A recent e-mail I received

I received this from my childhood friend who lives in San Jose California.  Both she and her husband are of   Hawaiian descent and grew up there most of their life.  They love California but see  the terrible cost of too many illegal immigrants in California. 





Cheap Tomatoes 


This should make everyone think,
be you Democrat, Republican or Independent

From a California school teacher – 

‘As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of:

I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language
department at a large southern


California high school, which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students average lower socioeconomic
and income levels.

Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens, Huntington Park, etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools.

Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free breakfast, I’m not talking a glass of milk and roll — but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell phones. The school also provides day care centers for the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing
funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; my budget was already substantial. I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free education in America .

I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students here in the country less than 3 months who raised so much hell with the female teachers, calling them ‘Putas’ (whores) and throwing things, that the teachers were in tears.

Free medical, free education, free food, day care
etc., etc, etc.  Is it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to demand rights, privileges and entitlements?

To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they LIKE their gardener and housekeeper and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs.

Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more crime, lower standards of education in our schools, overcrowding, new diseases etc., etc, etc.
For me, I’ll pay more for tomatoes.

Americans, we need to wake up. The guest worker program will be a disaster because we won’t have the guts to enforce it. Does anyone in their right mind really think they will
voluntarily leave and return?

It does, however, have everything to do with culture: A third-world culture that does not value education, that accepts children getting pregnant and dropping out of school by 15 and that refuses to assimilate, and an American culture that has become so weak and worried about political correctness that we don’t have the will to do
anything about it.

If this makes your blood boil, as it did mine, forward this to everyone you know.

CHEAP LABOR? Isn’t that what the whole
immigration issue is about?

Business doesn’t want to pay a decent wage.

Consumers don’t want expensive produce.

Government will tell you Americans don’t want the jobs.

But the bottom line is CHEAP LABOR. The phrase ‘cheap labor’ is a myth, a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as ‘cheap labor.’

Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children.
He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents,
he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an ‘earned income credit’ of up to $3,200 free.

He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.

He qualifies for food stamps.

He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.

His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.

requires bilingual teachers and books.

He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.

If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI. Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare.  
All of this is at
(our) taxpayer’s expense.

He doesn’t worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.

Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs,
bulletins, and printed material.

He and his family receive the equivalent of
$20.00 to $30.00/hour in

Working Americans
are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left
after paying their bills and his.

The American taxpayers also pay for increased
crime, graffiti, and trash clean-up.

Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT! Wake up people!



Obama’s Tax Plan Is Really a Welfare Plan

Barack Obama – Abortion Extremist

Democrats Dismiss Logic and Realism

Obama: Running on the Cult of Personality

Georgia On Our Mind

Obama on “The Least of These”

Obama, Party Loyalty, and His Own Best Interest

Obama, Party Loyalty, and His Own Best Interest

By Rick Richman

There has been a lot of commentary already on the forum at Saddleback Church, but one Obama answer bears some further fact-checking.

In response to Pastor Rick Warren’s request to provide “an example of where you went against party loyalty and maybe even went against your own best interest for the good of America,” Obama gave two examples.


First, he cited the issue of campaign ethics and finance reform.  It was an audacious response, since Obama has decided that his own best interest has rendered inoperative his earlier commitment to public campaign financing.  In addition, his recollection of working with John McCain, and his suggestion that legislators should reject lobbyist-paid meals to eat at McDonalds, seems to have been faulty.  


But it was Obama’s second example, and the way he explained it, that bears a further look.  As his second example, he cited the signature issue of his campaign:


I guess the other example from — I’m not sure this was a more of a partisan issue, but it was something that I felt very deeply — was when I opposed the initial decision to go into war in Iraq.  That was not a popular view at the time and I was just starting my campaign for the United States Senate and I think there were a lot of people who advised me, you should be cautious.  This is going to be successful.  The president has a very high approval rating and you could end up losing the election as a consequence of this.


Obama’s oft-cited speech against the war was delivered on October 26, 2002, three months before he declared his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in the 2004 election.  It was a time when more people were warning of Saddam Hussein’s possible use of chemical warfare against U.S. troops than were suggesting the war would be easily won and might affect a Senate election two years later. 


A better view of the relationship of the Iraq war to party loyalty during Obama’s Senate campaign is provided by his July 25, 2004 interview on “Meet the Press,” two days before his keynote address to the Democratic convention made him a national figure.  During that interview, Obama had this colloquy with Tim Russert:


MR. RUSSERT:  . . . The nominee of your party, John Kerry, the nominee for vice president, John Edwards, all said [Saddam] was an imminent threat.  They voted to authorize George Bush to go to war.  How could they have been so wrong and you so right as a state legislator in Illinois and they’re on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees in Washington?
STATE REP. OBAMAWell, I think they have access to information that I did not have.  And what is absolutely clear is that John Kerry said, “If we go into war, let’s make sure that we do it right.  Let’s make sure that our troops are supported.  Let’s make sure that we have the kind of coalition that’s necessary to succeed.”  And the execution of what was a difficult choice to make was something that all of us have to be concerned about.  And moving forward, the only way that we’re going to be able to succeed is if, I think, we have an administration led by John Kerry that’s going to allow us to consolidate the relationships with our allies that bring about investment in Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT:  But if you had been a senator at that time, you would have voted not to authorize President Bush to go to war?
STATE REP. OBAMA:  I would have voted not to authorize the president given the facts as I saw them at that time.
MR. RUSSERT:  So you disagree with John Kerry and John Edwards?
STATE REP. OBAMAAt that time, but, as I said, I wasn’t there and what is absolutely clear as we move forward is that if we don’t have a change in tone and a change in administration, I think we’re going to have trouble making sure that our troops are secure and that we succeed in Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT:  We can’t withdraw the troops immediately?
STATE REP. OBAMA:  I don’t think so.


Warren had asked Obama to provide an example of where he had gone against party loyalty and his own best interest. Obama cited a speech he had given as a state senator from a liberal district in Chicago.  At the time, he had no responsibility to cast a vote that would affect the outcome, nor (as he indicated later to Russert) sufficient information to do so.   


His “Meet the Press” interview shows that, in the midst of his run for the Senate in 2004, as he prepared to take the national stage, Obama put party loyalty (and his own best interest) first.  He fell in line behind his party’s nominees, noting they voted for the war based on more information than he had available to him, and he did not suggest an end to the war but rather a “change in tone and a change in administration” so that “we succeed in Iraq.”


That was the change he believed in at that point in time.


Rick Richman edits “Jewish Current Issues.”  His articles have appeared in American Thinker, The New York Sun and The Jewish Press.

Obama desperation starting to show

Obama desperation starting to show

Steve Whitlock
Barack Obama seems to think he can recover some of the ground he lost at the Saddleback Forum by seizing on John McCain’s joking reference to $5 million a year as rich. Reuters reports:

“I guess if you’re making $3 million a year, you’re middle class,” Obama told a campaign event in New Mexico.
“That’s reflected in … his policies,” Obama said, adding McCain would give a $500,000 tax credit to people making more than $2.5 million.
McCain’s actual answer included, “Let’s not have the government take over the health care system in America. So, [applause] so, I think if you’re just talking about income, how about five million? So, [laughter] but seriously, I don’t think you can… and I’m sure that comment will be distorted, but the point is… we want to keep [all] people’s taxes low.”


It was obvious from his tone and the context of his answer that he was simply tossing out an absurd number to make his point — he’s not interested in raising taxes.  Rather, he wants to lower them for everyone.


In contrast, Obama admitted that if elected he’s raising taxes.  That’s where this discussion should be focused.

3 Days After Saddleback, Obama Looks Even Sillier

3 Days After Saddleback, Obama Looks Even Sillier

Patrick Casey
Three days after the Presidential forum at Saddleback Church in California, revelations are still coming out that makes the Obama campaign’s complaint that John McCain “cheated” look even more like the infantile, the schoolyard whining of a loser.

The Washington Post has an article this morning, expanding on something that we first learned about yesterday, revealing that both candidates had been made aware of several questions that were going to be asked, and were also informed of the various issues that Rick Warren was going to cover during their interviews: Candidates Got Advance Look at Questions.


Responding to questions about whether Sen. John McCain had an unfair advantage over Sen. Barack Obama at Saturday’s forum on faith at the Saddleback Church in California, a spokesman for the Rev. Rick Warren said both candidates had an advance look at a few questions.

Spokesman A. Larry Ross said the candidates had agreed that McCain would not listen to Obama’s interview, which came first by a coin-flip agreement. But Ross said Warren gave them both a sense of what to expect.

Warren provided McCain and Obama with the four subject areas, Ross said — leadership, stewardship, worldview and international compassion — and provided them a sense of the themes he would ask about, including topics such as energy and taxes.
He also offered three examples of questions he planned to ask: What is your greatest moral failure? What is America’s greatest moral failure? Who are the three people you rely on for wise advice?


With these revelations, Barack Obama’s performance on Saturday night looks even worse. It’s becoming abundantly clear that Obama’s “eloquence” and “oratorical skills” rely solely on the availability of a teleprompter. If he’s asked to think on his feet, even if he’s been made aware of the types of questions and subject matter beforehand, he’s in deep trouble.


In a way, it seems as if the Obama campaign wasn’t satisfied with seeing their candidate get a drubbing on Saturday night; they needed that drubbing to continue on for a few days. Notice how the Washington Post article above begins:


“Responding to questions about whether Sen. John McCain had an unfair advantage over Sen. Barack Obama at Saturday’s forum on faith at the Saddleback Church in California…”.


Had Obama not made a point of complaining loudly that McCain had cheated, this information would probably have never come out.


Barack Obama brought this on himself. Either he or his campaign hand-fed Andrea Mitchell the line about McCain cheating, and she dutifully reported it as fact on NBC News without checking it out herself. The Obama campaign wanted this “cheating” angle to become conventional wisdom, and was counting on the media to not do any follow-up reporting. They did, and Obama’s strategy has backfired.


In something that probably should have been included in today’s Washington Post‘s article, but for some reason wasn’t, the Post‘s own Howard Kurtz commented on what Mitchell did during his weekly Internet Q&A, as relayed to us by MediaBistro.com’s “FishbowlDC”: Kurtz: Mitchell Gave Obama Campaign “Free Shot” At McCain:


Arlington, Va.: How unprofessional was it for Andrea Mitchel and NBC News to air anonymous allegations that McCain had cheated and heard the questions in advance during Saturdays’ event? Wouldn’t an unbiased discussion have included denials from the McCain campaign? Instead of being a stenographer for the Obama campaign, shouldn’t she have done some reporting on the subject (checking out the room, etc….) before spouting their spin on nationwide TV?
Howard Kurtz: Here’s the exchange:
ANDREA MITCHELL: The Obama people must feel that he didn’t do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because that–what they’re putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.
ANDREA MITCHELL: He seemed so well prepared.
Mitchell’s defense is that she was just repeating a charge made by Obama aides. I would not have raised it without evidence, or at least without someone from the Obama camp going on the record. Otherwise you’re just giving them a free shot without his campaign having to back it up.


Well, Andrea, thanks to you we now know that Barack Obama should have been as well prepared as John McCain — they both knew what they were going to be talking about. As that tidbit makes Obama look even smaller, we’re wondering what your opinion is on what that tells us about your candidat…err…Obama? No need to clear your answer first with the Obama campaign — what’s your opinion, as a journalist and political commentator?


So not only does John McCain convincingly win what can arguably be called the first Presidential debate of the 2008 Election season, he gets to watch his opponent take his own campaign, along with Andrea Mitchell and the Obama state media network NBC, down a few more notches.


Not a bad weekend’s work.