Today is the national holiday known as Memorial Day. We should properly take a moment to reflect on the sacrifices made by our military in its efforts to protect America and our way of life. In my neighborhood at least 10 houses, including mine, have displayed the American flag. However, unthinking conservative opponents of President Obama have elected to attack him on the weakest of grounds - he did not go to Arlington.
I have no love for Obama. I also have no respect or kind feelings for him but this "Arlington" attack does nothing more than belittle those voicing this thought and by mere association it also belittles all anti-Obama conservatives.
Obama will today pay his respects to those Americans who risked and often lost their lives while defending our nation. He had chosen to do so in Illinois but after taking the stage a rain storm chased all participants to shelter. A perfect, photogenic setting for this patriotic act of respect would have been Arlington but any cemetery for our dead veterans is absolutely appropriate.
Yet again the conservative no-thinkers have elected to voice a complaint over the conduct of our President. They have done, unfortunately, little in the way of analysis of what impact their Arlington complaint will have on the nation. Those citizens who truly dislike and maybe even fear Obama will continue to work against him regardless of Arlington. However, citizens who are only marginally committed to Obama having only one term may well view the Arlington story as just another example of conservative propaganda and disregard Arlington as they have disregard the Sestak story. Many more of these dumb press attacks could move these marginal supporters to reject any conservative running against Obama.
Wake up, conservative media! There is no need for such reporting. Obama has doomed himself to one term by his easily demonstrated errors in governing this nation. Your overly slanted stories like Arlington and like Sestak can only hurt the credibility of the legitimate anti-Obama press and gain votes for Obama.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
THE REALITY OF SESTAK
I am rapidly becoming embarrassed by the conservative media's over eager handling of the most current "scandal" to hit the Obama Administration. Of course, reference is being made to the Congressman Joe Sestak situation.
This is what I have gleamed:
1. Congressman Joe Sestak was a Democrat Party challenger to the primary reelection efforts of Senator Arlene Specter.
2. Obama was not happy with this opposition and directed his chief aide, Rahm Emanuel, to have Congressman Joe Sestak approached with an offer for a position, non-paying, in the Obama Administration in exchange for withdrawing from the Senatorial race.
3. Rahm Emanuel contacts Bill Clinton to handle the actual approach and offer. Our former President agrees and does so in June or July of 2009.
4. Congressman Sestak rejects the proposal and later defeats Arlene Specter in the primary.
5. The conservative news media now learns of the happening, from Congressman Sestak himself, and goes to town.
This is what I have gleamed:
1. Congressman Joe Sestak was a Democrat Party challenger to the primary reelection efforts of Senator Arlene Specter.
2. Obama was not happy with this opposition and directed his chief aide, Rahm Emanuel, to have Congressman Joe Sestak approached with an offer for a position, non-paying, in the Obama Administration in exchange for withdrawing from the Senatorial race.
3. Rahm Emanuel contacts Bill Clinton to handle the actual approach and offer. Our former President agrees and does so in June or July of 2009.
4. Congressman Sestak rejects the proposal and later defeats Arlene Specter in the primary.
5. The conservative news media now learns of the happening, from Congressman Sestak himself, and goes to town.
What a waste of time! The actions of the White House and Clinton are absolutely in character with their past conduct and clearly demonstrate that neither is very ethical. None of this is a news flash and nothing will come of this media crusade other than showing the voting public in Pennsylvania that former Admiral now Congressman and maybe future Senator Sestak is an upright man who could not be "bought off" by Clinton and Obama
Sestak is engaged in a tight race for Senate with the recent polls showing almost a tie between Sestak and the Republican candidate, Pat Toomey. As an anti-Obama activist, I want as many Democrats as possible to be rejected by the voters in November of 2010 and November of 2012. The more that the media pushes this particular issue, the better that Sestak appears. This favorable impression could well lead to his election victory.
Obama and Clinton have little if any reserve of political ethics. However, I am sure that this Sestak incident is not the first time that the occupant of the White House has exerted his influence on a candidate in a pending primary race with a promise of a "pot of gold" of some sort if the targeted candidate withdraws.
Unless the media can put some dirt on Sestak or force an indictment of Emanuel and/or Clinton or force a real impeachment effort against Obama, this is just a good news story that has no legs.
It could, however, cost conservatives a Senate seat.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Victory
Just over a week ago, there was a Republican primary in Kentucky. The featured contest was to name a candidate to seek in November the US Senate seat from which Jim Bunning (R-Ky) was retiring. Two serious candidates faced each other on that May 18th. They were Trey Grayson and Rand Paul. Grayson had been a Democrat; shifted to the Republican Party; holds the position of Secretary of State in Kentucky; and was openly supported by other notable Republicans. His opponent was Rand Paul and Rand Paul won by a landslide.
What makes this election result interesting, or perhaps it would be better to say disturbing, is the immediate response by the liberal/progressive/socialist leaning media.
The Week magazine in its report on the Paul victory, which was by a landslide margin of 24 percentage points, referred to Paul as a "libertarian and a self-avowed Tea Party candidate". In that same article, The New Republic was quoted as calling the winner, "Rand Paul, a flamboyant radical and favorite of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party." On a larger stage, George Stephanopoulos interviewed Rand Paul on television and exhibited a superior and condescending manner toward the primary winner. The purpose of these and other liberal attacks was obvious. The only way that liberal/progressive/socialist candidates are going to win in the fall against opponents like Rand Paul is to split apart the Republicans and the Tea Partiers. With any luck the GOP and the Tea Partiers will not be sucked into such a discord.
What makes this election result interesting, or perhaps it would be better to say disturbing, is the immediate response by the liberal/progressive/socialist leaning media.
The Week magazine in its report on the Paul victory, which was by a landslide margin of 24 percentage points, referred to Paul as a "libertarian and a self-avowed Tea Party candidate". In that same article, The New Republic was quoted as calling the winner, "Rand Paul, a flamboyant radical and favorite of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party." On a larger stage, George Stephanopoulos interviewed Rand Paul on television and exhibited a superior and condescending manner toward the primary winner. The purpose of these and other liberal attacks was obvious. The only way that liberal/progressive/socialist candidates are going to win in the fall against opponents like Rand Paul is to split apart the Republicans and the Tea Partiers. With any luck the GOP and the Tea Partiers will not be sucked into such a discord.
Monday, May 17, 2010
US Economics
Americans are well aware of the financial hole is which our nation has found itself. In the simplest of terms, Washington is in debt for well over a trillion dollars; continues monthly to incur more debt; and the national economy, the source of all federal government income via taxation, remains weak. These depressing facts are not being ignored and are continuously addressed by anti-Obama activists. Most recently some foreigners have also addressed this issue.
The Bank of England is headed by a Governor named Mervyn King who has an established reputation of being financially conservative and reluctant to speak publicly on financial matters. However, most recently he expressed that America was well on its way to financially mimicking Greece. Hardly a compliment. In the most basic of terms he explained that America has just too much debt on its books, both public and private. He expressed that drastic and substantial steps are needed to cure the problems. The obvious conclusions are cut-backs in governmental services and increases in federal taxation.
The IMF has also recently reported on the American economy. According to that organization the US public debt is currently 87.3% of the US Gross Domestic Product [GDP] and this debt will reach 100% of GDP by 2015. The only way to resolve the situation, according to the IMF, is to reduce public spending while increasing taxes. Another argument to support Obama's desire for a Value-Added-Tax [VAT] to be quickly passed.
In reviewing yet another article on the state of the American economy, five primary areas of concern were expressed. Those areas were: 1) Unemployment; 2) Huge Federal debt; 3) Unfunded Social Security obligations; 4) Unfunded State pensions; and 5) Many States and local governments being bankrupt.
With all these dark areas being well known to conservative politicians, it has become most important that those who wish to replace liberal Democrats in Washington are prepared to "tighten the belt" and move aggressively to address and cure the financial mess created by prior White House occupants.
The Bank of England is headed by a Governor named Mervyn King who has an established reputation of being financially conservative and reluctant to speak publicly on financial matters. However, most recently he expressed that America was well on its way to financially mimicking Greece. Hardly a compliment. In the most basic of terms he explained that America has just too much debt on its books, both public and private. He expressed that drastic and substantial steps are needed to cure the problems. The obvious conclusions are cut-backs in governmental services and increases in federal taxation.
The IMF has also recently reported on the American economy. According to that organization the US public debt is currently 87.3% of the US Gross Domestic Product [GDP] and this debt will reach 100% of GDP by 2015. The only way to resolve the situation, according to the IMF, is to reduce public spending while increasing taxes. Another argument to support Obama's desire for a Value-Added-Tax [VAT] to be quickly passed.
In reviewing yet another article on the state of the American economy, five primary areas of concern were expressed. Those areas were: 1) Unemployment; 2) Huge Federal debt; 3) Unfunded Social Security obligations; 4) Unfunded State pensions; and 5) Many States and local governments being bankrupt.
With all these dark areas being well known to conservative politicians, it has become most important that those who wish to replace liberal Democrats in Washington are prepared to "tighten the belt" and move aggressively to address and cure the financial mess created by prior White House occupants.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Two Overseas Concerns
Concern Number 1 - European Economics
Seldom does a day pass without a report of more domestic disturbances in Greece over that country's economic problems. Although both the European Commission [EC] and the International Monetary Fund [IMF] have pledged literally hundreds of billions of dollars to address this situation, economic pundits have expressed that the influx of these loans will only stall-off this crisis and that Greece, possibly joined by Portugal, Spain and Italy, could fall into a severe economic depression in less than two years.
The IMF has already extended $147 Billion to the Greek government but has required that Greece begin an austerity program which includes cutting salaries and lowering pensions. Another $560 Billion has been pledged by the EC to address economic problems being experienced by its member nations. These loans force the question, "How can these financially stressed nations, who cannot fund their own existing debts, fund newly added IMF and EC debts?" The answer is that they can't absent an economic boom. Unfortunately no one is projecting an economic boom for any of these southern European nations.
Concern Number 2 - Iraq
The frequency and number of US military casualties in Iraq has become almost non-existent and a non-issue [realizing fully that the death or wounding of any member of any branch of the American military is a sad occurrence] but the expressed intent of Commander-in-Chief Obama to have all of our forces out of Iraq by the end of 2011 may also soon become a casualty. Preliminary statements are now being aired by various White House staff members that it just may not be "practical" or "in America's best interests" to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.
Terms like "responsible withdrawal" and "effective strategic partnership" are being used to pave the way for extending the tour of duty of the US military in Iraq. More realistic are expressions that Iraq is not yet stable; that Iraq cannot yet pull-off an election; that Iraq's new military is competent but not absolutely loyal; that Iran and Syria can't wait for the end of 2011 so to "take over" Iraq; that oil supplies are still at risk; and of course, the catch-all, that the Iraqi people deserve better.
The American role in Iraq as well as Pakistan/Afghanistan has to be defined. Are we there to defeat an enemy and then go home? or Are we there to defeat an enemy and occupy the loser just long enough to allow new native leaders to assume authority? or Are we there as occupiers and will stay for as long as we believe American goals and well being are advanced?
As is typical with Obama, no firm purpose or intent has been defined.
Seldom does a day pass without a report of more domestic disturbances in Greece over that country's economic problems. Although both the European Commission [EC] and the International Monetary Fund [IMF] have pledged literally hundreds of billions of dollars to address this situation, economic pundits have expressed that the influx of these loans will only stall-off this crisis and that Greece, possibly joined by Portugal, Spain and Italy, could fall into a severe economic depression in less than two years.
The IMF has already extended $147 Billion to the Greek government but has required that Greece begin an austerity program which includes cutting salaries and lowering pensions. Another $560 Billion has been pledged by the EC to address economic problems being experienced by its member nations. These loans force the question, "How can these financially stressed nations, who cannot fund their own existing debts, fund newly added IMF and EC debts?" The answer is that they can't absent an economic boom. Unfortunately no one is projecting an economic boom for any of these southern European nations.
Concern Number 2 - Iraq
The frequency and number of US military casualties in Iraq has become almost non-existent and a non-issue [realizing fully that the death or wounding of any member of any branch of the American military is a sad occurrence] but the expressed intent of Commander-in-Chief Obama to have all of our forces out of Iraq by the end of 2011 may also soon become a casualty. Preliminary statements are now being aired by various White House staff members that it just may not be "practical" or "in America's best interests" to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.
Terms like "responsible withdrawal" and "effective strategic partnership" are being used to pave the way for extending the tour of duty of the US military in Iraq. More realistic are expressions that Iraq is not yet stable; that Iraq cannot yet pull-off an election; that Iraq's new military is competent but not absolutely loyal; that Iran and Syria can't wait for the end of 2011 so to "take over" Iraq; that oil supplies are still at risk; and of course, the catch-all, that the Iraqi people deserve better.
The American role in Iraq as well as Pakistan/Afghanistan has to be defined. Are we there to defeat an enemy and then go home? or Are we there to defeat an enemy and occupy the loser just long enough to allow new native leaders to assume authority? or Are we there as occupiers and will stay for as long as we believe American goals and well being are advanced?
As is typical with Obama, no firm purpose or intent has been defined.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
A National Move Toward Obama Socialism?
President Obama's loyalists have in past and continue to classify Obama as a Democrat, and/or a Liberal and/or a Progressive. There is no question that Obama has strong leanings toward Socialism and a disregard for the capitalism form of economy which made America great. If you believe the results of a public opinion polls, more Americans than ever are also moving along with Obama towards Socialism.
The Pew Research Center has most recently released the results of a survey responded to by 1004 Americans and reported that: 1) 29% of the participants considered themselves Socialists; 2) 43% of the participants, aged 18-29, had positive opinions on Socialism; and 3) 44% of the participants who considered themselves Democrats had positive opinions on Socialism. On the other side of the coin, 1) 85% of participants who identified themselves as Republicans had negative views on Socialism and 2) 77% of the participants aged 50-64 did not think well of Socialism. When questioned about Capitalism, 62% of Republicans had positive feelings as did 47% of Democrats and 50% of Independents. Overall, 52% of all those questioned were pro-Capitalism.
My initial reaction was one of disbelief. Was it possible that only one-half of Americans are pro-Capitalism and over a quarter of our countrymen consider themselves Socialists? My rational in discounting this attack, not on Capitalism but rather the American public, came quickly. The small number of those questioned as well as a lack of information on the background of those who were questioned renders the survey results at best as being weak and maybe even manipulated in order to get publicity. No finger is pointed at the Pew Research Center but rather at the news media that gathered, composed and released the story.
Over and over again, a headline in a "news" story is prepared in a manner to draw in the reader and little in the story confirms the headline. This is a flaw in the news media - printed, visual and oral - where getting the good ratings far exceeds the concept of truth in journalism.
Like the title I choose for this article. It, I hope, brings in more readers than a more correct title such as Another Error Prone Survey.
The Pew Research Center has most recently released the results of a survey responded to by 1004 Americans and reported that: 1) 29% of the participants considered themselves Socialists; 2) 43% of the participants, aged 18-29, had positive opinions on Socialism; and 3) 44% of the participants who considered themselves Democrats had positive opinions on Socialism. On the other side of the coin, 1) 85% of participants who identified themselves as Republicans had negative views on Socialism and 2) 77% of the participants aged 50-64 did not think well of Socialism. When questioned about Capitalism, 62% of Republicans had positive feelings as did 47% of Democrats and 50% of Independents. Overall, 52% of all those questioned were pro-Capitalism.
My initial reaction was one of disbelief. Was it possible that only one-half of Americans are pro-Capitalism and over a quarter of our countrymen consider themselves Socialists? My rational in discounting this attack, not on Capitalism but rather the American public, came quickly. The small number of those questioned as well as a lack of information on the background of those who were questioned renders the survey results at best as being weak and maybe even manipulated in order to get publicity. No finger is pointed at the Pew Research Center but rather at the news media that gathered, composed and released the story.
Over and over again, a headline in a "news" story is prepared in a manner to draw in the reader and little in the story confirms the headline. This is a flaw in the news media - printed, visual and oral - where getting the good ratings far exceeds the concept of truth in journalism.
Like the title I choose for this article. It, I hope, brings in more readers than a more correct title such as Another Error Prone Survey.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Say NO To Career Public Servants
In my county there is a pending Democratic primary race for County Attorney. There are no Republicans or other candidates seeking this particular office so the victor will most likely become the next person mandated to prosecute those charged with criminal offenses and to give advise to various county officials. What has caught my attention about this political contest is the resume of one of the candidates.
This candidate is a career-long employee of the office now sought. This candidate became employed by the County Attorney just after the completion of law school and for almost 15 years has remained with the same department doing well and being promoted. Although the candidate claims that "Proven Experience, Leadership and Performance" justify election, these same facts require that "employee" status be maintained and not pave the way to the role of boss .
Clearly missing from the resume is any history of having a real economic life. There is no reference to any privately earned living and no reference to having to cover the expenses of a business including overhead and employees' earnings. The candidate is a "career public servant" and such a title should almost automatically be a disqualification as a serious candidate to be in charge of the public office in which already employed. It must be understood that our nation, at all levels, is in absolute need of individuals who are willing to serve the needs of the public. However, the ultimate leadership role in any elected government capacity cannot be a reward given to a long-time public employee of that department.
It would be inappropriate for there to be an automatic restriction to be placed upon a public employee seeking elected office. However, my vote in every election for a government leadership role will always go to a candidate who has experienced the realities of the business world and is therefore prepared to bring that same reality into the world of government service. A career of being only a government employee always funded and paid by tax dollars just does not qualify a candidate for an elected leadership role.
To my thinking, the County Attorney staff member should either accept and proudly maintain the current role in the judicial system; serve the public; and be paid by tax dollars. The alternative is acknowledging a determined desire to lead that department; join the ranks of the local private bar; experience the realities of operating a law practice; and then seek election to that County Attorney leadership role.
Whether the office sought is US President or US Senator or County Attorney, the candidates must always bring with them a history of experience in the private, real world.
Not far from this "real experience" requirement are thoughts on term limitations. But that is a topic for another day.
This candidate is a career-long employee of the office now sought. This candidate became employed by the County Attorney just after the completion of law school and for almost 15 years has remained with the same department doing well and being promoted. Although the candidate claims that "Proven Experience, Leadership and Performance" justify election, these same facts require that "employee" status be maintained and not pave the way to the role of boss .
Clearly missing from the resume is any history of having a real economic life. There is no reference to any privately earned living and no reference to having to cover the expenses of a business including overhead and employees' earnings. The candidate is a "career public servant" and such a title should almost automatically be a disqualification as a serious candidate to be in charge of the public office in which already employed. It must be understood that our nation, at all levels, is in absolute need of individuals who are willing to serve the needs of the public. However, the ultimate leadership role in any elected government capacity cannot be a reward given to a long-time public employee of that department.
It would be inappropriate for there to be an automatic restriction to be placed upon a public employee seeking elected office. However, my vote in every election for a government leadership role will always go to a candidate who has experienced the realities of the business world and is therefore prepared to bring that same reality into the world of government service. A career of being only a government employee always funded and paid by tax dollars just does not qualify a candidate for an elected leadership role.
To my thinking, the County Attorney staff member should either accept and proudly maintain the current role in the judicial system; serve the public; and be paid by tax dollars. The alternative is acknowledging a determined desire to lead that department; join the ranks of the local private bar; experience the realities of operating a law practice; and then seek election to that County Attorney leadership role.
Whether the office sought is US President or US Senator or County Attorney, the candidates must always bring with them a history of experience in the private, real world.
Not far from this "real experience" requirement are thoughts on term limitations. But that is a topic for another day.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Quick Notes
Washington announced today that 290,000 Americans found jobs during this past month and then released the news that unemployment in our nation had risen from 9.7% to 9.9% during that same time period. Doing some quick math, instead of 15,159,948 Americans being out of work there are now officially 15,463,146 +/- of our fellow citizens looking for but not being able to find a job.
Obama called a press conference and proudly called attention to the "fact" that his administration had promised positive results in reemploying Americans and here was proof that he was doing the job. What a con-man, which is just another term for politician and more so for a liberal/progressive/socialist! Americans are not that dumb, can do the math and can well see that although 290,000 jobs were created and filled another 303,198 citizens joined the ranks of the officially unemployed.
Going one step further, if 290,000 jobs were created and filled with the unemployed but the ranks of the unemployed rose by 303,198, then in reality 593,198 Americans became newly unemployed. Good job, President Obama!
Continuing on the idea that Washington thinks that Americans are idiots, is it really possible that the stock market plunged 1000 points because a technician "accidentally" hit the wrong button?
If the real answer is yes, then Wall Street is pathetic in its internal control. More likely there was a sudden sell off because of the economic turmoil in Greece and other Euro countries such as Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland and Britain followed by a quick rebound.
Unfortunately, the powers of Wall Street and the national news media are often much like Obama and believe that the American public is naive.
Obama called a press conference and proudly called attention to the "fact" that his administration had promised positive results in reemploying Americans and here was proof that he was doing the job. What a con-man, which is just another term for politician and more so for a liberal/progressive/socialist! Americans are not that dumb, can do the math and can well see that although 290,000 jobs were created and filled another 303,198 citizens joined the ranks of the officially unemployed.
Going one step further, if 290,000 jobs were created and filled with the unemployed but the ranks of the unemployed rose by 303,198, then in reality 593,198 Americans became newly unemployed. Good job, President Obama!
Continuing on the idea that Washington thinks that Americans are idiots, is it really possible that the stock market plunged 1000 points because a technician "accidentally" hit the wrong button?
If the real answer is yes, then Wall Street is pathetic in its internal control. More likely there was a sudden sell off because of the economic turmoil in Greece and other Euro countries such as Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland and Britain followed by a quick rebound.
Unfortunately, the powers of Wall Street and the national news media are often much like Obama and believe that the American public is naive.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
More Arizona
As is quite common in the reality of politics, aspects of different trouble areas are interrelated. This is very true for the current status of American troubles. This statement is not intended to be a prologue to forging a bond between all of the nation's problems and the Obama Administration, although it probably could be done, but rather to show how a single trouble area adversely impacts other aspects of American life.
The most recent patriotic act by Arizona on the issue of controlling illegal immigrants is a prime example.
The current unemployment rate in our nation has been set by Washington at 9.7% which means that officially some 15,160,000 Americans are without a job. In reality that unemployment figure is 26,265,000 [almost 17%] but there are so many limiting conditions imposed by the Obama Administration for the determination of who qualifies as "unemployed" that the accepted "official" figure is the lower one. The official unemployment rate in Arizona is also at 9.7%. This rate is the highest it has been in that State in over a decade. Some 302,000 citizens of Arizona are officially out of work while it is estimated that 460,000 undocumented aliens reside in that State. A good number of these undocumented aliens hold jobs, jobs which could be held by the unemployed American citizens of Arizona.
Our federal government has a debt in the trillions of dollars and Arizona shows a public debt of $37 Billion. It is not hard to visualize that a substantial amount of Arizona's public debt has been incurred by government entities for public education and for police/fire protection and for indigent medical care and for general welfare benefits. It is not possible to calculate how much of this $37 Billion debt, much less the daily on-going state and local governmental expenses, is directly applicable to undocumented aliens. However, with almost 7% of the population of Arizona consisting of undocumented aliens, this money figure must be depressing.
Arizona, by moving forward with a plan by which, without violating the civil rights of even undocumented aliens, can reduce its illegal alien population; reduce its unemployment rate; reduce its governmental spending; and freeze if not reduce its public debt. These are goals, on a national level, that the Obama Administration should have already embraced and upon which it should have acted.
It is easy to see that the issue of undocumented aliens in Arizona and in our nation adversely impacts at least employment and government spending and government financial debt. Arizona, in the the absence of action by the federal government to protect our borders, has taken a bold and patriotic act to correct a situation that Obama has chosen to, at best, ignore.
The most recent patriotic act by Arizona on the issue of controlling illegal immigrants is a prime example.
The current unemployment rate in our nation has been set by Washington at 9.7% which means that officially some 15,160,000 Americans are without a job. In reality that unemployment figure is 26,265,000 [almost 17%] but there are so many limiting conditions imposed by the Obama Administration for the determination of who qualifies as "unemployed" that the accepted "official" figure is the lower one. The official unemployment rate in Arizona is also at 9.7%. This rate is the highest it has been in that State in over a decade. Some 302,000 citizens of Arizona are officially out of work while it is estimated that 460,000 undocumented aliens reside in that State. A good number of these undocumented aliens hold jobs, jobs which could be held by the unemployed American citizens of Arizona.
Our federal government has a debt in the trillions of dollars and Arizona shows a public debt of $37 Billion. It is not hard to visualize that a substantial amount of Arizona's public debt has been incurred by government entities for public education and for police/fire protection and for indigent medical care and for general welfare benefits. It is not possible to calculate how much of this $37 Billion debt, much less the daily on-going state and local governmental expenses, is directly applicable to undocumented aliens. However, with almost 7% of the population of Arizona consisting of undocumented aliens, this money figure must be depressing.
Arizona, by moving forward with a plan by which, without violating the civil rights of even undocumented aliens, can reduce its illegal alien population; reduce its unemployment rate; reduce its governmental spending; and freeze if not reduce its public debt. These are goals, on a national level, that the Obama Administration should have already embraced and upon which it should have acted.
It is easy to see that the issue of undocumented aliens in Arizona and in our nation adversely impacts at least employment and government spending and government financial debt. Arizona, in the the absence of action by the federal government to protect our borders, has taken a bold and patriotic act to correct a situation that Obama has chosen to, at best, ignore.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Arizona
Obviously a most pressing national topic is the recent effort by Arizona to control the massive influx of illegal aliens that are negatively impacting almost every aspect of life in that Southwestern part of America.
But first a comment on the banking industry. The FDIC has announced that 7 more banks were closed by this federal agency during the past week bring to 64 the number of financial institutions that have failed this year. The Feds have expressed several reasons why these particular banks required this drastic action but it appears that negative repercussions from the failure of the housing industry were the primary cause. There will be more bank seizures by the FDIC during the rest of 2010 with a estimated 200 of these troubled institutions ceasing to exist. The bottom line is that the FDIC will soon, again, exhaust its budget and have to look for more "bail-out" funds. No matter what the source of the new "bail-out" funds, the bill will be ultimately presented to the American taxpayer.
Now to Arizona.
The more the Progressive/Socialists attack this newly implemented state statute, the more it is clear that the law is an absolute necessity. Every possible step was taken by the legislative and executive branches of Arizona to insure that "racial profiling" was an impossibility when the police utilize the new law. Could all "racial profiling" be excluded? Of course not but a comparison of the potential value against the possible harm forces a belief that the law should be enforced. Provable violations of "racial profiling" need to be and will be strongly sanctioned but those wrongful episodes will be few and far between.
Arizona teems with the presence of illegal foreigners who drain the resources of all levels of government; who adversely impact the availability of jobs which could be secured by unemployed Americans; who funnel millions of dollars monthly to their home nations rather than stimulating the local economy; and who are now seen as an election weapon to be used by the Progressive/Socialists. Obama is making not so quiet overtures that he will attack this Arizona law and that he will support federal legislation to immediate allow all illegal aliens to seek citizenship in the United States of America.
The Obama goal is clear - 2012 is coming quickly and by adding several million new pro-Obama voters to the election roles it may help him to secure a second term. As is common with Obama, what is in his best interests out weights what is in the best interests of America.
But first a comment on the banking industry. The FDIC has announced that 7 more banks were closed by this federal agency during the past week bring to 64 the number of financial institutions that have failed this year. The Feds have expressed several reasons why these particular banks required this drastic action but it appears that negative repercussions from the failure of the housing industry were the primary cause. There will be more bank seizures by the FDIC during the rest of 2010 with a estimated 200 of these troubled institutions ceasing to exist. The bottom line is that the FDIC will soon, again, exhaust its budget and have to look for more "bail-out" funds. No matter what the source of the new "bail-out" funds, the bill will be ultimately presented to the American taxpayer.
Now to Arizona.
The more the Progressive/Socialists attack this newly implemented state statute, the more it is clear that the law is an absolute necessity. Every possible step was taken by the legislative and executive branches of Arizona to insure that "racial profiling" was an impossibility when the police utilize the new law. Could all "racial profiling" be excluded? Of course not but a comparison of the potential value against the possible harm forces a belief that the law should be enforced. Provable violations of "racial profiling" need to be and will be strongly sanctioned but those wrongful episodes will be few and far between.
Arizona teems with the presence of illegal foreigners who drain the resources of all levels of government; who adversely impact the availability of jobs which could be secured by unemployed Americans; who funnel millions of dollars monthly to their home nations rather than stimulating the local economy; and who are now seen as an election weapon to be used by the Progressive/Socialists. Obama is making not so quiet overtures that he will attack this Arizona law and that he will support federal legislation to immediate allow all illegal aliens to seek citizenship in the United States of America.
The Obama goal is clear - 2012 is coming quickly and by adding several million new pro-Obama voters to the election roles it may help him to secure a second term. As is common with Obama, what is in his best interests out weights what is in the best interests of America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)