Letters To Webb And Warner Concerning The Applause Offered To Felipe Calderon By The Democrats

And, here is the latest travel warning from the U.S. State Department regarding fake Mexican Checkpoints:

Travel Warning
U.S. State Department
May 24, 2010

If you were watching the news last week, then you know that when Mexican Presdient Felipe Calderon addressed a joint session of Congress and viciously and hypocritically maligned the United States, the Democrats jumped up and applauded his anti-American diatribe. I have written to both of my Senators, both of whom are Democrats and both of whom jumped up and applauded with their peers.

Feel free to use them as guides in writing your own Senators and Representatives and letting them know that you do not appreciate them applauding a foreign leader coming to America and making hypocritical criticisms.

Any supporters of Jim Webb or Mark Warner are especially encouraged to respond to this post. I would love a public debate about how these two humiliated the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Letter to Webb:

Mr. Webb, I am writing this letter to express my extreme disappointment, not to mention disgust, in the way you and your fellow Democrats applauded Mexican President Felipe Calderon as he hypocritically criticized a sovereign U.S. State, namely Arizona, for enacting a law meant to protect its citizens from a known threat. This display of anti-Americanism is not only inappropriate coming from a foreign leader addressing the National Legislature, but to have watched elected officials of the United States Congress applaud such hypocrisy was completely insulting. A little background is in order here. As you know, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted before a Senate committee that he had not read the Arizona law before he offered criticism of it. He further admitted that he only knew what he heard on TV news shows or read in newspapers. Well, we know that the major networks and major newspapers are more for pushing agendas than they are for reporting real news, thus it is easy to understand why Mr. Holder was so far off base in making his unfounded charges. Had Mr. Holder (and the various Democrat members of Congress, including yourself) done due diligence, he would have discovered that the Arizona law simply mirrors Federal law. According to Michael A. Zuckerman, a lawyer writing for CBS, “tucked away in Title 8 of the U.S. Code is a provision that expressly authorizes federal immigration officers, without a warrant, ‘to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.’ (See 8 U.S.C. 1357). This is eerily similar to the Arizona law.” Enforcement of U.S. immigration law is among the most lenient in the Americas. It is certainly more lenient than the immigration law enforcement in Mexico, and U.S. law enforcement officials are much more humane in the execution of their duties than are their Mexican counter-parts. For example: Amnesty International released a report on Mexico’s treatment of illegal aliens coming through its own southern border. Rupert Knox, Amnesty’s Mexico Researcher reported: “Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses. Persistent failure by the authorities to tackle abuses carried out against irregular migrants has made their journey through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world." These abuses include kidnapping for ransom, robbery and rape. Mexico's National Human Rights Commission reported in 2009 that nearly 10,000 were abducted over a six month period. Half of those victims indicated that public officials were involved in their kidnapping. Estimates are that six out of 10 migrant women and girls experience sexual violence at the hands of Mexican authorities. And yet, the man who oversees all of this saw fit to criticize United States immigration policy in front of a joint session of Congress? How bewildering is that? Even more bewildering is that you and your fellow Democrats gave this man approval of his hypocrisy by applauding him! I cannot think of anything more offensive or disgusting in regards to illegal immigration. I also cannot think of any reason why you Democrats would assume that average Americans like me wouldn’t see through the sham and not feel that our intelligence is being insulted. You claim to be a man who was “Born Fightin’” and yet, you roll over like a submissive puppy when a foreign leader who has no integrity on the issue of illegal immigration maliciously insults the United States and you simply go along with your fellow Democrats because it somehow suits you to see the United States so wrongfully and viciously maligned. If you were truly “Born Fightin’” you would be calling out your fellow Democrats and demanding to know why they rendered such honors to a man who oversees one of the worst human rights abuses in the Western Hemisphere while criticizing a much more humane U.S. system. If you were truly “Born Fightin’” you would call out Attorney General Eric Holder for offering unjustified criticism on a bill that he hadn’t even read and which only mirrors Federal law which he, as “top cop,” is obligated to uphold. If you were truly “Born Fightin’” you would demand that the Obama administration enforce Federal law rather than unjustly criticize a U.S. State for daring to enforce a law which the Federal government has been overtly failing to enforce. I know that as a Democrat you will not do these things since your record clearly shows that you put party above principle and that the concerns of leftist special interests are more important to you than the concerns of the Commonwealth of Virginia. If I am wrong in this assumption, please prove it by publically stating your own disgust at the way the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress reacted to such a brutal display of anti-Americanism from President Calderon. Personally, I do not believe that you possess the courage or integrity to do any of these things and if you did anything at all, it would be mere lip-service and ultimately inconsequential. You haven’t shown any courage in the past when it comes to standing up to the wrong-doings of your own party and it doesn’t look like you will in the near future. I do not even believe that you will directly address any of the points I made in this letter in your response to me, that is, if you even respond at all. Also, I know that the major talking point of the Democrats is to say that “the Republicans did it.” This is a cop-out. The Democrats are in power now and, after applauding the hypocrite Calderon, own this issue completely. 2012 is little more than two years away and we are watching you. We are taking note of every time you do something to insult our intelligence, humiliate the Commonwealth or put party above the concerns and wishes of the people of Virginia.

Letter to Warner:

Mr. Warner, I am writing this letter to express my extreme disappointment, not to mention disgust, in the way you and your fellow Democrats applauded Mexican President Felipe Calderon as he hypocritically criticized a sovereign U.S. State, namely Arizona, for enacting a law meant to protect its citizens from a known threat. This display of anti-Americanism is not only inappropriate coming from a foreign leader addressing the National Legislature, but to have watched elected officials of the United States Congress applaud such hypocrisy was completely insulting. A little background is in order here. As you know, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted before a Senate committee that he had not read the Arizona law before he offered criticism of it. He further admitted that he only knew what he heard on TV news shows or read in newspapers. Well, we know that the major networks and major newspapers are more for pushing agendas than they are for reporting real news, thus it is easy to understand why Mr. Holder was so far off base in making his unfounded charges. Had Mr. Holder (and the various Democrat members of Congress, including yourself) done due diligence, he would have discovered that the Arizona law simply mirrors Federal law. According to Michael A. Zuckerman, a lawyer writing for CBS, “tucked away in Title 8 of the U.S. Code is a provision that expressly authorizes federal immigration officers, without a warrant, ‘to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.’ (See 8 U.S.C. 1357). This is eerily similar to the Arizona law.” Enforcement of U.S. immigration law is among the most lenient in the Americas. It is certainly more lenient than the immigration law enforcement in Mexico, and U.S. law enforcement officials are much more humane in the execution of their duties than are their Mexican counter-parts. For example: Amnesty International released a report on Mexico’s treatment of illegal aliens coming through its own southern border. Rupert Knox, Amnesty’s Mexico Researcher reported: “Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses. Persistent failure by the authorities to tackle abuses carried out against irregular migrants has made their journey through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world." These abuses include kidnapping for ransom, robbery and rape. Mexico's National Human Rights Commission reported in 2009 that nearly 10,000 were abducted over a six month period. Half of those victims indicated that public officials were involved in their kidnapping. Estimates are that six out of 10 migrant women and girls experience sexual violence at the hands of Mexican authorities. And yet, the man who oversees all of this saw fit to criticize United States immigration policy in front of a joint session of Congress? How bewildering is that? Even more bewildering is that you and your fellow Democrats gave this man approval of his hypocrisy by applauding him! I cannot think of anything more offensive or disgusting in regards to illegal immigration. I also cannot think of any reason why you Democrats would assume that average Americans like me wouldn’t see through the sham and not feel that our intelligence is being insulted. Why do you roll over like a submissive puppy when a foreign leader who has no integrity on the issue of illegal immigration maliciously insults the United States and you simply go along with your fellow Democrats because it somehow suits you to see the United States so wrongfully and viciously maligned? Why have you not called out your fellow Democrats and demanded to know why they rendered such honors to a man who oversees one of the worst human rights abuses in the Western Hemisphere while criticizing a much more humane and lenient U.S. system? Why have you not called out Attorney General Eric Holder for offering unjustified criticism on a bill that he hadn’t even read and which only mirrors Federal law which he, as “top cop,” is obligated to uphold? Why have you not demanded that the Obama administration enforce Federal law rather than unjustly criticize a U.S. State for daring to enforce a law which the Federal government has been overtly failing to enforce? I know that as a Democrat you will not do these things since your record clearly shows that you put party above principle and that the concerns of leftist special interests are more important to you than the concerns of the Commonwealth of Virginia. If I am wrong in this assumption, please prove it by publically stating your own disgust at the way the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress reacted to such a brutal display of anti-Americanism from President Calderon. Personally, I do not believe that you possess the courage or integrity to do any of these things and if you did anything at all, it would be mere lip-service and ultimately inconsequential. You haven’t shown any courage in the past when it comes to standing up to the wrong-doings of your own party and it doesn’t look like you will in the near future. I do not even believe that you will directly address any of the questions I ask in this letter in your response to me, that is, if you even respond at all. Also, I know that the major talking point of the Democrats is to say that “the Republicans did it.” This is a cop-out. The Democrats are in power now and, after applauding the hypocrite Calderon, own this issue completely. 2014 is not far away and we are watching you. We are taking note of every time you do something to insult our intelligence, humiliate the Commonwealth or put party above the concerns and wishes of the people of Virginia.

I'm not holding my breath for any kind of meaningful response from either one of these cowards.

Social Conservatives 'Mad As Hell' And Congress Gets An 'F'

If you are anything like me (and the fact that you are coming here and reading this blog usually means that you are, at least, a little like me) then you have been watching the GOP primary and seeing the front-runners go up and down like yo-yos. Not a very promising start to the 2008 campaign season, but at least it is entertaining.

That is where the positive spin ends. The GOP has a real problem, one that it has ignored for far too long. Paul Edwards' latest column explains what this problem is. There is a schism within the ranks of the GOP and no one seems willing to admit it or to do anything about it. But really, what can be done?

We are stuck between giving up our priciples in order to maintain a good economic status or giving up our fiscal beliefs in order to see our social ideas have a chance. Why can't we have both?

Edwards writes:

The Republican establishment has looked down its nose at social conservatives far too long, tolerating us because they need our votes. But now the tables are turned. The grass roots are looking up at the establishment with the will of a Lech Walesa, demanding that fiscal issues take a back seat to moral issues for a change. It’s long past time for the moral and social issues of our times to be given more than just lip service. It’s now time for our fiscal policies to be informed by our social policies rather than sacrificing our morality to our economic standing in the world. Don’t expect the Republican establishment to take this lying down. The New Media tanks are already rolling in to suppress the revolt.

So, which candidate is going to take advantage of this? I don't know. I just know that whomever follows the philosophies of the Republican Party most closely should win:

I'm a Republican Because... I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored. I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability. I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity. I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn. I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations, and that the best government is that which governs least. I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people. I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times. I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world. FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

You can access Mr. Edwards' complete column on-line here:

Social Conservatives Are “Mad As Hell”
Paul Edwards
TownHall.com
December 25, 2007

---

And now that the end of the year is close at hand, we can look back at what our Democrat controlled Congress has done and effectively grade them.

Here is what Jennifer Rubin has to say over at Human Events Online:

The Democrats in Congress, despite a year in the majority and facing a president whose approval ratings are historically low, have been spectacularly unsuccessful in achieving items both small and large on their agenda. A combination of overreaching and incompetence on their part and savvy prevent defense by President Bush and Congressional Republicans has spared the country untold grief. Most striking was the Democrats utter failure to live up to the key promise of their 2006 campaign: “ending the war in Iraq.” First, the Senate unanimously confirmed General Petreaus (who had committed to a Surge strategy) by an 81-0 vote in late January. Despite more than 60 votes to withdrawal or limit U.S. forces in Iraq, Democrats could not win a veto proof majority to begin retreat in Iraq. This included a 108-day fight over the Defense Department Supplemental spending bill. Although the demise of the “Surge” policy was widely anticipated in September, testimony by General Petreaus and Ambassador Croker shifted the tide -- with help from a backlash over the ludicrous and outlandish MoveOn.org attack on General Petreaus -- and drowned out Democrats demands that U.S. forces close up shop. ... Democrats also failed on other priorities held dear: federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, elimination of secret ballots for union elections, hate crime legislation protecting homosexuals (tucked into a defense authorization bill), voting rights for the District of Columbia, and government price setting for Medicare drugs. Even the pettiest of goals --working five days a week -- could not be achieved. On the SCHIP -- the Dems’ plan for a first middle-class entitlement program -- President Bush and Congressional Republican stared down the Democrats’ threats to expand this poverty program to millions of middle class Americans, not just the “children” that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid paraded before the cameras. On immigration after the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill failed Democrats could not even achieve victory on a more limited measure --yes, for the “children” -- the DREAM Act. They likewise failed to pass a separate immigration bill for agriculture. Although Democrats swore that hard line Republican views on immigration were a losing proposition and contributed to GOP losses in 2006, they had no stomach after the immigration fight for any more immigration “reform.” (“Blue Dog” Democrat Heath Shuler, who apparently learned a different lesson, did introduce an enforcement only measure which quickly gathered over a hundred co-sponsors.) ... Democrats got an energy bill, but not the one they envisioned. In June and again this month Republicans refused to agree to a bill that would have resulted in millions in new taxes for energy companies. Republican also achieved outright wins: a seven year extension of the internet tax ban and utter rejection of Charlie Rangel’s “mother of all tax bills” (which never received so much as a committee vote) that would have “solved” the alternative minimum tax issue by raising billions in new taxes. Democrats cherished “Pay Go” (their self imposed rule that all tax reductions must be “paid for”) just went.

And why did all of this happen?

First, the Democrats badly misinterpreted the results of the 2006 election. Had the vast majority of the country wanted amnesty, defeat in Iraq, socialized medicine and the like, the elected representatives in Congress on both sides of the aisle would have felt the heat and voted accordingly. Second, divided government may be a powerful argument for the GOP presidential nominee. If it were not for the presidential veto -- actual or threatened -- much of the Democratic agenda could well have slipped through. The GOP nominee will be greatly aided by a simple argument: “Do you want Nancy and Harry to have their way?” Finally, Republicans do best when they do not “split the baby” (e.g. give Rangel half of his tax increases) but instead say “no” and force Democrats to vote on measures unpalatable to most voters. In that regard, 2006 may have made 2008 a far easier year -- provided Republicans stick to their guns for one more year.

You can access Jennifer's complete column on-line here:

Democrats' 2007 Report Card
Jennifer Rubin
Human Events Online
December 21, 2007

And more evidence of a deserved 'F' comes from the Associated Press:

President Bush, successful in forcing the Democratic Congress to bend to his will, complained Thursday that lawmakers had wasted time and taxpayers' money. His aggressive stand set a confrontational tone for Bush's final year in the White House. Bush used a year-end news conference to scold lawmakers for stuffing 9,800 special-interest projects into a $550 billion spending measure. He directed his budget director to explore how to erase what Bush considers wasteful spending. What began as a troubling year for Bush, facing a new, energetic Democratic Congress, ended in triumph for the president as frustrated Democrats nursed their losses. Democrats failed in their No. 1 objective to stop the war in Iraq and bowed to Bush and his veto threats on tax policies, energy legislation, children's health insurance and general spending.

I seem to recall the Dems claiming back in 2004 and later on that President Bush was "stupid" or "dumb" or "not intelligent enough" for the Presidency.

Well, maybe someone should add up the collective IQs of the Dems in Congress and compare it to the IQ of President Bush, and then answer why the Dems lost so many intellectual fights.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Bush Says Congress Wasting Time, Money
Terrence Hunt
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
December 21, 2007