First and foremost, let’s get to the heart of the matter: this issue is and should be solely about *illegal* immigration. Opponents of the new law skew the truth by saying it’s “racist” and it unfairly singles out Hispanic people. Most opponents say this without actually knowing what’s in the law. AZ police can’t stop anyone on the street without due cause and demand papers, as opponents suggest. They can only check individuals who are already under investigation and only if there’s “reasonable suspicion”.

Let’s be honest here. Would the Hispanic community be up in arms if New York passed a similar law to control a flood of illegal immigrants from Canada? I bet the answer would be no. Why? Well, for one thing, there is no flood of illegals coming from Canada, therefore, there’s no need for such a law. There is, however, such a flood coming from Mexico (and other parts of Central and South America) so there’s certainly a need down there. This true problem isn’t immigration but rather it’s lawlessness. We have systems and processes in place to help foreigners become legal citizens. Illegal immigrants are subverting our laws. That is the issue at hand. Obviously, opponents don’t want the law because that might mean friends and relatives living here illegally might be caught and sent home. What’s their only defense? Attack the law by calling it “racist”. Sorry, but I’m not racist for demanding greater border security because of this lawlessness.

I remember how many Americans wanted the blood of Big Bank CEO’s because they broke the law and it hurt our country. The CEO’s also all happened to be white. Interestingly, no one was called a “racist” for their bloodlust, nor is the current financial reform bill being labeled “racist” legislation. They broke the law. That was the problem and they’re being punished for it. Why was this OK and the AZ law not OK? Again, race isn’t really the issue here. Lawlessness is.

I enjoy reading Frank RIch’s articles very much but this time I believe his ideology is blinding him to the truth. Mr. Rich claims the root of the Republican opposition to the current health care law is simply anger towards a “national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964.” He’s referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This is disingenuous of Mr. Rich to say because it simultaneously demonizes Republicans (or any opponent for that matter) as being stubborn bigots and also gives the health care law, a sweeping and destructive law that makes health insurance a right instead of a privilege, a big, fat free pass.

The comparison of the health care law and the Civil Rights Act is a false one. The most critical thing to understand is that the Civil Rights Act was about equal rights and Obamacare is about unlawfully transforming health insurance from a privilege into a right via aggressive Fed intervention. Mr. Rich glosses over this important point and bases his entire argument on a falsehood.

Health care in this country needs serious reform. I think we’re all agreed on that. Some people, myself included, believe it should be done lawfully, incrementally and efficiently. Despite any sensible alternatives made, Mr. Rich believes people opposed to Obamacare secretly don’t want social reform that creates fairness and equality but that’s what this is about. He, and other like-minded supporters, believe the Fed can and should be the one responsible for rescuing us for this current mess by overhauling health care as quickly as possible by any means necessary. This is an ill-conceived plan and it will ultimately fail, taking our country with it. Why? Because making a law that runs up trillions in debt, forces unfair “progressive” change upon America and expands the Fed’s powers isn’t the way forward.

I recently read the new mantra of the opposition is now “Repeal, Replace, Reform”. All I have to say is: Sign me up.

I firmly believe swift, harsh and unambiguous action needs to be taken in regards to removing and punishing the priests accused of sexual abuse. Church leaders who have committed and/or have covered up such crimes, such heinous sins against humanity and God, are hypocritical monsters. Shame on them and the Pope for giving these wretches a free pass on their crimes. These sex scandals further solidify the illegitimacy of the Papacy and the Catholic church’s lack of credibility.

The Pope’s leadership is entirely questionable and his morals are lacking. I personally believe there should be no Pope at all. You should know the Pope’s Latin title is Vicarious Filii Dei, which means ‘the Vicar of the Son of God’. This title and position are blasphemous because:
1. Christ has no need of a vicar.
2. That office/position was never established on Earth by the Kingdom of Heaven.

What was demonstrated?
Acting and grandstanding. Posturing and strutting.

Who was the one with the biggest ego?
The President.

Obama to McCain: “We’re not campaigning anymore. The election’s over.”

Gee. Way to reach across the aisle. Bipartisanship indeed.

Leadership comes from above and if the President himself is behaving like this, how can he expect anyone else in Congress to behave any better?

Members of Congress who were briefed Saturday by governmental officials also pointed to a Yemeni connection.”

I can’t help but wonder why health care “reform” has been more important than getting Americans back to work, ensuring Americans get all their money used for bank bailouts returned to them and, most importantly, keeping Americans safe from terrorists, especially on our home soil.

The only reason authorities and the administration can talk about this is a cool, confident way is because the Nigerian’s bomb didn’t explode. Hundreds of lives were spared because of pure dumb luck and the intervention of a quick-thinking civilian. If it had exploded, the public would have been in an uproar. As it stands, the public should be in an uproar anyway. How did this Nigerian get so close to committing his heinous crime? Where was the TSA? Wasn’t there a U.S. Marshall on the plane? Isn’t Homeland Security responsible for watching and catching terrorists?

Obviously, the current security measures and authorities that exist are ineffective. Did we all forget what happened in early December when the TSA’s screening process secrets were posted on the web? These ridiculous screw ups will only mean longer lines at security check points, airlines suffering because people will start taking other modes of transportation resulting in higher air fares, a heightened sense of alert for the country because we’re still not safer than we were on 9/11 even though we’ve been told we are and, of course, far less confidence in our nation’s ability to stop such acts before they happen.

We have a more dangerous enemy of the state than terrorists. This enemy has a name: incompetence.

In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies.”

So, this is “change”, eh?

I remember on his first day in office he gave the OK on closing Gitmo and many people praised him for it. They hailed him as a true leader, one who would turn this country around, one who wasn’t like Dubya.

And now we have this. Unbelievable. Why isn’t the NYT plastering this all over the front page? Why aren’t liberals everywhere screaming about impeachment?

So much for integrity. So much for hope. So much for change.

“They can be purposely combative and even portray critics as enemies. Carrying this mindset into the White House can get you into trouble, a lesson the Obama administration is now learning the hard way.”

He should intimately know all about this having committed the same crime while working in the Bush administration. Or has he forgotten that he helped demonize Americans who didn’t support every piece of legislation Bush signed off on as “unpatriotic.” Of course, he would deny such an accusation but denial is one of the things Rove does best, right along with subterfuge. After all, he’s called “The Architect” for a reason.

“The White House is priming the defibrillator paddles to revive ObamaCare, and its new strategy is to talk about “health-insurance reform,” rather than “health-care reform.” The point is to make its proposals seem less radical than they are, while portraying private insurers as villains for supposedly denying coverage to the sick.

Sounds like a good time to explain a few facts about the modern insurance market.”

In my opinion, no one should be surprised by any of this. I really mean NO ONE should be surprised by ANY of this. Republicans and Democrats are engaging each other in these sinister ways using the American people as their tools and their weapons. Partisan politics have been here for a long time and they’ll certainly remain despite the false promises of abolishing it by our current president. Democrats have conveniently forgotten the number of times GOP party members were disrupted when trying to speak at public events, sometimes even being manhandled by protesters. If Democrats are so appalled by what’s happening now, then maybe their own party’s goons shouldn’t have done the same thing. Fair is fair and both parties are equally guilty of this meeting disruption crime. See below.

The Town Hall Mob
“There’s a famous Norman Rockwell painting titled “Freedom of Speech,” depicting an idealized American town meeting. The painting, part of a series illustrating F.D.R.’s “Four Freedoms,” shows an ordinary citizen expressing an unpopular opinion. His neighbors obviously don’t like what he’s saying, but they’re letting him speak his mind.

That’s a far cry from what has been happening at recent town halls, where angry protesters — some of them, with no apparent sense of irony, shouting “This is America!” — have been drowning out, and in some cases threatening, members of Congress trying to talk about health reform.”

Lawmakers Rethink Town Halls

“But after a series of contentious town-hall meetings, some Democratic lawmakers are thinking twice about holding large public gatherings. Instead, they are opting for smaller sessions, holding meetings by phone or inviting constituents for one-on-one office hours.

Democrats have accused Republicans of manufacturing the opposition by organizing groups to attend the events and encouraging disruptive behavior. Republican organizers say the unrest reflects genuine anger about the proposed health-care changes.”

‘You Are Terrifying Us’
“In his first five months in office, Mr. Obama had racked up big wins—the stimulus, children’s health insurance, House approval of cap-and-trade. But he stayed too long at the hot table. All the Democrats in Washington did. They overinterpreted the meaning of the 2008 election, and didn’t fully take into account how the great recession changed the national mood and atmosphere.

The passions of the protesters, on the other hand, are not a surprise. They hired a man to represent them in Washington. They give him a big office, a huge staff and the power to tell people what to do. They give him a car and a driver, sometimes a security detail, and a special pin showing he’s a congressman. And all they ask in return is that he see to their interests and not terrify them too much. Really, that’s all people ask. Expectations are very low. What the protesters are saying is, “You are terrifying us.”

Karl Rove speech interrupted by ‘War Criminal’ banner
“Former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, during a speech at George Washington University last night, was interrupted by a group holding up a sign reading “War Criminal.”

Amid booing and clapping in the crowd, members can be heard yelling “Tase ‘em!” as the protesters are escorted out.”

Attempted Citizen’s Arrest Of Karl Rove (YouTube video)

Donald Rumsfeld Loudly Harangued At White House Correspondents’ Dinner (VIDEO)

Think Progress, MSNBC ‘Manufacture’ a Story With Putative Smoking Gun ‘Mob’ Memo
“When the “manufactured” outrage the Left is trying to demonize lines up so inconveniently with public polling, it’s sometimes necessary to create evidence for the “manufactured” storyline.”

Although I agree with almost every single point the author made, I don’t think it’s fair to single out Obama with being the only confidence-breaker in U.S. history with his tax pledge. Has the author forgotten about George H.W. Bush’s infamous “read my lips” pledge?

Recent history shows Reagan and Bush Sr. both promised sweeping tax cuts when becoming president but then, within a year or two, they quickly realized doing this wasn’t wise or sustainable. The federal and state governments were quickly losing their cushions of money, surplus was becoming deficit. They changed their tunes, going back on bold promises to the American people and eventually raised taxes.

Like it or not: we NEED to pay taxes. Without this revenue, countless services and programs would stop. Our country would shut down. People here grumble about Uncle Sam taking their hard earned money, that they should be allowed to keep more if not all of it, but these critics continue to avoid seeing the truth. Don’t get me wrong: I don’t believe more/higher taxes are the answer. I believe fiscal responsibility is key (e.g. low taxes and limited government budgets). It’s fiscal recklessness that’s brought us to this point and the journey took just under eight years.

Bush Jr. was no ordinary Republican president. He promised similar tax cuts before taking office but nothing truly bold like his father. When he took office this country had a huge surplus thanks to the Clinton administration (yes, Clinton did achieve this on his watch) but then Bush Jr. left us with a staggering deficit. How? Why?

Well, the reasons are simple enough: sweeping tax cuts, signing off on EVERY spending bill from 2000 – 2006 (when Republicans controlled Congress), fighting two wars in the Middle East, and approving Medicare Part D, one of the largest entitlement programs in our history. The last item is surprising, no? It looks like a socialist program (and it is), like something a Democratic president would support, not a Republican one. The motivation behind Bush’s approval for this bill is simple enough too: securing the elderly vote for his 2004 reelection. The elderly make up a large percentage of the population and are a critical voter base a presidential hopeful. Bush didn’t pass this bill because it was right, nor did he do it because it was in the country’s best interests. He did it purely for political reasons. Shocking!

*Yawn*

The lesson learned from all this is simply that every presidential candidate will promise the world to voters so he/she can secure as many votes as possible. This shouldn’t be news to anyone. The author pointing the finger of blame only at Obama is dishonest, especially when so many other Republican president have done it too. But is Obama really no different than the rest?

I suppose the only difference is now we have a president who is aggressively taxing the people in new and different ways more so than previous presidents. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“stimulus” bill), Cap-and-Trade, Wall St. bailout, GM bailout, Obamacare and now a VAT on the horizon all add up to the most frightening assault on the incomes and savings of American citizens in our nation’s history. The tax pledge isn’t new but the methods of going back on that promise are very, very different.