1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Strange Case of Mexican Emigration

D.44 Wrote: Jul 18, 2013 7:22 AM
Mexican government fears vigilantism: http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2013/6/11/mexican_citizens_take_up_arms_against.htm
In response to:

The Strange Case of Mexican Emigration

D.44 Wrote: Jul 18, 2013 7:15 AM
This is all true, but don't forget the fact that lower class Mexican citizens are relentlessly terrorized by drug cartels and small town gangsters. Many young men run for their lives to the US to avoid being forced (by threat of death to family members) to work for the cartels. Of the $20 billion sent back to Mexico, much goes to pay "protection"or fake "taxes" to local government, and/or ransoms for kidnappings by gangsters. Government officials at all levels are rotten to the core. Americans need to stop being stupid about how corrupt Mexico is, and boycott ALL tourism and investment. (Oh...and stopping using drugs would get their attention too) I'm so sick of hearing people say, "But Cancun/San Miguel/Punta Mita/Baja is safe". That's not the point.
In response to:

Lies About Libya

D.44 Wrote: May 14, 2013 8:14 AM
Let's be careful not to fall for (what Michelle Malkin calls) the "look at the squirrel!" distractions (IRS + AP stories that conveniently popped up). Are they offering these stories as sacrifice? We need to be asking...WHY did Hillary (Obama) want an outpost there without added security? Could there have been something bigger, worth the risks of cover up, than an election season narrative? The egos of these delusional self-appointed geniuses should not be underestimated. They thought Fast and Furious was a good idea. Were there weapons walking in Benghazi? Don't let the Liberal defenders forget it wasn't just Susan Rice: Hillary and O blamed the videos in front of the caskets, in front of the UN, and in their apology made for broadcast in Pakistan. WHO made that decision? Greg Hicks said this offended the Libyan president and delayed the FBI investigation of the crime scene. This makes the blame-the-video thing crucial in obstructing justice for the 4 dead. Remember Hillary's convenient concussion? http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/15/us/us-hillary-clinton-concussion/
In response to:

Rand Paul Could Be Biggest Shock of 2016

D.44 Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 10:02 AM
I'm bothered by those Republicans who got all embarrassed by Rand's filibuster. That mushiness is deadly. I enjoyed watching the filibuster, and his simple style of explaining constitutionality. Young Ron Paul supporters, and new youth voters, will be watching him. Respect them or not, these voters may be the remaining hope for the survival (revival?) of the U.S. Constitution. I can see enormous value from a bigger spotlight on him. He's also very good at creating small tasty tidbit soundbites for the MSM to snack on. I see Rand, Cruz, Rubio, Carson as a sort of tag team for a couple years. Each is eloquent for particular audiences. Information, education and prying the microphones from McCain and Graham are priority for GOP.
Akin to people who own and adore their iPods, iPads, and iPhones; but don't consider Apple when buying a computer.
In response to:

Benghazi -- No Mere 'October Surprise'

D.44 Wrote: Oct 31, 2012 8:20 AM
As tragic as this is, concerned citizens need to question strategically in order to pry the MSM from their talking points and deflate (bogus) charges of politicization. Their line is that "independent" investigation needs to proceed without interference. Fine. Perhaps we can pause on the who knew what when. HOWEVER the retort then, at THIS point in this sad game, should always be a demand to know WHY WHY WHY they blamed (PROMOTED) the video when THEY did not have sufficient intelligence or evidence! Rice on Sunday shows was one thing. Pushing it at the casket ceremony and the UN? an apology for it on Pakistani TV? What is the MSM talking point for that??
Thank you Ms Pavlich. I'd love to see you discuss this with Greta Van Susteren, who also is bothered by the strangeness of the video argument. At this point, it is important to maintain some focus on WHY the administration went "all in" with blaming the video. Was it simply a weak attempt to dodge responsibility, and maintain their narrative? Smells to me like faculty lounge reasoning and community organization tactics...Were they purposely trying to inflame and instigate? They PROMOTED the video. What result did they want and why?
In response to:

Desperate Dems Hide Behind Big Bird

D.44 Wrote: Oct 05, 2012 8:45 AM
Precisely. VP debates...Paul Ryan will be Charlie Brown teacher voice to their ears. Biden knows instinctively how to talk to them. It's his native language.
In response to:

Desperate Dems Hide Behind Big Bird

D.44 Wrote: Oct 05, 2012 8:21 AM
Democrats know that, strategically, Big Bird is something their AVERAGE base and yet-undecided voter can understand, and it allows them something about which they can act indignantly anti-Romney. This voter likely has NO idea what Romney is talking about, i.e., that PBS is funded by taxpayers, and incidentally, that Sponge Bob or Dora the Explorer are NOT. If you ever have to engage in conversation with these people, don't try to explain President Johnson, CEO salaries, or PBS bias. Do your best, instead, to illustrate that Big Bird and Jim Lehrer (and friends) are SO iconic and indispensable, they are capable of competing against Sponge Bob and Piers Morgan on their own two feet. Teachable moment.
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." - to Joe the Plumber
1 - 10 Next