Election night here in Kentucky was earthshaking for one main reason: Rand Paul won the Republican nomination of US Senate. Paul lead every poll almost from the start against Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, and in the end, it was Rand Paul over Trey Grayson by 59% to 35%. That’s as sound of a thumping as it gets. But what made this so earthshaking was what happened, and what did not happen.
First, no one can say that Trey isn’t a great guy. He is. Trey has worked hard as our SoS. He made a lot of improvements in the office. But, Trey is known as a being part of the Republican establishment. GOP powerbroker, Senator Mitch McConnell was his chief supporter. As for Rand Paul, he was an unknown. All that anyone really knew about him was that, aside from being an eye surgeon was that he was the son of Congressman Ron Paul (who is very popular in Kentucky because of his libertarian ideas). Rand Paul’s victory was due to his ability to able to latch on the growing anti-intrusive government sentiment here in Kentucky. People, mostly conservatives of all stripes, are sick and tired of being sick and tired of empty promises from Frankfort and Washington. Part of it was the large Tea Party movement here, which keeps growing. Part of it was the increasing numbers of independents, as well as frustrated Republicans.
Grayson’s campaign was the first to go negative. I don’t know who’s idea that was, but it was a huge mistake. Grayson’s camp tried to paint Paul as a fringe candidate with kooky ideas. It took the usual approach popular in today’s campaigns of taking comments out of context and using distorted or grayed images to create an “ugly” or unappealing image of the opposing candidate. Unfortunately, for Trey, the tactic backfired. First, voters have been complaining for sometime about how tired they were of negative campaigns. Exit polling in this case seemed to bear that out with voters saying they were turned off by Grayson’s attempts to “mislead” voters. Some commented that candidates should focus on themselves and what they intend to do if elected rather than smearing their opponent. This turned out to be a classic example of a campaign being out of touch with the voters and relying on outdated tools to get their message out.
The second factor which hurt Grayson’s efforts may have been Senator McConnell’s open endorsement. McConnell has long been the puppet master in GOP politics. However, many Republicans have been getting tired of the senior senator’s stranglehold on the party. Many see McConnell as part of the problem. The moderates (and yes, there are moderate Republicans here in Kentucky) see McConnell as a barrier to getting things done. They are tired of the partisan “politics as usual”. They are looking for someone with fresh ideas and who is willing to work with Democrats and Independents to bring real change to America. The conservative, especially with far Right variety, see the senator as failing to protect our national interests on such issues as illegal immigration, a national language, energy independence, tax reform, bail outs of automakers and banks (over the objections of the American people I should add). Tea partiers and Indies, who are part of Paul’s base, also don’t have a high opinion of McConnell.
In short, I think Trey Grayson’s loss may signify the first major crack in McConnell’s machine. Personally, I think Trey shouldn’t have run. I think his best chance for higher office was, and remains, the Governor’s Mansion, but only if he’s willing to step up and become, like his former opponent, the “non-establishment” candidate. People want solutions regardless of party label or ideology. The candidate of the future who can best articulate that will win. Politically, Americans live in the middle. Neither party is there. The party which makes the political center its home will dominate all others.
As for the Rand Paul, his most challenging opponent this fall may not be Jack Conway, but his own mouth. During a recent appearance on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show”, Paul said that he thought the federal government had no role ensuring private businesses did not discriminate on the basis of race. Page One Kentucky, a news and political website, reported that Paul made a similar comment regarding the Fair Housing Act in 2002 to a local newspaper, say, “a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination---even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based in the color of their skin”. Paul has since clarified his comments and said he does not favor repealing the Civil Rights Act. Paul said, “Let me be clear. I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws”. He added that “I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964”.
Paul went on to say, “The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans. This much is clear: The federal government has far outreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent (Democrat Jack Conway) supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state’s rights must stand up to it. These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.”
That’s a good response, but come on, Rand you’re running for the US Senate, you know the media is watching everything you do and say. You can’t be making comments like that and expect to win. You have to be taking the fight to your opponent, not spinning your past remarks.
On the issue of Social Security, Paul has said that he favors raises the eligibility age to 70. The reason is to keep the Social Security solvent, especially in light of the pending mass retirement of baby boomers over the 10 to 20 years. That’s 78 million people (Boomers are those born between 1946 and 1964). Remember too that when it was originally established, the average life expediency of a male was only 55 years of age. Therefore, to qualify for Social Security, you had to live 10 years beyond that to age 65. To bring the same idea current, you would need to raise the retirement age seven additional years to 72. But, despite the aging Boomers, surveys indicate that most have no intention of retiring. Approximately 76% say they intend to keep on working, at least part time. It should also be pointed out that most Boomers are well educated, more financially diverse, and healthier than any generation before. As a result, while there will huge number of individuals hitting that 65 mark, many will keep on trucking.
Recently, I got the opportunity to review two outstanding books, “Leadership Secrets of Hillary Clinton” by Rebecca Shambaugh, and “Quicksand: America’s Pursuit of Power in the Middle East” by Geoffrey Wawro. Both books are excellent. I hope you will check them out.
“Leadership Secrets of Hillary Clinton” by Rebecca Shambaugh
Like her or hate her, Hillary Clinton is one of the most fascinating and influential women in America, if not the world, today. Secretary of State and former Senator, Hillary Clinton was been on the public stage for decades; first as the wife of then little known Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, then as America’s First Lady. She served admirably in that role popularized by Jackie Kennedy, but Hillary’s drive and resilience didn’t stop there. She jumped head long in numerous national issues, such as education, child care, and most notably, healthcare, where she took the rarified role of leading the charge on behalf of President Clinton.
So, who is Hillary Rodham Clinton really? How did she become the women we know today, and is there anyway we learn from her what it takes to be a leader in our modern, often cynical age? The answer is yes. Author Rebecca Shambaugh has written an engrossing book about Clinton entitled, “Leadership Secrets of Hillary Clinton”.
Now, I’ll be honest with you. Hillary Clinton is not one of my favorite people, at least from a political perspective. But, I’ve got to admit that I admire her courage of convection, knowledge, and fortitude. All of these traits and more are wonderfully detailed in Ms. Shambaugh’s book. Each chapter introduces the reader to a specific topic (such as Chapter 2 “Overcoming and Thriving on Adversity: Be Resilient” or Chapter 7 “Making Your Words Count: Awesome Communication”) and then Ms. Shambaugh guides the reader through specific steps (called “Secrets”) on how to take the lessons outlined in the chapter and make them work for you.
The 196 page book is ideally written for anyone, regardless of gender or political leanings, who wants to learn how to improve their ability to cope under pressure, whether in the classroom, boardroom, home, or in the public arena! “Leadership Secrets of Hillary Clinton” is a “must read” for anyone interested in leadership at every level.
Quicksand: America’s Pursuit of Power in the Middle East” by Geoffrey Wawro
Few topics grab my attention more than the Middle East. Civilization began there, along the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, and some claim it may end there. The world’s economy is fueled by the oil produced by just a handful of countries, and yet, rather than being a stable region because of global dependence on oil, it is the world’s most volatile. The Middle East, the vortex of civilization, has in many ways become a black hole; dragging the nations ever closer to its center, and like a black hole, threatening to rip the world apart. Few nations have been able to long escape its grasp. So, how did America, and indeed, the rest of world’s industrial nations, become ensnared the shifting sands of the Middle Eastern politics?
Few books have so expertly been able to answer that question better than Geoffrey Wawro’s “Quicksand: America’s Pursuit of Power in the Middle East”. Mr. Wawro, who is a Professor of Military History at the University of North Texas, as well as director the Military History Center at UNT, has been able to unravel the Byzantine world of Middle Eastern politics, woven into the cultures and religion of the people for generations, and give the reader a clear and comprehensive history.
For example, Dr. Wawo describes the blunders of the British Empire in closing years of World War I resulting from the vacuum of the collapsing Ottoman Empire and imperialist myopia which left Britain in control of areas such as the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt and Palestine, while the French, seeking to maintain its shrinking empire, gained control of Syria. As a result, Arab nationalist aligned themselves with Nazi Germany (and Nazi Germany’s policy of anti-Semitism didn’t hurt either). The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was often a guest in Berlin, and Arabs were invited to join in a SS division comprised solely of Moslem Arabs (that veneration of all things Nazi, not unexpectedly, still continues in some Arab nations to this day).
Dr. Wawo goes on to explain how the increasing Jewish presence in the region, especially in Palestine, thanks in large part to the backroom dealings of President Truman, as well as British and French incompetence, as well as a growing powerful Jewish lobby lead to the establishment of Israel, against a backdrop of the Cold War, religious hatred, and economics. Many a Prime Minister and President has sought to get a grip on the Middle East, only to find events as fluid as the shifting sands.
I can’t recommend this book highly enough. Anyone who wants to understand how and why were engaged in two wars in the region; why we’re drilling oil wells offshore; why we’re investing billions in alternative energy sources; why we’re under threat from terrorists; or why we’re paying nearly $3.00 for a gallon of gas needs to read this book. The threat is not just to America, but the world is real. If knowledge is power, then Geoffrey Wawro’s 551 page “Quicksand: America’s Pursuit of Power in the Middle East” is an excellent tool to have one’s arsenal.
Poll Results
We last asked if you thought we needed a comprehensive national policy dealing with illegal immigration. 16% of you said no, we were fine the way we are. Another 16% of you said yes, but only as part of a overall immigration policy. Yet another 16% thought we should let each state handle its own problems with illegal immigration. However, the majority of you thought that we needed a coherent national policy. Frankly, I agree. Illegal immigration shouldn’t be handled in a patchwork fashion, state by state. We need a single, comprehensive, and enforceable policy. However, in absence of a national policy (like now), I believe states have not just the right, but the obligation to take action to protect their citizenry, which is what Arizona has done. This is a situation where both parties have (again) failed the American People.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Arizona’s Illegal Immigration Law: Vigilante Legislation?
I’m sure everyone is by now familiar with Arizona’s recent decision to impose what is the strongest piece of legislation against illegal immigration in the US. But was Arizona’s new anti-illegal law really necessary? Does it go too far? Not far enough? And why would a state in America’s southwest, apparently enact legislation that should be the responsibility of the federal government? There has been tens of thousands of protestors, as well as supporters taking to the streets (though the media has focused primarily on the former while either ignoring or downplaying the latter). President Obama initially seemed to take a greater offense at the audacity of Arizona’s Republican Governor, Janet Brewer signing the bill than the bill itself. Opponents, including the Obama Administration, have vowed to challenge the bill at every step, including a ballot measure this November to have it rescinded. So, what led up to this firestorm?
Arizona has long been known a state for the rugged individual, perhaps characterized best by the Old West (it most popular Western mythos being Tombstone and the “Showdown at the OK Corral”). In more recent years, towns like Tucson, Phoenix, Sun City, and Flagstaff have grown from tourist stops to retirement destinations, though tourist remains a key component of the state’s budget. Its landscape is nothing short of majestic. Ever watch a Western? Chances are you saw Arizona’s magnificent Monument Valley, and who has never heard of that really big ditch known as the Grand Canyon? Industry too has flocked to Arizona over the years. But despite what should be the brightest spot in the Sunbelt, illegal immigration has acted like a dark cloud.
Because of its economic growth, Arizona seems to have been targeted by some of Mexico’s most violent druglords and gangs. Arizona is now considered the “de facto” gateway of illegal drugs into America. In 2009 alone, federal agents seized 1.2 million pounds of pot. That’s 1.5 tons per day! And that’s just pot. According to an April 27, 2010 Newsmax.com article, until recently, federal prosecutors weren’t even bothering to prosecute anyone busted with less than 500 pounds of marijuana. Federal authorities have been simply been overwhelmed with drug dealers peddling the seriously dangerous stuff such as cocaine, heroin, crack, and other vile substances.
Of course, moving drugs takes “soldiers”, and none are better than the violent gangs who’ve moved and in from Mexico. They’ve recruited well, mainly from illegal aliens and poorer sections of cities. Their presence has grown large and in some cases, they’re better equipped in firepower than local law enforcement. There are whole sections of some Arizona communities where law enforcement won’t venture without mounting a near military style invasion. As a result, many of these gangs have become incredibly more brazen to the point that Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of America. Individuals, most often with no connection to drugs or crimes, are simply snatched off the street or out their homes and held for ransom (the average ransom price is around $15,000). In 2008, there were an estimated 370 kidnappings in Phoenix (I say “estimated” because many kidnappings are not reported). Enter large scale illegal immigration.
Over the past 10 years, Arizona has become not just the gateway of druglords, but of illegal aliens looking to cross the border. What was a trickle has now become a flood. Many come to for a better life as most every immigrant has for centuries. Some come here to take advantage of America’s generous taxpayer based public assistance programs (including use of the “natural born” loophole). Many come here on their own. Others are assisted by well meaning citizens, existing family, churches (especially the Catholic Church), and naturally, the criminal element. They are often provided with “safe houses” and given assistance in finding jobs, permanent shelter, and ways to both avoid detection and make use of various government programs. Most have no interest or intent on changing their status from illegal to legal. They’re here for the work, not to become US citizens. A few, such as those who work on farms, return home after the season is over, however, most remain.
In Arizona alone, there are 460,000 illegal immigrants. That’s larger than some US cities like St. Louis or New Orleans. Over the past three years, the Border Patrol has made 990,000 arrests. That’s almost 900 per day! Arizona has taken several steps to help discourage illegal from entering the state. In 2004, residents voted in favor of legislation banning some welfare benefits to illegals. In 2006, another law was passed denying additional taxpayer based benefits and making English the official state language. In 2007, then Governor Janet Napolitino signed into law the toughest employment legislation in America pertaining to the hiring of illegal immigrants. And, of course, all the while, Arizona has been front and center in lobbying efforts to “build the wall” along the border, as well as to increase federal funding for additional border security. Much of this has been for naught.
Despite an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed to illegal immigration, Washington, both under Bush and now Obama, has lacked the will to create and implement a coherent and enforceable policy. It was out of this frustration which Arizona has faced for decades which prompted Arizona in create and impose its own immigration policy.
The illegal immigration legislation (SP 1070) signed by Governor Janet Brewer was sponsored by State Senator Russell Pearce of Mesa. The bill makes it a state crime for immigrants not to carry authorization papers, requires the police “when practicable” to check the immigration status of people they reasonably suspect are in the country illegally and allows people to sue cities and counties if the law is not being enforced. Critics claim there are too many possibilities of “abuse” and words like “Nazi” and police state” have been invoked by opponents. But the fact is that even legal immigrants are required to carry proof of residency. Police must have “probable cause” to stop and question a suspect. They can’t simply stop someone because they’re Hispanic looking. Local Hispanic businesses complain that the new law will hurt business. How? They can’t continue to hire and sell to illegal immigrants, which they shouldn’t be doing in the first place.
Some of the language of the bill has already been modified in order to be more specific, which hopefully will make it easier for law enforcement to enforce and prosecutors to prosecute. Meanwhile, opponents want to see the law completed removed from the books; essentially opening up the border to more of the same, which Arizona can’t afford and the citizens won’t tolerate.
So, what’s the answer? Arizonians are sick and tired of being sick and tired of Washington’s failure. They have had enough of the violence and crime. In the absence of leadership, people will take action on their own, and that’s something I don’t think anyone wants to see happen. Therefore, Governor Brewer has stepped up to the plate. Will the law stand? I think it will. In the absence of a federal policy, a state has the right to enact legislation it deems most appropriate so long as no existing federal laws are violated. However, I think the real intent of the legislation was to embarrass Washington into getting off its collective duff and finally do something.
Washington needs to look at ways to strengthen the economies of Latin America, not just focus on its “War on Drugs”, which even the most ardent supported has to admit is nothing more than holding action at best, and to stabilized national governments. Washington’s role must not be to dictate to, but partner as equals with these governments. It’s also time to take another look at the “War of Drugs”. Perhaps too it’s time pot should finally be decriminalized. But these are long term goals and may be part of a comprehensive overall immigration policy. In the short, I expect other border states to take similar steps unless something is done. So, was this a piece of “vigilante” legislation as opponents allege? Obviously the answer is no. It was born out of decades of frustration. We can only hope Washington finally gets the message.
Poll Results
We asked in our last poll is the US should ever use retaliate with nukes. The poll was prompted by President Obama’s recently START agreement with the Russians. Since then, the US has officially divulged the total number of nuclear arsenal---once a state secret. We have just over 5000 for the record.
Meanwhile, we wanted to know what you thought. 23% of you said only in response to an attack of mass destruction (WMD). Another 23% of you said only if someone has or is trying to nuke us first. The rest of you said the America had the right to respond with nukes in the event of any attack (including chemical or biological). I quite agree. America, or any other nation for that matter, has the right and moral obligation to defend its citizens “by any means necessary” (thank you Malcolm X for the quote). I don’t believe we should ever take any options off the table. It only emboldens our enemies and weakens the resolve of our friends.
Arizona has long been known a state for the rugged individual, perhaps characterized best by the Old West (it most popular Western mythos being Tombstone and the “Showdown at the OK Corral”). In more recent years, towns like Tucson, Phoenix, Sun City, and Flagstaff have grown from tourist stops to retirement destinations, though tourist remains a key component of the state’s budget. Its landscape is nothing short of majestic. Ever watch a Western? Chances are you saw Arizona’s magnificent Monument Valley, and who has never heard of that really big ditch known as the Grand Canyon? Industry too has flocked to Arizona over the years. But despite what should be the brightest spot in the Sunbelt, illegal immigration has acted like a dark cloud.
Because of its economic growth, Arizona seems to have been targeted by some of Mexico’s most violent druglords and gangs. Arizona is now considered the “de facto” gateway of illegal drugs into America. In 2009 alone, federal agents seized 1.2 million pounds of pot. That’s 1.5 tons per day! And that’s just pot. According to an April 27, 2010 Newsmax.com article, until recently, federal prosecutors weren’t even bothering to prosecute anyone busted with less than 500 pounds of marijuana. Federal authorities have been simply been overwhelmed with drug dealers peddling the seriously dangerous stuff such as cocaine, heroin, crack, and other vile substances.
Of course, moving drugs takes “soldiers”, and none are better than the violent gangs who’ve moved and in from Mexico. They’ve recruited well, mainly from illegal aliens and poorer sections of cities. Their presence has grown large and in some cases, they’re better equipped in firepower than local law enforcement. There are whole sections of some Arizona communities where law enforcement won’t venture without mounting a near military style invasion. As a result, many of these gangs have become incredibly more brazen to the point that Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of America. Individuals, most often with no connection to drugs or crimes, are simply snatched off the street or out their homes and held for ransom (the average ransom price is around $15,000). In 2008, there were an estimated 370 kidnappings in Phoenix (I say “estimated” because many kidnappings are not reported). Enter large scale illegal immigration.
Over the past 10 years, Arizona has become not just the gateway of druglords, but of illegal aliens looking to cross the border. What was a trickle has now become a flood. Many come to for a better life as most every immigrant has for centuries. Some come here to take advantage of America’s generous taxpayer based public assistance programs (including use of the “natural born” loophole). Many come here on their own. Others are assisted by well meaning citizens, existing family, churches (especially the Catholic Church), and naturally, the criminal element. They are often provided with “safe houses” and given assistance in finding jobs, permanent shelter, and ways to both avoid detection and make use of various government programs. Most have no interest or intent on changing their status from illegal to legal. They’re here for the work, not to become US citizens. A few, such as those who work on farms, return home after the season is over, however, most remain.
In Arizona alone, there are 460,000 illegal immigrants. That’s larger than some US cities like St. Louis or New Orleans. Over the past three years, the Border Patrol has made 990,000 arrests. That’s almost 900 per day! Arizona has taken several steps to help discourage illegal from entering the state. In 2004, residents voted in favor of legislation banning some welfare benefits to illegals. In 2006, another law was passed denying additional taxpayer based benefits and making English the official state language. In 2007, then Governor Janet Napolitino signed into law the toughest employment legislation in America pertaining to the hiring of illegal immigrants. And, of course, all the while, Arizona has been front and center in lobbying efforts to “build the wall” along the border, as well as to increase federal funding for additional border security. Much of this has been for naught.
Despite an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed to illegal immigration, Washington, both under Bush and now Obama, has lacked the will to create and implement a coherent and enforceable policy. It was out of this frustration which Arizona has faced for decades which prompted Arizona in create and impose its own immigration policy.
The illegal immigration legislation (SP 1070) signed by Governor Janet Brewer was sponsored by State Senator Russell Pearce of Mesa. The bill makes it a state crime for immigrants not to carry authorization papers, requires the police “when practicable” to check the immigration status of people they reasonably suspect are in the country illegally and allows people to sue cities and counties if the law is not being enforced. Critics claim there are too many possibilities of “abuse” and words like “Nazi” and police state” have been invoked by opponents. But the fact is that even legal immigrants are required to carry proof of residency. Police must have “probable cause” to stop and question a suspect. They can’t simply stop someone because they’re Hispanic looking. Local Hispanic businesses complain that the new law will hurt business. How? They can’t continue to hire and sell to illegal immigrants, which they shouldn’t be doing in the first place.
Some of the language of the bill has already been modified in order to be more specific, which hopefully will make it easier for law enforcement to enforce and prosecutors to prosecute. Meanwhile, opponents want to see the law completed removed from the books; essentially opening up the border to more of the same, which Arizona can’t afford and the citizens won’t tolerate.
So, what’s the answer? Arizonians are sick and tired of being sick and tired of Washington’s failure. They have had enough of the violence and crime. In the absence of leadership, people will take action on their own, and that’s something I don’t think anyone wants to see happen. Therefore, Governor Brewer has stepped up to the plate. Will the law stand? I think it will. In the absence of a federal policy, a state has the right to enact legislation it deems most appropriate so long as no existing federal laws are violated. However, I think the real intent of the legislation was to embarrass Washington into getting off its collective duff and finally do something.
Washington needs to look at ways to strengthen the economies of Latin America, not just focus on its “War on Drugs”, which even the most ardent supported has to admit is nothing more than holding action at best, and to stabilized national governments. Washington’s role must not be to dictate to, but partner as equals with these governments. It’s also time to take another look at the “War of Drugs”. Perhaps too it’s time pot should finally be decriminalized. But these are long term goals and may be part of a comprehensive overall immigration policy. In the short, I expect other border states to take similar steps unless something is done. So, was this a piece of “vigilante” legislation as opponents allege? Obviously the answer is no. It was born out of decades of frustration. We can only hope Washington finally gets the message.
Poll Results
We asked in our last poll is the US should ever use retaliate with nukes. The poll was prompted by President Obama’s recently START agreement with the Russians. Since then, the US has officially divulged the total number of nuclear arsenal---once a state secret. We have just over 5000 for the record.
Meanwhile, we wanted to know what you thought. 23% of you said only in response to an attack of mass destruction (WMD). Another 23% of you said only if someone has or is trying to nuke us first. The rest of you said the America had the right to respond with nukes in the event of any attack (including chemical or biological). I quite agree. America, or any other nation for that matter, has the right and moral obligation to defend its citizens “by any means necessary” (thank you Malcolm X for the quote). I don’t believe we should ever take any options off the table. It only emboldens our enemies and weakens the resolve of our friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
