Sunday, April 02, 2006

Out of pocket

Just when I posted for the first time in months, I have to leave the country for awhile. At the same time, our home computer's cable modem dumped on us and you know how cable service is, they can't get out for several days, and I don't feel comfortable sending servicemen to my house with my wife alone. So it will be a few weeks before I am fully back up and running but I do have a few ideas. (I am on dial up right now, I forgot how blessed we are to have high speed, brings back memories!!)
One of the things that prevent me, is I don't really get on the computer much at home, and the company (and they have every right to do this) has watched our Internet activity of late and several company wide warnings have been issued, so I'll abide by that, as unfortunately, I still need this paycheck thing. My wife likes it too!!!
Talk when I get back!!

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Rights for ILLEGAL Immigrants???

Makes me want to scream at these protestors. What part of illegal don't you understand?? What the hell is wrong with these protesting kids?

I would bet, if we put a man on the street, and asked these kids to explain to us what this hullaballoo is all about, they couldn't give us an intelligent honest answer. I would bet that if we drill down to their motives it would come down to two things;
  1. They just want an excuse from not going to class.
  2. They are being motivated by the likes of LULAC and other racist communistic groups.
We need to ask the schools that are teaching these kids if they are teaching them about the difference between legal and illegal immigration. Are they giving them examples of the good hard working immigrant families that did things correctly and legally. Ask those families how they feel about now giving special rights, giving them a shortcut to becoming legal.

But hey, we are being so unfair about all of this aren't we? How do we expect these illegal immigrants to come up with the fee of one thousand dollars over the period of six years to become legal? How insensitive is that?

I heard one of these kids say, they are not here to be criminals, they just want to work.

Consider this:
One third of the population of our federal prisons are illegal aliens. That makes you think that perhaps, since so many of these coming across illegally are victimizing themselves with these coyotes, that their efforts to do it legally would be easier, that you have to ask them why they do it that way? Could it be that they are criminals to begin with?

As far as the labor issue, I have a nephew, who chose construction as his profession. He loves it and chose to do that instead of going to college. He works hard when he gets the chance. He hangs wallboard, which is a touph job. Several days he goes without work because the contractors can hire these illegals to do it so much cheaper and not have to pay taxes etc. for them. They don't have to worry about paying their taxes or workmans compensation because even if they do get injured, they aren't going to claim it at work as they would be deported. But they will say they just had an accident and be a big drain on our social services.
They need to see, that they are victimizing themselves and that the efforts to do this illegally is so much more than to do it illegally.

I think we just need to criminalize it, secure our borders and help them get legal immigration status. Too much has been said about the illegals, how do we know they are not criminals or terrorists.

We already know from history that giving them clemency does not work. Reagan tried it during his administration. Two things happened. Hardly anyone took advantage of it, and more illegals came across our borders. We need to learn from our historic lessons.

Sunday, November 13, 2005

Marines called to France

President Bush May Send Up To 5 Marines For French Assistance

President Bush has authorized the Joint Chiefs to begin drawing up a
battle plan to pull France's ass out of the fire again. Facing an
apparent overwhelming force of up to 400 pissed off teenagers Mr. Bush
doubts France's ability to hold off the little pissants. "Hell, if the
last two world wars are any indication, I would expect France to
surrender any day now", said Bush. Joint Chiefs head, Gen. Peter Pace,
warned the President that it might be necessary to send up to 5 marines
to get things under control. The general admitted that 5 marines may be
overkill but he wanted to get this thing under control within 24 hours
of arriving on scene. He stated he was having a hard time finding even
one marine to help those ungrateful bastards out for a third time but
thought that he could persuade a few women marines to do the job before
they went on pregnancy leave.

President Bush asked Gen. Pace to get our marines out of there as soon
as possible after order was restored. He also reminded Gen. Pace to make
sure the marines did not take soap, razors, or deodorant with them. The
least they stand out the better.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Whats good for the Goose should be good for the Gander!

I copied this from the Federalist Patriot today and I immediately thought that if that retirement program our Congress enjoys should be good for us. Well, actually I thought that they should get rid of their retirement and depend on the Social Security program that they think all their constituants can live on. I think it would get fixed post haste.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"The house of representatives...can make no law which will not
have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well
as the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one
of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the
rulers and the people together. It creates between them that
communion of interest, and sympathy of sentiments, of which few
governments have furnished examples; but without which every
government degenerates into tyranny."

-- James Madison (Federalist No. 57, 19 February 1788)

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Giddy MSM. Patience finally pays off.

What I have seen is the giddyness of the MSM, hoping upon all hopes, that they can hang something on the Bush administration. It goes hand in hand with their giddy portrayal of the 2000th death of an American Soldier in Iraq. They have been waiting for a long time for this party, especially since it was they that predicted there would be tens of thousands of our boys coming back in body bags during the initial stage of this war. They said there wouldn’t be enought body bags for our boys. I guess given those facts, I can appreciate their patience in this ordeal to get to number 2000. It is pretty sad if you side with that kind of crowd in my eyes.

This is pretty sad indeed. However Scott Ott did his usual Satire on this here.
And another blog has the plans for the 3000th here

Oh well. Giddyness is so complimenting their style huh?

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Where do you buy your gas?

Or we can go with Camo's suggestion!!

Friday, July 15, 2005

Can't satisfy them even if you hang'm with a New Rope!

Started on July 15th, will add as I go on. But post on!!
This was clipped from the Wall Street Opinion Journal:

"Friday, July 15, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Let's see if we can get this straight: When tax revenues fall and budget deficits go up, it's bad news. But when tax revenues rise and deficits decline, it's still bad news.

At least that seems to be the way a sizable chunk of Washington is reacting to this week's report from the White House budget office that the federal deficit is down by nearly $100 billion this fiscal year, that the deficit as a share of GDP is down to 2.7% (very near its historical average), and that this is all happening because tax receipts are surging by more than 14%. Uncle Sam is having a better year so far than even Paris Hilton, but half of the Beltway is depressed.

John Spratt, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, seems especially upset that this revenue surge isn't coming from wage income, but rather from investment income--that is, the so-called non-withholding income tax collections, which have skyrocketed by some 30% this year. "These are typically taxes paid on one-time capital gains, bonuses, stock-options income that may not recur," he laments.

Well, sure, Congressman, the 2003 reductions in the tax rates on dividends and capital gains seem to be resulting in much higher tax revenues on . . . dividends and capital gains. This is called the Laffer Curve effect, and we thank Mr. Spratt for validating it. If he wants those revenues to "recur," maybe he'll even vote to make those tax cuts permanent...."

History has shown this to always be the case. Reduce taxes, and our coffers expand. Why are the liberals so threatened by this proven theory? Because they want control. They want to control your pocket book, while still pretending to be your advocate and buddy buddy. In reality, they are only increasing their own power (Personal power is relinquished when we agree to pay extra taxes, increased regulations etc.) so we can become the nanny state where they take care of everything, and they remain in power. It is so clear and transparent, but too many are looking through their hippy lenses of the 60's that color things to appear utopian in their eyes. The thinking then goes into "Well if my government will do it for me, why should I try?".

Now our coffers are expanding, deficits are being reduced, but they are still complaining.

The article goes on:

This revenue surge from investment income also rebuts the mantra that the 2003 tax cuts were a giveaway to the rich. Nearly half of all Americans have some kind of stock ownership, and thus have shared in these gains in investment income. And if most of the extra tax income is coming from capital gains and dividend payments, that would have to mean that the rich in America are paying more taxes, not less, as a result of the 2003 tax cut.

By the way, we don't recall Mr. Spratt and other Democrats lamenting when a similar spike in taxes from investment income was boosting tax revenues to historic heights as a share of GDP during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s, as per the nearby chart. Then it was all said to be an economic miracle; now it's a windfall for the wealthy. This selective budget criticism couldn't be related to who's sitting in the White House, could it?