Obama until late has been very quiet when it comes to the oil spill in the Gulf. According to press releases, he is "monitoring" the situation and allowing BP to take the lead in the solving the problem. Only lately has the White House started to take a more visible approach. This occurs after Obama's popularity and job performance numbers keep falling like a sinking ship. Yesterday in the Los Angeles Times comes an article which sort of explains the tepid response by our Commander in Chief. Seems that Obama, Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats are up to their ears in complications with BP. Could not happen to a better bunch of guys. And on top of that, seems that the Interior Department last year (yes, that is '09--well after Bush left office) exempted BP from an environmental study. Could that be the result of money and influence? That would not happen in this crystal clear transparent administration!!
The article is entitled "The ties that bind. Remember Rahm Emanuel's rent-free D. C. apartment? The owner: A BP advisor." June 7, 2010 posted at 3:34 pm.
So what do you think?
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
I just read an article by Charles Krauthammer and it blew me a way so much that I have to repeat it here. He nails the Obama foreign policy misadventure better than anyone I have read. For those of you who still believe in "change", you are getting it with both barrels and America is going to pay for it. We are no longer a Tiger, even a Paper Tiger, we are yesterdays newpaper and you know where that goes! Are you as upset as I am? Please let others know what you feel!
The Fruits of Weakness
Charles Krauthammer - Townhall, May 21st, 2010WASHINGTON — It is perfectly obvious that Iran's latest uranium maneuver, brokered by Brazil and Turkey, is a ruse. Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. And it continues enriching at an accelerated pace and to a greater purity (20 percent). Which is why the French foreign ministry immediately declared that the trumpeted temporary shipping of some Iranian uranium to Turkey will do nothing to halt Iran's nuclear program.
It will, however, make meaningful sanctions more difficult. America's proposed Security Council resolution is already laughably weak — no blacklisting of Iran's central bank, no sanctions against Iran's oil and gas industry, no nonconsensual inspections on the high seas. Yet Turkey and Brazil — both current members of the Security Council — are so opposed to sanctions that they will not even discuss the resolution. And China will now have a new excuse to weaken it further.
But the deeper meaning of the uranium-export stunt is the brazenness with which Brazil and Turkey gave cover to the mullahs' nuclear ambitions and deliberately undermined U.S. efforts to curb Iran's program.
The real news is that already notorious photo: the president of Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, and the prime minister of Turkey, for more than half a century the Muslim anchor of NATO, raising hands together with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most virulently anti-American leader in the world.
That picture — a defiant, triumphant take-that-Uncle-Sam — is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there's no cost in lining up with America's enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.
They've watched President Obama's humiliating attempts to appease Iran, as every rejected overture is met with abjectly renewed U.S. negotiating offers. American acquiescence reached such a point that the president was late, hesitant and flaccid in expressing even rhetorical support for democracy demonstrators who were being brutally suppressed and whose call for regime change offered the potential for the most significant U.S. strategic advance in the region in 30 years.
They've watched America acquiesce to Russia's re-exerting sway over Eastern Europe, over Ukraine (pressured by Russia last month into extending for 25 years its lease of the Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol) and over Georgia (Russia's de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer an issue under the Obama “reset” policy).
They've watched our appeasement of Syria, Iran's agent in the Arab Levant — sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, supplies Hezbollah with Scuds, and intensifies its role as the pivot of the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance. The price for this ostentatious flouting of the U.S. and its interests? Ever more eager U.S. “engagement.”
They've observed the administration's gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falklands, its contemptuous treatment of Israel, its undercutting of the Czech Republic and Poland, and its indifference to Lebanon and Georgia. And in Latin America, they see not just U.S. passivity as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez organizes his anti-American “Bolivarian” coalition while deepening military and commercial ties with Iran and Russia. They saw active U.S. support in Honduras for a pro-Chavez would-be dictator seeking unconstitutional powers in defiance of the democratic institutions of that country.
This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat — accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.
Nor is this retreat by inadvertence. This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle. It's the perfect fulfillment of Obama's adopted Third World narrative of American misdeeds, disrespect and domination from which he has come to redeem us and the world. Hence his foundational declaration at the U.N. General Assembly last September that “No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation” (guess who's been the dominant nation for the last two decades?) and his dismissal of any “world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another.” (NATO? The West?)
Given Obama's policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the U.S. retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There's nothing to fear from Obama, and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America's rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one's friends and punishing one's enemies.
Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Second Amendment Rights In Danger
A report that just crossed my desk that was written by Reuters and illustrates the damage that President Obama is doing to the country. The second amendment is, if not the most important, one of the most important of them all. Without the ability of the citizens to fight their government by force of arms, the government can do whatever it wants to its citizenry. Those who study history know that the first thing tyrants do is to terminate the rights of individuals to own guns. It was done in Germany and Russia and it could be coming to the United States courtesy of our President.
I have checked the Reuters site and it was indeed published on October 14, 2009. You might have seen this before, however, I have not.
The cards are lining up for an Obama takeover. He already has appointed unelected"czars" to run many parts of the economy, forecefully took over private business i.e. GM and Chrysler, rammed health insurance onto American citizens who did not want it, is spending our economy into oblivion and is prepared to allow the United Nations to control conventional (guns) weapons which guts the second amendment. This is just a short list of what damage he has done. Be prepared as time is of the essence.
Are you upset yet?
I have checked the Reuters site and it was indeed published on October 14, 2009. You might have seen this before, however, I have not.
The cards are lining up for an Obama takeover. He already has appointed unelected"czars" to run many parts of the economy, forecefully took over private business i.e. GM and Chrysler, rammed health insurance onto American citizens who did not want it, is spending our economy into oblivion and is prepared to allow the United Nations to control conventional (guns) weapons which guts the second amendment. This is just a short list of what damage he has done. Be prepared as time is of the essence.
Are you upset yet?
U.S. Reverses Stance On Treaty To Regulate Arms Trade
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."
"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.
While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.
"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.
However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."
"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.
The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.
Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.
The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.
Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.
The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.
The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.
A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.
(Editing by Eric Beech)
Comments
Another backdoor attempt to circumvent the 2nd amendment and the intent of the Constitution. Arms confiscation, and or the halt of ammunition sales to private citizens will spark civil unrest in the U.S. Obama better step back from his ambitions of a socialist world government, with him as dictator. Our economy will never recover under his pathetic leadership.
© Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters
Thomson Reuters is the world's largest international multimedia news agency, providing investing news, world news, business news, technology news, headline news, small business news, news alerts, personal finance, stock market, and mutual funds information available on Reuters.com, video, mobile, and interactive television platforms. Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
NYSE and AMEX quotes delayed by at least 20 minutes. Nasdaq delayed by at least 15 minutes. For a complete list of exchanges and delays, please click here.
---------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail transmission may contain information that is
proprietary, privileged and/or confidential and is
intended exclusively for the person(s) to whom it is
addressed. Any use, copying, retention or disclosure by
any person other than the intended recipient or the
intended recipient's designees is strictly prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient or their designee,
please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and
delete all copies.
Registered Representative of and securities offered
through MML Investors Services, Inc. (MMLISI). Home Office
located at 1295 State Street, Springfield, MA 01111, (413)
737-8400. Member SIPC (www.sipc.org). Transactions may not
be accepted by e-mail, fax, or voicemail.
---------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The End of Western Democracy?
Today in his posting, Pat Buchanan, makes a very salient point about the debt the United States and other western countries have accumulated through the social programs that have come to the norm. Will this debt crisis cause the end of Western Democracy as we have known it for the past sixty years? I believe so.
America, Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Great Britain are all deeply in debt mostly from the social programs that CANNOT be reduced for fear of civil disobedience (also known as riots) and political reality. Who would vote for a person or party who reduced your social security, medicare, medicaid, or welfare by 50%? No one.
Once these egregious programs get started, they assume a life of their own and no reasonable person can control them. The only way is for society as a whole to disintegrate into chaos. That my friends is where we are heading.
Here is Pat' posting:
THE CONSERVATIVE REVIEW - May 11, 2010
The End of La Dolce Vita
by Pat Buchanan
Are Europe and America headed to where Athens is today?
To answer the question, consider what brought Greece to
where she is -- running a deficit of 14 percent of gross
domestic product with a debt approaching 100 percent, with
Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Great Britain not that far
behind.
How did this happen?
Protected by the United States through a half-century of
Cold War, Europe cut back on defense and ratcheted up
spending for La Dolce Vita.
All of Europe adopted universal health care. All voted in
a shorter workweek, a higher minimum wage, greater job
security, earlier retirements and munificent pensions.
As the cradle-to-grave welfare states rose, an ever-
increasing share of the labor force left the private
sector for the security of the public sector.
Tax-consumers, the beneficiaries of the welfare states and
the bureaucrats that ran them, grew in number, as taxpayers
declined as a share of the labor force. Though Greece was
far from the most productive nation in Europe, Athens led
the parade.
After the baby boom ended, the pill arrival in the 1960s.
Then came abortion on demand in the 1970s.
The fertility rate of Greece and every European nation
fell below the 2.1 births per woman needed to replace an
existing population. Greece's birth rate has been below
zero population growth for three decades.
Result: In Year 2000, Greece had just under 11 million
people and a median age of 38. In 2050, Greece is project-
ed to have just under 11 million people, but the median
age will be 50.
Were Greece a company, the solution would be bankruptcy.
But Greece is a country. And a bailout of $141 billion is
being put together by the European Union and International
Monetary Fund.
Why? Because, should Greece decide not to take a chain saw
to her welfare state, but walk away from her debts and
default, she would blow a hole in the balance sheets of
the biggest banks in Europe.
Then the banks would have to be bailed out.
Seeing Greece's bondholders being burned, terrified holders
of Portuguese and Spanish debt would start dumping their
bonds, forcing Madrid and Lisbon to pay a higher interest
rate both to sell new bonds and roll over the old ones
coming due. Rather than savage their welfare state
programs, and risk riots in the streets and a massacre at
the polls, Madrid and Lisbon, too, might look agreeably at
default.
Chancellor Angela Merkel, though exasperated with the
Greeks, is urging Germans to back the $141 billion
bailout: "Nothing less than the future of Europe... is
at stake."
Merkel believes there is no alternative. But there is an
alternative -- a restructuring of Greece's debt or a
default where the holders of Greek bonds suffer the fate
of the holders of bonds from Lehman Brothers and General
Motors.
Inevitably, this is what is going to happen.
For how long will Greeks work longer, retire later and
live on smaller pensions, so holders of Greek bonds can
get their interest payments right on time?
The EU and IMF may, with the bailout of Greece, kick this
can up the road. But the crisis will return. For the
nations of Europe have made commitments beyond their
capacity to keep, given their growing debts and aging
populations.
And America is not all that far behind.
While the federal deficit is not 14 percent of GDP, it
was 10 percent in 2009 and may reach 11 percent in 2010.
Trillion-dollar deficits are projected through the
decade, bringing the public debt -- held by citizens,
companies, foreign governments and sovereign wealth
funds -- close to 100 percent of GDP.
And the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare
and federal pensions rival those of Western Europe.
States like California and New York, larger than Greece,
look a lot like Greece. Were it not for the scores of
billions dished out to them by Obama's stimulus, some of
these states would have come close to the brink New York
City went over in 1975.
Many of these states are today laying off teachers, letting
felons out of prison, and looking hard at the salaries and
pensions of civil servants. While the temptation is great
for Washington to bail them out again, the United States
government itself has now begun to attract the concerned
notice of holders of U.S. debt.
That we are witnessing Oswald Spengler's "Decline of the
West" seems undeniable.
La Dolce Vita is coming to an end. The ever-expanding
European and American welfare states of the 20th century
will contract in the 21st. Some have already begun to
shrink. A time of austerity is at hand.
Indeed, what is about to be tested is democracy itself.
Can democracies that attracted universal applause in the
golden years of rising expectations impose upon their
citizens the enduring and painful sacrifices necessary in
a time of retrenchment?
We are about to find out.
END OF Conservative Review
Copyright 2010 by NextEra Media. All rights reserved.
Please feel free to forward this, in its entirety, to others.
America, Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Great Britain are all deeply in debt mostly from the social programs that CANNOT be reduced for fear of civil disobedience (also known as riots) and political reality. Who would vote for a person or party who reduced your social security, medicare, medicaid, or welfare by 50%? No one.
Once these egregious programs get started, they assume a life of their own and no reasonable person can control them. The only way is for society as a whole to disintegrate into chaos. That my friends is where we are heading.
Here is Pat' posting:
THE CONSERVATIVE REVIEW - May 11, 2010
The End of La Dolce Vita
by Pat Buchanan
Are Europe and America headed to where Athens is today?
To answer the question, consider what brought Greece to
where she is -- running a deficit of 14 percent of gross
domestic product with a debt approaching 100 percent, with
Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Great Britain not that far
behind.
How did this happen?
Protected by the United States through a half-century of
Cold War, Europe cut back on defense and ratcheted up
spending for La Dolce Vita.
All of Europe adopted universal health care. All voted in
a shorter workweek, a higher minimum wage, greater job
security, earlier retirements and munificent pensions.
As the cradle-to-grave welfare states rose, an ever-
increasing share of the labor force left the private
sector for the security of the public sector.
Tax-consumers, the beneficiaries of the welfare states and
the bureaucrats that ran them, grew in number, as taxpayers
declined as a share of the labor force. Though Greece was
far from the most productive nation in Europe, Athens led
the parade.
After the baby boom ended, the pill arrival in the 1960s.
Then came abortion on demand in the 1970s.
The fertility rate of Greece and every European nation
fell below the 2.1 births per woman needed to replace an
existing population. Greece's birth rate has been below
zero population growth for three decades.
Result: In Year 2000, Greece had just under 11 million
people and a median age of 38. In 2050, Greece is project-
ed to have just under 11 million people, but the median
age will be 50.
Were Greece a company, the solution would be bankruptcy.
But Greece is a country. And a bailout of $141 billion is
being put together by the European Union and International
Monetary Fund.
Why? Because, should Greece decide not to take a chain saw
to her welfare state, but walk away from her debts and
default, she would blow a hole in the balance sheets of
the biggest banks in Europe.
Then the banks would have to be bailed out.
Seeing Greece's bondholders being burned, terrified holders
of Portuguese and Spanish debt would start dumping their
bonds, forcing Madrid and Lisbon to pay a higher interest
rate both to sell new bonds and roll over the old ones
coming due. Rather than savage their welfare state
programs, and risk riots in the streets and a massacre at
the polls, Madrid and Lisbon, too, might look agreeably at
default.
Chancellor Angela Merkel, though exasperated with the
Greeks, is urging Germans to back the $141 billion
bailout: "Nothing less than the future of Europe... is
at stake."
Merkel believes there is no alternative. But there is an
alternative -- a restructuring of Greece's debt or a
default where the holders of Greek bonds suffer the fate
of the holders of bonds from Lehman Brothers and General
Motors.
Inevitably, this is what is going to happen.
For how long will Greeks work longer, retire later and
live on smaller pensions, so holders of Greek bonds can
get their interest payments right on time?
The EU and IMF may, with the bailout of Greece, kick this
can up the road. But the crisis will return. For the
nations of Europe have made commitments beyond their
capacity to keep, given their growing debts and aging
populations.
And America is not all that far behind.
While the federal deficit is not 14 percent of GDP, it
was 10 percent in 2009 and may reach 11 percent in 2010.
Trillion-dollar deficits are projected through the
decade, bringing the public debt -- held by citizens,
companies, foreign governments and sovereign wealth
funds -- close to 100 percent of GDP.
And the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare
and federal pensions rival those of Western Europe.
States like California and New York, larger than Greece,
look a lot like Greece. Were it not for the scores of
billions dished out to them by Obama's stimulus, some of
these states would have come close to the brink New York
City went over in 1975.
Many of these states are today laying off teachers, letting
felons out of prison, and looking hard at the salaries and
pensions of civil servants. While the temptation is great
for Washington to bail them out again, the United States
government itself has now begun to attract the concerned
notice of holders of U.S. debt.
That we are witnessing Oswald Spengler's "Decline of the
West" seems undeniable.
La Dolce Vita is coming to an end. The ever-expanding
European and American welfare states of the 20th century
will contract in the 21st. Some have already begun to
shrink. A time of austerity is at hand.
Indeed, what is about to be tested is democracy itself.
Can democracies that attracted universal applause in the
golden years of rising expectations impose upon their
citizens the enduring and painful sacrifices necessary in
a time of retrenchment?
We are about to find out.
END OF Conservative Review
Copyright 2010 by NextEra Media. All rights reserved.
Please feel free to forward this, in its entirety, to others.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Obama Wrong Again on Arizona
In today's Conservative Review, Pat Buchanan, hits a home run when he discusses the Arizona Immigration Law. We need to support Arizona on this issue. Until the national government decides it must ENFORCE the laws of this country, things will only disintegrate. Do we really want Mexican drug cartels having free access to the United States to spread their poison? Do we want unrestricted access by any foreign national to the country? Why is it that we can know where every cow in this country was born, raised, sold and butchered but we cannot control our borders?
For those of you who believe this asking someone to see their drivers license is just like Nazi Germany, I suggest you refuse to present that document when you are trying to make a withdrawal at the bank, purchase medicene at the pharmacy or when you get stopped by a police officer. We present our documents every day.
Additionally, try to go to Mexico without documents. You cannot. A foreigner must have a passport and if they are staying more than 30 day must have a visa. A vacationer can stay in the border area for three days on his/her passport. If they are there on business there are forms that one must fill out regarding their visit. If you don't believe this, go to the Mexican government site-- www.mexonline.com/mexcustoms.htm.
Our priorities are way out of whack and it is time that someone has done something about it. Congratulations Arizona, I commend you.
THE CONSERVATIVE REVIEW - April 30, 2010
Whose Country Is This?
by Pat Buchanan
With the support of 70 percent of its citizens, Arizona has
ordered sheriffs and police to secure the border and remove
illegal aliens, half a million of whom now reside there.
Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its
constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and
refuses to enforce America's immigration laws.
"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for
Washington to act," said Gov. Jan Brewer. "But decades of
inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable
situation."
We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state
in Washington.
What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to
see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?
He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the
ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that
aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is
commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of
Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement
left by his own dereliction of duty.
He has denounced Arizona as "misguided." He has called on
the Justice Department to ensure that Arizona's sheriffs
and police do not violate anyone's civil rights. But he
has said nothing about the rights of the people of Arizona
who must deal with the costs of having hundreds of
thousands of lawbreakers in their midst.
How's that for Andrew Jackson-style leadership?
Obama has done everything but his duty to enforce the law.
Undeniably, making it a state as well as a federal crime
to be in this country illegally, and requiring police to
check the immigration status of anyone they have a "reason-
able suspicion" is here illegally, is tough and burdensome.
But what choice did Arizona have?
The state has a fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden
of providing schooling and social welfare for illegals and
their families, who consume far more in services than they
pay in taxes and who continue to pour in. Even John McCain
is now calling for 3,000 troops on the border.
Police officers and a prominent rancher have been murdered.
There have been kidnappings believed to be tied to the
Mexican drug cartels. There are nightly high-speed chases
through the barrios where innocent people are constantly
at risk.
If Arizona does not get control of the border and stop
the invasion, U.S. citizens will stop coming to Arizona
and will begin to depart, as they are already fleeing
California.
What we are talking about here is the Balkanization and
breakup of a nation into ethnic enclaves. A country that
cannot control its borders isn't really a country anymore,
Ronald Reagan reminded us.
The tasks that Arizonans are themselves undertaking are
ones that belong by right, the Constitution and federal
law to the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforce-
ment, and Homeland Security.
Arizona has been compelled to assume the feds' role because
the feds won't do their job. And for that dereliction of
duty the buck stops on the desk of the president of the
United States.
Why is Obama paralyzed? Why does he not enforce the law,
even if he dislikes it, by punishing the businessmen who
hire illegals and by sending the 12 million to 20 million
illegals back home? President Eisenhower did it. Why won't
he?
Because he is politically correct. Because he owes a big
debt to the Hispanic lobby that helped deliver two-thirds
of that vote in 2008. Though most citizens of Hispanic
descent in Arizona want the border protected and the laws
enforced, the Hispanic lobby demands that the law be
changed.
Fair enough. But the nation rose up as one to reject the
"path-to-citizenship" -- i.e., amnesty -- that the 2007
plan of George W. Bush, McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack
Obama envisioned.
Al Sharpton threatens to go to Phoenix and march in the
streets against the new Arizona law. Let him go.
Let us see how many African-Americans, who are today frozen
out of the 8 million jobs held by illegal aliens that might
otherwise go to them or their children, will march to
defend an invasion for which they are themselves paying
the heaviest price.
Last year, while Americans were losing a net of 5 million
jobs, the U.S. government -- Bush and Obama both -- issued
1,131,000 green cards to legal immigrants to come and take
the jobs that did open up, a flood of immigrants equaled
in only four other years in our history.
What are we doing to our own people?
Whose country is this, anyway?
America today has an establishment that, because it does
not like the immigration laws, countenances and condones
wholesale violation of those laws.
Nevertheless, under those laws, the U.S. government is
obligated to deport illegal aliens and punish businesses
that knowingly hire them.
This is not an option. It is an obligation.
Can anyone say Barack Obama is meeting that obligation?
YouEND OF Conservative Review
Copyright 2010 by NextEra Media. All rights reserved.
Please feel free to forward this, in its entirety, to others.
For those of you who believe this asking someone to see their drivers license is just like Nazi Germany, I suggest you refuse to present that document when you are trying to make a withdrawal at the bank, purchase medicene at the pharmacy or when you get stopped by a police officer. We present our documents every day.
Additionally, try to go to Mexico without documents. You cannot. A foreigner must have a passport and if they are staying more than 30 day must have a visa. A vacationer can stay in the border area for three days on his/her passport. If they are there on business there are forms that one must fill out regarding their visit. If you don't believe this, go to the Mexican government site-- www.mexonline.com/mexcustoms.htm.
Our priorities are way out of whack and it is time that someone has done something about it. Congratulations Arizona, I commend you.
THE CONSERVATIVE REVIEW - April 30, 2010
Whose Country Is This?
by Pat Buchanan
With the support of 70 percent of its citizens, Arizona has
ordered sheriffs and police to secure the border and remove
illegal aliens, half a million of whom now reside there.
Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its
constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and
refuses to enforce America's immigration laws.
"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for
Washington to act," said Gov. Jan Brewer. "But decades of
inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable
situation."
We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state
in Washington.
What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to
see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?
He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the
ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that
aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is
commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of
Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement
left by his own dereliction of duty.
He has denounced Arizona as "misguided." He has called on
the Justice Department to ensure that Arizona's sheriffs
and police do not violate anyone's civil rights. But he
has said nothing about the rights of the people of Arizona
who must deal with the costs of having hundreds of
thousands of lawbreakers in their midst.
How's that for Andrew Jackson-style leadership?
Obama has done everything but his duty to enforce the law.
Undeniably, making it a state as well as a federal crime
to be in this country illegally, and requiring police to
check the immigration status of anyone they have a "reason-
able suspicion" is here illegally, is tough and burdensome.
But what choice did Arizona have?
The state has a fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden
of providing schooling and social welfare for illegals and
their families, who consume far more in services than they
pay in taxes and who continue to pour in. Even John McCain
is now calling for 3,000 troops on the border.
Police officers and a prominent rancher have been murdered.
There have been kidnappings believed to be tied to the
Mexican drug cartels. There are nightly high-speed chases
through the barrios where innocent people are constantly
at risk.
If Arizona does not get control of the border and stop
the invasion, U.S. citizens will stop coming to Arizona
and will begin to depart, as they are already fleeing
California.
What we are talking about here is the Balkanization and
breakup of a nation into ethnic enclaves. A country that
cannot control its borders isn't really a country anymore,
Ronald Reagan reminded us.
The tasks that Arizonans are themselves undertaking are
ones that belong by right, the Constitution and federal
law to the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforce-
ment, and Homeland Security.
Arizona has been compelled to assume the feds' role because
the feds won't do their job. And for that dereliction of
duty the buck stops on the desk of the president of the
United States.
Why is Obama paralyzed? Why does he not enforce the law,
even if he dislikes it, by punishing the businessmen who
hire illegals and by sending the 12 million to 20 million
illegals back home? President Eisenhower did it. Why won't
he?
Because he is politically correct. Because he owes a big
debt to the Hispanic lobby that helped deliver two-thirds
of that vote in 2008. Though most citizens of Hispanic
descent in Arizona want the border protected and the laws
enforced, the Hispanic lobby demands that the law be
changed.
Fair enough. But the nation rose up as one to reject the
"path-to-citizenship" -- i.e., amnesty -- that the 2007
plan of George W. Bush, McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack
Obama envisioned.
Al Sharpton threatens to go to Phoenix and march in the
streets against the new Arizona law. Let him go.
Let us see how many African-Americans, who are today frozen
out of the 8 million jobs held by illegal aliens that might
otherwise go to them or their children, will march to
defend an invasion for which they are themselves paying
the heaviest price.
Last year, while Americans were losing a net of 5 million
jobs, the U.S. government -- Bush and Obama both -- issued
1,131,000 green cards to legal immigrants to come and take
the jobs that did open up, a flood of immigrants equaled
in only four other years in our history.
What are we doing to our own people?
Whose country is this, anyway?
America today has an establishment that, because it does
not like the immigration laws, countenances and condones
wholesale violation of those laws.
Nevertheless, under those laws, the U.S. government is
obligated to deport illegal aliens and punish businesses
that knowingly hire them.
This is not an option. It is an obligation.
Can anyone say Barack Obama is meeting that obligation?
YouEND OF Conservative Review
Copyright 2010 by NextEra Media. All rights reserved.
Please feel free to forward this, in its entirety, to others.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Letter To Representative Peters
I wrote the following letter to my Representative today.
Representative Peters,
I doubt that you will respond to my message as it poses a common sense solution which seems missing in Washington. Before you can "fix" the problem, you must get to the root cause. The root cause is the Community Reinvestment Act. This act forced the banks to provide loans to those people who could not afford them. Several administrations then forced the regulators to "grade" the banks on how well they were meeting the requirements of this bill. If they did not provide enough loans, they were downgraded. So the banks found themselves with billions of dollars of loans they knew were going to fail. Creativity then created the "alt a" and sub prime loans packages that were sold all over the world. (By the way, the FHA still sells the same type of loan.) That Dear Representative is the cause.
As I see it there are several culprits to this problem. They are:
1. Congress who passed the law
2. The Administrations who demanded the law be followed
3. Fannie and Freddie who bought the loans (and were praised on doing such a good job)
4 The Regulators who did not point out the problem
5. The Rating agencies who went along with the fraud
6. And the banks who recklessly sold garbage.
There is plenty of blame to go around but as I see it, your heralded "reform" bill only addresses the last one.
As long as this bill is still on the books and any reform will be meaningless without its removal. So, lets get off our political posturing stand and work to invalidate this law and then we can all work to see how reform can try to prevent it.
Tom Vorenberg
30100 Telegraph Road, Suite 478
Bingham Farms, MI 48025
What do you think?
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
China Now Like US in 1800s
Pat Buchanan today in his article compares the United States of the 1800s and China today. The comparison is very clear and it points out that the best days of the United States are behind us. We are so bogged down by bureauacy that we cannot do what we did in the past (interstate highway system, refineries, nuclear plants). Our budget is out of control. We have no intention of cutting any program.
My fear that there is a day when the time will come that we will need (demanded by those who own our debt?) to make changes to programs and those who then become "disinfranchised" will riot in the streets demanding their benefits be re-instituted. It will become group against group and those with the most ammunition will win! Unfortunately we are closer to this time than most will acknowledge.
Your comments are welcome.
My fear that there is a day when the time will come that we will need (demanded by those who own our debt?) to make changes to programs and those who then become "disinfranchised" will riot in the streets demanding their benefits be re-instituted. It will become group against group and those with the most ammunition will win! Unfortunately we are closer to this time than most will acknowledge.
Your comments are welcome.
Pat paints a very scary view of the future of the United States. Unfortunately, it is the truth.
THE CONSERVATIVE REVIEW - April 27, 2010
19th Century Americans
by Pat Buchanan
"Thank you, Hu Jintao, and thank you, China," said Hugo
Chavez, as he announced a $20 billion loan from Beijing,
to be repaid in Venezuelan oil.
The Chinese just threw Chavez a life-preserver. For
Venezuela is reeling from 25 percent inflation, government-
induced blackouts to cope with energy shortages and an
economy that shrank by 3.3 percent in 2009.
Where did China get that $20 billion? From us. From
consumers at Wal-Mart. That $20 billion is 1 percent of
the $2 trillion in trade surpluses Beijing has run up with
the United States over two decades. Beijing is using its
trillions of dollars in reserves, piled up from exports to
America, to cut deals to lock up strategic resources for
the coming struggle with the United States for hegemony in
Asia and the world.
She has struck multibillion-dollar deals with Sudan,
Brazil, Kazakhstan, Russia, Iran and Australia to secure
a steady supply of oil, gas and vital minerals to maintain
the 10-12 percent annual growth China has been racking up
since Deng Xiaoping dispensed with Maoism and set his
nation out on the capitalist road.
China has dozens of nuclear power plants under construct-
ion, has completed the Three Gorges Dam -- the largest
power source on earth -- and is tying the nation together
with light rail, bullet trains and highways in infrastruct-
ure projects unlike any the world has ever seen.
Contrast what China is doing with what we are about. We
have declared vast regions of our country, onshore and
offshore, off-limits to drilling for oil and gas. We have
not built a nuclear power plant in 30 years or a refinery
in 25 years. We have declared war on fossil fuels to save
the planet from global warming.
Given the power of the environmental lobby to tie up
projects in endless litigation, we could never today
build our Interstate Highway System, Hoover Dam, the
TVA or the Union Pacific Railroad.
Determined to take America's title as the world's first
manufacturing nation, as she has taken Germany's title as
the world's leading exporter, China keeps her currency
undervalued and demands of those who sell to China that
they also produce in China. As America's share of the
world economy steadily falls, China's share has doubled.
This year, China will overtake Japan as the world's
second-largest economy.
Having seen the Soviet Union disintegrate into 15 nations
and fearing the ethno-nationalism of Tibetans and Uighurs,
Beijing floods her border provinces with Han Chinese.
America, declaring racial, ethnic and religious diversity
a strength, invites the world to come and swamp its native-
born. And mostly poor, unskilled and uneducated, they are
coming by the millions.
China puts savings ahead of spending, production ahead of
consumption, manufacturing ahead of finance. Embracing
free trade, Americans declare that it makes no difference
who produces what, where. What's good for the Global
Economy is good for America.
Before the financial collapse, the U.S. savings rate stood
at zero percent of family income. In China, it ranged
between 35 percent and 50 percent.
Since the Cold War, the United States has been playing
empire -- intervening to punish evil-doers and advance
democracy in Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo,
Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan.
We have expanded NATO to include Eastern Europe, the Baltic
States and much of the Balkan Peninsula. We have not let a
single alliance lapse from the Cold War. And we have fewer
friends and more adversaries than at the end of the Cold
War. What has all this intervention availed us?
China, having fought no one, has rapidly built up her
military power and developed ties to the growing number of
nations at odds with America, from Russia to Iran to Sudan
to Venezuela.
The Chinese of 2010 call to mind 19th century Americans who
shoved aside Mexicans, Indians and Spanish to populate a
continent, build a mighty nation, challenge the British
Empire -- superpower of the day -- and swiftly move past
her in manufacturing to become first nation on earth. Men
were as awed by America then as they are by China today.
America seems a declining superpower. She cannot defend her
borders, balance her budgets or win her wars. Her education-
al system at the primary and secondary level is a shambles.
In the first decade of the century, she lost one of every
three manufacturing jobs. In this second decade, she is
looking at trillion-dollar deficits to 2020. The world is
losing confidence in her ability to manage her surging
national debt.
While we are finally extricating ourselves after seven
years from an unnecessary war in Iraq, we are heading
deeper into an Afghan war that has lasted a decade, the
end of which it is impossible to see.
During the Cold War, China was in the grip of a millenarian
ideology that blinded her to her true interests. Today,
it is we who are captive to a utopian ideology that is
becoming perilous to the republic.
END OF Conservative Review
Copyright 2010 by NextEra Media. All rights reserved.
Please feel free to forward this, in its entirety, to others.
19th Century Americans
by Pat Buchanan
"Thank you, Hu Jintao, and thank you, China," said Hugo
Chavez, as he announced a $20 billion loan from Beijing,
to be repaid in Venezuelan oil.
The Chinese just threw Chavez a life-preserver. For
Venezuela is reeling from 25 percent inflation, government-
induced blackouts to cope with energy shortages and an
economy that shrank by 3.3 percent in 2009.
Where did China get that $20 billion? From us. From
consumers at Wal-Mart. That $20 billion is 1 percent of
the $2 trillion in trade surpluses Beijing has run up with
the United States over two decades. Beijing is using its
trillions of dollars in reserves, piled up from exports to
America, to cut deals to lock up strategic resources for
the coming struggle with the United States for hegemony in
Asia and the world.
She has struck multibillion-dollar deals with Sudan,
Brazil, Kazakhstan, Russia, Iran and Australia to secure
a steady supply of oil, gas and vital minerals to maintain
the 10-12 percent annual growth China has been racking up
since Deng Xiaoping dispensed with Maoism and set his
nation out on the capitalist road.
China has dozens of nuclear power plants under construct-
ion, has completed the Three Gorges Dam -- the largest
power source on earth -- and is tying the nation together
with light rail, bullet trains and highways in infrastruct-
ure projects unlike any the world has ever seen.
Contrast what China is doing with what we are about. We
have declared vast regions of our country, onshore and
offshore, off-limits to drilling for oil and gas. We have
not built a nuclear power plant in 30 years or a refinery
in 25 years. We have declared war on fossil fuels to save
the planet from global warming.
Given the power of the environmental lobby to tie up
projects in endless litigation, we could never today
build our Interstate Highway System, Hoover Dam, the
TVA or the Union Pacific Railroad.
Determined to take America's title as the world's first
manufacturing nation, as she has taken Germany's title as
the world's leading exporter, China keeps her currency
undervalued and demands of those who sell to China that
they also produce in China. As America's share of the
world economy steadily falls, China's share has doubled.
This year, China will overtake Japan as the world's
second-largest economy.
Having seen the Soviet Union disintegrate into 15 nations
and fearing the ethno-nationalism of Tibetans and Uighurs,
Beijing floods her border provinces with Han Chinese.
America, declaring racial, ethnic and religious diversity
a strength, invites the world to come and swamp its native-
born. And mostly poor, unskilled and uneducated, they are
coming by the millions.
China puts savings ahead of spending, production ahead of
consumption, manufacturing ahead of finance. Embracing
free trade, Americans declare that it makes no difference
who produces what, where. What's good for the Global
Economy is good for America.
Before the financial collapse, the U.S. savings rate stood
at zero percent of family income. In China, it ranged
between 35 percent and 50 percent.
Since the Cold War, the United States has been playing
empire -- intervening to punish evil-doers and advance
democracy in Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo,
Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan.
We have expanded NATO to include Eastern Europe, the Baltic
States and much of the Balkan Peninsula. We have not let a
single alliance lapse from the Cold War. And we have fewer
friends and more adversaries than at the end of the Cold
War. What has all this intervention availed us?
China, having fought no one, has rapidly built up her
military power and developed ties to the growing number of
nations at odds with America, from Russia to Iran to Sudan
to Venezuela.
The Chinese of 2010 call to mind 19th century Americans who
shoved aside Mexicans, Indians and Spanish to populate a
continent, build a mighty nation, challenge the British
Empire -- superpower of the day -- and swiftly move past
her in manufacturing to become first nation on earth. Men
were as awed by America then as they are by China today.
America seems a declining superpower. She cannot defend her
borders, balance her budgets or win her wars. Her education-
al system at the primary and secondary level is a shambles.
In the first decade of the century, she lost one of every
three manufacturing jobs. In this second decade, she is
looking at trillion-dollar deficits to 2020. The world is
losing confidence in her ability to manage her surging
national debt.
While we are finally extricating ourselves after seven
years from an unnecessary war in Iraq, we are heading
deeper into an Afghan war that has lasted a decade, the
end of which it is impossible to see.
During the Cold War, China was in the grip of a millenarian
ideology that blinded her to her true interests. Today,
it is we who are captive to a utopian ideology that is
becoming perilous to the republic.
END OF Conservative Review
Copyright 2010 by NextEra Media. All rights reserved.
Please feel free to forward this, in its entirety, to others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)