By Gregory D. Lee
The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon was making contingency plans to attack the Pakistani Taliban in the Northwest Frontier Provence (NWFP) of Pakistan, only in the event of a successful “catastrophic” terrorist attack on American soil. The Pentagon apparently is convinced that only if such an attack occurs will the administration order retaliation. An anonymous senior U.S. military official told the WP that there are fears that a unilateral strike inside Pakistan’s terror against the Taliban could jeopardize Pakistan’s cooperation in the war on terror. I’d like to know whose fears are these.
To appease the anti-American masses in Pakistan, the Asif Ali Zardari government has protested U.S. military drone strikes in Waziristan, a part of the lawless NWFP terrorist not-so-safe haven of the Pakistani Taliban, despite some drones being launched from Pakistani soil.
The Pakistani army knows it’s stretched thin between massing forces along the Indian border and waging an unpopular war in the NWFP. Its armed forces are also deeply dependent on U.S. military funding and training to persevere. In reality, Pakistan probably hopes the U.S. will use massive air strikes and Special Forces in Afghanistan near the Pakistan border to make their job easier and end their struggle more quickly.
Faisal Shahzad received a crash course on bomb making at a Taliban training camp in Waziristan. Besides Times Square, he also intended to place explosive devices at other New York City landmarks like Grand Central Station. What if his bomb had gone off in Times Square and killed untold tourists who were out on the town to watch a Broadway play? Would that be “catastrophic” enough for this administration to act? The Intelligence Community has already confirmed the Pakistan Taliban provided the training and inspiration for the attempted attack, so why wait until Americans are killed before the U.S. will does what needs to be done?
There is no downside in unleashing the U.S. air force on Waziristan. It would be a win-win situation for both the U.S. and Pakistan.
Waziristan remains the strong hold for both Afghan and Pakistani Taliban fighters. The U.S. should take the fight to the enemy to stop them from disrupting our military’s supply chain to Afghanistan, killing innocent Pakistanis in mosques in Lahore, causing chaos in Karachi, and recruiting more fighters in Afghanistan. The U.S. didn’t hesitate to invade Afghanistan to fight the Taliban there, so why shouldn’t it take decisive action in Pakistan to finish the job?
President Zardari knows his relationship with the U.S. places him and his government between a rock and a hard place. As much as he wants to see the U.S. go away, his country is totally dependent on the U.S. aid to fight its insurgents. Striking Waziristan would go a long way in defeating insurgents and it would help stabilize the flimsy Pakistan government and restore order there. It would also help stabilize Afghanistan when fewer fighters cross its border to fight U.S., NATO and Afghan security forces. A massive air strike would deny both versions of the Taliban a safe-haven, and if we got lucky, it might even kill Osama Bin Laden and the top leadership of al-Qaeda.
From my four years of experience as a DEA special agent on a diplomat assignment to Pakistan in the mid-1990s, I know Pakistan desperately needs help to defeat insurgents and stabilize its government. Pakistan would rather negotiate peace with the Taliban then take them head on because many in its military are sympathetic to the Taliban and its religious goals; after all, Pakistan facilitated the establishment of the Taliban in Afghanistan to promote stability there. To them, a Taliban government was better than no government at all, and Afghanistan would be one less enemy they had to deal with.
I hope the administration will seriously consider military action in Waziristan now, rather than wait until another Pakistan Taliban inspired and trained jihad warrior actually succeeds in committing mass murder on American soil.
Gregory D. Lee can be reached through his website: www.gregorydlee.com. Although he is an active army reserve officer, his opinions are his own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of the Army or Department of Defense. Check out his blog at: www.gregorydlee.blogspot.com.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Fire The ICE Man For Refusing To Do His Duty
By Gregory D. Lee
In probably the most outrageous statement a federal official could ever make, John Morton, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), said that his agency would “not necessary” process illegal aliens captured by Arizona law enforcement. Isn’t that his job?
Morton, backed up by his boss, Secretary Janet Napolitano, said that ICE has the discretion to not process illegal aliens they encounter. He agrees with the president when he said that Arizona’s recently passed immigration law was “misguided,” and he recently said that the solution to the illegal immigration problem was through a comprehensive federal approach, and not patchwork by the various states. Translation: amnesty to all illegal aliens. He also said that ICE will instead concentrate its efforts in other states to go after employers who knowing hire illegals.
Has Mr. Morton even read the Arizona legislation? Why should he if the president, Sec. Napolitano, and Attorney General Eric Holder haven’t either? Ignorance is bliss. I read it, and if those most critical of the law did the same, they would see the template for a model federal law. They would read that the new Arizona law compels law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of persons they feel may be here illegally. The state law differs from federal law in that it compels its officers to do something about the illegal alien problem while the feds get a pass because of “discretion.” There’s the problem. Federal agents should be compelled to enforce all federal laws being broken in their presence, especially immigration laws.
Instead of criticizing Arizona’s common sense immigration law, AG Holder should embrace it and lobby for an identical federal law that will go a long way in reversing illegal immigration. The Arizona law has tough penalties for employers who knowing hire illegals, or whose sub-contractors do. One of the penalties is the loss of their business and professional licenses.
The Arizona law also forbids public officials and state entities from restricting the exchange of information between state and local police and ICE to determine if someone is in the country illegally. In contrast, cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco declare themselves “sanctuary cities” and forbid their officers from enforcing the law.
An administration that ignores a state’s plight of being overrun by illegals that are killing its residents and have already made its capital city the kidnapping capital of the country, is simply siding with the opposition instead of its own citizens. It’s the epitome of dereliction of a president’s duty to protect U.S. Citizens. Instead, he invites President Calderon of Mexico to the White House to politely tell Arizonians to get screwed. When compared to Mexico’s immigration policies, Arizona’s law is wimpy.
A prudent administration would immediately fired Morton and Napolitano, and dispatch every available ICE agent to Arizona, along with hundreds of FBI, DEA, and ATF agents, on a temporary duty basis, to get the situation under control. It would lobby congress to immediately pass a federal law granting the authority for all local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law and requiring them, during a lawful police encounter, to check the legal status of all suspected illegal immigrants. If the person is clearly in the country illegally, local law enforcement officers would be compelled to arrest them and turn them over to ICE or the Border Patrol for deportation. Instead, this administration prefers hugs to arrests, and sees illegals as a means to add numbers to its political party in order to retain power.
A prudent administration would scrap any notion of “reforming” immigration law and instead enforce existing law. Until that is done, reforms can wait. It would lobby congress to pass legislation compelling all public schools to check the legal status of existing and future students. This way the first lady won’t be embarrassed again when she visits a classroom and a little girl tells her that her mother “doesn’t have papers,” like what happened a week ago.
A law compelling public housing agencies to determine the legal status of prospective residents would have prevented the president’s illegal alien aunt from getting rent free accommodations for as many years as she did before she was finally caught and then given a free pass by an immigration judge.
If illegal aliens knew the first time a cop stopped them for a traffic violation in the morning, they would be on a bus back to Tijuana that night, they might not come here illegally in the first place.
Arizona has shown the courage and leadership this country badly needs. That’s why 70 percent of the nation supports the new law.
In probably the most outrageous statement a federal official could ever make, John Morton, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), said that his agency would “not necessary” process illegal aliens captured by Arizona law enforcement. Isn’t that his job?
Morton, backed up by his boss, Secretary Janet Napolitano, said that ICE has the discretion to not process illegal aliens they encounter. He agrees with the president when he said that Arizona’s recently passed immigration law was “misguided,” and he recently said that the solution to the illegal immigration problem was through a comprehensive federal approach, and not patchwork by the various states. Translation: amnesty to all illegal aliens. He also said that ICE will instead concentrate its efforts in other states to go after employers who knowing hire illegals.
Has Mr. Morton even read the Arizona legislation? Why should he if the president, Sec. Napolitano, and Attorney General Eric Holder haven’t either? Ignorance is bliss. I read it, and if those most critical of the law did the same, they would see the template for a model federal law. They would read that the new Arizona law compels law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of persons they feel may be here illegally. The state law differs from federal law in that it compels its officers to do something about the illegal alien problem while the feds get a pass because of “discretion.” There’s the problem. Federal agents should be compelled to enforce all federal laws being broken in their presence, especially immigration laws.
Instead of criticizing Arizona’s common sense immigration law, AG Holder should embrace it and lobby for an identical federal law that will go a long way in reversing illegal immigration. The Arizona law has tough penalties for employers who knowing hire illegals, or whose sub-contractors do. One of the penalties is the loss of their business and professional licenses.
The Arizona law also forbids public officials and state entities from restricting the exchange of information between state and local police and ICE to determine if someone is in the country illegally. In contrast, cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco declare themselves “sanctuary cities” and forbid their officers from enforcing the law.
An administration that ignores a state’s plight of being overrun by illegals that are killing its residents and have already made its capital city the kidnapping capital of the country, is simply siding with the opposition instead of its own citizens. It’s the epitome of dereliction of a president’s duty to protect U.S. Citizens. Instead, he invites President Calderon of Mexico to the White House to politely tell Arizonians to get screwed. When compared to Mexico’s immigration policies, Arizona’s law is wimpy.
A prudent administration would immediately fired Morton and Napolitano, and dispatch every available ICE agent to Arizona, along with hundreds of FBI, DEA, and ATF agents, on a temporary duty basis, to get the situation under control. It would lobby congress to immediately pass a federal law granting the authority for all local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law and requiring them, during a lawful police encounter, to check the legal status of all suspected illegal immigrants. If the person is clearly in the country illegally, local law enforcement officers would be compelled to arrest them and turn them over to ICE or the Border Patrol for deportation. Instead, this administration prefers hugs to arrests, and sees illegals as a means to add numbers to its political party in order to retain power.
A prudent administration would scrap any notion of “reforming” immigration law and instead enforce existing law. Until that is done, reforms can wait. It would lobby congress to pass legislation compelling all public schools to check the legal status of existing and future students. This way the first lady won’t be embarrassed again when she visits a classroom and a little girl tells her that her mother “doesn’t have papers,” like what happened a week ago.
A law compelling public housing agencies to determine the legal status of prospective residents would have prevented the president’s illegal alien aunt from getting rent free accommodations for as many years as she did before she was finally caught and then given a free pass by an immigration judge.
If illegal aliens knew the first time a cop stopped them for a traffic violation in the morning, they would be on a bus back to Tijuana that night, they might not come here illegally in the first place.
Arizona has shown the courage and leadership this country badly needs. That’s why 70 percent of the nation supports the new law.
Give Me A Break, Mr. Blumenthal
By Gregory D. Lee
Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut Attorney General and Democratic candidate to take Chris Dodd’s upcoming vacant senate seat, held a news conference to explain his “misstatements” about his combat service during the Vietnam War. He was caught on video giving a speech at a veteran’s rally where he put his hand to his heart and said, “We have learned something very important since the days I served in Vietnam.” The problem is he never served in Vietnam. In fact, he received five draft deferments and finally enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve to avoid being drafted into the army.
Apparently, in at least eight home town newspaper articles he also claimed serving in Vietnam and never made an effort to correct the record. On one occasion he claimed to be spat on when he returned home from Vietnam. That’s outrageous.
In a news conference on May 18th, surrounded by local members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he said that he had “misspoke,” and took responsibility for those misstatements, but refused to apologize to veterans who did serve in combat. That’s fine, but it wasn’t until the New York Times published an article about Mr. Blumenthal’s false claims that he came clean. He would have continued the deception if he had not been finally caught.
In 1972, as the 19-year old son of a barber attending East Los Angeles Community College, I came home from school and my dad broke the news to me that my birthday was picked as number one in what turned out to be the country’s last draft lottery. Unlike Mr. Blumenthal as a young man, I did not work at the Nixon White House to help with college deferments. In fact, I never sought one. Within months I enlisted in the army and was on a bus to Fort Ord, California for basic combat training. Enlisting in the army was a life changing event for me. After my initial three-year enlistment, I became an officer and completed eight years of active duty. For almost 38-years in the army reserve, I have been activated to serve at the Pentagon soon after 9/11, and other domestic assignments over the years.
In the 1960s and 1970s, draft boards heard every conceivable excuse to not be inducted. Most were legitimate but some were fantasies. Mr. Blumenthal said at his news conference he didn’t know when he received his deferments, implying it didn’t matter to him. I’m here to tell you that those who chose the deferment route, e.g. John Kerry, Bill Clinton, et al, knew exactly what their deferment status was so they could immediately file another one when the first one expired. Knowing your status was more important than your grades, girlfriends, car you drove or anything else in the life of a young man facing certain combat duty in Vietnam.
For people like me and Mr. Blumenthal who served during the Vietnam War, but were not deployed to the combat theater, we are known as “Vietnam Era” veterans. That’s a big difference from being a “Vietnam Veteran.” Because Mr. Blumenthal and I lack a foreign combat theater deployment, we are not eligible for VFW membership; however he can join the American Legion like I did. I’m certain Mr. Blumenthal knew the requirements of the VFW, and that it requires proof of combat service. Applying would have revealed his deception.
Mr. Blumenthal is a starch advocate for veterans, and has made many speeches in their support. That’s commendable, but when he embellishes his service record, it raises questions about everything he has said and done. There are few things in American culture that are worse than claiming honorary combat service when in reality the person did everything he could to avoid it.
His Republican opponent for the senate seat is Rob Simmons, who happens to be a decorated 19-month Vietnam combat tour veteran. Mr. Blumenthal thought he could take that advantage away from him by also claiming Vietnam combat service.
Shame on you, Mr. Blumenthal. You owe Mr. Simmons and other Vietnam combat veterans an apology. The people of Connecticut deserve better than you.
Gregory D. Lee is an army reserve Chief Warrant Officer Five, the highest rank a Warrant Officer can achieve. His comments are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense. He can be reached through his website: www.gregorydlee.com.
Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut Attorney General and Democratic candidate to take Chris Dodd’s upcoming vacant senate seat, held a news conference to explain his “misstatements” about his combat service during the Vietnam War. He was caught on video giving a speech at a veteran’s rally where he put his hand to his heart and said, “We have learned something very important since the days I served in Vietnam.” The problem is he never served in Vietnam. In fact, he received five draft deferments and finally enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve to avoid being drafted into the army.
Apparently, in at least eight home town newspaper articles he also claimed serving in Vietnam and never made an effort to correct the record. On one occasion he claimed to be spat on when he returned home from Vietnam. That’s outrageous.
In a news conference on May 18th, surrounded by local members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he said that he had “misspoke,” and took responsibility for those misstatements, but refused to apologize to veterans who did serve in combat. That’s fine, but it wasn’t until the New York Times published an article about Mr. Blumenthal’s false claims that he came clean. He would have continued the deception if he had not been finally caught.
In 1972, as the 19-year old son of a barber attending East Los Angeles Community College, I came home from school and my dad broke the news to me that my birthday was picked as number one in what turned out to be the country’s last draft lottery. Unlike Mr. Blumenthal as a young man, I did not work at the Nixon White House to help with college deferments. In fact, I never sought one. Within months I enlisted in the army and was on a bus to Fort Ord, California for basic combat training. Enlisting in the army was a life changing event for me. After my initial three-year enlistment, I became an officer and completed eight years of active duty. For almost 38-years in the army reserve, I have been activated to serve at the Pentagon soon after 9/11, and other domestic assignments over the years.
In the 1960s and 1970s, draft boards heard every conceivable excuse to not be inducted. Most were legitimate but some were fantasies. Mr. Blumenthal said at his news conference he didn’t know when he received his deferments, implying it didn’t matter to him. I’m here to tell you that those who chose the deferment route, e.g. John Kerry, Bill Clinton, et al, knew exactly what their deferment status was so they could immediately file another one when the first one expired. Knowing your status was more important than your grades, girlfriends, car you drove or anything else in the life of a young man facing certain combat duty in Vietnam.
For people like me and Mr. Blumenthal who served during the Vietnam War, but were not deployed to the combat theater, we are known as “Vietnam Era” veterans. That’s a big difference from being a “Vietnam Veteran.” Because Mr. Blumenthal and I lack a foreign combat theater deployment, we are not eligible for VFW membership; however he can join the American Legion like I did. I’m certain Mr. Blumenthal knew the requirements of the VFW, and that it requires proof of combat service. Applying would have revealed his deception.
Mr. Blumenthal is a starch advocate for veterans, and has made many speeches in their support. That’s commendable, but when he embellishes his service record, it raises questions about everything he has said and done. There are few things in American culture that are worse than claiming honorary combat service when in reality the person did everything he could to avoid it.
His Republican opponent for the senate seat is Rob Simmons, who happens to be a decorated 19-month Vietnam combat tour veteran. Mr. Blumenthal thought he could take that advantage away from him by also claiming Vietnam combat service.
Shame on you, Mr. Blumenthal. You owe Mr. Simmons and other Vietnam combat veterans an apology. The people of Connecticut deserve better than you.
Gregory D. Lee is an army reserve Chief Warrant Officer Five, the highest rank a Warrant Officer can achieve. His comments are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense. He can be reached through his website: www.gregorydlee.com.
Time To Cut Government is Now!
By Gregory D. Lee
The Greece meltdown is a looking glass for the future of the United States if it doesn’t start cutting back now on its insatiable spending now, not later.
With the government’s debt at $13 trillion and trillions more expect in the next decade, the U.S. is about to fall off the cliff into an abyss unless something is immediately done. With the country turning rapidly to socialism with socialized medicine, extended unemployment payments, Social Security being bankrupt, Medicare not meeting funding requirements soon, the U.S. will go the way of Greece, except there won’t be anyone around who can afford to bail us out. We’re essentially using one charge card to pay off another.
Congress is the only entity that can spend taxpayers’ money. It is imperative that it bite the bullet and initiate massive spending cuts in order to secure a future for our grandchildren. Anything less than massive spending cuts will only be a Band-Aid on a wound that requires a tourniquet. Where should Congress start its budget cutting? It can start with itself.
For openers, the idea of members of congress taking military flights to ANY event is unacceptable. They can take commercial airliners like the rest of us. Members who visit a warzone would be the only exception, but I encourage them to stay stateside and let the military finish its job without them looking for a photo op at taxpayer expense.
Don’t cut, but completely eliminate the departments of education, commerce and agriculture. There is no good reason to have the federal government impose its standards on local school districts in return for grants. Why do we need a department of commerce to promote U.S. business interests, a form of corporate welfare, when these businesses for years have proven themselves very successful in doing just that? The department of Agriculture serves no useful purpose other than to give rich farmers, some of which are members of congress, large undeserved substitutes. Food stamps, a Department of Agriculture program, must advertise for participants. It should stop funding the purchase of potato chips and dip.
The department of health and human services must go as well, unless Obama care is repealed. Even then, it could probably be reduced at least fifty percent.
After receiving encouragement from congress, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae funded sub-prime loans to people without a down payment and no hope of making the monthly payments. They had “no skin in the game,” as the president if fond of saying. That action almost took down the entire economy when the housing bubble burst. They need to go out of business.
Politicians always say that cutting “fraud, waste and abuse” will reduce costs. They have been saying that as long as I can remember; yet, fraud, waste and abuse continue. Politicians need a new slogan, because obviously nothing has happened to reverse this trend. When congress throws more money at a program, it only serves to feed the fraud and waste.
Cut regulation. More regulation means increase business expenses, which translates to fewer profits, which translates to less government revenue. Congress is quick to regulate an airline’s carryon baggage policy, banks, and the gas mileage automobile manufacturers must meet, but they exempt themselves from any law or regulation it passes. Small businesses, the engine of the U.S. economy, refuse to hire because they continue to hear about congress’s intent to bring more regulation and higher taxes. Until small business owners hear otherwise, they will hold back in hiring because they don’t know what the future brings.
Bring half of our troops in Iraq home, and send the other half to quickly finish the job in Afghanistan. Iraq has become dependent on the U.S. to provide for its security and to rebuild its infrastructure while banking at least $8 billion of surplus in its annual budget. Time is up.
Stop rebuilding Afghanistan until the Taliban is rooted out once and for all. Send all the expensive contractors home and let Afghanistan pay for them once the enemy is defeated militarily.
End foreign aid. It only seems to make recipients more dependent on us, instead of themselves. The days of giving Africa $60 billion dollars for AIDS prevention is over. We simply cannot afford it.
Do these suggestions sound harsh? I think they are realistic. Otherwise, the country will spiral downward and everyone will be left holding the proverbial bag.
The Greece meltdown is a looking glass for the future of the United States if it doesn’t start cutting back now on its insatiable spending now, not later.
With the government’s debt at $13 trillion and trillions more expect in the next decade, the U.S. is about to fall off the cliff into an abyss unless something is immediately done. With the country turning rapidly to socialism with socialized medicine, extended unemployment payments, Social Security being bankrupt, Medicare not meeting funding requirements soon, the U.S. will go the way of Greece, except there won’t be anyone around who can afford to bail us out. We’re essentially using one charge card to pay off another.
Congress is the only entity that can spend taxpayers’ money. It is imperative that it bite the bullet and initiate massive spending cuts in order to secure a future for our grandchildren. Anything less than massive spending cuts will only be a Band-Aid on a wound that requires a tourniquet. Where should Congress start its budget cutting? It can start with itself.
For openers, the idea of members of congress taking military flights to ANY event is unacceptable. They can take commercial airliners like the rest of us. Members who visit a warzone would be the only exception, but I encourage them to stay stateside and let the military finish its job without them looking for a photo op at taxpayer expense.
Don’t cut, but completely eliminate the departments of education, commerce and agriculture. There is no good reason to have the federal government impose its standards on local school districts in return for grants. Why do we need a department of commerce to promote U.S. business interests, a form of corporate welfare, when these businesses for years have proven themselves very successful in doing just that? The department of Agriculture serves no useful purpose other than to give rich farmers, some of which are members of congress, large undeserved substitutes. Food stamps, a Department of Agriculture program, must advertise for participants. It should stop funding the purchase of potato chips and dip.
The department of health and human services must go as well, unless Obama care is repealed. Even then, it could probably be reduced at least fifty percent.
After receiving encouragement from congress, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae funded sub-prime loans to people without a down payment and no hope of making the monthly payments. They had “no skin in the game,” as the president if fond of saying. That action almost took down the entire economy when the housing bubble burst. They need to go out of business.
Politicians always say that cutting “fraud, waste and abuse” will reduce costs. They have been saying that as long as I can remember; yet, fraud, waste and abuse continue. Politicians need a new slogan, because obviously nothing has happened to reverse this trend. When congress throws more money at a program, it only serves to feed the fraud and waste.
Cut regulation. More regulation means increase business expenses, which translates to fewer profits, which translates to less government revenue. Congress is quick to regulate an airline’s carryon baggage policy, banks, and the gas mileage automobile manufacturers must meet, but they exempt themselves from any law or regulation it passes. Small businesses, the engine of the U.S. economy, refuse to hire because they continue to hear about congress’s intent to bring more regulation and higher taxes. Until small business owners hear otherwise, they will hold back in hiring because they don’t know what the future brings.
Bring half of our troops in Iraq home, and send the other half to quickly finish the job in Afghanistan. Iraq has become dependent on the U.S. to provide for its security and to rebuild its infrastructure while banking at least $8 billion of surplus in its annual budget. Time is up.
Stop rebuilding Afghanistan until the Taliban is rooted out once and for all. Send all the expensive contractors home and let Afghanistan pay for them once the enemy is defeated militarily.
End foreign aid. It only seems to make recipients more dependent on us, instead of themselves. The days of giving Africa $60 billion dollars for AIDS prevention is over. We simply cannot afford it.
Do these suggestions sound harsh? I think they are realistic. Otherwise, the country will spiral downward and everyone will be left holding the proverbial bag.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Show Me Your Papers
By Gregory D. Lee
Arizona’s new law, requiring police officers to question persons when they have reasonable belief they are in the country illegally, has stirred up a hornet’s nest. Police are still required to have some other probable cause before questioning someone about their immigration status, but the media never reports that. It portrays the law as reminiscent of a scene from a bad World War II movie where Nazi officers approach an unsuspecting person who just got off a train and sternly ask, “Do you have papers?”
Illegal aliens and their sympathizers are enraged about the law for a good reason: It will be effective. If it wasn’t, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the ACLU, LULAC, La Raza, and a host of other organizations wouldn’t be so vocal against it. They all recognize the law’s potential to identify and deport illegal aliens. This, of course, means fewer votes in future elections for their kind. In reality, “undocumented workers” are “undocumented voters” for their party.
Arizona passed the legislation because of the federal government’s dismal failure to enforce its own immigration laws. This is not just President Obama’s fault, but also weak-kneed Republicans who, when they had the chance, failed to provide the U.S. Border Patrol the necessary resources to effectively enforce the law and turn the tide of illegal aliens back across the Mexican border.
Some law enforcement officials have been critical of the statute, fearful some illegals who are victims of crimes won’t report the crimes. But once most of the 460,000 illegal aliens leave Arizona, crime and the demand for public services will go down significantly. It won’t matter if an illegal alien crime victim cooperates with the police or not. He won’t be here to be a victim a second time.
Years ago, Congress reached the ultimate compromise to secure the border. In an effort to be politically correct and not make the “nation of immigrants” appear to be “anti-immigrant,” members of Congress voted to spend billions of dollars on a “virtual” fence, rather than a real one.
The result of all the money wasted on this project was to give members of Congress the political cover they sought to say they voted to “secure the borders.” Everyone understood this would do “virtually” nothing to stop the flow of illegal aliens. Illegals laugh as they walk northbound through the invisible fence line. They make obscene gesters to the cameras high above the desert landscape that capture their images.
Instead of taking responsibility to remedy the problem, the administration calls Arizona’s new law “misguided.” At a hearing when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano if our borders were secure, she refused to answer. Incredibly, she said it was “an unfair question.” She knows the truth, but refuses to admit it.
One problem bleeding-heart Americans have is that they assume the “poor immigrant” comes here to do “jobs Americans will not do,” and wants to become a citizen. Illegals are here to take American jobs for themselves, and not just the menial, bottom rung jobs. They deprive American skilled laborers such as painters, masons, electricians, tile setters and others of good paying jobs. Another myth is that illegals contribute immensely to the local economy by spending money. In reality, Mexican illegals in Arizona don’t spend their hard earned wages there, they send most of it to their families in Mexico. Overwhelmingly, illegals do not seek U.S. citizenship. If they did, they would have initiated the necessary paperwork to do so. If they don’t qualify for citizenship, it’s for good reason.
Illegals are here for purely economic reasons. Who can blame them for taking advantage of this country’s generous free public services such as education, health care, housing and welfare? They overwhelm the system and are bankrupting state and local governments. They will not leave until the U.S. government finally enforces its immigration laws and cracks down on them and their employers.
Please keep in mind that only half of all illegal aliens in the country are from Mexico. The others are visa overstays from all over the world. Homeland Security needs to focus on them just as much. Given the right resources, this country can regain its sovereignty and respect as a nation that welcomes legal immigrants, but won’t tolerate those who take advantage of our overwhelming generosity.
If you are a U.S. citizen residing or visiting Arizona and a highway patrol officer stops you for speeding and asks you for your papers – show them! Thank him for enforcing the law. Then, enjoy the rest of your day, secure in the knowledge that he’s attempting to improve your quality of life.
Arizona’s new law, requiring police officers to question persons when they have reasonable belief they are in the country illegally, has stirred up a hornet’s nest. Police are still required to have some other probable cause before questioning someone about their immigration status, but the media never reports that. It portrays the law as reminiscent of a scene from a bad World War II movie where Nazi officers approach an unsuspecting person who just got off a train and sternly ask, “Do you have papers?”
Illegal aliens and their sympathizers are enraged about the law for a good reason: It will be effective. If it wasn’t, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the ACLU, LULAC, La Raza, and a host of other organizations wouldn’t be so vocal against it. They all recognize the law’s potential to identify and deport illegal aliens. This, of course, means fewer votes in future elections for their kind. In reality, “undocumented workers” are “undocumented voters” for their party.
Arizona passed the legislation because of the federal government’s dismal failure to enforce its own immigration laws. This is not just President Obama’s fault, but also weak-kneed Republicans who, when they had the chance, failed to provide the U.S. Border Patrol the necessary resources to effectively enforce the law and turn the tide of illegal aliens back across the Mexican border.
Some law enforcement officials have been critical of the statute, fearful some illegals who are victims of crimes won’t report the crimes. But once most of the 460,000 illegal aliens leave Arizona, crime and the demand for public services will go down significantly. It won’t matter if an illegal alien crime victim cooperates with the police or not. He won’t be here to be a victim a second time.
Years ago, Congress reached the ultimate compromise to secure the border. In an effort to be politically correct and not make the “nation of immigrants” appear to be “anti-immigrant,” members of Congress voted to spend billions of dollars on a “virtual” fence, rather than a real one.
The result of all the money wasted on this project was to give members of Congress the political cover they sought to say they voted to “secure the borders.” Everyone understood this would do “virtually” nothing to stop the flow of illegal aliens. Illegals laugh as they walk northbound through the invisible fence line. They make obscene gesters to the cameras high above the desert landscape that capture their images.
Instead of taking responsibility to remedy the problem, the administration calls Arizona’s new law “misguided.” At a hearing when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano if our borders were secure, she refused to answer. Incredibly, she said it was “an unfair question.” She knows the truth, but refuses to admit it.
One problem bleeding-heart Americans have is that they assume the “poor immigrant” comes here to do “jobs Americans will not do,” and wants to become a citizen. Illegals are here to take American jobs for themselves, and not just the menial, bottom rung jobs. They deprive American skilled laborers such as painters, masons, electricians, tile setters and others of good paying jobs. Another myth is that illegals contribute immensely to the local economy by spending money. In reality, Mexican illegals in Arizona don’t spend their hard earned wages there, they send most of it to their families in Mexico. Overwhelmingly, illegals do not seek U.S. citizenship. If they did, they would have initiated the necessary paperwork to do so. If they don’t qualify for citizenship, it’s for good reason.
Illegals are here for purely economic reasons. Who can blame them for taking advantage of this country’s generous free public services such as education, health care, housing and welfare? They overwhelm the system and are bankrupting state and local governments. They will not leave until the U.S. government finally enforces its immigration laws and cracks down on them and their employers.
Please keep in mind that only half of all illegal aliens in the country are from Mexico. The others are visa overstays from all over the world. Homeland Security needs to focus on them just as much. Given the right resources, this country can regain its sovereignty and respect as a nation that welcomes legal immigrants, but won’t tolerate those who take advantage of our overwhelming generosity.
If you are a U.S. citizen residing or visiting Arizona and a highway patrol officer stops you for speeding and asks you for your papers – show them! Thank him for enforcing the law. Then, enjoy the rest of your day, secure in the knowledge that he’s attempting to improve your quality of life.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Too Much Government In Our Lives
By Gregory D. Lee
Never one to miss an opportunity to raise your taxes, regulate your business to get more television exposure, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) now wants to save you from evil airline fees for carryon baggage.
As the opportunist that he is, Sen. Schumer again smelled an opportunity to stick his nose into someone else’s business as the first to call a press conference to announce that he would create legislation to prohibit Spirit airlines and the others from charging passengers a fee for carryon baggage if they didn’t drop the fee. He’s already contacted many of the major airlines and most have committed to not charge a fee for carryon baggage. Instead, the airlines will just raise their ticket prices; so what’s been accomplished other than more government intervention?
Spirit Airlines announced earlier this month it would charge up to $45 for carryon baggage; $30 if you pay in advance. However, the airline will reduce the fee to $20.00 if you purchase a onetime $9 “Fare Club” card. The carryon fee only applies to overhead compartments, not under the seat in front of you. So computer cases are immune. Those who pay the fee get to board first. According to the airline, the fee represents only a small increase in overall prices because Spirit has some of the lowest fares in the industry.
It sounds like Sen. Schumer is protecting the consumer, but in reality, he’s attempting to interject even more government into our daily lives. What’s next? Will he prohibit barbers from charging more than ten dollars for haircuts, or stop plumbers and electricians from charging a service call in addition to labor when they visit our home or business? Since when is it the government’s business what an airline’s policy is on carryon baggage? It’s not the government’s business, but that doesn’t matter to someone like Sen. Schumer who wants to control every facet of our life.
I don’t want to pay to have carryon luggage the next time I fly, but I feel much more strongly about the government getting involved in my daily business. If I choose to pay the fee, that should be my decision, not his. If I don’t want to pay the fee, I’ll use a different airline. It’s that simple. However, Sen. Schumer, a consummate politician who wants to portray himself as a champion for the little guy, insists on getting involved in matters that should not be of any concern to him, the senate or the government. The free market will shake out bad policies from good ones. The market will determine if the flying public is willing to pay the fee or not. Spirit will drop its carryon charge if loses customers and revenue.
What irritates me is the frequency and depth of government intervention, especially since this administration took over. A “Pay Czar” tells business that took TARP money what they can pay executives and other employees. So, a business that loses money overall, but showed a profit in a particular division of the corporation, cannot reward those employees with bonuses because the administration is offended by the concept of a company that is losing money giving any bonuses. The deserving employee loses out, and if he quits and works for another firm, the company loses as well because it can’t retain good people.
Besides prohibiting you from receiving a bonus and mandating you have health insurance or pay a fee and go to jail, Sen. Schumer and his friends in the past have instructed banks to write mortgages to people without any chance of repaying the loans, just to increase the percentage of home ownership. That interference with the mortgage industry almost destroyed the entire economy when the housing bubble burst. Now, the SEC is suing Goldman Sachs; go figure. Sen. Schumer now wants to tell your airline what its luggage policies will be.
I have a better idea, Sen. Schumer. You stay out of my business, and I’ll stay out of yours. I’m capable of making my own decisions and don’t need your help.
Lower my taxes so I can afford to pay the carryon fee. Then, the airline will not go out of business and lay off all its taxpaying employees.
Never one to miss an opportunity to raise your taxes, regulate your business to get more television exposure, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) now wants to save you from evil airline fees for carryon baggage.
As the opportunist that he is, Sen. Schumer again smelled an opportunity to stick his nose into someone else’s business as the first to call a press conference to announce that he would create legislation to prohibit Spirit airlines and the others from charging passengers a fee for carryon baggage if they didn’t drop the fee. He’s already contacted many of the major airlines and most have committed to not charge a fee for carryon baggage. Instead, the airlines will just raise their ticket prices; so what’s been accomplished other than more government intervention?
Spirit Airlines announced earlier this month it would charge up to $45 for carryon baggage; $30 if you pay in advance. However, the airline will reduce the fee to $20.00 if you purchase a onetime $9 “Fare Club” card. The carryon fee only applies to overhead compartments, not under the seat in front of you. So computer cases are immune. Those who pay the fee get to board first. According to the airline, the fee represents only a small increase in overall prices because Spirit has some of the lowest fares in the industry.
It sounds like Sen. Schumer is protecting the consumer, but in reality, he’s attempting to interject even more government into our daily lives. What’s next? Will he prohibit barbers from charging more than ten dollars for haircuts, or stop plumbers and electricians from charging a service call in addition to labor when they visit our home or business? Since when is it the government’s business what an airline’s policy is on carryon baggage? It’s not the government’s business, but that doesn’t matter to someone like Sen. Schumer who wants to control every facet of our life.
I don’t want to pay to have carryon luggage the next time I fly, but I feel much more strongly about the government getting involved in my daily business. If I choose to pay the fee, that should be my decision, not his. If I don’t want to pay the fee, I’ll use a different airline. It’s that simple. However, Sen. Schumer, a consummate politician who wants to portray himself as a champion for the little guy, insists on getting involved in matters that should not be of any concern to him, the senate or the government. The free market will shake out bad policies from good ones. The market will determine if the flying public is willing to pay the fee or not. Spirit will drop its carryon charge if loses customers and revenue.
What irritates me is the frequency and depth of government intervention, especially since this administration took over. A “Pay Czar” tells business that took TARP money what they can pay executives and other employees. So, a business that loses money overall, but showed a profit in a particular division of the corporation, cannot reward those employees with bonuses because the administration is offended by the concept of a company that is losing money giving any bonuses. The deserving employee loses out, and if he quits and works for another firm, the company loses as well because it can’t retain good people.
Besides prohibiting you from receiving a bonus and mandating you have health insurance or pay a fee and go to jail, Sen. Schumer and his friends in the past have instructed banks to write mortgages to people without any chance of repaying the loans, just to increase the percentage of home ownership. That interference with the mortgage industry almost destroyed the entire economy when the housing bubble burst. Now, the SEC is suing Goldman Sachs; go figure. Sen. Schumer now wants to tell your airline what its luggage policies will be.
I have a better idea, Sen. Schumer. You stay out of my business, and I’ll stay out of yours. I’m capable of making my own decisions and don’t need your help.
Lower my taxes so I can afford to pay the carryon fee. Then, the airline will not go out of business and lay off all its taxpaying employees.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Why Do California Democrats Hate The Boy Scouts?
One of the most effective organizations ever created for turning boys into men and leaders is the Boy Scouts of America. Yet, somehow, Democrats in California see fit to block a resolution congratulating the BSA for 100 years of success because it allegedly discriminates against gays by barring them from membership.
If a conservative doesn’t like an organization because of its policies, he moves on to another that fits his morals. Liberals, on the other hand, seek to destroy the organization because it does not meet their personal standards or lifestyle.
As harmless and beneficial an organization the BSA is, gays and their sympathizers have constantly ridiculed it because it does not allow gays in its ranks. Moreover, there is good reason for banning gays. All young boy pedophiles are gay, but not all gays are pedophiles.
Stung long ago by gay BSA leaders who hid their sexual preference to molest boys, the BSA began a screening process. It did as much screening as possible for a non-governmental organization. Apparently, the screening process was so effective gays began complaining that they were being discriminated against. In reality, the BSA knew better than most organizations how gay infiltrators could cause damage not only to itself, but also, more importantly, to the boys who joined it.
Yet this past devious behavior by some gays did not stop the Democrats in the California state legislature from blocking a harmless resolution. They earlier introduced a resolution to honor the Girls Scouts of America, and felt compelled to mention in it that the organization did not discriminate due to an individual’s sexual orientation. The resolution passed without any changes suggested by the Republicans. Why do Democrats insist on tearing down an organization because it is trying to protect itself and its members?
Some Democrats felt the BSA policy to ban gays was the equivalent to racism. How absurd! If I had fought for racial equality and someone told me gays fit into the same category, I’d be insulted. There is no comparison. BSA is not a whites-only organization. It includes anyone who lives up to its standards and wants to participate in activities that will turn boys into men, good citizens and strong patriots. But Democrats don’t want any part of that because of the alleged discrimination against gays.
Why don’t the Democrats suggest the creation of the Gay Boy Scouts of America? That way members wouldn’t feel discriminated against and they could earn merit badges for socialism studies, Marxist doctrine, flower arrangement, fashion design, hair styling, gay sex toys, gay sexual positions, the exploration of the young and a whole host of other unspeakable acts.
Whether or not Democrats will ever admit it, gays who manage to infiltrate the BSA have done so to exploit children. Pedophiles have succeeded in infiltrating the Catholic Church, police and fire departments, high school coaching staffs and other organizations for the primary purpose to have unfettered access to young boys. They seek positions of trust and respect as a cover for their devious intentions. Banning such people from the ranks of the BSA only makes sense, but it doesn’t to liberal Democratic California politicians who ignore facts to appease their constituency.
So, before the hate mail pours in from those inclined to bash me or the BSA, just remember that the BSA policy to ban gays stems from past bad conduct by a few, not the many. Gays shouldn’t criticize it because it is doing what it thinks is best for its membership. It should be applauded for protecting its members from social deviates who look for self-gratification above all else.
God bless the Boy Scouts of America. May it go on for another hundred years and longer.
If a conservative doesn’t like an organization because of its policies, he moves on to another that fits his morals. Liberals, on the other hand, seek to destroy the organization because it does not meet their personal standards or lifestyle.
As harmless and beneficial an organization the BSA is, gays and their sympathizers have constantly ridiculed it because it does not allow gays in its ranks. Moreover, there is good reason for banning gays. All young boy pedophiles are gay, but not all gays are pedophiles.
Stung long ago by gay BSA leaders who hid their sexual preference to molest boys, the BSA began a screening process. It did as much screening as possible for a non-governmental organization. Apparently, the screening process was so effective gays began complaining that they were being discriminated against. In reality, the BSA knew better than most organizations how gay infiltrators could cause damage not only to itself, but also, more importantly, to the boys who joined it.
Yet this past devious behavior by some gays did not stop the Democrats in the California state legislature from blocking a harmless resolution. They earlier introduced a resolution to honor the Girls Scouts of America, and felt compelled to mention in it that the organization did not discriminate due to an individual’s sexual orientation. The resolution passed without any changes suggested by the Republicans. Why do Democrats insist on tearing down an organization because it is trying to protect itself and its members?
Some Democrats felt the BSA policy to ban gays was the equivalent to racism. How absurd! If I had fought for racial equality and someone told me gays fit into the same category, I’d be insulted. There is no comparison. BSA is not a whites-only organization. It includes anyone who lives up to its standards and wants to participate in activities that will turn boys into men, good citizens and strong patriots. But Democrats don’t want any part of that because of the alleged discrimination against gays.
Why don’t the Democrats suggest the creation of the Gay Boy Scouts of America? That way members wouldn’t feel discriminated against and they could earn merit badges for socialism studies, Marxist doctrine, flower arrangement, fashion design, hair styling, gay sex toys, gay sexual positions, the exploration of the young and a whole host of other unspeakable acts.
Whether or not Democrats will ever admit it, gays who manage to infiltrate the BSA have done so to exploit children. Pedophiles have succeeded in infiltrating the Catholic Church, police and fire departments, high school coaching staffs and other organizations for the primary purpose to have unfettered access to young boys. They seek positions of trust and respect as a cover for their devious intentions. Banning such people from the ranks of the BSA only makes sense, but it doesn’t to liberal Democratic California politicians who ignore facts to appease their constituency.
So, before the hate mail pours in from those inclined to bash me or the BSA, just remember that the BSA policy to ban gays stems from past bad conduct by a few, not the many. Gays shouldn’t criticize it because it is doing what it thinks is best for its membership. It should be applauded for protecting its members from social deviates who look for self-gratification above all else.
God bless the Boy Scouts of America. May it go on for another hundred years and longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
