Alrighty, so during the debate over the amnesty bill currently dying (I pray) in the Senate, a bill which would destroy America as we know it within a generation or two by turning us into a bigger version of the corrupt Third World craphole that is Mexico, an amendment was offered by Senator Tom Coburn (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin) which would mandate enforcement of all major illegal immigration laws ALREADY DULY PASSED AND ON THE BOOKS prior to offering any sort of amnesty/guest worker/destroy America program currently being debated. Not that I'm shocked, but that amendment was defeated, with John "Traitor" McCain not even bothering to cast a vote and better than a dozen GOP senators voting against it. How sad and pathetic that 54 of the (allegedly) smartest, most sophisticated people in the world want to hand out citizenship like candy to a bunch of illegal immigrant criminals (redundant, I know) WITHOUT EVEN BOTHERING TO KEEP OUT FELONS, INCLUDING SEX OFFENDERS AND THOSE WHO HAVE DEFIED DEPORTATION ORDERS! Sorry for the caps, but this makes me crazy to even think about. At least TN's 2 senators got this one right, although Bob Corker is the one whose voted right on this issue every time so far. I have no confidence in Lamar Alexander due to his mealy-mouth, wishy-washy vacillation between supporting and voting against this monstrosity of a bill. If there's a superior GOP candidate in the '08 primary, he has my vote already, because Alexander looks to be losing his mind and the ability to hear his constituents. And if you need more reasons why this bill would be such an unmitigated disaster, check out Joe Mariani's great column on the subject, right here. I'm with Emperor Misha..."Rope, tree, politician...some assembly required."
"These are the existing laws that the opponents of the Coburn amendment do not want fully enforced:
EXISTING LAW.--The following provisions of existing law shall be fully implemented, as previously directed by the Congress, prior to the certification set forth in paragraph (1):
(A) The Department has achieved and maintained operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States as required under the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367)
(B) The total miles of fence required under such Act have been constructed.
(C) All databases maintained by the Department which contain information on aliens shall be fully integrated as required by section 202 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1722).
(D) The Department shall have implemented a system to record the departure of every alien departing the United States and of matching records of departure with the records of arrivals in the United States through the US-VISIT program as required by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 note).
(E) The provision of law that prevents States and localities from adopting ``sanctuary'' policies or that prevents State and local employees from communicating with the Department are fully enforced as required by section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373).
(F) The Department employs fully operational equipment at each port of entry and uses such equipment in a manner that allows unique biometric identifiers to be compared and visas, travel documents, passports, and other documents authenticated in accordance with section 303 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1732).
(G) An alien with a border crossing card is prevented from entering the United States until the biometric identifier on the border crossing card is matched against the alien as required by section 101(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(6)).
(H) Any alien who is likely to become a public charge is denied entry into the United States pursuant to section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)).
Telling, very telling."
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Cannibalism Unto Extinction, TV-Style
OK, so I just finished watching the season finale of "The Shield" last night. It's one of my favorite shows, it didn't disappoint at the end of this season, and I'm already curious to see what happen next season. As I watched it though, a thought occurred to me that every TV series, especially ones centered around action ("The Shield", "24", "The Unit", etc.) eventually runs through just about every plot line and device imaginable somewhere around season 5 or 6 generally. After all, there are only so many variations on the "Oh NO! The world is going to be destroyed...oh wait, here's Hero X to save the day!" theme that can be explored.
At that point, the show is close to jumping the shark, but it isn't quite there yet. It probably has about another season, maybe two left in the tank, because there remains one more twist they haven't done yet...corrupting, jailing, and or killing off one of the main characters. I'm not talking about maybe one of the good guys picks up a hooker and his wife finds out...I mean something like Hulk Hogan going from yellow and red, good guy Hulk on WWF/WWE to black, New World Order bad guy Hulk on WCW turning. For example, in "The Shield" this season, some of the shenanigans of the four main cops on the show were in danger of being brought to light by an Internal Affairs investigation. One of the cops was actually considering taking a deal that would send him to jail but protect his three cop friends, but one of the three didn't know that, so he dropped a grenade in his car and killed him to keep him quiet. Now the posse of four is down to a posse of 3, with the main character/head cop and his best friend/supporting cop/co-conspirator set to be gunning for each other as the next season starts up, which will ultimately lead to the Fab Four becoming the Fab Two...and don't even get me started about how nearly EVERYONE except Jack Bauer on "24" has been a mole, a traitor, or something at one point nin the show. "24" is quickly turning into a WWE-type series, only much less entertaining because La Raza and CAIR seem to be writing the script.
This is just a phenomenon I've noticed. Your mileage may very, but it is my blog after all, so there it be. :)
At that point, the show is close to jumping the shark, but it isn't quite there yet. It probably has about another season, maybe two left in the tank, because there remains one more twist they haven't done yet...corrupting, jailing, and or killing off one of the main characters. I'm not talking about maybe one of the good guys picks up a hooker and his wife finds out...I mean something like Hulk Hogan going from yellow and red, good guy Hulk on WWF/WWE to black, New World Order bad guy Hulk on WCW turning. For example, in "The Shield" this season, some of the shenanigans of the four main cops on the show were in danger of being brought to light by an Internal Affairs investigation. One of the cops was actually considering taking a deal that would send him to jail but protect his three cop friends, but one of the three didn't know that, so he dropped a grenade in his car and killed him to keep him quiet. Now the posse of four is down to a posse of 3, with the main character/head cop and his best friend/supporting cop/co-conspirator set to be gunning for each other as the next season starts up, which will ultimately lead to the Fab Four becoming the Fab Two...and don't even get me started about how nearly EVERYONE except Jack Bauer on "24" has been a mole, a traitor, or something at one point nin the show. "24" is quickly turning into a WWE-type series, only much less entertaining because La Raza and CAIR seem to be writing the script.
This is just a phenomenon I've noticed. Your mileage may very, but it is my blog after all, so there it be. :)
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
What to Do with William "Freezer" Jefferson (D-LA)?
I'm with Captain Ed from Captain's Quarter's...give Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), indicted on multiple felony counts including bribery and extortion, his due process, but nail him to the wall if he's convicted. I was actually happy to see the GOP's corrupt politicians get their just desserts (Reps. Randy Cunningham and Bob Ney are both doing prison time), now the same should apply to the Democrat sleazoids who are convicted. I'm really concerned though, because if the slap on the wrist that former Clinton National Security Advisor, Sandy "Pants Burglar" Berger got, Jefferson might end up with the Presidential Medal of Freedom if he's found guilty. Jefferson says he has a perfectly good explanation for the $90,000 the FBI found in his freezer...I can't wait to hear it...and if Nancy Pelosi kicking him off the Ethics committe splits black voters from the Democratic party, so much the better.
"Now that the other shoe has finally dropped on Rep. William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson, the next question is what the Democrats intend to do about him. Under indictment on sixteen counts of corruption, Jefferson represents just about everything against which the Democrats campaigned last year, with their attacks on the supposed "culture of corruption", and they'd like to be rid of the albatross. However, the Congressional Black Caucus smells a double standard, and they're not likely to go along with any plan that could railroad Jefferson out of the House without having been convicted first:
Democratic leaders fear that Rep. William J. Jefferson's indictment yesterday on racketeering and bribery charges, coming exactly one year after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi engineered his ouster from the powerful Ways and Means Committee, could rekindle a smoldering dispute between the speaker and black lawmakers who were once pillars of her power.
For months, the Louisiana Democrat's mounting legal peril has bedeviled Democrats as they sought first to point to corruption as a tool to oust Republicans from control of Congress, then pressed for ethics and lobbying changes that they said would usher in a new era of clean politics on Capitol Hill. For every thrust Democrats made against the GOP, Republicans parried with Jefferson, saying problems in Congress were bipartisan.
Through it all, much of the Congressional Black Caucus has stood by Jefferson and against the Democratic leadership. And yesterday, Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.), a veteran caucus member, said it would be "as supportive of our colleague as possible, in terms of saying a person in America is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty."
The Democrats screwed this up when they supported Jefferson's re-election. They should have pulled their support in last year's midterms when it became obvious that Jefferson was corrupt. They could have easily selected someone else in the LA-02 and thrown enough money behind him or her to have avoided this situation now. Given where they are at the moment, it would have been money well spent.
After his re-election, Nancy Pelosi made it worse. She wanted to assign him to a significant committee to repair relations with the CBC, relations she damaged by removing him from the Ways and Means committee and hinting that he should resign last year. This year, she assigned him to the Homeland Security committee, and only got stopped by Republicans when they demanded a roll-call vote to put Jeffersons supporter on the record. They still have left that seat unfilled, as Pelosi has apparently never withdrawn the nomination.
The problem for the Democrats is that the CBC has a point -- or rather, two of them. First, Jefferson has not been convicted of anything, at least not yet. While Jefferson should never have had any committee assignments, and should be removed from the last one he has, the House should not expel him unless he receives some sort of due-process hearing. Either that means a trial, which may take a long time, or an ethics hearing, which will require Pelosi's endorsement and will invoke the wrath of the CBC all over again.
The second point involves the double standard the CBC recognizes. Allan Mollohan still retains his powerful position on the Appropriations Committee, despite an investigation into serious corruption issues by the DoJ, similar to Jefferson before the indictment. Pelosi never demanded his removal from Appropriations, and in this case the assignment is even more egregious, as Mollohan sits on the subcommittee that controls funding for the DoJ. Mollohan, however, is white, while Jefferson is black, and the CBC doesn't see much else separating the two cases.
Pelosi is in a jam, which will be made worse by John Boehner. He wants the Ethics Committee to review the indictment and make a recommendation on expulsion from the House for Jefferson. That's an overreach, but it still puts Pelosi in a vise. She either has to endorse that call and fuel the CBC's opposition to her, or fight it and wind up defending a man indicted on multiple counts of corruption. Either choice is a loser."
"Now that the other shoe has finally dropped on Rep. William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson, the next question is what the Democrats intend to do about him. Under indictment on sixteen counts of corruption, Jefferson represents just about everything against which the Democrats campaigned last year, with their attacks on the supposed "culture of corruption", and they'd like to be rid of the albatross. However, the Congressional Black Caucus smells a double standard, and they're not likely to go along with any plan that could railroad Jefferson out of the House without having been convicted first:
Democratic leaders fear that Rep. William J. Jefferson's indictment yesterday on racketeering and bribery charges, coming exactly one year after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi engineered his ouster from the powerful Ways and Means Committee, could rekindle a smoldering dispute between the speaker and black lawmakers who were once pillars of her power.
For months, the Louisiana Democrat's mounting legal peril has bedeviled Democrats as they sought first to point to corruption as a tool to oust Republicans from control of Congress, then pressed for ethics and lobbying changes that they said would usher in a new era of clean politics on Capitol Hill. For every thrust Democrats made against the GOP, Republicans parried with Jefferson, saying problems in Congress were bipartisan.
Through it all, much of the Congressional Black Caucus has stood by Jefferson and against the Democratic leadership. And yesterday, Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.), a veteran caucus member, said it would be "as supportive of our colleague as possible, in terms of saying a person in America is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty."
The Democrats screwed this up when they supported Jefferson's re-election. They should have pulled their support in last year's midterms when it became obvious that Jefferson was corrupt. They could have easily selected someone else in the LA-02 and thrown enough money behind him or her to have avoided this situation now. Given where they are at the moment, it would have been money well spent.
After his re-election, Nancy Pelosi made it worse. She wanted to assign him to a significant committee to repair relations with the CBC, relations she damaged by removing him from the Ways and Means committee and hinting that he should resign last year. This year, she assigned him to the Homeland Security committee, and only got stopped by Republicans when they demanded a roll-call vote to put Jeffersons supporter on the record. They still have left that seat unfilled, as Pelosi has apparently never withdrawn the nomination.
The problem for the Democrats is that the CBC has a point -- or rather, two of them. First, Jefferson has not been convicted of anything, at least not yet. While Jefferson should never have had any committee assignments, and should be removed from the last one he has, the House should not expel him unless he receives some sort of due-process hearing. Either that means a trial, which may take a long time, or an ethics hearing, which will require Pelosi's endorsement and will invoke the wrath of the CBC all over again.
The second point involves the double standard the CBC recognizes. Allan Mollohan still retains his powerful position on the Appropriations Committee, despite an investigation into serious corruption issues by the DoJ, similar to Jefferson before the indictment. Pelosi never demanded his removal from Appropriations, and in this case the assignment is even more egregious, as Mollohan sits on the subcommittee that controls funding for the DoJ. Mollohan, however, is white, while Jefferson is black, and the CBC doesn't see much else separating the two cases.
Pelosi is in a jam, which will be made worse by John Boehner. He wants the Ethics Committee to review the indictment and make a recommendation on expulsion from the House for Jefferson. That's an overreach, but it still puts Pelosi in a vise. She either has to endorse that call and fuel the CBC's opposition to her, or fight it and wind up defending a man indicted on multiple counts of corruption. Either choice is a loser."
Monday, June 4, 2007
Memo to All Married Douchebags Looking for Affair Fun
My online buddy Chickpea rolls out what should be the default answer of every woman to any idiot man who goes looking for a little something on the side. I think this should apply to any level of committed relationship, from monogamous dating to marriage. Read the whole thing...it's priceless, and there's a definite language alert in effect for this one.
Dear Married, Engaged, or Otherwise Attached Men,
Fu*k you. Do not contact me*. Do not butter me up with compliments. Do not send me flowers. Do not manipulate me into thinking that your wife/fiancee/girlfriend is this horrible bit*h and you just want to be loved when you know damn well she is nothing of the sort. Do not tell me "it's just the sex that's a problem" because that clearly indicates there's a communication issue as well. Do not tell me it's too hard financially to divorce. Do not tell me how miserable your relationship is and then turn around a few weeks later and tell me how great it is. If it's that great then why the sweet blue fu*k are you trying to get into my pants? Clearly it's not that great but you're too much of a chickensh*t to either fix the problem or end it and I will not sit around and wait for you, let you use me for a fu*k, or be your GD counselor. I will not be the one you get to have your little affair with. I will not be "the other woman" anymore.
You don't know what damage you do just because you're dick needs sucked. You hurt your wife/fiancee/girlfriend. You expose them to God only knows what kinds of diseases because, and I hate to break it to you, not everyone tells the truth. You hurt them and you hurt me too. You make me think I am something special. You tell me I'm some one you'd be with in a different circumstance. You tell me I'm everything she isn't. You don't know what kind of damage that does or the pain it inflicts. You don't care either. You think with your dick and only your dick. Forget anyone who gets hurt, right? It's their fault for believing you, right?
Fu*k you, fu*k you, fu*k you.
Kindly,
Chickpea
Dear Married, Engaged, or Otherwise Attached Men,
Fu*k you. Do not contact me*. Do not butter me up with compliments. Do not send me flowers. Do not manipulate me into thinking that your wife/fiancee/girlfriend is this horrible bit*h and you just want to be loved when you know damn well she is nothing of the sort. Do not tell me "it's just the sex that's a problem" because that clearly indicates there's a communication issue as well. Do not tell me it's too hard financially to divorce. Do not tell me how miserable your relationship is and then turn around a few weeks later and tell me how great it is. If it's that great then why the sweet blue fu*k are you trying to get into my pants? Clearly it's not that great but you're too much of a chickensh*t to either fix the problem or end it and I will not sit around and wait for you, let you use me for a fu*k, or be your GD counselor. I will not be the one you get to have your little affair with. I will not be "the other woman" anymore.
You don't know what damage you do just because you're dick needs sucked. You hurt your wife/fiancee/girlfriend. You expose them to God only knows what kinds of diseases because, and I hate to break it to you, not everyone tells the truth. You hurt them and you hurt me too. You make me think I am something special. You tell me I'm some one you'd be with in a different circumstance. You tell me I'm everything she isn't. You don't know what kind of damage that does or the pain it inflicts. You don't care either. You think with your dick and only your dick. Forget anyone who gets hurt, right? It's their fault for believing you, right?
Fu*k you, fu*k you, fu*k you.
Kindly,
Chickpea
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Still Think Jihad Means "Peaceful Inner Struggle"?
Courtesy of Live Link (Hat Tip: Emperor Misha), we get word of a horrific plan concocted by more practitioners of the "religion of peace". These Islamo-Nazis planned to blow up a girls' school in Iraq, because women are property and can't be gettin' that fancy book learnin' dont'cha know? Otherwise they might learn that cruelty, abuse, involuntary isolation, servitude, and sexual abuse and mutilation, and subjugation are not part of the marriage contract and the Koranimals might become extinct overnight (would that the world were so fortunate). Here's to hoping that the Iraqi police get to have a friendly little chat with the perps of this plot, and that the "talking" is done by a rusty pair of pliers and a blowtorch, among other things.
US Troops Thwart Horrific Plan To Blow Up Bagdhad Girls' School
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- American soldiers discovered a girls school being built north of Baghdad had become an explosives-rigged "death trap," the U.S. military said Thursday.
The plot at the Huda Girls' school in Tarmiya was a "sophisticated and premeditated attempt to inflict massive casualties on our most innocent victims," military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said.
The military suspects the plot was the work of al Qaeda, because of its nature and sophistication, Caldwell said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.
The plot was uncovered Saturday, when troopers in the Salaheddin province found detonating wire across the street from the school. They picked up the wire and followed its trail, which led to the school. Once inside, they found an explosive-filled propane tank buried beneath the floor. There were artillery shells built into the ceiling and floor, and another propane tank was found, the military said.
The wire was concealed with mortar and concrete, and the propane tanks had been covered with brick and hidden underneath the floor, according to a military statement. Soldiers were able to clear the building.
"It was truly just an incredibly ugly, dirty kind of vicious killing that would have gone on here," Caldwell said.
Iraqi contractors were responsible for building the school, which was intended to bring in hundreds of girls.
"Given the care and work put into emplacing this IED, it is likely it had been planned for a long time" and it is thought that "the IED was not intended to be set off until the building was occupied," the military said.
Authorities intend to question the Iraqis involved in the school's construction."
US Troops Thwart Horrific Plan To Blow Up Bagdhad Girls' School
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- American soldiers discovered a girls school being built north of Baghdad had become an explosives-rigged "death trap," the U.S. military said Thursday.
The plot at the Huda Girls' school in Tarmiya was a "sophisticated and premeditated attempt to inflict massive casualties on our most innocent victims," military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said.
The military suspects the plot was the work of al Qaeda, because of its nature and sophistication, Caldwell said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.
The plot was uncovered Saturday, when troopers in the Salaheddin province found detonating wire across the street from the school. They picked up the wire and followed its trail, which led to the school. Once inside, they found an explosive-filled propane tank buried beneath the floor. There were artillery shells built into the ceiling and floor, and another propane tank was found, the military said.
The wire was concealed with mortar and concrete, and the propane tanks had been covered with brick and hidden underneath the floor, according to a military statement. Soldiers were able to clear the building.
"It was truly just an incredibly ugly, dirty kind of vicious killing that would have gone on here," Caldwell said.
Iraqi contractors were responsible for building the school, which was intended to bring in hundreds of girls.
"Given the care and work put into emplacing this IED, it is likely it had been planned for a long time" and it is thought that "the IED was not intended to be set off until the building was occupied," the military said.
Authorities intend to question the Iraqis involved in the school's construction."
Saturday, June 2, 2007
I'm Up for Impeachment Hearings Over Illegal Immigration, are the Dems?
As he is well-known to do, Emperor Misha rips off a righteous, vicious rant excoriating President Bush for insulting the intelligence of the American people and insulting us outright by peeing down our back and telling us it isn't amnesty running down into our eyes. Between his condescension and Sen. Lindsay Graham (RINO-SC) calling the amnesty bill opponents bigots, we may be witnessing the relegation of the GOP to permanent minority status regardless of whether the amnesty bill becomes law. Memo to President Bush: 1.) You aren't the President of Mexico, so stop acting like it; and 2.) It's very stupid to fire all the RNC phone bank operators because they were honest with you, telling you the American people aren't buying the amnesty you're shoveling. You're just lucky the Democrats aren't possessed of any more testicular fortitude than most of your own party cohorts (and that they don't want Dick Cheney as president), otherwise, you'd be impeached and tossed out of office with upwards of an 80% super majority vote over this immigration debacle. There's a definite language alert in effect for the Emperor's rant, but it mirrors exactly how I and many other Americans I've talked to are feeling these days. I can't wait until Fred Thompson (Thank God he's in!) mops the floor with Hillary in 2008...hopefully that will coincide with John "Traitor" McCain, Lindsay Graham and the other GOP turncoats making their way to the unemployment line (at least as far as the Senate goes). For a more intellectual dissection of Bush's latest bout of suicidal lunacy, read chuck Moth from Townhall here.
"When it comes to dealing with the illegal immigration issue, President Bush and his administration are their own worst enemies. On other issues, the president is sugar and spice when it comes to Democrat opponents. But when it comes to rule-of-law conservative opposition to his “amnesty” proposal, the preferred method of operation is akin to thwacking the hornet’s nest with a stick.
You may recall that when the Minutemen first brought this issue to major public attention a few years ago with their volunteer border patrols, President Bush called them “vigilantes.” And it’s been pretty much all downhill from there, leading to his big May 29 speech on the current immigration reform proposal at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Georgia.
The president began his remarks by introducing two Hispanic members of his administration, Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez and former Cabinet member Mel Martinez, now a U.S. Senator from Florida. Both were born in Cuba. “I want to mention those two men because, to me, they represent what the immigration debate is all about,” the president said.
So right out of the chute the president misrepresents the issue. I don’t believe Gutierrez and Martinez are illegal immigrants. They and/or their families immigrated here legally. And it appears both came here to escape the oppression of the Castro regime, not to simply get a higher-paying job. So Gutierrez and Martinez are NOT what this immigration debate is about. The issue is over those who break the law to get here.
The president then recounted exactly what the individuals training at FLETC were there for: “You’re going to safeguard our ports of entry, you’ll investigate workplace immigration violations, and you’ll arrest those breaking the law. We are a nation of laws, and we expect people to keep the laws. And if they break the laws, there will be a consequence.”
Yes, and according the president that consequence for some 10-12 million (and counting) illegal aliens who have already broken the law is…a path to citizenship.
And the president still doesn’t understand why so many people are opposed to this?
The president then patted his own administration on the back for how significantly it’s changed immigration enforcement over the years. “One way to measure how things have changed is look at the budget,” the president said. “We’ve doubled the funding for border security since I took office.”
Yes, that’s one way to measure how things have changed; usually the Democrats’ way. Simply throwing more money at a problem doesn’t fix it. If it did, the public school system in this country would be the envy of the world. It’s not. This type of “mo’ money” mentality is part of the reason why the president has lost so much of his fiscal conservative base since taking office.
The president next insisted that his administration has taken border security seriously. “As a matter of fact,” the president said, “we take it so seriously that I asked the governors to put some National Guard troops down there until our Border Patrol agents got trained.”
As if. The president was dragged kicking and screaming to put troops on the border. The governors of California, Arizona and New Mexico took the lead in this regard because Washington and the Bush administration refused to act. The Bush folks only finally and reluctantly took border enforcement seriously because they were forced to. It’s rather disingenuous to now try to take credit for that action.
Next the president took credit for ending what became known as “catch-and-release,” the process whereby an illegal alien was caught, arrested and then released with the understanding that the illegal alien would return for a deportation hearing. “Well, the problem was the people didn’t want to come back for their hearing,” Bush explained. “They generally wanted to go to work and so they would just disappear.”
Good grief. According to this statement, illegal aliens didn’t show up for their deportation hearings because they didn’t want to lose time on their job, not because they didn’t want to be sent back home. And he said it with a straight face. Talk about misrepresentation.
Nevertheless, the president took credit for ending catch-and-release, saying, “It sends a strong signal to people: If you come to the country, we will find you, and we’re going to send you home, so don’t try to come in the first place.”
This is laughable. Earlier this month there were protests and demonstrations all across the country by illegal aliens. It was on all the networks. So it didn’t exactly require Dick Tracy to find people who have entered this country illegally. They were giving media interviews, for crying out loud! Now exactly how many of those folks were on the receiving end of the president’s “strong signal” and were sent home? I mean their home in their native country, not the one here.
The president next talked tough about cracking down on businesses who hire illegal aliens - as though employers are somehow responsible for doing one of the few constitutionally mandated jobs of the federal government. “It’s against the law to hire somebody who is here illegally. That’s the law,” the president declared. “And the message to employers, if you’re hiring somebody here that you know is illegal, we’re going to - - there’s a consequence to be paid. That’s what a nation that bases its system on rule of law does.”
So a restaurant owner who only wants to hire someone who will show up on time and wash the dishes is going to pay a criminal price if the employee turns out to be an illegal alien who somehow slipped past the president’s new-and-improved, tough-as-nails border security measures. But what about the illegal alien who broke the law in the first place, putting the poor restaurant owner in jeopardy? Why, he gets a path to citizenship! What a deal.
Employers shouldn’t be responsible for immigration enforcement. How is the average small business owner supposed to know if the Social Security card and driver’s license he’s presented with by a job applicant is real or a forgery? And if he decides to do a little extra checking because the applicant has a Hispanic name, he gets nailed for “profiling.” The poor schlub is in a no-win situation.
The president next complimented ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency) for making “more than 3,000 arrests for immigration violations since the beginning of this fiscal year.”
Great, only 9,997,000 to go…give or take a few million. Not bad for 15,000 employees on a bare-bones taxpayer-funded budget of just $4.2 billion. That would be one arrest for every five employees at a cost of only $1.4 million per arrest. Yep, we’re really getting our bang for our buck there, aren’t we?
OK, yes, that was two parts sarcasm mixed with one part hyperbole on my part. But if the president’s gonna do it, so am I.
Now we get to one of my favorite lines from the president’s speech: “It’s important for our American citizens to understand that the immigration system is in desperate need for comprehensive reform.”
No, Mr. President. The American people understand this issue perfectly well. We do not need “comprehensive” new immigration laws; we simply need to enforce the existing laws.
We tried this “amnesty” thing some 20 years ago. Gave just about everyone who was illegally in the country a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card. Now, 20 non-enforcement years later, you want the American people to believe that if we just give you your guest-worker program - complete with a path to citizenship for people who have entered the country illegally – then you’ll really, really, really start enforcing the immigration laws of this nation.
Sorry, but in the immortal words of Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott of the Starship Enterprise: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Or as The Who succinctly put it, “We won’t get fooled again.”
And while we’re on the subject of trying to fool most of the people some of the time, the president again reiterated what is perhaps the biggest fraud of this entire illegal immigration debate; that illegal aliens are doing “jobs Americans aren’t doing.” He repeated the claim multiple times during the remainder of the speech.
“There are no such jobs,” pointed out economist Thomas Sowell recently. “Even in the sector of the economy in which illegal immigrants have the highest representation -- agriculture -- they are just 24 percent of the workers. Where did the other 76 percent come from, if these are jobs that Americans won't do?” So much for that argument.
It was at this point that the president became down-right insulting.
First he praised senators “who put politics aside and put courage first” in supporting his “comprehensive” bill. He applauded them for doing “what’s right, not what’s comfortable” in the face of criticism. Or put another way, those of us who don’t support his amnesty-by-another-name proposal are cowards who are wrong and are simply playing politics.
The president next said, “A lot of Americans are skeptical about immigration reform primarily because they don’t think the government can fix the problems.” (Well…duh) “And my answer to the skeptics is…give us a chance to fix this problem.” The president continued: “For decades we have not been in complete control of the borders and many people have lost faith in our capacity to get control of the borders. (Well…duh) I ask them to look at what’s taken place over the past years, recent years.”
Ummm…they are, Mr. President. The government has had over 20 years to fix this problem since the last amnesty was sold to us. And you have presided over the last six. We tend to think we’ve given y’all plenty of chances to fix this problem already. Our patience has grown thin.
Next the president advised that his bill would “promote tamper-resistant identification cards…that some document forger can’t foist off as a document for somebody to come and pick peaches here in Georgia.” The president desperately wants us to believe this whole issue is about nothing more than peach-picking in Georgia. Totally disingenuous.
But this tamper-resistant ID card idea presents a whole host of additional problems and new concerns for both American workers and employers. Will you and I, American citizens, have to get one of these new tamper-resistant ID cards in order to pick peaches in Georgia? I don’t know about you, but I’m not good with that.
But if every prospective peach-picker isn’t required to present a tamper-resistant ID card, how’s an employer supposed to know which applicants are legal and which aren’t? And the first time an employer asks an American citizen named Julio Valdez to present a tamper-resistant ID card, he opens himself to a rash of lawsuits and EEOC complaints. So while this tamper-resistant ID card sounds great on the surface, it’s a whole new nightmare (unless you’re a lawyer or government bureaucrat) waiting to happen.
At this point, the president began singing the praises of his proposed amnesty…er, guest-worker plan. “If you’re interested in securing the border, wouldn’t you rather have Border Patrol agents chasing down terrorists and gun runners and dope runners as opposed to people who are coming to do jobs Americans aren’t doing?”
What the president is saying here is that if you oppose his “comprehensive” immigration reform proposal, then you’re responsible for terrorists, gun runners and drug dealers not being caught. But the really outrageous thing about this statement is the fact that there are two Border Patrol agents sitting in jail right now - Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean - for chasing down a notorious drug smuggler, shooting him in the butt and capturing him. Funny how the president failed to mention that. Disgraceful that he hasn’t yet issued a pardon for these Border Patrol agents.
Time to talk about “amnesty.”
“Amnesty is forgiveness for being here without any penalties, that’s what amnesty is,” the president explained. “I oppose it. The authors, many of the authors of this bill oppose it. This bill is not an amnesty bill. If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill is an amnesty bill. It’s not an amnesty bill. That’s empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our fellow citizens.”
Talk about empty political rhetoric. Here we go again with the ol’ Humpty Dumpty routine: “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – nothing more nor less."
As the president explains, his “not amnesty” bill will allow an illegal alien to apply for a “Z” visa. To get the “Z” visa, which will enable him or her to continue working here, the illegal alien “must admit they violated the law and pay a meaningful penalty, pass a strict background check, hold a job, maintain a clean record, and eventually learn English.” Then, if the illegal alien who broke the nation’s immigration laws to get here wants to become an actual citizen, he or she “would first have to pay an additional fine” and “return home to file an application for your green card.”
Let’s put this in another perspective: If I break into Sen. Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts home and move into one of his spare bedrooms, as long as I pay a fine, pass a background check, keep a job, stay out of trouble and speak drunkenese, I can continue to live there.
And if I just pay a little bit more of a fine, I can actually become a member of the Kennedy family, as long as I return briefly to Nevada and fill out some paperwork. The fact that I broke the law by breaking into his home in the first place doesn’t mean I have to move out. I’m forgiven, and won’t suffer any penalty other than having to pay a little fine.
But that’s not amnesty, right?
Back to the president bashing opponents of his “not amnesty” bill.
“This reform is complex. There’s a lot of emotions around this issue. Convictions run deep. Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don’t like. If you want to kill the bill, if you don’t want to do what’s right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it, you can use it to frighten people.”
Un…be…lievable. According to the president, Americans whose “convictions run deep” on this “complex” and “emotional” issue “don’t want to do what’s right for America.” And the amnesty aspect of the proposal isn’t anything major; heck, it’s only a “narrow slice” of the bill. And anyone who disagrees is just trying to “frighten” people. Talk about how to win friends and influence people.
Well, at least he didn’t call us all a bunch of vigilantes this time. So I guess that’s progress. But if I wasn’t offended by the bill itself before, I am by the president’s insulting characterizations of opponents in this speech, along with his mischaracterizations of the issue. And that’s enough for me to conclude that this latest “comprehensive” reform scheme still sucks eggs and deserves a quick and painful death. Hasta la vista, baby."
"When it comes to dealing with the illegal immigration issue, President Bush and his administration are their own worst enemies. On other issues, the president is sugar and spice when it comes to Democrat opponents. But when it comes to rule-of-law conservative opposition to his “amnesty” proposal, the preferred method of operation is akin to thwacking the hornet’s nest with a stick.
You may recall that when the Minutemen first brought this issue to major public attention a few years ago with their volunteer border patrols, President Bush called them “vigilantes.” And it’s been pretty much all downhill from there, leading to his big May 29 speech on the current immigration reform proposal at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Georgia.
The president began his remarks by introducing two Hispanic members of his administration, Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez and former Cabinet member Mel Martinez, now a U.S. Senator from Florida. Both were born in Cuba. “I want to mention those two men because, to me, they represent what the immigration debate is all about,” the president said.
So right out of the chute the president misrepresents the issue. I don’t believe Gutierrez and Martinez are illegal immigrants. They and/or their families immigrated here legally. And it appears both came here to escape the oppression of the Castro regime, not to simply get a higher-paying job. So Gutierrez and Martinez are NOT what this immigration debate is about. The issue is over those who break the law to get here.
The president then recounted exactly what the individuals training at FLETC were there for: “You’re going to safeguard our ports of entry, you’ll investigate workplace immigration violations, and you’ll arrest those breaking the law. We are a nation of laws, and we expect people to keep the laws. And if they break the laws, there will be a consequence.”
Yes, and according the president that consequence for some 10-12 million (and counting) illegal aliens who have already broken the law is…a path to citizenship.
And the president still doesn’t understand why so many people are opposed to this?
The president then patted his own administration on the back for how significantly it’s changed immigration enforcement over the years. “One way to measure how things have changed is look at the budget,” the president said. “We’ve doubled the funding for border security since I took office.”
Yes, that’s one way to measure how things have changed; usually the Democrats’ way. Simply throwing more money at a problem doesn’t fix it. If it did, the public school system in this country would be the envy of the world. It’s not. This type of “mo’ money” mentality is part of the reason why the president has lost so much of his fiscal conservative base since taking office.
The president next insisted that his administration has taken border security seriously. “As a matter of fact,” the president said, “we take it so seriously that I asked the governors to put some National Guard troops down there until our Border Patrol agents got trained.”
As if. The president was dragged kicking and screaming to put troops on the border. The governors of California, Arizona and New Mexico took the lead in this regard because Washington and the Bush administration refused to act. The Bush folks only finally and reluctantly took border enforcement seriously because they were forced to. It’s rather disingenuous to now try to take credit for that action.
Next the president took credit for ending what became known as “catch-and-release,” the process whereby an illegal alien was caught, arrested and then released with the understanding that the illegal alien would return for a deportation hearing. “Well, the problem was the people didn’t want to come back for their hearing,” Bush explained. “They generally wanted to go to work and so they would just disappear.”
Good grief. According to this statement, illegal aliens didn’t show up for their deportation hearings because they didn’t want to lose time on their job, not because they didn’t want to be sent back home. And he said it with a straight face. Talk about misrepresentation.
Nevertheless, the president took credit for ending catch-and-release, saying, “It sends a strong signal to people: If you come to the country, we will find you, and we’re going to send you home, so don’t try to come in the first place.”
This is laughable. Earlier this month there were protests and demonstrations all across the country by illegal aliens. It was on all the networks. So it didn’t exactly require Dick Tracy to find people who have entered this country illegally. They were giving media interviews, for crying out loud! Now exactly how many of those folks were on the receiving end of the president’s “strong signal” and were sent home? I mean their home in their native country, not the one here.
The president next talked tough about cracking down on businesses who hire illegal aliens - as though employers are somehow responsible for doing one of the few constitutionally mandated jobs of the federal government. “It’s against the law to hire somebody who is here illegally. That’s the law,” the president declared. “And the message to employers, if you’re hiring somebody here that you know is illegal, we’re going to - - there’s a consequence to be paid. That’s what a nation that bases its system on rule of law does.”
So a restaurant owner who only wants to hire someone who will show up on time and wash the dishes is going to pay a criminal price if the employee turns out to be an illegal alien who somehow slipped past the president’s new-and-improved, tough-as-nails border security measures. But what about the illegal alien who broke the law in the first place, putting the poor restaurant owner in jeopardy? Why, he gets a path to citizenship! What a deal.
Employers shouldn’t be responsible for immigration enforcement. How is the average small business owner supposed to know if the Social Security card and driver’s license he’s presented with by a job applicant is real or a forgery? And if he decides to do a little extra checking because the applicant has a Hispanic name, he gets nailed for “profiling.” The poor schlub is in a no-win situation.
The president next complimented ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency) for making “more than 3,000 arrests for immigration violations since the beginning of this fiscal year.”
Great, only 9,997,000 to go…give or take a few million. Not bad for 15,000 employees on a bare-bones taxpayer-funded budget of just $4.2 billion. That would be one arrest for every five employees at a cost of only $1.4 million per arrest. Yep, we’re really getting our bang for our buck there, aren’t we?
OK, yes, that was two parts sarcasm mixed with one part hyperbole on my part. But if the president’s gonna do it, so am I.
Now we get to one of my favorite lines from the president’s speech: “It’s important for our American citizens to understand that the immigration system is in desperate need for comprehensive reform.”
No, Mr. President. The American people understand this issue perfectly well. We do not need “comprehensive” new immigration laws; we simply need to enforce the existing laws.
We tried this “amnesty” thing some 20 years ago. Gave just about everyone who was illegally in the country a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card. Now, 20 non-enforcement years later, you want the American people to believe that if we just give you your guest-worker program - complete with a path to citizenship for people who have entered the country illegally – then you’ll really, really, really start enforcing the immigration laws of this nation.
Sorry, but in the immortal words of Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott of the Starship Enterprise: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Or as The Who succinctly put it, “We won’t get fooled again.”
And while we’re on the subject of trying to fool most of the people some of the time, the president again reiterated what is perhaps the biggest fraud of this entire illegal immigration debate; that illegal aliens are doing “jobs Americans aren’t doing.” He repeated the claim multiple times during the remainder of the speech.
“There are no such jobs,” pointed out economist Thomas Sowell recently. “Even in the sector of the economy in which illegal immigrants have the highest representation -- agriculture -- they are just 24 percent of the workers. Where did the other 76 percent come from, if these are jobs that Americans won't do?” So much for that argument.
It was at this point that the president became down-right insulting.
First he praised senators “who put politics aside and put courage first” in supporting his “comprehensive” bill. He applauded them for doing “what’s right, not what’s comfortable” in the face of criticism. Or put another way, those of us who don’t support his amnesty-by-another-name proposal are cowards who are wrong and are simply playing politics.
The president next said, “A lot of Americans are skeptical about immigration reform primarily because they don’t think the government can fix the problems.” (Well…duh) “And my answer to the skeptics is…give us a chance to fix this problem.” The president continued: “For decades we have not been in complete control of the borders and many people have lost faith in our capacity to get control of the borders. (Well…duh) I ask them to look at what’s taken place over the past years, recent years.”
Ummm…they are, Mr. President. The government has had over 20 years to fix this problem since the last amnesty was sold to us. And you have presided over the last six. We tend to think we’ve given y’all plenty of chances to fix this problem already. Our patience has grown thin.
Next the president advised that his bill would “promote tamper-resistant identification cards…that some document forger can’t foist off as a document for somebody to come and pick peaches here in Georgia.” The president desperately wants us to believe this whole issue is about nothing more than peach-picking in Georgia. Totally disingenuous.
But this tamper-resistant ID card idea presents a whole host of additional problems and new concerns for both American workers and employers. Will you and I, American citizens, have to get one of these new tamper-resistant ID cards in order to pick peaches in Georgia? I don’t know about you, but I’m not good with that.
But if every prospective peach-picker isn’t required to present a tamper-resistant ID card, how’s an employer supposed to know which applicants are legal and which aren’t? And the first time an employer asks an American citizen named Julio Valdez to present a tamper-resistant ID card, he opens himself to a rash of lawsuits and EEOC complaints. So while this tamper-resistant ID card sounds great on the surface, it’s a whole new nightmare (unless you’re a lawyer or government bureaucrat) waiting to happen.
At this point, the president began singing the praises of his proposed amnesty…er, guest-worker plan. “If you’re interested in securing the border, wouldn’t you rather have Border Patrol agents chasing down terrorists and gun runners and dope runners as opposed to people who are coming to do jobs Americans aren’t doing?”
What the president is saying here is that if you oppose his “comprehensive” immigration reform proposal, then you’re responsible for terrorists, gun runners and drug dealers not being caught. But the really outrageous thing about this statement is the fact that there are two Border Patrol agents sitting in jail right now - Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean - for chasing down a notorious drug smuggler, shooting him in the butt and capturing him. Funny how the president failed to mention that. Disgraceful that he hasn’t yet issued a pardon for these Border Patrol agents.
Time to talk about “amnesty.”
“Amnesty is forgiveness for being here without any penalties, that’s what amnesty is,” the president explained. “I oppose it. The authors, many of the authors of this bill oppose it. This bill is not an amnesty bill. If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill is an amnesty bill. It’s not an amnesty bill. That’s empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our fellow citizens.”
Talk about empty political rhetoric. Here we go again with the ol’ Humpty Dumpty routine: “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – nothing more nor less."
As the president explains, his “not amnesty” bill will allow an illegal alien to apply for a “Z” visa. To get the “Z” visa, which will enable him or her to continue working here, the illegal alien “must admit they violated the law and pay a meaningful penalty, pass a strict background check, hold a job, maintain a clean record, and eventually learn English.” Then, if the illegal alien who broke the nation’s immigration laws to get here wants to become an actual citizen, he or she “would first have to pay an additional fine” and “return home to file an application for your green card.”
Let’s put this in another perspective: If I break into Sen. Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts home and move into one of his spare bedrooms, as long as I pay a fine, pass a background check, keep a job, stay out of trouble and speak drunkenese, I can continue to live there.
And if I just pay a little bit more of a fine, I can actually become a member of the Kennedy family, as long as I return briefly to Nevada and fill out some paperwork. The fact that I broke the law by breaking into his home in the first place doesn’t mean I have to move out. I’m forgiven, and won’t suffer any penalty other than having to pay a little fine.
But that’s not amnesty, right?
Back to the president bashing opponents of his “not amnesty” bill.
“This reform is complex. There’s a lot of emotions around this issue. Convictions run deep. Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don’t like. If you want to kill the bill, if you don’t want to do what’s right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it, you can use it to frighten people.”
Un…be…lievable. According to the president, Americans whose “convictions run deep” on this “complex” and “emotional” issue “don’t want to do what’s right for America.” And the amnesty aspect of the proposal isn’t anything major; heck, it’s only a “narrow slice” of the bill. And anyone who disagrees is just trying to “frighten” people. Talk about how to win friends and influence people.
Well, at least he didn’t call us all a bunch of vigilantes this time. So I guess that’s progress. But if I wasn’t offended by the bill itself before, I am by the president’s insulting characterizations of opponents in this speech, along with his mischaracterizations of the issue. And that’s enough for me to conclude that this latest “comprehensive” reform scheme still sucks eggs and deserves a quick and painful death. Hasta la vista, baby."
Friday, June 1, 2007
Did You Know? (Iraq Style)
Courtesy of Signal 94, we get all kinds of good news from Iraq you'll never hear from the MSM because they and their socialist allies in the Democrat party are affirmatively invested in the failure and defeat of the U.S. in Iraq and an even worse fate for the nascent Iraqi government and the Iraqi citizens themselves. As they say, read the whole thing.
Did you know that 47 countries have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?
Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?
Did you know that 3,100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction, and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?
Did you know that Iraq 's higher educational structure consists of 20 universities, 46 institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?
Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?
Did you know that the Iraqi navy is operational? They have five 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.
Did you know that Iraq 's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night,and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?
Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?
Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?
Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3,500 new officers each 8 weeks?
Did you know there are more than 1,100 building projects going on in Iraq?
They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations,
22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.
Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first two series of polio vaccinations?
Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?
Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?
Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?
Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?
OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW!
WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?
OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US!
Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photos of flagburning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades.
Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves two purposes:
1. It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United States, thus
minimizing consequent support, and
2. It is intended to discourage American citizens.
Did you know that 47 countries have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?
Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?
Did you know that 3,100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction, and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?
Did you know that Iraq 's higher educational structure consists of 20 universities, 46 institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?
Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?
Did you know that the Iraqi navy is operational? They have five 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.
Did you know that Iraq 's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night,and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?
Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?
Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?
Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3,500 new officers each 8 weeks?
Did you know there are more than 1,100 building projects going on in Iraq?
They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations,
22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.
Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first two series of polio vaccinations?
Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?
Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?
Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?
Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?
OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW!
WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?
OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US!
Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photos of flagburning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades.
Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves two purposes:
1. It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United States, thus
minimizing consequent support, and
2. It is intended to discourage American citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)