Duncan Hunter is Right
Posted in Public Affairs, Money Matters, wordpress, Politics, Immigration, conservative, Law, Justice, Freedom, Border Control, Legislation, Military, Abortion, Rep Duncan D Hunter on May 4th, 2010 by Stanford MatthewsReal Immigration Reform Starts with Border Security and Stronger Enforcement
Published in the Ramona Sentinel
Now that health care legislation has been finalized, the Obama Administration and Congressional leaders have hinted at the possibility of moving forward with illegal immigration reform sometime this year. The prospect is still uncertain but one thing is clear. Any attempt at reform that does not make enforcement a priority will fall short in addressing the real problems with illegal immigration and should be opposed outright.
The more responsible approach is straightforward: secure our nation’s borders, starting with the U.S.-Mexico land border, and strengthen the enforcement of existing immigration laws.
It is no surprise that proponents of immigration reform have focused their energy on pushing an agenda that encompasses amnesty and open borders. What they seemingly fail to recognize is that the violence and destruction that is common along the Southern border is often the result of inadequate enforcement and policies that encourage illegal entry – including the prospect of amnesty.
More than 8,000 people were killed due to violence on the U.S.-Mexico border last year alone, far surpassing the number of deaths attributable to insurgent activity in Iraq and Afghanistan since the start of combat operations.
from Hunter’s bio….
Hunter is a strong conservative who is committed to strengthening national security, enforcing our borders, creating opportunities for American workers and protecting the interests of taxpayers. He is also a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, protecting traditional marriage and the rights of the unborn.
Given the roll call vote (number 165) for March 21, 2010 with a time stamp of 10:49PM in the US House of Representatives the fat lady may not have sung yet on the outcome of healthcare legislation but the situation looks rather dismal.
Another in a long list of additions to the Obama Administration reinforces the concern that while Hillary Rodham Clinton was unsuccessful in becoming President she succeeded in establishing a third Clinton term in spite of the loss. Susan Rice is US Ambassador to the United Nations and was a member of the Obama Biden Transition Team as well as senior foreign policy adviser for their 2008 campaign.
Madeleine Albright is described in the same account as a family friend and mentor to Rice. She urged Clinton to appoint Rice as an Assistant Secretary of State in 1997. While she impressed many and certainly enough to be confirmed others felt she was inexperienced and inflexible. A few years in the Clinton Administration and then to the Brookings Institution. A common career path for unemployed public servants similar to former Congressman becoming lobbyists. Next up the Clinton Obama Wars and filling the Administration with former staff to appease the Clinton clan before the convention. Oh there’s no nepotism here. And this is not a criticism directed at Rice for it is the case with most if not all Obama selections. So how is that working or shaping up for the average citizen?
Translation:: The money is used to pay for abortions the ‘patient’ cannot afford which would lead to back alley practitioners who care less about the patient than the liberals care about the unborn child. And ‘family planning’ is liberal-speak for abortion. The only reason they support contraception is political. It gives them another pork item to support in legislation and lets them believe they have convinced you they are trying to do things the right way. Could it be any more pathetic?
From the standpoint of ‘rights’ those who approve of abortion typically refer to it as a ‘woman’s right to choose’ and those reject it defend the rights of the child to live. In the Mexico City Policy debate those who oppose the policy say it not only denies money to NGOs who provide abortion but other contraceptive methods as well. And of course opponents of abortion who favor the policy typically indicate pro-choice advocates support abortion as a barbaric after-the-fact solution for irresponsible behavior and a failure to accept the consequences of their actions.
from the SF Chronicle and Tammy Bruce, author of ‘The New American Revolution’ comes the following excerpt. 
Tammy Bruce as a former president of the LA Chapter of NOW, an advocate for pro-choice as well as other liberal issues does hint at a takeover the world mentality. Pursuit of personal wealth, power and political influence sounds much like other self-centered, self-righteous, selfish, egotistical idealogues that litter the landscape. This was to be a post celebrating the fact that even fringe left wing liberals may make the move to the GOP ticket because of Sarah Palin. But upon reflection, having persons with agendas so foreign to those in the right, conservative right voting for a conservative ticket seems somehow, I dunno, WRONG.
It is one report on speculation about Sarah Palin’s effect on voters or more correctly, asks a question on what her effect will be. Specifically from the standpoint of those who supported Hillary Clinton and perhaps the gender vote. As an aside, while preparing this post other sources of this AP report were viewed with an interesting result. The links to the sources are offered below the AP report excerpt. KGET in ‘the Bay Area’ and KRON have what can only be a truncated or edited version of the AP report. The content they provided along with the original AP report title convey a much different idea than the original. And the MSM wonders why they are being criticized. (more on that later)
If there are the now famous 18 million Clinton voters from the primary elections and 20%, or 3.6 million are not voting for Obama, that could mean McCain/Palin had close to 4 million of Obama’s party voting for them simply by announcing the selection of Palin or even without her on the ticket. But that is the problem with bits and pieces of polling data. It always leaves you needing more information about the data and it is hard to tell what significance, if any, is demonstrated by polling data.
Which brings to mind one of the fine examples of the few remaining journalistic practitioners on the planet; George Will. If you already read columns by George Will you need no prodding by this blog to continue. If you are not familiar or have not read his material, you should. The style of writing alone is enough to bring back readers. Combine that with inspiring viewpoints, apparent knowledge and historical references provided, George Will is a must read. In these days with an abundance of media hacks, it suggests there may be hope for journalism yet. (Okay, enough uncompensated plugging for George Will)
Palin’s name was largely ignored by the MSM as being on McCain’s short list for VP but it was out there. For the NYT (and others) to claim her selection was such a shocker and that Obama’s staff was not smart enough to prepare for her is simply an excuse. To deflect criticism that the media dropped the ball on this one as well as the Obama campaign. The same campaign staff Obama has to chastise regularly for mistakes caused by the annointed one’s inability to manage them. And he wants to be President.
If directed by party leaders or simply as a tactic to avoid taking a stand on issues Senator Barack Obama tends to vote ‘present’. From abortion to porn sales to treating children as adults in the criminal justice system Obama may say one thing on the stump and fail to back up his ‘words’ with action. Even on legislation viewed as bipartisan, the Senator from Illinois boasts his power to bring people together yet only votes ‘present’. Voting ‘present’ on abortion bills while publicly criticizing abortion legislation in South Dakota gives credence to the allegation that Obama changes his stand depending on the audience.
