Archive for December 30th, 2009

The first thing our “Homeland Security” Secretary did was to freeze ICE.

Freezing ICE

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has ordered a review of the ICE raid in Bellingham, WA. The New York Times reports “A high-level official in the Department of Homeland Security said that Ms. Napolitano had not been informed about the raid on Tuesday before it happened, and that she was seeking details about its planning and scope. ‘She was not happy about it because it’s inconsistent with her position, and the president’s position on these matters,’ ” This is the chance for the new administration to set policy for ICE based on the administration’s professed positions and values. link

Chalk this up as another broken promise from Obama, who said during the campaign that he would hold employers responsible for using illegal labor at the expense of American workers.

Then he appoints the incompetent open borders advocate “Janet Napolitano” as head of homeland security. Yeah, I fell a lot safer with her at the helm. If we can’t have workplace enforcement, we can’t end illegal immigration, which is just the opposite of the REAL agenda that is at work here, which is amnesty.

Ending E-Verify, a program that is 99.5% accurate is the next step these so called “leaders” will try. It’s pretty sad and pathetic policy on the part of Napolitano, especially during this time of high unemployment and a sinking economy.

Next, she identifies patriots, such as returning soldiers, as “Right-Wing Extremists“, while ignoring the true threat of radical Islamic Jihadists, referring to terrorist acts  as  “man-made disasters”.

Now, in the wake of a Christmas day terrorist attack, Napolitano stated “the system worked”.  Only after she realized how utterly ridiculous her statement was did she backtrack her remarks and reverse her position.

At this point, how can anyone, including the left, support her continuing in the position of Homeland Security Secretary? She is clearly not up to the job and she never has been. This is just another example of a flawed appointment by the Obama administration and she should be forced out of this extremely important post.

One of the most disturbing developments that has arisen out of the health care debate is how everyone appears to be on-board with the idea that insurance companies must now cover anyone with a pre-existing condition. What is being downplayed, or forgotten, is the fact that all citizens must be forced into purchasing health insurance if we require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. These two choices are not mutually exclusive. You simply can’t have one without the other and maintain a viable insurance system.

So, what’s the problem you ask? Well, aside from the obvious financial issues, requiring every U.S. citizen to purchase health insurance, or anything else for that matter, is unconstitutional on it’s face. The argument that everyone must carry liability insurance on their vehicles doesn’t hold water. I have a choice as to whether or not I choose to purchase a vehicle.  Many choose not to own a vehicle and those people are not required to carry insurance. This is the key difference. No one will have any choice in the matter of health insurance. All citizens would be required to purchase health insurance or have the I.R.S. come after their property, or worse yet, toss them in prison.

Where are the so called “conservatives” on this issue? Well, most of the GOP are on-board with these mandates, although they don’t use those words. They simply parrot the “cover pre-existing conditions” mantra while ignoring the other side of the equation, individual mandates.

If you want to understand why independents, libertarians and conservatives are running away from the GOP, look no further than this single pivot point in the health care debate. Those who still believe in liberty, freedom and personal responsibility are outraged by the idea of individual mandates. We see these mandates for what they really are, an attempt to control every aspect of our lives. It can be argued that every action we take can affect one’s heath and armed with these arguments, those who seek control will have a huge stick with which to force the citizenry into conformity, so as to benefit the collective.

I would suggest that before anyone jumps on the “pre-existing conditions”  bandwagon, they consider the other side of the equation, which is individual mandates. Consider carefully what this actually means to your liberty and your freedom. Take a close look at all politicians who are supporting these mandates, especially those holding themselves up as conservatives.

The neocons are still on the march.

Further reading on individual mandates can be found here.