Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Regarding Obama’s Immigration Executive Action

Regarding Obamas Immigration Executive Action   <– PDF version

The President issued an Executive Action on 21 Nov 2014 regarding the enforcement of the immigration laws.  It amounts to deferring deportation for about five million illegal aliens if they meet two criteria: a) must have been in the U. S. for five years; and b) must have children who are citizens by birth or naturalization. The alleged rationale for this action deferring deportation is that Congress has refused to act in the interest of keeping families (some members of which are here illegally) together.  His other claims about the action are that eligible illegal aliens: a) must register with the federal government; b) must be fingerprinted and undergo a criminal background check at their own expense; c) are not eligible for any public benefits; and d) must pay income taxes upon successfully completing the background check and receiving a work permit.  Also, he claimed that more resources will be devoted to securing the border and deporting felons.  This being an executive action, it expires when the President leaves office.  (I am being charitable by assuming this delusional narcissist will leave office voluntarily on 20 Jan 2017; don’t be surprised if he claims a third term because it would have been the will of the people who don’t vote in 2016.)

Every candid observer must agree, given his conduct over the past six years, that Barack Obama is a pathological liar.  Aside from that, consider this action from the standpoint of the illegal alien.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron and you believe that an illegal alien is going to register with the government so that the government will know who they are and where they are when the executive action expires.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron and you believe that an illegal alien is going to pay for a background check and processing fees that he has never had to pay before.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron and you believe that an illegal alien is going to volunteer to now pay taxes he has not been liable for all these years.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron and you believe that the illegal aliens receiving public welfare benefits will give them up.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron who thinks that border or visa enforcement will actually occur under this administration.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron and you believe that the federal government will deport felons.  All of Obama’s claims are false as usual: there will be no fees, no registration, no background checks, no payment of taxes, no reduction of welfare rolls, no border enforcement, and no deportation of anyone, felon or not.

It is worse than that.  The Republicans do not have many options for stopping the implementation of this action, since it is difficult legislatively to force a President to actually do his job.  They will whimper a lot, but won’t do much about it.  Secondly, a sizeable fraction of Republicans (led by Senator John McCain) want all the illegal aliens made citizens on the grounds that it is the path of lesser resistance compared to actually securing the border and enforcing the visa limitations.  It will also show that the Republicans are just as willing as Democrats to hand our national sovereignty over to foreign-national trespassers, which (they hope) will cause many Hispanic people to vote for Republicans.

It is likely that the President will get away with deferring deportation for these five million, so what is to stop Barack “I lied, period” Obama from granting all illegal aliens permanent residency six months from now?  What will stop him from granting all 30 million illegal aliens automatic citizenship a year from now?  We should expect that this is only the beginning.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Regarding the Michael Brown case

RegardingTheMichaelBrownCase   <– PDF version

Mr. Michael Brown was shot to death by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson on the afternoon of Saturday, 9 Aug 2014.  Some of the details that have become public knowledge include:

a. Wilson first “contacted” Mr. Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson while they were walking in the street.

b. There was some sort of confrontation between Brown and Wilson, part of which occurred inside Wilson’s patrol car.

c. At least one shot was fired inside the car.

d. Brown was shot at least six times and died at the scene.

e. Johnson was never shot at, nor injured in the incident, nor was he subsequently arrested.

There are two conflicting narratives as to the sequence of events.  Both versions agree that there was a confrontation inside the patrol car, but differ as to the cause.  Some claim Wilson pulled Brown in, or slammed a door on Brown provoking an attack by Brown. Wilson’s version is that Brown simply attacked him while Wilson was still in the car and the shot was fired while Brown was trying to take Wilson’s gun.  The second area of dispute is whether Mr. Brown was shot in the back as he tried to run away, or was shot from the front as he tried to surrender to Wilson with his hands up; or had initially tried to run, but then turned and charged Wilson.  Mr. Johnson has claimed Brown was trying to surrender and Wilson has claimed Brown was charging him.  There were several eyewitnesses to the incident besides Wilson and Johnson; some corroborate Wilson’s version and other’s defending Johnson’s version.  There have been three autopsies on Brown’s body, but none of them (as far as we know) are conclusive as to whether Brown was shot from the front or back.

Because Brown is black and Wilson is white, naturally the shooting attracted the attention of outside race-baiters and agitators, resulting in a prolonged period of nightly looting and rioting near the scene.  Federal race-baiters including Attorney General Eric “Justice is political” Holder and President Barack “I lied, period” Obama also commented on the case, as usual without any knowledge thereof.  The Ferguson police department handed control of security to the St. Louis County police department, but failing in their efforts, the National Guard was called in by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.  The rioting and demonstrations finally ended when a grand jury was convened on 20 Aug to investigate the incident and make a determination as to whether Wilson should be charged with a crime.  At this writing, the grand jury has not issued its findings, although it is expected shortly.

There are some other peculiarities in this case.  First, Mr. Johnson admitted in the week after the shooting that he and Mr. Brown were in fact involved in a robbery (caught on videotape) of a local convenience store minutes before the confrontation with Wilson.  It is not clear (as there is conflicting evidence) if Officer Wilson was aware of the robbery or the description of the men.  So, we do not know yet whether the contact between Wilson and Brown/Johnson was precipitated because they were suspects in the robbery, or if it was because they were walking in the street.  Secondly, Officer Wilson’s identity was not released until 11 Aug, ostensibly in the interest of his and the public’s safety.

One of the disturbing things about this case is that Wilson was treated differently than any other person.  If Wilson had been a regular citizen, even with the chain of events as he described them, he would have been immediately arrested and charged with capital murder and his identity released.  But because Wilson is a government employee, his identity was kept secret until practically forced from the Department, and he was merely placed on paid administrative leave pending a grand jury investigation.  This is probably the greatest long-term facet of this case: the extent to which government employees are given preferential treatment compared to non-government employees involved in similar incidents.  If we are to preserve liberty, it is essential that all come under the same law, government and non-government alike.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The Prospects for Immigration Reform

TheProspectsForImmigrationReform   <– PDF version

The Congress of the United States is currently considering a bill to “reform” our immigration system.  The “reform” bill is based on a set of recommendations made by eight Senators (Democrats Bennet (CO), Durbin (IL), Menendez (FL), and Schumer (NY); Republicans Flake (AZ), Graham (SC), McCain (AZ), and Rubio (FL)).  These illustrious gentlemen have assured us many times that they desire only to fix our broken immigration system, provide legal standing to everyone, and enhance our future prosperity.  The core of the problem, which has existed since at least the Carter administration (1977 – 1981) and probably before that, is that a great many foreigners have either entered the U. S. in violation of the immigration laws, or have entered legally but remained in the U. S. after their visas have expired.  So the appropriate answer to this problem, as the honorable gentlemen propose, is to change the law to accommodate the lawbreakers; all 10, 20, 30, or 40 million of them, depending on whose number you believe.  (No one knows the real number except the ruling elite, and they aren’t saying.)

Let’s consider the provisions of the proposed legislation.  It sets up an administrative system which is tasked with implementing the following changes:

1.  Persons in the country illegally shall be required to:

a. Register their presence with the federal government;

b. undergo a background check; and

c. obtain a work permit.

When these are accomplished, they may remain in the U. S. and continue working and collecting social welfare benefits.

2.  After registration and obtaining the work permit, persons now here illegally shall:

a. Pay a fine;

b. be required to pay income taxes;

c. be required to learn English;

d. be required to wait ten years before applying for a green card (which would grant them permanent legal residence, in addition to the permanent legal residence conferred by the work permit).

3.  After “going to the back of the line” and waiting for everyone else that came to this country legally has been served, the persons now here illegally, having gone through the above process, shall be eligible to apply for citizenship.

4.  A nationwide e-verify employment system shall be implemented (such that only persons in the country legally can be employed).

5.  750 miles of fencing along the border shall be constructed;

6.  20,000 new Border Patrol agents are to be hired;

7.  Surveillance of the border with Mexico shall be increased.

8.  These reforms are to be fully funded, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shall not be able to change the provisions thereof.

We all know that the opinions of regular Americans do not matter.  Even casting aside what the American people want, there are two big problem areas with this legislation.  First, the vast majority of persons now here illegally probably will not sign up for it on the grounds that it would deprive them of advantages they already enjoy.  Secondly, our foremost Hispanic hate group, the National Council of Ku Klux La Raza “The Race” will do everything they can to prevent people from signing up for it on the grounds that it offers too little.

Let’s look at it from the standpoint of a typical person here illegally.  How many persons in this category are subjected to a background check?  None — they can live and work freely undetected and have been doing so for upwards of 25 years.  How many persons in this category are being audited by the IRS?  None — they do not pay income taxes nor do they file any forms.  How many persons in this category are standing in line at the Motor Vehicle Bureau?  None — they are not required to register their cars, nor get licenses, nor are they inconvenienced by the expense of obtaining car insurance.  How many in this category are deprived of health care?  None — they are not inconvenienced by the expense of health insurance, yet obtain free health care at every hospital.  How many persons in this category have to stand idly by while their children grow up deprived of an education?  None — all children are eligible for public education regardless of their legal status or that of their parents.  Why would a person in this category volunteer to learn English, which is to them a foreign language?  Why would they sign up to be investigated?  Why would they sign up to pay a fine they currently do not have to pay?  Why would they sign up to pay taxes from which they are currently exempt?  Why would they volunteer to stand in line at the Motor Vehicle Bureau?  Should this offer become law, I believe the vast majority of the people now here illegally will view it as nothing more than a series of unwarranted demands.  Our ruling elite seem to have forgotten that most of the people here illegally are proud of their heritage and are proud to be citizens of their native countries.  They may not be willing to trade that in for a promise of a future green card; they likely will become resentful about being pressured to Americanize.  They have demonstrated their preference by failing generally to assimilate into American society.

Let’s look at it from the standpoint of the National Council of Ku Klux la Raza “The Race” (working motto: “Por la Raza, todo.  Por los otros, nada”, which in translation means: “For us, everything.  For the lying cheating contemptible racist lowlife yankee gringos, nothing”).  While this proposed legislation caves in to a great many of the Council’s traditional demands, the Council probably has four main issues with it.  First, it does not grant automatic first-class citizenship status (with preferential voting and candidacy rights) to persons now here illegally.  Second, it does not require Americans to learn Spanish.  Third, it does not grant the Council any legal regulatory powers over American citizens.  Fourth, it does not directly cede any territory to Mexico.  The first and second will certainly come to pass in due time, but not fast enough for the Council.  The third will probably occur as part of the implementing regulations, but it is not guaranteed.  The fourth is unlikely to occur, since no federal government official wants to preside over a loss of territory, and thus a loss of power.  Bottom line, this proposal simply does not give the Council enough.

Why would our ruling elite put forth a proposal contrary to the wishes of most Americans in such a way that it is likely to be rejected even by the very people it is intended to benefit?  It turns out that the two factions of the ruling elite have different motives.  The Democratic faction has four objectives. First, it is desperate to obtain greater tax revenue.  Second, it wants a steady supply of uneducated people that can be cheaply employed as maids and servants in their mansions, as well as a healthy supply of cheap labor for their corporate friends.  Third, they expect to find a way to confer citizenship quickly, and expect that the new citizens will vote Democratic as have most new citizens of the past.  Fourth, they desire these new residents/citizens to apply for more social welfare benefits, thus transferring control of their lives to the government.  The Republican faction has more modest goals.  It too wants to expand the tax base.  It also wants cheap labor for its corporate cronies.  But it also hopes that the newly minted citizens, being largely of the Catholic faith, will side with them on the abortion debate.  It also expects (contrary to the Marxist view held by the Democrats) that the new residents will use their new-found property rights as Americans to establish independent small businesses and help the economy grow.

The important point for us Americans to remember is that we should not blame the people now here illegally as if this situation were entirely their fault.  We were born in America with all its benefits.  Most of the people now here illegally were born in countries that are pathologically corrupt wastelands; lorded over by a merciless armed Marxist plutocracy; the common person having no prospect of obtaining any type of civil or property rights.  Second, the traditional peasant farmer was once able to support his family with his relatively primitive agricultural methods.  But no matter how uneducated he may be, he is still smart enough (smarter than our ruling elite) to recognize that he cannot compete with American and Canadian mechanized agriculture; he was in essence forced off his land because the former customers for his small surplus can buy much cheaper now due to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Illegal immigration increased dramatically after the passage of NAFTA.  This immigration-reform proposal is nothing more than a big-government/big-corporation band-aid that pretends to fix an immigration problem caused by NAFTA, another big-government/big-corporation idea.  So the ruling elite parties on.

There are other shortcomings in the bill as well, considered from the American viewpoint.  Most of the people now here illegally overstayed their visa, which the Border Patrol does not enforce.  There is no provision for expanding the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which does have jurisdiction over visas.  The 750 miles of fence is but a small fraction of the border with Mexico, and there is no guarantee that even these 750 miles will be contiguous, or will be constructed in high-traffic crossing areas, or will be monitored.

The nationwide e-verify program is a nullity on its face.  It is already illegal to hire people who are not legal residents; they simply make day-to-day contracts for cash.  Nothing will change with a nationwide e-verify, except it will be an exceedingly useful tool for the IRS to use against American citizens.  Last but not least, Congress can restrict the legal discretion of DHS all they want, but DHS will ignore the law as they please — what will Congress do about it, de-fund DHS?

The proper legislative course of action is:

a. Repeal NAFTA

b. Grant permanent legal status to all persons now here illegally without prejudice (since they aren’t leaving anyway, regardless of the law)

c. Militarize the border with Mexico commensurate with border infractions

d. Fully fund ICE to enforce the visa laws

e. Prohibit permanently application for U. S. citizenship to all persons now here illegally

f. Reduce annual immigration quotas from all nations commensurate with the number of persons now here illegally holding citizenship of that respective nation; increase immigration quotas from nations whose citizens have thus far obeyed our immigration laws.  This policy shall continue for 100 years.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

How Obama Wins Re-Election in 2012, Part 3

How Obama Gets Re-Elected In 2012, Part 3   <–  PDF version

In my first essay on this subject over a year ago (15 Apr 2011), I summarized the Electoral College situation as it related to President Obama’s re-election: that he was virtually guaranteed 227 electoral votes to the 35 virtually guaranteed to the Republican candidate.  Therefore, my claim was that Mr. Obama only needed to win a small number of states, having a total of 43 electoral votes, to obtain the required 270 needed for re-election.  I concluded by claiming that the arguments put forward by the Democrats in this election would focus on class warfare, entitlements, the power of unions, and the rights of illegal immigrants, with a little race baiting thrown in for good measure.  That analysis still seems to be correct.

I also mentioned then that the Republicans had a serious problem: it cannot unseat an incumbent official by running a mirror-image against him.  My point was, further explained in part 2 (4 Nov 2011) that the only Republican candidates who could get the nomination are the same ones with policies nearly indistinguishable from Mr. Obama’s.  I said at that time the only ones that would be accepted by the Republican Establishment were Mr. Cain, Governor Romney, Governor Perry, and Speaker Gingrich.  I now think I was wrong about Mr. Cain and I clearly underestimated Senator Santorum’s appeal.  But now that the Republican primary voters have selected The One Who Must Be Rejected, the tactics of the Democratic Party and its allies in conducting this re-election campaign become more obvious.

It is important to realize that Mr. Obama has two other big advantages besides the guaranteed 227 electoral votes.  First, he does not have to convince the public that he is the better candidate; he only has to avoid being perceived as the worse candidate.  The facts are that the policies Mr. Obama originated are disastrous, and the ones he continued from his predecessor are not too good either.   But (he can truthfully claim) all is not lost, hope is not dead, and there is plenty of opportunity for change; he can also falsely claim that it is vitally necessary to prevent a return to the Stone Age favored by Mr. Romney.

The second other advantage is that the mainstream media will now go into full election-year mode by adopting four fundamental rules of engagement.  The first is to never to permit any discussion of the difference between what Mr. Obama promised and what he delivered, or to allude to any policy failure regarding the federal deficit, national debt, unemployment, monetary inflation, regulation, the wars, foreign policies that aided Islamists, or race relations.  The second is that a Democratic operative will always have the last word on any subject.  The third is to emphasize that economic conditions show a slow gradual improvement and therefore it is best not to change administrations now.  The fourth is to ignore Mr. Romney unless he or his advocates say anything that violates any of the Ten Principles of Progressive Governance, in which case a panel of on-air experts/operatives shall be brought in to “prove” Mr. Romney wrong.  Those principles are:

1.  Only the federal government truly serves the people, which it can do only by ensuring that all resources are used wisely and allocated fairly.  Therefore, taxes on corporations and businesses must either be increased such that the federal government may use the revenue to provide benefits to the people, or businesses must be forced to provide those same benefits directly.  The issues: Did Mr. Romney expand the benefits offered to employees of the companies he took over in his career as a venture capitalist?  Is he seriously intent on repealing the best benefit ever given to the people (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) so that rich businessmen can evade their rightful obligations?

2.   The American ideal is based on government aid to the less fortunate.  Therefore, personal income taxes on the wealthy and middle class must be increased to some extent, especially on income that is derived from the labor of others (i.e., capital gains).  The issues: Is it right that income obtained by passive investing (a significant portion of Mr. Romney’s income), which produces nothing by itself, be taxed at a rate lower than that paid by working people, such as plumbers and electricians?  Why does Mr. Romney favor the rigged system by which persons of color have no opportunity to get rich (like Mr. Romney) by speculating in the Wall Street casinos?

3.  A just society does not allow the evils of inordinate wealth accumulated by the present generation to be propagated to the next: therefore, those who stand to inherit large amounts should be required to give back to society a portion of that which was obtained by their parents.  The issue: Is it fair that Mr. Romney’s children will never have to work a day in their lives?

4.  It is unjust for the wealthy to use tax shelters through which they can avoid contributing their fair share.  The issue: Why did Mr. Romney have business accounts in the Cayman Islands– was he planning to renounce his citizenship in order avoid all future tax obligations, thus taking his fabulous wealth elsewhere and leaving the patriots at home to foot the bill?

5.  The previous administration favored a private banking and capital allocation system in which the rich got richer but many people suffered because the federal government was unable to adequately monitor their corrupt practices.  The issues: If unregulated, disorganized, and chaotic capitalism worked well enough to benefit Mr. Romney and his associates, why has it not worked as well for everyone else?  Why does Mr. Romney continue to insist that free enterprise benefits all when so many continue to suffer?  It is the obstructionists like Mr. Romney that prevent the federal government from allocating capital and natural resources for the benefit of all.

6.  There is a great deal of extremist commentary on the airwaves and internet today; most of it pretends to espouse the ideals of an outmoded Constitution, but is nothing more than a veneer for racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and homophobia.  The issues: Mr. Romney’s willingness to accept endorsement or praise from any members of the irresponsible right-wing mob on talk radio, extremist cable TV, or the internet proves his racist tendencies (no doubt Mrs. Romney always has those nice white sheets so essential for his after-hours wizardry).  Does he actually believe that unrestricted spending by the corporate “super PACs” is essential to the political process?  Is it appropriate in this period of delicate race relations to criticize our first African-American President?

7.  The federal government has a duty to help the unions protect the defenseless working people from management predators.  The issue: The auto company bailouts, which Mr. Romney opposed, helped many union workers.  It is obvious that Mr. Romney intends to wage war on the working man, especially since he spent his entire career in management, completely out of touch with the working people.

8. America has always been a magnet for immigrants seeking greater freedom, but the isolationists among us desire to shut down the border and persecute innocent people who came here from Mexico over the last 30 years.  The issue: Mr. Romney’s plan for border security requires intentional violation of the human rights of the hard-working immigrants who have settled here and integrated into our society.

9.  It is clear that the federal deficit must be reduced in the long run, but any spending cuts must be restricted only to those items that can be proven to be wasteful or unnecessary.  The issue: Mr. Romney has endorsed the notion of spending cuts which would decimate the middle class and put it into poverty, not to mention furthering the desperation of the poor and the recent immigrants.

10.  A just society does not promote policies that will cause a global warming catastrophe.  The issue: Mr. Romney’s idea of energy independence is to first destroy all ofAmerica’s wilderness areas and then all civilization in order to benefit the oil companies by allowing them to drill anywhere they choose.

Tags:
Posted in elections, Uncategorized | No Comments »