Yet another issue that I have with Democrats over this whole immigration issue is - you guessed it - their hypocrisy. On the one hand, they like to complain about how American jobs are being "outsourced" to other countries. They also like to complain about trade deals that may hurt prices for American goods. But their stance on immigration would effectively do the same thing.
What good is it if we keep jobs in America, only to import low-skill, low wage-earning workers to do them? All of these jobs that illegals are doing are supposedly jobs that Americans won't do, but what it really is is that they are jobs that Americans won't do for the wages that employers can pay illegals. Who is to say that the jobs that get outsourced are not jobs that Americans won't do? So instead of having some person in India, who at least has a fairly good grasp of the English language, performing the job for lower wages than we could manage here in the U.S., we have some illegal worker who has less than a working understanding of the English language doing the job here in the U.S. for lower wages. That's definitely improvement. What's that you say? At least the money stays here? Not really. The Mexican government counts on the huge influx of American dollars that it receives from illegals working in the U.S. Also, when the jobs are done in another country, like, say, India, we get a net gain, because we get cheaper products. Studies have shown that low-skilled immigrants in the U.S. actually cost $20,000 a year more than they contribute. Add to that the higher teenage birthrates, the higher dropout rates, and the higher single parent households, and you make the situation worse.
Additionally, allowing illegals permanent status here in the U.S. will hurt Americans in more ways than just in government handouts. Injecting a large number of low-skilled illegals will drive down the wages for low-skilled Americans - you know, the poor that Democrats seem to care so much for. These illegals coming over will do these jobs for less, so why would employers pay higher wages for American citizens? Of course, once you legalize them, you will have to pay them the actual minimum wage, which was just raised. This will cause employers to have to not hire as many (or go back to hiring all of the new illegals that will have entered the country after January), and then we will just be adding more onto the welfare rolls.
So why do Democrats support this? They want these people to become citizens, because low-skilled, low wage-earning people tend to vote Democrat. They are the party for those with their hands out. Also, they envision that once these people are assimilated, they will have to join unions, which again is a winning situation for them. So for this reason they are selling out the poor that are already here and are citizens.
By the way, I doubt this will be played up at all in the media, but it would be a good question for them in the next Democrat debate: does anybody realize that when Clinton and Obama voted against the military funding bill, they also voted against a minimum wage increase? You can say that it was on principle, but remember that it was their own party that attached the minimum wage increase to the military funding bill. They forced people to vote for funding the troops or voting against the higher minimum wage. Why would they lump them together, when every indication was that they would have easily passed the minimum wage increase all by itself?
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Another Leftist Hero
So how much longer do we have to hear what a great guy Hugo Chavez is from the whacko leftists in this country? Don't forget he is Cindy Sheehan's favorite despot. And we know that he is an honest champion of the voice of the people, since we have Jimmy Carter's word that his elections are fair and accurate. Who can forget what incredible aid he is giving to the poor with his handing out of oil to them. And then we can also remember what good buddies he is with the Hollywood types, like Danny Glover.
But just as with the illusions that leftists have about the socialist paradise of Cuba (think of Michael Moore's latest "documentary" which would have us model our health care system on Fidel's), the people who actually live in the country under the dictatorial rule of such crazies don't quite see things the same way. In addition to taking actions that will probably tank the economy (because that is what has happened in practically every other country where a power hungry "man of the people" has seized the private industries), he has now effectively silenced free speech and the freedom of the press. Just as leftists blindly supported Stalin back in the day, once again they have picked a winner.
Of course, Democrats are already trying to do something similar with their attempts to impose the "Fairness Doctrine" which would impose regulations on free speech over the radio. Basically, Democrats and leftists can't put someone on the radio that anybody wants to listen to (don't worry, because I think Air America is still at least playing in Vermont), they want to impose a Fairness doctrine that would require "equal time" for both sides of the spectrum. And since nobody wants to listen to liberals on the radio, they would have to cut back on conservative programming, which actually brings in revenue, as opposed to draining it. We can't help it if all of the liberal radio hosts get into trouble by hurling racial slurs at undeserving women's sports teams.
So just remember, when you go to vote for someone that kowtows to the will of such people as Cindy Sheehan, remember what, in her mind, is the ideal ruler.
But just as with the illusions that leftists have about the socialist paradise of Cuba (think of Michael Moore's latest "documentary" which would have us model our health care system on Fidel's), the people who actually live in the country under the dictatorial rule of such crazies don't quite see things the same way. In addition to taking actions that will probably tank the economy (because that is what has happened in practically every other country where a power hungry "man of the people" has seized the private industries), he has now effectively silenced free speech and the freedom of the press. Just as leftists blindly supported Stalin back in the day, once again they have picked a winner.
Of course, Democrats are already trying to do something similar with their attempts to impose the "Fairness Doctrine" which would impose regulations on free speech over the radio. Basically, Democrats and leftists can't put someone on the radio that anybody wants to listen to (don't worry, because I think Air America is still at least playing in Vermont), they want to impose a Fairness doctrine that would require "equal time" for both sides of the spectrum. And since nobody wants to listen to liberals on the radio, they would have to cut back on conservative programming, which actually brings in revenue, as opposed to draining it. We can't help it if all of the liberal radio hosts get into trouble by hurling racial slurs at undeserving women's sports teams.
So just remember, when you go to vote for someone that kowtows to the will of such people as Cindy Sheehan, remember what, in her mind, is the ideal ruler.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Darfur
So why is it that we should go into Darfur when we are told that going into Iraq was a mistake? Democrats will never explain this inconsistency.
Let's look at the undisputable facts regarding Iraq. We will completely leave WMD (or at least their presence at the time of invasion) out of this discussion. Saddam was in violation of the peace treaty that he signed to end the earlier Gulf War following his invasion of Kuwait. Not only was he not participating with the weapons inspectors, and had even kicked them out on several occasions, but he was firing on planes, in violation of that treaty. He had previously used biological weapons against the Kurds in the north. He was enacting a genocidal policy against the ethnic minority marsh Arabs. He was in violation of the Oil-for-Food program. He slaughtered thousands of Iraqis, the full measure of which we may never know as we continue to uncover mass graves. And he was subsidizing Palestinian suicide bombers in their attacks against Israel, paying the families of these nutjobs thousands of dollars for the homicidal actions of their offspring. And finally, terrorist groups were operating within Iraq and setting up training camps, if not with the full cooperation of the Iraqi government then at least with their tacit approval. Nothing could operate in that country without Saddam's permission, and you expect us to believe that these groups operated completely in the dark?
Now, lets look at Darfur. We have Janjaweed militias, almost certainly working with the backing of the government, killing ethnic minorities. So how does this merit military action when Iraq, a much larger threat to the region and the world, was involved in so much more?
For that matter, why Somalia, why Bosnia, but not Iraq? Apparently Dems don't believe in taking military action when there is even a hint of benefit to the United States. They are only interested in regional conflicts that do not impact our national interests in the least.
Let's look at the undisputable facts regarding Iraq. We will completely leave WMD (or at least their presence at the time of invasion) out of this discussion. Saddam was in violation of the peace treaty that he signed to end the earlier Gulf War following his invasion of Kuwait. Not only was he not participating with the weapons inspectors, and had even kicked them out on several occasions, but he was firing on planes, in violation of that treaty. He had previously used biological weapons against the Kurds in the north. He was enacting a genocidal policy against the ethnic minority marsh Arabs. He was in violation of the Oil-for-Food program. He slaughtered thousands of Iraqis, the full measure of which we may never know as we continue to uncover mass graves. And he was subsidizing Palestinian suicide bombers in their attacks against Israel, paying the families of these nutjobs thousands of dollars for the homicidal actions of their offspring. And finally, terrorist groups were operating within Iraq and setting up training camps, if not with the full cooperation of the Iraqi government then at least with their tacit approval. Nothing could operate in that country without Saddam's permission, and you expect us to believe that these groups operated completely in the dark?
Now, lets look at Darfur. We have Janjaweed militias, almost certainly working with the backing of the government, killing ethnic minorities. So how does this merit military action when Iraq, a much larger threat to the region and the world, was involved in so much more?
For that matter, why Somalia, why Bosnia, but not Iraq? Apparently Dems don't believe in taking military action when there is even a hint of benefit to the United States. They are only interested in regional conflicts that do not impact our national interests in the least.
Monday, May 21, 2007
The Carbon Secret They Aren't Talking About
The conspiracy to block any efforts to curb global warming is even more sinister than any of us can imagine. Beyond the obvious efforts of "Big Cattle" to divert our attention away from the catastrophic effects of bovine flatulism, there is something even more widespread.
The problem I speak of is human respiration. Did you know that everyday, people all over this planet are breathing and expelling the horrible greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide? But the Bush administration doesn't want you to know this. Even the scientific community is selling you out by not even addressing this issue. This is even more widespread than the evil automobile. Even primitive tribes in the deepest recesses of the Amazonian rainforest, where no SUV has yet set its sea level-raising tires, are contributing to this problem. Clearly this is being driven by "Big Timber," who think only of themselves and the short term benefits of the carbon dioxide that they require for their own respiration. When will the trees of this world start to develop alternative fuel sources?
Have no fear, though. I have a solution. We need to start cracking down on excessive oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide exhalation by humans. First of all, we need to impose exercise caps on healthy people, and maybe charge them for the extra carbon dioxide they exhale with their increased respiration during their exercise. Next, we need to start imposing population control measures to limit the number of new humans we bring into this world to breath more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We can also fund geneticists to work on developing more oxygen-efficient human lungs, and put requirements on people to lower their carbon dioxide exhalation levels to pre-1990 levels. Certain measures can be enacted to address this. We can require that people exhale into special carbon dioxide receptacles. For those with lower incomes, for whom this might be too expensive, we can require them to hold their breath more often, thus cutting back on their carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon offsets can be offered to those who want to exercise, or for fatter people who breath more. If we work together, we can help reduce our own personal carbon footprints.
The problem I speak of is human respiration. Did you know that everyday, people all over this planet are breathing and expelling the horrible greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide? But the Bush administration doesn't want you to know this. Even the scientific community is selling you out by not even addressing this issue. This is even more widespread than the evil automobile. Even primitive tribes in the deepest recesses of the Amazonian rainforest, where no SUV has yet set its sea level-raising tires, are contributing to this problem. Clearly this is being driven by "Big Timber," who think only of themselves and the short term benefits of the carbon dioxide that they require for their own respiration. When will the trees of this world start to develop alternative fuel sources?
Have no fear, though. I have a solution. We need to start cracking down on excessive oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide exhalation by humans. First of all, we need to impose exercise caps on healthy people, and maybe charge them for the extra carbon dioxide they exhale with their increased respiration during their exercise. Next, we need to start imposing population control measures to limit the number of new humans we bring into this world to breath more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We can also fund geneticists to work on developing more oxygen-efficient human lungs, and put requirements on people to lower their carbon dioxide exhalation levels to pre-1990 levels. Certain measures can be enacted to address this. We can require that people exhale into special carbon dioxide receptacles. For those with lower incomes, for whom this might be too expensive, we can require them to hold their breath more often, thus cutting back on their carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon offsets can be offered to those who want to exercise, or for fatter people who breath more. If we work together, we can help reduce our own personal carbon footprints.
Is He Serious?
Our greatest national embarassment, Jimmy Carter, has taken to now calling President Bush's administration the "worst in history." He has tried to backtrack, claiming that what he meant to say was that it was worse than President Nixon's. Originally, he also claimed that it had been worse then that of George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon. Notice that he didn't include his administration, or that of Bill Clinton, in this assessment. He didn't want his lie to be too blatant.
Of course, if there were anyone who could possibly speak authoritatively concerning the worst administrations in our nation's history, Jimmy Carter would be that man. Whether you want to talk about allowing Iran plunge into a nightmarish theocratic hell that now threatens the world with its nuclear program, or coining the term stagflation, and then giving it a whole new meaning, you have to hand it to this man. And don't think his atrocious policies were limited to his single term in the White House. Who can forget the wonderful deal he helped broker with the North Koreans to give them nuclear reactors and food in exchange for them promising (cross their heart, and hope to die) to not develop nuclear weapons. Too bad he forgot to check whether they were crossing their fingers behind their backs before blindly accepting the word of a despotic dictatorial regime.
Let's face it, nobody can think of a good thing to say about the Carter administration. Democrats remember fondly the "good old days" of Clinton. They practically achieve nirvana when thinking of the Roosevelt and Kennedy administrations. They even will tout the Civil Rights legislation of the Johnson administration. When was the last time you heard anybody praise anything that came out of Carter's administration? And this man sees fit to criticize others?
Of course, if there were anyone who could possibly speak authoritatively concerning the worst administrations in our nation's history, Jimmy Carter would be that man. Whether you want to talk about allowing Iran plunge into a nightmarish theocratic hell that now threatens the world with its nuclear program, or coining the term stagflation, and then giving it a whole new meaning, you have to hand it to this man. And don't think his atrocious policies were limited to his single term in the White House. Who can forget the wonderful deal he helped broker with the North Koreans to give them nuclear reactors and food in exchange for them promising (cross their heart, and hope to die) to not develop nuclear weapons. Too bad he forgot to check whether they were crossing their fingers behind their backs before blindly accepting the word of a despotic dictatorial regime.
Let's face it, nobody can think of a good thing to say about the Carter administration. Democrats remember fondly the "good old days" of Clinton. They practically achieve nirvana when thinking of the Roosevelt and Kennedy administrations. They even will tout the Civil Rights legislation of the Johnson administration. When was the last time you heard anybody praise anything that came out of Carter's administration? And this man sees fit to criticize others?
Amnesty by any other name . . .
This piece of immigration legislation is the biggest sellout of the Republican base since George H. W. Bush went back on his no new taxes pledge. The political doublespeak is seriously nauseating regarding it. I'm afraid I simply can't stomach the B.S. anymore about how this isn't amnesty. They toss in a $5000 fine and expect us to believe that this is "getting tough." I'm sorry, but when I call it amnesty, I call it that because these people entered the country illegally, and instead of enforcing the law, which would require immediate deportation back to their home country, they get a Z-visa and have to pay a small penalty (I won't be holding my breath on the government enforcing that $5000 fine) and they get a break by not having to pay back taxes. So yes, Bush, McCain, and even you, Tony Snow, I call that amnesty.
If this legislation passes, I think it will effectively lock Republicans out of power for several election cycles, until this old, beltway crowd of Republicans has cycled out. They will have put the final nail in the coffin of the Republican Revolution of '94. I think Jeb Bush can also bury any nascent dreams he has for a run for the White House. The Bushes have shown that, while they will be strong on national defense, they cannot be reliably counted on for conservative values.
I will also say, here and now, that I have now solidified my resolve against McCain or Giuliani for the nomination, given the first's complicity in this legislation, and the second's seeming approval of it, as well as his history of supporting illegal immigration. I've had it with "compassionate" conservatism. I'm ready for the good old days when conservative meant something other than Democrat Light. Because, honestly, with Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?
If this legislation passes, I think it will effectively lock Republicans out of power for several election cycles, until this old, beltway crowd of Republicans has cycled out. They will have put the final nail in the coffin of the Republican Revolution of '94. I think Jeb Bush can also bury any nascent dreams he has for a run for the White House. The Bushes have shown that, while they will be strong on national defense, they cannot be reliably counted on for conservative values.
I will also say, here and now, that I have now solidified my resolve against McCain or Giuliani for the nomination, given the first's complicity in this legislation, and the second's seeming approval of it, as well as his history of supporting illegal immigration. I've had it with "compassionate" conservatism. I'm ready for the good old days when conservative meant something other than Democrat Light. Because, honestly, with Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?
Friday, May 18, 2007
Welcome
This blog has been set up as a complimentary blog to the more private Fred and Fuller's corner, but with my having greater control and allowing more people access. This is a political blog, and reflects my views which are primarily conservative Christian. While my voting record is solidly Republican, I often have objections the the actions of my party, and will express them here from time to time.
My background is Republican for as long as I can remember, with all of my family also of a similar political persuasion. My politics are also influenced by my faith, which is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon).
My background is Republican for as long as I can remember, with all of my family also of a similar political persuasion. My politics are also influenced by my faith, which is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon).
As if I didn't already have plenty of reason to reject McCain as the Republican presidential nominee for 2008, he handed me a big fat one yesterday on a silver platter with a heaping side of Ted Kennedy. Yes, he is a steadfast proponent of the war in Iraq, but I've got that with Joe Lieberman, and he at least has the common decency to call himself a Democrat (actually, now he is an Independent since his party chased him off, but he at least doesn't hide who he is). Maybe McCain will get Arlen Specter's vote, but I would be ashamed of a party that votes this man to speak for them and run for president. I would also have to hang my head in shame around any other RINOs who attach their name to this bill (I'm thinking of you, Senator Kyl, and yes, even you Mr. President). As if we weren't tipping the scales in their favor already for 2008, why do we even bother? Why not just concede the race now? Do we really think we will win anything by granting amnesty to illegal aliens?
Lets face it, a win for this immigration bill, regardless of how many Republicans took part in its crafting, is only going to aid Democrats. The biggest supporters of this will always be Democrats, and you are not going to drum up huge support for Republican candidates this way. Despite all their wishful thinking, there will not be some huge shift to vote Republican because George Bush granted illegals amnesty. What it will do is drive down conservative morale. Why go and vote for any of these Republicans when all we will get is liberal measures passed? Yes, there will always be a solid base of Republicans that will overlook anything else in order to win this war in Iraq, but there are enough moderates in the party that don't feel that passionately about Iraq, and if the Republicans can't even find a moral backbone to support it beyond September, they aren't going to be ginned up come 2008 to vote for someone like Giuliani who only agrees with them on Iraq.
Don't even start with this B.S. that the bill will also include ways of enforcing immigration law. Like the way that we are working on that fence you promised us? That's going great. At this rate, the planet will have melted away from global warming before the fence even reaches Arizona. And by the way McCain, illegal immigration had everything to do with the failed attempt to attack Fort Dix. Some of those arrested had entered the country illegally, and it looks like they did so crossing the border in Texas.
Lets face it, a win for this immigration bill, regardless of how many Republicans took part in its crafting, is only going to aid Democrats. The biggest supporters of this will always be Democrats, and you are not going to drum up huge support for Republican candidates this way. Despite all their wishful thinking, there will not be some huge shift to vote Republican because George Bush granted illegals amnesty. What it will do is drive down conservative morale. Why go and vote for any of these Republicans when all we will get is liberal measures passed? Yes, there will always be a solid base of Republicans that will overlook anything else in order to win this war in Iraq, but there are enough moderates in the party that don't feel that passionately about Iraq, and if the Republicans can't even find a moral backbone to support it beyond September, they aren't going to be ginned up come 2008 to vote for someone like Giuliani who only agrees with them on Iraq.
Don't even start with this B.S. that the bill will also include ways of enforcing immigration law. Like the way that we are working on that fence you promised us? That's going great. At this rate, the planet will have melted away from global warming before the fence even reaches Arizona. And by the way McCain, illegal immigration had everything to do with the failed attempt to attack Fort Dix. Some of those arrested had entered the country illegally, and it looks like they did so crossing the border in Texas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
