Rand Paul discovers “security concerns”

Rand Paul discovers “security concerns”

by Don Hank

Sen. Rand Paul, who serves on a committee called Homeland Secturity and Government Affairs, just now woke up and realized that an immigration reform bill of the kind he was touting a few weeks ago, needs to take national security concerns into account. He now backtracks with the following statement:


I believe that any real comprehensive immigration reform must implement strong national security protections. The facts emerging in the Boston Marathon bombing have exposed a weakness in our current system. If we don’t use this debate as an opportunity to fix flaws in our current system, flaws made even more evident last week, then we will not be doing our jobs.


It’s nice that Rand Paul, author of the above mentioned much touted amnesty proposal that unquestioningly presupposed a competent DHS, finally woke up to the fact that our national security is a disaster. But why did it take a national tragedy to wake him up? What have they been discussing in that Homeland Security committee Rand has been sitting on?

Most of my readers and  correspondents know–and knew long before Rand’s plan was unfurled– that illegal aliens make up about 1/3 of our federal prison population and that Mexicans are the no. 1 demographic in terms of drunken driving convictions, including all of those involving traffic deaths of third parties. And they know that a very substantial percentage of our street drugs come from south of the border and that our downtowns are in thrall to 1.4 million gang members, of which all but 9% are foreign. All of the individuals in these problem demographics would have received a blanket amnesty under Rand Paul’s proposed “reform.”

My correspondents also know that we are in the midst of an economic crisis where jobs are scarce and 100 million Americans are receiving some form of public assistance other than social security, which tallies up to a cool $1 trillion/yr — a record number by far in US history.

So, Mr. Paul, while you have shown some aptitude as a quarterback, your side is unlikely to make touchdowns if you wait until Monday morning to pick up the ball and run.


Obama’s office contacts Don Hank!

See the message below first.
Below is my response to Obama’s pals sent to
I just received an urgent message on supporting the climate message of the White House.
I want very much to do that but am confused (I am not a trained climate politician).
I remember that the message used to be global warming and the polar bears were going to drown.
Is it still global warming or is it climate change?
If it is climate change, how is it changing? Warming, cooling or other?
And most importantly, how are the polar bears doing out there? I do hope they will survive this cold (hot?) weather, the poor things! I know I would not want to be out there all alone without any caring politicians around to keep me warm (or cool?).
I want to get it right when I proudly support the President’s message because I don’t want to sound like those silly Republicans who keep denying global warming when they are supposed to support it and then turn right around and deny climate change when they are supposed to support that.
Who knows what they will be denying next! Maybe life on the moon.
Best Regards,
Shirley [my pen name for email to my pal Barack]
—– Original Message —–

Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:11 AM
Subject: Thanks For The Email Re: Call these climate deniers out:


Thanks for your email.

If you have a question about Organizing for Action or need support, please write us at support@barackobama.com or call (571) 403-1776.

Click here for a list of Frequently Asked Questions.

And if you have a question about the 2012 campaign, including those regarding your contribution(s), merchandise, or an invoice, please contact Obama for America at info@obamabiden.com.

Thanks again,

Organizing for Action

Fisker failure in the news again

Remember that Spain, one of the sick old men of Europe, where photos of dumpster diving Spaniards have surfaced, got to their record unemployment levels thanks in large part to the ‘green’ initiatives of socialist prime minister Zapatero, whose green jobs program cost the country 800,000 euros per job and each job cost 2.2 regular non green jobs.
The only difference between Obama and Zapatero is that Zapatero eventually admitted his mistake and abandoned the project.
Obama just presses on rearward.
Don Hank

Mosque that Boston suspects attended has radical ties

There are at least four reasons why this story is important:

1–It provides new facts most Americans didn’t know until now and blows up whatever credibility there may have been in the notion that the Islamic Society of Boston (and similar societies elsewhere) is just a group of decent Americans worshipping God in their own way, and just as peaceably as the Christians and Jews in that region. And that the Muslim American Society is demonstrating how Muslims can coexist with you and me and that they are assimilating or want to be part of the great American melting pot.

2–It blows apart any credibility in the notion that the DHS is doing a fine job of protecting you.

3–It discredits the notion that Muslims are viable candidates for integrating in democracies. (Especially since they can’t seem to achieve that goal back home).

4–More importantly, it gives us a much needed warning that calls for amnesty for millions of illegal aliens are premature at best, but most likely permanently misguided. It also gives the lie to the Gang of 8’s fractured reasoning that we need to amnesty all 40-60 million (the 11 million figure is from 2000) illegal aliens so that we can find out who they are. If the FBI and the rest of DHS couldn’t figure out who the Brothers Tsarnaev were before they unleashed their mini-holocaust–despite Russian intel’s repeated warnings–there is no hope that our security agencies will learn what they ought to about the millions upon millions of undocumented whom both parties are rushing madly to legalize–instead of doing their job and repatriating them asap.

None of this is to say that a kinder gentler Islam may some day emerge. But that day seems much farther away today than it did yesterday.

Don Hank

Dear Secular Humanist: Please Keep Your Religious Views about Abortion out of Politics!

In our country, there is a general feeling that only positions backed by actual fact should drive public policy.  ‘Religion’ is perceived to be the realm of personal opinion.   Even Christians tend to accept the view that people are allowed to have their opinion, but they aren’t allowed to impose that opinion on others.   The result is that many Christians refrain from acting ‘politically’ because they see their own beliefs as nothing more than ‘mere opinion.’

Secularists tend to be people who have dispensed with ‘religion’ altogether, and like to think that they are entirely ‘fact driven.’

When these ideas collide, we observe something very curious:  secular humanists conclude that they can advocate for anything that they want in the public sphere, because nothing they believe is ‘religious, ‘ while distinctly Christian viewpoints are forbidden from entering the public domain, since those will be, by definition, ‘religious.’  And again, even Christians gravitate to that view.

This tends to lead to debates and discussions and policy proposals that take the ‘facts’ of the secularists as the starting points.  We are expected to proceed on their terms.  And why not?  Surely without the ‘religious’ component, those ‘facts’ are as close to actually being real descriptions of the world as one could get, right?

But what if ‘religion’ and ‘fact’ are not opposites? Continue reading