Friday, February 22, 2008

Jorge Castenada

Monday, February 04, 2008

Medved's Misleads on McCain (and Immigration)

Below is a list of misleading and false statements which Michael Medved has made regarding John McCain and immigration.

1) McCain doesn't undertsand economics: Regarding McCain and his forgettfulness of the fact that he doesn't understand the economy quote Medved said the following responding to a caller (1/30/08): "Do you understand the context about that quote? That was a quote where he was with Phil Gramm, who taught economics for 12 years at Texas A & M"...and then he said that McCain was deferring to someone else regarding economic policies, NOT that he doesn't understand economics (he also said that McCain did the same thing when he was on Michael's show with Lindsey Grahamnesty). FALSE. Below is the exact line from the article:

He is refreshingly blunt when he tell me: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Source: WSJ 11/26/2005

Note no deference to Phil Gramm. Yes, later in the piece it says "OK, so who does he turn to for advice?.....His foremost economic guru is former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm" But McCain admits "I still need to be educated". How is there any way to interpret that other than as someone who isn't familiar with economics, NOT as someone who is, but just defers to those more educated?

2) The Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) Bill:

a) According to Michael on 1/28/08 (I believe) he explained that the CIR bill was a "compromise bill". Oh really? The Dems/Liberals got amnesty (or "earned citizenship") for 12 million illegal immigrants. What "compromise" did Republicans get?

b) Michael has also claimed that McCain NEVER, EVER supported amnesty. This has already been thoroughly debunked due to his Tuscon citizen newspaper quotes and the fact that the bill would have allowed everyone who received a Z-visa to live, stay, and work in the US forever.

c) Michael has claimed on at least 5 occasions (back in Nov and Dec 07) that Huckabee's plan only applied to illegal immigrants who had been here since age 5 and enrolled in school since kindergarden. FALSE. As pointed out, this simply isn't true. And when called upon it (by myself), Michael refused to correct the record and tried to change the subject to Huckabee's signing of the no-amnesty pledge (which had only happened 1 day prior).

d) Michael said on 1/30/08 "Most people who are here illegally probably would not get citizenship. Uh, probably a minority would get it..."

FALSE. Completely false. Not only would it grant citizenship to every illegal immigrant who had committed 2 or fewer misdemeanors, it would have allowed anyone with a Z-visa to stay here forever.

e) Michael said on 1/30/08 "..and I know that Governor Romney has run ads saying that McCain supports social security benefits for illegals. He does not. He is opposed to it. He has never favored it."

Then why did McCain vote against a bill that would have prevented "former" illegal immigrants from receiving social security benefits for the time they worked illegally. It's true that McCain isn't for social security benefits for "current" illegal immigrants, because the illegal immigrants would then become "legal" immigrants under his bill.

f) Michael said on 1/30/08 "...Anyone who has actually read that bill or taken a look at what was actually talked about, rather than what was demagogued about; for people to pretend that this status quo is preferable to all of the positive changes that woul dhave been part of the immigration bill.."

First, the reason people were upset with it was because they did read the mammoth (1000+ page) bill and find all the hidden things in it (or lacking from it). Such as the following

1) the illegal immigrants received the Z-visa's before the "enforcement triggers" were in place. So while it is true that the citizenship process does not begin until the borders are supposedly secured, they still would have been allowed to stay here forever on a Z-visa regardless of the border being enforced.

2) The bill only barred criminals who had committed 1 felony or 3 misdameanors from getting citizenship. Thus, a criminal who committed 2 misdemeanors would still have been allowed to stay.

3) Illegal immigrants are not required to learn English for 10 years (including both the 1st and 2nd 4-year Z-visa applications).

4) Affidavit's from non-relatives will count as valid documents to prove an illegal immigrants validity to receive a Z-visa and eventually citizenship.

And there are many more listed here on Jeff Sessions website. (Note this is about the original bill introduced, not the Clay Pigeon amendment introduced late).

Second, Michael and others repeatedly talk about passing the bill vs doing nothing as the only two possibilities when it comes to immigration reform. This simply isn't true. The Border fence bill was already passed back in 2006. Members of the House of Reps introduced the S.A.V.E. act (summary here) which contains most of the same enforcement provisions without any of the amnesty provisions. So this argument about doing nothing vs doing CIR is a false one.

3) McCain's liberal tendencies: Medved said on 1/30/08: "On what issues is McCain a left-winger?"

a) Campaign-Finance (McCain-Feingold---he even supported the law when Wisconsin Right-to-Life challenged it to the Supreme Court)

b) Immigration (see the section above):

c) Guantanamo/Torture: McCain said he would close Guantanamo which would move enemy combatants to our criminal courts.

d) Global Warming: McCain said "I would reaffirm my commitment to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I know how important this is in Europe in particular." And don't forget about McCain-Leiberman

4) Primary Election Results: Michael said on 1/30/08 "Conservatives in this Florida primary supported McCain. They did. He won narrowly among so-called conservatives..."

FALSE. Read the headline of this article: "Exit polls: Conservatives choose Romney over McCain" or in more detail: "According to the exit polls, 62 percent of primary voters identified themselves as conservative and 37 percent of them voted for Mitt Romney, compared to the 29percent who went for McCain. "

Sunday, August 05, 2007

Rich, Spoiled Kidz plead for amnesty

Update 9/2/2007: Folks, they are going to try and pass a bill to get Juan/Alex Gomez amnesty when Congress returns from its August recess (See image above). Get on the phones and call your senators (and esp. Lott & McConnell) to tell them you do NOT support the DREAM Act and do NOT support amnesty for Juan & Alex Gomez.

Update 8/9/2007: Contact the friends of Alex and Juan Gomez and tell them you're sick and tired of people helping illegal immigrants commit crimes. Be respectful = NO DEATH THREATS, NO NAME-CALLING, NO PROFANITY, NO PHYSICAL THREATS. But be completely clear that you find their actions disraceful and wrong.

Scott Elfenbein:
Eduard Monteagudo:
Scott Friedberg
Brian Moraguez
Jacob Hart
Joanna Perdomo
Mauricio Perez-Rosas
Justin Hesser
Francisco Vega
Nick Ferero
Josh Ginsburg
Jeri Stone 786-266-1775
Katelin Snow

All the rich spoiled (and mostly white) friends of Alex and Juan Gomez have undertaken a huge lobbying effort to let the 2 illegal immigrants get permanent residency status via HR Bill 3231 (introduced by Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). They have already received a 45 day reprieve thanks to the efforts of Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

We need to get mobilized and motivated. Begin by joining the following Facebook group Deport Juan Gomez . Then contact both Florida Senators and several House of Rep members. Their contact info is below. Try the local offices in addition to the main Washington number since Congress has recently gone in summer recess until Sept. 4.

Senator Mel Martinez
Washington:Main: (202) 224-3041 Fax: (202) 228-5171 Toll free: (866) 630-7106
Local offices
Orlando: Main: (407) 254-2573 Fax: (407) 423-0941 Tollfree: (866) 630-7106
Jacksonville: Main: (904) 398-8586 Fax: (904) 398-8591
Miami: Main: (305) 444-8332 Fax: (305) 444-8449
Naples:Main: (239) 774-3367 Fax: (239) 774-2906
Palm Beach:Main: (561) 842-8300 Fax: (561) 842-8949
Pensacola:Main: (850) 433-2603 Fax: (850) 433-2554
Tampa :Main: (813) 207-0509 Fax: (813) 287-9453

Email Sen. Martinez here

Senator Bill Nelson:
Washington, D.C. Phone: 202-224-5274 Fax: 202-228-2183
Local offices
Orlando: Phone: 407-872-7161 Toll Free in Florida: 1-888-671-4091 Fax: 407-872-7165
Miami-Dade: Phone: 305-536-5999 Fax: 305-536-5991
Tampa: Phone: 813-225-7040 Fax: 813-225-7050
West Palm Beach: Phone: 561-514-0189 Fax: 561-514-4078
Tallahassee: Phone: 850-942-8415 Fax: 850-942-8450
Jacksonville: Phone: 904-346-4500 Fax: 904-346-4506
Broward: Phone: 954-693-4851 Fax: 954-693-4862
Fort Myers: Phone: 239-334-7760 Fax: 239-334-7710

Email Sen. Nelson here

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart
Washington DC: Phone: (202)225-4211 Fax: (202)225-8576
Miami: Phone: (305)470-8555 Fax: (305)470-8575

Email Rep. L Diaz-Balart here

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart
Washington DC: Phone: (202) 225-2778 Fax: (202) 226-0346
Miami: Phone: (305) 225-6866 Fax: (305) 225-7432
Collier County: Telephone: (239) 348-1620 Fax: (239) 348-3569

Email Rep. M Diaz-Balart here

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Washington DC: Phone: 202-225-3931 Fax: 202-225-5620
Miami: Phone: 305-220-3281 Fax: 305-220-3291

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA--chairman of House immigration subcommittee)
Washington DC: Telephone (202) 225-3072 Fax (202) 225-3336
San Jose: Telephone (408) 271-8700 Fax (408) 271-8713

Monday, July 30, 2007

The HuffPo kidz are at it again

Scroll Down for Updates (8/02/2007):

Arianna Huffington from Sean Hannity's Show Sunday July 22, 2007:

"We have taken down comments which wishes anybody dead"
"If anybody wishes harm, or death, or any kind of harm to anyone, I will take it down"

Oh really Arianna???? Just a sampling of those comments from the story on John Roberts seizure which are alive and well on Huff Po:

Well, there is a God after all....Let God's will be done!!!!

Lets hope he is injured seriously. Chief Justice John Roberts is a corupt right wing Bush lick ass criminal

A long stay away from the court would be fine. I won't lie, I wish him a long painful recovery. In fact, I'm not so sure I care if he recovers.

Well, I'll speak for MY end of the HUFF community and Hope he croaks in the worst most painful manner.

Maybe he can die from malpractice and show us how tort reform is a good idea when his family takes the high road and doesn't sue.

Smote his ass, God did!

Here is a selection of comments which do not wish Roberts dead, but are quite disgusting and revolting in their own right.

Perhaps he is still loved by the talibangelicals, but not by anyone else

He was screwing gay hookers and snorting meth, you know the GOP routine

It's kind of pointless to bring up Clinton and his dick, when your Repig fellas are molesting kids, frequenting hookers to change their diapers, and asking undercover cops to give them a blowjobs isn't it sparky??

Seizure? Too much Viagara, Oxicoten and Ecstasy?

speaking of 'sucking', Roberts is a closet queer...and frequents some of the D.C. area's gay bars during the work week (Mondays & Tuesdays mainly) so as not to be noticed.

he's a GOP repig so I'm not sure about the whole "human being" thing

I also threw in there the other comments, which were not related to wishing John Roberts ill, to provide examples of what passes for a "reasonable dialogue" among the HuffPo commentators.

UPDATED 7/31/2007 7PM: All comments listed above are still up on the comments section of the original article. #1, #2, #3, #6, #7 are on the first page of comments, #4, #5 are on the second page. And yes, I do have screenshots showing them still up. Also, Huffington Post was contacted regarding these comments (although they really are supposed to be able to police them on their own). I sent them a comment on the "Contact us" page (didn't really want to go through the bother of creating an account at the time) which mentioned specifically every one of the 7 comments listed above last night (7/30/2007) at 10:30 PM. And they remain.....

UPDATED 8/2/2007 8:55PM: More comments "which wishes anybody dead" have been found.

Labels: , ,

Monday, July 23, 2007

Obama's pathetic racial pandering

From Obama's speech as the La Raza (the Racists, I mean the Race) convention:

Obama: "If there's a child stuck in a crumbling school who graduates without ever learning to read, it doesn't matter if that child is a Latino from Miami or an African-American from Chicago or a white girl from rural Kentucky, she's still our child, and the struggle is our struggle,"

Reality: If there's a child stuck in a crumbling school that graduates without ever learning to read (which coincidentially would not happen in Miami since we have the FCAT which is required for graduation and requires that students read at grade level--10th grade is the final test), that child could go to a different and better school if the Democrats would ever get behind vouchers and merit pay (which Obama did actually endorse once). Of course, that would fracture the unholy alliance with the Teachers Unions.

Obama: The Illinois Democrat said the recent Senate immigration debate "was both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights."

Reality: I thought Obama claimed that he was bringing a tone of hope and promise to Washington. Since when does that include launching personal attacks at those who disagree with you on a particular policy issue. Opponents of amnesty and illegal immigration (which happens to be a large majority of the American public) have many logical reasons to oppose the bill introduced in the Senate, the least of which has to do with race and ethnic origin. And the comparison of civil rights for African American CITIZENS (key word here) to legalization for Hispanic ILLEGAL immigrants is laughable. Especially for those who have committed crimes and/or are gang members.

Only a matter of time before Obama's true colors shown through.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

An Open Letter to Paul Krugman

An open response to Paul Krugman on his latest column regarding health care from July 9, 2007

Mr. Krugman,
It's perfectly reasonable to have a debate about health care and to discuss the pro's and con's of health care provided by the public sector (government) and the private sector (insurance companies/HMO's). However, your recent column does neither.

First, you grossly mischaracterized the discussion on Neil Cavuto's show ("discussed how health care promotes terrorism"), which was about the necessary importing of foreign doctors due to the lack of native ones (mainly due to the effects of socialized medicine).

Second, you claim that the medical-industrial complex and their allies have " used scare tactics to prevent America from following its conscience". Fair enough. But isn't this the exact same technique used by liberals to protest numerous policies from Supreme Court nominations "Robert Bork's America would be marked by back alley abortions" to welfare reform "children begging for money, children begging for food, eight- and nine-year-old prostitutes" and "legislative child abuse" to global warming "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors." and "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers," Hmm, I have yet to see you call out any of those people for their "scare tactics". In any case, it's quite disturbing to see that you resort to the same techniques I mentioned above by questioning the values and morals of anyone who doesn't believe in universal health care.

Also, you cite an example from Sicko "a child who dies because an emergency room that isn’t a participant in her mother’s health plan won’t treat her" but you don't give any of the background info regarding it. The child in question, Mychelle Williams, did not receive the proper tests for Sepsis at the 1st hospital she was taken to, Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center, and this was the eventual cause of death (not being treated quickly enough). The hospital, which is government run--coincidentally (actually not coincidentally), was found at fault along with the 2nd hospital the child was eventually transported to. The insurance company was not involved in denying treatment or care for the child at any point. The fact that the doctor at the hospital did NOT perform necessary and immediate tests to fully determine the child's condition (despite words from a doctor at a Kaiser hospital advising to wait on the tests). Also, note that the 2 hospitals were found liable in the suit; nowhere was the Kaiser insurance plan found negligent. I figured someone of your standing would have properly reserached the examples Moore provides in the film before throwing them in the film. Of course, seeing as how you have done this exact same thing in previous columns (including citing a 98% voter turnout rate for one county in Ohio from a clearly flawed Congressional report when the actual number - 72% - was easily available online at the county's website) I guess I shouldn't be suprised.

Later you say "Medicare — which did enormous good, without leading to a dictatorship". Surely Medicare has helped out older individuals, but I guess you missed the current Comptroller of the US on 60 minutes Sunday "By that I mean that the Medicare problem is five times greater than the Social Security problem." and "With one stroke of the pen, Walker says, the federal government increased existing Medicare obligations nearly 40 percent over the next 75 years."

Then you go on to claim that "Meanwhile, every available indicator says that in terms of quality, access to needed care and health outcomes, the U.S. health care system does worse, not better, than other advanced countries". Again, this simply isn't true. Cuba was ranked 39th in the 2000 WHO survey. Yet, Moore gleefully takes people there to get treatement even though Cuba is ranked behind the US (37th). Also, the Commonwealth Fund did a study which found that the US ranked ahead of Canada in several measures including % of patients who waited 4+ hours to be seen in an emergency room (24%-Canada, 12%-US); % who waited 4 weeks or longer to see a specialist (57%-Canada, 23%-US). While the emergency room times with Britain were comparable with those of the US, the % who had to wait 4+ weeks for a specialist were much higher (60%) in Britain than in the US (23%). So your claim that the US does worse in "every available indicator" than other countries, simply isn't true.

Finally, your claim that "..the French manage to provide arguably the best health care in the world," is where you lose all credibility. Did you not see/hear/read about the Heat Wave which killed nearly 15,000 people in France, during the same time (coincidentally--well, not really) when many doctors, nurses, and other health personnel were on their mandated vacations. Please explain how the " health care in the world" lets nearly 15,000 of its citizens die due to a completeyl normal occurence (as compared to a disease or viriological outbreak). Lastly, your reasoning that it is purely fear and scare tactics which are arguing against socialized medicine is disingenuous and pretty much a common tactic on the left. Again, you (just as many other liberals do), have managed to use purely emotion (while citing very minimal statistical or factual or numerical evidence) to declare, ipso facto, that socialized medicine is the answer and those who are opposed to it are mean, immortal, and scaring people. Hmmm, where have heard this recently. Oh yes, the immigration debate.

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Liberal Hypocrisy

*Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" - lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states.

*The House-Senate compromise bills due for final action in September cannot be amended and are subject to only one hour of debate, precluding challenges to individual projects.

*Obey insists he is reluctantly taking the step because Appropriations Committee members and staff have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have flooded the committee.

* What Obey is doing runs counter to new rules that Democrats promised would make such spending decisions more open.