So It's Come To This?

I do not call myself a Republican, or at least not what the Republican party has warped into over the last decade (certainly not a "Bush Republican"), but I'm not ready to identify myself as a member of the Tea Party. I'm in conservative limbo, somewhere in between.  I am all for big business and small government, firearms and freedom of speech, but I cannot understand leaving people to starve and freeze under a bridge somewhere. However, if someone were to call me a liberal, I would feel obligated to punch them in the throat.

 I'll be the first to admit that there is a lot more than "just a bit of hypocrisy" in politics. But I can only laugh at the naivete of anyone who claims one political party is "the good one" while the other is "all bad." And to claim the right has the majority of "moral derelicts" only accentuates the level of denial on the left. There are only two types of career politicians: bad and worse.

There are, in my opinion, those who truly wish to make a difference and change the way things are. At least until they are corrupted by their more experienced peers. Oh, and don't think I'm talking about Mr. Hope'n'Change himself - I believed he was a liar from day one, and he has proved me right for the last two years.

It is rather funny how you defend the "moral values" of the liberals, while I see absolutely none, and you claim their "guilt" makes all their crimes acceptable. On the other hand, I defend the moral values of conservatives, while you claim they are totally void of any guilt or remorse. Apparently, no matter how "above all that" you and I consider ourselves, we both seem a bit blinded by our personal beliefs. I suppose this is just how things are.

Why is it any different to attack people of a different race than to attack people of a different ideology? I obviously cannot say "Obama sure is one stupid nigger" without being rightfully branded as a racist. But, strangely enough, I cannot say "Obama sure is one stupid liberal" without being branded as a racist, either.

On the other hand, if a devout liberal were to say "Rush Limbaugh is an ignorant fat fuck Republican piece of shit, and he and all who listen to him should crawl off somewhere and die," he would be cheered by liberals everywhere. The justification for the personal attack is simply because he dares disagree with the so-called moral superiority of liberal views. Doesn't this bother you at all? What does the magnificent sense of liberal morality say to you about all this? Seems a bit judgemental to me, but only a person of falsely assumed moral superiority (ie: a liberal) would be comfortable taking that position.

What is amazing is this: watch an offensive television program, you change the channel. If you hear an offensive radio broadcast, you change the station. Unless you're a liberal, in which case all that found to be offensive is attacked, while demands are made for both the immediate removal of the offensive material and for apologies by the responsible parties. Of course, since liberals are only concerned with (their own concept of) the well-being of society, these are not seen for the extreme acts of censorship that they are.  It appears that, in the Bizzaro world of liberal tolerance, the one thing that will not be tolerated is intolerance.  Conform and submit - there are simply no other choices allowed in Obama Land.

For the record, Rush is not "chairman of the Republican Party", nor is Newt the official GOP morality spokesman. But whose business is it, anyway, as to who Rush decides to marry, or how old she is?  At least he is married to a woman. And Newt is a knucklehead, and a career politician. I do not subscribe to many of this man's beliefs, but he has his moments. There's dirt to be uncovered with anyone's career. And, although the GOP has it's fair share of "do as I say, not as I do" arsewipes, there are as many if not more on the other side of the aisle.

I suppose the first rule of politics is Don't Get Caught. Let's just say that anyone who believes what any politician promises, especially near election time, then I have some mortgage-backed securities I would love to show them. It is hard to determine what either party actually stands for anymore, for everything we know comes from character attacks against each other. We are left to assume that our guy is the "good guy", and could never be guilty of whatever evil they attribute to that other guy.

For the most part, most are too ignorant to find out for ourselves, or too lazy to put out the effort required, so they will just have to accept what the media gives them, while pretending that the MSM is not horribly slanted to the left.  We are our own worst enemy, and although this certainly needs to change, I can understand how we let it happen. But what really get my drawers in a wad is the blatant double standard shown to the right by the media and the left, which is nothing but political gamesmenship.  There is no neutrality shown, yet for all their hard-left slant, the hypocrisy shown attacking FoxNews as "biased" is astounding.

When a Republican gets caught in some "impropriety", he is put through the media wringer. His character and his family are viciously attacked. Every news outlet carries the tale of his transgression, that it is indisputable evidence that he is indeed in league with Satan himself, and such a despicable act is yet another sad reflection of the inherent evil that runs rampant through the Republican party. All the public apologies in the world will not save him from the liberal media's rage, with the eventual result being his resignation. Not that anyone should feel badly, since he more than likely has a handsome pension at our expense, and will retire to a life of luxury anyway.

But when we discover a Democrat guilty of a similar act, the left wing media immediately gives him a free pass, if they even bother to touch on the story at all, claiming it was an honest mistake since, after all, he was only working to better the lives of poor widows and orphans. Sure, the mouthpieces on the right will blast away, as usual, but there are so few conservative media outlets that they become easy targest for attacks from the liberal left. Much easier to discredit the source than to disprove the allegation.

Be honest and ask yourself: what happens when a Democrat gets caught? In today's Democratic party, getting caught and saying "I'm sorry" seems to be the best way to advance one's career. Committing and surviving a scandal is sort of like a merit badge to these guys.

From where I sit, I feel your comments on congressional scandal seem to concentrate on sex. I could care less who is screwing who, as none of that affects me in any way whatsoever. What I cannot stand are the financial improprieties, which seem to be far more prevalent than all the sexual escapades. These are what affect me and the other taxpayers of this country. Bribes, kickbacks, contributions, fraud, and outright theft are the foundation of the existing Democratic AND Republican parties - they know it, and they are beginning to know that we know it, you know?

Amnesty will Boost US Economy?

I'm sorry, but exactly how will granting amnesty to roughly 15 million illegal immigrants boost our economy again?

Will there be a huge increase in federal tax returns from migratory farm workers?  Will citizenship force an increase in wages, and in effect put more money into circulation?  As long as the United States remains the world's only country that rewards criminal behavior with citizenship, there will never be a shortage of sub-minimum wage labor.

What if amnesty simply results in 15 million new unemployment claims, filed by new citizens being priced out of work by the next wave of cheap labor?  These new citizens could now file for benefits once unobtainable.  Is this a great country or what?

Will they all buy houses, pay property and school taxes, and partially repay their years of freeloading on taxpayers?  Will these new citizens spend their meager earnings on health insurance, pay their own medical expenses, and no longer use free emergency room care?

Will our newest citizens boost our economy by no longer sending money back to Mexico each year?  Remittances sent to Mexico ($16.5 billion last year) from their exported labor force is a huge item in the Mexican federal budget, and is predicted to exceed revenue from Pemex, currently Mexico's primary source of revenue, by 2011.

Unless we secure the border, by force if required, there can be no amnesty.  But I can understand why the Democrats are all about amnesty.  It is no longer acceptable to use the term "illegal aliens".  The New Liberal Dictionary now defines this group as "Undocumented Democrats".

Blanket amnesty is not the answer.  Reagan did it backwards in 1986, giving amnesty to 3 million illegals, promising to secure the border.  What a huge mistake.  The border was not and is still not secure, and we now have another 15 - 20 million illegals to deal with.  Give these people amnesty, and we can look forward to 4o million more within 10 years.  That should boost the hell out of our economy.

Hypocrisy of Calderon

Mexican President Felipe Calderon was invited by Obama to come and address a joint session of Congress.  Here, in an ultimate act of hypocrisy, he chastised America for desiring respect of its sovereignty.

Why do you think Calderon so interested in an open border with the US? Because the money sent by Mexico's exported labor force, or remittances, is the primary source of revenue for Mexico.

Mexico has no entitlement programs for its poor, its sick, its unemployed. And why should they? It is horribly expensive, a massive drain on a country's economy, and is guaranteed to become larger over time.

 Actually, Mexico has a plan, which involves sending them to the US. That's it. Here they are rewarded for breaking immigration law with medical care, food, employment, housing, education, and, if the liberals have their way, citizenship. The liberals cry "that's exactly why we need immigration reform now", which is code for "Borders? We don't need no stinking borders."

Funny, but I don't see any of the protesters offering to house, feed, and clothe these people. From where I sit, I see nothing but a bunch of whiny liberal hypocrites, pretending to care while hoping a family of Hispanics won't move in next door and possibly lower their suburban property values.

Obama wants nothing to do with these people either. Like most politicians, he lives the millionaire's life high on top of the hill, isolated from the problems of the common man, pretending to give a Tinker's damn.

He does, however, want their votes, and to win them he only needs to somehow grant amnesty to these 15 million "undocumented Democrats", giving them access to the government largess. Apparently there's nothing more American, or hopey-changey, than a crooked politician buying votes.

Wasn't Reagan's amnesty for 3 million in 1986 good enough? What a mistake. The message this decision sent to Mexico was answered by 20 million more illegals. It is hard to make a convincing argument against illegal entry into our country by rewarding these criminals, which is why they keep coming.  Break the law, get a prize!  Enter as often as you like - a winner every time you play!

I hear about poor families, suffering because they cannot feed their ten children. But what did they expect, having little or no income? When they realized they didn't have the means to support the first five or six, why did they continue to bring more starving children into a cruel world?  Muy estupido!

Some feel pity for these poor folks, with all the starving children. It is indeed sad, although apparently not sad enough for Mexico to care about them. But what makes everyone think that America can support every person on the planet?

Who said that the desire for a secure border is an attack on immigration?  We allow a million people a year to legally immigrate and assimilate into our society.  The fact that we pride ourselves as being a nation of law.  Yet by not enforcing our own laws, we only invite our "uninvited guests" to show the same disregard for our legal system as our leaders do.

Eric Holder - Ass Clown

The whole idea of a lawsuit over SB1070 is a ridiculous move by the feds, as this new law does nothing to challenge the existing federal laws or render them un-enforceable. Enforce the existing immigration laws, and the other states won't have to take matters into their own hands. And that's in all 57 states, by the way.

One way or another, we are determined to stop the flood of illegal immigrants into this country. Obama's recent boneheaded speech, basically grouping legal and illegal immigrants together, merely showed the ignorance of a man who can only read a teleprompter.

Our immigration laws are not broken, it is merely designed to limit the number of people allowed to assimilate into American society. What is broken is the enforcement arm of the law, as no law can stand without being enforced. The days of the "Honor System" are long gone, and the criminals can't be expected to police themselves.

But the Crapweasel-in-Charge thinks he can use the issue to gain some political advantage, so its the same progressive song and dance we've heard for decades. "We'll secure the border after we've rewarded all the criminals with citizenship and voter ID's," claims Obama. Is anyone in this country really stupid enough to believe this garbage? If so, I have some vacation property in Mexico I would like to sell them...

Tell Us Exactly What's "Broken", Mr. Obama?

Could it be that Obama will eventually have to file suit against every state in the union - all 57 of them - to force his goal of amnesty upon us?

The more states that follow Arizona's lead means more pressure for Obama to pull his pointy head out, look around, and actually listen to them.

Seven out of 10 people in this country support Arizona's new law, yet Obama will have none of this. The lives of both American citizens and the exploited illegal work force are nothing but political tools to this man.

I am disgusted every time Obama looks down his nose at us and claims the "immigration system" is broken. It seems to work fine for a million people every year that come into this country legally - what exactly is "broken", Mr. President?

True, Obama is our president, elected by a majority of voters (52.9%, in fact) in 2008. There were two major factors in his victory - a huge anti-Bush sentiment, and a successful campaign of lies and deception.

After nearly two years, America has had a chance to see the true character, or lack thereof, of the person they placed their "hope for change" in.   If this inexperienced, unqualified amateur tries to sell his snake oil to America again in 2012, we should see a much different outcome.