There are only a few possible things that could keep Obama out of the White House at this point.
1. Osama endorses Obama- you know this is coming right? Bin Laden is going to put his scraggly ass back in front of the camera and make some kind of statement where he either bluntly or subtely states some preference for Obama to win the election. Not because Osama actually wants Obama to win, mind you, just the opposite. If we elect a black man whose father was a muslim, that undermines their claim that we are an intolerant country that wants to wage a crusade against Islam. (Never mind the fact that our policies in the Middle East are appaling and the fact that many Americans do fear and hate Islam) No, Osama wants to have another trigger happy cowboy who talks tough and antagonizes the rest of the world. That would be John Sideny "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" McCain.
An Osama tape release of any kind, no matter what the message would be bad for Obama, the man who "pals around with terrorists", according to Sarah Palin and other illiterate fearmongers in the Republican party, your local trailer park experts, and people who travel the NASCAR circuit. For all of the rhetoric about Obama being a terrorist lover, you'd think that Osama was actually on his ticket. Please Osama, don't do it. No tapes please.
2. Obama gets caught on tape balling Joe the Plumber's Wife
3. Lewinsky has another stained dress in her closed with Obama's DNA on it
4. Obama gets caught playing footsie in adjoining bathroom stalls with Bill Ayers
5. Obama announces that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright would be his choice for Secretary of Homeland Security or would swear him in and sing the national anthem at his inauguration
6. Michelle Obama is caught in a state of undress in the back of Joe the Plumber's van
7. Barrack pulls a Boutrous Boutrous Ghali and changes his first name to Hussein, making him Hussein Hussein Obama
8. Sarah Palin does an interview in which she manages to sound literate
9. The McCain campaign ceases its usage of the following phrases, "my friends", "i know how to...", "we're mavericks", "take on the good old boy network", and "shining city on a hill"
10. Prior to casting his ballot on election day, Obama rolls out a prayer matt and kneels down to pray in the direction of Mecca
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Friday, October 17, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
Sarah Speaks!
Sarah Palin is not a foreign policy lightweight; she’s a super-bantamweight. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing_weight_classes) She’s not a pig; she’s a horse’s ass. She’s been cramming for weeks (sample question McCain staffers quizzed her with- O.K. who’s in the U.N. Security Council, again?) and finally deigned to be interviewed yesterday by ABC’s Charlie Gibson, and in case you missed it, let me give you the low-lights and some analysis.
GIBSON: When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?
PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.
GIBSON: I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.
PALIN: It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It's that important. It's that significant. END QUOTE
So in other words, she has no experience, but she has been the governor of an oil-producing state for (less than) two years. The idea that foreign policy/national security and oil are essentially the same thing is an interesting idea- and it more or less confirms the rest of the world’s fears that the war in Iraq and our foreign policy writ large is dominated by our thirst for oil.
GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?
PALIN: Canada, Mexico, and then, yes, that trip, that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was the trip of a lifetime and it changed my life. END QUOTE
Sadly, Gibson did not follow up to ask, “how did visiting troops in the deserts of Kuwait change your life?” So Sarah’s been to Tijuana, and crossed over into Canada to get a better look at Niagara Falls. Doesn’t really matter, because she lives in Alaska, which is so darned close to Russia.
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
That's what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It's an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.
Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan. END QUOTE
Aside from the fact that she used the word, “Charlie” three times within one minute, this is an astonishing exchange. Again much of the Muslim World- suspects that the U.S. is engaged in a holy war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and here Palin’s previous statement confirms this for them. And Palin’s Honest Abe comparison is simply ludicrous- her statement bears more resemblance to the Blues Brothers “mission from God” quote than Lincoln’s.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state (of Alaska) give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along. END QUOTE
Indeed- Palin knows well what is going on in the Caucasus region- 10 time zones away from Alaska- because the western most extreme portion of her state is close to Siberia. Nice one. Also, love the notion of her Rodney King like- ‘can’t we all just get along’ idea- this coming just one question after she had just stated that we needed to “keep our eyes on Russia”, while calling their actions in Georgia “unprovoked” and “unacceptable”. Those statements are sure to improve ties.
After stating that Georgia and Ukraine should be brought into NATO, “Charlie” then asked:
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen. END QUOTE
So essentially, yes she is willing to take actions (i.e. admitting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO) that could drag us into war with Russia, but she’s only willing to offer vague “support” and rhetoric to Georgia with vague notions of some kind of unspecified economic sanctions against Russia. Memo to super-bantamweight Sarah (SBS) :“Being called up on to help” and going to war are two different things.
GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?
PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we're able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we're a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society. END QUOTE
Keep hope alive! Even for suicide bombers? What is this crap about people having no hope and no options becoming suicide bombers? Most of the 9/11 hijackers were highly educated (delusional and evil, yes, but uneducated and hopeless? Not so much) and from middle class families. It wasn’t like they lost their jobs one day and then went off the rails. Pulllleeeezzzze!
Gibson then asked super-bantamweight Sarah (SBS) about the Bush Doctrine and she had no clue what he was talking about. The segment closed with SBS dodging Gibson’s question about whether she’d support staging attacks on militants in Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government. It was not a pretty performance for America’s favorite pit bull/hockey mom.
Why am I picking on SBS? I don’t care about the fact that her daughter got knocked up, or her trooper- gate scandal, or that she tried to fire the town librarian for objecting to her plan to ban books, and I’m not even that troubled by the fact that she’s only been a governor for a couple of years. Let's also leave aside the fact that she named her children Track, Trig, Bristol, Willow and Piper and what that says about her judgement. Obama doesn’t have a wealth of foreign policy experience either- but at least the man sounds intelligent when asked a question- whereas Palin is barely coherent. I’ve overheard more intelligent banter in the urinals of sports bars for God’s sakes. This is a woman that attended five colleges (two of them community colleges, and two others were in Hawaii) before managing to graduate with a degree in sports journalism. She did win “miss congeniality” in a beauty pageant years ago, and last night that was essentially what she sounded like: a beauty pageant contestant that was trying hard to sound intelligent but was completely out of her depths. But will Americans say “she’s a dumb-ass, I’m voting Obama”, or will they say, “she’s a dumb-ass just like me, I think I’ll vote for her!”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=1
GIBSON: When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?
PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.
GIBSON: I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.
PALIN: It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It's that important. It's that significant. END QUOTE
So in other words, she has no experience, but she has been the governor of an oil-producing state for (less than) two years. The idea that foreign policy/national security and oil are essentially the same thing is an interesting idea- and it more or less confirms the rest of the world’s fears that the war in Iraq and our foreign policy writ large is dominated by our thirst for oil.
GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?
PALIN: Canada, Mexico, and then, yes, that trip, that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was the trip of a lifetime and it changed my life. END QUOTE
Sadly, Gibson did not follow up to ask, “how did visiting troops in the deserts of Kuwait change your life?” So Sarah’s been to Tijuana, and crossed over into Canada to get a better look at Niagara Falls. Doesn’t really matter, because she lives in Alaska, which is so darned close to Russia.
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
That's what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It's an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.
Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan. END QUOTE
Aside from the fact that she used the word, “Charlie” three times within one minute, this is an astonishing exchange. Again much of the Muslim World- suspects that the U.S. is engaged in a holy war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and here Palin’s previous statement confirms this for them. And Palin’s Honest Abe comparison is simply ludicrous- her statement bears more resemblance to the Blues Brothers “mission from God” quote than Lincoln’s.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state (of Alaska) give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along. END QUOTE
Indeed- Palin knows well what is going on in the Caucasus region- 10 time zones away from Alaska- because the western most extreme portion of her state is close to Siberia. Nice one. Also, love the notion of her Rodney King like- ‘can’t we all just get along’ idea- this coming just one question after she had just stated that we needed to “keep our eyes on Russia”, while calling their actions in Georgia “unprovoked” and “unacceptable”. Those statements are sure to improve ties.
After stating that Georgia and Ukraine should be brought into NATO, “Charlie” then asked:
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen. END QUOTE
So essentially, yes she is willing to take actions (i.e. admitting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO) that could drag us into war with Russia, but she’s only willing to offer vague “support” and rhetoric to Georgia with vague notions of some kind of unspecified economic sanctions against Russia. Memo to super-bantamweight Sarah (SBS) :“Being called up on to help” and going to war are two different things.
GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?
PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we're able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we're a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society. END QUOTE
Keep hope alive! Even for suicide bombers? What is this crap about people having no hope and no options becoming suicide bombers? Most of the 9/11 hijackers were highly educated (delusional and evil, yes, but uneducated and hopeless? Not so much) and from middle class families. It wasn’t like they lost their jobs one day and then went off the rails. Pulllleeeezzzze!
Gibson then asked super-bantamweight Sarah (SBS) about the Bush Doctrine and she had no clue what he was talking about. The segment closed with SBS dodging Gibson’s question about whether she’d support staging attacks on militants in Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government. It was not a pretty performance for America’s favorite pit bull/hockey mom.
Why am I picking on SBS? I don’t care about the fact that her daughter got knocked up, or her trooper- gate scandal, or that she tried to fire the town librarian for objecting to her plan to ban books, and I’m not even that troubled by the fact that she’s only been a governor for a couple of years. Let's also leave aside the fact that she named her children Track, Trig, Bristol, Willow and Piper and what that says about her judgement. Obama doesn’t have a wealth of foreign policy experience either- but at least the man sounds intelligent when asked a question- whereas Palin is barely coherent. I’ve overheard more intelligent banter in the urinals of sports bars for God’s sakes. This is a woman that attended five colleges (two of them community colleges, and two others were in Hawaii) before managing to graduate with a degree in sports journalism. She did win “miss congeniality” in a beauty pageant years ago, and last night that was essentially what she sounded like: a beauty pageant contestant that was trying hard to sound intelligent but was completely out of her depths. But will Americans say “she’s a dumb-ass, I’m voting Obama”, or will they say, “she’s a dumb-ass just like me, I think I’ll vote for her!”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=1
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Next Up for Hill: A Spot on VH1's the Surreal Life?
Even by the Clinton's trailer park standards, last night's non-concession speech was particularly base,self-serving and hypocritcal. Baruch College's gymnasium was packed to the gills with defiant, screaming Clintonistas who were whipped into a frenzy with tunes like Tom Petty's "Won't Back Down", and Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe laughably introduced their hero as "the next president of the United States" despite the fact that every news organization had already called the race for Obama.
The carefully assembled crowd- which included a handful of African Americans strategically placed directly behind Hill- exhorted their leader with cries of "Denver, Denver!" indicating their clear preference for her to refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Clinton, for her part, only vaguely congratulated Obama- delighting her intransigent fans by refusing to concede, despite the fact that- by any count- she had lost the race. "What does Hillary want?" she asked, vainly refering to herself in the 3rd person, before attempting to masquerade her own selfish ambition and thirst for power by answering her own question with an absurd justification for her refusal to concede the race. Hill would have us believe she's staying in because of all the little people- the woman in Sioux Falls with no health insurance, the second shift worker, the single mother, blah, blah, blah. Of course, this is complete bullshit, and everyone knows it. Everyone that is, save for the angry hooligans in the auditorium (and those of their ilk watching from home) who- in a truly surreal spectacle- jumped up and down and whoooped and hollered as though they were celebrating a victory rather than conceeding a defeat. The only thing that was missing from the twilight-zone like presentation was a rendition of "Happy Days are Here Again" and confetti falling from the rafters.
Commentators keep telling us that Clinton has earned the right to go out on her own terms, and that she shouldn't be rushed into conceeding the race. The truth is that its too late for a graceful exit- last night should have been Obama's night- but the Clinton's still cannot come to grips with losing and so they couldn't let the man have his due. Even if she conceedes the race today- which I doubt-its too late- the time to bow out was last night, if not weeks ago.
If Clinton's ultimate goal truly is to advance the policies she espouses rather than just to re-inhabit the White House, she would have conceeded long ago. Instead she and her campaign have duped their core constituency- working class women, white collar feminists, senior citizens uncomfortable with the idea of a black candidate and just plain old rednecks- that the sexist media and the DNC have stolen the election from her by unfairly refusing to count the votes in Michigan and Florida. Never mind the fact that she herself conceeded that those elections weren't going to count back when she didn't know she'd need those votes.
Die-hard Clintonistas want to believe that the nomination has been stolen from them and the facts aren't going to get in the way of that. They are convinced that she is the stronger candiate despite the fact that at least 40% of the country despises her. Years of experience with the Clintons tells us that they aren't going to go quietly from the scene- so now the only question that remains is- will Obama allow himself to be held hostage by Hill's selfish demands? Will she withold support until Obama agrees to put her on the ticket and pay off her campaign debts? No one would put it past her.
I'd like to see Obama put some other woman on the ticket- if for no other reason than to just prove a point- most American men aren't opposed to women in power- they're just opposed to Hillary being in power. Hillary for Veep? Nah, I have another idea- I think Bill and Hill are more well suited for VH1's Surreal Life House ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Surreal_Life) than the White House- perhaps the producers could even arrange to have them room with the "scumbag" reporter that wrote this recent Vanity Fair piece on Bill's shady business and personal dealings. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807
Check your inbox Hill- you may have missed the memo- you lost- its all over, there won't be any 3AM phone calls for you to answer, no more fake tears to shed, no more vast right wing conspiracies to fend off, no more having to unfairly field the first question at sexist debates. Extinguish your torch and get off the island. The tribe has spoken.
The carefully assembled crowd- which included a handful of African Americans strategically placed directly behind Hill- exhorted their leader with cries of "Denver, Denver!" indicating their clear preference for her to refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Clinton, for her part, only vaguely congratulated Obama- delighting her intransigent fans by refusing to concede, despite the fact that- by any count- she had lost the race. "What does Hillary want?" she asked, vainly refering to herself in the 3rd person, before attempting to masquerade her own selfish ambition and thirst for power by answering her own question with an absurd justification for her refusal to concede the race. Hill would have us believe she's staying in because of all the little people- the woman in Sioux Falls with no health insurance, the second shift worker, the single mother, blah, blah, blah. Of course, this is complete bullshit, and everyone knows it. Everyone that is, save for the angry hooligans in the auditorium (and those of their ilk watching from home) who- in a truly surreal spectacle- jumped up and down and whoooped and hollered as though they were celebrating a victory rather than conceeding a defeat. The only thing that was missing from the twilight-zone like presentation was a rendition of "Happy Days are Here Again" and confetti falling from the rafters.
Commentators keep telling us that Clinton has earned the right to go out on her own terms, and that she shouldn't be rushed into conceeding the race. The truth is that its too late for a graceful exit- last night should have been Obama's night- but the Clinton's still cannot come to grips with losing and so they couldn't let the man have his due. Even if she conceedes the race today- which I doubt-its too late- the time to bow out was last night, if not weeks ago.
If Clinton's ultimate goal truly is to advance the policies she espouses rather than just to re-inhabit the White House, she would have conceeded long ago. Instead she and her campaign have duped their core constituency- working class women, white collar feminists, senior citizens uncomfortable with the idea of a black candidate and just plain old rednecks- that the sexist media and the DNC have stolen the election from her by unfairly refusing to count the votes in Michigan and Florida. Never mind the fact that she herself conceeded that those elections weren't going to count back when she didn't know she'd need those votes.
Die-hard Clintonistas want to believe that the nomination has been stolen from them and the facts aren't going to get in the way of that. They are convinced that she is the stronger candiate despite the fact that at least 40% of the country despises her. Years of experience with the Clintons tells us that they aren't going to go quietly from the scene- so now the only question that remains is- will Obama allow himself to be held hostage by Hill's selfish demands? Will she withold support until Obama agrees to put her on the ticket and pay off her campaign debts? No one would put it past her.
I'd like to see Obama put some other woman on the ticket- if for no other reason than to just prove a point- most American men aren't opposed to women in power- they're just opposed to Hillary being in power. Hillary for Veep? Nah, I have another idea- I think Bill and Hill are more well suited for VH1's Surreal Life House ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Surreal_Life) than the White House- perhaps the producers could even arrange to have them room with the "scumbag" reporter that wrote this recent Vanity Fair piece on Bill's shady business and personal dealings. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807
Check your inbox Hill- you may have missed the memo- you lost- its all over, there won't be any 3AM phone calls for you to answer, no more fake tears to shed, no more vast right wing conspiracies to fend off, no more having to unfairly field the first question at sexist debates. Extinguish your torch and get off the island. The tribe has spoken.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Amnesty: Coming Soon for an Illegal Immigrant Near You
All three of the presidential candidates with any chance to become president- McCain, Hillary, and Obama- are planning to grant amnesty to the 12-20 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S. Yet none of them are willing to admit it. Here is how they mislead voters:
Amnesty: they all claim that their plans do not constitute amnesty because they involve fines and back taxes, learning english, and joining the "back of the line". We'll tackle each of these points separately, but for now let's focus on the is it or is not amnesty part. The key component that is missing from their plans is the going home part. Under each plan, the illegal immigrant would be allowed to stay in American indefinitely- which is exactly the reward for their illegal behavior that they want.
Fines and Back Taxes: The govenment might have a chance at collecting fines- but the idea that illegal immigrants are going to provide honest estimates of their years of under-the-table earnings is simply ludicrous. When I was in the Foreign Service, I examined that tax returns of hundreds, if not thousands of LEGAl immigrants that were sponsoring relatives to immigrate, and I can honestly tell you that most immigrants that have an opportunity to cheat on taxes (i.e. entrepreneurs, tradeseman that are paid in cash, waiters, etc) do so on a grand scale. They come from countries where only fools pay taxes and bring this same mentality to the U.S.
Learning English: Based upon my experience, many LEGAL immigrants never bother to learn english, despite the fact that its ALREADY supposed to be a requirement for citizenship, so now we are going to hold ILLEGAL immigrants to a higher standard, and expect that they are going to learn english? Some will, undoubtedly, but many will not, yet will be granted amnesty nonetheless. Why? Because is already set up for billingualism in case you haven't noticed. When I voted last week, the first question the touch screen asked me was "English or Espanol", despite the fact that only U.S. citizens can vote, and U.S. citizens are supposed to be able to speak english.
Joining the Back of the Line: Immigrating to America is not simply a matter of lining up, as though you are waiting to get on a ride at an amusement park. Yes, there are waiting periods for various categories of would-be-immigrants- but no, there is no single "line" to enter America, and no, not everyone is elligible to join this "line" that doesn't really exist in the first place. Confused? You should be- but the bottom line is that most qualify to enter as legal immigrants based upon a close family relationship to a U.S. citizen or green card holder, and if you don't have a very close relative- spouse, parent, sibling, child-etc in the States- you are often out of luck. Second, you aren't "in line" at all, if you came illegally and are allowed to stay without returning to your home country.
So, who cares really if illegal immigrants are granted amnesty? Consider the following:
DERIVATIVE EFFECT: Consider the fact that the "average" legal immigrant files between 3-4 petitions to bring relatives to the U.S. This means that if you legalize 12 million illegals, they will file somewhere between 36-48 million additional petitions to bring over their relatives, and then those people, once they arrive, will do the same thing, and on and on. So you aren't really just legalizing the estimated 12 million- within 10-15 years, you'll have an additional 35-50 million people.
RULE OF LAW or NOT SO MUCH? As a former Foreign Service Officer, I issued immigrant visas to scores of immigrants that waited in their home countries LEGALLY for many years. Sibling petitions, for example, are usually a 12-13 year wait! So what message does it send to these people that wait for more than a decade to legalize those that said- the hell with it, I'm going now? It tells them that they were dumb to wait- they could have been in the States with their families years ago. Upholding our laws is essential if we are to be a country that believes in the rule of law.
TRENDING TOWARDS THE THIRD WORLD: According to a Pew Research Center report released this week, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/729/united-states-population-projections, nearly 1 in 5 Americans will be an immigrant by 2050, (right now the figure is 1 in 8) and our population will have mushroomed to 438 million. Nearly all of the population growth will be attributable to immigration from the third world. Consider, also, that this projection does not account for the influx that will arrive if we have a blanket amnesty that allows some 12-20 million illegals to file petitions for their relatives to join them in the U.S.
Here are a few more staggering numbers for you:
Since the late 1980’s legal and illegal immigration to the United States has exploded. More than one third of all immigrants that the U.S has absorbed in its entire history arrived after 1970, with more immigrants arriving during the 1990’s than any prior decade in American history. Legal and illegal immigrants now account for one out of every eight persons living in the U.S. In 1970, the figure was one out of twenty-one, and as recently as 1990, the figure was one out of thirteen.
In 2006, 1,266,264 immigrants were granted legal permanent resident (LPR or “green card” status), and another 1,044,689 immigrants were naturalized as U.S. citizens. To place the later figure in perspective, consider that the high water year for immigrants naturalizing as U.S. citizens prior to World War II was in 1928, when 233,155 immigrants became U.S. citizens. Since 2000, more than 10 million immigrants have arrived in the U.S.- the highest seven-year period of immigration in America’s history. Suffice it to say that we are in the midst of the largest wave of immigration this country has ever seen.
Its also important to understand that its not just the number of immigrants coming to the U.S. but where they are coming from and what socioeconomic groups tend to dominate the immigrant population. Unlike Canada, and other nations that try to recruit highly skilled and educated immigrants, our system gives no preference to the best and the brightest around the world, with the result being that huge numbers of immigrants are unskilled and do not have high school diplomas. The social costs of bringing in huge numbers of unskilled, poorly educated immigrants is collasal. California alone spends more than nine BILLION dollars- or $1,183 per household- just to educate illegal immigrants each year, never mind legal immigrans as well. http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersffec
What is the net effect of this huge migration from the Third World? Decling American wages is one factor. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich noted in the New York Times yesterday that the average median wage for Americans (adjusted for inflation) is barely higher now than it was 30 years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13reich.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=robert+reich&st=nyt&oref=slogin There are many factors to blame for this, and wide-scale immigration is just one factor in this story, but it is an important part of why wages have stagnated, particularly for unskilled, working class Americans.
What to do about it? Let your elected representatives know that you don't support any amnesty plan that does not require illegal immigrants to return home first. No, we do not need to engage in mass deportations to solve the problem, we simply need to enforce the laws that are already on the books, and many illegals will leave voluntarily. America is a country of immigrants- and immigrants can make great contributions to our society, indeed America is a more interesting place because of immigrants, but we have seen such a massive influx over the last 15 years that right now we need a time-out to assimilate those that have arrived, and to reform our immigration system so that we can manage the flow of who comes in the future, so that we bring in smaller numbers of better educated and skilled immigrants that will require fewer social services and will assimilate more easily into American society.
Amnesty: they all claim that their plans do not constitute amnesty because they involve fines and back taxes, learning english, and joining the "back of the line". We'll tackle each of these points separately, but for now let's focus on the is it or is not amnesty part. The key component that is missing from their plans is the going home part. Under each plan, the illegal immigrant would be allowed to stay in American indefinitely- which is exactly the reward for their illegal behavior that they want.
Fines and Back Taxes: The govenment might have a chance at collecting fines- but the idea that illegal immigrants are going to provide honest estimates of their years of under-the-table earnings is simply ludicrous. When I was in the Foreign Service, I examined that tax returns of hundreds, if not thousands of LEGAl immigrants that were sponsoring relatives to immigrate, and I can honestly tell you that most immigrants that have an opportunity to cheat on taxes (i.e. entrepreneurs, tradeseman that are paid in cash, waiters, etc) do so on a grand scale. They come from countries where only fools pay taxes and bring this same mentality to the U.S.
Learning English: Based upon my experience, many LEGAL immigrants never bother to learn english, despite the fact that its ALREADY supposed to be a requirement for citizenship, so now we are going to hold ILLEGAL immigrants to a higher standard, and expect that they are going to learn english? Some will, undoubtedly, but many will not, yet will be granted amnesty nonetheless. Why? Because is already set up for billingualism in case you haven't noticed. When I voted last week, the first question the touch screen asked me was "English or Espanol", despite the fact that only U.S. citizens can vote, and U.S. citizens are supposed to be able to speak english.
Joining the Back of the Line: Immigrating to America is not simply a matter of lining up, as though you are waiting to get on a ride at an amusement park. Yes, there are waiting periods for various categories of would-be-immigrants- but no, there is no single "line" to enter America, and no, not everyone is elligible to join this "line" that doesn't really exist in the first place. Confused? You should be- but the bottom line is that most qualify to enter as legal immigrants based upon a close family relationship to a U.S. citizen or green card holder, and if you don't have a very close relative- spouse, parent, sibling, child-etc in the States- you are often out of luck. Second, you aren't "in line" at all, if you came illegally and are allowed to stay without returning to your home country.
So, who cares really if illegal immigrants are granted amnesty? Consider the following:
DERIVATIVE EFFECT: Consider the fact that the "average" legal immigrant files between 3-4 petitions to bring relatives to the U.S. This means that if you legalize 12 million illegals, they will file somewhere between 36-48 million additional petitions to bring over their relatives, and then those people, once they arrive, will do the same thing, and on and on. So you aren't really just legalizing the estimated 12 million- within 10-15 years, you'll have an additional 35-50 million people.
RULE OF LAW or NOT SO MUCH? As a former Foreign Service Officer, I issued immigrant visas to scores of immigrants that waited in their home countries LEGALLY for many years. Sibling petitions, for example, are usually a 12-13 year wait! So what message does it send to these people that wait for more than a decade to legalize those that said- the hell with it, I'm going now? It tells them that they were dumb to wait- they could have been in the States with their families years ago. Upholding our laws is essential if we are to be a country that believes in the rule of law.
TRENDING TOWARDS THE THIRD WORLD: According to a Pew Research Center report released this week, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/729/united-states-population-projections, nearly 1 in 5 Americans will be an immigrant by 2050, (right now the figure is 1 in 8) and our population will have mushroomed to 438 million. Nearly all of the population growth will be attributable to immigration from the third world. Consider, also, that this projection does not account for the influx that will arrive if we have a blanket amnesty that allows some 12-20 million illegals to file petitions for their relatives to join them in the U.S.
Here are a few more staggering numbers for you:
Since the late 1980’s legal and illegal immigration to the United States has exploded. More than one third of all immigrants that the U.S has absorbed in its entire history arrived after 1970, with more immigrants arriving during the 1990’s than any prior decade in American history. Legal and illegal immigrants now account for one out of every eight persons living in the U.S. In 1970, the figure was one out of twenty-one, and as recently as 1990, the figure was one out of thirteen.
In 2006, 1,266,264 immigrants were granted legal permanent resident (LPR or “green card” status), and another 1,044,689 immigrants were naturalized as U.S. citizens. To place the later figure in perspective, consider that the high water year for immigrants naturalizing as U.S. citizens prior to World War II was in 1928, when 233,155 immigrants became U.S. citizens. Since 2000, more than 10 million immigrants have arrived in the U.S.- the highest seven-year period of immigration in America’s history. Suffice it to say that we are in the midst of the largest wave of immigration this country has ever seen.
Its also important to understand that its not just the number of immigrants coming to the U.S. but where they are coming from and what socioeconomic groups tend to dominate the immigrant population. Unlike Canada, and other nations that try to recruit highly skilled and educated immigrants, our system gives no preference to the best and the brightest around the world, with the result being that huge numbers of immigrants are unskilled and do not have high school diplomas. The social costs of bringing in huge numbers of unskilled, poorly educated immigrants is collasal. California alone spends more than nine BILLION dollars- or $1,183 per household- just to educate illegal immigrants each year, never mind legal immigrans as well. http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersffec
What is the net effect of this huge migration from the Third World? Decling American wages is one factor. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich noted in the New York Times yesterday that the average median wage for Americans (adjusted for inflation) is barely higher now than it was 30 years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13reich.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=robert+reich&st=nyt&oref=slogin There are many factors to blame for this, and wide-scale immigration is just one factor in this story, but it is an important part of why wages have stagnated, particularly for unskilled, working class Americans.
What to do about it? Let your elected representatives know that you don't support any amnesty plan that does not require illegal immigrants to return home first. No, we do not need to engage in mass deportations to solve the problem, we simply need to enforce the laws that are already on the books, and many illegals will leave voluntarily. America is a country of immigrants- and immigrants can make great contributions to our society, indeed America is a more interesting place because of immigrants, but we have seen such a massive influx over the last 15 years that right now we need a time-out to assimilate those that have arrived, and to reform our immigration system so that we can manage the flow of who comes in the future, so that we bring in smaller numbers of better educated and skilled immigrants that will require fewer social services and will assimilate more easily into American society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
