Drones to patrol U.S. border with Mexico?
The MQ-9 Predator aircraft would patrol the southern border of the U.S. in order to stop the illegal entry of thousands of Mexican nationals and drug runners. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Despite a deepening crisis along the U.S. border with Mexico, our government refuses to get serious about security.
Texas Governor Rick Perry has asked the federal government for unarmed predator drones to patrol the border. It's a request he's made before, but is now renewing after three workers at the U.S. consulate in Juarez were murdered.
Perry asks: "How many Americans will have to die before our federal government takes serious action along the Texas-Mexico border?"
Chances are Texas will have to wait. Some more. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says she's considering Perry's request, but insists the government is constantly watching what's happening at the border. Watching is about the extent of it.
Napolitano also announced she's holding up funding for plans to build a virtual fence along the border. She says it's because the system of sensors and cameras has had many problems, including cost over-runs. So Napolitano wants a review to be completed first.
Exactly what we need - another review of border security. The government can continue to do nothing while drug-cartel violence along the border keeps getting worse.
Texas recently issued a warning to parents not to allow their children to go to Mexican border towns on spring break. And the State Department has put out a travel warning to delay visits to certain parts of Mexico. Maybe it's time for Americans to boycott all trips to Mexico - spend our vacation money somewhere else..
More than 4,000 people have been killed in the border city of Juarez in the last two years.
Here’s my question to you: Should drones be used to patrol the U.S. border with Mexico?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Time for the U.S. to get tougher with Israel?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
With diplomatic tensions rising, both the U.S. and Israel are trying to tamp down the flames. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now insists the two allies enjoy a "close, unshakable bond."
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/17/art.jerusalem.jpg caption="Palestinian laborers work on a construction site in east Jerusalem. VP Biden has criticized Israel's decision to approve construction of 1,600 new homes for Jewish settlers in east Jerusalem."]
But when Israel announced it was going ahead with the building of more settlements over the objections of the United States and when they chose to make the announcement while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting Israel, Mrs. Clinton called Israel's actions "insulting" to the United States. Which they clearly were.
In a game of cover your whatever, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. now denies making statements that relations between the two countries are "in a crisis." But whatever state relations are in, it ain't good.
Some are suggesting it's time for the U.S. to get tougher with Israel. One Middle East expert wonders if the flare-up between the two countries means the Obama administration is seeking "regime change" in Israel.
Want to really get tough and send a message? Start cutting back on the approximately $2.5 billion in aid we give Israel every year.
In Today's New York Times, columnist Maureen Dowd quotes one Obama official, saying, "that's not how you treat your best friend," when describing Israel's recent construction announcement of 1,600 more homes in the disputed east Jerusalem.
In her piece called "Bibi's Tense Time Out," Dowd writes the White House is "appalled at Israel's self-absorption and its failure to notice that America is not only protecting Israel from Iran, fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also dealing with a miasma of horrible problems at home."
Here’s my question to you: Is it time for the U.S. to get tougher with Israel?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How would you rate Pres. Obama on foreign policy?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
When Barack Obama was elected, there was a hope that he would improve America's standing on the world stage.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/16/art.world.jpg caption=""]
More than a year later, tensions are rising between the U.S. and several key nations.
In the Middle East, by some counts, U.S.-Israeli relations are "in a crisis"... the worst in more than three decades.
Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is defiant when it comes to defending construction in East Jerusalem - despite pressure from the U.S. to stop. This will probably throw a wrench into Israeli-Palestinian peace talks; and that only hurts America's image in Arab countries. Israel announced the construction during V.P. Biden's trip to Isral - a big time diplomatic slap in the face. Meanwhile Hamas called for a "day of rage" today, rioting at the re-opening of a synagogue in Jerusalem.
Then there's China... Some suggest the communist nation is manipulating its currency; and trying to take advantage of America's credit crisis. For its part, China accuses the U.S. of pursuing hegemony in the world, trampling upon the sovereignty of other countries and trespassing on their human rights. Didn't we use to say that human rights stuff about China? Things sound good there.
President Obama has been unable to do anything about Iran's nuclear program, despite making that a priority early in his term.
And lastly - ahead of President Obama's scheduled trip to Asia - thousands of people protested in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country.
The followers of a conservative Islamic group say that even though Mr. Obama spent his childhood in Indonesia, as president he is following the policies of George Bush in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Here’s my question to you: When it comes to foreign policy, how would you rate President Obama?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How should Church address child abuse claims in Europe?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The Catholic Church is immersed in yet another child sex abuse scandal - this time in Europe.
Allegations of sex abuse by Catholic priests are spreading across the continent - from Pope Benedict the 16th's native Germany to Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, Italy and the Netherlands.
And this time the claims may hit a little too close to home for the Pope.
The Archdiocese of Munich has revealed it allowed an abusive priest to keep working in the early 1980s - at a time when Benedict was archbishop there.
The Vatican was quick to respond - with the number two official at the time claiming full responsibility. But Benedict was the archbishop.
The scandal keeps growing. In Germany alone there are new claims nearly every day; hundreds of alleged victims have come forward claiming either sexual abuse or physical violence at the hands of priests.
In Ireland the floodgates have opened - there are now more than 15,000 complaints in a country of four million people. Three government-ordered reports have shocked and disgusted that nation.
As more and more victims come forward with their stories, some wonder if it's not just a matter of time before some European dioceses will be forced to declare bankruptcy like some did in the U.S.
Experts say the Pope is not likely to resign. Of course not - that would be tantamount to an admission of guilt, wouldn't it?
But the scandal could do enormous damage to his papacy, his moral credibility and his reputation.
Here’s my question to you: How should the Catholic Church address the child abuse claims sweeping across Europe?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should Pelosi be allowed to push health care through House without a vote?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Just when you think you've seen it all in Washington... along comes something like this:
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/16/art.pelosi.jpg caption="House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may call for a vote on a rule that would simply 'deem' the Senate health care bill passed."]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may try to pass the controversial health care reform bill without making members vote on it. Unbelievable.
Pelosi says she might use a procedural tactic where the House will vote on the package of fixes to the Senate bill... and then that vote would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health care bill to be passed.
Politically speaking, this is beyond sleazy. It's meant to protect Democrats - especially those up for re-election in November - from having to make a tough vote. Pelosi says of this process, "I like it... because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill." In Nancy Pelosi's world, accountability is a dirty word.
The Senate bill, of course, contains many provisions that are unpopular among some House Democrats - including language on abortion funding and taxes on high-cost insurance plans.
This tactic has been used in the past - but never for something as big and important as the nearly $900 billion health care reform bill.
Republicans are jumping all over this - and rightfully so. They're painting it as a way for Democrats to avoid taking responsibility. Some even suggest it's unconstitutional.
Meanwhile President Obama is campaigning relentlessly - calling on lawmakers to pass health care reform, "I want some courage. I want us to do the right thing."
The irony here is if Nancy Pelosi gets her way, it won't take much courage at all on the part of our so-called representatives.
Here’s my question to you: Should Nancy Pelosi be allowed to push health care reform through the House without a vote?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
As concerned about our privacy as we used to be?
(PHOTO CREDIT: LOIC VENANCE/AFP/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Why no one cares about privacy anymore... That's the title of a piece on CNet.com. It describes how - as technology and especially social networking sites keep growing - people seem more and more willing to part with confidentiality. In many cases, they give up some level of privacy in order to access these services for free.
Think about it: Millions of people go online every day to sites like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google... they share pictures, videos, personal information about their family, their jobs, their education... or even trivial things like their favorite movie or what they ate for lunch.
Plus - it's more common for these services to be able to track you. Twitter now allows users to include so-called geolocation data in their messages; and they're encouraging people to do so. Other services let you select who can monitor your GPS-derived location every moment of the day through your cell phone. Google Maps can show pictures of your front door.
As for medical privacy... some seem to care less who knows intimate details about their health - they go online to share stories about cancer or other diseases or to give details of their pregnancies.
Then there's the ability of companies like Amazon.com or Netflix to gather information on your shopping habits and suggest which movie or book you may want to buy next.
It should come as no surprise that young people - the so-called Generation X-hibitionist - are the most comfortable with all this. One 2008 survey shows only 41 percent of U.S. teens were concerned about privacy; 59 percent were happy to give personal information to marketers.
Here’s my question to you: Are we as concerned about our privacy as we used to be?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Ultimate solution to long-term unemployment?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The cost of long-term unemployment to the American taxpayers may soon be unsustainable.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/10/06/art.want.ads.jpg caption=""]
DailyFinance.com reports that more than six million workers say they've been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. That means the long-term unemployed represent more than 40 percent of all the unemployed - one of the highest levels ever. The average length of unemployment for this group is nearly seven months.
The payment of unemployment benefits for longer and longer periods of time adds to the deficit. One expert points out that the high unemployment rate, plus longer time collecting jobless benefits, is a dangerous combination. He says the government could be on track to spend $250 billion a year on unemployment benefits alone.
Another downside is that some workers tend to lose their skills, which means they risk becoming unemployable. They either have to move down the employment ladder or get re-trained for other jobs.
No surprise a new poll suggests that jobs are a top concern for many Americans. A Gallup poll shows 31 percent of those surveyed say unemployment is the most important problem facing the country today.
And, when asked what they think will be the top problem facing the U.S. in 25 years, the top response is the federal budget deficit.
The irony here is the more the government spends on jobs programs and unemployment benefits now, the more our $12 trillion-plus national debt will continue to grow.
Here’s my question to you: What's the ultimate solution to long-term unemployment?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Losing track of what's in health care bills?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
"The American people are getting tired of this crap."
That's how Republican Senator Lindsey Graham describes the debate over health care reform. What do you know... a politician who speaks plain English.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/15/art.baby.jpg caption="A three-day-old girl gets a checkup at a low-cost clinic in Colorado. The baby's mother has health insurance through her employer, but can't afford the additional deductible to add her child as a dependent."]
Graham was talking about the Obama administration's dismissal of some Republican criticism of the health care bills. But all this back-and-forth may mercifully come to an end soon - one way or the other - with the House expected to vote this week on the bill the Senate has already passed.
And, after a year of arguments from all sides and thousands upon thousands of pages of legislation - the fate of health care reform remains very much in doubt. There are several stumbling blocks for the Democrats - both ideological and procedural.
As for what is in the bill - abortion and immigration are most likely to trip up the whole thing. There are several House Democrats pledging not to sign on if the House uses the Senate's less strict language on abortion funding. When it comes to immigration, there are House Democrats who disagree with the Senate's ban on undocumented immigrants buying insurance in the new health exchange.
Then there's the politics of it all - the details of reconciliation, which chamber will vote first, the distrust between the upper and lower houses and on and on...
Meanwhile you can expect the lobbyists to spare no expense this week. It's estimated that special interest groups will be spending about $1 million a day to influence the health care debate.
Here’s my question to you: Have you lost track of what's actually in the health care reform bills?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Worse for Dems come Nov.: passing health care or not?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The Democrats could face "unmitigated disaster" in the mid-term elections... if they continue to ignore the public's opposition to health care reform.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/12/art.blood.pressure.jpg caption=""]
This dire warning comes by way of pollsters who worked for the last two Democratic presidents.
Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen write in the Washington Post that the Democrats' "blind persistence in the face of reality threatens to turn this political march of folly into an electoral rout in November." They suggest that if health care reform passes - the Democrats' losses in the midterms will be even worse.
They say the political reality is that the battle for public opinion has been lost. Polls show a solid majority of Americans oppose the health care reform plan... even though most people believe that reform is needed and they support certain parts of the bill.
Caddell and Schoen write that President Obama and the Democratic party are deceiving themselves into believing that this reform is what the public wants.
They also point to polls that show the country is moving away from big government... saying the debate over health care has now become less about the issue itself... and more about the politics surrounding it. The American people see a government that "will neither hear nor heed the will of the people."
They suggest the only way for the Democrats to change course is to acknowledge that health care reform is a failure - whether or not it passes.
Here’s my question to you: Which will be worse for the Democrats in November: passing the health care bill or not passing it?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 6pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments