PINKO Day

September 29th.

Apparently, the radical “Pro-Choice” crowd was enraged by the House passing a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. Even though, the spineless Senate will not pass it. Obama sure as hell won’t sign it. So it has no chance of passing. They’ll do it anyways.

Just to show you how ideologically rigid they are and how threatening they can be. Must like the Gay Mafia and #BlackLivesMatter.

Anti-abortion activists hold a rally opposing federal funding for Planned Parenthood in front of the U.S. Capitol on July 28 in Washington, D.C.

Abortion is one of those very thorny issues, especially Planned Parenthood, because it’s a linchpin in the Left’s definition of themselves . The linchpin in the “women’s rights” propaganda of the last 42 years.

They are rarely more extreme in the demonstration of their views.

Personally, if you want to play God and end a life because “it’s your body” and “I can do anything I want with it”, go ahead but be aware of the consequences and responsibilities of playing God.

But then again, GOD himself, is politically incorrect.

You’ve granted yourself, selfishly, the power to decide who lives and who dies.

What could be more Leftist than that. 🙂

But Leftists do THAT all the time. It’s one of their main “powers” in their own minds.

It’s a righteous power that says they are all-powerful and no one can mess with them on it.

Though, the first words out of their mouths when Planned Parenthood’s federal funding is threatened is that “no abortions” are performed with this money (which not strictly true, as always with political organizations).

But yet, it is where Planned Parenthood makes most of it money. Especially, in light of the selling of body parts scandal. Which the Left predictably says is fake and when no one but them buys that they go back to the Pre- Roe Vs Wade “coat hanger” horror analogies and “rape” and “incest” defenses (Less than 1% are from rape or incest according to government statistics).

It’s mother defending her turf. But her turf isn’t the baby. Her turf is her Politics.

The #1 recipient of Planned Parenthood lobbyist money (yeah, I know, if they aren’t about abortions why do they need lobbyists?) is President Obama. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are in the Top 5.

$1.6 million in 2014.

They are a special interest group.

They are also a Democrat Party fundraising tool.

They received $568 million in Federal funds last year.

That’s 40% of their annual budget.

The overwhelming majority of federal funding to Planned Parenthood comes from Medicaid — 75 percent, according to a Planned Parenthood spokesman.

So why do they need to sell body parts from aborted fetuses in the first place?

Because, Liberals can never get enough money! They also need to pay their lobbyists.

That’s where the real power lies, and what is threatened. What they are protecting.

The Money. (even though they are anti-capitalist, the irony is delicious).

States receive a 90 percent federal reimbursement on Medicaid family planning spending, for example. So when Washington politicians talk about “defunding” Planned Parenthood, they generally mean cutting off federal money. States could continue to spend as they please.

If Abortion is 3% of their business, as they claim, why then is it the most revenue? Politifact says it’s closer to 12%, 4 times what the Left claims it is.

And 40+ years of “hands of my womb” and “my body” propaganda has made this more about the power than the body.

The child in this equation is virtually non-existent.

So it’s the Leftist Feminist Political Power that they are protecting, not the baby.

But they are not even remotely threatened by the symbolic vote from The House but yet they are swarming like a hive mind of very aggressive killer bees.

After all, if Planned Parenthood, which is supposed to be a non-profit health care (almost ObamaCare like), has no Federal Funds it will fold so the Leftist Feminist seem to indicate by their hostility.

The fact that it’s not true is irrelevant, for again, The Narrative is more important than the truth.

They say no federal funds are used for abortion. But…

Title X does not allow federal funds to be used for abortions. Medicaid, however, does allow government money to be spent on them — in very restricted cases.

The 1977 Hyde Amendment dictated that federal Medicaid funds could only be used to fund abortions in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. However, some states have expanded cases in which they will provide funds. Currently, 17 states allow funds to be used for “medically necessary” abortions. In those cases that these states count as medically necessary but that are not permitted by the federal guidelines, states cover the cost alone. (NPR)

And what’s more “medically necessary” than Leftist Political Propaganda and Power? 🙂

That’s at the heart of the matter.

And that’s why the angry bees will buzz loud and proud on September 29th, even though the “defund” will never happen. They have to show their political power and be aggressive about their “right to choose” to play God and to secure their stake in political power.

The baby is just a pawn in the game.

But what do I know, I’m just an evil male impregnator who prays and inflicts this on women, after all, so I’m just not worth listening to.

As one, lovely Leftist derisively said I was “Pro-Birth” and she was “Pro-Choice” and we know which one is more important, don’t we. 🙂

Agree with me or else! drive thru peanuts pro choice Planned_Parenthood_Pro_Choice retail the past

Barbarism is The order of the day

The Agenda is The Agenda, no matter what. A “women’s right to choose” is more important than baby body part harvesting.

And the Republicans, supposedly “pro-Life” suddenly have no convictions at all except to avoid the whole thing as much as possible.

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Executives of Planned Parenthood’s federally subsidized meat markets — your tax dollars at work — lack the courage of their convictions. They should drop the pretense of conducting a complex moral calculus about the organs they harvest from the babies they kill.

First came the video showing a salad-nibbling, wine-sipping Planned Parenthood official explaining how “I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above” whatever organ (heart, lung, liver) is being harvested.

Then the president of a Planned Parenthood chapter explained the happy side of harvesting: “For a lot of the women participating in the fetal tissue donation program, they’re having a procedure that may be a very difficult decision for them and this is a way for them to feel that something positive is coming from … a very difficult time.”

“Having a procedure” — stopping the beating of a human heart — can indeed be a difficult decision for the woman involved. But it never is difficult for Planned Parenthood abortionists administering the “procedure.”

The abortion industry’s premise is: At no point in the gestation of a human infant does this living being have a trace of personhood that must be respected. Never does it have a moral standing superior to a tumor or a hamburger in the mother’s stomach.

In 1973, the Supreme Court, simultaneously frivolous and arrogant, discovered constitutional significance in the fact that the number nine is divisible by three. It decreed that the status of pre-born human life changes with pregnancy’s trimesters.

(What would abortion law be if the number of months of gestation were a prime number — seven or 11?)

The court followed this preposterous assertion with faux humility, insisting it could not say when life begins. Then, swerving back to breathtaking vanity, it declared when “meaningful” life begins — “viability,” when the fetus “is potentially able” to survive outside the womb.

When life begins is a scientific, not a philosophic or theological, question: Life begins when the chromosomes of the sperm fuse with those of the ovum, forming a distinctive DNA complex that controls the new organism’s growth. This growth process continues unless a natural accident interrupts it, or it is ended by the sort of deliberate violence Planned Parenthood sells.

Another video shows the craftsmanship of Planned Parenthood’s abortionists — tiny limbs and hands from dismembered babies. To the craftsmen, however, these fragments are considered mere organic stuff. People who proclaim themselves both pro-choice and appalled by the videos are flinching from the logic of their extremism.

Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood’s president, apologizes “for the tone” of her operatives’ chatter about crushing babies. But the tone flows from Planned Parenthood’s premise: Why be solemn about meat?

Even partial-birth abortion is — must be — a sacrament in the Church of “Choice.” This sect knows that its entire edifice depends on not yielding an inch on its insistence that what an abortion kills never possesses a scintilla of moral significance.

In partial-birth abortion, a near-term baby is pulled by the legs almost out of the birth canal, until the base of the skull is exposed so the abortionist can suck out its contents.

During Senate debates on this procedure, three Democrats were asked: Suppose a baby’s head slips out of the birth canal — the baby is born — before the abortionist can kill it. Does the baby then have a right to live? Two of the Democrats refused to answer. The third said the baby acquires a right to life when it leaves the hospital.

The nonnegotiable tenet in today’s Democratic Party catechism is not opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline or support for a $15 minimum wage. These are evanescent fevers. As the decades roll by, the single unshakable commitment is opposition to any restriction on the right to inflict violence on pre-born babies.

So today there is a limitless right to kill, and distribute fragments of, babies that intrauterine medicine can increasingly treat as patients. We are wallowing in this moral swamp because the Supreme Court accelerated the desensitization of the nation by using words and categories about abortion the way infants use knives and forks — with gusto, but sloppily.

Because Planned Parenthood’s snout is deep in the federal trough, decent taxpayers find themselves complicit in the organization’s vileness. What kind of a government disdains the deepest convictions of citizens by forcing them to finance what they see in videos — Planned Parenthood operatives chattering about bloody human fragments?

“Taxes,” said Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., “are what we pay for civilized society.” Today they finance barbarism. (George Will)

And the Leftists Holy Agenda that shall not be questioned or deterred at any level and The Republicans have no conviction (as usual) to stop them.

Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois bucked his Republican colleagues yesterday and sided with Senate Democrats to keep taxpayer money flowing to Planned Parenthood. Kirk, who has a 25 percent rating from NARAL (the nation’s leading pro-abortion group), defended his vote to sustain the Democratic filibuster on the grounds that Planned Parenthood does not sell baby parts in his home state of Illinois.

(Kirk had a 100 percent rating from NARAL back in 2003, but NARAL reduced his rating to 25 percent after he opposed the provision of Obamacare that allowed for taxpayer funding of abortion. Kirk has said he is against such public funding, even though he remains pro-abortion. Which just shows you how extreme the Left is about adherence to their Agenda.)

“In other states tissue donation programs should be investigated but in Illinois there is no similar program,” Kirk said in a statement to The Hill. “I do not plan to cut access to basic health care and contraception for women, the majority of whom have no other resources.”

 

Apparently, it was of no consequence to the senator that Planned Parenthood illegally sells baby parts in the United States, the country whose laws Kirk has sworn to defend.

Illinois is his country. His bread and butter, and it’s very Liberal. So as a matter of survival for his political career he does what a politicians does best– narcissism.

So then, Illinois is an Island. 🙂

The Agenda is The Agenda…and I just hate women and want them to suffer, obviously. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Devil You May Not Know

(ARLINGTON, Va.) – A draft executive order that would force government contractors to disclose all political contributions would make it too easy for political appointees to punish contractors for their political views or to coerce contributions from firms, officials with the Associated General Contractors of America warned today in testimony submitted to Congress.

“The process outlined in the draft executive order would make it much easier for government officials to use the political activities of government contractors as a factor when awarding contracts,” Stephen E. Sandherr, the association’s chief executive officer noted in testimony submitted today to a hearing held jointly between the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Small Business. “This order actually introduces, instead of excludes, politics from government contracting.”

So you have if you give your political contributions to the wrong source (aka Republican or Tea Party) then you might not get that big fat government contract.

Be a toadie and and an apparatchik or else. Even if you hate me (a Liberal Democrat), give me money or else!!

Now that’s good for business…

“This rule makes it look like the Administration is more interested in punishing political opponents and propping up political allies than protecting public taxpayers.”–Stephen E. Sandherr, CEO Associated General Contractors of America.

It does indeed. Now ask them if they (the liberal progressives) care? 😦

My bet, Not even a little bit.

Oh, and the journalists covering the stories, well, they just might not be very impartial either.

Gov. Mike Huckabee (2010): I’m sad to report today a death of a good friend to all of us…..Journalism, the once esteemed 4th estate of our nation and the protector of our freedoms and a watchdog of our rights has passed away after a long struggle with a crippling and debilitating disease of acute dishonesty aggravated by advanced laziness and the loss of brain function.

When liberal investor George Soros gave $1.8 million to National Public Radio , it became part of the firestorm of controversy that jeopardized NPR’s federal funding. But that gift only hints at the widespread influence the controversial billionaire has on the mainstream media. Soros, who spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004 (and millions getting Obama elected), has ties to more than 30 mainstream news outlets – including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press (see later story), NBC and ABC.

Prominent journalists like ABC’s Christiane Amanpour and former Washington Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. This despite the Society of Professional Journalists’ ethical code stating: “avoid all conflicts real or perceived.”

The investigative reporting start-up ProPublica is a prime example. ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to “strengthen the progressive infrastructure” – “progressive” being the code word for very liberal. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is http://www.soros.org. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts.

The ProPublica stories are thoroughly researched by top-notch staffers who used to work at some of the biggest news outlets in the nation. But the topics are almost laughably left-wing. The site’s proud list of  “Our Investigations” includes attacks on oil companies, gas companies, the health care industry, for-profit schools and more. More than 100 stories on the latest lefty cause: opposition to drilling for natural gas by hydraulic fracking. Another 100 on the evils of the foreclosure industry.

Throw in a couple investigations making the military look bad and another about prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and you have almost the perfect journalism fantasy – a huge budget, lots of major media partners and a liberal agenda unconstrained by advertising.

One more thing: a 14-person Journalism Advisory Board, stacked with CNN’s David Gergen and representatives from top newspapers, a former publisher of The Wall Street Journal and the editor-in-chief of Simon & Schuster. Several are working journalists, including:

• Jill Abramson, a managing editor of The New York Times;

• Kerry Smith, the senior vice president for editorial quality of ABC News;

• Cynthia A. Tucker, the editor of the editorial page of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

ProPublica is far from the only Soros-funded organization that is stacked with members of the supposedly neutral press. 

The Center for Public Integrity is another great example. Its board of directors is filled with working journalists like Amanpour from ABC, right along side blatant liberal media types like Arianna Huffington, of the Huffington Post and now AOL.

Like ProPublica, the CPI board is a veritable Who’s Who of journalism and top media organizations, including:

• Christiane Amanpour – Anchor of ABC’s Sunday morning political affairs program, “This Week with Christiane Amanpour.” A reliable lefty, she has called tax cuts “giveaways,” the Tea Party “extreme,” and Obama “very Reaganesque.” 

• Paula Madison – Executive vice president and chief diversity officer for NBC Universal, who leads NBC Universal’s corporate diversity initiatives, spanning all broadcast television, cable, digital, and film properties.

• Matt Thompson – Editorial product manager at National Public Radio and an adjunct faculty member at the prominent Poynter Institute.

The group’s advisory board features: 

• Ben Sherwood, ABC News president and former “Good Morning America” executive producer

Once again, like ProPublica, the Center for Public Integrity’s investigations are mostly liberal – attacks on the coal industry, payday loans and conservatives like Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. The Center for Public Integrity is also more open about its politics, including a detailed investigation into conservative funders David and Charles Koch and their “web of influence.”According to the center’s own 990 tax forms, the Open Society Institute gave it $651,650 in 2009 alone.

The well-known Center for Investigative Reporting follows the same template – important journalists on the board and a liberal editorial agenda. Both the board of directors and the advisory board contain journalists from major news outlets. The board features:

• Phil Bronstein (President), San Francisco Chronicle;

• David Boardman, The Seattle Times;

• Len Downie, former Executive Editor of the Washington Post, now VP;

• George Osterkamp, CBS News producer.

Readers of the site are greeted with numerous stories on climate change, illegal immigration and the evils of big companies. It counts among its media partners The Washington Post, Salon, CNN and ABC News. CIR received close to $1 million from Open Society from 2003 to 2008.

Why does it all matter? Journalists, we are constantly told, are neutral in their reporting. In almost the same breath, many bemoan the influence of money in politics. It is a maxim of both the left and many in the media that conservatives are bought and paid for by business interests. Yet where are the concerns about where their money comes from?

Fred Brown, who recently revised the book “Journalism Ethics: A Casebook of Professional Conduct for News Media,” argues journalists need to be “transparent” about their connections and “be up front about your relationship” with those who fund you.

Unfortunately, that rarely happens. While the nonprofits list who sits on their boards, the news outlets they work for make little or no effort to connect those dots. Amanpour’s biography page, for instance, talks about her lengthy career, her time at CNN and her many awards. It makes no mention of her affiliation with the Center for Public Integrity.

If journalists were more up front, they would have to admit numerous uncomfortable connections with groups that push a liberal agenda, many of them funded by the stridently liberal George Soros. So don’t expect that transparency any time soon.

Oh and that polling data showing how Obama is now Mohammad Ali and is staging a miraculous comeback and people love him after he gave the order to Kill bin Laden like something out of a Video Game…

Well… IT JUST MIGHT BE RIGGED!!

Wow! The AP poll has Obama’s approval rating hitting 60 percent! And 53 percent say he deserves to be reelected!

And on the economy, 52 percent approve of the way Obama’s handling it, and only 47 percent disapprove! He’s up 54–46 on approval of how he’s handling health care! On unemployment, 52 percent approval, 47 percent disapproval! 57 percent approval on handling Libya! Even on the deficit, he’s at 47 percent approval, 52 percent disapproval!

It is a poll of adults, which isn’t surprising; as I mentioned yesterday, you don’t have to be a registered or likely voter to have an opinion on the president.

But then you get to the party ID: 46 percent identify as Democrat or leaning Democrat, 29 percent identify as Republican or leaning Republican, 4 percent identify as purely independent leaning towards neither party, and 20 percent answered, “I don’t know.”

With a poll sample that has a 17-percentage-point margin in favor of the Democrats, is anyone surprised that these results look like a David Axelrod dream?

(Interestingly, George W. Bush is at 50 percent approval, 49 percent disapproval, even in this sample wildly weighted in favor of the Democrats.)

AP response: Some conservatives criticized the AP-GfK poll as heavy with responses from Democrats that skewed the results. AP-GfK polls use a consistent methodology that draws a random sample of the population independent of party identification.

But the question isn’t really whether the sample changed too much from their poll in April; the question is whether the sample accurately reflects the American public at large, and whether we indeed have 1.63 Democrats in this country for every 1 Republican. If their sample had an unrealistic proportion of Democrats one month, it’s entirely possible they can get a similar unrealistic proportion the following month. (NRO)

Ya Think? 🙂

Naw, Liberals would never do that…

Lying, cheating, and stealing…Naw, never happen.

Dishonesty, disingenuous and pure self-interest…never happens… 🙂

So Caveat Emptor. Buyer Beware!

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Government Awesomeness

This is one of the single funniest videos EVER:

 

My Prediction on Obama’s Speech tonight: Orwell says “Mission Accomplished” 🙂

I won’t see the speech. I will be working to pay my bills and the bills of the 48% of people who don’t pay any. 😦

Not that the word “war” will pass his lips, most likely. In press briefings last week, our Libyan campaign was euphemized into a “kinetic military action” and a “time-limited, scope-limited military action.” (The online parodies were merciless: “Make love, not time-limited, scope-limited military actions!” “Let slip the muzzled canine unit of kinetic military action!”) Advertising tonight’s address, the White House opted for “the situation in Libya,” which sounds less like a military intervention than a spin-off vehicle for the famous musclehead from MTV’s “Jersey Shore.” (Ross Douthat)

Gotta love Orwellian gibberish. 🙂

President Obama is proud of how he put together the Libyan operation. A model of international cooperation. All the necessary paperwork. Arab League backing. A Security Council resolution. (Everything but a resolution from the Congress of the United States, a minor inconvenience for a citizen of the world.)

It’s war as designed by an Ivy League professor. True, it took three weeks to put this together, during which time Moammar Gadhafi went from besieged, delusional thug losing support by the hour to resurgent tyrant who marshaled his forces, marched them to the gates of Benghazi and had the U.S. director of national intelligence predicting that “the regime will prevail.” (Charles Krauthammer).

They will protect civilians by not going after the guy who will kill them, Qaddafi! 🙂

And the reports that Al-Qaeda is supporting “the rebels”. No big deal. Qaddafi is evil. We just won’t do anything about him.

Obama is hoping the rebels will kill him so he doesn’t have to do it himself. But the rebels wouldn’t have this opportunity without the air strikes authored by him.

So now that NATO (which primarily US) has taken over, “Mission Accomplished”!!

Ta Da! Isn’t he awesome! 🙂

NEW TAX IDEA: Tax Driving!

Not feeling Taxed enough. You’re a Liberal who wants to stick it to the people. Well, the CBO has a new tax scheme for you.

And, of course, most importantly, it’s “fair”! 🙂

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has a suggestion for raising money to fix the nation’s highways: tax drivers based on how many miles they drive each year.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) this week released a report that said taxing people based on how many miles they drive is a possible option for raising new revenues and that these taxes could be used to offset the costs of highway maintenance at a time when federal funds are short.

The report discussed the proposal in great detail, including the development of technology that would allow total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to be tracked, reported and taxed, as well as the pros and cons of mandating the installation of this technology in all vehicles.

CBO’s report stressed it was making no recommendations but seemed to support a VMT tax as a more accurate way of having drivers pay for the costs of highway maintenance. The report said miles driven is a larger factor in highway repairs than fuel consumption and suggested that having drivers pay for the real costs of highways “would involve imposing a combination of fuel taxes and per-mile charges.”

“About 25 percent of the nation’s highways, which carry about 85 percent of all road traffic, are paid for in part by the federal government….” reads the opening line of the paper. In other words, why should the federal government, already so strapped for cash, keeping paying so much for the highway while those who use them get a free ride?
The rest of the lead paragraph is just as baneful:
Federal spending on highways is funded primarily by taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, but those and other taxes paid by highway users do not yield enough revenue to support either current federal spending on highways or the higher levels of spending that have been proposed by some observers. Although raising those taxes would bring in a larger amount of revenue, a more fundamental issue would remain: By themselves, fuel taxes cannot provide a strong incentive for people to avoid overusing highways — that is, to forgo trips for which the costs to themselves and others exceed the benefits. This study examines broad alternatives for federal funding of highways, focusing on fuel taxes and on taxes that could be assessed on the basis of the number of miles that vehicles travel.
As usual, the bureaucrats’ tactic is to create a problem (too many people “overusing highways”) then propose a solution (higher fuel taxes and taxes “assessed on the basis of the number of miles that vehicles travel”).
Just to be fair, the CBO assures the Senate that it (the CBO) isn’t alone in reckoning that taxing drivers for miles traveled is the most equitable method of closing the highway funding gap. They’ve got an impressive chorus backing up their taxing tune.
A consensus view of many transportation experts and economists is that a system of taxes on vehicle-miles traveled should be viewed as the leading alternative to fuel taxes as a source of funding for highways.
See? Lots of people (a “consensus”) agrees with the plan so it can’t be all bad.
And we all know it’s important to have “consensus” of “experts” before it crammed up your ass and down your throat for “your own good”.
It will be “fair”. 🙂
One possibility discusses by the CBO is the “pay at the pump” option for collecting the tax.
Implementation costs of a VMT system would depend heavily on its scope and scale but also would be affected by some choices about specific technologies. For example, initial capital costs might be higher but operational costs might be lower if the VMT taxes were collected “at the pump,” the method tested in the Portland pilot study and already used for collecting fuel taxes, rather than through periodic invoicing from a central office to individual users, the approach tested in the Puget Sound study. If VMT taxes were collected at the pump, each time fuel was purchased, information would be sent from a device in the vehicle to a device at the filling station. The data would identify the accumulated charges themselves or list miles traveled (identified if necessary by times and locations) since the previous purchase. The appropriate amount of taxes would be collected as part of the fuel- purchasing transaction.
Basically, “a device in the vehicle” would send data to the gas station, then onto, one assumes, the appropriate taxing agency, and the cost per gallon would be increased according to the VMT data collected.
Check your mail for the time and place of your appointment to have your car retrofitted with the government-approved VMT monitor.
Just Like ObamaCare, it’s for your own good!
To be fair (equitable), if you want smooth roads and you want to do the right thing and pay your fair share of the maintenance,  then the least you can do is surrender your privacy and let the government strap a VMT measuring device on your car. It’s the right thing. (New American-KFYI)
Now don’t you feel better. 🙂
Don’t worry about the trucking industry and all those goods that are transported across the country. It won’t impact your grocery bill and other products at all!
And will this go for jet fuel next? Imagine those thousands of gallons…
THE BORDER HAS NEVER BEEN SAFER
So with that Big Sis, Homeland Insecurity Secretary Janet Napalitano:
The Obama Administration has dedicated historic levels of manpower, technology, and infrastructure to the Southwest border to ensure the safety of border communities, and these resources have made a significant impact. Some of America’s safest communities are in the Southwest border region, with border city crime rates staying steady or dropping over the past decade. 

The security of our border communities strengthens the prosperity of the region. From San Diego, California to Brownsville, Texas, hundreds of billions of dollars of commerce come across the border each year, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs. Thanks in part to the administration’s major investments to improve border infrastructure at our land ports of entry, the value of the trade crossing the Southwest border increased 22 percent in fiscal year 2010 alone.

Yet, local leaders in border communities say misinformation about the safety of the Southwest border is hurting their communities, driving potential visitors away and hurting local businesses.

The reality is that the Southwest border is open for business. El Paso, Texas is one of the best examples. Not only have crime statistics shown it to be one of the safest big cities in the country, but the value of imports crossing into the United States through El Paso has risen 40 percent just in the last year.

In fact, today I was in El Paso to meet with local officials and business leaders to discuss ways that we can help strengthen trade and travel in the region and help set the record straight about the safety and economic opportunities in their communities.

We all agree that the challenges at the border are real – but so is the progress we’ve made over the last two years. I’m proud to join with our border communities in spreading the word that the Southwest border is, indeed, open for business.

Janet Napolitano (DHS website)

Now is that special! 🙂
I know I feel better about government.

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a
human face – forever.”– George Orwell