Archive for February, 2010

Someone Needs to Tell the President His Health Care Plan is Dead

The day before yesterday’s White House health care summit, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) told reporters: “The only way this works is for the House to pass the Senate bill and then, depending on what the package is, the reconciliation provision that moves first through the House and then comes here.” When Conrad was reminded that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has repeatedly insisted that the House will not pass the Senate bill until the Senate passes a second bill that fixes the first, Conrad replied: “Fine, then it’s dead.”

This was the dynamic that President Barack Obama was trying to alter with his eventually-seven-hour meeting. And judging by pretty much every major news outlet, he completely failed. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA), who is one of the 39 House Democrats that the White House needs to switch from a “no” the first time around to a “yes” this time, told The New York Times: “I don’t see very many at all who voted no who are going to switch their votes unless there are substantial changes in the bill.”

And that reality is already spreading throughout Capitol Hill. Politico reports that while Democrats were hoping to pass Obamacare by Easter, “there were signs Thursday night that the schedule was slipping. One Democratic lawmaker involved in the negotiations, who asked not to be identified to speak candidly of the process, said the party would not, in fact, start down the path of reconciliation next week.”

That is some rare great news for the American people. As Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) ably explained yesterday, Americans do not want Washington dictating their health care decisions to them, and that is exactly what Obamacare would do:

The difference is this: We don’t think all the answers lie in Washington regulating all of this. … if the National Restaurant Association or the National Federation of Independent Business, on behalf of their members, wants to set up an association health plan, we think they’ll probably do a good job on behalf of their members. Let them decide to do that instead of restricting insurance competition by federalizing the regulation of insurance, and by mandating exactly how it will work, you make it more expensive and you reduce the competition among insurers for people’s business. We want to decentralize the system, give more power to small businesses, more power to individuals, and make insurers compete more. But if you federalize it and standardize it and mandate it, you do not achieve that. And that’s the big difference we have.

President Obama bristled at this analysis, responding: “Can I just say that, at this point, any time that a question is phrased as, “Does Washington know better,” I think we’re kind of tipping the scales a little bit there since we all know that everybody is angry at Washington right now.”

The President seems to understand that the American people do not want bureaucrats in Washington controlling their health care decisions, but then he seems completely oblivious to the fact that increasing bureaucratic control at the expense of every American’s ability to make their own choices is exactly what his plan does.

The American people know this. That is why support for the President’s health care plan has been steadily declining. That is why the most recent CBS News/New York Times Poll shows 53% of Americans say the United States cannot afford to fix health care at this time. It is why 52% of Americans tell Gallup they do not want to see Obamacare pass with only 50 Senators in support (Vice President Joe Biden casting the 51st vote). That is why 59% of registered voters tell Fox News they want the President to start over.

And he should. If the President truly wants to enact historic bipartisan and lasting health care reform, he needs to admit this version of Obamacare is dead. In 2011, when there is likely to be a more centrist Congress in place, then Obama should come back and start again.

A Good Day For Republicans

I wasn’t expecting much. Everyone knew how Obama and his people were going to treat today’s healthcare summit, but I was certain the the Republicans were in a no-win situation and would find some way to blow it.

Boy was I wrong. The Republicans were on. They were well prepared, articulate, on-message, but most importantly showed that despite the Obama administration’s relentless assault on the Republicans as the ‘party of no’, the Republicans did in fact have a very firm grip on the healthcare situation. Oh yeah, and they had a plan. And now everyone knows it.

I think the Democrats were hurt today…by just how much remains to be seen, but they would have been better off sitting this one out. The Republicans, on the other hand, have for the first time in what seems like forever made a gain based on their own solid performance rather the failings of those on the other side of the aisle.

Here’s six minutes of sheer awesomeness from Rep. Paul Ryan. He summarizes all that is wrong with the current bills in very simple terms, and basically calls out the president on the unworkability and sheer deceitfulness of the numbers game the Dems have been playing. Do yourself a favor and watch it. Then forward it around.

…..

-Cnation

Morning Bell: The White House Learned Nothing from Massachusetts

In July of this year, the American people were mostly undecided about Obamacare: equal numbers opposed and supported the health care bills that the White House was shepparding through Congress. But then August happened and informed Americans turned out at townhalls across the country to express their strong disapproval of Obamacare. The larger American public noticed and and pluralities of the American people began to oppose Obamacare. The White House concluded they had a “communications problem” so they scheduled a prime time speech in front of a rare Joint Session of Congress. But the President’s speech arrogantly dismissed the concerns of the American people and after a brief uptick in support (from the low 40s to the mid 40s), opposition to the President’s plan grew.

Then in November, liberals lost governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia as opposition to President Obama’s signature policy priority inched towards 50%. Again the White House concluded that nothing was wrong with their policy agenda and they dismissed their setbacks in two states that had voted for President Barack Obama as local elections with weak candidates. Instead of rethinking their policies and procedures the White House doubled down and pushed for a speedy passage of Obamacare with as little debate as possible. Over the next two months the White House bought support for their health care plan with the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, and big labor tax breaks. And their behind-closed-doors, backroom-deal tactics almost worked … until Massachusetts happened.

Just like in August and November, Sen. Scott Brown’s (R) upset win over Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) took the Obama administration completely by surprise. Again, the White House concluded they had a “communications problem” so this time they scheduled a six-hour health care summit that is supposed to take place at The Blair House, across the street from the White House, this Thursday. But like everything else that has come out of the Obama administration during this health care debate, the President’s effort to “seek common ground” at the summit is completely disingenuous. The New York Times reported this past Friday that the White House is drafting, and will release this morning, a final health care bill they expect Congress to pass quickly. And this bill is specifically designed to pass without any conservative support:

Democratic officials said the president’s proposal was being written so that it could be attached to a budget bill as a way of averting a Republican filibuster in the Senate. The procedure, known as budget reconciliation, would let Democrats advance the bill with a simple majority rather than a 60-vote supermajority.

And a “simple majority” does not mean they need 51 Senators. The nuclear option the White House is now pushing, reconciliation,  only requires the Obama administration to muster 50 votes before Vice President Joe Biden can cast a tie breaking vote in favor of a government takeover of health care.

And make no mistake, a government takeover of health care is exactly what Obamacare is. Just last night the White House revealed that one new feature of their legislation will be to give the federal government sweeping new authority to set prices for health insurance. This is on top of the sweeping new authority that Obamacare already grants the federal governemnt to micromanage the coverage details of every single health insurance policy in the country. And since the nuclear option only requires 50 Democratic Senators for passage, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has signaled that an outright government run health insurance company, the public option, will also be included in the final bill.

There is a reason that the longer this health care debate has dragged on, more and more Americans have become solidly against Obamacare: the plan has been exposed as a welfare state takeover of our health care sector that can only be passed by the most partisan and venal tactics. If the President was capable of listening to the American people, and learning from August, November, and Massachusetts, then he would abandon the legislative disasters still pending in the House and Senate and start over. That is what the American people want.

The Democrat Political Cover Commission

From the The House Republican Conference  •  GOP.gov

On February 18, 2010, the President signed an executive order (EO) to establish the “National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform,” co-chaired by President Clinton’s former White House Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles, and former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY).  According to the White House, the commission “will build bipartisan consensus to put forth solutions to tackle our long-ignored fiscal challenges.”  However, the commission fails to take tax increases off the table and would not require a vote on the final recommendations by Congress until after the elections in November (or ever).  In reality, the commission amounts to little more than a political gimmick, allowing Democrats to talk about fiscal responsibility while they continue to bury future generations with record spending, deficits, and debt.

Summary

The President’s EO establishes the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform with the expressed mission of “identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run.”

Membership :
The commission would be comprised of 18 members who would be appointed by the President, the Majority and Minority leaders of the Senate, and the Speaker and Minority leader of the House.  Under the EO, 12 members would be selected by Congress.  Three Senators from each party would be appointed by their respective Senate Majority and Minority leaders.  Likewise, three House of Representative members would be selected by the Speaker of the House and three by the Minority Leader.  The final six members would be selected by the President.  The President would be barred from selecting more than four members from the same political party, meaning the President would likely choose four Democrats and two Republicans.  Under that scenario, the commission would be comprised of eight Republicans and 10 Democrats, but Democrats would have control of 12 appointments compared to the GOP’s six.  This means that Democrats would choose which Republ! icans are on the panel.

Mission :
The commission would be charged with identifying and presenting policy recommendations “designed to balance the budget,” including policies to cut deficits by increasing taxes and slowing the growth in entitlements.  According to the White House, “primary balance” in the budget is defined as “achieving deficits of about 3 percent of GDP,” as compared to the projected FY 2010 deficit of 10.6 percent of GDP.  Over the next ten years, deficits will average 5 percent of GDP under the President’s budget.  Specifically, the EO requires the commission to propose “changes to address the growth of entitlement spending and the gap between the projected revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government.”

Report :
The commission would be required to vote to approve a report containing their final recommendations by December 1, 2010.  The final report must be affirmatively voted on by 14 of the 18 members of the commission, meaning that at least four Republican members of the commission-presumably including the two appointed by President Obama-must vote for the recommendations.  Following the issuance of the report, Congress would not be required to act upon the recommendations.

Issues of Concern

A Powerless Commission :
The commission would be established by an executive order, rather than by a binding statute as other deficit-panel proposals have sought to do.  A commission established by an executive order cannot compel Congress to act on its proposals.  Democrat leadership may say that it would bring the commission’s recommendations to the floor if they retain their Majority, but they could easily change their position or simply ignore the suggestions.  Democrats could also choose to act on “bipartisan” recommendations which they support, like tax increases, and reject the spending cuts.

Taxes on the Table :
Given the Democrats’ track record of raising taxes, it has been widely speculated that the Obama commission could be used by Democrats to propose supposedly “bipartisan” tax increases.  Democrats could use the “bipartisan” panel as a means to say that tax hikes are supported by Republicans.  Many Members may believe that the current recession is the worst possible time for crushing tax hikes and that tax increases need to be explicitly taken off the table.

Politically Imbalanced :
When introducing the commission, the President stated, “the Commission I’m establishing today will build a bipartisan consensus to put America on the path toward fiscal reform and responsibility.”  In actuality, the commission is politically imbalanced as Democrats control 20 percent more of the panel and two of the Republicans will be selected by the Democrat President.

Timing :
The Commission would not be required to report its final recommendations for nearly a year, well after the federal government spends a record $3.72 trillion in FY 2010.  Many Members believe that the nation’s fiscal crisis must be faced immediately, not sometime down the road.  In addition, the commission would likely conceal its recommendations from the American people until after the November elections.  Some Members may be concerned that the panel is designed to hide its final proposals from the people until after they have voted.

A Lack of Credibility :
Democrats would control a majority of the commission and ultimately decide what tax increases or spending changes to recommend.  Unfortunately, since taking over Congress and the White House, Democrats have an atrocious record of increasing spending, deficits, and taxes.  Since Democrats took control of Congress and started passing their budgets in 2007, the national debt has grown by 42.8 percent.  In 2009 alone, House Democrats passed a “stimulus” bill-which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) now predicts will cost $862 billion-a $1.3 trillion health care takeover that raises taxes by more than $700 billion, a $873 billion national energy tax on every American, two omnibus spending bills totaling more than $855 billion, and increased non-defense discretionary spending by 12 percent.

Facing political pressure, Democrats are desperate to feign interest in the rising deficits.  As a result of its nonbinding nature, many Members may believe that this commission constitutes an empty political tactic to convince Americans that something is being done, without actually addressing difficult fiscal realities.

Politicizing Murder: Wrong No Matter Who Does It

Amy Bishop, UAH  Shooter

Amy Bishop, UAH Shooter

Ever since Obama won the presidential election and the Democrats assumed full power, there has been a seemingly never-ending string of events, comments, gaffes, and situations from the left which have passed by virtually unnoticed by the media and blogosphere, any of which would have caused major shitstorms had they come from the right. From the Rangel/Reich discussion of keeping white males from taking stimulus-funded jobs, to the President palling around with domestic terrorists and felons, to Harry Reid’s “negro dialect‘ comment of a few weeks ago…it goes on and on, usually to the refrain of “can you imagine if a conservative had done/said that?”

On the flip side, it’s also not the least bit uncommon to see the left take the slightest, most innocuous little thing done or said by a conservative/republican and blow it w-a-y out of proportion (ie the Palin hand notes thing), very often reaching and perpetuating outlandish conclusions not even remotely grounded in fact, or to find and highlight a connection, no matter how slight, between a person who’s done something heinous and conservative efforts/personalities. Like this. It happens all the time; the conservative blogs have gotten very good at calling out those who would misrepresent a given situation, and setting the record straight.

Unfortunately, some conservative bloggers have actually begun employing the very same tactics, and that is what I am writing about this evening.

By now, everyone knows about Dr. Amy Bishop, the University of Alabama in Huntsville biology professor who killed three of her colleagues and wounded three others this past Friday during a faculty meeting.

Earlier this evening, Glenn Reynolds posted about something he found at the web site ratemyprofessors.com, where some anonymous poster – presumably one of her college students – stated that Bishop was a socialist:

This class was great. Bishop makes the class interesting by talking about her research and her friends research. That speaker she had for class was hard to understand but smart. She expects alot and you need to come to every class and study. She is hot but she tries to hide it.And she is a socalist but she only talks about it after class.

Reynolds’ point as I understood it was that if there had been something in Bishop’s past that had linked her to conservatism, the TEA party movement, etc…, the connection would probably have been trotted out and used by the left-wing blogosphere and/or media in some manner to disparage the right.  He was not, by any stretch, using the ratemyprofessor post as evidence that the shooter actually was a socialist.

While one might question the need to even bring it up in the first place, I don’t believe Reynolds’ intent was malicious.

But then we have Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit. I’ll state for the record that I read his site pretty much every day and often post direct links to his articles. His sensationalist streak is well-known to his readers, but his information is usually high enough quality to overlook the melodrama. Tonight though, he crossed the line.

Here’s the headline from Gateway Pundit:

Socialist Professor Amy Bishop Who Killed 3 Profs Yesterday Shot & Killed Her Brother in 1986 …UPDATE: Dem Rep. Delahunt Made Call to Release Bishop in 1986!

Is this what we’re doing now, taking the unsubstantiated statement of some anonymous college kid from the ratemyprofessors website and posting it as pure, uncontested fact? Isn’t this exactly the same type of thing we give the lefties hell over?

Hoft has been around long enough to know better, but instead ran full speed ahead with his “Socialist Professor” headline in what can only be described as an incredibly reckless and irresponsible manner, especially considering the considerable size of his readership. To make matters worse however, the headline has now been picked up and run verbatim by other so-called conservative bloggers who seemingly lack the intellectual capacity to recognize the problem with the headline, and who are apparently too lazy to perform any fact-checking of their own.

There is no excuse for any of this. As a conservative blogger, I am both embarrassed and ashamed at the events that are transpiring this evening.

It’s bad enough when the left does it, but we’ve learned expect it from them (OK, not all of them, but enough). That’s why, by and large, they have the credibility problems they do. We do -not- need this from our own side, and we should therefore be just as hard if not harder on so-called conservatives who find it acceptable to spread this type of unsubstantiated sensationalistic bullshit. It undermines our credibility across the board and should not be tolerated, no matter how well-respected the source.

I haven’t even touched on the sheer repulsiveness of politicizing these murders in the first place, but suffice it to say that I find it unconscionable, and so should you.

Let us not forget that three families will be burying their dead in the coming weeks. They, the victims who’ve survived, the children of the shooter…all whose lives were touched by this senseless tragedy can use our prayers.

…..

-Cnation

Global Warming – Is There Anything It Can’t Do?

Tomorrow, NBC (which is owned by General Electric) will begin broadcasting the 2010 Winter Olympics from Vancouver, Canada. Only two events are scheduled for the opening day (alpine skiing and ski jumping), but even those events will be difficult to pull off. Why? There is no snow in Vancouver. And International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge knows exactly what is to blame: global warming. Rogge tells AFP: “Global warming of course is a worry, it is a worry for the entire world.”

Considering that NBC/GE  has already received billions in TARP bailout cash from the Obama administration and is actively lobbying for a global warming energy tax bill so that it can receive billions more in government green-energy subsidies on top of the millions it already receives, we are sure to hear lots from NBC announcers about how the lack of snow in Vancouver is just another reason Washington needs to act now to stop global warming.

But back in Washington, the global warming scare-monger crowd is singing a slightly different tune. Facing record snowfalls, Time is reporting: “Snowstorm: East Coast Blizzard Tied to Climate Change.” But do not confuse this headline with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s column from two years ago claiming that global warming was causing “anemic winters” in the Washington region.

No snow, too much snow. It does not matter to the enviroleft crowd. For them, global warming always is to blame. That is the whole reason the movement made a deliberate decision earlier this decade to stop calling it “global warming” and start calling it “climate change.” That way they could expand the universe of terrible things they could plausibly blame on global warming. One British citizen even maintains a comprehensive list of everything the enviroleft has tried to blame on global warming including: Atlantic ocean less salty, Atlantic ocean more salty, Earth slowing down, Earth spinning faster, fish bigger, fish shrinking, and (most importantly) beer better, beer worse.

The media are not the only ones complicit in the climate fear industry. The 2007 Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which is the most prestigious scientific body charged with determining what is and is not settled science) has also been found to be cooking the books. In just the past year, the IPCC’s 2007 report has been exposed for overstating the science on glacier loss in the Himalayas, crop loss in Africa, Amazon rain forest depletion and damage from weather catastrophes.

Here is what we do know: the cap-and-trade system in Europe is completely failing to reduce carbon emissions; the cap-and-trade system proposed here in the United States would do nothing to affect global temperatures, but would do trillions of dollars of damage to the U.S. economy.

Something to think about while you shovel out your driveway today.

Is USA Today Serving the Goals of Al-Qaeda?

Yesterday, USA Today ran an editorial on the Obama administration’s handling of terrorism, writing: "Officials’ handling of Christmas Day attack looks like amateur hour." Graciously given the space to respond to this charge, Obama administration Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan replied: "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda." Got that? The Obama administration considers any criticism of its national security policies, even from as benign a source as USA Today, as serving "the goals of al-Qaeda." And the problems with Brennan’s letter don’t end there: Interrogation Contradictions: First Brennan asserts that "Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was thoroughly interrogated and provided important information." But just one sentence later Brennan admits: "The most important breakthrough occurred after Abdulmutallab was read his rights." So which is it? Was the first interrogation so thorough that no active and useful intelligence was lost, or did "the most important breakthrough" come over a month later, giving al-Qaeda a month’s head start? 

Coordination Contradictions: Brennan asserts "Senior counterterrorism officials from the White House, the intelligence community and the military were all actively discussing this case before he was Mirandized and supported the decision to charge him in criminal court." But this has been directly contradicted by the sworn testimony of National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair and FBI Director Robert Mueller. Someone is not telling the truth about a vital national security matter. Congress must investigate. False Miranda History: Brennan writes: "Would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid was read his Miranda rights five minutes after being taken off a plane he tried to blow up. The same people who criticize the president today were silent back then." But Brennan leaves out the fact that Reid was arrested in December 2001, before the military detention system was in place. This is like accusing George Washington of treason for not using machine guns against the British. He didn’t use them because they didn’t exist yet! Military vs. Civilian Custody: Brennan writes: "There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform. The suspect gets access to a lawyer, and interrogation rules are nearly identical." That is perhaps the most fatuous sentence in Brennan’s op-ed. The roles of lawyers in the civilian and military system are completely different. In military custody, detainees are not read their Miranda rights and their lawyer’s purpose is to challenge his detention as an enemy combatant. Under civilian custody, the suspect is read his Miranda rights and his lawyer is there to make sure he does not say anything that will incriminate himself. The situations are completely different, not "nearly identical." Military vs. Civilian Trials: "Cries to try terrorists only in military courts lack foundation." The false choice of all civilian or all military trials is what lacks foundation. There are hundreds of witnesses who stand ready to testify and send Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to jail. We do not need his testimony to be admissible. There is nothing stopping the administration from questioning Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant without reading him Miranda rights and then trying him in civilian court later. Last month, The Washington Post editorial board, who has endorsed every single Democratic Presidential candidate since 1988, wrote:

UMAR FAROUK Abdulmutallab was nabbed in Detroit on board Northwest Flight 253 after trying unsuccessfully to ignite explosives sewn into his underwear. The Obama administration had three options: It could charge him in federal court. It could detain him as an enemy belligerent. Or it could hold him for prolonged questioning and later indict him, ensuring that nothing Mr. Abdulmutallab said during questioning was used against him in court. It is now clear that the administration did not give serious thought to anything but Door No. 1. This was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

Myopic. Irresponsible. Potentially dangerous. That is a spot-on assessment of the Obama administration’s knee-jerk Miranda-rights-for-everyone counterterrorism policy. And admitting as much would be the first step to defeating, not supporting, al-Qaeda.

 

FOR THE WEEK OF February 9, 2010 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Obama Proposes Cuts to Important Immigration Enforcement Programs

On February 1, President Obama released the details of his Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Request, which seeks to cut funding for important immigration enforcement programs. Specifically, the president’s budget would slash funding for the Secure Border Initiative; cut funding for US-VISIT; and cut 180 agents from the Border Patrol. The president’s proposed budget also proposes to merely maintain funding for the critically underfunded State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP).

Read the full article

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Senators Push for Immigration Measures in Jobs Bill

In anticipation of jobs legislation Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid intends to bring to the floor this week (see, e.g., CBS, February 5, 2010), true immigration reformers in the Senate are seeking to add measures that would improve immigration enforcement while simultaneously helping the American worker. Last week, Senators Sessions (R-AL), Grassley (R-IA), Coburn, (R-OK), Vitter (R-LA), Chambliss (R-GA), Isakson (R-GA), Bunning (R-KY), and Inhofe (R-OK), sent a letter to Reid asking that he add these measures to any jobs legislation aimed at reducing unemployment in the United States.

Read the full article

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fourteen Texas Busing Companies Implicated in Illegal Alien Smuggling Scheme

Last week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested 22 individuals charged with conspiracy to transport illegal immigrants as a result of a three-month investigation into fourteen Houston-area transportation businesses.  According to federal officials, the individuals “allegedly accepted cash from alien smugglers to move undocumented aliens in vans and SUVs from Houston to other cities around the United States.” ICE also arrested 81 suspected illegal aliens during the operation, who were then placed in deportation proceedings. (Id.).

Read the full article

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Obama’s Aunt Remains in the U.S. Illegally

Last week, a federal judge continued the asylum hearing for President Barack Obama’s aunt, Kenya native Zeituni Onyango. Ms. Onyango, the half-sister of Obama’s father, has been in the United States on an overstayed visa since 2000. Immigration officials ordered Onyango deported in 2004 after her first asylum request was rejected, but she ignored the order and is currently living in taxpayer-subsidized public housing in Boston. Id. At the immigration hearing last Thursday for her second bid for asylum, there was no immediate decision from Judge Leonard Shapiro.  Shapiro scheduled a follow-up hearing for May 25, though he may issue a ruling before then.

Read the full article

Web Bug from http://www.fairus.org/site/PixelServer?j=4oOgT_ZqSTe6fIyjv0dDrQ..

fair university

Check out the new FAIR online university where you can learn about immigration reform!

support FAIR

New Research from FAIR

Summary of Rep. Gutierrez’s Mass Amnesty Bill
January 2010

How the Senate Health Care Bill Impacts Immigration
December 2009 (PDF)

English Learners and Immigration: A Case Study of Prince George’s County, Maryland
November 2009

The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Marylanders
November 2009

Backsliding on National Security: The Immigration Connection
September 2009

The Sinking Lifeboat: Uncontrolled Immigration and the U.S. Health Care System in 2009
September 2009

Takeaction

fairdebate

Visit the best immigration news blog on the web…
stein

share
facebook
twitter

 

The left’s predictable reaction to Palin’s speech

Update: This afternoon (Sunday) I saw the video of Palin consulting her hand during the post-speech Q and A. You know, while I don’t fault her for keeping notes – even notes written on her hand (as someone who does it all the time, I completely get it) – I still have to wonder what the heck she was thinking…as though the nutjob leftie blogs wouldn’t get a hold of some video stills and run with it. Good grief….

Still, at least she didn’t mispronounce ‘corpsman’. Three times. Interesting how the hypocrites on the left have nothing to say about that.

But let’s face it, their real problem with Palin’s speech last night is that she decimated their president and his fatally flawed ideology.

They probably oughta get used to it…

…..

So what is the left going after this morning? They’re going after the fact that Sarah Palin had to refer to notes and what were presumably a few bullet points scribbled in the palm of her hand during her Tea Party convention speech last night.

Because really, that’s so much worse than mindlessly reading every single word that’s been carefully scripted for you by someone else off a teleprompter.

And, you know….it’s not necessarily even Zero’s incessant teleprompter use in and of itself that’s the problem, it’s his utter inability to speak clearly and intelligently without it which both amuses and frightens us.

Unlike Zero, Palin speaks with conviction, from the heart, with a clarity of purpose that connects directly with the conservative majority in America, and which rightfully scares the living shit out of the progressives/leftists of the world as they see their agenda crumble before their eyes.

So, the next time you hear one of your moron leftist friends attempting to ridicule Palin, understand they’re just not capable of better. Immaturity and intellectual dishonesty of the type they’re displaying this morning is their stock in trade, especially when they’re getting their asses handed to them.

Pity them as you might an unruly emotional child, but then just smile and walk away.

…..

-Cnation

Sarah Palin’s Tea Party Convention Speech

A speech given by an American who truly loves her country, to her fellow Americans who truly love their country.

The smackdown she laid on the current administration and its policies was thorough and dead-on accurate.

AND….not a teleprompter in sight.

This video is in 5 parts, all selectable from the bottom and sides of the video frame.

…..

-Cnation