Tuesday, November 6, 2007

The more things change...

'It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers.
In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials - after the fact.'
- Robert E. Lee, 1863

Sunday, October 21, 2007

As if there were need for more reasons...

Ok, I've attacked criminal immigration here numerous times. Always before, it was on an economic, criminal or socialization basis. I approached the discussion from the American perspective, and what I believe is the best for America and Americans.

Well, today I stumbled across this little gem of a report. Now, from the criminal immigrant's perspective, there is reason to fight criminal immigration.

Clearly, if the ideas I've put forth previously to make employment of criminal immigrants less attractive for American employers, and make coming to America less attractive for those criminal immigrants themselves were put into place, you wouldn't have nearly the chances for things like this to happen.

Yet another reason to get in line with stopping criminal immigration into our country.

CP

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Of High Crimes and Misdemenors (or not)

Is it perspective? Changing moral codes? (In)tolerance? I just don't get it. It seems like we have no perspective anymore about what is damaging to others, and what is merely unpleasant or innocently offensive.

In Scranton, PA, a lady yells some obscenities at an overflowing toilet... much like you or I might curse stubbing our toe or smacking our finger with a hammer. Ok, maybe a bit more sustained than one outburst, but still... in her own home, and at an unexpected and unwanted occurrence.

In Minneapolis, while on a "sting" operation, a Senator is observed by police doing some suggestive actions in a public toilet stall. Each action is somewhat innocent by itself, but taken together, we are told, they are indicators of signaling for homosexual conduct. Ok, personally not what I'd like to have happen to me in a men's room stall, but if it did, I believe I'd finish my business and move out smartly. No harm, no foul. The acts that are deemed "suggestive" need not be acted upon nor reciprocated, and there appears no consequence to ignoring them. Unpleasant but hardly injurious.

Then there is a sitting Senator who drives off a bridge into river, likely while drunk. He escapes from the car and walks home, rests until morning, then reports his actions and turns himself in (escorted by his high-priced family lawyer). His passenger is not as lucky, and ends up drowning despite the likelihood that had the driver helped or sought help, she likely would have survived.

What happens to these three?

The lady is charged with Disorderly Conduct, despite the fact it happened in her own home.

The bathroom Senator pleaded guilty to Disorderly Conduct, and now his Senatorial career is in jeopardy (he is seeking to withdraw his plea, and may yet succeed). His fellow party Senators are pressuring him to resign, and there is likely to be an Ethics Committee investigation of him.

The driving-into-a-river Senator pleads guilty to "leaving the scene of an accident", and not only remains in the Senate, but has remained in the Senate for nearly 30 years since the incident. No Ethics investigation was ever initiated. And, routinely, he can be counted on to lecture the other party and/or administration about "responsibility" and "ethics".

The ACLU, of course, is not silent. They say that one can't be prosecuted for swearing at a toilet or a Cop. They are amazingly silent, however, on anonymous gestures in a public toilet stall, or the appropriate behavior after driving into a body of water and leaving your companion to drown.

We all need to step back and realize that "freedom" doesn't mean freedom from being offended or upset. It means being free from real physical threats or harm. And when it comes to punishing those who offend us, we really need to differentiate between mere offense and true harm. And act accordingly.

CP

Beating the (Criminal Immigration) drums

Its been awhile since I posted anything about Criminal Immigration. Frankly, I felt I was starting to sound like a broken record.

Well, here is the subject again.

Apparently, there are a couple of bills, and possible ammendments, pending or considered likely in the very near future in the Senate. Maybe even today as I type this.

The Vitter Amendment to H.R. 3093, CJS Spending Bill, would withold federal COPS funding from any jurisdiction that establishes "illegal immigrant sanctuaries". Amazing as it seems, there are cities, towns, villages and counties that actually protect these criminals. I can't imagine why the constituents allow this to happen, unless they benefit from it, but it is happening.
This despite it having been illegal to provide sanctuary since 1996! So much for respecting the "Rule of Law". There has been no stick to enforce the law, and whether it be hooligan college students or local/state legislators, without enforcement, the law means nothing.

Apparently, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) has been leading the fight against this ammendment, no surprise since the land of Lincoln has become a virtual state-wide safe haven for criminal immigrants!

Cutting off federal dollars for police in those jurisdictions would cause them to change their ways if they want to keep the dollars flowing in... something pretty hard for any city to resist. Is it blackmail? Maybe of a sort, but these are our tax dollars, and they are being used despite the violation of long standing law AND our national sentiment.

And... remember, this same tactic has worked on our nation's campuses that refused ROTC and Military recruiters while sucking at the federal-grant teet for so long. Now, if they want the greenbacks from Uncle Sam, they must allow recruiters the same access they provide to corporate America on their campuses.

Fast on the heals of the Vitter Amendment, will likely be a fight for the DREAM bill. If offered as an amendment, this "poison pill" would go into the Labor Bill, and provide Amnesty for countless criminal immigrants... in direct violation of the desires of the vast majority of the US population. Your elected officials know that, but will seek to sneak such an amendment into a "must pass" piece of legislation, like the Labor Bill, and write it off toward the "greater good".

We, the people, fought and defeated the attempt to provide Amnesty to tens of millions of criminal immigrants in the spring... lets not let our "representatives" in Washington sneak it in on us now!

Here is a number to call in Washington, to talk to your Senators' staff. If you can't get through to Washington, call one of their local offices (you'll find the number in the phone book). Following the number are some suggested talking points you might want to consider, lifted from an email to me by NumbersUSA [an anti-criminal immigration organization] (www.numbersusa.com)

Call your state's two U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 (Senate Switchboard).
You can look up the specific office phone numbers for your Senators here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm sort alphabetically by state if you don't know the names of your two Senators (shame on you)

Some talking points:

TELL THE STAFFER WHO ANSWERS THE PHONE SOMETHING LIKE THIS:

  • I am calling about H.R. 3093, the CJS spending bill.

  • I am urging a YES vote on Sen. Vitter's amendment to prohibit "COPS" money to cities that support sanctuary policies. (COPS is a federal grant program to state and local law enforcement agencies to advance community policing.)

THAT IS ALL YOU HAVE TO SAY AND THEN SAY 'THANK YOU.' OR YOU CAN CHOOSE TO PICK ONE TO THREE OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS TO MENTION:

  • Only Senators who seek to protect illegal aliens and promote illegal immigration would vote against the Vitter amendment. I am counting on Sen. xmxmxmx to vote YES.

  • Sanctuary policies have been against federal law since the 1996 federal immigration law required local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But many cities have refused to do so, adopting so-called "sanctuary policies." Unfortunately, the Clinton and Bush Justice Departments have refused to bring suit against these cities.

  • The Vitter amendment would seek to eliminate sanctuary policies in local municipalities, whereby law enforcement officials are barred from asking suspects about their immigration status or reporting them to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE).

  • The amendment would ensure that existing law is enforced uniformly across the country by withholding COPS federal funding for cities that choose to violate section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).

  • It is highly unlikely that any sanctuary cities in our state will lose funding because nearly all of them will end up ending their sanctuary policies once they see they will lose federal funding by keeping them.

BONUS AMENDMENT: When you call your Senators, also ask them to support an amendment from Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.).

  • It would add $75 million for 287(g) program-related training, exercises, and technical assistance.Scores of cities, counties and states across the country are in line to get the 287(g) program training so they can aggressively go after illegal aliens in their jurisdictions.
  • But few can get the training because Congress hasn't appropriated enough money for the training.While we put a stop to sanctuary policies in cities with officials who don't respect the rule of law, the feds should be doing everything possible to help those jurisdictions who are ready to do all they can to help identify and detain the illegal aliens in their areas.

Don't let political chicanery subvert the will of the people! Remember, this government is by, for and of all of us! Call your Senators now!

CP

Thoughts on human-kind

Ok, this isn't exactly the normal type of thing I plan(ed) to post on this blog. It isn't about our Republic, our nation or our way of life. It isn't even specifically about the "western world"... whatever that is in our Global Economy Age.

Wait. Maybe it is about our way of life... or a bit about how our way of life should NOT be.

Rather, this is about humankind. It is an open, head-shaking-in-disbelief question about how we, as the human race, can aspire to lofty things like democracy, equality and peace, when horrific, intolerable practices are still... tolerated.

Ignorance is only an excuse as long as you are ignorant. Once you know something, as much as you might like to, you can't unlearn it. You can't put that Genie back in the bottle.

And so, I present to you the following link. It is very disturbing. It is gut wrenching. Even soundless (as I watched it) it is nauseating. I don't want to listen to it.

Viewer discretion advised (don't watch with a small child looking over your shoulder)
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=fur_farm&Player=wm&speed=_med

Background and disclaimer: I am not a tree-hugging liberal, although I am as concerned as the next person about our ecology, environment and the future of both. I believe that animals were put on this earth, in part, to serve and sustain man. I eat meat, wear leather. I tend to think that PETA is an extremist organization, sometimes dabbling in terrorist techniques, and usually over-the-top in its antics.

I don't believe everything that comes out of PETA's mouth. However... what is displayed on this video is inhuman and inhumane. It is not fitting for any culture or society to allow this to happen. Humane slaughter of cattle and other herds for our consumption and use is one thing. Hunting in the western sense is humane and even good for the herd, in that it tends to cull the weakest and makes the herd better. (Hunters are also very interested in protecting the environment, too). Even the raising of fur-bearing animals for their hides is acceptable in my book... AS LONG AS THE ANIMALS ARE NOT MADE TO SUFFER.

There is no doubt in my mind that animals, all animals, have feelings, are self-aware to some degree, and feel real pain. They feel anguish. One only has to look at a dog that has lost its beloved master, to know they feel heartache and heartbreak no different than we humans do. They just can't vocalize it. There is NO EXCUSE for humans to purposely inflict the sort of torture and anguish on innocent creatures as is depicted in this video, period. And certainly not to avoid a little blood on the pelt.

These are some images that are now seared into my psyche. I honestly hope that they are with you, as well. If you have a little trouble sleeping tonight because of this, then perhaps it isn't too late for our species.

Concerned Human

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Temporary Access Established

It's been awhile, and anyone that was visiting here has probably long ago stopped visiting. Hopefully, I can earn back a few readers over the next few months.

We are still waiting to get Internet connectivity in our house, but we think we've finally figured out the problem...or Telecom Italia's problem, I should say... as it has to do with some technical difficulty compounded by bureaucratic lethargy. So, maybe soon the postings can get regular again.

This week, I'm TDY (Temporary Duty) to an Eastern European country, formerly well behind the Iron Curtain, but now a proud member of NATO and EU. Walking around this capital city yesterday and today, has been fun... seeing the old communist era buildings in a state of decay, but seeing the people rebuilding and improving and embracing western ideas.

One would expect the internet connectivity here to be less than even in Italy, but no! I have great wireless here in my room. So, for this week at least, I can hope to post some thoughts, and get back into the discussion this site is dedicated to.

Until I get some thoughts together, and as the brouhaha about Rush Limbaugh's comments or alleged comments brews in our country and the halls of Congress (amazing how the left was silent about Moveon.org's attack on GEN Petraeus)... I leave you with this link. I've seen it before, and suspect you have too. But it is never a bad idea to go back and view it occasionally.

http://www.flashdemo.net/gallery/wake/index.htm

Hat tip to L2 for reminding us about this video, and the value of good company.

CP

Monday, August 20, 2007

Patience, please

Folks,

Still no internet at the house, and just too busy at work, normally, to post anything.

However, the August holidays for the Italians are almost over, so we have hope that we may soon have internet. And, our unpacking at the casa is almost complete... so hopefully, I'll have a little more time to delve into sharing my thoughts with you. I've got a lot of thoughts brewing, too... from global warming to media ethics (wait, those two are related, aren't they?) to the nature of people wanting stuff done. Good material, I think. Hope you will think so too.

Just be patient a bit longer, and I'll be "back up on the net" soon.

Thanks,

CP

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Urlaub... of a sort

Hello all,

Just a quick note to let my loyal reader(s) know that I've not given up on expressing my views on those things that confront our Republic. (Nor have I given up hope that some readers will likewise contribute to the dialog).

My family and I are in the final stages of an overseas PCS move. For those with military experience, you will recognize that term as one that entails picking up and moving the family, household and life via a bureaucracy that only the US Military (or perhaps the Italian government) could conjure up.

We've crossed the pond, and after nearly a month in a hotel, have finally moved into our rental house. The national telephone company has a month to connect our phone, and only then will we know for sure if we can get broadband Internet in our house. No earthly idea when it will be connected, if we can have it at all.

This is a long way of saying that my ability to post to this blog is drastically curtailed. But fear not, I am accumulating notes, thoughts and future postings, so when we get good connectivity, the flood-gates will open and there will be more to read than you will want to look at.

Until then, please consider this like an Italian summer: everyone is on extended vacations, and nothing of importance gets done.

Ciao!

Sunday, July 15, 2007

To represent

It occurs to me that we ask a lot of our representatives in congress. Sure, we give them lots of perks, and we lavish staffs and other trappings of power and near-nobility upon them. I’m not feeling sorry for them.

All the same, I can see where it is a bit of a minefield for some. And when we, their constituents, don’t pay much attention, I can see where they can run afoul of their constitutional purpose.

rep·re·sent
(r p r -z nt )
tr.v. rep·re·sent·ed, rep·re·sent·ing, rep·re·sents 6. a. To serve as the official and authorized delegate or agent for. b. To act as a spokesperson for.


In the strictest sense, our “representatives” should subjugate their own beliefs to those of their constituents, and always vote the way the majority of their constituents want. Effectively, they would become proxies through whom their constituents speak and act.

But, on the other hand, we elect people who (purport) to have the most similar viewpoint as we do… so that in our stead, they will likely vote the way we would.

There are times that a congressman will “vote his/her conscience”. But is this their place if the majority of their constituents desire them to vote a different way? (Similarly, if a Senator is elected as from one party, and then changes to the other party in mid-term, isn’t this something of a fraud on the voting public?)

Often, I have stated that our elected representatives should show some leadership, and lead their constituents to understand why something the majority doesn’t want really is good and necessary (or conversely, why something the majority does want isn’t the best idea, and something else is the proper direction or selection).

But, we don’t elect our Senators and Representatives to be leaders, we elect them to represent us in Washington, whilst we go on about our lives.

This, it seems to me, to be one of the gaps and seams that occurs, through which our “representatives” end up not really representing us at all, but representing narrow slices of “us”. This is also the gaps through which they fall prey to self-aggrandizement (Sen. Byrd), self-enrichment (Rep. Jackson) and gross unaccountability (pork, earmarks, Sen. Kennedy).

As with most things, “sunlight is the best disinfectant”. More eyes on our representatives in Washington (and in State houses, and town halls, etc.) the less corruption and graft we will endure. (One reason the “McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act” is so odious and counterproductive… but that is grist for another time). More people actively involved in what their officials are doing. More people engaged, vocal and knowledgeable. But, this runs counter to the very human reasons we send people in our stead to these representative bodies in the first place, doesn’t it?

Thursday, July 12, 2007

American Heroes

It has often been said that the generation of Americans that came of age, and conquered, the Great Depression and World War II, were the "Greatest Generation". Given the shear magnitude of both situations, and that they prevailed, I've always found it hard to argue with calling them "greatest".

What I wonder, and worry about, is the question of whether the current generation, or one in the future, when so called, would rise to the occassion as well?

When we first kicked off Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, many pundits proclaimed that this generation had risen to the challenge. No doubt, our servicemen and women in harms way have done just that. But has the generation as a whole?

My mother went to work in an armament factory to support the (WWII) war effort. Many other women, and mothers, went into war factories, became the iconic "Rosie the Rivetter". Those catagory "4-F" who could not serve, went to work in jobs vacated by healthier citizen soldiers. People grew victory gardens, collected scrap metal and went without for the war years. By comparison, today "the Army and Marines are at war... the rest of the country is at the mall". Can today's and future generations, pampered and accustomed to safety, fractured by partisan ideology and weakened by a massive criminal immigrant population that isn't assimilated into our society... ever hope to rise to the occassion?

It is what keeps me awake at night.

Here is an example of the shoes that future generation will have to fill [ Hat tip: to L2 (another Great American) for sending this obituary my way]:

AN AMERICAN HERO
Eugene Fluckey, iconic admiral credited with daring sub
raids

By Matt Schudel, Washington Post, July 2, 2007

WASHINGTON --
Rear Admiral Eugene Fluckey, one of the greatest naval heroes of World War
II who was awarded the Medal of Honor and four Navy Crosses for his daring
submarine attacks on Japanese shipping, died Thursday at Anne Arundel
Medical Center in Maryland. He was 93 and had Alzheimer's disease.

Admiral Fluckey, a native of Washington, was a pioneer of submarine warfare and among the most highly decorated veterans from any branch of the military.

In 1944 and 1945, as commander of the USS Barb, he became a Navy legend for his nighttime raids that sank dozens of enemy ships along the east coast of China. His bold forays were complicated by continual barrages from Japanese airplanes and boats and by shallow waters that often forced him to bring his submarine to the
surface.

On Jan. 25, 1945, Admiral Fluckey embarked on what Navy officials, seldom given to hyperbole, called "virtually a suicide mission -- a naval epic." In "an exceptional feat of brilliant deduction and bold tracking," in the words of his Medal of Honor citation, Admiral Fluckey found more than 30 Japanese vessels in a concealed harbor protected by mines and rocky shoals. Evading a cordon of armed escort boats, the Barb slipped into the harbor on a moonless, cloudy night and scored eight direct
torpedo hits on six large ships. One of them was an ammunition vessel, which
exploded and caused "inestimable damage by the resultant flying shells," according to the Medal of Honor citation.

As Admiral Fluckey watched from the bridge, the Washington Post reported in 1945, "Japanese ships were erupting in the night like a nest of volcanoes."

The Barb fled at high speed "through uncharted rocky waters thick with
fishing junks," pursued by two Japanese gunboats. Because of the shallow water,
the submarine had to stay on the surface, dodging obstacles and steady fire for
a full hour before reaching the safe depths of the open sea.

"The significance of that mission," said retired Navy Captain Max Duncan, who was
the chief gunnery and torpedo officer of the Barb, "was that we completely
disrupted the entire shipping system the Japanese had developed at that
point in the war."

On other occasions, Admiral Fluckey maneuvered his submarine so close to shore that he could bombard coastal installations with torpedoes and guns. On its final patrol in 1945, the Barb became the first US submarine equipped with ballistic missiles.

On one mission, Admiral Fluckey selected eight commandos from his crew to paddle ashore in rubber boats and place a 55-pound bomb under railroad ties on the northern Japanese island then called Karafuto. As the men were rowing back to the Barb in darkness, the pressure-sensitive charge blew up a 16-car troop train. It was the only time in World War II that US forces set foot on the soil of the Japanese home islands.

Admiral Fluckey and his 80-man crew were credited with sinking 29 ships, including an aircraft carrier, destroyer, and cruiser. He destroyed more gross tonnage than any other submarine commander. For his wartime exploits, he became known as "Lucky Fluckey" and the "Galloping Ghost of the China Coast."

"He was extraordinary," retired Rear Admiral Robert McNitt, executive
officer of the Barb, said in a telephone interview. "He immediately gained the
full confidence of his officers and crew. He made a point of walking through the
submarine several times a day. He knew everybody on board and knew a lot
about them."

Admiral Fluckey sometimes violated Navy regulations by stashing cases of beer in the officers' shower. Whenever the Barb sank a ship, everyone on board was entitled to a cold beer.

In addition to the Medal of Honor and Navy Crosses (second only to the Medal of Honor), Admiral Fluckey received the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, and a host of lesser decorations. His greatest achievement, he often said, was that no one under his command ever received another well-known medal: the Purple Heart.

"He was absolutely confident and absolutely fearless, but fearless with good judgment," McNitt said. "He brought his ship and his people home."

Eugene Bennett Fluckey was born Oct. 5, 1913. He graduated
from the US Naval Academy in 1935. He was nearsighted and knew he would have
to leave the academy if he failed an eye exam. After studying optics, he
designed a pair of glasses for himself and, with exercises, restored his
vision to 20-20.

He joined the submarine corps in 1938 and served in the Pacific before taking command of the Barb. After the war, he became the personal aide to Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, the chief of naval operations.

Later in his career, Admiral Fluckey served as director of naval intelligence and commanded amphibious units and the Navy's Pacific submarine force. He headed the electrical engineering department at the Naval Academy and led a fund-raising campaign for the Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium.

In 1992, he wrote a dramatic account of his experiences as a submarine commander, "Thunder Below!" It won the Samuel Eliot Morison prize for naval history.

His wife, Marjorie, died in 1979 after 42 years of marriage.

Admiral Fluckey leaves his wife, Margaret, of Annapolis, Md.; a daughter from his first marriage, Barbara Bove of Annapolis and Summerfield, Fla.; four grandchildren; and four great-grandchildren.

In recent years, Admiral Fluckey and his wife helped run an orphanage in Portugal. He also would treat the aging veterans of the Barb to cruises in Alaska and on the Mississippi River.

"He was imaginative, very decisive, and very quick, with a great sense of fun," said McNitt.



.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Am I Satan?




Am I Satan? I’m sure there were times my parents wondered that very thing as I was growing up in the 60’s and 70s. Perhaps my darling spouse has also wondered this very thing….

But I digress.

Recently, I received an interesting email from a long-time correspondent, taking umbrage with my post of June 26th, titled “Fool Me Once, Shame On You. Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me.". Here is what he said (I’ve made no corrections for spelling or grammar):



If I was pres, I would surmise we have two choices. Pass this bill or
invade and take over central america. because of the war in Iraq, we dont
have the resources to take over central america. The poor who live there
will continue to send their sons here to send money back there so they
can buy clean water and not drink out of the mud puddles, pay for a roof
tht doesn't leak, pay for medicinne when their children get sick,
etc.

I am a Christian. Your position is no different from
Islam. Islam says, Kill them". You say, 'Just let them die".
Both views of Satan.

Delete me from your list, you SATAN.


So, being a thoughtful American, I have to wonder: Is my erstwhile correspondent on to something?

After honest reflection, I have to conclude he is not.

There are many bad places in the world. Places where people live poorly. Places where people barely eek out a living, or are perpetually hungry. Places where people are repressed and can only dream of a portion of the freedoms we Americans take for granted.

We Americans help these people where we can. Our government spends huge sums of our tax dollars on direct aid, and works in many ways with other governments to help them help themselves. Our people individually donate vast treasures via church and civic organizations, targeting everything from famine and water supplies to democracy, rain forests and adoption. Occasionally, we even send our sons and daughters into harm’s way to help change a regime and give the people an opportunity for self-determination.

The responder has nobly spent much time in south and central America on medical-humanitarian endeavors, and has singularly sought to help one particular individual from Nicaragua, going so far as to donate one of his own kidneys, and spend undoubtedly vast sums of his own money. I recognize his sincere and righteous heart, and applaud his concern for his fellow man.

But, as sad and bad as these many places are, and how seemingly futile our governmental, charitable and direct assistance may seem…it is NOT a reason to accept unbridled, criminal immigration into our borders.

National policy must be made on the macro level, with macro concerns. While there are certainly individuals in Guatemala with leaky roofs and the need for medicine, who send their children to America to work in honest jobs to send money home… policy can’t be made for these people. Policy must be made for the vast invasion of criminal immigrants who are in our country undocumented, working (if they are working) at jobs that drive our wages down and not paying taxes; behaving in ways dangerous to our citizens (and themselves); sapping our resources by use of government assistance to which they contribute little if anything; not assimilating as true citizens of our country; and sending vast quantities of monies out of our economy back “home” for many reasons other than leaky roofs and medicine.

Our society, through our police and judicial systems, confiscate the ill-gotten gains of those engaged in illegal activities. Drug dealers loose their cars, boats, homes and cash, even before they are convicted in court of the crimes they are accused. Thieves loose their booty and belongings. Even white-collar criminals must pay steep fines (look at Scooter Libby as an example). Never is it an excuse that they needed to commit their crimes to feed their family, pay for medicine or provide a roof.

Why do we continue to allow the 12-20 million criminals in our midst, who are continuing in criminal activity daily, to not only keep the results of their criminal activities, but even send $20 billion or more annually out of our country and our economy?

We need to remember, we must be concerned with America and Americans first. As national policy, those that are in our country illegally, for the purpose of helping others outside our country are a problem that must be solved.

All religions teach that one must take care of one’s own family and people first, before going out and helping others. Logic tells us that in terms of international relations, much the same must be true. Our honest, heartfelt concern for others cannot be justification to allow all that we hold dear to crumble around our feet.

The responder also believes we have only two solutions. I disagree. We have the solution of closing off the ability for criminals to enter our country illegally, and work to remove those criminally already within our borders. (I addressed this in a post Saturday, June 23, 2007, How to Easily Remove the Criminal Immigrants from the USA”) Then, we continue to work with the governments of these places to address their own problems internally, while opening LEGAL immigration channels to these people within reasonable limits. Even with legal immigration, we need to make sure such immigration benefits American interests first and foremost.

Does this view make me a Satan? No. I think not. What do you think?

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

Fairness? A practice, not a doctrine

There was a time, not too long ago, when the FCC had a little rule called “The Fairness Doctrine”. Basically, what this rule did, was cause the broadcasting entities to devote roughly equal time to opposing views. If it aired 30 minutes of “conservative” content, it needed to air 30 minutes of “liberal” content.

Fairness, sounds very American and even-handed, right?

Well, sometime back in the Reagan era, this rule went away. Good news for “conservative” talk-radio, bad news for “liberal” talk-radio.

You see, when left unfettered, “conservative” talk radio like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and others do well, because they get market share. “Liberal” talk radio, like “Air America” don’t do so well, despite massive infusion of donation from dedicated liberals. It seems in the marketplace of ideas, liberal ideas just don’t sell, while “conservative” ideas do. It is classic free-market economy and capitalism in practice.

Now, many on the left of American politics think the rise of “conservative” talk-radio helped cause the republican take-over of congress in 1994. Perhaps, they are right. Undoubtedly, by comparing and contrasting the two philosophies to a large audience, the American people voted what made sense to them… and brought in a more conservative legislature, and ultimately executive body.

This, of course, alarms the left-leaning portion of the leadership, and now that they are once again in the majority in both houses of congress, they would like to remove this perceived advantage for the conservatives. They want to go back to a version of the “Fairness Doctrine”, a move that would effectively remove “conservative” programming, because no business could survive devoting equal time to a message that doesn’t sell. Just look at the demise of “Air America”. So, as the thinking goes, the conservative voice would be quieted, and only liberal messages, as transmitted via the “liberal media” would be heard. No counterpoint, and no serious ideological debate means liberal views would prevail.

Conservative programming on America’s airwaves, internet, and cable programming is a product, just like cars, TVs and food. Do you want the government telling you that you must buy equally from two vendors? Do you want the government dictating that such a product be removed from the shelf of ideas, because not enough people buy the competition? If not, tell the Congressmen you employ (those that work for you) that you do not want a return to the days of limited viewpoints in our media. Tell them no return to the “Fairness Doctrine”.

Postscript: As with most things, the folks that advocate a return to the “Fairness Doctrine” totally ignore when they get beneficial airplay. John Gibson from Fox News highlights one such occasion in this commentary on the subject.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

"Fool Me Once, Shame On You. Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me."

Full disclosure: Below posting is a cut and paste from an email I received yesterday from HumanEvents.com. Quotations attributed to Sen. Kennedy and former Attorney General Edwin Meese, have not been checked for accuracy.

"Fool Me Once, Shame On You. Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me."

That old Scottish proverb describes exactly what Ted Kennedy and his RINO minions are trying to do.

Of course they're saying: "This is a new bill, not an amnesty bill, but a national security bill. And guess what! We've thrown in an extra $4.5 billion to beef up security along the border.

But before you swallow that line... remember that we've been down that road many times before.

According to columnist William Federer in an article titled Trust Teddy Kennedy, again?, Kennedy, when he was chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization, made the following -- all too familiar statements YEARS AGO:

"I want to comment on ... what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same..."

"Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [this bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area...

"Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates or those with contagious disease... As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge...

"The charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage..."

And what happened?

Twenty years later, in 1986, over 3 million people came to the United States illegally, and our elected leaders tried to "solve" the problem again.

When he signed the Simpson-Mazzoli bill into law, President Ronald Reagan called it what it was... "AMNESTY" but he signed it because he believed that the enforcement provisions of that bill would solve our problems once and for all.

Over 20 years later, we are still waiting for the enforcement provisions of Simpson-Mazzoli to be implemented!

Former Attorney General Ed Meese said:

"The lesson from the 1986 experience is that such an amnesty did not solve the problem... there was a failure of political will to enforce new laws against employers. After a brief slowdown, illegal immigration returned to high levels and continued unabated, forming the nucleus of today.s large population of illegal aliens."
But now, in 2007, we're supposed to believe that this so-called "comprehensive immigration bill" will solve our problems... that our government will have the "political will" to enforce the security provisions -- which are frankly not worth the paper on which they are printed.

Don't believe it.

That's why we must not allow this amnesty bill to pass the Senate.

That's why the American people are being totally reasonable when they ask our elected officials to BUILD THE FENCE FIRST and pass an ENFORCEMENT ONLY bill before the topic of amnesty is ever addressed again.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Patriotism 101

Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.
---Adlai E. Stevenson

Saturday, June 23, 2007

How to Easily Remove the Criminal Immigrants from the USA

Like most things, I think we try to make matters more complicated than they actually are. Also, we tend to forget the power of capitalism to fix most things that government has messed up, if just given the free-hand to do so.

Take the criminal immigration issue for example. Most pundits will tell you it would be impossible to deport the 12-20 million criminal immigrants already in our country (so we ought to just find a way to accept them... so the story goes).

Hogwash! Capitalism would easily take care of this situation if allowed a free hand. Here's how:

1. Make it illegal to transfer money out of the country by any means unless you are legally in the country (citizen, resident alien, etc.... this would shut down the $20 billion annually that is funneled back to Mexico alone.)

2. Make the cost of employing criminal immigrants higher than the benefit: (heavy fines and jail time for employers caught with criminal immigrants on their payroll... with the real enforcement to back it up)

3. Ensure that criminal immigrants who end up in our criminal justice system (regardless of guilt or innocence for the offense that brings them there) get deported immediately to the country they transited immediately before coming into the USA. Maybe Mexico will tighten up things on their side of the border if they start getting all the people who come through their piece of territory dumped back in their laps, not just Mexican nationals.)

4. Remove all public funding for any assistance or "welfare" of criminal immigrants except to avoid death or grievous bodily injury. No school, no food stamps, no medical coverage. They didn't earn it by coming here legally, or by being born here, so why give it to them?

5. Remove any bilingual programs and support systems throughout the bureaucracy. They are going home, no use for these things since they can't take advantage of the programs for American Citizens anyway.

That should about do it. Once the financial incentives for citizens of other countries to illegally come to the USA dries up, they won't come... and many if not most already here will go home. We won't even have to pay transportation costs, except for those we deport because they popped up in our criminal justice system.

Remember, this is OUR country. We don't have to share it with anyone if we don't want to... and certainly don't have to share it with people who don't even respect our laws enough to come here legally. I feel absolutely no remorse about advocating that criminals in our country because they entered illegally, should not be allowed to remain just because it is difficult to remove them.

I think I've just shown how they will remove themselves, if given the right incentives.

That's my position. I'm a Concerned Patriot.

Action Alert: Immigration Amnesty Fiasco

I'm cutting and pasting from an email I got today, because I think it pretty well sums up the situation with respect to the upcoming vote for the alive again Immigration Amnesty Bill. Why this thing has President Bush's support and strong backing is beyond me. From where I sit, support of this bill amounts to a breach of any legislator or the president's oath to uphold the constitution.

Here is the paste:

We need 41 Senators to vote NO on cloture next Tuesday or to not show up
for the vote.

Sen. Johnson (D-S.D.) is still seriously ill and expected to be a
no-show.

We believe we have solid commitments from 32 other Senators that they
will vote NO on cloture that would allow the Kennedy/Bush amnesty (S. 1639) to
come to the Senate floor for debate.

That would give us 33 of the 41 we need.

Congratulations to all of you who have elected Senators solidly in our camp
or who have persuaded Senators to move to the anti-amnesty side -- those
Senators in this list:

32 DEFINITE 'NO' ON AMNESTY CLOTURE Many of you will find ways to express tremendous appreciation and to help solidify them so that no offer from the White House or party leadership can turn them at the last moment.
Alexander (R-Tenn.)
Allard (R-Colo.)
Baucus (D-Mont.)
Byrd (D-W.Va.)
Bunning (R-Ky.)
Chambliss (R-Ga.)
Coburn (R-Okla.)
Corker (R-Tenn.)
Cornyn (R-Texas)
Crapo (R-Idaho)
DeMint (R-S.C.)
Dole (R-N.C.)
Dorgan (D-N.D.)
Enzi (R-Wyo.)
Grassley (R-Iowa)
Hutchison (R-Texas)
Inhofe (R-Okla.)
Isakson (R-Ga.)
Landrieu (D-La.)
McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Pryor (D-Ark.)
Roberts (R-Kan.)
Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
Sanders (I-Vt.)
Sessions (R-Ala.)
Shelby (R-Ala.)
Smith (R-Ore.)
Stabenow (D-Mich.)
Sununu (R-N.H.)
Tester (D-Mont.)
Thune (R-S.D.)
Vitter (R-La.)

12 SENATORS LEANING NO ON FINAL PASSAGE BUT PROBABLY LEANING YES ON CLOTURE
(when it counts) Please do everything you can to get to these Senators and help
them understand what is at stake and where the citizens of your state stand.
Bond (R-Mo.)
Bingaman (D-N.M.)
Burr (R-N.C.)
Boxer (D-Calif.)
Cochran (R-Miss.)
Conrad (D-N.D.)
Ensign (R-Nev.)
Levin (D-Mich.)
Gregg (R-N.H.)
Nelson (D-Neb.)
Hatch (R-Utah)
Webb (D-Va.)

ALL OTHER SENATORS APPEAR TO BE PLANNING TO VOTE TO HELP PASS A BILL THAT WOULD BE:

  • largest amnesty for illegal aliens in history
  • largest increase in foreign labor in history
  • largest expansion of social welfare programs in history (to handle the 35-40
    million -- mostly low-educated, low-skilled -- foreigners who would get Green
    Cards over the next 20 years alone


All those Senators need your constant phoning, as well. A few could still
be brought to the side of American workers, students and communities and vote NO
on the amnesty. And the rest need to be shown full wrath to help the others
decide to stay on the side of the voters.

Source: NumbersUSA: http://www.numbersusa.com



Make it a point to email and call your Senator's office first thing on Monday. Even better, grab a few of your friends and go visit his or her local office and make your point in person. These Senators need to understand that to vote for cloture is the real measure of whether they support this monstrosity of an amnesty bill or not.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Shelf Life of Politicians

Our founding fathers envisioned service in the weak central government they created, to be a burden that citizens took on for a limited time, then returned to their homes and farms, to live within the laws they created.

These founders never would have thought we would create a veritable “political class” of people, who once elected, stay within the halls of power. Career politicians, they would have questioned, “who would ever want to do that?”

But that is what we have today.

I suppose there are some good reasons to have longevity in the House or Senate. Certain things come with seniority, and over time, the processes have gotten so complex, one needs some experience there before one can get anything done.

Term limits have a certain appeal, but then the seniority system would be out of wack. Perhaps that is good, level the playing field, and the processes will have to be simplified. Eliminate the entrenched representatives, and perhaps you eliminate the entrenched self-interest?

But what of those folks who go from one elected office to another, climbing a latter, without ever having to go back and live “in the real world”?

I for one would be more than a little irked if some Representative I “hired” by voting for, spent half his term running for election to another office, such as the Senate or President.

It just seems like he or she should be doing the job we sent him/her to Washington to do, not our campaigning for his/her next job. My tax dollars are still paying him as if he was putting in a full day on the job he was elected for. Reelection campaigns are nearly as onerous, but at least it is to keep his current job. I can’t see much of a way around that, except for term limits.

So, my proposal is sort of a hybrid on term limits.

No elected official can run for any office other than the one he/she is currently in while in office.

The effect of this would be that Representatives who wanted to be Senators, would have to sit out at least one term in order to run for the Senate seat they want. More than likely, they’d have to get a job and live in the real world. At the very least, they would not have the advantage of incumbency-proxy; not be able to use their taxpayer-funded staffs for anything election oriented (not supposed to now, but the fence in between the two functions has holes in it). And we’d create more turnover, and allow more fresh blood into the two chambers.

Want to run for President, Mr./Mrs. Senator? You can get right on that after you finish your time in the Senate. Do the job the people of your state sent you to do, then we can talk about a promotion. While running for President, John Kerry was reportedly only present for one Senate vote in all of 2004. Why would anyone hire somebody with such an absentee record?

So, that is my proposal. Anyone have any alternative ideas? Or, see some obvious flaws with my thinking? Please, let me know.

Concerned Patriot

Membership Committee

Lets say you are the Membership Chairman for a group you belong to. It is your job to recommend to the membership at large whom to offer membership to. Let us also assume that this group is formed to further or promote the advancement of the members of the group, and is not a charity.

So, what sort of people do you look for to extend membership (with its inherent responsibilities and privileges) to?

Do you seek people who are honest and law-abiding, or do you seek those who have a demonstrated history of breaking the law, cheating and being dishonest?

Do you seek those who by their skills, education and experience will enrich the organization, or do you seek those who, by lack of skills, education and experience will become the lower-tier of the membership and drag the aggregate abilities of the organization down?

Do you seek those that will immediately assimilate and be a value-added part of the organization, or do you seek those that will take years to fully assimilate, if ever, and may never be value-added to the organization?

Do you seek those that will contribute to and enrich the organization by their labor, or do you seek those that will be net receivers and siphon off resources to send to other organizations that are in competition with our organization?

Do you seek those who will sponsor other highly-qualified members or do you seek those who will become an unobstructed conduit for others, largely unqualified and based solely on heredity, to join?
~~~~~~~~~~~~

In all the discussion about the criminal immigrants and what to do with them, we tend to forget that our Nation is not a charity for the whole world. WE should be seeking those new “members” that will add to our national capabilities, intellect and dialog. We should be seeking those that further our goals, and who become part of us, not some virtually partitioned subset.

The USA is the greatest humanitarian nation in the world. We have always targeted some regions and peoples for immigration to help alleviate suffering. But the numbers of humanitarian entries, while in the hundreds of thousands annually, are such that it won’t negatively effect the whole. And these are LEGAL immigrants.

The 12-20 million criminal (illegal) immigrants already within our borders are largely not value added. They are a drain on every facet of our system. They may well be taking bottom-tier jobs that nominally contribute to the economy, but the net result is a drain to the taxpayer and the national economy.

Ross Perot’s “big sucking sound” goes through the hands of these criminals to their relatives south of the border.

And yes they certainly ARE criminals! They broke our laws in crossing the borders illegally. They have further broken our laws by staying. More than likely, they have broken our laws by creating and/or possessing forged documents in order to work. Often, they break other laws such as traffic, driving privileges, insurance and residence. They most certainly are criminals, and must be thought of that way.

When deciding the criminal immigration issue in particular, and formulating a more rational immigration policy in general, we really ought to ensure that the vast majority of the people we allow to join us will be value-added, enrich us as a nation, assimilate and become Americans, not a cloistered sub-community of America.

That’s my thought, what’s yours?

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Civil Liberty Football

"Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an
increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why
privacy should give way to national security, to law and order, to efficiency of
operation, to scientific advancement and the like."
--Justice William O. Douglas (1898-1980), U. S. Supreme Court Justice


So many liberals were and continue to be up in arms about supposed infringement on “civil liberties” because of the Patriot Act that was pushed through after the terrorist sneak attack of 11 September 2001.

The administration was severely pummeled and pilloried because of this. George W. Bush is routinely likened to Hitler, and it has been said so often that it almost appears to be a given in much of America’s psyche that he has taken the country on a turn toward fascism.

Around the world, “journalists” and pundits with agendas have picked up on this notion, and continued to perpetuate the myth.

I don’t buy it. I don’t buy that the Patriot Act put our civil liberties at risk, and I don’t buy that the administration seeks totalitarian rule or anything close to it.

Purported threats to Civil Liberties, like everything else in Washington, is just another political football. It is a false notion that resonates amongst the “sheeple”, and is useful to beat the opponent down with.

Take Sen. Chuck Schumer’s latest cause:

Senator Chuck Schumer wants to amend the immigration bill to require you to get a new Social Security card with biometric information imbedded in it. Creating this new card would . . .

  • Cost $9 billion (before the usual government cost over-runs)
  • Require the Social Security administration to hire an additional 60,000 employees
  • Require you to spend time getting the new card
  • Require you to give the central government sensitive personal information

In the past only criminals had to supply the state with things like fingerprints, DNA, or retinal scans. Now, if Schumer gets his way, law abiding citizens will have to do it too, just for the privilege of earning a living.


Meanwhile . . .The people this card is supposed to control will continue to live
underground, work on the black market without papers, or forge documents. The
real control will be over you, not them.

-- Source:
www.downsizedc.org



Now, if that isn’t a direct and unwarranted threat to our civil liberties, I don’t know what is. Indeed, a “dagger through the heart of our traditional freedom*”. But it isn’t the “evil” administration of George W. Bush proposing it, but a darling of the left, a complete liberal, the senior senator from New York. Bet we won’t hear much liberal bloviating about this amendment!

When you play political football these days, right and wrong don’t matter. It all has to do with who has the louder cheering section.

* Hat tip: WSJ’s Best of the Web and James Taranto

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Five Lessons in Illegal Immigration

1. Four of the 19 hijackers involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks were stopped for traffic violations by local law enforcers prior to their actions. All four were in the United states illegally, but a lack of shared information between local and federal officials allowed them to escape jail and commit mass murder.

2. Mexico’s No.1 source of foreign capital, some $24 billions a year, is money sent home from its citizens living in the United States --- many illegally. That surpasses the country’s oil and tourism revenue.

3. The U.S. taxpayer cost of the estimated 5 millions illegal immigrants with U.S. borders who are high-school dropouts is approximately $500 billions over the course of their lifetimes.

4. The average wage for a meat packer was between $15 and $20 per hour prior to the influx of illegal immigrants into the United States. Today it’s less than $10 per hour.

5. U.S. Border Patrol officers apprehended 3,722 people in 2005 who originated from either terrorist states or countries where al Qaeda is active.

Source: American Legion illegal immigration forum conducted in early March in Washington. Published in May 2007 American Legion magazine.

Package Deals

As consumers, we tend to like “package deals”. You know, the notion that by packaging several items together, we get them at a lesser price than if we bought them separately. Value meals work on this principle. So do option packages on automobiles.

Of course, sometimes, the seller is packaging things that consumers don’t want… they are slow sellers… with items we do want. In this case, we don’t have the option of buying them separately, and must purchase the item(s) we really didn’t want, to get those that we do want. Ultimately, a lot of those unwanted items end up in the back of drawers, in boxes in the garage, at flea markets or in the local landfill.

The way congress seems to work is similar. They “package” different legislation together to get them passed. I'm sure they would tell us it is for "efficiency". The problem is, the various pieces of legislation don’t have anything to do with each other. Often, it is like buying a “package deal” that includes a Big Mac, a left swim fin, 2-metric wrenches, a tire and a 220v hair-dryer.

And, best of all (for congressmen) it gives them “political cover”. Maybe their constituents (the few who are paying attention) will get upset about the wrenches and the hair dryer. But Mr. John Q. Congressman can look them in the eye and say, “ma’am, I agree. I didn’t like that part either. But I felt the other things were too important to vote against, so I voted for the whole package.”

It is a lot easier on them since they are “buying” with our tax money, not out of their own pockets.

This is how a lot of the pork gets bought, how a lot of our money gets thrown away. This is the sort of business that makes it very hard to hold your Representatives and Senators accountable for their votes.

I think to return to a position of accountability, not to mention some thrift in the spending, we need to limit our congressmen to legislation that is one subject at a time.

You want a bridge in Arkansas? No problem, put it on its own bill, keep it “pure” and vote it up or down.

Want to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Great… just don’t add funding for fish museums in Idaho.

One subject, one bill, one piece of legislation. It really isn’t too hard.

Maybe, just maybe, such a process would both slow down the spending of our tax dollars, as well as ensure that at election time, we really know what our representatives stood for, and stood against. And, we couldn’t so easily be lied to anymore… which is of course why our congressmen would only go along with it if they felt they had no choice.

That’s my thought, what do you think?

Concerned Patriot.

Monday, June 18, 2007

Open Letter to Harry Reid

Full Disclosure: I checked with the purported author of this letter. He acknowledged ownership: "Yes, this was my letter. I mailed it to Sen. Reid on Friday, because his web-site won't accept comments from zip codes outside of Nevada. Please pass along." And so I am...

OPEN LETTER TO HARRY REID

Senator Harry Reid
528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510

Senator Reid,

You are truly a shallow and petty human being.

You have accused two honorable men of incompetence in order to pander to your voting constituents.

I am not aware of any information available that would substantiate your claim to your supporters that Gen. Pace and Gen. Petraeus are “incompetent”. Instead, their records demonstrate that they are well qualified to lead our military. Unfortunately, military regulations prohibit them from publicly criticizing you. However, I am not going to stand by while you slander these honorable men.

These two men have dedicated their lives to service to their country. They have spent their adult lives in uniform defending this great nation. They are not pay-for-play politicians like yourself. Nor are they armchair generals like yourself.

They have actually served on the front lines, and Gen. Petraeus is there now.

They have had to make the one call that is hardest for any commander, to commit troops to war to dutifully execute the orders of the Commander-in-Chief to the best of their abilities. They have dealt with losses over many years, both in combat and training, war and peace, and they know the cost of those decisions for the troops and their families. They also know the price of indecision and bloviating for which your Senate (you are the majority leader, so it falls on your head for their performance) is famous.

They do not have the luxury of sitting back and throwing stones, but never offering an alternative (like you and your anti-soldier crowd do every day).

You sit in the luxury of your taxpayer-provided office and throw criticisms out about honorable men, just to pander to your supporters. You declared that the war is lost which provided a great morale boost for our head-cutting enemies.

I have yet to hear from you or any of the Democrats how we might do things differently to win this campaign in Iraq in the on-going War on Terror. The only thing I see daily is your attempts to politicize every action taken in support of victory.

I contend that you have failed in your Constitutional duty as a legislator.

Did you at any point during their confirmation hearings express any concern over their competence? Can you show me where you stood and opposed the appointment of these two honorable men? If they are incompetent, why did the Senate overwhelmingly confirm them to the positions they currently hold?

Did General Petraeus suddenly become incompetent since you voted to confirm him in January of this year? Or did you just say what your political supporters wanted to hear?

Your moment of silence for our troops yesterday was great political theater, but your comments about the capabilities of the Commanders demonstrate your true feelings toward our warriors. I noticed you didn’t take responsibility for any of the losses that have been caused by your defeatist remarks.

You have disparaged two honorable men who have served their country honorably with devotion and passion and by association all those who serve beside them. You owe both General Pace and General Petraeus a public apology.

You owe a public apology to every man and woman who is serving and who has served in this current conflict. And you owe an apology to the American people for allowing your political ambitions and disagreement with the President to cloud your judgment and denigrate the reputations of true patriots.

And yes, I do question your patriotism.

Joseph S. Downs, Lt Col (Ret) USAF Herndon VA
Steve Downs(703) 793-3311
stevedowns@cox.net

Criminal Immigration Amnesty 101: Cheap Tomatoes

Full Disclosure: I received this via email. I cannot verify that the author is actually a school teacher, or from California. I only know that the arguments posited herein seem plausible. I pass it on “for what it is worth” in the ongoing national discussion about (criminal) immigration. Hat tip: L2 for the email.

This should cause everyone think, be you Democrat, Republican or Independent

From a California school teacher - - -"As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of:

I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern California high school which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students average lower socioeconomic and income levels. Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens, Huntington Park, etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools.

Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free breakfast, I'm not talking a glass of milk and roll -- but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell phones. The school also provides day care centers for the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; my budget was already substantial. I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free education in America. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students here in the country less then 3 months who raised so much hell with the female teachers, calling them "Putas" (whores) and throwing things so the teachers were in tears .

Free medical, free education, free food, day care, etc. Is it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to demand rights, privileges and entitlements?

To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they, LIKE their gardener and housekeeper, and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs.

Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more crime, lower standards of education in our schools, overcrowding, new diseases etc., etc, etc. For me, I'll pay more for tomatoes.

We need to wake up. The guest worker program will be a disaster because we won't have the guts to enforce it. Does anyone in their right mind really think they will voluntarily leave and return?

There are many hardworking Hispanic/American citizens that contribute to our country and many that I consider my true friends. We should encourage and accept those Hispanics who have done it the right and legal way.

It does, however, have everything to do with culture: A third-world culture that does not value education, that accepts children getting pregnant and dropping out of school by 15 and that refuses to assimilate, and an American culture that has become so weak and worried about "politically correct" that we don't have the will to do anything about it.

CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about? Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage Consumers don't want expensive produce Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs

But the bottom line is cheap labor. The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth, a farce, and a lie. there is no such thing as "cheap labor."

Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or $6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200 free.
- He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.
- He qualifies for food stamps.
- He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.
- His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.
- He requires bilingual teachers and books.
- He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.

If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI. Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this is at taxpayer's expense .

He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.

Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.

He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.

Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after paying their bills and his.

The American taxpayers also pay for increased crime, graffiti and trash cleanup.

But, we get cheap tomatoes.

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Thoughts from Papa...

Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.
-- Ernest Hemingway

Why the 2nd Amendment?

"Under every government the dernier [Fr. last, or final] resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people...entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army,composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens."
----- Anonymous 'framer' of the US Constitution. Source: Independent Gazetteer, January 29, 1791

My understanding, based on what I was taught as a child and on research since then, is the above sentiment was the norm in the time of the founding of our republic... and precisely the reason why the 2nd Amendment was adopted in the Bill of Rights.

As for me, I am very, very concerned about any elected official, and any government, that would seek to disarm its citizens. It may be a bumper sticker, but it is also 100% correct: "Armed men are citizens, unarmed men are subjects."

Concerned Patriot

Timing is everything

It was one of those strange convergences of time and space that sometimes happen in life.

On Thursday, I noticed whilst screening the headlines on Foxnews.com, that the Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid, had made disparaging comments about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, USMC. Specifically, he called the general "incompetent", and noted that others, such as Sen. Carl Levin, democrats all, had made similar observations.

That evening, I had the pleasure of attending a "conversation with the chairman" at the Joint Forces Staff College. Here, General Pace had a discussion with about 500 students and guests, and answered questions in a very forthright and honest way.

The final question posed to him that evening, by a member of the local (Norfolk) radio media, asked about his feelings on not being renominated for another 2 years as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. His answer showed to all in attendance that while he was undoubtedly personally disappointed, his loyalties are to the institution of the US military, and the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that selflessly serve our nation in peace and war.

General Pace has served in the United States Marine Corps for 40 years. His leadership positions have spanned every level from a platoon leader in combat in the jungles of Vietnam, to his current post at the pinnacle of the military hierarchy. Simply put, you don't get to that level, or that longevity, by being "incompetent" as Sen. Reid suggests. All Sen. Reid has to do to get to his position is hoodwink his constituents once every 6 years. General Pace has had to live a life of devoted service, avoiding the real and professional minefields along the way. And, he had to be ratified by the Senate 3 times in the past 6 years... I bet Sen. Reid voted for him each of those times.

But, rather than engage in a personal jousting match with Sen. Reid and others, Gen. Pace advised his boss, the Secretary of Defense, that he would fight the good fight if that was what the SECDEF desired, but that the SECDEF needed to do what was best for the institution of the US Defense Department. Additionally, he would not retire in lieu of the fight, but would retire once the announcement that he would not be renominated.... he couldn't let the soldiers in the field think that he was quitting the fight voluntarily, or as he said "I have to be told that my service is no longer required"

Our military has long held the position that we are apolitical. Our civilian masters rightly demand that we avoid political partisanship, and when we are asked our professional military opinion, we give it without regard to the politics involved. This is as it should be.

Should not Sen. Reid, et al, also avoid politicizing the military leadership, dragging distinguished, experienced professionals like Generals Pace and Petraeus into the current mudslinging against the administration that the democrats have seemingly substituted for substance?

Sen. Reid currently holds an abysmally low approval rating via several polls. Perhaps his constituents in Nevada will not return him to the senate the next time he comes up for election... hopefully the good citizens of that state will realize that personal attacks on the military who serve them are not only wrong, but unwarranted and unseemly .

Concerned Patriot.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Winning.... and losing

"If you can accept losing, you can't win."

--- Vince Lombardi (American Football Coach, national symbol of single-minded determination to win 1913-1970)

Friday, June 8, 2007

A Tale of Three Trials

Three communities across our nation. Three totally different "crimes". Three different legal actions. One common travesty.

--“Scooter” Libby’s perjury and obstruction conviction.

-- The Duke Lacrosse Player’s rape case, ultimately completely dismissed.

-- Paris Hilton’s release from jail after 3 days on a 23 (or 45) day sentence.

America’s Justice System (or Legal System, if you prefer) used to be one that other nations looked up to, and downtrodden peoples tried to get their country to emulate. It used to be based on impartiality, a system that was “blind” to all things but the law. In short, our nation was one where we jealously adhered to the “Rule of Law”, something we still try to implement around the world in places like Iraq, but apparently something we’ve forsaken here at home.

While the former assistant to the Vice President, Mr. Libby, was found guilty by a jury of his peers, one can argue that the case should never have been pursued in the first place. One can argue forcefully, that were it not for politics, he never would have been indicted and tried. There was no crime, something the “Special Prosecutor” new before he ever interrogated Scooter Libby. Nearly all witnesses contradicted other witnesses, and even themselves over the course of the Grand Jury appearances, interrogations and the actual trial. It boils down to a he-said-she-said case. And again, there was no original criminal act for him to obstruct or perjure about in the first case. Injustice was furthered in the way the sentencing was conducted, resulting in an unreasonable prison sentence for a man who arguably sacrificed much to faithfully serve his country in the first place.

Westward, in North Carolina, over the past year or so, we’ve been treated to the spectacle of three privileged college students being hauled in front of the populace, ridiculed and “tried in the media”. They were expelled from school, (2 of them, the 3rd graduated just prior to the indictment) and the lacrosse coach forced to resign. Almost from the beginning, there were huge questions about the veracity of the claims by the alleged victim. Eventually, the DA, Mr. Nifong, was forced to drop some of the charges, then hand the case over to the State Attorney General. It came to light that Mr. Nifong suppressed exculpatory evidence, and ultimately the State Attorney General not only dismissed all charges, but did so in a manner that clearly indicated that the three young men were innocent (not merely that he couldn’t bring enough evidence to convict). Mr. Nifong now faces possible disbarment; it appears his motivation was political pandering to the black population of his jurisdiction. The three young men are exonerated, but their reputations have been forever tarnished, they and their families have expended considerable amounts of money on their defense, and the populace is jaded towards the criminal justice system.

Going further west still, we land in Hollywood. There, a rich, morally deficient heiress to a vast fortune has run afoul of the law. Busted for DUI, then caught driving with a suspended license and warned, then caught again, she was finally sentenced to 45 days in jail. For some reason, she and her family thought 45 days was too harsh, and ultimately fought it down to 23 days. She “bravely” accepts her fate, and marches off to jail, all the while calling it an “ordeal” and “a hard time” in her blog. After three days of (reportedly) sleeplessness and crying in a “special needs” section of the jail, she is suddenly released, to “home arrest” for the next 40 days, with a monitoring anklet. Her home, by the way, is 2,700 sq ft and $2 million… much nicer one supposes than her cell had been. As I write this, she is due back in court, and it appears that the judge who sentenced her may require her to be re-incarcerated for the remaining 20 days of her sentence.

What does all this mean?

Frankly, I don’t know. But I know it all smells badly.

When a dedicated public servant, one who has served honorably at personal sacrifice, is put on trial more for political reasons than for any true criminal behavior, it should send a chill down anyone’s spine that is concerned about “Civil Liberties”. Isn’t that what banana republics do to the citizens they don’t like or that they fear… put them in jail after a show trial? The liberals scream about some alleged assault on our “Civil Liberties” in a time of war, yet fully embrace a brazen example of the same thing when it fits their desires. They are hypocrites.

When three kids can be used by a power-hungry local prosecutor to further his political ambitions, even in the face of pretty obvious problems in the case from the very beginning, it should send a chill down anyone’s spine. One doesn’t have to be in the political mosh pit of Washington to fall prey to political hit jobs. One only has to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, and be the wrong color or ethnicity… and look out. These kids had the good fortune of having parents with the means to put up the fight. What if they had been at some state university, and not had that ability? How many people behind bars today are in reality “political prisoners” in our own land?

When an über-rich, famous person can flaunt the simplest laws by which we live, and get out of paying the very modest consequences, it should send a chill down anyone’s spine. As much as it pains me to say it, Al Sharpton is right about his characterization of the Paris Hilton debacle. Many of us have had months longer than 23 days in conditions much less agreeable than jail (can a deployment into a war zone comes to mind) and not whined about it. When someone can whimper through a couple of nights and blow snot-bubbles and blubber when people come to check on them… and it all causes them to get sprung after 3 days, there is a big problem in our system. Medical problem? No biggie… the jail has an infirmary or arrangement with a local hospital. Get fixed up then get back behind the bars.

“All too often the intersection of politics, law and the media results in a lack of responsibility by practitioners in all three areas…

“For the preamble to our Constitution, our founders stated explicitly the purposes for our Constitution. Listed even before providing for domestic tranquility or for the common defense was the establishment of justice. (Fred Thompson)”

"Equal under the law" "Blind Justice" Fairness, justice and freedom. Are these concepts of the past?

Three separate issues, three separate cases, three separate jurisdictions. One inescapable conclusion: When we subvert our judicial system to the desires of political expediency, fame and fortune, not only do the hapless defendants suffer. We all suffer a loss of an underpinning of our society, the Rule of Law. We need only wonder what "brick" will be next to fall away from the foundation our nation rests upon.


Concerned Patriot (/Rant Off)

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

Discrimination!

Recent reports are that Cindy Sheehan, the so-called "Peace Mom" is cutting and running from her crusade.

Former activist Cindy Sheehan is selling her Crawford, Texas, property, and Move America Forward, a group that supports the troops, wants to buy, the Associated Press reports:


But Sheehan doesn't want to sell to just anyone.


"It'll be a cold day in hell before she sells it to them," her sister, Dede Miller, told The Associated Press. "She'll sell it to them for $5 million."

Funny how liberals are. If I was listing my house for sale, and a particular type of person (race, ethnicity, gender... take your pick) wanted it but I didn't want to sell to them, I'd be sued for discrimination.

But a liberal nut-job doesn't want to sell her property to a conservative outfit, and I'm sure she will get away with it. Nobody will sue, and nobody will lift a finger.

I guess it is human nature, but wouldn't it be nice if the behavior mandated for the rest of us by the liberal elites actually applied to them as well?

Concerned Patriot


Our elected officials....

An Indian walks into a cafe with a shotgun in one hand pulling a male buffalo with the other. He says to the waiter "Want coffee."
The waiter says, "Sure, Chief. Coming right up."


He gets the Indian a tall mug of coffee.
The Indian drinks the coffee down in one gulp, turns and blasts the buffalo with the shotgun, causing parts of the animal to splatter everywhere and then just walks out.


The next morning the Indian returns. He has his shotgun in one hand, pulling another male buffalo with the other. He walks up to the counter and says to the waiter "Want coffee." The waiter says "Whoa, Tonto! We're still cleaning up your mess from yesterday.
What was all that about, anyway?"


The Indian smiles and proudly says "Training for position in United States Congress. Come in, drink coffee, shoot the bull, leave mess for others to clean up, disappear for rest of day. “

A funny joke, sent to me by a good friend (who sends many such jokes). But, isn't it true? Our wonderful elected officials, always in a rush to pander to voters and garner more support for the next election, rush to "fix" things with legislation. Often these "fixes" cause more problems than they solve, and seemingly are rarely repealed or replaced.

Our founding fathers envisioned a slow, cumbersome legislature that was populated by reluctant servants... citizens... who served briefly and then returned to live within the very laws they placed upon their fellow citizens.

Over time, we have created a near-royalty class of elected officials. They go to Washington and rarely come "home" again. They stay in the halls of power for decades, and lavish staffs and all manner of perks upon themselves, all the while trying to obfuscate from their employers (us) just what it is they do, and how they spend our money.

And, where are they when it is time to clean up the mess they made?

I understand that to really get things done in Congress, seniority is key. But, maybe we don't need much to get done. Maybe, just maybe, term limits would not have a significant effect on those things we really need done, but would very much solve some of the graft, corruption and malfeasance we do need delivered from.

Just a thought. What are yours?

Concerned Patriot

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Addendum

I should stress as well: while from time to time this blog may contain general observations and commentary about (military) operations, at no time will there be first-person and/or time-sensitive reporting on operational missions.

Not only would this be counter to everything I've spent my life doing, possibly harm fellow soldiers and mission accomplishment and be a potential violation of Operations Security (OPSEC), but in all honesty, it would not be germaine to the purpose of this blog.

If you are seeking such type of information or reporting, you have URL'd over to the wrong blog.

C.P.

Getting Started

Greetings,

For a number of years, I've carried on a lively correspondence with a number of people, the subject of which is generally political. I have some very strong emotions about the course our country is going, the state of the body politic, and societal~cultural issues that may, or may not, spell doom for our country and our way of life.

This blog, I hope, will be a better way to capture these messages and thoughts, than my previous emails. I hope in time it will become a place for others to share their thoughts, comment and debate.

I am sworn to defend our constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I take that responsibility very seriously, as I have for most of my adult life. There are very real threats to our way of life, and not all of them have to do with the current legislative and/or executive branches; terrorists; or the real and perceived threats to our civil liberties. While I tend to be conservative, this is not a conservative blog... it is about identifying and discussing all sides of issues that threaten (real or perceived) our nation, constitution and way of life.

I welcome you into this blog, and hope you will enjoy the ride.

Sincerely,


Concerned Patriot
Norfolk, VA
9 May 2007