M. Speaker:

I rise to take strong exception to the speech of the President of Mexico while in this chamber today.

The Mexican government has made it very clear for many years that it holds American sovereignty in contempt and President Calderon’s behavior as a guest of the Congress confirms and underscores this attitude.

It is highly inappropriate for the President of Mexico to lecture Americans on American immigration policy, just as it would be for Americans to lecture Mexico on its laws.

It is obvious that President Calderon does not understand the nature of America or the purpose of our immigration law.

Unlike Mexico’s immigration law — which is brutally exclusionary — the purpose of America’s law is not to keep people out. It is to assure that as people come to the United States, they do so with the intention of becoming Americans and of raising their children as Americans.

Unlike Mexico, our nation embraces immigration and what makes that possible is assimilation.

A century ago President Teddy Roosevelt put it this way. He said:

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he [Continue...]]]> From 5/20/2010 speech on floor of Congress:

M. Speaker:

I rise to take strong exception to the speech of the President of Mexico while in this chamber today.

The Mexican government has made it very clear for many years that it holds American sovereignty in contempt and President Calderon’s behavior as a guest of the Congress confirms and underscores this attitude.

It is highly inappropriate for the President of Mexico to lecture Americans on American immigration policy, just as it would be for Americans to lecture Mexico on its laws.

It is obvious that President Calderon does not understand the nature of America or the purpose of our immigration law.

Unlike Mexico’s immigration law — which is brutally exclusionary — the purpose of America’s law is not to keep people out. It is to assure that as people come to the United States, they do so with the intention of becoming Americans and of raising their children as Americans.

Unlike Mexico, our nation embraces immigration and what makes that possible is assimilation.

A century ago President Teddy Roosevelt put it this way. He said:

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

That is how we have built one great nation from the people of all the nations of the world.

The largest group of immigrants now comes from Mexico. A recent RAND study discovered that during most of the 20th Century, while our immigration laws were actually enforced, assimilation worked and made possible the swift attainment of the American dream for millions of immigrants seeking to escape conditions in Mexico.

That is the broader meaning of our nation’s motto, “E Pluribus Unum” – from many people, one people, the American people.

But there is now an element in our political structure that seeks to undermine that concept of “E Pluribus Unum.” It seeks to hyphenate Americans, to develop linguistic divisions, to assign rights and preferences based on race and ethnicity, and to elevate devotion to foreign ideologies and traditions, while at the same time denigrating American culture, American values and American founding principles.

In order to do so, they know that they have to stop the process of assimilation. In order to do that, they must undermine our immigration laws.

It is an outrage that a foreign head of state would appear in this chamber and actively seek to do so. And it is a disgrace that he would be cheered on from the left wing of the White House and by many Democrats in this Congress.

Arizona has not adopted a new immigration law. All it has done is to enforce existing law that President Obama refuses to enforce. It is hardly a radical policy to suggest that if an officer on a routine traffic stop encounters a driver with no driver’s license, no passport, and who doesn’t speak English, that maybe that individual might be here illegally.

And to those who say we must reform our immigration laws – I reply that we don’t need to reform them – we need to enforce them. Just as every other government does. Just as Mexico does.

Above all, this is a debate of, by and for the American people. If President Calderon wishes to participate in that debate, I invite him to obey our immigration laws, apply for citizenship, do what 600,000 LEGAL immigrants to our nation are doing right now, learn our history and our customs, and become an American. And then he will have every right to participate in that debate.

Until then, I would politely invite him to have the courtesy while a guest of this Congress to abide by the fundamental rules of diplomacy between civilized nations not to meddle in each other’s domestic debates.

via “E Pluribus Unum” – A Response to President Calderon | Tom McClintock for Congress.

The good news is that this should free up some time for Obama to meet with Arizona governor Jan Brewer to discuss strategy on dealing with a potential Democrat voting bloc:  illegal aliens.  The Obama White House, while wringing it’s hands over the possibility that people might use the Arizona law to question why the feds aren’t enforcing theirs, couldn’t put aside an hour of time to meet with Brewer to discuss this controversy.

Apparently, everyone in the administration is too busy scrambling to read the ten page law that they already condemned.

With Obama touting his busy schedule, perhaps the country’s best investigative journalists (AKA James O’Keefe disguised as a caddy) can report on just how many golf games Obama squeezes in this week.

Obama was even too busy to attend the ceremony at Arlington National, instead opting to send his stand-up [Continue...]]]> Thanks to Leftist activists and anti-Semites (is that redundant?), Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had to beat President Obama to the snub this week and cancel a White House appearance in order to address an armed conflict.  Apparently, Netanyahu is more concerned about Palestinian terrorist sympathizers in the West Bank than he is about Palestinian terrorist sympathizers in Washington.

The good news is that this should free up some time for Obama to meet with Arizona governor Jan Brewer to discuss strategy on dealing with a potential Democrat voting bloc:  illegal aliens.  The Obama White House, while wringing it’s hands over the possibility that people might use the Arizona law to question why the feds aren’t enforcing theirs, couldn’t put aside an hour of time to meet with Brewer to discuss this controversy.

Apparently, everyone in the administration is too busy scrambling to read the ten page law that they already condemned.

With Obama touting his busy schedule, perhaps the country’s best investigative journalists (AKA James O’Keefe disguised as a caddy) can report on just how many golf games Obama squeezes in this week.

Obama was even too busy to attend the ceremony at Arlington National, instead opting to send his stand-up stand-in, Joe ‘Leave ‘em Laughing’ Biden, to place the wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

I understand that it’s not mandatory for a president to attend this sacred rite but let’s put it in perspective.   Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush didn’t attend these events religiously (Bush reportedly didn’t attend any in his four year term).

The difference of course is that the military loved and respected these leaders.  Reagan aimed to shave the military of its Vietnam-five-o’clock-shadow and Bush was a war hero who led a brilliant military campaign against Saddam Hussein.

Flash forward and today we have a Leftist president with a history of being on the wrong side of America’s foreign policy, including his own.  Obama has done little to instill confidence and devotion to the nation’s defenders.  The Fort Hood massacre saw a detached and canned response from it’s Commander-in-Chief.  The Iraq War has been over since Obama was declared the president-elect in November 2008.  The Afghanistan War displayed the Obama Revolving Door policy of winning a war where soldiers are sent on a round trip vacation with no goals but the promise of getting shot at.

Incidentally, Obama’s favorite soldiers are robots that drop bombs from overhead.  The president is scheduled to place a wreath at the Chicago Sci-Fi convention later today.

Whoever is running Obama’s PR machine should be tried for treason.  No one could accidentally make the president look this obtuse when it comes to our soldiers.  But I’ll give credit where credit is due – Vice President Biden was able to walk on stage, place his hand on his heart, stand….and walk off stage without embarrassing himself or those around him.  Good job, Joe!

Joe Biden really stepped up to the plate here after it became clear that the president would not and after Joe Sestak apparently turned down the offer to conduct the ceremony himself in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania senate race.

God bless those who serve, those who have served and those who are never coming home.

By Mark A. Wright

via usmemorialday.org

God Bless

I first saw him on a park bench I’ve seen him every day Sitting in a shady grove Where my children come to play Sometimes he feeds the birds and squirrels Or whittles little toys Sometimes he just sits and smiles At the laughing girls and boys And I never paid him any mind ‘Till one day just this year I noticed that he wore a frown And on his cheek … a tear.

Well I asked him why he seemed so down He looked up, began to say I lost half my friends 60 years ago today He told me of the terror As he fought to reach dry land By the time the beachhead was secure Half his friends lay in the sand

That was just in one long day He fought on for 4 years more And the 60 years from then to now Have not dimmed His sights of war

He said they have reunions Just to keep in touch and share And for each comrade who has gone on They leave an empty chair

Well, His park bench has been empty now About 6 months or so And if I’d never took the time Then I never would’ve known That sitting on that simple bench With bread crumbs and little toys Was a [Continue...]]]> HEROES UNAWARE

By Mark A. Wright

via usmemorialday.org

God Bless

I first saw him on a park bench
I’ve seen him every day
Sitting in a shady grove
Where my children come to play
Sometimes he feeds the birds and squirrels
Or whittles little toys
Sometimes he just sits and smiles
At the laughing girls and boys
And I never paid him any mind
‘Till one day just this year
I noticed that he wore a frown
And on his cheek … a tear.

Well I asked him why he seemed so down
He looked up, began to say
I lost half my friends 60 years ago today
He told me of the terror
As he fought to reach dry land
By the time the beachhead was secure
Half his friends lay in the sand

That was just in one long day
He fought on for 4 years more
And the 60 years from then to now
Have not dimmed His sights of war

He said they have reunions
Just to keep in touch and share
And for each comrade who has gone on
They leave an empty chair

Well, His park bench has been empty now
About 6 months or so
And if I’d never took the time
Then I never would’ve known
That sitting on that simple bench
With bread crumbs and little toys
Was a man who gave his all
To guarantee my daily joys

So give thanks to all the men and women
Who’re still here or have gone before
And made the highest sacrifice
In both Peace time and in War
Because they bought our freedom
Paid their own blood, sweat, and tears
Then endured the heartache of those empty chairs
For all these years

So please do not ignore them
Or speed by without a care
‘Cause you never know
When you might pass by
A hero, unaware

Note by the poet: “The old man in this story is an amalgam of my grandfather who used to sit in a chair behind his house and tell me stories of WWI after I came in from the fields at the end of the day. He was mustard-gassed there, fighting with modern weapons, but using mules. Of Noris Tanton, of Commerce Texas, who barely made it off the ship with his life at Pearl Harbor, December 7th, 1941. And all the other WWII survivors I have talked to throughout the years. My father-in-law, James Rowse of Wolfe City Texas, who, even though he fought in Korea, graciously considers me a Comrade in Arms because of my Naval Submarine service over the last 18 years. Lowell Clemens, Jim Sullivan, and all the other Viet Nam Vets who I have had the privilege of knowing and serving with. And lastly, all the people like Barry Shay, Thomas Galliher, Mark Heithaus, Patrick Rourk, Marv Mumblo, Chip Green, Chip Sumner, Tony Zilar and the list goes on, that I have served with on Submarines and Surface Ships, with the Marines, in clinics, Hospitals and school for all these years of turbulent peace.

My heroes Unaware.” — Mark A. Wright, HMC(SS) – 6/22/2000

Rep. Tom McClintock Takes Mexican President Felipe Calderón To The Woodshed

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of [the United States Constitution], said Thursday he hasn’t yet read the [constitution] and is going by what he’s read in newspapers or seen on television.

Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the [constitution], at President Obama’s request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the [constitution] by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.

Maybe he could combine legal challenges against Arizona with the KSM trial and truly embarrass himself.  By the time he’s done it will be determined that KSM will not have to provide his identification and he’ll be released with an apology…

via top_10_democrat_slogans.jpg (JPEG Image, 500×467 pixels).

What is Spanish for “go to Hell”?

I’ll let others conduct arguments about student rights and school attempts to keep the peace as well as the boiling cultural battles between Mexican-Americans and American-Americans. The real issue I had with this whole sad fiasco is the fact that there are young people in this country who have the audacity to suggest that there is such a thing as a day where allegiance to another nation outranks allegiance to this one.

As Americans, let’s all come to this understanding:  there is no day, no event, no annual festivities, no foreign triumphs…that makes American patriotism a backseat expression.  There is no “some other day” when it comes to the American flag.  If America gave patriotism a day off every time some other nation celebrated a victory over the French, we would have to mothball our flags for much of the year.

The local Morgan Hill Times described Hispanic students who felt that the presence of an American flag was “disrespecting the Mexican-American students” on “the only day that they celebrate their Mexican heritage”.

“It’s disrespectful to do it on Cinco de Mayo.  They can be a patriot on some other day.  Not that specific day.”

What is Spanish for “go to Hell”?

I’ll let others conduct arguments about student rights and school attempts to keep the peace as well as the boiling cultural battles between Mexican-Americans and American-Americans. The real issue I had with this whole sad fiasco is the fact that there are young people in this country who have the audacity to suggest that there is such a thing as a day where allegiance to another nation outranks allegiance to this one.

As Americans, let’s all come to this understanding:  there is no day, no event, no annual festivities, no foreign triumphs…that makes American patriotism a backseat expression.  There is no “some other day” when it comes to the American flag.  If America gave patriotism a day off every time some other nation celebrated a victory over the French, we would have to mothball our flags for much of the year.

The local Morgan Hill Times described Hispanic students who felt that the presence of an American flag was “disrespecting the Mexican-American students” on “the only day that they celebrate their Mexican heritage”.

I propose a compromise:  students who display or wear the colors of the American flag on Cinco de Mayo can be sent home and students who display or wear the colors of the Mexican flag can be sent home the other 364 days of the year.  That shouldn’t be a problem since Cinco de Mayo is the only day that they celebrate their Mexican heritage.

Which begs the question – if these people are so proud and so connected to their Mexican heritage, then why don’t they celebrate that on a full-time basis by…residing in Mexico?  Maybe it’s because Cinco de Mayo isn’t even really celebrated in Mexico like it is in the United States.  It’s not even a Mexican holiday, yet in the United States, we’re expected to hide our American flags so Mexican-Americans and illegal immigrants can fantasize for a day that they are actually devoted to Mexico without having to subject themselves on a permanent basis to the poverty and corruption that is in fact the contemporary byproduct of “Mexican heritage”.  It’s like spending your wedding anniversary telling everyone how wonderful your wife is and how much you love and adore her and then spending the rest of the year living with your mistress, who coincidentally has a better home and a job.  And no one had better dare mention your mistress on your wedding anniversary!

These are merely efforts by hyphenated Americans, leftist groups and illegal immigration activists to further divide America by race and ethnicity.  The American flag is a symbol that embodies a little bit of everyone, regardless of background or skin color or religion.  Unlike virtually all other nation flags on mother Earth, it is by its existence an inclusive symbol.  There is no reason for any ethnic group in America to be offended by the American flag.

If this school and these students who champion segregation for phony transnational holidays had any brains and any sense of their ‘American heritage’, they would have recognized this and defused any potential conflict by proudly including the American flag in their celebrations with the appreciation that this flag represents their freedom to fly another nation’s flag in this country.

The light at the end of the tunnel turned out to be other young people responding to this idiotic decision by school leaders by showing up to the school dressed in red, white and blue.

Cinco de Mayo bullies may want to keep this in mind – one sure way to galvanize the American spirit is to try and silence American patriotism so as not to interfere with the flying of foreign flags.

If Mexican-Americans don’t understand this, then they should spend less time worrying about their Mexican heritage and more time getting acquainted with their American heritage.

Immigration law polarizes Arizonans

The article consists of a couple of sob stories and some politicians griping.  Nowhere in the article does it discuss, describe or even mention the word “polarize”.

That’s fitting since this is one of the few major pieces of legislation to pass recently that does not polarize Americans, much less Arizonans.  70% support for this law is not ‘polarization’; it’s called a solid majority.

‘Polarization’ apparently occurs when a leftist minority oppose what most Americans favor.  The War of the Words continues…

The left’s war on words rears its ugly head again, this time in Arizona where a common sense law has just been passed that will actually make being in the United States illegally…illegal for the nearly half-a-million who choose to reside in Arizona.  As the great state of Arizona challenges the notion that dealing with illegal immigration is solely a federal responsibility, this could turn into the ultimate battle between states rights and an overbearing and inept federal bureaucracy. (Besides, it is still ultimately the feds responsibility – AZ law enforcement simply turns these criminals over to the feds when they are apprehended)

While there are more troubling aspects to this controversy (such as the president of the United States looking into the legality of such a law when he should be first looking into where the executive branch of the federal government gets to challenge state laws), what jumped out at me is the careful use of language by supporters of illegal immigration and the ever-impartial press.

Statement after statement by activists and radicals refers to this law as an attack on immigrants or immigration.  The key missing ingredient to their complaint is the word, “illegal”.  As in, “illegal immigrant” or [Continue...]]]>

The left’s war on words rears its ugly head again, this time in Arizona where a common sense law has just been passed that will actually make being in the United States illegally…illegal for the nearly half-a-million who choose to reside in Arizona.  As the great state of Arizona challenges the notion that dealing with illegal immigration is solely a federal responsibility, this could turn into the ultimate battle between states rights and an overbearing and inept federal bureaucracy. (Besides, it is still ultimately the feds responsibility – AZ law enforcement simply turns these criminals over to the feds when they are apprehended)

While there are more troubling aspects to this controversy (such as the president of the United States looking into the legality of such a law when he should be first looking into where the executive branch of the federal government gets to challenge state laws), what jumped out at me is the careful use of language by supporters of illegal immigration and the ever-impartial press.

Statement after statement by activists and radicals refers to this law as an attack on immigrants or immigration.  The key missing ingredient to their complaint is the word, “illegal”.  As in, “illegal immigrant” or “illegal immigration”.

This of course is deliberate and an attempt to present their position as mainstream while padding the demonization of their opponents, allowing more legitimate voices to weigh in on their side.  I only hope we don’t mistakenly deport Al Sharpton.

This type of language game is pathetic and destructive, even self-destructive.  It attempts to blur the line between legal immigrant and illegal immigrant and is in no way confined to this most recent debate.  Most Americans (duh!) are opposed to illegal immigration which puts pro-illegal immigration activists in the fringe.

Blurring the lines is a tactic that seems so counterproductive, it’s almost the byproduct of insanity but surely the byproduct of insincerity.  These arguments often dismiss the obvious and the reasonable in a desperate attempt to inject an alternative view of obvious and reasonable.

For example:

Conservatives criticize and attack radical and Jihadist Islam, specific veins of Islam, the millions who are content with using Islam as a weapon to kill or convert infidels.  The Left counters those attacks by criticizing those arguments as attacks on all Muslims.  What is more damaging to mainstream Islam?  Or, arguments that focus on the bad apples or arguments that link the good people with the bad by saying that any criticism of the bad is a criticism of all?

Omissions are more prevalent when the left and the mainstream media are trying to advance a cause.  The scandals rocking the Catholic Church (and to a lesser extent, the Boy Scouts of America) are described as sexual abuse scandals but are never identified for what they really are, simply by omitting the word “homosexual” from the description.  There is a virtual nonexistence regarding male-on-female (or female-on-male) abuse stories reported which makes it quite evident that there is a trend of male-on-male abuse in these institutions and that these institutions have a point about prohibiting open and known homosexuals from positions of power and influence.

Abortion is an easy one.  Abortion essentially represents the only time we discuss babies in the womb without actually using the term “baby”…that is if you are advocating the killing of babies in the womb.  No one asks an expectant mother, “When is your fetus due?” or “How long have you been carrying your wad of tissue?”  Yet, when it comes to terminating a pregnancy, advocates are deliberate in their attempt to desensitize the issue by applying more scientific terminology where it otherwise would not be acceptable.

Even the Obama Administration is conducting a war on language in order to soften their agenda.  Our homeland security and overseas military operations are no longer a ‘war-on-terror’ in response to ‘Islamic extremism’.  What is it now?  Who knows.  Apparently, that pesky fight with forces that have killed thousands of Americans over the years has been resolved.

Food stamps are no longer referred to as…food stamps.  Instead, we have the “SNAP” program, renamed just in time to double the amount of money the federal government spends on feeding Americans and just in time for their ‘snappy’ ad campaign to try and entice college students to enroll in food-welfare, er, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs.  These are the games we have to play if we want tax payers to feed even more than 13% of the population.

The word game is played to the point that Americans have become accustomed to the realization that Democrats never actually mean what they say.  Democrats suggest that by hearing or reading their words verbatim, conservatives are taking those words out of context.  The alternative is that Democrats have a very weak grasp of the English language and the concept that words actually have meaning and the choice of words does matter.

When John Kerry joked that those who don’t complete their education wind up in Iraq, his words indicated that he was talking about US soldiers but his explanation was that he was in fact talking about the President of the United States.  Oops.  When a congressman declares that he doesn’t “worry about the Constitution on this” he in fact does worry about the Constitution and once you use your Red Rider decoder ring to translate his words, he is actually saying that the health care legislation he was referring to is constitutional.  When Michelle Obama states that she is proud of her country for the first time, that obviously means she’s been proud all along.  When President Obama states that we the world’s military superpower, “whether we like it or not”, we are instructed to re-craft his entire statement in a myriad of ways until it can be deciphered into something less offensive to most Americans.  When Joe Biden says…well, anything…we just chuckle and move on…

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin is taken out of context for things that Tina Fey said.  George W. Bush is also slammed for saying things he never said.

Just so we’re all on the same page – conservatives/Republicans are criticized for things they don’t say; leftwing Democrats can’t be criticized for anything they do say until it is first processed through a context-grinder.

Going through the records, it’s apparent that Democrats have never said anything regrettable, embarrassing, un-American or wrong.

Which explains why they are so loved and revered by the American people…

TIS posted a YouTube video in it’s In Case You Haven’t Seen showcase displaying an NBC reporter at a Tea Party event singling out a black man and asking him if he feels uncomfortable!

My first thought is if he was uncomfortable…why would he be be there?! Do reporters think that black people are too stupid to figure things out for themselves? Did she want to remind him that the welfare office was a couple of blocks over because he was obviously lost? Did she think he was blind and didn’t realize he was surrounded by hostile, racist white people?

The man she interviewed handled it perfectly. He gave a ‘this is unbelievable’ laugh and said, “I’m not uncomfortable – I’m with my people, Americans.”

He should have turned it around and said, ‘However, you are a mainstream media reporter at a tea party rally surrounded by conservatives. The real question is…are YOU uncomfortable?’