Many Shades of Brown

SPF 75 anyone?

If you live in Arizona and happen to be a U.S. citizen who is Hispanic, I suggest you start wearing sunscreen. You might want to get rid of any clothes that suggest you are an illegal immigrant. Clothes that are splattered with paint, dirty clothes that might indicate you are a construction worker, and please resist from doing any yard work. Also, it wouldn't hurt to invest on voice lessons in order for you to sound more legal. Oh, and don't forget to dust off that ole' resume because your summer landscaping job, might land you in jail.

It's pathetic to see such a poorly written immigration law being passed. Not only is it implementing a police state but it's going against the immunities clause of the 14 Amendment, Sect 1 which states " No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Just because Arizona is a border state, does that mean that the civil rights of Arizona citizens have to be violated, for the sake of the immigration law?

According to the document, "S.B. 1070 pursues only one goal -"attrition"-..." Attrition of what? Our civil rights?

This is a problem, U.S. citizens should not have to worry about being victims of routine stops. SB 1070 "...[requires], whenever practicable, the determination of immigration status during any lawful stop by the police where there is "reasonable suspicion." This indicates that at any time a cop may pull an Arizona citizen over, under the speculation that they look reasonably suspicious.

Where has the DHS been during these past few years? This problem did not erupt overnight. It has been a consistent issue facing our border states for years. They should have enforced strict policies in the past. Companies have been hiring illegal immigrants to work here in the U.S. under the "don't ask, don't tell," policy. So why aren't those companies fined for supporting this issue?

There were a lot of contributing factors to this problem and our only solution is some ridiculous immigration law.

Off With Their Heads!

After reading Hugh Hewitt's recent blog entry, " The Democrats' November Death Wish," I was left with anticipation. Merely, because I am curious to see what the future holds for the Democrats.

Hugh highlights the fact that the "Republican candidates now hold a 10-point lead over the Democrats on the generic Congressional ballot." By making his argument comprehensible, he concludes that most prefer the Republican candidate. Explaining to the reader that "the Democrats refuse to extend the Bush tax cuts, refuse to fix the death tax which will skyrocket at the end of the year without action, and refuse to address the wild spending which has driven the deficit to levels that risk a fiscal stroke."

Hugh provides further information as to why the Democrats are digging themselves further and further down a pit by exploiting that they will "...advantage themselves in elections via the so-called "DISCLOSE Act," which happens to be a "partisan ploy." According to his article "most voters just laugh at the shamelessness of the ploy."

This article leads me to speculate that Hugh, himself, is one of the voters who is "laughing at this shameless ploy". Never once does he exploit any of the GOP's "ploy[s]", making them seem like saints. However, this very biased argument had some concrete facts. Hugh smeared my positive thoughts about the Democratic party with his Republican rant. I have foreseen the future that he wanted me to see. I will have to look into this matter a little deeper than I anticipated.

I don't necessarily agree that "all together the Democrats are not merely headed towards a political cliff, they are sprinting towards it." I do think that it shall be something to keep an eye on. But in the mean time, the Republicans can put their guillotine away, because in politics you just never know what could happen.

Hugh Hewitt is professor, lawyer and broadcast journalist. His blog is "amongst the most visited political blogs in the U.S."

Lucky Number Seven

"What 7 Republicans Could Do" by Thomas L.Friedman, explains the important role Democrats need to partake in in order to convince seven Republicans to pass a comprehensive energy bill. A comprehensive energy bill "would raise energy-efficiency standards, require utilities to get 15 percent or more of their power from renewable sources, like wind and solar, and create a limited cap on carbon emissions from power plants-."

The problem being that Republican senators need to opt their tight panties for some loose boxer briefs. They should "put the national interest above party politics." Which seems unlikely, considering they want to put labels on everything that doesn't support their unruly thoughts. It's fallacy to think that an energy bill is not needed in order to improve our independence from other countries.

This energy bill "[may begin] to end our oil addiction, we can shrink the piles of money we send to the worst regimes in the world, strengthen our dollar by keeping more at home, clean up our air, take away money from people who finance the mosques and madrassas that keep many Muslim youths backward, angry and anti-American and stimulate a whole new industry-". Nearly two-thirds of our oil comes from foreign sources. That's not necessary, and it wouldn't be if we had a plan to help reduce this co-dependence.

The Democrats need to fight back! Focusing on the correct word usage and highlighting key issues in order to convince Republicans to pass the energy bill. "Can you imagine how high the stock market would soar and how easy a compromise with Democrats would become if Republicans offered an energy policy consistent with their values and our interests?"

There are so many advantages that come with such a comprehensive energy bill. I also think Thomas Friedman should have T. Boone Pickens on speed dial if he doesn't already. They share the same views when it comes to renewable resources. Thomas Friedman's background consists of being a recipient of 3 Pulitzer prizes, he is an internationally renowned author, reporter and columnist.

Financial reform passed by Senate

The financial reform bill was passed by the Senate. According to BBC News, "Mr Obama said the new regulation would give the strongest consumer protection in history." Well after reading about this, it seems as though it's legitimate. I agree that it will definitely provided consumers much needed protection from the various mistakes that were made during the past couple of years which caused the economy to plummet. The reform is due to "set up a powerful consumer financial protection bureau, with powers to clamp down on abusive practices by credit card companies and mortgage lenders." Hmm, this part is very interesting to me. Does this mean they will "clamp down" on credit card companies who are sending bogus credit card applications to people who are already drowning in the black sea of debt? Or is it simply stating that they will prevent credit card companies from raping the public with ridiculous interest rates? Which ever "protection" they are referring to, I am finally glad to hear that something is being done about it. The financial reform bill seems to be very well thought out which is rewarding for the US economy. Its mere promise for a financially stable economy has kept my misicble thoughts in an overcast position. My thoughts will change if the sun shines on the newly promised protection against "tax payer funded bailouts." To read more about it go to BBCNews. I suggest you also read the "Q & A: US Bank Regulation" section in order to help you understand some of the logistics of the reform.