Is it just me, or does Michael Bloomberg seem pretty quick to dismiss the idea of a foreign terrorist? Not only that, but he seems intent on pinning it on a conservative who might not like the recent health care bill. Not surprisingly, it looks like Mayor Bloomberg was 100% wrong.

Authorities have arrested 30 year old Faisal Shahzad who was trying to escape on a flight to Dubai. Shahzad came to the United States form Pakistan in 1999 and became a U.S. citizen in 2009. It seems that many officials, like Michael Bloomberg, are reluctant to admit that this terrorist act might have originated from a foreign country, even though there is some supporting evidence.

For one thing, Faisal Shahzad admits to creating the bomb, traveled to Pakistan for 5 months to receive training, and several people from Pakistan who know Shahzad have been arrested. Maybe it’s me, but that looks suspicious. Plus, we also have proof that Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of Pakistan Taliban, who was thought to be killed, is actually alive and making threats. The timing of the video of Mehsud and Shahzad’s attempted bombing could be a coincidence, but it deserves a close look.

It seems like many liberals were almost hoping that a conservative, anti-Obama American was responsible for the attack. After all, if they were right, it would just be more evidence of how crazy and irrational conservatives can be. All Shazad’s arrest does for me is to make me question our immigration policy even more.

“This is not good for the country. I don’t agree with it,” he said. “We love immigrants here.”

“We have to get real about the 12 million undocumented here,” the mayor said. “We’re not going to deport them. Give them permanent status. Don’t make them citizens unless they can qualify, but give them permanent status and let’s get on with this.”

Here’s my favorite Bloomberg quote…

“This country is committing national suicide.”

Could someone please tell Michael Bloomberg that Arizona’s law isn’t meant to drive out immigrants, it’s meant to make life diffficult for illegal immigrants. You know, the immigrants who come here illegally by breaking laws and demonstrating a blatant disrespect for the United States? By the way, isn’t it funny how liberals always seem to drop the work illegal? I think it’s because they know their arguments are on weak footing, so they need to twist the truth to try and distract people from their faulty reasoning.

As for Bloomberg’s remark about the United States committing national suicide, I agree with the wording but not it’s application in this situation. Deporting illegal aliens is not national suicide. In fact, I would argue that the exact opposite is true. Doing nothing will lead to a steady decline in everything that makes America great.

If you don’t think this is true, think about how unfettered illegal immigration will lead to balkanization of the United States along ethnic and linguistic lines. Think about how illegal aliens are driving down wages and taking jobs from Americans. If millions of illegal aliens were deported, millions of jobs would immediately open up at reasonable wages. This is the truth, and to use Michael Bloomberg’s words, ignoring the truth is to commit national suicide.

As I looked at the list, I noticed that 3 of the states are along the Mexican border and have a large number of illegal aliens entering the state. Well, it looks like New York and Florida are in the same boat. It turns out that California (1), Texas (2), New York (3), Florida (5), and Arizona (6) make up five out of the top six states with the most illegal aliens. Is this merely a coincidence? Could some other variable be at work? That’s certainly possible, but you must admit that it is some coincidence.

No one should be surprised by the poor participation rates among illegal aliens. We are required by law to complete the Census. Of course, why would illegal aliens pay any attention to that small detail? They’ve already trespassed into the country and possibly broken other laws such as using fake I.D., identity theft, or related crimes. What’s one more infraction?

The next time you hear someone tell you that illegal aliens bring a positive benefit to America, remember this article. Remember how the U.S. will need to pay Census workers up to $25 per hour to track down those who didn’t fill out there forms, and how many of these individuals happen to be from states with large numbers of illegal aliens. Also remember how many of the people who don’t fill out the Census will be the ones who use the resources denied to their state because of their lack of participation.

Do you still think illegal aliens have a positive net benefit?

If you take a close look at the 2009 New Jersey Governor’s race, one interesting fact stands out. Chris Christie spent $11.4 million, while John Corzine spent $27 million. Of that $27 million, $25.3 million was his own. Not only did he lose despite out-spending his opponent by nearly 3 to 1, but nearly 94% of his campaign was self-financed. This tells me that he would have likely lost in a landslide if he were a man of modest means. Actually, if he were a man of modest means, he probably wouldn’t even be looked at as a legitimate candidate. If you don’t think so, just look at his lack of fundraising. Most people would agree that a strong candidate also needs to be strong fundraiser.

In a way, John Corzine’s loss is a win for those sickened by multimillionaires who try to buy elections. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was able to purchase his recent win, but Corzine’s loss gives me hope that voters will begin to look past the glitz and money.

After spending $74 million on his first mayoral campaign and $85 million on his second, Bloomberg went ahead and spent $102 million to win this years mayoral race. If you’re keeping track at home, that’s a whopping $183 for each vote. What would possess someone to do such a thing?

Most would agree that there are a plethora of ways to improve the city outside of politics, and he’s not doing it for the money, since the job only pays $85,000 annually. That leads me to the answer that you’ve probably known all along: Ego. A desire to see his name in the newspaper, his face on TV, and to be recognized where ever he goes. Or perhaps the position is just a toy for the guy who has everything.

Whatever Michael Bloomberg’s reason is for wanting to be Mayor, no one can deny that the campaign system is broken, and that people like him damage it further. Michael Bloomberg also shouldn’t take too much pride in his victory. His opponent, Michael Thompson raised a little over $8 million as of October 1st, yet despite being out-spent 13 to 1, lost by only 5 percentage points. If Mr. Bloomberg runs for a fourth term, he’ll probably need to crack the $200 million mark to buy that election.

“This is not a decision that I would have made. I think terrorism isn’t just attack, it’s anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country,”

I agree with the Governor, and I’m glad he had the courage to speak out. Every Democrat I’ve seen supports having the 9/11 trials in New York City. They seem to ignore a few facts: The trial will be a security nightmare, there is a greater chance of the defendants being set free on a technicality, and it has the potential of being a recruitment tool for terrorists. Plus, the 9/11 attacks were an act of war which call for a trial before a military tribunal. This should be common sense, but when you are interested in impressing foreign countries with your fairness, and also putting the Bush Administration on trial, judgement can sometimes be clouded.

I suspect that Governor Paterson’s remarks are at least partially related to some alleged problems between him and the President. That might very well be, but it’s hard to deny that this trial has the potential to risk the lives of many more Americans, and jeopardize convictions.

The five terrorists are war criminals. They were part of the planning of the 9/11 attacks that resulted in the death of nearly 3,000 Americans. Since they are war criminals, they should receive military trials. Many liberals are thrilled with Eric Holder’s decision, since it will result in what they perceive as a process that is more fair and transparent. They seem to forget that the terrorists will turn the trial into a circus, a great deal of evidence won’t be admissable, and intelligence information could be exposed.

Of course, the typical liberal doesn’t care. It will give them yet another opportunity to put the Bush Administration on trial. Do you remember them? They were the people who captured the terrorists and kept the United States safe for nearly 8 years. To them, the safety of Americans is all well and good, but it certainly can’t come at the expense of the “rights” of terrorists who aren’t citizens and seek to kill as many Americans as possible. Speaking of killing Americans, what about security problems? Won’t this just increase the risk of another terrorist attack in New York and place the safety of those involved in the trial in question?

Eric Holder seems to believe he has enough evidence to guarantee a conviction. He might be correct, but has he considered the defense attorneys that will stop at nothing to call evidence into question and cause a mistrial? This must have entered into his decision, but of course, the risk must be taken in order to assure fair treatment for the terrorists and a glowing opinion of us abroad. Isn’t that really the most important thing?

It’s understandable that Ms. Scozzafava wouldn’t want to endorse Conservative candidate Douglas Hoffman, due to their differing political beliefs, but the same should be true of Bill Owens. I’m one of those rare people who seems to think a political pary in a two-party system needs to have a wide umbrella with some core issues that bring people together. One of those core issues should be increasing the number of GOP House seats to help Republicans gain control of the House and attempt to bring fiscal restraint. By offering an endorsement ot Bill Owens, Ms. Scozzafava has offered her support to Nancy Pelosi. That is unacceptable. Unlike other Republicans who quickly rushed to Hoffman’s side, she would have been better served by staying neutral and quietly casting her vote on election day. Instead, she betrays her party.

We could be at the beginning of an exciting time for the Republican party. Republican candidates seem to have a strong chance of winning gubernatorial races in both Virginia and New Jersey, along with a Conservative candidate in NY23. Unfortunately, it looks like there could be the makings of a civil war among conservative/GOP voters. For those conservatives who don’t care, ask yourself this question: Will a divided GOP be able to win back control of the House and Senate, and defeat Barack Obama in 2012? As long as we continue to marginalize moderate Republicans, and members lose their identification with the party, our chances seem slim.

While Dede Scozzafava’s decision will likely lead to greater unity for Conservative candidate Douglas Hoffman, it certainly doesn’t bode well for moderate Republicans in general. I’ve never been a big fan of the two party system, since it essentially forces people to pick the side that is closest, rather than a side that is close. That results in a certain ideological heterogeneity that you wouldn’t find in a multiparty system. Unfortunately, it seems that some on the far right don’t seem to get this, and have a tendency to lash out at moderates the same way they would at Nancy Pelosi. It’s similar to a “with us or against us” mindset.

I’m a registered Republican who is a staunch supporter of limited government. I strongly support low taxes, reduced spending, and less bureaucracy. On the flip side, I’m pro-choice, support gay marriage, and the decriminalization of marijuana. If I were running for Congress, I’d probably have social conservatives from all over the country rooting for my political demise. Why? Because I’m ideologically consistent. I truly support limited government, not only in fiscal matters, but also those of a personal nature. Just like excessive taxation is an impediment to liberty, the same is true of a government which attempts to control our personal decisions.

For many, there seems to be a disconnect. They want limited government, but they also want government to control and legislate morality. I respect socially conservative views, and in many ways, lead my own life in that fashion. With that said, it isn’t the government’s role to impose these views on the citizenry. It is the responsibility of families, and most importantly, the individual.