59% Favor Cutoff of Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cities

59% Favor Cutoff of Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cities

Fire Holder! Overhaul the DOJ! Wake-up Obama

This is the kind of rubbish we’ve been talking about for well over three years. The United States Department of Justice through its channels has taken up the cause to sue Berkeley School District 87 – about 15 miles west of Chicago in Berkeley, Illinois. Why or what on earth would an agency of the U.S. government being suing a school district?

The federal government has sued a west suburban school district for denying a Muslim middle school teacher unpaid leave to make a pilgrimage to Mecca that is a central part of her religion. In doing so, the school district violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to reasonably accommodate her religious practices, the government said.

Now come-on! What are we to believe? Is there an issue here with the separation of church and state? Or is it the other way around; is there an issue where something or someone has denied a person their privileges of worship or a person’s right to attend church? Or dare we say it -- discrimination.

In a civil rights case, the department said the school district in Berkeley denied the request of Safoorah Khan on grounds that her requested leave was unrelated to her professional duties and was not set forth in the contract between the school district and the teachers union.

Khan wanted to perform the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia which every adult Muslim is supposed to make at least once in a lifetime if they are physically and financially able to. Millions go each year.

What and how many times have we written that at the behest of special interest groups, or for just about anything these days when someone doesn’t like something that is specific to America – like freedom of religion, speech, and other liberties – they use the U.S. Constitution in a manner to benefit themselves (Please see here, here, and here).

This woman started as a middle school teacher in Berkeley School District in 2007. In 2008 she asked for almost three weeks of unpaid leave to perform the Hajj. After the district denied her request – twice – Ms. Khan then wrote the board that “based on her religious beliefs, she could not justify delaying performing hajj,” and resigned according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Chicago.

According to the lawsuit filed by Ms. Khan, Berkeley School District compelled her to choose between her job and her religious beliefs.

The government asked the court to order the school district to adopt policies that reasonably accommodate its employees' religious practices and beliefs, and to reinstate Khan with back pay and also pay her compensatory damages.

In November 2008, Khan filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which found reasonable cause that discrimination had occurred and forwarded the matter to the Justice Department. The case is the first brought by department in a project to ensure vigorous enforcement of the 1964 act against state and local governments by improving cooperation between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the department's civil rights division.



Your Rights = Responsibilty and Good Conscience

We have been utterly dying to write this article for who knows how long now. The thesis of this article is the rights we have as Americans that are based within our U.S. Constitution and primarily addressing the Bill of Rights. A couple of years ago whilst reading Original Meanings by Jack N. Rakove he mentions what the Founders felt about human rights transcending into civil rights; yet, it was with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison’s assistance that led to the most common sense ideals that can be found before, during, and after one executes their rights.

Make no mistake about it folks – the entire U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are ‘documents of contract’ that ensure security between a government and those it governs. The rights espoused in the Bill of Rights were written as a measure to protect us from the abuses of power that a government can wield. Yet, just like anything worth having there is a price to be paid to ensure that those rights are not abused, changed, or too legalistic. This is of course the accountability of a collective society to perform its duties which in earlier times consisted of maintaining the core values, morals, and ethics that America was founded upon.

No matter how one perceives themselves, with all the prominence the world could offer, liberties without conscience are inexcusable. In other words, if one intends on speaking freely—this means that upon engaging to speak one must do so with conscience.

Thomas Jefferson left a profound impression upon the nation he loved so much. However, we believe that Jefferson’s greatest effect on this country are not in his inventions, establishments, or politics – we believe that Jefferson’s greatest influence on our nation is in the notion of “Liberties without conscience are inexcusable.”

Now let’s look to practical application aided by a few issues recently in the news: When Bill O’Reilly appeared on The View television show for an interview he was asked “Is it right or wrong for them to want to build a mosque and cultural center here? O’Reilly responded: “I think that it’s inappropriate.” Behar and Goldberg certainly had a different agenda on their minds and prompted O’Reilly with “why is it inappropriate for them to build there”? O’Reilly responded with because they killed…in an act of war…they killed thousands of Americans.” Who are they? The Muslims, of course. Brouhaha ensued.

Immediately O’Reilly realized what he’s said and changed his wording to “Extremist Islamic Terrorists.” This is when Elizabeth Hasselback chimed in with the skill of an orator: “Don’t you see how all of us are suffering at the hands of ‘political correctness’?”

And Mrs. Hasselback was 100 percent correct as was Mr. O’Reilly. You see it’s the dismantling of language that is the very core reason for political correctness. So the saying goes; “All Muslims are not terrorists…but the terrorists were all Muslims.” So naturally when O’Reilly stated Muslims he was immediately pounced on by those who had set this entire issue up.

Furthermore we believe that the Park 51 - Cultural Center and Mosque being built in the current location are an abuse of speech rendered with reckless disregard of conscience and responsibility, not to mention maintaining the core values, morals, and ethics that America was founded upon.

Hopefully with the election of almost half of a new 112th Congress, we’ve managed to get some folks in whom – unlike others before them – will listen, read, and do the math on illegal immigration and how much it is costing American taxpayers.

Due to years of federal inaction, the burning issue of illegal immigration has reached a tipping point. It’s time for us to come together as a community, as a state, and as a nation, to stop throwing rhetorical firebombs.

We would like to assist them in such a way as the “fortunate ones” may not be aware of, or perhaps to enlighten those who need some powder for their canons. In fact, we all need to listen and try to calculate what the accommodation of illegal alien’s is costing us.

This aspect of immigration reform is one that does not get addressed often enough; moreover, when it does it is usually by some left-wing progressives who would rather run than to face the reality of the matter – USA’s fiscal position.

Up to this date the United States has an accumulated debt of some odd staggering 14 trillion dollars. Typing that out could make one’s fingers twitch; however, it is much easier to type it rather than to look at that number. Suffice it to say that unless mindful steps are taken we doubt that the USA will still be the USA in 2060. Just a few suggestions: ($14,000,000,000,000.00)

With one small disclaimer: We will be using some states as examples. Insofar as these examples address deficit spending and subsequent amounts of money we feel that until or unless policymakers come to decisions regarding “Sanctuary Cities” and/or anything that is not in full compliance with the rule of law of our nation then certain necessities may be needed.

With many state budgets in deficit, policymakers have an obligation to look for ways to reduce the fiscal burden of illegal migration. California, facing a budget deficit of $14.4 billion in 2010-2011, is hit with an estimated $21.8 billion in annual expenditures on illegal aliens. New York’s $6.8 billion deficit is smaller than its $9.5 billion in yearly illegal alien costs. (For further reading click here.)

Data gathered from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84.2 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers. (For data analysis, click here.)

The government will collect $2.3 trillion in taxes this year. That's well short of the $3.6 trillion it will spend. Fifty-five percent of that spending will go to mandatory expenses like social security, Medicare and Medicaid; 43 percent is called discretionary spending. That's money Congress controls and allocates to more than two dozen government departments like defense or transportation, and the alphabet soup of agencies that the departments oversee. Two percent of the budget goes to Congressional pet-projects or earmarks. (Please see by clicking here.)

In reading this article one is offered the opportunity to see just how much our nation’s illegal alien problem has contributed to the overall state of affairs. Please be mindful that only a few expenditures have been examined and what the costs of those are that devastate America’s economy. We will continue to bring financial data when it becomes available. We leave you with just one question: How long would it take to pay down a huge percentage of our national debt if we were not spending our tax dollars on those entered our nation illegally?

The FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: Citizenship, Southern Hatred, and Hope

Most scholars look to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which was written as a bill to support the Civil Rights Act of 1866; this particular act dealt with all things post Civil War in order for the Union (the victors) to maintain some semblance of order with those states that seceded and wanted their statehood back as part of the Union. However, it was argued that those states that had seceded had indeed lost their loyalty and allegiance to the United States of America.

The actual language of the “Citizenship Clause” pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Please remember why this amendment was a necessity to the U.S. Constitution and for what reasons it needed to be clarified from the original writing just shy of 100 years earlier.

Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio was the author of the ‘Citizenship Clause’ and defended the new language against the charge that it would make Indians citizens of the United States. Senator Howard assured skeptics that “Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this Amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” (As a sidebar: Why would people from Middle or South America be construed as any different?)

Up to this point there has not been any mention whatsoever about those born on American soil would be Americas or American citizens – does it? We see this as the most egregious portion of the XIV Amendment insofar as 144 years later (inclusive) citizenship has been granted to babies and their respective families – in one way or another – without any professional leader, Congressional official, or President of the United States doing anything whatsoever to stop this ridiculous 28 word sentence to continue.

What is it that infuriates a politician more than everything else known to humankind? Think all you want however, we feel it has to be somewhere in the voting machinery, albeit, from ‘hanging and pregnant chads’ to being unable to read the ballot – both because of either one’s eyes, vision, or understanding of the English language. Ironically, this was not too much of a problem in post war politics insofar as either a person couldn’t read or made to do otherwise.

By the time the thirty-ninth Congress was seated in December 1865 their agenda resembled something along the lines of the following order: In every seceded state prior to the Civil War’s end their individual state legislatures had worked tirelessly adopting a legal code pertaining only to blacks that segregated the races, banned political participation, restricted social conduct, established severe vagrancy and labor laws that in turn created a peonage system and created extremely harsh criminal punishments.

Furthermore, the Senate and the House alike refused to seat the new southern representatives. Federal legislators quickly sought to strengthen the Freedmen’s Bureau to include utilizing the Army for protecting black civil rights. This particular measure failed in Congress by a margin of two votes to overcome a presidential veto!

By March 1866, Congress, aroused by the South, was ready to accept federal responsibility for guarding individual rights to make and enforce contracts, sue and give evidence, and own property. Despite initial hesitancy about intruding into what had traditionally been under the state’s authority the fed decided to push for the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

The battle over the Civil Rights Act of 1866 led directly to a campaign for a new constitutional amendment. The Joint Committee on Reconstruction understood that traditions and ways of life ran deep in the south and without an amendment there could never be rest or civil rights for more than just the black population, the entire nation whether 60 percent of it or 100 percent of it, were hell-bent on seeing to it that southern white hostility, the unrepentant southern states, would not be successful in undermining the north.

Therefore, the Joint Committee on Reconstruction's first amendment proposal sought to reduce proportionally the congressional representation of states that still denied the right to vote on the basis of race.

(End of Part 3)

When we originally heard about this name change for Rhode Island, well, quite openly we didn’t think all that much about it insofar as a State, just like a human should be able to change its name. We are the first to admit that we didn’t know why the state wanted to change its name. However, when we began to research and gather information as to the cause of why – “You’ve got to be kidding me!” was the first anyone screamed in these offices.

The official name of Rhode Island is: “The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations” or that is what is inscribed – elaborately in the floor of the Statehouse. Many Rhode Islanders might not even know its formal name. It isn't listed on modern-day maps, though it is on the state seal, is found in many official state documents and can be heard in the courtroom when the judge is announced.

The phrase "Providence Plantations" appeared in the royal charter granted in 1663 by King Charles II to the colony of Rhode Island. At the time, "Plantation" was a general term for settlement or colony. In this case, it referred to the merger of the Providence settlement, which was founded by minister Roger Williams following his banishment from the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and nearby towns into a single colony.

You go anywhere and you mention plantations and what automatically comes to a person's mind? Well around here some spoke of huge white mansions with sprawling acreage of land; another mentioned wealth and the Gulf Coast area of the USA. Almost every female mentioned the clothes worn both underneath and over dresses; everyone stated something to the effect of Gone with the Wind.

Actually that question was mentioned in this way: "You go anywhere and you mention plantations and what automatically comes to a person's mind is slavery," said Nick Figueroa, 41, a member of a legislative minority advisory coalition that backs changing the name. Well it certainly didn’t around here. Now let’s just focus on a concept of language changing and dismantling a society. Political correctness does just that – we believe that it is used often times to change something that one doesn’t like either about their past or a collective – which is certainly the agenda of Nick Figueroa. However this next example is disgusting. Keith Stokes, who is multiracial and can trace his family's arrival to Newport back centuries, said the debate over the state name ignores Rhode Island's legacy as a colony founded on religious tolerance, where Jews, Quakers and other minorities settled in large numbers after being rejected elsewhere. (Religion?) "It has all these people who have been cast out because they worship differently and they all land in Rhode Island," said Stokes, who is also executive director of the state's economic development corporation. (Worship?) Proponents of the name change say they recognize the word "plantations" was not initially associated with slavery, but argue the original meaning is irrelevant. They say "plantations" is inextricably linked to slavery, just as the swastika — traditionally a harmonious symbol in Hinduism and Buddhism — has since been adopted as an emblem of Nazi Germany and is today associated with ethnic hatred.

The ballot question in itself is a victory, regardless of what voters decide, said Harold Metts, a black state senator who helped lead the effort for the referendum.

"At least people understand why we feel the way we feel. For me, that's part of healing," Metts said. We ask politely: What healing? Up to now there have been 1,122 comments at the end of the article. For example: Suzy born and raised in Rhode Island said:

“We don’t even use it; I can’t tell you how many (most) people are unaware that it is in the State’s name.” Rene Moore stated: “Blacks just think the white man owes them everything. We owe you nothing, we got you out of Africa, and you should kiss our bleep!” Hat-tip to Associated Press' Eric Tucker for the inspiration and the original piece can be found by clicking here.

The Birthright Citizenship Act

Some Members of Congress have introduced bills to eliminate birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally or on temporary visas. The “Birthright Citizenship Act” (HR 1868), introduced by Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) has 91 cosponsors. A bill by Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) would restrict birthright citizenship to the children “of a mother who is a citizen or legal permanent resident of the United States.”

Just about everyone who has read the Fourteenth Amendment can clearly see the politicking and potential corruption that could easily be caused by the amendments wording. Yet, we believe one still should see the entirety of the situation at the time of its writing to fully understand how Congressional elected officials could present and rush through a piece of legislation that in all seriousness – no one could be proud of authoring.

As most will admit the U.S. Constitution is more of how the federal government is supposed to limit itself, while producing guidelines on how to ensure safety, protection, laws, courts, and separation of powers within that government. The Constitution is a brilliant document that took a lot of men (and their women) years to produce; however, it was never intended to be scripture or Bible, Torah, or Qur'an like.

So many people revere the Constitution as if it were a holy book or artifact, when in reality it is not. There are clearly some needed changes; however, to get any Congress to do such is out-of-bounds or even reasonable. As we look deeply at the Fourteenth Amendment, hopefully it will become obvious just where changes are needed and why. Therefore, let’s look at some of the issues that the Thirty-ninth Congress had to address much sooner than later.

Of course the matter of Dred Scott v. Sanford needed to be cleaned up before anything else could reasonable get done. In 1857 the Supreme Court had ruled that no black of African descent (even a freed black) could be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, even prior to the1860s blacks were counted as 3/5ths of a person.

Therefore the Fourteenth Amendment was necessary to over-turn Dred Scott and to settle the question of the citizenship of the newly freed slaves. Now imagine that – need some changes to an unethical law that is antiquated? Congress immediately went to work on it. It must be clearly noted that this was during the Reconstruction Era and the Congress had an enormous amount of matters to settle – especially since the nation had been broken into two parts with separate ideologies on how things were to be managed.

There is a cliché that states: “To the victors go the spoils…” ostensibly meaning if you’ve gone to war and won then you are entitled to take or gather what you want. This was not the case with the United States “Union” government; however, no mistake should be made – over 600,000 men, women, and children died as a direct cause of this war and of course the North wanted some reparations from the South.

If possible think of two separate nations deluxe with governments, legislatures, judiciary, even money designed in your country’s standards. As in all wars the winning side does not want their former enemies to rebuild – especially its war making equipment. Furthermore, think of the South as the agrarian labor intensive providers of the entire nation, who had racked up enormous war debts that they couldn’t pay and for having hundreds of thousands of slaves that instead of being paid for were able to go free. The South had suffered incalculable losses.

The North was bent on what all victors nearly die for – the admission that they had won the war. Moreover, the North wanted various and sundry punishments for those who had left the Union on the State level, Confederate level, including the Confederate president, generals, and other high-ranking men of war.

However, citizenship loomed over those who fought and were not free; Dred Scott needed overturning, and the Fourteenth Amendment needed to be cleared for the forthcoming Civil Rights Act of 1866. (End Part 2)



Political Correctness gone Overboard!?

We are not at all certain just how many visits to our site has been prompted by our ongoing series on Politically Correct musings; however, this much we do know from a statistical point of view only – we sure get a lot of high-minded, intellectual readers – who agree with our perspectives. We now have a classical example of how trying to be to “P.C.” will not only backfire on you; we have – to the letter – examples of how and why we espoused the dangers that political correctness can cause.

The name originated as something of the ‘elitist’ in very hard-lined membership of the Communist Party; ironically, as our understanding of the Central Committee and of the Politburo ("ruling elite") within the then USSR became the better our initial understanding of political correctness literally became immediately recognizable. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left hundreds of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. ‘PC’ is not funny. ‘PC’ is deadly serious.

Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about on this blog – the victim, feminism, gay rights movement, invented statistics, rewritten history, lies, demands, corruption, discrimination and all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic and it still gets worse.

In Democracy and Education (1916) John Dewey, the most influential American educator of the 20th century wrote “dependence denotes a power rather than a weakness. There is always a danger that increased personal independence will decrease the social capacity of an individual…”

Does this explain why when the “progressive educators” got control of the educational system in the U.S. in the 1960s that we began to see an increase in welfare (dependency)? How about those who were in college during that same period? Most of those who were in college during the 1960s are the very same individuals we see running for the presidential nomination of their parties. Yet, please make no mistake about it -- dependency breeds entitlement, and entitlement manifested means bigger government.

It is critically important to understand that the relationship between education and society are inexorably intertwined. Stop and look at the public education system in America. When was the last time we heard anything good about it? Education is the largest platform for any society to transmit the importance of values, morality, and ethics. This direct relationship suggests that if one begins to suffer then the entirety of the nation suffers.

However what could be worse than losing your personal liberties on top of losing your job? Maybe we should ask Juan Williams, an intellectually gifted journalist, who just by merely asking a question in a calm, polite, and civil way that certainly didn’t raise an eyebrow from those who were with him, only to be fired the next morning – from national public radio (NPR) of all places?

Juan Williams: During the “The O’Reilly Factor” he said: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

National Public Radio (NPR) please show us where Mr. Williams abridged his freedom of speech rights; furthermore, we would also like to know what is so damning and disrespectful with what Mr. Williams espoused.

We have thanked Bill O’Reilly for his dissent with the amount of political correctness that has been going on albeit unnoticed. We have also acknowledged Mr. O’Reilly whilst bringing this oxymoron to the forefront by using his platform and bull-horn exclaiming, “No! No! I am not going to be dragged into an exchange or politically correct words, if fact, I’m sick of it!”

Political correctness is a cultural idiom that uses language as its power. The entire notion of being politically correct connects with the social domain through being the primary means of communication within the domain, and through being both a site of, and a stake in, struggles for power. In other words everyone uses some means of communication we refer to as language.

The concept of “Dismantling America” through the use of language change, multiculturalism, reckless illegal immigration, and the ever-present Politically Correct Police who we feel is the real culprit behind dismantling our nation.

Addressing this notion of being PC… we had brought forth the notion that the constant changing of names, labels, and identifiers for whatever reason and the backlash of doing so causes a slow dismantling of language of a society, ergo, the actual dismantling of the society itself.

Excuses, excuses, No to Immigration Reform

When an advocacy or special interest group changes the reasons for their cause so many times that people simply cannot or will not consider going further into the “excuse bag” for more spin, reasons, lies, or misfortunes, to continue going after something that is unconscionable at best, and ridiculous at worst. How many other things must America do in order to placate the illegal aliens who are already here?

One would think that at the constant nonstop excrement these organizations and individuals continue to spew, someone would stand up among them and scream, “Let’s do this their way…they’re not going to budge, so we ought to just stop and work this from a different perspective.” Yet as sure as we sit and discuss this scenario there is but another reason America is the bad-guy.

We want to take a moment and list just a few of the names and/or actions America has been called by the so-called “people who want to live here” moreover, most of those doing the name bashing are in fact already living here. In the last four years America has been called an uncaring nation; land full of bigots; the U.S. Attorney General has called us “a nation of cowards;” we have become that nation who is insensitive to the plight of well over 12 million illegal aliens, and although they seem to feel quite comfortable using the U.S. Constitution to protest, address grievances, and assemble wherever and whenever they want to with little or no decorum these people have accused America of racial profiling, racists, and discriminators full of hate.

The unadulterated dung heap we read over the weekend has got to by all admissions take the cake. Here is an example from a writer who is caught; yes, literally caught between doing what is right and the knowing that otherwise is very, very wrong. (Please see this article by clicking here.)

Arguments have centered over how such a bill would affect the undocumented immigrants who are here. But no one is looking at the bigger picture of how such a bill could affect the migrants who are still making their way to the U.S. -- SB 1070 or not. We know they're still coming. The dead bodies in one southern Arizona morgue are proof of that. [1] It's being reported that authorities have already discovered the remains of 170 migrants who died in the Arizona desert trying to cross the border illegally and that this year will be a record breaker with more bodies yet to be discovered. [2] But in an odd irony, these migrants who died in the desert were the lucky ones. At least, they didn't die from torture, abuse or execution. Their crime? Trying to cross into the U.S. illegally. [3] Each of the 72 men and women from Honduras, Brazil, Ecuador and El Salvador were on their way to the United States for a reason. Whether it was to reunite with their families or look for work, each suffered a fate that could be avoided if there was a comprehensive immigration reform bill on the books. [4]

Any person who doesn’t feel something inside of them – anger, rage, or pain – has problems with reality. However, we can be real and address this problem or we could to allow these kinds of grotesque acts continue. For any illegal alien, for any individual who is in this country without documentation is in fact here illegally. This abhorrent situation will not get fixed by itself; moreover, not by any amnesty. It is going to take all sides in this matter to learn to give a little, compromise a little, and respect what laws are on the books for now.

It is very easy to say “…we have a broken immigration system…and we want to help to fix it” when the person who is saying this is also in the country illegally. The problem America has is not only due to an antiquated system of policies; the system also suffers from a federal government who will not get involved; our borders may be porous but 12 million illegal aliens have got to come to their senses and have some culpability in the matter as well. We did not ask for 12 million people to immigrate to our nation – we’re sorry if you feel otherwise but the truth is we, the citizenry of the United States did not ask for this invasion.

And we feel the best policy is to be as real as possible therefore statement such as this one: “As long as the GOP continues to play politics and act in a cowardly way to avoid addressing immigration reform with Democrats, then thanks to them, the U.S. is an accessory to these senseless murders.” [5]

Now for addressing the numbers and references 1 through 5: 1—Not wanting to come across as insensitive, if people are dying trying to come to America to work or be reunited with their families why should we look at that issue? 2 – Seriously one of the issues that the people are making is why is this happening? Why risk life, limb, or head to travel 25 hundred miles or more only to find you’re not welcome? 3 – Please do not try and blame the American people for the deaths that are happening at the hands of drug cartels. It only makes Mexico look far more impotent and sad. 4 – As mentioned earlier a comprehensive immigration reform bill is not going to happen if one continues to espouse hatred toward a political party or, see [5].

 

“They won’t let us,” says Harry Reid

Here is notwithstanding anything else the worst and most obvious problem with America: Dissention and lack of personal responsibility.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made a push for Hispanic voters Tuesday by arguing Republicans are to blame for the Senate’s inability to move forward with immigration reform efforts. “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK,” Reid said, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “Do I need to say more?”

Reid consistently blames the lack of GOP support for the Senate’s failure to take up immigration reform. “So why don’t we fix it? They won’t let us,” he told Latino voters.

Seriously all things being equal doesn’t Harry Reid sound and present himself as an incapable infant? Oh, “They won’t let us” as if he doesn’t have the majority of the Senate within his political party. Are you ready for this double-speak?

One bipartisan effort, a $600 million border security bill, having passed in the Senate, is headed back to the Senate after a procedural problem caused it to start over in the House. Losing sufficient Republican support, and more GOP members are using harsh rhetoric against illegal immigrants and their families. The problem: All bills that stipulate money are started in the House, and not the Senate Harry!

In April, Reid promised a rally of Hispanic activists in Las Vegas that he would deliver comprehensive immigration reform this year and that there would be "no excuses" for failure.

"Republicans," Reid replied Tuesday when asked what kept him from keeping his promise. First Harry Reid has no authority to make a ludicrous promise such as that; stooping even lower, Reid stated at the same meeting of special interest groups that, “Republicans are blocking comprehensive immigration reform and told Hispanics they shouldn't be treated differently because "their skin's a tone darker" than that of America's early European immigrants.

Quite openly this is the same namby-pamby two faced “Senator” who stated amidst the Iraq War, “…we lost…we’ve already lost the war…” A great vote of confidence for our military – after what he and his party has pulled with health care reform and immigration reform we’re surprised that our good Hispanic’s would even vote for any member of that party, having already been burned.