Bush Derangement Syndrome worms its way into Bhutto assasination

What the feck?

Someone had to find a way to blame Bush, didnt take them long did it?

From Yahoo News:

Where Bhutto's Death Leaves the U.S.



By MARK THOMPSON AND BRIAN BENNETT/WASHINGTON 1 hour, 35 minutes ago

The weeks to come will determine just how severe a blow Benazir Bhutto's death is to Pakistan, but debate over Washington's role in the run up to this tragic day will continue well beyond that. Even as the smoke still lingered in Rawalpindi, President Bush demanded that those responsible for Bhutto's death be caught and punished. "The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy," Bush told reporters in Crawford, Texas, where he had arrived Wednesday to begin a long New Year's holiday. "Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice."

But there are some who think the Bush Administration is not without blame. Hussain Haqqani, a former top aide to Bhutto and now a professor at Boston University, thinks the U.S., which has counted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as a key ally against terrorism since 9/11, bears some of the responsibility. "Washington will have to answer a lot of questions, especially the Administration," he says. "People like me have been making specific requests to American officials to intervene and ask for particular security arrangements be made for her, and they have been constantly just trusting the Musharraf Administration." U.S. officials said they were leery of intervening in another nation's internal affairs, and didn't want to give Bhutto Washington's imprimatur.

Haqqani is not shy about pointing fingers. He blames Musharraf himself, above all, for Bhutto's death. "It's quite clear that Musharraf does not want an election - you can quote me - he is the one who has constantly wanted anybody who can threaten him or his power, out." Haqqani told Congress in October that U.S. aid for Pakistan has for too long been tilted toward the Pakistani military. "Since 1954 almost $21 billion had been given to Pakistan in aid," he told the House Armed Services Committee. "Of this, $17.7 billion were given under military rule, and only $3.4 billion was given to Pakistan and the civilian government."

It is Musharraf's iron grip on power that has made Washington's own policy toward Pakistan such a target of criticism. While Washington has publicly extolled the virtues of democracy and hoped that Bhutto's return to Pakistan in October would usher in a power-sharing deal with Musharraf, it was also clearly nervous about the instability if the country's strong man were to lose power entirely. Pakistan - the world's second-most-populous Muslim nation, with elements of al-Qaeda and the Taliban controlling lawless mountainous pockets in the northwest - is also the only Islamic state with a nuclear arsenal. And though Washington publicly says Pakistan's nuclear weapons are safe, there are always private concerns about their security, concerns that will only heighten in the wake of Bhutto's assassination.

The U.S. has few options in Pakistan. One thing is clear, says Peter Galbraith, senior fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: It is "not a good idea to have 70 nuclear weapons in the hands of a country that is falling apart." Some observers believe that U.S. policy in Pakistan has favored personalities over principles. "We have a bad habit of always personalizing our foreign policy," says P.J. Crowley, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "We've done it with Musharraf, and we did it with respect to Bhutto. We are very good at providing technical support to the Pakistani army. We are not good at building indigenous or effective local political processes or strong institutions of government." Given the realities on the ground, the U.S. is likely to continue to throw its support behind Musharraf. "In terms of political leadership, Pakistan does not have a deep bench," says Crowley.

Some will say Bhutto had a death wish; one U.S. official even termed her presence at large-scale campaign rallies "foolhardy", given the Karachi suicide bombing that killed more than 140 people on October 18, the day she returned from exile. She returned to Pakistan and faced a range of powerful anti-democratic enemies, including both religious extremists like al-Qaeda and corrupt branches of the Pakistani military and intelligence services. "When you have the criminal and corrupt in the same camp it makes for dangerous bedfellows," says Arsalan Iftikhar, contributing editor to Islamica magazine. "In a sense Benazir knew she was on a martyrdom mission. She was willing to give up her life for democracy."

Senator Joseph Biden, the Delaware Democratic and presidential candidate, echoed Haqqani's view that Musharraf, at a minimum, didn't provide Bhutto with adequate security. In fact, he twice urged the Pakistani President to bolster Bhutto's protection. "The failure to protect Ms. Bhutto raises a lot of hard questions for the government and security services that must be answered," said Biden, who is also chairman of the foreign relations committee. "The U.S. should offer any assistance necessary, including investigative teams, to get to the bottom of this horror."

Still, the former top U.S. military commander in that part of the world said it's wrong to blame Musharraf, or the U.S. "I think it is al-Qaeda - they're the only ones who gain from this," says Anthony Zinni, a retired four-star Marine general who served as chief of the U.S. Central Command - responsible for Pakistan - from 1997 to 2000. Zinni rattled off reasons for al-Qaeda's wanting Bhutto dead, including her commitment to democracy, her secular views, the blowback it will create for Musharraf, and her gender. Beyond that, Zinni says al-Qaeda - making marginal progress in Afghanistan, backsliding in Iraq, and rebuffed in Somalia - is looking for a new battlefield. "I really think they're trying to ignite Pakistan into the kind of chaos they need to survive," Zinni says, "and create a fundamentalist, even radical, Islamic government." "This is one of the worst things that could happen to Musharraf," he continues. "In part, because he'll be accused of doing it."

Zinni also disputes the idea that Washington could have done anything to prevent the assassination. "You want Blackwater out there providing security for her?" he asked, referring to the controversial U.S. private-security firm implicated in the deaths of many Iraqi civilians. "The losing of Pakistan - to whatever degree we've lost it, and I wouldn't write it off yet - goes back to after the first Afghan war," Zinni says, when Washington neglected the Afghan-Pakistan border roiling with insurgents. "We put them in a bad situation that we helped create," Zinni says. "I'm no fan of this Administration, but you can't criticize this Administration for what they inherited."

___________________________

Ok, so since when is the safety and security of leaders of countries the responsibility of the United States and NOT the government of that country?

For years we have been hearing cries to stay out of middle east policy, now we hear that we need to intervene at such a micro level as to manage the security for leaders?


I wont even go into to who was President after the first Afghan war but suffice to say that we didnt invent this situation, it was created by another country altogether.

Bush derangement syndrome...seriously, it should be listed as a mental health issue

Uh...HELLO...Physical barriers work--sorry to rain on your parade La Raza

From the Tucson Citizen

Yuma border barriers working

The Arizona Republic

Between the Colorado River and a desolate rock hill to the east are 48 miles of various types of barriers dividing the United States and Mexico, almost all of them new.

While other parts of the southwestern border remain porous, this small part of Arizona has become an example in the federal government's effort to stop illegal immigration and other traffic.

In the Border Patrol's Yuma Sector, arrests of illegal immigrants have dropped from 119,000 in 2006 to 38,000 in the fiscal year that ended in September, and the trend continues downward.

Though the various barriers aren't impermeable - in some stretches, they block only vehicles, and some rocky hills aren't covered at all - they seem to be working.
Authorities in Mexico say they see fewer immigrants trying to traverse the border. Authorities in Arizona report that border crime has dropped significantly.

Federal, local and Mexican officials cite the fences as a major reason for the reduction in illegal traffic, arrests and crime in the region.

"We used to see groups of five to 20 illegals every other night during the busy season," said Michael Bernacke, a Border Patrol agent. "These days, we stop a group a week, just about."

But the future of the fencing program is unclear. A 2006 border-security law put the new fencing in place. Now, changes to that law, which Congress passed this week, ease the federal fence-building mandate. The process to build barriers will involve more collaboration with local leaders but could be more complicated than what the original law called for.

That move has infuriated border-security supporters. In the meantime, the Yuma area's fences, barriers and other obstructions are the most extensive border-deterrent system in the region.

The barriers are being built by a combination of regular Army and National Guard troops and private contractors under the direction of the Boeing Corp. Fence construction accelerated with passage of the Secure Fence Act in October 2006. It calls for 680 miles of double-layered fencing in select places along the 1,950-mile frontier. Almost all of Arizona is slated for some form of improvement.

This week, Congress passed a bill amending the act, giving Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff flexibility to decide where to build the fence, what form it should take and how much to build. The bill steered $1.2 billion for the work next year.

In towns and official border crossings, the fence strategy calls for metal walls to block people from illegally entering the United States on foot. A little farther out, the government has put up reinforced mesh fences to also stop cross-border trucks. In more remote areas, deemed unreachable by foot, metal bollards or welded sections of rail are in place to stop trucks.

The plan relies on sensors and cameras to monitor remote areas between the physical barriers.

Arizona, the busiest smuggling corridor on the border, has seen much of the early fence building. By the end of the federal fiscal year, the government had added 73 miles of fencing, bringing the total to 157 miles in Arizona, said Mike Friel, a Customs and Border Protection spokesman. Barriers of various kinds have gone up in or near San Luis, the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range, Lukeville, Sasabe, Nogales, Lochiel, Naco and Douglas.

The fences aren't the only factor in the drop in arrests. Officials on both sides of the border also point to the presence of more U.S. Border Patrol agents or National Guard troops and a fear of jail time under a new program to prosecute first-time adult border-crossers in Yuma County.

In the past two months, border agents in the Yuma area have made one-third fewer arrests than the same time last year. The illegal immigrants who do attempt to cross tend to be more desperate and have longer criminal histories, authorities say. In Mexico, Ricardo Ramirez Piñal leads Grupos Beta teams out into the desert between San Luis Rio Colorado and Sonoyta to advise immigrants at staging camps against crossing north into the United States. In the past year, he has come across 70 percent fewer people attempting the trek.

Piñal said that immigrants will cross into what is widely regarded as the most inhospitable region of the entire frontier. "Three years ago, there were migrants every day, all day," Piñal said. "Now, the migrants hear they will be arrested and get 15 days in jail, so they don't cross here. They are afraid to cross here."

In the Yuma Sector, physical construction of the primary border-line fence is done, except for along the Colorado River. U.S. Customs and Border Protection plans to wire the border farther east with an array of sensors and cameras known as the "virtual fence."

______________________________

And they say it wont work....poppycock...this is proof that the fence works.

Now, lets get the rest of it done, shall we? And while we are at it, lets start prosecuting employers who hire the illegals. And lets go a step further, lets start making sweeps of the areas where laborers hang out and do as I have seen done in other cities....sit down the street, wait for them to be picked up, pull them over then arrest the hiring person and deport the illegal.

Nah, cant do that, makes too much sense

The laws work on immigration --- READ IT AND WEEP LA RAZA

From the Tucson Citizen:


Crackdown has illegal immigrants leaving Arizona

The Arizona Republic

NOGALES, Sonora - It's a common scene this time of year: streams of overloaded cars, pickups and vans with U.S. license plates crossing into Mexico for the holidays.

Most are filled with Hispanic families from Arizona and other states on their way to visit relatives south of the border for a few weeks before heading back to the U.S.
But this year, the holiday travelers are being joined by scores of families such as Jorge and Liliana Franco, who are driving to Mexico not to visit but to stay - permanently.

Congress' failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform, immigration crackdowns, Arizona's new employer-sanctions law and a sluggish economy have combined to create a climate families such as the Francos no longer find hospitable.

The number returning to Mexico is difficult to calculate, but there is no question that many families are leaving, according to Mexican government officials, local community leaders and immigrants themselves.

"The situation in Arizona has become very tough," Jorge said minutes after driving into a Mexican immigration and customs checkpoint south of the border on Mexico 15.

Dozens of immigrants are leaving the U.S. daily, and even more are expected to leave once the sanctions law takes effect in January, provided the law survives a last-minute legal challenge, said Rosendo Hernandez, president of the advocacy group Immigrants Without Borders.

"If people can't find work, they won't be able to pay their bills, so they will leave," Hernandez said.

In what are considered bellwethers of permanent moves back to Mexico, the Mexican consulate in Phoenix has seen a dramatic increase in applications for Mexican birth certificates, passports and other documents that immigrants living in Arizona will need to return home.

In November alone, the consulate processed 240 applications for Mexican birth certificates, three times as many as the same month last year, said Carlos Flores Vizcarra, Mexican consul general of Phoenix.

Processing applications

The consulate also has processed more than 16,500 applications for Mexican passports this year, nearly twice as many as last year. Vizcarra attributed some of the demand for passports to stricter travel regulations among the U.S., Mexico and Canada slated to take effect in January. But he said many illegal immigrants are applying for passports in case they lose their jobs due to the sanctions law or a slowdown in the economy and therefore want to go back and live in Mexico.

"People are fearful. They are getting ready as much as they can (to leave)," he said.
Mexican officials and border authorities expect southbound traffic to rise significantly this week as Christmas approaches.

The exodus has drawn cheers from foes of illegal immigration.

"That is the whole purpose of the (sanctions) law," said state Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, "to not only stop people from coming, but to have these who are here illegally go back to whence they came. They shouldn't be here."

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates there are 500,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, and they make up about 9 percent of the state's population. Illegal immigrants make up 10 percent to 12 percent of the work force, according to Pew and the Center for Immigration Studies.

The economy could be devastated if all were to leave, advocates say. But Kavanagh, one of the most outspoken backers of the sanctions law, doubts the law will have much impact on Arizona's economy. He hopes any economic problems caused by illegal immigrants leaving Arizona will pressure Congress to create a guest-worker program to allow more foreign-born workers to enter legally to help fill labor gaps.

But unlike illegal immigrants, guest workers will enter in "an orderly and legal fashion with screening," he said.

Leaving for good

On Mexico 15 on the outskirts of Nogales, Son., the Francos were getting ready for the final leg of their journey from Arizona to Ciudad Obregon, their hometown six hours south of the border.

Jorge, 34, was driving an extended-cab Ford F-150 pickup that was so overloaded with the family's belongings that the vehicle no longer looked safe for highway travel.
The bed of the pickup sagged under the weight of a full-size refrigerator, an air-conditioning unit, a television and a microwave oven, while the Francos' three young children grew restless inside the cab.

Franco's wife, Liliana, 25, drove a second vehicle. Her Dodge minivan was packed just as full, with clothing, toys and household items. Several suitcases that didn't fit inside had been lashed to the roof.

Living in Wickenburg

The couple said they had lived in Wickenburg for the past five years. They and their two children had originally entered the United States legally with tourist visas and then stayed beyond the expiration dates. The couple had no legal status to work in the U.S., but both were able to get jobs using fake documents, Jorge at a small landscaping company, Liliana at a Burger King. Two years ago, their third child, Michael, was born in Arizona, making him a U.S. citizen.

The couple said life for them in Arizona began to unravel earlier this year when Congress failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform. The collapse caused the Francos to give up hope that Congress would pass a legalization program anytime soon. Then, Gov. Janet Napolitano signed Arizona's employer-sanctions law.

The law threatens to suspend or revoke business licenses from employers caught knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. It also requires employers to use a federal computer program to electronically verify the employment eligibility of new hires.

The law takes effect Jan. 1, and several business groups are suing to have the law tossed out, claiming it is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, thousands of illegal immigrants have been let go as worried employers conduct reviews of I-9s, the federal forms employers are required to use to verify the employment eligibility of their workers.

In November, employers checked the Francos' employment records and discovered they had used false documents to get their jobs, the couple said. Both were let go.

The Francos tried getting other jobs but were turned down every place they applied.
"Everyone wants a good Social Security number now," Liliana said.

The couple said a crackdown on illegal immigration by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio also prompted them to move back to Mexico. Sheriff's deputies trained to enforce immigration laws have been arresting illegal immigrants in the Wickenburg area, and the couple feared their family would be split apart if one of them got deported.

Earlier this month, they sold their trailer home in Wickenburg and began packing their bags. They also took their oldest child, Yulissa, 7, a second-grader at Hassayampa Elementary School, out of school.

What did they plan to do for work in Mexico?

Jorge shook his head. He didn't know. Then, after clearing immigration and customs, the couple climbed back inside the pickup and the minivan and drove back onto the highway, headed south.

_____________________

Ok so lets disect this just a bit shall we?

Can anyone tell me how many laws were broken by this couple in this story? Anyone?? Buehler??? Buehler??

I count at least 2

1. Entering the country illegally.
2. Using forged documents to get employment

And yet some will say, "But they were only being good contributors, they were working hard and not breaking the law" Uh yeah...right. Go back home and try re-entering legally.

And when they get back? No work for them. Mexico fails to provide for their own people and they will live in poverty. Well, that is the way it goes isnt it? I feel bad for them, but maybe its time for these people to start pressuring the Mexican government instead of our government to provide for them. We built our economy, dont mooch off it and build your own.

On a related note:

From AZSTARNET.NET:


Judge looks disinclined to block sanctions law
Says businesses' hardships may take a back seat
By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 12.19.2007

PHOENIX — A federal judge said Tuesday that the interests of Arizonans at the lower end of the economy may trump any hardships on businesses forced to comply with the state's new employer sanctions law.

U.S. District Judge Neil Wake listened to attorneys for business groups who told him he should block state and county officials from enforcing Arizona's new employer-sanctions law, at least for the time being.

Wake promised a ruling by the end of the week. Business attorneys said if he denies their request they will file an immediate appeal.

Lou Moffa Jr., who represents some of the challengers to the law, said it is unfair to force businesses to comply with the law, set to take effect Jan. 1, while its constitutionality is being contested in court.

If nothing else, he said there is a financial cost to companies to use the federal government's E-Verify system to check the legal status of new workers, one of the requirements of the law.

Conversely, Moffa said there is no hardship on the state or counties if they don't enforce the law until its legality is determined.

Wake, however, said that ignores one of the underlying purposes of the law: to ensure that undocumented workers do not take jobs from those in this country legally.

"What about the people at the bottom" of the economy? Wake asked.

"Unauthorized workers compete with people who just struggle with the bare necessities of life," the judge continued. "There's no one in the courtroom who represents the 100,000 Arizonans living on the edge of poverty."

But attorney Paul Eckstein, also representing some business interests, said leaving the law the way it has been for years — with no state penalties for hiring undocumented workers and no requirement to use E-Verify — is no big deal.

"Another 45 days … is spit in the ocean here," he said.

And David Selden, another business attorney, said the law does not require companies to check whether all those on their payrolls Jan. 1 are here legally. Instead, he said, it applies only to people hired on or after that date.

"The labor market in Arizona … is not going to be affected."

The issue is crucial: Judges are required to consider the "balance of hardships" in deciding whether to issue a restraining order blocking enforcement of a law while its validity is litigated.

Tuesday's hearing followed Wake's decision earlier this month to throw out the original legal challenges to the law.

Wake said the business groups should have sued the 15 county attorneys charged with enforcing the law; instead they sued the state.

A new lawsuit filed less than 10 days ago adds those county attorneys.

Wake promised Tuesday to hear the new arguments Jan. 16, a date he said is as fast as possible to ensure that the new defendants have time to prepare. The judge also got representatives of various county attorneys to essentially promise they won't bring charges against anyone before Feb. 1.

Eileen GilBride, representing Maricopa County, said it's an easy promise to make, as there is no way a complaint against an employer can be fully investigated between now and then.

But Moffa told Wake that still leaves the economic burden of having to use the E-Verify system.

There is no charge by the federal government. But Moffa submitted legal papers that the price tag for each business could run $1,800 a year, with costs ranging from purchasing computers and Internet access to the time and expense of actually running the checks on all new workers.

The business groups' demand to put the law on hold also comes with a not-so-veiled warning that failure to do so could end up costing taxpayers money.

Selden said that $1,800 cost multiplied by 150,000 Arizona businesses computes out to $270 million a year in expenses. He said if the law ultimately is declared unconstitutional, businesses could legitimately argue that they were forced to expend money unnecessarily and demand reimbursement from the government.

And Moffa said putting the law on hold actually saves money for the counties that won't have to begin investigations.

That brought a sharp response from Mary O'Grady, the state's solicitor general. She called it "rather disingenuous" for businesses to claim they are protecting the taxpayers while hinting they may sue for damages.

Wake hinted that if he grants a delay in enforcing the law, he may force the challengers to post a bond.

The judge noted the state sent out notices to all employers earlier this year informing them of the new law and the requirements to comply.

______________________________________

One commenter on the article sums it up quite well:

2. Comment by Gary H. (#6099) — December 19,2007 @ 4:59AM
Ratings: -0 +2

"another 45 days is spit in the ocean"
Guess it tells you that these lawyers as well as the businesses that have hired them know how vast the problem is. If the illegals are taken out of the picture and LEGAL workers get the jobs the economy just might turn around a bit. We know that economic status of the new workers will definately improve.

On another website a suggestion was made to replace the illegals with those on welfare.

OH NO NOT COMMON SENSE!!!!!! SAY IT IS SO!!!!!!!

Yeah.

Screw you red diaper doper baby liberal asshats, stop using the courts for legislating.

Nuff said

Operation: 2nd annual throw lefty a curve

This past Sunday was spent at Ft Huachuca in Sierra Vista, AZ countering the moonbat terrorists who call themselves the School of The Americas Watch. It was another day of being pooched by Sierra Vista PD but sending a loud and clear message to the soldiers of the United States Army. I will write the report when I get home today, I am waiting for pictures from a few of the folks that were there, so expect them in the next few days.

Dhimmicraps cause more headaches for you...Average Joe

Taken from TCS Daily

HT To MichealSavage.com

A Threat to the Internet

By Rep. John Boehner : BIO| 12 Oct 2007

In our rapidly changing global marketplace, America's entrepreneurs, innovators, and workers are striving to remain competitive, and Republicans in Congress have consistently focused on keeping the Internet free from taxation, cutting taxes so entrepreneurs will have a greater incentive to put more money into growing their businesses, and removing regulatory obstacles to competition. The result has been an improving standard of living, millions of additional private sector jobs, and new products, services, and industries that enrich our lives every day.


Since taking the Majority in the U.S. House, by contrast, Democrats have promoted what they call their "Innovation Agenda." In reality, this agenda amounts to little more than a litany of recycled federal initiatives, proving once again that congressional Democrats believe the ideas which trigger innovation and economic growth come to life in Washington, D.C. and not in the free market.


Curiously missing from the Democrats' Innovation Agenda is a measure to make permanent the ban on Internet taxes. Their deafening silence on the issue is especially noteworthy because the ban - first put in place by a Republican Congress in 1998 - is set to expire in mere weeks, on November 1. Few people would argue with the fact that the Internet is driving economic growth in ways we couldn't have imagined 20 years ago. And, at the same time, few people fail to see its potential for driving new economic growth in the future. In fact, the Internet could be viewed as the "hub" of innovation in the 21st Century; there's simply no telling what new doors it could open for students, workers, and consumers in the future.


So, why would we even consider levying onerous taxes upon it? In my view, there's no quicker way to reverse the Internet's incredibly strong and positive impact on our economy than to force consumers and business owners to pay even more to access and make purchases over it.


But that's just what could happen if the ban ever expired: states and localities would have free-rein to tax the web. And that's why, on a number of occasions over the past decade, the Republican-led House passed legislation to make this ban permanent. Unfortunately, our efforts were consistently thwarted by the Senate, leading us to pass a temporary moratorium, which - as I noted - will expire in a matter of weeks. To keep Congress from having to punt on the tax ban once again, House Republican leaders have called on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) to follow the Republican House's lead and schedule a permanent Internet tax ban for a vote. To date, all they have done is advanced a temporary extension of the ban in the Judiciary Committee - ignoring our request to schedule a House vote on a permanent ban.


The Democratic leadership's refusal to schedule a vote on a permanent Internet tax ban is particularly puzzling given their afore-mentioned Innovation Agenda. One of the core goals of that agenda, for example, is the "nationwide deployment of high speed, always-on broadband Internet and mobile communications." A copy of the agenda - publicly available on Speaker Pelosi's website - affirms, "Just as railroads and highways did in the past, broadband and mobile communications will dramatically increase the productivity and efficiency of our economy in the future and bring more Americans into an online global community and marketplace."


I happen to agree. Yet I also happen to believe that the productivity and efficiency of our economy would be stalled significantly if Internet access and purchases were taxed. And that's precisely why the ban must be made permanent.


The Democrats' agenda further states, "Small businesses are the catalysts for technological innovation... Yet small businesses face significant hurdles, both regulatory and marketbased, that thwart the effort to transform ideas into jobs. Removing these hurdles is a key component of this Innovation Agenda."


Once again, I happen to agree. Yet I also happen to believe that taxing the Internet would be a severe blow to small business owners and their employees. But don't just take my word for it. Democratic Chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee, Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), recently acknowledged that the tax hike would saddle small businesses with a 15 to 30 percent increase in their Internet bills. Once again, that's precisely why the ban must be made permanent.


So why are Democratic leaders dragging their feet on legislation to protect small businesses and other Internet users from a massive tax hike? For the answer, one needs to look no further than the record they've assembled on taxes all year long. Democratic tax hike proposals so far this year include: the now-infamous $150 billion "war surtax" proposal; federal gas tax hikes to pay for Democratic energy legislation and infrastructure; and a massive $392.5 billion tax increase on middle-class families in their very first budget proposed in the Majority. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Democrats also are preparing for battle over the alternative minimum tax - a particularly perverse tax swamping more and more middle-income families that Republicans want to eliminate and Democrats want to preserve.


Al Gore didn't create the Internet, but the leaders of his party have proven themselves eminently capable of taxing it. By refusing to make the Internet tax ban permanent, the Democratic leadership is playing an irresponsible game of chicken with American consumers and our nation's economy. As November 1 draws closer, Democrats face a choice: will they protect millions of consumers and small businesses from a massive, abrupt tax increase, or will they add to their ever-growing list of tax hikes and undermine the very same innovation they claim to be promoting on Capitol Hill?

______________________________

This is what you voted for in 2006 America. Got caught up in the whole I hate Bush derangement syndrom and now YOU America are going to pay the price for it. More taxes, more regulation, more government intervention and all the while moving more towards a Nanny state. Nicely done you fools.

Do everyone a favor, unless you know what the whole agenda of a political party is, dont vote for them. Republicans and Conservatives alike tried to warn you, I TRIED to warn you, but did you listen? NOPE

As you reap, you shall sow

Mexicans protest higher corn prices

This article is titled that they are protesting over the price of Tortillas. If you ask ME...that is racist (sound familiar lefties?) When you read into the article its about the high price of corn...not tortillas. My comments on the article are in bold:

From Yahoo News:

Mexicans protest as tortilla crisis hurts Calderon By Gunther Hamm
Thu Feb 1, 1:03 AM ET

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of demonstrators marched through Mexico's capital on Wednesday night to protest a surge in tortilla prices that has put President Felipe Calderon under intense pressure.

Soaring U.S. demand for ethanol has sent corn prices to their highest level in a decade, pulling up prices of Mexico's national food staple.

Ok, starting off, lets blame the United States...common tactic by the left.

Protesters held up ears of corn and complained that Calderon, a conservative accused by leftists of stealing the July 2006 presidential election, was failing to protect them against foreign market forces.

GASP!!!!!! The left..In ANY country protesting that the election was "stolen?" Oh my God, tell me it isnt true!! And then the accusation that the President isnt "protecting" them from world market prices when THEY THEMSELVES are pushing for a new world order? Is it just me who sees what is wrong with this picture?
"Calderon isn't just a thief, he's a murderer because he wants us to die of hunger," Elvira Acevedo, 62, said at the march.

Calderon's leftist election rival, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, is using the surge in tortilla prices to snipe at the government and he joined the protest march on Wednesday.

LOL...Ok, so the loser is joining forces with the protestors. Eh....anyone see the correlation to a certain Senator here in the United States? Be the first to guess right and win a prize.

"The right dehumanizes everything. We are living the consequences of the imposition of a government dominated by white-collar criminals. They are a danger to Mexico," the firebrand former Indian rights activist told supporters in the vast Zocalo square.

I am sorry...is the problem a bad President or world demand for corn? I am confused.

Corn tortilla prices rose as high as 15 pesos ($1.36) for a kilogram (2.2 pounds) -- roughly 35 of the flat corn patties -- in recent weeks as the corn market tightened. Mexico imports corn from the United States to top up its domestic production.

And the world was warned by free thinking conservatives that when you push alternative fuels ala Ethanol, the price of the ingredients used is going to go up. But did the left listen? NOOOOOOOOOOOO they just want us to use cleaner fuels without THINKING about the far reaching consequences of their actions.

Calderon responded this month by persuading producers, makers and retailers to cap their prices so tortillas would sell at no more than 8.50 pesos a kilogram, but local media say some vendors are still charging up to 12.

Hmm...Government regulation of the free market. Eh, can anyone say, one step closer to socialism? Not that Mexico is EXACTLY a democracy to begin with

Before the crisis, tortillas sold at around 5 pesos per kilogram.

Calderon has won praise at home and abroad for sending out thousands of troops to hunt down drug cartels since he took office on December 1, but what is being dubbed a "tortilla crisis" for the half of Mexico that lives on $5 a day or less is stealing headlines.

Does anyone see the REAL problem here? Just wondering

Lopez Obrador held massive street protests that crippled Mexico City after the fiercely contested presidential election but Mexico's top election court threw out his fraud allegations were thrown out and Calderon was able to take office.

Wait a minute....didn't Calderon "Steal" the election? If it went to court and the allegations were thrown out, then how is it a stolen election? Its Deja Vu all over again folks.

(Additional reporting by Armando Tovar and Catherine Bremer)