The Democrats Just Cut Their Own Throats

The Democrats just committed suicide with this vote allowing amnesty for millions of illegal aliens who don't belong here. It is not a vote for compassion but one of disloyalty to those citizens who have been toiling all their lives to make something of themselves and this country. Now that is being threatened by millions who have invaded this country with one thing in mind--to promote their own self-interests, not that of the U.S. They aren't coming here to make this country great but to make money, by hook or crook. Now what do voters do when faced with a dilemma--disloyal politicians on the one hand and crooked self-serving ones on the other?
I had hoped that the Democrats would wise up and start thinking about the best interests of the American citizen; instead they have kept their "universal" humanity stance, which tends to work against the best interests of the U.S. citizen. How about a little "compassion" for those who voted you in?
The American voter is between a rock and a hard place--who do you vote for? No one gives the public a straight answer. They all speak in euphemisms and hedge around specifics and details. Not one can answer a yes/no question with yes or no. They more you get to know what they stand for the less appealing they become.
The media's hands are tied. In order to get interviews they must cater to the politician's desire to propagandize. The politicians use the media very well.

Fox Guarding the Hen House?

Wolfe Blitzer interviewed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales recently and Gonzales was asked about the legality of his parents, in other words, were they illegal aliens.? Gonzales answered that their status was not clear. How about that for an answer from the chief law enforcer of the land! If he couldn't determine his own parents status how could he enforce the laws of the land regarding the illegal alien issue? A reasonable person would bound to conclude that his heart wouldn't be in it for enforcing any law against illegal aliens: a fox guarding the hen house. This country needs a good dose of common sense.

Oil Alternatives

Last Sunday I watched Larry King's show, which had Robert Redford, CEO of Chevron OReilly, and several others all talking about oil and the need to go to alternatives. What was the most interesting was what wasn't being said. That the U.S. wont change over to alternatives, any significant way, until the present energy companies figure out how to monopolize the energy industry and how to eke out more profits than is possible at the moment. OReilly was still making the case for drilling in environmentally fragile areas.
The problem with alternatives is the little guy can get into the business--take ethanol for instance. Weren't most of our forefathers bootleggers? Anyone with access to corn or barley, a little sugar, and yeast, can forment up a batch of alcohol in a few days. Same with bio or waste oil diesel. Most gasoline cars can be converted to ethanol in a few hours and a few hundreds of dollars. Diesel cars and trucks need no modification. As far as electricity goes solar and wind are options as well. Roof tops are potential energy producers.
The reason we aren't heading toward self-sufficiency is the strangle hold on the subject by the environmentalists and the capitalists. The move towards alternative energy is driven, not by environmental or economic concerns, but by the fact that consumption has gotten so great that we just can't produce enough to keep pace with it. That means in time (relatively soon) recessions and even depressions--or as I keep saying--The Big Crunch!
The Big Crunch! What is that? Think of the 1973 oil shortage compounded three or four fold. High prices, long long gas lines, chaos, people out of work, people unable to get to work, brown and black outs of electricity, interruptions in communications, and I could go on for quite some time--the reader should get the message. The problem with the Big Crunch is there is no reprieve or going back--it is permanent and gets worse as time goes on. Consumption is necessary to maintaining a civilization built on technology. The only way out of it is by going back in time to a period of less technology--mediaeval times, or the stoneage maybe? Our choice?
I have done some number crunching with my computer and calculate that we have about 30 years to total crunch time, zero produceable oil--if the oil companies have been truthful with their reserve numbers. You can figure it out with a calculator--here's how. There are about 1 trillion barrels of oil in reserves in the world--a conservative figure (the U.S. has 21 billion barrels left). The world uses up 24 billion barrels each year on average (the U.S. uses 7 billion). For each 9 barrels used we discover and add 1 barrel to the reserve figure (that ratio increases in time to 1:10, 1:11 etc.). Our consumption increases yearly by 1 1/2 percent. If you divide 24 billion (plus 1.5 % of 24 billion) by nine and add that to 1 trillion, minus the 24 billion (to increase the reserve figure) and keep cycling till the reserves are zero, you should come up with about 35 cycles or years. The only problem with that, as far as we are concerned, is that there is a point where civilization can no longer flourish because consumption exceeds production by some margin; when the Big Crunch happens. I figure that out to be when production falls short 25% of needed consumption. We waste a lot so we could tighten our belts some without hurting our economy and way of life too badly, but there is a point where things stop running or operating.
The argument continually being made by the oil companies and our legislators is that there is plenty of oil around and in the ground. There is, but it is economical not feasible to retrieve much of it. There is some point where the average person can't afford to buy energy. They'll try, but costs of energy drive up other prices as well--food, clothing, raw materials, building materials, etc.
Anyway it is time to seriously think about developing oil alternatives. Waiting is risky. We barely have the resources now to invest in infrastructure let alone later when it is likely the money wont be there to do so.

It's Only Fair

It is only fair that if illegal immigrants have to pay back taxes and fines that their employers should do so as well. After all if illegal immigrants must prove that they have been here five years or more then they should come totally clean, clean the slate if you will, by fingering those employers that illegally hired them in the first place. A real can of worms. Employers that hired a few illegals amongst many others that were legal should get by without fines and back taxes etc. but those who hired predominantly illegal workers should be fined at least $5,000 to $10,000 for each infraction. Hiring scores of illegals means a lack of due diligence in obeying the laws on the books. Why should the tax payer be saddled with all these added expenses incurred by reason that employers were encouraging illegal aliens to sneak over our border work in jobs they knew were available for the asking--no real embarrassing questions asked.
Once the illegal aliens try to prove that they were here for a period of time a crime or crimes would then be discovered, which by law must be punished. For our Legislators and Law Enforcement to ignore crimes on the books places them in "the abetting and aiding" category, accessories after the crimes; if you want to get real technical.
Going after employers who have been hiring illegal aliens should reduce the ardor for "Amnesty". Another point--employers who want to bring in more aliens to work should have to provide medical insurance for those workers, as the taxpayer should not have to foot the bill for any medical expenses that those workers may incur while working in the U.S. Seems only fair.
By the way amnesty means forget--the law does not forgive, it can forget--God forgives; so far GW Bush hasn't attained that title yet.

Where is the "News" in the News?

I guess it is because I used to work for newspapers that I expect that the "news" should be new. If a newspaper or magazine repeated news stories day after day and week after week they wouldn't stay in the "news" business very long. How Cable News gets away with giving out luke warm stories day after day and repeat them on the weekends and then repeat them the next week and the week after I can't figure out. Those buying advertisement time must be dumber than rocks to pay for time that is nothing more than warmed-over news, and other shows that get repeated incessantly.
The consumers of what the Cable Networks put out are getting the shaft by buying cable time, sitting through hours of commercials, then end up getting cheated on content.

What Does "End of the Line" Mean?

GW and Ted Kennedy make mention of illegals going to the "end of the line" as if the illegals are not getting preferential treatment. Some would-be immigrants do start out as visa holders and live for a time in the U.S. before applying for and getting citizenship but it is not the general procedure for applying for citizenship. Normally foreigners who want to be citizens apply in their own countries and live there until the papers go through; if they go through.
Illegals on the other hand appear to be getting preferential treatment by residing here and getting an almost certain track to citizenship by living here illegally for a long period of time without being caught.
Another point--some have stated illegals only break one law; that of entering this country without documentation. What about document fraud, buying bogus green cards, or social security cards? Then there is falsely giving social security numbers to employers which is fraud. Some employers pay under the table to avoid paying taxes and the illegals avoid paying taxes as well. I'm sure there are other laws being broken as well so there appears to be a whole slew of laws being broken by illegals and others. The whole system corrupts our way of life, we are an immoral society because of it.

Nation of Immigrants?--So What!

I keep hearing, from both sides, the statement "We are a nation of Immigrants". Is that supposed to be an argument? A premise of some sort? What it is is an "appeal" to people's emotions, a propaganda ploy, in some it may strum a chord of guilt, others pity, others perhaps a form of "bandwagon appeal". It is not a reason or argument for anything since times have changed since our ancestors immigrated to this country. We may hold out an appeal as a country to would-be immigrants with knowledge or skills, robbing other countries talent, but labor we don't need; and that is what some people are trying to sell us by encouraging illegal foreign nationals to sneak over the border and work for them and ultimately, for some, a vote for them. However, the statement is not an argument even though it is presented as one.
Bush last night presented his "solve the problem by solving the problem" plan. Lots of generalities but few statistics or details as usual. The details that were given indicated, as usual, his Administrations lack of competence. His "No Amnesty" Amnesty program as proposed would be impossible to implement as stated--costing the taxpayers in this country billions, if not trillions, of dollars.
Why isn't anyone figuring out how much all this would cost, how many people would be involved, and what administration or administrations would be involved.
One thing for sure the illegals would get Amnesty and all the hoops that they are supposed to jump through would be forgotten. Bureaucrats would take the easy way out by rubber stamping the requirements without the investigating, fines, residency requirements, and whatever else they have to hurdle. It would be 1986 all over again. Promises to us, Amnesty for them. By the way amnesty means to "forget", not "forgive".

Comments

I welcome constructive comments. Discourse and exchange of opinions is good. Names, labels, and Ad hominem attacks reflect on the commenter more than on me. Such just show up the commentors ignorance and mean spiritedness. So far my observations and analysis has been on the money--the Bush Administrations use of Propaganda to push for war, the lack of intelligence for WMDs, opening Pandora's Box by invading Iraq, Corporate greed and this Administration's view of the U.S. Treasury as One Big Cookie Jar, my analysis of the NSA's wiretapping as being just the tip of the iceberg--all were on the money; so, if someone wants to point a finger go ahead, a 100% prediction and analysis rate proves my point, not yours.
I started my blog because I was writing the media and my legislators about these issues and no one was asking questions to anyone. We went to war, Corporation greed went on, and the public was being lied to, day after day after day. Now questions are being asked and answers insisted upon--at least in part. No one gives anyone a straight answer.
At least one voice is out there trying to keep 'em straight and there is a record of that fact.
Before you comment read my work in total. Then comment.

Skewered By Statistics?

The Administration and the NSA say they were just looking at phone numbers, not content. How do you get from numbers to terrorists? Why, statistics; maybe. The convoluted answer they have given so far is "a terrorist makes a call to the U.S., then the resulting links, phone calls, are then followed to others friendly to the terrorists. Oh?
Why then are millions of phone numbers being processed? There can't be that many terrorists to be able to make phone calls to and inside the U.S.
My guess is it is about statistics. Number crunching. Patterns, based on statistics, are recognized by some formula; and individuals tagged by this pattern are then scrutinized. The court is then used to get a warrant to monitor his/her phone calls. That is unreasonable search because they weren't doing anything--just being a phone call statistical anomaly. Legal technically, maybe, but when you analyze what they are really doing you will see they are using statistics to "side-step" the law. You can't use statistics to "finger" people by. It is still an unreasonable search.
As far as their remonstrating that our rights are being protected--not a chance. This crowd has a "means justifies the ends" philosophy; so anything goes in their quest for security.
Read your history books--the Germans did the same back in the 1930's and see what it got them. They traded economic security for a Dictatorship.
There is no easy path to security; certainly not one that gives up our freedoms. When Politicians start asking the public to trust them--watch out!

Amnesty--For Who?

Since the Administration, and our Legislators, do not seem to care about implementing the desires, needs, wants of the 280 million American citizens in this country it doesn't really follow that they are caring about some 10 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country--so who are they really representing in this Amnesty thing? Why Corporations and Big Business that is who!
Amnesty for the illegal aliens really means Amnesty for all those who have been breaking the laws about hiring illegal aliens. The handwriting is on the wall; American citizens are beginning to become aware of the threat to our sovereignty that hoards of illegal aliens entering this country poses. Putting up fences and hiring more guards isn't going to stop the inflow entirely and the only real solution to the problem would lie in enforcing the existing laws on the books about illegal hiring. That means a lot of those cronies of GWB would be in the crosshairs of law enforcement soon. So the real "benefit" of Amnesty would be for the Corporations.
Which brings up a point about quid pro quo--donations to campaigns to buy off politicians so that they, the Corporations, can keep on hiring illegal aliens.
Compassion and Good Samaritan appeals aren't arguments but ploys that appeal to our emotions rather than to our heads. I haven't heard one good logical argument put forth by those who want Amnesty for the illegal aliens. Not one. Their so-called facts are distortions, emotional appeals, and exaggerations.
The polls give Amnesty a headsup, which is surprising to me--just goes to show that Propaganda works; like appeals to Compassion and being a Good Samaritan. But such propaganda lasts only for a time before people get wise to it. That is why there is such a push on at the moment to move legislation for Amnesty through.
Promises were made back in 1986 and broken. Now some of the same players are promoting nearly the same agenda--what gall! Next go around 20 to 40 million illegal aliens will be clamoring for "their rights" and another Kennedy will be using the same old argument about "Compassion" and "Good Samaritans".
GWB will be using his same old formula--"trust me, we need a guest worker program that allows in workers for jobs Americans don't want." The Iraq war is going to cost us over a trillion dollars, how much will the Amnesty and guest worker program cost us? How many times has he been right?

We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us

I am more afraid of over zealous government types than about what damage a terrorist could do in this country. The idea that millions of Americans are being monitored, even in a cursory way, is repugnant to me. I remember vaguely the harm that was done during the McCarthy era and I see a growing momentum in that direction again. The harm that may be done is when the government starts interpreting the data they obtain. We have seen also what happens when law enforcement makes up its mind about a person's guilt. What else is coming--people being spirited away in the middle of the night or grabbed off the streets never to be heard from again? It is happening apparently abroad and some accused of being terrorists are being held without due process in military prisons even now. We are in more danger from ourselves than from the terrorists.
Some lawmakers have stated they have been "briefed" about the NSA programs. To what extent have they been briefed? Like, did they see flow charts as to how the program works, the techniques involved, who actually have been monitored, how many, etc. The devil is in the details and I am almost certain that they have been briefed in generalities with many promises that everything is on the up and up and "legal". The President says so right? The same guy who bought into WMDs in Iraq.
Those being briefed are who? Partisan zealots of the administration maybe? Legislators who would support the administration under any circumstances? I have a lot of doubts and questions about this whole issue--and I don't see anyone asking them.

General Hayden and Wire Tapping

General Hayden "defended" Bush's wiretapping by saying it was "successful", or something to that effect. That is like saying we ought to bring back the "rubber-hose" to extract confessions because that too was "effective" I was surprised to learn that the General has degrees in History--seems he didn't learn much: history has shown how despotism starts with such rationalizations.
The next argument is "do we want a CIA chief that uses such rationalizations to circumvent the Constitution of the United States?" There should be no gray areas regarding citizens rights--if anything there should be a legal "space" between what is legal and illegal regarding the Constitution. The "gray area" is prime territory for this Administration and its supporters. If they are found breaking the law, why then get the law changed and make it "legal".
What gets to me is they are still breaking the wire tapping law and flaunting it before the American People's faces; and their Representatives.
If GW or anyone in the Administration burned the American Flag everyone would be up in arms, yet GW and those in is Administration do worse to the Constitution and no one says a word about it. By worse I mean breaking that guarantee to the People that their rights will not be violated. The Flag is just a symbol, a colored rag--the Constitution is a Contract to the People by those in government that the government will not violate those rights so recognized and so stipulated in the Document. The People should be aware of what those rights are and extremely Jealous of Them, but apparently they are not. What then is all the hullaboo about? Freedom, Liberty, Justice? Get serious people--this is supposed to be YOUR Government, not a government for the Corporations, Zealots, Special Interests! It is high time that we, The People, took back our government, demanded good candidates to choose from, held them to some form of Contract, and booted them out if they didn't perform as promised. One can dream can't he?

General Hayden--Just Another Good Soldier?

In the past Republican Administrations have depended on "good soldiers" to implement unlawful operations and cover up embarrassments: such as Colin Powell aledgedly did in the My Lai investigation and enabled, elegedly, the Iran-Contra affair. Now we have another "good soldier" apparently covering up for Bush on wire taps. Who knows what else will need to be covered up, for the Bush administration, if Hayden becomes head of the CIA.

What to do about Iran

The U.S. is heading down a dangerous path by making hostile gestures towards Iran. The means to defanging Iran is not by waging war but by taking away its source of political power. Iran depends on large part on its oil revenue and high oil prices gives Iran the money by which it can do things; like building nuclear programs, sponsoring terror, buying "friends" and weapons. By going the hostile route with Iran we would just fall into a trap from which we would find it very difficult to extract ourselves from.
The answer to the Middle East problem is to use alternative fuels; such as biodiesel, ethanol, and syngas. We have to go that route fairly soon anyway so why not now propose and implement a plan to make it mandatory that in five years 50% of our fuel consumption would be by alternative fuels. That would take a lot of the power away from the Middle East, and elsewhere, reduce oil prices, and build up a much needed alternative energy infrastructure.
By not going this route, competition for a depleting fuel source will increase, prices will go higher and higher, we will have to spend more on the military, and diplomatic relations will go into the can.
As it is countries, importing oil to the U.S. and to our allies, have us all over an oil barrel from which there is no removing ourselves from.

Immigration Threatening U.S. Sovereignty?

I think so, when foreign nationals can slip into our country in the dead of night, easily find work, take up housekeeping, blatantly demand that U.S. legislators and Governors pass laws that favor them, flaunt it in our faces on TV, all the while police officers stand by helplessly watching it all happen. Yes, we U.S. citizens are threatened because our government has let us down. It knowingly created this mess, for whatever reasons I can't fathom. Representatives such as Rohrbacher are labeled "extremists" for wanting to regain our sovereignty. Nearly ten percent of our population is now "illegal" immigrants. Legalizing them would be a disaster for the rest of us--think of it--20 million new citizens voting to let in and "legalize" more illegal aliens! It is already a vicious cycle that started in 1986 by Reagan. Promises made then not kept; and now they want to go the same route. Fool me once shame on you--fool me twice shame on me!
I don't think so, but if this illegal immigrant charade is passed it will create a revolution politically. As it is the Democrats are losing any political ground they may have gained by Republican ineptitude and greed. If they continue to push for amnesty for the illegals they will lose to the Republicans again. It would be a fine time for some enterprising Independents to come out into the political arena.