Obama's New Nominee

As many of you know, Obama has announced a new nominee for Supreme Court to take the place of ailing Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Unlike his first nominee (Sotomayor), his newest nominee, Elena Kagan has almost no paper trail of judicial rulings because she has never sat on a bench.

Also, unlike Sotomayor, Kagan is deemed to be much more moderate. My research on Kagan is ll preliminary at this point, but expect more information on her later. This is what i do know: she's female, she's white, she's young (relatively), and she is "progressive." Pretty much par for the course with the Obama Administration.

If you'd like to find out more about this nominee, please check you the SCOTUS Report published by the Federalist Society /http://www.scotusreport.com/. They have all of the latest updates and information about the new nominee.

Much Ado About Nothing in Arizona

There has been much conjecture about what the new Immigration law out of Arizona will mean for Latin American immigrants. Will this lead to racial profiling of Mexican Americans? Will this force Hispanics to hold their immigration papers at all times? Is this little more than Gestapo tactics of a xenophobic public? These are the things the left and illegal apologists would like you to believe about the law. Most of the country hasn’t read it, and doesn’t even know what is in it.

The fact of the matter is that this law is the first example of a state FINALLY taking the immigration issue seriously when Washington won’t. Arizona is in the middle of a war zone. Phoenix has the highest kidnapping rate in the entire country. The boarder to Mexico has been the site of deadly crimes, drug smuggling, and an influx of illegal immigrants (or undocumented workers as the Obama Administration would like to call them). Mexico is, essentially, in a civil war that is spilling over our boarder. It is long past the point where we need to do something drastic about this problem.

First, let me address the questions I have posed about this legislation. On the issue of racial profiling, it is true that this law will affect Hispanics more than anyone. I’m not here to deny that. However, racial profiling is not exactly the right word for what will happen. First of all, the bill states that this law only comes into effect if a person has been stopped or apprehended already. For instance, this is not an example (like many from the left have been claiming) where anyone, for any reason can be asked to produce their immigration or citizenship papers. What would happen is this. Let’s say you got pulled over for speeding. Then, it would be within the power of law enforcement to ask you to produce proof that you are legally allowed to be in the United States. Considering being here illegally is BREAKING THE LAW, I really don’t see what the issue is. No one can be stopped because of their race. The End.

Will Hispanics have to hold immigration papers at all times? Only if they plan to commit a crime. And even then, one’s legal status can be determined without papers. This law only allows Arizona to take more control of the situation for themselves. Since Washington will not deal with the problem (and recently has not admitted much of a problem at all) then Arizona has a responsibility to its citizens (both Hispanic and not) to protect them from these illegals that mooch off the system and are bring crime into the state in droves.

As for the Gestapo claim, anyone with a brain knows that is little more that liberal rhetoric as usual. Note to the world, being here illegally not only makes you exempt from American civil rights but also makes you a criminal. Why should they come here legally if we are just going to turn a blind eye when they say disrespect to our laws and come here illegally. I find it interesting that the left get’s their panties in a twist when the government takes action to insure our security calling it “big brother” but they seem to have no problem whatsoever with government takeover of the economy, education, and basic everyday parts of our lives.

Xenophobia in America is an overly dramatized claim by the left and pro-illegal groups as well. In fact, this law will help with relations between legal immigrants and American citizens. If we would actually crack down on illegal aliens, those Hispanic Americans who move here, legally, can live in peace and harmony with their fellow Americans. At the end of the day, ALL people on BOTH sides of this issue should put blame where it’s due: on the illegal aliens that have no respect for our boarder or our laws.

While people are getting their panties in a twist over this new law, why not ask this question. What if your child had been murdered by an illegal immigrant? Would you still think this was not worth dealing with? I hate to break it to the illegal apologists, but I don’t care how hard it is to live in Mexico. You come here LEGALLY or don’t come at all. And as a sovereign nation, America has every right to ensure the safety of its boarders and its citizens.

In fact, the left should take another look at the constitution and framing of our government. There are basically two main jobs of the federal government: to protect and defend the borders and to facilitate interstate commerce. The end. Not to bailout banks, not to prop up the economy, not to provide universal healthcare or any other service.

In every other country on the planet, proof of legal immigration or visas are required. Why should it be any different in the United States? Actually, I know why. Democrats do no give a crap about the Hispanic community. The “outrage” over this bill is for two reasons. 1) Democrats want the Latino vote and 2) They want “multiculturalism” as opposed to the melting pot (mostly because Democrats excel at race politics where Republicans fail). Keeping the Mexican population high, naturalizing the illegals, and keeping them happy (i.e. welfare, healthcare, turning a blind eye to rampant crime) will ensure millions of votes for the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, in case anyone forgot, we are in a war on terror. How is it smart to have an unsecured boarder and millions of “undocumented” and untraced people living here? This is common sense 101. Why is no one talking about this? We are so concerned with protecting the non-existent rights of illegals, but why are we not concerned at all with protecting our sovereign borders in a time of war?

I’ll leave you with this thought. Imagine that you can’t be assured that English will be spoken to you anywhere you go. Imagine that your child is at risk for kidnapping by drug cartels. Imagine that your home is not safe from invasion by illegal aliens. Imagine that you have a friend who has been killed by an illegal drunk driver. Imagine that your tax dollars are going to house illegals in jail, pay for their healthcare, and pay for their children’s education. Does that sound like a safe America? Why should we protect law breakers?

I’m all for ensuring that this law does not devolve into racial profiling on a ridiculous scale (though there are safeguards in the law to avoid that), but how can a sane person not expect Arizona to crack down on this issue? Do you think that if Canada was in a civil war we’d just open our boarders to them? Why are Latin Americans an exception to our laws? Is vote pandering really worth our lives and livelihoods? Why make such a fuss about a law that simply forces citizens to carry photo ID (a thing that is already a necessity for daily life in America). Supporting this bill does not mean you support racism. It means you support a country where the inhabitants respect our laws, plain and simple.

Great Orators of the Democratic Party

Much to discuss lately. Look for a post on the Arizona Immigration Law in the next few days. But, until then, I wanted to share an email I received from a College friend. I don't usually share these things because I figure everyone has gotten them, but I thought that this one was not only funny, but also very insightful.

Great Orators of the Democratic Party

"One man with courage makes a majority." ---Andrew Jackson

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt

"The buck stops here." ---Harry S. Truman

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" ---John F. Kennedy

And now for quotes from today's Democrats

"It depends on what 'is' is." ---Bill Clinton

"That Obama--I would like to cut his nuts off." ---Rev. Jesse Jackson

"Those rumors are false. I believe in the sanctity of marriage." ---John Edwards

"I invented the internet." ---Al Gore

"The next person that tells me I'm not religious--I'm going to shove my rosary beads their ass." ---Joe Biden

"American is--is no longer, uh, what it--it could be, uh what it once was...uh, and i say to myself, uh, I don't want that future, uh, uh, for my children." ---Barack Obama

"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go." ---Barack Obama

"You don't need God anymore. You have us Democrats." ---Nancy Pelosi

"Paying taxes is voluntary." ---Harry Reid

"Bill is the greatest husband and father I know. No one is more faithful, true, and honest than he." ---Hilary Clinton

"We won't know what's in it until we pass it." ---Nancy Pelosi

Oh democrats...you are a constant source of fun for those of use who see through your nonsensical bullshit! As John Wayne said, "Life is Tough. It's even tougher when you are stupid."

Keep your eyes peeled for my Arizona Immigration post, coming soon!

Hate Speech or Political Capital?

As many of you have heard, Ann Coulter's speaking engagement at the University of Ottawa was cancelled after the police feared for her life as leftist students charged the building, blocking entrances and holding sticks and stones, threatening her life. Fun Fact: did you know that Coulter has never had to cancel a speech due to security reasons before?

You might be surprised by that, considering there are many American colleges that breed irrational liberals and have "hate speech codes." But at the end of the day, America is (luckily) a center-right country. Canada is not. In fact, before her speech, Coulter received an email from the Provost of University of Ottawa warning her that "hate speech" is a crime. Want a definition of hate speech? So did I. The law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group."

Ummmm, okay. What the hell does that even mean? Does that mean that if you say, publicly, that you hate neo-nazis, you will be arrested? Or, if you call the KKK racists, can they haul you off to jail? Or how about the MANY hateful protests against Jews and Israel that take place on Canadian campuses almost every week? Is that punishable with a fine? Apparently not, because the University of Ottawa has been host to numerous anti-semitic protests and speakers with no such warning. In other words, "hate speech" is only "hate speech" when it offends a liberal. In fact, isn't a warning to Ann Coulter about how she should give her speech really a "hate crime?" Wasn't the Provost singling her out for her political beliefs and then threatening her with jail time if she didn't play by his rules? Oh yeah, "hate crimes" can only be against liberals too.

This story comes along side the supposed racist and sexual orientationist comments Tea Partiers yelled at Democrats as they paraded passed the group on Sunday. First of all, let me clarify, there is no evidence of these supposed comments. There is only the word of the democrats who, in a calculated move, chose to walk passed the Tea Party movement with cameras rolling. *note no cameras picked up racial slurs*

It is interesting that the Left wants to take this approach. They want to label conservatives as "racist" or "homophobic" or "sexist" and "violent." The irony is that, not only is that untrue, it would be the pot calling the kettle black if it were. First of all, the Tea Party movement is not a "republican" movement. As someone who has attended a few Parties, there are many non-republicans that attend them. Secondly, its not a white movement. Many black conservatives have been "keynote" speakers at these Tea Parties. Thirdly, they are not homophobic or sexist as men and women are equally represented, and gays are more than welcome.

Violence is the most laughable accusation. When was the last time you heard of a conservative riot? Never? Yeah, i thought so. In fact, the Tea Party Movement is the largest non-violent civic movement since MLK Jr.'s civil right's movement. If you want to point a finger to violent protesters you are going to have to look to the left of the political spectrum. You know, people like Bill Ayers (oh, i forgot, we aren't supposed to bring that up, it's "hate speech"). It is the anti-war nuts that threaten violence and burn effigies. It is the anarchist movements that need to be broken up by the police. The Tea Party people just want to have a voice since their government is no longer concerned with what they have to say.

Furthermore, where was the outrage when mainstream columnists were saying they wanted to "kill Bush?" Why was there no crying in the streets when the "truthers" audaciously said Bush planned 9/11. It seems to me that the only thing you are allowed to speak out against is conservatives. If you speak out against liberals you are a racist, bible beating, bigot, who hates gays and women.

What are conservatives supposed to do? Sit back and watch Pelosi, Reid, and Obama drive the country into the shitter? Are we not allowed to have an opinion? Why is it that when Islamic extremists hijack planes and murder 3000 of our citizens the liberals are the first ones to say "What did we do to make them mad?" but when thousands of Americans get together to protest government takeover of our lives they don't ask "What did we do to make them mad?"

The short answer is that the terrorists and the liberals have the same enemy. America. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? Anyway, let's leave this hate speech crap alone. Let's just talk about FREE speech. As long as I'm not slandering anyone, I can say what I want. Dems sure as hell say whatever they want. Come on Dems, stop playing the victim (even though it's the only role you know) and just own up to the fact that you passed a putrid bill that most of the country opposes, and good luck to you in November.

Pajamas Media

I received an email today from Pajamas Media asking me to post this video on my blog. I'm more than happy to do so because I couldn't agree more with it. Check these guys out at www.pjtv.com

"The left seems to think it’s got to be good for us if it increases government power. But liberal policies increase the same cycle of dependency that leads people to let Washington control their lives. Watch the latest ZoNation and comment here"

*I'm not at all computer savvy, though i run a blog, so i'm not exactly sure how to upload this video so it will play on this page. Regardless, follow the link, it will take you to the video.

Israeli Apartheid Week

Many Americans reading this blog might be unfamiliar with "Israeli Apartheid Week," so let me give you a little background on it before explaining why it is so toxic. Beginning in Toronto, this college-campus based movement has spread to over 40 cities in the world. The "mission" of Israeli Apartheid Week is "to educate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system and to build Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns as part of the growing BDS movement." In the full mission statement (written in July 2005) the mission includes "full equality of Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and to end the colonization of all Arab lands--including the Golan Heights, the Occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip." That is what the mission statement says. What they really want is to spew anti-semitic rhetoric, and bully people into agreeing with them.

This is a group of college students who have been so brainwashed by their liberal professors that they don't know which end is up. It's criminal the way these elitist professors use their students in their own political wars, but that's life. It happens in the States just as much as it does in Canada (sadly). These students are impressionable and growing up in socialist cities in liberal universities. Really, they have barely any chance to hear common sensical arguments. It almost makes me feel bad for them. Almost. But the hateful speeches and protests they organize against the Jews and Israelis make it impossible for me to feel anything but contempt for these hopeless neophytes.

If you question my assertion of anti-Israeli sentiment on campus, think about this. York University in Toronto (where IAW started), the union leader for the faculty called on the President to ban pro-Israeli professors. What's more disturbing is that this was only reported as a "big deal" by Jewish news papers. At the University of Toronto, students have been known to, frequently, protest Israel and Judaism all over the campus without so much as a second look by administrators. These are not random events. In fact, being anti-Israeli at a Toronto University is damn near the most popular position there is.

Now, back to the ridiculous Israeli Apartheid Week. I'm all for free speech, so if these people want to get together and remove any doubt of their stupidity, have at it. However, journalists and scholars treat this even as legitimate, and that is the real problem. A bunch of clueless students protesting something they don't even understand is normal at college campuses around the world. And liberal media siding with these idiot students isn't that unheard of either. But in this case, it is particularly egregious for the following reasons:

1. The Term Apartheid: First, and foremost, this week-long whine-fest is poorly titled. According to dictionary.com, apartheid means "any system of practice that separates people according to race or caste." If one knows anything about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you could drive many holes through the "apartheid" argument. Here are just a couple.

1) The Palestinian territories are at the request of the Palestinians themselves (remember Land for Peace).

2) It is the Palestinian rhetoric that denounces Jews as inferior, not the other way around.

3) Israelis have shown a history of working together with the Palestinians, and only proceeded to put up walls when terrorism caused them to fear for the security of their people. That is not apartheid, that is national defense.

2. The Lack of Discussion: This might seem a laughable notion in a time when college campuses are brainwashing grounds instead of learning centers, but the fact is that universities are supposed to encourage open discussion. These IAW demonstrations encourage just the opposite. If you so much as like an Israeli person, you are not allowed to speak, and might well be stoned. I'm not suggesting that these people would be open to discussion. They are obviously unhinged. But legitimizing and event that doesn't even allow the opposition to be heard is a bit dictatorial, don't you think.

3. The Argument that IAW is not "Anti-Semitic": Anyone who buys this is a total moron. But there are plenty of journalists making that claim. They say, its one-sided, but its not anti-semitic, it's just anti-Israeli. Example, Thomas Walkom, Toronto columnist, writes, "it's also hard to accuse Israeli Apartheid Week of being anti-Semitic when small Jewish organizations, like Independent Jewish Voices, are sponsors." Ummmm, first of all, i'm surprised he could make it out of college with that kind of logic. Is that to say that because some black people hate other black people that if YOU hate black people it's not racists? Come on! There are Jewish people who stand against Israel (though very few), that does not mean the activities at IAW are not Anti-Semitic. The Palestinian people are not "freedom fighters," they are jihadist taking back land for Allah.

It is a well known principle in Islam that land conquored for Allah must not be lost to "infidels," which is what the Israelis are. Moreover, demonstrators at IAW are often seen wearing traditional Hamas scarves. I'm sure that Mr. Walkom would not find Hamas to be "anti-semitic" either. They just "want their land back," right? This goes back to a long standing principle. Only conservatives can be racists or anti-semitic, and IAW people are liberal. Therefore, anti-Israeli protestors cannot be racist or anti-Semitic. Of course, it's completely illogical, but when did you last hear a coherent argument by a leftist radical? Forget the fact that the Nazis were a leftist political group (an argument better saved for another day).

Of course there are more reasons why this gets under my skin, but these are the big reasons why anyone should be concerned if Israeli Apartheid Week comes to a town near you. Just remember this; It wasn't the Israelis that decided to blow themselves up. It wasn't the Israelis that elected terrorists as government. Only in the West could people be so out of touch with reality that they could support Hamas and it's supporters over a country that is just trying to survive.

Forget for a moment that Israeli was the land of the Jews until they were forced off of it. Forget that they were re-sanctioned the land of Israel after the Holocaust, to ensure that the Jewish people would always have a safe haven if ever such a vile plan was plotted against them again. Forget that the Muslims would have the Holocaust done 20 times over to rid themselves of the infidels. Just think about it legally. The Jews were given Israel by the British and the UN. It is theirs. You might not like it, but thems the facts. Get over it. And while you're at it, why not sit down with the Palestinians and ask them to stop being petulant children, put on their big-boy pants and deal with Israel in a diplomatic and grown-up fashion. I'm pretty sure history proves the Israelis are more than willing to work together.