Saturday, May 29, 2010
Sestak's Job Offer
At this point only those directly involved know exactly what was said to Joe Sestak (D-PA) about the good things he would experience if he dropped out of the Democrat primary race for PA senator. I find it interesting, however, that the person allegedly dispatched to talk to Sestak was former Pres. Bill Clinton. I can't think of anyone who has a better and clearer track record of being able to dance around answers to potentially embarrassing questions or, for that matter to abjectly lie to the public..
I think the only hope we have of ever finding out who said what to whom and at whose bidding is to put Sestak, Clinton, Rahm Emanuel and perhaps Obama under oath and ask them the kinds of questions a good prosecutor would ask on cross-examination. It would be interesting to see who "takes the fifth" and with respect to what questions. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen unless and until the Repubs take the House and Senate, and hold hearings on the matter, and maybe not even then, because I suspect the Dems have a closet full of dirty laundry about some high-ranking Repubs that they would publicly air in that event.
That said, the episode reeks of the Chicago way brought to Washington by Obama and his cohorts, and it should cause some political fallout.
(0) comments
I think the only hope we have of ever finding out who said what to whom and at whose bidding is to put Sestak, Clinton, Rahm Emanuel and perhaps Obama under oath and ask them the kinds of questions a good prosecutor would ask on cross-examination. It would be interesting to see who "takes the fifth" and with respect to what questions. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen unless and until the Repubs take the House and Senate, and hold hearings on the matter, and maybe not even then, because I suspect the Dems have a closet full of dirty laundry about some high-ranking Repubs that they would publicly air in that event.
That said, the episode reeks of the Chicago way brought to Washington by Obama and his cohorts, and it should cause some political fallout.
Labels: Bill Clinton, Chicago, Corruption, Democrats, Obama, politics, Rahm Emanuel
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Musings
It seems to me that one of the reasons people are getting angry at Pres. Obama for not doing more, earlier about the Gulf oil disaster is that he has spent his presidency from day one trying to convince people that government is the source of all that is good. In fact, he seemed to be trying to make government a god--omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. Now, faced with the oil spill, government, in particular his government, is clueless, largely absent and impotent.
That's bad for Obama, but probably good in the long run for the country because it might shock people out of their foolish belief that the government will protect and save them.
The United States, which is exceptional in the world for more reasons than I could list here, became what it is largely because its people didn't stand around waiting for the king, or czar, or prince-bishop or emperor to tell them what to do. They faced their problems and hardships, dealt with them as best they could and eventually conquered them by ingenuity and hard work, all without intervention by the government. That all started to change around the 1800s but the foundation was sound and the nation continued to benefit from this history.
Sure, mistakes were made, but show me a centralized government anywhere else in the world that has made fewer mistakes over the same period of time. If you can do it, maybe we'll all learn something, but I suspect that if such a government exists, if you dig into the history you'll find that its success came from empowering the individual, or at least the local community to do what was best for itself.
(0) comments
That's bad for Obama, but probably good in the long run for the country because it might shock people out of their foolish belief that the government will protect and save them.
The United States, which is exceptional in the world for more reasons than I could list here, became what it is largely because its people didn't stand around waiting for the king, or czar, or prince-bishop or emperor to tell them what to do. They faced their problems and hardships, dealt with them as best they could and eventually conquered them by ingenuity and hard work, all without intervention by the government. That all started to change around the 1800s but the foundation was sound and the nation continued to benefit from this history.
Sure, mistakes were made, but show me a centralized government anywhere else in the world that has made fewer mistakes over the same period of time. If you can do it, maybe we'll all learn something, but I suspect that if such a government exists, if you dig into the history you'll find that its success came from empowering the individual, or at least the local community to do what was best for itself.
Labels: government, Gulf oil spill, Obama, politics
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
FI #3
No sooner do I click the "publsh post" button than I see this.
Here's the gist:
(0) comments
Here's the gist:
The U.S. vice president, opening his address in Belgium, argued that Brussels -- considering its rich history and abundance of international institutions -- could well be the "capital of the free world."He suggested that Washington, D.C., his home, is undeserving of that title -- notwithstanding its wealth of global organizations and the countless international summits that take place there.
"As you probably know, some American politicians and American journalists refer to Washington, D.C. as the 'capital of the free world,'" Biden said. "But it seems to me that in this great city, which boasts 1,000 years of history and which serves as the capital of Belgium, the home of the European Union, and the headquarters for NATO, this city has its own legitimate claim to that title."
Good ol' Joe. He's always lurking among the top 10 candidates for FI awards, and will probably eventually be given an FI Lifetime Achievement award. I gotta say that the much-maligned Dan Quayle isn't even on the same planet as Biden when it comes to gaffes.
Query: When, oh when, will our government officials start representing the interests of the United States of America? (When there's a new administration. -- Ed.)
Labels: Democrats, diplomacy, Joe Biden
FI Award #2
FI Award* number two goes to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), former US Navy Admiral and contender for the Senate seat to be vacated by "true blue" Arlen Specter at the end of the current term, for his stellar performance on Meet the Press" last Sunday.
Several months ago, Sestak revealed that someone in the Obama White House had offered him a job, intimating the offer was conditional on Sestak withdrawing from the Dem. primary against the aforementioned exemplar of honorable behavior, Sen. Specter. When asked for clarification, Sestak has consistently stonewalled. Any politician worth his stripes would have realized that it is now time to shut up, but on Sunday, Sestak brought the old news back to the front burner by repeating his claim before stonewalling again. But don't rely on that right wing tool Fox News--the LA Times has a lot to say about it as well (in an unexpectedly snarky piece), and even presents a transcript of the conversation. That Sestak permitted this issue to bubble up again suggests that he just might not be ready for prime time, and that's why he's FI #2.
The White House, of course, has joined Sestak in the "see no evil, hear no evil" club (too late for "speak no evil"). According to WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (Obama's answer to "Baghdad Bob," "[L]awyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak. And nothing inappropriate happened." Hmmm. Fox, meet henhouse.
By the way, it is a crime under 18 USC Sec. 600 for a government official to offer a job to a candidate to induce that candidate to withdraw from an election. Here's the entire text of that law:
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is trying to get to the bottom of this, but I don't expect he'll get anywhere unless some "deep throat" comes forward, or unless the White House offers up some lamb for sacrifice.
Hope and Change!
* For explanation of the FI Award, go here.
(0) comments
Several months ago, Sestak revealed that someone in the Obama White House had offered him a job, intimating the offer was conditional on Sestak withdrawing from the Dem. primary against the aforementioned exemplar of honorable behavior, Sen. Specter. When asked for clarification, Sestak has consistently stonewalled. Any politician worth his stripes would have realized that it is now time to shut up, but on Sunday, Sestak brought the old news back to the front burner by repeating his claim before stonewalling again. But don't rely on that right wing tool Fox News--the LA Times has a lot to say about it as well (in an unexpectedly snarky piece), and even presents a transcript of the conversation. That Sestak permitted this issue to bubble up again suggests that he just might not be ready for prime time, and that's why he's FI #2.
The White House, of course, has joined Sestak in the "see no evil, hear no evil" club (too late for "speak no evil"). According to WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (Obama's answer to "Baghdad Bob," "[L]awyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak. And nothing inappropriate happened." Hmmm. Fox, meet henhouse.
By the way, it is a crime under 18 USC Sec. 600 for a government official to offer a job to a candidate to induce that candidate to withdraw from an election. Here's the entire text of that law:
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is trying to get to the bottom of this, but I don't expect he'll get anywhere unless some "deep throat" comes forward, or unless the White House offers up some lamb for sacrifice.
Hope and Change!
* For explanation of the FI Award, go here.
Labels: Democrats, Election, government, politics
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Scorned In Our Own House
That's the headline/photo caption on the homepage of Fox News Online as I write this. The story is about Mexico's President Felipe Calderon's address to a joint session of Congress in which he scolded the United States and Arizona in particular about the need to pass "comprehensive immigration reform."
I guess that kind of arrogant (and rather ungrateful) behavior is what happens when the President of the United States and his minions go out of their way to apologize for the country's sins, real or imagined, to any and every government on the planet, bowing and scraping as they do so.
I can't find it in my heart to blame Calderon too much, since he's on the brink of losing his country to narcoterrorists and the Mexican economy isn't much better than that of Greece (due in large part, by the way, to stifling economic policies and corruption going back at least a century). He knows that people of Mexican heritage in the US, whether here legally or illegally, send about a billion dollars a year to their relatives in Mexico, and if that cash spigot were to dry up Mexico would be in dire straits, indeed.
The irony is that the bracero program that was in effect from the middle of WWII until the Johnson administration worked pretty well for both countries. It was canceled in 1964, largely due to the efforts of US labor unions, who saw the program as a threat to their efforts to organize domestic agricultural workers. Of course, back then we didn't have the drug problem we have now.
I am among the many who are all in favor of immigration so long as it is done in compliance with the law. I have no sympathy, however, for those who are in the country illegally. I think our immigration laws ought to be revised to let more people in from all countries, and to allow guest workers from Mexico and elsewhere, providing they fulfill several requirements that are part of the Mexican immigration law, in particular the following:
I also think the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment that provides that "All persons born ... in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...." should be amended to further provide that the mother must be a lawful resident of the United States at the time of such birth, i.e., no "citizenship tourism" allowed and no green card for Mom means no automatic citizenship for Baby. This would solve the "anchor baby" problem. At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted the United States had no immigration laws to speak of. We wanted pretty much everyone we could get, in order to settle and develop our vast West. Times have changed.
I realize that many will find these measures harsh, but I firmly believe that a nation that cannot or will not defend its borders will not long remain a nation. Our political leaders of both parties have been "ostriching" on this issue for at least two decades, and we absolutely must get a handle on this problem for both economic and national defense reasons.
(0) comments
I guess that kind of arrogant (and rather ungrateful) behavior is what happens when the President of the United States and his minions go out of their way to apologize for the country's sins, real or imagined, to any and every government on the planet, bowing and scraping as they do so.
I can't find it in my heart to blame Calderon too much, since he's on the brink of losing his country to narcoterrorists and the Mexican economy isn't much better than that of Greece (due in large part, by the way, to stifling economic policies and corruption going back at least a century). He knows that people of Mexican heritage in the US, whether here legally or illegally, send about a billion dollars a year to their relatives in Mexico, and if that cash spigot were to dry up Mexico would be in dire straits, indeed.
The irony is that the bracero program that was in effect from the middle of WWII until the Johnson administration worked pretty well for both countries. It was canceled in 1964, largely due to the efforts of US labor unions, who saw the program as a threat to their efforts to organize domestic agricultural workers. Of course, back then we didn't have the drug problem we have now.
I am among the many who are all in favor of immigration so long as it is done in compliance with the law. I have no sympathy, however, for those who are in the country illegally. I think our immigration laws ought to be revised to let more people in from all countries, and to allow guest workers from Mexico and elsewhere, providing they fulfill several requirements that are part of the Mexican immigration law, in particular the following:
- Foreigners (including lawful resident aliens whether or not pursuing citizenship) will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no government health care, no public education or other government assistance programs. Any foreigners who are or become an economic burden on the United States or any State will be deported.
- Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
- Anyone who enters the United States illegally will be actively hunted and, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged.
- Entering the United States illegally after being deported is a felony, requiring imprisonment for not less than two years (no plea bargains).
I also think the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment that provides that "All persons born ... in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...." should be amended to further provide that the mother must be a lawful resident of the United States at the time of such birth, i.e., no "citizenship tourism" allowed and no green card for Mom means no automatic citizenship for Baby. This would solve the "anchor baby" problem. At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted the United States had no immigration laws to speak of. We wanted pretty much everyone we could get, in order to settle and develop our vast West. Times have changed.
I realize that many will find these measures harsh, but I firmly believe that a nation that cannot or will not defend its borders will not long remain a nation. Our political leaders of both parties have been "ostriching" on this issue for at least two decades, and we absolutely must get a handle on this problem for both economic and national defense reasons.
Labels: Arizona, Border Enforcement, Constitution, Illegal Aliens, Immigration, Mexico
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
An Observation
As the political season heats up, I find myself more and more muttering "F---ing idiot!" under my breath.
Case in point: Connecticut's AG and Dem Senate hopeful Richard Blumenthal.
Maybe I'll make the "FI award" a regular thing on this blog. We're certainly in a target-rich environment.
(0) comments
Case in point: Connecticut's AG and Dem Senate hopeful Richard Blumenthal.
Maybe I'll make the "FI award" a regular thing on this blog. We're certainly in a target-rich environment.
Labels: Democrats, Election, politics
