from Blogs for Borders
From the left-wing Talking Points Memo comes the headline, “Democrats Considering Health Care-Immigration Deal To Overcome Key Sticking Point.”
Following Harry Reid’s success in passing his 2,000+ page version of Obamacare, the Left now feels safe revealing what most conservative activists have realized all along–Democrats fully intend to cover illegal immigrants with the so-called “reform.”
Lawmakers who want to extend health coverage to illegal immigrants will not block the passage of the final health care reform bill so long as the White House offers a substantive promise to start pushing comprehensive immigration legislation this year.
So the plan is to pass the bill without including illegal immigrants, then add them to the plan later this year. Anywhere but the Democrat Party, that’s about the height of dishonesty. In fact most people would consider it an outright lie!
Rep. Joe Wilson’s famous “You lie!” cry was never inaccurate after all. Feigning outrage, Democrats knew all along this was part of the plan. In the article, reporter Christina Bellantoni, actually credits Wilson’s outburst for forcing Democrats to temporarily abandon the plan to cover illegals.
The Senate’s health care bill bars illegals from any sort of coverage, a provision embraced after Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted “You lie!” during Obama’s address to Congress when the president said that illegals would not be able to get health care under the legislation.
TPM’s liberal sources in the White House even admit they’re lying, and that talks are already proceeding to construct an immigration bill that will sweep illegal immigrants under the umbrella of Obamacare.
TPMDC sources have been telling us that members won’t admit it publicly but they are ready to concede on immigration in the health care bill. Political aides in the White House have told key parties in Congress that President Obama wants to see a bill this year, and negotiations are under way for how it would be written.
Joe Wilson wasn’t wrong, he wasn’t mistaken, he wasn’t confused, he was dead on when he yelled to President Obama, “You lie!”
All over the net today are articles about Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano referring to illegal aliens as “newly arrived asylum seekers.” As disturbing as this is, it’s right in line with everything the Obama administration has done to this point. From referring to the War on Terror as an “Overseas Contingency Operation” and the renaming of a government health insurance option as a “cooperative”, the administration has consistently manipulated the English language to achieve the President’s goals when the American people disagree with him.
But perhaps even more disturbing than re-labeling those who break our laws to enter the country illegally with this benign moniker is the main point of the Reuters article that quoted Napolitano’s new tag for those soon-to-be-formerly known as illegal aliens.
The Secretary was announcing a new plan to “house” illegal aliens instead of imprisoning them! “House” them!
From the article:
“This is a system that encompasses many different types of detainees, not all of whom need to be held in prison-like circumstances,” Napolitano told a conference call.
Referring to noncriminals such as newly arrived asylum seekers, Napolitano said, “We will begin efforts to house these populations near immigration service providers and pursue different options like converted hotels or residential facilities for their detention.”
Now won’t that be nice! (And it will do so much to discourage the illegal entry into our country! NOT)
Just think, the poor from other countries will be able to abandon their shacks, huts, and hovels in their native lands, sneak across our borders, get themselves caught, and then enjoy the comforts of an American motel room, or perhaps a nice little 3-bedroom home. When word of this reaches the deserts, jungles, cities, and wilds of third world nations across the globe, illegal immigration into this country will explode!
And who will foot the bill for the spiffy quarters of all these “newly arrived asylum seekers”? The same people called on to fund every other Obama policy…the American taxpayer!
As if that’s not bad enough, let’s look at some possible motivations for this imbecilic move on the part of our Nobel laureate President.
- The One who considers government spending the cure for all our economic ills may see this as a means to end the housing crisis. The increased demand for residential space will certainly drive prices up.
But of course the President won’t consider (or won’t inform the public of) the tax increases necessary to pay for the program.
The Chosen One may also see an opportunity to grow his party’s base using this devious tactic. Especially with the easing of identification requirements for voter registration of late, we could see illegals registering to vote in record numbers. And of course they’ll be so grateful to the party of Obama-Napolitano, there’s little doubt where their political allegiance will lie.
And our Dear Leader could also see an opportunity to tip the scales in conservative-leaning regions by concentrating large numbers of “newly arrived asylum seekers” in those areas. The opportunity to strengthen the Democrats’ grip on what have been toss-up Congressional districts might be enough motivation to insert “illegal aliens” into the heart of American residential communities.
Nothing this President does surprises me anymore, but this is extremely troublesome. If you enter this country illegally, you’ve broken a law. That should not warrant free housing at the expense of the American taxpayer unless that housing is a jail!
This new policy will encourage illegal immigration instead of discourage it and those of us who pay taxes will be forced to pay even more!
Call, write, and email your congressmen and senators today and tell them to put a stop to this insanity!
by Dr. Bill Smith: Before proceeding it is only right to say that as a 22 year veteran, I am by nature a “hawk” and support all efforts to stop the enemies of America. However, I already saw one war – the Vietnam War – mired down by bureaucracy and lack of direction. [For those who prefer using the term “Vietnam Conflict,” tell it to the American families, friends of the veterans who served and lost 58,159 comrades in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia plus all those who died from war related issues after that “conflict.”]
Most career military have served under Presidents with whom we did not politically agree. Some Presidents were more competent than others. Most Presidents and Defense Secretaries who had not served in the military have made decision or failed to make decisions that resulted in the wasting of military resources and lives. Although not always understood by the general population, military leaders clearly understand that the military is both a tool in defending America including America’s economic interests and a tool of diplomacy. However, when a president lacks declared interest or focus during a time of war – or major deployments with people at risk, military casualties increase and troop morale suffers and leads to more losses.
The Times Online is reporting a story about “American troops in Afghanistan losing heart.” It is like “deja view” – a scene from the past when leadership and adequate direction was not shown by prior Commander-in-Chiefs and Secretaries of Defense. A few excerpts from the article:
American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban [sic, Taliban]. Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, . . . “They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” . . . “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The soldiers are, by nature and training, upbeat, driven by a strong sense of duty, and they do their jobs as best they can . . . admitted that their morale had slumped.
“We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” . . . “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.” . . . Asked if the mission was worthwhile, . . . “If I knew exactly what the mission was, probably so, but I don’t.” The only soldiers who thought it was going well “work in an office, not on the ground”. In his opinion “the whole country is going to s***”.
The battalion’s 1,500 soldiers are nine months in to a year-long deployment that has proved extraordinarily tough. Their goal was to secure the mountainous Wardak province and then to win the people’s allegiance through development and good governance. They have, instead, found themselves locked in an increasingly vicious battle with the Taleban [sic, Taliban].
They have been targeted by at least 300 roadside bombs, about 180 of which have exploded. Nineteen men have been killed in action, with another committing suicide. About a hundred have been flown home with amputations, severe burns and other injuries likely to cause permanent disability, and many of those have not been replaced. More than two dozen mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs) have been knocked out of action.
Living conditions are good — abundant food, air-conditioned tents, hot water, free internet – but most of the men are on their second, third or fourth tours of Afghanistan and Iraq, with barely a year between each. . . . The men are frustrated by the lack of obvious purpose or progress. “The soldiers’ biggest question is: what can we do to make this war stop. Catch one person? Assault one objective? Soldiers want definite answers, other than to stop the Taleban [sic, Taliban], because that almost seems impossible. It’s hard to catch someone you can’t see,” . . .
“It’s a very frustrating mission,” . . . “The average soldier sees a friend blown up and his instinct is to retaliate or believe it’s for something [worthwhile], but it’s not like other wars where your buddy died but they took the hill. There’s no tangible reward for the sacrifice. It’s hard to say Wardak is better than when we got here.” “We want to believe in a cause but we don’t know what that cause is.” . . . The soldiers complain that rules of engagement designed to minimize civilian casualties mean that they fight with one arm tied behind their backs. . . “You get shot at but can do nothing about it. You have to see the person with the weapon. It’s not enough to know which house the shooting’s coming from.” . . .
The constant deployments are, meanwhile, playing havoc with the soldiers’ private lives. “They’re killing families,”. . . “Divorces are skyrocketing. PTSD is off the scale. There have been hundreds of injuries that send soldiers home and affect families for the rest of their lives.” The chaplains said that many soldiers had lost their desire to help Afghanistan. “All they want to do is make it home alive and go back to their wives and children and visit the families who have lost husbands and fathers over here. It comes down to just surviving,” . . . “If we make it back with ten toes and ten fingers the mission is successful,” . . . “You carry on for the guys to your left or right,” . . .
Lieutenant-Colonel Kimo Gallahue, 2-87’s commanding officer, denied that his men were and insisted they had achieved a great deal over the past nine months. A triathlete and former rugby player, he admitted pushing his men hard, but argued that taking the fight to the enemy was the best form of defense. . . . Above all, Colonel Gallahue argued that counter-insurgency — winning the allegiance of the indigenous population through security, development and good governance — was a long and laborious process that could not be completed in a year. “These 12 months have been, for me, laying the groundwork for future success,” he said. . . .
These reported comments depict more than just complaints by G.I.s. They are a clear signs of bigger issues both at the DOD, in the force structure and support of today’s military, and with the direction of the war as defined by the President of the United States. As for the field commander on the record comments about his belief in the mission, this was expected but it is not a measurement of success. However, while failing morale and expressions like “you carry on for the guys to your left or right” are both true and admirable, they are also a definite indicator of failed purpose and direction.
As heads up, the following comments are directed to what appears to be an often AWOL (absent without leave) Commander-in-Chief: Mr. Obama, you choose to run for President of the United States. And, the American people elected you to be president. Most Americans know that a “chief” responsibility of the president is being Commander-in-chief of the military. It is not being the commander of the American people. While you have “fiddle around” tripping off to other countries expressing your regrets about the United States or to another location to promote or sign a bill that could have been done efficiently right in the Oval office; while you wasted time trying to recruit the Olympics or taking time for another sports event or White House party; while you expend a disproportionate amount of your time on agendas which have or will send the United States further into debt and on efforts to reshape the social fabric of America, you are not focused on your primary responsibility of being Commander-in-Chief.
American military are dying or at risk because of your lack of leadership. Members of the military understand sacrifice and giving their lives for a greater cause. However, they do not understand dying without purpose or a clear objective. Often they die for their comrades but they do not wish to die for absentee leadership or an undefined mission.
Mr. President, above all else, (except possibly for those who feel they must engender themselves to you for their jobs and their agendas or who happen to hate America) people on both sides of domestic issues expect you to complete your primary duties as president. The United States of America has men and women in harms-way risking America’s chief treasure – American blood. For “Pete’s sake” – Wake-up! You are the Commander-in-Chief! It cannot be delegated; nor should it continue to be ignored! It is a lonely sacred responsibility. Mr. President, no matter how important you believe your other agendas to be, you must focus on your primary responsibility as Commander-in-Chief!
by Bill Smith: While I wouldn’t trust the leftist biased DailyKos polling numbers, I found it interesting that they polled Arkansas on the following Question:
Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?
Yes No Not Sure
All 63 17 20
Dem 84 8 8
Rep 33 29 38
Ind 68 16 16
DailyKos added their opinion that “Two-thirds of Arkansas Republicans are deluded conspiracy theorists.” Their polling numbers identify that 37% of those polled said no or not sure regarding Obama being born in the United States of America.
As with many polls, the DailyKos sought to highlight what we all already know. While it was interesting to poll what “what one believes.” that is not the important issue. The important issue is “Was Barack Obama born in the United States of America?” A president should not leave 37% of those polled in doubt. Omitting even those classified as “birthers,” a properly designed detailed polling question would yield a significantly higher percent for those in doubt of his citizenship. For example, the following question would yield a different results: “President Barack Obama has never allowed public access to his birth certificate by even the press and election officials to validate that he was a natural born American Citizen (born in Hawaii verses a foreign country or territory). This situation has caused some people to be concerned about Mr. Obama meeting the requirement of being a natural born citizen to be qualified to be the President of the United States as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. This issue has not been an unresolved issue previously in U.S. history. Note: that all citizens of the United States are required from time to time to provide their birth certificate to meet legal requirements or to obtain benefits and services. Do you believe that Barack Obama should make his birth certificate public to alleviate the unanswered question concerning his meeting the requirement of the U.S. Constitution and thereby allow the citizens of the United States of America to resolve this issue for all time?”
Like other citizens, I have been required to present my birth certificate on numerous occasions. For example, to be sworn in as a commissioned “regular” military officer, I had to provide my birth certificate to prove that I was born in the United States of America. To receive a Top Secret clearance, the U.S. Government investigated to see if I was born in the United States of America. For one of my sons to be validated as a natural-born American, both my wife and I had to provide proof to the State Department overseas and before a Federal Judge in the United States that we were both born in the United States of America. To get my previous diplomatic passport, I had to provide my birth certificate. And there are other situations for which I had to prove that I was born in the United States of America! They same is true for all other U.S. citizens.
While I am not part of or pursuing the interests of the “birther movement,” both as a citizen and commissioned military officer, I expect President Obama to do no less than I have done. Mr. Obama is not a potentate but a citizen servant. I would expect him to resolve this issue by demonstrating leadership and by presenting any and all documentation to remove all doubt by citizens of the United States as to his being a natural-born citizen of the united States.
Like many others, I am disappointed that the traditional media failed to do their job and to address this issue prior to the primary so that this issue would not be an issue. They clearly showed a bias unequaled in history and their failure to do so will be judged by history.
It has been almost nine months since Barack Obama took the following oath of office to be President of the United States:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
He previously, took the following oath as Senator:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
By the taking both of these oaths, President Barack Obama has a responsibility to resolve this issue by laying before American citizens his birth certificate and by allowing the press public access to his original birth certificate. This issue will never be hidden in history by the things which Mr. Obama hopes to achieve as President or even by the things he does later in life. If not resolved, Mr. Obama will go down in history as the “Unnatural President” and his actions and his programs will be tainted in history. This can be easily resolved by Mr. Obama presenting his birth certificate as other Americans have done on numerous occasions.
by Bill Smith: When polling numbers shows a senior senator in difficulty against potential candidates over a year out from the election, the news is bad news for that senator. And that is what is being projected for Arkansas’ U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln who is up for election in 2010 and has been feverishly raising funds and avoiding the public at town halls and TEA Parties in Arkansas. Public Policy Polling latest polling data released August 26th shows that Obama campaigning for Sen. Lincoln in in Arkansas would sink her race. While Barack Obama’s National approval rating of 52%, in Arkansas, Obama has only a 40% approval rating. And that is expected to continue to fall in Arkansas. In fact, the polling numbers showed that a majority of voters in Arkansas think Rush Limbaugh has a superior vision for the country than Barack Obama.
Blanche Lincoln’s approval rating has dropped 9% since March. Currently, Lincoln has 36% approval rating and a 44% disapproving rating of the job she’s doing. Currently, with no candidates formally filed for office against her, she’s in a statistical tie against three potential Republican opponents. And there are as many as eight candidates considering running against her.
Gilbert Baker leads her 42-40, Curtis Coleman has a 41-40 advantage, and Tom Cotton trails Lincoln slightly 40-39. The numbers of course are more a reflection on Lincoln’s unfavorable standing than that of the Republicans at this time.
“You couldn’t get a clearer indication that the national momentum is with Republicans right now than a poll showing some guys with single digit name recognition running even with an incumbent Senator,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “This is going to be a very closely contested race if the eventual Republican nominee does a good job of raising money.
Other indicators of running against Lincoln is that 53% of the people polled were women. In addition, 48% of those polled identified themselves as conservative, and 39% as moderate, leaving 12% of her liberal friends. At the beginning of 2009, voters returned Senator Pryor to a new six term without opposition; however, , his approval rating, although higher than Lincoln, is now only 47% with a disapproval rating of 32%. The voters disappointment with a previously considered “more conservative” Sen. Pryor may weigh heavily on voters in 2010 when considering returning a more liberal Senator Blanche Lincoln .
There is a growing “vote the bums” out feeling among the voters in Arkansas. Also, in Arkansas, continued open endorsement and support of Senator Lincoln by incumbent State constitutional officers (Governor, Lt. Governor, etc.) may place them at risk in 2010 if viable conservative candidates step forward to oppose them.
As summarized by Tom Jensen, Public Policy Polling, “Clearly Lincoln could be beaten, but there are several reasons why she might survive too. The first is that none of her potential Republican opponents have shown the ability yet to raise the money to run a strong campaign. Whoever emerges as her opponent is also going to need to be able to keep their foot out of their mouth, something that’s been a problem for some potential foes. The second is that Democrats nationally are in a recession right now and that goes a long way toward explaining these numbers.. . . Republicans have an opportunity here but it remains to be seen whether they can take advantage of it.”
ARRA News - The story out of Honduras is that the people of that stalwart little country have now taken it into their own hands to preserve their democracy in the most courageous action since they established their constitutional republic nearly three decades ago. Just as former Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales prepared to seize full power in direct violation of the nation’s Constitution, the military leadership – with the backing of the people – removed him from power.
Unfortunately, Barak Obama, after encouraging the Zelaya coup with his complicit silence, has now condemned the people’s move to uphold their Constitution and preserve their freedom. And, as expected, the mainstream media has joined Mr. Obama in censuring the restoration of democracy by censoring the full story. Yet, what actually occurred in Honduras is a case study in the survival of freedom against the most oppressive odds.
Earlier this year, in the face of strong public opposition, Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales declared that he would stage a referendum to have the country’s constitutional term limits law overturned, thereby allowing him to remain indefinitely in power. The people of Honduras had adopted the single, four-year–term limit as part of their Constitution in January of 1982. Significantly, the term limits provision is one of only eight “firm articles,” out of 375. By law, cannot be amended.
The Supreme Court of Honduras declared the Zelaya referendum unconstitutional, his own Liberal Party came out in strong opposition, and the public overwhelmingly opposed his power grab. Despite this, Zelaya, a leftwing politician with strong ties to Cuba’s Castro and Venezuela’s Chavez, scheduled the referendum for Sunday, June 28. At midnight, Wednesday, June 24, the strong-arm president gave a televised speech accusing his opposition of promoting “destabilization and chaos” by attempting to thwart his unconstitutional referendum.
As the situation in Honduras continued to deteriorate, the Zelaya’s attorney general called for his ouster; his Defense Minister resigned; he fired the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for stating that he would refuse to send out troops to put down public protests; the chiefs of the army, navy, and air force resigned; and the country’s Supreme Court ordered the nation’s army and police not to support the unconstitutional referendum.
Through all of this, Barack Obama abetted the Zelaya power grab through his calculated silence. Yet, the brave people of Honduras – enduring almost unfathomable duress – stood firm in support of their Constitution and the term limits embodied in it. Now that the will of the people has triumphed over tragedy, we believe the time has come for Mr. Obama to concede the defeat of his partner and policy, and for the U.S. media to support those who, putting principle above personal safety, have let freedom ring. We applaud the Freedom Fighters of neighboring Honduras. [Source by ALG News]