Whose Country is This Anyway?

With the support of 70 percent of its citizens, Arizona has ordered sheriffs and police to secure the border and remove illegal aliens, half a million of whom now reside there. 

Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and refuses to enforce America's immigration laws. 

"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," said Gov. Jan Brewer. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable situation." 

We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state in Washington.

What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed? 

He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty. 

He has denounced Arizona as "misguided." He has called on the Justice Department to ensure that Arizona's sheriffs and police do not violate anyone's civil rights. But he has said nothing about the rights of the people of Arizona who must deal with the costs of having hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers in their midst. 

How's that for Andrew Jackson-style leadership?

Obama has done everything but his duty to enforce the law.

Undeniably, making it a state as well as a federal crime to be in this country illegally, and requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they have a "reasonable suspicion" is here illegally, is tough and burdensome. But what choice did Arizona have? 

The state has a fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden of providing schooling and social welfare for illegals and their families, who consume far more in services than they pay in taxes and who continue to pour in. Even John McCain is now calling for 3,000 troops on the border.

Police officers and a prominent rancher have been murdered. There have been kidnappings believed to be tied to the Mexican drug cartels. There are nightly high-speed chases through the barrios where innocent people are constantly at risk. 

If Arizona does not get control of the border and stop the invasion, U.S. citizens will stop coming to Arizona and will begin to depart, as they are already fleeing California.

What we are talking about here is the Balkanization and breakup of a nation into ethnic enclaves. A country that cannot control its borders isn't really a country anymore, Ronald Reagan reminded us. 

The tasks that Arizonans are themselves undertaking are ones that belong by right, the Constitution and federal law to the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Homeland Security. 

Arizona has been compelled to assume the feds' role because the feds won't do their job. And for that dereliction of duty the buck stops on the desk of the president of the United States. 

Why is Obama paralyzed? Why does he not enforce the law, even if he dislikes it, by punishing the businessmen who hire illegals and by sending the 12 million to 20 million illegals back home? President Eisenhower did it. Why won't he? 

Because he is politically correct. Because he owes a big debt to the Hispanic lobby that helped deliver two-thirds of that vote in 2008. Though most citizens of Hispanic descent in Arizona want the border protected and the laws enforced, the Hispanic lobby demands that the law be changed.

Fair enough. But the nation rose up as one to reject the "path-to-citizenship" – i.e., amnesty – that the 2007 plan of George W. Bush, McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama envisioned. 

Al Sharpton threatens to go to Phoenix and march in the streets against the new Arizona law. Let him go. 

Let us see how many African-Americans, who are today frozen out of the 8 million jobs held by illegal aliens that might otherwise go to them or their children, will march to defend an invasion for which they are themselves paying the heaviest price. 

Last year, while Americans were losing a net of 5 million jobs, the U.S. government – Bush and Obama both – issued 1,131,000 green cards to legal immigrants to come and take the jobs that did open up, a flood of immigrants equaled in only four other years in our history. 

What are we doing to our own people? 

Whose country is this, anyway? 

America today has an establishment that, because it does not like the immigration laws, countenances and condones wholesale violation of those laws. 

Nevertheless, under those laws, the U.S. government is obligated to deport illegal aliens and punish businesses that knowingly hire them.

This is not an option. It is an obligation. 

Can anyone say Barack Obama is meeting that obligation?

Reprinted from WND - Patrick J. Buchanan - 4/27/10

Happy Earth Day

I know - raised eyebrows.  After-all, I make no bones about the fact that I am conservative and so that must make me a dirty capitalist who wants to burn Mother Earth, right?  Wrong.

I believe that we should drill early and often to develop new oil fields for domestic production. At the same time, I believe that we should do whatever we can, in the private sector, to develop new energy sources that are renewable and have less impact on the environment.  Why then, should we drill?  Because destroying our economy in order to punish energy use will not build the new technologies we need.  Because it will take 30 - 50 years to develop the right combination of new energy and delivery systems to make those new sources (Not corn ethanol) viable and available.


I believe that we should all try to be more mindful of our own impacts on the planet.  For me, that means recycling and compost gardening.  I am learning more all the time about compost and organic gardening.  I think growing a garden and sharing the surplus with others as you can is a great way to feel closer to the Earth.  I think getting your hands dirty is great stress relief.

I believe we, as consumers, can impact companies and whether or not they use renewable methods for packaging, manufacturing and materials with our purchasing power.  We don't need the government to tell us what kind of products we can buy - like light-bulbs or toilet paper.  Less government means more variety of responses to helping the planet.

I believe that the enviro-nuts who keep extolling us to live in caves and "save the planet" are way too impressed with their minute impact on Mother Earth.  The earth is magnificent.  It has been here for billions of years without us and will continue to be here for billions of years until the sun burns out.  Earth needs our respect and care; it doesn't need our meager efforts to "save" her.  We try all this "regulation" at the federal level and UN level to cut carbon dioxide (want to cut CO2? Stop exhaling) and the volcano in Iceland spewed more CO2 out in one week than mankind has in decades.  Earth doesn't care about our efforts - she is more powerful than we ever thought to be.

So, Happy Earth Day; be kind to the Earth; learn more about our wonderful planet; plant a tree.  Be smart.

Are you a HENRY?

What, you may ask is a HENRY.  HENRY stands for "high earner, not rich yet".  I will not lie, I am a HENRY. I aspire to be rich.  It is a goal of mine.  You may ask why.  Why would I want to be one of the "evil rich". 

Well, first of all, I don't see that rich people can all be categorized as "evil".  If you work hard and choose to save and scrape and have money, who has the right to tell you that you are evil?  When does the fruit of a man's labor become "evil profits"?

Second, I like to help others and the more disposable income I have, the more people and animals I can help.  I can sponsor more children around the world like we do through Catholic Charities.  I can donate more of my time like I do to my church.  I will be able to own land so I can help more horses and animals that need rescue.  I can choose where more of my dollars go to help more of those in need.

Third, I want to be able to leave a good life to my children and grandchildren.  If I am willing to bust my butt working hard to build a business and a chunk of savings, I can give more opportunities to my family.  Most Americans aspire to give their children a better life - whether that is through an education, a family business or the freedom to chase a dream, that is the choice of the person who is building that empire.

We have heard for some time that "profit is evil" and that "rich people are greedy".  Well, baloney.  There are plenty of people, poor, middle class and rich that are not nice, that are greedy and that don't care a hoot about others.  On the opposite side, there are plenty of rich people who do care a lot.  Bill Gates is one.  John Hunstman is another.  Being rich doesn't make one evil.  Neither does being poor make one virtuous.

When does a company become "evil"?  There is a point that profit becomes questionable by reasonable standards.  When a company pays its CEO so much money and then turns around and cuts benefits for the workers to the bone or lays off innumerable workers just so they can pay that CEO more; that raises a red flag.  But, you know what?  Those public companies that do act in that manner answer to their shareholders, investors and consumers.  Just as the companies in the 1980's that divested of their investments in South Africa to protest apartheid, so too can YOU the consumer protest this type of behavior.  It may not  solve the problem overnight, but eventually, the company will get the message.

So, what is wrong with being rich and having to pay more in taxes because "you can afford it"?  That goes against the grain of everything America offers through our meritocracy.  Punishing the rich for being successful is a double edged sword.  As a business owner, I love rich customers.  They buy more products.  When they buy more, I make more money that I can then use downstream in the economy.  When you cripple the rich with vengeful taxation policies, you actually hurt the workers in the economy.  When the rich cut back on expenditures, the companies that make the products that are no longer purchased suffer.  They lay off workers, and the whole spiral continues downward.

Ultimately, rich people and profits are not evil.  They are what drive our economy and what grow jobs.  I hope there are more rich people in America and someday, I hope to be one.  For now, I remain a hard working HENRY who still pays way too much in taxes.

Conservative vs Liberal

This has been circulating for a while but it deserves reprinting:

Conservative vs Liberal

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn`t buy one.

If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he feels that no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.

If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.

A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.

If a liberal is homosexual, he loudly demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.

Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.

A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.

Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.

A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God or religion silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

Some generalizations but pretty close to the truth from what I see these days…

Drill Baby Drill? Not so much.

Amazing subterfuge today once again from the "most transparent administration ever". [Cough]  Met this morning with somewhat surprising news, perhaps you felt hopeful?

The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.
The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.

If this was the actual truth from Obama's mouth, the right and all Americans would have much to celebrate.  Sadly, as usual, with the Obama administration, nothing is as it seems.  Here's the  catch, via the American Energy Alliance:

“One major flashpoint in the negotiations has been whether to share drilling revenue with states and to allow states to opt in or out of drilling along their coastlines. It was unclear late Tuesday whether Obama endorses revenue-sharing for states. “It appears the Northern Atlantic and entire Pacific Coast will now be under a de facto ban” for drilling, said Patrick Creighton, a spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research. Even if drilling is ultimately allowed in part of the Atlantic, Creighton said, revenue sharing is an essential incentive for states. The administration’s plans could meet resistance from at least 10 Senate Democrats representing coastal and Great Lakes states who last week raised concerns about “unfettered access to oil and gas drilling” that could jeopardize fishing, tourism and military exercises. The Interior Department retooled the current schedule of offshore leases governing 2007 through 2012 after a federal appeals court last April ruled that the second Bush administration had not done a sufficient environmental review of expanded drilling off the Alaskan coast.

GOP Rep. Mike Pence adds:

“As usual the devil is in the details. Only in Washington, D.C., can you ban more areas to oil and gas exploration than you open up, delay the date of your new leases and claim you’re going to increase production.
“The President’s announcement today is a smokescreen. It will almost certainly delay any new offshore exploration until at least 2012 and include only a fraction of the offshore resources that the previous Administration included in its plan.
“Unfortunately, this is yet another feeble attempt to gain votes for the President’s national energy tax bill that is languishing in the Senate. At the end of the day this Administration’s energy plan is simple: increase the cost of energy on every family in America and trade American jobs oversees at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.”

So, as it stands we remain tied to the Middle East and the oil whims of OPEC.  How completely disappointing - and yet how typical of Obama.