Should Arizona be allowed to enforce its own immigration law?
(PHOTO CREDIT:JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
You can tell there's an election coming. President Obama traveled to El Paso, Texas, to deliver a speech this afternoon on immigration reform. He talked about the economic benefits of immigration overhaul and about increasing the number of border guards from the days of the Bush Administration. Of course, he stopped short of talking specific immigration legislation.
Because of the federal government's refusal to secure this nation's borders, many states have taken it upon themselves to pass their own legislation.
Arizona passed a controversial illegal immigration law last year. It requires police officers to investigate the immigration status of any person they stop who they think may be an illegal immigrant. The law also makes it a crime to not carry immigration paperwork while in the state. You know, just like you're required to carry a driver's license if you drive a car. The U.S. Department of Justice sued to block the Arizona law and won. A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found the law to be unconstitutional. But Governor Jan Brewer said yesterday that Arizona will appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is already set to rule in a case on another Arizona immigration law in the coming weeks, one that dissolves businesses that repeatedly knowingly hire illegal aliens.
If it wins the case, Arizona will need some help enforcing this new law on its own. Which is why it is asking for public donations to fund its legal defense of the law and to construct a fence between Arizona and Mexico. And it's getting them. So far, the state says the response has been very positive. The people of Arizona are tired of waiting for Washington to enforce the federal immigration laws already on the books.
Here’s my question to you: Should Arizona be allowed to enforce its own immigration law?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Is a presidential run already over for Trump?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The morning after his TV show "Celebrity Apprentice" was interrupted by the breaking news that Osama bin Laden had been killed, Donald Trump released a statement congratulating President Obama and calling for an end to party politics for "the next several days."
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/05/09/art.trump.jpg caption=""]
He has been uncharacteristically quiet since, especially for a guy who spent weeks adding fuel to the “birther” controversy, badgering the president on a number of issues and tiptoeing around talk of his own presidential run in 2012.
Chances are Trump has been quiet, in part, because he is still smarting from the White House Correspondents' dinner two Saturdays ago. President Obama and the evening's emcee, "Saturday Night Live's" Seth Myers, separately skewered Trump at the gala event with a series of jokes on everything from his lack of political experience to his hair. It was a world class beatdown, and by the look on his face - Trump was there– he didn't take the jokes very well. But luckily for him, the news on bin Laden limited that embarrassment quickly.
Last week Trump announced he was pulling out of an appearance to drive the Indianapolis 500 pace car at the upcoming race on May 29th. Trump said it wouldn't be appropriate for the spotlight to be on him during the race's 100th anniversary if he had a possible presidential run on his mind. It may be the first time in recorded history that Donald Trump declined the spotlight.
Then there's this: According to a CNN Opinion Research poll, 57 percent of Americans say Trump is tough enough to handle a crisis in this country and 51 percent say he can get the economy back on its feet. But only 37 percent say Trump can manage the government. And only about one-third says he's honest and trustworthy. These poll numbers are as dismal as his chances of being elected.
Here’s my question to you: Is a presidential run already over for Donald Trump?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should raising taxes be more of a priority than cutting spending?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Americans are paying the smallest share of their income in taxes since 1958 - about 23.6% - according to new analysis from USA Today.
During the 70's, 80's and 90's, Americans spent about 27% of their income on taxes. If we were paying that rate now, $500 billion in additional taxes would be collected each year. Yes, $500 billion. That's about one-third of this year's federal deficit.
Now, conservative groups are quick to point out that this fall in tax revenue is due to a weak economy and not just lower tax rates or tax breaks. Deficit reduction advocates disagree. Either way, you gotta wonder what this country could do with an extra $500 billion dollars right about now.
This report comes as President Obama plans to meet with Democrats and Republicans separately over the next few weeks to talk about reducing the deficit. Senate Democrats will go to the White House on Wednesday, followed by Senate Republicans Thursday. House Democrats and Republicans will come in the "next few weeks."
Back in December, a deficit reduction committee created by the president recommended cutting spending and eliminating tax breaks to trim nearly $4 trillion from the deficit over the next decade. So far those recommendations have been largely ignored. President Obama came out with his own plan last month that calls for $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.
Republican Congressman Paul Ryan has his own 10-year, $4.4 trillion plan that calls for spending cuts and the overhaul of Medicare but doesn't mention raising taxes. We're still waiting for a third deficit reduction plan from the so-called Gang of Six a bi-partisan group of six senators - we're still not sure what that will look like.
Here’s my question to you: Should raising taxes be more of a priority than cutting spending?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Does getting Osama bin Laden justify enhanced interrogation techniques?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Leon Panetta, head of the CIA, said earlier this week that intelligence collected from detainees who were waterboarded provided clues that helped the U.S. track down Osama bin Laden.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/05/05/art.detainees.jpg caption=""]
Waterboarding, which is the simulated drowning of prisoners to get them to spill secrets, is no longer legal, thanks to President Obama. It was one of Obama's first acts as president.
The Bush Administration before him had been harshly criticized for what some said was legalizing torture. Panetta in the past has said that enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding is torture and is morally wrong. However, he also said the debate about the use of these techniques will continue.
Some former members of the Bush Administration and a handful of other Republicans were quick to defend the practice in the wake of Osama bin Laden's death.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Justice Department official John Yoo and Congressman Peter King from New York have all said in interviews this week that information obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques used on prisoners, like waterboarding, was key to the successful raid on Osama bin Laden's Pakistani hideout.
However, none of these men is really in the position to know this for sure. And there's been no official statement or any proof that any information gained from prisoners by using these interrogation techniques ultimately led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
Here’s my question to you: Does getting Osama bin Laden justify the use of enhanced interrogation techniques such as waterboarding?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should killing of Osama bin Laden be an issue in '12 presidential race?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
After hovering around all-time lows in the polls, President Barack Obama is getting a boost in his approval ratings following the killing of Osama bin Laden.
A new Gallup poll finds the president's approval rating jumped from 46% to 52% after Sunday's successful raid of the bin Laden compound.
Issues such as the deficit and the economy have been weighing on Obama's approval and putting his 2012 bid for re-election in jeopardy. His indecision over acting in the recent Middle East uprisings didn't help his cause either. But getting bin Laden - that was big. And somehow people suddenly forget how inexperienced and ineffective he seemed on foreign policy as recently as a few weeks ago.
You can be sure that the economy, things such as jobs and the skyrocketing national debt and deficits will still likely dominate the 2012 race. But for now - for this week– foreign policy and the war on terror have taken center stage. And President Obama is looking pretty good all of a sudden.
But that's also in part because of his lack of competition. The potential field of Republican candidates is pretty awful, consisting of mostly current or former governors and a few current or former House members. Plus a lot of people who have already run for president and lost.
But like I said, we have a tendency to forget pretty quickly, and once conversation switches back to the $14 trillion debt ceiling we're fast approaching and how we're going to cut next year's budget, the bin Laden "get" will likely hit the rear view mirror in a hurry.
Here’s my question to you: Should the killing of Osama bin Laden be an issue in the 2012 presidential race?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should the United States have tried to take Osama bin Laden alive?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
If they had taken Osama bin Laden alive, there wouldn't be a debate about releasing these pictures. Hindsight is always 20/20. But reasonable people may disagree on whether or not it would have been a good idea to bring this guy back alive.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/05/04/art.obl2.jpg caption=""]
Depending on which account of the mission you believe, it sounds like it might have been possible. At first, we were told he had a gun, he resisted, he used his wife as a shield and the impression was the Navy SEALs had no choice but to kill him.
But then the story changed. He didn't use his wife as a shield. He wasn't armed. But he did resist. One account even said he looked like he was reaching for a gun.
You could also engage in a hypothetical discussion about whether shooting and killing an unarmed man is a good idea even if it was Osama bin Laden. In his case, I happen to think it was a great idea.
Returning him as a prisoner would have presented monumental security issues and putting him on trial would have cost this country a great dea l– financially, emotionally and psychologically. Tossing his body into the sea was also a good idea. No grave site that becomes a shrine for his demented followers.
Here’s my question to you: Should the United States have tried to take Osama bin Laden alive?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What should the U.S. do about Pakistan?
A Pakistani shepherd walks past the Abbottabad hideout where Osama bin Laden was killed. (PHOTO CREDIT: AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
There was a line in the "The Godfather, Part II": "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer." When it comes to Pakistan, which are they?
Osama bin Laden was living in a $1 million compound surrounded by 12-to-18-foot high walls topped with razor wire. It was in the middle of a quiet suburban town filled with retired Pakistani military officers. It was just yards away from the Pakistan Military Academy, which is basically that nation's West Point.
The compound was reportedly called Waziristan Mansion, after the tribal mountainous region of Pakistan where bin Laden fled after the September 11 attacks. There was no television and no phone lines. Instead of putting their trash out for collection, the people living with bin Laden burned it.
Come on.
If Pakistani officials didn't know who was living there, the neighbors likely did.
Neighborhood children even suspected something was up. They were not allowed to get a ball if it was accidentally kicked or thrown onto the property. Instead, they were given $2 to $3 to buy a new one. Other kids were invited to play with pet rabbits on the compound but noticed security cameras everywhere.
Ray Charles probably could have figured out who lived there. My guess is the Pakistani government wasn't looking very hard. And it's not because they didn't have the means to do so. The United States has given about $20 billion dollars in foreign aid to Pakistan over the past eight years - money meant to help combat terrorism. And as long as bin Laden remained at large, it was pretty easy to make the argument for that money.
Here’s my question to you: What should the U.S. do about Pakistan?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should W.H. release photo of Osama bin Laden's body?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The White House has pictures of Osama bin Laden's body. But we're not sure when or if we'll see them.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/05/03/art.obl.jpg caption=""]
A senior U.S. official tells CNN that the White House received three sets of pictures on Monday: One set of bin Laden's body at a hangar in Afghanistan where it was flown after he was killed, one set from bin Laden's burial at sea aboard the USS Carl Vinson and one set from the raid in which he was killed, showing the compound and several corpses - including one of his sons - but no pictures of bin Laden at the scene where he was gunned down.
The tricky part for the White House is that the picture that includes the most recognizable image of bin Laden's face has been described as extremely gruesome and graphic. It reportedly shows a massive open bullet wound across both of his eyes. It's very bloody and not exactly acceptable for the front page of a newspaper or a morning television show. But whether to show it is a decision that should be made by the newspaper editor or the morning show producer.
Most Americans want to see the pictures anyway. More than half of Americans, 56%, say the United States should release a picture of Osama bin Laden's body, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll. Just 39% say it should not be released.
The other consideration is whether releasing the picture would further inflame Muslim extremists and members of al Qaeda. It probably would, but how much madder could they get? Bin Laden is dead, gunned down in his house by United States Navy SEALS. They're probably already pretty steamed.
A final decision on the photos has not been made, but there is "growing consensus" to release them. A decision could come as early as Tuesday.
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
With the death of Osama bin Laden, do you feel safer from terrorism?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
In the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden, law enforcement agencies in cities like New York, Washington and Boston have stepped up security on the streets, in airports, and at other transportation hubs like subways and bus stations.
Retaliation attacks from bin Laden's al Qaeda followers are very much a concern.
There's been no specific threat and the Department of Homeland Security has not issued a security alert, though Secretary Janet Napolitano said Americans should remain at a "heightened state of vigilance." Under the newly-revamped Homeland Security warning system, alerts aren't issued unless there are specific threats. The State Department released a warning to Americans traveling outside the U.S. about the "enhanced potential for anti-American violence."
Following bin Laden's killing, chatter on the radical websites used by his terrorist network mourned his death, celebrated him as a martyr and vowed to continue al Qaeda's mission despite the death of its leader. And bin Laden's “number two,” Ayman al-Zawahiri, is still out there. Just because one terrorist is dead - albeit the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks– he's still just one man. Al Qaeda is not gone. And there is much hatred against this country among the militant Muslim extremists.
But the "boatload" of intelligence materials recovered by our guys from bin Laden's house-five computers, ten computer hard drives and more than a hundred data storage devices-should give us a leg up in the short term at least as to what al Qaeda might have been planning.
Here’s my question to you: With the death of Osama bin Laden, do you feel safer from terrorism?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Historically, what does the killing of Osama bin Laden compare to?
(PHOTO CREDIT: KEYSTONE/GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The terror attacks of September 11, 2001 were unlike anything most Americans had ever seen. Three thousand of our own people slaughtered on our own soil. It was an event that saddened and terrified people across this country...but also unified them in a way that they hadn't been since maybe the Second World War.
Sadly, that unity was short lived. We've been a pretty divided nation since soon after those attacks and the partisan politics that have taken over Washington over the past few years have made things downright ugly. But last night, with the news of Osama Bin Laden's death, Americans were once again united. They converged on the streets of lower Manhattan near Ground Zero and outside the White House. There was singing and dancing and flag waving. A sense of victory, but remembrance too.
We haven't seen this sort of patriotism and sense of justice in a very long time. The United States hasn't had much success in the wars we've gotten involved in since World War Two. That was the last one we won outright.
It's been pointed in that both Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler were declared dead on the same day, May 1, more than 65 years apart...bin Laden yesterday courtesy of U.S. special forces. Hitler turned a gun on himself when he realized his dreams of world domination for Germany were a lost cause.
Here’s my question to you: Historically, what does the killing of Osama bin Laden compare to?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments