The Right of a Nation

Obama recently praised the career of Helen Thomas, despite her recent anti-jew comments, according to The Hill.

There has long been a tradition in society, especially in politics and the media, of dismissing a person entirely once it appears that they could even possibly be a racist.  Unless you’re a Democrat.  Compare comments and reactions from Trent Lott and Harry Reid.  Now add Helen Thomas.

So apparently it’s OK to make racist/prejudiced comments, especially if it is only Jews that are being smeared.

Helen Thomas was recently videotaped saying Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and go back to Germany and Poland, so of course Obama came to her defense today saying that she has had “a remarkable career.”

I’m sure it pained Obama to even have to publicly disagree with her comments of Jews.

I was reading ESPN magazine the other day and was reading the “Two-Way” column by Stuart Scott.  In the column, he was asked by a reader

“Should MLB remove the All Star game from Arizona if they keep their new immigration law?”

Well, my wife accidentally threw my magazine out, so I don’t have his exact response, and I can’t seem to find it online anywhere.  Basically, he said that they should definitely take a look at the law and possibly remove the All Star game in response to the law.  He also said something about the fact that they should probably remove the All Star game because of the fact that the MLB is made up of a lot of immigrants.

This is a common theme that I’ve seen a lot among MLB players/coaches, etc.  First of all though, these opponents to the immigration law get one thing wrong – just because someone is against illegal immigration does not mean that they are against immigration in general.  Everyone in America is an immigrant in some form.  We understand that.  We support that.  We love that about America.  A group of people immigrated to what is now America in order to live in a place where they could have all of the freedoms that we enjoy today, and damn it that is what they did.  So not everyone that opposes illegal immigration is against immigration in all forms.  But that is an easy accusation to throw around, just like it’s easy for people to say that if you disagree with Obama then you are a racist.

I’ve said time and time again, it needs to be harder to get into America illegally and easier to get into America legally.

Anyway, to be honest, I really don’t see where these guys are coming from.  They are going about this all wrong.  The law in Arizona is not even really a law – it’s already illegal for someone to be in America illegally. Right?  Get it?  All Arizona is saying is that they are going to do what many other states and the country as a whole are not doing, and that is enforce that law.  So these MLB players (and other opponents to the law) are suggesting that laws should not be enforced?

If they disagree with this “law,” they should be out pushing for the removal of any type of immigration policy in America.  They should be supporting a policy where anyone and everyone can enter America and do so legally, because if they are against a policy of enforcing immigration laws then that is what they support.

Really, to be honest, I’m not even 100% sure where I stand on this law.  On one hand, I think illegal immigration is a big problem and something definitely needs to be done about it.  However, I’m definitely not a member of the “papers please” crowd.  I don’t really have a full understanding on what process the Arizona law is going to have in place for finding out who is illegal and who is not.  And I’m really not sure what is the right way.  But I’m also not like these others who hear “immigration law enforcement” and start screaming RACIST! and so on.

I’ve said it time and time again, but why are the politicians who use the term “teabagger” never asked to explain what it means?  (yes I know the answer is because they are liberal Democrats)

Obama is now using the term publicly, according to the Washington Times.

The term “tea-bagger” is like uttering the “n” word, some say. Though he aspires to promote civility, evidence has surfaced that President Obama has added “tea-bagger” to his public lexicon, though it’s considered a cheap and tawdry insult by “tea party” activists.

How could anyone not consider it a “cheap and tawdry insult?”  Anyone who knows what the term means knows that it is a “cheap and tawdry insult,” you idiot (whoever wrote this article, don’t feel like re-opening the link to find out).

I can’t remember any other time that it was perfectly OK for politicians to publicly use such a foul, crude, sexual term and not be questioned about it, but hey, there have been a lot of firsts with this administration.

Amazingly, this was found on CNN.  This is something else that is about a week old, but again, I’m running way behind on time with both a new job and a new baby.

Anyway,

The recovery is picking up steam as employers boost payrolls, but economists think the government’s stimulus package and jobs bill had little to do with the rebound, according to a survey released Monday.

In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years — but a majority of respondents felt the fiscal stimulus had no impact.

So basically, like we all know and predicted, the ~$750 billion spent on the “stimulus” has done nothing and has little to no effect on the economy and its “recovery.”  This can also be seen in a study by Gallup that shows the creation of jobs by the Federal Government significantly outpaces the private sector.

So basically Obama’s effect so far, both with the stimulus and other legislation, has been to shrink the private sector and grow the government.  And don’t think that this just happened to be a side effect of his actions – it is the goal.

I know I’m way behind on this, but I just wanted to make note of it.

As commented on at Politico, Obama has gotten desperate and come out and openly played the race card by calling on “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

Big surprise, but he somehow left out middle aged and older white people.  I guess technically maybe he did include young white people though, but I guess that is questionable.  He really could have been more direct though by just coming out and saying “white people, I am not interested in your vote and plan on doing nothing you should want to vote for anyway.”

Obviously though this isn’t big news in the media.  It’s what the self hating white liberals love.  Actually, some of them may read that quote and say “wait a second, that’s really weird and seems really wrong for him to say.  Oh well though, he’s a liberal Democrat so I agree with whatever he says!  And anyway, he’s so charismatic!”

According to Bloomberg, Obama wants Washington to create some sort of immigration reform, and he really dislikes Arizona’s recent efforts (big surprise).

In fact, it’s really more of the “only I (and Washington D.C.) can do anything right, you people and your states don’t have the right to decide what you want for yourself” that was exhibited by Obama in the Obamacare deal.

“Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others,” Obama said at a Rose Garden naturalization ceremony for 24 members of the U.S. military. “That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.”

So if there isn’t a law or bill or some sort of control on every subject at the federal level, and the states or the people (or anything at a “weaker level”) get a hold of it, he believes they will just screw it up.

Obama disagrees with Arizona’s new law that makes it illegal for someone to be living in their state who is in the U.S. illegally, as redundant as that sounds.  He says that it is not “fair.”  He does say, however,

“Surely we can all agree that when 11 million people in our country are living here illegally, outside the system, that’s unacceptable,” Obama said. “The American people demand and deserve a solution.”

The only problem is that I’m not sure the American people are going to be very supportive of his plan, which is sure to be “make all 11 million illegals automatically legal, and then we no longer have an illegal immigration problem.”

Once again Barack Hussein Obama shows his true colors.

“It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them,” Obama said.

This is mentioned in a story by the AP under the title “Palin taken aback by Obama ’superpower’ remark,” but who in their right mind isn’t “taken aback” by this comment?  It certainly isn’t just Obama that is stunned.

Honestly, there really isn’t anything else to say – he said it all right there.  He and his administration are obviously unhappy with the fact that America is a dominant military superpower.  And that helps to explain a lot of his actions as President so far, as everything he has done so far has only weakened America’s standing in the world.  So it looks like despite the fact that he is able to unhappily admit that America is still on top, they plan on doing whatever they can to change that unfortunate fact.

This quote could basically be the theme of Obama’s presidency.

All of a sudden, the criticism of President Obama is becoming too “harsh,” “incendiary,” and “demonizing” according to Democrats, namely Bill Clinton.

It’s interesting that after years and years of complete disrespect for President Bush and ridiculous displays of Hitler comparisons, effigies, and masked individuals at protests, all of a sudden the groups of people protesting Obama (many of which are fairly normal looking citizens, many actually middle aged and older people) are set to be to blame whenever someone possibly attempts an act of violence towards a member of the government.

Clinton is quoted as saying “the words we use really do matter,” as if words that an Obama protester uses is somehow going to be to blame for pushing a lunatic over the edge and causing them to commit an act of violence.  I’m not going to lie, when a powerful politician “predicts” or “foresees” a political enemy of theirs causing a “potential” or “future” problem, I get suspicious/worried.  Democrats have already proven that they will completely fabricate scenes of supposed violence performed by the Tea Party members in an attempt to decrease their legitimacy.

Also, one of the more stupid things that Clinton (believe me it was hard to pick) said is

“One of the things that the conservatives have always brought to the table in America is a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility. And the more power you have and the more influence you have, the more responsibility you have.”

So according to Clinton, personal responsibility means watching what you say because it may cause someone else to do something that they supposedly otherwise would not do.  Did he not even sense the stupidity in that when he said it?  What about the “personal responsibility” for these imaginary villains that he is creating?  If one is to be “personally responsible,” that means they are responsible for their actions and do not blame others for them.  I thought the phrase was fairly self-explanatory.

Anyway, it seems like a waste to spend this much time on such stupid comments, but they are just another example of liberals trying everything they can in order to get rid of the Tea Party movement (and all Obama opposition in general).