Desert Freedom

Lying Chart Of The Day, Classic Edition | The New Republic

2010-12-07T05:59:00.000-07:00

Raul Grijalva is at it again. Less than a month after nearly losing his seat to a conservative, Raul is back to using made up statistics to argue for the redistribution of wealth. This time he quotes an article that claims Bush tax cuts resulted in massive loss of revenue for liberals to spend on their programs. What he and the liberal article fail to mention is the little caveat at the bottom of the graph, "as a percentage of GDP!
Lying Chart Of The Day, Classic Edition | The New Republic
GDP figures below show that with each reduction in taxes in 1980 and 2004 there was a corresponding increase in GDP. Oh, and the Grijalva and his lib sources also fail to mention that "real" tax income increased during those periods. Quite a big error on their part!

Grijalva Explains Democrats Failure: We Didn't Spend Enough!

2010-09-29T00:01:00.001-07:00

According to Arizona District 7 Rep Raul Grijalva, the reason for the failure of Obamacare, deeper Recession, higher unemployment and and spiraling housing prices? Well, three of four would all be Bush's fault, but, according to Grijalva, Dem's simply didn't burden our children with enough debt:

The party should have added a public option to the health-care reform bill and focused more on job creation in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, plus other "bold initiatives that were compromised out by people in more vulnerable districts," he said.

See, in Grijalvanomics, The way to solve economic problems is to spend more. if your pay goes down at work, ignore reality and spend more. Can't afford car payments? buy a bigger car! Like your doctor? keep him/her but spend more. Want to earn enough money to take care of yourself? Screw You!
See in Obamaland, the only thing that matters is fixing wrongs. wrongs from 200 years ago, wrongs that have already been fixed or can't be fixed, wrongs that might occur in the future, imaginary wrongs; none of that matters. Democrats WILL fix all the wrongs. or they will DO something to fix all the wrongs even if what they do is stupid and creates more wrong than it fixes. You see Dems don't care about actually fixing anything, they care about people associating DEMOCRAT with FIX.
The problem is that some things can't be fixed. some things must be lived with, handled head on, or ignored. Democrats like Grijalva can't deal with that.

Nogales Mayor Arrest: Did He do anything Really Wrong?

2010-09-28T19:09:00.002-07:00

Nogales mayor Octavio Garcia-Von Borstel's recent arrest on fraud charges sounds like a problem for Dems in Southern Arizona, or is it just Democrats throwing Garcia-Von Borstel and his father under the bus for something that stretches far beyond the mayor's office? The story broke today with an announcement by Terry Goddard, attorney general and Dem nominee for Governor. Why a Dem breaking a story about another Dem doing what Democratic border mayors have always done? Two possible reasons: A) the FBI and DEA are running the show and, fearful of Von Borstel and his father breaking for Mexico, decided on the time and place for the arrests, giving Goddard a chance to make the announcement at the last minute. or 2) Goddard, aware that this corruption could break much deeper and worse if it broke closer to November for reelection of Democrats in Southern Arizona. Either way, the arrest of a 21 year-old mayor and his father with 3 million in laundered money is just the tip of the iceberg.

But are the actions of Garcia-von Borstal (asking businesses for "protection money" for contracts and funds) any different than those of District 7's own Raul Grijalva. Both were born in Mexico and came to Southern Arizona on free rides. While Grijalva has never "worked" for himself, Von Borstal is a successful businessman. Von Borstal could claim he was helping both businesses and the city. Grijalva claims he is helping Arizona. Von Borstal allegedly took money from businesses and deposited the money in his father's cash loan business. Grijalva takes money from unions and liberal interests and "launders" them in his campaign accounts. Von Borstal shaves daily and wears a tie, Grijalva . . . wears a bolo.

My point is that Democratic politicians, no matter what the level, are basically all master's of extortion. Some just get caught, and that really isn't fair.

Grijalva: Wrong Again on Spending

2010-08-31T06:16:00.001-07:00

For months, Raul Grijalva has poo-pooed criticism of his party for massive partisan spending on the stimulus, saying:

"Bringing the troops home is necessary not just for the future of Iraq, but also for the people of the United States. We must stop the hemorrhaging of tax dollars that could go to meet our Nation's vital domestic needs."

Now statistics from the Congressional Budget Office tell the real story. While Dems have complained about the cost of the Iraq War and Bush administration spending, real figures show that military spending is but a trickle compared to Obama's "War on Americans." Furthermore, contrary to Grijalva's claim that spending under Bush increased, CBO figures show budget decreased up to the bank bailouts of '08 (including the "summer stimulus of '08 where every taxpayer received a check from the IRS). All that domestic spending in '08 (supported, and approved by the Democratic controlled Congress) amounts to a quarter of Democratic spending in '09 (and guess what, most of the banking bailouts were spent last year also). So with all this spending, shouldn't the economy be recovering? No, because spending by itself doesn't bring long-term impact on the economy; confidence does. The American business has no confidence in this Congress or this president. Bring Grijalva home:

How many times will this Congress waste time on an issue that a majority of Americans do not want?
Raul Grijalva

If the Shoe Fits?

2010-08-28T12:50:00.000-07:00

Don't Know about the rest of you, but I'm not a size 8:

A Mosque At Ground Zero by Any Other Name . . .

2010-08-21T05:48:00.000-07:00

This from the Associated Press this week after repeated faux paux's by the President last week over the Mosque intended for downtown New York:

We should continue to avoid the phrase "ground zero mosque" or "mosque at ground zero" on all platforms. (We’ve very rarely used this wording, except in slugs, though we sometimes see other news sources using the term.) The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at ground zero, but two blocks away in a busy commercial area. We should continue to say it’s “near” ground zero, or two blocks away.

WE WILL CHANGE OUR SLUG ON THIS STORY LATER TODAY from “BC-Ground Zero Mosque” to “BC-NYC Mosque.”

Like changing the "Stimulus Package," to "the Jobs Bill," changing the words, doesn't change the intent. A Mosque at Ground Zero, by any other name is still a Mosque at ground zero.

Media Critical of Obama Recovery...Finally

2010-08-08T06:46:00.000-07:00

While you won't hear about it on the Today show or NBC Nightly News, business media is going after the Obama administration for its poor handling of the economy. Check it out:
The Wall Street Journal

Investors Business Daily

Forbes

Now if people who don't know how to balance a checkbook would just listen.

If You Like Your Doctor....

2010-08-06T22:56:00.000-07:00

Remember this one, repeated over and over and over again by Barak Obama? If
you like Your Doctor you can keep him, If you like your insurance....blah blah blah blah.

If You like your Insurance...you can keep it.
I received a letter this summer, actually a packet explaining my employer's new insurance. "We're making it better!" They exclaimed, "and it will be cheaper, too." Immediately after that line was one that explained how my copay for doctor's visits would go up and how prices for generic drugs would more than double. Okay, I thought, we'll just have to put more aside for copays and deductibles. but at least they have made every doctor a preferred provider....

If you like your doctor...you can keep them.
Yesterday the phone rang. It was my child's pediatrician asking for my new insurance information. After giving her the name and policy numbers, there was a long pause on the other end. "We don't accept that insurance," the snooty receptionist responded, "Do you still want to bring your child in?"
So now, after 12 years with the same pediatrician, who has treated my children since they were newborns, including circumcisions, stitches, ADHD treatments, and acne; who knows their names and problems and what stickers they lick to pick out, I have to start over.

And everyone will have the security and stability that's missing today.
I assume that by "everyone" the president includes me and my children. How stable and healthy is changing a child's pediatrician when they are eight because of changes that force employers and providers to limit care?

Today I am pissed.

The Reality of Immigration and the United States

2010-07-30T06:22:00.000-07:00

When Grijalva and Progressives talk about amnesty and open borders, they are not thinking about the future. Here are the facts about the future if immigration stays where it is at:

Georgia Student Sues Over "Remediation" for Gay and Lesbian Issues

2010-07-28T10:39:00.002-07:00

Jennifer Keeton just wants to be a school counselor. She also wants to hold on to her Christian beliefs. Those two things should not be inconsistent, at least not unless your on the board of Augustana University's School Counseling Master's Program.
Keeton is suing the college for requiring her to refute her religious beliefs before being allowed to graduate from its school counseling program. In an unprecedented move, school officials have informed her that she'll be dismissed from the program unless she alters her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct."
The controversy revolves around a statement in American School Counseling Association ethics code, referring to diversity:

The professional school counselor:
a. Affirms the diversity of students, staff and families.
b. Expands and develops awareness of his/her own attitudes and beliefs affecting cultural values and biases and strives to attain cultural competence.
c. Possesses knowledge and understanding about how oppression, racism, discrimination and stereotyping affects her/him personally and professionally.
d. Acquires educational, consultation and training experiences to improve awareness, knowledge, skills and effectiveness in working with diverse populations: ethnic/racial status, age, economic status, special needs, ESL or ELL, immigration status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity/expression, family type, religious/spiritual identity and appearance.

Unfortunately, in the Intellectual circles of many counselor education programs, "improving awareness, knowledge, skills and effectiveness" is interpreted as wholesale acceptance of client values and orientation, a ridiculous leap of logic at best. What counseling education program would require its students to accept a clients' religious beliefs, no matter how different from their own? The code expects a counselor will be aware of their own attitudes and how these might impact a client, not completely throw them out the window in exchange for a "professional view" of diversity.
But that is exactly what goes on in counseling programs around the country. Progressive intellectuals at Universities interpret Christian students beliefs "as indicative of... improper professional disposition to persons of such populations (gays and lesbians)," despite the growing research that supports the (according to the University) "view that homosexuality is a 'lifestyle,' not a 'state of being.'"

Two points on this case:
1. The college is way out of line in their view of the codes of ethics here. According to the codes, counselors are not required to give up their personal beliefs in order to help others, just to be aware of the possible affects of those views on clients.
2. The arrogance illustrated here by the college professors is profound. To claim that they are able to determine a potential bias based on, "disagreement in several class discussions and in written assignments with the gay and lesbian 'lifestyle,'" as well as Keeton's belief that those "lifestyles" are cases of identity confusion." Furthermore, to create a "remediation" plan that will change a student's "fixed binary male-female gender, with one or the other being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created," is hypocritical for "professionals" in counseling to propose.

This is what Progressives do: Assert that their view is the only acceptable one, Inform that "education" will make everyone agree with them, and label you ignorant and racist if you refuse to agree.
Take immigration. Despite logic that says our borders need to be secure, Progressives assert that illegals should be allowed to enter and mingle freely. They hold summits to "educate" and cite University "studies" that support this view (and run counter tho law enforcement statistics). then when laws are passed that make sense and are likely to help in solving the problem, they label it's authors racist and call the majority who support it "ignorant."
And the next step for these "enlightened intellectuals" when they don't get their way? Do they further educate? Do they debate the facts? do they try to enlighten the population? No. They take to the streets and fight the police. They boycott innocent business people. They bus in outsiders who share their views to make themselves appear "overwhelming," a "grass roots movement." And people will watch and say, "look how passionate they are. They must be right." They are not. They are merely arrogant and stubborn.

Eric Hoffer on the Intellectuals

2010-07-27T03:14:00.001-07:00

In the 1950s and 1960s a self-educated longshoreman from California began his commentary on American society and change. He had a lot to say about the intellectuals (Progressives as they call themselves today) that were rapidly becoming influential in his time. Here are a few quotes and predictions from Hoffer:

The fact is that up to now the free society has not been good for the intellectual. It has neither accorded him a superior status to sustain his confidence nor made it easy for him to acquire an unquestioned sense of social usefulness. For he derives his sense of usefulness mainly from directing, instructing, and planning-from minding other people's business-and is bound to feel superfluous and neglected where people believe themselves competent to manage individual and communal affairs, and are impatient of supervision and regulation. A free society is as much a threat to the intellectual's sense of worth as an automated economy is to the workingman's sense of worth. Any social order that can function with a minimum of leadership will be anathema to the intellectual.

The intellectual craves a social order in which uncommon people perform uncommon tasks every day. He wants a society throbbing with dedication, reverence, and worship. He sees it as scandalous that the discoveries of science and the feats of heroes should have as their denouement the comfort and affluence of common folk. A social order run by and for the people is to him a mindless organism motivated by sheer physiologism.

The Ordeal of Change, Chapter 12 'Concerning Individual Freedom'

The ratio between supervisory and producing personnel is always highest where the intellectuals are in power. In a Communist country it takes half the population to supervise the other half.

The Temper of Our Time (1967) p. 70

The attitude of the intellectual community toward America is shaped not by the creative few but by the many who for one reason or another cannot transmute their dissatisfaction into a creative impulse, and cannot acquire a sense of uniqueness and of growth by developing and expressing their capacities and talents. There is nothing in contemporary America that can cure or alleviate their chronic frustration. They want power, lordship, and opportunities for imposing action. Even if we should banish poverty from the land, lift up the Negro to true equality, withdraw from Vietnam (Afghanistan or Iraq), and give half of the national income as foreign aid, they will still see America as an air-conditioned nightmare unfit for them to live in.

The Temper of Our Time, Chapter VI “Some Thoughts on the Present” (1966)

Republican Candidates Debate Issues

2010-07-26T00:10:00.000-07:00

The four Republican candidates for district 7 debated the issues Friday. If you didn't catch it, here's the video. The number of candidates shows the vulnerability of Grijalva this year:

Watch the full episode. See more Arizona Illustrated.

What If Our Elected Representatives Were as Smart as Dogs?

2010-07-25T08:02:00.000-07:00

What would happen if we elected our dogs to replace politicians? Here's some ideas:

They MIGHT Listen to instructions:

They Might WANT to spend time with us:

They Might REMEMBER who pays their salary:

Just a thought.

Arizona's progressives: A Who's Who of the Opposition to SB1070

2010-07-24T15:54:00.001-07:00

Who are the Progressives in Arizona who are fighting against SB1070? Let's start with three of the most influential:

Alfredo Gutierrez is probably the smartest political mind in the Arizona Progressive cadre. Gutierrez, a paid political consultant and former Arizona congressman, organizes for Somos America a radical immigration rights group. Guiterrez is a close associate of Grijalva and claims that groups have plans for civil disobedience and disruption of law enforcement when SB 1070 is implemented.

Sandra Castro, an transplanted college student from LA and regional leader of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA), has an ongoing vendetta against Sheriff Joe Arpiao and his efforts to enforce Arizona laws in Maricopa County. Having lived in Arizona less than two years, she has organized some of the largest hate rallies in opposition to border and immigration enforcement and forced baseless lawsuits against Arpiao. Castro is organizing to bring thousands of protesters from across the country to boycott SB 1070 and she promises to lead larger and larger protests until SB1070 is repealed and Arpiao resigns.

Phil Reller, of the Center for Progressive Leaders, Arizona, characterizes the ignorance and folly of Liberation Theology and the Progressive movement. Another newcomer to Arizona, Reller, former pastor of Rincon United Church of Christ in Tucson, seeks to involve liberal and mainline churches in the fight against SB1070. It is no coincident that Reller is a big supporter and organizer in Grijalva's "grassroots" organization among liberals in Tucson and Phoenix.

"I believe that Arizona is currently moving into a unique opportunity to move from regressive and inhumane systems (where people earn profits) - from health care for the mentally ill to immigration needs, from corporate vs. workers' rights to water usage - and progressive organizing and action (protests and extortionist boycotts) can make ours a healthier state."

- Philip Reller, 2007 Arizona Political Leaders Fellow

These are the movers and shakers against SB1070. all are directly a part of Arizona's Progressive Movement. They are full time workers, highly trained, with almost limitless funding. But they do not represent a majority of Americans. That is their weakness. They want you to believe that their education and training is better than your common sense. They will try and make their numbers seem larger than they actually are and they will not stop until you stop their funding from federal grants and social programs and vote their patrons in Congress out of office. Start with Grijalva.

Bill Ayers: Weatherman and the Progressive Manifesto

2010-07-23T06:16:00.003-07:00

According to Ayers and the 60s radicals that now control our government, the primary question is one of ending the role of the US as an "oppressor nation" and redistributing it's wealth to those we have "exploited" over the years:

So the very first question people in this country must ask in
considering the question of revolution is where they stand in
relation to the United States as an oppressor nation, and
where they stand in relation to the masses of people throughout
the world whom US imperialism is oppressing.
The primary task of revolutionary struggle is to solve this principal
contradiction on the side of the people of the world . It is the
oppressed peoples of the world who have created the wealth of this
empire and it is to them that it belongs ; the goal of the revolutionary
struggle must be the control and use of this wealth in the interests of
the oppressed peoples of the world.

Thus, when Mrs. Obama claims that for the first time she is "proud of being an American," it has little to do with race, but with the view of the United States as an "oppressor nation." When Raul Grijalva calls Border Patrol agents and police officers "Racist" it has less to do with honoring the Constitution than with identifying the "strawman" or in the words of Ayers, the "pigs" who represent the Oppressors of people worldwide, the unenlightened capitalists who must be overcome for the socialist revolution to continue:

A major focus in our neighborhood and citywide work is the pigs,
they tie together the various struggles around the State as the enemy,
and thus point to the need for a Movement oriented toward power to
defeat it.
The pigs are the capitalist state, and as such define the limits of all
political struggles; to the extent that a revolutionary struggle shows
signs of success, they come in and mark the point it can't go beyond.
In the early stages of struggle, the ruling class lets parents come down
high school kids, or jocks attack college chapters. When the struggle
escalates the pigs come in; at Columbia, the left was afraid its
struggle would be co-opted to anti-police brutality, cops off campus,
and said pigs weren ' t the issue. But pigs really are the issue and
people will understand this, one way or another. They can have a
liberal understanding that pigs are sweaty working-class barbarians who
over-react and commit "police brutality" ...Or they can understand pigs as

the repressive imperialist State doing its job. Our job is not to avoid the issue of the pigs as "diverting" from anti- imperialist struggle, but to emphasize that they are our real
enemy if we fight that struggle to win.

To the radical elite, America IS the enemy, they have fashioned it in their minds since their radical youth years, whether at Woodstock or La Raza protest rallies. This is why they will NEVER admit that the Bush administration accomplished anything: Bush was THE MAN, his administration, border policies, and militaristic "expansion" similar enough to Vietnam to label them "Pigs." In the minds of the elitists in the administration, everyone will rally to their cause because they fight for the oppressed (even if they themselves are now the oppressors):

The masses will fight for socialism when they understand that reform
fights, fights for improvement of material conditions, cannot be won
under imperialism. With this understanding, revolutionaries should
put forth a line which fosters the illusion that imperialism will grant
significant reforms. We must engage in struggles forthrightly as
revolutionaries, so that it will be clear to anyone we help to win
gains that the revolution rather than imperialism is responsible for them.
This is one of the strengths of the Black Panther Party Breakfast for
Children Program. It is "socialism in practice" by revolutionaries with
the "practice" of armed self-defense and a "line" which stresses the
necessity of overthrowing imperialism and seizing state power. Probably
the American Friends Service Committee serves more children breakfast,
but it is the symbolic value of the program in demonstrating what
socialism will do for people which makes the Black Panther Program
worthwhile.

So, it doesn't matter that capitalism (imperialism) feeds more, houses more, helps more people, or that the Black Panthers intimidate and oppress. It only matters that "symbols show" how socialism works. Again symbolism over substance, power over freedom. They will force socialism on us for our own good. Viva La Raza!
Bill Ayers titles his manifesto: You Don't Need A Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows, quoting a Bob Dillon song from the same year. Well the winds have changed. Dems who put in their lot with these "Change Agents" are now swimming against a current of anger and resentment. Twenty three years later Bob Dillon wrote another song which probably applies to this bunch:
Gotta Serve Somebody.

Thomas Sowell on Why Washington Intellectuals Don't Get It

2010-07-21T12:59:00.029-07:00

When listening to Obama administration officials, their intellectuals, and the elected officials who listen to them, I sometimes feel like I am listening to people who reside on another planet. Part of the reason for that, I have come to believe, is that these people are enamored by the "experts," college professors and think tank mouthpieces that feed policy initiatives to them. Unable to think for themselves, they listen to and depend upon policy experts to make their decisions. Thomas Sowell, in his book, Intellectuals and Society, explains the role these intellectuals have played in creating disastrous policy in American history:

Sowell explains why Raul Grijalva and Barak Obama are convinced that extending unemployment benefits and increasing taxes will somehow help "stimulate" the economy. It also explains why Grijalva's largest donor is the University of Arizona faculty organization. They are applauding the Failed stimulus, the failed bank reform, Obamacare, and Cap and Trade, despite the fact that these initiatives, together will bankrupt our nation. I have something to say to our elected and soon to be elected representatives in Washington: Stop listening to these morons!

the Washington Elite and You: They Don't Get It

2010-07-20T13:00:00.001-07:00

Have you ever wondered why Washington insiders continue their spending spree, despite poll numbers that are completely against them? Angelo M. Codevilla of the American Spectator has published an amazing analysis of Washington's "elite," The upper crust of East coast liberals and the politicians who want to be like them. Here are some excerpts from the article. You'll want to read it in it's entirety here.
In the article, he describes how the "elite" was formed:

Today's ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters -- speaking the "in" language -- serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America's ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

Who are the elite?:

Professional prominence or position will not secure a place in the class any more than mere money. In fact, it is possible to be an official of a major corporation or a member of the U.S. Supreme Court (just ask Justice Clarence Thomas), or even president (Ronald Reagan), and not be taken seriously by the ruling class. Like a fraternity, this class requires above all comity -- being in with the right people, giving the required signs that one is on the right side, and joining in despising the Outs. Once an official or professional shows that he shares the manners, the tastes, the interests of the class, gives lip service to its ideals and shibboleths, and is willing to accommodate the interests of its senior members, he can move profitably among our establishment's parts.

Agenda?:

Our ruling class's agenda is power for itself. While it stakes its claim through intellectual-moral pretense, it holds power by one of the oldest and most prosaic of means: patronage and promises thereof. Like left-wing parties always and everywhere, it is a "machine," that is, based on providing tangible rewards to its members. Such parties often provide rank-and-file activists with modest livelihoods and enhance mightily the upper levels' wealth. Because this is so, whatever else such parties might accomplish, they must feed the machine by transferring money or jobs or privileges -- civic as well as economic -- to the party's clients, directly or indirectly. This, incidentally, is close to Aristotle's view of democracy. Hence our ruling class's standard approach to any and all matters, its solution to any and all problems, is to increase the power of the government -- meaning of those who run it, meaning themselves, to profit those who pay with political support for privileged jobs, contracts, etc. Hence more power for the ruling class has been our ruling class's solution not just for economic downturns and social ills but also for hurricanes and tornadoes, global cooling and global warming.

By taxing and parceling out more than a third of what Americans produce, through regulations that reach deep into American life, our ruling class is making itself the arbiter of wealth and poverty. While the economic value of anything depends on sellers and buyers agreeing on that value as civil equals in the absence of force, modern government is about nothing if not tampering with civil equality. By endowing some in society with power to force others to sell cheaper than they would, and forcing others yet to buy at higher prices -- even to buy in the first place -- modern government makes valuable some things that are not, and devalues others that are. Thus if you are not among the favored guests at the table where officials make detailed lists of who is to receive what at whose expense, you are on the menu. Eventually, pretending forcibly that valueless things have value dilutes the currency's value for all.

Superiority over the rest of society:

While the unenlightened ones believe that man is created in the image and likeness of God and that we are subject to His and to His nature's laws, the enlightened ones know that we are products of evolution, driven by chance, the environment, and the will to primacy. While the un-enlightened are stuck with the antiquated notion that ordinary human minds can reach objective judgments about good and evil, better and worse through reason, the enlightened ones know that all such judgments are subjective and that ordinary people can no more be trusted with reason than they can with guns. Because ordinary people will pervert reason with ideology, religion, or interest, science is "science" only in the "right" hands. Consensus among the right people is the only standard of truth. Facts and logic matter only insofar as proper authority acknowledges them.

Why they don't care about the facts:

That is why the ruling class is united and adamant about nothing so much as its right to pronounce definitive, "scientific" judgment on whatever it chooses. When the government declares, and its associated press echoes that "scientists say" this or that, ordinary people -- or for that matter scientists who "don't say," or are not part of the ruling class -- lose any right to see the information that went into what "scientists say."

Angelo M. Codevilla, a professor of international relations at Boston University, a fellow of the Claremont Institute, and a senior editor of The American Spectator, was a Foreign Service officer and served on the staff of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee between 1977 and 1985. He was the principal author of the 1980 presidential transition report on intelligence. He is the author of The Character of Nations: How Politics Makes and Breaks Prosperity, Family, and Civility.

Calls to End Boycott Ignored by Grijalva

2010-07-19T00:56:00.002-07:00

Since his call for a boycott of Arizona tourism in April over SB 1070, Grijalva's call has been bolstered by radical liberals with travel voucher power around the country. However, in the state of Arizona, Democrats are running from Grijalva like anathema, asking him to withdraw his boycott and the subsequent supporting lawsuits, calling it a mistake that further threatens the state's weakened economy:

Attorney General Terry Goddard sent a personal letter to Grijalva: "I ask you to join with me in calling on businesses across America to give Arizona a chance, and help us to rebuild our economy instead of engaging in hurtful boycotts," Goddard wrote. “In the absence of a new and comprehensive federal immigration law,” Goddard wrote, “it is just wrong for this administration to fight state efforts to address the effects of our broken border.”

Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) pointedly disagrees with Grijalva's position, including speaking out for Arizona tourism at the National Governor's Conference recently. She has written Grijalva several times:

“I believe that a boycott would hurt Arizona’s families and businesses at a time when our state’s economy is taking the first steps toward recovery after a devastating recession,” Giffords said in support of Arizona tourism.

U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick and U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, both Arizona Democrats, joined the criticism. Their response to the Obama administration lawsuit, sought and supported by Grijalva:

“This lawsuit is a sideshow, distracting us from the real task at hand. A court battle between the federal government and Arizona will not move us closer to securing the border or fixing America’s broken immigration system. The legal fights and boycotts are drawing focus and attention away from what has to be a policy-driven, substantive debate,” Kirkpatrick said.

“Washington failed us on this issue again today, and Arizonans have had enough. The White House and Congress need to start developing a better approach to border security and immigration reform, working with us instead of against us. Our law enforcement and communities are at risk right now – this is a time for solutions, not new obstacles.”

Mitchell added, “The only thing this lawsuit will do is demonstrate to Arizonans that Washington still doesn’t get it.”

And from Arizona's neighbors:
Diane Feinstein of California:

“I don’t think that boycotts or things of that nature really help. They just polarize people,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on Thursday. She was responding to a question asking if she supported a resolution in San Francisco calling for the city to boycott companies that do business in Arizona. “I do not think that is a smart thing to do,” said Feinstein, a former mayor of San Francisco.

A spokesman for Sen. Jeff Bingaman of neighboring New Mexico said the senator believed a boycott decision was up to others, but “welcomes” the tourists and businesses that “no longer feel comfortable going to Arizona.”

In all, Grijalva, in his call for a boycott, has revealed his true colors. Brian Johnson, spokesperson for Loews Ventana Canyon Resort in Tucson said the industry has twice sent Grijalva letters about his calls for a boycott, asking him in one case for an apology. There has been no response.

"To me it appears that he's turned his back on our industry," Brian Johnson said. "That has been very, very disappointing."

Grijalva's response to these criticism is that his boycott is "about sending a message.” He calls the law "racist" even though it asks state law enforcement to do LESS than what federal authorities are required to do by law. Send Grijalva the message. Vote on November 4.

Immigration: Ray Stevens Invite

2010-07-16T02:28:00.001-07:00

How Democrats Twist Their Facts and Blame Opponents for Their Faults

2010-07-15T13:35:00.002-07:00

A recent "discussion on Fox News between Megyn Kelly and an administration mouthpiece highlights the way Democrats choose to enter the debate going into midterm elections. As you watch this observe the threefold strategy to refute all arguments posed by voters to their elected officials that seem to criticize Democratic policies since gaining complete control of our government in the 2008 elections. Here are the "talking points" responses:

1. Deny. When constituents ask about Democrat policies and "what is in the bill," belittle them by saying they get their information from Rush Limbaugh or the internet even when they have their facts straight and you know it.

2. Ask a question that deflects away from the issue. When a reporter asks about Justice Department policy, Ask them why they didn't question the whistleblower about their sources.

3. Blame Bush. Apparently all the problems that the Obama administration has faced are the fault of Bush and Conservative policies despite the economic, legal, and budgetary facts in the hope that people are too lazy to do their research. It's getting old for most people, but the liberal base still buys it and hey, it worked in 2008, why not now?

4. Call them racist. This is also getting old for most people, but again, it gets the hair on the necks of the liberal base up and, since no one likes being called a racist, thoughtful people will pause and self evaluate, "Was I being racist?" Liberals assume they are not, because, well, they are liberals and liberals are NEVER racist.

Unfortunately for liberals, people are becoming tired of their excuses. Megynn Kelly's catfight with Liberal Kirsten Powers is an example of the sort of thing we are likely to see more of in the coming months:

Is Raul Grijalva different? Hardly. He has denied responsibility for deficit spending he voted for and a boycott that has hurt Arizona's economy. He deflects questions about oversight of White House complicity in the BP disaster. He blames Bush for everything from the trillions in deficit spending Grijalva himself voted for to gray hair on coyotes in his district. He has called everyone racist who is not Grijalva or a Grijalva supporter. And he refuses to represent anyone who does not share his point of view. It's time to stop listening to liberals and start confronting them with the facts until THEY listen.

Ruth McClung; Winning Alternative to Grijalva

2010-07-14T01:36:00.012-07:00

Arizonans in District 7 are finding a respectable alternative to Raul Grijalva in Ruth McClung. largely written off by both Tea Party and Republican fundraisers alike, Ruth has built an impressive grass roots campaign by . . . get this, talking to people. Young, inexperienced, under financed, McClung has turned her upstart campaign into a viable threat to dethroning the Community Organizer Grijalva.
Jim Kelly of the Tucson Citizen, had this to say about her in his endorsement:

My knowledge of Ruth McClung began a week after Mother’s Day in 2009. I had met her at an LD 29 District and precinct committee meeting when she announced she was running for the US Congress in CD-7. For the next three months, I bullied her, berated her lack of political polish and derided her fundraising efforts. I was an absolute jerk to her and she remained unflappable. I am surprised that her Mother and Father, Gini and Tom Crawford, didn’t hit me. (Well Gini did once but I deserved it). Her husband Michael gritted his teeth when I would walk in the room but they all stayed the course. I never thought her supporters would stand by her and yet they did. Bruce Webber is her most loyal volunteer and has walked more neighborhoods and put up more signs for her than any other precinct committeeman in her district. Her campaign has taken a much decentralized approach, letting the independent volunteer campaign managers in the counties of her district run their own organizations. Ruth has held car washes and bake sales to finance her campaign. When she first started doing radio interviews she was downright shy and I kept thinking, “Raul Grijalva has nothing to worry about.” But she kept campaigning. And she got better and better. She has stayed on message; she has articulated her core issues of Defense, Border Security, Free Market Economies, Science and Technology, and Healthcare. She truly is an elephant with momentum.
She is also a rocket scientist and knows what she is talking about when she says climate change is a result of natural occurrences based on sun activity, orbits, spin and axis wobbles, ocean currents, polar activity and topographical reflection. It is not human caused. She said “Poverty and corruption has more detrimental effect on the environment than the use of fossil fuels. I want independence from foreign oil and I believe we can safely develop nuclear power within Arizona. I will vote against any scheme designed to tax carbon emissions just to subsidize an unmarketable an uneconomical alternative energy. No Cap and Trade.I am disgusted by my opponent’s lack of concern for the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. Instead of watering holes for smugglers, he should have been empowering our Border Patrol and law enforcement to stop the drug cartels and terrorists from taking over the park and denying access to American citizens. What is he thinking? Is this his way of letting Aztlan get a foothold on sovereign American soil?”

Ruth McClung June 16, 2010

But does McClung know what she is talking about in regards to the economy?

Her economic views are free market based and follow a Milton Friedman model of spending based on a percentage of GDP. ”We have a budget at home; We have everything prioritized from the mortgage down to whether or not I buy new shoes. We pay the priorities first, when we run out of money, we stop spending till we have new revenue. The only time we should go over budget in this country is for catastrophes, civil emergencies and self defense. I see the Border as a National Security and self defense issue and should be paid for in the Defense Authorization and Appropriations.”
“We have got to let the market rule with regards to the economy. No one is too big to fail and the bailouts shouldn’t have happened. But we are stuck with it for the moment and now it’s all about us holding the spenders of the bailouts accountable for results. Yuma has 20% unemployment, Pima County over 10%. We can do better in removing the roadblocks that stifle entrepreneurship. Whether it is environmental regulations or various departmental policies, I will work to remove those roadblocks.”

McClung still does not have the attention of the national Republican party. She is ignored by pollsters and Republican fundraisers. She is an inexperienced candidate in what is considered a Democratic stronghold. But remember, Grijalva's first win in District 7 was by less than 5% over a Yuma conservative who was unknown in Tucson. McClung has campaigned heavily in both Tucson and the more conservative Yuma and has the yard signs and billboards to show it. And this is not 2000. It is also my belief that there are no Democratic strongholds in this election. It is in these "strongholds" that viable, conservative candidates, ignored by the media and party, might just turn the tide of Obamanation. Jim Kelly thinks McClung is one of those candidates. Grijalva just might also. A final word from Kelly:

Ruth McClung is the frontrunner in this GOP primary. Faith and family are very important to Ruth. She is a Christian and believes that faith and reason go together. Every time Raul Grijalva opens his mouth on national television, her fundraising increases. Keep talking MEChA boy. His boycott of Arizona will destroy his candidacy and he knows it. His hubris has finally caught up with him. A woman of unshakeable faith in the values of church, family, and country, the core moral compass of the people of Southern Arizona, will prevail in November. I asked her what kind of cactus she would be. She said she would be a prickly pear, the purple one with the yellow flowers. Perfect.

Life Break

2010-07-12T00:03:00.006-07:00

A hilarious video sent by a friend. Thanks James:

Grijalva Press Releases Miss the Point: Government IS The Problem

2010-07-11T00:51:00.001-07:00

Raul Grijalva is spending most of his time heralding the Progressive New World Order while criticizing Americans who wish to put the breaks on the Obama spending spree. Take a few examples from his recent posts;

Congratulations to Abengoa, which is going to build the world's largest solar plant about 70 miles southwest of Phoenix. This is exactly the kind of investment in green energy and jobs we need to be making.

Wrong. We don't need partial solutions to energy problems and solar is a partial solution. Granted, solar can provide surge power for Arizonans, but You can't put solar power in your gas tank and it is unavailable for 12 hours of the day. We need investment in nuclear power and our vast gas and oil resources. This will produce far more jobs and lower prices sooner than panels and windmills in the desert. But Dems are beholden to environmentalists, so nuclear and gas are off the table for Grijalva.

A new look at state budgets shows how hard our economy is hitting people at the local level. As the article says, "Over 40 states have cut back on services like education, health care, and help for the elderly to help balance their budgets."

State problems are a direct result of lack of revenue from lower home values, small business bankruptcies, and corporate cuts, particularly in Arizona. The solution is not, as Grijalva's simplistic Progressive Caucus proposes, more deficit spending by the Federal government. The solution is stimulating business growth. Grijalva, Obama and liberals in Congress have done nothing to incentivize business since taking control. On the contrary, they have done everything in their power to spark fear among business owners, causing entrepreneurs and investors to hold on more tightly to their money, reducing profits and tax revenue.

More than 300,000 rebate checks went out this week to Medicare recipients who fall in the "donut hole" where prescription drug costs are not covered. These checks will help retirees afford medicines they need to manage chronic pain and other conditions. We shouldn't make them choose between their needed medication and other living expenses.

The "hole" is a direct result of Obamacare, left out of the original bill to keep costs under $1 trillion dollars. It is because of the flawed healthcare fiasco Grijalva supported that has Medicare patients spending more on Depends undergarments. The bill allows insurers to pass on their costs for the "donut" to you and me in the form of increased copays and drug prices. Seen your copay go up on drugs? Doctor not taking patients? Blame Obamacare.

Congratulations to Arizona for a new $1.6 million job training grant from the Department of Commerce. This kind of Recovery Act grant is helping people get back to work, especially in economically hard-hit areas.

Millions for job "Training" is useless when there are no jobs. Studies throughout the last 50 years show the ineffectiveness of this approach. Remember, despite what Dems will tell you, this is now Obama's economy, and it is NOT recovering. It is stagnating, and government spending for overpriced "jobs" programs are just making hard-working Americans more nervous with each new Billion in unaccounted spending.

The search for an AIDS vaccine has made good progress, although more remains to be done. An antibody has been identified that neutralizes 91 percent of HIV strains.

Work has been going on for twenty years, mostly in the private sector and mostly funded during Bush I and Bush II administrations, not by the vocal but less appropriating Clinton years. The fact that a breakthrough comes now in a government lab is testimony to years of International and private groundwork which deserves most of the credit.

Ever the politician, Grijalva continues to shade everything in partisan rhetoric, influenced by his years of reliance on the federal government for his salary and a conduit to his power. He needs some experience in the private sector. Give it to him in November.

Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.: Ronald Reagan

Nugent on Border Security

2010-07-10T09:48:00.000-07:00

Like him or hate him, Ted Nugent has a plain and simple answer to border security:

Ted Nugent on America

2010-07-09T01:59:00.000-07:00

What America is Losing, What the Rest of the World Wants

2010-07-08T00:43:00.001-07:00

Market Economies With Churches and Market Economies Without Churches

by Zhao Xiao

Roaming in North America was for the purpose of reading a wordless book, to have the chance to gaze at the heavens from a foreign land. In the country that has the most prosperous material civilization in the history of human society, the question that frequently occupied my thoughts was this: where does the greatest difference between China and America lie?

The greatest difference between China and America

What makes the deepest impression on our countrymen about the US is the forests of skyscrapers that this country puts up, representing the high development of America's material culture. But skyscrapers are no longer scarce in China! It is evident that skyscrapers are not the greatest difference between China and the US.
Then, what about wealth? Without a doubt, the US is the world's richest country. In 2000, China's per-capita GDP was US$840, while America's was US$34,100; there is great disparity between the two. But considering that China's personal income levels are swiftly increasing, the wealth gap, though large, does not amount to the greatest difference between China and America.
Perhaps someone may suggest the gap in science and technology. However, China also possesses a great deal of high technology: for some time it has had the hydrogen bomb and the atom bomb, it sends rockets to the heavens, and it is developing a spaceship. So while a gap remains between the science and technology levels of China and the US, it is not an astronomical one.
Perhaps someone will suggest the financial gap. The pinnacle of the market economy is finance, and this is a weakness of China's market economy. In comparison, the US has the world's strongest financial system, and was the earliest to implement relaxations of financial controls to invite financial innovation. To date it has attracted 75% of the world's financial resources, making finance one of America's three superlatives (the others being sci-tech and political power). However, while China's financial system lags behind, looking across the country one finds banks as common as rice shops, securities firms promoting themselves everywhere, and ads for funds airing one after another during prime time on CCTV. So the financial gap between China and the US, while large, still does not amount to the greatest difference.
Then it must be a difference in the political and legal system. To be sure, there is a noticeable difference between China and the US in this area. However, the particular national conditions of the US and China are not very similar, and China is currently involved in a rapid transition and transformation. It is possible to imagine that a modernized China will inevitably move in the direction of an improved political and legal culture, and the prodigious experience and techniques of the US, as the the world's most developed country, have been taken as a model by the Chinese, who absorb everything. From this perspective, though reference can in fact be made to many areas in politics and law in China and the US, this still cannot be called the greatest difference.
Then where does the greatest difference between the US and China ultimately lie? My personal opinion: churches. Only in this area is the difference between China and the US not a question of numbers, but rather an essential difference between presence and absence. In the US, the spires of churches are more numerous than China's banks and rice shops. On a street near Harvard Square, I once stood and looked around to find that in three different directions there were three churches. Truth be told, from the east coast of the US to the west coast, from towns to cities, in any place you look you will find that this country's most numerous structure is none other than the church. Churches, and only churches, are Americans' center; they are the very core that binds Americans together.

Churches and the market economy

Americans are not idiots. Their need for churches is overwhelming, and churches provide something in answer to their call — there is definitely some principle at work. During my time in America, the relationship of churches with America's economy, society, and politics became the issue that most often occupied my mind. I came up with many interesting ideas; because of length, I will only address economic issues here. At its heart the problem could be stated as a comparison between market economies with churches and market economies without churches.
Ultimately, why is it that we need a market economy? It is because the market economy has one major advantage: it discourages idleness. The planned economy is different — its faults are faults of having no system of encouragement. Good work and poor work are identical. Under a free market system lazy people cannot live. So the market economy will force competition; it is an efficient economic system. However, the market economy can only discourage idleness; it cannot discourage people from lying or causing harm. This brings to the market economy a certain danger; that is, it may result in an unsavory situation: it may entice people to be industrious in their lies, industrious in bringing harm to others, and to pursue wealth by any means. Some people may say that this is because the market economy is imperfect, and that a perfect market economy would not be this way. However, a market economy that relies solely on the individual will never be perfect, since it can only call people away from idleness but cannot discourage lies and injury.
Indeed, repeated game-playing in the market may minimize dishonest and injurious actions, and legal punishments may be beneficial to normal trading actions. However, in conditions where information in the market is unbalanced and incomplete, contracts are forever deficient. Completely relying on repeated gaming and legal punishments to achieve normal market actions is not only impossible, but is possibly even uneconomic — the implication here is that the market may have unlimited costs, so expensive as to be unusable, and may ultimately come crashing down. To a degree, China's market economy currently has fallen into this trap. In the mind of a majority of Chinese people is a simple understanding that the market economy means getting rich, and to get rich any means may be used.
Hobbled market ethics have already lead to two chronic ailments in Chinese society. First, becoming rich without relying on labor or on the creation of wealth for society, but rather relying on collusion between government and business and the malicious repurposing of public finances to gain wealth. Second, dishonesty in market trading: backing out of promises and gaining wealth through swindles. So we can see that the market economy in China has brought out a group of "freaks": day and night they ceaselessly seek personal profit through lies and harm. Naturally, this kind of market economy has a exorbitant cost. And naturally, what causes the exorbitant cost of these market operations is the widespread lack of self-restraint among Chinese people.
These days Chinese people do not believe in anything. They don't believe in god, they don't believe in the devil, they don't believe in providence, they don't believe in the last judgment, to say nothing about heaven. A person who believes in nothing ultimately can only believe in himself. And self-belief implies that anything is possible — what do lies, cheating, harm, and swindling matter?
However, market economies that have churches are different. Perhaps it is difficult for Chinese people to understand what Christians are like. Here, I can only say that they are rational beings, just like ourselves, and it is sufficient for you to avoid thinking of them as monsters.
It cannot be denied that there are swindlers who go in and out of churches, but the majority of people are not going to church to fill their stomachs. The majority of followers go to church because they truly have a devout faith. Confucius said, "A true gentleman seeks out wealth according to the Way." To the average person, this may be difficult to achieve since the average person is not a true gentleman. In comparison, it is people who turn their eyes to church spires who generally respect financial norms and integrity. Why? Here is the secret: Puritans, though they may be called the most fervent people in the world in their drive to accumulate wealth, nevertheless do not pursue wealth for personal benefit but rather "to the glory of God," and to ensure that after they die they can enter heaven. This monetary ethic renders inseparable the motive and means of the Puritans' pursuit of wealth, and those whose only thought is to create wealth for God will naturally be able to become true gentlemen — gentlemen among gentlemen. In passing, the following thought occurred to me: I suddenly have a new understanding of why Bush required his CEOs to swear according to the Bible when signing their financial statements: Bush was not only raising the the Damoclean sword of the law over his CEOs, but he also placed them under the threat of hell's lakes of fire. The sword of the law together with the eyes of God is evidently more effective than the law alone. For this reason, the unity of means and method in acquiring wealth is able to remedy the market's insufficiencies. From this standpoint, the market economy has an instinctive need for some kind of matching market ethics before its true force can come into play, just like horses have an instinctive need for the whip. From the perspective of human society, the most successful model is church + market economy. That is to say, the happy combination of a market economy that discourages idleness together with a strong faith (ethics) that discourages dishonesty and injury.
Is it not integrity that you are pursuing? Then you ought to know: places with faith have more integrity. For China's crawling economic reforms, this ought to be an important inspiration. Market economies with churches are different in another respect from those without: in the former, it is much easier to establish a commonly respected system. The reason is simple: a people that share a faith, compared to people who only believe in themselves, find it easier to establish mutual trust, and through that to conclude agreements. However, where is the cornerstone for the American constitution? In fact, as early as the first group of English Puritans who came over to the New World on the Mayflower, there was the Mayflower Compact, which would become the foundation of autonomous government in the separate states in New England. Its contents comprised civic organizations as well as working out just laws, statutes, regulations, and ordinances, and the first line of the covenant was "In the name of God, Amen." So shared faith is the foundation for shared law. Otherwise, a legal system, should it arise, will not be respected.
Market economies with churches are comparatively open. The reason for this is perhaps explained thus: In the sight of God, all people are equal. It is easier for a core spirit of fraternity to extend to outsiders openness, acceptance, and respect.
Are there other uses of market economies with churches? Yes, and they are relatively important: guiding spending and modulating the close relationship between the poor and the rich.[**] In the case the wealth of a devout Puritan, the situation may be different. This is because his religious faith will tell him: gaining wealth is only for the glory of God; personally, he must use that wealth reasonably, for being forever humble is a virtue favored by God. So in the United States we can see that people with money must donate 10% of their wealth to the church for other church members to share. We can also see that the ranks of the richest people and the ranks of society's largest donors overlap; the relationship between rich and poor is fundamentally unlike the antagonism found in mainland China. Some of the spending and handling of wealth on the part of the rich may violate the law, while others may not violate secular law, making legal oversight difficult. But I know that this malconduct does not please God. However, in the absence of God's oversight, all of this is possible and even common.

Faith: the soul of the market economy

Modern economics—modern politics—modern culture form the trinity of the market economy. Seeking the fruits of the market economy, Chinese society ultimately will travel the road of cultural reconstruction, investing in market ethics. It is fortunate that in Chinese society there is already recognition that integrity is the cornerstone of the market economy, but establishing a good cornerstone is no simple matter.
Looking back at China's recent history, what China has learned from the West stretches from superficial to deep, from externals to internals. From the power of the gunboats we learned to understand the enemy's technology to defeat him; from the continual improvements to their military might we understood that we needed to develop our science, technology, and education; and because government-directed sci-tech and economics failed, we took a new road to the market economy, one that we have been on for 160 years now. However, this road to modernizing transformations is still far from finished. From the groans of present-day China's market economy, we can see that danger draws near: we have already bid farewell to humanity's most costly planned system, but because we lack a reasonable set of market ethics, we may be trapped in humanity's most costly market system.
Reality unquestionably requires us to move forward another few steps. The first is cultural transformation. We must find a cultural framework compatible with the modern free market economy. To achieve this, we may unearth from our own long-standing traditional culture a set of ethics that are compatible with modern economics, or we may use absorption and introductions from elsewhere to recreate our cultural DNA.
From Boston to Indiana, traveling through North America's vast lands, I could hear the serene sounds of church bells ringing in every church, and I recalled a poem by an angry poet that I wish to adapt as follows:

Be in awe of the invincible might,
Be in awe of the lightning,
And be in awe of the thunder in the sky;

Only through awe can we be saved. Only though faith can the market economy have a soul.

Grijalva: Among Worst Attendance, Voting Record in Congress

2010-07-07T01:18:00.000-07:00

Raul Grijalva has the third most liberal voting record in Congress, and was absent for 20% of votes in the first quarter of this year, according to www.govtrack.us.
Grijalva in red--

Your friendly neighborhood Congressman, hard at work . . . on CSPAN, promoting the Progressive agenda.
Wonder why Grijalva is so out of touch with you? Checkout
http://www.progressivestates.org/
http://progressivemovement.net/
Give Raul the opportunity to work for Progressive PACs full time. Boycott Grijalva in November.

Cut Spending? Congress Laughs at President

2010-07-05T00:58:00.001-07:00

Stimulus, Bailouts, Reform. After promising a "new era of accountability," president Obama is now stuck with a Congress without any. A recent proposal by the President to send wasteful spending passed by Congress back for a "do over" was met with a chilly rception on Capitol Hill this week. Daniel No-Way as much as called the proposal unconstitutional.
Having pushed and had passed more spending than FDR (including World War II years), Obama has pretty much wasted his credibility with this Congress. In fact, there is increasing concern of a "Lame Duck" spending spree, in which liberals in Congress, voted out in November elections, might force through a laundry list of social spending that Obama could be stuck with for the rest of his presidency.
It is ironic that we have gone from a representative body that couldn't bring itself to pay for blankets for soldiers during our War of Independence, to a group addicted to spending. Send them back to their home states permanently.

A European and Chinese Perspective on America

2010-07-04T16:04:00.001-07:00

For this 4th of July, two quotes about America from outside. First, from Heritage.org, a quote from the 2001 publication of Ronald Reagan's radio addresses:

All of Reagan’s scripts are worth reading. But this 4^th of July, one is particularly appropriate. In a broadcast on September 21, 1976, “The Hope of Mankind,” Reagan returned to one of his favorite themes. As the editors put it, “Reagan believed . . . that America is unique among nations – ‘the hope of mankind.’ He felt we had a duty to protect what we had inherited. . . . In these essays, . . . the guiding star is always individual liberty, how lucky we are to have it, and how to preserve and protect it.”
To that end, Reagan quoted Ferdinand Mount. Mount later ran the Policy Unit in Number 10 Downing Street for Margaret Thatcher in 1982-83, and wrote the tremendously successful Conservative manifesto for the 1983 general election, when Lady Thatcher won her most smashing victory. On July 5, 1976, Mount wrote a memorable column for the Daily Mail. Here, as quoted by Reagan, is what Mount thought it important to say, that day after the 200^th 4^th of July:
What the world needs now is more Americans. The U.S. is the first nation on earth deliberately dedicated to letting people choose what they want and giving them a chance to get it. For all its terrible faults, in one sense America is still the last, best hope of mankind, because it spells out so vividly the kind of happiness which most people actually want, regardless of what they are told they ought to want. We criticize, copy, patronize, idolize insult but we never doubt that the U.S. has a unique position in the history of human hopes. For it is the only nation founded solely on a moral dream. A part of our own future is tied up in it and the greatest of all the gifts the Americans have given us is hope.
Reagan closed with three sentences of his own: “Thank you Mr. Mount – we needed that. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.”

Fast forward to 2002 and Zhao Xiao, a Chinese economist. according to Zhao, America's foundations, especially Christianity, are what keeps the US economy the strongest in the world and the hope for others to follow:

We know that America is a country founded by Puritans. And Puritans, their dream of coming to America was the need to establish a city on a hill, to let the entire world see the glory of Jesus Christ, whom they believed in. So their purpose for doing business was for the glory of God. If my motivation for doing business is the glory of God, there is a motivation that transcends profits. I cannot go and use evil methods. If I used some evil methods to enlarge the company, to earn money, then this is not bringing glory to God. Therefore, this is to say that it [ bringing glory to God] can provide a transcendent motivation for business. And this kind of transcendental motivation not only benefits an entrepreneur by making his business conduct proper but it can also benefit the entrepreneur’s continued innovation.

Pray this Fourth of July that American can continue to be that City on a Hill representing Hope and Faith to the world.

Grijalva Shows Patriotism:Votes to End War to Pay for Social Programs

2010-07-04T09:56:00.002-07:00

Having voted for more deficit spending than any Congress in history, Raul Grijalva is now becoming frugal. Joining 100 liberal Democrats in voting against spending for American troops in harms way, Grijalva called Republican calls for budget cuts "hypocrisy," saying it will "take money away from Social Security and welfare programs."

It would seem to me Raul is the hypocrite. Saying he supports the troops, then making political hay over his own contempt for war is absolutely two-faced, not unlike his called-for boycott of his home state. Balking at supplemental military spending for a war he voted for while passing billions in "supplemental spending" on labor union kickbacks and expansion of unnecessary government intervention in health care defines hypocrisy. Some of us remember Grijalva and Pelosi making these same comments about the Iraq War, calling Petraus a liar and opposing funding. But it is not American troops in foreign lands who are betraying us. It is an overspending Congress with their own political agenda.
Send THEM home.

The following would never be heard at a Grijalva Rally:

Grijalva and Dems Point Fingers While Oil Skimmer Sits

2010-06-29T17:35:00.001-07:00

While Arizona's Raul Grijalva continues to criticize BP for its faulty safety record, he continues to ignore the Obama officials who approved BP's deepwater rigs. Grijalva's position of the House Interior Committee, give him ample opportunity to investigate "What the administration knew and when they knew about it." Instead Grijalva continues his talking points mantra pointing out the failure's if BP, which are moot, instead of the failures of the government, which could avert such a catastrophe in the future. Grijalva praises his name being mentioned on "Countmywatcherswithonehand with Keith ObertheTopermann," it is obvious Grijalva did not listen to Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson's comment in full. Dickinson criticizes Grijalva and the Interior Committee for not doing his job and investigating the White House and Interior Department officials. This from self described "liberals" in the media.
Skimmer Sits
While liberals point fingers at everyone except their own, 10 skimmers, capable of removing up to 50,000 gallons a day, await Coast Guard permission, and . . .get this . . . EPA waivers, in order to help with the Gulf cleanup.
This and other government red tape continues to bog down the cleanup effort, threatening to destroy the economy of the Gulf States. Grijalva seems not to care, opting to support a president who is out of touch and his own inflated ego.

Grijalva Talks Out of Both Sides of Mouth on Border Enforcement

2010-06-27T16:21:00.000-07:00

District 7's Representative is playing politics again. this Time Raul Grijalva is criticizing the Obama administration for not sending more federal agents to the border.
Grijalva, after calling for a boycott of Arizona businesses over the state's demand for enforcement of law, now admits there are problems:

"I wrote a letter to the president June 10 requesting $300 million for the CBP and the General Services Administration to upgrade technology and infrastructure and ensure adequate CBP staffing across our southwestern border. As the letter notes, "The Greater Nogales Santa Cruz County Port Authority [. . .] reports a current operational deficit of 100 full time officers for both commercial and non-commercial operations. Douglas needs an additional 30 officers and San Luis needs another 40."

This would sound like a Republican talking, if it weren't for the fact that in his next breath, Grijalva criticizes fellow Arizonan John Kyle for creating a comprehensive plan for controlling Arizona's borders, a plan that the liberals in the Obama camp say they won't cooperate on until a million illegals receive amnesty and voting rights:

It is becoming increasingly clear that Grijalva has no interest in cooperating with other Arizonans to secure our borders. His primary goal is getting reelected.

Remember this One? Ignore, Intimidate, then Obfuscate: The Democrat Way

2010-06-21T08:57:00.002-07:00

If Only....John Wayne's Response to Liberal Bullying

2010-06-20T00:40:00.001-07:00

Grijalva's supporters like intimidating opponents, this from a Ruth McClung email:

Rep. Grijalva's cousin came up to Ruth at a BBQ both Republicans and Democrats were invited to, and informed her, "The bumper stickers are mean-spirited." Ruth said, "Raul boycotting Arizona was what was mean-spirited." He didn't like that answer... Go Ruth!

Reminds me of a recent encounter by Democrat Bob Etheridge and a student reporter, dubbed with John Wayne:

Blackmail, Extortion Just Everyday Politics for Grijalva, Progressives

2010-06-19T02:48:00.006-07:00

Don't like a law? Picket, throw tortillas and boycott business. Twist arms, make unfounded claims of racism and then wave an American flag you don't really believe in.

Running low on cash for your socialist agenda? Force drilling in impossibly deep water, take money for inspections you never made, then when the worst happens throw up your arms in disgust, cut off all drilling, and say the company needs to take responsibility. Then, threatening an investigation, force the company to pay millions into a slush fund for workers you displaced so you can play god some more by blaming big companies for high unemployment and high gas prices while they finance your reelection.

Jealous of doctors making too much money? Create a health care law that forces doctors into retirement, increases cost and reduces competition in order to give government more power over people's lives and the ability to tax health expenses.

Not getting enough money from unions and other liberal doners? Create unaccountable mortgage lending institutions, allow them to force unlimited bad loans from banks to unqualified lenders, then blame the banks for "bad lending practices" while hiding millions in campaign contributions from these quasi-private institutions, while you continue to pump money into them.

In contrast, Grijalva's opponent, Ruth McClung is earning votes the old-fashioned way, by working. Here is a letter I recently recieved from a supporter:

I am Paul Jackson. I am trying to raise money for Ruth McClung so she can beat out the horrible Representative we have Congressman Grijalva. I am offering to mow your lawn, trim your yard, or bushes for a donation to Ruth's campaign, and you put a yard sign in your yard to help support Ruth. I am running this from 21 June to 21 July so get your yard taken care of and support Ruth. I am only one man, so first come first served. To make an appointment call me (Paul) at 928 783 2460.

Thank You

Paul

Don't like the slick way Dems use people and businesses to acquire power? Boycott Grijalva in November!

Immigration and Oil: Plug the Damn Hole!

2010-06-18T22:07:00.000-07:00

Grijalva Sees Problem With Guns, Customs; Not With Illegal Crossings

2010-06-16T10:40:00.000-07:00

Representative Raul Grijalva has been busy this last couple weeks, doing everything he can to shore up his base while Teapartiers rally to defeat him in November. Grijalva is heaping servings for his constituents in an effort to garner votes. Since the first of June, fearful of the backlash that is mounting against liberals, Grijalva has bulleted his facebook page like a teenage girl in shop class. Pie anyone?

Illegal immigrants: After calling for a "targeted boycott of his home state of Arizona over 1070, Grijalva has been holding hearings on Capitol hill featuring crying children, in order to fulfill his promise to get rid of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose success is the inspiration behind 1070 and the bane of Amnesty proponents like Grijalva.

Environmental Wackos: Seven different articles on oil spill "regulations" (like Obama, Grijalva waited until early June to comment on the spill, including quoting ubberliberal blog Grist that spending 1 billion "retrofitting houses" is comparable to charging BP 40 billion for its cleanup? (liberals and their logic escapes me too).

Gays and Lesbians (and liberals who feel warm and fuzzy about them): Grijalva quotes an incomplete longitudinal study of adopted children of lesbians (created and funded by a lesbian organization out of San Francisco and praising the University of Arizona for funding partner benefits (in response to a lawsuit by gay faculty members. U of A faculty was one of Grijalva's largest contributors last election cycle, go figure).

Tax Junkies: Grijalva quotes a Progressive poll that says taxpayers "overwhelmingly support" increasing taxes on the rich. More manipulated research for liberals but, what the hey, if it motivates elitist liberals to send money, to Grijalva's war chest, who cares?
Veterans: Praising $400,000 to house homeless veterans in Tucson. (also praising the thousands of "jobs created or saved" by ObamaPAC stimulus, while 2 million more were lost).

Gun Control Freaks: Quoting articles that call terrorists "incompetent" while decrying the sale of guns in the US (aparently, Grijalva believes terrorists wouldn't be able to kill people if guns were outlawed in the United States), District 7's Schizophrenic Congressional Rep is now pondering the value of . . . enforcing the border. Some might preemptively suppose that under pressure from constituents, the former school bureaucrat had seen the light on immigration. Nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately for law abiding citizens, Grijalva's idea of enforcing the border means increasing spending on customs checkpoints (seemingly, all those dogs and agents aren't doing there job and more money will make Cartels use them rather than driving through the desert and shooting innocent ranchers).

Will Grijalva's "Triangulation" of jobless poor, liberal professors, and Union money launderers enough to get him reelected? or will the wave of change reach even district 7? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that he knows he is in trouble. Or does it?

Israel's Attempt to Protect Borders Mirrors Arizona

2010-06-04T07:03:00.000-07:00

Rocket attacks by Hamas pose a real threat to civilians, both in Israel and Gaza, according to Human Rights Watch. Israel has a right to protect its borders from this very real threat.
Hamas assertions that civilians are not being targeted or that rockets are not hidden in civilian areas are ridiculously false:

In response to blatent disregard for human life by Hamas, Israel has the right to check ships bringing supplies into Gaza, to protect its borders.

While your pay goes down, Grijalva Votes his own Raise

2010-06-03T14:53:00.000-07:00

House Republicans brought a vote to the floor to freeze federal wages, including their own, this week, a savings of 30 billion for the federal government while millions of Americans are out of work and salaries nationwide are dropping. The Democrats response? It wouldn't be "fair" to hardworking federal employees (despite negative inflation for the last year). Raul Grijalva, who three weeks ago called for a boycott of Arizona, joined the vote, along with two other Arizona dems, giving federal workers a 1.5% pay raise in addition to the 7% raise he has received since the beginning of the "Great Recession." So while your health insurance cost skyrocket, while salaries nationwide sink, while you struggle, your democratic representatives, in addition to making your life difficult, continue to line their pockets with your money. Makes perfect sense to me.

Check Out the Curves on this Recession

2010-06-01T07:32:00.000-07:00

Raul Grijavla recently claimed that the Obama stimulus had created over one million jobs. The assertion would be funny if the facts weren't so absolutely tragic. The truth of the matter is that this looked like a mild recession until federal spending on the financial bailouts began in the fall of 2008. Worse yet, job loss during the implementation of the stimulus "package" looks like one of those wedgy-inducing water slides that requires extra chlorine. If efforts by the libs "softened" this recession, then I would like to know how much worse it could have been without having wasted a trillion dollars in spending.

The Origin of Memorial Day: Moina Belle Michael

2010-05-31T00:01:00.003-07:00

Memorial Day, Decorations Day, Civil War Veteran's Day. The day has several names and histories. While a number of origins to Memorial Day have been forwarded, arguably the modern national holiday began in 1915. While Northerners observed a Memorial Day beginning in 1868 with flowers being placed on Union and Confederate troops in Arlington National Cemetery, southern states observed separate memorial days for more than 50 years. It took another "Great War," a poem, and an inspired teacher to bring North and South together in honoring their dead.
Moina Michael, a 49 year-old teacher from Georgia, inspired by the tremendous sacrifice of American soldiers during World War I and the poem, In Flanders Field by John Mcrae, began distributing poppies on Veterans Day.
In 1922, Michael enlisted the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the idea took off in both the North and the South. Michael's inspiration, and her response, symbolizes not only the sacrifice of veterans who have gone before, but the need to be willing to make the same sacrifice in each generation to secure liberty:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
   That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
   Scarce heard amid the guns below.
   We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
   Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
         In Flanders fields.
   Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
   The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
   We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
         In Flanders fields.
___________________________________
Oh! you who sleep in Flanders Fields,
Sleep sweet - to rise anew!
We caught the torch you threw
And holding high,
we keep the Faith With All who died.

We cherish, too, the poppy red
That grows on fields where valor led;
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies,
But lends a lustre to the red
Of the flower that blooms above the dead
In Flanders Fields.

And now the Torch and Poppy Red
We wear in honor of our dead.
Fear not that ye have died for naught;
We'll teach the lesson that ye wrought
In Flanders Fields.

Remember, and Teach this Memorial Day.

Border Crossings Down? Check the Video Cameras

2010-05-29T07:25:00.001-07:00

Raul "Boycott Arizona" Grijalva's response to calls for border security? "Border fence? We don't need no stinkin fences!"
Arizona rancher John Ladd says otherwise. According to Ladd, more than 500,000 illegals have been caught on his land over the last 5 years. His buildings have been broken into seven times and he has seen multiple ethnicity of illegals, including Middle Easterners and Russians:

Well, private citizens, fed up with federal officials dragging their feet, are out to illustrate Ladd's complaint in real, documented terms. Using hundreds of surveillance cameras,
Secure Border Intel, and Border Invasion Pics
have recorded thousands of illegal border crossings by coyotes and drug runners. A few examples:

How can Grijalva argue that there is no need for more border security? Nowhere else in the world do countries allow drugs,weapons and people to violate their borders in this way. Come November, let him advocate for illegal immigrants as a private citizen.

Bill Clinton: Back in the News Amid Scandal, Political Favors

2010-05-28T12:08:00.000-07:00

Obscurred today by the news of Obama in the Gulf is the "specter" of the alleged influence of election in the Joe Sistak/Arlen Specter primary.
Sistak claims that the Obama administration offered him a federal position in exchange for his dropping out of a Pennsylvania House primary against Arlen Specter. The White House today released a legal memo claiming the offer was a non-paying position, and made by Clinton.
Clinton, who has shown his ability to lie strait-faced to the American public under oath, is the perfect middle man for committing a federal, impeachable crime. His ability to save his own presidency by demonizing the women he has abused in his sexual addiction. Let's not forget what Clinton, a 50 year old man, did to a 21 year old in what has been called the "Monica Lewinsky affair."
In a London Times interview last year, Barbara Hudson, former Lewinsky publicist describes what Clinton did to the former intern to save his presidency:

"...She was 21 years old, it was a stupid thing. She made a mistake. Look at all the girls who are doing crazy things now.”
Hutson says the Clinton Administration tried to ruin Lewinsky’s reputation. “They destroyed her and never apologised. They ruined this girl’s life. Every major company here has somebody on the board who is friends with Bill. They are not going to give her a job no matter how smart she is.”

Hutson says that when Nixon and Reagan were engulfed by scandal the stories were called Watergate and Iran-Contra, but the emphasis of the 1998 scandal was put on the intern rather than the President. She says the media were influenced by the White House to coin the phrases Monicagate and the Lewinsky scandal. It is hard to imagine that such nomenclature was uppermost in the minds of presidential aides at the time but Hutson believes “very simply they put it all on her and for ever that will haunt her. She is a private citizen and her name is mud, her family’s name. Why didn’t they call it Clintongate?”

Bob Bitman of Kenneth Star's prosecution team called Clinton, "...very experienced at misleading people.” There is the understatement of the year. Clinton has offered himself up as the sacrificial lamb, to be pardoned by Obama if necessary, while insulating the President from what he is guilty of: attempting to bribe a Senate candidate out of running for office, an impeachable offense.
This is what liberals do: ignore the law, cover the truth, deflect blame. Remember in November.

Liberals Do Not Have a Monopoly on Civil Rights

2010-05-25T00:01:00.001-07:00

A Message to Grijalva and the "progressives" who would like to leap to the front of the parade and define racism and civil rights in political terms: Freedom IS Colorblind (courtesy of JoeDanMedia):

The Arizona Immigration Law, Have YOU Read It?

2010-05-24T18:55:00.000-07:00

Words Do Have Meaning: Liberals and Boycotting Arizona

2010-05-19T05:57:00.003-07:00

San Diego officials who jumped on the Grijalva "Boycott Arizona" bandwagon may have to eat their words come election time. It seems Arizonans, who fill San Diego hotels in the summer, are creating a grassroots boycott of their own. San Diego hotels send word that Arizonans are canceling reservation to the economically beleaguered city in response to votes by San Diego city council and school board officials to end trips to the Grand Canyon state.
"Community activists" turned politicians need to understand that words have meaning. Grijalva continues to sidestep and categorize his call for a boycott of Arizona as a convention destination, saying it was a "targeted call." But liberal politicians continue to jump on his bandwagon, costing Arizona an estimated $10 million in business. Arizona will not be nearly as damaged by this as California, which depends on Arizona for everything from airline travel to water and power.

Unfortunately for these mind-numbingly arrogant officials, their constituents remember words, especially when those words hurt at the economically personal level. In an unofficial poll conducted by the LA Times, readers were asked:
"Was the L.A. City Council right to pass a boycott of Arizona?" Here are the result s:

Yes. Arizona needs to feel the consequences of enacting a bad law. 2.1% (378 votes)
Yes, though the boycott should be more of a symbolic gesture than an official measure. 0.4% (64 votes)
No, but only because doing so is probably illegal and not in L.A.'s interest. 4.2% (771 votes)
No. The city should mind its own business. 93.4% (17,030 votes)

Does Grijalva and his ilk really think that his community organizing threats will work on the national level where economies are intertwined to such extent that an economic pissing contest hurts everyone? Does he care? Apparently not.
UPDATE:
this week Arizona corporation commissioner Gary Pierce has threatened to cut off Arizona power purchased by the city of Los Angeles based on LA's Villaraigosa's push for ending contracts with Arizona:

"Doggone it -- if you're going to boycott this candy store ... then don't come in for any of it," Pierce told FoxNews.com.
In the letter, he ridiculed Villaraigosa for saying that the point of the boycott was to "send a message" by severing the "resources and ties" they share.
"I received your message; please receive mine. As a statewide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona's electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the 'resources and ties' we share with the city of Los Angeles," Pierce wrote.
"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation."
Appearing to tap into local frustration in Arizona over the raft of boycotts and threatened boycotts from cities across the country, including Los Angeles, Pierce warned that Arizona companies are willing and ready to fight boycott with boycott.
"I am confident that Arizona's utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands," Pierce wrote. "If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy."

Seeing as how 70% of Californians are supportive of Arizona's new law (including, apparently Coach Phil Jackson ), seems like the LA city council is on shakey ground.

More on La Raza and Immigration

2010-05-18T09:03:00.000-07:00

Grijalva and the "community organizers" of the la Raza Umbrella corporation are willing to do whatever it takes to advance their agenda, including intimidation and extortion. They follow the La Raza line when it comes to immigration:

'For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.' - 'For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing.'

How about the email sent out by La Raza officials recently condemning new immigration legislation in Congress:

“while it doesn’t overtly mention assimilation, it is very strong on the patriotism and traditional american values language in a way which is potentially dangerous to our communities.”

How are patriotism and American Values dangerous to Hispanic communities? They aren't. They are dangerous to the liberal agenda of Grijalva and other radical Hispanic leaders.

"We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent."
El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán (1969)

Border Collapse Brings "Return of La Raza"

2010-05-17T07:54:00.001-07:00

For the first time in 30 years the Ethnically divisive La Raza/Aztlan student organization has reared its head in Tucson. A Contradiction of Beliefs, the Brown Berets are for 2nd Amendment rights, against due process. In favor of racial preferences (and undocumented immigrant voting rights), against police brutality. Here is their "modernized manifesto":

We fight for the unity of all our people, regardless of age, income, or political philosophy. The ties that bind us are Chicanismo and our land Aztlan.
We demand the right to bi-lingual education as guaranteed under the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.
We demand a Civilian Police Review Board, made up of people who live in our community, to screen all police officers, before they are assigned to our communities.
We demand that the true history of Chicanos be taught in all schools in the southwestern states, known as Aztlan.
We demand that all police officers in Chicano communities must live in the community and speak Spanish.
We want an end to the “Urban Renewal Programs” that replace our barrios with high rent homes for middle-class people and “big box” stores. As guaranteed under the Constitution we a right to have our lands and home and not be threatened by “imminent domain” favoring the wealthy and large corporations.
We demand a guaranteed annual income of $45,000 for all Chicano families. The restitution that we demand for over 150 years of American occupation and oppression of our lands and people is just and reasonable in that we are willing to honorably work to succeed in life; we do not want hand outs.
We demand that the right to vote be extended to al of our people regardless of their “legal status” in this country. If they are here working, paying their taxes to this government, helping to strengthen the country with their labor and money they should have the right to voice their vote.
We demand that Chicanos be tried by juries of their peers consisting of only Chicanos.
We demand the right to keep and bear arms to defend our communities against racist police, as guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

One of the more humorous descriptions on their website regards immigration. Here is a quote:

Illegal immigration started with power and land hungry, gold digging Europeans that were wiping themselves out. They were miserable barbarians that would wage countless wars, wipe out entire civilizations, enslave different races and even themselves, they were filthy and were full of plagues, they destroyed their environment, had a corrupt degraded society, with a political system that served the politicians and upper class and shitted on the population. Hmmm, that sounds like America today doesn’t it? WOW, things haven't changed, just names I guess. America is New England!! It is merely an extension of the old order of things.

Oh, the last time this radical group made the scene in Arizona? The 1970s. Raul Grijalva was a member.

More Reasons to Boycott Grijalva

2010-05-16T19:27:00.001-07:00

Some have called SB 1070 an attempt to "fool" Arizonans' into looking for a trite solution to immigration concerns.
The real attempts to fool Arizona and the rest of the country is Grijalva and the Dems. The teeth of the Bush Administration's Border policy was Section 287(g) agreements and the Secure Communities Program. Highly successful (I talked to several Border Patrol Officials last year who said they felt they were finally turning the corner on stopping the flow through Yuma County), these programs drove amnesty Nazis like Grijalva crazy, and the Obama administration's first order of business was to dismantle and defund them quietly over the last year. According to the Heritage Foundation:

In the seven years since ICE started using section 287(g), roughly 66 state and local agencies have entered into MOAs resulting in roughly 1,000 law enforcement officers being "deputized" to enforce federal immigration law. Even more importantly, over 120,000 individuals have been identified as illegal immigrants under the program.

According to Heritage, in mid 2009, under former Governor Napolitano, the Obama administration began changing the rules of the 287(g)s apparently responding to efforts of Amnesty groups like those Grijalva draws support from. Napolitano should be ashamed of herself for administering the changes. Grijalva's recent request that the Feds stop cooperating is ridiculously moot, since the process has already started. The real fools are any voters who believe 1070 is unconstitutional. SB 1070 simply allows local law enforcement to continue to operate under the successful guidelines they had been, holding drug and human traffickers until they can be identified and prosecuted by the Feds. SB 1070 is not as effective as BP doing it's job, but it does shine a light on the travesty of Obama's "changes" designed to lead to amnesty.

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.
Ronald Reagan

Grijalva to Reporter: Questions about Illegal Drug Enforcement "Punk"

2010-05-09T12:00:00.001-07:00

Continuing his call for a boycott of Arizona, Raul Grijalva last week walked away from a Hispanic reporter for CNS news:

Transcript of CNSNews.com interview with Rep. Raul Grijalva (D.-Ariz.):

CNSNews.com: Last year, The Justice Department reported that last year 19 percent of young adults age 12-17 used illicit drugs, much of which came through--

Rep. Grijalva: What does this have to do with our press conference today?

CNSNews.com: Well, I just want to know. Are you committed to sealing the border against the influx of illegal drugs?

Rep. Grijalva: I-- [walks away] that has nothing to do with our press conference.

CNSNews.com: Well it’s about the border sir.

Rep. Grijalva: That’s punkish.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64975

Your Representative, what a guy!

"Legal Immigrants" to U.S.: Enforce the Law!

2010-05-08T13:55:00.001-07:00

Glenn Beck this week had on his show 40 plus legal immigrants, all of whom supported Arizona's tough immigration law. Some had some harsh words for the supporters of "Open borders.":

"As a former teacher, you teach your kids rules and regulations ... you want to set the [rules] with the child. I believe in the countries that we come from...our laws were either being bought or being trumped by corruption and we come here to look for that."

"You can't have it both ways. Someone who's fickle you can't respect. ...So how can you respect a country where on the one hand you have to go through all these rules and regulations ... be smart ...or be wealthy enough...On the other hand you look across the street and [you see], "well if I was a fast runner I could have just run across the border and we can both buy cars and both have the same privileges. In essence the country loses respect from the rest of the world."

Watch the responses for yourself:

The rest of the show can be found on Youtube.

Grijalva: Wrong Again, With More Lies Than a Pinocchio Cartoon

2010-05-02T10:35:00.001-07:00

Here are excerpts and my comments of Raul Grijalva's latest editorial, posted on the Huffington Post about Arizona's new immigration law (it seems mainstream media outlets had trouble with the accuracy of his content)Grijalva's words are in red:

The law violates due process, civil rights, and federal sovereignty over immigration policy.
It does no such thing. It makes federal law the state law. Courts have repeatedly allowed states to enforce federal law. Grijalva only wants federal sovereignty because it benefits his liberal agenda, not because of any desire to defend the Constitution.

While I believe the courts will quickly overturn it, I am concerned that the damage to my home state's credibility has already been done.

If Grijalva was so certain that the courts would overturn the law, then why did he call for a boycott of Arizona businesses? Most of the damage to the state has been done by Grijalva, who has no legal experience, proclaiming that the law is unconstitutional, which it clearly is not. Grijalva's only hope is that the outrage he has created forces Arizona lawmakers to repeal the law.

Arizona has long been the epicenter of our national immigration debate. Unfortunately, that debate has been driven by extremists like Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is under a federal investigation for civil rights abuses.
Only because liberal extremist groups have requested the investigations from the Obama Justice Department, which was all too happy to oblige. Again, Grijalva is passing judgment based on his own extremist views, not on any legal facts.

...Arpaio, like Gov. Brewer, seems to believe that every immigrant is equally capable of being a violent drug dealer to be dealt with harshly. Although this belief has no basis in fact, it has been the foundation of a fear-based campaign against immigrants and people of Hispanic descent for years.

Amazing how a sitting US Congressman can read the mind of state and local officials and determine their rationale for their actions without ever having spoken or listened to them. Arpaio's actions are not fear-based, they are reality-based. And Grijalva hates the fact that Arpiao is successful in enforcing the law.
Last year, under pressure from Grijalva and other liberals, Immigration and Customs Enforcement changed it's agreements with states, know as 287(g) agreements, limiting Maricopa county sheriffs' authority to arrest illegal immigrants. Why? Because Arpiao's sheriffs office has successfully arrested close to 1,900 unauthorized immigrants under state law and the same number under federal law, with an additional 33,000 immigrants detained and transferred to federal authorities for deportation, one of the most successful programs in the nation.
One of the reasons for the new Arizona law was to restore Arpiao's authority to continue the program, which successfully thwarted drug shipments and kidnappings that threaten to turn Phoenix into a war zone.

Indeed, opportunistic political voices have worked hard to make a connection between crime and immigration where none exists. Forget the rhetoric for a moment and consider the facts. In 2008, the Immigration Policy Center found that on the national level, U.S.-born men aged 18 to 39 are five times more likely to be incarcerated than immigrants. While the number of undocumented immigrants in the country doubled between 1994 and 2005, violent crime declined by nearly 35 percent and property crimes by 26 percent over the same period.
Grijalva loves to manipulate facts for his own benefit. Here are the real facts:

In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following:

The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests – some eight arrests per illegal alien;

Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses – some 13 offenses per illegal alien;

36 percent had been arrested at least five times before.

Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.

I believe we need comprehensive, nationwide immigration reform, and while we continue to debate what that should look like, I believe the laws of this country should be enforced and respected. Those laws include the principle that the federal government, not state or local authorities, sets immigration policy. States can no more supersede federal immigration law than enter into their own treaties with foreign governments. By inventing a new way for local officials to treat American citizens as potential criminals, Arizona has violated that principle.
The Arizona law is designed to enforce and respect the law. Having cooperated and coordinated with the federal government in the past, they are now being told via the Obama administration to "mind their own business" and ignore illegals because of interventions by those like Grijalva. There is plenty of legal precedent for a state applying federal law to itself and enforcing it. It is Grijalva and the Obama administration who are inventing immigration law, not Arizona.

On a practical level, local law enforcement agencies do not have the manpower or financial capacity to serve triple duty as street cops, Border Patrol agents and Immigration &; Customs Enforcement officers. Conservatives who worry about government overreach and unfunded mandates should be up in arms about this law. Their silence is disappointing. This is not a left-right issue, it's a question of basic Constitutional process.

Local law enforcement does not have a choice when drug dealers, rapists and coyotes enter their jurisdiction. Asking them to turn a blind eye creates a moral dilemma. Furthermore, it is not an unfunded mandate to enforce existing laws and the 287(b) guidelines. It is a travesty of justice not to enforce the law of the land.

As far as what that reform should look like, I remain a proud co-sponsor of H.R. 4321, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009. That bill takes a broad-based approach. It would protect our borders by requiring the development and implementation of border security initiatives, including information-sharing, international and federal-state-local coordination, technology exchanges, anti-smuggling initiatives, and other actions to secure the borders. It creates new opportunities for young people who were raised here, worked hard in school, and want to pursue higher education or serve their country in the military to adjust their immigration status. It requires employers to comply with new employee document verification requirements and creates a phased-in electronic employment verification system. It creates a path to legalization by requiring undocumented immigrants to register with the government, submit to a criminal background check, pay any back taxes and speak English.

I wanted to be sure a copied Grijalva's complete summary here because the Gutierrez bill does none of these things. It would curtail border security, end completion of the border fence, end the hugely successful E-Verify program, and grant amnesty for $500 dollars (the fine could be waived for those who cannot afford it). And here's the kicker: Gutierrez would end the 287(g) program so successful in coordinating law enforcement between local law enforcement and BP. It is mockingly referred to in Congress as the "No Illegal Left Behind Bill" in reference to Bush's No Child left Behind initiative. Joe Jenkins of NumbersUSA describes the bill's enforcement aspects:

The bill is also quick to point out that Immigration and Customs Enforcement would still be allowed to do it's job. However, enforcement actions would not be allowed to occur within the vicinity of: a school, a childcare provider, a legal-service provider, an administrative building, a funeral home, a cemetery, a college, university, or community college, a hospital, a health care clinic, a place of worship, a day care center, a head start center, a school bus stop, a recreation center, a mental health facility, or a community center. As the bill is rather vague about the definition of "vicinity," illegal aliens probably only have to fear detention if they are boating on Lake Michigan or surfing in Maui.

In truth, the only cosponsors for the Gutierrez bill are Progressives with extreme views from relatively secure districts like Grijalva's, where it is assumed that Hispanics will vote in lockstep loyalty without regard to the views of a Hispanic candidate.

This is what real reform looks like: focusing on the realities of our immigration system, not the myths and falsehoods that have led us to where we are now in Arizona.

The myth is that Grijalva has any concern for border security. He is willing to degrade his state using false information and manipulate public opinion in order to advance his radical agenda on immigration.

The Pot Calling the Kettle . . . . Racist

2010-04-30T04:34:00.004-07:00

“Having traveled . . ., a distance of more than 1,000 miles round-trip, we were stopped more than 20 times at various checkpoints. At most of those stops, we were told to exit the vehicle and we were subjected to rigorous inspections."

A Mexican in Arizona? No. It's a quote from an American national in Mexico, where President Felipe Calderone on Monday mimicked Raul Grijalva in condemning Arizona's new law, saying: "Criminalizing immigration, which is a social and economic phenomenon, this way opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement." He added: "My government cannot and will not remain indifferent when these kinds of policies go against human rights."

This from a government where visitors can be kicked out of the country without due process and face 10 years in prison, where foreigners' entrance can be rejected if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” For more on Mexico's "Draconian immigration laws, check out this week's Michelle Malkin blog.

Boycott Grijalva

2010-04-29T06:38:00.000-07:00

Liberal Progressives, led by La Raza extremist Raul Grijalva, have called for a boycott of Arizona's businesses in opposition to a law that would help keep Border Violence in Mexico from spilling into Arizona.
Grijalva appears unconcerned about the steady kidnappings and murder of Arizona residents, almost exclusively Hispanics who resist or testify against Drug and Human traffickers. Aside from the danger his rhetoric places Arizona border citizens in, Grijalva's call threatens to put thousands of Hispanics in District 7 out of work, whether they support the law or not. Therefore I urge Arizonans to BOYCOTT GRIJALVA:

Democrats sponsor bill that would force Puerto Rico Statehood

2010-04-28T07:00:00.003-07:00

The House is likely to vote tomorrow on a bill created last year. The bill, deceptively presented to Republicans in Congress as nonbinding, would allow Progressives who control Puerto Rico's legislature to force a vote on statehood.
It would propose two votes designed to force an up or down vote on statehood or independence: http://www.hr2499.org/
While the vote is presented as nonbinding, Progressives in Puerto Rico propose to seat representatives and Senators immediately after the vote, demanding recognition of their statehood based on results of the vote. Puerto Rico could become the 51st state before the end of the year.
The New York Post exposed this sham last year in an Op Ed piece by Eddie Garcia.
Puerto Rico's Pedro Pierluisi and House Progressives are hoping to sneak this by while the debate over immigration in Arizona is raging.
Call Congressman Grijalva and other Representatives from Arizona and urge them to vote down this attempt to create and additional state (presumably Democratic voting) without properly seeking the will of the citizens of Puerto Rico.

Update: After several Bipartisan attempts to block the bill, the Puerto Rican Amnesty bill passed on Thursday. This attempt by Democrats to add 21 members to the House of Representatives and 2 Senators, now goes to the Senate. For updates see OpenCongress.org .
(http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2499/)

Why Grijalva and Obama are Wrong On Immigration

2010-04-28T06:45:00.001-07:00

Raul Grijalva's call for ignoring border security got a sober response from Pinal County's tough new Sheriff, Paul Babeu, who today joined John McCain and john Kyl in calling for troops at the border:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4169406/following-arizonas-lead?playlist_id=87937

Babeu says his office, which includes 60 Hispanic officers, is encountering increasingly dangerous and often violent confrontations with smugglers. He described a recent stop in which nine illegals were crowed into a Ford Taurus. "Reasonable suspicion" was pretty obvious Babeu said, when the driver ran for the bushes after being stopped by deputies.

Grijalva and Dems calls for boycotts are smacking more of liberal amnesty than anything else.

New Law Brings Debate to the Political, Legal Forefront

2010-04-27T21:54:00.000-07:00

Governor Jan Brewer's decision to confront border security head on has resulted in a necessary debate over the legalities and jurisdiction of enforcing immigration laws. But it also puts the Obama administration's immigration policy between a rock and a hard place. Columnists throughout the country are putting in their two cents on the issue. New York Times editorials by Rich Lowry and Steve Huntley tap the frustration of voters with immigration policy as it has been handled by the Obama administration. Meanwhile George Will addresses the legal issues.
Lindsey Graham, speaking for Republicans in the Senate, has asserted that any immigration bill will be dead on arrival unless the administration does more on border security. Brewer's decision, while angering many Hispanics, has created another front in the battle for the midterm elections. It has rallied conservatives, but will it also rally the Progressives of the Obama/Grijalva base in Southern Arizona? That remains to be seen. Caught in the middle and crucial in November will be legal Hispanic American voters. Will they side with Grijalva's LuLAC extremism against the law or as with Prop 200, side with reasonable enforcement of law in Arizona? The debate has begun.

Democratic Reps Distancing Themselves From Grijalva's Rhetoric

2010-04-25T06:34:00.001-07:00

Gabriella Giffords continues to have run-ins with fellow Dem and border rep. Raul Grijalva.
Giffords’ spokesman C.J. Karamargin criticized Grijalva's call for a boycott of Arizona by conventions:

“The last thing Arizona needs is a potentially devastating blow to our fragile economy.”

Candidates running against Giffords wanted more.
“I am shocked and disgusted that Rep. Grijalva would call for a boycott of our very own state, especially in these economic times,” Kelly said in a statement, calling on Giffords to “denounce this shameful rhetoric.”

“Gabrielle Giffords should denounce this extreme statement by the man who got her into office and built her political machine," Paton said in a statement Thursday. “We don't need to push more businesses out of the state with this kind of alarmist rhetoric about a bill most Arizonans support."

Grijalva's call for a boycott are another example of his warped view of the political landscape. Every law is not, as he imagines, an invitation to Hate Crimes. And threatening economic apocalypse as an elected representative is not an intelligent response. Grijalva is acting like a community organizer, not a representative of District 7. It's time for him to go back to the Barrio.

Grijalva Closes offices: No Longer Represents You, Only La Raza

2010-04-24T10:43:00.001-07:00

District 7 Representative Raul Grijalva made clear Friday that he represents neither Arizona nor the United States by requesting that Federal officials ignore US immigration law, despite increased violence along the border in other states.

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva today sent a letter to President Obama calling on him to exercise his “authority to limit [federal] cooperation with Arizona officials in their enforcement of SB 1070,” a bill signed into law earlier today by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer that forces local police to question anyone they “reasonably suspect” to be an illegal immigrant.

By making the request, Grijalva does more than protest state law, he asks federal officials to violate federal law by not assisting state officials who hand over illegals in the course of their duties. With thousands of Border Patrol agents in Arizona trained to do just that, Grijalva's request is both politically motivated and impossible to enact. It furthermore jeopardizes the safety of Arizona citizens, both Hispanic and Anglos, to drug cartel violence like that which took the life of Robert Krentz and today erupted in Juarez again.

“SB 1070 would exacerbate the problem of racial profiling . . . and would continue to compromise the civil rights of citizens, legal residents, tourists and foreign visitors,” the letter says.
Grijalva writes as if a situation already exists that "compromises the civil rights of residents in Arizona." Not so. In 2005 DPS made major changes in policy to end "racial profiling," aligning their procedures to those of Border Patrol and coordinating efforts with BP for picking up illegals when encountered. Grijalva wants this coordinated effort to stop, and he is using the law as an excuse to end the successful cooperation between local law enforcement and Border Patrol:

The letter also asks Obama to cut off any further potential Memorandums of Understanding between the Department of Homeland Security and state law enforcement officials regarding immigration enforcement. Such agreements, the letter says, “have been subject to serious concerns as local law enforcement agencies have used the new powers to target communities of color, including a disproportionate number of Latinos for arrest.”
Violent gang members, drug smugglers, and sex offenders overwhelmingly reside in these areas. this week, two suspects from "communities of color" attacked and raped a Yuma resident. One can only hope they will be "targeted for arrest" and whether illegal or not prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Coordinating efforts between agencies is the right thing to do for everyone, despite Grijalva's outrage. This law is a restatement of that effort.

“This law will put every policeman in the state on notice that their main duty from now on is to question Hispanics about their citizenship,” Grijalva said. “This is a discriminatory policy that cannot be enforced without committing grave breaches of due process and equal protection. The law will not withstand legal scrutiny, and I call on the president immediately to reject it in the strongest possible terms.”
No. this law is ridiculously redundant and unnecessary in asking law enforcement to simply do their job when the Obama administration has backed away from theirs. Due process and equal protection have experienced a broad range of interpretation over the years, Mr. Grijalva. Whether or not the Arizona stands, the fact is that Arizona law enforcement has, and will continue to identify illegals and turn them over to Homeland Security officials unless those officials are instructed by the administration to violate standing rules to enforce our nation's borders, which would further alienate this administration from legal citizens, both Anglo and Hispanic.

Grijalva questioned Brewer’s priorities in signing the bill, saying that her focus “should be on working with federal officials – who have sole authority under the Constitution to create and enforce immigration policy – to achieve comprehensive reforms that protect the rights of border communities, recent immigrants, hard-working families and law-abiding businesses. This bill is nothing more than an unfunded mandate that will lead to mistrust between citizens and law enforcement. It has already made Arizona a pariah among state governments, and I am concerned that our great state’s credibility will only suffer further damage if the president does not cut it off at the knees.”
Brewer has already attempted to work with the Obama administration on this. They have ignored her. Former governor Janet Napolitano has literally snubbed her former attorney general over calls for assistance. Grijalva for his part, has stood in the way of any attempts to secure the border, from his silence over the murder of Robert Krentz, to his outrage at Gabrielle Giffords for her requests for aid. In Grijalva's mind the murder of a white landowner citizen or law enforcement agents is fine, but the arrest of an illegal is an outrage.

So, in fear, because of an alleged angry phone call from an American citizen, Grijalva closes his doors to constituents and calls on federal help in the dismantlement Arizona's borders.

Immigration Enforcement Heats Up in Arizona

2010-04-22T06:44:00.000-07:00

A new bill in Arizona instructing law enforcement to enforce immigration laws met opposition yesterday from the immigration amnesty crowd.
Leaders at rallies called for "comprehensive, practical and sensible immigration reform." In other words, amnesty for all illegals living in the U.S. and free movement back and forth across the border for illegals. That is impossible to go back to, and they know it.

Pope John Paul II once said “When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society.”

One humorous quote from a poster in the Yuma Daily Sun today reads: "EVEN OUR GUY, RAUL GRIJALVA IS AGAINST THE BILL." Big surprise. Grijalva has some of the most extreme views about immigration and the border, calling civilians who try to stop illegals "racist" and guilty of hate crimes.

According to Grijalva, "There's a violation of federal law when you carry guns on national lands. There are issues of intimidation, violations of civil rights, and violations of the federal hate crime statute."

I'm wondering how the family of Robert Krentz feels about that, Raul?

No Time to Retreat . . . Let's Reload: Tea Party Rally Tomorrow

2010-04-14T06:38:00.001-07:00

Yumans will join thousands of teapartiers nationwide tomorrow with a rally at Ray Kroc field. Come early or bring your own chair.

Grijalva's Gift to Arizona . . . and America: Now They Tell Us

2010-04-11T10:57:00.001-07:00

News outlets are now reading the Obamacare Regulations, and finding the truth: This is not a bill to fix healthcare, but a vehicle for taxing Americans without calling it a tax.

According to CNN's Money, the plan includes all of the taxes and bureaucracy of the most expensive health insurance states like New York, and none of the competitive functions of plans available in Arizona. Because the system penalizes people who don't buy the resulting higher insurance, according to Money it amounts to an additional tax for young entrepreneurs and cooperative plans who must buy insurance at the higher rate or pay a tax. When insurance costs skyrocket, which they surely will, many will simply pay the tax. What it means for the rest of us is that competitive markets like Arizona will have to adopt the higher costs of restricted markets, resulting in higher insurance prices. thanks Raul, your a pal! What was the name of your opponent in November? Oh yeah, the rocket scientist. Ruth McClung.

Next on the list of taxes/not taxes? The Value Added Tax, or VAT tax (government taxes business as much as they want and consumers payin higher prices) is coming, but it's not a tax, and if it is, it only affects the wealthy--right!

What Democrats do to Americans. . . are You a Racist?

2010-04-05T19:59:00.000-07:00

You Must be a Racist if:
If you didn’t vote for Obama… you might be a racist!

If you thought Jeremiah Wright’s preaching is racist… you might be a racist!

If you don’t think that America is a nation of cowards… you might be a racist!

If you even wondered whether Sonia Sotomayor was the best choice President Obama could have made for his first Supreme Court nomination… you might be a racist!

If you attended a Tea party… you might be a racist!

If you’re a policeman simply doing your job… you might be a racist!

If you think that universal health care is not actually a right guaranteed by the Constitution… you might be a racist!

If you think Kanye West was rude to Taylor Swift… you might be a racist!

If you don’t think Mark Lloyd should be Obama’s “diversity czar”… you might be a racist!

If you wonder why we need a “diversity czar” in the first place… you might be a racist!

If you thought then-Sen. Obama called you a racist way back in 2006… you might be a racist!

If you’re even reading this post… you might be a racist!

Why You Won't See Dems Leaving White House Like Rats....

2010-04-04T07:00:00.000-07:00

During most president administrations there comes a time when officials begin to step down, either because of the stress of the job or because the s*** is hitting the fan. Well, for the Obama administration, the latter of the two has begun and will probably continue. Unfortunately, those waiting for all those liberal policy wonks to flee like rats will have a while to wait. Why? the answer is simple economics: Democrats "love" government jobs, Republicans despise them.

Starting with Reagan, policy officials were appointed from the private sector. Economic advisers were business leaders with executive experience and "can do" military retirees. Hence, the reason why Reagan could spend so much time in California on a horse while things ran smoothly in Washington. The Bush's followed this same model. Corporate executives and military people were attracted to lower paying government appointments because it was a step to book deals and lobbyist connections. These people understood government service as just that: service, a loss of income to improve country for a brief time.

The difference with Obama? Obama's appointments are academics, union leaders and community organizers. They have low to middle government salaries. Most have never risked capital to create revenue in their lives, they have no concept of it. Working in the White House is the pinnacle of their existence and they won't give it up unless Obama himself asks them to step down (which he won't). They believed in the Hope and Change before Obama did. They will not leave until the president does and when they do, we will have to tear the power like White House silverware out of their cold dead hands.

Obama, Dems Action ALL Politically Motivated

2010-04-03T11:56:00.000-07:00

Many Americans were caught up in the announcement this week that the Obama Administration will "allow" exploration leases for offshore drilling in the coming months. Think the administration is changing it's tune about energy policy? Not on your life! As Heritage's Morning Bell explains, the announcement covers the cancellation of other drilling leases and is just an opening for Cap and Trade legislation later this month.

In other news, Obama who campaigned that he would not allow lobbyists in his administration, used recess appointments to bring the number of times he has broken that promise to 15, According to the Washington Examiner. The number includes some of the most liberal lobbyists in Washington, most notably Card Check advocate Craig Becker, who advocates using the National Labor Relations Board to impose mandatory Union membership in every state. According to WhoRunsGovernment.com:

"Becker wrote in a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article that "traditional notions of democracy" should not necessarily apply in union elections. He argued that employers should not have legal standing in such elections, and as such they should be barred from attending NLRB hearings about union elections, and from challenging election results."

Finally, this week, Veronique de Rugy, Senior research Fellow at George Mason University, summarized her analysis of Obama's stimulus package, where money has been spent, and its effect on the economy.Through detailed statistical analysis, de Rugy concludes that the primary factor in distribution of stimulus funds was . . . .political. Accounting for multiple economic factors, Democrat districts received nearly twice what Republican districts did. Furthermore, the results of stimulus spending has been to REDUCE the number of jobs overall. Her summary of the report can be found in her National Review column.

So in summary, three of Obama's biggest promises to the American people: 1-new energy initiative, 2-an end to lobbyists in Washington, 3-creating jobs in the private sector; have been broken, tossed aside and ignored in little over a year. What does that say for the next three?

In Case You Needed a Reminder. . .

2010-04-01T19:55:00.000-07:00

Grijalva Supports Policy that Hurts Mexican Americans

2010-03-31T15:00:00.000-07:00

More from the Center for Immigration Studies article about Grijalva:

But while Grijalva has frequently shown determination to restrain commercial forces in order to protect the environment, he is consistently willing to accommodate their hunger for low-wage immigrant labor. The policies he supports would ensure that American employers, from fast food franchisers to farmers to roofers and restaurateurs, have an inexhaustible supply of low-wage immigrant labor. They would also ensure massive growth of the nation’s population over the next 50 years, with enormous consequences both for other low-wage workers and for the environment of Arizona and other states.

Grijalva has consistently argued for and voted for, open borders with Mexico and to grant immunity to illegal immigrants living here, something that the majority of American citizens of Mexican heritage have voted against because of the obvious problems it creates.

Grijalva acknowledged that there are also sharp differences among his Mexican-American constituents on immigration policy. That divide was clear in the 2004 vote on Arizona’s Proposition 200, a statewide initiative that sought to curtail public services for illegal immigrants. According to exit polls, some 47 percent of Latinos voted for the proposition, even after a well-funded campaign that branded it as racist, anti-Hispanic, and anti-immigrant.³⁵

While Grijalva brands himself a representative for Hispanics, he is nothing of the kind. On issue after issue, from abortion to providing public assistance to English language instruction, the majority of Hispanics in Arizona disagree with Grijalva. He is not at the head of some broad Hispanic parade, but a small band of liberal Anglos and subversive La Raza radicals left over from the 60s farm boycotts. Hispanics in Southern Arizona are ready to vote for a conservative that listens to them.

Grijalva said he could see the anxieties among Tucson Latinos as he walked door to door to urge a vote against it. “I said the feedback from third, fourth, second generation Mexican Americans is not good,” he recalled in the interview. “I said once that this is a conversation within our own community that we don’t have, about those who just arrived and those who are here. …I think it’s a very uncomfortable conversation. I think you can talk to a lot of Latino leaders and they don’t even want to touch the subject. It’s an uncomfortable conversation, but a conversation that needs to occur.”
His message Grijalva admits, is to bring back the bigotry of the 60s, to race bait at every opportunity and pit Anglo against Hispanic to win elections. Will it work? Economics and history would favor Grijalva (and Obama's) approach. But several generations have come and gone in Yuma County since Cesar Chavez. I recently asked a couple Hispanic teenagers who Chavez was. Their response: "Didn't he wrestle for Kofa?"

Grijalva Releases Canned Response About Vote on Healthcare

2010-03-30T18:44:00.000-07:00

A friend sent me their response to an email received from Rep. Raul Grijalva regarding his health care vote on Sunday. Grijalva’s email would not accept my friend’s response so he asked me to post it here:

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Rep. Raul Grijalva wrote:

March 26, 2010

Dear Comrade (Sorry, that was added by me):

Thank you for contacting me regarding the health care reform bills that recently passed Congress, I appreciate hearing your concerns. Throughout this process my staff and I have been carefully monitoring the emails, letters and calls from the constituents of Arizona District 7. Please be assured that each message weighed heavily on my vote.

My vote in favor of the health care reform package was about the needs of the district. Congress could not dismiss the tremendous savings this bill will create. It is clear that health care expenditures in America are continuing to sky rocket - this bill will begin to control the costs. It will save the government $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years and put an end to medical insecurity for 32 million uninsured working people who will be covered under this legislation. Those are milestones we should all be proud of today.

Before I came to Congress and for the past year during the debate over health care reform, I have fought for a better, fairer, more affordable American health care system. There's no denying that it's been a difficult process and I've been able to keep working through it with the much-appreciated support of the many millions of Americans who believe with me that we must do better than the status quo. Ultimately, the choice before the House was simple: pass the Senate bill and the reconciliation amendments or vote the Senate bill down and maintain that status quo. My decision, in the end, was simple. I could not ignore the 32 million uninsured Americans, the constituents I hear from everyday that have been discriminated against by an insurance company, those that have lost their homes because of medical bills, those that have been driven into bankruptcy and those that are fed up with our current broken system. I'm happy to join groups like the American Nurses Association, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the U. S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and many others in declaring that they have suffered long enough and it's time for a change.

Our status quo is simply unsustainable. The people of this country have been crying out for Congress to act. Because we acted to improve health care for the American people, insurers will be forced to stop denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions. No company can cut off benefits because it wants a bigger profit margin. Insurers will be required to treat individuals more equally regardless of age, race and gender. Medicare will be kept solvent, seniors will not have to pay for preventive services and they will finally be able to afford their medications. This bill committed significant support to community health centers around the country that provide medical care to the most vulnerable in society. The bill mandates that insurance companies spend a significant majority of their revenue on providing care, not on overhead or executive bonuses. This package as a whole is an important and impressive step in our long fight for a fairer, more equal America.

While this bill is the beginning of improving the American health care system - it is not the end. It establishes once and for all that health care in this country is a basic right, not a privilege. Our system can be improved in the future, and it will be. I will make fighting for those improvements a priority as long as I am in Congress, because as much work as we've done over the past year, more remains before us. Major advances in our quality of life are rarely easy. They are not achieved in a single stroke. This bill is a foundation that we will look back on in five years, 10 years and 20 years and thank ourselves for laying now.

Sincerely,

Raul M. Grijalva

Member of Congress

Response:

Rep. Grijalva,

Thank you for your complete, if delayed response to my email. I understand your concerns about health care in Arizona. I have seen the crowded emergency room in Yuma, experienced the pressures of increased health insurance costs for my family, and argued over the phone with insurers over deductible categories. I agree with you that the cost of health care coverage in this country is at a crisis. But is the solution to high costs really more government?

It is commonly understood in the private sector that new regulations create new and more complex problems. For example, the state of Arizona estimates the health care plan you say is good for our district will actually cost the state of Arizona $400 million dollars? How does a guarantee of insurance in 10 years justify the loss of 42,000 jobs in Arizona to begin paying for it now?

I am also wondering if you could explain to me how the House Reconciliation Bill will save 1.2 trillion dollars, when the CBO estimates that you cite are for the Senate bill, passed prior to House reconciliation, which exempts large portions of the Senate prepayments, increases benefit provisions and has never been submitted to the CBO? In fact outside estimates of the Reconciliation Bill estimate its cost at $2 trillion, far beyond any cost "savings" estimate of either the Senate or House versions.

Finally, I recall that when you visited Yuma this Fall and spoke, and in numerous interviews with the media in Washington, you insisted that the public or government funded option was the only way that health care costs could be contained. You have also stated that tort reform was needed to lower costs. Neither the Senate bill nor the House Reconciliation contains either of these features. Because you have been so adamant about these issues, I am wondering: Have you have actually run these numbers or just trust the Democratic budget estimates? And because I have heard the numbers and phrases in your letter repeated over and over this week, I am also wondering: are you truly convinced that this bill is the best thing for your constituents? Or are you just listening to House leaders and hoping it is?

I certainly believe insurance companies should not be able to drop insurance for pre-existing conditions and that people without insurance need to have adequate access to health care. I also believe strongly that seniors should not have to travel to Mexico for health care because costs there are lower than the deductibles they pay for Medicare here. However, I believe these problems could have been solved without an estimated 2 trillion dollar price tag and a burden placed on states who are already struggling to balance their budgets. In my eyes, the benefits you describe are not worth the costs 5, 10, or even 20 years from now, when my children and yours may still be paying for them.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Yuma Resident

Don't Think Health Care Means a Redistribution of Wealth? Think Again!

2010-03-28T07:00:00.000-07:00

Another Democrat has let slip the real purpose of Health Care reform. This according to Fox News:

After the Senate passed a "fix-it" bill Thursday to make changes to the new health care law, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the influential Finance Committee, said the overhaul was an "income shift" to help the poor.

"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind," he said. "Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

Stay tuned for more slips from Democrats who forgot to read their talking points closely. Remember when you hear them, that many of these "benefits" won't take effect for 10-15 years. you have to "shift your income" first. so much for the "Crisis" of health care.

While Your Government is Taking, Some are Giving Back

2010-03-27T12:11:00.002-07:00

I was fortunate to have heard The Commandant's Own when they kicked off their season in Yuma. The Marines were outgoing and respectful, passing out music and inspiring children with their stories. Unlike many who earn a living from your taxes, these kids really earn it. Hooraah!

CIS article on Grijalva "Insightful"

2010-03-25T09:54:00.009-07:00

One of the most comprehensive articles about our own Raul Grijalva can be found at the Center for Immigration Studies Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist Jerry Kammer has done research that looked beneath the "coalition-builder" to find the true Grijalva: a La Raza radical, turned smooth politician. He gives several examples in which Grijalva has shown his true colors, including the following run-in with fellow liberal Janet Napolitano:

In 2006, when Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano called for increased National Guard presence on the border to stem illegal immigration and drug trafficking that had spread violence across the state, Grijalva complained that the decision was an insult to Mexican Americans that was rooted in racial considerations.
“Anglo-Saxon men make the strategy for her,” he said in an interview with a Spanish-language newspaper in Yuma. Speaking later with an English-language paper, he said that he hadn’t meant that the governor’s policy was motivated by racism, only that it was “not inclusive.”²⁴

^{Sounds like the national Socialists of the 30s. Rile up your audience, make them hate, make them cry "racist" while you hide behind your language and ethnicity, blaming it for your own racism, Raul.)}

In 2008, Grijalva blasted Democratic leaders in the House who allowed hearings on legislation to boost border security and crack down on employers of illegal immigrants: HR 4088, the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act, introduced November 6, 2007. The move was an election-year tactic, providing cover for the large group of freshmen Democrats who represented conservative districts, including the bill’s sponsor, North Carolina’s Heath Shuler. He also blasted Democratic leaders as “spineless” for not moving ahead with the controversial, comprehensive reforms he favored.²⁵

^{(Grijalva's likes to play the poor angry Mexican, but really just uses his anger as a caricature for political gain. As in the current Healthcare debate, he cares only for his party agenda, not for his constituents, not even for Mexican Americans who would be hurt by his legislative agenda).}

In the spring of 2009, Grijalva lashed out at Pima County’s sheriff, who had linked South Tucson’s crime rate and social problems to illegal immigration. Sheriff Dupnik, a Democrat, had said: “Whether you are talking about school performance, or dropouts, or gang affiliation, or one-parent homes or poverty, you name the social problem, that’s where they are all concentrated. That has to do with illegal immigration.”²⁶
Grijalva blasted Dupnik: “To make a categorical statement that all the crime and the dysfunction in Tucson and Pima County emanates from one part of the community is outrageous and it’s stereotypical and … creates racial tension where they shouldn’t be,” he said

(So, according to Grijalva, even identifying illegal aliens in Tucson as a contributing factor to the crime rate is racist (and remember, the Sheriff's Department had all the statistics at their finger tips. He was summarizing what arrest rates had born out).

Grijalva’s sharpest barbs have been directed at armed civilian groups that in 2002 began patrolling the Mexican border to spot illegal crossers and report them to the Border Patrol. He called them “racist” and “cockroaches.”
Ten years later, we have thousands of border patrol agents on the border. they are regularly pelted with rocks, assaulted and shot at. Last year one was killed. Racists Mr. Grijalva? Cockroaches? that is what you have called defenders of our borders.

A representative for all of southern Arizona? or just angry?

The Smoke and Mirrors of Health Care "Deficit Reduction"

2010-03-23T06:18:00.002-07:00

The Health care bill passed by the House depends on a number of cost/income assumptions.
   First, it assumes the solvency of Medicare and Social Security, two programs that are scheduled to run out of money within the next 10 years if not before. Without a huge influx of money which won't happen if the economic picture does not change and the federal deficit is not corrected.
   Second, the CBO analysis is based on taxes collected over the next 20 years to fund the program beginning in 2014. Obama and Democrats in the Senate have already made promises to states and unions to reduce those taxes to get passage of the bill. According to Jay Cost the Health care bill depends on taxes over the next 20 years to fund insurance for the uninsured over the last 10 to a tune of 2 trillion dollars. If the income assumptions on those estimates are off (and they already are) then the whole "deficit reduction" calls of Democrats are out the window and not only is there no "deficit reduction," the deficit will skyrocket (like it already isn't). According to Peter Suderman of Reason.com, the "adjustments" added to the bill in the House will have the effect of doing just that, turning this "deficit reduction" bill into deficits we have never seen before.
   Finally, no one is talking about the fact that Obamacare assumes that economic recovery is imminent. this ain't necessarily so. As much as Obama has talked about jobs "created or over 10% of Americans are out of work. Yes, the jobless rate remains unchanged at 9.7, but in another smoke and mirrors ploy, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics has been asked to "cull" the unemployment rolls of workers, "no longer seeking employment." This means in effect, that while unemployment is unchanged, it is actually going up. Beyond the unemployment figures, depressed because of this administration's animosity towards "evil" business, the Obama administration is creating an environment toxic to the wealthy. Talk show host Rush Limbaugh has frequently stated he would move out of country if Obamacare is implemented. There is no reason not to believe that wealthy people will move out of an unfriendly tax environment similar to the way they did when California went whacky liberal.
I have said it before, this administration will lean to the left until someone puts the breaks on. Raul Grijalva loves to spend your money. Next year let him work for a living.

Grijalva's Poem of Hate

2010-03-22T09:39:00.001-07:00

Here's a poem he wrote in 1969 at the beginning of his political career, referencing the ignorance of his anglo peers at school:

a friend
see him reaching for your soul

he hasn’t felt your clammy

hand of hate

he hasn’t heard you call
him spic
nor ever thinks you should
his father weeds your garden
and picks your fruits
and you bestow on him intolerance

and lies

he dreams of being you
but you’ve agreed he
never will

A representative for all of district 9? A community organizer? Or an angry partisan with a liberal agenda.

Think You've seen the last of single payer? Not on Your Life

2010-03-21T23:00:00.003-07:00

With the passage of the Senate Health care bill, many Americans are thinking "It could be worse, we could have single-payer socialized medicine." The thinking that with passage of the bill being so difficult, Democrats wouldn't dare try to make the bill any more expensive or more socialized. Wrong.

March 19, 2010 | 5:30 PM ET

Senate Dem Leader Promises Vote Soon on Public Option

Trish Turner | Senior Capitol Hill Producer

Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, shot by John Wallace

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, in a letter sent Friday to two of the Senate’s strongest proponents of the so-called “public option”, has commits to holding a vote “in the coming months” on the proposal.

This is no doubt to quell deep dissatisfaction among a number of more liberal members in the upper chamber who have said the health care reform bill moving through Congress, while making critical changes they support, does not do enough.
Keep Reading...

In order to get passage of this vote, Pelosi and Reid have already promised (to reps like Raul Grijalva, AZ) to pursue single payer and force the most liberal legislation they can down American's throats unless someone stops them. Will you?

Who Supports Grijalva: Big Labor

2010-03-21T09:15:00.002-07:00

While Arizona's 7th District representative sells himself as being supported by a "grassroots" organization, his real support comes from national Political Action Committees interested only in furthering their national agenda in Washington. According to OpenSecrets.org, in his last three campaigns, Raul Grijalva has taken an average of 52% of his funding from outside labor unions:

PAC Contribution Breakdown(Raul Grijalva)

Business	$384,149	(31%)
Labor	$709,700	(57%)
Ideological/Single Issue	$143,010	(12%)

So much for "a large diverse coalition to create the largest volunteer driven election effort in Arizona."

Your Representative silent While Billions in Tax and Spending Debated in House

2010-03-20T09:04:00.001-07:00

Ask your representative about the House debating and negotiating a trillion dollar Healthcare bill that will affect you, your children, and your children's children, and Raul Grijalva will . . . ignore you.

Here's what Raul is talking about on Facebook while the House "band" plays on:

Raul M. Grijalva Earlier today, I gave David Wayne Romick, a Vietnam veteran discharged with the Army Medal of Courage, his long overdue recognition. He had never received the award, and my office helped him with his case.

Raul M. Grijalva I am an original co-sponsor of the Local Jobs for America Act, which would extend $75 billion to state, local and tribal governments and private sector training programs over the next two years.

Raul M. Grijalva House Democrats have voluntarily decided to ban all earmarks that would benefit for-profit corporations.

Obey Announces Partial Ban on Earmarks - Roll Call

www.rollcall.com

House appropriators announced Wednesday morning that they would reject all earmark requests that benefit for-profit companies.

Raul M. Grijalva New credit card regulations are about to come into effect. Everyone should be aware of potential changes to their policies.

Bank of America to stop debit card overdrafts - Yahoo! News

news.yahoo.com

Bank of America customers will soon be unable to spend more than they have in the accounts linked to their debit cards. It's a step that may become a common move ahead of new regulations limiting overdraft fees.

Raul M. Grijalva The filibuster was invented accidentally after Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton. The history of the rule is interesting for anyone curious about how government functions.

Oh, on his official website, Grijalva posts an inaccurate partisan handout created for Democrats by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. But without comment on his views or how he intends to vote. Other important news to Grijalva while he prepares to add his vote for government takeover of 1/5th of the economy? Try these:

Grijalva Welcomes Announcement of $20 Million Grant for TUSD School Construction Bonds(special payouts to Grijalva's former employer? What about the rest of Arizona's schools struggling to stay afloat?)
Wednesday March 17, 2010
Today, Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva hailed the announcement of a new $20 million grant to Tucson Unified School District for qualified school construction bonds. The grant is a joint project from the Departments of Education and Treasury appropriated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
Read more
Grijalva Hails Announcement of $16 Million Anti-Obesity Grant to Pima County Expected to Create 155 Jobs(any aerobics instructors looking for jobs?)
Friday March 12, 2010
Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva today hailed the announcement of a new $16 million grant to Pima County to fund anti-obesity programs. The grant comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through money appropriated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Read more
Grijalva Congratulates El Centro for Summer Educational Service Grant Directed to At-Risk and Hispanic Students(Funny thing is, I don't think El Centro is in District 7. Try funding Arizona schools Raul)
Friday March 12, 2010
Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva today congratulated El Centro for the Study of Primary & Secondary Education, a Tucson non-profit group, for its new $125,000 Learn and Serve America Summer of Service Grant. The money, which comes from the Corporation for National and Community Service, will be used to support several summer-long supervised projects that engage students in meaningful service to the community.

Raul. A Representative for all of District 7? Not on your life.

Grijalva Vote to Hide Vote on Health Care in the House: Representing Who?

2010-03-18T23:04:00.000-07:00

Today Grijalva had the opportunity to stand up against Nancy Pelosi's attempts to allow Democrats to hide behind procedure instead of fulfilling their promise to be "the most open Congress ever." On a none-binding censure of the House Leadership for use of the "Slaughter Solution," Grijalva voted to table any criticism of the watered-down Senate bill he promised he would never vote for. The Slaughter provision would allow the House to pass the Senate health care bill without voting on it, allowing House members to avoid any responsibility for a bill that would mean the largest increase in taxes and government power in recent history (and wouldn't take effect until most were out of office). Grijalva, in his last chance to be honest about Obamacare, is showing his true colors, voting to hide his vote on the healthcare government takeover, by voting against the following:

Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, The Washington Post reported,
‘‘After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote
this week on the Senate’s health-care bill, House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt
to pass the measure without having members vote on it.

Instead, Pelosi (D–Calif.) would rely on a procedural
sleight of hand. . .’’;
Whereas in the same Washington Post article, the Speaker
declared, ‘‘. . .I like it because people don’t have to vote
on the Senate bill.’’
Whereas bipartisan members of the House and Senate have
expressed their opposition to using the Slaughter Solution;
Whereas on Wednesday, March 10, Representative Joe Donnelly
released the following statement, ‘‘The process over
the past few months has been frustrating, including the
cutting of unacceptable special deals to assure a few senators’
votes.’’;
Whereas Representative Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania has
characterized the exploitation of the Slaughter Solution
by Democratic Leadership as ‘‘wrong’’ and unpopular
among his constituents;
Whereas on Friday, March 12, POLITICO reported on a
memo sent from Representative Chris Van Hollen, chairman
of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee,
to freshman and sophomore House Democrats
that stated, ‘‘At this point, we have to just rip the bandaid
off. . . Things like reconciliation and what the rules
committee does is INSIDE BASEBALL.’’;
Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, Roll Call reported, ‘‘Hoyer
argued that the American public isn’t interested in the
process lawmakers use for approving reforms. . .’’;
Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, Representative James Clyburn
told Fox News, ‘‘Controversy doesn’t bother me at
all.’’;
Whereas the Democratic leadership of the House has conducted
a calculated and coordinated attempt to willfully
deceive the American people by embracing the ‘‘Slaughter
Solution’’;
Whereas resorting to the ‘‘Slaughter Solution’’ in this circumstance,
is being done to intentionally hide from the
American people a future vote that Members of Congress
may take on the Senate-passed health care legislation;
Whereas the deceptive behavior demonstrated by the Democratic
Leadership has brought discredit upon the House
of Representatives; and
Whereas the Democratic leadership has willfully abused its
power to chart a legislative course for the Senate health
care bill that is deliberately calculated to obfuscate what
the House will vote on, in an illegitimate effort to confuse
the public and thereby fraudulently insulate certain Representatives
from accountability for their conduct of their
offices: Now, therefore, be it
1 Resolved, That the House disapproves of the
2 malfeasant manner in which the Democratic Leadership
3 has thereby discharged the duties of their offices.

Grijalva supports Pelosi, her strong-armed tactics and backroom threats. The kind of person to represent Arizona? I don't think so.

The Total Screw Up that ObamaCare Has Become

2010-03-18T08:04:00.000-07:00

As debate continues in the House to try and reconcile the House's Single Payer Trojan Horse with the Senate's watered down tax and spend compromise, the two advocates that Democrats have depended on throughout the debate are still clinging to the mirage that the bill will solve health care problems, despite signs of a collapse in the house of cards that healthcare reform/socialized medicine has become.

The major networks continue to blindly support the illusion of healthcare reform despite the obvious pitfalls in the Senate bill. In one glaring indication, NBC news squelched their own poll which showed Americans felt the bill was a "bad idea" 48% to 36%. http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100317023913.aspx
So much for an unbiased media looking out for the public interest.

In a more telling action, the Obama administration this week called union leaders to the White House to "consider" changes to the House reconciliation bill.http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100317023913.aspx
I thought this administration was about getting rid of Special Interests power in Washington. Now we have Union leaders writing reconciliation bills for the House?

The fact of the matter is that Democratic plans for Health care reform were poorly planned from the start, based on Progressive ideals that were proved wrong by the fall of the Soviet Union. In review, according to the summary by Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell, all of the Democratic plans have suffered from the same flaws:

New Middle-Class Taxes: Throughout his campaign, President Barack Obama promised he would not raise taxes on American households making less than $250,000. The Senate bill shatters that promise. For starters, just look at the reason Trumka went to the White House yesterday: the excise tax on high-cost health insurance plans. This tax would overwhelmingly hit middle-class taxpayers. Taxes on prescription drugs, wheel chairs and other medical devices would also be passed on to all consumers, hitting the lower- and middle- classes the hardest.

Increased Health Care Costs: The Senate bill manifestly does nothing to bend the health care cost curve downward. According to the latest CBO report, the Senate bill would actually increase health care spending by $210 billion over the next 10 years. This follows a previous report from the President's own Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) showing the Senate bill would result in $234 billion in additional health care spending over 10 years.

Increased Health Insurance Premiums: The President initially promised that Americans would see a $2,500 annual reduction in their family health care costs. But under the Senate bill, premiums would go up for millions of Americans. In fact, according to the CBO, estimated premiums in the individual market would be 10–13 percent higher by 2016 than they would be under current law.

Increased Deficits: Despite claiming to be comprehensive health care reform, the Senate bill does not address the fact that Medicare's current price-fixing doctor reimbursement scheme is set to reduce doctor payments by 21% this year. That simply is not going to happen. Congress will pass that fix separately. If that cost were included, Obamacare is already $200 billion in the red. Now throw in the fact that the Senate bill is paid for with another $463 billion in Medicare cuts to health care providers. CMS says if these cuts occur, one-fifth of all health care providers will face bankruptcy. That simply is not going to happen. Just like the doctor reimbursement cuts have never happened, the Obamacare Medicare cuts will never happen. So in reality, Obamacare will add almost $700 billion to our national deficit in the next ten years alone.

Increases Unemployment and Puts Millions of Americans on Welfare: According to The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA), a dynamic analysis of the tax hikes and deficits created by the Senate bill shows that an average 690,000 jobs per year would be lost if it became law. In addition, over half of all Americans who would gain health insurance through the bill (18 million out of 33 million) would do so by being placed on Medicaid, which is a welfare program.

Higher taxes, higher health care costs, higher health insurance premiums, higher deficits, more unemployment and more Americans on welfare. That is America's future should the Senate Obamacare bill become law.

Will Grijalva Go Back on His Word?

2010-03-14T07:51:00.000-07:00

In June, Grijalva promised that he would not vote for a Health Reform package that did not include a robust public option. Now it appears that he intends to do just that: Break his promise to his liberal constituents and go back on his word. Raul is like every other politician in Washington, willing to sell his vote and his beliefs to get reelected.

Reagan's Response to ObamaCare

2010-02-25T06:49:00.000-07:00

Back in the day, Ronald Reagan responded to the potential expansion of socialism through a national health care system. Sounds hauntingly familiar. And it has over a million hits on YouTube as Obama and the Democrats ask for "bipartisanship":

Obama Administration Reportedly "Pays Off" Democratic Contenders with Aministration Jobs

2010-02-23T05:23:00.000-07:00

It is being reported that White House offered jobs to two contenders running against Democratic Senators in the 2010 elections if they would leave their respective races. Joe Sestak, running against Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, claims white House officials offered him the position of Secretary of the Navy in exchange for dropping out of the race. In Colorado, state house speaker Andrew Romanoff was reportedly offered a job by White House staffers if he abandoned a challenge to the Michael Bennet, appointed to the Senate to replace Secretary of Agriculture Ken Salazar.

According to Jeffrey Lord of The Spectator:
The discovery that the White House has now been reported on two separate occasions in two different states to be deliberately committing a potential violation of federal law -- in order to preserve the Democrats' Senate majority -- could prove explosive in this highly political year. The 60-seat majority slipped to 59 seats with the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, a Democrat, and the election of Republican Senator Scott Brown. Many political analysts are suggesting Democrats could lose enough seats to lose their majority altogether.

Communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both.
John F. Kennedy

Hockey Game Proves Superiority of Private Health Care

2010-02-22T20:35:00.000-07:00

Watch the US/Canada Hockey game from Vancouver? From American Brian Rafalski's lightening goal in the first minute to Ryan Kesler's tap in in the last, it was a thrill ride. Which just goes to prove that America's private health care system is far superior to the Public assistance system in Canada.
Huh... you say?
Here's the point. The Canadians had far more NHL experience than the Americans, far more Olympic experience, and, well, they were from Canada, a product of the Canadian Health system. And yet they were out hustled, out defended, and out coached by a less talented team, a team dependent on private doctors and health insurance. It is obvious that the American health care system produces stronger, faster and more dedicated athletes than the Canadian system does.

http://fans.flames.nhl.com/topic/32255/t/Universal-Health-Care-vs-The-U-S-System.html

The Money Hole

2010-02-20T08:53:00.000-07:00

It's funny how liberal parodies show the real problems with big government:

In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole?

Anonymous Billboard in Wyoming Says it All

2010-02-10T08:41:00.001-07:00

YES!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OCgMPX2mE

Grijalva Can't really Believe The things he is Saying, Can He?

2010-02-08T20:17:00.003-07:00

The trickle-down-the-leg economic math of the Obama administration has reached Southern Arizona's own Raul Grijalva. Never good with math, our representative is spouting the voodoo-inspired unemployment numbers coming out of the White House.

"Much more remains to be done on job creation, but the trend under President Obama has been positive over his first year while the last year of President Bush's term was marked by steep and constant declines."

See the pretty graph that shows how Obama is better than Bush on unemployment:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3563625&id=73539896233

After all, pretty graphs are always accurate aren't they?

Except when they have been adjusted by an administration using every trick possible to keep unemployment numbers under 10%. Here's the raw data, strait out of the Bureau of Labor statistics:

**(Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Want a Job Now** **Labor force status:** **Not in labor force** **Type of data: Number in thousands** **Age: 16 years and over** **Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now**
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
2000	4401	4476	4510	4437	5004	4670	4446	4479	4218	4096	4009	4208	4413
2001	4517	4543	4144	4491	5180	5011	4542	5107	4396	4386	4375	4388	4590
2002	4938	4491	4426	4554	5533	5128	4921	4811	4500	4192	4407	4227	4677
2003	4779	4495	4763	4373	5482	5085	4955	5030	4637	4561	4201	4355	4726
2004	4913	4622	4667	4598	5371	5000	4767	5145	4720	5065	4755	4607	4852
2005	5136	4844	4858	5022	5386	5645	5081	5017	4757	4796	4466	4808	4985
2006	5095	4800	4729	4648	5201	5126	5006	5131	4434	4661	4476	4121	4786
2007	4633	4635	4365	4729	5551	5288	4900	4965	4503	4131	4337	4398	4703
2008	4977	4689	4492	4677	5393	5374	5213	5024	4895	4800	5077	5180	4983
2009	5866	5588	5535	5868	6612	6454	6244	5728	5650	5621	5618	5939	5894
2010	6108

And here are the national unemployment rates for latinos for the last two years:

2008	19.0	18.6	17.8	19.5	17.5	23.4	27.3	22.8	24.9	28.3	27.0	22.6	22.4
2009	24.3	25.5	24.9	26.5	31.0	30.8	29.8	34.0	29.5	35.6	34.7	35.5	30.2
2010	37.2

Notice the figures for the fall quarter and January. Hispanic unemployment is nearly double what it was a year ago with no sign of improvement. Not only is Grijalva using fudged numbers that show the economy to be improving when it is not, he is lying to his constituents who are hurting the most from the liberal agenda of his party.

“The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy.”

Milton Friedman quotes (American Economist, b.1912)

Obama Scraps Moon, Tech programs for . . . Jobs?

2010-02-03T06:00:00.000-07:00

President Obama has finally caved to creating non-government jobs in the private sector. Unfortunately for Americans, it is in the worst place possible. While stumping for government spending for healthcare, banks, automakers and subsidies for unions, the Obama administration is cutting the most technically aggressive portion of NASA, the Constellation program designed to replace the shuttle and make use of the International Space Station for future trips to the moon and Mars.
Let's see, scrapping a perfectly good space program and it's tech jobs to pay for trillions in deficit spending for union jobs and banks. Paying the gangster Russians for payload space to complete the space station while they flex their military muscles against former soviet democracies. How's that hope and change working for ya' all?

"The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!"

Larry Niven, quoted by Arthur Clarke

in interview at space.com, 2001

A Fight for the Right in Arizona

2010-02-02T06:36:00.001-07:00

To listen to John McCain's radio spots, one would think he was in the fight of his life with the next JFK, not six months away from a primary with fellow Republican J.D. Hayworth. Listening to Hayworth's robocalls, it would be easy to believe McCain was Benedict Arnold, not a senior senator who two years ago won the Republican nomination for president.
What Arizonans are seeing is a race to the right, Republicans vying for the Conservative "angry" vote they hope will win in November, following the pattern followed by Scott Brown in Massachusetts. There are two problems with this approach: 1) The mood of Americans in general (and Conservatives in particular) is a backlash against candidates who make exaggerated claims about their accomplishments and their opponents' faults. 2) The "angry" message, whether from candidates or the president will not play well with independent voters in November and reaching independent voters is why Scott Brown was so successful. Independent voters are active. They would rather see a candidate that says what they will do and proceeds to do it, then to watch the circus that is developing in Arizona between two very solid candidates trying to follow a ridiculously scripted game plan to manipulate voters. This rhetoric campaign will hurt the chances of other conservatives if it continues in the tone of the opening salvos.

Democratic Party Thugs show True Colors in Kennedy Campaign

2010-01-13T19:14:00.004-07:00

We have been given a taste this week of what the 2010 mid-term election campaign will look like from the Martha Coakley Campaign in Massachusetts. A "volunteer" from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee stopped reporter John McCormack after a press conference by pushing him to the ground, then seemingly helping him up, only to push him to the ground again. Michael Meehan, a "veteran campaign worker," (he heads his own liberal consulting firm admitted being "a little rough" with McCormack. Here's the video, decide for yourself:

It seems a little ironic that Coakley would talk about "outsiders" influencing the Massachusetts campaign, then rush to catch a plane for a fundraiser in Washington, D.C. while a "volunteer" from outside her district knocks around a reporter that asks a question she doesn't want to answer.

Expect the same type of Chicago-style treatment from Democratic campaign workers as the 2010 elections approach. Raul Grijalva's stocking of small forums with bussed in workers will be nothing compared to the all out blitz to suppress criticism of Democratic candidates and raise money from outside of districts to fund liberal candidates that is to come. Grijalva's campaign recently signed on to ActBlue as part of the Democrat online fundraiser's promise to contribute to candidates who supported socialized medicine (I mean the Public Option). So while Grijalva whines to Governor Brewer for pointing out how Obamacare will hurt Arizona (arguments he pulls out of his large .... shirt according to the head of AHCCCS), he is shoveling money into his campaign for reelection from liberals in Boston and San Francisco. It's all par for the course. Chicago politicians and Union bosses are in control now. They are not going to go down without a fight.

Ann Coulter takes Liberals to Sunday School over Hume critique

2010-01-11T18:22:00.001-07:00

When Brit Hume suggested Tiger Woods would be better off choosing Christianity over Buddhism, it was like a shockwave through the liberal beltway. Hume had no right to bring up Christianity on a news program they said. He was showing his bias they said. He was bashing Buddhism, they said.
Coming to his defense today was Ann Coulter:

Hume's words, being 100 percent factually correct, sent liberals into a tizzy of sputtering rage, once again illustrating liberals' copious ignorance of Christianity. (Also illustrating the words of the Bible: "How is it you do not understand me when I speak? It is because you cannot bear to listen to my words." John 8:43.)

Coulter unabashedly defends Hume's logic and the difference between Buddhism, a philosophy, and the simple forgiveness of Chistianity:

Is Buddhism about forgiveness? Because, if so, Buddhists had better start demanding corrections from every book, magazine article and blog posting ever written on the subject, which claims Buddhists don't believe in God, but try to become their own gods.

I can't imagine that anyone thinks Tiger's problem was that he didn't sufficiently think of himself as a god, especially after that final putt in the Arnold Palmer Invitational last year.

Coulter goes on to give a clear explanation of Christianity that Billy Graham would be proud of:
In the no-frills, economy-class version, you don't need a church, a teacher, candles, incense, special food or clothing; you don't need to pass a test or prove yourself in any way. All you'll need is a Bible (in order to grasp the amazing deal you're getting) and probably a water baptism, though even that's disputed.

You can be washing the dishes or walking your dog or just sitting there minding your business hating Susan Sarandon and accept that God sent his only son to die for your sins and rise from the dead ... and you're in!

Coulter and Hume have hit a nerve that drives uberliberals to chasing their tails in frustration, Christianity is real to millions of Americans (myself included), and not some fantasy that "small town folk cling to" with their guns.
In a boiling rage, liberals constantly accuse Christians of being "judgmental." No, we're relieved.

Christianity is also the hardest religion in the world because, if you believe Christ died for your sins and rose from the dead, you have no choice but to give your life entirely over to Him. No more sexual promiscuity, no lying, no cheating, no stealing, no killing inconvenient old people or unborn babies -- no doing what all the other kids do.

And no more caring what the world thinks of you -- because, as Jesus warned in a prophecy constantly fulfilled by liberals: The world will hate you.

Coulter is not the only defender of Hume's statements. Here are others, refreshing to read:
Carl Cannon
Jennifer Riley
Bill Riley
Cal Thomas
Ross Douthat
Also refreshing to hear was Brit's reaction to the criticism on the O'Reilly Factor:

Don't look for anyone else. they're not there. We have reached the point where being Christian, Conservative, or truthful are no longer acceptable for journalists. Thank you Brit and Ann, for being all three.

Still Think Washington Politicians have It all Together?

2010-01-11T06:33:00.001-07:00

John Hawkins of Right Wing News writes about the recent revelations about the John Edwards campaign in Game Change: "Now, here's the point: You think that most of the other people crafting bills in Congress that dramatically impact your life aren't every bit as screwed up as John Edwards? Don't get me wrong, I don't think all of them are narcissists or are having affairs, but I guarantee you that the percentage of them in that boat in DC is probably several times higher than it is in the population at large.

The image the press feeds you -- and that many of these people have of themselves -- is that they're better, smarter, and more capable than everyone else. That's utter horsecrap. If anything, politicians are considerably more screwed up than the average person because they spend all their time being catered to like movie stars by their aides and they seldom talk to normal people who don't live and die based on polls and the front page of the New York Times. That's one of the many reasons it's so important to keep the power to control your life in YOUR hands, instead of in the hands of politicians in DC."

Are We at War or Not?

2010-01-11T06:19:00.002-07:00

Liberal Bloggers show their True Colors in Comments about Limbaugh

2010-01-01T08:28:00.002-07:00

In May, upon news of Ted Kennedy's diagnosis of a brain tumor, these were the headlines:

Examples of conservatives and Republicans who have invoked Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's name in depicting liberals (from Fox News. No other news agency had critical comments I could find:
_In a January 2007 appearance on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor," conservative radio host Laura Ingraham said, "If the Islamists have their way, what Ted Kennedy and the liberals don't seem to understand, they would be the first people put up against the wall and shot."

_ In October 2006 during her campaign for Senate, Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Fla., said: "And even when Democrats and independents hear our message and find out that Bill Nelson has voted to the left of Hillary Clinton, according to the National Journal's ratings, then they realize that, while there are a lot of Democrats and independents, they're not Ted Kennedy Democrats." She was speaking on Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes" show.

_ In his final televised debate with Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., before the 2006 election, former Sen. George Allen, R-Va., referred to Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and others as Webb's friends during an argument about the minimum wage and tax cuts.

_ While campaigning for a Republican candidate in Florida in October 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "I don't need to tell you what kind of legislation would come to us by way of committee chairmen like Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, John Conyers, Henry Waxman, Barney Frank or Jay Rockefeller."

These were the worst of the comments I could find. Then there was these responses:

USA Today described reactions from Conservatives:

It's just that his reputation as a consummate legislator and amiable Senate colleague has taken off much of the edge and helped to offset the darker depiction by some conservatives. Under the shadow of his illness, almost nobody is taking pot shots at him these days.

Alabama Republican House candidate Jay Love was running a campaign commercial that showed pictures of Pelosi, Clinton and Kennedy and vowed to work against "their" liberal agenda if elected. But after news of Kennedy's illness, the commercial was remade with Kennedy's image replaced by that of Democratic front-runner Obama.

Bush, who disparaged Kennedy during the 2000 presidential campaign, recently saluted him as "a man of tremendous courage, remarkable strength and powerful spirit."

"Take care of my friend," Bush told Kennedy's wife, Vicki.

Bush has hosted Kennedy socially at the White House and worked with him to pass two of his major domestic initiatives, the No Child Left Behind education law and a Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, about as conservative a Republican as they come, shed tears over the news that Kennedy had a brain tumor, calling Kennedy "a brother."

In Contrast, these were the comments yesterday to news that Rush Limbaugh, Conservative talkshow host who has given voice to the views of millions of Conservative Americans for 20 years:

'Left Ecstatic,' notes ZIP at the Weasel Zippers blog, aggregating some of the more explicit wishes for Rush Limbaugh's death while adding his own prayer for a recovery. He decides the "worst one of the night (so far)" is from calickizzle: "not only do I hope Rush dies, but I hope every #tcot drinks a bottle of cancer as well!" Responds calicizzle, not necessarily to Weasel Zippers, "every #tcot who danced a jig when Ted K. died & prayed that Sen. Byrd would die should STFU about libs & Rush."

Democraticunderground.com

It’s mean to wish Rush Limbaugh dead
~ I would, I have no compassion for the base, the callous, the judgmental. As Scrooge said, best to reduce the surplus population.
~ I am liberal, but I have compassion. For those who do not make millions out of spreading misery, intolerance and hate. I have no more compassion for Limbaugh than anyone should’ve had for Josef Goebbels.
~ piss on him. he’s a terrorist w/ a microphone instead of a gun.
~ Hitler and Stalin had families too. Didn’t make them less horrible.Dick Cheney has grandkids that I’m sure he loves very much–but he’s still an evil, pulsating boil on the ass of the country.
~ It’s Rush who has the boil on the ass, not cheney. cheney is just a robot for the saudis–a tin man with no heart.
~ Okay. I wish he’d never been born. Better?
~ I wish he would stop lying and making money fucking this country up, If it takes his death to make that happen, f### it
~ I am an inglorious bastard. Die, motherf###er, die. (This persons avatar is a peace sign…what a joke!)
~ These monsters will live forever.It’s only our people who die young.
~ how about if i wish him to get a cancer that would slowly rot his brain for the next 30 years?

philadelphiaspeaks.com

~ This is tragic. If he dies, millions of conservative won’t have anyone to tell them what to think.
~ Sometimes it takes divine intervention to free the world of another scumbag. He kept running his mouth even when is own party was sticking it to him. No love lost here. Goodbye dirtbag. There is less pollution in the world now. Do NOT R.I.P. burn baby burn.

queerty.com

~ Maybe there is a God.
~ In response to the comments above…I hope he dies. But, if it is any consolation I wish it to be a painless death surrounded by loved ones.
~ I’ve suddenly become religious, and I’m praying for this bigot’s quick demise! Good riddance scumbag!
~ It is like a late Christmas present! You know the one dropped in the chimney that you find a day or too later. Hurray!
~ “…I wish it to be a painless death surrounded by loved ones.” By loved ones, you mean oxycontin dealers, right?
~ I can’t wait to put on my tap shoes and dance on his grave…. Happy New Year!
~ Ok Im gonna sleep with a smile in my face.
~ please don’t let him die… please don’t let him die…please don’t let him die, Let him live for another 30 years in a diaper and on a feeding tube.
~ People are “praying for his recovery?” Are you f###ing kidding me? Limbaugh is one of the most destructive, un-American, homophobic forces in media. He’s a racist and misogynist to boot. He’s made millions dumbing down his audience. I hope his doctor has a hangover and his nurse is blind. May he die a slow and painful death.

No media bias? Liberals only doing what Conservatives did to Ted Kennedy? Rush Limbaugh is a polite, albeit loud, voice for Conservative politics in this country. In contrast Liberal bloggers and their smears against Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin (orchestrated by Campaign leaders with the blessing of Obama) are what brought Obama to the White House. These people have a right to speak their political mind, but voters have a right to know exactly what type of people the administration draws its support from and feeds off. Remember in November.

If Real People were in Charge of Airline Security

2009-12-27T07:58:00.003-07:00

Merry Christmas from Al Qaida was the message brought by 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to the city of Detroit on Friday. I'm sorry, it's time to start profiling these nuts.

A few facts about this guy:
1. His father warned the US embassy in Nigeria that Umar was a threat.
2. He was placed on a watch list but not the "do not fly list" by US officials.
3. According to Fox News he was not “watchlisted” as of 25 December 2009.
4. He was seated in the section of the aircraft most vulnerable to explosion:
A former government official who is very familiar with airline security but not involved in this investigation, told Fox News that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's airplane seat selection does not appear to have been randomly selected. The suspected terrorist was sitting in seat 19A, which, according to the official, is located right above the fuel tanks, atop the wing and next to the skin of the aircraft.
If there is an explosion, the official said there is a high likelihood that the explosion could be accelerated by the fuel tank, damaging the plane's structure and puncturing the skin, which would bring down the plane.
The official said that when homeland security analyzes attempted plots, one of the first things they look at it is where the suspect was sitting on the aircraft. This seat selection is considered one of the two most vulnerable parts of the aircraft, according to the official.

It's time for profiling these idiots. So here's what you do, National Security guys. You give your big long watch list to the airlines and let them decide what to do with them. Flight attendants are trained to lie and disarm. Here's the way it might have gone Saturday:

Boarding Supervisor: Take a look at that name, sound Arab to you?
Flight Attendant: Ya think? Let's check the list. There he is, he's on it. But not a "no flyer."
Boarding Super: let's see where this joker is seated. Hmm. 19A, that's right over the wing. Says here he's a diabetic. gives him a pass on carrying liquid meds. What do you think?
Flight Attendant: Let's call him up. I definitely want to change his seat.
Supervisor: (announcing) Mr. Adu Taliban, Mr. "Imfromthetaliban" of Nigeria, please come to the podium.

Abdumutallab, (approaching the podium nervously): yes, is there something wrong?

Flight attendant and Boarding supervisor look at each other and nod
Boarding Supervisor: Mr. Abdumatallab, we would like to board you first. Please follow our flight attendant, and this security guard onto the plane. Because of your medical condition we would like to board you first.

Boarding Supervisor: (after they have left, announcing): We have a few seat changes on our flight this afternoon--if I can have volunteers who are willing to serve as "passenger watchers" come to the podium at this time I can offer free tickets to wherever Northwest flies....

On the aircraft--
Flight Attendant: Mr. Abdumatallab, for your own safety and the safety of our passengers, we are seating you in the back of the aircraft next to the bathroom, it's the safest place on the plane. I'll hang on to your bag with your medication, you can just ring if you need it. I'll keep my eye on you the whole flight so you won't have anything to worry about. Oh, and you'll be right across from the Israeli rugby team, so I'll have some nice strong men to take you--help me if you have a seizure. Enjoy your flight.

There you go, no rights violated. the threat is reduced, and the would be terrorist (if he doesn't pee his pants) is less likely to follow through with any attempt. If only the world was a sane place.

Elect Robert Park for Raul's seat in Congress

2009-12-26T07:06:00.000-07:00

While Southern Arizona's Raul Grijalva enjoys Christmas at home after speaking out in favor of oppressive government, Robert Park today is in North Korean custody for acting out against it.

Park, a Korean American, walked across the border into North Korea today shouting, "I am an American citizen. I brought God's love. God loves you and God bless you." There is no word yet of what has happened to him.

Park's actions, planned for several months and videotaped by friends, appear timed to bring attention to North Korea's horrendous human rights record on a slow news day (but hey, they have a Public Option). He is obviously as politically astute as he is brave. which is why I propose that Southern Arizonans nominate Park as a write in Candidate against Grijalva in the general election this Fall.

Park represents everything that Arizonans stand for: freedom of speech, religion, public expression, and the balls to thumb his nose at tyranny. What more could you ask for in an Arizonan? Grijalva represents none of these ideals. He is a coward who hides behind policies and organizational structures that undermine the work ethic that strengthens. freedom.

So, as an Arizona voter, I can think of no better candidate to restore dignity to our representation in Washington than Robert Park (If he is still alive in November).

It's a Wonderful Country Part III: Every Time. . .

2009-12-25T00:01:00.001-07:00

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Ronald Reagan

As Rush and Clarence land back to Missouri (Angel Airlines, Second Class), snow begins falling outside the window.
Rush: Hey Clarence, its still Christmas, right? I love this time of year! How about some Manheim Steamroller?
Clarence: Uh, Rush, I'm sorry but there is no Manheim Steamroller.
Rush: No Manheim Steamroller? What?
Clarence: No Rush, Chip Davis became discouraged when Fresh Aire was only played on Public Radio and the FCC made it impossible to start new record labels. The big record labels stopped producing Christmas albums when Christmas became politically incorrect in the late 80s. Chip Davis never produced a Christmas album because you weren't there to stop them. Chip Davis never became popular because you weren't there to play his music on your show. So you see, Rush, your life is important.
Rush: Where is he Clarence. Where is Chip now?
Clarence: You won't like it Rush. He's probably just closing up at the ad agency now.
[as Rush jumps up and heads for the door of the airplane]
He never accomplished his dreams Rush! He writes jingles! And works part time as a lounge singer!
__________________
In a Cocktail Lounge somewhere in Ohio...
Chip Davis (a little off key) fly me to the moon, and let me...
Rush: Chip Davis, Chip is that you? Remember, its me, Rush Limbaugh! I lassoed the moon for you old pal!
Chip: Ahhh! [he runs from his piano out the backstage door.]
Bouncer:Hey you, what you doin scaring my singer! [he punches Rush]
Clarence: We better get out of here Rush, you don't want to get arrested again.
Later...
Clarence: Strange, isn't it? Each man's life touches so many other lives. When he isn't around he leaves an awful hole, doesn't he?

[Rush returns to the bridge where his nightmare began, hoping to bring back his old life]
Rush Limbaugh: [praying] Clarence! Clarence! Help me, Clarence! Get me back! Get me back, I don't care what happens to me! Get me back to my life! Help me Clarence, please! Please! I wanna live again. I wanna live again. Please, God, let me live again.
[it begins to snow again]
Bo Snerdley: [shouts] Hey, Rush! Rush! You all right? Hey, what's the matter?
Rush: Now get outta here, Bo, or I'll hit you again! Get outta here!
Bo: What the Sam Hill you yellin' for, Rush? Larry King punk you for a no-show again?
Rush: You...
[suddenly stunned]
... Bo? Do you know me?
Bo: Know you? Huh. You kiddin'? I've been looking all over town trying to find you. I saw your car plowed into that tree down there and I thought maybe you - hey, your mouth's bleeding. Are you sure you're all right?
Rush: What the...
[licks the corner of his lip and checks his mouth with his hand]
Ha, ha, ha, ha! My mouth's bleeding, Bo! My mouth's bleeding! Zuzu's petals... Zuzu...
George Bailey: [checking his pocket] There they are! Bert, what do you know about that! Merry Christmas!

Rush: As he runs past the Washington Capital building Merry Christmas, Mr. Senator! Merry Christmas Madam Chairman!
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi: And Happy New Year, In Jail! With the new Fairness Doctrine and Tax laws, you'll be out of a job. They're At Network Right Now!

Later, at the annual Rush Limbaugh Christmas Party:

Bo: Just a minute! Quiet everybody! Quiet, quiet. Now get this, it's from Toronto.
Ma Limbaugh: Oh!
Bo: [Reading the telegram in his hand] Bo cabled you need tax shelters, stop. My offshore accountant instructed to shelter you up to twenty-five million dollars, stop. Hee Haw and Merry Christmas! Mark Steyn.

Chip Davis: A toast to my big friend Rush: The richest man in America!

(Jingle)
Zuzu Limbaugh: Look, Uncle Rush. Teacher says, every time a cell phone rings, an angel helps a struggling businessman turn a profit.
Rush: That's right, that's right. Attaboy, Clarence.
He notices a book under the tree. It is a copy of How to win Friends and Influence People. Inside is a note:
Clarence: [In book inscription] Remember, George: no man is a failure who has a million dollars, is doing what he loves, and has friends.

It's a Wonderful Country Part II: It Never Happened

2009-12-24T08:14:00.002-07:00

¹ Then the angel showed me Jeshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord. The Accuser, Satan,^[f] was there at the angel’s right hand, making accusations against Jeshua. ² And the Lord said to Satan, “I, the Lord, reject your accusations, Satan. Yes, the Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebukes you. This man is like a burning stick that has been snatched from the fire.” Zechariah 3:1

Clarence, and Rush Limbaugh sitting in Angel Airlines, Second Class, bound for Missouri:

Rush: Why doesn't anyone recognize me? and why am I sitting in coach, where's my airplane?

Clarence: You've been given a great gift, Rush: A chance to see what the world would be like without you.

Rush: You mean before I got into radio?

Clarence: No I mean before you were born.

Announcement over intercom: Attention Ladies and Gentlemen, Transgenders, Transvestites, Crossdressers and Genderneutrals, we are beginning our decent into Cape Girardeau airport at this time. In preparation for landing please place your trays in their upright and locked position or risk public ridicule and scorn. Also please fasten your full-body safety harness and helmet chin strap according to the directions on the card in the seat pocket in from of you as required by the waiver you signed at the beginning of the flight.

Rush: What was that? harness and chinstraps? This is ridiculous!

Clarence: It's the FAA rules. You weren't there to fight liberals so they passed extra regulations to make airlines "safer."

Outside Rush's Cape Girardeau boyhood home...

Rush: What's with the rainbow flag? Hey Mister, ain't this the United States? You can't fly that goofy looking flag. This is Missouri. You'll get beaten up.

House owner: You mean The Progressive States of America. Don't you think I know where I live? What's the matter with you?

[He proceeds toward his house. Rush is completely bewildered]

Rush: Oh, I don't know. Either I'm off my nut, or he is...

[to Clarence] ... or you are!

Clarence: It isn't me! You see Rush, you weren't there to rally true Americans so the liberals forced their will on everyone in the name of Political correctness and universal understanding.

Rush: I need a drink.

_______________________

Clarence: hey bartender, do you got any lite beer?

Nick: Hey look, mister - we serve hard drinks in here for men who want to get drunk fast, and we don't need any characters around to give the joint "atmosphere". Is that clear, or do I have to slip you my left for a convincer?

Rush: he's okay, he's with me Nick. How are those Chiefs doing this year?

Nick: Look buddy, why do you keep calling me Nick as if you know me? And my team hasn't been called the Chiefs since 1990 when they became the Prairie Chickens. And they haven't won since.

Rush: Chickens? Why didn't they just name them the Weanie Liberal Sissy Girls?

Nick: [slamming a bottle on the bar] That's it. Out you two pixies go - through the door, or out the window.

[Rush has discovered George Bush's library, a small shack outside Dallas]

Clarence: [explaining] George W. Bush, never made it out of the primaries. You never revitalized Conservatism, so he never was elected. There was no War on Terror.

Rush: That's a lie! George Bush went to war - he defeated Saddam Huissen, he defended America from Terrorist Sleeper Cells.

Clarence: Everyone in the World Trade Center died and thousands more in hundreds of other attacks! George wasn't there to save them, because you weren't there to save George.

Clarence: You see Rush, you've really had a wonderful life. Don't you see what a mistake it would be to just throw it away and run off to New Zealand?

to be continued...

It's a Wonderful Country: A City on a Hill

2009-12-23T08:33:00.001-07:00

"...for we must Consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us; so that if wee shall deale falsely with our god in this work we have undertaken and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world, we shall open the mouthe of enemies to speak evill of the ways of God and all professors for God's sake..."

Sermon by John Winthrop 1630

Sometime in the near future in a meeting between the US president and Premier of the Peoples Republic of China...

Just a minute - just a minute. Now, hold on, Mr. Premier. You're right when you say our forefathers were no businessmen. I know that. Why they ever started this cheap, penny-ante country, I'll never know. But neither you nor anyone else can say anything against their character, because their whole life was - why, two hundred twenty-five years ago when they and Uncle Sam started this thing, they never once thought of themselves. They didn't save enough money to keep a professional army, let alone a socialized medical system. But they did help a few people get out of your oppression, and what's wrong with that? Why - here, you're all businessmen here. Doesn't it make them better citizens? Doesn't it make them better customers? You - you said - what'd you say a minute ago? They had to wait and save their money before they even ought to think of a decent government. Wait? Wait for what? Until their children grow up and leave them? Until they're so old and broken down that they... Do you know how long it takes a working man to save five thousand dollars? Just remember this, Mr. Premier, that this rabble you're talking about... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this world. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my forefathers didn't think so. People were human beings to them. But to you, a warped, frustrated old man, they're cattle. Well, in my book George Washington died a much richer man than you'll ever be.

A short time later....
President [yelling at Ben Bernanke] Where's that money, you silly stupid old fool? Where's that money? Do you realize what this means? It means bankruptcy and scandal and prison. That's what it means. One of us is going to jail - well, it's not gonna be me.

Chinese Premier [to our president] Look at you. You used to be so cocky. You were going to go out and conquer the world. You once called me "a warped, frustrated, old man!" What are you but a warped, frustrated young man? A miserable little clerk crawling in here on your hands and knees and begging for help. No securities, no stocks, no bonds. Nothin' but a miserable little $500 billion equity in a Universal Health Care system.
[chuckles]
You're worth more dead than alive!

A short time later at a Jobs Rally:

Man at Bar: Why do you drink so much? Please go home, Mr. President.
Mr. Clinton: [sitting right beside Obama] President? Which President?
Bartender: This is Mr. Barak Obama.
[Mr. Clinton angrily pulls the president up to his face by the lapels with one hand and hits him in the face with a right hook, sending him to the floor]
Mr. Clinton: Next time you talk to my wife like that, you'll get worse! She cried for an hour! It's not enough she runs all over the world for you kowtowing to every two-bit socialist leader she can find, you had to bawl her out!!

Meanwhile, in a Florida Studio, a famous talk show host preparing to leave the country, is visited by an angel:

Rush: I can hear out of both my ears. Look, who are you?

Clarence: I told you, Rush. I'm your guardian angel.

Rush: Yeah, yeah, I know. You told me that. What else are you? What...are you a hypnotist?

Clarence: No, of course not.

Rush: Well, then, why am I seeing all these strange things?

Clarence: Don't you understand, George, I mean Rush? It's because you were not born.

Rush: Then if I wasn't born, who am I?

Clarence: You're nobody. You have no identity.

Rush: What do you mean, no identity? My name's Rush Hudson Limbaugh.

Clarence: There is no Rush Limbaugh. You have no papers, no Radio show, no driver's license, no 4-F card, no insurance policy...They're not there, either.

George: What?

Clarence: You've been given a great gift, Rush. A chance to see what the world would be like without America, without the U.S. Constitution, without you.

To be continued....

How Can Two Congressmen Both Be Right on Healthcare Bill?

2009-12-22T17:54:00.001-07:00

Two Congressmen spoke out strongly this week about the House healthcare bill headed to reconciliation after Christmas.
The first, Our own Raul Grijalva:

Progressives have pushed strongly for a robust public option throughout this process for one reason: because all objective analyses have found it to be effective. Economic and health care experts have shown it to be the single best means to create competition in the insurance industry and to save the government hundreds of billions of dollars in the long run. The Congressional Budget Office has scored a public option as a massive benefit to taxpayers and insurance consumers, and it remains the centerpiece of my hope for substantive health care reform.

Grijalva is convinced that his socialized option will fix all of the problems with health care in this country. Or is he? The CBO makes no such claims of "massive benefit" to taxpayers. In fact, the CBO and Grijalva can only account for savings when tax surcharges and a decrease in Medicare benefits begin two years before the plan is implemented. And economists and doctors are largely undecided on the benefits of the House plan. Grijalva seems unfazed by these realities, but others are not.

One of Grijalva's colleagues, Rep. Parker Griffin of Alabama, has switched parties as a result of the Healthcare debate in the House. According to Griffin, the Democratic Party, having moved far to the left, "is at a crossroads."
According to Griffin, there is no longer a place in the Democratic Party for a "pro-life, pro business, pro Second Amendment person like himself." A radiation oncologist who founded a cancer treatment center, Griffith cited the Democratic health care bill as a major reason for his switch.

“I want to make it perfectly clear that this bill is bad for our doctors, our patients and will have unintended consequences far beyond what we know today,” he said. “As a doctor and as a Republican, I plan to once again oppose this measure and hope that we can defeat this bill that is a major threat to our nation.”

So who should you believe? Griffin, a doctor who is willing to change parties over a healthcare bill he feels will destroy this country, or Grijalva, who has worked tirelessly to siphon federal dollars for healthcare clinics for illegal immigrants?

Liberal Grijalva and Pro-Life Nelson Take their stand on Health Care

2009-12-19T07:35:00.004-07:00

Our leftista Congressman has promised not to vote for healthcare reform as it now stands in the Senate. I hope he follows through on that promise:

"Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) lays it on the line. If Senate health care legislation doesn't move significantly to the left when House and Senate negotiators meet to resolve the differences between their bills, he's a "no."

"The Senate has somehow managed to turn the House's silk purse into a sow's ear," Grijalva says in a statement. "If what the Senate is doing isn't corrected in conference with the House, I will not support the bill. Since the Senate won't use reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes, it doesn't look promising for any real change."

No, Congressman, real change will come in 2010 when overspending radicals like yourself are voted out.

On the other end of the building this morning, Ben Nelson is being offered the world on a platter for his vote on health-care. Nelson, a pro-life Democrat, is withholding his vote on Obamacare because it would allow federal funds to be used for abortion. Like a modern-day Faust, Harry Reid is offering Nelson anything he wants in order to encourage the former Nebraska governor to sell out on his principles.

A former insurance executive considered the most conservative Democrat in the Senate, the 69-year-old Nelson -- one of 60 Democratic votes needed to enact the legislation over unanimous Republican opposition -- has spoken privately at least three times in the past 10 days with President Barack Obama. But whatever pressure he's facing in Washington is sure to pale with the heat he'd face at home for making an abortion-related misstep during the health care debate.

"He'd be toast," said Mary Jo Bousek, who joined protests. "I have friends who are Republicans who voted for him because they're very pro-life."

After marathon talks, the Obama administration and Democratic leaders appeared near agreement with Nelson late Friday night to provide the crucial 60th vote. He told reporters "real progress" had been made, but offered no details and said nothing final had emerged from the talks.

Nelson is facing a tough choice, to stand alone on principles or to cave in for funding for his district. And how would our own Grijalva respond to such pressure?

The truth is that Harry Reid, having already snubbed Nelson by refusing to allow a vote for his amendment banning funding for abortion, is now trying to force Nelson to give in on his core beliefs about human life in order to Kowtow to radical socialist beliefs like those of Grijalva, people with nothing at stake here except there burgeoning egos and ever-growing government pensions.
Is this what the Democratic Party has become? A gang of bullies who force constituents to tow the line or risk political destruction?
Don't be snowed by the blizzard sweeping Washington today.

Update: Guess Nelson sold out his soul to the devil:

Democratic leaders also offered Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska a deal similar to the $300 million in Medicaid aid Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana got for her support, numerous sources told Fox News.
When asked about this, Sen. Kent Conrad, a key Democratic leader involved in the negotiations with Nelson, said, "Oh, it'll be much more."

Who is the Real Messiah?

2009-12-11T06:46:00.001-07:00

Thinks Americans are Blocking Him from Being "Messiah"

Ahmadinejad reportedly claims he has documented evidence that the U.S. is blocking the return of Mahdi, the Imam believed by Muslims to be the savior.

“We have documented proof that they believe that a descendant of the prophet of Islam will raise in these parts and he will dry the roots of all injustice in the world,” Ahmadinejad said during a speech on Monday, according to Al Arabiya.

"They have devised all these plans to prevent the coming of the Hidden Imam because they know that the Iranian nation is the one that will prepare the grounds for his coming and will be the supporters of his rule," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

Thinks Republicans are Blocking Him from Becoming Messiah

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has sharp criticism for Republicans, taking them to task for opposing economic stimulus efforts and health care reform while supporting tax cuts and spending that have ballooned the deficit.
Obama said Tuesday in a Washington speech proposing new job-creation measures: "It's a sight to see."
He said Republicans are "waxing political about fiscal responsibility while opposing our efforts to reduce deficits by getting health care costs under control." And he said that the stimulus package earlier this year was passed "largely without the help of an opposition party which, unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that led to the crisis, decided to hand it over to others to solve."

"Many even see in Obama a messiah-like figure, a great soul, and some affectionately call him Mahatma Obama."
-- Dinesh Sharma

"We just like to say his name. We are considering taking it as a mantra."
-- Chicago Sun-Times

"A Lightworker -- An Attuned Being with Powerful Luminosity and High-Vibration Integrity who will actually help usher in a New Way of Being"
-- Mark Morford

“I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,” he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.”
-- Jesse Jackson, Jr.

"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
-- Barack Obama

"Does it not feel as if some special hand is guiding Obama on his journey, I mean, as he has said, the utter improbability of it all?"
-- Daily Kos

"He communicates God-like energy..."
-- Steve Davis (Charleston, SC)

"Not just an ordinary human being but indeed an Advanced Soul"
-- Commentator Chicago Sun Times

"I'll do whatever he says to do. I'll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear." -- Halle Berry
I specifically find this disheartening, dB

"A quantum leap in American consciousness"
-- Deepak Chopra

"He is not operating on the same plane as ordinary politicians. . . . the agent of transformation in an age of revolution, as a figure uniquely qualified to open the door to the 21st century."
-- Gary Hart

"Barack Obama is our collective representation of our purest hopes, our highest visions and our deepest knowings . . . He's our product out of the all-knowing quantum field of intelligence."
-- Eve Konstantine

"This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament." "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event."
-- Chris Matthews

"[Obama is ] creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom . . . [He is] the man for this time."
-- Toni Morrison

"Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. . . . He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh . . . Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves."
-- Ezra Klein

"Obama has the capacity to summon heroic forces from the spiritual depths of ordinary citizens and to unleash therefrom a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts whose common purpose is to tame the soul and alleviate the great challenges facing mankind."
-- Gerald Campbell

"We're here to evolve to a higher plane . . . he is an evolved leader . . . [he] has an ear for eloquence and a Tongue dipped in the Unvarnished Truth."
-- Oprah Winfrey

“I would characterize the Senate race as being a race where Obama was, let’s say, blessed and highly favored. That’s not routine. There’s something else going on. I think that Obama, his election to the Senate, was divinely ordered. . . . I know that that was God’s plan."
-- Bill Rush