Immigration Laws

I have only heard so much and read a bit on this one, but there seems to be a whole lot of argument about how Arizona is facing off against federal law and so the president is attempting to sue the state. What really seems to be happening is that, a state that is overwhelmed historically by illegal immigration, is tired of waiting on the Feds to act on whatever laws exist and are attempting to regain their state for its indigenous people. Immigrants are anyone from outside a place. Note I haven't mentioned Mexicans. This is less about that than simply broken laws and the risk to Americans.

Another menacing reality pops up about now, in that it certainly can be argued that politically, in this ripe season of re-election fever and an administration salivating at every opportunity to keep twisting government to its new vision, and that every traditional democrat voter is needed to keep its goal within reach. Winning at any expense. Keep illegals coming and promos them whatever to get their votes. These separate people's, from all cultures and countries, need a government to feed them, clothe them, pay their medical bills and all on the backs of those awful rich Americans.

States like Arizona and others besieged by illegal immigration, by the way, the term guests is offensive, should have power to decide how to handle local issues like these. We are not back in time turning our faces from the horrors the Irish faced in the New York area for instance. No one is pushing for violence or lynching, but for stronger enforcement of our original immigration laws and if states be allowed, let them get on it.

Certainly we should all be somewhat concerned that after 9/11 out borders would by now be a whole lot tighter, but in some areas even in Texas, cartels are shooting it up as I write this...on our soil.

Agreeing to Disagree Blog response on "A Boost to Obama's Confidence"

Our author is living the same dream as the democrat party with this feeling that things are going better and that if the polls say things are better than they are. The economy is not getting better because of anything this administration is doing, but I am not attempting to argue about recent history and stats. rather, if only we the people could get straight facts so that we could actually make a decision based in fact and not on feelings and polls and suppositions about who started what and why we are the way we are economically now versus then. 

Facts are that if those with means got tax relief then they would be more likely to invest in business that would invest in workers. When we tax those with money only to give to those who stand by to take what they feel is owed them, then we all run out of money and nobody produces anything. This is evident in other countries, like Greece today, and we have shown it in America in our own past, but nobody wants to look at history. That is old news, right?

Stop whining about how they are immature. Both parties act like their current constituents. Both are acting like children with too much money and power and it needs to stop for the sake of the country and our future as a real free and representative country.

Reply to Ageeing to Disagree

Our author is living the same dream as the democrat party with this feeling that things are going better and that if the polls say things are better than they are. The economy is not getting better because of anything this administration is doing, but I am not attempting to argue about recent history and stats. rather, if only we the people could get straight facts so that we could actually make a decision based in fact and not on feelings and polls and suppositions about who started what and why we are the way we are economically now versus then. 

Facts are that if those with means got tax relief then they would be more likely to invest in business that would invest in workers. When we tax those with money only to give to those who stand by to take what they feel is owed them, then we all run out of money and nobody produces anything. This is evident in other countries, like Greece today, and we have shown it in America in our own past, but nobody wants to look at history. That is old news, right?

Stop whining about how they are immature. Both parties act like their current constituents. Both are acting like children with too much money and power and it needs to stop for the sake of the country and our future as a real free and representative country.

http://agreeing2disagree.blogspot.com/2012/02/boost-in-obamas-confidence.html#comment-form

Syria and US Military

This is a real hot tomato of an issue concerning US involvement or not.

Senator John McCain , military veteran, etc, concisely notes,
"President Obama has stated that preventing mass atrocities is a vital part of our national security policy. He has said that the killing in Syria must stop and that Assad must go. Assad is the current "President" in Syria. If that is the case, we must take action to make those words a reality. How many more must die before we act?
Beyond the moral and humanitarian reasons for intervening in Syria, we have a clear national security interest in stopping the killing and forcing Assad from power. The Assad regime is Iran's main ally. It is a state sponsor of terrorism that has developed weapons of mass destruction. It is a threat to Israel, and helped foreign terrorists enter Iraq during the war, where they killed U.S. troops. Assad has the blood of Americans on his hands." notes McCain.

But critics of military intervention and republicans, and US involvement cry about what if's .... What if we go? Will it be another Vietnam, or Iraq, or whatever. Of course, measured action is appreciated and we don't want to actually be going off half cocked! At the same time, Syria is Irans' number one ally and the horrors brought upon the people who oppose Assad , yeah not rebels.  Note the word rebels was used to describe Luke and Han Solo, ok a Star Wars reference, but to make the point - one mans rebel is the others hero.  But Assad is a real bad actor and sponsors terror. Not cool.

I think McCain is close, and the nay sayers, those who want to put heads in the sand, should at least take a hard look at what is happening. If only there was serious news coverage of world events so the masses could learn some truth. Well it doesn't exist in America as far as I can tell, but they're close on the BBC world news.

The bad guys, fanatical zealots, are amassing power and killing anybody they oppose over there. They have powerful weapons, even chemical weapons. In another case we believed they had the same and it was enough to fire us up to go. Unread out to be untrue, so we cower at the prospect of f'ing up again and looking stupid on the world stage. Well this case is way more clear. They DO have these weapons and are whacking people, children too.

Is there a right answer? Or just another excuse for debaters and politicians to babble through the time of action?

Maureen Dowd writes in her op Ed that the battle of the sexes is in trouble. Or at least I think she does.
The open repeats Hillary Clinton's speech at the World Summit about women's continuing struggle for equality in the world, but then her report quickly takes a hard left turn into a complete scathing attack on the republican party.

She sites current extreme contextually relevant items to use as ammunition to attack republican "cavemen" to use her words, as if they have an agenda to reduce women to third world status.

This piece seemingly starts off as an exposé on women leaders in the world, ie Clinton, and dives into an attack on republicans, finally jumping the shark with
an out of left field fantasy about how Clinton would make the ultimate vice president candidate who then could be the perfect presidential candidate in 2016.

Clearly Dowd's audience is the hard leftist NOW contingent, and not the Rush Limbaugh crowd, pointing to his nickname for her, yet forgetting the reality that during her husband's political career, she overlooked his constant transgressions thus showing all women how one clearly must support her man. Please!

Dowd should really stop cutting and pasting incongruous snippets to make her weak points and try if she can, to make her point clear. She believes the democrats can do no wrong, that republicans are monsters bent on taking away all our rights and freedoms and she believes Hillary Clinton is somehow perfectly suited - no pun intended - to be our leader.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/dowd-dont-tread-on-us.html?hpw

How to buy a President

Super PAC’s and how the very rich are buying the elections. This NY Times editorial seems to be coming from the left as it mostly points to big donors to republican candidates.

This author is clearly attempting to argue that the conservatives are getting unfair and unbalanced investments by donations all the while, it is noted, Obama is innocent of any wrongdoing and has only gotten a few dollars. Then goes on to say that he too might be falling into the easy money trap showing us the author isn't really biased, but clearly is.
In addition, the author seems to grab at straws while making salient points about the potential failings of the system, to wave a very particular point about a donor’s personal view regarding uses for aspirin. Really quite an odd point.

But a strong point is made that an elite few interested parties certainly do have opportunities with the system set up today as it is, to influence politicians to see their way. Super PAC’s are entities that are designed to take in money and then spit it to a candidate as if it wasn't from an individual.

Individuals are limited as to how much they can give to politicians so as to keep money launderers or criminals or power brokers from buying power. Now they can just go through these intermediaries to give as much as they want.

The link below you will find the argument the author is trying to make.  Makes for an interesting read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/opinion/donors-with-agendas.html?ref=editorials

Woman In Combat

The Pentagon announced today that woman would be formally permitted in crucial and dangerous jobs in combat, but not officially allowed to be in combat.  What?!  Oh come on make up your mind.  Woman already serve in many of those jobs but as temporary "attachments" to battalions as medics, tank mechanics, radio operators and other critical jobs.  For instance in Afghanistan and Iraq, these temporary jobs were a bureaucratic sidestep that has been necessary due to the high demand for troops in the last ten years of war.  The Pentagons new rules make permanent these existing arrangments and are simply playing catch up.  Bans to woman serving in the infantry, in combat tank units, and in special ops for woman to advance in a military career, they need to be recognized that they really have a role in combat.  The current policy does not recognize this role and are therefore holding back woman from advancing.  I'm sure that many still believe that one reason why woman should not these combat roles in the military is because woman aren't strong or emotionally able to handle it. But weren't not talking about a entire battalion of woman.  What we are talking about are the women who have interest and the ablility to perform in these roles.  Many are mentally and physically capable to perform at the same or even better levels as some men.  The point is, a lot of women will leave the service if they realize they're career is limited, and yet some of the old stereo types persist.
The link below brings on a strong argument I feel interesting:
www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/us/pentagon-to-loosen-restrictions-on-woman-in-combat.html