Why the United States Needs National Missile Defense

Posted Posted in Missile Defense, North Korea

North Korea Nuclear Missile Attack on USAScreencap of video depicting a nuclear missile attack on the United States

Is there any wonder why President Reagan over three decades ago, pushed for national missile defense?

It begins benignly enough, with an image of a sleeping young North Korean man, and a genteel piano version of the US feel-good pop anthem We Are the World providing the musical backdrop.

But the YouTube video recently posted by Uriminzokkiri, North Korea‘s official website, quickly takes a more sinister turn as the man’s dream continues into the realms of Stalinist fantasy.

Within seconds he is aboard a space shuttle, launched into orbit by the same type of rocket the North successfully launched in December. The shuttle orbits Earth, at one point passing over a jubilant and reunified Korean peninsula, before the focus switches to an unidentified city draped in the Stars and Stripes.

What appear to be missiles rain down on the city, setting fire to high-rise buildings in scenes reminiscent of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York.

“Somewhere in the United States, black clouds of smoke are billowing,” the Korean-language caption says. “It seems that the nest of wickedness is ablaze.”

Here is the video (embedded below):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKWJSKYBDXE&feature=share&list=UUknqqNd3-joIjWzf1Jn4oVQ[/youtube]

Of course, this is just plain B.S. and something for members of Congress to consider when they have to vote on whether to cut the crap out of the defense budget over the next few months

Thoughts on the Gang of Eight Immigration Reform Deal

Posted Posted in Illegal Immigration

Senators Chuck Schumer and Lindsey GrahamSenators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at yesterday’s immigration reform deal announcement

As if the above photo of Lindsey Graham-nesty and Chuckles Schumer are not foreboding enough. But, seriously, much has been written the past 24 hours since the Gang of Eight Senators announced a framework for immigration reform.

The framework is published here.

Go ahead and read it.

What are my thoughts?

I don’t think much of the framework, if enacted into law will be a disaster for the country, and the GOP. With the President weighing into the fray with a speech today in Las Vegas, there will probably be more objections.

You can read much about the problems of the plan (note: legislation has not been written as of this post) from a number of sources.

First, the initial thoughts of John Hinderaker at Powerline.

1) The proposal begins with the oft-repeated claim that “our immigration system is broken.” But what does this mean? I think our immigration system is fundamentally misguided because it does not serve our interests. We should be recruiting highly-skilled people to come here from around the world, not unskilled people from, e.g., Somalia, who are recruited, in effect, because they are related to someone who is already here. Which, of course, is how that person got here, too. The present system is perverse. But the reorientation of our legal immigration system to emphasize skilled over unskilled labor has nothing to do with the issue of illegal immigrants who are currently here. What reason is there to link the two?

2) Countless politicians and commentators have said today that the presence of 11 million illegals in America is intolerable and we urgently need to do something about their status. But why? We have had millions of illegal residents in the U.S. for a long time. Why is it urgently necessary to do something now?

3) How is the current proposal different from the “comprehensive immigration reform” plans that we have seen through the years? In essence, it provides a “path to citizenship” for something like 11 million illegals in exchange for promises of future law enforcement–the same promises that have been made and broken in the past. See Mickey Kaus on this. Moreover, the Obama administration is now actively subverting our immigration laws, by, for example, recruiting illegals into the food stamp program. Why would anyone expect Obama to enforce future immigration laws any better than he is enforcing the ones we have now?

Heather Mac Donald over at National Review has a good summary of the proposal.

Mickey Kaus and Mark Krikorian have already acutely analyzed the new Gang of Eight’s “comprehensive immigration-reform” proposal; I will simply embroider on their observations. As Kaus has pointed out, the proposal is tantamount to an immediate, unconditional amnesty, and thus will lead to the same moral hazard — attracting further illegal immigration — as every previous amnesty in the U.S. and Europe. Nothing of consequence to an intending illegal alien distinguishes the “probationary status” that will be granted upon payment of a fine and back taxes from full-fledged legal status. It is of no import that a probationer will not be immediately eligible to vote. After the 1986 amnesty, very few newly legal Hispanics sought to become American citizens. Only Proposition 187 spurred a slight uptick in that direction.

No intending illegal alien is going to be deterred from trying to enter by learning that the only thing that stands between him and legal status is paying a fine and taxes. Kaus’s point here is critical: Far from making illegal aliens go to the “back of the line,” this proposal gives them the immeasurable advantage of legal presence in the U.S. while waiting for their green card, unlike aliens obeying the law and waiting in their own country for permission to enter.

Go ahead and read Mickey Kaus’ The Rubio Con and Mark Krikorian’s Lies, Damn Lies and Enforcement Promises.

This proposal will do NOTHING to either solve the burdens of illegal immigration on the United States or prevent illegal immigration in the future. It will merely cynically codify the illegality of over 11 million people who have NO right to be in the United States.

Political demographics drives the narrative – Democrats want more Hispanic voters and the Republicans THINK they can capture some – enough to win a Presidential election.

This is a poor way to set public policy.

I will write more later…..

The GOP Rush to Immigration Reform

Posted 1 CommentPosted in Illegal Immigration, Immigration

[youtube]http://youtu.be/jTtgx21VNls[/youtube]

Sen. Rubio Discusses His Immigration Principles on “The Mark Levin Show “

All of  potential 2016 GOP Presidential candidates are rushing out their plan to provide comprehensive immigration reform.

Senator Marco Rubio has one and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush has a post today in the Wall Street Journal and is working on a book to be released in March.

Why?

Cynically, you could say in order to capture the growing Hispanic vote from the Democrats (Obama) who won over 70 per cent last November. You could also say in order to co-opt President Obama and his fellow Democrats who wish to “legalize” which equals citizenship and voting and permanently capture millions of Asian and Hispanic votes in future elections.

But, there really is NO rush for Republicans.

Let’s face it, the GOP brand does not do well at the polls with African-Americans, Asians or Hispanics. This is not a recent demographic fact. Even President Reagan did not do that great with these groups. Neither did the senior Bush. W did some what better, but was a disaster for the GOP brand.

A thorough review of immigration policy is fine.

Increasing skill-based immigration for certain workers, while increasing educationally opportunities for native born Americans is OK.

Implementing an employer based E-Verify enforcement of work documents is necessary, but will take some time.

Mexican border security needs to be further tightened, especially with regards to Mexican and Central American drug cartels.

But, the rest is just political pandering which will NOT benefit conservatives, nor the GOP in 2016 or anytime before.

Time for the discussion, but not the time to make a major immigration policy change. The GOP controlled House should exert its check on the Obama Administration and immigration amnesty prone GOP Senators.

NRCC Mocks Democrats Over Trillion Dollar Coin

Posted 2 CommentsPosted in National Republican Congressional Commitee

Trillion dollar coin

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) wants to remind Americans that the government spending is the problem.

The National Republican Congressional Committee will announce an online petition today urging House Democrats to say they don’t think a $1 trillion coin should be minted to pay down the debt. It’s an attempt to get some earned media ahead of the debt ceiling fight and center the conversation on the deficit. Seven Democrats will be targeted with customized releases (photos of their faces on $1 trillion coins), including Jim Matheson (UT-04), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Tim Walz (MN-01), Jerrold Nadler (NY-10) and Nick Rahall (WV-03).

The website is here.

Check it out and sign the petition.

SCOTUS To Hear Gay Marriage Cases

Posted 1 CommentPosted in Gay Marriage, Proposition 8

Supreme Court to Hear Gay Marriage CasesFinally!

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether California’s Proposition 8 marriage amendment is constitutional and whether the federal government can refuse to recognize gay couples’ marriages for tax purposes and other reasons, the court announced Friday.

Decisions in both cases, by the court’s practice, are expected by the end of June.

The questions of federal standing aside, the Supreme Court should make a definitive ruling – one way or the other.

Do the states have the right to decide their own marriage laws, or is there a federal right to a same sex marriage?

We will see in late June 2013.

But, there are OUTS!

The SCOTUSblog live blog reports: “Prop. 8 is granted. So is Windsor. Those are the only two marriage cases granted.”

SCOTUSBlog’s live blog continues: “Prop. 8 is granted on the petition question — whether 14th Am. bars Calif. from defining marriage in traditional way.” No surprise there — except perhaps to Jeffrey Toobin. The Court then added a question of its own: “Whether the backers of Prop 8 have standing in the case under Art. III.” So the court may avoid ruling on the constitutionality of Prop 8 by saying that the case should not have been allowed to proceed in the first place — which I gather would mean that the lower court decisions are off the books, as there was no jurisdiction in the cases that would allow them to be decided.

California Votes to Keep Death Penalty – Voters Reject Proposition 34

Posted Posted in California Proposition 34, Death Penalty

California Death Chamber Paradox: California Death Row Inmates Oppose Proposition 34

The lethal injection table at San Quentin Prison, California

On Tuesday, Californians rejected Proposition 34 which would have abolished the death penalty in the state.

The Field Poll has been querying Californians on the death penalty for more than 50 years, and in 2011 there was a notable shift. Although 68% of respondents said they were in favor of keeping capital punishment, a percentage that had fluctuated only slightly since 2002, the answers grew more interesting when the question was phrased a different way. Asked whether they would rather sentence killers to life without parole or the death penalty, a significant majority of Californians in 2011 said they preferred the former — 48% favored life imprisonment vs. 40% for state-sponsored execution. Since the poll started asking this question in 2000, death had always trumped a life-in-prison sentence.

Proposition 34 would have done precisely what voters in 2011 said they wanted, resentencing the 726 death row inmates to life without the possibility of parole and eliminating capital punishment as an option in future cases. Yet the initiative lost, 52.8% to 47.2%.

The Times goes on to lament (sine the Times Editorial Board supported Proposition 34) that it is just a matter of time before death penalty abolitionists win.

I am not so sure.

Here is Gallup Polling on the matter.

Gallup Poll on death penaltyIn a very LEFT tide Presidential election cycle( with wide participation by voters) with virtually NO opposition (certainly NO television advertising), Proposition 34 still lost by 6 points.

There have been too many heinous crimes in California and there is no incentive to give leniency to those already on Death Row. The fiscal argument may sway a few, but when Californians are reminded of the horrendous crimes, they will support the death penalty.

Now, if we can only convince the federal and state courts to speed up and streamline the process of appeals. And, allow the California Department of Corrections to enforce the law.