Archive for the ‘Presidential Race’ Category
By Alan Caruba
It’s an issue that will dominate the elections in 2008. It is illegal immigration, but there was scarce attention paid during the debates leading up to the Iowa caucuses. The candidate that promises to put a stop to it will be the candidate that wins. The party that temporizes will be the party that fails.
The conflict in Iraq has siphoned the energy to pay attention to Mexico, but as that battlefront recedes, the eyes of voters will be on our southern border. A war is being fought there. Some may argue that no such war has been authorized or declared, but a full-scale invasion has been taking place for years, resulting in an estimated one tenth of all Mexicans presently living in the United States.
They are not pilgrims. They are parasites.
The drain on our economy is something that, while well documented, has not received sufficient attention from the mainstream media. After all, we are “neighbors” with Mexico, so how could they hardly be considered an invading horde costing Americans billions of dollars every year?
Good neighbors don’t do that kind of thing, but Mexico is not a good neighbor.
Mexico is working very hard to provide the seaports for goods shipped more cheaply there than to American ports. They would then be transported via a super highway from the Texas-Mexico border to a Mexico owned and operated customs port in Kansas. Presently, some 40% of all imported goods arrive in the U.S. via the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Putting American dockworkers in the unemployment lines and harming our trucking industry is of little concern to our “neighbor” to the south.
Perhaps, however, the real war receiving scant attention is the one being conducted by Mexican drug lords and their cartels. At present most of the war is being fought in Mexico and, as Terence Jeffrey, the editor-in-chief of CNSnews, recently pointed out, one episode was fought in Cananea. Where’s that? “It is almost in Arizona.” Cananea is about 20 miles south of the U.S. border in Mexico. “The nearest town of any size is Nogales, Arizona and the nearest big city is Tucson. Cananea is a war zone.
How long before that shooting war takes place in the streets of American cities? Not long at all. In June 2007, World Net Daily reported that, “The ultra-violent, U.S.-trained elite, Mexican paramilitary commandos known as the ‘Zetas’, responsible for hundreds of murders along the border this year, have expanded their enforcement efforts on behalf of a drug cartel by setting up trafficking routes in six U.S. states.” Texas law enforcement officials report that the Zetas “have been active in the Dallas area since 2003.”
The war is all about the provision of huge amounts of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and methamphetamine into the U.S. market. Read the rest of this entry »
By Daniel Clark
Memo to conservative pundits and talk show hosts everywhere: All right, so Hillary’s scary, but get a grip, already.
For decades now, abortion has been the touchstone issue that has defined Republican presidential primaries. Not only has it been a highly prioritized issue in its own right, but it has served as a reliable indicator of the candidates’ overall conservative credentials. It’s been understood that any politician who supported legal abortion was disrespectful of the Constitution, and therefore was not a legitimate contender for the nomination – until now.
Suddenly, under the threat of a Hillary Clinton presidency, terrified pro-life conservatives have been trampling all over each other in a race to declare that right-to-life issues really aren’t relevant to the presidency at all. Sounds like somebody owes Arlen Specter a profuse apology.
It would be one thing if the primaries were already decided, and a pro-abortion candidate had won the GOP nomination. Then, it would be understandable for pragmatic pro-life conservatives to support a pro-abortion Republican who would be vigilant in the War on Terror, over a pro-abortion Democrat who would leave us virtually defenseless. It’s quite another thing for them to nullify the issue before a single primary vote is cast, lest the nomination be decided by any criterion other than perceived winnability.
By Thomas Lindaman
In an already absurd political season, hearing the flap about Hillary Clinton’s campaign planting questions in the audience of a campaign stop made me look for a clown car and a three-ring circus. Then, I remembered she wasn’t in the well of the Senate at the time and I got my bearings.
Seriously, who gives a flying handshake about Hillary planting questions in the audience? At the risk of sounding like a teenager getting caught doing something I shouldn’t be, everybody or just about everybody does it. George W. Bush has done it. FEMA did it not too long ago. And Hillary’s done it since she announced she was running for Senate in 2000. It’s no big deal. And for the record, no, I wouldn’t jump off the side of a cliff just because everybody was doing it.
There are three reasons politicians are planting people and questions at campaign stops. One, it makes them look far more intelligent on issues. Two, it helps them craft an overall message for each stop and make it look like it just happened to be that way. And three, it cuts down on the likelihood that they’ll be surprised by…an honest question! Ultimately, each reason revolves around the politicians’ ego, which they prize more heavily than Gollum treasured Frodo’s ring from "The Lord of the Rings." And while we’re on the subject, doesn’t Dennis Kucinich kinda look like Gollum? I’m just sayin’…
by Christopher G. Adamo
So far, the political landscape preceding the 2008 Presidential Election has defied every attempt by the "old media" to characterize and thus determine its outcome. Were the original media prognostications correct, at least two thirds of the American public would already be lining up at the ballot box, eagerly awaiting the starting bells in order to joyously cast votes for Hillary.
The reality for the former First Lady is not nearly so rosy. A recent Mason-Dixon poll showed that more than half of Americans say they will not vote for her "under any circumstances." As a result, her anticipated cake walk of the Democrat primary season has devolved into a very rocky road, with Freshman Senator Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) nipping at her heals in every major survey.
Worse yet, former Vice-President Al Gore continues to enjoy a groundswell of enthusiastic support from the Democrat base, even though he has yet to officially declare his candidacy. It is certain that, behind closed doors, Democrat strategists are being strained to their limits by the maddening uncertainty of the present situation.
Despite Democrat gloating over last November’s elections, the current situation is absolutely grim in the Congress, where the approval rating for that body, at a pitiful fourteen percent, is lower than it has ever been. Congressional numbers have not approached such lows since the early 1990’s which, not coincidentally, was the last time the Democrats held a majority.
by Erik Rush
How many Americans would vote for a presidential candidate who was the member of a church that professed the following credo?
- 1. Commitment to God
- 2. Commitment to the White Community
- 3. Commitment to the White Family
- 4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
- 5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
- 6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
- 7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
- 8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
- 9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
- 10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
- 11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
- 12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
The question is rhetorical, of course. The answer is that such a candidate wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected dog catcher (apologies to America’s animal rescue and public safety personnel) let alone President, because that candidate would be instantly branded a racist, among the most vile and frightening of white supremacists.
by Carey Roberts
The greatest controversy during the upcoming political campaign will not be Republican vs. Democrat or conservative against liberal. Rather, the most riveting debate is likely to revolve around the question of whether a female president can better lead the nation than a man. It will be the ultimate Battle of the Sexes, played out in endless bedroom discussions, backyard debates, and newspaper headlines.
Three years ago Marie Wilson wrote a book called Closing the Leadership Gap in which she wrote (somewhat ungrammatically) that the United States "has been steered by male leadership who tend to lead from a self-centered, self-preservation perspective," whereas, "Women…are inclined to lead, their families and nations, from an other-centered perspective."
Hillary Rodham Clinton soon picked up on that theme and began to brag that female officials are more truthful than their male counterparts. At the 2005 Women’s Global Leadership Summit, HRC claimed that "Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behavior and lowers corruption."
by Jim Kouri, CPP
Well, it's official: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has announced she will run for president in 2008. The hyperventilating denizens of our nation's newsrooms are reporting this story as if there was any doubt Hillary wanted to rule over the American people.
Hillary's campaign workers posted a videotaped message on her web site which said, "I'm in and I'm in to win." As opposed to "I'm in and I'm in to lose?"
This was a great story for the news media to cover. Reporters probably had the story already written and stored in their PCs' just waiting for the right moment to gush over the announcement that the first former First Lady announced a run for the White House.
by Jim Kouri, CPP
A well-known actor and filmmaker is speaking out on abortion, illegal immigration, radical Islam, and the New World Order. He says Progressives are destroying America.
Golden Globe, Emmy, and Tony Award winning actor, writer, and musician — as well as conservative patriot — Michael Moriarty recently announced his interest in running for President of the United States in 2008. He's doing it to take on Hollywood's liberal-left establishment and the Globalists.
"If a Hollywood star denigrates the war on terrorism or promotes gay marriage, he or she is welcomed with open arms by the Oprah Winfreys of the world. But if he or she holds views that are considered conservative or libertarian, doors begin to close," said Moriarty.
by Bob Parks
Those of you who’ve read my work over the years know I don’t trust what we loosely refer to as the "mainstream media." As we’re talking about human beings, we’re talking about people who have opinions on various issues. The problem is that those in that media have the power to shape an issue to suit an agenda based on those personal opinions. The discipline should be that personal opinions have no place in traditional news reporting.
Then again, reality is another thing.
A few years ago, USA Today came out with a piece that posed an interesting hypothetical: When is it okay to lie? Surely it would be okay to lie to avoid hurting people’s feelings. Tell your woman her outfit looks okay when you’d rather the outfit revealed more. Tell your kid the scribble that’s supposed to be your portrait looks great, and so on. It seemed like a genuine thought piece.
However, being the overly suspicious person I am, the events of the following weeks threw up some red flags.
The Clinton—Lewinsky scandal broke and people then said they understood why Bill lied under oath. He was sparing his wife the embarrassment. He was sparing the nation the embarrassment. The only fallacy with the reasoning was that Bill was supposedly thinking of someone other than himself.
by Jim Kouri, CPP
On New Year's Day, Newsweek columnist and Democrat Party water-carrier (am I being redundant?) Eleanor Clift appearing on the Fox News Channel gave her opinion of whom was better equipped to run as a Democrat for President in 2008.
Ms. Clift, who looked as if she was decomposing as she spoke, said that Senator Hillary Clinton would be a more viable candidate than Senator Barack Obama because of her "military experience" which she gained while serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Hillary shoots her mouth off in front of TV cameras and that's considered military experience? Perhaps it is when compared with her husband's military record — a Draft Dodger, who protested the war under a Viet Cong flag. In the wacky world of the mainstream news media, if you're a Republican and served in the National Guard during a war, you're a shirker or worse; if you're a Democrat and attend a Memorial Day parade, you have military experience. Or if you served four months in Vietnam and get shot in the butt with a handful of uncooked rice, you're a war hero.