This is the best use of a car I have seen in a while. Using proven hooligan techniques to assist in the apprehension of a criminal.
OOPS! I wonder how some people make it through the day. I can’t even imagine the level of inattention this would require.
Well, it is Oklahoma.
Apparently there is to be a vote later today on a bill regarding Puerto Rican statehood. They are calling it “non-binding” but it is not non-binding! It is a trap. The bill makes eventual Puerto Rican statehood a virtual certainty. This is despite the fact that statehood has been voted down repeatedly. The Puerto Rican people don’t want it!
This is a huge issue. The Puerto Rican people have always rejected statehood but, as James M. Simpson points out in the post, this bill is designed to force statehood. Read the whole thing, especially this part:
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a senior Democrat Congressman no less, just posted his views on this bill at Huffington Post. Here is what he has to say about it:
I am a senior Democratic Member of Congress, whose parents were born in Puerto Rico, and for whom Puerto Rico self-determination has been – and remains – a central issue of my congressional career. This statehood bill is the opposite of self-determination.
It is designed to craft an artificial majority for statehood where none exists now. Every time the people of Puerto Rico have been consulted on this issue through a plebiscite they’ve said NO to Statehood. NO to Statehood in 1967. NO to Statehood in 1993. NO to Statehood in 1998. This should be called the “Don’t you dare say NO to Statehood Bill”.
But he is just getting going. Listen to this:
When a similar Puerto Rico bill came up under Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Republican controlled Congress a decade ago, it was the product of lengthy and thorough hearings and an open and fair process. Then, I was given time to offer seven amendments. Then I was able to clarify the bill for the Puerto Rican people. Then, each of my seven amendments got 30 minutes of floor time for debate.
Flash forward to now. Now a Democratic Majority Congress is only allowing me two of the 16 amendments I offered in the Rules Committee on Wednesday. Now I only have 10 minutes to debate each one.
Now, under Democratic Leadership, we get one hearing, no forewarning, no companion Senate bill, and a debate only a few seconds longer than a NASCAR pit-stop…I get more time to debate renaming a Post Office than I will get to debate a bill that could make Puerto Rico the fifty-first state.
In my opinion, this bill is the political equivalent of a shady Goldman Sachs derivative: It’s secretive. It lacks transparency. It’s likely to blow up down the road and cause systemic risk to out democracy. And those who put this political derivative together don’t really tell you what this is really about and will play dumb when it explodes.
Also at issue is the fact that Puerto Rico will gain 6 or 7 representatives and 2 senators. The big problem there is that since we are at the maximum of 435 representatives, those 6 or 7 will come from other states. Additionally, given the income levels in Puerto Rico, we’ll have a huge number of new people who qualify for government benefits.
WOW! This is just amazing. Pelosi was right – we had to pass the bill to see what was in it, and boy, was there a lot there. Hell, some of what was there it seems no one knew about. For a bill that was supposed to cut health care costs (it doesn’t) it sure is increasing costs elsewhere.
This is getting ridiculous. Apparently, riot police were called out in Quincy, Illinois at a Tea Party protest near where President Obama was speaking. Some reports indicate that the Secret Service called the police, other say it was the Obama advance team. Either way, it was silly considering the crowd makeup.
Gateway Pundit has some pictures and some updated information. The bottom line; there was no violence or even a threat of violence. And since when have riot police paraded down the street like that? They looked silly.
They also had cops on the rooftops! Were these snipers or just observers? Either way, it’s getting even more ridiculous than I first thought.
I remember, some time back, Rush Limbaugh reading an immigration law on the air. He never said where it was from before he read it and some people assumed it was his version of a law because it was much more harsh than America’s laws. The reality – it was Mexico’s law. Yes, the same Mexico that continually whines whenever something like Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law is passed.
Newsbusters has some highlights of Mexico’s immigration law here. To me, the most telling is the first point listed:
The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” How’s that for racial and ethnic profiling?
Racial profiling indeed.
Apparently, the law is working. The AP has a story with, I kid you not, the following headline:
Illegal immigrants plan to leave over Ariz. law
President Obama had something interesting to say yesterday [emphasis mine]:
We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.
Ed Morrissey had this to say in response:
The President doesn’t get to decide when people have “made enough money.” In fact, as the radio host notes, that’s a statist point of view. Furthermore, the responsibility of an entrepreneur isn’t to “grow our economy,” core or otherwise. It’s to grow his own economy. In a properly regulated capitalist system, the natural tension of self-interests create economic growth through innovation and efficient use of capital and resources.
Put simply, a free people work for themselves, not for the government. Barack Obama seems to have a problem understanding that.
Well said. The only thing I would add is to ask the president a question. At what point has one made enough money? Who gets to decide what that number is?