September 11, 2001. Ask any American when we initiated our global war on terror, and they will tell you of that horrific day now simply referred to as 9-11. But was 9-11 really the opening shots of our war on terror? Or was 9-11 simply the event that finally woke the sleeping lion?
For decades, the entire world has suffered attacks from various radical groups that utilized the deaths of innocents in an attempt to demand the capitulation of those who held power. This could be seen in places such as the United States, Ireland, Iran, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Lebanon, South Africa, Kenya, Mexico, Nicaragua, et al…
The vast majority of the acts of terror carried out in the last several decades have been based upon religious differences or perceived religious persecution. Examples of religion-based violence can be seen in the Catholic/Protestant conflict that raged in Ireland, or by looking at the ongoing Jewish/Arab confrontations in the Middle East.
However, the Jewish/Arab conflict is simply a minor part in modern worldwide terrorism. The confrontation between Arab and Jew has morphed over the last three decades into a radical Islamic jihad against both the United States and Israel. Whether the takeover of the US Embassy in Teheran, Iran could be considered a terrorist act or not, the holding of American diplomats as hostages for 444 days can only be classed as state-sponsored terrorism.
This is what I personally consider the beginning of the global Islamic jihad against not simply the Western countries, but also against all other countries that do not accept the tenets of Islam or the teachings of Muhammad. This is amply demonstrated by recent attacks in Bali, Spain, England, Indonesia, the Philippines, et al…
The sitting leader of Iran has threatened in no uncertain terms the very existence of Israel, has kidnapped American citizens, has sponsored Islamic terror groups in Iraq and throughout the Middle East, and is currently doing everything possible to become a nuclear armed power.
The government of Syria has been the leading sponsor of groups such as Hamas, providing both money and weapons in an effort to force Israeli and Palestinian capitulation to their demands.
Al Qaeda groups around the world have been active attempting to keep Iraq destabilized, while also maintaining active cells located around the world.
Senior Islamic Clerics and Imams around the world have either encouraged the terrorist groups through both public speeches and money, or have remained silent, giving their tacit consent to the atrocities being carried out. It is rare to hear of any person in the Islamic hierarchy condemning the groups that kill innocent men, women and children.
But how can this be happening, especially in a country such as the US that believes that all religions have the right to coexist in peace?
It is simple. Islam teaches that all Muslims must be faithful to Islam first. There is no country, there is no family, all is Islam. Islam also teaches that all who are not followers of Islam must be converted to Islam, subjugated to the will of Islam, or killed. The word "Islam" itself means "subjugation". And those who do not comply, should be killed.
There are also numerous international recruiting efforts being carried out in local mosques and via the internet. These efforts are directed at creating "grassroot cells" in various countries. Recently, these types of cells have been discovered plotting to attack Fort Dix, NJ, a US military base, and a further plot to blow up a jet-fuel pipeline at NYC Kennedy. Though both of these plots were stopped, they are both indicative of the influence that Islamic teaching has had on Muslims living inside of the US.
The premise of the Koran has been described as "peaceful" and "tolerant", however, I must emphatically state that everything that is heard or seen here inside of the US indicates that the true belief in the Koran is anything but "peaceful" or "tolerant". It seems to me that the Koranic teaching of biding your time in peace while weak, until you are strong enough to overwhelm and destroy is what we are currently experiencing, not just in the US, but also in Europe and other parts of the world.
Some people will call me a bigot for my views, but at this time, I have no evidence available that indicates to me that Islam is truly a religion of peace. The threats by the extremists combined with the lack of response by the "moderates" indicates to me that we do indeed face an extreme threat to the future of the world.
If there are some Muslims who would like to stand up and proclaim the evil that the radical Islamists are doing, and condemn their actions against not simply the US, but against the world, I would be very happy and pleased to assist.
I do not believe that every single Muslim is involved, nor that every single Muslim is "out" to kill or convert unbelievers, but I do believe that on the whole, the religion of Islam is attempting to become the first globally mandated religion.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
From the frontlines of Baghdad
I found the story from the front lines of Baghdad to be a very interesting view into how life in Baghdad is going. I think everyone, whether you are for staying in Iraq or for getting out to read this blog and maybe... just maybe... you'll gain some insights into what is actually going on.
http://blogs.cjonline.com/index.php?entry=3430
http://blogs.cjonline.com/index.php?entry=3430
Black and White! No Grey!
It always amazes me the vehemence with which the radical left makes personal attacks on those who dare to stand up and say that wrong is wrong. They battle over semantics, they try to baffle with falsified facts, and they do everything possible to paint those who would do “the right thing” as hypocrites, bigots, or worse.
Fortunately, there are a still some people that believe that “wrong” means “wrong”. Those from the radical left would love to have us believe that there is no black or white, but simply various shades of grey. They believe that extenuating circumstances provide an excuse for those who knowingly and willingly violate the rights of others. But, I believe they are really trying to say is that they have the right to cause harm to others.
The people who complain about someone using the word “God” in school because it might “offend” their children, are the same people who defend the right of adults to rape and sodomize children. Of course, to them, it is simply an “alternate lifestyle” or a “personal choice.” They won’t openly admit their support of these types of “alternate lifestyles” that victimize innocent children, but they certainly come out fighting for the rights of those found guilty of it.
They demand that we remove our “offensive” religion so they do not have to see or hear it, while demanding that we must be “tolerant” of their views. They force their perversions on others through violence and coercion; they force their belief (or lack of belief) on others through the courts, and then, when somebody shows them their own bigotry and intolerance, they fabricate lies and innuendos to attack the values, not simply of the individual who said it, but of the country that Americans built.
But I have a message for radicals out there. Whether you like it or not. Americans, on the whole, are the most compassionate and tolerant people in the world. And the vast majority of Americans truly believe that the law is something that is to be followed. There is a “black” and there is a “white”, and the moral relativism of those radicals who who insist everything is grey, simply demonstrates their own values, morals and ethics. It shows their incapability to actually distinguish the right from the wrong.
There is a black, there is a white; there is a right, and there is a wrong. And if you or your family are ever the victim of one of these people who want to say that wrong is right, maybe then, you’ll understand. There are some things worth standing up for.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Fortunately, there are a still some people that believe that “wrong” means “wrong”. Those from the radical left would love to have us believe that there is no black or white, but simply various shades of grey. They believe that extenuating circumstances provide an excuse for those who knowingly and willingly violate the rights of others. But, I believe they are really trying to say is that they have the right to cause harm to others.
The people who complain about someone using the word “God” in school because it might “offend” their children, are the same people who defend the right of adults to rape and sodomize children. Of course, to them, it is simply an “alternate lifestyle” or a “personal choice.” They won’t openly admit their support of these types of “alternate lifestyles” that victimize innocent children, but they certainly come out fighting for the rights of those found guilty of it.
They demand that we remove our “offensive” religion so they do not have to see or hear it, while demanding that we must be “tolerant” of their views. They force their perversions on others through violence and coercion; they force their belief (or lack of belief) on others through the courts, and then, when somebody shows them their own bigotry and intolerance, they fabricate lies and innuendos to attack the values, not simply of the individual who said it, but of the country that Americans built.
But I have a message for radicals out there. Whether you like it or not. Americans, on the whole, are the most compassionate and tolerant people in the world. And the vast majority of Americans truly believe that the law is something that is to be followed. There is a “black” and there is a “white”, and the moral relativism of those radicals who who insist everything is grey, simply demonstrates their own values, morals and ethics. It shows their incapability to actually distinguish the right from the wrong.
There is a black, there is a white; there is a right, and there is a wrong. And if you or your family are ever the victim of one of these people who want to say that wrong is right, maybe then, you’ll understand. There are some things worth standing up for.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Presidential Myth Busters #2
As I stated in my last posting, President Bush has published numerous “Facts” in an attempt to dispel certain so-called “myths” about SB 1348, the Senate Bill to provide comprehensive immigration reform. Here is the next segment on “Myth and Facts” from our President:
“2. MYTH: This proposal repeats the mistakes of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. ”
“FACT: The 1986 Act failed because it provided amnesty for 3 million immigrants, did not adequately secure borders, did not include a workable employer verification system, and created no legal avenue to meet the labor needs of the American economy. ”
“FACT: This proposal addresses every one of the shortcomings from 1986: ”
“No Amnesty: Illegal workers must acknowledge that they broke the law and pay a fine to be eligible for a Z visa.”
“Border Security: Border security benchmarks must be met before the Z visa and temporary worker programs go into effect. These triggers include: constructing 370 miles of fencing and 200 miles of vehicle barriers at the border and increasing the size of the Border Patrol to 18,000 agents.”
“Employer Verification System: An Employment Eligibility Verification System must be ready to process new hires before the Z visa and temporary worker programs go into effect." “Temporary Worker Program: A temporary worker program will relieve pressure on the border and provide a lawful way to meet the needs of our economy. ”
“FACT: The 1986 Act offered green cards after just 18 months, but under this proposal, green card applicants must meet a number of responsibilities – something which will take most candidates more than a decade. ”
RESPONSE:
As I pointed out in Myth Busters # 1, this is indeed an amnesty program. Additionally, though it provided amnesty to 3 million, it was originally projected to provide amnesty for only 1 million people. It did indeed fail to implement a workable employer verification system, however, the current bill cannot guarantee the implementation of a workable employment verification system either. As far as meeting the "labor needs of the American economy, I’ll go into that a little bit later.
The reality, despite the President’s desire to state that this Senate proposal addresses all of the errors made in 1986, is that it does in fact repeat some of the most egregious errors.
Based upon the estimate of about 9 million applications for the new “Z” Visa, the following calculations are made. Please note, the 9 million applications could become as many as 27 million based upon the experiences of the 1986 amnesty program.
According to Chris Kobach, former counsel on immigration to US Attorney General John Ashcroft, the GAO in 2006 reported that the Immigrations and Customs Service (ICS) currently has a backlog of about 6.3 million immigration cases. This case backlog was already strained almost to the “breaking point” in processing the normal immigrant applications. Now, the plan is to more than double the number of pending case? (Or quadruple if we use the full 18 million).
Additionally, with the need to perform “background checks” on each applicant in under 24 hours, just how are they planning on doing this? How are you going to do a background check on someone from San Jose, Guatemala (beautiful little town on the Pacific coast) in under 24 hours? Fax? E-mail? Carrier Pigeon? The background investigation on my wife took us about 24 hours to complete as we happened to be IN the country of origin. Now we expect a bureaucrat in Washington DC to complete one in less than 24-hours? Especially when you consider that they will have an average of about 34,615 additional background checks to process EVERY DAY!!! At least we could assume they would attain plenty of practice in the performance of background checks.
One of the biggest fallacies of this bill is the assumption that it requires that certain “triggers” in the increase of our border security prior to anybody receiving their amnesty.
Unfortunately, there is a clause in the bill that states that upon the concurrence of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, the border can be “certified” secure at any time, and thereby bypass any issues that have occurred in the completion of the actual “triggers”. With all that we have gone through with this bill, and the deceptive way in which it was assembled and attempted to be passed without any debate or discussion, I personally do not feel confident in trusting either this administration or the next in waiting until the actual triggers are “met” before certifying the security of our borders.
The last fallacy is that the presence of a temporary guest worker program will reduce the number of people flowing across our border, or the desire of people to illegally enter the US. However, that discussion shall wait until another time.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
“2. MYTH: This proposal repeats the mistakes of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. ”
“FACT: The 1986 Act failed because it provided amnesty for 3 million immigrants, did not adequately secure borders, did not include a workable employer verification system, and created no legal avenue to meet the labor needs of the American economy. ”
“FACT: This proposal addresses every one of the shortcomings from 1986: ”
“No Amnesty: Illegal workers must acknowledge that they broke the law and pay a fine to be eligible for a Z visa.”
“Border Security: Border security benchmarks must be met before the Z visa and temporary worker programs go into effect. These triggers include: constructing 370 miles of fencing and 200 miles of vehicle barriers at the border and increasing the size of the Border Patrol to 18,000 agents.”
“Employer Verification System: An Employment Eligibility Verification System must be ready to process new hires before the Z visa and temporary worker programs go into effect." “Temporary Worker Program: A temporary worker program will relieve pressure on the border and provide a lawful way to meet the needs of our economy. ”
“FACT: The 1986 Act offered green cards after just 18 months, but under this proposal, green card applicants must meet a number of responsibilities – something which will take most candidates more than a decade. ”
RESPONSE:
As I pointed out in Myth Busters # 1, this is indeed an amnesty program. Additionally, though it provided amnesty to 3 million, it was originally projected to provide amnesty for only 1 million people. It did indeed fail to implement a workable employer verification system, however, the current bill cannot guarantee the implementation of a workable employment verification system either. As far as meeting the "labor needs of the American economy, I’ll go into that a little bit later.
The reality, despite the President’s desire to state that this Senate proposal addresses all of the errors made in 1986, is that it does in fact repeat some of the most egregious errors.
Based upon the estimate of about 9 million applications for the new “Z” Visa, the following calculations are made. Please note, the 9 million applications could become as many as 27 million based upon the experiences of the 1986 amnesty program.
According to Chris Kobach, former counsel on immigration to US Attorney General John Ashcroft, the GAO in 2006 reported that the Immigrations and Customs Service (ICS) currently has a backlog of about 6.3 million immigration cases. This case backlog was already strained almost to the “breaking point” in processing the normal immigrant applications. Now, the plan is to more than double the number of pending case? (Or quadruple if we use the full 18 million).
Additionally, with the need to perform “background checks” on each applicant in under 24 hours, just how are they planning on doing this? How are you going to do a background check on someone from San Jose, Guatemala (beautiful little town on the Pacific coast) in under 24 hours? Fax? E-mail? Carrier Pigeon? The background investigation on my wife took us about 24 hours to complete as we happened to be IN the country of origin. Now we expect a bureaucrat in Washington DC to complete one in less than 24-hours? Especially when you consider that they will have an average of about 34,615 additional background checks to process EVERY DAY!!! At least we could assume they would attain plenty of practice in the performance of background checks.
One of the biggest fallacies of this bill is the assumption that it requires that certain “triggers” in the increase of our border security prior to anybody receiving their amnesty.
Unfortunately, there is a clause in the bill that states that upon the concurrence of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, the border can be “certified” secure at any time, and thereby bypass any issues that have occurred in the completion of the actual “triggers”. With all that we have gone through with this bill, and the deceptive way in which it was assembled and attempted to be passed without any debate or discussion, I personally do not feel confident in trusting either this administration or the next in waiting until the actual triggers are “met” before certifying the security of our borders.
The last fallacy is that the presence of a temporary guest worker program will reduce the number of people flowing across our border, or the desire of people to illegally enter the US. However, that discussion shall wait until another time.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Presidential Myth Busters #1
Since Senate Bill 1348 was introduced, there has been a lot of feedback from both the conservatives and the liberals on how bad this bill is. I have heard some people foolishly use the thoughts that because both sides were complaining, that it meant that this was a good compromise agreement that screwed both sides equally.
Over the next few days, I’ll provide some myths about this bill, and some of the “facts” that President Bush has released to address these myths. I’ll also present some “facts” that the President has conveniently failed to disclose in trying to disprove the “myth”.
“1. MYTH: This is amnesty. ”
Presidential “FACT: Amnesty is the forgiveness of an offense without penalty. This proposal is not amnesty because illegal workers must acknowledge that they broke the law, pay a $1,000 fine, and undergo criminal background checks to obtain a Z visa granting temporary legal status. ”
Presidential “FACT: To apply for a green card at a date years into the future, Z visa workers must wait in line behind those who applied lawfully, pay an additional $4,000 fine, complete accelerated English requirements, leave the U.S. and file their application in their home country, and demonstrate merit based on the skills and attributes they will bring to the United States.”
Presidential “FACT: Workers approved for Z visas will be given a temporary legal status, but they will not enjoy the full privileges of citizens or Legal
Permanent Residents, such as welfare benefits and the ability to sponsor relatives abroad as immigrants.”
RESPONSE:
The truth behind the facts, as discovered in actually reading SB 1348:
A $1000 fine in this case, is described in the bill itself as a filing fee.‘‘(2) FINE.—An alien who files an application under this section shall pay a fine commensurate with levels charged by the Department of Homeland Security for other applications for adjustment of status." – SB 1348, Page 477
‘‘(j) APPLICATION FEE.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—An alien seeking a grant of Deferred Mandatory Departure status shall submit, in addition to any other fees authorized by law, an application fee of $1,000." – SB 1348, Page 499,
Though called a “fine” or, as our President says, a “penalty”, even inside of the bill itself, it states that it should be commensurate with the fees charged for “applications for adjustment of status” while later calling it an “application fee”.
You be the judge? Fee? Or Penalty?
Additionally, the President states that a worker must pay an additional $4,000 fine. As of yet, I have found no $4,000 fines in this bill other than the fines for employers that are found guilty of utilizing persons unauthorized to work.
On the last note, the President wishes to emphasize that persons provided the “Z” Visa will not be eligible for welfare benefits or to sponsor relatives to enter the US, however, what he fails to indicate is that those persons who have US born children will continue to be eligible (as they are now) to receive welfare benefits based upon the citizenship of their child(ren).
Is this an amnesty? So far, it seems so to me. Those who are here illegally are being asked to pay the appropriate application fee, nothing more, nothing less. Simply because you call it a “fine” does not make it one when you also refer to it as an “application fee”.
Is the President trying to mislead us on this bill? I think he may be getting some bad information from people who have not yet read the bill. You would think that at least they could find SOMEONE on his staff who could have read the bill for some accurate information.
Tomorrow… (or maybe even later today), I’ll cover President Bush’s next “myth buster” fallacies and mistruths.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Over the next few days, I’ll provide some myths about this bill, and some of the “facts” that President Bush has released to address these myths. I’ll also present some “facts” that the President has conveniently failed to disclose in trying to disprove the “myth”.
“1. MYTH: This is amnesty. ”
Presidential “FACT: Amnesty is the forgiveness of an offense without penalty. This proposal is not amnesty because illegal workers must acknowledge that they broke the law, pay a $1,000 fine, and undergo criminal background checks to obtain a Z visa granting temporary legal status. ”
Presidential “FACT: To apply for a green card at a date years into the future, Z visa workers must wait in line behind those who applied lawfully, pay an additional $4,000 fine, complete accelerated English requirements, leave the U.S. and file their application in their home country, and demonstrate merit based on the skills and attributes they will bring to the United States.”
Presidential “FACT: Workers approved for Z visas will be given a temporary legal status, but they will not enjoy the full privileges of citizens or Legal
Permanent Residents, such as welfare benefits and the ability to sponsor relatives abroad as immigrants.”
RESPONSE:
The truth behind the facts, as discovered in actually reading SB 1348:
A $1000 fine in this case, is described in the bill itself as a filing fee.‘‘(2) FINE.—An alien who files an application under this section shall pay a fine commensurate with levels charged by the Department of Homeland Security for other applications for adjustment of status." – SB 1348, Page 477
‘‘(j) APPLICATION FEE.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—An alien seeking a grant of Deferred Mandatory Departure status shall submit, in addition to any other fees authorized by law, an application fee of $1,000." – SB 1348, Page 499,
Though called a “fine” or, as our President says, a “penalty”, even inside of the bill itself, it states that it should be commensurate with the fees charged for “applications for adjustment of status” while later calling it an “application fee”.
You be the judge? Fee? Or Penalty?
Additionally, the President states that a worker must pay an additional $4,000 fine. As of yet, I have found no $4,000 fines in this bill other than the fines for employers that are found guilty of utilizing persons unauthorized to work.
On the last note, the President wishes to emphasize that persons provided the “Z” Visa will not be eligible for welfare benefits or to sponsor relatives to enter the US, however, what he fails to indicate is that those persons who have US born children will continue to be eligible (as they are now) to receive welfare benefits based upon the citizenship of their child(ren).
Is this an amnesty? So far, it seems so to me. Those who are here illegally are being asked to pay the appropriate application fee, nothing more, nothing less. Simply because you call it a “fine” does not make it one when you also refer to it as an “application fee”.
Is the President trying to mislead us on this bill? I think he may be getting some bad information from people who have not yet read the bill. You would think that at least they could find SOMEONE on his staff who could have read the bill for some accurate information.
Tomorrow… (or maybe even later today), I’ll cover President Bush’s next “myth buster” fallacies and mistruths.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Monday, June 04, 2007
The nature of the beast
The other day, I heard a ruckus out back, and investigated. I watched my apparently crazy dog trying to eat his way through our chain link fence. After a few seconds, I noticed that a turtle was on the other side of the fence, and the dog was trying any way possible to get at the turtle.
To quiet my dog (and to allow him to keep his nose and tongue in place), I went around the fence, got the turtle, and took it to a nearby creek and released it.
Then I started thinking. Why, with so many other places to be, was the turtle right up against the fence, and why didn’t it try to get away from the dog that wanted to eat it? Then I realized that what I was observing was the nature of the beast.
The turtle, with its protective shell was simply going about its business, hunting for food. My dog, as well, noticing a smaller animal, decided that he wanted to play with and/or eat the apparently weaker animal. The only thing separating the two was a simple chain link fence.
I realized that what happened was actually very similar to the situation in our country where an invisible wall called the first amendment separates the forces of religion and the forces of anti-religion.
On one side, we have those who believe in God; on the other, we have those who believe there is no God. Despite the supposed freedom of religion and its implicit right to believe or not believe in God, each side seems intent on forcing the “enemy” to acknowledge their point of view.
Though the vast majority of those who believe in God simply want to go about their own business, some fringe elements believe that they are the personal harbingers of God’s wrath on man for their sins. Likewise, the vast majority of those who do not believe in God simply want to live in peace and go about their daily lives as well. Yet there also exists the fringe element of those who disbelieve in God who feel that their only goal in life is the personal destruction of all things religious.
With each group, you have an extreme minority of radicals that cannot see past their own prejudice, either for or against God, that they simply cannot permit others to hold their views in peace. They claim they are “under assault” by the (zealots/atheists) and justify their personal attacks on their chosen enemy by claiming that they were “attacked first.”
These fringe elements are like my dog, snapping futilely at its prey. The first amendment protects both the freedom to practice or not practice religion, while also guaranteeing the right to speak ones opinions freely. The radicals of both sides have the right to their personal opinion, however, rabid attacks against those on the other side of the fence may result in unintended consequences.
Sometimes, the turtle bites back.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
To quiet my dog (and to allow him to keep his nose and tongue in place), I went around the fence, got the turtle, and took it to a nearby creek and released it.
Then I started thinking. Why, with so many other places to be, was the turtle right up against the fence, and why didn’t it try to get away from the dog that wanted to eat it? Then I realized that what I was observing was the nature of the beast.
The turtle, with its protective shell was simply going about its business, hunting for food. My dog, as well, noticing a smaller animal, decided that he wanted to play with and/or eat the apparently weaker animal. The only thing separating the two was a simple chain link fence.
I realized that what happened was actually very similar to the situation in our country where an invisible wall called the first amendment separates the forces of religion and the forces of anti-religion.
On one side, we have those who believe in God; on the other, we have those who believe there is no God. Despite the supposed freedom of religion and its implicit right to believe or not believe in God, each side seems intent on forcing the “enemy” to acknowledge their point of view.
Though the vast majority of those who believe in God simply want to go about their own business, some fringe elements believe that they are the personal harbingers of God’s wrath on man for their sins. Likewise, the vast majority of those who do not believe in God simply want to live in peace and go about their daily lives as well. Yet there also exists the fringe element of those who disbelieve in God who feel that their only goal in life is the personal destruction of all things religious.
With each group, you have an extreme minority of radicals that cannot see past their own prejudice, either for or against God, that they simply cannot permit others to hold their views in peace. They claim they are “under assault” by the (zealots/atheists) and justify their personal attacks on their chosen enemy by claiming that they were “attacked first.”
These fringe elements are like my dog, snapping futilely at its prey. The first amendment protects both the freedom to practice or not practice religion, while also guaranteeing the right to speak ones opinions freely. The radicals of both sides have the right to their personal opinion, however, rabid attacks against those on the other side of the fence may result in unintended consequences.
Sometimes, the turtle bites back.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Pedophilia? And Justice unserved!
The other day, I discussed the heinous acts of a pedophile. To rehash, a 38-year old man was convicted in Shawnee County District Court of 17 counts of the rape and sodomy of a 14-year old Topeka girl. The penalty for these convictions, according to sentencing guidelines, should have been 155 months (13 years) in prison. Shawnee Country District Judge Matthew Dowd however, sentenced the 38-year old to 36 months of probation.
In response to my earlier posting, one reader stated that I was calling for a harsher punishment simply because of the name of the crime. I have to agree with him. Whenever a 38-year old violates a 14-year old girl like this, it is called pedophilia. Anyone convicted of pedophilia deserves to pay for the degradation, humiliation and long term psychological damage they cause to young children.
There are no excuses that should allow a judge, who supposedly is there for the purpose of justice, to heap the insult of leniency onto the head of the 14-year old girl and her parents by letting the animal who committed these crimes back onto the streets of Topeka.
There are no excuses for a judge, responsible for safeguarding the rights of the victim as well as the perpetrator, to simply ignore the will of the people and release a pedophile onto the streets of our city to possibly commit this atrocity on another innocent victim.
Maybe this is another example of my personal bigotry against criminals who prey on the innocent, but I do indeed believe that any 38-year old man that has sexual relations with (especially the sodomy of) a 14-year old girl, does indeed deserve significantly more than 36 months of “supervised probation”.
Of course, maybe it is my simple view that thinks a 14-year old girl could be easily manipulated by an adult. Maybe it is yet another simple view that says our children must be protected from pedophiles. Maybe I am just simple for assuming that a 38-year old should be capable of making rational decisions.
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
In my simple view of life, this is an outrage. Our children have life hard enough that we don’t need to open the door to more suffering because a Judge won’t do his job.
In this case, there were no extenuating factors in the perpetration of the crime. There was no doubt of his guilt. The judge simply ignored the sentencing guidelines passed by our legislature, and based his decision upon the fact that the perpetrator claimed to be depressed over his parents divorce 30 years before, and that the animal had a good job history and “good” family support.
Unfortunately, with Judge Matthew Dowd, this wasn’t the first time that he gave a convicted pedophile a slap on the wrist and probation. In two other cases, one of which a 27-year old had relations with a 15-year old and a second case where a 34-year old was convicted for solicitation of sex with a 13/14-year old girl via the internet. In both cases, Judge Dowd found reason to believe that probation was the appropriate punishment.
In the case of the 27-year old, we fortunately had the animal put into prison by a different Judge who sentenced him to 54 months in prison for yet another charge of aggravated indecencies with yet another child. Obviously, Judge Dowd did not consider this person to be a threat to society.
Matthew Dowd (I’m sorry, I can’t bear to call him a Judge any more) has shown such a softness in his heart towards pedophiles, I am wondering if he has any hidden motives behind these weak sentences that he has handed out. Or is it that he simply thinks that the violation and abuse of our children is acceptable behavior.
Our only hope until we get this person off the bench, is for District Judge Nancy Parrish to ensure that all cases such as this are kept out of the incapable hands of Matthew Dowd.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
In response to my earlier posting, one reader stated that I was calling for a harsher punishment simply because of the name of the crime. I have to agree with him. Whenever a 38-year old violates a 14-year old girl like this, it is called pedophilia. Anyone convicted of pedophilia deserves to pay for the degradation, humiliation and long term psychological damage they cause to young children.
There are no excuses that should allow a judge, who supposedly is there for the purpose of justice, to heap the insult of leniency onto the head of the 14-year old girl and her parents by letting the animal who committed these crimes back onto the streets of Topeka.
There are no excuses for a judge, responsible for safeguarding the rights of the victim as well as the perpetrator, to simply ignore the will of the people and release a pedophile onto the streets of our city to possibly commit this atrocity on another innocent victim.
Maybe this is another example of my personal bigotry against criminals who prey on the innocent, but I do indeed believe that any 38-year old man that has sexual relations with (especially the sodomy of) a 14-year old girl, does indeed deserve significantly more than 36 months of “supervised probation”.
Of course, maybe it is my simple view that thinks a 14-year old girl could be easily manipulated by an adult. Maybe it is yet another simple view that says our children must be protected from pedophiles. Maybe I am just simple for assuming that a 38-year old should be capable of making rational decisions.
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
In my simple view of life, this is an outrage. Our children have life hard enough that we don’t need to open the door to more suffering because a Judge won’t do his job.
In this case, there were no extenuating factors in the perpetration of the crime. There was no doubt of his guilt. The judge simply ignored the sentencing guidelines passed by our legislature, and based his decision upon the fact that the perpetrator claimed to be depressed over his parents divorce 30 years before, and that the animal had a good job history and “good” family support.
Unfortunately, with Judge Matthew Dowd, this wasn’t the first time that he gave a convicted pedophile a slap on the wrist and probation. In two other cases, one of which a 27-year old had relations with a 15-year old and a second case where a 34-year old was convicted for solicitation of sex with a 13/14-year old girl via the internet. In both cases, Judge Dowd found reason to believe that probation was the appropriate punishment.
In the case of the 27-year old, we fortunately had the animal put into prison by a different Judge who sentenced him to 54 months in prison for yet another charge of aggravated indecencies with yet another child. Obviously, Judge Dowd did not consider this person to be a threat to society.
Matthew Dowd (I’m sorry, I can’t bear to call him a Judge any more) has shown such a softness in his heart towards pedophiles, I am wondering if he has any hidden motives behind these weak sentences that he has handed out. Or is it that he simply thinks that the violation and abuse of our children is acceptable behavior.
Our only hope until we get this person off the bench, is for District Judge Nancy Parrish to ensure that all cases such as this are kept out of the incapable hands of Matthew Dowd.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Communism, Theocracy and choice
The one thing I find most amazing, is the number of people who will bash Fred Phelps for his idiotic rants in one breath, and in the next, they fling the same type of generalized insults at another group. Take for instance, the ongoing attack that have regularly appeared in the comments on my blog. Comments that attack not just Christianity, but attack and insult any person that dares to believe in a higher being. These attacks which are wrongly made by Fred Phelps, are also wrongly made by those who wish to rid the world of organized religion.
Fortunately, in the United States, the right to believe or disbelieve rests with the individual, and not with society, not with the government, and definitely not based upon the opinion of a few morons on the internet. The right to believe or disbelieve is now, and in the United States, has always been a free choice.
Of course, there are many examples of countries that took away the individual right to believe in God. For example, the old Communist empire of the Soviet Union, religion, while not forbidden, was strictly controlled, and “having religion” barred an individual from rising in the ranks. In modern China, that same strict regulation of religion still exists, but government is slowly easing the regulations that virtually ban religion.
On the other hand, there exist many countries that are theocracies, and are run by a religious leader/council. Two of the more famous are Iran and Syria.
I am not sure about you, but I don’t believe that I would like to be living in any country that either prohibited the practice of religion, or that mandated the practice of religion. Just from the examples shown, both the total government that lacks religion and that government based upon religion could be considered not-so-nice places to live.
In both cases, the free will of the people is removed, with the intention of the individual serving the state, and only the state. In both cases, the outcome is same, you either toe the line of the leadership, or you end up imprisoned (or worse).
One of the best parts of the United States has always been mixture of both the secular and the religious. The base nature of secular man mixed with the morality taught by religion. And men were given the choice to be who they are, and to believe as they wished, rather than having a particular religion or a lack of religion shoved down their throat.
Unfortunately, there are many out there who would see all religions destroyed. Why? Because it offends them. They have made their choice to not believe, but they also think that they should ridicule others into denying their belief. Simply remember, when they attempt to offend, you have a choice to make. Will you choose to be offended?
I used to be offended by Fred Phelps and his message of hate. Now? I choose to not be offended, and indeed, I have used Fred and his cohorts as an example to my children of what intolerance is. The same as I use those who hate religion have shown me that it isn’t only religious zealots that are intolerant.
Think about it, and the next time a person starts to insult your belief, or flings names at you because of your belief, will you choose to be offended?
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Fortunately, in the United States, the right to believe or disbelieve rests with the individual, and not with society, not with the government, and definitely not based upon the opinion of a few morons on the internet. The right to believe or disbelieve is now, and in the United States, has always been a free choice.
Of course, there are many examples of countries that took away the individual right to believe in God. For example, the old Communist empire of the Soviet Union, religion, while not forbidden, was strictly controlled, and “having religion” barred an individual from rising in the ranks. In modern China, that same strict regulation of religion still exists, but government is slowly easing the regulations that virtually ban religion.
On the other hand, there exist many countries that are theocracies, and are run by a religious leader/council. Two of the more famous are Iran and Syria.
I am not sure about you, but I don’t believe that I would like to be living in any country that either prohibited the practice of religion, or that mandated the practice of religion. Just from the examples shown, both the total government that lacks religion and that government based upon religion could be considered not-so-nice places to live.
In both cases, the free will of the people is removed, with the intention of the individual serving the state, and only the state. In both cases, the outcome is same, you either toe the line of the leadership, or you end up imprisoned (or worse).
One of the best parts of the United States has always been mixture of both the secular and the religious. The base nature of secular man mixed with the morality taught by religion. And men were given the choice to be who they are, and to believe as they wished, rather than having a particular religion or a lack of religion shoved down their throat.
Unfortunately, there are many out there who would see all religions destroyed. Why? Because it offends them. They have made their choice to not believe, but they also think that they should ridicule others into denying their belief. Simply remember, when they attempt to offend, you have a choice to make. Will you choose to be offended?
I used to be offended by Fred Phelps and his message of hate. Now? I choose to not be offended, and indeed, I have used Fred and his cohorts as an example to my children of what intolerance is. The same as I use those who hate religion have shown me that it isn’t only religious zealots that are intolerant.
Think about it, and the next time a person starts to insult your belief, or flings names at you because of your belief, will you choose to be offended?
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Pedophilia, probation, and retention?
On Saturday, the Topeka Capital-Journal headlined a story that struck me in a very weak spot. It outlined the story of a 38-year-old man, convicted of seventeen (17) counts of rape & sodomy on a 14-year-old girl. It also tells us that Shawnee County District Court Judge Matthew Dowd awarded this beast a sentence of 36-months probation.
One of the most precious assets that we, as a people, enjoy are our children. Innocent (or so we believe), loving, trusting, and yet…. Do we value them? Is not our system of justice a reflection of our own values? Or is our justice system a harbinger of our future values?In this particular case, our legal system seemed to work. Multiple crimes were committed, the police and the District Attorney investigated, developed evidence, and got the case before the court and a jury of twelve men and women. After hearing both sides of the case, the jury then ruled that this animal was indeed guilty of 17 counts of committing rape or sodomy on this young girl.Then, the system failed. The judge awarded a sentence of 36 months of probation. This comes out to about two months of probation for every time he penetrated this girl.Everything worked. And yet, the 155 months (13 years) of prison that should have been awarded according to the state’s sentencing guidelines was thrown out, and an animal walks the street today due to Judge Matthew Dowd.For the first time in my life, I am ashamed to call myself a Kansan. You can explain away Fred Phelps as a first amendment case. You can excuse George Tiller as the abortion lobby’s poster child. But having a convicted rapist of children walking the streets a free man is something that we, the people, are responsible for.Why are we responsible?Because it is we who have taught our children that there is no right and wrong. It is we, the people who have buried our heads in the sand and said, “There is no evil here.” It is we who have allowed crime to be forgiven because of supposed “excuses”.Judge Matthew Dowd set a predator loose on our streets because he was “depressed”. Judge Matthew Dowd believes that this creature can be rehabilitated because he has steady work and good family support.Will we, as a people, accept this abdication of his duty to provide justice? Think well the next time Judge Matthew Dowd appears on the retention ballot. Maybe we can show our values as a people.But I’m hoping that this Judge will see that he has crossed a line that should not ever be crossed. He has placed our children at risk. Hopefully, Judge Matthew Dowd will resign, and resign soon. There is never an excuse for a 38-year-old to be with a 14-year old.Whether liberal or conservative, I believe this is something we can all agree on.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
One of the most precious assets that we, as a people, enjoy are our children. Innocent (or so we believe), loving, trusting, and yet…. Do we value them? Is not our system of justice a reflection of our own values? Or is our justice system a harbinger of our future values?In this particular case, our legal system seemed to work. Multiple crimes were committed, the police and the District Attorney investigated, developed evidence, and got the case before the court and a jury of twelve men and women. After hearing both sides of the case, the jury then ruled that this animal was indeed guilty of 17 counts of committing rape or sodomy on this young girl.Then, the system failed. The judge awarded a sentence of 36 months of probation. This comes out to about two months of probation for every time he penetrated this girl.Everything worked. And yet, the 155 months (13 years) of prison that should have been awarded according to the state’s sentencing guidelines was thrown out, and an animal walks the street today due to Judge Matthew Dowd.For the first time in my life, I am ashamed to call myself a Kansan. You can explain away Fred Phelps as a first amendment case. You can excuse George Tiller as the abortion lobby’s poster child. But having a convicted rapist of children walking the streets a free man is something that we, the people, are responsible for.Why are we responsible?Because it is we who have taught our children that there is no right and wrong. It is we, the people who have buried our heads in the sand and said, “There is no evil here.” It is we who have allowed crime to be forgiven because of supposed “excuses”.Judge Matthew Dowd set a predator loose on our streets because he was “depressed”. Judge Matthew Dowd believes that this creature can be rehabilitated because he has steady work and good family support.Will we, as a people, accept this abdication of his duty to provide justice? Think well the next time Judge Matthew Dowd appears on the retention ballot. Maybe we can show our values as a people.But I’m hoping that this Judge will see that he has crossed a line that should not ever be crossed. He has placed our children at risk. Hopefully, Judge Matthew Dowd will resign, and resign soon. There is never an excuse for a 38-year-old to be with a 14-year old.Whether liberal or conservative, I believe this is something we can all agree on.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Monday, May 28, 2007
What pictures would I have taken?
In my travels around the world, what pictures would I have taken, if I had taken pictures?
It's extremely hard to think of what I would have wanted a memory of, but I'm going to take a stab at it:
- I would have taken my own personal picture of the Twin Towers from the park at the Port Authority.
- I would have taken pictures of all those I knew, but see no more.
- I would have taken pictures of the old oak tree that stood outside the house I loved the most growing up.
- I would have taken pictures of the little boys and girls in Bolivia hopping on the hoods of cars slowing at a stop light, to wash their windshields in the hope of a nickle.
- I would have taken pictures of the smiles and elation on the faces of those same boys and girls as I bought them a "happy meal" at the local hamburger place.
- I would have taken pictures of them eating the fries, drinking the soda, then wrapping up the hamburger to take home for the others in their family to eat.
- I would have taken pictures of the women with babies strapped on their back digging through the thrown out and rotting fruits and vegetables at the local market.
- I would have taken pictures of the people on strike because they couldn't afford the fare hike in the local bus from 18 cents to 21 cents.
- I would have taken pictures of the four poles and a canvas top that the family just outside our neighborhood lived in.
- I would have taken pictures of that same family three years later, with two rooms built, and a roof, built by themselves through tons of sweat and hard work.
- I would have taken pictures of the joy I saw on the faces of the Chinese people in Shanghai as they got to actually meet Americans in uniform and be friends.
But the one picture I never could have got, was a picture of the beauty of life as a person free to choose my own destiny.
It's extremely hard to think of what I would have wanted a memory of, but I'm going to take a stab at it:
- I would have taken my own personal picture of the Twin Towers from the park at the Port Authority.
- I would have taken pictures of all those I knew, but see no more.
- I would have taken pictures of the old oak tree that stood outside the house I loved the most growing up.
- I would have taken pictures of the little boys and girls in Bolivia hopping on the hoods of cars slowing at a stop light, to wash their windshields in the hope of a nickle.
- I would have taken pictures of the smiles and elation on the faces of those same boys and girls as I bought them a "happy meal" at the local hamburger place.
- I would have taken pictures of them eating the fries, drinking the soda, then wrapping up the hamburger to take home for the others in their family to eat.
- I would have taken pictures of the women with babies strapped on their back digging through the thrown out and rotting fruits and vegetables at the local market.
- I would have taken pictures of the people on strike because they couldn't afford the fare hike in the local bus from 18 cents to 21 cents.
- I would have taken pictures of the four poles and a canvas top that the family just outside our neighborhood lived in.
- I would have taken pictures of that same family three years later, with two rooms built, and a roof, built by themselves through tons of sweat and hard work.
- I would have taken pictures of the joy I saw on the faces of the Chinese people in Shanghai as they got to actually meet Americans in uniform and be friends.
But the one picture I never could have got, was a picture of the beauty of life as a person free to choose my own destiny.
Link to your favorite Helium Article
Paste the URL of the link to your favorite Helium Article (make sure it was written by Alan Fernald of course) in as a comment, and I'll add it to:
http://www.alanfernald.com/html/links.htm
Check it out, and as new helium authors add their name, I'll add them in as well.
Someday, when I learn how, I'll automate it.
http://www.alanfernald.com/html/links.htm
Check it out, and as new helium authors add their name, I'll add them in as well.
Someday, when I learn how, I'll automate it.
In Memorium
In memorial of all those who have served our country and given the ultimate sacrifice.
May God rest your soul, and provide comfort and hope to your family and your descendants.
I thank you for your sacrifice, and for your defense of the freedoms that we, as a nation hold dear. I wish you a peace in the hereafter as your dedication to defending the innocent, standing up for the meek, and keeping our nation safe shall never be forgotten.
We, whether we have served, or whether we have not served, all share in the joy that you have paid for with your blood. Though we all regret the need for your sacrifice, we all thank you for willingly giving yourself, not just for your family, not just for your nation, but for all the people who desire to be free.
Words cannot say enough.
May God rest your soul, and provide comfort and hope to your family and your descendants.
I thank you for your sacrifice, and for your defense of the freedoms that we, as a nation hold dear. I wish you a peace in the hereafter as your dedication to defending the innocent, standing up for the meek, and keeping our nation safe shall never be forgotten.
We, whether we have served, or whether we have not served, all share in the joy that you have paid for with your blood. Though we all regret the need for your sacrifice, we all thank you for willingly giving yourself, not just for your family, not just for your nation, but for all the people who desire to be free.
Words cannot say enough.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
My belief in God
Many today have stood up and yelled, “There is no God!” They ridicule people like myself who believe that our world was created by a higher power, and they laugh when we talk about Heaven or we talk about Hell. They call people like Senator Brownback “ignorant”, not because of what he does, but simply because he dares to believe in something they don’t.
Those who are the source of this ridicule are just as bad as those purveyors of hate at Westboro Baptist. Both are the epitome of intolerance.
I am proud of my belief in God. I am proud to bear the gifts that he has given me. I am proud to be one of those who is so feared by others, that they have to fling insults and pejoratives my way.
My life is mine, and I don’t claim to be an outstanding Christian, but I will never give up my belief in God simply because someone else has a “theory”, no matter how well supported it may be.
However, I would like to ask some questions of those who I know are reading this:
1. With all of our modern technology, and with our ever-advancing knowledge in the sciences, has ANYBODY every gotten an amoeba to form and spontaneously come to life under any conditions?
2. With all of our modern computing technology that can perform billions of operations per second, has anyone EVER been able to simulate the supposed evolution of amoeba to man?
3. Why does my belief in a divine power offend you?
My God is big enough to accept your science, but is your science big enough to accept my God?
Those who are the source of this ridicule are just as bad as those purveyors of hate at Westboro Baptist. Both are the epitome of intolerance.
I am proud of my belief in God. I am proud to bear the gifts that he has given me. I am proud to be one of those who is so feared by others, that they have to fling insults and pejoratives my way.
My life is mine, and I don’t claim to be an outstanding Christian, but I will never give up my belief in God simply because someone else has a “theory”, no matter how well supported it may be.
However, I would like to ask some questions of those who I know are reading this:
1. With all of our modern technology, and with our ever-advancing knowledge in the sciences, has ANYBODY every gotten an amoeba to form and spontaneously come to life under any conditions?
2. With all of our modern computing technology that can perform billions of operations per second, has anyone EVER been able to simulate the supposed evolution of amoeba to man?
3. Why does my belief in a divine power offend you?
My God is big enough to accept your science, but is your science big enough to accept my God?
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Liberal, moderate or conservative? What's in a name?
I met a older gentlemen this evening, and I was feeling rather spry, so I asked him if he considered himself a conservative, a moderate or a liberal. After a few seconds of thought, he told me that he considered himself a moderate with leanings towards being liberal. I pondered for a moment, and asked him if it would be all right to compare our views with each other, just to see whether he was a liberal, or whether I was a conservative.
As I thought, it ended up in a tie. Out of about eight different topics, we actually agreed on every single point except one. We may have held our opinions for different reasons, however, the result was the same.
For example, on the subject of abortion, he thought first term abortions should be legal, but late term abortions no. He based his opinion on the fact that if you couldn’t afford the child, you shouldn’t have it. I believe that first term abortions should not be banned, but my reasoning being that it is a decision based upon free will, and should be between a woman, the father of the baby, her doctor, and her priest. I still consider all abortion murder, but I also realize that many women, regardless of the consequences, will have the abortion regardless of whether it is a sin or legal.
By the end of the conversation, I realized that by our modern definitions, we could both probably be considered moderate (though I am more loud-mouthed about it), with him having a lean to the left, while I have a definite lean to the right.
Who’d a thunk it?
As I thought, it ended up in a tie. Out of about eight different topics, we actually agreed on every single point except one. We may have held our opinions for different reasons, however, the result was the same.
For example, on the subject of abortion, he thought first term abortions should be legal, but late term abortions no. He based his opinion on the fact that if you couldn’t afford the child, you shouldn’t have it. I believe that first term abortions should not be banned, but my reasoning being that it is a decision based upon free will, and should be between a woman, the father of the baby, her doctor, and her priest. I still consider all abortion murder, but I also realize that many women, regardless of the consequences, will have the abortion regardless of whether it is a sin or legal.
By the end of the conversation, I realized that by our modern definitions, we could both probably be considered moderate (though I am more loud-mouthed about it), with him having a lean to the left, while I have a definite lean to the right.
Who’d a thunk it?
Friday, May 25, 2007
Conservative Reading
There are a lot of modern day liberals that read my blog, and cuss me out while doing so. They have told me that I offend them. They have called me ignorant for my faith in God, they have called me racist for my views on illegal immigration, and just generally tried to spew their blather over the truth. I don’t think they have realized yet that I do not write my blogs for their pleasure. I write it for the conservatives and the moderates out there. I write for those who are tired of the constant assault we feel on our beliefs and our faith. I write for those who are tired of giving money to Uncle Sam so they can deposit it straight into the accounts of those too lazy to work. I write this for those who have felt the wrath of the liberals for believing in God, and wanting their children to be raised with an honest and moral education rather than the politically correct version of distorted history and facts. I write for those who hold a deep and eternal faith in God, country and their fellow man.
I write to let you know that you are not alone. Even when it seems that everyone is against you, simply look around because the vast majority of our country professes a belief in God. We are the hopes for a better future. We, as a people, are still the most compassionate and giving country to have ever existed on this planet.
America is full of optimism, hope, and the can-do spirit. Americans are still the best people in the world. I write these words for all who still live their lives with the concepts of pride, duty and honor for our country.
We probably do not agree on everything, but the people who this blog is for are the builders of our future, and the future is bright. We don’t look for loopholes, we don’t look for shortcuts, we don’t live in the grey areas; we simply do what is right, because it is right.
And there are no modern day liberals that can take that away.
I write to let you know that you are not alone. Even when it seems that everyone is against you, simply look around because the vast majority of our country professes a belief in God. We are the hopes for a better future. We, as a people, are still the most compassionate and giving country to have ever existed on this planet.
America is full of optimism, hope, and the can-do spirit. Americans are still the best people in the world. I write these words for all who still live their lives with the concepts of pride, duty and honor for our country.
We probably do not agree on everything, but the people who this blog is for are the builders of our future, and the future is bright. We don’t look for loopholes, we don’t look for shortcuts, we don’t live in the grey areas; we simply do what is right, because it is right.
And there are no modern day liberals that can take that away.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
We are now officially BIGOTS!!!
Senator Lindsay Graham has now said on the floor of the US Senate, that anyone who wants to enforce our laws, is a bigot. Head of the Department of Homeland Security Chertoff was just as glowing in his compliments as he claimed that all who opposed the current amnesty bill wanted “Capital Punishment” for illegal aliens. I have grown accustomed to people who support this class of criminals to become insulting, and calling me a racist and many other pejoratives. However, I didn’t realize that my bigotry would ever become official.
Let me explain just WHY I am so bigoted against aliens illegally in our country… it boils down to, they broke the law. They are criminals.
When I went through the immigration process, I did it the legal way. Why did I put my entire family through such suffering as this bureaucratic process? Because I believe, like most Americans, in doing things the right and legal way.
How much easier (and cheaper) it would have been to break the law and bring my wife and step-daughter into the country illegally. But no, now I am called a bigot by Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina, because I do believe that we are in a country of law.
If you want to call me a bigot, a racist, or in the words of one person “anti-Mexican”, feel free, because we all know that to be false. I detest criminals. I have no sympathy or empathy for them. I believe in crime & punishment, and I do not believe in amnesty.
Let me explain just WHY I am so bigoted against aliens illegally in our country… it boils down to, they broke the law. They are criminals.
When I went through the immigration process, I did it the legal way. Why did I put my entire family through such suffering as this bureaucratic process? Because I believe, like most Americans, in doing things the right and legal way.
How much easier (and cheaper) it would have been to break the law and bring my wife and step-daughter into the country illegally. But no, now I am called a bigot by Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina, because I do believe that we are in a country of law.
If you want to call me a bigot, a racist, or in the words of one person “anti-Mexican”, feel free, because we all know that to be false. I detest criminals. I have no sympathy or empathy for them. I believe in crime & punishment, and I do not believe in amnesty.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
My plan for immigration
A reader to my other blog asked, “What’s your suggestion to control illegal immigration since you hate amnesty so much?” First to clarify, it’s not the amnesty I hate, it’s the violation of the law, and our politicians acceptance of it. Either it is a good law, and should be enforced, or it is a bad law and should be repealed. Providing amnesty to violators of the law every 21 years makes absolutely no sense.
As far as what I would do if I were to be able to determine immigration policy for a day?
1. I would require the government to tie the Social Security/IRS/DHS systems together so that when they get a single SSN is shown working at 37 different companies in a dozen states at the same time... they track it down and arrest the 36 people using purchased documents to work.
2. I would also require employers to utilize the Pilot system to verify the validity of Social Security numbers that workers provide to ensure they are valid. (This system is currently voluntary.)
3. I would increase the number of “undercover” agents that would go out and look for work, posing as illegals, and arrest/incarcerate those who knowingly and willingly hire them.
4 Companies found with unauthorized workers would be audited for compliance, and would be fined $100,000 per administrative “offense”. If it bankrupts the company, then they should have followed the procedures. If a company has a second offenses, the appropriate person/people (i.e. anyone who should have had knowledge of the practice) should be incarcerated.
5. All cities that currently have either written “sanctuary” ordinances, or implicitly provide “sanctuary” would have all federal funding removed. Additionally, the population of that city would no longer be counted towards any state per capita allocations. You don’t cooperate, we don’t fund. Look at Los Angeles right now, BEGGING for the feds assistance in combating their gang problems. Why? because their police can’t even ask people who they KNOW are gang members, illegally present what their status is, or alert the feds about them. (Note: Statistics say that 48% of gang members are illegal aliens)
6. Those convicted of transporting people into the country are felons, five years in a federal penitentiary.
7. You take away the jobs, you enforce the law, and you take away the motive for coming, and 75% will go home willingly.
8. I also WOULD require border enforcement, and I would also include a guest worker program. 9. The guest workers would not pay into social security, nor would they be eligible for benefits, however, a similar amount would be withheld from the employer and employee for payment into the administration and management of the guest worker program and into a worker healthcare program.
10. Guest workers would be pulled from world wide, not simply from our neighbors, and would be based upon the relative “poverty” rate of those countries. i.e. the poorest countries in the world would be permitted more “workers” than the middle and richer countries.
11. To obtain guest workers, you must PROVE that you have not been able to hire Americans at a standard pay rate for the area and for that job skill, and you would be required to pay the market average rate + health care benefits for the guest worker.
12. Guest workers would be eligible for up to two year contracts, and direct family members only (spouse/children) would be permitted entrance at the same time. Children born to guest workers in the US would NOT be awarded US citizenship.
Most importantly… in fact, we wouldn’t need any more laws on the books to do it….
I would ENFORCE the law!
It’s actually very similar to what the US Senate is proposing at this time, except that I would actually enforce the law, and I would not reward those who broke the law.
As far as what I would do if I were to be able to determine immigration policy for a day?
1. I would require the government to tie the Social Security/IRS/DHS systems together so that when they get a single SSN is shown working at 37 different companies in a dozen states at the same time... they track it down and arrest the 36 people using purchased documents to work.
2. I would also require employers to utilize the Pilot system to verify the validity of Social Security numbers that workers provide to ensure they are valid. (This system is currently voluntary.)
3. I would increase the number of “undercover” agents that would go out and look for work, posing as illegals, and arrest/incarcerate those who knowingly and willingly hire them.
4 Companies found with unauthorized workers would be audited for compliance, and would be fined $100,000 per administrative “offense”. If it bankrupts the company, then they should have followed the procedures. If a company has a second offenses, the appropriate person/people (i.e. anyone who should have had knowledge of the practice) should be incarcerated.
5. All cities that currently have either written “sanctuary” ordinances, or implicitly provide “sanctuary” would have all federal funding removed. Additionally, the population of that city would no longer be counted towards any state per capita allocations. You don’t cooperate, we don’t fund. Look at Los Angeles right now, BEGGING for the feds assistance in combating their gang problems. Why? because their police can’t even ask people who they KNOW are gang members, illegally present what their status is, or alert the feds about them. (Note: Statistics say that 48% of gang members are illegal aliens)
6. Those convicted of transporting people into the country are felons, five years in a federal penitentiary.
7. You take away the jobs, you enforce the law, and you take away the motive for coming, and 75% will go home willingly.
8. I also WOULD require border enforcement, and I would also include a guest worker program. 9. The guest workers would not pay into social security, nor would they be eligible for benefits, however, a similar amount would be withheld from the employer and employee for payment into the administration and management of the guest worker program and into a worker healthcare program.
10. Guest workers would be pulled from world wide, not simply from our neighbors, and would be based upon the relative “poverty” rate of those countries. i.e. the poorest countries in the world would be permitted more “workers” than the middle and richer countries.
11. To obtain guest workers, you must PROVE that you have not been able to hire Americans at a standard pay rate for the area and for that job skill, and you would be required to pay the market average rate + health care benefits for the guest worker.
12. Guest workers would be eligible for up to two year contracts, and direct family members only (spouse/children) would be permitted entrance at the same time. Children born to guest workers in the US would NOT be awarded US citizenship.
Most importantly… in fact, we wouldn’t need any more laws on the books to do it….
I would ENFORCE the law!
It’s actually very similar to what the US Senate is proposing at this time, except that I would actually enforce the law, and I would not reward those who broke the law.
A Short Essay on Nancy Boyda
We are now a little more than four months into the 2007 Congressional Session, and I am hopefully optimistic as to how Nancy Boyda is handling her new career as a lawmaker. I don’t agree with everything that she has done. But so far, I would have to say that she has done an honorable job. I am grateful that our newest US Legislator has taken some of the stands that she has. She has stood for her values to end the war, while not taking the drastic steps of withdrawing support for our troops.
She has also joined in with other Congressmen asking President Bush to stop promoting Amnesty for those who have violated our laws by entering our country illegally.
So far, I believe that she has aptly represented the middle of the road views of her constituents, and if she stays the course, I am optimistic about her return for future terms.
As long as she stays truthful and honest with the public and with her constituency, I will lend her my vote. If she turns politician, I will turn my vote around.
She has also joined in with other Congressmen asking President Bush to stop promoting Amnesty for those who have violated our laws by entering our country illegally.
So far, I believe that she has aptly represented the middle of the road views of her constituents, and if she stays the course, I am optimistic about her return for future terms.
As long as she stays truthful and honest with the public and with her constituency, I will lend her my vote. If she turns politician, I will turn my vote around.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Explaining Immigration Categories
In the United States, the Immigration system actually has very few major flaws in it's structure.
The problem is in the execution of it's policy. Delays measured in years, lack of enforcement, corrupt officials inside the system, and a general lackadaisical attitude of those who are supposed to be there to help people.
Some people believe that the system is unfair because it arbitrarily returns "illegal" aliens back to their home country where they are subject to abuse, danger, or even death.
However, there are three categories of the US Immigration code that resolve this issue:
1. Refugee - Those who come here from countries in the midst of a war/revolution, etc... are able to apply for refugee status. This was very common when Haiti, Nicaragua, Honduras, etc... were suffering from continual fighting. Any person from these countries that arrived in the US were almost automatically granted legal status. The only reason they would not be granted legal status would be if there were proof they had been actively involved in the fighting.
2. Asylum - Any person who arrives on our shore and can provide evidence that they would be subject to abuse or deprivation of civil liberties if they returned home can claim asylum. This can actually be done at the US Embassy in that persons home country, but getting someone out of the home country can be rather tricky. Once again, if reasonable people can determine that abuse or danger would occur if the person were repatriated, that person and their family are granted asylum and legal permanent residency.
3. Familial Abuse - A new category has recently been established which prevents the deportation of people who would be returned to an abusive familial situation.
Thus, those who flee actual danger, are NOT deported and returned to their home country, they are granted the chance to live their lives peacefully in the United States.
The problem is in the execution of it's policy. Delays measured in years, lack of enforcement, corrupt officials inside the system, and a general lackadaisical attitude of those who are supposed to be there to help people.
Some people believe that the system is unfair because it arbitrarily returns "illegal" aliens back to their home country where they are subject to abuse, danger, or even death.
However, there are three categories of the US Immigration code that resolve this issue:
1. Refugee - Those who come here from countries in the midst of a war/revolution, etc... are able to apply for refugee status. This was very common when Haiti, Nicaragua, Honduras, etc... were suffering from continual fighting. Any person from these countries that arrived in the US were almost automatically granted legal status. The only reason they would not be granted legal status would be if there were proof they had been actively involved in the fighting.
2. Asylum - Any person who arrives on our shore and can provide evidence that they would be subject to abuse or deprivation of civil liberties if they returned home can claim asylum. This can actually be done at the US Embassy in that persons home country, but getting someone out of the home country can be rather tricky. Once again, if reasonable people can determine that abuse or danger would occur if the person were repatriated, that person and their family are granted asylum and legal permanent residency.
3. Familial Abuse - A new category has recently been established which prevents the deportation of people who would be returned to an abusive familial situation.
Thus, those who flee actual danger, are NOT deported and returned to their home country, they are granted the chance to live their lives peacefully in the United States.
Ain't that the Pot Calling the Kettle Black?
Former President Jimmy Carter spoke out this last Saturday calling the Bush Administration “the worst in history” in international relations. He also derided Great Britain’s outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair for supporting President Bush. My first thought when I heard this was, “ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black!”
The same president who brought the art of appeasement to an entirely new level further complained about President Bush’s environmental policies and his faith-based initiative funding. But maybe appeasement is the better way. After all, they didn’t attack us HERE when Carter was president.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not sure I would rate President Bush’s idea of international relations that high either, but I would certainly rate his presidency above that of the President who brought new meaning to the word appeasement. It’s definitely leaps and bounds ahead of the man who ridiculed Reagan’s plans to end the ‘cold war’.
Former President Carter should be commended for his excellent work for “Habitat for Humanity”, and should be congratulated for his Nobel Peace Prize (something President Bush will probably never get), but flinging insults at an outgoing head-of-state in Tony Blair and at a sitting President is something that traditionally, former Presidents have not done.
Obviously, in 1980, the American public believed the same when Carter was soundly drubbed by the voters when they selected Ronald Reagan as the new President. Of course, Carter’s horrific domestic policy probably had a great deal to do with his defeat. His introduction of double digit inflation, high unemployment and a new American recession probably did not make Americans happy.
But what Carter will ever be remembered for, is the 444 days that American diplomats and US Citizens were held hostage by the Ayatollah Khomeini in Teheran, Iran. Held captive by a group that included the current sitting President of Iran. Carter was the one that taught America’s enemies to look us in the eye and laugh at us with impunity.
What shame Carter must have felt when Ronald Reagan took office, and the American hostages were immediately released. So, please return to writing your Anti-Semitic books and promoting your Habitat for Humanity, and quit embarrassing yourself by calling the kettle black.
The same president who brought the art of appeasement to an entirely new level further complained about President Bush’s environmental policies and his faith-based initiative funding. But maybe appeasement is the better way. After all, they didn’t attack us HERE when Carter was president.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not sure I would rate President Bush’s idea of international relations that high either, but I would certainly rate his presidency above that of the President who brought new meaning to the word appeasement. It’s definitely leaps and bounds ahead of the man who ridiculed Reagan’s plans to end the ‘cold war’.
Former President Carter should be commended for his excellent work for “Habitat for Humanity”, and should be congratulated for his Nobel Peace Prize (something President Bush will probably never get), but flinging insults at an outgoing head-of-state in Tony Blair and at a sitting President is something that traditionally, former Presidents have not done.
Obviously, in 1980, the American public believed the same when Carter was soundly drubbed by the voters when they selected Ronald Reagan as the new President. Of course, Carter’s horrific domestic policy probably had a great deal to do with his defeat. His introduction of double digit inflation, high unemployment and a new American recession probably did not make Americans happy.
But what Carter will ever be remembered for, is the 444 days that American diplomats and US Citizens were held hostage by the Ayatollah Khomeini in Teheran, Iran. Held captive by a group that included the current sitting President of Iran. Carter was the one that taught America’s enemies to look us in the eye and laugh at us with impunity.
What shame Carter must have felt when Ronald Reagan took office, and the American hostages were immediately released. So, please return to writing your Anti-Semitic books and promoting your Habitat for Humanity, and quit embarrassing yourself by calling the kettle black.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Mexican Police for Santa Fe, New Mexico
A big flap has occurred because the major media has broadcast that the Santa Fe, NM, police department is wanting to actively recruit Mexican Nationals to fill out the ranks of their local police force. My question is, why is this a big flap?
The people being recruited are in the United States legally, they have their work permits, and the police force has empty space in their ranks that they cannot keep filled due to neighboring police departments hiring away their people. So I don’t see why some people are making an issue out of this.
I do have a recommendation for the Santa Fe Police Department. When you hire and train your people, you really should pay them a fair wage, and one that is competitive for your area. Isn’t it more costly to constantly be training new recruits? Or are you thinking that by hiring immigrants, even though legal, this will allow you to continue paying substandard wages?
Those immigrants who have been granted Legal Permanent Residency should be allowed to join our police forces. Legal immigrants have always (as far as I know) been allowed to serve in our military forces, and in fact, receive expedited citizenship for their service, yet they are currently barred from joining the police forces.
According to the news clippings I have read, this prohibition stems from Federal Law, as well as New Mexico state law. My personal opinion is that any federal law prohibiting employment of any type for legal residents should be repealed, with the only exceptions being possible types of highly classified government work.
These immigrants have shown their fortitude in obtaining their legal residency, and they should be treated as the people they are; Americans.
The people being recruited are in the United States legally, they have their work permits, and the police force has empty space in their ranks that they cannot keep filled due to neighboring police departments hiring away their people. So I don’t see why some people are making an issue out of this.
I do have a recommendation for the Santa Fe Police Department. When you hire and train your people, you really should pay them a fair wage, and one that is competitive for your area. Isn’t it more costly to constantly be training new recruits? Or are you thinking that by hiring immigrants, even though legal, this will allow you to continue paying substandard wages?
Those immigrants who have been granted Legal Permanent Residency should be allowed to join our police forces. Legal immigrants have always (as far as I know) been allowed to serve in our military forces, and in fact, receive expedited citizenship for their service, yet they are currently barred from joining the police forces.
According to the news clippings I have read, this prohibition stems from Federal Law, as well as New Mexico state law. My personal opinion is that any federal law prohibiting employment of any type for legal residents should be repealed, with the only exceptions being possible types of highly classified government work.
These immigrants have shown their fortitude in obtaining their legal residency, and they should be treated as the people they are; Americans.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
One Immigrants Story
have decided to tell a story today. It is a long story, though I will try to keep it short. It is a story of a man who served his country, fell in love, and was nearly destroyed for following the law. Of course, that man was me.
I served in the US Navy for six years, and while stationed in Japan I met the lady of my life. My wife-to-be was Bolivian/Japanese, born and raised in South America, and had followed her father back to the land of his birth only four years before.
I was honorably discharged from the Navy, and almost immediately was employed in a technical support position working for Citibank Japan.After eighteen months in my consultant position, my work was noticed by personnel in Citibank, New York, and I was offered a permanent position, with a significant pay raise, and all the titles and accoutrements associated with the position. I was extremely excited as I gave them an emphatic, “Yes!”, and made preparations for the transfer.
Unfortunately, this excellent twist of fate was soon turned into the worst decision of my life. You see… My wife needed a Visa to enter the US due to her Bolivian nationality.
The US Embassy in Tokyo recommended that we pursue the Visa in Bolivia, as there was insufficient time to start the process, and due to paperwork my wife needed from Bolivia, we agreed.
So my wife and our 7-month old daughter headed to Bolivia as I went to New York City for what we expected to be a relatively short separation.
Two years and three months later, with no end to the immigration nightmare in sight, I resigned my dream position, and moved to Bolivia. Both my wife and I were suffering from severe depression, my work had been suffering, and she was on the verge of having a nervous breakdown.
Because of the economic situation, and my lack of having any type of work available in Bolivia, I brought my daughter up to the United States to live with my mother, content with the possibility that even if we had to live in poverty, we would be together.
Fortunately, Amoco was in the process of acquiring part of the Bolivian state-owned oil company (YPF Bolivia), and I was able to obtain a position as the Director of IT for the new company created, EP Chaco SA. The next few years were some of the best in my life. I loved my job, my family was eventually reunited, and we added a new son. The problems of my wife’s Visa were out of sight and out of mind, as we could wait forever as long as we were together; though the battle of the bureaucracy did continue.
In 1998, after I had been in Bolivia for a little over a year, my father, who lives in Topeka, KS, contacted Senator Sam Brownback, now the presidential candidate from Kansas, to request his assistance in pushing my wife’s Visa paperwork. When I heard this, I got rather excited, as Senator Brownback was the sitting chairman of the Senate Committee on Immigration. Surely, my home state Senator could do something to help out a veteran.
Boy, was I wrong. The simple response was that, “I’m sorry, he’s not a constituent.” I found his response to my father who WAS and still IS a constituent to be highly unsatisfactory. But I let it slide, because the Senator was technically correct. Despite being born and raised in Kansas, my last place of residence in the US was New York.
Then the economic crisis hit Bolivia. In 2000, the economy of Bolivia crashed. I had stepped out to create my own company, and within a two month period, the vast majority of the clients we were supporting could no longer pay their bills. As I was the most expensive employee, and I could not afford my own salary, I took the easy way out and returned to the US, once again, bringing my daughter with me to stay with my mother.
Despite landing in Kansas City, the only immediate work I could find required me to relocate to Dallas. Once again, I started working my way back up the job scale, changing over to a full time position at a new company once my initial six-month contract was completed.
Since I was in Dallas, my wife and I contacted the Mexican Embassy in Bolivia to request a Visa to allow her to “visit” Mexico while waiting for the final issuance of her Visa. However, the Mexican government turned her down, telling her that she was a “risk” of illegally immigrating into the US!!!!! Isn’t that a crock?
Finally, after yet another eighteen months of waiting, with the family starting the downslide into depression yet again, I was able to contact Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. After the experience with Brownback, I wasn’t too hopeful. However, Senator Gramm’s office responded quickly, and despite the incident of 9/11, and with the push of Senator Gramm, the US Embassy finally issued my wife and step-daughter their Visas in January of 2002.
So why do I tell this story? I tell this story for a variety of reasons.
1. Because I insisted that my wife and step-daughter enter the United States LEGALLY, it caused us a delay of almost six years over if I had them enter the US Illegally.
2. I question Senator Brownback’s “conservative values” when he refuses to help a person trying to follow the legal process, then turns around and sponsors a bill (last year) to give amnesty to those who violated the law.
3. Why are we even considering giving criminals an amnesty when those who followed the law have had to pay such a high price?
4. What impact will this bill have on our government’s budget? What will happen to our schools when the current illegal immigrants bring in all of their OTHER children and flood our schools with now legal immigrants.
Our government, including Sam Brownback, is selling out Americans for their own political motives. Whether it is the Republicans kowtowing to their big business contributors, or the Democrats trying to “win” the Hispanic vote, it is the American Taxpayer who ends up footing the bill.
Let both Senator Brownback and Senator Roberts KNOW the harm that they this bill promotes. The first amnesty in 1986 was compassionate, and it failed. This amnesty is simply stupid, and it will also fail (though we will get another 30 MILLION citizens over the next 12 years). As we have all heard a million times, “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!” So who is going to be the fool here?
I served in the US Navy for six years, and while stationed in Japan I met the lady of my life. My wife-to-be was Bolivian/Japanese, born and raised in South America, and had followed her father back to the land of his birth only four years before.
I was honorably discharged from the Navy, and almost immediately was employed in a technical support position working for Citibank Japan.After eighteen months in my consultant position, my work was noticed by personnel in Citibank, New York, and I was offered a permanent position, with a significant pay raise, and all the titles and accoutrements associated with the position. I was extremely excited as I gave them an emphatic, “Yes!”, and made preparations for the transfer.
Unfortunately, this excellent twist of fate was soon turned into the worst decision of my life. You see… My wife needed a Visa to enter the US due to her Bolivian nationality.
The US Embassy in Tokyo recommended that we pursue the Visa in Bolivia, as there was insufficient time to start the process, and due to paperwork my wife needed from Bolivia, we agreed.
So my wife and our 7-month old daughter headed to Bolivia as I went to New York City for what we expected to be a relatively short separation.
Two years and three months later, with no end to the immigration nightmare in sight, I resigned my dream position, and moved to Bolivia. Both my wife and I were suffering from severe depression, my work had been suffering, and she was on the verge of having a nervous breakdown.
Because of the economic situation, and my lack of having any type of work available in Bolivia, I brought my daughter up to the United States to live with my mother, content with the possibility that even if we had to live in poverty, we would be together.
Fortunately, Amoco was in the process of acquiring part of the Bolivian state-owned oil company (YPF Bolivia), and I was able to obtain a position as the Director of IT for the new company created, EP Chaco SA. The next few years were some of the best in my life. I loved my job, my family was eventually reunited, and we added a new son. The problems of my wife’s Visa were out of sight and out of mind, as we could wait forever as long as we were together; though the battle of the bureaucracy did continue.
In 1998, after I had been in Bolivia for a little over a year, my father, who lives in Topeka, KS, contacted Senator Sam Brownback, now the presidential candidate from Kansas, to request his assistance in pushing my wife’s Visa paperwork. When I heard this, I got rather excited, as Senator Brownback was the sitting chairman of the Senate Committee on Immigration. Surely, my home state Senator could do something to help out a veteran.
Boy, was I wrong. The simple response was that, “I’m sorry, he’s not a constituent.” I found his response to my father who WAS and still IS a constituent to be highly unsatisfactory. But I let it slide, because the Senator was technically correct. Despite being born and raised in Kansas, my last place of residence in the US was New York.
Then the economic crisis hit Bolivia. In 2000, the economy of Bolivia crashed. I had stepped out to create my own company, and within a two month period, the vast majority of the clients we were supporting could no longer pay their bills. As I was the most expensive employee, and I could not afford my own salary, I took the easy way out and returned to the US, once again, bringing my daughter with me to stay with my mother.
Despite landing in Kansas City, the only immediate work I could find required me to relocate to Dallas. Once again, I started working my way back up the job scale, changing over to a full time position at a new company once my initial six-month contract was completed.
Since I was in Dallas, my wife and I contacted the Mexican Embassy in Bolivia to request a Visa to allow her to “visit” Mexico while waiting for the final issuance of her Visa. However, the Mexican government turned her down, telling her that she was a “risk” of illegally immigrating into the US!!!!! Isn’t that a crock?
Finally, after yet another eighteen months of waiting, with the family starting the downslide into depression yet again, I was able to contact Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. After the experience with Brownback, I wasn’t too hopeful. However, Senator Gramm’s office responded quickly, and despite the incident of 9/11, and with the push of Senator Gramm, the US Embassy finally issued my wife and step-daughter their Visas in January of 2002.
So why do I tell this story? I tell this story for a variety of reasons.
1. Because I insisted that my wife and step-daughter enter the United States LEGALLY, it caused us a delay of almost six years over if I had them enter the US Illegally.
2. I question Senator Brownback’s “conservative values” when he refuses to help a person trying to follow the legal process, then turns around and sponsors a bill (last year) to give amnesty to those who violated the law.
3. Why are we even considering giving criminals an amnesty when those who followed the law have had to pay such a high price?
4. What impact will this bill have on our government’s budget? What will happen to our schools when the current illegal immigrants bring in all of their OTHER children and flood our schools with now legal immigrants.
Our government, including Sam Brownback, is selling out Americans for their own political motives. Whether it is the Republicans kowtowing to their big business contributors, or the Democrats trying to “win” the Hispanic vote, it is the American Taxpayer who ends up footing the bill.
Let both Senator Brownback and Senator Roberts KNOW the harm that they this bill promotes. The first amnesty in 1986 was compassionate, and it failed. This amnesty is simply stupid, and it will also fail (though we will get another 30 MILLION citizens over the next 12 years). As we have all heard a million times, “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!” So who is going to be the fool here?
Friday, May 18, 2007
Why the Left Hates America
Over the last several weeks, I have had to ponder long and hard to determine why the lunatic fringe of the left has developed such a hatred of our President George Bush, and everything that he stands for. I first thought it was because they were against the war. Then I thought it was because of the many mistakes President Bush has made. Neither one of these made any sense, as the hatred they were showing wasn’t directed only at the President, but actually against all conservatives.
The hatred was directed against anyone that had any faith in God, anybody who dared showed deference to the flag or to a patriotic song. They directed hatred at all who even thought to oppose their views on the war in Iraq or on terrorism, and even went so far as to fling personal insults against those who have already had loved ones injured in the war.
To avoid a “flame war” with those who obviously have a ton of hatred stored up, I decided to ponder the question of why the loony left fringe really hates our country so much.
It took me a while. It took a long while. I was about to give up on my search until I realized I had been looking in the wrong area. I had been trying to figure out what America had done that deserved such hatred. I also wasted time trying to figure out how America had possibly failed them. Then I realized that it wasn’t anything America had done, or had failed to do, it was the idea of America itself that caused these people to feel such hate.
It is because America is faith, America is hope, and America is belief. And those who hate America, hate her because they have no faith, no hope, and no belief. They have no faith in America, her military, her leaders or her goodness. They have no hope for the future because they are so caught up in their own miserly lives. They have no belief in a higher power, regardless of whether that higher power is God or simply a higher plane of being.
And so, because they cannot stand the optimism that America brings, they attack her and anyone else who dares to show even the slightest support for her. They try to compare our President to the most evil men of the modern era, and they try to picture our country as the oppressors of the world.
However, I am here to tell you that they are wrong. Failure, for America, would be to compromise our ideals and our standards. Failure, for America, would be to kowtow to those who would see us destroyed. Failure, for America, would be to listen to the hatred of the lunatic left, and believe that they are the true representatives of our people.
America is the beacon of hope for the entire world. Millions of people, from every nation on this planet have the desire and the hope to one day come to America, and become Americans. If we lower our flag, if we slide down that slope that the lunatic fringes of the left want, then we will no longer be that nation of faith, hope, and belief. We’ll simply be yet another former superpower slowing sliding off into oblivion.
We, as a people, are better than that. We as a people, are more intelligent than those who blather. We as a people, are stronger because of our faith, our hope, and our belief. No matter what they say, we will endure, and we will remain strong
The hatred was directed against anyone that had any faith in God, anybody who dared showed deference to the flag or to a patriotic song. They directed hatred at all who even thought to oppose their views on the war in Iraq or on terrorism, and even went so far as to fling personal insults against those who have already had loved ones injured in the war.
To avoid a “flame war” with those who obviously have a ton of hatred stored up, I decided to ponder the question of why the loony left fringe really hates our country so much.
It took me a while. It took a long while. I was about to give up on my search until I realized I had been looking in the wrong area. I had been trying to figure out what America had done that deserved such hatred. I also wasted time trying to figure out how America had possibly failed them. Then I realized that it wasn’t anything America had done, or had failed to do, it was the idea of America itself that caused these people to feel such hate.
It is because America is faith, America is hope, and America is belief. And those who hate America, hate her because they have no faith, no hope, and no belief. They have no faith in America, her military, her leaders or her goodness. They have no hope for the future because they are so caught up in their own miserly lives. They have no belief in a higher power, regardless of whether that higher power is God or simply a higher plane of being.
And so, because they cannot stand the optimism that America brings, they attack her and anyone else who dares to show even the slightest support for her. They try to compare our President to the most evil men of the modern era, and they try to picture our country as the oppressors of the world.
However, I am here to tell you that they are wrong. Failure, for America, would be to compromise our ideals and our standards. Failure, for America, would be to kowtow to those who would see us destroyed. Failure, for America, would be to listen to the hatred of the lunatic left, and believe that they are the true representatives of our people.
America is the beacon of hope for the entire world. Millions of people, from every nation on this planet have the desire and the hope to one day come to America, and become Americans. If we lower our flag, if we slide down that slope that the lunatic fringes of the left want, then we will no longer be that nation of faith, hope, and belief. We’ll simply be yet another former superpower slowing sliding off into oblivion.
We, as a people, are better than that. We as a people, are more intelligent than those who blather. We as a people, are stronger because of our faith, our hope, and our belief. No matter what they say, we will endure, and we will remain strong
Monday, May 14, 2007
Victory for Americans!
For once, law-abiding citizens have been able to win a battle to stop the foreign invaders that we know as illegal aliens. It has taken a while, but it sure is nice to know that some Americans are willing to stand up for enforcing the law, and ensuring that we give no sanctuary to those who knowingly and willingly break the law. Last year, the city council of Farmer’s Branch, Texas, passed ordinance 2903 which required landlords to verify the legal residence status of all persons wishing to rent a residence. Obviously, this ordinance offended those who prefer to aid and abet these criminals.
The supporters of the criminal aliens hit the streets with their petitions, gathered enough signatures, and put this same measure on the ballot for the Saturday, May 12, 2007 local elections of Farmer’s Branch.
Well, by a two-to-one margin, Americans in Farmer’s Branch stood up and told these criminal invaders, “Basta!”. And by a majority of nearly 70% of the vote, the legal residents of Farmer’s Branch upheld ordinance 2903.
My only question now is, when will our Topeka City Council have the guts to take a stand and do what is right? When will our state of Kansas quit bowing to the special interests who want to mandate that we accept their corruption and criminality. When will our government stop the discrimination against US Citizens and Legal Immigrants, and throw these criminals out.
Of course, just remember, the liberals lost in Farmer’s Branch, and now... as usual, it’s off to court to whine because ‘they got robbed’.
The supporters of the criminal aliens hit the streets with their petitions, gathered enough signatures, and put this same measure on the ballot for the Saturday, May 12, 2007 local elections of Farmer’s Branch.
Well, by a two-to-one margin, Americans in Farmer’s Branch stood up and told these criminal invaders, “Basta!”. And by a majority of nearly 70% of the vote, the legal residents of Farmer’s Branch upheld ordinance 2903.
My only question now is, when will our Topeka City Council have the guts to take a stand and do what is right? When will our state of Kansas quit bowing to the special interests who want to mandate that we accept their corruption and criminality. When will our government stop the discrimination against US Citizens and Legal Immigrants, and throw these criminals out.
Of course, just remember, the liberals lost in Farmer’s Branch, and now... as usual, it’s off to court to whine because ‘they got robbed’.
Friday, May 11, 2007
America - The most evil country in history
It sometimes gets tiresome. It seems that every day, I get the privilege of hearing yet another new “argument” from those representing the views of the far left. Unfortunately, when you start to think about all the arguments, regardless of topic, they seem to blur together in a morass of “yet another reason to hate America”.
Just in the last several days, I have seen/heard/read people blaming the US for:
- the destruction of our forests, and indirect destruction of the rain forests
- the illegal invasion of Iraq, yadda yadda yadda
- inhumane treatment of terrorists in Guantanamo Bay
- the destruction of our oceans and the algae in them
- called the largest polluter in the world
- letting people around the world starve to death
- the unfettered exploitation of third world countries
We also, according to the “hate America” crowd, are the most racist and bigoted nation, we have no empathy/sympathy for our own poor and needy, and we are the most aggressive/violent nation to ever exist.
I could probably sit around for the next few weeks and find more and more of these reasons to ‘hate America’, but like I said, it is tiresome listening to such prattle.
Let’s look at some facts:
1. From a UN Study in 2005, the forest land in the US is growing by .1% per year.
2. The US invaded Iraq using the same type of information and motivation as Bill Clinton’s air strikes in December, 1998. Additionally, evidence existed showing that there was indeed a threat that Al Qaeda terrorists would gain access to chemical and/or biological weapons of mass destruction to be used against the US. Article 51 of the UN Charter permits preemptive strikes in case of an imminent threat. Remember 9/11 and Al Qaeda? President Bush decided this was an imminent threat, and he took action.
3. Human rights abuses for detainees determined to be enemy combatants? Please cite ANY precedent in the history of this planet that allows POWs or illegal enemy combatants to have a lawyer? That comes after the fighting has stopped and the war is over. As that may be a LONG time… I’d recommend those detainees get as comfortable as possible.
4. Algae in the oceans? How many ships does the US have compared to countries like China, Taiwan, Greece, Panama or Japan?
5. Largest polluter in the world…. I’m not even going to look this up. It might be true, it might not. I doubt that I would find any reliable statistics, so I’ll admit, we are the largest polluter.
6. Please name a single country where we let people starve?
7. Please name a single country that we are exploiting? (and remember, a contract in place set by two willing parties can not be called exploitation).
Maybe someday, those people whose actions really do speak tons more than their “I support the troops” stickers, will realize that they live in the greatest country this world has ever known. If they don’t, they should opt for another country that they think is better, and simply move there.
I’ve lived around the world, and I’ve seen plenty of both good and bad in it. And really, there ain’t no place like home.
Just in the last several days, I have seen/heard/read people blaming the US for:
- the destruction of our forests, and indirect destruction of the rain forests
- the illegal invasion of Iraq, yadda yadda yadda
- inhumane treatment of terrorists in Guantanamo Bay
- the destruction of our oceans and the algae in them
- called the largest polluter in the world
- letting people around the world starve to death
- the unfettered exploitation of third world countries
We also, according to the “hate America” crowd, are the most racist and bigoted nation, we have no empathy/sympathy for our own poor and needy, and we are the most aggressive/violent nation to ever exist.
I could probably sit around for the next few weeks and find more and more of these reasons to ‘hate America’, but like I said, it is tiresome listening to such prattle.
Let’s look at some facts:
1. From a UN Study in 2005, the forest land in the US is growing by .1% per year.
2. The US invaded Iraq using the same type of information and motivation as Bill Clinton’s air strikes in December, 1998. Additionally, evidence existed showing that there was indeed a threat that Al Qaeda terrorists would gain access to chemical and/or biological weapons of mass destruction to be used against the US. Article 51 of the UN Charter permits preemptive strikes in case of an imminent threat. Remember 9/11 and Al Qaeda? President Bush decided this was an imminent threat, and he took action.
3. Human rights abuses for detainees determined to be enemy combatants? Please cite ANY precedent in the history of this planet that allows POWs or illegal enemy combatants to have a lawyer? That comes after the fighting has stopped and the war is over. As that may be a LONG time… I’d recommend those detainees get as comfortable as possible.
4. Algae in the oceans? How many ships does the US have compared to countries like China, Taiwan, Greece, Panama or Japan?
5. Largest polluter in the world…. I’m not even going to look this up. It might be true, it might not. I doubt that I would find any reliable statistics, so I’ll admit, we are the largest polluter.
6. Please name a single country where we let people starve?
7. Please name a single country that we are exploiting? (and remember, a contract in place set by two willing parties can not be called exploitation).
Maybe someday, those people whose actions really do speak tons more than their “I support the troops” stickers, will realize that they live in the greatest country this world has ever known. If they don’t, they should opt for another country that they think is better, and simply move there.
I’ve lived around the world, and I’ve seen plenty of both good and bad in it. And really, there ain’t no place like home.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Iraq - Take 3
By now, you either agree that we entered Iraq for the right reasons, or you don’t. I think you probably know my feelings by now. However, regardless of whether we agree that we entered Iraq for the right reasons or the wrong reasons, I think we might all be able to agree that American soldiers are currently in Iraq, risking their lives on a daily basis. So what exactly is the situation in Iraq? And how did it come to it’s current situation?
First off, I believe (and I think even my detractors will agree with me), that the current administration had no real plan on what to do in Iraq once we deposed Saddam. I think they underestimated significantly the different factions, the lack of Iraqi leaders who had the requisite qualifications to lead a country into democracy, and the trust of the different factions to be able to unite Iraqis into a common country. The current administration estimated that it would take about ten years, and as we near the halfway point of that estimate, I will not hazard a guess as to how accurate that figure will end up being.
There have been abuses in Iraq, and I believe the military has dealt with those people perverse enough to take advantage of the power given them, and I also realize that a handful of wrong-doers does not represent the bulk of our forces stationed there. The same as those four soldiers found looting in Greensburg do not represent the thousands of others stationed at Fort Riley.
I believe that our Commander in Chief (CinC) President George W. Bush has made many mistakes in Iraq. Even though the fighting of a war should never be a political endeavor (though war is simply another tool of diplomacy), as we learned so well in Vietnam, our CinC, to show America’s compassion, decided to have our army fulfill the role of policemen and engineers, not the professional soldiers they are.
It is only recently, with the change in the Rules of Engagement (ROE) that came with the troop surge, that our soldiers are able to do what they know best. That is the destruction of the enemy. Their hands are now untied, and they now do not have to spin their wheels repeating the same “suppression” of different zones, week after week after week.
Those who oppose the war are correct in saying that we have fought the war ignorantly. But this could also be said of almost every war in American history. I will dispute the statements of the anti-war element that state that Iraq is currently mired in a civil war.
A civil war is defined by Webster’s Dictionary as: “a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country”.
Unfortunately, when the people who committing the atrocities are actually members of a recognized global terrorist organization (Al Qaeda) and foreigners from Iran/Syria, this becomes an insurgency, not a civil war. Do we call Lebanon a country in “civil war”? Did we say Israel was in a “civil war” when it was under attack by Hamas?
There are three major sects in Iraq, yet they are all united (somewhat) in the government. Has there been a call to arms by one of them to secede? Did I miss something?
Anyways, if you want to call it a civil war, it is your right to be wrong.
However, I digress.
President Bush, in undertaking this invasion, has made many mistakes, and has attempted to handle it as a purely political undertaking. This is the same mistake that led to our defeat in Vietnam. I am optimistic regarding the success of the troop surge, and so far, it has met my expectations. Will it be enough?
Guess we’ll talk about that in Iraq – Take 4.
First off, I believe (and I think even my detractors will agree with me), that the current administration had no real plan on what to do in Iraq once we deposed Saddam. I think they underestimated significantly the different factions, the lack of Iraqi leaders who had the requisite qualifications to lead a country into democracy, and the trust of the different factions to be able to unite Iraqis into a common country. The current administration estimated that it would take about ten years, and as we near the halfway point of that estimate, I will not hazard a guess as to how accurate that figure will end up being.
There have been abuses in Iraq, and I believe the military has dealt with those people perverse enough to take advantage of the power given them, and I also realize that a handful of wrong-doers does not represent the bulk of our forces stationed there. The same as those four soldiers found looting in Greensburg do not represent the thousands of others stationed at Fort Riley.
I believe that our Commander in Chief (CinC) President George W. Bush has made many mistakes in Iraq. Even though the fighting of a war should never be a political endeavor (though war is simply another tool of diplomacy), as we learned so well in Vietnam, our CinC, to show America’s compassion, decided to have our army fulfill the role of policemen and engineers, not the professional soldiers they are.
It is only recently, with the change in the Rules of Engagement (ROE) that came with the troop surge, that our soldiers are able to do what they know best. That is the destruction of the enemy. Their hands are now untied, and they now do not have to spin their wheels repeating the same “suppression” of different zones, week after week after week.
Those who oppose the war are correct in saying that we have fought the war ignorantly. But this could also be said of almost every war in American history. I will dispute the statements of the anti-war element that state that Iraq is currently mired in a civil war.
A civil war is defined by Webster’s Dictionary as: “a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country”.
Unfortunately, when the people who committing the atrocities are actually members of a recognized global terrorist organization (Al Qaeda) and foreigners from Iran/Syria, this becomes an insurgency, not a civil war. Do we call Lebanon a country in “civil war”? Did we say Israel was in a “civil war” when it was under attack by Hamas?
There are three major sects in Iraq, yet they are all united (somewhat) in the government. Has there been a call to arms by one of them to secede? Did I miss something?
Anyways, if you want to call it a civil war, it is your right to be wrong.
However, I digress.
President Bush, in undertaking this invasion, has made many mistakes, and has attempted to handle it as a purely political undertaking. This is the same mistake that led to our defeat in Vietnam. I am optimistic regarding the success of the troop surge, and so far, it has met my expectations. Will it be enough?
Guess we’ll talk about that in Iraq – Take 4.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Illegals in the Military?
On May 1st, after the rally in support of the rights of undocumented resident aliens, I had a conversation with some of the people that support providing amnesty for those who are in the country illegally. One of them told me flat out that there are currently 17,000 undocumented aliens on active duty in the US Military and serving in Iraq.
He also stated that there were plenty of reputable sources on the internet that supported this statistic. Of course, I had to check this rumor out, so I went to the source, the US Government.
As I expected, this ‘statistic’ is a complete and utter fabrication, a falsehood, a lie.
I do not believe that the person who gave me this statistic was intentionally trying to mislead me, I simply believe that he did not verify the veracity of his sources. I did find some good news for him though, but we’ll get to that later.
On July 10, 2006, Undersecretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) David S.C. Chu, testified before the US Senate Armed Forces Committee regarding the use of non-citizens in the military. Here are some of the statistics he provided regarding lawful permanent residents and the military:
1. 40,000+ non-citizens are currently serving in the US military (active and reserve).
2. Approximately 8,000 legal permanent residents enlist in the military each year.
3. Over 25,000 green card holders have earned their citizenship through military service.
4. Over 100 non-citizens serving in the military have died since 9/11/2001.
Regarding the service of non-citizens who are also not legal residents of the US, he brought forth the following facts, most of which come from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2006:
1. Section 1059 provides for up to 50 “Special Immigrant Translators” to be granted lawful permanent residence Visas for themselves and their families. Though not specifically stated, it seems to imply that this program would only be available in Afghanistan and Iran. At the time of the hearing, the details of the program were still being worked out between the DOD and USCIS.
2. Section 504 limits military service to US Citizens, Legal Residents and certain persons from Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau. However, the NDAA 2006 was amended to read:“…the Secretary concerned may authorize the enlistment of a person [other than one listed above] if the Secretary determines that such enlistment is vital to the national interest.”
This amendment is interesting. It basically permits the various Secretaries of the Military Branches to permit anyone, of any nationality to enlist in their branch of the service, regardless of their immigration status. It could even be read that this amendment could be used to enlist military members that have never been inside the United States.
The Undersecretary said: “According to an April 2006 study from the National Immigration Law Center, there are an estimated 50,000 to 65,000 undocumented alien young adults who entered the U.S. at an early age and graduate from high school each year, many of whom are bright, energetic and potentially interested in military service. They include many who have participated in high school Junior ROTC programs. Under current law, these young people are not eligible to enlist in the military, until and unless the Armed Services determine that it is vital to the national interest as provided by section 504.”
This amendment, if used for what the undersecretary stated, does not bother me for those who indeed entered the United States at an ‘early age’, however, the amendment itself does create a great concern. However, I will be addressing this in a later entry.
He also stated that there were plenty of reputable sources on the internet that supported this statistic. Of course, I had to check this rumor out, so I went to the source, the US Government.
As I expected, this ‘statistic’ is a complete and utter fabrication, a falsehood, a lie.
I do not believe that the person who gave me this statistic was intentionally trying to mislead me, I simply believe that he did not verify the veracity of his sources. I did find some good news for him though, but we’ll get to that later.
On July 10, 2006, Undersecretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) David S.C. Chu, testified before the US Senate Armed Forces Committee regarding the use of non-citizens in the military. Here are some of the statistics he provided regarding lawful permanent residents and the military:
1. 40,000+ non-citizens are currently serving in the US military (active and reserve).
2. Approximately 8,000 legal permanent residents enlist in the military each year.
3. Over 25,000 green card holders have earned their citizenship through military service.
4. Over 100 non-citizens serving in the military have died since 9/11/2001.
Regarding the service of non-citizens who are also not legal residents of the US, he brought forth the following facts, most of which come from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2006:
1. Section 1059 provides for up to 50 “Special Immigrant Translators” to be granted lawful permanent residence Visas for themselves and their families. Though not specifically stated, it seems to imply that this program would only be available in Afghanistan and Iran. At the time of the hearing, the details of the program were still being worked out between the DOD and USCIS.
2. Section 504 limits military service to US Citizens, Legal Residents and certain persons from Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau. However, the NDAA 2006 was amended to read:“…the Secretary concerned may authorize the enlistment of a person [other than one listed above] if the Secretary determines that such enlistment is vital to the national interest.”
This amendment is interesting. It basically permits the various Secretaries of the Military Branches to permit anyone, of any nationality to enlist in their branch of the service, regardless of their immigration status. It could even be read that this amendment could be used to enlist military members that have never been inside the United States.
The Undersecretary said: “According to an April 2006 study from the National Immigration Law Center, there are an estimated 50,000 to 65,000 undocumented alien young adults who entered the U.S. at an early age and graduate from high school each year, many of whom are bright, energetic and potentially interested in military service. They include many who have participated in high school Junior ROTC programs. Under current law, these young people are not eligible to enlist in the military, until and unless the Armed Services determine that it is vital to the national interest as provided by section 504.”
This amendment, if used for what the undersecretary stated, does not bother me for those who indeed entered the United States at an ‘early age’, however, the amendment itself does create a great concern. However, I will be addressing this in a later entry.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Iraq - Take 2
There are many people who still don’t get it. Obviously, some of us have longer memories than they do. So, rather than using traditional war-mongering Republican sources, I’ll go ahead and use some of the leading democrats and their own words: To demonstrate the seriousness and the gravity of Saddam with WMDs, and to demonstrate Saddam Hussein’s recalcitrance in complying with UN resolutions, we have President Bill Clinton, in his speech justifying his air strikes of Dec 16, 1998:
“The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. So we had to act and act now...”; ”...Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against his neighbors and his own people and left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." - President William Jefferson Clinton
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1998/n12171998_9812171.html
To show Iraq beginning a working relationship with Al Qaeda, we have the 9/11 commission report:“The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had ‘reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.’ ” - 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/pdb120498.pdf - Page 128, 9/11 Commission report.
And AFTER 9/11, but before our invasion, we have former Vice President Al Gore:“We know that he (Saddam Hussein) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country...” he continued on to state: ”...Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Former Vice President Al Gore
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp .html - Speech presented by former Vice President Al Gore to the Commonwealth Club of California, Sept 28, 2002
To show continued development of WMDs, we turn to Madeline Albright, President Bill Clinton’s secretary of State:“It’s just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies.” - Madeline Albright - www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
From Senator Robert Byrd:“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” - Senator Robert Byrd: October 3, 2002 http://byrd.senate.gov/
Senator John Kerry:“When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region.”Senator John Kerry in Foreign Policy Speech at Georgetown University
http://web.archive.org/web/20040204225854/www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html
Senator Hillary Clinton:“"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” - Hillary Clinton - Speech to the US Senate on Oct. 10, 2002: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
We know that Bill Clinton is a liar, which was proved beyond reasonable doubt. But did he lie about Iraq? Did all of the others?
They had significant evidence that we, the public, did not have access to, and yet they all said the exact same thing as Bush, or better yet, Bush actually repeated what THEY said.
The major difference (if you read all of the sources) is that the Democrats, though admitting that Saddam Hussein was creating WMDs, and that he was establishing links with Al Qaeda, wanted to negotiate and appease a person who had reneged on EVERY promise he ever made.
If you can read all of these, and please, go out and read their entire speeches please, and continue believing that we were not justified in our invasion of Iraq, then….
I’m sorry; I simply don’t know what it is going to require to convince you of the truth. The evidence is there, unless you want to call all of these democratic leaders liars, or ‘led about’ by George Bush for echoing what Bill Clinton had said.
But I will keep trying to educate you on what really happened. This isn’t revisionism; it’s fact. Whether you believe it or not is up to you.
“The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. So we had to act and act now...”; ”...Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against his neighbors and his own people and left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." - President William Jefferson Clinton
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1998/n12171998_9812171.html
To show Iraq beginning a working relationship with Al Qaeda, we have the 9/11 commission report:“The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had ‘reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.’ ” - 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/pdb120498.pdf - Page 128, 9/11 Commission report.
And AFTER 9/11, but before our invasion, we have former Vice President Al Gore:“We know that he (Saddam Hussein) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country...” he continued on to state: ”...Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Former Vice President Al Gore
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp .html - Speech presented by former Vice President Al Gore to the Commonwealth Club of California, Sept 28, 2002
To show continued development of WMDs, we turn to Madeline Albright, President Bill Clinton’s secretary of State:“It’s just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies.” - Madeline Albright - www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
From Senator Robert Byrd:“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” - Senator Robert Byrd: October 3, 2002 http://byrd.senate.gov/
Senator John Kerry:“When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region.”Senator John Kerry in Foreign Policy Speech at Georgetown University
http://web.archive.org/web/20040204225854/www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html
Senator Hillary Clinton:“"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” - Hillary Clinton - Speech to the US Senate on Oct. 10, 2002: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
We know that Bill Clinton is a liar, which was proved beyond reasonable doubt. But did he lie about Iraq? Did all of the others?
They had significant evidence that we, the public, did not have access to, and yet they all said the exact same thing as Bush, or better yet, Bush actually repeated what THEY said.
The major difference (if you read all of the sources) is that the Democrats, though admitting that Saddam Hussein was creating WMDs, and that he was establishing links with Al Qaeda, wanted to negotiate and appease a person who had reneged on EVERY promise he ever made.
If you can read all of these, and please, go out and read their entire speeches please, and continue believing that we were not justified in our invasion of Iraq, then….
I’m sorry; I simply don’t know what it is going to require to convince you of the truth. The evidence is there, unless you want to call all of these democratic leaders liars, or ‘led about’ by George Bush for echoing what Bill Clinton had said.
But I will keep trying to educate you on what really happened. This isn’t revisionism; it’s fact. Whether you believe it or not is up to you.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Iraq - Take 1
Lately, I have heard some people becoming increasingly vocal about our troops serving in Iraq. As I hold many controversial views, I am used to having people throw out opposing opinions, however, I do have one favor to ask; Please, if you want to throw out an opinion, don’t include fabricated facts, false characterizations, or flat out mistruths to try and justify your position.
In case you have forgotten some of the facts that you are now attempting to contradict, let me reiterate why the United States went to Iraq.
1. The United Nations passed 17 resolutions telling Saddam Hussein that if he didn’t take a certain action or stop a certain action, penalties up and including military action would be taken against Iraq.
2. There is indisputable evidence that Saddam Hussein had been in possession of WMD (Chemical). He used these weapons to mass murder several Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq.
3. There was evidence that Saddam Hussein had destroyed some of his stockpiles of chemical weapons, but not all.
4. There was credible but unconfirmed evidence that Saddam Hussein still had stockpiles of WMD. Saddam Hussein ignored all UN resolutions to give access for UN inspectors.
5. The vast majority of the world, especially in the US, believed that Saddam Hussein retained a significant stockpile of WMD.
6. There was evidence that Al Qaeda was operating in Iraq. There were suspicions that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were attempting to set up a relationship.
7. Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 terror attacks, and had promised more attacks on the US
8. Saddam Hussein + WMD + Al Qaeda + Osama bin Laden = A significant threat to the safety and security of the United States.
9. President Bush, with FULL BIPARTISAN support, invaded Iraq in order to depose a tyrannical despot to eliminate one possible source of WMD terrorist attacks on US soil.
In other words, in compliance with many UN resolutions, and by Iraq’s outright refusal to comply with the cease fire signed in 1991 after their illegal invasion of Kuwait, the US legally invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein from power.
Unfortunately, our President, George W. Bush is tasked with protecting the American public from all enemies foreign and domestic. He did not have the luxury of wondering whether George Tenet was right or wrong when he said that Iraq was in possession of WMD. His job was to protect American lives.
I am proud that our President is a man who was able to make the hard decision to invade Iraq. I am proud that George Bush is our President, and that he is doing the job we elected him to do.
Regardless of how you would like to spin history, every single person of power in the United States came to the same conclusion as our President, and wholeheartedly supported the invasion of Iraq.
There was no lie, there was no deception, and those who continue to spout that we are in Iraq due to ‘a lie’ or that the war is ‘illegal’ are simply denying the state of the world at that time.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
The International Day of the Workers
Yesterday was the day of the… oops, hold on, let me check my records, …. ok right, the day of the “International Worker”. So, around the nation, many of the workers who built this country, and who have proven themselves to be our most dedicated and hardest workers, took the day off. See, undocumented aliens have now made this their own holiday to express their dislike of our slow legislative process.
Our legislative process is slow, because it hasn’t given them the amnesty that they tried to blackmail us into providing them last year on May 1st. Here in Topeka, a group of about fifty people met outside the South Steps of the State Capitol Building to show their unity in demanding comprehensive immigration reform.
This gathering was very peaceful, and I must admit that I was moved by the speeches some of the speakers gave, however, I then thought to myself that the goal of this rally is to ‘forgive’ those who have knowingly and willingly violated our laws. They are asking us to show compassion and sympathy for their plight, and to help us reunite their families.
I also started considering the fact that our country currently provides legal immigration to our country to over 1.3 million people every year, more than the combined total of every single other country on this planet.
Then I considered the fact that these people pleading for amnesty have not submitted themselves to any type of check, whether a criminal check or a physical check, and we have absolutely no idea who we are actually dealing with.
I heard Dr. Jim McCullough quote the “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses..” as engraved at the base of the Statue of Liberty, and realized that at the least, those tired, and poor people who passed through Ellis Island at least had the courtesy and respect to ask permission first, and to let us know they were here.
These same legal immigrants who passed through Ellis Island also came with the idea that they were coming to America to be Americans! They didn’t show up and insist on being called Irish-Americans, French-Americans, and no, they didn’t even insist on being called European-Americans. They showed up to be Americans.
Ronald Reagan once said: “You can go to live in Turkey, but you can’t become a Turk. You can go to live in Japan, but you cannot become Japanese – or Germany or France – but anyone from any corner of the world can come to America and become an American.”
Though the majority of these undocumented resident aliens are simply people looking to better their life and to support their family, they are also people who have shown their backs to the law, and have decided to do whatever it takes to force their way into a country that is not theirs.
They have decided that they will not be Americans, but rather, they will be a hyphenated American. They say that they want to learn English, yet not even half of the people at the rally yesterday would admit they spoke English.
They ask for our sympathy, but then call us racist for insisting on following the law.
We are all in agreement, both those that are want an amnesty and those who don’t, that we do need a comprehensive immigration reform, however, the desire to forgive and forget that these people have committed criminal acts simply to be here, is simply a slap in the face to those who patiently wait years to come here the legal way.
But let’s address the real problems. Let’s address those employers that actively promote the act of illegal immigration. Let’s address those employers that use and abuse the human rights of these illegal immigrants. Let’s take away the incentive for employers to break the law, placing over a million people each year in danger of their own life, attempting to enter a country where they will only face hardship and discrimination (for their illegal acts).
Our government needs to act, and it needs to act now. They need to be fair, and they need to place the blame where it is deserved. The future of not just America is at stake, but also the future of our neighbors to the South.
Our legislative process is slow, because it hasn’t given them the amnesty that they tried to blackmail us into providing them last year on May 1st. Here in Topeka, a group of about fifty people met outside the South Steps of the State Capitol Building to show their unity in demanding comprehensive immigration reform.
This gathering was very peaceful, and I must admit that I was moved by the speeches some of the speakers gave, however, I then thought to myself that the goal of this rally is to ‘forgive’ those who have knowingly and willingly violated our laws. They are asking us to show compassion and sympathy for their plight, and to help us reunite their families.
I also started considering the fact that our country currently provides legal immigration to our country to over 1.3 million people every year, more than the combined total of every single other country on this planet.
Then I considered the fact that these people pleading for amnesty have not submitted themselves to any type of check, whether a criminal check or a physical check, and we have absolutely no idea who we are actually dealing with.
I heard Dr. Jim McCullough quote the “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses..” as engraved at the base of the Statue of Liberty, and realized that at the least, those tired, and poor people who passed through Ellis Island at least had the courtesy and respect to ask permission first, and to let us know they were here.
These same legal immigrants who passed through Ellis Island also came with the idea that they were coming to America to be Americans! They didn’t show up and insist on being called Irish-Americans, French-Americans, and no, they didn’t even insist on being called European-Americans. They showed up to be Americans.
Ronald Reagan once said: “You can go to live in Turkey, but you can’t become a Turk. You can go to live in Japan, but you cannot become Japanese – or Germany or France – but anyone from any corner of the world can come to America and become an American.”
Though the majority of these undocumented resident aliens are simply people looking to better their life and to support their family, they are also people who have shown their backs to the law, and have decided to do whatever it takes to force their way into a country that is not theirs.
They have decided that they will not be Americans, but rather, they will be a hyphenated American. They say that they want to learn English, yet not even half of the people at the rally yesterday would admit they spoke English.
They ask for our sympathy, but then call us racist for insisting on following the law.
We are all in agreement, both those that are want an amnesty and those who don’t, that we do need a comprehensive immigration reform, however, the desire to forgive and forget that these people have committed criminal acts simply to be here, is simply a slap in the face to those who patiently wait years to come here the legal way.
But let’s address the real problems. Let’s address those employers that actively promote the act of illegal immigration. Let’s address those employers that use and abuse the human rights of these illegal immigrants. Let’s take away the incentive for employers to break the law, placing over a million people each year in danger of their own life, attempting to enter a country where they will only face hardship and discrimination (for their illegal acts).
Our government needs to act, and it needs to act now. They need to be fair, and they need to place the blame where it is deserved. The future of not just America is at stake, but also the future of our neighbors to the South.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
