Take a peek at this and it will open your eyes.

June 21, 2010

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama:

We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come. We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a “case-by-case” basis.

While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.

The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.

We would appreciate receiving a commitment that the Administration has no plans to use either authority to change the current position of a large group of illegal aliens already in the United States, and ask that you respond to us about this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Chuck Grassley
Orrin Hatch
Jim Bunning
Saxby Chambliss
Jim Inhofe
Johnny Isakson

Can you actually believe that this is happening? I have an idea why the Obama administration wants the illegal vote to be "legal" so bad.

Most polling data suggests that the Obama administration has lost the support of the American people. The passage of large bills without anyone having read them, the huge deficit, The Health Care Bill (which gets worse with every report); none of it adds up. This administration, as well as congress, are on the way out in November. That is unless they can produce a new voting block.

I believe that this push to legalize illegal immigrants is nothing more than a voting drive. Think about it for a minute. The democrats know that they are going to loose power in November. On the other hand, if they can get their hands on about 20 million extra votes, they could maintain their power. I think it's that simple.

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

We are now excepting foreign assistance with the oil spill cleanup! It sure took some time...

I wonder why it took so long? If you are wondering the same as I was; this is a great question and answer session from the Chicago Tribune.

Q: Did the Dutch offer assistance immediately after the Deepwater Horizon exploded?

A: The State Department says the Dutch government and private businesses offered various types of assistance on April 30, 10 days after the explosion. That included proposals to sell equipment as well as offers of technical advice.

Romania, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom made similar offers that same day, according to a summary provided by the State Department. The Netherlands' offer consisted of "state-of-the-art skimming arms made by the Dutch company Koseq," according to a statement issued by the Dutch Embassy. It also involved help to Louisiana in building sand berms intended to keep the oil from washing ashore.

Q: Did the U.S. reject the offer?

A: On May 5, the U.S. State Department issued a statement acknowledging that it had received several offers from countries. "While there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet, the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near future," the statement said.

The offer of skimmers was accepted on May 23, when BP purchased three Koseq sweeping arms.

As of June 21, the other Dutch offers were considered "under consideration" and the response team had also accepted aid from Mexico, Canada and Norway.

Q: Did the Jones Act prevent the U.S. from immediately accepting the assistance?

A: The administration and Allen say the Jones Act has not prevented the response team from accepting the offers to the help in a timely fashion. In a June 11 press briefing, Allen said "we are more than willing to consider Jones Act waivers" and noted that foreign vessels were being used. A statement issued June 18 said that 15 foreign-flagged vessels were involved in the cleanup and none required Jones Act waivers.

That's in part because of a specific exemption in the act that can allow for the use of foreign "oil spill response vessels," said H. Clayton Cook, a Washington attorney and expert on the Jones Act.

"That takes care of your skimmers and your oil spill vessels," he said.

Cook, a Republican, said there has been longstanding opposition to the act, which many see as protectionist and a bow to unions, but there is no evidence that Jones Act is standing in the way of the cleanup. "This is being used for political purposes. It's a classic red herring."

Q: Why did it take more than three weeks to buy the Dutch skimmers?

A: U.S. officials have not answered this question directly and did not respond to a request. A State Department spokesman has suggested that the nature of the offer and bureaucratic requirements may have something to do with it.

The Dutch offer, like most of offers of foreign assistance, was an offer to sell supplies, State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley told reporters. "And in determining whether to accept these offers, we look at the availability of domestic sources and also compare pricing on the open market. So that may be one of the reasons why, in some cases, we've been able to accept these offers and pursued them," he said.

Allen also has noted that he was required to do "homework" upfront before accepting the offers. "Has there been an assessment of national inventory, are there any other alternative methods to provide those platforms? Are there issues regarding crewing or anything else?"

Coast Guard spokesman Capt. Ron LaBrec said the decision regarding the Dutch assistance was not made based on environmental regulations.

When Allen refers to "homework" he really means bureaucratic mess. None of this really makes sense. They had to make sure that the Netherlands weren't trying to pull a fast one on us? Come on, is this a joke?

The fact of the matter is that we were not prepared for a spill of any size really. We are also not prepared to accept help.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I have been wondering what is happening here lately. There seems to be one disaster after another and nothing seems to be going right. Tragic things happen from time to time, but I have noticed a strange pattern lately. These tragedies are not being confronted by our leaders.

In life you have people who actually do work and you have those people who appear to be doing work. There are those people who can make other people feel accomplishment while doing tasks for someone else, sort of like Tom Sawyer. Obama is one of those people.

Obama's accomplishments are not reflective of his abilities. Obama didn't win his senate race in Illinois; his competitors were removed from the ballet (either by party decision or exposed corruption). Obama was once an editor of the Harvard Law Review, yet he can not pronounce corpsman. He refuses to hold press conferences and backs away when they ask hard questions. This is not very becoming of a leader.

Our president is someone who when singled out is not very impressive. He made a joke about The Special Olympics on The Tonight Show. There was the "Joe the Plumber" incident, just another example of what happens when Obama is not coached on what to say. Obama is an ideologue, he is not a leader.

Now that we have some serious disasters on our hands we are seeing that Obama doesn't really have the stomach to deal with them. We have a president who is pointing fingers of blame wherever possible. Obama still blames Bush for nearly every problem with the economy. We have the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and what do we hear from the White House? We hear finger pointing (while the administrations appointed head of the MMS resigns in the background). Then when there are hearings to determine the cause of the incident Obama criticizes the involved parties for finger pointing. As I said in an earlier post; leaders don't criticize --they lead.

When the president gives a speech about the oil spill; it's half "blaming BP" and half "we need to have a cap and trade system." He feels the need to point out that his science adviser is a Nobel Prize winner, as if it holds any credibility anymore. He knows that he is incapable of doing what is necessary, so he has to lash out. The American people can see right through this. Obama is largely ineffective when it comes to actual leadership. He has made the dire mistake of surrounding himself with like-minded (ineffective) people. The poll numbers reflect this.

Now that Obama is being tested; as Joe Biden pointed out, he's not looking so good.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Thing that WILL be in the address tonight:

** Obama is going to announce that the oil spill is BP's fault.

** BP has to bear the entire cost of cleanup.

** Obama's team was there from the first day.

** We should suspend drilling in the gulf until we know what happened.

** The government is going to take over the job of claims on behalf of the Gulf Coast residents. The government will send BP the bill. I bet he says that.

** This outlines the need for an "Energy Reform Measure". Cap and Trade as it is correctly known.

** All energy companies should have to pay a new tax to fund alternative energy research.

** Oh, and it's BP's fault.

Things that will be MISSING from the address tonight:

** Why the head of the Minerals Management Service (MMS) resigned?

** Why the U.S. turned down offers from other countries to help in the containment of the spill?

** How if the U.S. government was on the seen the first day, that there was no initial government estimate of how much oil had leaked?

** How did the Well get a A+ safety rating from the (MMS)?

** Why did the President go into campaign mode (giving small speeches in different areas) after the spill? Why not address the nation at the time of the incident?

I thought that all of Bush's "oil buddies" were on Obama's hit list. I thought that Obama was elected to get rid of the "Bush oil cronies".

Alas we have this.

On May 19, 2010, Secretary Salazar ordered the fundamental restructuring of the MMS to be carried out in consultation with Congress. This action is the latest in a series of agency reforms Salazar has taken since January 2009, and will establish the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and the Office of Natural Resources Revenue. These three bureaus will replace the Minerals Management Service.

The oil spill occurred on April 20 2010.

Well that ought to do the trick. Instead of one bureaucratic institution we will have three! That last one worries me a little. What the hell are they going to do --distribute revenue?

I guarantee that if the governemnt is going to take over the job of evaluating claims and BP will be given immunity from all lawsuits in relation to the oil spill. After all how can you sue BP when the federal government denies your claim? I wonder if those on the left will claim that Obama is in bed with BP. Hmm there was that whole campaign donation thing... Hmm...

In conclusion the oil spill was handled poorly by the Obama administration. It would be better for Obama politically to admit that he underestimated the problem and layout what steps they are taking to correct the problem. Remember how the media wanted Bush to admit mistakes? I doubt that will be the case here.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

This has to be one of the most interesting stories I've seen in a while. This fellow Alvin Greene wins the Democrat primary for U.S. Senate in South Carolina --without even running a campaign!

These quotes are great!

"As far as we know he has done no campaigning," state party spokesperson Keiana Page said. "We have no idea how he won."

Here are some more.

"Many of us don't believe that he is representative of the values of the Democratic Party in South Carolina," state Rep. Bakari Sellers told CNN.

Sellers said Greene "looked long and hard at how African Americans and South Carolinians will be portrayed" around the country, but said he would remain a candidate. The election results become official at 3 p.m. on Thursday.

Both Rutherford and Sellers said they wanted to meet Greene out of "genuine concern" for his well-being, after his out-of-nowhere victory over Vic Rawl in Tuesday's Democratic primary attracted a flood of national attention.

"I feel like he is being exploited, like there is a joke going and he doesn't get it," said Rutherford, who did not press Greene to drop his bid. "It is troublesome at best. I think his mental capacity may prohibit him from getting the joke."

He said Greene should undergo "some sort of mental evaluation" if he is to continue in the campaign. If it turns out he is mentally impaired, Rutherford said, "we are all in on this exploitation of someone that is vulnerable."

Still, Rutherford said he came away from the meeting that Greene does have, in part, a real political agenda. "He thinks that African Americans are being rated unjustly by the justice system, which is true, and he thinks our state can do better."

So people in the Democrat party say about Greene "Many of us don't believe that he is representative of the values of the Democratic Party in South Carolina." On the contrary I think that he is a shining example of the Democrat voting base. This is like that movie with Chris Rock Head of State. I think this is great, because is shows who the Democrat electorate is made of (at least in SC). To make matters more interesting; Greene didn't win by a small margin. He held nearly 60% of the vote.

This is everything you need to know about how Obama was elected. A bunch of people, who have no idea what is "really" going on, run out and vote. They don't vote because they are worried about their future, they don't vote because they have a strong grasp of the issues, they vote because they think they are supposed to. It's that simple. At least that's my take on it.

The strange thing is; in order to explain away this event the Democrat leadership is coming up with ideas much worse than mine. Consider what Democrat party leaders are saying. They claim that it was anti-incumbent sentiment. They claim that his name was first in line on the ballet. They claim that he was a Republican plant.

Let's go with the first one. If it is just anti-incumbent sentiment, Vic Rawl is NOT an incumbent U.S. Senator.

What if his name was first on the ballet? Does that mean that the people of SC are so simple that they just fill in the first box every time? People voted for Vic Rawl in the State house. What were the names of his opponents then? I would assume he would have been at the bottom of the list then.

What if he was a Republican plant? Well that is even worse, because it shows that they knew ahead of time that they could run someone on the Democrat side without a campaign and win. That would mean that the people of SC are extremely predictable, and they want to oust the current Democrat.

Also, don't forget, Alvin Greene ran for U.S. Senate NOT State Senate! This was not a "local" election --it was state-wide.

I think that Vic Rawl lost because his name sounds too much like a pro wrestler. Alvin Greene sounds more like someone from SC.

Anyway, I can't wait for all of the Democrat pundits to try and pass this off as "anti-incumbent sentiment." This vote was a whole sale rejection of Obama's policies. The Obama administration has, so far, gotten what it's wanted. Now that people are waking up to what exactly Obama's policy entails they're rejecting it! It's really "Anti What's Happening Now In Washington Sentiment". It's not about partisanship, arguing or anything else. Honest people know what happened here.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.