GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK!

The stupid people of Venezuela elected Hugo Chavez as their Dictator, with unlimited power and absolutely no checks and balances.  Now they seem to be unhappy because he is doing things Dictators always do.  That's almost as stupid as people who vote for Democrats complaining about tax increases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6277379.stm

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PE78LG0&show_article=1

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1936930.htm

A New York Times/CBS News poll released last week found that 69% of American adults believe illegal immigrants should “be prosecuted and deported for being in the U.S. illegally.” Only 24% disagree and say they should not. The random survey of 1,125 adults was conducted May 18-23, 2007.

Apparently the United States Senate can’t read public sentiment. If two out of three Americans believe illegals should be prosecuted and deported, the Senate is telling the public their opinion doesn’t matter. The Senators’ political ambitions apparently matter more. What do the politicians think will happen in ten or fifteen years when our countrys population is over 50% Hispanic nationwide? These chickens will come home to roost sooner or later. Some of these "career politicians" will still be in office, and surely they have family and children who plan to continue living in this country? Is their goal to turn this into another Mexico with the wealthy power holders at the top and the rest of us peons at the bottom and no middle class?

Most Democrats that voted to authorize the war, have now changed their mind, and claim they were tricked or mislead, or some such nonsense.  Edwards still doesn't seem to know which side of the question he is on, as evidenced by a speech he made Wednesday to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

Edwards says that he would immediately withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 "combat troops" from Iraq and withdraw all such troops "in about a year."  He also says that the U.S. would have to retain sufficient troops in the region "to prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillover of the civil war and prevent an al-Qaida safe haven."   (Make up your mind Pretty Boy.  Do you "withdraw all troops" or "retain sufficient troops?)

To accomplish those missions, would require basically the same numbers of U.S. soldiers in Iraq as are currently there, doing pretty much the same thing that they are currently doing.   (He is advocating drastic change, yet when he attempts to describe that change, we see there is if fact, no change at all)

What attracted the most attention in Edwards' speech was his attack on President Bush's "war on terror," which Edwards dismissed as a "political doctrine," calling it a "slogan" and a "bumper sticker."   He described the term "war" as a metaphor. Based on that, one would assume that Edwards does not believe that the United States is in a real war with terrorists.

The war is very real. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an act of war. Congress treated it as such with a use of force resolution that only one member of either chamber voted against. Edwards voted for it.

Edwards seems to be adopting the emerging Democratic theme that, if the United States just plays nice, the terrorists will either go away or leave us alone.  He proposes $5 billion a year in additional foreign aid and a major U.S. international effort on poverty and education.  According to Edwards, the ultimate answer to terrorism is "a hopeful new era of citizenship".  Maybe Mr. Edwards has been breathing the fumes of too many beauty shop chemicals.

The war on terror is far more important than the war the Democrats have been engaged in against the Bush Administration and the Republicans. That's why it was a positive development when Democrats decided to drop their insistence on a withdrawal date for U.S. troops and instead agreed to a compromise proposal on establishing benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

The Democrats didn't back off because they decided to support the war effort. They changed position because they didn't have the votes to override yet another veto by the President. The political reality is that even with control of both the House and the Senate, the Democrats margins aren't large enough to force Bush to cave to such a disastrous plan.  As difficult as the situation is in Iraq, creating a date certain to start removing the troops is just the type of micro managing that the Congress should not undertake.

Democrats are totally convinced that the American people voted for them largely because they are unhappy with the manner in which the administration has managed the war, and they are partially right in that assumption.  I believe most voters are unhappy not because they favor a pullout (cut and run), but rather because they feel we were not trying hard enough to win.  (Note: When engaged in a war, the definition of "win" is to destroy the enemy.)

There were also other important reasons for voter dissatisfaction.  For example, Bush and his Republican controlled Congress were spending "like John Edwards in a beauty shop". (God I love that quote)   The most important reason of all, in my view, was the failure of the Republicans to seriously address the problem of controlling our southern border.  The President himself was a major obstacle on this one.  Don't forget that we still have several border guards in prison just for trying to do their job.  Democrats fail to recognize these other predominant reasons, or perhaps they just refuse to admit they exist.
                                 
The Democratic Senators with an eye on the White House are caught between a rock and a hard place, because the bill they'll soon be voting on does not include this timetable. A no vote risks exposing the party as anti-military and soft on terrorism, and could hand a weapon to a GOP presidential nominee. A yes vote could anger a lot of liberal groups and voters.

 

The Z Visa

No doubt about it, this bill is amnesty in its current form, since the "Z visa" provision would make these "undocumented immigrants" legal with the stroke of a pen. Why should this group, which came here illegally, get a leg up over others from around the world who are "legally" seeking US citizenship? As to "mass deportation", this is a cop out. Just as we don't need to solve every crime and catch every criminal, in order to have deterrents to crime, neither do we have to ferret out and deport every one of the 12 million illegal aliens in this country in order to deter a flood of new illegal aliens. What should be of concern to all Americans is deporting illegal aliens that have committed crimes, and preventing their return with secure borders.

All across this country, illegal aliens are being caught by the police for all sorts of violations of American laws, from traffic violations to murder. Yet in many, if not most, places the police are under orders not to report these illegal aliens to the federal government.

Imprisoning apprehended lawbreakers for the crime of illegally entering this country, in addition to whatever other laws that they have broken, and then deporting them after their sentences have been served, would not be lost on others who are here illegally or who are thinking of coming here illegally.

Remember that 700-mile fence that Congress authorized last year? Only two miles have been built, and as far as I can ascertain, no construction is currently being done. This should be the top priority, but instead, it is an afterthought. That should tell us something about how seriously they are going to enforce other border security provisions in the current bill.

A fence would lower incentives to illegal immigration. With the emergence of human-smuggling organizations, crossing the border has never been easier. The fence would raise the costs of the illegal option, and make coming here legally a more attractive alternative. Obviously, securing our borders is vital to our national security during this war-on-terror.

First and foremost, secure the borders, and ensure that the flow of illegal aliens is halted.
Second, deport all criminal aliens after they have served their sentence. Then and only then will it be time to consider the "Z-Visa".

Without question, illegal aliens should be treated with compassion! The American citizenry are compassionate people. But let's also have compassion for the American taxpayers that are already footing the bills for these illegal aliens, which are regularly utilizing our social services. This proposed immigration bill triggers innumerable questions to ponder: What other government services and programs will the formerly "undocumented workers" be eligible to access? How will they impact Social Security and Medicaid? Moreover, as to the "path to citizenship", are we to be impressed by all the requirements that ostensibly must be met by the applicants and employers? What are the enforcement mechanisms? Up to this point, there hasn't been much enforcement of current immigration laws. Why should we expect there would be for "new" laws? What about anchor babies? Should we automatically confer citizenship upon babies born of illegal aliens? Do we really want to fast-track 400,000 new immigrants each year? How can we mend "chain migration" so that America doesn't become inundated with impoverished people that can't adequately assimilate or support themselves?

Oh, I almost forgot to mention. "THEY HAVEN'T EVEN FINISHED WRITING THE BILL, BUT THEY WANT TO GO AHEAD AND FAST TRACK IT"S APPROVAL".

WE MUST NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN…

Write, call, or fax your Senator and DEMAND the following.

1…Build the already approved 700-mile border fence, along with the other border security measures that are included in that same bill.

2…Beginning RIGHT NOW, deport any illegal alien that is convicted of any crime. (after they serve their jail or prison time)

3…Post the finished bill on the Internet so everyone can read it.

Only after the above has been accomplished, would it be acceptable to debate the merits of this bill.