Archive for January 14th, 2008
By Christopher Adamo
As the 2008 Campaign Season shifts from jockeying and publicity stunts to actual voting, it is all important to consider what America is likely to actually reap by electing any particular candidate. Honesty being a commodity of ever dwindling supply, it is dangerous to rely solely on the words of many candidates. All is not as it seems once the cameras and spotlights are turned off, or once the primary season is concluded.A couple of glaring recent examples, when considered in comparison to each other, tell the grim story. Washington is not about the business of the American people or, as the Declaration so eloquently puts it, securing the God-given rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Rather, it seeks to put a public face of mock concern and "compassion" on its increasingly self-serving endeavors.
Cynical and depressing as such an assessment may sound, the facts nonetheless speak for themselves. Beltway reactions to the ongoing hemorrhage at America’s southern border, when contrasted against the ostensibly monumental subprime mortgage "crisis," provide the necessary evidence for such a claim.
Despite a vast array of excuses and obfuscations intended to convince the American public that the ongoing flood of illegal immigrants is either no real problem, or is simply unfixable, common citizens see their country, its traditions, and its heritage disappearing from before their very eyes. By margins of more than seventy percent, Americans demand action to secure their nation’s border in an effort to curb this invasion.
But what have they gotten in response from Washington? In 2006, after a hard-fought battle in the Congress, a measure was grudgingly passed that assured the construction of 700 miles of border fence. The event was promoted with great fanfare as proof of decisive leadership within a Congress intent on dealing effectively with border security. From the start, the situation lacked credibility, since its principals had been so reluctant to truly confront the border issue. Not surprisingly, things only deteriorated from there.
To begin with, a little elementary math is all it takes to recognize that even if the entire fence were built as promised, more than sixty-five percent of the border would remain open. Does anyone really believe this token effort constitutes border "security"? Moreover, those doubters whose reflexive reaction was to cynically insist that the fence would never be built are being validated daily.
Somehow, according to the way business is conducted inside D.C., the "actual" fence requirement magically diminished from 700 miles down to 370, which would leave 81% of the border unchecked. Yet even that length of fence is an empty promise, with deadlines for construction completely ignored. To date, the government claims that 70 miles of fence has been installed, hardly a "Manhattan Project" to restore our national integrity and sovereignty. But it still gets worse. The actual length may be less than ten miles.
The American people should never forget that, in the beginning, Congress only conceded to the notion of a border fence as a means of throwing a few crumbs to those citizens who otherwise rejected any immigration "reform" measures (read: amnesty) without first securing the border. Apparently, the illegal immigration problem is simply too overwhelming for the U.S. Government to honestly and effectively address it.
So, one might ask, just what are all of those bureaucrats and officials back in Washington paid to accomplish for the American people? The abominable answer can be found in their response to the "subprime mortgage" debacle, a real (we are told) crisis that requires their immediate attention.
By Jim Kouri
(Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton made headlines on Monday with a display of being close to tears while she campaigned in New Hampshire. Her friends in the media especially those on CNN attempted to put a positive spin on her demeanor. Perhaps Americans should refresh their memories of Bill and Hillary Clinton as more state primaries and caucuses occur.)
Presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton once again displayed how she can talk out of both sides of her mouth depending on whom she’s addressing. For example, in New York City, Senator Clinton in a blatant her attempt to re-invent herself, told a cheering crowd that the United States had to protect our borders and deal with illegal immigration.
But, according to the Washington Times, Clinton and her fellow New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer turned thumbs down on two amendments to a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, which would have funded 2,000 new Border Patrol agents and more than 5,000 new detention beds to house illegal aliens.
According to NewsMax, the former first lady blasted President Bush on border security in a statement posted on her official Senate Web site. NewMax quoted Madam Hillary as saying, "This administration has failed to provide the resources to protect our borders, or a better system to keep track of entrants to this country," she complained, adding, "I welcome the addition of more border security." In the past she has repeatedly claimed to be "adamantly against illegal immigrants."
Yet Senator Clinton and her liberal-left comrades voted against border security enhancements, once again displaying her propensity for double-speak. Meanwhile, Senator Schumer’s explanation — once you cut through all the bull — is that there’s just not enough pork in such a bill for New York, since states such as California, Texas and Arizona stand to gain increased funding to control the borders.
Senator Clinton, on the other hand, does what she does best: refuses to comment on her actions. She’s probably once again studying the situation to see how she feels about it, a familiar Democrat Party trick to avoid telling the American people what she really believes.
Clinton, like so many in her party, attempts to appear as if she’s a national-security hawk. The reality is these Democrats are trying once again to pull the wool over American’s eyes. It’s a strategy the Democrats tried when they ran John Kerry for president. They spent a lot of capital to build up Kerry as a war hero who would fight a better terrorism war, when in fact Kerry was nothing more than a recycled war protester and propaganda master.
The mainstream news media tried as best they could to explain the Massachusetts Senator’s inconsistancies by saying his replies were "nuanced." If so, then Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton is the Queen of Nuance.