Obama Takes Attention Off Of Arizona

Recently, President Obama announced that he was going to send 1,200 National Guard troops to help protect the borders.  I'm not sure how 1,200 will make any different, but he's going to do it.  Why?  Because he loves America?  Hardly.  Because he wants to secure the border?  No - he's lose more voting base.  Because he cares for the lives of Americans?  You're nuts if you believe that!  The only reason he's doing this is because he's angry that Arizona is showing Washington what to do. 

At the beginning, Obama was upset with Arizona, but in an odd move, he seems to be listening to the people and the people like what Arizona is doing.  Obama, the spoiled brat that he is, can't be shown up by a measly little state, so he thinks of a solution.  "Why not send some troops to the border?"  "Oh man, they are going to love me again!  I can't wait to share...what was that honey?  Oh...ok...I'll get back to the vacuuming."

Don't let this fool you, he is trying to steal the attention away from Arizona and get it back to himself.  He can't survive but in the limelight.  But, we can feel confident when 1,200 troops show up to help protect the border from the invasion of illegals.  I'd say send another 1,200 to Washington to prevent the invasion of Democrats.

Obama's 100 Million Spending Cut Amounts To Nothing

This is great.  Obama's budget slashing is nothing more than a nail clipping

http://www.wimp.com/budgetcuts/

The Fed Ignores State Sovereignty

I knew it wouldn't take long.  Arizona recently passed an immigration law that basically enforces what the Federal Government has failed to enforce.  Now, the Federal Government is entertaining the idea of suing Arizona.  Obama and his Cabinet of Hitmen want nothing more than for this country to fall off of the pages of history.  You think that's extreme?  Look at his policies - look at what they are doing to America and then you tell me if that is extreme.  So, why is the Fed so upset with Arizona?  Because Arizona will stem the tide of votes Liberals in Congress will get.  According to CNN.com, Attorney General, Eric Holder said that the Justice Department is considering a lawsuit against Arizona.  There are concerns that this law may violate civil rights.

Rights of the citizenry are not universal-global rights.  These are rights of American citizens.  Civil Rights are nothing more than what are spelled out in the Constitution, in my opinion.  Not that the Constitution grants these rights, but that it reminds the Government to back off.  Constitutional rights are only available to Americans.  People from other countries that come into our country illegally are breaking the law (hence "illegally.")  One of the basic duties of the Federal Government is to protect our borders.  If a nation's borders cannot be maintained, what's the point of a nation?  If someone cannot respect the most basic law of sovereignty, what makes you think they will obey any other laws of our country?  Now, you might argue that this position isn't fair to those people.  OK, well, the next time someone breaks into your house (doesn't respect the sovereignty of your property) I expect you to not call the police; to not attack the intruder; I expect you to welcome him, allow him to take what he chooses (representative of our tax dollars paying for their health care, etc.) and ultimately accept him into your home as a family member (citizen).  You probably think that is crazy.  But that is exactly what happens to our country.

So, Arizona, amidst more colloidal failure from the Federal Government, decided that they would enforce the sovereignty of their State.  Yes, States have sovereignty as well.  Remember when George Bush was criticized for his "delayed" response to Katrina?  The Governor of Louisiana wouldn't let the Federal help come into the State until 3 or 4 days after the fact.  The President cannot just send troops/help into a State without the State's permission.  Arizona is tired of illegals flooding and devaluing their economy and blatantly ignoring their sovereignty that they did something about it.  In fact, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution gives them this authority.  Each State has the right to protect and defend themselves.  Except, when Obama's President, no State is safe.  All must bow before the image of Obama.

I think this is going to be an answer to the Obama regime.  I know we need desperate turnover in Congress but if the States would stand up to Obama, we could really shut down his agenda.  I would love to see a Governor tell Obama that as long as National Health Care is law, you won't be seeing any Federal Income taxes sent from my State.  Furthermore, if the IRS has an office in my State, I will shut it down.  And, if you want to do something about it, I'll have the National Guard waiting for you.

Let's tell the Fed that they have no power except what is given them by the States.  If they think they can just walk over the States, then it is time for the States to rise up and enforce what the Fed should be doing anyway.

Research:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/09/holder.arizona.immigration/index.html?hpt=T2

Precept Without Penalty Is Only Advice

In this age of sensitivity and tolerance - which is just an excuse to castrate masculinity - we wish to find the reasons why people commit crimes rather than simply punishing the action.  Murderers are not at fault anymore, it is the fault of the influence from their alcoholic parents.  Rapists aren't at fault, it is because they were abused as a child. The parents of the murderers aren't at fault because alcoholism is a disease.  Where does this line of thinking come from?  Obviously, there is a general apathy towards personal responsibility and this attitude is being ingrained into the minds of our children.

Instead of dealing with a child's rambunctious ways, we want to drug them under false diagnoses, with false medical conditions (ADD, ADHD, etc.).  What child doesn't have a problem, at one time or another, giving undivided attention to their teacher?!  We want to say they aren't at fault for their behavior - so children get drugs.  Teacher's aren't allow to command control of their classrooms anymore because liberal parents do not recognize them in loco parentis which means "in place of the parent."  For many years, teachers were viewed as the authority over of the children while they were at school.  This authority was viewed with as much importance as the parent's authority.  This even extended to the area of discipline.  Teachers had the authority and the responsibility to discipline their students.  This even meant spanking.  Teachers had paddles and would use them to warm the cheeks of the unruly bunch.  Now, spanking if far out of the question.  Furthermore, as reported in the Boston Globe, red ink for grading is just "[too] frightening" for the students.

Schools have been strangled by liberal parents and now we are raising generations of men with lace on their britches and generations of women that places more importance on a career rather than children and a family.  But alas, perhaps Texas will lead the way in restoring spanking back into schools.  What reason does a kid or an adult have to obey the law if there are no repercussions?  The penalty of misbehaving must out-weight the joy of misbehaving.  Until we get back to this principle, in our homes and in our schools, don't expect future generations to fair any better.

Research

http://www.fightforkids.org/facts.html

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/In+loco+parentis

http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2004/08/23/harshness_of_red_marks_has_students_seeing_purple/

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/05/06/dnt.tx.bring.back.paddling.wfaa?hpt=T2

http://www.bringbacklicks.com/

Obama's Katrina: It Must Be Bush's Fault

Well, now it isn't a hurricane that is threatening the Louisiana coast, it is an oil spill.  I wonder how long it will be before Louis Farrakhan blames Bush for this as well.  In the spirit of fairness, let's examine the timeline, thus far, for this disaster.

April 20th, the oil rig Deepwater Horizon explodes.

April 21st, BP moves into action to contain the oil

April 22nd, a second explosion, rig sinks

April 23rd, Coast Guard says no oil is leaking

April 24th, Oil is found to be leaking at a rate of 1,000 barrels/day

April 25th, a 600 sqmi oil slick is heading North in the Gulf of Mexico towards the coast

April 26th, oil slick is now 80 miles wide, provisions are being put into place to catch the oil

April 27th, setting fire to the slick is considered.  Homeland Security Minister, Janet Napolitano, is beefing up efforts to investigate the cause of the explosion

April 28th, BP says a controlled test burn was successful

April 29th, Federal assistance is mobilized

Why list all of this?  It is interesting that President Bush had given miserable failure, Ray Nagin, a phone call days before Katrina would hit - he called and encouraged him to get his people out of the city.  Nagin, a true compassionate, did nothing.  Before the aftermath of Katrina could be observed, Bush was in action.  The oil rig exploded on April 20th and President Obama doesn't go into action until April 29th.  9 days afterwards!  Now, I'm not saying that a hurricane and an oil rig explosion are of equal magnitude.  But, Bush was responding to the hurricane before it hit and was ridiculed he didn't respond fast enough.  Obama, with this disaster, responds 9 days later and do you think he'll be criticized?  Absolutely not!  Where's the media outcry against Obama?  But to be fair, it is difficult to be President and respond in a timely manner when you're stuck in the sand trap on hole 13.





Research

http://deepseanews.com/2010/04/the-gulf-of-mexico-oil-spill-a-timeline/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Hurricane_Katrina