Archive | November, 2012

Illinois lawmakers seek to grant driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants

26 Nov

Tomorrow, Illinois lawmakers convene for their post-election lame-duck session.

The Illinois State Assembly is entirely in the hands of the Democrats, much like the United States was when Obama won the 2008 election.

The governor is a liberal Democrat. The state senators are Democrat-controlled, as are the state representatives.

When Obama took office in 2009 with a Democrat-controlled House and Democrat-controlled House, he made his agenda social-oriented rather than economic-oriented, such as repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and enacting Obamacare.

Now after the 2012 elections, the state of Illinois appears to be following Obama’s footprints. That is, many items are on the state agenda, some of which are economic-oriented (such as dealing with the burgeoning pension debt) while others are social-oriented (such as gay marriage)—and so far, it appears that the social policy bills are taking priority over economic policy bills.

One particularly loony social issue that is on the Illinois state agenda is revisiting the twice-failed idea of allowing illegal immigrants to receive driver’s licenses.

What part of “illegal” in “illegal immigrants” do these liberal lawmakers not understand?

Why would lawmakers want to grant any kind of legal status to people who are by definition in the country illegally?

In their own words, these lawmakers say they want money. “Economic growth,” explained Governor Pat Quinn.

That is, Democrats are happily willing to prostitute themselves—and the people of Illinois—for money.

Currently, immigrants without a Social Security number cannot obtain a driver’s license. And of course, illegal immigrants do not have Social Security numbers.

The Democrats’ idea is, according to a press conference and statement by Quinn and Illinois Senate President John Cullerton, to fast-track a bill that could give licenses to as many as 250,000 people who are driving but haven’t passed a driving test or, in many cases, have no insurance.

Naturally, these liberals will try to deceptively market this idea as something else. “This is a safety issue,” Quinn initially explained before admitting the money factor.

Liberals also argue that immigrants who can drive legally are more likely to work and otherwise contribute to the economy.

Newsflash: illegal immigrants already work. Heck, some of these same politicians probably hire them for themselves. But illegal immigrants who work do NOT add to the economy because they are simply taking the place of legally qualified workers.

It’s also uncertain whether this move would indeed make roads safer. From a practical standpoint, many illegal immigrants already drive very carefully because they know that causing an accident is the easiest way to be detected and subsequently deported.

But furthermore, passing a driver’s test clearly doesn’t mean drivers are safe drivers. If that were true, there should not be ANY accidents since the vast majority of drivers are people who have passed that highfalutin driver’s test.

Apparently, these liberals don’t know that there’s a big difference between knowing the rules of the road and being a safe driver.

And these liberal lawmakers are truly naive to think that illegal immigrants would also be willing to happily fork over thousands of dollars to pay for car insurance when they are barely scraping up enough money with their low, under-the-table wages.

But despite all the missing logic, this bill has the support of all the biggest liberal names in Illinois politics: Quinn, Cullerton, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and House Speaker Michael Madigan.

And despite the state’s much more pressing need to cure its fiscal woes, this absurd social policy bill is getting fast-track treatment.


Because this is how the Democrats tap into the growing Latino vote: by selling their principles for votes. It’s ok to circumvent immigration laws if it can get you re-elected.

As Crain’s Chicago Business blogger Greg Hinz wrote:

Democrats like Messrs. Quinn, Cullerton, Emanuel and Madigan — and President Barack Obama — owe Latino voters a ton after the recent election. It’s payback time — and that’s how politics works.

Principled voters should be outraged. If you live in Illinois, write your own state senator and representative and tell them to vote down this ludicrous bill.

2012 Presidential Election: 7 Thoughts On Obama’s Victory Over Romney

7 Nov

I’m usually an upbeat, optimistic person. But Barack Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney last night sent me into a prolonged funk before I eventually fell asleep.

I’ve since come up with seven Minor Insights about last night’s results. They don’t cure my depression—but they do actually explain it.

1. Obama is living in a fantasy world

Towards the end of his victory speech, Obama said:

I believe we can seize this future together because we are not as divided as our politics suggests. We’re not as cynical as the pundits believe. We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions, and we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are and forever will be the United States of America.

This echoes a portion of Obama’s keynote at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the one that truly launched his political status. It sounds so dreamy, doesn’t it?

Yes, but more like, “Keep dreaming.”

Look at this map:

Clearly, it is a collection of red states and blue states.

More than that, it’s a collection of sharply divided red and blue states.

Obama won 26 states; Romney won 24 states.

The fact is that the nation is more divided than ever. No amount of Obama huffing-and-puffing will blow that house down.

2. Obama’s win was smaller than in 2008.

The liberal NY Times declared (screenshot, left) Obama had a “clear victory.” But was it really?

Sure, Obama had a sizable electoral college victory. But that electoral victory—if you include Florida, which is still not officially declared as of this writing but is leaning the President’s way—shrunk (332-206) from his 2008 victory over John McCain (365-173).

The popular vote tells a much different story. Obama won the popular vote—but barely. As of this writing, he has 50% of the popular vote while Romney had 48%. This is down from a 52.9-45.7% margin in 2008.

Even in Obama’s home state of Illinois, his winning margin shrunk. He won 57.3-41.1% this year—down from 61.9-36.8% in 2008.

Other highly liberal, electorally-rich states like California and New York also voted less for Obama last night than in 2008.

The typical phrase the day after the election is: “the people have spoken.” Well, yes and no. The people have spoken but they speak two different languages. 50% spoke one language, and the other 48% spoke a different language.

So unlike the 2010 congressional election, the 2012 presidential numbers decisively show this was not a “mandate” win. The nation was deeply divided about whether to send Obama back to Washington D.C.

3. Obama has rough sledding ahead

Obama’s victory celebration will be short-lived.

First, the so-called “fiscal cliff” is fast approaching, where the President and Congress must try to avert another financial crisis that would send the economy back into another recession.

Second, he’ll need to fix the economy and jobs. Obama’s plan to spend on education in order to fix the economy is a red herring. Education doesn’t fix the economy because there are currently no jobs for graduates, no matter how smart or dumb they are. And Insightful people know that construction jobs are just temporary jobs.

Third, the issue of taxes will also likely take some of the spotlight in 2012. In referring to exit polls where six in 10 voters said that taxes should be increased and nearly half of voters said taxes should be increased on incomes over $250,000, as Obama has called for, Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, told CNN:

“It’s very clear from the exit polling that a majority of Americans recognize that we need to share responsibility for reducing the deficit.”

Perhaps this hike in taxes upon citizens is what Obama meant in his victory speech when he said:

“The role of citizen in our democracy does not end with your vote. America’s never been about what can be done for us. It’s about what can be done by us together through the hard and frustrating, but necessary work of self-government. That’s the principle we were founded on.”

Why people would want to pay (in taxes) for government overspending (causing the enormous deficit) is beyond me. If the government has fiscal diarrhea, then the government needs to clean its own toilet, not the taxpayers.

Furthermore, Obama will divide some of his attention on critical foreign issues all around the world. From Russia—who Obama secretly said he would have “more flexibility” in his second term to do things—to Pakistan and Afghanistan—where Obama’s secret wars are still being waged behind the public hailing of the Iraqi withdrawal—to growing tension over Iran’s nuclear weapons labs, to the crisis in Syria and the growing republic of Islam in the Middle East as secular dictatorships fall, it will be interesting to see how Obama positions the United States globally in this second term.

And he’ll have to do all this with the bipartisanship that he failed to accomplish in his first term.

4. The nation appears to be trending more left on social issues

As popular culture and Hollywood continue to present only-favorable representations of gays while routinely mocking family values, when it comes to social issues, voter values will slowly shift more towards Democratic values.

We saw a bit of that with the gay marriage ballot initiatives that won last night—the first time gay marriage has won at the ballot box.

Furthermore, Obama has a vested interest in the immigration issue—particularly allowing as many Latinos into the country as possible since Latinos tend to be heavily Democratic voters due to government welfare programs.

For example, according to the Wall Street Journal, one policy decision that gave the White House one of its biggest electoral jolts was Obama’s June announcement of an executive action that would halt the deportation of many young illegal immigrants. It may not make fiscal sense but it sure makes great political sense—especially since the Latino community is growing in key battleground states like Florida, Nevada and Colorado.

And marijuana was approved for recreational use in two states—Washington and Colorado—on Tuesday.

Historically, the nation swings one way or another in different decades, so hopefully, things will eventually balance out over time and trend back to the right.

5. Paul Ryan did not contribute much to the Romney campaign

Vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan had only two things on his to-do list once he accepted his vice-presidential nomination:

  1. Rout Joe Biden in their debate
  2. Bring Wisconsin under the Romney column

He did neither.

Though Ryan didn’t fail against a typically arrogant Biden in their debate, he didn’t expose Biden as the buffoon that he is—despite Biden giving him a few opportunities on a silver platter.

And Wisconsin was somewhat in play to the end, polls had generally shown the state going to Obama—which it eventually did.

Ryan also tried to assure seniors that Medicare was important to him, using his own mother as proof, but it’s uncertain whether voters believed that message.

Should Romney have picked Ohio Senator Rob Portman instead of Paul Ryan? Would Portman have helped Romney carry the crucial state of Ohio? We’ll never know.

But we do know that Ryan did not help the Romney campaign much—if at all.

6. Republicans do not need a more moderate candidate

Romney was as moderate as you can get. McCain before him was also known as an independent (remember McCain being labeled a “maverick”?).

So finding a centrist candidate isn’t the Republicans’ main problem. They’ve done that and failed.

Sad to say, I don’t think a Tea Party candidate is the answer either—at least not in the short-term, given the Tea Party candidates couldn’t even the primary election. Perhaps down the road when America starts to get fed up with liberal policies currently employed by Obama.

I’m not sure what the answer is but I don’t think it would hurt to have a younger candidate.

Romney is 65. John McCain was 72 when he ran.

In contrast, Obama was 47 when he first ran for president. Bill Clinton was 46 when he defeated incumbent then 64-year-old George H.W. Bush. George W. Bush was 56 when he barely beat 52-year-old Al Gore.

I’m not necessarily saying age is the trump card if all else is equal. But for all the political wisdom that elder statesmen like Newt Gingrich have, it may be possible that in this age of social networking dominated by younger voters, younger candidates have more appeal.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Florida Senator Marco Rubio are not only young but they also represent minorities—two growing voting segments of our nation.

7. Many Democratic voters do not have any voting sense

The far-left liberals actually make sense when they vote b/c they are voting for their leftist social values.

But those voters who are not left-wing liberals but still vote Democrat? Them, I don’t get.

For example, on ABC’s Nightline, Terry Moran interviewed a guy in Wisconsin who said he lost his job three times in three years. Moran surmised, “You should be the perfect Romney voter.” Yet the voter insisted he was going to vote for Obama—the author of the economy that has failed to give this man a stable job!

Exit polls showed 60% of voters said the No. 1 issue they voted for in the election was the economy. Yet 50% of voters voted for Obama.

How can it be that a president who spends like there is no tomorrow—thus making the economy worse—still gets the vote of 50% of the the people?

That’s like sticking your finger in an electrical socket, saying safety is your No. 1 priority…and then sticking your finger in the socket again.

What’s more, there are a record number of people on food stamps. People may not know that the food stamp program was championed by Democrats, starting with Leonor Sullivan. Democratic President Kennedy initiated the first food stamp pilot programs. And Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson and House Democrats passed the Food Stamp Act of 1964.

Problem is that food stamps shackles poor people into a system that will forever imprison them in being poor.

Just this past Sunday, a very close friend of mine on food stamps encouraged me to sign up for food stamps. “Free money,” this person told me. “You’d be a fool not to take it.”

This is the legacy of Democrats. Yet voters don’t realize the sad irony of crying about being poor yet voting Democratic.

Here’s another example of nonsensical Democrat voters. In Illinois, U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. coasted to an easy win—despite not working for the past half year. Apparently, his constituents don’t care if anyone is actually doing anything for them.

Want another example of nonsensical Democrat voters? How about Derrick Smith? The former Illinois state representative was indicted, arrested and expelled from his seat due to a felony charge of accepting bribes. Yet Smith won easily (62%-38%) over an independent candidate endorsed by the governor and secretary of state.

I guess it’s not completely surprising given that, as one person on Facebook commented, these same people voted for Obama.

But seriously, some people just shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Slimy Tammy Duckworth takes Obama approach to election against Joe Walsh

6 Nov

Death and taxes may be the only certainties in life, but Democrats using sleazy tactics to win elections is inching its way up the list too.

The fight in Illinois for a Congressional seat got slimier about a week and a half ago when Democrat Tammy Duckworth refused to pull her campaign ad accusing Republican Joe Walsh of being a “deadbeat dad.”

Walsh’s three kids and Walsh’s ex-wife both have praised Walsh as being “a good father.” Walsh’s 25-year-old son even went so far as to call a press conference specifically to renounce the phrase “deadbeat dad” on his father, and called Duckworth to pull the ads.

Duckworth said, “No, I’m not going to do that.”


This from a candidate whose campaign ads call herself one who “always” has “honor”.

Duckworth’s definition of “honor” apparently has an exception for politics.

But if you think about it, Duckworth—who lost a prior congressional bid in 2006—is simply using an Obama campaign strategy of exaggerating an opponent’s personal problems.

I hope people see through her sleazy campaign and she loses the election because of it. There’s nothing honorable about slandering someone’s personal life.

2012 Presidential Election: 11 Reasons Romney Will Defeat Obama

5 Nov

As the election winds down to the final hours, some Romney supporters I’ve talked to think that Obama has taken the momentum.

For the record, different polls show different results.

The liberal Huffington Post chose to focus on the final Pew Research Center election poll showing President Barack Obama with a ‘modest’ 3-point lead over Mitt Romney.

On the other hand, Gallup shows that Romney holds a 1-point lead over Obama. also reports that all other polls have the two in a dead heat.

Bottom line on who has the lead: no one really knows.

Polls may or may not be accurate, and I’ve had my share of incorrect predictions in the past since it’s not easy to predict other people’s behavior. But as we come down to the few wee hours before the big day, here are 11 reasons why I think Romney will win the 2012 Presidential Election:

  1. Independent voters. In the three most significant swing states (in terms of electoral votes), Romney has a significant lead over Obama among independent voters in Florida, Ohio and Virginia.
  2. Senior voters. Romney also leads Obama among senior voters in these same swing states. Anecdotally, I’ve spoken with seniors who are livid with Obama for the frequent Medicare benefit cuts during his administration. Seniors may not know what Romney will do with entitlement programs, but they already know what Obama has done with such programs and they are incensed.
  3. Young voters. 51 percent of people ages 18-29 turned out to vote in 2008, second-highest turnout ever, and they voted for Obama over John McCain by a 2-to-1 ratio. Four years later, these same young voters are disenchanted, disillusioned and discouraged. They’ve seen Obama fail to deliver on his promise of being a different kind of politician. The Washington Post reported that Obama has been “infantilizing” these young college grads by forcing them to move back in with their parents due to the depressed economy. Many young voters may be disappointed enough to not vote this time around.
  4. State flipping. With Indiana and North Carolina, Romney is likely to flip two of the 12 states that went for Obama in 2008 that are currently toss-ups. If Obama retains the four states he easily won in 2008 (Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) and Romney wins the three biggest swing states (Florida, Ohio and Virginia), then Romney would have a huge 266-253 lead in electoral voting. At that point, Obama would need to sweep the three remaining swing states—Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire—to win, while Romney would just need to secure one of those three to win.
  5. Black voters. While Obama reportedly still enjoys 96% support among blacks, that number still is going to take a hit. Some evangelical black voters who supported Obama in 2008 are no longer supporting him in 2012 due to Obama’s support for gay marriage. In additiona, a coalition of over 3,000 black pastors have publicly stated they will not stand with Obama this time, and it’s safe to assume that many in their congregations will follow suit. Even non-churchgoing black voters have expressed exasperation that despite a black president, [the quality of life for blacks] is “in the same spot as when Bush was president.”
  6. White voters. In 2008, McCain won over white voters by 12% over Obama as many white voters flocked to Obama’s camp in an attempt to lay claim to history. But this year, all four major polls show Romney is leading Obama by more than 20% over Obama, which—if it holds true—would be the biggest margin for that segment by any Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan.
  7. Jobless voters. During the time that the unemployment rate hit a staggering 10.0% in Oct 2009, Obama’s singular focus was to direct the Democratic-controlled Congress to address health care rather than to address the economy. Even with unemployment still standing at 7.8%, voters remember that Obama’s priorities were in the wrong order when he had a Democratic-controlled Congress for two years.
  8. Obama’s inexperience. The biggest criticism of Obama in 2008 was that he was inexperienced. McCain warned voters that America did not want a president who would be learning on the job; that America needed someone who knew what he would be doing from Day One. Four years later, America has reaped what it has sown. Being just a senator—and a junior one at that—Obama had little experience. What’s worse, senators, unlike governors, never lead anything. Senators can introduce bills but they are just one of 100 others just like him. Senators cannot dictate policy, make executive decisions or balance budgets. Romney, on the other hand, has the experience. Not just any experience but diversified and successful experience. He’s led businesses. He’s governed a state. He led it out of a budget deficit. And he led the Salt Lake City Olympics from a budget deficit into a surplus.
  9. Evangelical voters. Obama’s policies have been overtly against evangelical beliefs, from the president’s contraceptive mandate with no religious exception to his endorsement of same-sex marriage, and there were a surprising number of evangelicals, such as in battleground Iowa, who were romanced by the smooth-talking Obama in 2008 but are re-considering this time around. And Obama’s policies have also aggressively eroded religious freedoms, causing evangelical voters who voted for Obama in 2008 to vote for Romney in 2012.
  10. Foreign policy disasters. For a guy who is still trying to fool voters in these frenetic last campaign hours as a guy who will tell the truth, the Obama administration to this day still hasn’t told the truth about Benghazi. uperstorm Sandy may have rescued Obama from media attention on new damning evidence about Benghazigate, but so has the liberal media—CBS was caught trying to rescue Obama by not reporting his lies about Benghazi. Obama points to the assassination of Osama bin Laden as his foreign policy trump card but the reality is that al-Qaeda and Muslim fundamentalism is much more far-reaching than a singular Osama bin Laden. Rest assured that a new bid Laden-type leader will rise to fill the void left by bin Laden’s death. A much bigger issue is Obama’s minimization of Iran’s nuclear weapons program while simultaneously reducing our own nuclear weapons. Romney’s commitment to a strong American military is a clear contrast to Obama’s foreign policy.
  11. Newspaper endorsement flipping. With today’s blogosphere, newspaper endorsements don’t carry anywhere near the weight that they used to. Still, it’s significant that, according to one source, Romney flipped 12 newspaper endorsements that had gone to Obama in 2008 and that, according to another source, Romney flipped 28 newspaper endorsements.

So has Obama taken momentum? No. There is a lot of bleeding that Obama still has to try to stop. It’s like plumbing with multiple leaks. You may have stopped one leak, but there are ten others.

And little wonder. Obama represents failure. He represents deceit. And he represents inexperience.

Hope and change turned out to be smoke and mirrors.

A record $16 trillion debt. Lowered national credit rating. An even more crippled economy. The first-ever endorsement of same-sex marriage from a president. Heck, the U.S. even was the first site eliminated from 2016 Summer Olympics contention despite Obama’s personal involvement.

We want four more years of this utterly depressing state of the nation?

Hope and change is now on Romney’s side.  Hope that a man with a proven track record knows what it takes to turn this country around. Hope that we won’t have to settle for more of the last four years. Hope that America can stand tall and proud again, rather than floundering in a sea of incompetence.

Romney isn’t the perfect candidate but he is far more prepared and far more equipped to handle the challenges that face this great nation than Obama. We have seen what Obama has done, and we don’t like it.

November 6th is just hours away. Call me an optimist, but let’s make a vote for a fresh start, America! Let’s vote for Romney!