Friday, March 31, 2006
Rusty Humphries - US Marine Denied Citizenship
I almost swerved off the road last night when I heard this. On the Rusty Humphries Show last night, a caller named George said the following, 'I am a legal resident in the US since the age of five, a HS Graduate and have been active duty in the Marines for seven years with two tours in Iraq. I have been denied US Citizenship three times by the INS.'
What the hell is wrong with this country? George said he even went through his local Congressman to appeal. The irony here is that his Congressional Rep gave him the news of his latest denial. One of his denials for citizenship he received while in Iraq!
If you happened to catch this broadcast, the fill-in host for Rusty said that George did not sound bitter in the face of probably the most heinous and despicable act the INS visited upon someone so worthy of being granted citizenship. This Marine should be at the top of the list. And I thought that volunteering for military duty was a guarantee of citizenship.
George told the show's host that the INS dolt who told him over the phone that his application forms were not filled out properly and she was 'following the letter of the law.' Well the law and the INS are asses!
I hope Rusty's show puts out more information about this. I will continue to dig. If I find something, I will post. If any of you find something please pass this along. This is a cause that we should elevate to the level of Jack Idema, etc. This proud American, and we can call him this since he was born to naturalized legal Mexican parents, needs to be given citizenship immediately. And if we can get the word out to other news-types like FOX, National Review, etc., we might just be able to pull the curtain back and expose the idiocy of the INS bureaucratic leviathan and all the ninnies who shroud themselves in unaccountable and unimaginative insignificance.
|
What the hell is wrong with this country? George said he even went through his local Congressman to appeal. The irony here is that his Congressional Rep gave him the news of his latest denial. One of his denials for citizenship he received while in Iraq!
If you happened to catch this broadcast, the fill-in host for Rusty said that George did not sound bitter in the face of probably the most heinous and despicable act the INS visited upon someone so worthy of being granted citizenship. This Marine should be at the top of the list. And I thought that volunteering for military duty was a guarantee of citizenship.
George told the show's host that the INS dolt who told him over the phone that his application forms were not filled out properly and she was 'following the letter of the law.' Well the law and the INS are asses!
I hope Rusty's show puts out more information about this. I will continue to dig. If I find something, I will post. If any of you find something please pass this along. This is a cause that we should elevate to the level of Jack Idema, etc. This proud American, and we can call him this since he was born to naturalized legal Mexican parents, needs to be given citizenship immediately. And if we can get the word out to other news-types like FOX, National Review, etc., we might just be able to pull the curtain back and expose the idiocy of the INS bureaucratic leviathan and all the ninnies who shroud themselves in unaccountable and unimaginative insignificance.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Hire Illegals To Help Build A Fence!
Why don’t we get illegal workers to help build a wall on the very borders they violate?
Really. This idea is so stupid, it’s indecently brilliant. And it's certainly better than anything Congress has come-up with.
And the left would love it! This could be bigger than anything FDR did with the CCC and the TVA. How can the left argue with this?
Here’s how it can work:
The Upside:
Northern Upside:
|
Really. This idea is so stupid, it’s indecently brilliant. And it's certainly better than anything Congress has come-up with.
And the left would love it! This could be bigger than anything FDR did with the CCC and the TVA. How can the left argue with this?
Here’s how it can work:
- Hire any and all illegals to help build the fence/wall
- A five year competitive bid contract to a minority firm
- Five year enlistment/hire contracts
- Grant instant citizenship to anyone who helps build the wall and stays on the contract for the full five years
- Grant temporary work visas for the families of workers when wall is completed
The Upside:
- Surge in fence building materials (wood, cement, iron)
- Surge in support materials (wires, comm. Equipment)
- Surge in electrical needs/power generation for all areas of border (nuclear)
- Surge in Federal Employment – big fence/more guards
- Document and count illegals as you go - the more we hire, the more we count
- Condition of residency in US is you have to help build the wall
Northern Upside:
- Do the exact same thing to our border with Canada
The Downside: There is no downside! And as you build, you can stop more illegals coming in!
- Everyone wins
- Everyone works
- We get our wall
- Illegals get citizenship
The possibilities of this idea are endless. As Gomez Adams would say, ‘A Capital Idea!’
Investor's Business Daily - Cartoon Of The Day!
|
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
POLL: MOST AMERICANS LOVE COULTER COLUMNS!
I hate polls. I have only participated in one political poll and I had to place the call myself. And aren't you all tired of polls? Even the ones I agree with, I wish no polls existed. This is not the Clinton Administration, yet the MSM acts like every American rises each day, points his or her poll finger into the air and decides today I hate Bush - yesterday I hated SS Reform - tomorrow I will hate Karl Rove.
Look at this link to Ann Coulter's latest take on polls. Riveting!
|
Look at this link to Ann Coulter's latest take on polls. Riveting!
Hillary Clinton: I'm No Marie Antoinette - Oh Really?
NewsMax
2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said Monday that people who compare her to Marie Antoinette - the famous French royal who was beheaded, according to folklore, after telling her subjects, "Let them eat cake" - have got it all wrong. Oh really?
This would be funny if it was not so bloody sad. Are you kidding me? I know I'm going to mix metaphors and smilies here, but for God's sake, HRC is a metaphoric Marie Antoinette. Let's just skim down the list of cake eating items while HRC reigned along with her husband. This is just a sample list that came from the liberal Progressive Review and here:
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates.
▪ Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation.
▪ Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify.
▪ Most number of witnesses to die suddenly.
▪ First president sued for sexual harassment.
▪ First president accused of rape.
▪ First president to be held in contempt of court.
▪ First president to be impeached for personal malfeasance.
▪ First first lady to come under criminal investigation.
▪ Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign-contribution case.
▪ Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions.
▪ Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date: one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners: 14.
▪ Number of Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5.
▪ Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine that were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47.
▪ Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33.
▪ Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61.
▪ Number of congressional witnesses who pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122.
▪ Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15; acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6.
▪ Clinton machine crimes for which convictions were obtained: drug trafficking, 3; racketeering, extortion, bribery, 4; tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement, 2; fraud, 12; conspiracy, 5; fraudulent loans, illegal gifts, 1; illegal campaign contributions, 5; money laundering, 6; perjury, et al.
▪ Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar: Bill Kennedy, 116; Harold Ickes, 148; Ricki Seidman, 160; Bruce Lindsey, 161; Bill Burton, 191; Mark Gearan, 221; Mack McLarty, 233; Neil Egglseston, 250; John Podesta, 264; Jennifer O'Connor, 343; Dwight Holton 348; Patsy Thomasson, 420; Jeff Eller, 697; and Hillary Clinton, 250.
- Filegate
- Travelgate
- Stealgate (leaving the White House with all the trimmings)
- Obstruction of Justice Gate(s)
And of course, according to HRC, she had no knowledge of or participated in any of what these lists expose.
W and his crew ain't no saints (they collectively probably play better than my beloved New Orleans Saints - I know, off topic but I'm always thinking about football season), but looking at these lists, it would take W another ten terms to get to the level of depravity visited upon this nation in the two terms by President Busy Pants and her husband.
Off With her Head!
|
2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said Monday that people who compare her to Marie Antoinette - the famous French royal who was beheaded, according to folklore, after telling her subjects, "Let them eat cake" - have got it all wrong. Oh really?
This would be funny if it was not so bloody sad. Are you kidding me? I know I'm going to mix metaphors and smilies here, but for God's sake, HRC is a metaphoric Marie Antoinette. Let's just skim down the list of cake eating items while HRC reigned along with her husband. This is just a sample list that came from the liberal Progressive Review and here:
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates.
▪ Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation.
▪ Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify.
▪ Most number of witnesses to die suddenly.
▪ First president sued for sexual harassment.
▪ First president accused of rape.
▪ First president to be held in contempt of court.
▪ First president to be impeached for personal malfeasance.
▪ First first lady to come under criminal investigation.
▪ Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign-contribution case.
▪ Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions.
▪ Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date: one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners: 14.
▪ Number of Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5.
▪ Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine that were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47.
▪ Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33.
▪ Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61.
▪ Number of congressional witnesses who pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122.
▪ Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15; acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6.
▪ Clinton machine crimes for which convictions were obtained: drug trafficking, 3; racketeering, extortion, bribery, 4; tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement, 2; fraud, 12; conspiracy, 5; fraudulent loans, illegal gifts, 1; illegal campaign contributions, 5; money laundering, 6; perjury, et al.
▪ Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar: Bill Kennedy, 116; Harold Ickes, 148; Ricki Seidman, 160; Bruce Lindsey, 161; Bill Burton, 191; Mark Gearan, 221; Mack McLarty, 233; Neil Egglseston, 250; John Podesta, 264; Jennifer O'Connor, 343; Dwight Holton 348; Patsy Thomasson, 420; Jeff Eller, 697; and Hillary Clinton, 250.
- Filegate
- Travelgate
- Stealgate (leaving the White House with all the trimmings)
- Obstruction of Justice Gate(s)
And of course, according to HRC, she had no knowledge of or participated in any of what these lists expose.
W and his crew ain't no saints (they collectively probably play better than my beloved New Orleans Saints - I know, off topic but I'm always thinking about football season), but looking at these lists, it would take W another ten terms to get to the level of depravity visited upon this nation in the two terms by President Busy Pants and her husband.
Off With her Head!
List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party
Wikipedia
You might be surprised at the list of celebrities with links to the Republican Party. I was. I knew most of the folks on this list. But there are some that really opened my eyes:
Ernie 'The Big Cat' Ladd - the most feared wrestler ever!
Adam Baldwin (the unemployed one)
Ted 'The Million Dollar Man' DiBiase - one of my favorite wreslters!
Jim Caviezel (I was stunned with this one!)
Shannon Doherty (probably a condition of rehab!)
Kelsey Grammer (probably a condition of rehab!)
Shirley Jones - Mrs Partidge
Don Mattingly and Alex Rodriquez (I still hate baseball!)
Tony Sirico (The Sopranos)
Lynn Swan (He won't ever get a prime broadcasting seat since he's a friend of the right)
Jerome Bettis
Meat Loaf (probably made a promise to never sing 'Anything For Love' ever again to join the GOP)
John Ryes Davis (Indiana Jone's buddy - and 'Macro' to all you 'I Claudius' PBS fans)
Grace Slick (does she even remember the 70s?)
The Ultimate Warrior (I thought he died of steroids?)
Andy 'Ocean's 11 and 12' Garcia (I still think he was the best actor in 'The Untouchables' besides Sean Connery)
Kim Alexis (who says models are dumb?)
Chaka Khan - I 'Feel For You' baby!
To be fair and balanced, here is the legion of doom on the other side
|
You might be surprised at the list of celebrities with links to the Republican Party. I was. I knew most of the folks on this list. But there are some that really opened my eyes:
Ernie 'The Big Cat' Ladd - the most feared wrestler ever!
Adam Baldwin (the unemployed one)
Ted 'The Million Dollar Man' DiBiase - one of my favorite wreslters!
Jim Caviezel (I was stunned with this one!)
Shannon Doherty (probably a condition of rehab!)
Kelsey Grammer (probably a condition of rehab!)
Shirley Jones - Mrs Partidge
Don Mattingly and Alex Rodriquez (I still hate baseball!)
Tony Sirico (The Sopranos)
Lynn Swan (He won't ever get a prime broadcasting seat since he's a friend of the right)
Jerome Bettis
Meat Loaf (probably made a promise to never sing 'Anything For Love' ever again to join the GOP)
John Ryes Davis (Indiana Jone's buddy - and 'Macro' to all you 'I Claudius' PBS fans)
Grace Slick (does she even remember the 70s?)
The Ultimate Warrior (I thought he died of steroids?)
Andy 'Ocean's 11 and 12' Garcia (I still think he was the best actor in 'The Untouchables' besides Sean Connery)
Kim Alexis (who says models are dumb?)
Chaka Khan - I 'Feel For You' baby!
To be fair and balanced, here is the legion of doom on the other side
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Want A Job? Speak Our Language
The Financial Times reports (and NRO) that the six largest nations in the European Union are discussing requiring immigrants to sign a contract that would bind them to learning the language of their adopted country and embracing its social customs — or risk expulsion. One wonders how well-equipped European educators, steeped in multiculturalism and often anti-Western, are to help immigrants assimilate.
Congress should tack this onto the current immigration bill - talk about riots in the streets!
|
Congress should tack this onto the current immigration bill - talk about riots in the streets!
Guard The Border Blogburst 3/27
This past week there were numerous demonstrations across the country, as immigrants were organized to protest any federal legislation that would tighten immigration enforcement. The rallies were organized by unions, church groups, socialist activists, civil rights advocates, and immigrant organizations to demand free immigration rights as their due and protest the "unjust laws" of our nation. Los Angeles had the nation's largest mobilization of immigrants ever, which the LA Times described as "boisterous" and "spirited" and "mostly peaceful": "The marchers included both longtime residents and the newly arrived, bound by a desire for a better life and a love for this county." ("Newly arrived" being a politically-correct euphemism for "illegal".) The estimated crowd of 500,000 proudly carried tens of thousands of Mexican flags, which belied the blissful claim that they are "bound by a love for this country". Read the rest of the post here.
|
Monday, March 27, 2006
NCAA 2006 Men's Basketball Final Four - Apologies To Three Teams, Please
And The World Turned Upside Down – this is allegedly the song the Brits played when they gave up Yorktown and lost the Colonies to Loopy King Georgie. In fact, the Brits were so upset about the defeat of its gentleman army to farmers, Lord Cornholio Wallis could not face the surrender and sent his subordinate to relinquish his sword.
And so to must CBS play the same song - really loud! The World Has Turned Upside Down, Mr William Packer, CBS, CNN, ESPN, and all other Big East and ACC (Almost Completely Competitive Conference) media concerns. For the first time since 1981, there is not a #1 seed in the Final Four. And to the selfish delight of myself, there is no ACC or Big East team. Thank God.
For those that read this blog, you know of my disdain for anything trendy in the hero worship dept. like recently when all the darlings of the media for the Olympics were sent packing – Kwan, Apollo, that downhill fella, etc.
So the sound of silence is deafening from all the blathering band-wagon, Dukie, and BC ninnies…
Long Live The Underdogs. Geaux Tigers, Go Gators, Go Patriots!
And the World Turned Upside Down!
The Other Side Of The Story
There is some good news, no lots of good news coming out of Iraq. Funny...I had to go here to find it!
|
The Best Plane Ride I've Ever Had
Have you ever sat in an airplane seat that did not secure itself in its full and locked, upright position? I had such a seat this past week. As I sat down, my seat went backwards immediately. Now this pissed off the people behind me who, to my utter delight, were Frenchies going to Orlando. About three seconds after I sat down, I was greeted with a push right in the back of my seat. Now this was a hard push, not a little 'I'm annoyed push.' This was a monster shove. So, I jumped up immediately and said, ‘Whoa, whoa…what’s the problem fella?
Frog 1: Mister...Mister…Excuse me, Mister. You cannot have your seat this far back, we are not up in the air.
Me: I think this seat is broken, and probably is broken now since you pushed it so hard.
Frog 1: You need to find another seat, Mister; the man’s legs will be hit by the seat.
Me: I don’t think that is going to be possible, it’s a pretty full flight. Look...the seat does not touch his legs.
Frog 1: You cannot sit in the seat; you have to have your seat locked.
Me: I can call the flight attendant, but this is not in my control. I won't lean back at all. How's that?
Frog 1: You need to move your seat, now. This is against the law, Mister.
Frog 2: Yes, Mister, this is hurting my legs, you need to move now.
Me: It’s not touching his legs. The seat locks halfway back. Let's make a deal...I won't lean back and then you won't have to kick the seat. Ok?
Frog 1: No, this is unsatisfactory, you need to move now. You are breaking the law.
Me: Folks, I'm really trying to work with you. This seat does not touch his legs and I promise I won't lean it back. This is really simple to solve.
Frog 1: You cannot have a seat like this. This is against the rules.
Me: Lady, in about two minutes when we are up in the air, this won't be an issue. I will have moved the seat all the way back as is my right as a passenger and then there is nothing that you can do about it. So what's the issue?
Frog 2: You need to move from this seat. This is against the law.
Me: This is not that difficult to solve, folks. I won't move the seat back...at all! Will that make you happy?
Frog 1: We cannot travel like this for three hours. This is ridiculous.
(Now everyone in a four row range was watching the drama unfold. I could have left this alone and thought this might just be a cultural thing…but decided…naw...they're French...let’s have some fun)
Me: Excuse me; but are any of you employees of this airline?
Frog 1: No
Me: Are any of you American Citizens?
Frog 1: No
Me: Are you a diplomat or in Foreign Service for your country?
Frog 1: No
Me: Are you an active duty member of a foreign military?
Frog 1: No
Me: I've really, really tired to be nice to you since you're guests in my country. But I would like to offer this suggestion: Shut the hell-up and leave me alone. You need to mind your manners when you’re not in your own country.
Frog 2: What did you say, Mister?
Frog 1: You can not talk to us like that!
Frog 3: Are all Americans as rude as you, Mister?
Me: Yeah. I’d say 99% of us are this rude when dealing with Euro-trash. One more thing, Frenchies…if it wasn’t for the United States, you would be speaking to me in German. Gutten Nacht, Cochon! (German / French – Good Night. Pigs)
I sat back down and said nothing. Mumbling incoherently and loudly, Frog 1 then called the nurse. When she/he arrived and surveyed the situation, it was determined that the seat was indeed damaged, but still functional since it locked half-way back from DEFCON 1 – all the way back, slicing into Frog’s 2 legs.
Frog 1 and 2, vehemently protested but there was nothing that could be done by the Flight Attendant. I did not have to exit the plane since this was the last flight out, nor did I have to find another seat since the flight was full. My new Frog friends just cussed the rest of the way to Florida. And of course, I made my seat go back as far as possible with every air-pocket...remember, the seat was broken. Or was it?
C'est la guerre!
|
Frog 1: Mister...Mister…Excuse me, Mister. You cannot have your seat this far back, we are not up in the air.
Me: I think this seat is broken, and probably is broken now since you pushed it so hard.
Frog 1: You need to find another seat, Mister; the man’s legs will be hit by the seat.
Me: I don’t think that is going to be possible, it’s a pretty full flight. Look...the seat does not touch his legs.
Frog 1: You cannot sit in the seat; you have to have your seat locked.
Me: I can call the flight attendant, but this is not in my control. I won't lean back at all. How's that?
Frog 1: You need to move your seat, now. This is against the law, Mister.
Frog 2: Yes, Mister, this is hurting my legs, you need to move now.
Me: It’s not touching his legs. The seat locks halfway back. Let's make a deal...I won't lean back and then you won't have to kick the seat. Ok?
Frog 1: No, this is unsatisfactory, you need to move now. You are breaking the law.
Me: Folks, I'm really trying to work with you. This seat does not touch his legs and I promise I won't lean it back. This is really simple to solve.
Frog 1: You cannot have a seat like this. This is against the rules.
Me: Lady, in about two minutes when we are up in the air, this won't be an issue. I will have moved the seat all the way back as is my right as a passenger and then there is nothing that you can do about it. So what's the issue?
Frog 2: You need to move from this seat. This is against the law.
Me: This is not that difficult to solve, folks. I won't move the seat back...at all! Will that make you happy?
Frog 1: We cannot travel like this for three hours. This is ridiculous.
(Now everyone in a four row range was watching the drama unfold. I could have left this alone and thought this might just be a cultural thing…but decided…naw...they're French...let’s have some fun)
Me: Excuse me; but are any of you employees of this airline?
Frog 1: No
Me: Are any of you American Citizens?
Frog 1: No
Me: Are you a diplomat or in Foreign Service for your country?
Frog 1: No
Me: Are you an active duty member of a foreign military?
Frog 1: No
Me: I've really, really tired to be nice to you since you're guests in my country. But I would like to offer this suggestion: Shut the hell-up and leave me alone. You need to mind your manners when you’re not in your own country.
Frog 2: What did you say, Mister?
Frog 1: You can not talk to us like that!
Frog 3: Are all Americans as rude as you, Mister?
Me: Yeah. I’d say 99% of us are this rude when dealing with Euro-trash. One more thing, Frenchies…if it wasn’t for the United States, you would be speaking to me in German. Gutten Nacht, Cochon! (German / French – Good Night. Pigs)
I sat back down and said nothing. Mumbling incoherently and loudly, Frog 1 then called the nurse. When she/he arrived and surveyed the situation, it was determined that the seat was indeed damaged, but still functional since it locked half-way back from DEFCON 1 – all the way back, slicing into Frog’s 2 legs.
Frog 1 and 2, vehemently protested but there was nothing that could be done by the Flight Attendant. I did not have to exit the plane since this was the last flight out, nor did I have to find another seat since the flight was full. My new Frog friends just cussed the rest of the way to Florida. And of course, I made my seat go back as far as possible with every air-pocket...remember, the seat was broken. Or was it?
C'est la guerre!
Friday, March 24, 2006
Time's Moan of the Year
CLASSIFICATION: None
Caveats: None
Time's Moan Of The Year
Posted 3/22/2006 - email submitted
War On Terror: A leading news magazine thinks Operation Swarmer, a joint U.S.-Iraqi offensive, "fizzled." But the soldiers on the ground think differently, and so does the mayor of Tal Afar.
Perhaps the "mainstream" media are so used to claiming Iraqis are unwilling to defend themselves that when Iraqis do step up, it's taken as some sort of staged event.
That's how Time magazine reacted to the launch of Operation Swarmer, a joint offensive around the city of Samarra, involving 50 helicopters and 1,500 American and Iraqi troops. Time dismissed it as "an operation that some (unnamed) military analysts described as little more than a photo-op."
This "photo-op" — or, as CNN called it, attack "on" Iraq rather than an attack "in" Iraq — was in fact a stunning success. It resulted in the seizure of numerous weapons caches, including hundreds of mortar rounds, rocket-propelled grenades, armor-piercing ammunition and bomb-making materiel for hundred of roadside IEDs (improvised explosive devices).
Particularly ironic in Time's critique was the lament that there were "no casualties" and "no resistance." But isn't that the goal of every military operation and a sign of success rather than futility? And since when do media that remind us daily of the casualty count complain when there is none?
The most important feature of the offensive was its combination of U.S. assets with Iraqi infantry and commandos — a fact not lost on the Iraqi people even if its importance eluded the editors of Time.
As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently wrote in The Washington Post, some 100 Iraqi battalions are in the fight, with 49 controlling their own battle space. About 75% of all military operations in the country include Iraqi security forces, and nearly half are "independently Iraqi-planned, Iraqi-conducted and Iraqi-led."
Speaking in Cleveland on Monday, the day after the third anniversary of the war, President Bush cited the city of Tal Afar as a site of coalition and particularly Iraqi success.
He noted that two months after coalition forces ousted terrorists from Tal Afar, a city 35 miles from the Syrian border that used to be a key location for al-Qaida, the terrorists returned and retook the city. Last summer, coalition forces — led by 10 Iraqi battalions — retook the city. It remains in coalition hands, free of terrorists who once brutalized the population.
Tal Afar is a largely untold success story, one that shows the greatest fear of the Iraqi people is not civil war but premature American withdrawal. In a recent interview with the New York Post, Tal Afar Mayor Najim Abdullah Abid al-Jibouri said: "I'd like American citizens not to trust everything that is being said in the media because, unfortunately, most of the media is talking about negative things and about the problems."
Most Americans have not read or even heard about the letters al-Jibouri wrote Bush and Gen. George Casey, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. When the forces of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi controlled the city, al-Jibouri wrote: "Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve their young."
This, of course, has not been widely reported by media obsessed with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Nor was al-Jibouri's thank-you to U.S. troops and their families: "God bless the families who dedicated these brave men and women. From the bottom of our hearts we thank the families. . . . Let America, their families and the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity and life."
We are, and you're very welcome.
|
Caveats: None
Time's Moan Of The Year
Posted 3/22/2006 - email submitted
War On Terror: A leading news magazine thinks Operation Swarmer, a joint U.S.-Iraqi offensive, "fizzled." But the soldiers on the ground think differently, and so does the mayor of Tal Afar.
Perhaps the "mainstream" media are so used to claiming Iraqis are unwilling to defend themselves that when Iraqis do step up, it's taken as some sort of staged event.
That's how Time magazine reacted to the launch of Operation Swarmer, a joint offensive around the city of Samarra, involving 50 helicopters and 1,500 American and Iraqi troops. Time dismissed it as "an operation that some (unnamed) military analysts described as little more than a photo-op."
This "photo-op" — or, as CNN called it, attack "on" Iraq rather than an attack "in" Iraq — was in fact a stunning success. It resulted in the seizure of numerous weapons caches, including hundreds of mortar rounds, rocket-propelled grenades, armor-piercing ammunition and bomb-making materiel for hundred of roadside IEDs (improvised explosive devices).
Particularly ironic in Time's critique was the lament that there were "no casualties" and "no resistance." But isn't that the goal of every military operation and a sign of success rather than futility? And since when do media that remind us daily of the casualty count complain when there is none?
The most important feature of the offensive was its combination of U.S. assets with Iraqi infantry and commandos — a fact not lost on the Iraqi people even if its importance eluded the editors of Time.
As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently wrote in The Washington Post, some 100 Iraqi battalions are in the fight, with 49 controlling their own battle space. About 75% of all military operations in the country include Iraqi security forces, and nearly half are "independently Iraqi-planned, Iraqi-conducted and Iraqi-led."
Speaking in Cleveland on Monday, the day after the third anniversary of the war, President Bush cited the city of Tal Afar as a site of coalition and particularly Iraqi success.
He noted that two months after coalition forces ousted terrorists from Tal Afar, a city 35 miles from the Syrian border that used to be a key location for al-Qaida, the terrorists returned and retook the city. Last summer, coalition forces — led by 10 Iraqi battalions — retook the city. It remains in coalition hands, free of terrorists who once brutalized the population.
Tal Afar is a largely untold success story, one that shows the greatest fear of the Iraqi people is not civil war but premature American withdrawal. In a recent interview with the New York Post, Tal Afar Mayor Najim Abdullah Abid al-Jibouri said: "I'd like American citizens not to trust everything that is being said in the media because, unfortunately, most of the media is talking about negative things and about the problems."
Most Americans have not read or even heard about the letters al-Jibouri wrote Bush and Gen. George Casey, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. When the forces of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi controlled the city, al-Jibouri wrote: "Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve their young."
This, of course, has not been widely reported by media obsessed with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Nor was al-Jibouri's thank-you to U.S. troops and their families: "God bless the families who dedicated these brave men and women. From the bottom of our hearts we thank the families. . . . Let America, their families and the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity and life."
We are, and you're very welcome.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Florida offers bonuses for better test scores
WMAL AM 630 Washington, DC reported this morning that FL will be the first state to allow its teachers to receive bonus pay for the performance of its student’s on state tests like the FCAT.
It’s about time a state like FL is taking this kind of step. But there was a piece in the St.Pete Pravda crying foul over the idea of merit pay. Some of the more amusing criticisms in the piece were as follows:
"We've worked hard to foster a feeling of trust among faculty and staff," said Carol Dinsdale, a teacher at Mount Vernon Elementary in St. Petersburg. "This concept of pay based on individual teachers' FCAT scores could pit educator against educator."
Wayne Blanton, executive director of the Florida School Boards Association, said his main concern is too few teachers would qualify for the bonus…
"Teachers are already working above and beyond their current salaries to ensure that all students succeed," said Lee, who teaches at Mount Vernon Elementary. "Suggesting that we would work harder if there were an additional pay-for-performance plan linked to student achievement implies we are currently undedicated professionals."
Jennifer Cancello, a language arts teacher at Seven Springs Middle School in Pasco County, echoed the sentiment. "Keep your bonus money," Cancello wrote in a letter to the St. Petersburg Times. "I work for my students, not the government."
Well, sweetheart, if you’re working for the students, then why is this an issue? If you are working for the students and we can assume that the scores of your students increase due to your dedication, then what’s wrong with a few extra dollars in your pay packet?
Incentive based pay is exactly what is needed to reform education in FL and weed out those who are not able to raise the scores of students
Sometimes the government does something right. Read.
|
It’s about time a state like FL is taking this kind of step. But there was a piece in the St.Pete Pravda crying foul over the idea of merit pay. Some of the more amusing criticisms in the piece were as follows:
"We've worked hard to foster a feeling of trust among faculty and staff," said Carol Dinsdale, a teacher at Mount Vernon Elementary in St. Petersburg. "This concept of pay based on individual teachers' FCAT scores could pit educator against educator."
Wayne Blanton, executive director of the Florida School Boards Association, said his main concern is too few teachers would qualify for the bonus…
"Teachers are already working above and beyond their current salaries to ensure that all students succeed," said Lee, who teaches at Mount Vernon Elementary. "Suggesting that we would work harder if there were an additional pay-for-performance plan linked to student achievement implies we are currently undedicated professionals."
Jennifer Cancello, a language arts teacher at Seven Springs Middle School in Pasco County, echoed the sentiment. "Keep your bonus money," Cancello wrote in a letter to the St. Petersburg Times. "I work for my students, not the government."
Well, sweetheart, if you’re working for the students, then why is this an issue? If you are working for the students and we can assume that the scores of your students increase due to your dedication, then what’s wrong with a few extra dollars in your pay packet?
Incentive based pay is exactly what is needed to reform education in FL and weed out those who are not able to raise the scores of students
Sometimes the government does something right. Read.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Rejected Movie Titles for Brokeback Mountain
- OKLAHOMO
- HIGH NOONER
- THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN INCHES
- JEREMIAH'S JOHNSON
- POLESMOKE
- BUTCH ASSIDY AND THE BUNDANCE KID
- THE MAN WHO SHOT ALL OVER LIBERTY VALANCE
- HOW THE WEST WAS HUNG
- THE LEGEND OF THE LONG RANGER
- DOC'S HOLIDAY WITH BILLY THE KID VERY
- RAW HIDE
- LONESOME DOUG
- A FISTFUL OF NED
- HI, PLAINS DRIFTER! (read that again!)
- QUICKLY DOWN UNDER
- BAREBACK MOUNTING
- BONE-NANZA
- DON'T MESS WITH TEX' ASS
- HOME ON THE RANGER
- ROOSTER'S COCKBURN
- PRANCES WITH WOLVES
- BALONEY PONY RODEO
- HOMO ON THE RANGE
- RIO BRAVA
- BELLES of SAN ANGELO
- MY PAL'S TRIGGER
- THE SUNBLOOMERS
- DANIEL BONED TAILBLAZER
- ANGELA AND THE BADMAN
- SPRINGTIME IN YOUR ROCKS
- SING COWBOY SING (this is the original title that 'fits' well for BBM)
- YOUNG BILL'S HICKOCK
- SAGEBRUSH TAILS
- COWGIRLS AND THE SENIORITAS
- SANTA FAINT TAIL
- PAINT MY WAGONS
- CAT B'LEW
- YUMA YUMA
- MY DARLING CLEMEN'S TIME
- DESTRY RODE ME AGAIN SEVEN MEN FOR NOW (same as SING COWBOY above)
- THE SHOOTISTS THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE ROUGHLY
- THE SHOOTISTS
- RIDE MY HIGH COUNTRY
- FORT ATTACK ME
- EASY THERE, RIDER!
- MUTINY ON MY BOOTY
- THE OUTLAW JOSIE WAILED
- SHAMED
- TREASURES OF THE SIERRA PADRES
- THE WILD BUNCHED
- YANKEE DOODLE'S DANDY
- WAR AND MY PIECE
- RAINED ON MAN
- NANOOKIE OF THE NORTH
- MELVIN AND HIS HOWARD
- THE LEANING TREE
- KRAMER ON KRAMER
- IT HAPPENED ALL NIGHT
- IN THE HEAT OF MY NIGHTIE
- GUESS WHO CAME AT DINNER?
- THE GRASPS OF WRATH
- GOING WITH THE WIND
- COMING HOMO
- BEN'S HER or BEN'S HIM
- AROUND HIS WORLD IN 80 WAYS
- THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN'S HOOD
- HE WORE HIS YELLOW RIBBON
- THEY CALL ME TRIXY & TRIXY IS STILL MY NAME (Double Feature)
- JISSUM
- JAKE'S BIG
- HANG ME HIGH
- BIG LITTLE MAN
- THE DAUGHTER'S OF KATIE ELDER
- THE HUNG LIKE A HORSE SOLDIERS
- RIO'S GRANDE
- TWO MINUTES OF SARAH'S SISTER
- QUIETLY, MAN
- A GOOD DAY AT BLACK ROCK
- LAST TRAIN FROM GAG HILL
- CATFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL
- GOING DOWN ON THE SOUTH
- BITE MY BULLET
- ANDY GOT MY GUN
- MEXICALI ROSS
- RIDE ME, TENDERFOOT, RIDE ME
- BOSS OF HANGDOWN MESA
- THE FRISCO KIDDING
- LIGHTNING CARSON RODE ME AGAIN
- BENT FOR THE YUKON
- TOM'S HORN
- THE DESPERATE TAIL
- LAW OF THE LASHED
- GOING DOWN ON THE GREAT DIVIDE
- EL MUNCHO de DURANGO
- SHOOTING REAL HIGH THE
- VALLEY OF THE GAG ME
- A TOWN CALLED HELLO SAILOR
- ALONG THE NAVAJO TAIL
Vote for your favorite today!
George Bush Should Be Impeached!
I am a senior citizen.
During the Clinton Administration I had a good job.
Since President Bush took office, I have watched my entire life change for the worse because of his policies:
|
During the Clinton Administration I had a good job.
Since President Bush took office, I have watched my entire life change for the worse because of his policies:
- I lost my job
- I lost my home
- I lost my health insurance
- I lost my two sons in that terrible War in Iraq
- As a matter of fact, I've lost virtually everything and become homeless
- Instead of getting some help, I only got arrested
- George W. Bush has to go!
- We should do anything that Senators Kennedy, Clinton, and Kerry want to insure that a Democrat is back in the White House with the next election
Galluping Away From CNN
From Fox News
Gallup, the polling organization is ending its 14-year relationship with CNN citing the network's declining viewership.
In a memo to employees last week, CEO Jim Clifton (whom I have met and interviewed) praised the past relationship with CNN, but said "it is not the right alignment for our future," adding, "CNN has far fewer viewers than it did in the past, and we feel that our brand was getting lost and diluted."
But CNN is calling the memo "unprofessional" and "in every respect untrue," saying Clifton told CNN he was ending the partnership because "the CNN brand was so dominant that Gallup wasn't getting the attention for the polls that they wanted." (Gallup wasn't able to find any poll respondents who actually watched CNN).
Like my Econ Proff always said - 'Markets Work'
|
Gallup, the polling organization is ending its 14-year relationship with CNN citing the network's declining viewership.
In a memo to employees last week, CEO Jim Clifton (whom I have met and interviewed) praised the past relationship with CNN, but said "it is not the right alignment for our future," adding, "CNN has far fewer viewers than it did in the past, and we feel that our brand was getting lost and diluted."
But CNN is calling the memo "unprofessional" and "in every respect untrue," saying Clifton told CNN he was ending the partnership because "the CNN brand was so dominant that Gallup wasn't getting the attention for the polls that they wanted." (Gallup wasn't able to find any poll respondents who actually watched CNN).
Like my Econ Proff always said - 'Markets Work'
Ordering Pizza in 2010
Lifted from email - this is pretty funny/scary.
Want to see how to order a pizza in 2010? Click the link and see.
Turn up the volume. Listen closely and watch the screen and carefully. You may laugh and think this is funny, but it could happen.
The technology is already here!
Or so the ACLU video and email claims. Look, I think this is funny. Do I think this could happen? Yes. Do I think this will happen? Nope. That is why this is funny. So, please don't get bent out of shape over this post, folks. I have already receveived hate mail. I see this video as parody. The ACLU created this as a fear mongering call to action for it's own poltical agenda. If Leno or Letterman did this, it would be great TV. Since the ACLU created this, it's pandering at its worst. Just laugh. It's funny.
|
Want to see how to order a pizza in 2010? Click the link and see.
Turn up the volume. Listen closely and watch the screen and carefully. You may laugh and think this is funny, but it could happen.
The technology is already here!
Or so the ACLU video and email claims. Look, I think this is funny. Do I think this could happen? Yes. Do I think this will happen? Nope. That is why this is funny. So, please don't get bent out of shape over this post, folks. I have already receveived hate mail. I see this video as parody. The ACLU created this as a fear mongering call to action for it's own poltical agenda. If Leno or Letterman did this, it would be great TV. Since the ACLU created this, it's pandering at its worst. Just laugh. It's funny.
A Port Postmortem - Victor Davis Hanson
Victor Davis Hanson - Private Papers
In retrospect, America went collectively insane over the possibility that a company owned by Dubai's government would operate several of our ports.
Rarely has reason been so routed by pure emotion. Dubai is a Westernizing state that long ago left the 8th century and accepts the modern world of globalized commerce and finance. This member of the United Arab Emirates has — especially after Sept. 11 — passed on intelligence, hosted our fleet and provided a foothold in the Gulf near Iraq and Iran.
No doubt some members of its extended government, as is true of many of the monarchies of the Gulf, have triangulated against the United States. But then so have China, Russia and most of Europe.
Yet if we are going to win this war against radical Islam, it will be through drawing the Arab world into the global system of Western jurisprudence, politics and business. The perceived defamation of a proven Arab consortium only hurts our cause.
To understand the fiasco, we must allot blame to almost everyone involved. A Republican administration — almost daily accused of talking down to "the people" — somehow feels no need to reveal how its own familiar world of transnational corporations works. Much less does anyone up on Olympus explain to us mere mortals below why our long-term strategic interests would remain safe with ports owned by Dubai's government.
The result of still more of this Harriet-Meyers "trust me" approach is that the ports deal is pilloried as near traitorous by prairie-fire conservative talk radio, blogs and cable news. The administration apparently never thought that the hyped caricature of Arabs guiding cranes on our docks was going to provide good fodder.
Meanwhile, the Democrats, who have lectured us ad nauseam about ethnic stereotyping, couldn't resist the political opening. So they jettisoned this old sensitivity to score jingoist points by suggesting that an Arab fifth column could, in theory, gain control of our ports.
It was surreal to hear Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., the multicultural guru, lecture us about the dangers of these Gulf middlemen — even as her huckstering husband advised the United Arab Emirates how to finesse the American Congress.
The American public was supposedly outraged that an Arab country would oversee the operation of its major ports. Yet did we have a clue that a Chinese company took over operation of Panama Canal ports during the Clinton administration? Do most realize that the People's Republic has amassed such a pile of U.S. dollars that it soon will control the very financial solvency of the United States?
If we are truly worried about autonomy, consider that our entire southern border with Mexico is nearly wide open. Or that former politicians like Vin Weber and Bob Dole (who also has a wife in the Senate) get richer thanks to their connections to Gulf State sheikdoms.
For a country that is addicted to imported petroleum, hooked on cheap imported goods, and eager for illegal alien labor, and which has hundreds of military bases abroad, it is a little late to worry about dangerous foreign ganglia.
The port deal reveals deeper pathologies than the hypocrisy of our politicians and ignorance of the public. A now hyper-media is fueled by a 24-hour news cycle — regardless of whether there is enough earth-shattering news to justify thousands of salaried telejournalists. And 2006 is an election year, in which Democrats see advantage and Republicans fear losses.
But more importantly, the Dubai port deal shows how at odds are American perceptions and reality. For the last half-century, we have been living in a complex interconnected world of mutual reliance. Soon we will import more food than we grow. We already burn more oil than we pump. For years we have bought more than we export, and we borrow far more than we lend. To justify these precarious dependencies, America assures foreign business leaders, investors and lenders that our markets remain open and immune to the distortions of xenophobia and provincialism.
Americans may not like that devil's bargain, but it was made long ago and, for better or worse, we are long past being an agrarian republic. The resulting singular affluence of the American consumer derives from just these tradeoffs in our autonomy — and the trust we receive from those who loan and sell us things we cannot immediately pay for. So rejecting the Dubai port deal is not only hypocritical, but in the end dumb.
(c) Victor Davis Hanson
|
In retrospect, America went collectively insane over the possibility that a company owned by Dubai's government would operate several of our ports.
Rarely has reason been so routed by pure emotion. Dubai is a Westernizing state that long ago left the 8th century and accepts the modern world of globalized commerce and finance. This member of the United Arab Emirates has — especially after Sept. 11 — passed on intelligence, hosted our fleet and provided a foothold in the Gulf near Iraq and Iran.
No doubt some members of its extended government, as is true of many of the monarchies of the Gulf, have triangulated against the United States. But then so have China, Russia and most of Europe.
Yet if we are going to win this war against radical Islam, it will be through drawing the Arab world into the global system of Western jurisprudence, politics and business. The perceived defamation of a proven Arab consortium only hurts our cause.
To understand the fiasco, we must allot blame to almost everyone involved. A Republican administration — almost daily accused of talking down to "the people" — somehow feels no need to reveal how its own familiar world of transnational corporations works. Much less does anyone up on Olympus explain to us mere mortals below why our long-term strategic interests would remain safe with ports owned by Dubai's government.
The result of still more of this Harriet-Meyers "trust me" approach is that the ports deal is pilloried as near traitorous by prairie-fire conservative talk radio, blogs and cable news. The administration apparently never thought that the hyped caricature of Arabs guiding cranes on our docks was going to provide good fodder.
Meanwhile, the Democrats, who have lectured us ad nauseam about ethnic stereotyping, couldn't resist the political opening. So they jettisoned this old sensitivity to score jingoist points by suggesting that an Arab fifth column could, in theory, gain control of our ports.
It was surreal to hear Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., the multicultural guru, lecture us about the dangers of these Gulf middlemen — even as her huckstering husband advised the United Arab Emirates how to finesse the American Congress.
The American public was supposedly outraged that an Arab country would oversee the operation of its major ports. Yet did we have a clue that a Chinese company took over operation of Panama Canal ports during the Clinton administration? Do most realize that the People's Republic has amassed such a pile of U.S. dollars that it soon will control the very financial solvency of the United States?
If we are truly worried about autonomy, consider that our entire southern border with Mexico is nearly wide open. Or that former politicians like Vin Weber and Bob Dole (who also has a wife in the Senate) get richer thanks to their connections to Gulf State sheikdoms.
For a country that is addicted to imported petroleum, hooked on cheap imported goods, and eager for illegal alien labor, and which has hundreds of military bases abroad, it is a little late to worry about dangerous foreign ganglia.
The port deal reveals deeper pathologies than the hypocrisy of our politicians and ignorance of the public. A now hyper-media is fueled by a 24-hour news cycle — regardless of whether there is enough earth-shattering news to justify thousands of salaried telejournalists. And 2006 is an election year, in which Democrats see advantage and Republicans fear losses.
But more importantly, the Dubai port deal shows how at odds are American perceptions and reality. For the last half-century, we have been living in a complex interconnected world of mutual reliance. Soon we will import more food than we grow. We already burn more oil than we pump. For years we have bought more than we export, and we borrow far more than we lend. To justify these precarious dependencies, America assures foreign business leaders, investors and lenders that our markets remain open and immune to the distortions of xenophobia and provincialism.
Americans may not like that devil's bargain, but it was made long ago and, for better or worse, we are long past being an agrarian republic. The resulting singular affluence of the American consumer derives from just these tradeoffs in our autonomy — and the trust we receive from those who loan and sell us things we cannot immediately pay for. So rejecting the Dubai port deal is not only hypocritical, but in the end dumb.
(c) Victor Davis Hanson
Enter Mexico Illegally And Try This...
This is lifted from a popular email being circulated, but I thought it would be worth the post…
If you are ready for the adventure of a lifetime, TRY THIS:
- Enter Mexico illegally. (Never mind immigration quotas, visas, international law, or any of that nonsense)
- Once there, demand that the local Mexican government provide free medical care for you and your entire family
- Demand bilingual nurses and doctors
- Demand free bilingual local government forms, bulletins, etc.
- Procreate abundantly. Deflect any criticism of this allegedly irresponsible reproductive behavior with, "It is a cultural thing. You would not understand."
- Keep your American identity strong. Fly Old Glory from your rooftop, or proudly display it in your front window or on your car bumper
- Speak only English at home and in public and insist that your children do likewise
- Demand classes on American culture in the Mexican school system
- Demand a local Mexican driver's license. This will afford other legal rights and will go far to legitimize your unauthorized, illegal, presence in Mexico. Drive around with no liability insurance and ignore local traffic laws. Insist that local Mexican law enforcement teach English to all its officers.
Good Luck, Amigo-Ex Patriot. Can this happen in Mexico? No. Try this and you’ll be dead.
It won’t happen in Mexico or any other country in the world except the US.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Guard The Border Blogburst - Call To Action
On Thursday, March 16, the Senate Judiciary Committee told their staff to meet behind closed doors to construct an immigration bill that would include provisions from the Kennedy-McCain bill. Known as S. 1033, the McCain-Kennedy bill includes an amnesty for illegal aliens, a massive "guest" worker program that leads to citizenship, and an estimated one million additional permanent immigrants each year.
Millions of illegals to become citizens?
Kennedy-McCain immigration reform bill likely to pass Senate committee after recess
A bill that would give millions of illegal aliens in the United States the opportunity to earn citizenship is closer to becoming law today as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signaled likely passage of a proposal by Sens. Edward Kenney, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz.
Though a committee vote will not be held until after a week-long congressional recess, likely March 27, committee members appeared ready to back the Kennedy-McCain bill.
"The votes are there," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
Congress is working to pass a reform bill that includes enforcement, a policy on dealing with illegals already in the country and a guest-worker program pushed by President Bush.
Under the legislation, illegal aliens in the United States would obtain six-year nonimmigrant visas under which they could work in the country and travel outside the country. The aliens would have to pay a $1,000 fine and undergo background checks.
After six years, the aliens would be able to meet certain requirements and then apply for a green card, or permanent residency.
Besides voting on the bill after the recess, committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said the panel also would vote on a bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., that would give illegal aliens up to five years to leave the U.S. After returning home, they could then apply to return, either as temporary workers or for permanent residency.
"Our intention is not to strand anyone outside the country," Kyl said, according to an AP report. But he asserted the McCain-Kennedy plan would give an illegal alien allowed to stay and work in the country a "huge advantage" over a person having to wait for years in his or her own country for a green card.
The McCain-Kennedy bill would start off with offering 400,000 of the new visas.
Although Sens. McCain and Kennedy adamantly deny that S. 1033 is an amnesty for illegal aliens, it clearly spells out a path to jobs and residency for illegal aliens. Among the significant immigration-increase provisions of the bill are: a new visa category (H-5A) for 400,000 low-skill foreign workers (this cap can be adjusted upwards); a new temporary 6-year visa category (H-5B) for illegal aliens (and their spouses and children) already in the country; an amnesty for illegal aliens who apply for an H-5B visa and pay a $2,000 fine; a provision for the H-5A temporary workers to apply for permanent resident status after four years; and an exemption of immediate relatives (spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens) from the annual level of 480,000 family-sponsored immigrant visas thereby providing additional visas to the family preference categories.Aside from the fact that any guest worker plan would be nothing more than a disastrous amnesty deal tied with a big red bow for lawbreakers, there is another reason to reject it: Our government can’t handle it!
Supporters claim S. 1033 contains measures to increase border security, yet it contains virtually no such provisions. Aside from creating a Border Security Committee and requiring a few reports, the main "enforcement" provisions are aimed at helping Mexico control its borders!! S. 1033 does, however, require machine-readable immigration documents, and create a new electronic work authorization system that would eventually replace the current "I-9" system. S. 1033 would require the federal government to reimburse states for the cost of providing emergency health care to H-5A and H-5B workers.
Our government is not capable of handling roughly 13-20 million temporary worker applications when our illegal alien population suddenly becomes eligible through guest worker legislation - USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service) simply cannot handle the administration overload it already has. The only solution would be to massively increase the government. The link above outlines a report from the GAO that shows how the USCIS is already irrevocably buried under a backlog of immigration adjudication. It's a whole other perspective on the various administrative amnesties proposed by the Senate. Mundane? Perhaps. Crucial to the overall scope and size of our bloated and sprawling federal government? Absolutely.
1. If you care about the careless increases in immigration as proposed by our Senate, please send a fax - today. It's fast, it's easy - and it's free. NumbersUSA has an amazing way to help us stay involved, and helps us get our voices heard. Their basic faxes are pre-written, and will take less than one minute to send. But, even better, once you register, the faxes are fully customizable to say what you specifically find important to say, if you so choose. The site is an incredible free resource for immigration issues. You can also opt-in for timely updates on issues coming before Congress, and take action on every single on, if you desire.
2. Email the permalink from this article to others you know who care about the impact of illegal immigration. Together, we can all have a voice. The more Americans that respond - the bigger the impact.
Please take a moment, and send a fax today. The Senate Judiciary Committe is behind closed doors as we speak. The McCain-Kennedy bill will come to a vote by next Monday. They and their staffs are smugly confident that they have the votes - let's convince our Senators otherwise.
Take action! We can still be heard!
This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It is syndicated by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we’re going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration in our country, join the Blogburst! Send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Happy St. Patrick's Day
An Irish daughter had not been home for over 5 years.
Upon her return, her father cussed her. "Where have ye been all this time? Why did ye not write to us, not even a line? Why didn't ye call? Can ye not understand what ye put yer old mum thru?
The girl, crying, replied, "Sniff, sniff....dad....I became aprostitute...."
"Ye what!!? Out of here, ye shameless harlot! You're adisgrace to this family!"
"OK, dad-- as ye wish. I just came back to give mum this luxurious fur coat, title & deed to a ten bedroom mansion plus a savings certificate for $5 million. For me little brother, this gold Rolex and for ye daddy, the sparkling new Mercedes limited edition convertible that's parked outside plus a membership to the country club....(takes a breath)....and an invitation for ye all to spend New Years Eve on board my new yacht in the Riviera, and...."
"Now what was it ye said ye had become?" says dad.
Girl, crying again, "Sniff, sniff....a prostitute dad! Sniff, sniff."
"Oh! Be Jesus! Ye scared me half to death, girl! I thought ye said a Protestant'. Come here and give yer old man a hug!"
|
Upon her return, her father cussed her. "Where have ye been all this time? Why did ye not write to us, not even a line? Why didn't ye call? Can ye not understand what ye put yer old mum thru?
The girl, crying, replied, "Sniff, sniff....dad....I became aprostitute...."
"Ye what!!? Out of here, ye shameless harlot! You're adisgrace to this family!"
"OK, dad-- as ye wish. I just came back to give mum this luxurious fur coat, title & deed to a ten bedroom mansion plus a savings certificate for $5 million. For me little brother, this gold Rolex and for ye daddy, the sparkling new Mercedes limited edition convertible that's parked outside plus a membership to the country club....(takes a breath)....and an invitation for ye all to spend New Years Eve on board my new yacht in the Riviera, and...."
"Now what was it ye said ye had become?" says dad.
Girl, crying again, "Sniff, sniff....a prostitute dad! Sniff, sniff."
"Oh! Be Jesus! Ye scared me half to death, girl! I thought ye said a Protestant'. Come here and give yer old man a hug!"
American Gladiators
|Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Churchill's Comments on Islam
Sir Winston Churchill's comment on Islam, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-250 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property a child, a wife, or a concubine must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science (the science against which it had vainly struggled) the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
Remember, this was written 106 years ago. Not much has changed.
|
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property a child, a wife, or a concubine must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science (the science against which it had vainly struggled) the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
Remember, this was written 106 years ago. Not much has changed.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Abbas: 'We'll Keep Detainees In Jail' Yeah Right!
This is happening right now!
Read
This is an awesome site for up to the minute news of what is happening in Israel. Bookmark it!
Update: FNC - this was a heck of a coffee break for the US and Brit monitors of the prion: Coffee Break at 9:30 am - IDF storms in at 9:40 am.
Outstanding! And isn't it telling the Abbas said that was an 'unforgivable crime.' Well, Abbie, what about the Israeli Tourism Minister who was murdered in cold blood? Is that a crime?
|
Read
This is an awesome site for up to the minute news of what is happening in Israel. Bookmark it!
Update: FNC - this was a heck of a coffee break for the US and Brit monitors of the prion: Coffee Break at 9:30 am - IDF storms in at 9:40 am.
Outstanding! And isn't it telling the Abbas said that was an 'unforgivable crime.' Well, Abbie, what about the Israeli Tourism Minister who was murdered in cold blood? Is that a crime?
Simon Is Right - A Totally Forgettable Performance!
I saw something really disturbing last night on FNC. Republican hopefuls for 2008 were at some summit thingy and they were asked the same five questions, ‘If you were President, how would you handle – Iraq, Iran, the Borders, etc (I only caught three questions)
Here’s the issue. Not one of those Republican hopefuls looked or sounded presidential.
Mit Romney: The only person who had good answers and looked the part was Mit. Perhaps because he’s taller than everyone else.
Bill Frist: Tall, but he looks like he needs to put on a few pounds. And what’s with the wind tunnel tested hair-do? I just don’t get him…kinda squirrelly.
Huckabee of AR – to use the quotes that Simon uses on American Idol, ‘a totally forgettable performance – no one is going to remember anything about you.’
J McCain: Still have soft spot for all he had to endure in N. Viet Nam. Then he opens his mouth and all that flies out the window. I bet he’d be a hawk on defense. But he’s a wild card when it comes to those on the other side of the aisle.
Synopsis: I’m scared for 2008. 2006? We could lose every election and still control the House – no issues there. But as far out as 2008, if the fellas above are an indication as to what our prospects are for keeping 1600 Penn Ave, I’m scared.
Condi – please don’t take the NFL Job in 2008!
|
Here’s the issue. Not one of those Republican hopefuls looked or sounded presidential.
Mit Romney: The only person who had good answers and looked the part was Mit. Perhaps because he’s taller than everyone else.
Bill Frist: Tall, but he looks like he needs to put on a few pounds. And what’s with the wind tunnel tested hair-do? I just don’t get him…kinda squirrelly.
Huckabee of AR – to use the quotes that Simon uses on American Idol, ‘a totally forgettable performance – no one is going to remember anything about you.’
J McCain: Still have soft spot for all he had to endure in N. Viet Nam. Then he opens his mouth and all that flies out the window. I bet he’d be a hawk on defense. But he’s a wild card when it comes to those on the other side of the aisle.
Synopsis: I’m scared for 2008. 2006? We could lose every election and still control the House – no issues there. But as far out as 2008, if the fellas above are an indication as to what our prospects are for keeping 1600 Penn Ave, I’m scared.
Condi – please don’t take the NFL Job in 2008!
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Iraqi Air Force - Stand Up
Stars & Stripes - Iraqi air force stands up its first operational C-130 squadron.
“The stand-up of this squadron is good for the country, and good for the [Iraqi] armed forces,” Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday at the Pentagon.
The squadron consists of three C-130 transports donated by the United States, and flew its first solo mission in December. It now numbers about 270 personnel, Pace said.
Incredible!
|
“The stand-up of this squadron is good for the country, and good for the [Iraqi] armed forces,” Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday at the Pentagon.
The squadron consists of three C-130 transports donated by the United States, and flew its first solo mission in December. It now numbers about 270 personnel, Pace said.
Incredible!
Sen. Clinton Blasts U.S. 'Police State' on Immigration
From NewsMax
Two articles on Slick Hilly's 'evolving' stand on immigration:
Hilly's Police State - March 8
Hilly's Flip on Immigration - March 9
Will the real Hillary please make up her mind!
|
Two articles on Slick Hilly's 'evolving' stand on immigration:
Hilly's Police State - March 8
Hilly's Flip on Immigration - March 9
Will the real Hillary please make up her mind!
Thanks Yankees - Leave The Indoctrination To Us!
Hat Tip - Razor Sharp Claws
Thanks to dcat at the site above for giving me the inspiration for this post. Go see her site - it's another great one!
March 9, dcat posted, 'Hollywood Hate Spreading Worldwide.' It seems that Der Spiegel has another 'we hate America piece.' Here is what dcat has to say about it"
US Hollywood "Stars" Zane and Busey Spreading America-Hate Worldwide(By Ray D.)No Consequences for Gary Busey and Billy Zane in America?The big movie blockbuster in Turkey today is "Valley of the Wolves Iraq." The film, which vilifies Jews and Americans, has become so controversial in Germany that Bavarian Governor Edmund Stoiber has called on movie theaters to stop showing it and unleashed a nationwide debate. In just ten days the film has attracted 200,000 primarily young Turkish immigrant viewers.So what makes the film so controversial? For starters, American soldiers are portrayed as violent, brutish, trigger-happy, civilian-murdering, hyper-religious, sadistic gun-nuts. The star villain is an arrogant, murderous character named Sam Marshall (played by American actor Billy Zane), who is killed by the Turkish protagonist at the film's end. Another stereotypical villain is a Jewish doctor (played by American actor Gary Busey) stationed at Abu Ghraib prison who extracts human organs from prisoners for export to Israel, England and the USA.
When I responded to her post, I commented that peddling this film in the US is unforgivable. To peddle this bilge in another country is treason. The best thing that can happen is that no one in the US will see it. The best thing that can happen in the Muslim world is that they think, 'so what?' 'We know all this already. Why have a film telling us what we preach in our Mosques and indoctrinate our children with everyday? Thanks Yankees, but leave the indoctrination to us, Yankee Pig Dogs! Let's hope that the Muslims who watch this film think as I do that has-been no talent hacks like druggie Busey and Straight-To-Video Zane aren't doing Muslim outrage any favors by showing what is already preached to radicals in Turkey and beyond.
Thanks dcat - Keep The Good Stuff Coming
|
Thanks to dcat at the site above for giving me the inspiration for this post. Go see her site - it's another great one!
March 9, dcat posted, 'Hollywood Hate Spreading Worldwide.' It seems that Der Spiegel has another 'we hate America piece.' Here is what dcat has to say about it"
US Hollywood "Stars" Zane and Busey Spreading America-Hate Worldwide(By Ray D.)No Consequences for Gary Busey and Billy Zane in America?The big movie blockbuster in Turkey today is "Valley of the Wolves Iraq." The film, which vilifies Jews and Americans, has become so controversial in Germany that Bavarian Governor Edmund Stoiber has called on movie theaters to stop showing it and unleashed a nationwide debate. In just ten days the film has attracted 200,000 primarily young Turkish immigrant viewers.So what makes the film so controversial? For starters, American soldiers are portrayed as violent, brutish, trigger-happy, civilian-murdering, hyper-religious, sadistic gun-nuts. The star villain is an arrogant, murderous character named Sam Marshall (played by American actor Billy Zane), who is killed by the Turkish protagonist at the film's end. Another stereotypical villain is a Jewish doctor (played by American actor Gary Busey) stationed at Abu Ghraib prison who extracts human organs from prisoners for export to Israel, England and the USA.
When I responded to her post, I commented that peddling this film in the US is unforgivable. To peddle this bilge in another country is treason. The best thing that can happen is that no one in the US will see it. The best thing that can happen in the Muslim world is that they think, 'so what?' 'We know all this already. Why have a film telling us what we preach in our Mosques and indoctrinate our children with everyday? Thanks Yankees, but leave the indoctrination to us, Yankee Pig Dogs! Let's hope that the Muslims who watch this film think as I do that has-been no talent hacks like druggie Busey and Straight-To-Video Zane aren't doing Muslim outrage any favors by showing what is already preached to radicals in Turkey and beyond.
Thanks dcat - Keep The Good Stuff Coming
Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers - LARK
A libertarian lady wrote a lot of letters to the White House complaining about the treatment of a captive insurgent (terrorist) being held in Guantanamo Bay. She received back the following reply:
The White House - 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue - Washington, D.C.. 20016
Dear Concerned Citizen,
Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment ofthe Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees currently being held at GuantanamoBay, Cuba.
Our administration takes these matters seriously and your opinion was heard loud and clear here in Washington. You'll be pleased to learn that, thanks to the concerns of citizens like yourself, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the"Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short.
In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal care. Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence next Monday. Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of complaint.
It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers. We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of carefor Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended inyour letter.
Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that yours ensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome these character flaws. Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling.
Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We advise that you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offen dhim.
Ahmed will not wish to interact with you or your daughters (except sexually), since he views females as a subhuman form of property. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code that he will recommend as more appropriate attire. I'm surey ou will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the burka -- over time. Just remember that it is all part of "respecting his culture and his religious beliefs" -- wasn't that how you put it?
Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you keep us informed of the proper way to do our job. You take good care of Ahmed - and remember...we'll be watching.
Good luck!
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Something and Half of Something - New Blog
Please visit this site. There are some amazing posts about the victims of islamo-villainy. We hear in the news all the time about victims of islamo-terror - reports of bus bombings, public places destroyed, families torn apart by targeted acts of barbarism. But when a human face is attached to a story of a person that was murdered, how can anyone not come away with a heart unmoved and a sense of vengance. This is a fantastic site and I hope you give it the patronage it deserves.
Shema Israel
|
Shema Israel
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
This Ain't Your Daddy's Catholocism
I did a bit on what was shoved in my face this past Sunday in my church about its position on illegal immigration; and the word illegal never came out of the priest's mouth. And there has been some really good discussion on that post which is the whole point of this blogging thing, right? (I am apologetically Roman Catholic - which, for the uneducated means I don't agree with much of anything in the American Catholic Church. As I have stated numerous times in this blog, the US and the world would be a lot better if we went back to the days of cavorting Druids, death by stoning and the extension of slavery to anyone who does not have a Knighthood - then we could start all over and get it right!)
Then I got to thinking about the comments from some of the responders. So I did a little digging and found some illuminating stuff that makes me even more of a supporter of strict Roman Catholic catechism and pedagogy and not the bilge coming from the apostates of the USCCB and Liberation Theologians.
The Catholic Legal Immigration Network is a political lobby for illegal entry into the US camouflaged under the thin veil of Christianity. Here I have lifted just one section from their menu 'Advocacy Topics' titled: 'Border Enforcement and Immigrant Deaths.' Read this gem of enlightened spiritual thought (my comments are embedded in RED):
In an attempt to reduce undocumented migration (illegal entry) along the U.S.-Mexico border, in the mid-1990's, the Border Patrol began increasing its forces and implemented a new enforcement strategy that established blockades at traditionally heavy crossing points along the border. (known illegal entry points - as we have the right to do as a sovereign nation) The strategy (policy) has shifted migrant traffic (illegal) to more remote and dangerous areas, where the number of border crossing deaths has increased. 1 (kinda makes you think that trying to scale a cliff without shoes ain't such a hot idea)
Currently, under the principle of "prevention through deterrence", more than 9,500 border patrol agents operate along traditional (illegal) crossing paths used by undocumented migrants (illegals) attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico Border. (illegally) By increasing the number of agents along these routes (illegal entry points), the Border Patrol hoped to raise the risk of apprehension to the point that it became so difficult and so costly to enter the United States illegally that fewer individuals would make such attempts.(and this is a bad idea, how?)
The Border Patrol's strategy was premised on the faulty belief that increased enforcement would lead potential crossers (illegals) to abandon their attempts to enter illegally, or alternatively, would drive migrants (illegals) into more remote areas where they could be more easily apprehended.(faulty belief - who's faulty belief? - the Pope's, our Government's?) The increased Border Patrol presence has shifted undocumented (illegal) crossings from urban, traditionally safer routes (known illegal entry pooints), to more remote, treacherous areas.(boo-hoo)
As a result, the number of crossing deaths has increased.(boo-hoo II) A study conducted by researchers at the University of Houston documents more than 1,600 possible migrant (illegals) deaths along the U.S./Mexican border between 1993 and 1997. (So what) During FY 1998 (the first year that government began to systematically collect migrant (illegal) crossing deaths) the U.S. Border Patrol recorded 261 deaths on the southwest border. (boo-hoo III) In FY 2002, the U.S. Border Patrol recorded 320 migrant (illegal) deaths. These statistics do not cover deaths in Mexico (how many people do you think are trying to break into Mexico, Padre? - oh, you mean the deaths of Mexican nationals who die on their side of the border before they become illegal entrants into another country - and how is the US's concern?).
The current enforcement strategy fails to recognize the many powerful reasons that drive migrants (illegals) to the United States. (no it doesn't - this is a national security issue, not a human rights campaign) Migrants (illegals) come to the United States (illegally) to escape poverty and to search for work that will allow them to provide for their families.(what about the hundreds of thousands that come here legally and safely? And what about the poor in Mexico who are able to provide for their families/ they seem to be doing just fine) Some come to escape political persecution or violence in their home country. (and the majority do that legally - the political persecution issue raised is a post-hoc fallacious load of doo-doo) Others come to join family legally (uh oh - not the ones who are here illegally - they are herre legally and are waiting for everyone they know to cross illegally) residing (living here illegally) in the United States because our nation's strict immigration laws do not provide them with a mechanism for reuniting with them through legal channels in a timely manner. (absolutely untrue) The U.S. economy is heavily reliant on immigrant (legal immigrant workers) workers, including an estimated 5.3 million undocumented (illegal) workers. (and they need to be identified, cataloged, reviewed, processed legally or sent packing) 2 It is difficult to argue that increased enforcement could prevent migration fueled by such strong factors. (it's really very easy to argue that increased enforcement could deter illegal entry - it's called a fence, it's a national security issue, and it's more humane to have people not get killed entering the US illegally, don't you think, Padre?)
Solutions (a fence, more border patrols, National Guard, and orders to shoot to kill when fired on or assaulted as such incidents are on the rise - ever hear of a Rock Molotov? this is a new weapon illegals use to pelt our border patrol to avoid apprehension - a rock wrapped with a cloth soaked in gas to light and throw at our border patrol - nice!) The current border blockade strategy has proven flawed and should be revisited. (I agree - our current strategy is flawed since our Border Patrol is under-funded and under-manned - we need more guards, more towers, more fences) However, a broader discussion that includes modifications to our nation's immigration laws and policies must accompany changes in enforcement. (a classic leftist post-hoc fallacy) This dialogue (code word for instant recognition of illegals already here and those that our border patrol can't stop in the future along with changing laws that will allow the flow of illegals to continue with impunity) should include the enactment of an earned legalization program, a carefully crafted program that would address the present and future needs of the U.S. economy. 3
An earned legalization program should (meaning you've been here so long, you should be granted recognition if not outright citizenship) accord lawful permanent resident status to undocumented (illegals) workers already residing and paying taxes in the United States. (are you kidding me - paying taxes - you've contradicted yourselves, fellas, since I bet that the very jobs you advocate can't be filled with anyone except illegals are ever on the books that require someone to actually pay flippin taxes) The program should provide work visas, legal protections, and ultimately lawful permanent residence to future flows of low-skilled immigrant workers. Sufficient immigrant visa numbers should be made available under the law to clear the immigrant visa backlog currently faced by approved beneficiaries of family-based immigrant petitions. (you just contradicted yourselves again - above you said that no such process exists to join illegals already here with those that enter illegally) In addition, the repeal of the anti-family provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IRRIRA) should also accompany a legalization program. Legalization and regularized migrant labor flows would significantly reduce the number of migrants who risk their lives while attempting to cross into the United States in order to work.(so you're advocating workers to be legalized so they can walk across the border and walk back home each night since you think we can't find people to perform those jobs?) Repeal of our nation's anti-family immigration laws would prevent border crossers (illegals) from taking perilous risks to reunite with U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents already residing in the United States. (would they be taking perilous risks if they decided to come here legally?) 4
In the aftermath of September 11th, many policymakers have called for increased enforcement along our nation's borders (Amen to that). The Catholic Church recognizes that heightened national security concerns present great challenges to our nation's treatment of newcomers (illegals), but it objects to the human costs of our current enforcement strategy.(how many people who decide to come to the US die when they are processed legally?) Catholic tradition recognizes the right and responsibility of a sovereign state to secure its national borders and to manage immigration in furtherance of the "common good", but it also recognizes that such rights do not take precedence over human dignity. (says who? Scripture Please! And thanks for allowing the United States to defend itself from illegal entry by people who get into the US to sell drugs, commit crimes or worse. And isn't it more dignified to allow people to come to the United States legally without the threat of death they pose to themselves and the danger they impose on our Border Patrols and US citizens who live in proximity to our borders? You forgot about them, didn't you?) 5
As Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated, "Our elected officials must steer away from a one-dimensional approach toward our border and examine all aspects of national immigration policy, including the legal immigration system, asylum and due process protection laws, and the current treatment of undocumented (illegal) migrants who enter our country. Ultimately, the nation must thoroughly examine the root causes of undocumented migration and seek long-term solutions, especially in developing the economies of our southern neighbors." (says who? Not the Pope! Not most clergy whom I have spoken to - total crap!) 6
By intentionally channeling border crossers (illegals) into dangerous terrain and remote areas (which is a really good idea), our current enforcement policy devalues human life and reflects poorly on our nation's commitment to human rights. (JHC - how many times does it have to be said - give us your poor, your huddled masses, but do it legally!) The needless loss of life that has accompanied the enhanced enforcement strategy cries out for changes in Border Patrol policy, as well as a comprehensive review of U.S. policies and laws that drive border crossers (illegals) to take life-threatening risks to enter the United States. (Needless! tell the US citizens along our southern border whose homes are broken into, whose cattle are killed for food that more border guards are needless Tell the hospitals, urgent care workers, and police that illegals who can't speak English are not a burden to our support infrastructure. Tell the prison workers in CA where the majority of many jails house illegals who commit capital crimes in the US) Anything less diminishes our standing as a nation that has long been recognized as a leader in the field of human rights and compromises human dignity.(No it doesn't - strengthening our borders for the very reasons you proclaim, post 9/11 heightened national security, strain on all who are victims of or are connected to corralling illegals are the very reasons to keep our borders closed - Where is Oliver Cromwell when you need him?)
There is so much wrong with this stand in the name of Catholicism. It makes me ashamed to tell anyone I'm Catholic. Then again, I tell anyone who asks; I am Roman Catholic - those who know the difference get it! You can link to this site to look at their footnotes. It's not happy reading!
|
Then I got to thinking about the comments from some of the responders. So I did a little digging and found some illuminating stuff that makes me even more of a supporter of strict Roman Catholic catechism and pedagogy and not the bilge coming from the apostates of the USCCB and Liberation Theologians.
The Catholic Legal Immigration Network is a political lobby for illegal entry into the US camouflaged under the thin veil of Christianity. Here I have lifted just one section from their menu 'Advocacy Topics' titled: 'Border Enforcement and Immigrant Deaths.' Read this gem of enlightened spiritual thought (my comments are embedded in RED):
In an attempt to reduce undocumented migration (illegal entry) along the U.S.-Mexico border, in the mid-1990's, the Border Patrol began increasing its forces and implemented a new enforcement strategy that established blockades at traditionally heavy crossing points along the border. (known illegal entry points - as we have the right to do as a sovereign nation) The strategy (policy) has shifted migrant traffic (illegal) to more remote and dangerous areas, where the number of border crossing deaths has increased. 1 (kinda makes you think that trying to scale a cliff without shoes ain't such a hot idea)
Currently, under the principle of "prevention through deterrence", more than 9,500 border patrol agents operate along traditional (illegal) crossing paths used by undocumented migrants (illegals) attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico Border. (illegally) By increasing the number of agents along these routes (illegal entry points), the Border Patrol hoped to raise the risk of apprehension to the point that it became so difficult and so costly to enter the United States illegally that fewer individuals would make such attempts.(and this is a bad idea, how?)
The Border Patrol's strategy was premised on the faulty belief that increased enforcement would lead potential crossers (illegals) to abandon their attempts to enter illegally, or alternatively, would drive migrants (illegals) into more remote areas where they could be more easily apprehended.(faulty belief - who's faulty belief? - the Pope's, our Government's?) The increased Border Patrol presence has shifted undocumented (illegal) crossings from urban, traditionally safer routes (known illegal entry pooints), to more remote, treacherous areas.(boo-hoo)
As a result, the number of crossing deaths has increased.(boo-hoo II) A study conducted by researchers at the University of Houston documents more than 1,600 possible migrant (illegals) deaths along the U.S./Mexican border between 1993 and 1997. (So what) During FY 1998 (the first year that government began to systematically collect migrant (illegal) crossing deaths) the U.S. Border Patrol recorded 261 deaths on the southwest border. (boo-hoo III) In FY 2002, the U.S. Border Patrol recorded 320 migrant (illegal) deaths. These statistics do not cover deaths in Mexico (how many people do you think are trying to break into Mexico, Padre? - oh, you mean the deaths of Mexican nationals who die on their side of the border before they become illegal entrants into another country - and how is the US's concern?).
The current enforcement strategy fails to recognize the many powerful reasons that drive migrants (illegals) to the United States. (no it doesn't - this is a national security issue, not a human rights campaign) Migrants (illegals) come to the United States (illegally) to escape poverty and to search for work that will allow them to provide for their families.(what about the hundreds of thousands that come here legally and safely? And what about the poor in Mexico who are able to provide for their families/ they seem to be doing just fine) Some come to escape political persecution or violence in their home country. (and the majority do that legally - the political persecution issue raised is a post-hoc fallacious load of doo-doo) Others come to join family legally (uh oh - not the ones who are here illegally - they are herre legally and are waiting for everyone they know to cross illegally) residing (living here illegally) in the United States because our nation's strict immigration laws do not provide them with a mechanism for reuniting with them through legal channels in a timely manner. (absolutely untrue) The U.S. economy is heavily reliant on immigrant (legal immigrant workers) workers, including an estimated 5.3 million undocumented (illegal) workers. (and they need to be identified, cataloged, reviewed, processed legally or sent packing) 2 It is difficult to argue that increased enforcement could prevent migration fueled by such strong factors. (it's really very easy to argue that increased enforcement could deter illegal entry - it's called a fence, it's a national security issue, and it's more humane to have people not get killed entering the US illegally, don't you think, Padre?)
Solutions (a fence, more border patrols, National Guard, and orders to shoot to kill when fired on or assaulted as such incidents are on the rise - ever hear of a Rock Molotov? this is a new weapon illegals use to pelt our border patrol to avoid apprehension - a rock wrapped with a cloth soaked in gas to light and throw at our border patrol - nice!) The current border blockade strategy has proven flawed and should be revisited. (I agree - our current strategy is flawed since our Border Patrol is under-funded and under-manned - we need more guards, more towers, more fences) However, a broader discussion that includes modifications to our nation's immigration laws and policies must accompany changes in enforcement. (a classic leftist post-hoc fallacy) This dialogue (code word for instant recognition of illegals already here and those that our border patrol can't stop in the future along with changing laws that will allow the flow of illegals to continue with impunity) should include the enactment of an earned legalization program, a carefully crafted program that would address the present and future needs of the U.S. economy. 3
An earned legalization program should (meaning you've been here so long, you should be granted recognition if not outright citizenship) accord lawful permanent resident status to undocumented (illegals) workers already residing and paying taxes in the United States. (are you kidding me - paying taxes - you've contradicted yourselves, fellas, since I bet that the very jobs you advocate can't be filled with anyone except illegals are ever on the books that require someone to actually pay flippin taxes) The program should provide work visas, legal protections, and ultimately lawful permanent residence to future flows of low-skilled immigrant workers. Sufficient immigrant visa numbers should be made available under the law to clear the immigrant visa backlog currently faced by approved beneficiaries of family-based immigrant petitions. (you just contradicted yourselves again - above you said that no such process exists to join illegals already here with those that enter illegally) In addition, the repeal of the anti-family provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IRRIRA) should also accompany a legalization program. Legalization and regularized migrant labor flows would significantly reduce the number of migrants who risk their lives while attempting to cross into the United States in order to work.(so you're advocating workers to be legalized so they can walk across the border and walk back home each night since you think we can't find people to perform those jobs?) Repeal of our nation's anti-family immigration laws would prevent border crossers (illegals) from taking perilous risks to reunite with U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents already residing in the United States. (would they be taking perilous risks if they decided to come here legally?) 4
In the aftermath of September 11th, many policymakers have called for increased enforcement along our nation's borders (Amen to that). The Catholic Church recognizes that heightened national security concerns present great challenges to our nation's treatment of newcomers (illegals), but it objects to the human costs of our current enforcement strategy.(how many people who decide to come to the US die when they are processed legally?) Catholic tradition recognizes the right and responsibility of a sovereign state to secure its national borders and to manage immigration in furtherance of the "common good", but it also recognizes that such rights do not take precedence over human dignity. (says who? Scripture Please! And thanks for allowing the United States to defend itself from illegal entry by people who get into the US to sell drugs, commit crimes or worse. And isn't it more dignified to allow people to come to the United States legally without the threat of death they pose to themselves and the danger they impose on our Border Patrols and US citizens who live in proximity to our borders? You forgot about them, didn't you?) 5
As Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated, "Our elected officials must steer away from a one-dimensional approach toward our border and examine all aspects of national immigration policy, including the legal immigration system, asylum and due process protection laws, and the current treatment of undocumented (illegal) migrants who enter our country. Ultimately, the nation must thoroughly examine the root causes of undocumented migration and seek long-term solutions, especially in developing the economies of our southern neighbors." (says who? Not the Pope! Not most clergy whom I have spoken to - total crap!) 6
By intentionally channeling border crossers (illegals) into dangerous terrain and remote areas (which is a really good idea), our current enforcement policy devalues human life and reflects poorly on our nation's commitment to human rights. (JHC - how many times does it have to be said - give us your poor, your huddled masses, but do it legally!) The needless loss of life that has accompanied the enhanced enforcement strategy cries out for changes in Border Patrol policy, as well as a comprehensive review of U.S. policies and laws that drive border crossers (illegals) to take life-threatening risks to enter the United States. (Needless! tell the US citizens along our southern border whose homes are broken into, whose cattle are killed for food that more border guards are needless Tell the hospitals, urgent care workers, and police that illegals who can't speak English are not a burden to our support infrastructure. Tell the prison workers in CA where the majority of many jails house illegals who commit capital crimes in the US) Anything less diminishes our standing as a nation that has long been recognized as a leader in the field of human rights and compromises human dignity.(No it doesn't - strengthening our borders for the very reasons you proclaim, post 9/11 heightened national security, strain on all who are victims of or are connected to corralling illegals are the very reasons to keep our borders closed - Where is Oliver Cromwell when you need him?)
There is so much wrong with this stand in the name of Catholicism. It makes me ashamed to tell anyone I'm Catholic. Then again, I tell anyone who asks; I am Roman Catholic - those who know the difference get it! You can link to this site to look at their footnotes. It's not happy reading!
No More 20-year Retirement?
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Subject: USMA 1960-forum: FW: No More 20-year Retirement?
Just picked this up on the AOG info sheet - LOOKS like we got out early enough
Some of those thinking about the SERVICE may be swayed out of it
--------------------
No More 20-year Retirement?
The Pentagon's Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation (DACMC) used its final public hearing on Feb. 28 to announce preliminary recommendations for sweeping changes to the military compensation system.
The DACMC is supporting a complete revamping of the current military retirement system. The committee's view is that the current 20-year "cliff-vested" system is outdated, overly "generous," inflexible, and inequitable (with no retirement eligibility before 20 years and no incentive to serve beyond 30 years).
DACMC's recommended changes (most of which DACMC envisions as applying only to future service entrants) include:
* Eliminating the immediate annuity upon retirement and delaying payment until age 60
* Providing additional retired pay credit (and basic pay increases) through 40 years of service
* Initiating government contributions to a Thrift Savings Plan or 401K-like plan of 5 to 10% of basic pay
* Vesting of members between 5 years and 10 years of service
* Creating a "gate pay" system to provide lump sum payment incentives at specific points of service
* Vesting in retirement health care benefit at completion of 20 years of service
* Raising single housing allowances to the "with dependents" rates
Although the committee's recommended changes wouldn't be imposed on the current force, the DACMC proposes offering current members the option of participating in the new retirement system.
Under Secretary of Defense David Chu has indicated the DACMC's recommendations will be turned over to the Tenth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), which is due to convene shortly. Chu has said he plans to send Congress at least one of the DACMC's recommendations separately - extending the pay table to 40 years of service.
MOAA's perspective is that most of these proposals have been reviewed or recommended by any number of military compensation reform panels over the last 40 years. The practical reality is that proposals to apply civilian-style retirement systems to the military haven't been adopted or haven't worked because military service conditions are so much more severe than civilian working conditions.
The 20-year retirement (and 20-year vesting) system was enacted in the belief that there has to be a significant "carrot" to draw highly capable people to serve for at least two decades under conditions that most Americans want to avoid even for a short time. Conditions like the present high-deployment environment sometimes put that system to a severe test.
Congress previously changed the law in 1986 to reduce 20-year retired pay for new entrants in 1986 (that also was touted as "encouraging longer service"). But the change had to be repealed in 1999 after the Joint Chiefs of Staff complained it was hurting retention.
If today's 10-year servicemembers facing a third Iraq deployment were under the DACMC-proposed system, they would be mulling between (a) separating and taking a significant chunk of their retirement with them or (b) waiting until age 60 to get an annuity if they continued serving.
We suspect that situation would generate some ugly retention figures. We'll be very interested to see what the QRMC does with this recommendation.
|
Caveats: NONE
Subject: USMA 1960-forum: FW: No More 20-year Retirement?
Just picked this up on the AOG info sheet - LOOKS like we got out early enough
Some of those thinking about the SERVICE may be swayed out of it
--------------------
No More 20-year Retirement?
The Pentagon's Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation (DACMC) used its final public hearing on Feb. 28 to announce preliminary recommendations for sweeping changes to the military compensation system.
The DACMC is supporting a complete revamping of the current military retirement system. The committee's view is that the current 20-year "cliff-vested" system is outdated, overly "generous," inflexible, and inequitable (with no retirement eligibility before 20 years and no incentive to serve beyond 30 years).
DACMC's recommended changes (most of which DACMC envisions as applying only to future service entrants) include:
* Eliminating the immediate annuity upon retirement and delaying payment until age 60
* Providing additional retired pay credit (and basic pay increases) through 40 years of service
* Initiating government contributions to a Thrift Savings Plan or 401K-like plan of 5 to 10% of basic pay
* Vesting of members between 5 years and 10 years of service
* Creating a "gate pay" system to provide lump sum payment incentives at specific points of service
* Vesting in retirement health care benefit at completion of 20 years of service
* Raising single housing allowances to the "with dependents" rates
Although the committee's recommended changes wouldn't be imposed on the current force, the DACMC proposes offering current members the option of participating in the new retirement system.
Under Secretary of Defense David Chu has indicated the DACMC's recommendations will be turned over to the Tenth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), which is due to convene shortly. Chu has said he plans to send Congress at least one of the DACMC's recommendations separately - extending the pay table to 40 years of service.
MOAA's perspective is that most of these proposals have been reviewed or recommended by any number of military compensation reform panels over the last 40 years. The practical reality is that proposals to apply civilian-style retirement systems to the military haven't been adopted or haven't worked because military service conditions are so much more severe than civilian working conditions.
The 20-year retirement (and 20-year vesting) system was enacted in the belief that there has to be a significant "carrot" to draw highly capable people to serve for at least two decades under conditions that most Americans want to avoid even for a short time. Conditions like the present high-deployment environment sometimes put that system to a severe test.
Congress previously changed the law in 1986 to reduce 20-year retired pay for new entrants in 1986 (that also was touted as "encouraging longer service"). But the change had to be repealed in 1999 after the Joint Chiefs of Staff complained it was hurting retention.
If today's 10-year servicemembers facing a third Iraq deployment were under the DACMC-proposed system, they would be mulling between (a) separating and taking a significant chunk of their retirement with them or (b) waiting until age 60 to get an annuity if they continued serving.
We suspect that situation would generate some ugly retention figures. We'll be very interested to see what the QRMC does with this recommendation.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Open Trackback Weekend to Uncooperative Blogger
|Illegal Immigration - A Moral Delimma In The Catholic Church
It happened. I knew it was coming. I knew the context in which it was going to be said. I did not want it to be said. I cringed at the thought of hearing it from the clergy of my church. But here it is: ‘The administration’s policy of stopping people crossing our borders is against the doctrine of our faith.’
So there it is. My church, ( and maybe it's just one SJ Priest) has come out and said that illegal entry into the United States is covered under the auspices of charity, justice, and scripture. Wrong!
The issue of illegal immigration is not one of anti-humanitarianism; this is a national security issue, and stopping illegal immigration is the only humane way to end the deaths of those that sneak under our wires, cross rivers, and hide in sealed compartments in trucks and cars. It would be logical for the members of my church to revisit this position as one of national security first and the humane and legal processing of those that want to live and work here legally second. Here’s why:
This is a political lobby rather than a representation of Christ’s teachings. Such a position is absent of historical perspective, it is substituted with a brief skeletal and superficial creed of historic confessions and lacks a concern with precise Christian doctrine which is highly averse to theology. This one-sided worldliness and reactionary position injects a lack of persuasion based on doctrine and tries to overturn, I think, by brute force guilt-pandering issues of national security disguised as moral teachings. And what I fear is that once viewed by those outside doctrinal thought, the American Catholic Church looks more like a political body rather than representatives of Christ’s teachings.
And in the wake of all the scandals that have befallen my faith in the last ten years, not making waves within its flock is the right course of action to take. I would be interested in hearing about how other faiths are treating the issue of illegal immigration.
|
So there it is. My church, ( and maybe it's just one SJ Priest) has come out and said that illegal entry into the United States is covered under the auspices of charity, justice, and scripture. Wrong!
The issue of illegal immigration is not one of anti-humanitarianism; this is a national security issue, and stopping illegal immigration is the only humane way to end the deaths of those that sneak under our wires, cross rivers, and hide in sealed compartments in trucks and cars. It would be logical for the members of my church to revisit this position as one of national security first and the humane and legal processing of those that want to live and work here legally second. Here’s why:
This is a political lobby rather than a representation of Christ’s teachings. Such a position is absent of historical perspective, it is substituted with a brief skeletal and superficial creed of historic confessions and lacks a concern with precise Christian doctrine which is highly averse to theology. This one-sided worldliness and reactionary position injects a lack of persuasion based on doctrine and tries to overturn, I think, by brute force guilt-pandering issues of national security disguised as moral teachings. And what I fear is that once viewed by those outside doctrinal thought, the American Catholic Church looks more like a political body rather than representatives of Christ’s teachings.
And in the wake of all the scandals that have befallen my faith in the last ten years, not making waves within its flock is the right course of action to take. I would be interested in hearing about how other faiths are treating the issue of illegal immigration.
