Sharron Angle’s Obtuse Angle

Here are my responses to some of Sharron Angle’s views expressed during the senate debate in Nevada with Speaker Harry Reid:

Angle: …we haven’t secured the borders, and enforced the laws. Senator Reid talks about comprehensive immigration law but really what he’s talking about is something that didn’t work in 1986. I’m a great fan of Ronald Reagan’s, but he had it wrong when he gave amnesty in 1986. We need to first secure the borders.

Me:  First the amnesty in question was called the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) and it gave amnesty for immigrants who could prove that they had been living and working in the States continuously for 10 years or more with a clean record and had to demonstrate proficiency in English and American Civics before they could qualify for Temporary Residency.  They also had to pay for this and were not fast tracked to citizenship.  They had to wait at the back of the line.  It was the best thing Ronald Reagan ever did and the only thing he got right.

As to the borders, many immigrants cross because corporate America wants cheap exploitable labor.  By securing borders, we will effectively take away the profit margin of many businesses.  Not that I am for exploitation, but Angle’s argument to essentially keep cheap labor out, will hurt the very private sector she so deeply supports.

On jobs, she said that it was not her duty to help create jobs, but rather simply to create policies so that the private sector will create jobs.  This is also her view on health insurance companies.  She argues that there should be no regulations whatsoever on insurance companies and no coverage mandates.  In effect, she’s saying that the government role is not to protect the people, but rather to protect and subsidize the business class to maximize corporate profits.  She is a corporate welfarist.

When asked who she admires on the Supreme Court, past or present here is what she had to say:

Angle:  I admire Clarence Thomas because he understands his, uh, constitutional boundaries as a judge in the Supreme Court, and that’s what we need. We need justices that will sit on the Supreme Court and do their duty constitutionally, not legislate from the bench.

I would not have confirmed Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor, and that reason is because neither one of them understand the Constitution and have said that they would vote against things like our Second Amendment rights. Those are things that are dear to us as Americans. We know that our founding fathers wanted Supreme Court judges who would stand up for our Constitution – a Constitution that was created for we the people to be free.

Me:  No legislation from the bench?  What was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?  Clearly a partisan ruling to grant additional rights to conglomerates and billionaires to influence our elections.  As to the second amendment, it does not grant citizens a right to bear arms, but rather the right to a well-regulated militia, like our armed forces.  No Supreme Court justice is calling for a full out ban on guns.  But I think the sane among them, some conservatives included, would support a ban on certain types of weapons that are appropriate for use in wars, not for hunting and self-defense.    What civilized person would support private ownership of assault weapons, sawed off shotguns, bazookas, and machine guns? Hey, if you don’t support any form of government regulation or oversight, why not favor the legalization of crime and all drug use.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: