Tuesday, May 25, 2010
President Bush was criticized for his slow, seemingly apathetic response to the devast ation in New Orleans. The response of the administration and FEMA was characterizedas "slow."
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, April 2010:
President Obama takes one week to release a response regarding the oil spill. Since the oil spill began, Obama is planning his 2nd vacation: a return home to Chicago for Memorial Day. Visiting Arlington Cemetary to celebrate the veterans? No, unfortunately. However, he will make time to visit the Gulf for one day inbetween attending a Barbara Boxer fundraiserand a Paul McCartney concert. Hopefully an arduous schedule of golf and basketball won't interfere too much. Speaking of golf: At this point in Obama's presidency, he has played golf 8 times as much as President Bush did. This is ironic considering Cindy "Batshit" Sheehan of Code Pink who claimed that Bush was spending too much time away from his job as President. I'll leave you with a quote from GW:
“I don’t want to some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf… And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”
Last I checked, the wars were Obama's now. Why doesn't he give the same concern?
I have to admit that part of me is completely baffled by the administration's unwillingness to secure our nation's borders. I also must admit how appalled I was that many people around my age seem to think that the idea of national sovereignty is ridiculous and is a relic of the past. They equate sovereignty with nativism.
I understand why somebody would claim SB2010 is "racist," or that it "profiles" Hispanics. However, the law's most vocal opponents, i.e. Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, Mexican President Calderon, have all admitted that they have not even read the bill. Aren't they (with the exception of Calderon) on OUR payroll? To steadfastly dismiss our concern - the concern held by ~ 70% of us with regards to the desire of securing our boder - as some arbitrary desire is both arrogant and alarming. The American government is elected by, and paid by, the American taxpayer. Illegal immigrants are not taxpayers. They are taxmoochers. Eric Holder works for us, not for them. I don't care what race illegal immigrants are, the bottom line is that just because we may hurt a few people's feelings, or a few people may perceive their "human rights" being infringed upon, is a worthwhile price to pay to secure our borders. Do you think the thousands of victims of crime wrought by the hands of illegal immigrants had as much a say in their civil rights being violated?
Before these people make kneejerk judgments of the Arizona law, try reading it first. Read the part where it expressly prohibits racial profiling. I keep hearing these stories by Hispanics responding to the Arizona law with anecdotes of "now I can't even walk down the streets in Arizona without being arrested," or "I'm afraid to drive to the post office because they'll arrest me." Arizona police officers are not driving around, arresting every Mexican in the state. However, if they pull over a Hispanic in an unmarked car going 80 mph down a highway which runs through a known smuggling region, and upon being pulled over, doesn't speak English and has no driver's license, and has 10 passengers, none of whom speak English or have driver's licenses, I think that is more than enough probably cause/reasonable doubt.
I just want to leave the open borders crowd with one question. How do you think we solve this? Do you think that because it's been going on for so long and the issue has gotten so large, that we just ignore it now because it would hurt too many peoples' feelings to enforce immigration laws now? What about Kennedy's 1986 promise that after Amnesty 86, it would "never be considered again," and that the borders would henceforth be secure? You think just because we procrastinated 20 years, we lose the right to enforce it now? The drain - economic and on American quality of life - posed by illegal immigration is too great to be ignored any longer. Mexicans don't even extend the same rights to illegal immigrants coming through their Southern border as we do to them. What a double standard. Do as we say, not as we do. It's the liberal MO.
Predictably, the MSM (mainstream media) - a.k.a. Liberal Shills - have begun a smear campaign against the Tea Party. This smear campaign is very pervasive, and is in some cases very obvious, and in other cases, subtle. Media bias comes in many forms. For example, news stories will often underestimate the size or number of (tea party) protesters. A crowd of many tens of thousands of people will be described as having "one thousand." In other cases, protests will go unreported. Blogger Michelle Malkin does an excellent job, as does Newsbusters.org, in reporting on these discrepancies.
A common misrepresentation is the painting of the Tea Party as "racist." Tea Party protesters are often painted as unilaterally white, middle-aged, middle-class heterosexuals. This common strategy is designed to portray Tea Partiers as nativist, racist homophobes, and attempts to invoke some type of "redneck" stereotype. This could not be further from the truth. Tea Party protests have, without exception, been peaceful demonstrations of society's disdain for overreaching federal government, and they attract a diverse array of people from all backgrounds, colors, preferences and ages. In fact, the ethnic breakdown of several tea party protests have shown that they almost directly correlate to the ethnic breakdown of Americans, which is approximately ~65-70% White, ~12% African American,and ~20% Hispanic. Ironically enough, when looking at MSNBC's roster, 100% are White. Oops!
All those white, racist faces... *sigh*
The racism card is perhaps the most insidious and malignant liberal slander. They use it as some "endgame" label. Races are not allowed to be brought up in any sort of disparaging connotation unless the race is white. Religions, unless Christian, are not allowed to be brought up with any association to something less than glowing. Just remember: the race card is the last resort for the desperate. I'd rather be falsely accused of being a racist than correctly accused of being a socialist.
Monday, May 24, 2010
The original tea party - the Boston Tea Party - was a revolt of the fledgling American colonists against their oppressive British overlords. They were protesting against taxation without representation - the fact that they were forced to pay what they considered exorbitant taxes to the Crown, without having any representation in the British Parliament. The current Tea Party movement is a response to a wide variety of grievances, but can basically be summed up as a frustration with federal government. People believe that the government is too big, is overreaching, is attempting to regulate or get its hands in things that it shouldn't be involved with, and additionally, people think their elected representatives aren't really interested in listening to their concerns regarding these issues. These frustrations transcend party lines, although admittedly, many "Tea Partiers" define themselves as Republican.
The exact origins of the Tea Party movement are not universaly agreed upon. Most people believe that the movement began in earnest in 2009. Groups of bloggers, as well as CNBC's Rick Santelli, called for peaceful Tax Day protests to the Obama administration's proposed high price-tag agenda. While its origins are debated, one thing everybody involved with the Tea Party can agree on is the Obama administration HAS TO REIN IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING.
P.S. The title of my blog is my lame attempt at being clever... 4 o'clock is the traditional time for tea. I apologize for my lack of creativity at 2 a.m.