Leaving Blogger

Hey everyone. I will no longer be writing on this blog. Never to fear, I have created a new one called Conservative Hawk Eye. You can find it at: conservativehawkeye.wordpress.com. Thank you so much for all of your support!

Making the Case for Legal Immigration v. Illegal Immigration

The issue of illegal immigration is huge talking point for Team Obama since the beginning of the election. Obama-crats insist on pegging Republicans as cold, anti- Immigration bigots. That certainly is not the case. It seems that Obama-crats do not seem to understand the difference between LEGAL immigration and ILLEGAL immigration. 

Today, I found a great interview of Marco Rubio by CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer. Here, Rubio makes it clear that immigration is a corner- stone of American society. However, many Republicans like Rubio understand that illegal immigration is a "serious problem". He recognizes that the only way that American society can prosper is through a system of laws. In the following video Rubio claims that, "a serious balence" is necessary between encouraging legal immigration, curtailing illegal immigration and how the Dream Act hinders this process.

The Most Interesting Man in the World v. Obama: The Most Arrogant Man in the World

O. K. everyone. Today, I found out that a conservative group known as Right Change put out an Anti- Obama commercial that depicts Obama (as the title of the commercial suggests) as "The Most Arrogant Man in the World. This video is a political parody of "The Most Interesting Man in the World " by Dos Equis beer. It essentially points out how Obama is really smoke and fire... nothing too impressive. I think it's a pretty clever ad. See for yourselves!

Here is "The Most Interesting Man in the World"

v. "The Most Arrogant Man in the World".

How Obama's Immigration Initiative Won't Do Him Much Good

The worst thing to me about talking about the election and how people think it is going to turn out is talking about the electoral college. It doesn't follow the normal rules of politics and can get confusing when people mix things up by using a lot of terms that not everyone understands. So, before I get carried away, I think that everyone who does not understand the electoral college should watch the following school house rock video. I know it's dorky... but to be completely frank, this is the best (and most to the point) description of the electoral college process that I could find.The video I have uploaded from YouTube includes a School House Rock explanation, and is then followed by a guy from South Carolina who provides a more in- depth explanation. I highly recommend watching this video.

In the world of electoral behavior (a fancy word lowly political scientists such as myself use to define how people vote), political analysts and consultants alike understand the importance of independent votes and swing states. These are the tricky, unknown variables which otherwise may tip an election result one way or the other. Many bloggers and op-ed writers are talking about how Obama's immigration initiative to delay the deportation of young illegal immigrants will help his re-election campaign. However, today I came upon an article in the New York Times by Nate Silver entitled, "Hispanic Voters Less Plentiful in Swing". Here, Mr. Silver argues that in states where this policy could effect a sizable number of voters, a majority were already blue states to begin with. So, at best, Obama may gain three possible swing states. At worst, he may lose six states.

When I talk about swing states, I am mostly talking about states like: Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire and Missouri. Let's use the great state of Ohio as an example. Ohio has 18 electoral college votes (a fairly high number), and in 2008 Hispanics only contributed to 3.5% of votes. This basically means that the Hispanic vote in this state did not count for much as far as numbers are concerned. But even then, there is a 53.5% chance of him winning this key state, which means that Romney could take this state back from Obama.

However, there are three states where this immigration initiative could prove to be effective for Obama; Colorado, New Mexico and Florida. In these three states there are sizable immigrant communities (and as a consequence immigrant voters). As a result, this could help voters who may be positively impacted. Colorado is worth 9 electoral college points; New Mexico is worth 5 electoral college votes; and Florida is worth a whopping 29 votes. So, if Obama is lucky, this policy may have earned himself 43 electoral college votes.

At the same time, he may have also lost Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire and Missouri. This comes to a grand total of 57 electoral college votes Obama may have lost by upsetting independent voters. Combine this number with the number of definite red states (according to the most recent 2012 electoral college map there is a chance he can have well more than the required 270 electoral college votes to win.

My Political "Girl Crush"

I decided this morning that I wanted to change things up. I know that for the past two days, I have essentially spoiled two cups of coffee by writing only about what has been going wrong in our nation's capitol. Perhaps it is because it is just too easy these days.


So today, I decided to make a small change for myself. I decided that I am going to write about some type of positive political force in the works. For me, the first person that comes to mind is my "girl crush"; Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC). 


This is because, Nikki Haley is smart, aggressive, and certainly not afraid about what the media might say about her. As an Indian woman in the Republican Party, she is an inspiration to other non-white women who want to participate in the world of politics. 


The following clip is her endorsement of Gov. Mitt Romney for president.

So, now that you have watched the clip.... I have to ask.... Is it just me, or does everyone else kind- of wish that Mitt just kept his mouth shut and just let Haley do all of the talking?

Why dis or dish on ANY President?

Like most other mornings, I woke up and made myself a nice cup of coffee. Despite all attempts to follow my usual routine of coffee-news-blog-run to work; this was not like most mornings. I ran into what normally is coffee drinker's worst nightmare; no coffee filters. As a result, I had to resort to extreme measures to get my caffeine kick this morning. Non-the-less, I finally found a way, and can now start my day. More importantly, I finally have the necessary amounts of caffeine to answer a commonly asked question by liberals.

Like yesterday, I found another interesting piece by CNN blogger; Dean Obeidallah. The piece was called, "What's Behind Disssing the President?". His ultimate conclusion is that it is the agenda of right- wing media to undermine the legitimacy of the President by saying that he is "less American" and because of this, is less deserving of the role of President. In short, Mr. Obeidallah is accusing everyone on the right of being racist when that is certainly not the case. Granted, a small group of people on the right may be rascist, but when has is ever been o.k. to judge the many by the few? My argument is that this whole "phenomenon" of dissing the President is not something new.

Before I continue, I would like to make a few things perfectly clear to my readers. If you bothered to read my profile for this blog, you will see that I am currently enlisted in the United States Army. As a consequence, it would be... uncouth for me to outright disrespect the President, as he is my Commander- In- Cheif. However, just as I would criticize any other policy- maker for their policy making depictions and statements made to the public; this is where my critiquing begins and ends. I do believe in his legitimacy in his role as our nation's President and I do not believe that race, religion, ect should play a part in questioning his legitimacy as a leader. So, if you're looking to read about another political writer (another political writer, I mean ME) to disrespect the President; don't waste your time because you wont find that noise here.

Let's turn back the hands of time to let's say... 2001. President Bush takes his seat in the Oval Office and the nation's Left are up in arms. Before the Bush had even made one decision, critiques were already saying that he did not belong there despite a Supreme Court Case (Bush v. Gore) and a vote recount. As time moved forward, the President's approval rating fell further and further and people began to dis him more and more. By some miracle of G-d, Bush came into a second term which ended a little over 4 years ago.

Granted, people on the left and right hated him for a variety of reasons. But the left painted Bush to look something similar to that of the Anti- Christ. I believe this is because of who is in power. If a Republican is in power, the left will attempt to make him look like the worst person imaginable. If a Democrat is in power, the right will do everything humanly possible to de- legitimize their role. This is just the nature of the beast, or in this case politics.

So, why does anyone bother to dis or dish on ANY President? Answer: It's because we live in America.

Here's a video of the famed Obama- Dis I am talking about.

Obama & The Economy: A Casualty of Consequence?

Today, over a cup of coffee I decided to look around CNN.com to catch up on my political news. I ended up coming across an article by Gov. Bobby Jindal entitled, "Obama's Message of Divide and Blame". According to most Northern Democrats, Mr. Jindal is usually pretty good at making himself look silly. However, as many of you should know, he actually has proven himself to be quite a leader in spite of adversity and chaos (ie, during the Katrina Crisis). As a result, I have enormous amount of respect for him.

Here, Mr. Jindal argues that in regards to the economy, President Obama still regards himself as a victim of consequence. Moreover, that America doesn't need someone who makes excuses. Rather, America needs a leader. I tend to agree.

Four years ago when President Obama first came into office, I agreed with many of his supporters that he did come into a very precarious situation. Our economy was down the drain; our military was engaged in two wars in the Middle East with no exit strategy in sight; and most Americans were desperately seeking some type of change from this abysmal situation. No one expected that President Obama's message of "change" was perhaps not what everyone wanted or expected.

Americans were expecting a leader who was going to whip everyone on the Hill into shape. Americans were expecting a military strategist who knew a smart way to exit the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan without increased damage to the region. Moreover, Americans were expecting a type of openness that would ultimately lead to an increased trust in our elected officials. Wow, were we in for a surprise.

Although, I know that the President did keep a majority of his promises regarding the military. He created exit strategies for our nations military to get out of the Middle East. At the same time, by not placing stable leadership in place before existing could lead to increased turmoil in the region. In addition, the Hill is more dysfunctional than ever. But most important is how the government has yet to gain the trust of the people.

So, although President Obama claims to be a casualty of consequence, Americans need to ask ourselves if Obama is what we still need? He has already been in office for four years, can America take a supposed leader who would rather claim to be a casualty rather than own up to his mistakes for another four years? Because I last I checked it was the American people who are the ones suffering from a hemeraging economy, forclosures, and uncertainty. Maybe these are the true casualties of consequence....