Long overdue improved security measures were commenced at this Nation's borders today when new State Department rules concerning the forms of ID needed to gain entry into the country finally went into effect. The media is reporting that officials at the State Department say enforcement will not be strict at first, which is disappointing to say the least, but the action to improve security at the borders is a welcomed sign nonetheless. Once full enforcement is implimented, we can all breathe a little easier.
That's not to say that the new rules will end outside threats. Nothing can be farther from the truth. What the rules do represent though, is a major common-sense improvement in how we scrutinize those coming into this Counrty. The new rules represent a significant step in protecting our Nation without unnecessary infringement on the lives of those who cross our borders.
That's something we can all celebrate.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Atttorney General: Think No Torture...See No Torture
It's not very reassuring that the Nation's chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, won't provide a legal opinion as to whether "waterboarding" constitutes torture, and thus, constitutes a violation of the federal statutes prohibiting torture. Mukasey says that's not his job. I find such a claim incredulous!
I thought the job of the Attorney General of the United States was to enforce this Nations' laws and to insure that every person who violates those laws is held accountable for their actions. And I also thought, apparently in error according to Mukasey, that in order to carry out his or her duties, an Attorney General would have to render a judgment call as to whether an actor's conduct fell within the conduct prescribed by a federal criminal statute. After all, the Canons of Legal Ethics require a prosecutor to believe that a crime was committed before charges can be filed. So, it would seem logical that when it comes to whether conduct is illegal or not, especially when the conduct centers around torture, the Attorney General would have an opinion.
But not with this Attonrey General. The way he sees it, that's not his job.
I thought the job of the Attorney General of the United States was to enforce this Nations' laws and to insure that every person who violates those laws is held accountable for their actions. And I also thought, apparently in error according to Mukasey, that in order to carry out his or her duties, an Attorney General would have to render a judgment call as to whether an actor's conduct fell within the conduct prescribed by a federal criminal statute. After all, the Canons of Legal Ethics require a prosecutor to believe that a crime was committed before charges can be filed. So, it would seem logical that when it comes to whether conduct is illegal or not, especially when the conduct centers around torture, the Attorney General would have an opinion.
But not with this Attonrey General. The way he sees it, that's not his job.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Mudslinging the "L" Word
It's hard to imaging either John McCain or Mitt Romney as an agent of change when they resort to slinging the "L-word" (liberal) at one another. I'm a diehard liberal, so I can tell you that neither candidate even comes close to qualifying as liberal, but if this is how both are acting now in the midst of the Republican primaries, imagine how both would be in the Fall facing a Democratic opponent. Expect today's name-calling to the 9th power.
The other Republican candidates wouldn't act better; they just didn't make today's news bulletins.
If you want a real 'agent of change', you'll have to forego labeling and allow yourself to hope with Obama. He may be liberal, but you won't hear him slinging the "C-word".
The other Republican candidates wouldn't act better; they just didn't make today's news bulletins.
If you want a real 'agent of change', you'll have to forego labeling and allow yourself to hope with Obama. He may be liberal, but you won't hear him slinging the "C-word".
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Losers Don't Leave Iraq - Winners Don't Stay
When the Democratic candidates in last night’s debate were asked whether they were more interested in pulling troops out of Iraq or winning the war, I thought each candidate missed a golden opportunity to re-frame the question. Here’s what I’d have said:
[To the questioner] You’ve spent too much time listening to the Republicans! We’ve already won that war. We invaded Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein. Saddam and his henchmen are dead. We invaded Iraq to rid them of nuclear and chemical weapons. It turns out they never had any in the first place. Case closed. We achieved out objective. We won that war. Bush said so on the deck of an aircraft carrier. It’s time to bring our troops home!
The notion that Iraq has to be the main battlefront on the War on Terror is nonsense. If we invaded Easter Island in the Pacific tomorrow, al-Qaeda would show up the next day and want to fight us there. Wherever we go, they’ll follow.
If the United States is truly serious about fighting Al-Qaeda, wouldn't it make more sense to do it on their own home turf, not in the middle of a somebody else's back yard and certainly not in the mddle of a Siite/Sunni/Kurd civil war where our guys get caught in the crossfire?
Wasting time in Iraq is the quickest was for the United States to lose the war against terrorism.
[To the questioner] You’ve spent too much time listening to the Republicans! We’ve already won that war. We invaded Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein. Saddam and his henchmen are dead. We invaded Iraq to rid them of nuclear and chemical weapons. It turns out they never had any in the first place. Case closed. We achieved out objective. We won that war. Bush said so on the deck of an aircraft carrier. It’s time to bring our troops home!
The notion that Iraq has to be the main battlefront on the War on Terror is nonsense. If we invaded Easter Island in the Pacific tomorrow, al-Qaeda would show up the next day and want to fight us there. Wherever we go, they’ll follow.
If the United States is truly serious about fighting Al-Qaeda, wouldn't it make more sense to do it on their own home turf, not in the middle of a somebody else's back yard and certainly not in the mddle of a Siite/Sunni/Kurd civil war where our guys get caught in the crossfire?
Wasting time in Iraq is the quickest was for the United States to lose the war against terrorism.
Dr. Martin Luther King Would Have Been Encouraged
Watching Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards debate on the evening of a holiday dedicated to the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, I couldn't help believing that the civil-rights crusader and promoter of equality would have been wonderfully encouraged by the sight of a black man and a woman, standing center stage, as viable and widely accepted candidates for the United States Presidency. Sometimes, it's nice to observe the fulfillment of a dream in one's own midst.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Politicians and Recession
Politicians are frequently loath to mention the word, “recession” for fear that their acknowledgment of the possibility of such an event will trigger its actual occurrence, but such thinking gives a politician’s mouth more credit than it deserve. More often, it’s the politician’s actions, or lack thereof, that hastens the onset of the dreaded economic condition.
This failure to acknowledge the obvious works no justice to the American people. At the very juncture when steps could be taken to avoid the economic calamity that recession entails, officials most capable of affecting change are frequently too busy burying their heads in the sand and blindly hoping for the equivalent of an economic miracle, rather than rolling up their sleeves, acknowledging the obvious and moving towards a workable solution. By the time the political world decides to acknowledge the obvious, it’s too late to avoid recession’s juggernaut. Such is the case today.
For years, middle and lower class Americans have been struggling under the weight of higher and higher energy prices, soaring health expenses and a steady loss of quality paying jobs. That fact was obvious to anybody paying attention to the struggles of the common man. Since the middle class forms the backbone of the U.S. economy, the health of the economy is inextricably linked to their plight. It shouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to predict the recession that confronts us, just somebody with the guts to open their mouth. But alas, they were suddenly silent. Woe to us!
Equally maddening are politicians who see “recession” as an excuse for political gain, rather than a torturous cloud that chokes life itself out of the weakest enveloped by it. When the recovery of the common man’s malaise takes a back seat to the quest to secure an ideological victory for one’s political viewpoint, millions will suffer needlessly.
This Nation’s top economists widely agree that any government intervention to ward off, or lessen the economic devastation of the impending recession, must be narrowly targeted to places where the pain is most greatly felt, so as not to cripple this countries long-term economic health. Such a solution would require politicians to cast aside their desire for ideological gain in favor of securing a workable solution.
I’d like to think that was possible, but in today’s polarized political climate, I’m not too optimistic about the prospect and I’m not afraid of opening my mouth to say so!
This failure to acknowledge the obvious works no justice to the American people. At the very juncture when steps could be taken to avoid the economic calamity that recession entails, officials most capable of affecting change are frequently too busy burying their heads in the sand and blindly hoping for the equivalent of an economic miracle, rather than rolling up their sleeves, acknowledging the obvious and moving towards a workable solution. By the time the political world decides to acknowledge the obvious, it’s too late to avoid recession’s juggernaut. Such is the case today.
For years, middle and lower class Americans have been struggling under the weight of higher and higher energy prices, soaring health expenses and a steady loss of quality paying jobs. That fact was obvious to anybody paying attention to the struggles of the common man. Since the middle class forms the backbone of the U.S. economy, the health of the economy is inextricably linked to their plight. It shouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to predict the recession that confronts us, just somebody with the guts to open their mouth. But alas, they were suddenly silent. Woe to us!
Equally maddening are politicians who see “recession” as an excuse for political gain, rather than a torturous cloud that chokes life itself out of the weakest enveloped by it. When the recovery of the common man’s malaise takes a back seat to the quest to secure an ideological victory for one’s political viewpoint, millions will suffer needlessly.
This Nation’s top economists widely agree that any government intervention to ward off, or lessen the economic devastation of the impending recession, must be narrowly targeted to places where the pain is most greatly felt, so as not to cripple this countries long-term economic health. Such a solution would require politicians to cast aside their desire for ideological gain in favor of securing a workable solution.
I’d like to think that was possible, but in today’s polarized political climate, I’m not too optimistic about the prospect and I’m not afraid of opening my mouth to say so!
Thursday, January 10, 2008
RUSH STEALS MY THEORY
I should have figured that a quack like Rush Limbaugh would be hot on the Clinton conspiracy trail, but I underestimated his speed. A mere 3 hours after I posted my two conspiracy theories, Rush hit the airways and stole my idea...suggesting that the "Hillary Camp" bussed in illegal voters from surrounding states to stuff the New Hampshire ballot boxes.
Sorry, Rush! I'm the guy who started that theory and deserve all the credit.
Sorry, Rush! I'm the guy who started that theory and deserve all the credit.
The Birth of More Conspiracy Theories
Over the years, millions of conspiracy theories have been bandied about, but oftentimes nobody takes responsibility for starting them. It seems like an act of cowardice to set a theory in motion, but not have the gall to attach one's name to it.
Today, that's going to change. I'd like to go on record as creating two new conspiracy theories of my own. Mind you, they are totally unsubstantiated theories with no factual basis whatsoever - bordering on pure madness - but if either gains traction, or, by some bizarre twist of fate turns out to be true, I demand to be given credit as the first to advance that theory.
My first conspiracy theory: Hillary Clinton Operatives Stole the New Hampshire Election! *
(In the interest of fairness, must add the following disclaimer: I would rather Barack Obama be President. Hillary is my second choice!)
Okay, now that we're past the disclaimer, I'd like to point out that virtually all the pollsters had Barack Obama winning the New Hamshire election by 10 or more percentage points. Instead, Hillary won by three points. I could see a few pollsters getting it wrong, but the notion of everybody in the polling business being wrong just doesn't smell right...and if something stinks, well - you get the drift.
That's all the evidence I have. Are you ready for my second conspiracy theory, which is just as plausible as the first?
My second conspiracy theory: Christian Evangelical Forces Stole the New Hampshire Election For Clinton Because They Desire Her as the Democratic Candidate...*
...after all, nobody hates Hillary more than the evangelicals! And what better way to mobilize the G.O.P. evangelical base than by facing their version of the devil incarnate!
*theory first advanced by Steve Zorbaugh
Today, that's going to change. I'd like to go on record as creating two new conspiracy theories of my own. Mind you, they are totally unsubstantiated theories with no factual basis whatsoever - bordering on pure madness - but if either gains traction, or, by some bizarre twist of fate turns out to be true, I demand to be given credit as the first to advance that theory.
My first conspiracy theory: Hillary Clinton Operatives Stole the New Hampshire Election! *
(In the interest of fairness, must add the following disclaimer: I would rather Barack Obama be President. Hillary is my second choice!)
Okay, now that we're past the disclaimer, I'd like to point out that virtually all the pollsters had Barack Obama winning the New Hamshire election by 10 or more percentage points. Instead, Hillary won by three points. I could see a few pollsters getting it wrong, but the notion of everybody in the polling business being wrong just doesn't smell right...and if something stinks, well - you get the drift.
That's all the evidence I have. Are you ready for my second conspiracy theory, which is just as plausible as the first?
My second conspiracy theory: Christian Evangelical Forces Stole the New Hampshire Election For Clinton Because They Desire Her as the Democratic Candidate...*
...after all, nobody hates Hillary more than the evangelicals! And what better way to mobilize the G.O.P. evangelical base than by facing their version of the devil incarnate!
*theory first advanced by Steve Zorbaugh
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
In Remembrance
A very dear friend was taken from this world on Sunday, the tragic victim of domestic violence at the hands of her estranged husband. She is survived by a seventeen year old daughter, Tiffany. The following is my memorial to this woman, whose dream of a happier life was cut short by a senseless act of violence:
Sometimes, ordinary women summon extraordinary courage to transform lives; and sometimes, those women pay for their courage with their own life. Tammy was one of those women.
Sometimes, ordinary women find the extraordinary courage to free themselves from the yoke of emotional abuse and domestic violence; and sometimes, the violence consumes them anyway. Tammy was one of those women.
Sometimes, ordinary women find the extraordinary courage to dream for a better life, a happier life, a safer life, a calmer life, a more rewarding life; and sometimes, that dream is extinguished in the blink of an eye with nary a rhyme or reason. Tammy was one of those women.
Sometimes, ordinary women find the extraordinary courage to teach their offspring that hope can be found in the midst of utter desolation, that resolve and determination can give rise to hope for a better tomorrow and that a life lived by one’s own choice, no matter how short, is far superior to a lifetime of living according to the will of another. Tammy was one of those women
And sometimes, extraordinary courage transforms ordinary women into extraordinary women. Tammy was one of those women too.
She loved her daughter. She treasured her family. She cherished her friends. She yearned for a happier life – a dream unfortunately cut short – but by her courage she planted a seed that is Tiffany’s hope and a reminder to us all that courage to take the first step is truly extraordinary.
God Bless us All!
Sometimes, ordinary women summon extraordinary courage to transform lives; and sometimes, those women pay for their courage with their own life. Tammy was one of those women.
Sometimes, ordinary women find the extraordinary courage to free themselves from the yoke of emotional abuse and domestic violence; and sometimes, the violence consumes them anyway. Tammy was one of those women.
Sometimes, ordinary women find the extraordinary courage to dream for a better life, a happier life, a safer life, a calmer life, a more rewarding life; and sometimes, that dream is extinguished in the blink of an eye with nary a rhyme or reason. Tammy was one of those women.
Sometimes, ordinary women find the extraordinary courage to teach their offspring that hope can be found in the midst of utter desolation, that resolve and determination can give rise to hope for a better tomorrow and that a life lived by one’s own choice, no matter how short, is far superior to a lifetime of living according to the will of another. Tammy was one of those women
And sometimes, extraordinary courage transforms ordinary women into extraordinary women. Tammy was one of those women too.
She loved her daughter. She treasured her family. She cherished her friends. She yearned for a happier life – a dream unfortunately cut short – but by her courage she planted a seed that is Tiffany’s hope and a reminder to us all that courage to take the first step is truly extraordinary.
God Bless us All!
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Two Parties - One Dance (The Democrats)
What could be better than holding two proms at the same locale on one night? How about two presidential debates?
That’s exactly what ABC and sponsor, Facebook did, and they should be congratulated for holding the Saturday night presentation, a program that featured two separate presidential debates on the campus of Saint Anselm’s College in New Hampshire. The debates were well moderated and briskly paced, with ample opportunity for the candidates of each party to mix it up with one another, and both debates provided voters with sharper views of the distinctions between the candidates.
Candidate “spin” aside, voters who watched the debates were the clear winners.
Obama didn’t disappoint, Hillary made her points, Edwards showed his conviction and Richardson kept tapping the podium, even though he managed the night’s best zinger.
Let’s start with Richardson and work our way up in the Democratic polls. Bill’s entire performance was overshadowed by the irritating habit he had of tapping his fingers on the podium while he was speaking. The microphone picked up the continual tapping and it was hard to pay attention to what he was saying. Richard made a good point when he asked rhetorically, “What’s wrong with experience? Is it suddenly akin to being a leper?” Of course, having executive experience is a quality he’s touting as important because he’s been a state governor and that’s a point in his favor, but I sometimes wonder why anybody would claim to have the necessary experience when nobody, except an incumbent President seeking re-election, really has “prior experience”. And every time Bill says, “I’m the only one who balanced a budget” I cringe. That’s because a couple hundred million Americans have done it too. Perhaps another candidate will one day think of it too.
Edwards wasted no time going on the attack, labeling Hillary Clinton as the “status quo” candidate, a charge that provoked a fierce return barrage from Clinton, but one Edwards withstood and proved that, if nothing else, Edwards was truly committed and passionate about his desire to battle for the middle class. It’s hard to look at Edwards though and not wonder how much he paid for his current haircut. Edwards missed a chance to erase some of that image when asked what gaffe he made during the campaign that he’d like to erase, if he had the opportunity to do so. I can’t recall his answer, except that it had nothing to do with the haircut and it should have. People do care about how a President will handle the public purse, and the wasteful haircut was just the kind of thing that would cause folks to overlook John’s other good ideas.
Hillary Clinton handled herself well in the debate and confirmed, at least in my mind, that she has the intellectual capacity, the iron resolve and the passion necessary to be a good President. She’s match or better Margaret Thatcher’s steel will. Hillary’s comments regarding the capacity to translate talk into action and feelings into reality were well-reasoned arguments meant to position her as an agent for change and to negate some of the momentum Barack Obama gained by garnering that mantel. Unfortunately, Hillary is still saddled with Bill’s negative moral image and the “calculating and cruel” image of her that the right-wing stalwarts have so effectively painted of her over the years. She may very well be an, ‘agent of change’ in the role of President, but even left-wingers like myself have a difficult time formulating the picture. Nevertheless, Hillary did a fine job of articulating her points and positions.
The pundits said that Barack Obama needed to avoid making a big gaffe, and he accomplished that feat, and much more. He demonstrated in a firm, but calm manner that he was equipped to handle the rigors of the Oval office and possessed the intellectual capacity and wisdom necessary to perform the job properly. Obama was right when he said that words do matter and that words empower people. Words matter because people need to know that their voices are being heard and people need to know that those they elect truly understand the issues being faced in everyday life by ordinary Americans. Words also matter because the job of bringing true change to America will entail a collective discussion between folks of many different backgrounds. For too long our leaders have acted and talked at, but no to Americans. Obama’s decision to change course is a welcomed start to change.
That’s exactly what ABC and sponsor, Facebook did, and they should be congratulated for holding the Saturday night presentation, a program that featured two separate presidential debates on the campus of Saint Anselm’s College in New Hampshire. The debates were well moderated and briskly paced, with ample opportunity for the candidates of each party to mix it up with one another, and both debates provided voters with sharper views of the distinctions between the candidates.
Candidate “spin” aside, voters who watched the debates were the clear winners.
Obama didn’t disappoint, Hillary made her points, Edwards showed his conviction and Richardson kept tapping the podium, even though he managed the night’s best zinger.
Let’s start with Richardson and work our way up in the Democratic polls. Bill’s entire performance was overshadowed by the irritating habit he had of tapping his fingers on the podium while he was speaking. The microphone picked up the continual tapping and it was hard to pay attention to what he was saying. Richard made a good point when he asked rhetorically, “What’s wrong with experience? Is it suddenly akin to being a leper?” Of course, having executive experience is a quality he’s touting as important because he’s been a state governor and that’s a point in his favor, but I sometimes wonder why anybody would claim to have the necessary experience when nobody, except an incumbent President seeking re-election, really has “prior experience”. And every time Bill says, “I’m the only one who balanced a budget” I cringe. That’s because a couple hundred million Americans have done it too. Perhaps another candidate will one day think of it too.
Edwards wasted no time going on the attack, labeling Hillary Clinton as the “status quo” candidate, a charge that provoked a fierce return barrage from Clinton, but one Edwards withstood and proved that, if nothing else, Edwards was truly committed and passionate about his desire to battle for the middle class. It’s hard to look at Edwards though and not wonder how much he paid for his current haircut. Edwards missed a chance to erase some of that image when asked what gaffe he made during the campaign that he’d like to erase, if he had the opportunity to do so. I can’t recall his answer, except that it had nothing to do with the haircut and it should have. People do care about how a President will handle the public purse, and the wasteful haircut was just the kind of thing that would cause folks to overlook John’s other good ideas.
Hillary Clinton handled herself well in the debate and confirmed, at least in my mind, that she has the intellectual capacity, the iron resolve and the passion necessary to be a good President. She’s match or better Margaret Thatcher’s steel will. Hillary’s comments regarding the capacity to translate talk into action and feelings into reality were well-reasoned arguments meant to position her as an agent for change and to negate some of the momentum Barack Obama gained by garnering that mantel. Unfortunately, Hillary is still saddled with Bill’s negative moral image and the “calculating and cruel” image of her that the right-wing stalwarts have so effectively painted of her over the years. She may very well be an, ‘agent of change’ in the role of President, but even left-wingers like myself have a difficult time formulating the picture. Nevertheless, Hillary did a fine job of articulating her points and positions.
The pundits said that Barack Obama needed to avoid making a big gaffe, and he accomplished that feat, and much more. He demonstrated in a firm, but calm manner that he was equipped to handle the rigors of the Oval office and possessed the intellectual capacity and wisdom necessary to perform the job properly. Obama was right when he said that words do matter and that words empower people. Words matter because people need to know that their voices are being heard and people need to know that those they elect truly understand the issues being faced in everyday life by ordinary Americans. Words also matter because the job of bringing true change to America will entail a collective discussion between folks of many different backgrounds. For too long our leaders have acted and talked at, but no to Americans. Obama’s decision to change course is a welcomed start to change.
Two Parties - One Dance (The GOP)
Romney sounded like Kerry, McCain sounded presidential, Huckabee avoided making gaffs, Thompson acted well, Giuliani articulated his losing message with style and Ron Paul was, well…Ron Paul!
The polls suggest that John McCain is the leader in the New Hampshire race, engaged in a tight battle with Mitt Romney for the hearts and souls of independent voters, who can vote in whichever party primary they please. McCain displayed all the attributes of a good president last night. He was forceful, exuded conviction, was articulate in the explanation of his ideas and opinions and, most importantly, voiced a recognition of the necessity for and willingness to bridge ideological gaps with Democrats to achieve real change in the lives of ordinary Americans. McCain made good points on the need to attack wasteful spending on prescription drugs by importing cheaper drugs from Canada and he spoke eloquently regarding the need to eliminate foreign oil and fight global warming as a joint project. Whether that message resonates with G.O.P. voters outside New Hampshire remains to be seen, but McCain offered a clear picture of the kind of leader he would be.
Romney appeared flat, so much so that one has to wonder whether the “Liberal from Massachusetts” label the demagogues like Huckabee like to sling has actually started to tarnish his normally polished exterior. Little of Romney’s usual campaign charm made its way into the debate, and without that charm, Romney appeared like John Kerry in a Swift Boat attach ad. Yes, Romney landed a few blows on the competition, but he took more than his fair share too. More importantly, Romney showed once again how out of touch he is with the problems of real working American. Romney said he’d rely on the free market to take care of the economy’s woes and was the first to rush to the defense of oil and pharmaceutical companies. All he’s really proposing is another term of Bush economics.
Huckabee displayed the charm that Romney lacked, which explains why his numbers among diehard GOP Evangelicals are rising and Romney’s are not. Like McCain, Huckabee comes across as a highly likeable guy, but Huckabee offers the same qualities that George W. Bush offered in 2000 and 2004, and a message virtually identical. If you love George W. Bush, you’ll love Huckabee. Unfortunately, the country can’t afford 4 more years of George Bush and a Huckabee win would mean exactly that! Huckabee offered nothing new to the debate, but he can afford that luxury because he’s a likeable guy. Hopefully, GOP voters, and if not the rest of America, will soon recognize we can’t afford a Bush clone before it’s too late.
Fred Thompson remained on script, every bit the wise District Attorney we know him to be on Law and Order. When queried about Barack Obama, Thompson deftly managed to slip the words, “Liberal” and “Welfare State” into a single descriptive sentence with the ease Brutus slipped a dagger into Caesar, but Thompson can’t escape the fact that everybody knows he’s a skillful actor. In an election season where seeming authenticity is fetching a fair premium, Thompson can’t make headway because folks don’t know when he’s acting and when he’s not. Also, Thompson can’t draw a distinction between the views he holds and those of his GOP opponent, Mike Huckabee. Given the choice, most voters will go with the more likeable guy, which explains why Huckabee, and not Thompson is rising in polls among GOP voters..
Rudi Giuliani, the only true centrist on the GOP stage, spoke eloquently regarding his treatment of immigrants and immigration-related issues in New York City during his term as mayor. He passionately defended his actions on humanitarian grounds, and his explanations were succinct and to the point. Unfortunately, humanitarianism doesn’t resonate well with Christian Evangelicals who are more interested in the concept of Christ, the sword-wielding marauder of the Left Behind series than the concept of Christ, the peace-loving champion of the poor and the oppressed. Rudi’s heart was in the right place, but he’ll have to save his policies for another Kingdom. The GOP is the ‘Party of God’ in name only. One response worth noting though, was Rudi’s retort to charges that he supports amnesty. Rudi said that Reagan…the hero of the GOP, game immigrants amnesty. And then Rudi said “Reagan would have been in a Romney attach ad too”. You got that right, Rudi!
And then, there was Ron Paul. Ron got to weigh in on a few issues, but never really had the chance to illuminate the electorate about the bulk of his platform or why they should vote for him over the other men on the podium. For those who don’t know Ron…he’s the libertarian candidate of the GOP. It’s a lonely spot he occupies and last night was a good example why.
The polls suggest that John McCain is the leader in the New Hampshire race, engaged in a tight battle with Mitt Romney for the hearts and souls of independent voters, who can vote in whichever party primary they please. McCain displayed all the attributes of a good president last night. He was forceful, exuded conviction, was articulate in the explanation of his ideas and opinions and, most importantly, voiced a recognition of the necessity for and willingness to bridge ideological gaps with Democrats to achieve real change in the lives of ordinary Americans. McCain made good points on the need to attack wasteful spending on prescription drugs by importing cheaper drugs from Canada and he spoke eloquently regarding the need to eliminate foreign oil and fight global warming as a joint project. Whether that message resonates with G.O.P. voters outside New Hampshire remains to be seen, but McCain offered a clear picture of the kind of leader he would be.
Romney appeared flat, so much so that one has to wonder whether the “Liberal from Massachusetts” label the demagogues like Huckabee like to sling has actually started to tarnish his normally polished exterior. Little of Romney’s usual campaign charm made its way into the debate, and without that charm, Romney appeared like John Kerry in a Swift Boat attach ad. Yes, Romney landed a few blows on the competition, but he took more than his fair share too. More importantly, Romney showed once again how out of touch he is with the problems of real working American. Romney said he’d rely on the free market to take care of the economy’s woes and was the first to rush to the defense of oil and pharmaceutical companies. All he’s really proposing is another term of Bush economics.
Huckabee displayed the charm that Romney lacked, which explains why his numbers among diehard GOP Evangelicals are rising and Romney’s are not. Like McCain, Huckabee comes across as a highly likeable guy, but Huckabee offers the same qualities that George W. Bush offered in 2000 and 2004, and a message virtually identical. If you love George W. Bush, you’ll love Huckabee. Unfortunately, the country can’t afford 4 more years of George Bush and a Huckabee win would mean exactly that! Huckabee offered nothing new to the debate, but he can afford that luxury because he’s a likeable guy. Hopefully, GOP voters, and if not the rest of America, will soon recognize we can’t afford a Bush clone before it’s too late.
Fred Thompson remained on script, every bit the wise District Attorney we know him to be on Law and Order. When queried about Barack Obama, Thompson deftly managed to slip the words, “Liberal” and “Welfare State” into a single descriptive sentence with the ease Brutus slipped a dagger into Caesar, but Thompson can’t escape the fact that everybody knows he’s a skillful actor. In an election season where seeming authenticity is fetching a fair premium, Thompson can’t make headway because folks don’t know when he’s acting and when he’s not. Also, Thompson can’t draw a distinction between the views he holds and those of his GOP opponent, Mike Huckabee. Given the choice, most voters will go with the more likeable guy, which explains why Huckabee, and not Thompson is rising in polls among GOP voters..
Rudi Giuliani, the only true centrist on the GOP stage, spoke eloquently regarding his treatment of immigrants and immigration-related issues in New York City during his term as mayor. He passionately defended his actions on humanitarian grounds, and his explanations were succinct and to the point. Unfortunately, humanitarianism doesn’t resonate well with Christian Evangelicals who are more interested in the concept of Christ, the sword-wielding marauder of the Left Behind series than the concept of Christ, the peace-loving champion of the poor and the oppressed. Rudi’s heart was in the right place, but he’ll have to save his policies for another Kingdom. The GOP is the ‘Party of God’ in name only. One response worth noting though, was Rudi’s retort to charges that he supports amnesty. Rudi said that Reagan…the hero of the GOP, game immigrants amnesty. And then Rudi said “Reagan would have been in a Romney attach ad too”. You got that right, Rudi!
And then, there was Ron Paul. Ron got to weigh in on a few issues, but never really had the chance to illuminate the electorate about the bulk of his platform or why they should vote for him over the other men on the podium. For those who don’t know Ron…he’s the libertarian candidate of the GOP. It’s a lonely spot he occupies and last night was a good example why.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
More Anti-Immigrant Hate E-Mail Polluting the Internet
Here's another 'anti-immigrant' hate e-mail that's been floating around and my response.
THE E-MAIL:
In Case you have not seen this. 33 Senators Voted Against English as America 's Official Language June 6, 2007On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 23:35:23 -0500, "Colonel Harry Riley USA ret" wrote:
"Senators,
Your vote against an amendment to the Immigration Bill 1348, to make English America's official language is astounding. On D-Day no less when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock character and principles of America . I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens. I don't much care where you come from, what your religion is, whether you're black, white or some other color, male or female, democrat, republican or independent, but I do care when you're a United States Senator, representing citizens of America and vote against English as the official language of the United States Your vote reflects betrayal, political surrender, violates your pledge of allegiance, dishonors historical principle, rejects patriotism, borders on traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United States Senator... impeachment, recall, or other appropriate action is warrented. Worse, 4 of you voting against English as America 's official language are presidential candidates: Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd, and Senator Obama. Those 4 Senators vying to lead America but won't or don't have the courage to cast a vote in favor of English as America's official language when 91% of American citizens want English officially designated as our language. This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators have disgraced themselves as political hacks... unworthy as Senators and certainly unqualifed to serve as President of the United States. If America is as angry as I am, you will realize a back-lash so stunning it will literally rock you out of your panties... and preferably, totally out of the United States Senate.The entire immigration bill is a farce... your action only confirms this really isn't aboutAmerica ; it's about self-serving politics... despicable at best."Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~ anonymous
The following senators voted against making English the official language of America : Akaka (D-HI) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Wants to be President?Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Cantwell (D-WA) Clinton (D-NY) Wants to be President?Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Wants to be President?Domenici (R-NM) Coward, protecting his Senate seat...Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Not unusual for himFeinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Wanted to be PresidentKohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Disappointment here.....Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Obama (D-IL) Wants to be President?Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Senate Majority LeaderSalazar (D-CO) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-M)"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." ~ President Abraham Lincoln " Amen
"Please forward to as many people as you know. WE NEED THIS INFORMATION PASSED ON TO EVERY RED-BLOODED AMERICAN!!!!!!
MY RESPONSE:
There’s plenty of evidence, both anecdotally and by scientifically conducted studies, that over 90% of second-generation immigrants in this country speak fluent English. That conclusion might sound astonishing, but it actually makes sense. The immigrant parents who come here often do not speak English and, because it’s far more difficult to pick up a new language during adulthood, they tend to learn English more slowly. Their children, however, pick up English in schools very quickly and, by the third generation, only about 10% of the 2nd generation’s kids are even fluent in their grandparent's native language.
The myth generated by the “English-Only” proponents is that immigrants, by and large, don’t want to learn English, but it’s just an urban myth. The opposite is true. A 2005 study conducted by a widely respected “conservative-based” foundation, concluded that an overwhelming majority of immigrants desired to learn English because they viewed it as a key to assimilating and gaining a piece of the American Pie. Interestingly, immigrants widely reported that social barriers were the largest hinderance in their efforts to learn English and, as a result, they relied heavily upon the use of their native language as a matter of comfort.
Several weeks ago, somebody sent me an e-mail with a gripe about non-English speaking immigrants and ended with the view that anybody who doesn’t speak English should be denied entry into the US. I believe that kind of thinking ends up limiting the gene pool – if you catch my drift – but it certainly seems to be an ever-increasing viewpoint.
From a legal position, English already IS our official language. The “bill" to which the e-mail refers does not “establish” English as anything, because English as the official language is what already exists. What the bill does attempt to do is forbid all branches of government from teaching English as a second language (which is how immigrant children best learn English in schools) and from accommodating non-English speaking people with government functions (no more Spanish pamphlets or non-English interpreters). Personally, I think that’s an ignorant idea.
English-only advocates act as if this is a major problem that has suddenly happened upon the scene; but I’ve got this sense that it is no greater problem today than it was when the Cubans, Haitians, Italians, Welsh, Irish, Chinese, Germans, Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese resettled here. If you ask me, what really drives this issue is disdain of immigrants. Half the folks who moan about the issue come right out and say so and half of the remainder can’t write a proper English sentence. You’d think that with spell-check available, the pro-English crowd would demonstrate better grammar.
THE E-MAIL:
In Case you have not seen this. 33 Senators Voted Against English as America 's Official Language June 6, 2007On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 23:35:23 -0500, "Colonel Harry Riley USA ret" wrote:
"Senators,
Your vote against an amendment to the Immigration Bill 1348, to make English America's official language is astounding. On D-Day no less when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock character and principles of America . I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens. I don't much care where you come from, what your religion is, whether you're black, white or some other color, male or female, democrat, republican or independent, but I do care when you're a United States Senator, representing citizens of America and vote against English as the official language of the United States Your vote reflects betrayal, political surrender, violates your pledge of allegiance, dishonors historical principle, rejects patriotism, borders on traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United States Senator... impeachment, recall, or other appropriate action is warrented. Worse, 4 of you voting against English as America 's official language are presidential candidates: Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd, and Senator Obama. Those 4 Senators vying to lead America but won't or don't have the courage to cast a vote in favor of English as America's official language when 91% of American citizens want English officially designated as our language. This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators have disgraced themselves as political hacks... unworthy as Senators and certainly unqualifed to serve as President of the United States. If America is as angry as I am, you will realize a back-lash so stunning it will literally rock you out of your panties... and preferably, totally out of the United States Senate.The entire immigration bill is a farce... your action only confirms this really isn't aboutAmerica ; it's about self-serving politics... despicable at best."Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~ anonymous
The following senators voted against making English the official language of America : Akaka (D-HI) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Wants to be President?Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Cantwell (D-WA) Clinton (D-NY) Wants to be President?Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Wants to be President?Domenici (R-NM) Coward, protecting his Senate seat...Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Not unusual for himFeinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Wanted to be PresidentKohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Disappointment here.....Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Obama (D-IL) Wants to be President?Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Senate Majority LeaderSalazar (D-CO) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-M)"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." ~ President Abraham Lincoln " Amen
"Please forward to as many people as you know. WE NEED THIS INFORMATION PASSED ON TO EVERY RED-BLOODED AMERICAN!!!!!!
MY RESPONSE:
There’s plenty of evidence, both anecdotally and by scientifically conducted studies, that over 90% of second-generation immigrants in this country speak fluent English. That conclusion might sound astonishing, but it actually makes sense. The immigrant parents who come here often do not speak English and, because it’s far more difficult to pick up a new language during adulthood, they tend to learn English more slowly. Their children, however, pick up English in schools very quickly and, by the third generation, only about 10% of the 2nd generation’s kids are even fluent in their grandparent's native language.
The myth generated by the “English-Only” proponents is that immigrants, by and large, don’t want to learn English, but it’s just an urban myth. The opposite is true. A 2005 study conducted by a widely respected “conservative-based” foundation, concluded that an overwhelming majority of immigrants desired to learn English because they viewed it as a key to assimilating and gaining a piece of the American Pie. Interestingly, immigrants widely reported that social barriers were the largest hinderance in their efforts to learn English and, as a result, they relied heavily upon the use of their native language as a matter of comfort.
Several weeks ago, somebody sent me an e-mail with a gripe about non-English speaking immigrants and ended with the view that anybody who doesn’t speak English should be denied entry into the US. I believe that kind of thinking ends up limiting the gene pool – if you catch my drift – but it certainly seems to be an ever-increasing viewpoint.
From a legal position, English already IS our official language. The “bill" to which the e-mail refers does not “establish” English as anything, because English as the official language is what already exists. What the bill does attempt to do is forbid all branches of government from teaching English as a second language (which is how immigrant children best learn English in schools) and from accommodating non-English speaking people with government functions (no more Spanish pamphlets or non-English interpreters). Personally, I think that’s an ignorant idea.
English-only advocates act as if this is a major problem that has suddenly happened upon the scene; but I’ve got this sense that it is no greater problem today than it was when the Cubans, Haitians, Italians, Welsh, Irish, Chinese, Germans, Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese resettled here. If you ask me, what really drives this issue is disdain of immigrants. Half the folks who moan about the issue come right out and say so and half of the remainder can’t write a proper English sentence. You’d think that with spell-check available, the pro-English crowd would demonstrate better grammar.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Obama Win a Positive Step for a Positive America
Congratulations are in order for Barack Obama on his Tursday win in the Iowa caucuses. That Obama’s heartfelt message of hope resonated with Iowa Democrats who turned out in record numbers is an encouraging sign for those who truly long for a change in the tenor of political discourse in America. Let’s hope his campaign continues on this path and his message catches fire in the hearts of all Americans, not just Democrats.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Internet Immigration E-Mails Spread Lies and Flame Hate
The circulating petition e-mail posted at the end of this note is a prime example of Internet propaganda. The actual purpose of the e-mail is not to petition the President, but rather, to inflame ordinary folks against Congress and undocumented immigrants with lies and distortions.
For example, the letter begins: "We, the undersigned, protest the bill that the Senate voted on recently which would allow illegal aliens to access our Social Security."
Note that the word "passed" is missing from that sentence. There's no need to petition the President unless such a bill actually passed- and one didn't. In fact, such a bill was not even considered. Given the fact that a comprehensive immigration reform bill cannot even pass Congress, who would be willing to commit political suicide by proposing what the letter below suggests? The answer is nobody - Conressional perks are too valuable.
In the explanatory paragraph before the petition, the writer states: "If the government gives benefits to 'illegal' aliens who have never contributed, where does that leave those of us who have paid into Social Security all our working lives?"
Good point, if it were true, but it's not. That statement is another "dead giveaway" to the letter's inaccuracy. Nodbody, not even U.S. citizens, gets SSD benefits or regular social security retirement benefits without contributing FICA taxes - NOBODY!
Nor can so-called "illegals" get SSDI benefits, though even if they could, SSDI benefits do not get paid from revenues collected by FICA taxes or from the funds maintained for regular social security. SSDI is paid for out of the government's general budget in the form of block grants that are subsequently controlled by states who determine there own benefits (because the state has to match the funds)...so nobody's social security checks would be jeopardized by granting "illegals" those benefits...which I must restate, they're not getting.
Now, it's true that states have various rules regarding welfare benefits and other services (i.e. health care access, food stamps, education) that do not distinguish between documented residents and those who are not. And yes, it's true that many desire the federal government to impose restrictions on states prohibiting them from granting services to undocumented individuals as a condition to receiving federal funding. But none of those efforts threaten or bolster the social security system. There is simply no statutory or regulatory connection between those programs.
Finally, I'd like to add that I do not share the writer of the petition's sentiment regarding being "fed-up...with paying for services for illegals". With me, it's a Biblical "thing"...I'd rather be counted among those who were more interested in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the poor and administering to the sick than those who are worried about who's "illegal" and who is not. I don't think that Christ would find the distinction noteworthy.
Of course, that could have something to do with the fact that, as a child, he was in illegal immigrant in Egypt too.
(Below is the e-mail)
Social Security Changes
It does not matter if you personally like or dislike Bush. You need to sign this petition and flood his e-mail box with e-mails that tell him that, even if the House passes this bill, he needs to veto it. It is already impossible to live on Social Security alone. If the government gives benefits to "illegal" aliens who have never contributed, where does that leave those of us who have paid into Social Security all our working lives? As stated below, the Senate voted this week to allow "illegal" aliens access to Social Security benefits. Attached is an opportunity to sign a petition that requires citizenship for eligibility to that social service.
Dear Mr. President:
We, the undersigned, protest the bill that the Senate voted on recently which would allow illegal aliens to access our Social Security. We demand that you and all Congressional representatives require citizenship as a prerequisite for social services in the United States. We further demand that there not be any amnesty given to illegals, NO free services, no funding, no payments to and for illegal immigrants. We are fed up with the lack of action about this matter and are tired of paying for services to illegals.
For example, the letter begins: "We, the undersigned, protest the bill that the Senate voted on recently which would allow illegal aliens to access our Social Security."
Note that the word "passed" is missing from that sentence. There's no need to petition the President unless such a bill actually passed- and one didn't. In fact, such a bill was not even considered. Given the fact that a comprehensive immigration reform bill cannot even pass Congress, who would be willing to commit political suicide by proposing what the letter below suggests? The answer is nobody - Conressional perks are too valuable.
In the explanatory paragraph before the petition, the writer states: "If the government gives benefits to 'illegal' aliens who have never contributed, where does that leave those of us who have paid into Social Security all our working lives?"
Good point, if it were true, but it's not. That statement is another "dead giveaway" to the letter's inaccuracy. Nodbody, not even U.S. citizens, gets SSD benefits or regular social security retirement benefits without contributing FICA taxes - NOBODY!
Nor can so-called "illegals" get SSDI benefits, though even if they could, SSDI benefits do not get paid from revenues collected by FICA taxes or from the funds maintained for regular social security. SSDI is paid for out of the government's general budget in the form of block grants that are subsequently controlled by states who determine there own benefits (because the state has to match the funds)...so nobody's social security checks would be jeopardized by granting "illegals" those benefits...which I must restate, they're not getting.
Now, it's true that states have various rules regarding welfare benefits and other services (i.e. health care access, food stamps, education) that do not distinguish between documented residents and those who are not. And yes, it's true that many desire the federal government to impose restrictions on states prohibiting them from granting services to undocumented individuals as a condition to receiving federal funding. But none of those efforts threaten or bolster the social security system. There is simply no statutory or regulatory connection between those programs.
Finally, I'd like to add that I do not share the writer of the petition's sentiment regarding being "fed-up...with paying for services for illegals". With me, it's a Biblical "thing"...I'd rather be counted among those who were more interested in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the poor and administering to the sick than those who are worried about who's "illegal" and who is not. I don't think that Christ would find the distinction noteworthy.
Of course, that could have something to do with the fact that, as a child, he was in illegal immigrant in Egypt too.
(Below is the e-mail)
Social Security Changes
It does not matter if you personally like or dislike Bush. You need to sign this petition and flood his e-mail box with e-mails that tell him that, even if the House passes this bill, he needs to veto it. It is already impossible to live on Social Security alone. If the government gives benefits to "illegal" aliens who have never contributed, where does that leave those of us who have paid into Social Security all our working lives? As stated below, the Senate voted this week to allow "illegal" aliens access to Social Security benefits. Attached is an opportunity to sign a petition that requires citizenship for eligibility to that social service.
Dear Mr. President:
We, the undersigned, protest the bill that the Senate voted on recently which would allow illegal aliens to access our Social Security. We demand that you and all Congressional representatives require citizenship as a prerequisite for social services in the United States. We further demand that there not be any amnesty given to illegals, NO free services, no funding, no payments to and for illegal immigrants. We are fed up with the lack of action about this matter and are tired of paying for services to illegals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)