Thursday, August 31, 2006
You can add The Financial Times (UK) to the list of those who are calling on LO to pick up his tent and go home:
"Persisting with his current course would be a disaster for Mr Lopez Obrador, his party and, above all, for his country."
I agree but can LO walk away? How does he walk away? Does he say that everything "esta padre" and do something else?
My guess is that LO, and his followers, are so invested in the "stolen election" theory that they can't back down.
So get ready for LO and his LO-istas to hang around for a while.
It's almost Labor Day and it looks like Detroit and New York will finish with the best two records in the AL.
The Yankees are running away from Boston. Detroit may still face a September showdown with Chicago and Minnesota. Don't bet your house on Detroit just yet! I really like the Twins and would not be surprised to see them overwhelm everybody in the AL Central.
Nevertheless, it would be nice to see a Detroit-NY ALCS. On one side, you have the hungry Tigers. On the other side, the confident Yankees.
My money on New York because of Rivera and Jeter.
Last year, I posted Libby won't be convicted. I wrote that the whole investigation was a partisan witch hunt and Libby would walk out as a free man.
Frankly, I could not have imagined this! According to the NYTimes:
"Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, has acknowledged that he was the person whose conversation with a columnist in 2003 prompted a long, politically laden criminal investigation in what became known as the C.I.A. leak case, a lawyer involved in the case said on Tuesday.
Mr. Armitage did not return calls for comment. But the lawyer and other associates of Mr. Armitage have said he has confirmed that he was the initial and primary source for the columnist, Robert D. Novak, whose column of July 14, 2003, identified Valerie Wilson as a Central Intelligence Agency officer.
The identification of Mr. Armitage as the original leaker to Mr. Novak ends what has been a tantalizing mystery. In recent months, however, Mr. Armitage’s role had become clear to many, and it was recently reported by Newsweek magazine and The Washington Post."
Will Joe Wilson go on MSNBC and apologize to VP Cheney? Don't bet your life!
In recent days, this whole "Mr. & Mrs. Wilson show" has turned into something bizarre and out of the Twilight Zone. As Tom Bevan wrote today on RCP:
"Plamegate is turning out to be, as some have long suspected, exactly the opposite of what we've been led to believe.
It was not a revenge-inspired hit job by the Bush administration, but an example of D.C.'s insider culture at its worst:
a public, partisan, and dubious attack launched in the op-ed pages of the country's biggest newspaper, followed by innocent gossip between a reporter and a high-level official (and the subsequent shameful silence of that official, influenced by interdepartment fears and rivalries), followed by a firestorm of media speculation and innuendo, followed by an investigation, followed by an indictment for obstruction of justice over a crime that was never committed, followed by revelations that the whole thing wasn't what it was portrayed to be by critics of the administration and the media."
I love this line from Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor, of The Australian:
"With this knowledge is demolished yet another left-liberal fantasy about George W. Bush"
Bush derangement syndrome has attacked too many liberals and their friends in the media!
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
"Even as he runs out of legal ways to challenge the July 2 presidential election results, the contest's sore loser, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, is planning to proclaim himself president and establish a parallel "people's government" on the national Day of Independence, Sept. 16."
LO needs to chill out and pursue a different career. It's over! Mexico needs to move on and deal with more serious problems.
As I wrote before, I am very optimistic about Cuba's future. I'm not suggesting that things will occur quickly. However, Cuba's future will be bright because I believe in the people.
Oscar Arias Sánchez was president of Costa Rica and winner of the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize. Today, he wrote Cuba's dictatorship is ripe for transition:
"Cuba is not some different kind of democracy, nor has it followed a path chosen by the Cuban people. Cuba is, plain and simple, a dictatorship, and this gives great pain to those of us who love liberty. "
Cuba did not choose 47 years of Fidelismo. It was imposed on the Cuban people by repression and a vast network of political prisons. Fidelismo also had the support of international lefties, who were willing to go along with Castro's repression because they shared his hatred of the US.
Pres. Bush should make it clear to the Cuban people that the US is ready for diplomatic and economic relations with the island. However, Cuba must hold free elections and respect human rights. I believe that the Cuban people will accept that deal.
The Crimes of Saddam Hussein By Dave Johns outlines his crimes:
"From the earliest days of his presidency, attending to his image as the indomitable “Father–Leader” of Iraq was among Saddam’s first obsessions.
Thousands of giant portraits staring down from city walls reminded Iraqis of his power.
On television, he was ubiquitous to the point of absurdity: in trenches with military men; meeting with Shi’iah imams; operating heavy machinery; berating his party underlings.
“The political reality behind all the photographs and appearances is the politics of fear,” wrote Kanan Makiya, under the pseudonym Samir al–Khalil, in Republic of Fear.
Saddam’s intimidation forced Iraqis to accept lies as truth.
In the early 1980s, he published a family tree that traced his ancestry to Mohammed’s daughter Fatima and son–in–law Ali, the founding father of the Shi’iah faith.
“This gesture … signified total contempt for the populace, large numbers of whom he knew would accept this proof of ancestry, largely because there was no longer a soul in the length and breadth of the country who could be heard if they were prepared to deny it,” wrote Makiya."
In short, Saddam will finally pay for all of his crimes. It should have happened years ago! Are we better off without Saddam Hussein? Yes we are. Israel is better off. Last but not least, Iraqis are better off!
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Last weekend, we saw a very ugly side of this immigration movement. Here is more of the same on Political Mavens.
Who is giving these people political advice?
How do these folks expect to influence US opinion with these placards?
I understand that most "indocumentados" are not marching with these signs. Yet, these are the pictures going around the Internet.
I have two questions:
1) Have the leaders gone crazy?, and/or
2) Has the international left taken over the movement?
These placards are insane!
The Marlins are an amazing story. Check this from MLB:
"These guys have worked their rear ends off and played their rear ends off, and I'm glad they're getting a chance to go through this," manager Joe Girardi said. "Going through this is huge in their development."
Girardi has to be Manager of the Year in the NL.
The Marlins are 2 back in the wild card race. Didn't this team trade a bunch of stars last year?
The Marlins have done this before. The blew up the '97 World Series champ and won it again in '03.
I don't agree with blowing up teams for financial reasons. Baseball needs a better financial structure. However, the Marlins do it and come back to win. The answer must be tremendous scouting and player development.
It does not hurt to have Dontrelle Willis as your pitching ace and Joe Girardi as manager!
Over the years, Mexicans were happy to blame US consumers for drug cartels. Indeed, drug users are the ultimate problem. However, Mexico is not free of consequences, as we have seen in the spread of violence and corruption related to drug cartels.
Pres-elect Calderon needs to borrow a page from Pres. Uribe's playbook! Uribe is the courageous Colombian leader who is fighting "narco traficantes" head on. Otherwise, our southern neighbor may be heading for a rather violent and unstable short term future!
Check out Mexico's political crisis lets drug violence spread:
"The scale of the lawlessness, its geographical reach and the apparent inability of the government to keep it in check threaten Mexico's political stability, some analysts warn.
Javier Ibarrola, who writes on the drug trade and the military for the Milenio newspaper, said President Vicente Fox's once-promising drug fight "is now just done in speeches" as violence and narco-corruption spiral out of control.
"I have never seen anything like this, ever," Mr. Ibarrola said.
"The [narcos] have the field wide open to them."
Where is Mexico going? Who knows? I don't know for sure. However, I don't like this note from the aforementioned article:
"We're seeing little Nuevo Laredos spread throughout Mexico," said the U.S. law enforcement official, referring to the violence."
By the way, according to news reports:
"Venezuela's President says he made a second visit to Cuban leader Fidel Castro earlier this week. President Hugo Chavez describes his ailing ally as "recuperating" and says they spoke for a couple of hours. Chavez has been keeping close tabs on Castro's health since the Cuban leader underwent intestinal surgery. Castro temporarily handed over presidential power to his brother Raul on July 31st.
Chavez visited the elder Castro earlier this month to help celebrate his 80th birthday. He says Venezuela will do "whatever it can" to help Cuba. Chavez spoke at a news conference in China. It was broadcast by Venezuela's state T-V channel."
Maybe Hugo and Fidel were talking about the baseball wild card races.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Take a good look at this picture from California. This is one side of the confrontation over the weekend. You can see all of the pictures at: http://americanpatrol.com/
Question: Do these people want to be guest workers? What point are they trying to make?
Why are they using these terms to describe people?
White racists? Racist pilgrims? White racists go back to Europe?
This is a losing hand for the movement. Someone needs to control this movement or it will destroy itself!
Pat Buchanan's book is selling like hotcakes. Buchanan is everywhere, from TV to radio. Listen to him on Drudge!
There won't be an immigration deal this year. The Republicans and Democrats are running on being tough on the border.
So who is hoisting Mexican flags in US public buildings? Check out Michelle Malkin's website for pictures and more pictures!
Who thinks that placing a Mexican flag in a post office is going to turn US public around?
I understand that these idiots make up a very small share of the movement. However, they get a lot of publicity and harm honest efforts to resolve a complicated immigration problem.
Mexican flags belong at The Zocalo not US Post Offices!
The Rangers are not going to make up 8 games against Okland. If they did, what about the Angels? So let's look ahead to 2007 and make some moves before the Aug 31st deadline. Let me suggest these moves:
1) Move Vicente Padilla to a contender. He can bring you a couple of young players.
2) Move Gary Matthews. He is 31 and having a career year. I love how he plays. I love his fan friendly attitude. I loved his dad, who played 20 years ago. Do you want to give him a long term deal? I don't think so. Gary would fit in well with a contender.
3) Move Mark LaRosa, another guy who is having a career year. He would be a great addition to any team looking for a veteran who can play anywhere.
4) Bring up Danks and Diamond in September and let the fans take a look at the future. Give Laird the catcher's job but keep Barajas as your veteran back up.
5) Sign Carlos Lee and give Blalock and Texeira a full year of hitting around him.
2006 was a major disappointment. Yet, the Rangers are not that far from being a very good team.
Keep the faith and Buck Showalter as manager.
Katrina was a terrible event. Many died. Mistakes were made. And Bush bashing was in full display! Check out my post Katrina and the media!
We are now celebrating the first anniversary of Katrina and Bush bashing is off and running.
It's always Bush's fault, even though the Louisiana state and federal representatives did not do a darn thing about the levees.
I love this line from Red State's blogger Erik:
"The irony in this week of coverage will be that but for the incompetence of local and state officials in Louisiana, all of whom were Democrats, the media would not have much ammunition to fire at the Bush administration.”
How New Orleans Drowned By DOUGLAS BRINKLEY is a serious review of what went wrong. It details the role played by Mayor Nagin, Governor Blanco and Pres. Bush.
Read Brinkley's article and shut off the TV for the next few days!
Before you invest yourself in polls, take the time to go back and read what the same pundits were saying in the last midterm of 2002. Check out: The assessments of August and see if any of this sounds familiar:
"Their Democratic counterparts are talking more optimistically... A recent Gallup Poll showed 50% of registered voters were more likely to vote for Democrats, 42% for Republicans."
"Strategists in both parties say that while congressional elections depend heavily on local issues and trends, the war on terrorism and Bush's hands-on effort in many races have made him an issue, too."
"From all indications, this fall's midterm elections should confirm the Judis-Teixeira thesis... They could win back the House on Nov. 5 and are favored to win key governorships. For the Democrats, happy days may be here again."
As we know, 2002 turned out to be a very good year for Bush and the Republicans.
To be fair, Bush had higher approval ratings in 2002 than now. At the same time, gas prices were $2 rather $3 a gallon. Iraq is obviously a drag. Illegal immigration is red hot and many Republicans are very angry with Bush!
Nevertheless, why is Michael Barone, a great political analyst, saying that the winds are blowing in Bush's direction now. The answer is events rather than any one particular issue. Check out A change in the winds:
"When asked what would affect the future, the British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan famously said: Events, dear boy. Events. The event this month that I think has done most to shape opinion was the arrest in London on Aug. 9 of 23 Muslims suspected of plotting to blow up American airliners over the Atlantic."
What this plot confirms is that there are bad people in the world and they want to kill Americans. Furthermore, they are not selective. They want to kill those who voted for Bush as much as for those who voted for Kerry:
"They've been trying to kill us for years, going back at least to 1983, when a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed 241 American servicemen in Lebanon. Then they attacked the World Trade Center, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole in Aden -- all while Bill Clinton was president. Sept. 11 woke us up to the threat. The political acrimony of 2004 and 2005 and this year made it seem remote. The London arrests reminded us its still there."
I am not saying that Bush is in and Democrats are out. This is going to be a tough midterm, as it has been for every president in his 6th year in office.
However, the London plot shows us that the threat is real. Again, back to Barone:
"The arrests were a reminder that there still are lots of people in the world -- and quite possibly in this country, too -- who are trying to kill as many of us as they can and to destroy our way of life. They are not unhappy because we havent raised the minimum wage lately or because Bush rejected the Kyoto Treaty or even because were in Iraq."
Sunday, August 27, 2006
For three years, we have heard the Democrats' line: Bush is not working with our allies! I wonder how many are saying the same thing this week after what we saw from France and others in putting together a force for Lebanon.
In a perfect world, I would love to see a multilateral approach. In theory, it is better to have a multinational force rather than a US force.
In the real world, our allies cannot provide much military assistance. We can count on the UK, Australia and Japan. Who else?
Check out The Perils Of Using 'The Allies' By Charles Krauthammer:
"Even the most ardent unilateralist always prefers multilateral support under one of two conditions:
(1) There is something the allies will actually help accomplish or
(2) there is nothing to be done anyway, so multilateralism gives you the cover of appearing to do something."
Will we take military action against Iran? It's very likely. Why? Because Iran's irrational leadership is on a mission to destroy Israel and expand its influence over the region.
Once again, Pres. Bush will face a tough decision. Back to Krauthammer:
"There would be terrible consequences from an attack. These must be weighed against the terrible consequences of allowing an openly apocalyptic Iranian leadership to acquire weapons of genocide."
Speaking of our allies, don't expect a lot of help in dealing with Iran. Most allies can't help militarily. Worse than that, most do not have the political will to make the difficult decisions. Thank God for the US. Otherwise, who would stand up to the bad guys?
Beautiful DreamersIran and Hezbollah turn on the lights. Europe blinks! Seriously! By Denis Boyles
UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL: Iran's enablers
Julia Gorin is a contributing editor of JewishWorldReview.com. She blogs at JuliaGorin.com. Last week, she wrote a great op-ed column on abortion. It was called Petitioning for Life:
"The Web site of Ms. Magazine--yes, it still exists--is calling on readers to sign a petition:
"I have had an abortion. I publicly join the millions of women in the United States who have had an abortion in demanding a repeal of laws that restrict women's reproductive freedom."
Well, so much for the right to privacy. If Ms. readers hadn't had so many abortions, there might be more Ms. readers.
As for the rest of us, here's a petition we could all sign:
"I wasn't aborted."
It reminds me of a picture from the 2004 Democrat convention. It showed a woman walking around with a T-shirt that said: "I had an abortion"! It was a stark reminder that the Democrats are the party of abortion.
Julia writes about her life and how she was nearly aborted:
"Like most Soviet-era fetuses conceived in Russia by couples who were already parents, I was scheduled for abortion as a matter of course."
It is a moving story. It should be shared with those who view abortion as a political statement rather than the loss of a human life.
Unfortunately, 40 million have been aborted in the US since '73. Who are they? We don't know for sure. We do know that they never had a choice!
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and a member of the Board of Advisors for the Media Research Center's Free Market Project.
Dr. Williams also fills in for Rush Limbaugh. He is a delight on the radio. I love to listen to him.
This week, Williams wrote another wonderful column: Will the West Defend Itself?:
"We might also note that the occupation of Germany and Japan didn't pose the occupation problems we face in Iraq. The reason is we completely demoralized our enemies, leaving them with neither the will nor the means to resist.Our adversaries in the Middle East have advantages that the axis powers didn't have -- the Western press and public opinion. We've seen widespread condemnation of alleged atrocities and prisoner mistreatment by the U.S., but how much media condemnation have you seen of beheadings and other gross atrocities by Islamists?"
Hitler could not count on Republicans publicly second guessing FDR's war strategy, specially in early '44 when our side was not gaining. Ditto Japan. The emperor could not count on an opposition senator saying that our bombing of Japanese cities was killing too many civilians.
Do we have the will?
Yes we do. I believe that Americans see the big picture and will not walk away from the fight. Of course, my optimism is based on having a Republican majority and President.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
The bad news is that LO's sidewalk show goes on. The good news is that he is finding very little support in the US.
A couple of weeks ago, he got an assist from The New York Times. They gave LO free space to write a "I hate Felipe" letter. It made little sense, unless you believe that every precinct worker in Mexico was drunk on July 2nd and in PAN's pockets.
Now, Edward M. Gomez is carrying Sr. LO's water. Check his article: In Mexico, Lopez Obrador's last stand. I don't know anything about Gomez.
Let's check what Gomez has to say:
1) "George W. Bush has completely ignored democracy's struggle for survival right next door, in Mexico".
What's new? It's always Bush's fault. He is either too involved or not involved. Can't Gomez come up with something better?
Besides, what's Bush supposed to do? How is Bush supposed to pay attention to "democracy's struggle", whatever that means?
What struggle for democracy is going on in Mexico anyway? Every international observer praised Mexico's election.
What struggle are we talking about? The only struggle in Mexico is moving around all of the PRD tents blocking streets and sidewalks.
2) "Many Mexicans have noticed Washington's deafening silence"
Really? Do you want Washington to salute the winner in the middle of a contested election? Do you want Republicans to fly Calderon up to Washington for a "Welcome Felipe" speech before Congress? So far, Bush and the US are quietly watching Mexico, IFE and waiting for an official declaration.
3) "....in recent days, leftist candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (or "AMLO") has reached out overseas in an impassioned appeal for support for his reform-minded, pro-democracy movement."
Let me ask Gomez this: Why won't LO's "reformed minded pro-democracy movement" accept election results?
4) "Despite the tension surrounding the transition to a presumed, new Calderón administration, President Fox intends to go ahead and deliver his annual - and last - State of the Union speech on September 1."
What's Pres. Fox supposed to do? Is Mexico supposed to stop because LO is living in a rain soaked tent?
5) "Would the Fox government dare to use force to break up the demonstration before the big national holiday?"
I hope so. Pres. Fox has a responsibility to maintain law and order. What's he supposed to do? Is Pres. Fox supposed to sit at Los Pinos and watch Mexico descend into chaos because LO is living in denial? Is anybody watching the breakdown of law and order in Oaxaca?
6) This is the text under Calderon's picture: "Is he or isn't he the president-elect: Conservative, Bush-backed pol Calderón"
It's Bush's fault again. Now Calderon is a "Bush backed pol". Should we say that LO is a "New York Times backed pol"?
As I wrote before, the left loves victims and LO is one for the ages. Didn't Gomez say that Calderon is a "Bush backed pol"!
Friday, August 25, 2006
Drew Henson is 26 and looking for a football job. The Cowboys released him yesterday:
"Parcells wouldn't elaborate Wednesday when asked if the Cowboys were trying to trade Henson. If that was the case, they weren't able to find any takers.
Henson started only one game in Dallas, filling in for the injured Vinny Testaverde on Thanksgiving Day 2004 before Testaverde took over after halftime.
Parcells said Wednesday that he "just didn't see enough" from Henson over the past three years.
"I don't keep players that I don't think can play for us," Parcells said."
What an amazing story. Henson decided to play baseball and signed with the Yankees. After 3 years, and ARod playing third base in New York, Henson decided to play football.
What's next? I don't know. Henson is a good athlete. He needs to get a shot with another team.
On Friday, we learned that Pres. Ford underwent an angioplasty procedure at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota.
Did you know:
Pres. Ford was born Leslie Lynch King Jr., the son of Leslie Lynch King and Dorothy Ayer Gardner King, in Omaha, Neb.
The Kings separate two weeks later, and his mother took him to Grand Rapids, Mich., to live with her parents.
On Feb. 1, 1916, his mother marries Gerald R. Ford, a Grand Rapids paint salesman. They begin calling the boy Gerald R. Ford Jr.
His name was legally changed in 1935.
Also, on June 1935, he graduated from the University of Michigan with majors in economics and political science. Ford played center and linebacker for the Wolverines. He turned down contract offers from the Detroit Lions and Green Bay Packers of the NFL and attend Yale University Law School.
So Pres. Ford turned down offers from the Packers and Lions? How often has that happened.
We send our warmest greetings to Pres. Ford, a very decent man recovering this weekend.
This is a new study by Pew Research. Did you know:
There are 968,000 Cubans in Florida and 62 in Wyoming. Overall, 1.5 million or 4% of the Hispanic population.
Read this and share it with Cuban friends or family.
Saddam Hussein should be convicted for war crimes soon. This week, he faced some of the Kurds killed in 1987-88. Check Kurds Describe Chemical Attacks at Hussein Trial:
"Mr. Hussein and six co-defendants are charged with ordering similar attacks in a 1988 military campaign to eliminate the Kurds from their mountainous redoubts in Iraq’s far northeast. Prosecutors allege that the campaign, which Mr. Hussein’s government code-named Anfal, after a Koranic phrase that refers to “the spoils of war,” killed at least 50,000 Kurds and destroyed some 2,000 villages."
We heard this at the trial:
"Earlier, Adiba Oula Bayez described the Aug. 16, 1987 bombardment of her village of Balisan, saying warplanes dropped bombs that spread a smoke that smelled "like rotten apples."
"Then my daughter Narjis came to me, complaining about pain in her eyes, chest and stomach. When I got close to see what's wrong with her, she threw up all over me," Bayez, a mother of five, said. "When I took her in to wash her face ... all my other children were throwing up."
"Then my condition got bad, too. And that's when we realized that the weapon was poisonous and chemical," she said."
Of course, "everybody knows" that Saddam did not have WMDs!
Did anyone hear that from the Kurds?
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Could Al Qaeda use the chaotic US-Mexico border as a training ground or launching pad for attacking the US? Some people think so.
According to border agents, they have seen evidence that Al Qaeda is in Mexico. Check out Texas Sheriffs Say Terrorists Entering US from Mexico By Kevin Mooney:
"Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez of Zapata County, Texas told Cybercast News Service that Iranian currency, military badges in Arabic, jackets and other clothing are among the items that have been discovered along the banks of the Rio Grande River.
The sheriff also said there are a substantial number of individuals crossing the southern border into the U.S. who are not Mexican.
He described the individuals in question as well-funded and able to pay so-called "coyotes" - human smugglers - large sums of money for help gaining illegal entry into the U.S."
Since 9-11, I have argued that border security is a matter of national security. Check out this video!
Pat Buchanan loves controversy. He has opinions and is not afraid to make his case. I am not a Buchanan fan. Yet, I do recognize that he cares a lot for his country. Also, I give Buchanan credit for taking on issues that most other public figures will not touch.
His new book is an example of Buchanan forcing the country to talk about illegal immigration. This is why it is # 1 in Amazon and going up in the other book lists. Check out this video from the Hannity & Colmes show on FOX!
Banishing factoids by Linda Chavez correctly challenges some of Buchanan's excesses:
"The statistics on immigrants and crime are shocking -- but not for the reasons Buchanan et al. would have you believe."
Chavez is right. Buchanan is throwing a lot of statistics against the wall.
Like Chavez, I am not afraid of immigrants. In fact, I favor a bilateral program that matches US companies with foreign workers.
After all, the US has a 4.6% unemployment rate. We are operating at a full employment level despite the number of illegal immigrants working here.
We do not have a "jobs" problem. Most of our companies are looking for people. Have you seen any "jobs section" in a newspaper?
Unlike Buchanan, I do not think that most Mexicans want to "reconquer" the Southwest.
At the same time, Buchanan has a point that some Mexicans are not assimilating. Immigrants need to learn English. They need to take the time to learn US history.
Nevertheless, Buchanan's book is riding high because the US public is fed up with illegal immigration.
The public is also fed with self-appointed Hispanic leaders. Why are these self appointed leaders making the stupid mistake of calling everyone a "racist", or even worse, "anti-immigrant".
How do you win public support by calling people racist? This is as stupid as marching with Mexican flags and demanding "rights"!
The issue is money rather than racism. Nobody hates Mexicans. What the public hates is paying for illegal immigrants.
Today, The Dallas Morning News has this story Migrant care costing millions :
"Illegal immigrants got more than $22.4 million worth of non emergency medical care at Parkland Memorial Hospital this year, officials said Tuesday. The cost estimate was the first time Parkland has quantified how much Dallas County taxpayers are paying for such care for illegal immigrants.
"It's a significant amount of money," said John Gates, the hospital's chief financial officer."
Who is paying this "significant amount of money"? The answer is you and me!
Last month, I wrote that states and communities are addressing illegal immigration directly. Check it out!
This week, Farmers Branch, a nice town between Carrollton and Dallas, had a city council meeting to do something about the chaos:
"Several dozen residents crowded into the council chambers to discuss whether the city should restrict illegal immigrants through such measures as making it illegal for landlords to lease property to them; fining businesses that employ them; making English the city's official language; and halting funding for children of illegal immigrants to participate in Summer Funshine and other youth programs."
It's happening everywhere. Check this from Wisconsin, which is a long way from the border: Mayor takes stand on illegal migrants:
"In a letter in the local newspaper this month, John Kimmel, who runs the Detox Bar and Grill, said he would create an "illegal alien task force" to forward complaints to federal authorities, hold property owners accountable for renting to or allowing someone to live in the city illegally, make English the official language of Arcadia and regulate the flying of foreign flags."
In conclusion, this is about economics and the rule of law!
Self-appointed Hispanic leaders should not insult our intelligence by claiming "racism" and "anti-immigrant" attitudes.
This is a debate about illegal immigrants.
P.S. Check out Economic Angle Enters Illegal Immigration Battle by Bobby Eberle:
"While the debate over illegal immigration continues, business owners and others who are frustrated by the lack of enforcement of current immigration laws are turning to a new strategy: economics. Through lawsuits, some employers are fighting back by accusing competitors of hiring illegal aliens to gain an unfair business advantage. Whether this type of lawsuit will work remains to be seen, but something needs to be done to fix the illegal immigration problem, and enforcement of laws is the key."
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Do you like this cartoon? I do.
This is not a new subject. David Brooks wrote about it after the '04 election. He called it The New Red-Diaper Babies, a reference to the reality that Republicans are having babies and Democrats are not.
Check out Brooks:
"As Steve Sailer pointed out in The American Conservative, George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates, and 25 of the top 26. John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest rates.
In The New Republic Online, Joel Kotkin and William Frey observe, "Democrats swept the largely childless cities - true blue locales like San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Boston and Manhattan have the lowest percentages of children in the nation - but generally had poor showings in those places where families are settling down, notably the Sun Belt cities, exurbs and outer suburbs of older metropolitan areas."
What does this mean? The answer may be in today's article by Arthur C. Brooks (no relation to the aforementioned David Brooks) The fertility gap:
"Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result.
According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children.
If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids.
That's a "fertility gap" of 41%."
Beyond numbers, I believe that we are seeing the cultural divide in the US. Again, let's read from Brooks:
"The fertility gap doesn't budge when we correct for factors like age, income, education, sex, race--or even religion.
Indeed, if a conservative and a liberal are identical in all these ways, the liberal will still be 19 percentage points more likely to be childless than the conservative.
Some believe the gap reflects an authentic cultural difference between left and right in America today."
This is exactly right!
This divide showed up in the 2004 presidential vote. This is how people voted, according to a CNN exit poll:
Bush won the Protestant vote (59-40) and the Catholics (52-47%). These two groups represented 75% of the electorate.
Bush won the Church attendance vote (61-39%).
Bush won the married vote (57-42%) and married with children (59-41%).
This "fertility gap" makes sense.
Thank you Republican mothers. Thank you for doing your part!
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Mark in Mexico writes about Mexico and other things. Today, he touches on Oaxaca, where civil disobedience is slowly turning into anarchy:
"Roving gangs of APPO thugs are touring the city, going from market to market, store to store, shop to shop and business to business.
They are threatening "represalias" -- reprisals -- against anyone or any business that doesn't shut down.
Even the big neighborhood markets which are located strategically throughout the city (almost every colonia, or barrio, has its own public market) have been forced to close.
The lady who owns the little store closest to my office and to whom I have never said much more than, "Buenos dias," and the like, almost jumped on me a few minutes ago when I paid a visit.
"Señor," she insisted, "stay off of the streets. Brígadas móviles (roving gangs of APPO thugs) are closing everyone down. I will close if they come here."
The Washington Post has this comment:
"The conflict has severely damaged tourism to the region. Last month, Oaxaca's annual Guelaguetza fiesta of music, food and dancing was canceled when protesters set fire to the festival stage and barricaded tourists into their hotels."
This is a very nasty situation. I hope that Mexico's politicians understand law and order.
How can anyone take France seriously anymore?
The Wall Street Journal described the situation like this:
"On Thursday, Jacques Chirac confirmed a Le Monde report that his government was prepared to offer only some 200 combat engineers (in addition to the 200 French troops already in Lebanon) to what is supposed to be the resolution's centerpiece: A 15,000-man U.N. force that will help the Lebanese army patrol their southern border and ensure that Hezbollah will no longer use the area as a staging ground for future attacks against Israel.
Given that the French contingent was supposed to be at the vanguard of this enhanced force, it's unclear whether other nations will be willing to chip in with troops of their own.All of this after the French used the promise of a robust, French-led international force to get the U.S. and Israel to agree to a cease-fire and withdrawal.
Even less reassuring is the insistence by French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie that her troops will remain in the lead only until February, after which, apparently, it's salaam and adieu."
Senator McCain spoke for many of us yesterday on Meet the Press:
"And I would like to express my deep concern that the French apparently are not going to inject the number of troops that would be necessary to lead this 15,000-person peacekeeping force. So far they're saying they would only about 200. It’s very disappointing."
I am not just disappointed. Frankly, I am angry.
France criticized Israel for defending itself. They said that a UN force should step in and stand between Israel and Hezbollah.
However, they are sending 200 troops. What countries will send the other 14,800?
Once again, France is a bad joke. Resolution 1701 is going down the same path as 1559.
By the way, did you hear this one? Have we not seen this movie before?
"Iran has turned away U.N. inspectors wanting to examine its underground nuclear site in an apparent violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, diplomats and U.N. officials said Monday.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidentiality of the information, told The Associated Press that Iran's unprecedented refusal to allow access to the facility at Natanz could seriously hamper international efforts to ensure that Tehran is not trying to make nuclear weapons. (Assoc Press)
P.S. Today, there were two interesting articles about 2006 looking 1938.
First, Rich Lowry wrote You’ll Never Confuse George W. Bush for a Frenchman:
"Civilization simply lacks backbone without the United States in the lead".
Second, check out Mideast Echoes Of 1938 By Richard Cohen:
"This inability of Europe to get its act together is what suggests 1938. Back then, Churchill was hardly the only one who thought Hitler was intent on war. After all, the German leader was an ideological zealot -- and a murderer to boot."
Of course, we will soon hear a Democrat say that Bush does not listen to our allies.
Question: How can you listen to people who don't say anything? How can you pay attention to people who are not responsible?
Monday, August 21, 2006
Is there a better war picture than this?
Joe Rosenthal, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his immortal image of six World War II servicemen raising an American flag over battle-scarred Iwo Jima, died Sunday. He was 94.
Iwo Jima was one the worst battles of WW2. The Allied forces suffered 26,000 casualties, with nearly 7,000 dead. Over a quarter of the Medals of Honor awarded to marines in World War II were given for conduct in the invasion of Iwo Jima.
It reminds us that freedom is not cheap. We don't get our freedom from the UN or by negotiating with fanatics. We must defend ourselves and fight for our freedom.
Iwo Jima was a critical but costly step in the eventual victory over Japan.
Even Newsday has an opinion on Mexico's electoral drama. Check out Mexico has spoken: Lopez Obrador must accept his loss. It does not say anything new. Yet, how many times has Newsday offered an opinion on a Mexico election?
Why so much interest? The answer is illegal immigration.
Beyond elections, illegal immigration is a human tragedy. Do you know the story of Elvira Arellano, a 31 year old unwed mother who is hiding in a Chicago church?
According to news reports:
"Ms. Arellano willfully violated U.S. immigration laws and is now facing the consequences of her actions by failing to report to immigration authorities," said agency spokeswoman Gail Montenegro. "We will arrest and deport her as required by law at an appropriate time and place.
Arellano illegally crossed into the United States in 1997 and was deported shortly afterward. She returned within days, living for three years in Oregon before moving to Chicago in 2000. Arrested two years later at O'Hare Airport, where she was working as a cleaning woman, she was convicted of working under a false Social Security number and ordered to appear at the immigration office in Chicago."
Most of us can sympathize with Elvira and her desire to live in the US. At the same time, are we a nation of laws or emotional outbursts?
Thousands wait their turn to come to the US. They do the paperwork at US consulates and follow the law. Why should we create an exception for Elvira and others?
Along the way, Elvira had a baby out of wedlock. We are seeing an increase in young women who are crossing the border and having a baby out of wedlock.
Check out Heather McDonald's Seeing Today’s Immigrants Straight from last month:
"The illegitimacy rate among Hispanics is high and rising faster than that of other ethnic groups; their dropout rate is the highest in the country; Hispanic children are joining gangs at younger and younger ages. Academic achievement is abysmal."
Where is the father? Why aren't we looking for him? Why aren't we making the father responsible for providing economic support?
Do you understand now why so many of us are interested in Mexico's election? We want Mexico to change. We want Mexico to be more attractive to Mexicans!
We are not against Mexico. Actually, we like Mexico. Yet, we want Mexico to change so that it can sustain itself.
Let's close with a two fold message to Pres. elect Felipe Calderon:
First, congratulations and best wishes. Secondly, be bold and propose radical changes so that Elvira and her son have a reason to stay in Mexico!
Sunday, August 20, 2006
By any historical standard, Pres. Bush should have big losses in November. Frankly, it happens to every two term president in the 6th year election.
For example, FDR lost 71 seats in 1938; It wasn't any better for Eisenhower in 1958; LBJ had a very bad year in 1966; Reagan had a bad election night in 1986; and Clinton avoided the 6th year bombshell because he lost everything in 1994.
It would be historic if Pres. Bush avoids a blow out.
Will Bush lose the Congress? The Democrats will make some gains but it won't be enough to replace the Republican leadership.
All of this could change either way tomorrow. In politics, predictions can be wrong and it is only the second week of August. For example, what happens if we discover that Saddam's WMDs were moved to Syria, as so many people say. What happens if there is a Supreme Court opening? What about another hurricane? How will the London plot impact the mid-terms?
In politics, things are always fluid. However, the cumulative evidence points to a status quo election and voters looking at local issues and personalities.
My prediction: The Democrats will pick up seats but leadership won't change.
The latest from CQPolitics.com:
"If the 2006 midterm election were held today, tomorrow or even next week, it would be safe to say that Republicans would hold on — barely, but with just enough room to spare — to their majorities in both the House and Senate. They retain all the advantages of incumbency, fundraising and redistricting, and the Democrats would still need a net gain of at least 15 seats to take over the House and a net of six to retake the Senate."
The Blogging Caesar is projecting a Dem gain of 4 in the US Senate and Dem 8 in the House. Again, no change in leadership.
According to Rasmussen Reports:
"If the mid-term elections were held today, Republicans would narrowly retain control of the U.S. Senate according to Rasmussen Reports polling data. Our Balance of Power summary shows the GOP is favored in enough races to hang on to 50 Senate seats at the moment. Forty-seven seats would be in Democratic hands while 3 are in the Toss-Up category."
Let me say something about elections. Turnout matters. Organization matters. In recent years, the Republicans have outworked Democrats on election day. In other words, don't bet against Karl Rove! Organization matters.
Beyond that, Paul Bedard reports that the GOP is motivated:
"A three-page-survey memo obtained by Washington Whispers reveals that despite reports of some dissatisfaction with the economy, the war, and President Bush, 81 percent of Republican voters are "almost certain" to vote and an additional 14 percent say they are "very likely."
So don't bet your lunch money on any major shifts in November.
On one side, you have a president dealing with very complicated issues that don't lend themselves to bumper sticker solutions.
On the other side, you have an opposition party that cannot present a coherent position. Why change? Why change to a guy who does not know what he stands for?
Don't take my word for the Democrat's problems. This is what the very liberal Peter Beinart just wrote about the Democrats:
"The Democratic Party's single biggest foreign policy liability is not that Americans think Democrats are soft. It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the party's behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to understand why."
Once again, history is against Pres. Bush. This is why it is so amazing that the polling data is so decent for Republicans!
Saturday, August 19, 2006
24 hours ago, Judge Diggs-Taylor dropped a bomb on the NSA program. Yet, where are the defenders? Frankly, I don't hear them!
The decision's legal reasoning was so bad that Daily Koss, one of the big liberal blogs, was not impressed. Check out Today's NSA ruling: poorly reasoned and totally unhelpful by Categorically Imperative:
"While I wholeheartedly agree with the general result, the court's opinion and reasoning are weak in a variety of ways, and given the magnitude of the opinion and the efforts that will be made to undermine it, I fear that Judge Diggs Taylor has, in the long run, undermined those of us who have believed the NSA program is illegal since its existence was revealed several months ago."
Check out Paul Mirengoff's "Where's the beef?":
"The opinion is almost devoid of analysis on the key constitutional provisions it relies upon (the court more or less ducks the issue of whether the intercept program is consistent with FISA and completely dodges the issue of whether the president has the inherent power to authorize the intercepts; it reasons that the Constitution trumps the statute (page 39) and that the president lacks the inherent power to violate specific constitutional provisions (pages 40-41)). It is part of my job as a litigator (and has been for more than 30 years) to read and understand judicial opinions. Off hand, I cannot recall reading an opinion as conclusory and content free as the key portions of this opinion."
Scott W. Johnson writes Who's afraid of Anna Diggs Taylor? and destroys the opinion:
"Anyone who knows what legal analysis and legal argument look like -- anyone who knows the requisites of legal reasoning -- must look on the handiwork of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in the NSA case in amazement. It is a pathetic piece of work. If it had been submitted by a student in my second year legal writing class at the University of St. Thomas Law School, it would have earned a failing grade."
The Power Line and Daily Kos disagree on most things. They are in agreement here. The judge made a bad decision inspired by her political views rather than legal precedent.
It was not a good day for the judge. Check this one from The New York Times----Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision By ADAM LIPTAK:
"Discomfort with the quality of the decision is almost universal, said Howard J. Bashman, a Pennsylvania lawyer whose Web log provides comprehensive and nonpartisan reports on legal developments."
The NRO editors said this---Surveilling Injustice:
"This reasoning is ludicrous. Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy when seeking to communicate with persons outside the United States. U.S. privacy law consequently does not — cannot — apply. Moreover, virtually every intelligence agency in the world is pursuing al Qaeda operatives and intercepting their communications. In Judge Taylor’s perfect world, only the U.S. — the primary target of al Qaeda — would be forbidden to do so."
It gets worse for the judge.
Bryan Cunningham served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. He is a private information security and privacy lawyer at Morgan & Cunningham LLC in Denver, Colorado, and a member of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Along with the Washington Legal Foundation, he filed an amicus brief in this case, and has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
Today, he joined the attacks on the judge's decision. Check out A judge’s first-year failing-grade opinion:
"Much will be said about this opinion in the coming days. I’ll start with this: I wouldn’t accept this utterly unsupported, constitutionally and logically bankrupt collection of musings from a first-year law student, much less a new lawyer at my firm."
This is an excellent piece.
Last, but not least, The Wall Street Journal goes to the point in A federal judge rewrites the Constitution on war powers:
"Unlike Judge Taylor, Presidents are accountable to the voters for their war-making decisions, as the current White House occupant has discovered. Judge Taylor can write her opinion and pose for the cameras--and no one can hold her accountable for any Americans who might die as a result."
It is absolutely imperative that we keep the Congress under Republican control. Beyond that, it is essential that we replace Pres. Bush with Pres. McCain or Guiliani. The Democrats, and their angry left, are not serious about national security. Simply put, you cannot trust liberals to protect your family.