Security is coming for the Southern Border - of Mexico

OK, at first I thought this story was just not true. Then I did some digging. What I dug up was totally confounding and upsetting. I cannot believe that President Bush would even propose this or that anyone in Washington D.C. would even seriously consider it.

Rush Limbaugh was on this a few days ago.



Rush is not the only one on this. There are a number of reports and stories on this issue which leaves me to ask a simple question. Why isn't the main stream media on this story? Could it be that they don't want you, the American public to know? Of course that is their goal but some of their lesser outlets like those below, are spilling the beans.

Bear Creak Ledger

World Net Daily

Michelle Malkin

This is not a conservative idea. We need to be spending that money on securing OUR Southern border with Mexico. Hell, we know where all those Central American illegals are going. They are not staying in Mexico for long. They are just passing through because they are heading for our southern border and will end up in our southern states and then the rest of the country.

We need to secure our borders now.

Your World Wide Web Freedom is in Jepordy

Big phone and cable companies are trying to get rid of Network Neutrality, the principle that protects our ability go where we want and do what we chose online. More than 1.5 million Save the Internet : Fighting for Internet Freedom supporters are fighting to keep the Internet free and open for everyone.


How does this threat to Internet freedom affect you? Such corporate control of the Web would reduce your choices and stifle the spread of innovative and independent ideas that we've come to expect online. It would throw the digital revolution into reverse. Internet gatekeepers are already discriminating against Web sites and services they don't like:

• In October 2007, the Associated Press busted Comcast for blocking its users' access to peer-to-peer file-sharing networks like BitTorrent and Gnutella. This fraudulent practice is a glaring violation of Net Neutrality.
• In September 2007, Verizon was caught banning pro-choice text messages. After a New York Times expose, the phone company reversed its policy, claiming it was a glitch.
• In August 2007, AT&T censored a live webcast of a Pearl Jam concert just as lead singer Eddie Vedder criticized President Bush.
• In 2006, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned EchoDitto -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
• In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.
• In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
• Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace.

This is just the beginning. Cable and telco giants want to eliminate the Internet's open road in favor of a tollway that protects their status quo while stifling new ideas and innovation.

What they've got planned
The threat to an open internet isn't just speculation -- we've seen what happens when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. These companies, even, have said as much about their plans to discriminate online. According to the Washington Post:

William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.

He's not alone. Ed Whitacre of AT&T told BusinessWeek:

Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

By far the most significant evidence regarding the network owners' plans to discriminate is their stated intent to do so. As Verizon's Ivan Seidenberg told the Wall Street Journal:

We have to make sure they don't sit on our network and chew up our capacity. We need to pay for the pipe.

Network Neutrality advocates are not imagining a doomsday scenario. We are taking the telecom execs at their word.

Who will be affected?

Small businesses -- The little guy will be left in the "slow lane" with inferior Internet service, unable to compete.

Innovators with the next big idea -- Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay Internet providers for the top spots on the Web.

Bloggers -- Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips -- silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets.

Google users -- Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee another search engine opens faster than Google on your computer.

Ipod listeners -- A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service it owns.

Online shoppers -- Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices -- distorting your choices as a consumer.

Telecommuters -- When Internet companies like AT&T favor their own services, you won't be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your office.

Parents and retirees -- Your choices as a consumer could be controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, planning vacations, etc.

Political groups -- Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay "protection money" for their Web sites and online features to work correctly.

Nonprofits -- A charity's website could open at snail-like speeds, and online contributions could grind to a halt if nonprofits don't pay Internet providers for access to "the fast lane."

This is nothing more than an attempt at limiting your freedom and your access not to mention if you make your living online, you will be hit hard. You cannot let this happen. Vote for people who support Net Neutrality. Do it now.

Thanks to an online friend who supplied some of the information on this post.

A Closed Public Debate?

It looks like one of the rare Democrat debates between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be a closed door session. Now why in the hell would the Democrats want a closed debate?

What exactly is a closed debate, Democrat style? Well, it looks like only Clinton and Obama campaign, the University of Texas, the Texas Democrat Party and CNN and the major US Spanish speaking network, Univision. So yes, with a crowd like this you know there will be no serious questions and there will be lots of standing ovations to answers that really are no answers at all.

This kind of debate is for those in academia and the liberal press. This will not shed any new light into what these two candidates think. We already know what they think and believe and what they want to do when they get into office.

The question will be who can out liberal each other. Well to be honest, Obama has that one in the bag. Barack has given few if any real details on his plans for the economy or Iraq other than to pander to the left with great flowery speeches that make you feel good but in the end, leave you feeling empty.

Why would you feel empty? Because Barack doesn't tell you what he is going to do or how is planning on doing it. I am sure if he wins the Democrat nomination he will have to start being more deliberate and insightful in his answers to how he is going to accomplish his lofty goals. At least I would hope that John McCain would not let him (or Hillary) get away with being superficial on their policies.

The point is, this is typical Democrat politics. Keep the public out because they are too stupid to know whats best for them. Only the academic world and the press know what the right questions to ask are. Only the people in high ivory towers are good enough to get close to the candidates and ask questions of substance. Oh wait. If real people are not allowed into the debate arena, there will not be real questions asked that real people care about.

What you will hear at this debate is how President Bush has screwed up the war on terror and the battle in Iraq. What you will hear is how Bush and his friends caused the mortgage crisis. What you will hear is that the rich are to blame for our economy and they should be taxed higher and how those who don't pay any taxes need a tax break. What you will hear is we have a health care crisis even though we have the most efficient and admired health care system in the world. What you will hear is how there needs to be universal health care and the cost be damned.

You wont hear any logic in this debate. You wont hear how they truly intend to pay for all their programs. You wont hear how their social programs now in place have failed to produce the results they (the Democrats and Liberals) promised. You wont hear how their control of Congress has led to the lowest approval rating in history. You wont hear any thing substantial or meaningful. And you surely wont hear either candidate tell the truth about how they feel about each other.

Hillary hates Barack. He is an uppity black man who doesn't know his place. Barack hates Hillary because she is just a back stabbing power grabbing white trash bitty from the south. Well maybe this debate will be worth watching after all. Then again, I think I have to file my cats teeth so I will be too busy.

Romney endorses McCain no Suprise

Romney endorses McCain for President. Is this a surprise to anyone? It is not a surprise at all. Who else was Romney going to endorse? Did anyone think he would endorse the man who hurt him so badly? I am talking about Huckabee, of course.

There is no love lost between Huckabee and Romney. In fact if Huckabee were the leading candidate instead of McCain, Romney would still endorse McCain.

Of course Romney would not and will not support either of the Democrat candidates and he will not endorse the like of Ron Paul. So this thing about Mitt giving his backing to Mac is no surprise. Plus Romney is truly about making sure that the Republicans unite and push forth a more conservative agenda.

This has happened a little in this campaign. McCain has changed (at least he says he has) some of his positions on things like taxes and immigration. I think you will see McCain move even more to the right in order to please the conservative base and to get the Huckabee camp on his side. Will McCain truly believe in his move to the right?

That is something that will have to be seen but make no mistake, if elected, McCain will not be able to easily get away with not living up to his conservative promises. But for now, it's McCain who will have the nod to run for the Republicans. Having Romney's endorsement will help him but McCain will still have to convince Romney's conservative voters that he can be their candidate for conservative change.

The House of Reprehensibles still doing nothing

Today, the House of Reprehensibles voted for contempt of Congress charges on two of President Bush's aids. Josh Bolton and Harriet Miers were held in contempt because they are accused of failing to testify and refused Congress' demands for documents related to the 2006 and 2007 Justice Department firings.

This is totally reprehensible because there are more pressing issues that this do-nothing congress needs to be focusing on. Economic issues. Energy issues. National security issues. They all have more importance than this notion that Bush fired a host of prosecutors simply for political reasons.

First of all, of course it was political. What in Washington, D.C., is not political? Did the Republicans hold endless hearings on Bill Clinton's White House because of over 700 missing FBI files? No. We still don't know what happened to all those files.

This is nothing more than a witch hunt. Make no mistake about it. The Democrats are still upset about Republicans Impeaching Bill Clinton back in the 90's. The Democrats are still angry that the rule of law prevailed and Bush won the White House back in 2000. Then Democrats are 0 – 2 and they resent it big time.

They have been trying so hard to “nail” George Bush that they investigate “Ken Star” style and still they can't find any dirt. The best they can do is catch someone in a lie and then its because the person who they accuse of lying agreed to cooperate. So don't expect people to run to a Democrat controlled House and be willing to cooperate. They know they will be asked question on top of question and each time they will be looking for even the smallest “lie” in order to pounce and take them to trial.

This is what happened to “Scooter” Libby. He cooperated and low and behold, he was caught in a small lie and wham, he finds himself getting convicted of purgery. Didn't Bill Clinton commit purgery while sitting in a court room? Yes he did and every body knows he did. But is Clinton sitting in a jail, where he belongs? No.

This Congress has an approval rating hovering just above 10% and they think they are doing the business of the people? Of course not. They are doing exactly what they accuse Bush of doing. They are playing politics.

Everyone in the Federal Departments serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States. He is charged with making sure those departments function. The president has every right, as the Chief Executive Officer of the country to hire and fire whomever he chooses. So yes, the president has the right to hire and fire based on a persons politics. After all if a person will not do what the president want, just like in private business, he has a right to replace that person to do what he feels is the right thing.

So if President Bush had a number of Democrat prosecutors fired, it is because they did not do their jobs to the satisfaction of the president. He had every right to fire them. In fact Bill Clinton fired nearly the entire staff of the Justice Department when he first entered office. But we did not hear a peep from the Democrats then.

So why is it that this congress feels it needs to hold a couple of low level aids in contempt. Well actually its about the only thing they have been able to accomplish since taking the majority. Now I wonder who is playing politics.

Your Home is Your Castle as it Should Be

Texas. Things are big in Texas. They have big horns, big ideas, big oil, big cities, big ranches and big bold laws. One of these laws is getting some attention around the country and will no doubt get more attention as time goes by.

Texas already has one of the most generous concealed weapons laws on the books. In fact from what I hear from friends and family who live and work in Texas or visit the Lone Star State, it seems there are often people who walk around with their guns on their hips like back in the Old West.

I have seen pictures of bikers with their big hog type bikes fully decked out with all the bells and whistles and the rider being fully decked out to match their bike along with one other accessory, a couple of pearl handled six shooters strapped to both sides.

It must be noted that since Texans regained the right to carry out in the open again, violent crime has plummeted. But this post is not about the Texas carry law. Its about the right of a person to defend their property and themselves.

The Texas Castle Law, as it is commonly known, went into effect back in September of 2007. And it is now getting the attention of liberals and lawmakers all across the country. But what is this law? Here is how Gov Rick Perry puts it:

Gov. Rick Perry today signed into law Senate Bill 378, extending Texans’ rights to use deadly force for means of self-defense, without retreat, in their home, vehicle or workplace. The law takes effect Sept. 1, 2007.

“The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature,” said Gov. Perry. “Today, I am proud to sign the Castle Law which allows Texans to not only protect themselves from criminals, but to receive the protection of state law when circumstances dictate that they use deadly force.

“I thank Senator Jeff Wentworth, Representative Joe Driver and the Texas Legislature for their dedication to ensuring Texans’ rights to self-defense.”

In 1995, the Texas Legislature created an exception to a 1973 statute, which required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception allowed a person to use force without retreat when an intruder unlawfully entered their home. Senate Bill 378 extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:

• Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;

• Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or

• Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.

The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in the above circumstances. The use of deadly force is not lawful when it is used to provoke or if a crime other than a Class C misdemeanor is committed by the victim.

Texas is not the first state to enact such a law. In fact these laws are new in the USA. Florida was the first state to enact such a law but it did not do so until 2005. Other states have enacted this law in some form since 2005 and a few more state, including my home state of New Hampshire, are considering such laws.

First there should not be a need for such a law on the books because a person should be able to defend their person, their property without the fear of recourse or prosecution. It is sad that liberals have so watered down our own ability to defend ourselves that such laws must now be enacted to spell out this basic right.

Man all throughout history has had the ability to defend themselves and their property with deadly force if need be, without fear of general prosecution. This is something, this law, that every state needs to get on the band wagon and enact.

I would go so far as to say this is something that should be enacted on a Federal level. Every man, woman and child has the right to protect themselves and their property and should be able to do so without fear of prosecution or being sued by the perpetrator or their families. This is sensible law. This is logical law. This is fair law.

Read more about it:

Wikipedia

Clinton Machine Crashes

It looks like the Clinton Machine is crashing and burning. Hillary has loaned her campaign 5 million dollars. She has fired her campaign manager. She is conceding certain states to Obama in order to concentrate on states with more delegates.

Clinton is also pissed. This is the woman whom every one had anointed the next President of the USA. But then came along a challenger whom she dismissed at first. But no matter what she did, this skinny upstart from the state of IL would not go away.

In fact he pushed forward and even began winning. This was not supposed to happen. Hillary was o the ropes. She was so badly bruised that she even tried to cry on national TV. That ploy backfired. She tried putting forth a more "human" side. Nobody believed it. Many Americans view her still as an Ice Queen.

The big test was last week when most political pundits, up until the last minute, kept saying it was going to be a decisive victory for Clinton. It was not. In fact Obama made inroads. Obama built more momentum. Obama began looking like he could and would win the nomination.

Hillary brought out her husband Bill who tried to hammer on Obama. It didn't work. Hillary brought out her daughter, Chelsea, to try and woo the young and college vote. It didn't work either.

What will Hillary try and do now? Her negatives are still nearly twice that of President Bush even though some polls suggest that if the election were today she would edge out Republican McCain. This is highly unlikely since McCain has far lower negative numbers than Hillary.

What we will see is Hillary getting nasty. What we will see is the Clinton machine trying to get back in gear and try and tear Obama a new one. There is already some evidence of this. Clinton is hinting that Obama is taking money from lobbyist and giving them breaks and perks. As if the Clintons' are not the masters of paying off their lobbyist friends.

Sunday Brief 2 10 2008

Barack is on a roll or is he? It looks like Obama swept the 5 state primary/caucus yesterday. But did he really make gains on Hillary on the delegate count? Yes and no. There were not a whole lot of delegates up for grabs but since the two Democrats are nearly even in the count, every single delegate is going to count.

Next big steps will be in the states of Texas, Ohio and PA. But can Obama pick up those states? Can he win? Some polls suggest that if Obama were the Democrat nominee, that he would beat McCain.

Other polls suggest that Obama's lack of being specific about anything will hurt him in the general election because he has a very small record to lean back on. McCain has a huge record and that record seems to harm him when it comes to conservatives. But this is where Obama will have a tough time as well.

He will need to get specific about his plans. Inspiring and pretty speeches will not cut it when you have an opponent who presses you for specifics. Obama has not had to deal with that yet. Clinton won't press Obama on specifics for fear of having to give greater details on her own plans.

The who strategy here is, less is more for now. These Democrats are afraid to let you know there specific plans. Why? Remember a decade ago when Hillary was trying to get Hillary-care passed? Americans got the details and said no with a loud and deep voice.

She and Obama know that if they get specific on their plans, the American people will run away again. This is where a good strong Republican can win. McCain, despite his own liberal record, can win over conservatives and independents simply by getting Hillary and Barack to get specific about their plans and policies. Until that happens, we will have more flowery speeches and rallies by the two Democrats. there won't be anything relevant.
****

• The wealthiest 1%, in 2003, earned 14% of the income and paid 35% of all individual income taxes.

• By comparison, the bottom 60% of all taxpayers earn 28% of all income and pay just 1% of all individual income taxes.

This should dispel the notion that the rich don't pay their fair share or that the rich need to pay more in taxes. We already know that the higher income earners help the economy and those at the lower end of the economy as well.

Many people who earn under $36,$15per year do so in an industry that caters to those who earn more than $150,000 per year. These high earners buy stuff. They buy lots of stuff. They get services. They get lots of services. So people who sell or service the high earners depend on those high earners to spend that money. If they don't have as much money because of higher taxes then those people who depend on them will suffer and they will suffer big time.

How do you keep the economy going strong? Simple, you first cut the taxes on the people who have the money to spend. Then you cut the taxes on every other economic group that pays taxes. When people have money to spend, they will spend it and those people on the lower end of the economic ladder will benefit and will not need government services as much or at all.

Now do the Democrats really want to help the "less fortunate" or do they just want to pay lip service? You be the judge.
****

Waterboarding continues to be a hot topic on the political landscape. The UN (and we all know how reputable and fair the UN is) says that waterboarding is torture and needs to be halted in the USA.

The media has been focusing on this issue for months as well. Obviously, the media in general is against waterboarding. Why? Simply because it works without harming the individual being questioned. But many Americans, if you ask them, will tell you they are against waterboarding. Ask those same Americans if they know exactly what it is and they cannot tell you except they heard it was something bad.

I'm here to tell you that I have found out what this form of interrogation is and found it to not be torture at all. Interrogation is nothing but a mind game anyway and waterbording is a form of a mind game. If it gets people to talk and it does not physically harm another the person being interrogated, then it should be used.

Waterboarding, if done properly is a good, none lethal, non harmful way to extract information from an individual. And waterboarding has been proven to be far less harmful mentally than other forms of interrogation such as sensory deprivation.

Want to know more about waterbording? Go here:
How Stuff Works
Wikipedia
Waterboarding.org