Chuck Thinks Right

Liberal Media Bias, Today’s Installment

2008-07-19T12:28:00.000-07:00

Not to sound like a broken record, but liberal media bias is rearing it’s ugly head yet again. (note: I realize some reading this may not know what a record is. It is a round black thing we used to use to listen to music. These were placed on a record player and would revolve and the music would be picked up with an arm that had a needle in it. We stopped using them when they started putting disco music on them.) Anyways back to the media bias. Today’s example is Barrack Obama’s trip to Europe and the Middle East.

John McCain traveled to Europe and the Middle East in March and how was the trip covered by the media? The networks were highly critical of the trip. Some attacked McCain for wasting taxpayer’s money. Some ridiculed him for jetting around Europe while American’s were hurting financially. Some called it a campaign stunt. This of course was when they were paying attention at all. For the most part, they generally ignored the trip when there was not scorn to pile on him.

Now fast forward to the present, and Obama’s trip to Europe and the Middle East. One would assume in the interest of fairness, the media would have all of the same questions and criticisms for Obama because surely they would apply to him too. If one were to assume this one would be a complete and absolute idiot, or, better known as a liberal.

Obama is traveling to Europe and the Middle East and the media is not attacking him. There have been no questions about taxpayer money although he is using secret service protection. There is no criticism of him jetting around anywhere while Americans are hurting financially. This even though gas is almost a dollar a gallon higher than when McCain went and the stock market is lower. There is no accusations of it being a campaign stunt although there will be large public rallies.

Finally, there is definitely no ignoring the trip by the media. While the media largely ignored McCain’s trip, the big three networks of NBC, CBS, and ABC are sending their nightly news anchors along on the trip. Although I have not heard specifically, I would assume CNN and MSNBC are doing the same.

I have said this before though and I will say it again and again and again. This bias is not their fault. It’s ours. If your unhappy about this type of slanted coverage, stop watching them. I have not watched a big three network news program in years. My wife and I used to watch the Today Show every morning. We were watching the Today Show on 9/11 when the airplanes flew into the World Trade Center. Haven’t watched them in years as they have become more and more liberal.

We need to run them off the air. The bottom line is if people stop watching these slanted news shows, the networks will not be able to afford to air them. Do not think that it will not work. All of the major liberal news organizations, television, radio, daily, and weekly print are losing money and laying off staff. I am calling for an outright boycott of all liberal media. Stop watching the nightly news. Turn off CNN and MSNBC. Demand that your local newspaper starts being more balanced. The bottom line is we don’t need them anymore. We have Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard. Most importantly, we have the internet. For decades, the MSM controlled the flow of news in this country, those days are over. We can get our news unfiltered by the liberal MSM. Just do it.

Presidential Campaign Polls Tightening

2008-07-17T07:34:00.000-07:00

According to reports, the polls for the presidential campaign are tightening with various polls showing John McCain either even or within the margin of error with Barack Obama. Most previous polls had shown Obama ahead by 6 to 15 points (I never believed this one). Now to be fair, it is way too early to put any stock in the polls but the fact that in a "Democratic year", McCain is able to pull close is significant. Talking heads on cable news have all kinds of theories as to why this is. Not surprisingly, I have my own thoughts.

I think it is hard to give McCain credit. The poll numbers certainly are not because of the spectacular campaign he has run, he hasn’t actually started campaigning yet. He makes occasional speeches but he hasn’t actually formulated a coherent message yet. Here’s hoping he does before December.

One could argue that McCain’s effect on the polls could be from his stability and familiarity. As Obama has become erratic in his message and as it becomes more and more apparent that he has no foreign policy experience, McCain seems a safer choice. One large advantage McCain has over Obama is experience. This may be a significant advantage as the election draws nearer. In the spring when the election is six months away, it’s easy for people to be attracted to Obama’s feel good message of change. As we get closer to the election, it seems more real and people may become more concerned with Obama’s lack of experience.

I think though that the change in numbers is largely because of Obama. Obama is finding the inherent problem with liberalism, people don't buy it. Liberalism works well in the Democratic primary, in fact it's required. But when you move to the general election, a candidate finds that the people who buy into the ultra leftist message are a small minority of the general population. So when moving on to the general election, a candidate has to move to the center to attract moderates. No surprise here, candidates of both parties do it.

Obama’s problem though is he was too good at being an ultra leftist ideologue. He went so far to the left that he cannot come back far enough for the moderates. This was exacerbated this year with the intense and protracted primary between Obama and Hillary Clinton. They were put in the position of trying to ‘out liberal’ each other.

This has also cost him support among his base. He had them believing he was the real deal, one of them, and they are upset with his shift to the center. He has especially angered people on the left with his changing (sometimes in the same day) positions on the Iraq war. He made some comments indicating he may be willing to listen to the Generals commanding the war when deciding how he would proceed with his troop draw down. While this is completely logical and is the only truly safe way to proceed, it was met with howls of protest from the far left. The anti-war crowd is unbending In their approach to the Iraq war. They want it over. They don’t care about the cost, they don’t care about the safety of the Iraqi citizens, they don’t even care about the safety of the US or the troops that would be withdrawing. They just want us out, now. For most of them, this is the only issue of the campaign. Further, this group is extra sensitive because they feel they were betrayed by the Democrats in the 2006 mid-term elections. They were promised in no uncertain terms that the Dems would end the Iraq war if given control of Congress. What happened in reality is that the newly elected Democratic majority effectively became George Bush’s lap dog on the Iraq war. They essentially made no meaningful progress on withdrawal and continued funding the war mostly on his terms. The left is in a very sour mood about this.

To maintain his support on the left he over corrected and turned hard left again, which is costing him with the moderates. More importantly it made him appear indecisive, highlighting his inexperience, and is further feeding into the perception that he is not the “change” candidate, or a new type of leader, but instead a retread of the old style politician who is willing to say anything to get elected. After breaking promises on campaign financing and not being willing to debate McCain in town hall meetings, Obama’s strikes against being an advocate for change are starting to add up. Even more damaging is his constant insistence that he is not changing his position. His Iraq war position follows a typical script for him. Make a statement for/against something, be criticized, change his position, release a statement saying he did not change his position he was for/against this particular issue all along, the media releases a video clip contradicting him. You almost think the Dems haven’t heard of Lexus-Nexus or knew that news networks archive video tape.

Another issue that may be hurting Obama is gas prices. American’s are growing restless on runaway gas prices and Obama, along with the rest of the Democratic party, is stubbornly remaining on the wrong side of the issue. This may cost him and may be reflected in the polls now.

Lastly, the aura surrounding Obama is losing it’s luster. The constant changing positions, the Rev Wright’s, the hateful statements by his wife, and the perception that he is just another politician are taking their toll on Obama’s mystique.

I wondered early on if he maybe was peaking too early. The election cannot come early enough for Obama. It is very possible the slide backwards is not over. There are two real risks for Obama. One, the numbers are even and the Republicans haven’t really started campaigning yet. Once the GOP and the right leaning 527’s start running ads Obama has a real risk of being defined by them. Second, there’s always the chance that McCain might actually campaign. If the polls are tied now with McCain’s campaign asleep, what would happen if he actually came to?

I still maintain that there is not only a chance McCain will beat Obama, I think the Congressional races are not carved in stone yet. Obama’s popularity could be slipping, the Democrats keep ignoring the gas price crunch and stick to the far left positions on the issue, and, am I the only one noting that the Dems are starting to collect scandals? This may not be the Democratic year everyone is forecasting.

The NYT Tells Employees To Remain Politically Neutral

2008-07-14T17:37:00.000-07:00

Craig Whitney, the standards editor for the New York Times has sent a memo out to all staff informing them of the NYT’s policy of remaining politically neutral. “Journalists have no place on the playing fields of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times” story

There are some statements that are so patently absurd you’re not even sure how to proceed.

First, who knew the Times had a standards editor? He must not be very good at his job. Because if the Times have journalistic standards at all they certainly don’t include them in their reporting. This is a newspaper who was so lacking in standards they had to install an ombudsman to police their reporting in an attempt to restore a little of their credibility. The ombudsman, Clark Hoyt, has certainly been busy with their penchant for partially reporting the full story, ignoring facts that contradict the stories, or flat out fabricating stories. The good thing for the Times is they can, and do, simply ignore the ombudsman. I can recall one specific instance in which the ombudsman criticized them for an inaccurate article, confronted them with the facts, and the editors simply ignored the evidence and stated they stood by their story.

Finally, political neutrality? How the hell do you even comment on something like this? The Times sets the standard for liberal bias. They have spent the last seven years dumping on George Bush. Their anti-troop rhetoric is an embarrassment to the country. Lastly, their devotion to the Democratic party is limitless which makes this statement priceless “Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributors, any political giving by a Times staff member would carry a great risk of feeding a false impression that the paper is taking sides.”

Gasp, they wouldn’t want anyone thinking they are taking sides.

The Passing Of A Class Act (and the posting of the classless)

2008-07-12T19:10:00.000-07:00

Tony Snow passed away today at the age of 53. This man was a joy to watch on Fox. His commentary was straightforward with a decided rightward tilt. His most memorable moments for me were when he was the Press Secretary for the George W Bush White House. He brought humor and dignity to the job and his sparring with the White House Press Corps was fun to watch. His tenure was the only time I enjoyed watching White House press conferences.

More importantly, he appeared to be a classy individual and a good family man. The courage he showed with his ongoing public battle with cancer was inspiring. At least publicly he appeared to face this battle as he did his skirmishes in the White House press room, with stubbornness and humor. To read more about this man’s life you can read the story at Foxnews.com or read an excellent blog at geeeeeZ!.

As far as the subtitle of this blog, I visited the Huffington Post today. I did this out of curiosity to see how they were reporting the news of Mr. Snow’s passing. I would like to pretend that I was shocked at what I saw. Knowing what this site and the general population on the left is like though, I can’t even pretend to be surprised. The article itself was fairly respectful. They didn’t miss any chances to point out his partisanship and there was some backhanded criticism but overall is was as even as you could expect form this site. The comments though were a different matter. I went to the site this afternoon and there was a sprinkling of defenders of Mr. Snow but the rest was pure hatred. There were over a hundred posts. When I went back this evening, there were only 98 posts and this message “Comments are closed for this entry”. These are some of the posts the site administrators thought were OK to leave on:

So long, Tokyo Rose!

You're not talking about the Tony Snow I knew...he sold out his honesty and integrity to lie for Faux News and the most criminal administration the US has ever known...

It went thru my mind that the wrong FOX commentator is dead, but that's all I'll say

And, in case anyone thinks I am being paranoid about the site cleaning up the posts, there was this one:

I see HP is doing its job to keep these postings PC. Good job I guess?

Finally there was this one:

BUSH INVADED IRAQ...

And was directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, Iraqi and American. But gee, he seems like a really nice guy....

I don’t know what the hell this means. I guess it shows that liberals are not only hateful but also not very bright. Just be thankful I was not able to share some of the mean ones with you. Some of the stuff was downright evil, calling it Karma, cheering it as good news, etc.

I realize the Republicans have been accused of being spiteful in the past and some of it is deserved. There are times that people on the right have gone overboard and I have found their behavior embarrassing as a fellow conservative. I have never seen this type of vitriol from the right though. I do not remember a hard core liberal dying and having it cheered so strongly on the right as has happened with Mr. Snow and recently with Senator Helms. I checked the Huffington Post when Charleton Heston died and they would not even allow comments, knowing what would be spewed forth by their hateful readers.

I do not care to have this type of thing on my site and I would not continue the site if it were to turn into anything nearly as hateful as the Huffington post. It is clear that while the editors of the post sanitized the comments today, they tolerate this type of venom.

This day was definitely study in contrasts. We had the passing of a great and classy man. At the same time we had the worst of human nature and the posting of the most vile venom by the classless.

Comrade Obama: The Government Will Take Care Of Us

2008-07-10T13:43:00.000-07:00

John McCain apologized for something Phil Gramm said today,

Barack Obama ridiculed a John McCain economic adviser Thursday who said the United States has become a “nation of whiners” suffering from a “mental recession,” as McCain distanced himself from the remarks.

Phil Gramm, who now is the No. 2 at the Swiss bank UBS, told The Washington Times the U.S. has benefited from globalization but most Americans are misguided by constant reports that the economy is at its worst in 30 years.

“You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession,” Gramm, a former Texas senator, told the newspaper, adding that the presumptive Republican nominee will face an uphill battle fighting those perceptions.

“We have sort of become a nation of whiners,” he said. “You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline” despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

Link

First, I agree with Gramm, I have believed all along we have talked ourselves into this economic slowdown. Or, more accurately, we as a country have allowed the Democratic Party and the MSM to talk us into the slowdown.

Further I am disgusted with McCain falling over himself to apologize. He should have stood up and, clarify if he wants, but say that Gramm was fundamentally correct. America is in better shape than we believe and the fact that with all of the things going on, from recovering from the economic hits of 9/11, hurricane Katrina, etc to the slowdown in the housing market, to record gas prices, the American economy is still growing, inflation is stable, and only about 5% of Americans are unemployed. In my mind this means George Bush has developed a fairly resilient economy. Naturally he won’t get credit for it. But McCain has done what I have complained about before, instead of standing up and saying this, he pisses his pants and runs out and apologizes. This is a malady of the entire GOP leadership.

Off the soapbox though. There was a quote by Obama in response to Gramm's remarks that so far has not gotten any notice but is probably more a window into his beliefs than most other things he has said so far.

“Let’s be clear, when people are struggling with the rising costs of everything from gas to groceries, when we’ve lost 438,000 jobs over the past six months, when the typical family has lost $1,000 in income … since George Bush took office … this economic downturn is not in your heads.

“It isn’t whining to ask government to step in and give families some relief.”

Now I don’t want to be accused of taking his comment out of context, but this last statement, that the government will help, should scare us. He isn’t advocating fixing the problem that he thinks exists, his visceral reaction is that the government will take care of it for us. This is on top of his fellow Democratic Congressmen making comments recently about nationalizing the oil industry, Democratic leaders calling for the return of the Fairness Doctrine, and Obama himself wanting to nationalize health care.

The reality is that people better be paying attention to what the Democrats are saying this year. Listen to them and cast your vote by what you hear not based on past party loyalty. The current Democratic Party leadership of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barrack Obama are closer to socialists than people want to believe. They have the definite mindset that the government is there to take care of us. If you work for a living, you could be in a rough time with these people in control of your money.

In The Middle Of A War, A Divorce Breaks Out

2008-07-08T20:07:00.000-07:00

In case you have spent the last week on another planet, let me share this week’s breaking news with you. Pop singer and all around nutcase Madonna is divorcing her husband Guy Ritchie and New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez is divorcing his wife Cynthia. To make it even more interesting there are rumors that A-Rod and Madonna may have been having an affair at a Kabbalah meeting (or something like that, I lost interest). Why, do you ask, is this news? I don’t know. I can guarantee you though that it is. This has gotten coverage on Fox news on Monday from sunup on Fox and Friends to sundown on On The Record with Greta and practically every minute in between. I only watch Fox at home but I have to assume the other networks cover this or something just as irrelevant with the same in-depth reporting as Fox does. I do watch CNN at work and I know they do the same.

I can understand the importance of this though. It’s not like there was anything else important going on. We only had two wars in progress yesterday. George Bush was at some meeting called the G8 Summit. The Pentagon announced that the Iraqi government was making progress on it’s benchmarks. Gas prices where continuing their climb through the ceiling. We have a presidential election going on. Barrack Obama’s plane had to make an emergency landing. John McCain made an important speech on the economy. Other than that it was a slow news day.

The national media is absolutely obsessed with celebrity gossip. Before we dump on them too much though, we do need to remember who’s fault this all is. It’s ours. Maybe not yours, certainly not mine, but definitely societies as a whole. There is one simple and hard fact about cable news, they report what people want to see. They are businesses first and news organizations second. The owners of the networks want to make money, in doing so they have effectively turned the news into entertainment.

Another reason this is boring is the simple fact that it is a celebrity divorce. I mean, yawn. If they wanted to get my attention, they would run a story on a celebrity marriage that actually made it more than 10 years. I know they exist but they are rare. I would like to hear a story about a celebrity couple that didn’t cheat on each other. Maybe a story about a celebrity who is not abusing some substance. This may actually qualify as news. Ok, maybe more like fantasy, but still news.

We have all made fun of the tabloid magazines sold at the checkouts of the grocery store. I believe most if not all of us have the guilty pleasure of reading the covers of these while standing in line. We love to see the latest Elvis sightings, the latest secret government UFO labs, and the babies raised by (insert your favorite wild animal here). I know I am not the only one who stands there and reads these. The good thing is, I don’t have to anymore. First, my wife does most of the shopping these days. Second, I can just turn on Fox News for my daily fix of tabloid news. Sorry, gotta go, they’re talking about Christie Brinkley’s divorce, seems her husband was caught cheating and spending $3000 a month on porn.

If Your Ever In Chicago, Get Some Lou Malnati’s Pizza

2008-07-04T20:13:00.000-07:00

I must admit, I saw this on another blog, but I was so moved I had to mention it here. Lou Malnati’s Pizza in Chicago sent 3000 pizzas to be served on seven different bases in Iraq.

The cost in itself was pretty substantial. Beyond this though is what it did for these men and women in Iraq. These troops are half way around the world and Lou Malnati’s did much more than make a simple contribution, it brought these people a taste of home. These troops are stuck in a desert eating rations. They’re away from their family on another holiday. To give them a brief respite from this is a gift far greater than the monetary cost to the company.

I have a brother stationed in Iraq, another brother less than a year removed from a deployment in Afghanistan so this show of support is personal for me. Whether or not my brother currently in Iraq benefited from this is unimportant. The simple knowledge that there are people out their like the owners and employees of this company makes it feel as if they have given my brother a gift directly.

So I would like to thank Lou Malnati’s Pizza and encourage anyone living in or visiting Chicago to get some pizza from them.

*Note: you can access an article about this in Stars and Stripes

Happy Birthday America

2008-07-04T07:42:00.000-07:00

Today we mark the anniversary of the Independence of our great country. From pancake breakfasts in the morning to fireworks at night Americans will celebrate together. Along the way we will go to picnics, parades, the beach, the park, or camping. The manner of observance is not as relevant as the meaning.

For most people this is a day off work, a long weekend to play. This is great and it is my sincere hope that you all enjoy the extra free time. Some believe holidays like the 4th of July, Memorial Day, Labor Day should not be looked as ‘just another day off work’. They would believe that the day should be spent in remembrance. I disagree. What better way to celebrate our freedom and honor those who have sacrificed for this freedom than to enjoy the fruits of the freedoms they have given us.

Take a moment though and marvel at the majesty of this great country. Born of the wont to escape tyranny, we have become a beacon for the world. Notwithstanding the critics of America, those from within and without, America is still the standard the rest of the world aspires to. The very fact that people inside America are able to criticize is a testament to our founding fathers. Finally, take a moment of reflection for the men and women throughout the years who have given life and limb to maintain these freedoms we enjoy.

So go to your picnics, the beach, or stay home with family and have a private celebration. Whatever your idea of a good time, have it and have a fun and safe Independence Day weekend.

Fairness Doctrine?

2008-06-25T18:38:00.000-07:00

Several Democrats, led by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), want to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. This poorly named law was cancelled during the Reagan administration. What it did was dictate that media providers had to give equal time to opposing viewpoints.

An obvious result (and the aim of Pelosi and crew) were this enacted is that a radio station airing a show such as Rush Limbaugh would have to provide the same amount of air time for a liberal radio host.

The first problem with this is the obvious hit the First Amendment would take. We would have the Federal Government dictating to media outlets what programming they could air. We are not talking preventing pornography or foul language. The though police would be assessing political speech and deciding it needed balance from another viewpoint.

Further we need to ask, who decides what political slant a show has? Are we going to set up a panel to decide that a radio station has to balance someone like Rush? How do they decide who should balance him? We will have a situation I which the government is rating programming as either conservative or liberal. What criteria will they use?

This is not only too ambiguous but also set up for significant abuse. Because of the ambiguity, any panel seated can decide anything they do not agree with is conservative or liberal, whichever their bias, and would therefore be targeted for “balance”.

The second problem is economic. The reality is that conservative radio sells and liberal radio does not. If a station has to provide 3 hours of programming for the 3 hours of Rush, will anybody listen? You have to look no further than Air America for an answer. Air America was a liberal radio network. It was given strong financing, aired in large markets, had a strong cast of household name liberal commentators, and failed miserably. If no one was listening to Air America, who is going to listen to 3 hours of a liberal program a station is forced to air? This will cause stations to choose between taking a financial hit for the 3 hours of liberal programming for the ability to run 3 hours of a profitable program like Rush Limbaugh.

The likely scenario is that the station will eventually have to drop programs like Rush Limbaugh or Shaun Hannity because of the financial hit. Therein lies the true reason for re-enacting this law, to silence commentators like these. These programs are a thorn in the side of liberals and a potent political tool for the right.

People on the left like Nancy Pelosi will not admit to themselves that the real issue here is their message. Liberal radio does not fail because of Limbaugh or Hannity. It fails because no one wants to listen to what liberal commentators have to say. So instead of self-examination and realizing that their message is out of the mainstream of America, they will turn to censorship and force us to listen. What we have is just more the tired old liberal attitude that they know what is best for us, even if we are too stupid to see it ourselves. Usually this attitude is annoying, occasionally it’s humorous, this time it is downright ugly and scary.

With Friends Like This…

2008-06-11T18:54:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama’s continuing “friend problem” is in the news again. Foxnews.com had an article today here: about the most recent Obama associate with a questionable past. Jim Johnson was on Obama’s team tasked with searching for a Vice Presidential candidate.

Mr. Johnson resigned today due to his ties with mortgage lender Countrywide Financial Corp. Johnson, a long time Democratic power player, has secured several potentially questionable loans totaling more than 7 million dollars from Countrywide. While no one has said the loans were obtained illegally, the questions arise from the fact that Johnson received below-market rates for the loans likely because of his friendship with the CEO of Countrywide, Angelo Mozilo.

Once the loans came to light, news sources started looking further into Mr. Johnson’s history. Johnson worked for Fannie Mae before they drew suspicion from regulators, among other questions about his personal career.

The real issue for Obama though is his constant criticism of Countrywide for it’s predatory lending practices. Having Mr. Johnson on his board was rightly criticized as being more than a little hypocritical. The response from the Obama campaign was that they could not be responsible for knowing everything about his staff. There are two problems with this. One, he has attempted to hold John McCain to the same standard. Can we say hypocritical again? Second, he should know who is on his staff. This does not appear to be some deep dark secret, the media got the info pretty easily days after he was named to the search team.

Mr. Johnson was one of three members of Obama’s search team. One of the remaining two members, Eric Holder, is now under scrutiny for his role in helping Marc Rich get his pardon from Bill Clinton. Marc Rich was a wealthy financier who was indicted for tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran. Mr. Rich fled to Switzerland and remained there until his pardon, a member of the FBI’s most wanted list. Fortunately for Mr. Rich, his wife had her own well placed investments. Mrs. Rich had made several large donations to the Democratic party and the Bill Clinton Presidential Library. To his credit though, Mr. Johnson has had his character vouched for by John Kerry and Howard Dean. You can’t make this stuff up.

If this is how Obama screens his staff now, how will he screen his cabinet. The ironic thing about all of this is that so far two out of three members of his VP search team are of questionable character. These people are responsible for selecting the person who could potentially be our next Vice President, a person who is a ‘heart beat away from the Presidency’. Fortunately the remaining member is Caroline Kennedy. What are the odds that a Kennedy could be tied to scandal?

Does The Democratic Party Really Stand For Democracy

2008-06-07T09:27:00.000-07:00

Well, the two year Democratic primary appears to be over. I say appears because as I write this, we are waiting for Hillary’s press conference to suspend her campaign. The word is that she will suspend, not quit her bid for the White House. This will give her wiggle room if Obama blows it (not impossible), lets her continue fund raising to retire some of her debt, and finally lets her keep her delegates as bargaining chips.

With the campaign done, it is time to reflect on the curious way the Democrats select a candidate. The entire system for selecting a candidate that the Democrats use is, in my mind, un-Democratic.

First we have caucuses. This is a system the Republicans use also and it flies in the face of Democracy. Basically they get together in meeting places and have a series of open votes for candidates in the party. Eventually some of the weaker candidates are eliminated by the process and then the caucuses of the remaining candidates go after the voters who supported candidates that were eliminated. This continues until one candidate is chosen. While on the surface this appears to be the epitome of Democracy, what ultimately happens is voters are bullied and cajoled to vote for someone who, given a chance to make a private, reasoned decision, they would not have supported. This system awards the candidates who have set up a better organized and louder group of supporters, not the one viewed as the most qualified.

This is more of a concern because of the disproportional relevance given the Iowa caucus. It is often the scenario in which a candidate wins the Iowa caucus and comes out as the ‘front-runner’. This gives them considerable play in the press and has a tendency to sway voters in later states. I am not entirely sure why, I never put any stock in Iowa and New Hampshire but it is a phenomenon that is well documented.

A strong case can be made for explaining why Barrack Obama, though not the most experienced or qualified Democratic candidate, managed to survive the nominating process and win the Democratic nomination. While I don’t think any of the Democratic candidates are worth their weight in cow manure, Obama was not even close to the most qualified. You could go down the list of every single Democratic candidate that started the process (ok, except Dennis “I see flying saucers” Kucinich), and make a case for them each being more qualified on most issues. Give him credit though, he has used the Iowa caucus win more to his advantage than any other candidate that I can remember.

Finally we have the “Super Delegates”. This is a system unique to the Democratic party in which a group of elected and unelected Democratic officials get a vote in the nominating process. This group comprises approximately 20% of the votes in the nominating process. They are not in any way obligated to vote for any specific candidate. The reason they were started in 1982 was to be a check against primary voters selecting a candidate that would be weak in the general election. This process gives the party leaders a measure of control over the selection process and an ability to ‘correct’ a poor choice by voters.

This is an incredibly arrogant and condescending opinion of the voters. The party bosses are essentially saying that the voters may need their guidance and occasionally, their intervention, to select an appropriate candidate. This doesn’t just fly in the face of democracy, it dive bombs it and then dumps a big bird turd on the shoulder of democracy.

These arrogant know-it-alls can literally reverse the will of voters and change the Democratic nominee to someone they view as the “right” candidate. The real idiots here though are not the party leaders, it’s the voters who allow this kind of system survive and flourish. It is inevitable that voters will favor another Michael Dukakis type candidate and the “Super Delegates” will rightly decide he does not have a chance to win the general election and will over-ride the will of the voters. This will be fun to watch.

Iran Has Succeeded Where US Troops Have Failed

2008-05-30T16:39:00.000-07:00

Day after day I think I have heard the most traitorous comment from the Democrats and day after day, I hear something worse. The latest low is from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D, CA). She had an interview with her home town paper the San Francisco Chronicle in which she produced this little gem: “”Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish it’s goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.” (as transcribed by Commentary Magazine.com here: You can hear the interview here:

The surge didn’t work. The troops accomplished nothing. General Petraeus and the rest of the military leadership had nothing to do with it. Ambassador Crocker, no part in the success. The fledgling Iraqi government, nothing. It was the Iranians who have quelled the violence. After months and years of the Democrats and their liberal followers attacking the troops, saying they failed, we get this nonsense.

The reality is that the Iranians have been shipping arms to Iraq to be used to kill American troops and she is now thanking them for bringing peace to the country. I honestly don’t know what to say about this. This brings the liberal hatred of our troops to a whole new level. To thank their murderers for killing less of them is beyond incredible.

How our brave men and women get out of bed in the morning and patrol, I don’t know. You sometimes wonder if they would rather stay in Iraq and face the murderous terrorists than come home and face the hatred they get from some of their own fellow citizens.

Basically what this traitorous witch has done is nothing more than spit on the troops. The difference between the troops returning from Vietnam and getting spit on and what’s happening to our troops now is that the liberal scum like Ms Pelosi don’t have them in front of her so she has to spit on them long distance.

As a general rule I have tried to stay civil in this blog. I do not want to mimic what happens at DailyKos, Huffington, and the other hate America sites. With this said, this comment really pisses me off. If we cannot try her for treason, then it is at least time to run this bitch out of town.

Obama Supports The Troops, Really

2008-05-29T06:52:00.000-07:00

Brent Bozell wrote a good column here on the Media Research Center website about a steady string of gaffes by Barack Obama. It’s a good column and well worth reading. Mr. Bozell’s point is that Obama has had an incredible string of gaffes and has gotten a pass on them. If it had been Dan Quayle, Mr. Bozell correctly notes, the media would have been all over him. In Obama’s case though, the media is tripping over itself explaining the gaffes away.

As good and well worth reading as this column is, I want to talk about one specific part of it and the ramifications of the statement. One of the statements Mr. Bozell attributed to Obama was "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." This was made in New Mexico on Memorial Day.

The problem here is that “fallen heroes”, by definition, could not have been in front of him. There will be a knee-jerk reaction by the press to excuse this as the result of being tired from a long campaign. This excuse in itself does not hold water. The obvious question here is if he cannot stand the rigors of a campaign and keep his wits, how can he have the ability to withstand the stress of the Presidency.

I don’t believe this is the problem though. Basically this shows the disdain Obama shows for our troops. The misquote wasn’t a mistake. It wasn’t being tired. It is a pure and simple lack of interest. I don’t even think there was ill will intended. He simply doesn’t care.

I think we often make this mistake with many Democrats. Attributing a malevolence towards the troops on their part when in reality it is nothing more than a lack of interest. The Democratic party as a whole does not see national security as a major issue. One only has to look back on John Edward’s “bumper sticker slogan” comment. Saying the war on terror was nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan. This was widely agreed upon and defended throughout the Democratic party.

In Obama’s liberal elitist world, military service is looked down upon. It is a calling for people who cannot do better for themselves. John’s Kerry’s “stuck in Iraq” comment about young people not going to college sums up the viewpoint of the leftist elitism.

The left plays heavy lip service to being ‘against the war but for the troops’. The mantra rings hollow though the more they continue talking. Their notion that we are failing in Iraq but the troops are doing a great job is one of the more ridiculous statements one can hear. Part of the reason is because we are not, in fact, failing in Iraq. Violence is down and political progress is up. Obama and most Democratic leaders continue to stick to the tired old party line that we are failing in Iraq (but the troops are doing a great job).

You simply cannot claim failure in Iraq and somehow magically separate the troops from this assessment. The bottom line is that the Generals leading the troops and the troops themselves are doing one hell of a job in Iraq and deserve our respect and gratitude. They deserve credit for the accomplishments they have attained. They deserve credit for doing this incredible job under horrendous conditions, oppressing heat, and reading in the paper and hearing on the news that approximately half of the country thinks they are failing. For them to keep going out everyday and doing their job with the incredible lack of support from home is, quite frankly, heroic.

We are now noticing that Obama can not even be bothered to go to Iraq to show his ‘support’ for the troops. The Republican National Committee has put a clock in their website counting the days since Obama has been to Iraq. You can see the clock here. The current count is 872 days since he has been there. This is over 2 years and 4 months. The Obama campaign, in response to the RNC criticism, has said he ‘may go yet this summer’. Now is this overwhelming support or what? Hurry, make this man Commander-in-Chief.

As I said at the beginning, Obama simply doesn’t want to be bothered with the troops. They only cross his mind when he needs them as a political prop to try to woo swing voters. When he is talking in front of a group of liberal followers the discussion is not about his support for the troops but instead an insistence that they are failing. His only focus at these times is ending the war, no matter the cost to the Iraqi people that the fallen heroes he was honoring gave their lives to liberate and defend. The depth of his lack of interest has never been more obvious than his clumsy attempt to honor these war dead. He doesn’t even show the interest to learn that the term ‘fallen hero’ is used to honor someone who is dead and thus incapable of standing in front him at this leftist rally.

Is Obama Really A Sure Thing?

2008-05-20T20:46:00.000-07:00

Watching the returns on the Kentucky primary and they are not looking good for Obama. With 90% of precincts in, Obama is only getting approximately 30% of the votes. While this is not a surprise, he wasn’t going to win Kentucky now or in the fall, it does raise questions.

Following a week after his trouncing in West Virginia, a state no Democrat has lost and still won the White House in more than 80 years, the Kentucky loss shows a real weakness with working class whites. While this follows recent polling, it is one thing to see polls and another to see the voting in action.

Further, with Hillary Clinton refusing to quit, the protracted race is causing hard feelings in the Democratic party. Evidence of a fractured Democratic party are abundant. To date we have 2 of the 6 living Democratic Vice Presidential candidates saying they do not support Obama. Joe Leiberman has previously given his support to John McCain. This is a pretty brave move politically by Leiberman. Since his re-election to the Senate last year as an Independent, Leiberman has caucused with the Democrats which has given him committee assignments he would not have gotten as an independent. Supporting McCain is certainly going to cost him his committee assignments. Now today we have Geraldine Ferraro saying she may not vote for Obama in the general election.

Further, in state after state, polling shows a large number of Clinton voters saying they will not vote for Obama if he wins the nomination. We do have to dismiss these numbers to some extent because a lot of the Democrats who say that now will eventually support Obama and vote for him. With this said though, presidential elections have been within a few points in the last few elections. It would not take many Democrats to vote for McCain instead of Obama to swing the election McCain’s way. This election is even more of a risk for the Democrats in that McCain, as a moderate, already draws some Democrats. Having McCain to vote for may make the choice to switch easier for Democrats that are weak for Obama. In the 2004 election, 11% of Democrats voted for Bush, a president who is definitely not popular with Democrats. What will the number be this year with a Republican who has cross-over appeal and a Democrat who has his own party questioning him?

Finally, there is the female vote. While no one is talking about the women’s vote as much they are talking about the white vote, this could be as big of a problem. A lot of feminists truly believed this was Hillary Clinton’s year and some comments have suggested that there is a feeling among this group that Obama has stolen the nomination from Clinton. This could be the group that stays home in November. This would be a significant blow for Obama.

There is one last thing to consider. While I know that this is something that runs counter to conventional wisdom, Obama could cause the Democrats votes in Congress. Everything says this is a Democratic year and they are going to win big. I have even heard projections of Democrats picking up a hundred new seats in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. While I am not predicting the Republicans will retake Congress, Obama may keep this from being a Democratic landslide.

There are two ways the Democrats could lose votes in Congressional races. One is if, with everything listed above, Democrats decide to stay home on election day. This would not only be a missed vote for Obama but also a missed vote for Congressmen, Senators, Governors, etc. Second is with cross-over voters. It is not impossible, although less likely than the first scenario, that McCain can carry some of the cross-over voters to Congressional and Senatorial races.

Before anyone dismisses this idea completely, remember that a lot of the new Democratic Congressmen elected in 2006 were conservatives, not traditional Democrats, and a lot of them won with narrow margins. And, they are all up for re-election. Combine this with the fact that Congress is at an all time low in public opinion and this Congress really has nothing to show for two years in power and this may not be the banner year for Democrats that everybody thinks it will.

One last note is the theory that McCain may be able to “rebrand” the Republican party. A possibly resurgent Republican party along with a weak top of the ticket could be a problem for Democrats.

With all of this said, the smart money is still on the Democrats this year. The reality is though that November is a long ways away and this election is not in the bag. Obama and the Democrats have some problems and the good news is that they will not admit it. Obama, once the juggernaut who could not be stopped, is looking less a sure thing everyday.

Bush Hits A Nerve

2008-05-18T07:27:00.000-07:00

President Bush spoke before the Knesset, the Israel parliament this week for the 60th anniversary of Israel’s founding. During his speech, he ignited a fire storm among the Democratic party when he said: “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history,” Read the rest of the story here:

Though the White House denied that it was an attack against Obama, the Democrats took it as one. So, to show their distaste at what they viewed as a political attack by Bush, they attacked him. One has to wonder if there was genuine outrage or if the reaction was a mix of self-identification and, possibly, fear.

My suspicion is that the remark hit a little too close to home. Obama has said he would meet with Iran, among other terrorist nations, without precondition. During a Democratic debate watched almost entirely by Democrats, this probably seemed like a good idea and was meant to be a criticism of Bush and his foreign policy. With the nomination likely in hand and facing a decided national security disadvantage against McCain in the general election, it is likely that Obama would like to take the policy statement back now. It worked well to score points among liberal Democrats against a President they hate. To the electorate as a whole though, it comes off as naïve and even dangerous.

The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a nutcase who denies the existence of the Holocaust, has repeatedly called for the destruction of US ally Israel, and is funding the murder of US troops in Iraq. Obama’s policy stance not only will play poorly with the general population but will greatly harm him with a fairly loyal group of Democratic voters, the Jewish.

Ever the word-smith though, Obama has made clear this week that he has always said he would not meet with terrorist groups (too bad he can’t convince Jimmy Carter to follow his lead). Pay attention though because he didn’t say he would not meet with state leaders who support terrorism.

This is where the fear part comes in. The Democrats are going to get pummeled by McCain this year on national security. Their argument against McCain is that he represents more of Bush’s policies. Are these the same policies that have spared us another terrorist attack in almost seven years? Or the one that has greatly reduced the number of countries that sponsor terrorism from the long list that existed during the Clinton administration? Or, maybe the policy that has essentially neutralized al-qaeda, a group that attacked us three separate times with impunity during the Clinton years and was free to plan and lay the ground work for the 9/11 attacks? The same group that was handed to Clinton on a silver platter and he wouldn’t arrest, causing the deaths of 3,00 Americans.

The Democrats have nothing but a failed history of national security (Clinton, Carter) and several ridiculous foreign visits over the last couple of years to show for themselves. One of the first things Nancy Pelosi did upon taking the House speakership was to fly to Syria to meet with Bashar al-Assad the President of Syria and a sponsor of the terrorist group Hamas. Jimmy Carter skipped the sponsor and went right to the terrorist group, meeting with Hamas themselves. Governor Bill Richardson has gone to Venezuela to meet with dictator and all around lunatic Hugo Chavez.
This is why the Democrats keep hammering away at the economy and gas prices (which, if anybody is paying attention, both went to Hell after the Democrats took control of Congress). They are hoping that no one is paying attention to Obama’s national seurity shortcomings. Bush’s statement wasn’t an attack so much as simply reminding us that Emperor Obama has no clothes.

Is The Republican Party Dead Or On Life Support?

2008-05-15T20:41:00.000-07:00

The Republican party has lost three consecutive special elections in “safe” districts. This has led many pundits to question whether the Republican party is dead. I'm not sure if the proper question is whether the Republican party is dead but if conservatism is, and the answer is no.

I believe the country is still right of center. The reality is that a large part of the candidates winning for Democrats this year and last, including the winner in Mississippi, are conservatives (or at least their version of one). This gives voters in these districts easier choices. I believe that if the Democrats had ran typical Democratic candidates, they would not have won Congress.

Republicans appear to have lost their way for now. They are not dealing with immigration, they spend money like drunken sailors, and they have been making a mockery of the family values reputation by chasing prostitutes, male pages, etc.

We have actually had some good things happen in the last 7+ years. No terrorist attacks since 9/11. Good economic numbers and strong stock market until the last few months. Improving conditions in Iraq. More equitable taxes. Prescription drug benefits for seniors.

Do Republicans talk about this? No, they spend too much time apologizing for everything. Every time one of them point out a shortcoming of the Democratic party, the Democrats go on the attack and the liberal media lambastes them. The "offending" Republican then apologizes and backs down. On Iraq the Republicans cave to the media and refuse to publicly acknowledge some of the improvements. It is very possible that if some of the Republican politicians would show some backbone and support the successes in the war on terror we wouldn’t have such strong public opinion against the war.

They would get a lot more of my respect if they would, for once, stand up and say 'that is what I said and dammit, I meant it'. The Republicans were driving me nuts in the 2006 elections. I just wanted them to fight back. One example is the Mark Foley male page scandal. Obviously he was a despicable person. But the GOP let the Democrats completely control the dialogue. The Republicans should have immediately thrown him under the bus (he was a dirt bag) and then when the Democrats began attacking, reply with 'let's talk about Gerry Stubbs'. Gerry Stubbs was a Democratic congressman who had an affair with a male page. He did not resign, as Mark Foley did, he was censured by the Democratic controlled Congress and was allowed to continue serving several more years. I was practically screaming at the TV for the Republicans to fight back. Instead they caved to the media and fell over themselves to make amends.

I realize that voters get turned off by the constant fighting between the parties. I believe though that I am not the only conservative that is tired of the Republicans rolling over and playing dead. There is, and has been for awhile, an incredible lack of leadership in the Republican party. Dennis Hastert was a weak leader in the House. He at least did the honorable thing and fell on his sword and retired. Maybe we need to hand out a few more swords in Congress and get fresh new leadership.
They need to do it fast though, the party is on life support and someone just tripped over the cord.

Democratic Superdelegates Sitting Squarely On The Fence

2008-05-08T06:25:00.000-07:00

Watching the Democratic nominating process, one has to wonder if maybe members of the party are not quite as sold on their choice of candidates as they publicly proclaim. Conventional wisdom says the race is effectively over and Barrack Obama has the nomination. So why aren’t the superdelegates rushing to endorse him?

There have been some explanations, some can be found here and this article makes some sense. One reason mentioned is that many superdelegates are elected officials facing re-election this year and are afraid of alienating half of their voters. That is legitimate, maybe pathetic and weak-kneed, but valid. Also, there is the risk that one of the candidates could screw up and embarrass the superdelegate facing re-election (think snipergate). With the two main Democratic candidates this year, this is definitely a legitimate concern.

I think the main problem though is that Obama simply has not sealed the deal. It’s pretty hard to argue that the superdelegates secretly pine for Hillary Clinton, this is unlikely. It is likely that a lot of the superdelegates are concerned about Obama’s ever increasing baggage. Obama had an air of inevitability for awhile (didn’t Hillary have this at one time too?). Obama was new, he was “change”. I have been saying all along though that change isn’t always good, it’s just different. With Obama’s nut parade following him, he is starting to look like his chances of winning are diminishing.

At the top of the list we have the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. This man redefines the term lunatic fringe and he is not going away. He is getting his fifteen minutes and he is liking it. Obama has been put in a no win situation. If he did not disavow his reverend, he was going to be drug down by him. By disavowing him though, the reverend has become unglued and has no constraints holding him in. I believe we haven’t heard anything yet. I believe this reverend is far crazier than we are giving him credit for and he is going to make a real idiot of himself over the summer. The reality for Obama though is that he is not going to be able to shake the man because he cannot explain why he listened to him for 20 years and did not leave the church.

Hillary Clinton and her team has been skirting the Jeremiah Wright issue for fear of being branded a racist. John McCain has insisted on staying above the fray and not resort to personal attacks. He doesn’t have to though because the bloggers on the right are not going to show the same restraint. The main stream media may ignore the story but it will stay alive through the summer online.

Then we have William Ayers from the Weathermen Underground. This man has admitted to participating in bombing federal buildings and Obama has been soft on his explanation of their relationship. I don’t know about other people but my relationship with terrorists who attack American interests is very, very clear. They can spend the rest of their lives in prison and then when they are done go straight to hell. The fact that Obama does not outright condemn this man worries me a lot.

Finally we have Tony Rezko, criminal. Mr. Rezko is standing trial on federal corruption charges. He is yet another “acquaintance” of Obama’s. The connection between Mr. Rezko and Mr. Obama has been a little hazy but I suspect as the general campaign gets underway and opposition groups start digging, the story is not going to be favorable to Obama.
With all of these questionable acquaintances and with the real risk that there is yet more embarrassing information about Obama to come, I think there is a real strong sense of hesitation on the part of superdelegates. Obama may not be the gift from God Democrats had convinced themselves he was. He may not only get beat in the general election by John McCain, he may have the potential to take some of the rest of the party with him.

This Just In From The New York Times…

2008-05-04T16:44:00.000-07:00

The New York Times is providing us with yet more breaking news. It seems that the Rev. John Hagee endorsed John McCain for President, on February 27th. As seen here: It’s not just they’re liberal, sometimes manufactured, news that is costing them subscribers. If this is what they call a scoop then maybe that could be part of the problem.

The issue with the endorsement, in the view of the NYT, is that Mr. Hagee has said some quite controversial things. As an example, he has called the Catholic Church whores. This is what you call a gotcha moment. The NYT is comparing this to the Barrack Obama-Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue. Nice try. This comparison is ridiculous even by the NYT standards.

John Hagee is a Reverend that endorsed McCain. Jeremiah Wright is a Reverend that Obama sat and listened to for 20 years. Part of this time his children sat with him listening to the man’s hate speech. He married Obama and his wife. Obama has called him his spiritual adviser. The NYT has come up with some whoppers before but this one is good.

The most interesting part of this is that it happened over two months ago. While I realize that due to declining sales the NYT has had to cut staff but you think it wouldn’t take two months to put together a story. In the old movies reporters were shown trying to rush to get a story in before deadline, frantically looking for a phone to call the story in. This story could have been sent by pony express, lost, found again, rewritten and still been posted in less than a month.

Is it possible that this wasn’t really news until after the Wright story became an issue and was obviously beginning to hurt Obama? If people were to be paying attention, it would be incredibly clear that this is all of a sudden becoming a story. Democrats have been mentioning it. I have seen it mentioned on liberal sites. If I hadn’t thought that the NYT had really high journalistic standards, I would think that maybe they were trying to coordinate this with the Democratic party.
I think what has happened is that the whore remark by Reverend Hagee hit a little too close to home. Because at the end of the day the New York Times, like the rest of the liberal media, is nothing more than a whore for the Democratic party.

Fighting For The Right To Break The Law

2008-05-01T20:42:00.000-07:00

Today is May Day, or, “bring your illegal to a protest” day. There was a weak series of marches around the country today to protest for rights for illegal immigrants. The activists speaking at the marches were decrying raids against illegals, deportations, and lack of social services. One can only assume that these protesters are confused over the definition of illegal.

I have considerable respect for the Hispanic culture. In my city we have a fairly large and growing Hispanic population.

My sons used to go to an inner city school that was roughly half Hispanic. I found several things to be true of these children. They were often more polite than non-Hispanic children and by their appearance they were clearly better cared for by their parents. The school was in an area of mixed income, middle and lower class. A lot of the children would come to school in the winter without coats, I would see children coming to school in the morning eating a Popsicle (I honestly believe this was their breakfast), and I would see children unwashed and disheveled. This was almost entirely unseen in the Hispanic children. When my wife and I would go to a school function or parent-teacher conferences, it was usually the Hispanic parents that would show up to see their children.

I work at an inner city Catholic hospital that tends to get a high proportion of the Hispanic population. I see the same things at work. The children have a tendency to be more respectful and the parents appear to be more attentive and caring of their children’s well-being.

Clearly I understand that we have to use caution in generalizations. Obviously there are bad Hispanic parents just as there are bad parents of every race and culture. I see this were I work, I am not trying to romanticize the culture. The point is that what I take from these experiences is that Hispanics appear in general to have a stronger family orientation than a lot of their Caucasian counterparts. This is something I respect greatly.

With this said though, we still cannot tolerate illegal immigration. The protesters are not fighting for the rights of Hispanics as a whole. They are advocating the suspension of laws and special treatment for a race. This is not acceptable. I believe we should welcome all law-abiding citizens to our country. I support the emigration of Hispanics because I do believe that they have something to contribute to our culture. I just feel they should be expected to do so legally.

Furthermore, we cannot suspend the laws for the illegals solely on the basis that they may be good people. One argument is that some of the illegals being caught have been here for years and even decades and have made a life here. So what? The analogy is that of a murderer who has managed to evade capture, build a new life and family, and expect to be absolved of their past crime because they have led a good life since. We would not let them go without answering for their crime anymore than we should allow an illegal immigrant to remain because they have avoided detection and have been a productive member of society. They came illegally and therefore have been a criminal the entire time they are in the country.

Another argument is that we would split their family apart. One of the more outdated principles in the US is granting citizenship to a person solely for being born on American soil. This likely made sense when the country was new but has outlived it’s usefulness. The argument then by illegals is that their children are born here, are US citizens and can remain here legally, therefore if we send the parents home, we are separating them from their children. Again, so what? This is a conscious and often deliberate choice made by these parents and they must live with the consequences.
As with any group of people, Hispanics have many legitimate issues to protest against. People of all races and cultures face a lot of the same issues from crime in their neighborhoods, to better schools for their children, to affordable health care, there are plenty of reasons to fight for change. I just have to believe that their time and energy could be put to better use than fighting for non-existent rights for what are essentially criminals.