As a legal resident who came into this country legally, fully vaccinated and with police background checks, it is disgusting to watch politicians sell out the American people with this act of treachery. 12-20 million people who jumped a fence, 60% of them high-school drop outs with no special skills have just been added to the welfare roll and the Democrat party. Even as "legals", the vast majority will still collect $3 from the taxpayer for every $1 they pay in taxes, they are not adding to the economy by doing menial slave jobs, if they were not available, the farmers and companies would not be able to abuse them with inhumane wages. The media is trying to make us feel sorry for farmers, restaurants and hotels who want to be allowed to pay less than minimum wage. If the illegals were legal and waiting in line, like I did, the wages for these jobs would have to go up and all Americans would benefit.
A better bill would simply be, finish the fence all 2000 miles of it, at the same time grant as many visas as it takes for legal residents to come and work in the farms and hotels, until every job is filled.
It is simply a different attitude to the Irish, Italians and Germans who arrived at Ellis Island, they did not demand free interpreters at hospitals, they did not demand welfare, free housing or bilingual education. They did not march through the streets of the US, waving the Irish, Italian and German flags while burning the American flag. They were not brainwashed in their native schools to think that the Southwest of the US is really "theirs" to be taken back by a barbarian invasion and impregnation. Last year, the US soccer team played Mexico in Los Angeles, USA, the AMERICAN national anthem was booed and bottles were thrown at the US team, how many of the Mexican fans lived in the LA area do you think? The same people who march through the streets stating how American they are.
The Roman Empire collapsed shortly after it opened its borders to the barbarians who shared no love of the Roman Culture or language. This bill further sends the US towards third world status and bankruptcy, the second dark ages will not be caused by middle east policy, but by domestic policy.
Good luck.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Global Warming
We really need to view Global Warming like some of us view God, we should believe in it, just incase we're right. The debate should be over, scientists on both sides should just give up and all of us should act as if it is a real threat. Liberals and Conservatives need to get past the pigeon holing stereotypes that Conservative means love Bush, pro war, anti gay and anti environment. We should CONSERVe the environmnent, CONSERVe our resources, CONSERVe our savings accounts, CONSERVe the Federal Reserve. Naturally growing fuel in the US or using renewable fuel is of course better than importing from Saudis and Venezuela. The oil in the ground of the USA is best left there as a strategic reserve for the future, just in case.
Lower emissions, Higher miles per gallon are all CONSERVATiVE use of resources. There is a small town out in Indiana, where everything in the town is powered by renewable fuels, this is a brilliant model that every town in the US should be striving for. We do not need too much government or nanny state ideals to achieve it, just lots of education and leadership by everyone with the means. America should be racing to be the first at achieving this, imagine sitting back and being totally self sufficient, while watching India, China and Russia all compete for oil from Iran, Venezuela and the Saudis, if that is not a recipe for war I don't know what is, but one thing is for sure, it would be nice if we could choose whether or not to particpate in it, would n't it?
Just for the record, for all those who shouted "Blood for Oil" on the streets of America, UK and Europe, are you aware that all the oil contracts in Iraq so far have gone to countries other than the US? Are you aware that not one extra drop of oil has come to the US since the invasion? Are you aware that if the US market was suddenly flooded with Iraqi oil, the supply would go up and the prices would be going down not up? Oil companies in the US are benefitting most from NOT having their hands on Iraqi oil, the supply is low, so the prices are going up and up and up.
Lower emissions, Higher miles per gallon are all CONSERVATiVE use of resources. There is a small town out in Indiana, where everything in the town is powered by renewable fuels, this is a brilliant model that every town in the US should be striving for. We do not need too much government or nanny state ideals to achieve it, just lots of education and leadership by everyone with the means. America should be racing to be the first at achieving this, imagine sitting back and being totally self sufficient, while watching India, China and Russia all compete for oil from Iran, Venezuela and the Saudis, if that is not a recipe for war I don't know what is, but one thing is for sure, it would be nice if we could choose whether or not to particpate in it, would n't it?
Just for the record, for all those who shouted "Blood for Oil" on the streets of America, UK and Europe, are you aware that all the oil contracts in Iraq so far have gone to countries other than the US? Are you aware that not one extra drop of oil has come to the US since the invasion? Are you aware that if the US market was suddenly flooded with Iraqi oil, the supply would go up and the prices would be going down not up? Oil companies in the US are benefitting most from NOT having their hands on Iraqi oil, the supply is low, so the prices are going up and up and up.
VIVA LA SARKOZY
I hope Sarkozy's Iron fist comes down so hard it sends a shock wave that is felt in every corner of Europe and North America. I hope he does cleanse his ghettos of radical islam and illegal aliens who refuse to be French. Let's hope for France's sake he also reduces unemployment by telling the whiny, lazy union slobs, that they may actually have to work 40 hours per week to be full time and get benefits and maybe they will have to earn their 8 weeks paid vacation. Maybe companies should be able to fire some lazy-unshaven slob smoking gitannes and demanding a 2 hour lunch break. The point is, France just like the US is now competing against hard working, disciplined Indians and Chinese who will work and can actually do Math and Science, it is high time we all woke up to that.
There will be riots and strikes, nobody likes change, but France will come out of it more French, more lean and more competitive, after the smoke has cleared. With 53% of the nation backing him, he has a real chance to lead the way in Europe and put the pathetic, politically-correct, suicidal, liberalism of open borders without Assimilation or even jobs, behind them. This is a huge defeat for socialism, radical islam and a great win for patriotism, capitalism and law and order. It is a small defeat for Hilary Clinton and a small win for Conservative America. Republicans should watch him very closely, if he does everything he says he will, they will perhaps learn quickly that sticking to your principles is better than trying to appease "moderates" like Ted Kennedy, MoveOn.org, La Raza, Meccha and Code Pink. He won and appealed to the majority of France by being honest and real, he did not try to appeal to the "middle", nor did he try to win the votes of illegal aliens or their families.
There will be riots and strikes, nobody likes change, but France will come out of it more French, more lean and more competitive, after the smoke has cleared. With 53% of the nation backing him, he has a real chance to lead the way in Europe and put the pathetic, politically-correct, suicidal, liberalism of open borders without Assimilation or even jobs, behind them. This is a huge defeat for socialism, radical islam and a great win for patriotism, capitalism and law and order. It is a small defeat for Hilary Clinton and a small win for Conservative America. Republicans should watch him very closely, if he does everything he says he will, they will perhaps learn quickly that sticking to your principles is better than trying to appease "moderates" like Ted Kennedy, MoveOn.org, La Raza, Meccha and Code Pink. He won and appealed to the majority of France by being honest and real, he did not try to appeal to the "middle", nor did he try to win the votes of illegal aliens or their families.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Fox News shows MSNBC how to run a Republican Presidential Debate
A much more exciting and interesting debate even to the most ardent Fox News hater, this time candidates were asked real questions and given time to answer and attack each other. This was in great contrast to the immature stupid questions shovelled up by Chris Matthews and Politico.
Mike Huckabee opened the laughter with " we are spending more than John Edwards in a beauty shop". Then the attacks started, Tancredo on McCain/Guiliani/Romney for supporting Amnesty, then Romney on McCain for campaign finance reform and for McCain/Kennedy Immigration amnesty. This was a great move by Romney to distinguish himself from the two front runners by not supporting amnesty for illegals.
Ron Paul committed political suicide by suggesting that the US invited 911 by its foreign policy, Guiliani tore into this and got the loudest applause of the night. The thing is, many Americans (many democrats/muslims) and many around the world actually agree with Ron Paul's view, lets take a more detailed look at US foreign policy for the ten years up to 911.
1991, the US pushes Hussein out of Kuwait with minimal force, they were fully supported by the UN, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia who even let them build a base which remained permanent. Osama Bin Laden wanted to fight Hussein instead of US.
1993, first WTC attack in NYC, which means first attack was already being planned before allies began bombing Iraq.
1998, US retreats from Somalia after losing 8
Not sure of exact dates, but during this time Bill Clinton bombed Serbia (in defense of muslims) and helped host multiple peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.
Also during the latter half of Clinton's second term, the US and UK carried out bombing raids on military targets in Iraq, because Hussein refused to allow weapons inspectors in or uphold any side of multiple UN resolutions.
Does Ron Paul and his ilk really believe this is an aggressive foreign policy deserved of 911??. This was actually a very weak and uninterventional foreign policy by most standards. It shows not only is he wrong, but that Tancredo is correct that Al Qaeda would have planned attacks on US whether or not Israel existed and whether or not they were in Iraq or Afghanistan.
From this minimal intervention in the middle east, the only state or country that has a motive for 911 is Iraq or perhaps Palestine, yet no Palestinians or Iraqis in the plot, many US citizens who were wealthy and educated, infact the leader did not become radicalized in the Middle East, not until he reached Europe. This can defintely be attributed to the venomous anti-US/Israeli media in Europe. (Bin Laden deliberately chose Saudis to implicate the Royal family he hates) I am not suggesting that Hussein had anything to do with 911, but if it were a murder mystery, Angela Lansbury would have Hussein at the top of the list for a MOTIVE. The fact that there were plenty of Al Qaeda camps in Iraq before 911 and plenty of meetings with the Iraqi Republican Guard, suggest they may have had some idea. Don't forget Hussein appeared with a well planned speech on 911 or the day after suggesting it was the result of US foreign policy, the same view as Ron Paul.
Good Riddance to both of them.
Mike Huckabee opened the laughter with " we are spending more than John Edwards in a beauty shop". Then the attacks started, Tancredo on McCain/Guiliani/Romney for supporting Amnesty, then Romney on McCain for campaign finance reform and for McCain/Kennedy Immigration amnesty. This was a great move by Romney to distinguish himself from the two front runners by not supporting amnesty for illegals.
Ron Paul committed political suicide by suggesting that the US invited 911 by its foreign policy, Guiliani tore into this and got the loudest applause of the night. The thing is, many Americans (many democrats/muslims) and many around the world actually agree with Ron Paul's view, lets take a more detailed look at US foreign policy for the ten years up to 911.
1991, the US pushes Hussein out of Kuwait with minimal force, they were fully supported by the UN, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia who even let them build a base which remained permanent. Osama Bin Laden wanted to fight Hussein instead of US.
1993, first WTC attack in NYC, which means first attack was already being planned before allies began bombing Iraq.
1998, US retreats from Somalia after losing 8
Not sure of exact dates, but during this time Bill Clinton bombed Serbia (in defense of muslims) and helped host multiple peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.
Also during the latter half of Clinton's second term, the US and UK carried out bombing raids on military targets in Iraq, because Hussein refused to allow weapons inspectors in or uphold any side of multiple UN resolutions.
Does Ron Paul and his ilk really believe this is an aggressive foreign policy deserved of 911??. This was actually a very weak and uninterventional foreign policy by most standards. It shows not only is he wrong, but that Tancredo is correct that Al Qaeda would have planned attacks on US whether or not Israel existed and whether or not they were in Iraq or Afghanistan.
From this minimal intervention in the middle east, the only state or country that has a motive for 911 is Iraq or perhaps Palestine, yet no Palestinians or Iraqis in the plot, many US citizens who were wealthy and educated, infact the leader did not become radicalized in the Middle East, not until he reached Europe. This can defintely be attributed to the venomous anti-US/Israeli media in Europe. (Bin Laden deliberately chose Saudis to implicate the Royal family he hates) I am not suggesting that Hussein had anything to do with 911, but if it were a murder mystery, Angela Lansbury would have Hussein at the top of the list for a MOTIVE. The fact that there were plenty of Al Qaeda camps in Iraq before 911 and plenty of meetings with the Iraqi Republican Guard, suggest they may have had some idea. Don't forget Hussein appeared with a well planned speech on 911 or the day after suggesting it was the result of US foreign policy, the same view as Ron Paul.
Good Riddance to both of them.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Socialized Healthcare
The hidden costs and problems with socialized healthcare are:
1, The US healthcare system currently benefits from a brain drain from around the world, the many talented Doctors, Nurses and other professionals come to the Private US system to make a better salary and for the most part enjoy better working conditions. This benefits all Americans including those without insurance who still get treated. If the US government ran healthcare, those salaries would start to slide down to the level of the UK or Canada (JUST LOOK AT REIMBURSEMENT RATES FROM MEDICARE AND MEDICAID), therefore, the incentive to move to the US would be taken away from the many talented around the world, an even greater shortage of healthcare providers would ensue and American patients would suffer.
2, When you fund a healthcare system by taxes, you never have enough money, self employed people in the UK bend over backwards to find ways to avoid paying taxes, what you are left with is an underfunded system that can only survive with a tax increase and the cycle continues. You cannot cheat a health insurance company, you either the pay the premiums or you are not covered, in the UK, patients who have private plans are moved to the front of the line for surgeries that include Heart bypass, while those with "free" healthcare wait up to two years.
3, Another way they try and push it is to say, oh well look at those countries who have socialized plans, they spend 90% of their money on prevention, YES BUT, what is the total amount of dollars per patient. If the US spends $10,000 per patient and only 40% on prevention, that is $4k per patient, if Norway spends only $4k per patient but spends 90% on prevention that is less than the American, so tell me who is being treated better? Democrats push these figures without accurately and honestly representing them, hoping you will just blindly follow the mantra without question, they hope you have no idea about what values and principles America was founded on and chances are you don't because you went to a Liberal public school for anti-US indoctrination.
1, The US healthcare system currently benefits from a brain drain from around the world, the many talented Doctors, Nurses and other professionals come to the Private US system to make a better salary and for the most part enjoy better working conditions. This benefits all Americans including those without insurance who still get treated. If the US government ran healthcare, those salaries would start to slide down to the level of the UK or Canada (JUST LOOK AT REIMBURSEMENT RATES FROM MEDICARE AND MEDICAID), therefore, the incentive to move to the US would be taken away from the many talented around the world, an even greater shortage of healthcare providers would ensue and American patients would suffer.
2, When you fund a healthcare system by taxes, you never have enough money, self employed people in the UK bend over backwards to find ways to avoid paying taxes, what you are left with is an underfunded system that can only survive with a tax increase and the cycle continues. You cannot cheat a health insurance company, you either the pay the premiums or you are not covered, in the UK, patients who have private plans are moved to the front of the line for surgeries that include Heart bypass, while those with "free" healthcare wait up to two years.
3, Another way they try and push it is to say, oh well look at those countries who have socialized plans, they spend 90% of their money on prevention, YES BUT, what is the total amount of dollars per patient. If the US spends $10,000 per patient and only 40% on prevention, that is $4k per patient, if Norway spends only $4k per patient but spends 90% on prevention that is less than the American, so tell me who is being treated better? Democrats push these figures without accurately and honestly representing them, hoping you will just blindly follow the mantra without question, they hope you have no idea about what values and principles America was founded on and chances are you don't because you went to a Liberal public school for anti-US indoctrination.
Republican Presidential Debate
Tommy Thompson's idea of letting the Iraqis vote on whether to keep US troops there was the best idea of the night and would be a win win outcome for the USA. If the Iraqi's vote "NO", then that gives the US an exit strategy not based on surrender and retreat, remember Al Qaeda is going to claim victory no matter when or how the US leaves, their opinion is irrelevant. Hezbollah claim victory in Lebanon last year, despite being pushed completely back and losing 1109 compared to 100 Israelis. The Israelis forced a UN "peace keeping" force to come to the border and halt rocket attacks, a victory despite not getting back one kidnapped troop.
If the Iraqi's vote "YES" it proves that the Democrats are wrong in stating the majority of Iraqi's want us out, it also proves the alledged majority of the US public are wrong in believing that. It would give the US much needed legitimacy in the middle east too.
Mitt Romney is obviously the most photogenic with the most hair and least grey, he has the 1950's hollywood movie star looks and tan, he looks like the college quaterback who would date the prom queen. This will win him alot of support with the baby boomer women, he is still not clear on where he stands on illegal immigration, if he adopts the Tancredo position I think he will leap to the front.
Dr Paul is the only anti-war candidate, he is correct that a traditional american conservative republican position, is against any kind of intervention that is not a direct threat, one can argue endlessly on whether Iraq/Iran represent/ed such an imminent threat. He is also correct to bring up the fact that the USSR had 40,000 nukes at one time, actually more than the US, Ronald Reagan DID NOT ATTACK THEM, he recognised the threat and built up arms accordingly, he did not need to order a preemptive strike and there was no disaster.
Duncan Hunter and Jim Gilmore appear to be the tough, mature, old school conservatives who appeal to a base. Duncan Hunter gained alot of support for building a real fence on the California border and he seemed to follow traditional conservative themes, as well as a "NO Amnesty" stance on illegals.
John McCain claims to want to cut spending, but then turns around to say he will use Federal funds for stem cell research, he is just going to be another big spender. Like Bush, he is not going to have the balls to cut any programs, he is not going to cut any mandatory spending, the value of the dollar will contnue to slide, making Americans poorer in the world. Tancredo is right, that endless vetoes will not touch the deficit.
Unfortunately, despite having great conservative positions, Tom Tancredo appeared nervous and stuttering, the last thing Republicans and America need is another stumbling, fumbling, inarticulate President who cannot speak clearly and is laughed at around the world. He was also unclear as to what "disengagement from Iraq" would entail.
The debate was kind of stupid though, he was stuck at the end and ignored by Chris Matthews who could decide who to let speak over time and who not to.
If the Iraqi's vote "YES" it proves that the Democrats are wrong in stating the majority of Iraqi's want us out, it also proves the alledged majority of the US public are wrong in believing that. It would give the US much needed legitimacy in the middle east too.
Mitt Romney is obviously the most photogenic with the most hair and least grey, he has the 1950's hollywood movie star looks and tan, he looks like the college quaterback who would date the prom queen. This will win him alot of support with the baby boomer women, he is still not clear on where he stands on illegal immigration, if he adopts the Tancredo position I think he will leap to the front.
Dr Paul is the only anti-war candidate, he is correct that a traditional american conservative republican position, is against any kind of intervention that is not a direct threat, one can argue endlessly on whether Iraq/Iran represent/ed such an imminent threat. He is also correct to bring up the fact that the USSR had 40,000 nukes at one time, actually more than the US, Ronald Reagan DID NOT ATTACK THEM, he recognised the threat and built up arms accordingly, he did not need to order a preemptive strike and there was no disaster.
Duncan Hunter and Jim Gilmore appear to be the tough, mature, old school conservatives who appeal to a base. Duncan Hunter gained alot of support for building a real fence on the California border and he seemed to follow traditional conservative themes, as well as a "NO Amnesty" stance on illegals.
John McCain claims to want to cut spending, but then turns around to say he will use Federal funds for stem cell research, he is just going to be another big spender. Like Bush, he is not going to have the balls to cut any programs, he is not going to cut any mandatory spending, the value of the dollar will contnue to slide, making Americans poorer in the world. Tancredo is right, that endless vetoes will not touch the deficit.
Unfortunately, despite having great conservative positions, Tom Tancredo appeared nervous and stuttering, the last thing Republicans and America need is another stumbling, fumbling, inarticulate President who cannot speak clearly and is laughed at around the world. He was also unclear as to what "disengagement from Iraq" would entail.
The debate was kind of stupid though, he was stuck at the end and ignored by Chris Matthews who could decide who to let speak over time and who not to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)