Archive for May, 2010

Conservatism…

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , on May 26, 2010 by raingeg

Conservatism cannot be a movement that targets groups, it cannot be a movement that cares about the race, gender or class of an individual, it has to be the movement that is beyond identity politics. Conservatives are not leftists, we should not act like them.

Conservatism has to be a movement that promotes American values. Conservatism has to reiterate Lady Liberties words: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” That message is aimed at people in other countries, and it still should be, but the country that we now inhabit has become so unlike the country we once knew that conservatives must become the voice of that country instead.

Conservatives must acknowledge the sins of our countries past without abandoning our values as we clean up our act. Far to often America has thrown the baby out with the bath water when it comes to what we need to do to in order to make this country better. Instead of turning our backs on anything that comes from the past, we must sift through our past, seeking to destroy what was evil and promote what was good.

Conservatives have to acknowledge that evil exists and there are people out there that want to kill us and our friends around the world.

Conservatives need to call upon those who have been ruined by leftists, who are now the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” they are the dependents and they lack independence and true freedom. We must show them that there is a silver lining on the cloud. We must let them know that the answer to their problems is not increasing the size of government and enslaving them even more. Conservatism has to be the movement that seeks to actually solve problems, instead of throwing some money and a couple of incompetent politicians or bureaucrats at a problem in “hopes” that it will be resolved.

That is what conservatives need to be, and that is what will bring victory in November.

Advertisements

Life is Busy

Posted in Uncategorized on May 21, 2010 by raingeg

I’m sorry that I haven’t been able to keep up with my posting lately. This week I had to work a lot and I am the best man at my best friends wedding, so I will be busy for the next couple of days. After that I hope to be back up and running.

Rep. Ted Poe of Texas Questions Holder on Law

Posted in Immigration, Politics with tags , , , on May 14, 2010 by raingeg

I did not know that this video existed, thanks to a Facebook friend I now do. If you’d like to read more about my opinion on Holder not reading the law click here.

NJ Gov. Christie Talks to the Media

Posted in Economy, Politics with tags , on May 14, 2010 by raingeg

Eric Holder Hasn’t Read SB 1070

Posted in Immigration, Politics with tags , , , , , on May 13, 2010 by raingeg

Wow! What a shock, Attorney General Eric Holder hasn’t read Arizona’s SB 1070. Actually, this is not a shock at all. They don’t even read 2,000 page legislation that will take over a large portion of the economy and effect every citizen of the country, so why should they read a small bill out of Arizona?’

The Washington Times:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona’s new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn’t yet read the law and is going by what he’s read in newspapers or seen on television.

He’s going by what the newspapers and television say? The bill is not that long, its 18 pages, about one one hundredth the size of the health insurance bill. In other words, you don’t need two days and two lawyers to see what it all means, as John Conyers famously stated.

This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program that the Arizona law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” He had earlier called the law’s passage “unfortunate,” and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.

Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn’t yet read the legislation.

“It’s hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven’t even read the law,” the Texas Republican told the attorney general.

The Arizona law’s backers argue that it doesn’t go beyond what federal law already allows, and they say press reports have distorted the legislation. They point to provisions in the law that specifically rule out racial profiling as proof that it can be implemented without conflicting with civil rights.

But critics said giving police the power to stop those they suspect are in the country illegally is bound to lead to profiling.

Mr. Holder said he expects the Justice and Homeland Security departments will finish their review of the Arizona law soon.

This is the most important part of this post, so make sure you don’t miss it. The media is to blame for the problem that we have here. The critics backers that they mention in the article are right. When it comes to what the law really says and what the critics of the law say it says, the media does a bad job of presenting the facts in a way that rebuts what the critics are saying, or just straightens out what they are saying.

For example: “But critics said giving police the power to stop those they suspect are in the country illegally is bound to lead to profiling.”

Do you not understand, Washington Times, that police cannot, I repeat cannot, stop someone because they suspect that they are in the country illegally? Please help me understand why the following sentence wasn’t a direct quote from the bill that shows that police are required to have what is called a “lawful” encounter with the police, reference Article 8, Section B in the first sentence of SB 1070. The police can only ask the immigration status of a person that has already broken the law, not just anybody walking down the street. And if anyone would just take the time to do some investigative reporting and read HB 2162 they would find out that there is a whole list of types of identification that will suffice in the event that a person gets pulled over, one of which is a regular old Arizona drivers license.

The media is in the back pocket of the left and they are not going to give you a fair summary, or even a legitimate and accurate report of what the law really says. They are all pandering to the left on this one because they are all afraid of offending someone, even at the expense of looking stupid, they will do anything to be politically correct. In order to be politically correct it almost always means that one has to be intellectually dishonest and factually wrong when presenting the “facts.”

Hat tip: Memeorandum

Political Debate and Inheriting Parents Money

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , on May 12, 2010 by raingeg

I am fascinated by political debate, so I’ve decided to tackle some issues that come up in political debates and write what I think about them. I’ll do this every now and then for a while and see how it works out. You’ll probably see me ask questions of myself and answer them within the post.

Getting “Daddies money” OR Inheriting your Parents Wealth: Should I have a problem with this? Is this a good thing?

I have no problem with a person that wants to live off their parents money, provided their parents have a lot of money and they’re able to give their children that life. If you have a rich mother or father and they want to give you some of their doe, or a lot of their doe, or all of their doe, so you never have to work again for the rest of your life, then that’s just fine with me.

Everyone seems to throw this one out there when you start talking about some of the more wealthy individuals in this country. “He’s just in that position because his daddy gave him everything!” Or, “She didn’t work for those clothes, her mommy paid for them!” What a credit that is to our country! People get their panties in a bunch when they realize that someone hasn’t worked hard for what they have, and they say that its a bad thing. It just goes to show that in our country we value work and we want people to work hard for a living, I like that about America, and I actually agree with their complaint. But its always particularly interesting when you hear this coming from the left. The same left that pushes this notion that we need the federal government to do more for us, that some of us are victims, that the government needs to provide us with more entitlements. Yet they oppose this same action when it happens within a family? I don’t get it!

Whether or not I believe that it is a good thing for a person and society is a whole different issue. Is this a good lifestyle for someone? Probably not. I don’t think that it is good for people to get everything they want for free. I think a person should work for what they own. And I think it makes for a better society if people get real jobs and work their way up the ladder of success. But, again, this goes back to the heart of the issue. Is it really my business what private citizens do with their money? No. Should I really care what is happening between John Smith and John Smith Jr.? No.

I’m in favor of a country where we want our fellow citizens to work, because that means they are not living on my dime, and I like it that way. But I’m also equally in favor of letting people do what they want with their money, and if that means giving it to their kids, then so be it. That’s just a credit to our country, that we have a place where this is possible. Its none of my business what you do with your money, or what your father does with his money. It is my business what the government does with my money.

Am I allowed make negative judgment of a politician that has never held a real job in his or her whole life without being a hypocrite? I say yes. Its one thing for me to criticize you, a regular citizen, for rightfully taking advantage of a system that allows you to do so, that’s none of my business. But its not wrong for me to desire a politician, a servant to the people, to have a certain amount of experience in the private sector. If my job as a voter is to find and vote for someone that I think is qualified for the job, and one of my qualifications is a politician that has held a real job and worked for a living, then so be it.

Another Look at Arizona’s SB 1070

Posted in Immigration, Politics with tags , , on May 10, 2010 by raingeg

I’d like to address SB 1070 once again. Its getting to be a bit disappointing how much the left has distorted this piece of legislation. You wouldn’t believe how many times I’ve heard people say that a cop can now pull someone over because they look a certain way, or they believe they are in the country illegally. That is simply not true. This is leftist drivel, it is a lie.

I’ve quoted it before, and I will quote it again. (I underlined for emphasis)

 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

There has to be what is called “lawful contact” and racial profiling is not lawful contact. You cannot pull someone over because they are Mexican or Latino, whatever term you wish to use. That is simply a lie. If you are speeding down the road and you get pulled over, the cop then has the ability to ask for your immigration status if there is a reason to ask. If you have a taillight out and a cop pulls you over, the cop can then ask for your immigration status if there is a reason to ask. In the original version of 1070 race could be a factor, but only after that “lawful contact” was made, it could not be the sole factor. Again, lawful contact comes after someone has committed a crime. And now with the addition of HB 2162 that isn’t even allowed. But you never hear anything about HB 2162 out of the media.

Please understand that this law does not go any farther than the federal law. This law is the law that is supposed to be enforced by the federal government, but sadly, is not. The outright lie that a cop can pull you over because you look like an illegal immigrant needs to stop. The other argument that this is somehow like Nazi Germany asking for “papers” needs to end. As outlined in HB 2162, a drivers license is a legitimate form identification.

Here’s a question that I haven’t heard. SB 1070 enforces federal law at the state level. Provided my previous statement is true, there are officers that the federal government gives the proper authority to to enforce our immigration laws. Why, if Arizona is taking advantage of the same law at the state level, has the federal law not been deemed racist?

Here’s what 8 United States Code Section 1373(c) says:

(a) In general
      Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local
    law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may
    not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or
    official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and
    Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or
    immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
    (b) Additional authority of government entities
      Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local
    law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a
    Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the
    following with respect to information regarding the immigration
    status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
        (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving
      such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization
      Service.
        (2) Maintaining such information.
        (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State,
      or local government entity.
    (c) Obligation to respond to inquiries
      The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an
    inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to
    verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any
    individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose
    authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or
    status information.

If Arizona’s new immigration bill is so racist, why is 8 United States Code Section 1373 not just as racist as SB 1070? I just don’t understand it.

The truth of the matter is that the federal government does not want to enforce our immigration laws. The truth is that “comprehensive,” the word so often used by our federal government with regard to just about any issue whether it be health care or illegal immigration, really means “all.” As Victor Davis Hanson says “’Comprehensive’ is a euphemism for amnesty.” He is exactly right.

I don’t favor amnesty, but I do favor legal immigration. I support finding the criminals (drug traffickers, human smugglers, gang members or anyone with an extensive crime record) within the population of the current illegal immigrants and deporting them. I support building a wall that separates Mexico from the United States, that stops the flow of illegal immigrants and keeps people out. I support making it easier to come into this country to find work and to raise a family legally. I support the death of stupid laws that do not make the former possible. I support getting people that have already waited in line into the country legally. Because I am a pragmatist and I recognize that deporting nearly 10 million people is virtually impossible, I support finding a way to help those who have already illegally arrived in this country. We need a system that forces them to pay for their crime of illegal entry, and allows them to stay in the country if they are willing to pay for their crime. I also support automatic citizenship for anyone that is willing to fight and die for our country.

That is not radical, racist or xenophobic. I want our country to continue to be a country of immigrants, but I want them to come here legally. I also want them to become Americans, not Mexican Americans or Chinese Americans. I want them to be one of us. I want to welcome them to this country, as my relatives were welcomed in 1910 and show them what freedom and liberty is in this great Republic.