Comment Last Three
November 11, 2010
Thanks to our Military veterans who have served and given of their time, their soul, and their lives.
Thanks to all of our fellow military families, both active and retired. Without the sacrifices of our military families, our nation would not be where it is today. There are too many elected politicians who have no idea of what it is like to serve our great nation. They are only politicians with a different agenda such as a community organizer.
Below is a poem for our military on Veteran's Day....
And now they're coming home to us with glory in their eyes.
Oh, it's home again, and home again, America for me!
Our hearts are turning home again and there we long to be,
In our beautiful big country beyond the ocean bars,
Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars.
Our boys have seen the Old World as none have seen before.
They know the grisly horror of the German gods of war:
The noble faith of Britain and the hero-heart of France,
The soul of Belgium's fortitude and Italy's romance.
They bore our country's great word across the rolling sea,
"America swears brotherhood with all the just and free."
They wrote that word victorious on fields of mortal strife,
And many a valiant lad was proud to seal it with his life.
Oh, welcome home in Heaven's peace, dear spirits of the dead!
And welcome home ye living sons America hath bred!
The lords of war are beaten down, your glorious task is done;
You fought to make the whole world free, and the victory is won.
Now it's home again, and home again, our hearts are turning west,
Of all the lands beneath the sun America is best.
We're going home to our own folks, beyond the ocean bars,
Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars.
October 04, 2010
I have been saying for years that the only way to stop the illegal activity (drugs and human trafficking) on our southern border is to put our military on the border. Only the military can combat the drug lords and criminal gangs. The military must be given the power to use lethal force and to stop anyone coming across the border at the border, not 50 miles inside the US.
Congressman Ted Poe has introduced legislation requiring the Defense Department to make National Guard troops available to states on request due to an attack on a wife and husband on a Texas lake.
Rep. Ted Poe, in response to what he called the federal governments failure to answer the repeated requests of border state governors to protect the nation's international borders, has offered the National Guard Border Enforcement Act to ensure that border states "have the needed resources to protect their citizens from the ongoing border-related violence." The bill, endorsed by 20 other Republican members of the House, would authorize the secretary of defense to make 10,000 National Guard troops available on request from a U.S. governor. In addition, the troops would be paid for by the federal government and serve under the command of the requesting governor.
"The first duty of the federal government is to protect its people," Mr. Poe said. "Texans are tired of the federal governments failure to secure our borders and enforce our laws, yet at the same time running roughshod over state governments when they try to enforce the law and protect their citizens."
Currently, the Defense Department has allocated only 250 National Guard support troops for the entire 1,254-mile Texas-Mexico border and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has said Texas must pay for any additional troops to enforce existing federal immigration laws along the international border.
Rep. John Culberson, Texas Republican and one of the bill's co-sponsors, said the federal government is "directly responsible for enforcing existing laws to secure our borders and ensure the safe and legal movement of people, goods and commerce across our borders."
"Unfortunately, President Obama has failed in this effort, and it is now time for Congress to act," Mr. Culberson said. "There is a war on our southern border, and it is time to put an end to the horrific violence."
More than 28,000 people have been killed in Mexico's ongoing drug war, which U.S. authorities have said has spilled into the United States. In September, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) posted signs along a major interstate highway in Arizona, warning travelers the area was unsafe because of drug and alien smugglers.
Pinal County, Ariz., Sheriff Paul Babeu, whose county lies at the center of major drug- and alien-smuggling routes to Phoenix and cities east and west, warned last month that Mexican drug cartels now control some parts of the state. "This is going on here in Arizona," he said. "This is 70 to 80 miles from the border — 30 miles from the fifth-largest city in the United States."
Under the National Guard Border Enforcement Act, troops will be authorized to conduct armed vehicle and foot patrols on the U.S. southern border; interdict vehicles, vessels, aircraft or other, similar activities; search, seize and detain suspects; construct roads, fences and vehicle barriers; conduct search-and-rescue operations; gather intelligence; conduct surveillance and reconnaissance; and rely on aviation support.
Mr. Poe, a former state judge and prosecutor, has been a longtime advocate of increased border security. Recently, he warned during a speech on the House floor that Americans were being targeted inside the United States, including fisherman on Falcon Lake in Zapata County, Texas, one of the best bass-fishing spots in the United States. The lake is part of the international boundary between Texas and Mexico. "That piece of paradise has been intruded on this month by the lawlessness seeping over from the Mexican border," he said, noting that in two separate incidents, U.S. fishermen were robbed at gunpoint on the lake by Mexican pirates, who held AR-15 rifles to their heads.
On Thursday, a McAllen, Texas, man was fatally shot after being ambushed by six Mexican pirates in two boats on Falcon Lake. Zapata County Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez identified the victim as David Michael Hartley, 30, who was riding with his wife on personal watercraft on the lake. Sheriff Gonzalez told reporters that Mr. Hartley's wife tried circling back to pull him from the water, but she was forced to retreat after being fired at by the gunmen.
The federal government must help states combat the Mexican invasion--not have the Department of Justice sue the states since it is a "federal responsibility". Big government --do your job.
September 20, 2010
From the campaign trail to the White House, Obama has been after "our money" to push all of his socialist ideas and policies. He has used our money to fund bailouts of banks, private companies, unions, organizations helping illegal immigrants, and big government. There is a new film that you must see that reveals his plan.
Taking aim at the Obama administrations economic record, a new documentary is looking to ride a wave of government resentment to the unusual heights of blockbuster status.
The makers of "I Want Your Money," which uses animation plus interviews with conservative-leaning pundits, know their core audience--the American taxpayer. They have tapped one of the few marketing companies with experience in attracting conservative-leaning voters to movies. Motive Entertainment worked on "The Passion of the Christ" and "Expelled," films that exceeded box office expectations.
"Its all about connecting with the core motivation and value of the taxpayers who value our Constitution," said Paul Lauer, CEO and founder of Motive Entertainment. For "The Passion of the Christ," that meant reaching out to faith-based groups. "I Want Your Money" is seeking out other targets - conservative talk-show hosts and "tea party" affiliates.
The YouTube trailer for the film, which opens Oct. 15, has been viewed more than 2.5 million times. The movie's stinging rebuke of President Obama's stewardship of the nation's foundering economy has another arrow in its marketing quiver - the film's narrator and driving force, director Ray Griggs.
The documentary will succeed or fail based on its entertainment value, not partisan finger-pointing, said Eddie Schmidt, president of the International Documentary Association and an Academy Award-nominated documentary filmmaker ("Twist of Faith" and "This Film Is Not Yet Rated").
Documentary films rarely take in more than a few million dollars at the box office and sometimes fail to make a fraction of that amount. "Fahrenheit 9/11" made $119 million during its 2004 theatrical run, a figure more akin to a superhero sequel than a cinematic commentary. However, the media and even schools hyped the film so many people went to the movies to see it and we now know that much of the film was a "lie".
Since this film is not dependent upon the media, it will be successful with the average American citizen who is worried about Obama's socialism and the disdain that he has for American values, self-reliance, fewer taxes, and less government. We all need to see this film. Also, vote in November...kick the bums out.
May 02, 2010
I want to thank Arizona on its new legislation that cracks down on illegal aliens. This will also help US citizens who live in Arizona since the new law is all about protecting our citizens and our borders from criminals, drug dealers, gangs, and people who break our laws. When the Democrats and liberals say that it is racist---I say BALONEY. It is about security, not votes.
Mexicans here and in Mexico are rather upset by the recent enactment of stricter anti-illegal alien laws by Arizona's governor. In light of the following, that position demonstrates the typical double standard used by race-hustlers and assorted something-for-nothing liberals.
New Immigration Laws:
1 There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
3. All government business will be conducted in our language.
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
8. If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.
All of the above laws are the current immigration laws of MEXICO!!! These sound fine to me, so how can we get these laws to be America's immigration laws? What is good for Mexico is even better for the United States.
Obama--We need Hope & Change on our southern border....Put the military on our border and stop all criminals from entering our country.
April 20, 2010
We have been saying for years that our southern border is as unsecured and dangerous as the border between Iraq and Iran. Now that Senator McCain is in a real primary race with J.D. Hayworth, he has changed his opinion of border security with illegal aliens and drug runners.
The Mexican drug violence is all across the United States and due to limited drug routes, more and more people across our southern border are being threatened and killed. With border violence flaring again, the two U.S. senators from Arizona on Monday called on President Obama to deploy 3,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border in their state, saying the borders must be secured before the White House pursues a broader immigration bill.
Due to Senator McCain's "open border comprehensive immigration reform", he wants to show us that he is tough on illegal immigrants before he gives them US rights and allow these law-breakers a path to our citizenship so they vote with the liberal Democrats against us.
The call from Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, both Republicans, was made the same day Arizona's Legislature approved a bill to make it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant. The measure now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, who has not taken a position on the measure. We are glad that the current DHS Secretary is not in Arizona so the state legislatures can finally pass legislation that will target the illegals with breaking current laws.
"It's a very important step forward," said Mr. McCain, who in the past had fought for a broad bill legalizing illegal immigrants but who on Monday said illegal immigration has led to deteriorating security in Arizona.
The senators said they want Mr. Obama to deploy 3,000 National Guard troops until Arizona's governor certifies that the government has operational control. They also said an additional 3,000 Border Patrol agents should be sent to the state over the next five years.
Mr. McCain and Mr. Kyl called on the Justice Department to expand a program that guarantees illegal immigrants serve time in jail, rather than being immediately sent back across the border. Mr. Kyl said the program has shown great promise where it's been used. A Homeland Security spokesman said the administration is evaluating law enforcement options, including using the National Guard, but pointed to strides made over the past five years to boost the U.S. Border Patrol.
"The Border Patrol is better staffed today than at any time in its 85-year history," said spokesman Matt Chandler, pointing to the more than 4,000 agents in Arizona and 20,000 total across the country, or more than twice the number compared with six years ago.
Security along the border has become a national issue again after a rancher was killed on the U.S. side of the border in what authorities say could have been related to a drug cartel, and after two U.S. citizens and a Mexican employee of the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, were killed. Both incidents happened last month.
"Things are out of control. We need the help of troops that are deployed along the border," said Paul R. Babeu, sheriff of Pinal County in central Arizona, who appeared with Cochise County Sheriff Larry A. Dever and the two senators at a news conference at the Capitol.
Sheriff Babeu said he has seen a marked increase in the past four months in the aggressiveness of those crossing the border illegally and that they are more frequently armed.
He said illegal immigrants have figured out that police rules require officers to stop pursuits if citizens are endangered. That has led to illegal immigrants intentionally trying to run other drivers off the road in an effort to force police to give up the chase.
Republicans' push to highlight border security could hurt Mr. Obama's efforts to pass an immigration bill this year. Last year, Ms. Napolitano, who was governor of Arizona until joining the Obama administration, said the U.S. border was secure enough that Congress should enact a bill to legalize the estimated 20 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and provide a way for more foreign workers.
But Republicans are questioning that idea after the recent killings, including that of Rob Krentz, a rancher near the U.S.-Mexico border who may have been targeted by drug cartels.
In the wake of that killing, the Arizona Legislature has acted. The bill sent Monday to the governor would require police to conduct immigration-status checks when they find someone they think might be in the country illegally, and it makes it a state crime to be there without authorization.
It also makes it illegal to knowingly hire or transport illegal immigrants.
"Most of us in law enforcement welcome this legislation," said Sheriff Babeu. He said it brings uniformity to the state, so all police know what's expected of them, and illegal immigrants know the penalties. For Mr. McCain, who is now involved in a tough primary battle with former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Monday's embrace of a security bill was controversial.
He was a key author of an immigration-reform bill a few years ago and was a chief backer of efforts in 2006 and 2007 to pass a measure through the Senate. But after that 2007 bill failed, Mr. McCain said voters need to be convinced that the borders are secure before they will accept any action on legalizing illegal immigrants.
Mr. Hayworth called Mr. McCain's move an "election-year gimmick," while immigrant rights groups said they felt betrayed by a former ally. "What a sad day," said Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, a leading advocacy group. "Obviously, John McCain is fighting for his political life in Arizona. I sure miss the days when he fought for his principles."
I hope the voters of Arizona do not give McCain a free pass on this issue---vote for J.D.
March 27, 2010
Due to the lack of security on our southern border, we are experiencing increased drug and gang violence across our country. This is totally due to the administration not securing our borders. When will the elected leaders of our nation start securing our borders with our military? It will take military force on both sides of the border to stop the drugs and violence.
Mexican drug cartels formed new alliances in 2009 with violent American street and prison gangs that helped tighten their stranglehold on the lucrative U.S. narcotics market, but competition among Mexican smugglers remains fierce and threatens more bloodshed in the United States, according to a Justice Department report.
The 2010 Drug Threat Assessment, released Thursday, also says Mexican drug cartels control most of the illicit cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine trade into the U.S., along with much of the marijuana distribution. The cartels' tentacles reach every state, including some unexpected rural areas of the U.S.
"The growing strength and organization of criminal gangs, including their growing alliances with large Mexican [drug trafficking organiza[JUMP]tions], has changed the nature of midlevel and retail drug distribution in many local drug markets, even in suburban and rural areas," says the National Drug Intelligence Center report.
"As a result, disrupting illicit drug availability and distribution will become increasingly difficult for state and local law enforcement agencies." According to the report, the Mexican connection benefits U.S. street gangs, as they are able to buy drugs directly from the cartels, which enables the gangs to flood the streets with less expensive drugs by cutting out midlevel wholesale dealers.
As an example, according to the report, members of the Chicago-based Latin Kings gang in Midland, Texas, now purchase cocaine directly from Mexican traffickers for $16,000 to $18,000 a kilogram. Those drugs then can be shipped directly to Chicago, where it would have cost the gang nearly $30,000 more to purchase a kilogram of cocaine from a midlevel wholesaler.
"With this savings," the report says, "the gang undersells other local dealers who do not have the capacity to buy large wholesale quantities directly from Mexican [drug trafficking organizations] in Mexico or along the Southwest border." The street gangs also prove useful to the cartels. The report says drug traffickers use gang members in Mexico and, to a lesser extent, in the U.S., especially in Texas and California, to protect smuggling routes, collect debts and kill rival traffickers.
"Gang members who are U.S. citizens are a particularly valuable asset to Mexican [drug trafficking organizations] because they can normally cross the U.S.-Mexico border with less law enforcement scrutiny and therefore are less likely to have illicit drug loads interdicted," the report says.
Despite the worries of U.S. law enforcement, a vast majority of the violence still occurs on the Mexican side of the border. In 2009, according to unofficial estimates, as many as 8,000 people in Mexico, including 800 police and military officers, were killed as the cartels fought over smuggling corridors and responded to increased attention from authorities.
Mr. President---Stop supporting the illegals and the criminals---start enforcing the law and securing our nation. Your number one job is to protect American citizens.
March 13, 2010
The Obama administration is giving a know terrorist who killed American citizens more rights than our brave members of the Navy Seals. That's right---the Obama liberal justice system is going after five Navy Seals who captured a known and targeted terrorist. What is wrong with this radical attack on our troops who have been given the mission of killing terrorists? These five brave men captured this terrorist and hit him so they are now the bad guys? They should have killed him.
The terrorist who was captured by the American Seal team killed Americans through an ambush in Fallujah , Iraq. Their bodies were dragged around in the streets of the city, then burned and hung from the upper trusses of a bridge. The murderers gathered to celebrate and have their photos taken with the trophy.
A Navy Seal team was formed to go after this terrorist and now are facing criminal charges because, somewhere along the timeline of his capture, the terrorist murderer suffered a school-yard fat lip, his captors are now being charged with nothing short of war crimes and facing discharge and imprisonment.
So, instead of celebration of justice served and heroes honored, these men are facing trial and prison because they hit a terrorist.
The mother of slain Blackwater guard Jerry Zovko drove from Ohio to give each of the accused SEALs a blessed rosary and lend them her support. "These young SEALs are in this situation because they caught the mastermind behind the death of my son (and others), and not only my son and his co-workers but also the marines who went into Fallujah after their death," said Donna Zovko. "I am very proud of these young SEALs and thankful to them. They did not do anything wrong."
I perceive more symptoms of a sickness, a corruption of the nation's heart and soul. I am tempted to label it 'liberalism' or 'progressivism', but those too are just symptoms of the infection. But this is nothing new, I recognized these symptoms four decades ago in the shameful treatment of our warriors returning from Vietnam, in the acceptance of Marines bombed in Beirut, in the ho-hum yawn of media coverage of Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down), in the return to mental numbness after 9/11, prosecution of the Marines of Haditha, assault of recruiters across the country, anti-war protesters at the gates of Walter Reed Army Hospital...
Our nation must stand up and support our Navy Seals and demand that the Obama liberal justice system be stopped. Our military must be supported in time of war or bring them home. Better yet, we need to throw out this anti-American administration and put a real President in the White House who supports the values of our military and society.
March 06, 2010
Not only are the Democrats trying to destroy our health care system, but they are trying to institute new policies that will kill Americans. Liberal members of Congress must stay out of the health care policy decision-making process and let doctors and medical professionals control the medical policies. Our blood supply and donation system will be unsafe and in crisis if Senator Kerry and others allow gay men to donate blood into the system.
They are pushing legislation to eliminate the lifetime ban on blood donations from gay and bisexual men. This group is the most dangerous due to the high infection rate for AIDS and HIV.
"Healthy blood donors are turned away every day due to an antiquated policy," Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said in a letter to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg. "We live in a very different country than we did in 1983,when gay and bisexual men were permanently "deferred" from giving blood, due to the HIV/AIDS crisis."
The letter asked the FDA to consider using the same deferral policies with men who have sex with men (MSM) that apply to heterosexuals who engage in high-risk behavior - usually a 12-month deferral. This would mean that a gay or bisexual man could donate blood if he had not had sex with a man in the past 12 months. Oh really--so a gay man will count the months he has not had sex so he can donate blood?
The senators' letter to the FDA comes a week after the Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC) released a report on why the lifetime ban on MSM blood donations is punitive, unfair and unnecessary.
"We don't want to increase the risk to the nation's blood supply," said Joseph Wardenski, lead author of the GMHC report and a former associate at Davis Polk & Wardwell law firm.
"We would like to reduce discrimination, and we would like a blood-donor pool that's large enough to ensure that there's a safe and sufficient blood supply, particularly in times of emergency," he said. Senators are more interested in a policy rather than the safety of all Americans who need blood transfusions.
When it comes to pathogens transmitted in the blood supply, "100 percent of the risk is borne by the recipient" and none is borne by the donor, said Mark Skinner, president of the World Federation of Hemophilia. Blood-donor rules are discriminatory by design, Mr. Skinner said. But the rules are grounded in science and intended to protect the end users, not target a group, he said, noting that hemophiliacs like himself can never give blood. "It really isn't even a gay issue because lesbians are not excluded unless they fall into other risk categories," Mr. Skinner said.
The lifetime ban on MSM donations was established because in the early stages of the AIDS epidemic a major share of cases involved transmission via blood transfusion. However, transmissions with HIV-infected blood still occur, and the number of "bad units" would increase if the MSM deferral was changed, Dr. Andrew I. Dayton told an FDA workshop in March 2006.
His computer models found that if MSM were deferred for five years, about 1,430 HIV-infected units would enter the blood supply in the first year of the new policy; with a one-year deferral, the number of infected units would "about double," to 2,780, Dr. Dayton said.
This "small but definite increased risk" is part of the reason the FDA has upheld the MSM ban several times, most recently in 2006. MSM have an HIV prevalence "60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors, and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors," the agency added.
Other countries that currently ban MSM from blood donations are Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland and the Netherlands. Hong Kong also bans them.
Still, gay rights groups have long been fighting to change blood-donor rules, and several countries have relaxed their policies. On March 1, Sweden began allowing MSM to give blood if they have not had sex with a man in the past 12 months.
So what is more important to the liberal members of Congress---safety of our blood supply or promoting more homosexual policies?
January 23, 2010
The US Supreme Court just corrected the "freedom of speech" for all Americans during political campaigns. The US Congress wrongfully passed legislation that limited our freedom of speech that protected incumbant elected officials. We need a campaign contribution system that is transparent and immediately records contributions. The below article is from the Washington Times.
In a decision with profound implications for the role of money in American campaigns, the Supreme Court on Thursday gave interest groups, unions and corporations the right to pour money into issue advertising in political races - reigniting the passionate battle over the influence of cash on the electoral process.
The 5-4 decision punched a hole in the complex web of federal campaign-finance laws and rules in finding that those groups should have the same rights to spend money on political ads as any person. Direct contributions by corporations and unions to individual candidates are still forbidden.
Supporters cheered the ruling, which they said returns the country to the core free-speech precept that political speech should be protected, no matter who or what is speaking.
Critics warned that the foundations of American democracy are at stake and that big businesses will be able to spend enough money to influence elections.
In stark language, the court acknowledged that it was overturning its own precedents, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, said the justices were now returning to "ancient First Amendment principles."
"The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether," Justice Kennedy wrote in an opinion overturning a 1990 case and part of a separate 2003 case that upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance laws, enacted in 2002.
Justice Kennedy was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas.
Sounding dire in his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens called the decision an unprecedented assault on the court's principle of "stare decisis," or reliance on precedent.
"The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution," Justice Stevens said.
He said the ruling turns over power to corporations and unions at the expense of political parties, who will have a tough time fighting back because of the restrictions on their own fundraising and spending.
On Capitol Hill, Rep. Alan Grayson, Florida Democrat, called the ruling "the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case." The 1857 Dred Scott decision held that slaves could never be citizens, nor were they entitled to constitutional protections.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Democrat, immediately vowed to try to pass a bill to overturn the ruling. They acknowledged that it would be difficult, but said there could be room to attach new rules to corporate political ad spending.
"This threatens the viability of our democracy. This threatens the viability of what we're all about here," Mr. Van Hollen said.
The case stemmed from "Hillary: The Movie," released by conservative nonprofit group Citizens United. The group wanted to be able to run television ads promoting the 90-minute documentary, a critique of presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But the Federal Election Commission said that amounted to political communication financed by corporate funds, which was banned by federal law. Under campaign-finance laws, corporations are forced to create separate political action committees, which were bound by myriad fundraising, spending and reporting rules.
Citizens United sued, and the decision has been steadily moving up the federal courts for the past two years. President Obama also promised to try to curb the decision.
"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special-interest money in our politics," the president said in a statement. "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."
Richard Briffault, a law professor at Columbia Law School, said it will be difficult for Congress to craft legislation to limit business spending, since most corporate law is written at the state level.
He also said it's not immediately clear how much will change in campaign finance, but expressed doubt about the dire predictions. He noted that about half of states had banned corporations from making independent political expenditures and half had allowed it.
"I don't think you could see one was demonstrably more politically free," he said.
Thursday's ruling does strike down state laws that banned independent corporate political spending.
Those who fought for more campaign freedom cheered the ruling.
"The Supreme Court has restored a part of the First Amendment that had been unfortunately stolen by Congress and a previously wrongly decided ruling of the court," said Hans A. von Spakovsky, a former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission and current senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
The Supreme Court first heard the case, Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, in its 2008-09 term, but instead of issuing a ruling, the court asked that the case be reheard to address the fundamental questions of restrictions on corporations.
The case was reheard in September and was the first in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor heard oral arguments. She sided with the court's minority in Thursday's decision.
In the wake of the ruling, a number of groups erroneously accused the court of lifting the limits on corporate contributions to political candidates. The decision does not end those limits, which require any contribution to be made by a corporation's political action committee, which must abide by strict rules.
"The opinion very specifically talks about and upholds the limits on contributions," Mr. von Spakovsky said.
The decision also doesn't overturn the ban on so-called "soft money," the uncapped donations to political parties that had swamped the political process in the 1990s.
The court, ruling 8-1, also upheld the law's requirements that any group running political ads must disclose the names of its contributors. Justice Thomas dissented from that part of the decision, arguing that there is a right to anonymous speech that is being circumscribed by the disclosure and reporting requirements.
December 13, 2009
How does Congress think that our economy works?
Our Congress does not know how a market economy works since they keep printigng money, getting all of us deeper into debt, and push through more and more regulations. Congress does not know how to create jobs if it thinks more government is the answer. Below is a simple example of how the current Congress creates jobs and pays off debt.
It's a slow day in a small Vermont town and streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody is living on credit. A rich tourist drives through town, stops at the motel, and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs to pick one for the night.
As soon as he walks upstairs, the owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.
The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill to his supplier, the Farmer's Co-op.
The guy at the Farmer's Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her "services" on credit.
The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill with the hotel owner. The hotel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter so the rich traveler will not suspect anything.
At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, picks up the $100 bill and leaves town.
No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now out of debt and now looks to the future with a lot more optimism.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the United States Government is conducting business today.
October 26, 2009
Our Department of Education and Unions ask our teachers to do the below, instead of teaching the students English, history, math, and other subjects. Our schools systems have serious problems since we now dump all of the social problems on teachers.
After being interviewed by the school administration, a prospective teacher said:
Let me see if I've got this right. You want me to go into that room with all those kids, correct their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse, monitor their dress habits, censor their T-shirt messages, and instill in them a love for learning.
You want me to check their backpacks for weapons, wage war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, and raise their sense of self esteem and personal pride.
You want me to teach them patriotism and good citizenship, sportsmanship and fair play, and how to register to vote, balance a checkbook, and apply for a job.
You want me to check their heads for lice, recognize signs of antisocial behavior, and make sure that they all pass the final exams.
You also want me to provide them with an equal education regardless of their handicaps, and communicate regularly with their parents in English, Spanish or any other language, by letter, telephone, newsletter, and report card.
You want me to do all this with a piece of chalk, a blackboard, a bulletin board, a few books, a big smile, and a starting salary that qualifies me for food stamps.
You want me to do all this and then you tell me. . . I CAN'T PRAY?
So what is wrong with our education system? Ask any teacher....
March 03, 2009
I have been writing and warning all Americans about the war on our southern border with Mexico. We have a national crisis with drugs, gang members, and thousands of illegals streaming across our border every day. This must stop and we will have to put our military on our southern border. Elected officials must put the rule of law ahead of politics and new votes.
The U.S. Defense Department thinks Mexico's two most deadly drug cartels together have fielded more than 100,000 foot soldiers - an army that rivals Mexico's armed forces and threatens to turn the country into a narco-state. "It's moving to crisis proportions," a senior U.S. defense official told The Washington Times. The official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named because of the sensitive nature of his work, said the cartels' "foot soldiers" are on a par with Mexico's army of about 130,000.
The disclosure underlines the enormity of the challenge Mexico and the United States face as they struggle to contain what is increasingly looking like a civil war or an insurgency along the U.S.-Mexico border. In the past year, about 7,000 people have died - more than 1,000 in January alone. The conflict has become increasingly brutal, with victims beheaded and bodies dissolved in vats of acid.
The death toll dwarfs that in Afghanistan, where about 200 fatalities, including 29 U.S. troops, were reported in the first two months of 2009. About 400 people, including 31 U.S. military personnel, died in Iraq during the same period. The biggest and most violent combatants are the Sinaloa cartel, known by U.S. and Mexican federal law enforcement officials as the "Federation" or "Golden Triangle," and its main rival, "Los Zetas" or the Gulf Cartel, whose territory runs along the Laredo,Texas, borderlands.
As a result, Mexico is behind only Pakistan and Iran as a top U.S. national security concern, ranking above Afghanistan and Iraq, the defense official added. Michael V. Hayden, who left as CIA director in January, put Mexico second to Iran as a top national security threat to the United States. His successor, Leon E. Panetta, told reporters at his first news conference that the agency is "paying ... a lot of attention to" Mexico.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told CBS' "60 Minutes" on Sunday that "the stakes are high for the safety of many, many citizens of Mexico and the stakes are high for the United States no doubt." A State Department travel advisory last month seemed timed to caution U.S. students contemplating spring breaks south of the border.
When will the Obama administration acknowledge this crisis and meet this challenge with securing our borders? Drugs, gangs, and illegal immigration are tearing our country apart and destroying American lives. Our southern border is the most dangerous border in the world.