Proponents of the tortuous disaster euphemistically known as the immigration reform bill once again failed to muster enough votes for cloture. Thank God. The result proves that some Senators still have the best interests of their country in mind.
But a carping cabal of Senate Republicans was so determined to ram this monstrosity of a bill down the throats of the American people they pulled out all the stops, including blaming talk radio for the bill's lack of support and calling their constituents who dared oppose the legislation stupid and bigoted. Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, who cannot keep his foot out of his mouth, was so incensed by talk radio's opposition that he snapped, "Something has to be done about this [talk radio]." What do you propose, Senator Lott? Censoring talk radio so Americans will not hear the truth about the legislation? South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham got his panties in a wad and pitched a diva fit anytime anyone pointed out one of the bill's numerous shortcomings. Georgia Senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss called opponents of the bill "misinformed," which, of course, is political code for "stupid" or "ignorant."
Millions of Americans from all walks of life opposed the bill, yet these Senators honestly want you to believe that they are smarter than all of them. The next time I need a tip on how to lecture about the XYZ Affair or my nephew needs help on his calculus homework, I'll be sure to look up Lott, Graham, Isakson, or Chambliss. They apparently know everything.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Is Something Else at Work???
Democrats and some Republicans failed AGAIN and FOR THE SECOND TIME to force their amnesty bill through the Senate, to the House, and eventually down the throats of the American people.
While the cloture vote's failure is perhaps not entirely unsurprising, what is surprising is the fact that supporters of the bill continue to beat a rapidly dead and decaying horse. Why would politicians, who stake their livelihoods on securing votes, go against the vast majority of their constituents and the overall well-being of the nation they serve?
Is something else at work here?
While the cloture vote's failure is perhaps not entirely unsurprising, what is surprising is the fact that supporters of the bill continue to beat a rapidly dead and decaying horse. Why would politicians, who stake their livelihoods on securing votes, go against the vast majority of their constituents and the overall well-being of the nation they serve?
Is something else at work here?
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Let Paul Debate
Iowans for Tax Relief recently unfairly excluded Texas Congressman Ron Paul from a presidential debate. When asked why Paul did not receive an invitation, a spokesman for the group stated that Paul was not a "credible" candidate. However, the group invited Congressman Tom Tancredo and U.S. Senator Sam Brownback, both of whom consistently poll about the same as Paul (1-3 percent). Clearly, Iowans for Tax Relief had an ulterior motive for giving Paul the cold shoulder.
Although the Iowans for Tax Relief will never divulge their exact motive, the reason for Paul's exclusion undoubtedly has its roots in his decidedly maverick voting record. During a House career that has spanned over a decade, he has upset many dyed-in-the-wool Republicans with his staunch libertarian views. Indeed, he ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian, and he has consistently opposed the war in Iraq. Some Republicans are none too pleased by his positions, especially his opposition to the war, but his views, whether misguided or not, should not be censored.
Although the Iowans for Tax Relief will never divulge their exact motive, the reason for Paul's exclusion undoubtedly has its roots in his decidedly maverick voting record. During a House career that has spanned over a decade, he has upset many dyed-in-the-wool Republicans with his staunch libertarian views. Indeed, he ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian, and he has consistently opposed the war in Iraq. Some Republicans are none too pleased by his positions, especially his opposition to the war, but his views, whether misguided or not, should not be censored.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The Bloomberg Factor
In a move that generated nationwide headlines, no-nonsense New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently quit the Republican Party and announced that he would govern the city as an independent. Many political observers believe that Bloomberg's move is further proof that he intends to seek the presidency. In recent months, Bloomberg has repeatedly bemoaned the gridlock and partisan rancour in Washington, insisting that we need a president who can bridge the partisan gap and get things done. Bloomberg points to his success in New York, an overwhelmingly Democratic city, as proof that Republicans and Democrats can and should work together. Of course, Bloomberg denies he is the person he has in mind for the job of bringing the two parties together on the national level.
A Bloomberg presidential candidacy should not be taken lightly by either party. His personal fortune is estimated to be between $5 billion and $12 billion, and one Bloomberg aide has indicated that the mayor is willing to spend $500 million of it on a presidential bid. Millions of those dollars will have to be spent on the costly and time-consuming task of gaining ballot access in each of the fifty states and assembling a nationwide campaign organization. Nevertheless, Bloomberg should have plenty of money left to devote to actual campaigning.
Who will a Bloomberg candidacy appeal to, and which party's candidate will he hurt most by running? Although a Republican until only a few days ago, Bloomberg holds decidedly liberal views on a host of social issues, including gay marriage and abortion. Therefore, the mayor most likely will cost the Democratic candidate more support than the Republican. However, if the GOP picks a rockribbed conservative (a la Fred Thompson) as the party's standard-bearer, Bloomberg may find some support among disaffected moderate Republicans. Then there is the question of New York. How will Bloomberg affect the outcome in his home state, especially if fellow New Yorker (by way of Arkansas) Hillary Clinton clinches the Democratic nod? Although he may not win the state, Bloomberg is certain to make the race in the Empire State a viable three-way contest. And if he divides the state's liberal base, then the GOP will have a fighting chance of securing New York's sizable bounty of Electoral College votes for the first time since 1984.
A Bloomberg presidential candidacy should not be taken lightly by either party. His personal fortune is estimated to be between $5 billion and $12 billion, and one Bloomberg aide has indicated that the mayor is willing to spend $500 million of it on a presidential bid. Millions of those dollars will have to be spent on the costly and time-consuming task of gaining ballot access in each of the fifty states and assembling a nationwide campaign organization. Nevertheless, Bloomberg should have plenty of money left to devote to actual campaigning.
Who will a Bloomberg candidacy appeal to, and which party's candidate will he hurt most by running? Although a Republican until only a few days ago, Bloomberg holds decidedly liberal views on a host of social issues, including gay marriage and abortion. Therefore, the mayor most likely will cost the Democratic candidate more support than the Republican. However, if the GOP picks a rockribbed conservative (a la Fred Thompson) as the party's standard-bearer, Bloomberg may find some support among disaffected moderate Republicans. Then there is the question of New York. How will Bloomberg affect the outcome in his home state, especially if fellow New Yorker (by way of Arkansas) Hillary Clinton clinches the Democratic nod? Although he may not win the state, Bloomberg is certain to make the race in the Empire State a viable three-way contest. And if he divides the state's liberal base, then the GOP will have a fighting chance of securing New York's sizable bounty of Electoral College votes for the first time since 1984.
The Fascist Doctrine
In another shocking (but not altogether surprising) example of the Left's selective protection of our nation's First Amendment, a number of Democrats have been campaigning for the return of the FCC's "Fairness" Doctrine. This is not necessarily breaking news. However, Republican Trent Lott's recent verbal assault on conservative talk radio is as frightening as it may be instrumental in reigniting pro-"Fairness" Doctrine activism.
This law, which would require radio stations to provide equal time for both sides of political issues, is nothing more than an assault on freedom of speech and the free market system.
As much as the NPR crowd would like the government to add active administration to its already questionable regulation of the airwaves, radio is a business before it is a public service. Certainly, radio stations should be required to air public safety alerts. However, the government should not and must not determine what views are and are not expressed over the airwaves - that is fascism plain and simple (Hitler, Mussolini, and Chavez all co-opted the media in the early stages of their respective regimes).
This is nothing more than a left-wing effort to even the playing field artificially because their main mouthpieces (Air America, etc.) are spectacular failures. The government does not force Kroger to shut down close to half of its stores because it is more successful than other chains.
A notice to the Left: if you want "fairness" on the airwaves, start producing better programming and securing more lucrative ad revenue. Until then, go listen to NPR.
This law, which would require radio stations to provide equal time for both sides of political issues, is nothing more than an assault on freedom of speech and the free market system.
As much as the NPR crowd would like the government to add active administration to its already questionable regulation of the airwaves, radio is a business before it is a public service. Certainly, radio stations should be required to air public safety alerts. However, the government should not and must not determine what views are and are not expressed over the airwaves - that is fascism plain and simple (Hitler, Mussolini, and Chavez all co-opted the media in the early stages of their respective regimes).
This is nothing more than a left-wing effort to even the playing field artificially because their main mouthpieces (Air America, etc.) are spectacular failures. The government does not force Kroger to shut down close to half of its stores because it is more successful than other chains.
A notice to the Left: if you want "fairness" on the airwaves, start producing better programming and securing more lucrative ad revenue. Until then, go listen to NPR.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Throwing Stones
James Dobson, the outspoken founder of Focus on the Family, a non-profit Christian organization, recently questioned whether soon-to-be presidential candidate Fred Thompson is a committed Christian. He noted that the Tennessee Republican has never spoken publicly about his faith. If Thompson does not discuss his faith publicly, Dobson implied, he will urge the approximately ten million people he reaches through his radio and television broadcasts to support someone else.
Thomspon has indicated that he is a Christian, and I accept him at his word. Dobson should do likewise. The Bible clearly indicates that no one has the right to judge anyone else. That power resides with God and God alone. If Dobson is as knowledgeable about the Bible as he claims, he should have learned that lesson a long time ago.
Thomspon has indicated that he is a Christian, and I accept him at his word. Dobson should do likewise. The Bible clearly indicates that no one has the right to judge anyone else. That power resides with God and God alone. If Dobson is as knowledgeable about the Bible as he claims, he should have learned that lesson a long time ago.
The Pot and the Kettle
The McCain campaign recently criticized Mitt Romney for apparently changing his position on abortion. McCain calling Romney a flip-flopper is like Lindsay Lohan calling Paris Hilton a skank (that will be the last pop culture reference on here for a long time).
Voters need to realize that Romney was a Republican politician in an incredibly liberal state. He had to dance around issues like abortion in order to get elected. A politician should have the right to change his or her personal opinion on issues - provided he or she does not constantly waver.
McCain is accusing Romney of doing something he does for a living.
Until the Arizona senator maintains a strong, CONSERVATIVE position on anything, he should keep his mouth shut.
Voters need to realize that Romney was a Republican politician in an incredibly liberal state. He had to dance around issues like abortion in order to get elected. A politician should have the right to change his or her personal opinion on issues - provided he or she does not constantly waver.
McCain is accusing Romney of doing something he does for a living.
Until the Arizona senator maintains a strong, CONSERVATIVE position on anything, he should keep his mouth shut.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
At it Again
The immigration reform bill is a disaster on every level, but President George W. Bush and his small circle of sycophant Senate Republicans persist in their efforts to convince opponents that the measure is the best thing since sliced bread. In a recent conference with recalcitrant Republicans, for instance, the president tried unsuccessfully to win converts by vowing to secure America's borders. But we have heard this before. The 1986 immigration reform bill contained similar promises of border security, but guess what? You got it. They were not enforced.
Prove you mean business, President Bush, by securing the borders now and enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Maybe then, and only then, can we get down to business and have a meaningful dialogue on immigration.
Prove you mean business, President Bush, by securing the borders now and enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Maybe then, and only then, can we get down to business and have a meaningful dialogue on immigration.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Taking Requests...
College football season is fast approaching and so is RedMountaineer's inaugural College Football preview spectacular.
I will provide analysis and predictions for the following teams automatically: University of Miami (my undergraduate alma mater), University of Georgia (my Master's alma mater), WVU, and Clemson. Additionally, I will provide a preseason top-25 list and a BCS bowl projection.
If our loyal readers would like to see any other schools, they can reply to this message and I will do my homework.
Remember, only 2 months and 3 weeks to kickoff!!!
I will provide analysis and predictions for the following teams automatically: University of Miami (my undergraduate alma mater), University of Georgia (my Master's alma mater), WVU, and Clemson. Additionally, I will provide a preseason top-25 list and a BCS bowl projection.
If our loyal readers would like to see any other schools, they can reply to this message and I will do my homework.
Remember, only 2 months and 3 weeks to kickoff!!!
Sunday, June 10, 2007
An Apology in Order
Republicans who supported the recently failed immigration bill owe the millions who opposed the legislation an apology. Opponents of the bill, including many prominent think tanks, made an exceptionally strong case that the legislation would grant illegal immigrants virtual amnesty and that it would have a ruinous effect on the American economy.
Instead of countering their opponents' arguments in a constructive, systematic way, Republicans who fancied the bill subjected their critics to an avalanche of vituperation, vilification, abuse, and buffoonery. President George W. Bush alleged that those who charged that the legislation would grant amnesty were using "empty political rhetoric" to "frighten" the American people. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is apparently prone to conniptions, repeatedly questioned the intelligence of the bill's opponents, and on at least one occasion he called those who criticized the bill "bigots." Georgia Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson also charged, in so many words, that those who questioned the soundness of the legislation were a bunch of clueless dullards. I guess those Ph.D. economists at the American Heritage Foundation who took issue with the bill just do not know what they are talking about.
Politicians who deride critics on a personal level do so because it is the easy way out; if you don't have an easy answer to criticism or if you know your point has been exposed as wrong, dodge the issue and sling mud. It's an old Democratic trick that some Republicans have obviously learned all too well.
Instead of countering their opponents' arguments in a constructive, systematic way, Republicans who fancied the bill subjected their critics to an avalanche of vituperation, vilification, abuse, and buffoonery. President George W. Bush alleged that those who charged that the legislation would grant amnesty were using "empty political rhetoric" to "frighten" the American people. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is apparently prone to conniptions, repeatedly questioned the intelligence of the bill's opponents, and on at least one occasion he called those who criticized the bill "bigots." Georgia Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson also charged, in so many words, that those who questioned the soundness of the legislation were a bunch of clueless dullards. I guess those Ph.D. economists at the American Heritage Foundation who took issue with the bill just do not know what they are talking about.
Politicians who deride critics on a personal level do so because it is the easy way out; if you don't have an easy answer to criticism or if you know your point has been exposed as wrong, dodge the issue and sling mud. It's an old Democratic trick that some Republicans have obviously learned all too well.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Our Own Backyard
Supporters of immigration "reform" (including the president himself) rationalize their toothless approach to America's illegal influx by arguing that unskilled and low-skilled immigrants are an important and even necessary piece of the economic puzzle because "they do the work that Americans don't want to do."
This contention is insulting and downright erroneous on a number of levels. In economically depressed states like West Virginia, for example, citizens hungry for a job would be more than happy to hang drywall or pick crops for between $10-15 an hour.
But that's not really the issue. It's not that Americans won't do the work, it's that developers and big agricultural operations would rather empoly illegal labor. Paying an illegal immigrant $10-15 an hour while avoiding payroll taxes and social security contributions will ALWAYS be cheaper than paying an American worker $8 an hour legally.
Until Democrats stop vote grubbing and certain Sunbelt Republicans stop kowtowing to suburban developers, there will be no meaningful enforcement of the rule of law or just punishment of business leaders who are more interested in maximizing profit than in giving their own countrymen and women a fair shake.
This contention is insulting and downright erroneous on a number of levels. In economically depressed states like West Virginia, for example, citizens hungry for a job would be more than happy to hang drywall or pick crops for between $10-15 an hour.
But that's not really the issue. It's not that Americans won't do the work, it's that developers and big agricultural operations would rather empoly illegal labor. Paying an illegal immigrant $10-15 an hour while avoiding payroll taxes and social security contributions will ALWAYS be cheaper than paying an American worker $8 an hour legally.
Until Democrats stop vote grubbing and certain Sunbelt Republicans stop kowtowing to suburban developers, there will be no meaningful enforcement of the rule of law or just punishment of business leaders who are more interested in maximizing profit than in giving their own countrymen and women a fair shake.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Show Me the Money
I used to have the utmost respect for pitching ace Roger "The Rocket" Clemens. I admired his work ethic, his tenacity on the mound, and his ability to blow away hitters with his overpowering fastball. But his selfish behavior over the last two seasons has soured me on the future Hall of Famer.
Clemens has retired several times, and he implied last year that his appearance in the World Baseball Classic would finally be his last. However, Clemens "unretired" in mid-season when the Houston Astros offered him a whopping $12 million dollars for the rest of the year.
This year Clemens announced on May 6 that he would rejoin the New York Yankees, for whom he pitched from 1999-2003. Clemens said his decision has nothing to do with money. Indeed, he remarked that he has enough money for several lifetimes. Yet he will receive about $4.5 million a month, one of the most lucrative contracts in sports history.
If Clemens' decision to "unretire" again had nothing to do with money, why didn't he sign a contract for $1 million or, better yet, the Major League minimum of $350,000? Alternatively, if money is not the issue, why doesn't he donate his paychecks to charity? Well, the answer is simple--as is the case with most pro athletes, Clemens' love of money is far greater than his love for the game.
Clemens has retired several times, and he implied last year that his appearance in the World Baseball Classic would finally be his last. However, Clemens "unretired" in mid-season when the Houston Astros offered him a whopping $12 million dollars for the rest of the year.
This year Clemens announced on May 6 that he would rejoin the New York Yankees, for whom he pitched from 1999-2003. Clemens said his decision has nothing to do with money. Indeed, he remarked that he has enough money for several lifetimes. Yet he will receive about $4.5 million a month, one of the most lucrative contracts in sports history.
If Clemens' decision to "unretire" again had nothing to do with money, why didn't he sign a contract for $1 million or, better yet, the Major League minimum of $350,000? Alternatively, if money is not the issue, why doesn't he donate his paychecks to charity? Well, the answer is simple--as is the case with most pro athletes, Clemens' love of money is far greater than his love for the game.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
HISTORICAL NOTE: D-Day
Today is the 63rd anniversary of the Allies' successful invasion of Nazi Germany's "Fortress Europe."
Please take a moment today to remember all of our fallen servicemen and women.
Please take a moment today to remember all of our fallen servicemen and women.
McCain Commits Hari-kiri on New Hampshire Stage
Senator McCain's seemingly ceaseless tenure square in the middle of the political road finally got him run over last night. In a Republican "debate" where EIGHT of the other candidates came out firmly against the immigration bill, McCain backed the amnesty measure. Worse yet, he acknowledged the fact that he co-authored this particular piece of legislation WITH SENATOR TED KENNEDY!!!
This bill is quickly becoming a poison pill politically. Unfortunately for McCain, swallowing it whole may have cost him the White House.
This bill is quickly becoming a poison pill politically. Unfortunately for McCain, swallowing it whole may have cost him the White House.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Double Standard in Sports???
Is there a double standard in sports? Do African-American athletes receive preferential treatment in the media? Is Rush Limbaugh (Gasp!!!) correct? If the Mike Vick dog fighting episode is any indication, the answer may be yes.
Keep in mind that authorities have not yet charged the Falcons athlete/quarterback with a crime. However, numerous news outlets/opinion makers have already circled the racial wagons and mounted a vigorous defense.
Has this defense been based on the evidence? No. It has been based on cultural relativism. The argument is that it is OK for Mike Vick and other poor southerners (which in a racist and euphemistic way means southern blacks) to commit a felony and brutally fight dogs because "that's what poor southerners do."
Does this strike anyone else as incredibly condescending? Are sports media outlets so politically correct now that they are actually racist?
Keep in mind that authorities have not yet charged the Falcons athlete/quarterback with a crime. However, numerous news outlets/opinion makers have already circled the racial wagons and mounted a vigorous defense.
Has this defense been based on the evidence? No. It has been based on cultural relativism. The argument is that it is OK for Mike Vick and other poor southerners (which in a racist and euphemistic way means southern blacks) to commit a felony and brutally fight dogs because "that's what poor southerners do."
Does this strike anyone else as incredibly condescending? Are sports media outlets so politically correct now that they are actually racist?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)