I have great respect for law enforcement personnel. They do the difficult job of protecting the law-abiding citizens from those dirt bags that decide to break the law. Many times this dedication puts the officer in danger, but they do it anyway. For that I applaud all police officers and others in related professions.
This past weekend, we have witnessed an incredible tragedy with the shooting in Arizona by a complete mad man hell-bent on killing a US Representative. We’ve also witnessed an incredible amount of political gamesmanship and opportunism. Attacks on leaders of the conservative movement like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh should have been expected. It should not have been expected to come from the Sheriff of Pima County, Clarence Dupnik.
We’ve all watched how good law enforcement personnel handle situations like this – they give the media certain information about the case with parsed details. They generally don’t comment on who is the cause before the FACTS come in and definitely don’t express their opinion. Well, Sheriff Dupnik decided to use his 15-minutes of fame to his advantage and in the process became a darling of all the left-wing kooks.
Here’s a short video from an interview with Diane Sawyer:
Here’s another one:
And here’s how it went when Keith Olbermann interviewed the Sheriff:
Well there you go. This guy had an agenda from the very start. How despicable. If he’s mentioning those on the right, why not mention hate and vitriol on the left? I’ve been to several Tea Party events and have taken both of my kids to a couple. I’ve not witnessed anything hateful or despicable at any of these events and if I had, those present would have taken action.
I hope the voters of Pima County remember how ineffective this guy is and vote him out at the next election.
The issue of illegal immigration has been around as long as I’ve been alive, and then some. There have always been those who live in the shadows that have come to the United States for a better life. I’ve been to Mexico and have seen the squalor that many in the country lives in every day. If I lived in a third-world country like Mexico, I would probably do what I could to escape that life. That being said, they are still breaking the law by entering the United States illegally.
Those that simply want this “problem” to go away wish to grant amnesty to all of those 12-20 million illegals who reside in the land of the free and home of the brave. If my memory serves me right, this idea has been tried before in the 1980’s. I recall that President Reagan granted amnesty to several million illegals. Wow, that sure took care of the problem!
MSNBC’s Ed Schultz has his take on what we should do to “fix” the problem.
I have no idea if this new law in Arizona establishing harsher penalties on illegals will do the trick, but it sounds like the residents of the state have had enough (70 percent support the measure.) Some of the provisions discussed in the media sound a little hard to utilize, but it is a start.
Here is the problem I have with the whole amnesty deal – it doesn’t solve the problem! Anyone can go down the the local Home Depot and hire an illegal immigrant to do some yard work or off the books labor. The area I live in has several major orchards – I seriously doubt all of those fruit pickers are legal, but that is just mere speculation on my part. Granting amnesty to millions of illegals (stress on the word ILLEGAL) might bring them out of the shadows but will do nothing about the growing ranks of the unemployed. I wonder why President Obama is so hacked off. Hmmm…..
For immigration reform to work it has to be a concerted effort. The Federal Government has demonstrated they have no interest in pissing off the Latino community (I’m not convinced that that would actually happen, but what do I know) and seems to have little interest in actually fixing the problem. Hard choices have to be made and no one seems willing to buck up. That’s called kicking the ball down the field.
I’ll take this opportunity to republish my plan to help curb illegal immigration from my post on March 14, 2009:
If I were President of the United States, here would be my 5-Point plan:
1. Send US troops down to the border to stop the flow of illegals.
2. Make sure the fence is secure with no gaps. If we do some type of environmental damage, so be it. The illegals inflict more damage near the border than anyone else.
3. Go after employers that hire illegals and fine them, maybe put the owners in jail. Start with the big companies and work you way down. With the threat there, many of the problems will cure themselves. Plenty of jobs for Americans presently out of work.
4. Deny any social benefits to illegals. If it’s an emergency situation, treat the injury, and send them packing. If a child has been born here and is considered a US citizen, let them go packing also. Parents who come to the US to have a child just so they are US Citizens is a ridiculous idea and should be repealed.
5. Continue to enforce the laws currently on the books and strike the term “Amnesty” from our language. Amnesty policies only create more illegals. (Hear that Reagan and W?)
Sounds as good today as when I wrote it last year.
It’s always fun when there is a special election. Doubly fun when it’s a national election. This is the case in Massachusetts.
On Tuesday, January 19, Massachusetts voters will go to the polls to choose a senator to replace Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy held this spot for 46 years until his death last August.
There is a real dog fight in a very liberal state between Democrat Marth Coakley and Republican Scott Brown. Below is an ad in support of Scott Brown.
Here is an ad from the DNCC in support of Martha Coakley. Michelle Malkin reported that the ad has been pulled from the air.
President Obama flew into Massachusetts to try and help the sinking ship named the Martha Coakley, but I’m guessing it won’t fill the holes in the hull.
I really can’t wait to see the election returns on Tuesday night. What will happen if a Republican wins Ted Kennedy’s seat. I guess the super majority will be quashed and the Democrats will actually have to start talking with the Republicans. I’m sure Harry Reid can’t wait!
I like living in Illinois for several reasons, but Roland Burris is not one of them. It is appalling that he was the best replacement that the democratic party had to fill the vacant seat once held by President Obama.
He decided to use some time in the Senate to pen his own version of “Twas the Night Before Christmas.” Good thing he’ll be up for election soon.
Well, I don’t fit into any of those groups but maybe I’m a fanatic. Not sure on that one.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a democrat from Rhode Island, made some interesting comments on the floor of the Senate as well as a more interesting denial.
I’m betting heavily that there are groups like the Aryan groups, birthers, etc. who do not stand behind the President and his proposals. What I heard in the entire speech was anyone who has a problem with any of the President’s proposals is somehow compared to hate groups. Maybe I’m reading too much into his comments. So just so I’m clear here, when democrats opposed proposals from President Bush, they should have been compared to hate groups? OK, I get it now.
I always knew I was a racist. First it was the Tea Parties with all of the white faces in the crowd (thank you Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.) Yesterday, Harry Reid expounded on the floor of the Senate, that if you are opposed to the Health Care legislation then you are just like all of those people who opposed abolishing slavery. I seem to remember it was a Republican president who pushed the issue that plunged us into a bloody Civil War. Whoops!
If my memory serves me right, the Civil Rights act was passed because of massive support from Republicans, not Democrats. So Mr. Reid, am I to believe you are advocating that those opposing your huge grab for power should not speak out on their concerns? Sounds like the desperate act of a desperate man who has run out of support for his bill.
I hope all of you in Nevada are listening to this guy and remember his idiocy at the next election. He is an embarrassment to Nevada and the United States Senate.
I believe Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, is an incredibly smart woman. Either that or she has very smart people around her.
It was no secret that the Obama campaign utilized technology better than any other Presidential candidate (or any candidate for that matter) ever has in modern history. The video below describes their strategy of how they really shaped the way the media reported things about Obama during the 2008 campaign.
From WorldNetDaily:
President Obama’s presidential campaign focused on “making” the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was “controlled,” White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference.
“Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control,” said Dunn.
“One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters,” said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama’s chief campaign manager.
“We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it,” Dunn said.
Continued Dunn: “Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying.”
What a brilliant strategy. If the present day press can be led along on a string so easily, why is the other side not doing this? Is it really that easy?
Really, this is not a new strategy. In sales you always want to be driving the car moving your prospect from point A to point B. You may veer off the path during the trip but you really want to be the one in charge. The same goes here: the democrats are much much better at framing the argument and sticking to their guns no matter what comes along. If you think back during the 2008 campaign it was the McCain camp that was generally reactive to situations and the Obama campaign was proactive. This video lays that out perfectly.
Now I’m not an operative for the GOP, and don’t want to be one, but if the conservative side is going to combat this they are going to have to wake up and embrace technology. The bloggers have already done this, but the majority of the American public do not read blogs. The Republicans are much more likely to have varied opinions about the direction of the country (within the party) and a strategy like Ms. Dunn’s would probably not work the same way, but you have to start somewhere.
Attn: Michael Steele – take notes from Anita Dunn and the Obama campaign. This is the only way you will have to take back any seats next year.
I was sent the following story my mother, a retired fifth grade teacher. I have no idea if this is a genuine story, but that really doesn’t matter. It’s a good illustration none-the-less.
–From a teacher in the Nashville area–
“We are worried about ‘the cow’ when it is all about the ‘Ice Cream.’
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year…
The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest.
I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.
We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot. The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids.
I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia’s mother.
The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Everyone applauded and he sat down.
Now is was Olivia’s turn to speak. Her speech was concise. She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat down.
The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.” She surely would say more. She did not have to.
A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure.
Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn’t know.
The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream.
Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream.
The other 48 percent know they’re going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess.”
According to Barbara Boxer the head of the GOP, Michael Steele, is as harsh in his statements about the President’s Nobel Prize win as the Taliban and Hamas.
From Michael Steele:
“The real question Americans are asking is ‘what has President Obama accomplished?’ It is unfortunate that the President’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights.”
So is she really comparing the GOP to terrorist organizations? Nice. At least the commentators of the liberal MSNBC actually asked her to clarify her position.
Since I work in the field of higher education I am more tuned into the news regarding student loan funding. We have been tracking the funding bills that have been coming up and this one seems to smack of too much government involvement. An interesting article was posted this morning at Redstate.com on this very subject in regards to HR 3221.
If you want an indication of just how radical the Democrats in Congress have become, consider the vote on H.R. 3221. The legislation, which I wrote about yesterday, shuts down all private lenders for higher education student loans, requires that colleges and universities adhere to a new federal bureaucracy, creates a new Green Schools Czar, and hints that any school not complying will see its students denied federal student loans.
Last year, Congress passed the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act (ECASLA). The bill passed in the House 388-21, including 221-0 among Democrats. The Senate passed it by unanimous consent. President Bush signed it. The legislation was a bi-partisan piece of legislation that allowed private sector involvement in student loans without a new federal bureaucracy.
This year, the Republican substitute to HR 3221 would extend ECASLA programs through 2014 and create a commission to develop a new private sector model for student lending. The amendment failed 165-265. 257 Democrats unanimously voted no.
Final passage of HR 3221 was 253-171. 4 Democrats voted no, 6 Republicans vote aye.
The Democrats have now rejected the same legislation they unanimously supported last year in favor of a new, expansive federal bureaucracy.
Some of you may say, “so what, the government is already involved in backing funding for the Stafford program.” This may be true, but what this will do is give total control of the student loan system to the Fed eliminating any choice by students. Why was the original legislation a good idea last year but all of a sudden the previous vote meant nothing? Ahh, you have to just love politics!
Many people, including myself, have a problem with the whole White House Czar thing. Unelected and unconfirmed with limited oversight by any government agency, other than the White House, seems to be an extreme power grab. Not to mention many of these czar’s seem to be, in my humble opinion, payback positions for past loyalty. Now, this is not new concept in the political world, but still disturbing to this blogger.
The Gatway Pundit, always on top of the most relevant issues, highlighted the link between the new Green Czar, Van Jones, as a 9-11 Truther. Those of you who don’t know what a 9-11 Truther is, these people feel that the Bush Administration caused the 9-11 attacks to perpetuate a war in Iraq. These people are the extreme left-wing and I do not believe they represent main stream liberals, but I wonder why there is limited coverage on these screwballs while the “birthers” are highlighted on page one. Just asking the question.
Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11
NEW YORK CITY, NY (Oct. 26, 2004) – An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.The Statement supports an August 31st Zogbypoll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and “consciously failed to act,” with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation.
Focusing on twelve questions, the Statement highlights areas of incriminating evidence that were either inadequately explored or ignored by the Kean Commission, ranging from insider trading and hijacker funding to foreign government fore warnings and inactive defenses around the Pentagon. The Statement asks for four actions: an immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Congressional hearings, media analysis, and the formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.
The Statement’s list of signatories includes notables spanning the political spectrum, from Presidential candidates Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, and David Cobb to Catherine Austin Fitts, a member of the first Bush administration, as well as Washington veterans like Pentagon Daniel Ellsberg and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. Other signers range from peace activists like Code Pink president Jodie Evans and Global Exchange’s Kevin Danaher to former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq, Edward L. Peck; from environmentalists like Randy Hayes and John Robbins to business leaders such as Paul Hawken and Karl Schwartz, CEO of Patmos Nanotechnologies; from populist journalist Ronnie Dugger to renowned investigative reporter Kelly Patricia O’Meara.
The Statement also includes 43 noted authors, including New York Times #1 bestseller John Gray, as well as 18 eminent professors, historians, and theologians. Other notables include five-term Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, singers Michelle Shocked and Michael Franti, and actors Ed Asner and Mimi Kennedy.
Also included on said list was none other than Van Jones, White House Green Czar. Interesting. I wonder what the response from the media would be if President Bush would have put forth some right-wing radical that pushed for the murder of abortion doctors? I’ll guarantee Keith Olbermann would have made him the “Worst Person in the World.”
***UPDATE***
Over the weekend new Green Czar, Van Jones, resigned his position. I’m sure it was “encouraged” by the White House due to his sketchy past with Communism, left-wing radicals and 9-11 truthers. This morning on FoxNews Sunday, Howard Dean indicated that Mr. Jones was tricked into signing the 9-11 Truther petition.
OK, right Dr. Dean. And for his next trick, Mr. Jones will have monkeys fly out of his butt.
OK, maybe he’s not the worst, but probably one of the most idiodic.
If you don’t watch MSNBC, and by the horrendous ratings not many do, you might not know that Keith Olbermann has a feature on his show called “The Worst Person in the World.” This segment highlights the three of the worst people in the world (hence the title) according to Mr. Olbermann. It varies by the day from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, etc., etc., you get the point. (I actually think that Keith has a secret crush on Glenn Beck by all the attention he pays his show – just pure speculation on my part.)
This particular day Rep. Wally Herger (R) from California served as Olbermann’s whipping boy. During one of Rep. Herger’s town hall meetings a gentleman came to the microphone and mentioned several things as well as admitting to being a “Right-wing terrorist.” Now you can judge for yourself, but he was obviously speaking tounge-in-cheek or as we like to call it Keith, he was being sarcastic. Evidently Keith didn’t get the memo.
I’m not really that surprised that Mr. Olbermann took the statement from Mr. Stead the way he did – that’s the premise of his show and his paycheck. The loony left that tunes into the MSNBC trifecta (Hardball, Olbermann and Maddow) would expect nothing less.
To the credit of Rep. Herger, he has not backed down from his original statement:
From a statement from the Congressman’s Office:
Congressman Herger stands by his statement in support of his constituent. Mr. Bert Stead is a taxpayer and veteran, who, like so many others, is rightfully fed up with being called “un-American”, or “extremist” or a “political terrorist” by liberals in Washington, for simply exercising his First Amendment rights. Mr. Stead served his country and therefore he is a great American. The Congressman doesn’t at all regret commending him for standing up, exercising his free speech rights, and expressing his strong concerns with the direction liberals in Washington are taking our country.
More fraud with the Stimulus money – at a tune of around $425,000 to around 1,700 inmates. In government terms this is chump change, but is there any oversight with the program? As a manager I would ask, “How many more people that should not have received money, did.”
Is this a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, probably not, but it is a symptom of a larger organizational problem.
Robs Rantings 