Speaking to an audience in Quincy, Illinois, President Obama said,
"I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."
How much is enough? Who gets to decide when you've made enough?
This is just another way of Obama telling his supporters, "We're gonna take from those evil capitalists and give their money to you." I wonder if he mentioned the fact that he made 5 1/2 million dollars last year?
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/29/obama-i-do-think-at-a-certain-point-youve-made-enough-money/
Friday, April 30, 2010
596 immigrants convicted of crimes nabbed in South
596 immigrants convicted of crimes nabbed in South
Why are people who have been convicted in U.S. courts of violent crimes or drug realted charges not deported immediately?
Why are people who have been convicted in U.S. courts of violent crimes or drug realted charges not deported immediately?
A little humor is good!
I'm not trying to light the world on fire with blogging brilliance, just trying to share interesting and relevant information (so I can link to another blog if I want!) This is pretty funny and I love who he addresses at the end of it!
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/04/26/daily-gut-hating-arizona/
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/04/26/daily-gut-hating-arizona/
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Here's an interesting article by Clarence B. Jones of the Huffington Post regarding illegal aliens and Arizona SB 1070.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clarence-b-jones/somebody-close-the-door-r_b_553937.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clarence-b-jones/somebody-close-the-door-r_b_553937.html
Arizona: Immigration or Invasion?
There has been so much talk about Arizona's new immigration law, Senate Bill 1070. Everyone from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Mexican and Latino "defense funds" and Civil Rights groups have gotten worked up and gone on the record saying it's wrong, unfair, illegal, and unconstitutional. Even President Obama has spoken out against it:
"The failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness..."
Really? "Undermine the basic notions of fairness"? I can't help but wonder if Mr. Obama has even read the bill (the link is on the right side of WTP's Home page). Page 1, Paragraph B, lines 20 - 24 states:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
In order for any of this to even be relevant, a law enforcement officer must have "lawful contact" with an individual. Then there must be "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is here illegally. Then a "reasonable attempt" is made to determine the immigration status of the person, "when practicable." Police in Arizona have no more right to stop or detain someone today than they had before this law passed. This is more scare tactic, race baiting by the left.
This law poses no threat of harassment to legal immigrants or U.S.-born citizens regardless of their race. The first thing a law enforcement officer does during any interaction with a (non-violent) citizen is ask for identification. This is nothing new.
And, just out of curiosity, why is it unconstitutional for a state to attempt to protect its own sovereignty by codifying federal law at the state level but it's not unconstitutional for places like San Fransisco to declare themselves sanctuary cities and announce to the world that they intend to violate federal law by providing shelter to illegal aliens?
"The failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness..."
Really? "Undermine the basic notions of fairness"? I can't help but wonder if Mr. Obama has even read the bill (the link is on the right side of WTP's Home page). Page 1, Paragraph B, lines 20 - 24 states:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
In order for any of this to even be relevant, a law enforcement officer must have "lawful contact" with an individual. Then there must be "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is here illegally. Then a "reasonable attempt" is made to determine the immigration status of the person, "when practicable." Police in Arizona have no more right to stop or detain someone today than they had before this law passed. This is more scare tactic, race baiting by the left.
This law poses no threat of harassment to legal immigrants or U.S.-born citizens regardless of their race. The first thing a law enforcement officer does during any interaction with a (non-violent) citizen is ask for identification. This is nothing new.
And, just out of curiosity, why is it unconstitutional for a state to attempt to protect its own sovereignty by codifying federal law at the state level but it's not unconstitutional for places like San Fransisco to declare themselves sanctuary cities and announce to the world that they intend to violate federal law by providing shelter to illegal aliens?
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Mission statement:
The purpose of this blog is to try to unite like-minded people in an effort to reclaim our country from professional politicians and special interest groups while trying to present issues and points of view that may not get the attention they deserve from the mainstream media.
This is not an endorsement for the Republican party. It is a plea for a Constitution-based conservative government, responsible to the people, dedicated to promoting individual responsibility as well as individual opportunity, securing the borders, shrinking the size of governmental bureaucracy, ending the welfare state, and saving the American Dream.
This is not an endorsement for the Republican party. It is a plea for a Constitution-based conservative government, responsible to the people, dedicated to promoting individual responsibility as well as individual opportunity, securing the borders, shrinking the size of governmental bureaucracy, ending the welfare state, and saving the American Dream.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)