2012 – The Year of the Woman – Tales of Pleading and Polls

The Future of the United States Presidency - 2012 - image: lavendarcastle.com

Historically, women in the United States have, for the most part, moved to the front of the political class more slowly than their male counterparts. Yes, women hold lofty positions – the office of Secretary of State held by Condoleezza Rice during the Bush administration and now by Hillary Clinton under the Obama brand and Nancy Pelosi, who has risen through the ranks to become the first female Speaker of the House. However, historical landmarks in 2008 were specific to women – Hillary Clinton being the first to run for President under the Democrat Party brand, and Sarah Palin, the first female Vice Presidential nominee under the Republican Party Brand and only the second woman to have been nominated for that position in this nation’s history. The first, Geraldine Ferraro, nominated by the Democrat Party in 1984, to run with Walter Mondale – all three, due a variety of circumstances, yet, while being applauded as having broken through the “glass ceiling”, Ferraro, Clinton and Palin all lost their respective bids. Clinton was shoved out, so to speak, having cornered the popular vote, the powers within the Democrat Party simply pushed Obama forward on the wings of the so-called “super delegates”, denying the nation the opportunity to vote for the only moderate left standing in the 2008 contests. Both Ferraro and Palin were tied to weak candidates, who would have been all but invisible had they chosen male running mates.

It is not that women haven’t held critical positions in both the public and private sector for the past thirty some-odd years, so why the blatant prejudice against women who run for the highest office?

Sexism is too tame a term (although appropriate in some instances) to use in the cases of the aforementioned – prejudice however, is not. The press, at every opportunity, took the option of critiquing wardrobe rather than accomplishments, and a simple “gaffe” produced innumerable headlines, days of talking heads and pundits analyzing the now “diminished” changes of whichever of these three women named, and all the while, ignoring fashion faux pas and horrific gaffes made by their male contemporaries (See Joe Biden).

As a result of the choice in 2008 between what was left-over, the United State elected the stronger (on paper – newspaper) candidate and with what result?

Unemployment is holding steady at close to 10%, (not to mention the underemployed and those who have stopped seeking employment), BP and the administration took 87 days to stop an oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico that has done untold damage to the environment and tourism, the Congress and President in concert, has pushed through more unpopular legislation, faster than any other in history. Foreign policy is a disaster, as the United States is, once again, considered a “paper tiger”, and Obama is openly chastised by political leaders from Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East.

The pure hype surrounding the man’s candidacy, coupled with a lack of experience, and a penchant for ideology, has produced one of the worst presidencies in history – bar none. One must keep in mind that historians, are basically an ideologically driven bunch – writing a presidential biography is part science (backed up by historical data: documents, etc.) and the viewpoint of the author. As academics are primarily politically Progressive – it is no wonder there is often a disconnect between the reality of a Presidents performance as voted by the people and whichever Presidential Historian is assigned to an administration. Fortunately, history, (which has a habit of repeating itself) as a science, can be modified and updated by any historian who might be a competent researcher and who is able to discern fact from ideology dispassionately.

What of women? Historically women have made solid leaders, regardless of one’s political leanings, there is no denying the accomplishments of the UK’s Margaret Thatcher, Israel’s, Golda Meir, (most recent) to Elizabeth I, Catherine of Russia and Isabella of Spain. Women, who rule over vast nations and territories, do no worse and often better than their male predecessors and successors.

History, as previously noted, does repeat, and the United States may see yet another historical political accomplishment in 2012 for women. As the Obama brand weakens daily, and Congressional Democrats find their chances greatly diminished, certain moderate members of the party have begun to seek alternatives, and only one competent alternative comes to the forefront – Hillary Clinton. Immediately following the January 21st Inauguration of Barak Obama, Clinton supporters had begun to hope for a run in 2012. Now, just shy of two years into his administration, the calls for Clinton to run in 2012 are becoming more frequent, and moving from the blogs to the Washington Post. An article by Pete DuPont in the Wall Street Journal on July 15th makes the case for a Clinton Presidency in 2012. Although an “op-ed” and the opinion of Mr. DuPont, should one search Hillary Clinton 2012 on Google, there are 1,687,000 results, a number than has grown over the past few months.

One must understand that traditional Democrats are not particularly enthralled with the Progressive Democrats who have taken leadership positions within their party – a schism where the majority will, if given the chance, do what should have been done in 2008 and nominate Clinton as their 2012 Presidential Candidate.

Should this occur, who would Ms. Clinton face in opposition? With the Democrat Brand as badly or if not more badly damaged now than the Republican brand in 2006-2008, the Republican’s who may run at the White House, are anyone’s guess.

That said guesswork has produced a field of candidates that include: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee and yes, Sarah Palin. In a recent poll by Democrat Leaning Public Policy Polling, matching possible 2012 GOP candidates against Barak Obama results produced regarding two of the aforementioned, prove most interesting. The poll data (here) gives former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee a 2 point lead over the President, 47 to 45%, and polling higher among women (49% to 42%) than the President. Obama trails both Romney and Gingrich by 1 point (to date). That said, the match up of Palin and Obama is what is of most interest – although Palin places below her male GOP counterparts, at dead even with Obama (46%/46%), she is also now scoring higher with women (47% to 44%) than the President. Further, Public Policy Polling refers to Palin’s score as ”An Amazing Fact” because in March of this year she was at 35% to Obama’s 55% in a 2012 match up. Additionally, it appears that even though her unfavorability actually rose in the latest poll, she is still besting the current Pennsylvania Avenue resident.

What this tells us – The United States is preparing to look at strong women to lead. Although alleged to be polar opposites, one might find the two women closer on issues of substance and policy than either major political party would be comfortable with. Both are strong on defense, tough of foreign policy and have backgrounds to suggest fiscal responsibility – the criteria which voters in this election will seek. How credible is a Clinton – Palin match-up in 2012? Although early in the game, both women have enough political capital to push through the ranks to the top of their tickets. The outcome would depend a great deal on how badly the Democrat brand has been damaged, and if Clinton can pull away from the administration in time to convince the voters she does not prescribe to the Progressive ideology that many see as having destroyed our nation on so many levels. Palin, on her part, must get past the media, who were concerned about her “star-power” from the moment she accepted the GOP nomination in 2008 and began to draw larger crowds than Obama. Although ratings and circulation have fallen dramatically for Palins' detractors, it would be naive to believe that, regardless of who Palin would face as a competitor, the media would be prepared to eviscerate her. The saving grace should the match up be two women, pantsuits and updo’s would be off the table, and reporting would be forced to turn to substantive issues and differences between two highly qualified women. The result, voters would have a chance to choose between two candidates, knowing that the outcome would be favorable for the nation, regardless of who won the presidency.

Utah – State Worker May have Released Personal Information, including “Social Security Numbers” for 1300 Illegal Immigrants – Analysis and Opinion

The Associated Press is reporting that the State of Utah is investigating several agencies in order to discover if an employee released a list of 1300 names, including Social Security numbers, of illegal immigrants this past week. Apparently, the state fears the list was compiled from state agency data bases and the Utah Attorney General may prosecute as releasing private records is a punishable offense under State and Federal statutes.

In the article, the AP interviewed one woman whose name appeared on the list – through a translator, the women describes her fear of being deported and plans to move back to Mexico. It is apparent, from the AP report that she is indeed here in the United States illegally, which, regardless of the way one “slices it”, is a crime – a Federal crime.

The concern from Utah State officials arises from the fact that “conservative Utah lawmakers” just might implement a law similar to Arizona’s, in January. The release of the list is characterized as a “witch-hunt”.

There is a reason why there is growing frustration among United States Citizens over illegal immigrants - this particular AP piece points out specific reasons why someone inside a State agency, any state agency might feel compelled to release such a list.

In the first place, the fact that Arizona felt compelled to sign into law, a statute that is not as stringent as the Federal Immigration laws it mirrors, is because the Federal Government has not enforced immigration laws – period. Further, should it not be a crime for the State of Utah to shield 1300 illegal immigrants from prosecution and deportment? All names on the list had Social Security numbers – a number that is offered to United States Citizens only - that indicates these Social Security numbers are falsified or stolen. Adding to the crime: illegal immigrants with a Social Security number are able to apply for and receive benefits from the Federal and State government, including welfare as well as disability, et al. The question: how many laws did the State of Utah break when knowingly aiding and abetting 1300 criminals break not one, but three Federal laws?

Yet, the focus of he AP artcile is on the fact that a crime may have been committed by a U.S. Citizen working for the State of Utah, should it be found that a state employee released a list of names of people who, for all intents and purposes, are criminals under the Federal Law? The punishment for releasing data of a personal nature?

(AP)

“Intentionally releasing a private record is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. If someone stole a protected record, it could be prosecuted as a felony with a penalty punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.”

The AP report concludes with this gem from the State’s Attorney General’s office: On wishing to discuss the release of sensitive documents by speaking to whomever released the list:

“If they are interested in making sure the law is followed — they should identify who they are and explain in detail how they obtained this information so we know whether or not they violated the law," said Paul Murphy, spokesman for Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.”

Only in the United States of America, as it currently stands, would it be a crime for someone to bring to light the fact that 1300 people are possibly committing several crimes, and that the State in which they reside, is complicit in the act.

What is a crime is the fact that the borders remain porous, and that the only way to actually begin a dialogue that would be constructive, would be to shut down the borders (north, south, and both coasts), offer those that are here illegally and contributing to the society, be it by working in those jobs U.S. Citizens don’t want to do (questionable in this economy), or residing here as a student, or even claiming political asylum (sorry Mexico), should be given the option for a limited time of either applying for citizenship, renouncing their country of origin and being fast tracked and given a legal social security card, or they could leave and come back with a visa in hand (this would require that they be granted immunity from being denied a visa for being here illegally in the first place.)

Criminals, those who inhabit our prisons, simply fly them back to their country of origin. (A deficit reduction) Border enforcement would be a job creator simply because to expedite the construction of a fence would require workers, to man the border would require agents. Those companies looking for cheap labor, could, under international agreements such as NAFTA, feel free to move to Mexico (many have), and those staying would hire from the pool of millions of unemployed citizens whose unemployment benefits cannot be extended indefinitely.

The aforementioned would take politicians who have the guts to agree to a form of “amnesty” which would allow for some compassion, and for those who are only enslaving the illegal immigrants in the hopes of getting a few more votes, an opportunity to redeem themselves with their constituents and actually be retain their jobs (this is regardless of political party). This is not something that is “too complicated to grasp” – it is simple in its design and simpler to implement – no need to form a commission to study it.

Therefore, whoever was responsible for pointing out the fact that the State of Utah is possibly involved in criminal activity – is, in a word, a patriot. To those who are crying foul, lawmakers for all intends and purposes (along side a few journalists), they should be looking at the agency closely and bringing charges against the individual or individuals who allowed this list to be developed in the first place, the use of which, by the State should also be questioned. Articles such as this and situations such as this is the reason there is so much angst and distrust over the handling of illegal immigration in the first place and the rise in Support for the State of Arizona.

Blagojevich Trial Revelation – Witness Used to Deliver Message from Obama to Blagojevich regarding “Value” of a Senate Seat Appointment.

Obama with Blagojevich - image Pumaeyes blog

The President has consistently denied knowledge of any communication regarding the "pay to play politics" vis a vis the Illinois Senate Seat left vacant by his advancement to the White House. He has, in fact, insisted that no communication from himself, or any of his staff to former Governor Rod Blagojevich took place. Additionally, after being installed as President, Obama went so far as to have an internal investigation into the matter - which concluded that, indeed, Barak Obama and his administration had no knowledge of any dealings with the Governor.

As the prosecution wrapped up its case against Blagojevich for trying to exchange the Illinois Senate seat once held by Obama, for either an appointment and or gain of some sort, the last witness to testify refuted the Presidents claim, and the claim of his initial investigation, of the case.

The President was not only aware of a message to Blagojevich, he initiated a message regarding the seat by using Rham Emmanuel to deliver it to Blagojevich going through one John Wyma, friend to Blagojevich and Illinois State lobbyist.
From the Chicago Sun Times:

Wyma, a state lobbyist, just testified that Emanuel told him to call Blagojevich and express something on behalf of the President-Elect.
"He said the President-Elect would value and appreciate Valerie Jarrett in the Senate seat," Wyma said.

“Value and Appreciate” – the meaning of which implies worth and an exchange or payment in the offing.

This contrasts sharply with the 2008 report by Obama’s future council, after an investigation into claims involving Blagojevich - that the White House found itself having no involvement or knowledge of the Illinois Senate Seat for Sale. (CNN-Time)

The Sun Times, which appears to be one of the only news outlets left with a backbone, is also the only major paper, not injecting editorial (or smoothing things over for the President) into reporting on the case – preferring instead to use the transcripts from the court alone.

The transcript speaks for itself, and the implications are clear:

Once the President took office, he had his attorney produce a report stating that he had no knowledge of any dealings with Governor Blagojevich and his former Senate Seat. This is simply not true according to the testimony given yesterday that states the President not only knew about the situation, but had communicated through Administration official Rham, that Blagojevich should be told Obama would “value and appreciate” the appointment of one Valerie Jarret to his seat.

In other words, Obama lied outright.

Blagojevich, on the other hand, has been telling the truth (such as it is)– he was, as stated offered something of value from then President-elect Obama’s appreciation of his placing Jarret in the Senate. Blagojevich’s greed, and personality aside, one has to feel that he had been led to believe that Obama would continue Chicago business as usual from D.C. expecting a value in return for that appreciation.

Therefore, Justice James Zagel who barred the President from testifying in the case, also did Obama a favor - by not testifying – Obama avoided perjury.

The word impeachment comes to mind - that said one cannot begin to compare the situation with William Jefferson Clinton’s who's over developed sex drive led to perjury – the man was attempting to cover his tracks from both his family and the American public, over sex. However, a blatant attempt by a President-elect and then President to influence local politics directly by exchanging favors, (be it political appointment or otherwise) which, is itself illegal, and then using legal counsel in an attempt to cover his tracks, should that individual take the stand and lie - that might result in a vacant seat in the White House.

This opens up a whole can of proverbial worms, all of which lead to down the road to disgrace and impeachment, had the Defense been able to call the President to the Stand. However, should an investigation be opened, (in this case as well as indications that the same took place in PA’s 12th and in Colorado) and the President be asked to testify before a grand jury at any time going forward (up until 2012), all bets are off.

The comments on this article from the Sun Times site are worth reading - the messages left give an insight into how the general Chicagoan (and one imagines those leaving comments are from places far from Chicago)feels about the President and this particular trial: http://blog.suntimes.com/blago/2010/07/witness_rham_emanuel_asked-me-1.html - comments begin at the bottom of the page.

Al Franken – Election to Senate Explained – Voter Fraud in Minnesota

Frankin - Did Fraud Lead to a Clowns' Election to the Senate? Image photoshelter

It was questionable from the beginning – a tight race between Conservative Norm Coleman and former Saturday Night Live Comedian, turned Air America on-air host, Al Franken for the Minnesota Senate led to a win for Franken – the vote recount held that Franken won outright by a margin of plus 312 votes. He was summarily sworn in to the lofty position of United State Senator.

Franken, a Minnesota native, began his career as a stand-up comic straight out of High School. He went on to become a cast member of Saturday Night Live, and eventually moving to failed and bankrupt radio network, Air America. His career in comedy spanned 35 years, prior to his announcement that he intended to seek the U.S. Senate Seat representing the State of Minnesota.

Franken’s’ narrow win in 2009’s vote recount confirmed that almost anyone can get elected to the U.S. Senate, and possibility, it may have been a combination of anti-Republican sentiment and the love of an underdog that is inherent in the United States – perhaps many cast their vote as a joke, for the comedian. Regardless, it was thought that Franken won outright.

However, a recent study by a Minnesota Conservative Group Minnesota Majority, found that 342 of the votes cast, were cast by convicted felons – meaning that Coleman, not Franken should be sitting in Washington. The State’s Election division has been slow to move, convictions of voter fraud – the Star Tribune out of Minneapolis is reporting that 1,381 suspected felons allegedly voted in the 2008 election, of those, the prosecutors in each of the two counties have charged 28 with voter fraud. According to local Public Radio, Ramsey County has brought the convictions, while, the Hennepin County District Attorney has yet to file any charges. Consider that both District Attorneys’ are elected to office in Minnesota, it is by party affiliation. Additionally, the Progressive Movement had targeted Minnesota, supporting candidates with Franken like ideology in 2008, and this political cocktail produced the votes for Franken.

Literally.

Although the Conservative Group understands that there is no legal way to recall Franken, they insist that they are interested in protecting future elections. What this Minnesota experience tells the average voter, is that when a vote is cast for a candidate, the local Democrats (Sic Progressives) are working hard to ensure that, by whatever means possible, an opposition vote won’t count. What this boils down to is a lack of pride, and even less confidence in Democrat candidates by the powers that be, whether they are local, state or federal (See Holder’s refusal to bring a suit against thugs engaged in Voter Intimidation in Philadelphia – he’s too busy suing Arizona) – a win by any means – does not speak well of the candidate and unfortunately paints, with a broad brush, decent candidates that work hard and deserve the hard won seat, regardless of rank or party, with suspicion that a little extra help was needed from ACORN, The Black Panthers or Convicted Felons.

The solution is said to be far from simple. However Voters should be required, by State Laws, to bring at the least, a valid picture I.D. to the polls in order to vote. If one cares to have a voice, one should be more than willing to provide the same and that could be in the form of a States driver’s license, U.S. Passport, Student Identification. Otherwise, the next elected official to your local, state or federal office just might be a real clown.

Democrat Governors Meeting In Boston Fear Election Backlash from Obama’s Suit Against Arizona’s Illegal Immigration Law

The New York Timesreporting on the Governors Association Meeting in Boston reported that Democrat Governors met with Administration officials over the weekend in order to discuss the suit brought against the State of Arizona and its impact on 2010 elections. Apparently, several of the Democrat Governors feel that their chances of re-election, already slim, are not being helped by the Administration’s rift with Arizona. Arizona passed SB 1070 (Short, easy to read Bill here), which enforces existing federal law – something the Federal Government has failed to do for decades. The problem for Democrat governors appears to be the fact that the Arizona Law is extremely popular among voters, with a majority supporting the State of Arizona (Gallop Latest Poll article LA Times). The Governors feel the “timing” was not right, as far as the Administration’s decision to go forward with the suit, suggesting that Obama and Holder should have waited until after the 2010 election. The word used to describe the suit by one anonymous Democrat Governor – “Toxic”.

The topic of Illegal Immigration has been a thorn in the side of Presidents going back decades, with a majority of United States citizens supporting legal immigration, with no support for open border policies that have been in place, or programs allowing for amnesty, which have not worked due to the fact that the border remains extremely porous. After September 11, 2001, the issue of open borders became one of national security, but in recent months it has also become attached to the issue of the economy. With jobs scarce, and states going bankrupt with entitlement programs, the cost of health care going through the roof and increased crime associated with illegal immigrants (specifically those on the Border States such as Arizona where home invasions, murders, et. al, are out of control) have citizens fed up.

As the suits against Arizona pile up, perhaps Holder should look to Rhode Island and consider a similar suit – Rhode Island takes illegal immigration seriously, and has measure in place that are a bit tougher than Arizona’s. However, it may not be politically expedient to do so, as the President and his advisers apparently believe that this suit is a no-brain Hispanic vote-getter. A poll may be in order – United States Citizens of Hispanic descent might view the situation a bit differently than Obama and Company believes.

A side note: In the New York Times Article by Abby Goodnough, the following paragraph should, perhaps, explain the erroneous views of the current administration and the fallacy of Progressive Think as regards the issue of the borders of the United States and the Federal Laws concerning same:

"The Arizona law — which Ms. Brewer signed in April and which, barring an injunction, takes effect July 29 — makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant there. It also requires police officers to determine the immigration status of people they stop for other offenses if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they might be illegal immigrants."

To correct Ms. Goodnough and the administration, it is a crime to be an illegal immigrant in any of the 50 states that make up the United States of America. Illegal – by definition, implies that a crime has taken place. When one makes a decision to cross the U.S. Border without going through customs, and/or without documentation, one is indeed committing a crime, regardless of which border one crosses – be it Mexico, Canada or any coastal port.

AZ’s Jan Brewer Draws More in Donations than Anti-AZ Immigration Law Protestors in “Liberal” MA – Deval “Obama” Patrick Weighs in Favor of Ilegals

Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, Faces Fans and Protesters in Boston, MA - image Phoenix Business



It was expected that the presence of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer at the Governors Conference in Boston, Massachusetts would draw crowds of Illegal Immigration supporters in massive protests – not the case. The “pouring rain” excuse was used in touting the “estimated 600” protesters who appeared in Boston to protest the Governor and SB1070, Arizona’s Immigration Law that mirrors the Federal Governments existing Laws. One would think that these protesters would have been from Massachusetts, however, according to ANSWER, a group of “community organizers” who staged the protests, participants came from: "throughout the region, with organized transportation coming from Worcester, Fitchburg, Providence, New Haven, New London, New York City, Syracuse, Baltimore, Washington DC, Philadelphia and elsewhere”. According to other sources, including the Boston Herald the figure was closer to 400, not including pro-Arizona protesters.


Pro Illegal Immigration Rally in Boston - Image Boston Herald

Can one find Pro-Arizona protesters in Massachusetts? Indeed, as well as individuals willing to donate to the defense fund for the State of Arizona. An estimated $7,000 has been donated by Bay Stater’s – so far.


Pro Arizona Protestors in Boston - image Boston Herald
Not everyone in Massachusetts is sympathetic to Arizona, including Massachusetts Governor Duval Patrick, who, according to the Boston Globe ”Blasts Immigration Crackdowns”. Patrick is up for reelection in 2010, and also used that time to whine about the Republican Governors Association running Anti-Patrick Ads for Republican Challenger, Charlie Baker, calling them ”Stone cold partisan”. Of course, the Democrat Counterpart to the Republican Governors Association will begin running anti-Baker ads next week. Patrick, at the very least, grasps the obvious – Political ads can be – partisan.
So, why the disconnect between Governor Patrick and his constituents in the Bay State (one does not include the Democrat controlled City and Town boards who have instituted the aforementioned boycotts)?

Perhaps he missed the latest from, WWLP, of Western Massachusetts reporting on an illegal alien who had been charged with child rape last week, or the case where a State Lawmaker met an illegal immigrant by “accident”. The illegal immigrant, traveling at 60 mph, crashed into State Representative Mike Moran’s card.

What is a bit mind-boggling, is that Rhode Island (right next door to Boston), lost a battle in the Statehouse to implement a law similar to Arizona, however, they have a backup – an Executive Order, signed by Rhode Islands’ Governor, is someone more restrictive than has received little to no recognition for its mandates ordering immigration checks on all new state employees, as well as ordering RI State Politic to assist federal immigration officials.

One would hazard to guess that more Bay State and Rhode Island Residents support Jan Brewer than Deval Patrick on this issue.
Where to donate to Arizona’s defense fund against seven (7) suits filed (including one by the Nation of Mexico joined to the Federal Governments Suit (what Constitution?!) and to be heard by Clinton Appointee, Susan Bolton?

Go to: Keep AZ Safe.com.