In the Republican/conservative vs Democrat/liberal debate on illegal immigration, there will never be a bipartisan consensus. The issue could be hammered out by honest, sincere thinkers on both sides and never come anywhere near any kind of mutual agreement.
The right believes that immigration should occur according to law, that all aliens entering the United States should be properly documented and should obtain the proper permits from the government in order to work in the U.S. They should be issued Social Security numbers and should both be adequately compensated for their work and pay taxes.
The left believes, for some reason, that anyone who sneaks into the country illegally has automatically earned the right not only to stay, but to avail himself of every tax financed social service in existence. It’s amazing that such supposedly learned individuals as our Democrat members of Congress (and lately, in the pork department, the Republicans as well) have forgotten that the Treasury belongs to all Americans, not just to our politicians to spend at will.
The Democrats are all for issuing drivers’ licenses to people whose existences aren’t even documented with the federal government, for taking care of their housing, medical, family and food expenses and doing so on the taxpayers’ dime. They defend these lawbreakers’ “right” to destroy the quality of life in American neighborhoods by renting one-family houses and moving in three or four families plus a few cousins, a dozen cars and then letting the properties decay while making noise 24/7. They could care less about the street crime, store robberies and gang activity that commence once these neighborhoods are overrun or about the decline in the value of area properties that force fleeing long term residents to sell their homes at prices far below market value.
The liberal mainstream media avoids discussion of the above tragic byproducts of illegal immigration, preferring instead to focus on the occasional sob story of one family being separated from a child during deportation proceedings or to perpetuate the myth that these trespassers do the work Americans won’t do. By this, they must include construction, house painting and other jobs Americans are being forced out of to the detriment of themselves, their families and every taxpaying citizen who has to pick up the slack for the lost tax revenues.
Democrats create “sanctuary cities”, where local authorities are prohibited from reporting illegals whom they encounter professionally to the federal government.
Meanwhile, these same Democrats do whatever needs doing to ensure that illegals don’t descend on their neighborhoods or otherwise have any effect on their lives.
The creation of slums has long been a strategy of the Democrats, who use their squalid, embattled, gang riddled creations as breeding grounds for Democrat voters. Falsely blame the Republicans for these folks’ poverty and make knowingly unfulfillable promises. Get the votes, and then forget all about those constituents until it’s time to campaign to them again. This more than explains the push, from the liberal front, to get criminal aliens into the polls to cast illegal votes.
Meanwhile, the hordes of illegals the policies of the left enable to enter the country have included, and continue to include the odd member of that satanic cult known as Islam, here to plot and execute terrorist operations against the American people. The only consolation there is that President Bush, whom the Democrats continuously describe as dumb, has put together a highly competent organization within his administration that repeatedly prevents such Muslim-made-mayhem from succeeding, but even in that regard any security professional will agree that the terrorists have a distinct advantage here, as does any offense when confronting a purely defensive target – as long as they keep trying, the odds are in their favor that eventually some of their “colleagues” will penetrate our homeland security venues and murder large numbers of innocent people.
The Democrats’ championing of “rights” to “undocumented” immigration will be, in many ways, responsible for the consummation of these Islamofascists’ plans, including, eventually, the smuggling in and detonation of nuclear weapons in one or more U.S. cities.
While numerous officials and other “experts” communicate their belief that such nuclear attacks will target New York and Washington D.C., one can only hope they actually realize that terrorists don’t strategize via the same priorities that legitimate armies do – while desirable, it is not vital to them to attack government centers, they are in business to demoralize the civil population. Exploding a nuke in L.A., Chicago or even Casper, Wyoming would more than suffice.
But I digress (who, me?).
Mark Steyn’s latest and as usual great column, which covers ground on Islamofascism in the Balkans and greater Europe (a figure of speech) to the potential price of the U.S. immigration fiasco, touches on both the subject of my above digression and the ease which the Democrats, as well as a few spineless, therefore Democrat-enabling Republicans, bestow upon criminal aliens to remain in this country.

The three Duka brothers were (if you’ll forgive the expression) illegal immigrants. They’re not meant to be here. Yet they graduated from a New Jersey high school and they operated two roofing companies and a pizzeria. Think of how often you have to produce your driver’s license or Social Security number. But, five years after 9/11, this is still one of the easiest countries in the world in which to establish a functioning but fraudulent identity.

Consider, for example, the post-9/11 ritual of airline security. You have to produce government-issued picture ID to the TSA official. Does that make you feel safer? On that Tuesday morning in September, four of the killers got on board by using picture ID they’d acquired through the “undocumented worker” network in Falls Church, Va. Half the jurisdictions in the United States issue picture ID to people who shouldn’t even be in the country, and they issue it as a matter of policy. The Fort Dix boys were pulled over for 19 traffic violations, but because they were in “sanctuary cities,” any cop who suspected they were illegals was unable to report them to immigration authorities. Again, as a matter of policy.

On one hand, America creates a vast federal security bureaucracy to prevent another 9/11. On the other hand, American politicians and bureaucrats create a parallel system of education and welfare and health care entitlements, maintaining and expanding a vast network of fraudulent identity that corrupts the integrity of almost all state databases. And though it played a part in the killing of 3,000 Americans, leaders of both parties insist nothing can be done to stop it. All we can do is give the Duka brothers “a fast track to citizenship.”

Democrats: What an un-star spangled web they weave….

Please pardon my skepticism, but I find this just a little hard to believe.

Given the hypocrisy and lies that are the hallmark of today’s Democrats, I’m sure Governor Kulongoski’s larder has already been well stocked by some aide or domestic who shopped for him someplace on the other side of town, and that he’ll be well fed from outside during the day while working in his office with the door closed, still securing the votes of any food stamp voters he missed during the last election.

What a bunch of malarkey, LOL!

First Democrats were “threatening” to leave the country if George Bush was reelected, now a Democrat, a former Clinton aide no less, is threatening to leave the country if Hillary gets elected President.

Political strategist Dick Morris is so disgusted by the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency that he’s announced he’ll leave the country if she wins the Democratic nomination.

Appearing on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes,” Morris – a former aide to President Bill Clinton – said that Bill and Hillary both suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder: “When they don’t get enough attention, they’re disordered.”

Go figure….

…. so this is the oath all those new Democrats in the House of Representatives will take during their swearing-in ceremony, presided over by then new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

My question is, who will defend the Constitution against Nancy Pelosi and her leftist majority? And while I’m on the subject, since when do today’s Democrats bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution? Am I missing something? Is there something someone’s not telling me?

On another note, I sense even more hypocrisy here — given their war against having any references to G-D being attached to anything of a governmental nature, won’t these portsiders have any kind of problem with “So help me G-D”? I mean, Pelosi’s friends in the 9th Circus didn’t even want to keep G-D’s name in the Pledge of Allegiance!

Well, at least one new Representative won’t have that problem, he’ll only have to say, “So help me Allah”.

And here we have a sterling, totally blatant example of liberal hypocrisy in its finest hour, courtesy of none other than John Edwards, our former Vice Presidential candidate.

I was perusing the comment section at another blog yesterday and read a liberal’s comment that made me thankful he and I were not in the same room — had we been, I probably would have strangled the son of a bitch out of sheer frustration. My own comment, in reply to his, was as restrained as possible, I believe it remained within, though pushing the envelope, the boundaries of respect due the owners of that most excellent site.

I mean, these people (not the owners of said most excellent site, but liberals) are such — such varmints!

Look.

They claim to be champions of human rights, for example. Here in America, human rights are honored more than they are anyplace else on earth. Freedom of speech? C’mon. Here, you can shout obscene jokes about the President from the rooftops if you feel like it.

In the Soviet Union, you’d have been hauled off to the Lubyanka, or perhaps Lefortovo Prison, in a heart beat, and not seen again for quite some time, if at all.

If they needed information they thought you might possess, there was none of this patty cakes BS like water boarding or playing loud music at you, they were somewhat more practical — maybe running some electricity through your genitals, or shooting you up with interesting chemicals like lysergic acid mixed with amatol that might get you to babbling, but might also scramble your brains permanently. Then again, permanently might have only meant a couple of hours, anyway.

So what did American liberals do? They extolled the virtues of communism in all its grand superiority over capitalism, even as they enjoyed instant gratification at the local mall while Soviet citizens were standing in bitter cold, in four and five hour lines, to buy a potato.

North Vietnam, an oppressive communist regime, invades the south, and our country defends the South Vietnamese against the north and its VietCong terrorist apparat. Liberals at home fight tooth and nail against the conflict. They influence politicians, who influence the war effort itself, prolonging it by several years. They eventually succeed in getting our troops pulled out. They rejoice. Ho Chi Minh’s communists sweep into South Vietnam and butcher hundreds of thousands of innocent people, then they enslave the country under said oppressive government.

Meanwhile, here in America, the liberals are celebrating their “victory”. They could care less about the fates of those poor souls thousands of miles away, human beings they’ve helped murder as surely as if they’d been there, splattering brains across the ground.

In the 1990s, there was brutal conflict in the Balkans. Muslims were slaughtering Christian Serbs, and Milosevic’s people were killing Muslims.

The EU, led by Germany, exploited the violence in order to get a foot in the door for influence in the Balkans. They altered intelligence reports and manipulated the media to paint a gruesome picture of Muslims being victimized via
“ethnic cleansing” by Milosevic’s people. Peaceful, nonviolent Muslims, victimized!

Then-boss liberal Bill Clinton bought into it and got us into it, and we helped eliminate a lot of obstacles al-Qaeda and fellow travellers faced in the day-to-day ethnic cleansing operations they were engaged in over there.

Milosevic was arrested and tried for his “crimes” — and died in custody five years later without ever being convicted of anything.

Muslims in the Balkans continue murdering Christian Serbs to this day.

Onward to Iraq, and to the global war we are waging to defend ourselves against the abolition of liberty under Islamic rule.

There we are again — which side are liberals on?

The other side, of course, as usual!

America’s enemies, any enemies, have never had a better friend than a liberal.

You want some liberal friends? Just declare war on the United States and they’ll be coming out in droves to shake your hand or, if requested, stick their noses wherever you wish.

Liberals….

Certainly not on our side, ever, yet when you state this obvious truth, they will actually argue the opposite, as often as not with that smug smirk that brings out the strangler in many of us….

…. will do so because, out of negligence, malevolence toward the right or simple ignorance , take your pick, they want for themselves and their fellow Americans what is on this list at Always On Watch.

According to such cartoon characters as Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, should they manage to get enough of their fellow travellers elected so as to have a majority in the House of Representatives, with Pelosi expected to become Speaker of the House (well, Halloween is almost upon us, so what’s a good scare among friends?), one of the first priorities of the Democrats will be to stamp out the Bush tax cuts and roll back our taxes to 1990s levels.

If I were an enemy of the state, I would utterly destroy my hands applauding this ambition. Unfortunately, I am a patriot who loves America, to say nothing of the fact that I am also an American who lives and pays taxes here, so I must convey the blatant fact that I am not a fan of this intended tax increase.

I understand the Democrats’ need to tax me into the ground. Well, not exactly understand it, per se, but I realize that the Democrats have a serious problem with their fellow Americans being able to keep some of the money they earn and are fixated on the concept of raising taxes whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Some people are into sky diving, some people collect butterflies, some people are passionate stamp collectors, some people love archery, some tennis, some throwing rocks at passing cars, some surfing porn websites, some collecting sea shells, some climbing trees, others mountains…. Democrats are into raising taxes. It’s what they do, just as sucking blood is what mosquitos do, or what leeches do.

It’s not their fault, it’s simply who they are.

They particularly like to tax those who are successful, like the rich and like large, prosperous corporations, and are very much like Robin Hood — they take from the rich, and give to the poor. It makes them feel good — hell, it makes them feel great — stripping a big company of its investment capital plunges them into ecstasy.

Back in the 1980s, during the Reagan Administration, the greatest President in my lifetime stopped the bloodsucking practice of penalizing American business for its success, allowing it to keep its investment capital in order to put it to work, and lo and behold, despite the Democrats’ criticism of what they fondly referred to as Reaganomics, our economy exploded into a dynamo of successful professionals, low unemployment, newly created millionaires and prosperous companies.

This trend continued through the Bush 1 Administration, but then, alas and alack, American voters sent Bill Clinton, a Democrat, off to the White House.

Keeping to the sacred tradition of Democrats, he raised taxes, as usual targeting the rich.

Before the end of his second term (he was actually reelected, go figure!), we were plunged into recession. The unemployment rate soared, businesses struggling to stay afloat transferred record amounts of their production to outsourced labor pools and after Algore, Clinton’s Veep, lost the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, the newly elected President engendered massive tax cuts.

Naturally the Democrats, dismayed that Americans were being permitted to keep more of their earnings, mounted yet another of their innumerable bumper-sticker friendly campaigns — “The Republicans have given tax cuts to the rich, screwing the poor as always!”

That was worth, at the very least, a good chuckle, since every American taxpayer was entitled to the cuts. The Democrats somehow managed, once realizing that they really couldn’t produce any low income working folks who were being either neglected or recieving the fid, cited poor people on welfare and other premature social security venues who weren’t benefiting from the tax cuts, the fact that these people didn’t pay any income tax to begin with notwithstanding… they actually forced the government to give something “back” to these noncontributors as well.

Meanwhile, the tax cuts enabled corporate America and smaller business people to use the “surplus” equity to expand existing business and create new enterprises.

The result has been a major rebound in our economy and a serious decrease in the unemployment rate that is still adjusting downward. America is again flourishing!

But let’s not be too confident, friends, okay? We still haven’t had this year’s elections, so we don’t actually know where we stand.

We’re pretty confident about holding a Republican majority in the Senate, but there has been a lot of negative conjecture regarding the House majority after 7 November. Personally, I believe we’ll hold our majority there, as well, though we’ll have a few less seats.

But…

Should the Democrats gain a majority in the House Of Representatives, they will raise taxes, and you can bet your bottom dollar, assuming you still have one, that the late 1990s recession will return even more quickly than it went away.

Of course, the Democrats will find a way to blame Bush….

I ran across this 4 year old article recently and thought it a good “share”.

As on so many other issues, the hypocrats Democrats say whatever they have to say to get votes, no matter how shameful the lies or the manipulations.

The black vote has long been one of their mainstays, which is really pitiful as they have proven, decade after decade, that they are the worst enemy of black Americans, the very party that holds them back while blaming the Republicans, whose intent is to give them real equality and real equal market share in America and the American Dream. Considering their track record, the very fact that blacks continue to vote Democrat probably confirms in their eyes that blacks are exactly what the Democrats think they are. After all, when you run such a transparent scam on the bulk of a major voting block for so many years and they continue to allow you to lead them around by the nose, how smart can they be, right?

Of course, the Democrats have their own black perpetuators of racism, such as the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who depend on playing the race card to earn their miserable livings by helping to keep their fellow blacks from waking up and smelling the proverbial coffee. These two individuals are the real “tokens” or “Uncle Toms”, as they sell out their own for their white masters in the Democratic Party in order to perpetuate their own careers.

The OpEd is here.

Peggy Noonan’s got a good take on why the Democrats aren’t likely to do very well in upcoming elections.

The most telling part of the OpEd is here:

The Democrats’ mistake–ironically, in a year all about Mr. Bush–is obsessing on Mr. Bush. They’ve been sucker-punched by their own animosity.

“The Democrats now are incapable of answering a question on policy without mentioning Bush six times,” says pollster Kellyanne Conway. ” ‘What is your vision on Iraq?’ ‘Bush lied us into war.’ ‘Health care? ‘Bush hasn’t a clue.’ They’re so obsessed with Bush it impedes them from crafting and communicating a vision all their own.” They heighten Bush by hating him.

One of the oldest clichés in politics is, “You can’t beat something with nothing.” It’s a cliché because it’s true. You have to have belief, and a program. You have to look away from the big foe and focus instead on the world and philosophy and programs you imagine.

Mr. Bush’s White House loves what the Democrats are doing. They want the focus on him. That’s why he’s out there talking, saying Look at me.

Because familiarity doesn’t only breed contempt, it can breed content. Because if you’re going to turn away from him, you’d better be turning toward a plan, and the Democrats don’t appear to have one.

Which leaves them unlikely to win leadership. And unworthy of it, too.

This is true. When you ask a Democrat for a better plan than one we’re implementing now that he or she disapproves of, you rarely get an answer — you get Bush innuendo. Very confidence inspiring, that. It’s funny that while the left call themselves progressives, they invariably fail to progress away from strategies that have already shown themselves to be failures.

The entire Peggy Noonan OpEd can be read here.