David Limbaugh: Borders Policy and "Portgate"
This is a great article and a must-read for the weekend
. I agree with David that the base has lost confidence with the Administration when it comes to border security, which has a big part in why many voters are not to confident in the port operations sale. When Bush says "trust me," when it comes to border security, the voters are not so sure. No offense intended to our UAE friends, but we cannot be "sensitive" to arab sentiments to when it comes to our national security.
Most conservatives, I think, see Bush as enormously committed to America's national security and the Global War on Terror (GWOT). But many find themselves scratching their heads over his perceived "open borders" policy. Why, they wonder, is he so genuinely clear-sighted about the evil of terrorists and the global threat they pose to the point of fashioning his legacy-making foreign policy doctrine around an unprecedented preemption strategy, yet seemingly oblivious to the potential threat in our back, front and side yards? Why the disconnect?
Actually, to call it a disconnect is a major understatement. It's more like a gargantuan gap in an otherwise fully coherent policy. If his driving ambition is to make America safer from our terrorist enemies, why does he risk sabotaging that objective by making us more vulnerable right at home?
Frankly, I'm not sure the president has a blind spot on immigration, because I'm not sure I even understand what his policy is. But if in fact his borders policy can be reconciled with his general policy against terrorists, he hasn't yet made that case to the American people, much less to his base.
So, what do you say Mr. President? Why should we be confident in your fact-checking and due diligence, when the administration has not be decisive in securing our own southern border? More border guards is great. But, we don't see action. Not that nothing has been done. We need to see it and hear about it. It is, after all, a war on terror.
, United Arab Emirates
, US ports
NRCC: Hispanics and the 2006 Mid-Term Elections
This came into my email box from the NRCC
and I thought it was worth passing on. I do believe that one key element for continued integration and assimilation by citizens of immigrant background is an active participation in the election process. I bolded some parts I thought where key.
For Immediate Release: Contact: Press Office
Thursday, February 23, 2006 (202) 646-6402
Reps. Tom Reynolds, Mario Diaz-Balart and Luis Fortuño
With the commencement of the 2006 legislative session, the countdown to Election Day 2006 also begins. Following a presidential election in which Hispanics turned out to vote in record numbers, the 2006 mid-term elections hold the promise of even greater political involvement by our nation's largest minority group.
On January 5 - 306 days before Election Day - we saw the first of what will surely be many reports regarding Hispanics and the 2006 elections. The Latino Coalition's "2005 National Latino Survey" highlights some promising information for the Republican Party, while showing us how much work remains to be done in communicating our agenda's benefits to the Hispanic community.
The survey demonstrated Hispanic voters' conservative stances on economic and social issues. According to the report, "By a margin of 44-9 percent, Hispanics support reducing taxes on families and businesses as the best way to grow the economy and create jobs. ... By a margin of 55-35 percent, Hispanic voters would prefer to be covered by a private health care plan over a government-run program... By a margin of 57-27 percent, Hispanics identify themselves as pro-life, while 62 percent oppose gay marriage."
Despite the apparent commonality between policies supported by Hispanics and those advocated by Republicans on the economy, health care and social issues, the Hispanics polled believe Congressional Democrats do a better job than Republicans of handling each of these issues.
These findings seem to affirm what Ronald Reagan famously claimed over 25 years ago - that "Hispanics are Republicans, they just don't know it yet." Indeed, Republicans must continue working hard to communicate to Hispanics the core beliefs we share on tax relief, market forces over one-size-fits-all government solutions, and on life issues, among others.
The survey also highlighted information of particular relevance to our efforts in this year's mid-term elections. In terms of Congressional approval ratings, Republicans in Congress received less favorable ratings among Hispanics compared to Congressional Democrats. Furthermore, the generic ballot shows Hispanics would favor a Democrat candidate over a Republican.
However, Congressional elections are about individual candidates and the ideas they support. Generic polls and party identity will have no bearing on Election Day 2006 because they fail to take into account the people running, their policies and how they fit individual districts. No candidate runs solely on the basis of party affiliation, but rather on the issues of greatest importance to their constituents. It's one thing for voters to say that they will vote against a party, and quite another for them to actually vote against the incumbent representative they have grown familiar with, or the tireless candidate who has made it a point to reach out to Hispanics. What matters to Hispanics in Miami differs markedly from what those in Albuquerque care about, and only a local strategy can seize on those differences and synthesize them into Republican votes on Election Day.
Republicans must nonetheless communicate more effectively with Hispanics about what our Party stands for to make greater inroads with this community, on a district-by-district basis. Republicans' success in recent elections has been due in large part to the rise of Bush Hispanics. Our success in 2006, however, will depend on the role of blocs like Wilson Hispanics in New Mexico's First District and O'Donnell Hispanics in Colorado's Seventh District. If you've never heard of Wilson or O'Donnell, it is because they are focused on making sure their Hispanic constituents have.
2006 promises to be an exciting year as House Republicans advance an agenda that will position us for success in November by focusing on our national security and keeping our economy growing and creating jobs. In less than nine months, the ballot test that matters most will take place in 435 districts nationwide. Hispanics will continue playing a pivotal role in determining control of the U.S. House, and Republicans remain intent on showing those Hispanics who don't know they're Republicans why they are.
Rep. Tom Reynolds is Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart and Luis Fortuño are members of the NRCC Executive Committee.
Let's hope the candidates do more than play games and taught words, and actually follow through with actions that demonstrate an attention to the values and issues of importance to all citizens--small government, less spending, reduced taxes, etc.
Getting to the root of the issue: High cost of union labor
I heard it mentioned in FoxNews today, but I have not seen anyone mention the fact that the reason all US ports are operated by foreign companies is that union labor is so expensive, no domestic company wants to get in the business.
I would love to hear more about the root of the issue: Union labor costs are exposing our national ports to foreign control. Eliminate union regulation and controls, and bring labor costs down, and you'll see how US based companies line up to get into the business.Mary Katharine
is recommending Frank's blog, War Footing, for port related news.
Frank is also blogging, here, and looks to be updating fairly frequently. May be a good place to look in while this drama does unfold.Instapundit has good comments
from his readers and thoughts on the issue as well.
Endorsing a Democrat
I did find out that he used to be a Republican. Actually, he ran in 2000 as a Republican I think. Te lo digo, so you are warned in case anyone comes to discredit the guy with that argument....since they already tried at my site.
For readers in that district, make sure to get out and support this guy.
I never thought this day would come, but here it is. I am joining Val
over at BabaluBlog in endorsing Carl McGill for the 35th California Congressional District. I did not read much about his social or family issues views, so this is not a full endorsement, but from what I have read about his opponent, this is the better candidate.
Here is his official statement on Castro and Cuba
February 21, 2006
Good Day Sirs and Madams,
I am very concern about a dictator so close to our borders. And I'm concerned for four reasons. These reasons refer to human rights and homeland security.
First, I am of black American and Caribbean descent. In both the US and the island countries, the essence of my existence was the violation of human rights, and that refers to slavery and colonialism. In the dark periods of this hemisphere's historical past existed conditions that many Cubans go through everyday, and that's life under a dictator. So, think God America and its most of its Caribbean sisters have evolved in human rights.
Second, as we celebrate Black History Month, the Congressional Black Caucus represents the opposite of what black Americans should symbolize, and that's freedom. Maxine Waters and the CBC support Fidel Castro. As politicians, they should wonder why there is little to no representation of Cuba's current population in government. Demographically, current Cuba is mostly people of color. Is that reflected in the government? No! But go to Castro’s jails and one could easily see differently.
Third, on their VIP trips to Cuba, why don't Waters and others question human rights violations unless they support it? I think it's because they represent their districts similar to how Castro runs Cuba. Socialism does not work. Only free societies prosper. So as a member of the US Congress, I would vote to enforce the embargo on Castro until Cuba changes it governmental leadership. We don't need an island prison existing in a democratic hemisphere. And representatives of a free that represent free people should not use their elected office to support Cuba's dictator. And I think black Americans, once educated truthfully about Castro's island prison, would be appalled at the black caucus' friendship with Castro. Didn't we free Cuba from Spain because of how the Cubans were mistreated? Therefore, I believe American needs to free Cuba from Fidel Castro, and I would stand with the Honorable Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in the US Congress on this issue.
Finally, as Al Qaeda is America's enemy in the war on terrorism, so is Castro. We haven't determined if Castro has Al Qaeda ties. So he is not exonerated from the possibility of launching the next 911. Therefore, we must remember the "Missiles of October," for Al Qaeda has replaced the Russians as are enemy in the fight for freedom, and the friend of our enemy is our enemy.
Candidate for Congress 2006
35th California Congressional District
I like his anti-socialism stand, and he has a strong commitment to the second amendament.Val provided these links
in reference to his opponent, Maxine Watters.
Im sure you all remember Maxine "Elain Gonzalez belongs with his father" Waters, dont you?
Here are some other items of interest regarding good ole Maxine and here's a letter stating she supports murderer Asata Shakur who is hiding out in Cuba.
Oh, and did I mention Maxine is a member of the Progressive Caucus, the one started by the one time leader of the Democratic Socialists of America?
Abortion Banned in South Dakota
: The SD Senate passed an abortion ban 23-12
that has one exception: life of the mother. Here is the text of the House version of the bill.
Section 1. The Legislature accepts and concurs with the conclusion of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, based upon written materials, scientific studies, and testimony of witnesses presented to the task force, that life begins at the time of conception, a conclusion confirmed by scientific advances since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, including the fact that each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization. Moreover, the Legislature finds, based upon the conclusions of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, and in recognition of the technological advances and medical experience and body of knowledge about abortions produced and made available since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, that to fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the pregnant mother, the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child, and the mother's fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child, abortions in South Dakota should be prohibited. Moreover, the Legislature finds that the guarantee of due process of law under the Constitution of South Dakota applies equally to born and unborn human beings, and that under the Constitution of South Dakota, a pregnant mother and her unborn child, each possess a natural and inalienable right to life.
This also via CitzenLink email
South Dakota, today, became the first state in more than a decade to ban abortion. The Senate voted to pass the measure 47-22. The measure easily passed the state House two weeks ago.
The bill's only exception is if the mother's life is in danger.
Leslee Unruh, founder of the Alpha Center, a pregnancy-resource agency, said after a task force found abortion was detrimental to women, the Legislature did the right thing.
"Passage of this legislation culminates years of legislative efforts and fact-finding," she said. "The overwhelming mass of research could be ignored no longer.
Abortion hurts women. South Dakota's Legislature heard the cry of those who have been harmed by abortion and passed this bill to protect women and children."
The bill will now head to the desk of Republican Gov. Mike Rounds to be signed into law.
"Now is the appropriate time for this legislation," Unruh said. "Governor Rounds, please sign this bill."
Of course, I expect this will get thrown at the courts, which might be just fine. It's time to put those two new Supreme Court judges to the test.
Port Deal: When have Democrats ever stood for the right thing for America?
Jeff Blanco has an interesting perspective
on the sale of the port managment company to the Arab corporation. I really don't know what to think, and generaly, trust Bush's leadership. I think politicly this whole thing is a bad move, but that doesn't mean the deal itself is bad. I simply do not have enoughy facts to decide either way. On the other hand, knowing how a corporate parent company would have complete access to our port related information, I'm not comfortable about the deal either.
I thought Jeff's way of looking at it was interesting.
Think about it folks, when was the last time that Democrats, on the whole, actually stood up for the right thing in America? Think hard, name one thing where Democrats have put America first above all? It's a universal rule, no matter how good something is for this country, Democrats will point to another country and say their's is better. Canada's healthcare is better, Rwanda was a better war than Iraq, even the dictator Hugo Chavez is a better "president" than George W. Bush. Europe's gas prices are better than ours, French people know how to fight a war, even though they can't win one. When have Democrats ever stood for the right thing for America?
Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Hugh's perspective ads value
The almost instant and widespread negative reaction to the proposed sale of the contract for port operations in several major U.S. cities to a firm owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates is based on the intuition --held obviously by many, many people-- that the deal would make America more vulnerable to terrorist attack.
That intuition is not based on crude typecasting of all UAE citizens as potential terrorists. Rather, it seems to be based on a general understanding that (1)big, successful crimes involve either extensive surveillance and/or cooperation by an "insider," and that (2) ownerwship of the port operations by the UAE increases the likelihood of both.
These are not irrational reactions.
Mary Katharine has a round up of links.
The battle of modern man: Making do with 24 hours
Actually, 24 hours is enough for me. It's the things I have to do within those that are to much! I am in one of those "living without margin" moments. I am a graduate student at University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (now an online student) and recently accepted a new full-time job in Arlington. Since we are launching in a few weeks, I have been having to bring work home to keep up, and put in my double-effort.
Did I also mention that I am in my second year of marriage, and really trying to do it right? That means spending time with my wife practically every day, as possible. It also means trying to go to bed at the same time as my wife does. It also means being home for dinner. Marriage takes energy and hard work. And time--plenty of time.
I find I barely have time to catch my breath. I go to church on Sundays--a wonderful respite from my rushed week--and try to not do work on Saturday. But, these days, its been hard.
So, that's my rant for the month. I usually do not submit my readers to this sort of thing, but if you have any helpful hints on how to best juggle 3 primary and non-negotiable roles (husband, employee, and student) feel free to share them with me.
So it Begins: Week two of Cheney Hunting Story
The left just loves sucking on their huge left foot, which continues to be thrust way up their collective mouths. So, here is the roundup of posts:
At the top of the list, of course, is the DrugeReport
, who has the inside story on next weeks cover stories for Newsweek and Time.
If the nation's top magazines have the pulse of the country -- get ready for another exhaustive week of exhaustive Cheney shooting coverage!Pejman Yousefzadeh
This just in... Both TIME and NEWSWEEK are planning high impact covers of Cheney for newsstands starting tomorrow, with each magazine rolling out top staff bylines and thousands of words on the hunting incident: TIME: With deep reporting by John Cloud, Mike Allen and Matthew Cooper/ Washington, Cathy Booth Thomas and Patricia Kilday Hart/ Austin, and Hilary Hylton. NEWSWEEK urgently brings in its big investigative guns: Evan Thomas, Michael Isikoff, Daniel Klaidman, Richard Wolffe, Holly Bailey, Mark Hosenball and Eleanor Clift in Washington and Carol Rust in Texas.
at RedState.com puts his 2 cents about the media's bias. Make sure to read the full post--they dissect the Newsweek story piece by piece.
One of the more ridiculous aspects of the Cheney-goes-a-huntin' story is the way in which it has been picked up by the national media to attack all sorts of perceived character and institutional flaws of the Vice President and the Vice Presidency. It is one thing to criticize the media strategy that was used in the wake of the hunting accident involving Harry Whittington. It is quite another to bootstrap every accusation along with the kitchen sink that one can find in the wake of the story.
Then of course, there is the Newsweek article
mentioned above. The headline already tells you the angle and the left-wing bias.
He peppered a man in the face, but didn't tell his boss. Inside Dick Cheney's dark, secretive mind-set--and the forces that made it that way.
Oooh. Dark. Secretive. I know--Republicans are evil, and Dick Cheney is our Dark Sith Lord. Ugh! The media has become the story. I know everyone else is just as sick of this as I am.
To give you a visual of the blogsphere's buzz on this story, here is Technorati's chart on the Cheney tag.
Posts tagged Cheney
per day for the last 30 days.
RedState: American Churches Give Propaganda Victory To The Evil Doers
What can I say? That these "Christians" are not authentic? I am nobody to judge the condition of their souls. But still, it's careless. It seems to me that these sort of religious groups pick and choose the parts of the Bible that fit their political philosophy and worldview, ignoring the rest.Via RedState.com
In a statement that will surely encourage our enemies, a coalition of U.S. churches has denounced the war in Iraq and claims that the U.S. is "raining down terror" and entering into imperial projects that seek to dominate and control for the sake of our own national interests.