"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.

Patriotism 101

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

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)

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