Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Clearing Up the Mystery of Barak Obama's Support of Israel

Why is Barak Obama's stance on the Middle East such a mystery? From the BarakObama campaign website, it appears Mr. Obama will support a strong U.S.-Israel partnership:
Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel . . . Obama supports this closeness, stating that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.

Concerning Israel's right to defend itself against enemy attack, the policy making Obama headquarters states:

During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He believes strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.

From Barak's website, his commitment to Israel as primary ally of the U.S. is a done deal. However, on Sunday (February 24, 2008), Ralph Nadar made several remarks on "Meet the Press" that brings Obama's stand on Israel into question.

According to the Republican Jewish Coalition website, Nader remarked that Sen. Obama had reversed his positions on Israel. Nader said Sen. Obama's "better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself" and that Sen. Obama was "pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate" and "during the state Senate."

In March 2007 Obama told voters in Iowa, that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." From The Nation we learn Obama has spoken highly of the Palestinian people and the calamities they have faced. Obviously, these statements made back in March 2007 have not endeared Obama to the Jewish pro-Israel bloc.

Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks warns that "people should be very skeptical of Barack Obama's shaky Middle East policies. When a long-time political activist like Ralph Nader, with a well-documented, anti-Israel bias, claims that Senator Obama shares this anti-Israel bias, that is alarming."

However,with all due respect to Barak Obama, if he has truly reversed his position on Israel out of sincere convictions, I applaude his change of heart. Perhaps in preparing for his presidential run, he looked further into the issues of the Middle East and made a genuine change of policy. Perhaps he was more anti-Israel in the past. The words that come out of his mouth on his website today and in other situations sound as though he has come to a new understanding on Israel's tough situation.

If Barak Obama has altered his position on Israel only to garner Jewish votes, shame on him.

If he becomes president, and is forced to deal with the Middle East conflict, will he stand by Israel and condemn Palestinian terrorist aggression? That is a gamble Obama supporters will have to take, especially his Jewish advocates. The question we must ask is whether he truly understands the complexities of the Middle East dilemma and will he stand by Israel to protect and secure America's longtime democratic ally?

Tonight on the presidential debate Mr. Obama was asked about the fact earlier this week Nation of Islam minister Louis Farrakhan threw in his support of Barak for president. Minister Farrakhan called the democratic presidential candidate, the "hope of the entire world." When asked about Farrakhan, Obama described in no uncertain terms that he views the Minister's comments as antisemitic-repugnant and reprehensible. Yet when pressed whether he rejects the support of Farrakhan, Obama faltered a bit and said he had no control over who supports him. In the debate format Mrs. Clinton pressed further, and Obama conceded that he rejects the support of Louis Farrakhan. It's too bad and also alarming that Obama had to falter at all in rejecting Farrakhan's support.

No person-white or black-claiming to want the Jewish vote can do so without disavowing any connection with the racism of Louis Farrakhan.

Regarding Obama's position on Israel, in June 2007 he was asked by Jim Wallis' Sojourners where he stands on Israel. The question posed by Wallis gave every opportunity to Obama to clarify where he stands: "Do you think the Palestinians and the occupied territories are being treated morally, and fairly, and justly by the Israelis?"

Obama replied:
"I believe that the Israelis want peace, and they want security. And oftentimes, in the midst of achieving security, there have been times when there's no doubt that Palestinians have been placed in situations that we wouldn't want our own families to be placed in. Israelis have been killed. They've got bombs flying into their territories right now. And we would expect them to act appropriately in defending themselves. . . Is there a way for us to reconcile the claims of both sides of the conflict in a way that leads to resolution and a better life for all people? And that, I think, is something that can be achieved, but it's going to require some soul-searching on the Palestinian side. They have to recognize Israel's right to exist; they have to renounce violence and terrorism as a tool to achieve their political ends; they have to abide by agreements. In that context, I think the Israelis will gladly say, 'Let's move forward negotiations that would allow them to live side by side with the Palestinians in peace and security.'

While I have yet to see Obama's position on whether he believes in a one state or two state solution to the Middle East conflict, I am squeamish to admit he seems committed to the security of Israel and is willing to challenge Palestinian terrorism as a counterfeit and fruitless means of achieving "peace in the Middle East."

If Obama's support of Israel is simply the necessary rhetoric of a man who needs to say what's expedient for the moment to grab the Jewish vote, then the U.S., the Israelis and the Jewish community have been duped by a man who would prove himself to be no better than Louis Farrakhan. I say that with deep grief in my heart hoping that Barak Obama is a man of integrity and a man of his word.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Michelle Obamarama Has Begun

What's the deal over Michelle Obama's Princeton Master's Thesis? Why won't she release her thesis . . . a work she should be proud of? I've written two master theses. I don't care who reads them. Oh yes, but I don't have a spouse running for president of the United States. In other words, I don't have something I don't want the public to know until after the presidential election. Now it all makes sense.

Is Michelle's decision not to release her thesis to the public come under the provisions of the Patriot Act? What's she hiding?
On Tuesday February 19, 2008, Jonah Goldberg remarked on National Review Online: "A reader in the know informs me that Michelle Obama's thesis, "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community," is unavailable until November 5, 2008 at the Princeton library. I wonder why."

There are those among Democrats who resent this kind of questioning of a Democratic candidate's wife. However, what they don't resent is that a presidential candidate's wife has contributed a major piece of literature explaining her beliefs and ideas in one of our nation's most prestigious universities, but will not allow the rest of us to see what she has to say. I find that disturbing.

It's amazing how liberals cry for freedom of speech but when self-imposed censorship affects "one of their own", the freedom goes only one way-the freedom to not divulge what could be pertinent information. Perhaps we could get Dan Rather to forge a copy of Mrs. Obama's thesis and release it to the press. Isn't that the media's way of revealing the truth? Just make it up.

To find out what's in Mrs. Obama's thesis I took several steps:

First, I needed to find out Michelle's maiden name to locate the thesis she wrote as a single woman while in college. According to Wikianswers her name is Michelle LaVaughn Robinson. She wrote her Master's thesis in 1985 as a master's candidate in Princeton's Sociology Department.

Next, I had to locate the title of the thesis, which is "Princeton Educated Blacks and the Black Community." The thesis is 96 pages. According to the Princeton University Senior Thesis Full Record, the thesis is not to be released until November 5, 2008. However, you can still order a copy of Michelle's thesis by following one of the links on the page.

Finally, I discovered selected quotes from Michelle's thesis which provided the gist of her thesis. Let me quote from Hot Air:

In her 1985 Princeton senior thesis, “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community,” Michelle LaVaughn Robinson lamented that "white professors and classmates always saw her as 'Black first and a student second.'"

Furthermore, "she had surveyed alumni to see whether they sacrificed their commitment to other blacks on the altar of success, and foresaw for herself an uneasy future(italic's mine): further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.”

Since Mrs. Obama's husband is running for presidential candidate as the first black man ever to be taken seriously (Don't forget Alan Keyes), Mrs. Obama was dead wrong in her view that even though she's an educated black her future will still be "uneasy."

In the same vein, Michelle also lamented in her introduction that regardless of " how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong.”

Sorry Michelle, but you did not end up on the peripheral as you projected. Nor has your life given evidence that "you don't belong in white society." Quite the contrary. You are in dead center, equal with the white man and a white woman. Your husband is a full participant in the 2008 presidential race. What a testimony to the greatness of this country! This is Dr. King's dream come true. Advancement to great levels of success based on a person's character and hard work . . . not affirmative action.

Mrs. Obama, let me suggest that your thesis needs serious revising.

Michelle also expressed in her thesis' conclusion whether her education would "affect my identification with the Black community. I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with Whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that Black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility."

Along with wonderful black women like Condoleezza Rice, Mrs. Obama should be proud of her education and see herself as an example to both black and white communities. The goal is not merely to identify with the black community but to lift up her community to demonstrate the freedom to succeed and take part in our society- a freedom any black man or woman has if they apply themselves with hard work and perseverance.

The political platform of Barak Obama must reach further heights than identification with the black community.
In Shelby Steele's book on Obama, A Bound Man, he expresss his concern that Obama's presence as a black man could get in the way of his policies. The worse thing Obama can do is run on the "race ticket" so that no one ever knows what he stands for. He must stand for something more than "I am the first black man to ever run for president."

The question still remains, "Why a restricted thesis?" Is the concern based on what's in the thesis? Will Michelle Obama appear to be too black for white America or not black enough for black America?

My advice, "Be yourself! Don't cater to any one ethnic community. Your husband's aspiration is to end up in the White House. However, in reality it is neither a white nor a black house, but the home of the one man or woman who represents the people of America. . .a house in Washington, D. C. which can never be boiled down to one religion, race, ethnicity or color.

If your husband becomes our next president (and I do not plan to vote for him), I want a man who represents me as an American- not a white person. I want a man who is proud to be an American more than he is proud of being black or white or Catholic or anything else.

When Mr. President is called upon to defend our country against our enemies, they will not care if the man in the Oval Office is white or black. They'll want to know how committed he is to protect and defend the United States of America. This is the person I want in the White House, an individual I can be proud to call the President of the U.S.


Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Once More On The Politics of lllegal Immigration

I have no intention of being mean-spirited, biased or racist. Those are usually the labels thrown at individuals who quote statistics and demonstrate the negative impact the illegal immigration culture is having on our society.

This is my country. I am a citizen of the United States. I served in the U.S. Army and am a veteran of Vietnam. When I see a group of people flaunting their lack of compliance with the rule of law, I have to speak up. To remain quiet is so un-American,

I am well aware of what racism is. I’ve lived with it as a Jewish person and been the object of anti-Semitism. I’ve lived in a predominately ethnic community and have been harassed because I am Jewish and white, and white kids in high school have called me names because I had black friends.

Racism does not take place when a person tells the truth about an ethnic minority. If I tell you young Hispanics are attracted to the gang culture that is not prejudice. I live in Los Angeles, California and I see the gang life influence every day.

Sadly, gang life is doing quite well with Hispanic immigrants. In her lectures and her articles, Heather McDonald notes that the incarceration rate of Mexican Americans is 3.45 higher than that of whites.

If you have not been reading my blog, you need to know Heather Mac Donald is a John M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor to City Journal. She also is a recipient of 2005 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement. Her credentials are quite impressive and can be checked out at the Manhattan Institute's webpage. She is also a prolific writer of books and articles on the issue of illegal immigration. I went to hear her speak on the politics of illegal immigration and out of that lecture came this article.

McDonald lays it out: Anyone who speaks to Hispanic students in immigrant-saturated schools in Southern California will invariably hear the estimate that 50% of a student’s peers have ended up in gangs or other criminal activities.

Along with gang membership comes hostility toward education. Listen to rap song lyrics that appeal to young whites, blacks and Hispanics saying that it’s cool to be illiterate.

You can be sure gangs are not holding college career day on the street corners of East L.A. Rather, college education is knocked out by gang membership.

Again, illegal immigrants are not adding to family values (as I discuss in my previous post) but causing them to break down.

Hispanic population provides the greatest number of individuals who become part of gangs. Also, gang membership is getting younger and younger. 8-9 year old Hispanics are joining gangs. The school drop out rate among Hispanics is the highest.

It’s not enough to want to justify illegal immigration by noting what hard workers they are. Yes, it is true that a large number of Hispanics are hard working and they're to be commended for that quality. However, due to the influence of gang culture, we’re in danger of creating a generation of Hispanics that will create grave problems for our society.

The best thing the Hispanic community can ever do-illegal or legal-is to repudiate the gang culture and the rap music philosophy that disparages the dignity of so many young people. I often chuckle to myself when I observe a wealthy rap artist sing the praises of the hood while they live in the luxury of Beverly Hills mansions. What blatant hypocrisy!

Yes, Los Angeles has a grave gang problem. Many members of gangs are illegals-24%. However, these individuals are hard to track since they are not citizens and we have no record of them.

On top of that, the police have a hard time making arrests. Why? Cities like Los Angeles have immigration laws that tie the hands of police officers trying to arrest aliens who commit crimes.

The LAPD’s ban on immigration enforcement mirrors bans in immigrant-saturated cities around the country, from New York and Chicago to San Diego, Austin, and Houston. These “sanctuary policies” generally prohibit city employees, including the cops, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities. So is the crime wave going to go up or down?

Should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger (as if it’s legal to be a gangbanger) for a crime, he’s not allowed to even question his immigration status. In fact, if the police officer does question the illegal, it is he who becomes an object of investigation.

How serious is this? Check out this example: . . . the police force arrested a Honduran visa violator for seven vicious rapes. The previous year, Miami cops had had the suspect in custody for lewd and lascivious molestation, without checking his immigration status. Had they done so, they would have discovered his visa overstay, a deportable offense, and so could have forestalled the rapes.

If you don’t believe me, read Mac Donald’s article, “The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave.”

In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens. What if we could deport these homicidal monsters? Do you want them to stay and live in our society? I don’t even want them in our jails! Why should I pay taxes to support them? They’re only continue to live the gang lifestyle in jail while a white guy like me supports them. I might feel more compassionate if they were U.S. citizens. They disregard our citizenship laws, are sent to jail and legal citizens have to foot the bill . . . . ?

Listen to the seriousness of this situation as described by Heather McDonald:

In many immigrant communities, assimilation into gangs seems to be outstripping assimilation into civic culture. Toddlers are learning to flash gang signals and hate the police, reports the Los Angeles Times. In New York City, “every high school has its Mexican gang,” and most 12- to 14-year-olds have already joined, claims Ernesto Vega, an illegal 18-year-old Mexican. Such pathologies only worsen when the first lesson that immigrants learn about U.S. law is that Americans don’t bother to enforce it. “Institutionalizing illegal immigration creates a mindset in people that anything goes in the U.S.,” observes Patrick Ortega, the news and public-affairs director of Radio Nueva Vida in southern California. “It creates a new subculture, with a sequela of social ills.” It is broken windows writ large.

It is quite clear our nation has loss total control over immigration policy. Millions of illegals can shop, travel, work and commit crimes in broad daylight in total security from the immigration laws.
We need to choose wisely when we elect our next president. The solution is simple: enforce the immigration laws already on the books. Give the INS some clout. Allow the border patrol to do their jobs. Don’t allow the frightened liberal who’s concerned about offending their illegal maids to gridlock us into doing nothing but watch our country sink into the swamp of disrespect for the laws and principle upon which this incredible country was founded.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

More Politics of Illegal Immigration

With McCain as the Republican presidential frontrunner, the issue of illegal immigration is even more important. Voters need to know their stuff. We must be on top of the issues regarding the blight of illegal immigration and why it is such a serious matter.

Let’s talk about a myth that has affected the thinking of people regarding illegals. Heather McDonald brought this to my attention and I have consulted her articles to write this blog.

Once again, Heather Mac Donald is a John M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor to City Journal. She also is a recipient of 2005 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement. Her credentials are quite impressive and can be checked out at the Manhattan Institute's webpage. She is also a prolific writer of books and articles on the issue of illegal immigration.

The myth is stated as follows: Hispanics will save the American family from the rising tide of illegitimacy and disintegration.

The idea is that illegal Hispanics are good for this country since they possess wonderful family values that the rest of us do not possess. The family values that the rest of us Americans have lost would be restored through the presence of illegals in our society. Is this true or does it just make a good argument lacking serious substantiation.

When we speak to people living in Southern California or other areas of heavily populated Hispanics, we are given a different story. My son attends a Southern California suburban school. I have occasion to speak to the assistant principal and he has repeated often that it's mostly the Hispanic kids who are the ones getting into fights, bringing drugs into the school and giving reason for the police to be called to the school premises. In my neighborhood, Hispanic youths are not having a positive influence on the surrounding white community.

Another issue, according to Heather McDonald is teen single parenthood. She says, “among Hispanic teens the stigma of teen single parenthood has vanished. Social workers in Southern California are in despair over the epidemic of single parenting. To cope with it, Hispanic teens are looking to welfare and social services.”

The problem is compounded by the fact Hispanic teens are looking to their mothers and grandmothers who are having or have had babies outside of marriage. The practice is becoming quite normal.

Here are the alarming statistics from a Heather McDonald article in HumanEvents:

Hispanic women have the highest unmarried birthrate in the country -- over three times that of whites and Asians, and nearly one and a half times that of black women, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women bore 92 children in 2003 (the latest year for which data exist), compared with 28 children for every 1,000 unmarried white women, 22 for every 1,000 unmarried Asian women, and 66 for every 1,000 unmarried black women. Forty-eight percent of all Hispanic births occur outside of marriage, compared with 24 percent of white births and 15 percent of Asian births. Only the percentage of black out-of-wedlock births -- 68% -- exceeds the Hispanic rate.

Put this together. With increasing illegitimacy rate for Hispanics with their overall high fertility rate, where is this myth of family values? What's it based on?

Let me repeat this: The Mexican teen birthrate is 93 births per every 1000 girls, compared with 27 births for every 1000 white girls. Now line up the costs connected with illegitimacy, i.e. . . . kids raised in single-parent homes: higher risk of school failure, emotional problems, teen pregnancy and poverty. There’s little contribution to family values at all at this rate of high Hispanic teen pregnancy.

Here’s more information that breaks up this myth:

Hispanics have the highest school dropout rate in the country. This is a recipe for economic decline. In the LA Unified School District, which is 73% Hispanic, just 40% of Hispanic students graduate. It is well known that those who are supportive of illegal immigrants are opposed to the long deferred California high school exit exam, which would require students to answer just 50% of questions testing eighth grade level math and ninth-grade level English. If such an exam becomes a requirement, Hispanic graduation rates would become even lower . . . drop below 30%.

We can only imagine the money being spent from taxpayers’ money to try to keep these young Hispanics in school. I wonder if their illegal non-tax paying parents are financially contributing? I sure hope so.

The argument that the presence of illegals Hispanics in the U.S. is justified due to their family values is fallacious. It is not a pretty picture but we must stand before this mural of illegal immigration and see it for what it is. Let’s stop fooling ourselves thinking this problem will go away or will be solved on its own.

Our welfare system is in danger of collapsing (which might not be such a bad idea), our social security system is in jeopardy and our healthcare system is in shambles. Why? Because 11-12 million people in this country are taking cash out of these beneficial systems without putting anything back in. It's only a matter of time before it all collapses. So when the Democratic candidates appear to extend an open hand to illegals, you and I need to look deeper at the long term repercussions of such an unwise (but popular among Hispanic voters) stance.

I have more to say. Just one more thing, I promise. The issue of illegals and crime.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

The Politics of Illegal Immigration

I seemed awfully busy attending political meetings prior to Super Tuesday. After all, I needed to be informed on the major issues. So in mid-January I attended a lecture presented by Heather McDonald on the "Politics of Illegal Immigration."

According to the Manhattan Center for Policy Research, Heather Mac Donald is a John M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor to City Journal. She also is a recipient of 2005 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement. Her credentials are quite impressive and can be checked out at the Manhattan Institute's webpage. She is also a prolific writer of books and articles on the issue of illegal immigration.

The lecture was sponsored by a conservative political group, the David Horowitz Freedom Center. The lecture hall could hold at least 100 but only 25-30 attended. I was shocked. Here's an intellect speaking in her area of expertise-illegal immigration, an area that concerns conservatives in a major way-yet the event is barely attended. Illegal immigration is of such utmost importance that this issue influenced my decision to decline to vote for McCain in this week's Super Tuesday California election.

McDonald's premise is that if you listen hard enough to the public voice of the American people, you'll hear their frustration over the illegal immigration issue. Politicians need to listen to the voice of their constituents or be knocked out of the loop.

Why is illegal immigration so important? Because the demographic of the United States is changing. In the past three years, the number of illegal immigrants in America has reached 12 million. From a 2005 article from the Washington Post we read:

Based on Census Bureau and other government data, the Pew Hispanic Center, a private research group in Washington, estimated the number of undocumented immigrants at 10.3 million as of last March, an increase of 23 percent from the 8.4 million estimate in 2000. More than 50 percent of that growth was attributable to Mexican nationals living illegally in the United States, the report said.

To figure out the number of illegals in this country today, the same article provides us the math:

Pew Hispanic Center Director Roberto Suro said that the number of illegal immigrants continues to grow at the same rate as in the 1990s -- approximately 485,000 a year -- "despite significant efforts by the government to try to restrain the flow . . . at the border."

if we use the figure of 485,000 a year growth rate of illegal migrants, that would bring us two years later at 12 million illegals here in this country.

Who are these illegals? Once more the Washington Post piece provides the answer:

Mexicans remain the largest group of illegal migrants, at 5.9 million or about 57 percent of the March 2004 estimate, the report said. An additional 24 percent or 2.5 million undocumented immigrants are from other Latin American countries. Assuming the flow into the country has not changed since a year ago, the population of undocumented immigrants could number nearly 11 million today, the report said.

Here's another way to look at this according to Heather MacDonald. One in eight U.S. residents is foreign born. That's not a problem. That's 38 million foreign born people in this country. Here's the kicker: one in three of foreign born individuals is here in this country illegally. One in three of the foreign born residents in our country is here illegally. That's serious. If these illegals do not pay taxes, then they are enjoying the benefits of this country without having to pay for it. Who pays for their use of our services such as free medical exams, subsidized prescription drugs or subsidized schools for their children? The taxpayers do.

One young Iraq veteran remarked illegals work hard and should enjoy benefits like everyone else. However, is it fair that this young soldier goes overseas with the intent to protect America and create a secure nation while 12 million residents of the U.S. do not contribute to the defense budget of the U.S. that pays his salary and pays for the weapons that may save his life by their not paying federal income tax. Something is wrong with that kind of thinking.

A major reason why the issue of immigration is so important is that it is a massive assault on the rule of law. By not compelling illegals to become citizens, we're transferring the sovereignty of our country to people, according to MacDonald, who are from outside our borders. The legislature is no longer sovereign. Look at the Hispanic rallies in Spring 2006. Should a politician listen to people who are here illegally when it comes to enforcing the rule of law of the U.S? I don't think so.

Illegals are to be confronted with the rule of this land rather than the rule of this land have to yield to the large number of protesters in the streets of our cities. The self rule of law for illegals is simple: because I am here in the U.S. I have a right to be here." In other words, "we make our own laws. We do not live by the rule of law of the United States of America." No wonder they don't become citizens of the U.S; they do not respect the laws of America. The public is infuriated by this disregard for the rule of law. No matter what laws Congress passes to control our borders, illegals feel they have the right to flaunt their disobedience and indifference to the law.

Heather McDonald refers to an 2004 Los Angeles Times piece demonstrating this flaunting of the law: "After Border Patrol agents arrested a few hundred illegal aliens in southern California cities in 20045, the LA Times ran . . . stories bemoaning the resultant fear among illegal aliens and quoting advocates and politicians blasting the Border Patrol's outrageous behavior." So the behavior of illegals coming into this country illegally is not an issue. The fact they were caught and deported is a bigger issue. Perhaps I should goi out and rob a bank and if I get caught, I can get the LA Times to garner sympathy for me. After all, I robbed the bank because I needed the money and that justifies my ignoring the law against bank robbery!

The rule of law is simple: if you come here illegally, you will face deportation. We should not be ashamed of this law nor should we be afraid to enforce it. The illegal needs to know that deportation is real. But if everytime an illegal is arrested and faces deportation, there are cries of protest from the media, then the illegal knows we are not serious about our laws. There is no need of mass deportations, according to MacDonald. We merely need consistent enforcement of deportation laws. If so, illegals would calculate how wise it is to come to the U.S. through illegal channels, knowing they might be forced to leave.
Many illegals would decide to return home on their own and many fewer would decide to cross our borders. So the answer is not merely more border patrol personnel. Rather, we need enforcement of the laws regarding illegal entrance into our country. The threat of enforcement of the law on this issue must be credible. Right now it isn't.

If Macdonald is right and some polls are correct stating that Americans want to far stricer stance towards illegals than the press does and the politicians, much of our illegal immigration policy would be on its way towards a concrete solution.

Illegal immigration is such a significant issue. A few more postings are necessary to discuss the crime rate connected with the presence of illegals in this country and the false claim of the illegal alien's positive influence on our country's family values.

Friday, February 1, 2008

A Presidential Tragedy: Hillary The Movie

I wasn't particularly excited about seeing Hillary the Movie, A Citizens United Productions Film. Regardless, I showed up at the Harmony Gold Screening Room in Los Angeles for the screening. Actually, Mrs. Clinton was appearing in a debate with Barak Obama at the Kodak Theatre a few miles down the road. I bet the film I saw was more interesting than the debate between the two Democratic presidential candidates.

Why wasn't I enthused about seeing Hillary the Movie? Well, I suffered enough through the Clinton Chronicles as well as the months of hearing about Hillary's Travelgate debacle, Whitewater, Ron Brown, and Vince Foster. I watched almost religiously the impeachment trials of William Jefferson Clinton. I grew weary witnessing the legal skills of Kenneth Starr trying to pin the president to the mat on his improprieties and lies.

So here we are . . . a country poised on the precipice of electing the 44th President of the United States. Only now I prognosticate when I say I see before us more of the same . . . much more.  Only this time it's the Hillary Chronicles or Hillarygate.  I'm growing weary of watching Hillary stand before the firing squad of her detractors and wincing as Hillary, with her face blown off, her legs and arms shot to pieces and her heart riddled with bullets, keeps giving these sharpshooters another target to aim at. How can they miss?  

Don't get me wrong; she's an easy target. A very easy target . . . an immobile target with bulls eyes affixed to every aspect of her political career and personal character (what's left of it).

Rather than go through the whole Hillarygate once again, I'd rather get on to the substance of the presidential debates. . . the issues: illegal immigration, the environment, the war on terrorism, health care, Iraq and the economy. To think of watching another two hours of the Clinton flaws didn't exactly yank my crank.

The film . . . according to the hillarythemovie website, includes an endless cast of political celebrities: Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Jeff Gerth, Buzz Patterson, Michael Barone, Billy Dale, Cyrus Nowrasteh, Tony Blankley, Dick Armey, Bay Buchanan, Joe Connor, Mark Levin, Frank Gaffney, Peter Paul, Gary Aldrich, Dan Burton, John Mica, Michael Medved, Kathleen Willey, Kate O’Beirne, Larry Kudlow and more!

Believe me, they all had stories about Mrs. Clinton and her devious ways, especially her calculated use of tax audits to bring down anyone who might expose her dirty deeds. 

Wait . . hold it. I hear a knock on the door. An IRS agent? What?

That's Hillary. This is a film that claims it is "the first and last word in what the Clintons want America to forget!" Anyone who plans to vote-Republican or Democrat or Independent-should see this film.

From a review by Aryeh Spero on humanevents.com, we read the essence of Hillary The Movie:
The film revisits most of the egregious episodes of the Clinton presidency and the strategic role Mrs. Clinton played in punishing those who stood in the way of granting Bill a free pass. Bill Clinton recently accused Barack Obama of doing “a hit job" on him when, in truth, for years Hillary did "hit jobs" on those she considered political obstacles -- be it the women with which her husband had his way or even upright family men as Billy Dale of the White House travel office.

Her antics were enough to send me out of the screening room trying to get some fresh air as I choked on the possibility that such a person could become our next president.

Without going into the pros and cons of  the factual aspects of  such Clinton fiascos such as Hillary's botched health care program, Bill's fumble of an opportunity to take out Osama Bin Laden,  and the President's horrendous presidential pardons of a gang of Puerto Rican terrorists, here's my gut reaction to this finely done film . . . directed by Alan Peterson and produced by David N. Bossie and Peterson.

Hillary Clinton is not a nice human being. She's not an emotionally healthy person. She has some serious character flaws that carries the potential to get this country in a lot of trouble with Mrs. Clinton on the throne.

To put you at ease I did read her book Living History. I don't despise her. I don't boo when she appears on the screen like some of the other theatergoers did. I think eight years of listening to Bush Bashing should make us the more wiser to not stoop to the likes of Whoopie Goldberg and her ilk.

The film kicked off featuring Hillary's early political career which was entangled in her husband's. Hillary stood by Bill's slimy side for the Arkansas governorship and the presidential run. When Bill was victorious Hillary smiled and beamed. A gleam of satisfaction and perhaps love came from her eyes. Her beauty shone forth in these moments.

Face it, Hillary is an attractive woman. There were moments in the film where some still photos exhibited Hillary as a very attractive woman. In contrast, there's no need for Republicans and other Conservatives to make fun of her figure or any other part of her body nor for anyone to display unflattering photos of Hillary as a way of humilating her. That's so sophomoric and unbecoming.

Then came the change . . . Hillary's face transformed into a saddened, sullen look. Her embittered emotions, like an eruption of adolescent acne, started to show on her countenance. Her demeanor grew angry, resentful and laden with pain.

Can you blame Hillary? She's got quite a lot on her own plate with Whitewater and the other Hillary messes. Don't forget . . .Bill has dumped a lot of what was on his plate right into his wife's lap . . .Monica Lewinsky, Jennifer Flowers, Katherine Wiley, Paul Jones and others. That's enough to bring that sabertoothed stare on Hillary's face. Her husband humiliated her in full view of the world. Give the woman a break!

You can say what you want about backroom deals between Hillary and Bill to save their marriage once the Lewinsky affair was revealed . . . perhaps she promised to stay betrothed to Bill if he supported her bid for the presidency. We'll never know. But this I do know.

Bill and Hillary Clinton . . . the two of them . . . make one heck of a dysfunctional family. I can almost see the marital embroidered towels hanging side-by-side in their bathroom: Her power. His lies.

The ongoing question plagues everyone who comes into contact with her, "Who is this woman?" Her deception and cover-ups. Her refusal to stop at nothing to save her butt. She's ruthless, cunning and . . not a nice person. Too bad. I've always tried to respect her for her intelligence. Now that I see what she's done with her acumen, I no longer respect her.

Hillary Clinton has no business in the White House or the Oval Office or anywhere near the District of Columbia. She and her husband will bring nothing but more of their family dysfunction into our nation's capital. Mrs. Clinton needs help but I am not sure if anyone is qualified to plummet through her deceptive nature to locate the real Hillary.

Hillary the Movie? See it if you can find it. Buy it on the HillarytheMovie.com website. Show it to your Democratic friends. Watch Hillary's face and demeanor slowly sag deeper and deeper. You'll be glad you did. The Clinton family needs to be put out to pasture . . perhaps in Barbara Streisand's backyard. After all, any political figure that has the full backing of the leftist decadent wing of Hollywood like Hillary does, that should be enough to grab up our skirts or pantlegs and take off running.