May 19, 2006
The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment -- even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents.
Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? And this result would have been different HOW if Democrats were in charge of the Senate? Anyway, it continues.
"There was a felony they were committing, and now they can't be prosecuted. That sounds like amnesty to me," said Sen. John Ensign, the Nevada Republican who offered the amendment yesterday to strip out those provisions of the immigration reform bill. "It just boggles the mind how people could be against this amendment."
The Ensign amendment was defeated on a 50-49 vote.
"We all know that millions of undocumented immigrants pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for years and sometimes decades while they work to contribute to our economy," said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican.
"The Ensign amendment would undermine the work of these people by preventing lawfully present immigrant workers from claiming Social Security benefits that they earned before they were authorized to work in our community," he said. "If this amendment were enacted, the nest egg that these immigrants have worked hard for would be taken from them and their families."
Senator McCain, let me clue you in on a little secret: you will never, never, NEVER become president. The Democrats only pretend to like you because you oppose the actual conservative Republicans; they will never vote for you. And the Republicans hate you more and more each day.
What's that you say? I'm breaking your unConstitutional law by posting an overtly political post on my blog? Go fuck yourself, you pretentious fop.
Hey, I just used profanity. That should protect this post. However, if I need actual pornography to prevent legal action, I'll Photoshop a picture of Senator RINO fellating a pig and Googlebomb the damned thing so that every search for Johnny boy finds that image.
Seriously, if you could see me now, I'm very Yosemite Sam. Very stampy and tantrumy and incoherent.
Unlike me, she manages to comment on this Senatorial debacle without cursing. Then again, I believe that she's missing a golden opportunity here. Some things are worth a few choice Anglo-Saxon expletives.
Update: Not surprisingly, Kim du Toit is a bit unhappy.
May 16, 2006
I pretend that I don't like amnesty, but everyone knows that we're going to do it anyway.
I'm going to secure the borders by sending some National Guardsmen down to push some pencils around. That'll really, really scare the illegal immigrants.
Catch-and-release is a failure which I'll end right after amnesty makes all of the illegals legal.
The hi-tech fence we're building at some point in the future won't be completed during my term, so don't worry if you see nothing being done. It's a feature, not a bug.
Finally, if you heard anything different during this speech than you did back in 2001, please stay asleep. I'm counting on it.
Thank you, and good night. Now go away and stop bothering me.
You might say that I'm a bit underwhelmed. Apparently I'm not the only one.
Mrs. IMAO(the artist formerly known as Sarah K.) was not impressed.
May 15, 2006
doubted the strategic wisdom of conservatives sitting out this election to teach Republicans a lesson; several bloggers have responded.
There are still doubters and skeptics, though. Whats really stunning is this absolute certainty of angry conservatives that A) Republicans will learn the right lessons from the defeat, and not, say, respond in a panic by embracing their inner RINO and flailing around for MSM approval and B) that the Republicans can easily win back Congress in 2008, just by stiffening their spines and pledging to return to their conservative roots.
I have my doubts on both counts. For starters, why would Republicans get the message that we need to be more conservative in a year that conservatives were knocked out?
Who are the Republican lawmakers most angering the conservative base? Well, lets say Sens. Trent Im tired of hearing about Porkbusters Lott, Ted Bridge to Nowhere Stevens, John McCain for cosponsoring Kennedys immigration bill and campaign finance reform, Arlen Specter for being a pain in the tushie over judges, Chuck Hagel for being the New York Times favorite Republican senator to criticize Bush, and other minimally-conservative Republicans like Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Well, theyre not going to lose in 2006. Most of em arent even up for reelection this year.
Look at the Republicans most in jeopardy in 2006. (Im using National Journals most recent rankings.)
In the Senate, a bad year for the Republicans would mean the loss of Rick Santorum (who has lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 88 out of a possible 100, and a 92 in 2005) in Pennsylvania, Jim Talent (93 rating lifetime, and a 96 in 2005) in Missouri, Conrad Burns (91, and a perfect 100 in 2005) in Montana and Mike DeWine (80 lifetime, only 56 in 2005) in Ohio. Of course, Ohio voters who sit this one out will replace DeWine with Sherrod Brown, who has a lifetime rating of 8 and 4 for 2005. And they wont get to revisit that decision until 2012.
Nice job, guys. Your effort to re-conservativize the Republican Party in Washington by staying home this year will have the effect of massacring the actual conservatives and empowering the moderates who you disdain. Perhaps we can call this counterproductive maneuver RINO-plasty.
But thats okay, the staying-at-home-conservatives insist. The GOP will win back the House and Senate in 2008, establishing a true conservative majority.
Maybe. But as I mentioned, what kind of lengths do you think the Democrats will go to in order to keep power once theyve got it? Does the Fairness Doctrine ring a bell? You think Pelosi and Reid wouldnt try that tactic to hinder conservative talk radio? How about McCain-Feingold 2.0, with a particular focus on controlling unregulated speech on the Internet and blogs?
Think the MSM was cheerleading for Democrats in 2004? How much more fair and balanced do you think theyll be when their task is to defend Democratic House and Senate majorities AND elect President Hillary Rodham Clinton? My guess is, theyll make the CBS memo story look accurate and evenhanded by comparison.
Think the GOP can prevail in close races once theyre out of power? Ask the members of the military who had their ballots in Florida blocked. Ask Doug Forrester how well his anti-Torricelli campaign worked when he suddenly faced Frank Lautenberg at the last minute. Ask Dino Rossi. Ask Democrat Tim Johnson if hes glad the last county in South Dakota to report its results just happened to have enough of a Democratic margin to put him over the top in 2002.
We usually like looking at the Daily Kos crowd insisting for an immediate pullout of the troops or impeachment hearings right this second and we laugh at them for their ludicrously unrealistic expectations.
But apparently the Kos are not the only ones with an all-or-nothing mentality. Sometimes in life you have to use the West Coast offense, nickel and diming your way down the field instead of going for the long bomb. If I want a more conservative government, I get it by electing the more conservative of the two choices, even if he isnt as conservative as I would like. I do not get it by sitting on the sidelines and pouting, and letting the less conservative guy take the reigns of power.
For this I get labeled a bamboobzled [sic] boob by the likes of Bill Quick. Yeah, Im the unreasonable one.
I will concede the point that the Democrats, once back in power, are likely to pass numerous laws which will make it more difficult for them to lose that power. Democrats will likely pass laws which further curtail our freedoms, most notably freedom of speech, and likely increase the flood of illegal immigration. And that's different from today how? Let me list what I see as the good things that have come from having Republicans control DC:
1) Nomination 2 judges for SCOTUS that look pretty good philosophically
2) Taking the fight to the enemy
That's about it. Everything else blows great big freaking chunks. I'm sick and tired of being forced to swallow my own vomit while being told that it's yummy milkshake. And for what it's worth, lecturing to me as to a small child on how stupid and irresponsible I am probably isn't the best tack to take. Want to persuade me? Don't spend all of your time telling me how bad things will get under Democrat leadership. I already know. Tell me how much better things will get if we re-elect the current Republican leadership.
What's that? I can't hear you. Cat got your tongue?
Republicans have become Democrat-lite. Increasingly, that "light" distinction has gotten heavier, like someone working his way up from skim milk to half-and-half. And I'm sick of it. If you're pushing me down the path to Hell, speed up. When the journey progresses slowly, people tend not to notice until it's much too late. If, instead, you grease the skids so that we hit rock bottom quickly, people might actually wake up and do something. Everything turning to shit usually gets attention. If not, we're lost already and we might as well get on with how things are going to turn out anyway.
So let's get it on this November. I'm ready for whatever happens and, unlike Mr. Geraghty, am unlikely to complain about the intellectual inferiority or emotional instability of the voters should they vote differently than I'd like them to. This is due, in part, to the fact that I'm an adult and don't expect things to always go my way. But hey, your mileage may vary.
Update: The Emperor suggests an idea that I can support.
If youre lucky enough to live in a State or a District whose representative is a true conservative, and that goes for all of us who might be that lucky, vote for him or her. DO get out the vote and make your voices heard. This is NOT about stomping our feet and being silly, we leave that to the other side.
If not, however, if you happen to have an incumbent who is about as conservative as Harry Reid, lets find a conservative counter-candidate for the primaries that we can back up and stump for until our fingers bleed. I volunteer whatever clout I may have for the cause and I will do anything (short of breaking the law, and the CFR doesnt count since its un-Constitutional and thus I am not bound by my oath to uphold it, as a matter of fact Im bound by it to do the exact oppposite) to boost their campaign.
Lets get some true conservatives on the ballot, and lets use our strength to work together, not against each other.
But if our guys dont prevail in the primaries, dont expect me to back the RINO because hes not Pelosi, because Im a little bit too mature to fall for Democrat campaign slogans. Im staying at home.
Update: Good illustration over here. My only argument is that it doesn't show the critter with both heads up its own ass.
May 10, 2006
There were reports yesterday that our government is telling the Mexican government where the Minutemen are gathering to monitor illegal crossings of our border. Our government denies it. So .. whom to believe?
OK .. a little cogitation here.
The charge made by reporter Sara Carter is that the U.S. Border Patrol is telling the Mexican government where the Minutemen are staging their vigils. The Border Patrol says it isn't so.
Now you tell me ... what branch of our government oversees the U.S. Border Patrol? Now remember, there are only four branches of the government in Washington. Can you name them? Well ... if you're fresh from your experience at government education, probably not. But they are the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, the Judicial Branch and the Lobbyist Branch. Now, of these four branches, which is the only branch that has shown no inclination to do anything about the thousands of invaders who are crashing our border with Mexico? Well, actually there are two. It's not the Legislative Branch. Both houses of Congress are currently discussing proposals to shut down the borders. It's not the Judicial Branch. They merely interpret and enforce the laws set forth by the other branches. What does that leave? The Lobbyist Branch and the Executive Branch. The Lobbyist Branch is busy working for those businesses in this country who benefit from the Mexican invasion. The problem is, the Lobbyist Branch has no operational control over the Border Patrol. That leaves the Executive Branch. Clearly George Bush, who runs the Executive Branch, has shown absolutely no inclination whatsoever to take even the smallest step to stop this massive invasion of the American homeland, and it's George Bush who exercises the executive control over the policies and activities of the Border Patrol. So ... what do you think? Here we have a president with no interest in stopping the invasion, and we have a Border Patrol under his control that is reported to be handing information to the Mexican government regarding the locations of the Minutemen operations? Draw your own conclusions.
The next question is why? Why would our government tell the Mexican government where the Minutemen are? Well, we know that the Mexican government is complicit in the invasion. Mexicans are openly encouraged by the Mexican government to cross the border into the US so that they can get higher-paying jobs and send money back to Mexico. Right now that money totals about $20 billion a year. Now if the Mexican government knew just where the Minutemen were, they could either hold back the invaders in those areas, or send them to areas where the Minutemen aren't. Simply put -- if we have people in our own government who are giving the enemy the locations of our border defense forces, there could only be one reason --- to enable the invasion.
Unless it can be proven that GWB had no knowledge about, and did not grant approval for, this crap, it's time to start impeachment proceedings.
I guess that it's a sign of the End Times when I'm in agreement with the Kosmonauts. It's the whole broken, fucked up, asshat clock thing.
Update: John Derbyshire puts it rather succinctly:
This thing about our govt. colluding with Narcistan sorry, I mean Mexico to keep the flow of illegal immigrants coming, is the last straw. Either our govt. is criminally incompetent, or else it is maliciously hostile to ordinary American citizens. Or both.
I kept my mouth pretty well shut when the splendid whack-'em'upside-the-head assault on Iraq turned into a ludicrous and apologetic "nation-building" exercise. I bellyached in a restrained fashion at the Harriet Miers farce. I kept my grumbling over Medicaid, the budget bloat, and border security at a decently low volume. This one, though, I can't take.
I can't think of a single thing to say in favor of the national Republican party, its senators, representatives, governors, and administration. I can't think of a single reason why, right now, I should vote for any of them.
I could never vote for the liberal mob; but if a conservative third party comes up between now and 2008, they'll have my full attention likely my money and my vote, too. We are on the last page of Animal Farm here; I can no longer tell the men from the pigs.
Oink, oink baby.
May 08, 2006
Some people actually chose to become, as Slate dubbed them, "shark apolgists." In a territorial dispute between sharks, which wanted to eat people, and human swimmers, who wanted to not be eaten, some biologists and environmentalists actually argued in favor of the sharks' "right" to chow down on 11-year-old boys. After all-- it's their territory. They have to eat too, right?
It was a sickening example of the Moral Vanity of Objectivity being taken to the next level -- not only are Americans not to be favored over non-Americans, but now human beings (and children, too!) are not even to be favored over non-human, non-sentinent aquatic predators.
Hey-- let's just take the fact that we're human, and have, of course, an "irrational bias" in favor of humanity, out of the equation. Viewed in "objective" terms, in which we don't favor humans just because we're humans -- viewing things as if we were space aliens, in other words, and space aliens who further don't favor the sentient over non-sentient -- there is no special objective reason to favor human children over sharks, right?
Liberals and leftists are forever patting themselves on the back for removing their natural affinities from the moral equation -- or at least pretending to -- and they praise themselves so highly for this habit that they scarcely realize what they are urging is not a "higher morality," but a moral obscenity.
If you are so far gone that you cannot privilege human beings over a goddamned shark, for crying out loud-- congratulations. You have, in moral terms, more or less removed yourself from the human race. Almost every other human being would favor you over an unthinking shark; but you do not return the favor, even out of respect for an implied compact (you favor me over the sharks, so, in return, I will favor you, even if I don't really agree with the principle behind that "humanocentric" favoritism).
And yes: If you cannot privilege your fellow Americans over non-Americans in your moral calculus -- even knowing you receive the benefit of that favoritism from the vast majority of your fellow Americans, who would of course save an American's life over a foreigner's, if they had to choose, and all other considerations being equal -- then you've effectively removed yourself from true citizenship and community with your fellow Americans.
But don't question their patriotism. They hate when you do that.
May 04, 2006
Link via Michelle Malkin.
90 queries taking 0.1019 seconds, 225 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.