2010 Mid-Term Elections: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Well, as expected, Tuesday was indeed a great day for the Republicans.  And, of course, I must do an obligatory posting on the outcome of these critical mid-term elections.  My expectations are, with the GOP in control of the House and the Senate still amazingly being under the cynical governance of Harry Reid, is that there is likely to be darned little legislation either passed or repealed for the next two years.  GOOD!  A little grid-lock that creates some predictability may very well be just what the doctor ordered to give our businesses a break so that they can perhaps plan, budget, and maybe even hire a worker or two again.

All that being said, here are my takes on what went right and what went wrong yesterday.

Senate Races
GOOD

Mark Rubio (R-FL) defeated the inconsequential Meeks and more importantly the ultra-flexible and integrity-devoid Charlie Crist.  Rubio really seems to get America and its greatness.  His political career is limited only by himself!

Boozeman (R-AR) defeated Blanche Lincoln largely because of her pernicious accepting of taxpayers' money for her state in order to secure her vote for Obma's un-constitutional health care law.  There are indeed consequences for your actions, Former-Senator-to-be Lincoln.

Toomey (R-PA) defeated Joe Sestak, who was offered a job by the Obama Whitehouse via President Clinton if he would stand down in the primary so that turn-coat Arlen Specter could win the Democratic nomination and theoretically be more competitive in this senatorial election.  I've got news for you folks; Specter's defeat, had he won the primary, would have been by an even greater margin than Sestak's.

Kirk (R-IL) won the senate seat that used to be occupied by President Obama.  Enough said there! 

BAD

Harry Reid (D-NV) as, I already stated, narrowly and inexplicably won re-election and will remain the Senate Majority leader.  The only up side to this, is that had he lost, Chuck Schumer would have likely been his replacement.

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) won re-election over Carly Fiorina.  I guess this just goes to show that Californians are either ignorant or just don't mind being represented by this boorish and arrogant socialist.

UGLY
Murkowski (write-in, AK) looks to have likely have won the three-way race for senate, despite her having been defeated for the GOP nomination in the primary and thus prompting her to run a perhaps successful write-in campaign.  Her refusal to accept defeat and insistence on holding on to "her senate seat" is precisely the kind of spoiled and arrogant political nonsense that we had hoped to purge.  Alaskans, what are you thinking here?

House of Representatives Races
Good

Alan West (R-FL) won election and is a exceptionally smart man of honor and integrity.  He too will be a rising star in conservative politics for years to come!

Daniel Webster (R-FL) defeated the incumbent Grayson who had been a progressive firebrand who was quite accustomed to hyperbole, mischaracterizations, and out-right lies toward the GOP and his opponent over the past few years.  His brand of vile politics is not needed and thankfully will no longer be spouted by him on the floor of the Senate ever again.

BAD

Barney Frank (D-MA) won re-election.  This outcome is truly sad and does not speak well to the character of a majority of his constituents.  Frank's dishonesty and culpability particularly with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac GSE's collapse that was the catalyst of the housing collapse should have been impeached along with his senatorial cohort in crime, Chris Dodd.  Putting this man back in office, despite his intransigence, is disgraceful.

Gubernatorial Races
GOOD

John Kasich (R-OH) returned control of the state to the GOP despite nearly a dozen visits by the Obama Whitehouse in support of his opponent Strickland.  Ohio went for Obama in 2008 and this dramatic turn here does not bode well for Obama's re-election in 2012.

BAD

Jerry Brown (D-CA) won the governorship here despite the fact that many of California's ills today can be traced back to their genesis with his horrible stewardship of the state when he was governor decades ago.  He admitted that he had no plan back then and yet Californians returned him to the governor's mansion.  My best advice here is to build a border fence around the state and ensure that the federal government absolutely under no circumstances bails out California in their impending bankruptcy which his election will only hasten.

There are still some races too close to call at this point, but overall, the country now has a chance to be restored.  We will be watching closely to ensure that this is what is done by our newly elected officials.

Governor Brewer's Letter to Secretary Clinton Regarding Arizona's "Human Rights Violations" Reported to the United Nations

A friend who lives in the great state of Arizona forwarded this latest letter written by Arizona Governor Janice Brewer to the Honorable Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  It would appear that our U.S. State Department feels that America's in general, and Arizona's in particular, human rights violations are so grotesque as to be warranted mentioning to the corrupt and incompetent United Nations and its "High Commissioner on Human Rights". 

In light of the fact that some of the most egregious and pernicious nation violators of human rights and dignity have sat on that commission in the past, and indeed do so currently, I can absolutely understand Governor Brewer's anger accordingly.  Needless to say, her letter leaves no doubt as to what her positions are in protecting Arizona, her constituents, and the United States of America.  Take note, Secretary Clinton; this is how a real leader should govern!

(Hat tip again to Carrie!)

Illegal Immigration, Governor Brewer, and The Phoenix Suns' Owner

A friend who actually lives in Arizona sent me this email.  I included her thoughts on the matter as she did an excellent job of putting this issue into proper perspective.

I just got this email and wanted to pass it on for 2 reasons: Jan Brewer is a gutsy, smart woman and because she brings home the idea that yes, it is all well and good to support something from an idealistic standpoint, (We all support human rights and feel sympathy for those who don't have what we do; we give to charity, the most of any country, and we believe in justice and tolerance as does our nation. But does that mean the U.S. should not have dedicated and defined borders? Does that mean we must take in all peoples whose countries are poor? Can we?)

What happens when those ideals directly affect you? Do you feel the same way? Can you feel the same way? Do you have the room and the funds in your own house to take in everyone who would come to you?
I think so many who stand aloof and lofty about Arizona would not be so "superior" when the issue became personally involving.

Carrie


Subject: Arizona Governor vs. Phoenix Suns Owner


The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, opposes Arizona's new immigration laws. Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer released the following statement in response to Sarver's criticism of the new law:

"What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected.


Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?"  -Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer

Governor Brewer and my friend Carrie are correct.  The reflexive knee-jerk reaction from Sun's owner Mr. Sarver may seem like the compassionate thing to do, but one would be curious to see his reaction were it to affect his bottom line, as per Governor Brewer's hypothetical situation above.  One suspects his compassion would disappear rapidly. 

This is a second black mark against Mr. Sarver and his evil Suns as I hold them responsible for what one can only assume was cheating in getting past my beloved Portland Trailblazers in the playoffs last season. :)  Now he has only compounded the matter with his foolishness on the illegal immigration issue.

The Arizona Immigration Law is Likely Unconstitutional but Not Racist

President Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, had the Department of Justice file a lawsuit on Tuesday this week against the state of Arizona and its governor, Janice Brewer, in response to the state’s having passed a law meant to enforce the existing federal law on illegal immigration. President Obama, many congressional Democrats, and much of the national media has portrayed this law as racist and insists that it will result in far greater racial profiling, despite the fact that the state of Arizona specifically went back and amended their law to ensure that this would not be the case. Further, Governor Brewer issued Arizona State Executive Order 2010-09 to further clarify this fact. Excerpts from this order state,

“WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1070 requires a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state, county, city, town, or other political subdivision when lawful contact is made and reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, to reasonably attempt, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation; and


WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1070 provides that the immigration enforcement by police agencies shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens…” (emphasis is mine)

Now despite the Obama administration’s public relations attempt to couch this law as racist, the DOJ lawsuit does not mention this as a reason for the impetus of this lawsuit. Rather, the suit argues that,

"The United States Constitution forbids Arizona from supplanting the federal government's immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy, a policy that, in purpose and effect, interferes with the numerous interests the federal government must balance."

So one must ask the question, if this is the government’s case against this state law, and as much as I understand and can appreciate the reasoning behind Arizona’s passing of this law I suspect the federal government does indeed have a solid winnable case with this argument, why does our president and most Democrats rail against this law for its “inherent racism”? The fact is that they cannot claim such in a court of law, because the Arizona state law merely enforces existing but unenforced federal immigration law. There is no racist element attached to the law; rather, there are assurances built into it to mitigate the likelihood of any racist intent occurring.

Governor Brewer said in a written statement, "It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels. Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice."

She went on to point out "the irony" of suing Arizona for its immigration enforcement law but ignoring cities and other local governments whose "patchwork local ‘sanctuary’ policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials." Governor Brewer is correct on this issue. If the federal government is going to make a legal case against states (and other political subdivisions) for making immigration laws in support of the federal government, should they not also be suing those municipalities that have enacted their own immigration laws declaring their borders to be “sanctuaries” for illegal aliens in violation of federal immigration law also?

The bottom line is that Arizona in its frustration over the lack of federal law enforcement in the protection of our borders and citizens accordingly has passed what is likely an unconstitutional law meant to be a catalyst to inspire the U.S. government to enforce existing federal laws. The Arizona law is not racist; The Obama administration and congressional Democrats know this, despite rhetoric to the contrary. Equal protection under the Constitution is not being enforced, as the federal Department of Justice is still turning a blind eye to sanctuary cities, and in the end this whole issue is a cynical ploy by the Democrats to hopefully expand their future voting block in the years to come as they cry for “comprehensive immigration reform” whereby to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

This issue is nothing more than being about the consolidation of power through the expansion of the Democratic voting base. The feigned compassion for these people would quickly evaporate if it appeared that a majority of them, upon being granted United States citizenship, would become registered Republicans. That is how you know what this debate truly is about, my friends.