conservative" Democrat by the progressive left and don't support the public option $700,000 makes you a special interest puppet.

However, if you support the progressive agenda and lobby $2,924,931 in 2009 alone then it's OK. Even if Rasmussen reports that 56% of people oppose Obama's health care reform vs. only 41% who approve. I guess that if the progressives want to push Obamacare then it's OK since they claim it's what's best for the majority, often referred to as the "common good".

"Every dictator who ever lived justified the enslavement of his people based on the theory of what was best for the majority" - Ronald Reagan CPAC speech, 1974

Here's the remainder of the moveon.org message that I cut off earlier to show you the lobbying facts.

And their voices reminded Congress yet again why we need to get health care reform done, and done right. We asked marchers to complete this sentence "I'm marching because..." Here's what a few folks had to say:

...my kids and my granddaughter deserve health care for their lifetimes. -K D,

...Health Care is a human right. -C C,

...I'm tired of living in fear about what my solo policy doesn't cover. -R O,

...my 23-year old son can't afford health insurance. -A M,

...no one should lose everything because they get sick -P S,


...I can no longer afford my health care. -K K,

...if not now, when?! -P R,

Americans can't afford to wait for health care reform. Our system is broken and fixing it is truly a national emergency. With the president's summit today, this could be our last, best chance to push for reform and get it done. So let's keep the calls coming.


If you haven't yet or weren't able to get through yesterday, can you call Sens. Kerry and Brown right away?


Then let us know how it went here:

http://pol.moveon.org/call?tg=FSMA_1.FSMA_2&cp_id=1290&id=19114-17182837-GDtd12x&t=4

Thanks for all that you do.

–Kat, Michael, Peter, Lenore, Ilyse, and the rest of the team

No MoveOn.org, Thank you.

Note: I erased the names and towns of the people making the comments to protect the brainwashed and ignorant who actually think the government taking over health care will solve any of those problems.

One last thing regarding the Scott Brown vote for the jobs bill. I won't defend or attack him here. I'll just let you hear him make his case and decide for yourself.

Scott Brown explains vote for jobs bill.

Read more...

Meet Nigel Farage

No words. Just watch.

Via Breitbart.tv:

Read more...

The Big Winner at CPAC? Andrew Breitbart

Andrew Breitbart managed to turn in an epic performance this weekend.


Andrew Breitbart yells at Mike Madden from Salon:




Andrew and Larry O'Connor yell at oxygen thief Max Blumenthal:



Ambushed by Daryle Jenkins:



Discussing Rachel Maddow and leftist academia and post-modernism:

Read more...

Get Over Your Scott Brown Problem

Most of us are already aware that Scott Brown and Senators Voinovich, Bond, Collins, and Snowe joined with Democrats to support a $15 billion "jobs bill." If you check out Scott Brown's Facebook page, you will see that he is taking a real beating:

u suck Scott!!!! I cant believe you sold us out the first chance you got.

America was depending on you and you went and sold your soul. What else did you sell mr. Brown? Will your life and those of your families be better now? God have mercy on you because you'll need it. The people of MA will speak again so don't get to comfortable in Washington in THE PEPOPLES SEAT!!

It is very true that the people of my home state of Massachusetts will speak again in 2012. And if Scott Brown does turn out to be a "lockstep Republican" as Martha Coakley tried to make him out to be, there will be another liberal Democrat in "The People's Seat" in 2012.

Sometimes, politics is about strategy. Pure, principled conservatism plays well in 40-45 of the states. Unfortunately, Massachusetts is not one of them.

Yes, Senator Brown's vote sets a bad example. Yes, this bill sucks. Yes, its 15 billion dollars we don't have. No, it won't create any jobs beyond some small tax cuts.

But politics is a marathon, not a sprint. It does no good for Brown to vote the party line and get crushed in 2012. We need to keep this guy around. People who are now turning on him for this are idiotic and do not understand Massachusetts.

They also do not understand that this bill was going to pass with or without Scott Brown's vote. Throwing this bone gives him more credibility to block really bad stuff that we know will be coming very soon. Scott Brown is in the Senate to keep this seat out of Democrat hands. I don't see anyone flipping out about George Voinovich and Kit Bond...they are from red(ish) states and they voted for it. But they pick on the Massachusetts Republican?

I know many of you contributed to Scott Brown and may be very upset right now. But we did warn all of you that this was likely to happen. Scott Brown did not campaign as a principled conservative. If you expect purity, you should not have donated. People simply shouting "RINO!" is unhelpful.

If you don't like it, primary him in '12, and if he loses to a conservative in the primary, watch a Democrat win the seat by 20 points. You have been warned. Hold the seat. This is the kind of nonsense that is going to get Alexi Giannoulias elected in Illinois.

Lets turn our focus to red state RINO's like Lindsey Graham. They have no excuse. Scott Brown does.

Allahpundit has more great analysis at HotAir. The comments there are more supportive. HotAir posters tend to generally have a good grasp on political strategy.

Read more...

The CPAC Experience

Well CPAC has come and gone. I decided not to blog from CPAC simply because I didn't feel like pulling myself away from the event or blogging live while watching speeches since you could see them for yourselves. It's over now and I've spent my Sunday return catching up with my family and my Monday back at work. Here's what I thought of CPAC.

Attending CPAC is like plugging yourself into an outlet of conservatism and recharging for the political battles that lie ahead. If you come from a more conservative area then it's harder to understand how that recharge feels.

I'm not so lucky though. Since I come from extremely liberal Massachusetts, though Scott Brown's election gives me hope, you get accustomed to playing defense. CPAC serves as a 3 day run of offense for this Massachusetts conservative. Seeing Scott Brown win and Obama-care slow down certainly was great to see. There's no comparison between that and CPAC though.

In fact the only time I got into debates with others at CPAC was when I was speaking to some Ron Paul supporters regarding his isolationist foreign policy. They would take issue with the isolationist label but that's a debate for another day.

One of the best parts of CPAC are the people you meet from all over the country. I even got to talk to a doctor who travelled all the way from Canada to attend the conference. That was an interesting conversation about health care. Meanwhile, a Canadian official has come to the U.S. for heart surgery.

There were many great speakers and panels in attendance. Marco Rubio was fantastic as were many others. Personally, my favorite was Glenn Beck although I heard a few rubber stamp college Republicans saying they didn't like Beck, (probably due to the fact that Glenn is willing to criticize progressive Republicans just as fast as progressive Liberals).

I suppose they forget that it was conservatives bailing on George Bush in his later years that truly laid the foundation for the anger at the town hall meetings and the base for what became the tea party movement. Remember the election of '08? Several states did end up going for Obama over McCain because of disgruntled conservatives, libertarians, and independents that voted for Bob Barr. With regards to the tea party movement and the renewed rise in conservatism there are only 2 people who deserve the credit there: George Bush and Barack Obama.

The message of small government conservatism is without question the closest political ideology to the constitution and the founding fathers in general. The problem is that we haven't had a great leader to show what true conservatism is since Ronald Reagan.

Conservatism is a political position that doesn't belong to a party. If it did belong to a party then Ronald Reagan wouldn't have been able to win 44 states in 1980 and 49 states in 1984.

Also, perhaps Obama's election is in fact a good thing. Art Laffer, former Reagan economist, says on a regular basis:

"Without Jimmy Carter there would have been no Ronald Reagan."

The question that the Conservative movement currently faces, (notice that I said Conservative, not Republican), is this. Who shares the conservative values worthy of our support?

If we can stick to our principles and remember that conservatism isn't owned by a party. If we remember that conservatism is a political position largely connected to our founding principles. Then perhaps one day we will be able to look at our children and grandchildren and complete this statement:

"Without Barack Obama there would have been no ______ ______."

The conservative message currently on the rise in America must take the name that will one day fill in those blanks very seriously. You've probably heard the expression "RINO" (Republican in name only), we must be careful not to blindly trust a politician who is CWIC, (pronounced quick). Do you know what CWIC stands for?

Conservative When It's Convenient.

Read more...

CPAC 2010 and Job Creation The Kucinich Way

It's an exciting time for conservatives. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is right around the corner and we will be travelling through all of the global warming caused snow to attend.

This will be a first for me. I've never been to D.C. before and this will be the biggest political event I've ever attended. While there we will be posting info about what we're up to and how the conference is going so check back throughout the week for fresh details regarding the event.

It's interesting listening to the excuses for why the results of Obama's policies haven't been all that impressive. The usual rhetoric of "it would have been worse if we hadn't acted" continues to get sold to us as if we're a bunch of ignorant kids. I wonder where all the critics of the debt racked up by Bush from the left are now. I'll probably find far more debt critics at CPAC then I'm finding in the mainstream media.

I watched an interesting interview the other day with Dennis Kucinich. He was talking about job creation. Just in time since the country is beginning to accept that this congress and president have absolutely no idea how to create jobs or stimulate much more than welfare and their own interest. The idea is to have people who are 60 retire early if they choose and start collecting social security at 60.

His logic is that if 1 million people retire early then there will be 1 million openings. Now there are many problems with this plan which you can see him describe here. First of all it's somewhat sad to see that Kucinich and others like him are so ignorant on how to create jobs that this is the best he can come up with.

He calls this creating jobs. Here's how I'd define creating a new job: A new job is opened and filled by an unemployed person without the sacrifice of another's job in return. Do you see the difference? It means 1 new job is available without another person leaving their job.

Besides, with all the massive new debt being racked up by Obama and Congress how do we pay for this? Social Security is already heading for bankruptcy so how will this help that issue? If you add 1 million people to Social Security when we already are facing huge debts and deficits the bankruptcy of Social Security will just approach faster and hit harder than we already are anticipating.

Ronald Reagan was prophetic regarding Social Security when he said this early in his presidency:

July 24, 1981

"If I may, let me explain the situation and what we were trying to do with Social Security. I have reneged on no pledge. I said during the campaign that we would do nothing to hurt those presently dependent on Social Security checks, that we would not pull the rug out from under those people so dependent.

As it is now the program will run out of money for paying benefits to the present recipients sometime late in 1982. Beyond that, however, there is a long-range actuarial imbalance which means that down the road in the next century, but within the lifetime of younger workers today, the program will be several trillion dollars out of balance."

We are beginning to see exactly what he was warning about. He went on to say:

"It is government's deficit spending, a debt now approaching a trillion dollars, that is responsible for the slowdown in our economy."

Yet the critics fail to see why we admire Ronald Reagan the way we do. The sad part of all this is that given what we currently face in this country a trillion dollar deficit represents the good old days.

What Reagan stood for in the past is what we now stand for in the present. That is why my next post to this blog will be live from CPAC. Have a happy valentine's day everybody.

Read more...

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's Message

It's Martin Luther King day tomorrow. Rather than exploit the message for political points as many will do today I figured I'd try something different. We all know of the "I have a dream speech" but think for a second, how much of it do you really know?

Most will answer that question with the same few infamous lines we've know since childhood. I'm going to provide 2 speeches here today. The first being his partially infamous "I have a dream speech" you'll be surprised by how much of this speech you don't know.

The other speech is called, "I've seen the promised land", it was delivered the night before an assassin's bullet would end the life of this great man. Here's the entire I have a dream speech. Note: I am presenting these 2 speeches as exact quotes and haven't changed so much as a single word. This is what a true civil rights leader believes.

I Have A Dream (August 28, 1963)

"Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves, who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds".

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so we have come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must ever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?". We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecutions and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends. And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of it's creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

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!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with it's vicious racists, with it's governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I will go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day. And this will be the day, this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning, "My country ti's of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring!" And if America is to become a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring, from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that. Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi, from every mountainside, let freedom ring!

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."

Now that's a civil rights speech for equality. It's amazing how much of this speech is not known to so many people. The next speech is far less famous but no less important.

This speech was delivered on April 3rd, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee the day before he was assassinated.

I've Seen The Promised Land (April 3rd, 1968)

"You know, several years ago, I was in New York City autographing the first book that I had written. And while sitting there autographing books, a demented black woman came up. The only question I heard from her was, "Are you Martin Luther King?"

And I was looking down writing, and I said yes. And the next minute I felt something beating on my chest. Before I knew it I had been stabbed by this demented woman. I was rushed to Harlem Hospital. It was a dark Saturday afternoon. And that blade had gone through, and the X-rays revealed that the tip of the blade was on the edge of my aorta, the main artery. And once that's punctured, you drown in your own blood - that's the end of you.

It came out in the New York Times the next morning, that if I had sneezed, I would have died. Well, about four days later, they allowed me, after the operation, after my chest had been opened, and the blade had been taken out, to move around in the wheel chair in the hospital. They allowed me to read some of the mail that came in, and from all over the states, and the world, kind letters came in. I read a few, but one of them I will never forget.

I had received one from the President and Vice-President. I've forgotten what those telegrams said. I'd received a visit and a letter from the Governor of New York, but I've forgotten what the letter said. But there was another letter that came from a little girl, a young girl who was a student at the White Plains High School. And I looked at that letter, and I'll never forget it. It said simply, "Dear Dr. King: I am a ninth-grade student at the White Plains High School." She said, "While it should not matter, I would like to mention that I am a white girl. I read in the paper of your misfortune, and of your suffering. And I read that if you had sneezed, you would have died. And I'm simply writing you to say that I'm so happy that you didn't sneeze."

And I want to say tonight, I want to say that I am happy that I didn't sneeze. Because if I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been around here in 1960, when students all over the South started sitting in at lunch counters. And I knew that as they were sitting in, they were really standing up for the best in the American dream. And taking the whole nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been around in 1962, when Negroes in Albany, Georgia, decided to straighten their backs up. And whenever men and women straighten their backs up, they are going somewhere, because a man can't ride your back unless it is bent. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been here in 1963, when the black people of Birmingham, Alabama, aroused the conscience of this nation, and brought into being the Civil Rights Bill. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have had a chance later that year, in August, to try and tell America about a dream that I had had.

If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been down in Selma, Alabama, to see the great movement there. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been in Memphis to see a community rally around those brothers and sisters who are suffering. I'm so happy that I didn't sneeze.

And they were telling me, now it doesn't matter now. It really doesn't matter what happens now. I left Atlanta this morning, and as we got started on the plane, there were six of us, the pilot said over the public address system, "We are sorry for the delay, but we have Dr. Martin Luther King on the plane. And to be sure that all of the bags were checked, and to be sure that nothing would be wrong with the plane, we had to check out everything carefully. And we've had the plane protected and guarded all night."

And then I got into Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers?

Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has it's place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go up to the mountain. and I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything, I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the lord."

The next day Martin Luther King would be assassinated. I find it interesting that a letter from a 9Th grade white high school student meant more to him than a letter from the president. Perhaps he knew that politicians will use a crisis for political purposes. After all you never waste a crisis, right Rahm Emanuel. Yet he was touched by a white high school girl's genuine concern for him. They just don't make civil rights leaders like they used too.

Take these messages to heart and don't let what this man truly stood for be lost from memory. Don't let the message be twisted into something that it so clearly wasn't.

As he stood for equality and peace in life. May he rest in peace in death. Hopefully, we will all be able to remember his message now, and embrace that message in the name of justice and equality for all.

Read more...

Forget Red State vs. Blue State, Mass May Turn Brown

Whether you live in Mass or not doesn't matter at this point. Everyone is paying attention to the special election on Jan. 19th. Stopping the health care nightmare is the obvious reason for the interest. Not to mention that replacing Ted Kennedy with Republican Scott Brown would send a message to Obama that simply can't be ignored. Governor Deval Patrick is doing all he can for Martha Coakley:

Friends:

I am proud to support Martha Coakley in the upcoming election for United States Senator on January 19th, and we need you to become an active part of her campaign, too. Because we have a fight on our hands.

Forces mobilized to derail our progress towards meaningful health care reform are lining up in support of one of Martha's opponents. These are the same forces committed to opposing reproductive freedom and weakening civil and human rights. These are not just Martha's challenges. They are challenges to all of us and to our values.

Martha has been a strong partner and friend over the past several years. She shares our commitment to fairness and to equality for all people in our Commonwealth and our country. She has a strong vision for the needs we face: access to good jobs, environmental stewardship, strong schools, and our clean-energy future. She is totally committed to passing meaningful health care reform at the national level--the cause so central to the life and work of our beloved Senator Ted Kennedy--and will be a proud and essential 60th vote that ensures its passage.

I cherish your support and friendship, and I hope you will consider giving generously in the ways you can to help her candidacy. There are two big ways you can make a difference:

1. Please make a contribution to directly fund Martha's campaign. Martha needs resources to compete on television in the final days, and to fund her grassroots get-out-the-vote operation leading up to and on January 19th. Can you give $25, $50, or even $100 now?

2. Please dedicate two or more hours to Martha's volunteer operation. Martha's Republican opponent has tapped into a national network committed to derailing our best chances at health care reform, and they are making thousands of telephone calls to Massachusetts voters each day. Martha needs your help to make sure that our neighbors, friends, and colleagues hear her positive message and turn out to vote on January 19th. Can you join one of Martha's phoning operations around the state for two hours over the next ten days?

To help in other ways, please call the campaign directly at (617) 241-0200 or e-mail Martha's field director, Katie Sullivan, an alum of our 2006 campaign, at volunteer@marthacoakley.com.

You know the gravity of the challenges before us. With Martha Coakley as our partner in the U.S. Senate, we will make progress on January 19th and beyond.

Please vote on Tuesday, January 19th, and join me in supporting Martha in this critical and historic election.

Sincerely,

Deval Patrick

He's right about one thing, this is a "critical and historic election". I can't help but be pessimistic. This Rasmussen report accurately describes why.

If you're in MA and have doubts about the health care bill this election is your only chance to make a difference in the national debate. Make no mistake, as the entire country realizes, if Martha Coakley wins this election Obamacare will pass.

Given the fact that the above Rasmussen report shows that only 32% of Mass voters approve of the Romneycare disaster I find it interesting that 53%, again according to Rasmussen, approve of the current health care bill going through congress.

"In 2006, Massachusetts implemented its own statewide version of health care reform which has been cited as a model for the national plan. But just 32% of the state’s voters consider that reform a success. Thirty-six percent (36%) consider the plan a failure, and another 32% are not sure."

"In the Bay State, 53% favor the plan working its way through Congress and 45% oppose it."

If those statistics prove true then it's a problem for us regarding this election. There are far too many Democrats that will vote for Coakley regardless of her views simply because of the D next to her name. It's simply a sad reality of modern day politics in states that are heavily tilted toward one party or another.

Scott Rasmussen summed up this race perfectly in this article.

"Clearly, his supporters are more enthusiastic about the race and that gives him a chance. But, as they have from the beginning, the dynamics of the race still make it likely that Massachusetts voters on January 19 will send another Democrat to Washington"

That pretty much sums it all up. We will do everything we can to get as many votes for Scott Brown as possible. There is a glimmer of hope in all this. After all, this is the state that elected Mitt Romney as governor.

Also, Martha Coakley is an extremely weak candidate who should be miles ahead of her Republican challenger yet she isn't. An endorsement by now governor Deval Patrick can't mean much since he's lost a lot of support due to his performance as governor since he was elected.

Paul Kirk, the Deval appointee currently representing MA in the senate until the election has already stated that even if Scott Brown wins the election he'll vote for the health care bill. Congress has also vowed to stall Brown's appointment to the senate so they have time to let Kirk do just that. Nothing like typical corruption in Washington in order to go against the will of the people.

We'll see how it all plays out 8 days from now when we go out to vote. Will we be the state that votes for the status quo and hands the health care nightmare bill to the entire country or will we remind this great country that this was the state of the original tea party?

Read more...

Happy New Year

I hope everyone had a merry Christmas and a happy new year. This is a big year for conservatives. With CPAC right around the corner and Liberals popularity tanking as they head into this big election year this is where we will see just how big the tea party movement really is.

It's only taken 1 year of Obama with the Pelosi-Reid congress to revive Conservatism in this country. Art Laffer, former top Reagan economist, usually says, "without Jimmy Carter there would have been no Ronald Reagan". The point shows a trend that comes when our government gets too Liberal.

Ultra-liberalism doesn't work. Unless you count rising unemployment, rising welfare, rising poverty, weaker defense, out of control wasteful spending, and a tanking economy as working. No free pass for Bush and the "neo-cons" either though. After all, he was also passing massive wasteful spending projects filled with pork. Obama and the Liberal congress have just pushed it to a whole new level.

Take health care for example, they've now passed a bill that nobody seems to like just for the sake of claiming victory on the health care debate. On the one hand, even though I'm no fan of the bill I'm to a point glad it was passed. The reasoning for this is simple. I think many Democrats who've voted to pass this bill have in fact voted themselves out of office this year. That's great news for us.

We all watched the special interest deals made at the last minute in order to secure votes and nobody is happy with that. Even the people in the states that will benefit from these shameful deals are speaking out against the bill.

Washington obviously doesn't get it. The tea party protests and town hall anger transcended party lines. It was not just about being angry with Obama or Bush. It was about anger with how D.C. does business now. It's us, everyday Americans who pay the price when the government screws up.

The politicians obviously don't care for one simple reason. They are completely convinced that they are smarter than you are. They feel it is their duty to take care of you, even when they suck at it, because you are too incompetent to take care of yourself.

However, let's look at the results and see who has it right. In the last few years millions of everyday Americans have lost their jobs. Yet only a handful of politicians have. The politicians pay has skyrocketed along with the national debt while everyday workers wages have gone down.

How about the bailouts...irresponsible business practices are being rewarded right along with irresponsible personal decisions by politicians and we are being left with the bill. I don't know about you but I don't like paying bills that I get nothing for.

When I pay my electric bill I get electricity, when I pay for my food I get to eat, when I pay for my mortgage I get a place to live. What are we getting out of paying for all of these bailouts, pork projects, and 2,000 page bills filled with god knows what?

We as a nation are paying more for the mistakes of Obama and company than we've ever paid for anything else. What have we gotten? Certainly not jobs or a growing economy, although government's been growing nicely.

There hasn't been an increase in confidence in America on the world stage. Despite Obama's appeasement award, I mean peace prize, the world is still worried about our debt and what it could mean for our dollar's value. Given the kinds of policies we are pursuing there will have to be inflation. It's coming, you can't print and spend this kind of money, combine it with a lack of confidence, a continued slipping economy, and an explosion of our debt without inflation. Yet nobody in Washington seems to be the slightest bit concerned about it.

It's time to revive Reagan conservatism in this country. We are watching liberalism fail, (as usual), and everyday more and more people are beginning to see what real conservatives are about. The message has a broad appeal that can easily win.

Perhaps it's a good thing that Obama won the election. After all we haven't seen a true Liberal controlled failing of America since the Carter 70's. It was that failing that gave us Ronald Reagan.

Much of Obama's base, younger voters, never lived through the 70's. Of course they aren't being taught much accuracy when it comes to history since many teachers, (not all but many), are pushing an agenda in order to make youth line up for liberals as they did in November '08. We are now seeing the flaw in that measure of thinking.

Attacking Bush and the Republicans for 8 years was easy. It seems that Liberal Democrats are now having trouble putting their money where their mouths have been. So keep it up Pelosi, Reid, and Obama because the results of your policies are proving to be the best thing to happen to Conservatives since Ronald Reagan.

So here's to a happy new year and an even happier 2010 election cycle.

Read more...

Kennedy's Replacement

As most of you know we will be electing a replacement for the late Ted Kennedy in January. We now know the 2 major party candidates for that race, Scott Brown (R) and Martha Coakley (D).

Since Martha Coakley will most likely be victorious in January I'd like to share a few thoughts about the debate from Dec. 1st between the Democratic candidates. As a side note it will be interesting to see if Joe Kennedy, no relation to Ted, who will be on the January ballot as a independent candidate, will hurt Coakley enough to give Scott Brown a fighting chance here in Mass. I'm sure Kennedy's just counting on his name to get him a good chunk of votes. Sadly, that will most likely be the case as uninformed voters head to the polls. However, if his name on the ballot hurts Coakley then I'm all for it.

Let's start with her position regarding an increase in troop levels for Afghanistan. We now know that the president is sending half of what was requested by General McCrystal, (30,000 instead of the 60,000 with a minimum of 40,000 that was asked for).

Martha Coakley has an even worse position than the president does here. She gave a flat out no for any more troops and compared Afghanistan to Vietnam. Of course that position puts her at odds with candidate Obama who called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" and who worked hard to convince us that Afghanistan was a war we had to win. Coakley claims we need to "use intelligence not troops" in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Simple question for you: given all we know about what's going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan don't you think we need to use intelligence AND troops? For the record I have a cousin who's a recent marine and will very likely end up being sent as part of Obama's limited surge in Afghanistan. I will of course continue to hope for the safety of all our troops whether he's sent or not.

When asked about the Patriot Act all Democratic candidates said no. Capuano thinks it has to be "totally rewritten", Pagliuca said no and that it "didn't work", Coakley thinks the act violates rights and needs to be restructured. They apparently weren't paying attention to the wiretaps allowed by the Patriot act that helped uncover the Brooklyn Bridge plot. Remember, the Patriot Act didn't work.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed first connected Iyman Faris, the man behind the plot, to Al Qaeda during interrogations. I'll bet being nice and saying please is what broke him and got KSM to talk how about you?

When the subject of the 320,000 jobs lost in Mass alone came up they were asked to give specifics on how they will create jobs. Coakley's master plan...

1. Force state banks to loan to business.

While I see the point here haven't we learned that forcing banks to loan leads to many bad loans?

2. A "research tax credit".

I suppose it will depend on what you are researching, like how to keep people on welfare indefinitely. Liberals have mastered that one. It's funny how Liberals are so afraid of the words tax cuts. They substitute tax "credits" in order to save face I suppose. After all, when your platform consists of mostly tax increases and you've spent your entire political career against tax cuts it must be hard to talk about lower taxes as a positive economic policy.

3. Stimulus 2

Have you stopped laughing yet. It's amazing that these people get any votes at all. Bush's stimulus failed. Obama's first stimulus has failed, of course Obama's was never meant to stimulate anything, it was a way to payoff political partners, unions, and I guarantee it will be used to help with the re-election of liberal democrats. The same way FDR's New Deal WPA was used to help Democrats get votes during the 30's.

For the record why would we be talking about stimulus 2 when we haven't spent all of stimulus 1 yet? Coakley claims she wants to "look at stimulus mistakes" and make sure the next stimulus is "used properly". That's interesting, it seems to imply that she realizes stimulus 1 has failed. I'm sure having the same group of people who were responsible for those mistakes of the past stimulus bills will be perfectly capable of making another stimulus package work.

When asked about what they've done to adjust to this recession some of the answers were downright embarrassing.

Capuano is using more energy efficient light bulbs, great job.

Pagliuca claims to be doing more charity work. That seems like the only halfway decent answer.

Khazei said less gifts for the holidays. That actually makes him sounds like and average citizen doesn't it?

Coakley claims to be eating in more and not going out to eat as often. Looks like this recession is really hitting these folks hard huh?

When it comes to health care Coakley supports Romneycare, which is failing and proving to be much more expensive than first expected, surprise, surprise. At least her answer was better than Pagliuca's. He said he'll vote for any health care reform bill regardless of what's in it. At least he didn't win the nomination, good thing.

All of the candidates including Coakley support $20 million to be spent on a Kennedy Institute honoring Ted Kennedy. I have an idea, why don't we go after the unpaid taxes Ted Kennedy keeps in offshore accounts to pay for it?

"Why do you think U.S. Senator Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy has moved his entire personal estate assets to an offshore trust located in Tortola, BVI? Possibly because BVI has no estate or death tax? Kennedy has few personal assets in the U.S. The family pays an annual rent (to cover property taxes, insurance, maintenance, operations, etc.) to his BVI trust for his considerable luxury compounds located in Martha's Vineyard, Palm Beach and elsewhere. I am a man of modest means, but when we both die I suspect my death tax bill will be larger than his."

Full Story

Given that, why should we pay for an Institute honoring Ted Kennedy? Why doesn't his family pay for it? They obviously have the money.

In closing Martha Coakley turned to her usual Wall Street bashing,predatory lending criticism, support for the "public option", the environment, and global warming rhetoric.

It's funny how politicians bash rich businesses who create jobs but not rich politicians who don't create any jobs. When it comes to predatory lending it seems Coakley forgets that it was the government that forced risky loans to be given in the first place. It was predatory government not predatory lending.

She supports the "public option" and would probably use some polls to make the argument that the public agrees with her on that.

"But past experience shows that polls on the public option can be highly misleading in the way the questions are framed. For example, when Consumers Union polled on the public option, it prefaced its questioning with a highly positive description of a public option designed to achieve positive answers."

Public Option

As far as the environment and global warming, all I need to say is Climategate.

It's no surprise to anyone who knows my views on politics that I'm no supporter of Liberal Democrats and Coakley is no exception. I hope the various mistakes her views represent give Scott Brown enough ammunition to make a difference. While I seriously doubt it I'll just hope for the best and vote in January.
___________________________________________________

On an unrelated and happier note:

Happy Hanukkah to all of the Jewish folks out there.

Read more...