Wednesday, May 30, 2007

My show on Thursday: We support the people of Venezuela!

Things are moving fast in Caracas. Venezuela News and Views and Chilean TV TeleTrece have some recent images from the scene.

If Chavez was a right wing dictator, there would be huge marches everywhere calling on public opinion to force him out of power.

Unfortunately, the international left will hide its face rather than support the people of Venezuela.

We won't hide. We will support the good people of Venezuela. We will do whatever we can to spread the word that Chavez is a dictator and needs to leave.

On Thursday's show, we will discuss the situation in Venezuela with Jorge Gonzalez, a local analyst of Latin America.

Some Mexicans were very rude to Miss USA

Sunday night, I shared the TV with my wife. She watched The Miss Universe Pageant from Mexico City and I watched the ball game during the commercials. (The Rangers lost again!)

Incredibly, the crowd booed Miss USA. (Take a look at this video!)

Poor Miss USA looked a little stunned. Can you blame the young woman?

According to Pageant blogger Sophie Evans, Rachel Smith was booed throughout the entire program last night!

I heard that some Mexicans did not like her Elvis outfit. Who was she supposed to dress like? Vicente Fernandez?

Let me ask: What's the point of booing?

It didn't take long for people to say: We love the US but we hate US foreign policy.


OK. What would Mexicans say if we "booed" Miss Mexico because we love Mexico but hate its corrupt and inefficient system? (Impunidad y corrupción ahogan a México)

After all, Mexicans come here because Mexico can't provide them with an opportunity. (Mexico's middle class heads north)

Some say that Mexicans are mad at the new immigration proposal at the US Senate. The new proposal calls on limits on family reunification. Actually, it allows spouses and children. What it doesn't allow is for someone to sponsor the entire "pueblo".

Mexicans should read their own constitution and immigration laws. They may discover that Mexico has very similar immigration laws:

"Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38) "(Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here at Home by )

Miss USA did not deserve this. Let's keep politics out of a beauty pageant for young women. In the meantime, Mexicans should direct their "boos" at their leaders!

According to Frank Sabato:

"While the common argument is that they come here seeking work, the true root of the problem is that the Mexican government has allowed corruption to reach such alarming levels – in both government and business – that the average Mexican cannot survive within the borders of his own country." (Immigration Reform Begins in Mexico)

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Chavez is showing his true colors

Over the weekend, we saw the real Chavez, a man who is slowly turning Venezuela into a dictatorship:

"This is the culmination of a
year of press oppression in Venezuela, including fining opposition newspapers for criticism of the government, arresting journalists on charges of 'defamation' for criticizing the government, the shutdown of opposition radio stations, beatings and harassment of journalists and photographers, and most recently, the assassination of an El Mundo photojournalist. Since Chavez was voted sole personal authority over the government and had the Venezuelan constitution rewritten to give the presidency additional powers, it has become increasingly difficult for those opposing him to speak out without placing themselves at considerable risk." (A Great Silence is Settling Over Venezuela by Dave Nalle)

Let's respect the courage of thousands who took to the streets and voiced their displeasure!

Read The New York Times at your own risk

Like many, I caught the headline on The Drudge Report: NYT: Doubts Grow Among G.I.'s in Iraq...

I read the article and got confused. The story does not support the headline. There is no evidence that doubt is growing among GI's in Iraq.

Today, Michelle Malkin and others take this story head on. Thank God that someone is doing it:

What happens when you read past a NYTimes headline

In the body of the story, reporter Michael Kamber does not say that there is growing doubts among GI's. Obviously, someone at The NY Times made a mistake or just wants to take a cheap shot at Pres. Bush.

Malkin suggests a different headline: Some G.I.'s not ready to abandon Iraq yet

Of course, such a headline would not fit the template!

Like so many in the media, The NY Times is all about body count and looking for negatives. See Jules Crittenden:

"It’s as though the body count is the sole measure upon which all decisions and action must turn. There certainly has been no effort by the Associated Press, or other major news organizations on the ground in Iraq, to examine progress in anything but the most dismissive manner, with a quick revert to body count." (
Happy Memorial Day)

The Untold Stories Of Success In Iraq

Sometimes, it pays to avoid The NY Times!

A new view of abortion

Here is a new idea: A new bill would require any woman seeking an abortion to obtain the consent of her fetus.

Take a look at the video:
New Abortion Bill To Require Fetal Consent

Abortion is crime against children and women. It is a pathetic symbol of our moral devaluation.

The terror manual: Are you still confused about their intentions?

In recent days, US troops have uncovered something called The Al Qaeda Torture Manual.

It is a sick reminder of who these people are! It is also evidence of what they have in mind for each and every one of us.

Dean Barnett has a great thought:

"By all means, read the whole thing. And then ask yourself why there are so many people who can’t distinguish between this stuff, which is real torture, and the attention grab and other enhanced interrogation techniques. Are they willfully obstuse, scoring political points, or just hopelessly morally muddled?"

Here is the bottom line: They torture and we don't!

P.S. Will there be any marches protesting this manual?

What is Spain's PM Rod-Zapatero saying today?

It must be tough to be Spain's PM Rodriguez-Zapatero. After all, PM Rod-Zap blamed the 3-11 bombing on Pres. Bush and the war in Iraq.

What's happening in Spain since he took Spanish troops the Iraq? They are constantly finding terrorists.

Yesterday, they found more:

"The suspects were believed to be Moroccan and they faced charges of recruiting people to be sent for training in camps in Afghanistan and Iraq. The spokesman said the police operation was continuing and that there could be more arrests. A substantial amount of computer material was seized during the pre-dawn raids, he said." (14 Arrested in Spain on Terror Charges)

Sorry! I don't want to read another article about the Clinton marriage!

It may be that Hillary Clinton is the Democrat nominee in 2008.

I say "it may be" because I'm not sure that the party thinks that she can stand up to Guiliani, McCain, Romney or Thompson.

Sooner or later, Hillary Clinton is going to have to explain her Iraq positions to a nation that has voted Republican in 7 of the last 10 presidential elections. Let's remember that Pres. Johnson (
1964) was the last Democrat to carry 51% of the vote!

Stop the presses. I don't care for these stories:

Clinton 'planned to divorce Hillary to be with one of his many lovers'

Bill Clinton was (and perhaps still is) a womanizer. So what? Womanizing is a human frailty. It matters when the womanizer is president because it is a national security risk. Today, Clinton's womanizing is totally irrelevant to our politics.

Two Hillary Clinton biographies create gossip storm in Washington

Frankly, what more can we learn about the Clintons? Does it matter? It does not to me. I don't need new books to convince me that Hillary Clinton is addicted to power. This is a woman who put up with constant humiliation because Bill was her ticket to the top. Again, I don't need a new book to learn that.


This is another story about a Clinton friendship. It does not matter to me, unless there is something illegal about any of this.

Days of Their Lives: The Hillary and Bill show, America's longest-running soap opera by Noemie Emery

True. First, there was Dallas, then Dynasty and now The Clintons!

Stop the books. Stop the analysis of the Clinton marriage.

Stop the nonsense and let's have a debate about Hillary Clinton's unbelievable positions on Iraq and her economic platform, i.e., taxes and a bigger government.

Hillary Clinton won in 2000 and 2006 against lightweight or unknown Republican candidates. Clinton has never faced an opponent like McCain, Guiliani or Romney.

I am very confident that we can defeat the second Clinton over ideas. Why? Because Perot is not running in '08. Secondly, Hillary Clinton is a lousy campaigner.

P.S. For a little fun, let's remember what Hillary Clinton said about the Iraq War:

"If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al-Qaeda members." (Senator Hillary Clinton, Oct 2002)

In this speech, Senator Clinton joined other Democrats in supporting the war and the rationale behind it.

What did Hillary Clinton say a few days before the invasion about the UN and its lack of seriousness to deal with problems? See

"With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems, were it not for the United States leadership, and I'm talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. And so I see it somewhat differently. So forgive me for my experience and perspective." (See the

In this speech, Senator Clinton shot down all of the nonsense that the US acted alone because we did not listen (or work) with our allies. Unfortunately, much of the world is not serious about dealing with problems, as her husband learned in Kosovo and Iraq. Most of our allies do not have troops and prefer to sit back and let the US fix the problems. Just ask President Bill Clinton about Bosnia and Iraq!

The parties and national security

This is where we are in Iraq:

"The reality is that foreign fighters are flowing into Iraq to kill Iraqis and Americans.

Almost all suicide bombers in Iraq are foreign fighters, for whom this is the crucial battle.

This means that our victory there will be an important victory in the larger struggle against terrorism--and our defeat there would embolden and empower our enemies.

And the reality is that Iran and Syria are enemies.

Most foreign fighters join al Qaeda in Iraq via Syria.

And Iran has been sending advanced weapons and advisers into Iraq.

These weapons and insurgents supported by Iran are killing our soldiers on a daily basis.

There should be no doubt about the hostile role Iran and Syria are playing in Iraq today." (Congress Gives InOn War Funding Now can we fight the enemy? by William Kristol & Frederick W. Kagan)

We are in the middle of a serious war so let's win it!Where are the parties and candidates?

First, there is Hillary Clinton. (HILLARY’S HYPOCRISY ON IRAQ By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann)

Question: Would Hillary Clinton be voting this way if she didn't have challenges from the left from Obama & Edwards? No way!

Clinton planned to run a centrist campaign but was forced to change plans when Obama & Edwards energized the base.

Second, there is Barrack Obama. He was not in the US Senate in '02. Therefore, he has the advantage of sitting back and criticizing everything! (Barack Obama Is Just Another Liberal)

Third, there is John Edwards, who is living in fantasy land! Edwards is just plain silly!

On the Republican side, the message is clear.

"I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan,” McCain, who is running for the GOP presidential nomination, said.“

This vote may win favor with MoveOn and liberal primary voters, but it’s the equivalent of waving a white flag to al Qaeda.” (GOP candidates blast Clinton, Obama on Iraq vote )

Romney (Team Mitt), McCain (McCain 2008) and Giuliani (Rudy 2008) hit the Dems very hard!

Then, there is Pres. Bush:

"Whatever his mistakes as a war leader, Mr. Bush at least hasn't betrayed our allies or troops in the field for the sake of reviving his poll numbers. He was also right to defend the war powers of the Presidency against Congressional micromanagement. His obligation now is to do whatever it takes to succeed in Iraq so that the men and women fighting this war will not sacrifice in vain." (Congress and Iraq)

In September, Gen. Petraeus will come back and give a mixed report. He will say that some things are better and others are not.

Here is the bottom line: Romney, Giuliani and McCain are committed to victory. Obama, Clinton and Edwards are telling leftist primary voters what they want to hear.

This is a long war that started in '79 (The Iran hostage crisis).

It went on in the 1990s when Al Qaeda committed itself to the destruction of the US. (
Militant operations pre-dating the September 11, 2001 attacks)
We are not going to get out of Iraq, or the war on terror, because we change presidents. The terrorists are not going back to "selling insurance" when Pres. Bush goes home to Texas.

Again, this is a long war for our way of life. At times, it will be hellish.

Somedays, we will get good news! (In Anbar, tribes turn against Al Qaeda)

Let's hope that the next occupant of the White House is Romney, Giuliani or McCain!

We need a president who understands the threat Why? Because the threat is not going away because we change presidents!

Monday, May 28, 2007

A little e-mail humor for your long weekend

Does this cartoon apply to you? What did we do before e-mail? Perhaps, we sent each other letters and phoned our friends. Or, we actually subscribed to newspapers and magazines.

Thank you to the US soldier for fighting our enemies!

Day by Day is a daily cartoon series. This weekend they had this great one about the US soldier and coverage of the Iraq War:

Click here to see it!

Power Line has a great post about the Iraq War:

"Although there is sharp fighting in Diyala Province, and Baghdad remains a battleground, and the enemy is trying to undermine security in areas they’d lost interest in, the fact is that the security plan, or so-called “surge,” is showing clear signs of progress." (A Memorial Day Message From Michael Yon)

By the way, take a look at some of the pictures of US soldiers and children in Iraq.

I love this note:

"I wonder whether those children know how hard many here in America are working to turn them over to the tender mercies of those who operated the Diyala prison."
How brutal is the enemy:

"American soldiers have found an al Qaeda "prison" there in which 42 Iraqis were being held by the terrorists"

For more, check out Reporting from Iraq...and keeping an eye on Afghanistan By Michelle Malkin.

Thank you to the US soldier for everything that he is doing in Iraq and fighting our enemies!

Saturday, May 26, 2007

No one is popular in Washington these days!

The Republicans are furious with Pres. Bush and the party leadership over the immigration proposal. Right or wrong, most activists see it as amnesty. I don't see it as amnesty circa '86 but we are in fact legalizing people who broke the law to come to the US.

JOHN PODHORETZ argues that Pres. Bush will lose if he wins on immigration:

"Bush needs a unified Republican Party going into the fall, which may be the most difficult moment of his presidency. The most likely scenario is that Gen. David Petraeus will report modest to substantial improvements in the war in Iraq, but not definitively enough to fend off Democratic efforts to use his report as a key occasion to end the war.

The president must have his own party in his corner at that time. And yet the party is on the verge of self-immolation over immigration. Passage of the bill would drain most of the remaining affection and respect for Bush from Republicans on Capitol Hill, who would have to deal with the populist fallout from the bill's passage.

He needs all the help he will get. And he will lose a lot of help." (BETTER OFF LOSING )

The Democrats are furious with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid over the Iraq War vote. The anti-war base is fit to be tied.

Jonathan Alter reminds the Democrats that they have the majority but not the votes:

"The first thing to understand is that Democrats may have won the midterms but they lack the votes to end the war in Iraq. Some liberals don't seem to get this elemental fact. " (The Democrats' Iraq Infighting )

What's the verdict? 29% approval for the Congress! The RCP Average is 32% based on May '07 polls.

Pres. Bush is in the 30s.

Nobody is happy with Washington these days. What does that mean?

First, we have some difficult choices, such as immigration. Frankly, no one touched this for 20 years and we are now talking about 10-12 million people!

Second, it means that a governor or outsider has a great shot at the presidency in '08!

Watch out for Romney, Guiliani and Richardson. They have the unique "outsider" advantage. It pays to live outside of the capital these days!

A great thought about Pres. Carter

Let's hope that former Pres. Carter will stay away from microphones.

Carter is a decent man. He has done great work supporting elections overseas and as a volunteer for Habitat for Humanity. I praise Pres. Carter for that work.

Beyond that, Pres. Carter needs to stay out of politics!
Gerard Baker remembers the Carter years! (Bad, But Not Jimmy Carter Bad )

It's time to leash Gore!

It's not easy to lose an election, specially a very tough election. However, Al Gore has never gotten over 2000 and continues to find every opportunity to bash George W. Bush.

Let me paraphrase John Lennon: How does Al sleep at night?

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and He has spared all of us from reading Al Gore's book by writing this review:

"That election makes an appearance in Gore's whining complaint about his loss in a televised debate against George W. Bush:

"[T]he controversy over my sighs in the first debate with George W. Bush created an impression on television that for many viewers outweighed whatever positive benefits I might have otherwise gained in the verbal combat of ideas and substance."

I remember that debate, and I can tell you that Gore lost because his sighs gave him the impression of being the kind of condescending know-it-all who views a debate as "verbal combat" in which he shoves his preferred notions down the public's throat.

His new argument doesn't do anything to reverse that impression. His basic theme seems to be: if the left isn't winning in the marketplace of ideas, there can't possibly be anything wrong with their ideas.

It must be the marketplace itself that is "broken," and the left needs to use the power of government to fix it--in both senses of the word "fix."

Thank you Mr. Tracinski. I remember the debate and found Gore's "sighs" obnoxious too! I also recall that he had a totally different personality on the second debate. On the other hand, Bush was the same person in each of the three debates!

I guess that we are too stupid to understand Al. Put me down as one of those stupid conservatives who does not understand a man who has different positions about everything.

He once said that Saddam had WMDs. Now, he claims that Bush lied to us!

He didn't do anything about the Kyoto treaty. Now, he blames Bush for the treaty's failure.

Yes, I'm one of those conservatives who doesn't get Al.

Thank God for The Electoral College! It spared the nation of a man named Al!

P.S. It's time to punch back at Gore's rants:

"Either Al Gore is trying to reinvent himself as being tough on terror or he has forgotten he was vice president of an administration whose approach to terrorism was far from effective," a spokeswoman, Summer Johnson, said." (
GOP Striking Back at Gore Over Terror)

Friday, May 25, 2007

Hugo Chavez has a familiar plan

Hugo Chavez has a familiar sound:

"What is currently unfolding in Venezuela is yet another populist leftist leader taking his nation down the path of false hopes and economic destruction.

It's a sad tale, that has been repeated many times in the last century.

President Hugo Chavez has used a combination of corruption, confiscation, unfulfilled promises and terror to stay in power.

But even with high oil prices, Chavez has to be careful.

Corruption tends to "grow" and everyone dipping into the pie wants a little more with each dip.

So even if the oil price remains high, the amount of goodies trickling down to his constituents at the bottom is in danger of completely drying up, which would be bad news for his popularity.

That's why Chavez is taking a cue from Fidel Castro, and trying to make the United States appear as the implacable enemy of Venezuela.

This provides Chavez with the cover he needs to create a police state.

By taking over the mass media, and forming a new army (whose main loyalty is to Chavez, not Venezuela), the people hear no contrary messages, and have no way to threaten the new president-for-life." (Venezuela Has a Plan)

For more, see Dead Air in Caracas By Jackson Diehl! Or, you can read TV channel axed in latest Chávez drama!

The federal deficit

Here is the bad news: We have a budget deficit.

Now here is the good news:

"The Treasury Department’s tax-collection data for April puts the federal deficit over the 12-month period ending April 30 at $144.7 billion. This leaves the deficit at about one percent of GDP, and declining, which is not a significant economic problem." (
Incredible Shrinking Bush Deficit)

Let me repeat: The budget deficit is 1% of GDP.


"The decline is due to surging tax revenues from a booming economy. The deficit is down about $120 billion, or 45 percent, since last April. It has declined by $309 billion, or 68 percent, over the last three years from the peak of $455 billion in April, 2004. This experience shows that combining pro-growth tax cuts with just moderate spending restraint can sharply reduce, and, indeed, eliminate the deficit."

How do you eliminate a deficit? You cut taxes and implement pro-growth policies. It works every time!

What now in Iraq?

Yesterday, the Democrats gave Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama lots of cover on the Iraq War vote. (Congress passes $120 billion Iraq bill)

Clinton & Obama voted against the funding because they knew that the US Senate would approve it. This is not a profile in courage. This is a profile in shameless political calculation.

Yesterday, we heard an unbelievable speech about the war on terror:

"Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards objects to the term, saying it has been concocted to give rhetorical support to the Bush administration’s foreign adventurism." (By Any Other Name?)

Frankly, it was a lot of hot air from Edwards. Osama bin Laden declared war in '96 and again in '98. Al Qaeda attacked US interests before 9/11.

How serious is Edwards? He is not! Edwards is either drinking something bad or has decided that rushing to the far left is the only way that he can come out Iowa or New Hampshire as a credible candidate.

Where are we? Let's check out Professor VD Hanson:

"Democrats who claim we took our eye off al Qaeda when we went into Iraq won’t explain how getting out will allow us to put both our eyes back on them when they’re in a nuclear Pakistan. Democrats who assure us that the war is “lost” and the surge hopeless will not cut off funding for it, damn its architect Gen. Petraeus, or explain how in good conscious they can send more soldiers into harm’s way for a war they assure us we can’t possibly win." (Another Month in the War)

Where are we? We are headed into a critical summer. (Battling al Qaeda in Iraq) What's happening on the ground? See some good news! (Is al-Qaeda on the Run in Iraq?)

The enemy is going to throw everything at our troops (look out for chlorine gas !)

The enemy understands that their survival is on the line. Do we understand how close to victory we are? (You bet we can win )

Michael Moore, US liberal vs Corki Aguila, Cuban dissident

Michael Moore is a coward. It takes zero courage to make a movie praising Castro. Courage is making a movie or trying to be a dissident in Cuba:

"So now that Mr. Moore has decided to immerse himself into Cuban politics debate, when will he and the rest of the activist American left begin calling for the release of Gorki Aguila? The short answer is "never." Our elitist protesters are nothing more than self-serving narcissists who can only dream of having the courage of a Gorki Aguila." (
The Antithesis of Michael Moore: Real Courage in Cuba)

Corky Aguila is in jail because he is a dissident. Michael Moore is free to move around and praise the dictatorship.

Michael Moore, George Clooney, Natalie Maines and Cindy Sheehan should call for a boycott of Cuba until Corky Aguila is released from jail.

The Dems are political cowards but it is Bush's fault

Can you believe this? According to the Dems, the war is unpopular and everyone hates Bush. So what the Dems do? They gave in and voted for Bush's request:

"Why did the Democrats capitulate? Because they lack the courage of their convictions. Because they fear the consequences if they put their antiwar beliefs into practice. Because they are afraid if they defund the war and force President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops, the calamity he predicts will come to pass and they will be held accountable for losing Iraq and the strategic disaster that might well ensue". (Why Congress Caved to Bush By Patrick Buchanan)

On Thursday, I watched Sen. Reid give a Churchillian speech about "never giving up". He gave that speech after he voted for the bill!

Am I missing something? Sen. Reid gave a long speech opposing the President and the war but he voted for the bill.

Question: Do these guys stand for anything?

The Democrats just gave up on Iraq. (
On War Funds, Democrats Saw No Option but to Cede Ground to Bush)

final vote was: Senate (80-14) House (280-142)

Pelosi & Reid have been saying that the public wants a new direction in Iraq. So what did Pelosi & Reid do? They made a lot of noise and gave Bush what he wanted! (
Why Pelosi never stood a chance with funding bill)

The antiwar side is furious:

", a leading antiwar group, rallied its 3.2 million members in an e-mail alert yesterday morning that declared that "every single Democrat must oppose this bill." The group warned that it would consider backing primary challengers to Democrats who vote yes. Other organizations issued similar angry threats." (Antiwar Groups Press Democrats to Vote Against Iraq Bill)

They didn't have the political courage to fight against Bush. However, it's all Bush's fault. They are blaming Bush for turning them into a bunch of political cowards.

Someday, historians will look back and conclude this: Bush stood his ground. The Dems didn't have a clue!

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Today, we will talk to the Mitt Romney campaign

We invited Ryan Williams, Director of Media Services of Team Mitt.

Our topics: immigration, the war on terror, the economy and family issues.

Mitt Romney is one of 3 outstanding Republican candidates. We will also invite other campaigns for discussion.

Thank God we are showing some force off Iran!

On Wednesday, we woke to these headlines:

IAEA: Iran Continues to Defy U.N.

What this means is that Iran continues to defy U.N. demands to scrap its uranium enrichment program and has instead expanded its activities. In other words, the current sanctions are not working!

US forces find Iranian money in Baghdad raid

Iran is in Iraq. Case closed!

Navy Assembles 9 Warships Off Iranian Coast in Surprise Show of Force in Gulf

It's about time.

We must look for a diplomatic situation. At the same time, Iran must be informed that the US is willing, and able, to use the military option.

In fact, the threat of force may be the sanction of all!

Immigration reform is a very sticky issue

As a legal immigrant, and very proud citizen of the US, I understand why someone wants to come here. The US is the economic and political envy of the world. At the same time, we are the "envy of the world" because of our adherence to the rule of law.

Why are foreigners willing to invest their money in the US? The answer is the rule of law.

Why are they willing to hold on to US dollars or invest in US banks or property? The answer is the rule of law.

Immigration must be legal and orderly. Otherwise, it turns our cities into anarchy and it misuses our social services.

George Will is a conservative commentator. He is not known for making wild statements:

"From 1990 to 2004, Hispanics accounted for 92 percent of the increase in poor people. Only 53 percent of Hispanics earn high school diplomas, the lowest among American ethnic groups. Half of all children born to Hispanic-Americans in 2005 were born out of wedlock -- a reliable predictor of social pathologies." (A History of Empty Words, Claims on Immigration By George Will)

At some point, you have to say enough is enough.

Yesterday, I heard some audio clips from a US Senate debate on immigration. It's fair to say that there are great divisions among Democrats and Republicans.

Frankly, the American people are not happy with it either:

"A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey conducted Monday and Tuesday night shows that just 26% of American voters favor passage of the legislation. Forty-eight percent (48%) are opposed while 26% are not sure.

The bi-partisan agreement among influential Senators and the White House has been met with bi-partisan opposition among the public. The measure is opposed by 47% of Republicans, 51% of Democrats, and 46% of those not affiliated with either major party.

The enforcement side of the debate is clearly where the public passion lies on the issue. Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say it is Very Important for “the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration.” That view is held by 89% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, and 63% of unaffiliated voters."
Just 26% Favor Senate Immigration Plan)

Why are Americans so interested in border security? The answer is that an open border is an invitation to terrorists.

How do I know? See Breaching America: War refugees or threats?:

"A stark reminder of U.S. vulnerability at home came this month when six foreign-born Muslims, three of whom had entered the country illegally, were arrested and accused of plotting to attack the Army's Fort Dix in New Jersey."(
Todd Bensman, San Antonio Express-News)

This is not about Mexico or immigration. This is about national security and the rule of law.

So secure the border. Force employers to obey the law. After that, let's treat the 12 million here with respect and common sense. Last, but not least, bring back the "brasero" program so that Mexicans can come here, work and go back home legally.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Is there a bigger fraud than John Edwards?

"Sooner or later the public's going to have to make a decision about whether Edwards with his $400 haircuts, his 29,000 square foot house, his lucrative hedge fund employment, walks the populist walk that he talks." Joe Klein, a columnist at TIME Magazine.

In 2004, Senator John Edwards couldn't get reelected. So what did he do? He ran for President. He couldn't win the nomination either. So he persuaded Sen. Kerry that a southern talking partner would help him in the South.

As it turned out, Edwards couldn't deliver his home state either! I guess that we call that another case of Gore-itis in the Democrat Party.

Recently, Edwards has been preaching about the so called Two Americas. Which America is this rich trial lawyer living in? According to Carla Marinucci:

"The candidate charged a whopping $55,000 to speak at to a crowd of 1,787 the taxpayer-funded University of California at Davis on Jan. 9, 2006 last year, Joe Martin, the public relations officer for the campus' Mondavi Center confirmed Monday. "

We live in a silly world where any one who bashes Bush is given immediate credibility. At some point, people need to look at Edwards and see the biggest fraud in years!

Why are liberals afraid of talk radio?

Talk radio is the greatest medium in the country. It allows people to talk about issues. Before talk radio, we had to rely on "letters to the editor" or editors to select what stories to cover. Today, "talk radio" and blogs allow everyone to participate.

Why do liberals hate talk radio? Because liberal talk radio continues to be commercial failure. Why is that? I don't have a full answer. However, maybe it has something to do with the message!

What can we learn from the old "brasero" program?

In 1953, Pres. Eisenhower created the "brasero program" because thousands of Mexicans were crossing over and working illegally.

It was killed in 1965 by Pres. Johnson. Looking back, Pres. Johnson made a huge mistake to please the labor unions:

written before about how President Eisenhower's Bracero guest-worker program reduced arrests of illegal aliens at the border from over a million in 1954 to only 45,000 by 1959. The number of arrests remained under 100,000 a year until 1964, when President Lyndon Johnson ended the program under pressure from labor unions." (Don't Run for the Border by John Fund)

The brasero program worked for two reasons:

1) It established a legal framework for hiring Mexican workers.

2) It understood that most Mexicans just want to come here to work. They just want an opportunity to work, make some dollars and go back home.

Let's revive a modern version of "brasero". Give people a chance to come here, work and go back to Mexico with a pocketful of dollars!

The Democrats and Iraq!

What did the anti-war left get for putting Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Let's see the headlines:

Democrats Relent On Pullout Timetable

Democrats Drop Troop Pullout Dates From Iraq Bill

Democrats capitulate on war funds

In the end, the Democrats did not have the courage to cut the funding and the war quickly. They have punted for now and will wait until the fall. They are also afraid of being accountable for the aftermath if they force a rapid withdrawal from Iraq.

At the same time, it could be that Democrats are getting a sense of realism. Perhaps, they saw this:

"Rohan Gunaratna told a security conference at Lloyd's of London insurance market that Iraq, like Afghanistan in the 1990s, would become a "terrorist Disneyland" where al Qaeda could build up its strength unchallenged.

If U.S., British and other coalition troops withdrew from Iraq in the next year, he said, "certainly the scale of attacks that would be mounted inside Iraq, and using Iraq as a launching pad to strike other Western countries -- countries in Europe, North America - would become such that after two or three years, the U.S. forces will have to go back to Iraq."

The Singapore-based academic and writer said the epicenter of international terrorism had already switched from Afghanistan to Iraq.

"In many ways, the terrorist threat has now shifted 1,500 miles closer to Europe." (Iraq a "terrorist Disneyland" if U.S. goes: expert)

No matter what, Pres. Bush will get to have his "surge". Based on early reports, it is working, although I'm not suggesting that things are perfect.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Gas prices and taxes

George Will had something to say about gasoline prices:

"While oil companies make about 13 cents on a gallon of gasoline, the federal government makes 18.4 cents (the federal tax) and California's various governments make 40.2 cents (the nation's third-highest gasoline tax). Pelosi's San Francisco collects a local sales tax of 8.5 percent - higher than the state's average for local sales taxes." (
Blame government, not big oil for gas prices)

I am not against gasoline excise taxes. At the same time, I'm tired of oil companies being the newest whipping boy.

Want to reduce prices? Drive less and prices will drop!

The lawsuit madness

The lawsuit mania has direct and indirect consewquences on each of us. From the Little League to worksites, every facet of our lives has been hit by lawyers and lawsuits.

The Democrats enjoy strong support from trial lawyers. Why not? Lawsuits are like a tax increase on each and every one of us:

"According to the Pacific Research Institute’s new study,
Jackpot Justice, the annual social cost of the U.S. tort system is $737.4 billion, which
is equivalent to an eight-percent tax on consumption, a 13-percent tax on wages, the combined annual output of all six New England states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), or the total annual sales of the U.S. restaurant industry.

The annual price tag, or “tort tax,” for a family of four in terms of costs and forgone benefits is $9,827." (The Cost of Lawsuits)

Al Qaeda is in Iraq!

"The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes." (Former Sen. Kerrey)

According to The Guardian, Iran is getting ready for a huge offensive intended to drive the US out of Iraq. (
Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq )

Why? Because understands what the Democrats do not understand. Iran wants the US out of the region.

Therefore, it was good to see that Pres. Bush won the funding fight with Congress:

"The Democrats
threw in the towel today, leaking the news that they will pass an Iraq war funding bill that runs through the end of the fiscal year, without trying to add pork or deadlines for withdrawal. Democratic leaders say they will have the bill on the President's desk by the end of the week, and that they are trying to avoid another veto fight that they can't win." (Bush Wins on War Funding)

We are at war with Al Qaeda in Iraq.
It is silly to argue about WMDs, the Saddam-Osama connections, or whatever else the war critics want to bring up. At best, it's history. At worst, it's a distraction from the real war, the war against Al Qaeda.

Can we win in Iraq?

Here is a better question: Can we afford to lose?

What are the consequences of walking out? FREDERICK KAGAN just got back and wrote this:

"Iraq is the central front in the war against Al Qaeda. And we are beginning to win. These are not talking points. They are facts on the ground, as I saw during my recent trips there." (
You bet we can win )

P.S. Speaking of those WMDs, we saw more
chlorine gas in Iraq:

"The casualty toll in yesterday's suicide bombing in Abu Sayada in Diyala has increased, and it was confirmed that
chlorine gas was used. Forty-five were killed and 60 wounded in the chlorine suicide attack, al Qaeda's tenth successful employment of the poisonous gas in Iraq. Elsewhere in Diyala, al Qaeda "abducted 21 civilian passengers at a fake checkpoint near Al-Ghalibiya" and brought them to Al-Hashemeyat, which is a known al Qaeda stronghold."




Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Silvio Canto Jr on BlogTalkRadio

Follow by Email



Search This Blog