Thursday, November 01, 2007

Illegal Aliens - A Solution

My wonderful sister-in-law, Sandy, recently forwarded to me an e-mail that compared today's illegal immigrant to the legal immigrants of the early 20th Century. She immediately sent a second e-mail in which she expressed her hope that I was not offended by the first e-mail.

I don't have a problem with the sentiments expressed in Sandy's first e-mail, however, I wrote the following to Sandy to point out that the issue with illegal aliens is not their failure to immediately integrate into the US Culture.

There are, however, a number of issues with illegal aliens
* They entered and stay in the country illegally
* Children born to illegal aliens while in the US are automatically US citizens
* Many illegal aliens do not pay taxes
* 30% of the US prison inmates are illegal aliens
* They can use public education and social programs
* They are willing to work for less money than US citizens
* Many US companies employ illegal aliens because they will work for less and they are unprotected
* Many US consumers employ contractors that use illegal alien labor or patronize businesses that employ illegal alien labor because it costs less

Legal immigrants during the early 20th century did not immediately integrate into the US culture. These immigrants weren’t welcomed to the US by the existing working class citizens. It took a few generations for some to assimilate via the melting pot while many others have yet to integrate (China towns in New York City and San Francisco). It was business that wanted the cheap immigrant labor to offset the cost of increased unionization.

We should be at odds with the companies and contractors and consumers that employ illegal aliens. The illegal alien is only a pawn but nonetheless illegal.

To solve this problem we must begin to punish everybody that employs an illegal alien including the homeowner that hires an illegal day laborer to mow grass, rake leaves or shovel snow. The punishment must far outweigh the financial benefit of employing illegal aliens. The penalty for employing illegal aliens should be significant fines for first time violators and imprisonment for repeat offenders.

The rights of the US citizen are not being stolen by illegal aliens, they are being sold by greedy employers and consumers.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Give the Government back to the People

We have all been gullible about the government and the real objectives behind their acts. I used to think that people like you and me got into high office and THEN they were told the truth and the justification for what was being done secretly or for a purpose other than told to the People. Now I think that is not true. People like you and I don't get anywhere near the high offices of the government and we never will. Our personal egos and drive for power are not like those who ascend to the top of the government. And, it’s probably equally true that most of the people that possess the ego and drive needed to get them in to high office, today, are the type of people that we don’t want in office.

By the time today’s politician gets to a position of power, if not from the beginning, they have a different view on right and wrong on the national and international level. I really believe that they feel separate from the People who they believe can't understand the issues and priorities. At that point, like parents treat children, they see a need to lie to the People to get their cooperation because a full explanation will just confuse the “children”.

This has proven to be a disaster. We have screwed many countries since the Second World War for the purpose of benefiting our Industrial Complex; more trade and insured access to natural resources in other countries especially 3rd world countries and our so-called political enemies.

I used to disagree with strict time limits in political office but I now see it as the only way to put the control of the government back into the hands of the People. Eliminate the career politician. A qualified congressman doesn’t have to have 20, 30 or more years of experience. These people got to where they are not because the voters knew the candidates. The people vote for the candidates selected (not elected) by the political parties – by existing long term politicians that are working for the benefit of their party NOT the people. If you doubt that just look at how well aligned voting is with party agenda. These people don’t ask what their constituents want; they ask what their party wants.

If we restrict politicians to 6-8 years of service at the state level and 6-8 years of service at the federal level, there will soon be no politicians that owe the party and the lobbyist for their office. The elected wouldn’t be in office long enough to make their stay financially beneficial. The power of the party would dissolve because they would not control the elected. Lobbyist would no longer be able to control Congress since the Lobbyist’s power comes from controlling the party and strict term limits will reduce the power of the party.

It doesn’t take a congressman with 30 years of experience to vote the way the majority of the constituents want. The more time in the party and in office, the less likely the congressman is to vote for the People rather than the Party’s agenda.

If we filled Congress with the people that we know and would elect, then Congress would be filled with voters that would oppose continuing the war in Iraq, matter of fact our Congress would not have put us into Iraq and they would oppose immigration reform that would create a low income alien working class that would be underpaid, unprotected by workplace regulations and supported in-part by taxpayers dollars rather than the profits of their employers. How many tax cuts for the rich would your selections to Congress vote for?

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Why Some Christians don't believe in the Separation of Church and State

When Evangelical Christians distort the facts so that they can violate the constitutional guarantee of “separation of church and state”, they make the strongest argument for “separation of church and state”. The following are two current examples of such distortions.

The Navy decided not to renew the enlistment contract of one of its Chaplains. Two of the reasons given by the Navy were (1) the Chaplain wore his military uniform while holding a public political protest and (2) the Chaplain repeatedly proselytized at multi-denominational services. Military personnel are allowed to participate in political protests but must not do so while wearing their military uniform. When speaking to a multi-denominational group Chaplains are expected to refrain from proselytizing. Chaplains are expected to provide non-denominational spiritual support to all military personnel regardless of their own personal religious beliefs and those of the military personnel they advise.

All open military religious services shall be inclusive and respectful of all religious beliefs. Chaplains are allowed to encourage personnel to develop spiritually but they are expected to not recommend any one belief over another. A chaplain that can not comply with the regulations is not suitable for being a military chaplain and should instead evangelize as a civilian.

The chaplain who was released at the end of his contract has complained that the Navy tried to prevent him from praying publicly in the name of Jesus. Multiple religious action groups have come to the support of the chaplain. This story has received a lot of coverage in the media and the internet. The statements made by the chaplain and his supporters intentionally misrepresent the military’s reasons for releasing the chaplain.

In another example of distorting the truth, Evangelical Christians are hotly opposing a bill recently approved by the House which expands the definition of a Hate Crime and provides support to non-Federal jurisdictions in their prosecution of a Hate Crime only if an act of violence was committed. The Christian opponents are claiming that the writers of the bill will use it to prosecute Churches if they speak out against homosexuality. In reality, the opponents of the expanded Hate Crime bill want to exclude any law that would protect the rights of a homosexual. For that matter, they want to exclude any law that protects the rights of any person that acts or speaks in a manner that the Christians deem to be immoral. They can’t however make that charge directly because it would not be acceptable to the majority of Americans.

Why do these religious groups misrepresent the facts? They are, in my opinion, trying to change our laws by misrepresenting the Constitution and redefining, for their benefit, the definition of Separation of Church and State. They do not respect other religious beliefs and they intend to redefine our Constitution and our Laws such that it supports and complies only with their interpretation of the Christian Bible. In my opinion the proponents of Separation of Church and State are defending our Constitution not the other way around.

The Evangelical Christians’ objective is a Christian-based Government, Christian-based Laws and the abolishment of “Separation of Church and State”. If they were to succeed, federal, state and local legislators would have to enact laws to enforce Born Again Christian beliefs. Christian prayer would be required at all public functions while all non-Christian religions would be silenced. Laws would be created to enforce Christian morality. The mere existence of other religious groups would not be protected by the law. Schools would no longer teach evolution. Science education would be rewritten to comply with Creation as defined in the Christian Bible. All published writings would have to be approved by the Christian Leadership. Satanic books like the Harry Potter series of children books would no longer be legal. Christian censorship would control the content of television and the movies.

In short order, the United States of America would become a religious state where Evangelical Christianity would be the only legal religion and its beliefs would be the basis of all civil and criminal laws.

The Evangelical Christians exaggerate and misrepresent our current laws because Truth will not benefit their cause. They do not want you to know their true objective. It’s like politics, if you can’t win the constituent’s vote with the truth about your ideas and your performance, then lie about your opponent’s ideas and performance. They encourage us to believe that their opponents are trying to limit our freedoms while they would do more to limit freedom than any threat that America has had to endure.

Saturday, July 07, 2007

No longer the Land of the Free

It started when Bush was given the presidency by the Supreme Court, my feeling that the United States of America is not the Land of the Free. The Bush Administration has demonstrated repeatedly that it will do as it pleases regardless of our Constitution and our Laws. Two Republican-appointed federal appeals court judges, in a 2-1 decision, ordered a lower court to dismiss a case brought by plaintiffs that challenged the legality of the wiretapping program. The appeals court did not address the lower court ruling that the spying program was unconstitutional, rather it ruled only that the plaintiffs could not sue since they lacked proof that they were targets of the wiretapping. The Administration claims it is protecting State Secrecy by not revealing their targets thus preventing the plaintiffs from obtaining proof if any exists.

Our Constitution established checks and balances to ensure that no branch of the government could get away with abuses. Bush ignores the check that would protect against illegal wiretapping. The check is the "special surveillance court". Bush has authorized his agencies to wiretap without a warrant from the special surveillance court. Bush's own very conservative Attorney General resigned because he would not sanction the wiretapping. A US District court ruled that secret wiretapping is unconstitutional. But Bush continues to wiretap without oversight while using his appointed judges to prevent us from challenging his conduct in court.

This is what happens all the time in other countries but, "Thank God", I used to say, "that I live in America where this will never happen." Well, live and learn. It also happens here.

Bush abuses human rights. Bush violates our Constitution. Bush started and continues the war in Iraq for the benefit of the Military-Industrial Complex. The war costs us $200 million every day and may exceed a total cost of $1 trillion. Who do you think is being paid that money? How interested are they in seeing the war end sooner than later? I'm pretty sure that they are not anxious to see the war and their hugh profits come to a halt.

Bush stole the presidency and has gone on to rape America. Who thinks otherwise?

Friday, July 06, 2007

On Second Thought...

After my post "First Do Unto Yourself The Worst You Would Do Unto Others" I started having second thoughts about the position I took. I was thinking about removing the post until I heard that a group of radical Muslim students in Pakistan, who have by force taken control of a mosque and innocent bystanders, are probably using young school children as human shields. My previous post stays where it is. What are these beings that they would put young children in harms way to protect themselves and further their cause?

Many children have been killed in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. With the exception of the crimes committed by both sides, children were never used in such a way by a civilized people. There is a difference between an accident and intent. Some will say the child is dead either way but I don't agree that it is the same. As we have seen before these people have absolutely no respect for the lives of others. It's fine with me that they martyr themselves for their cause but they should not delay the inevitable at the cost of innocent lives.

They are evil. Bring on the Kevorkian Express.

Sunday, July 01, 2007

First Do Unto Yourself The Worst You Would Do Unto Others

I've never believed in Capital Punishment. There are several reasons why we should not execute people. The best reason is that our legal system occasionally convicts an innocent person. That is reason enough. Proponents of Capital Punishment argue that it is an effective deterrent. If that was true Texas would not continue to lead the nation in executions.

However, recently I'm tempted to suggest that Capital Punishment is justifiable for a certain group of beings. These are terrorists that are hell bent on killing to further their political or so-called religious agenda. If death is the reward they seek I think it’s high time that we accommodate their wish. Our staying on high moral ground only benefits the terrorist. Our current punishment is not a deterrent. Turn the other cheek to this enemy and he will cut your throat in both directions.

There will be no negotiated settlement, no win-win agreement, with these terrorists. The terrorists’ objective is our destruction. We are not fighting over a piece of this world. We are defending our existence in this world.

The Muslim terrorist is not the only enemy of mankind that is unwilling to share this world with others. For instance, when the Hutus slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis, the Hutu’s objective was more than the political control of Rwanda and not just reclaiming the property that had once been theirs. The objective of the Hutus was the complete destruction of the Tutsis. They intended to kill every Tutsi man, woman and child even though many of them were neighbors, relatives and in-laws. The Hutus would not be satisfied with sharing; there would be no win-win agreement.

I hate to use the term Evil but I can not think of a more appropriate descriptor for these terrorists. The inhabitants of this world don’t have to be of one mind but to coexist peacefully they must have mutual respect. People should be proud of whom they are yet not think they are above other people. I am proud to be an American but I do not believe that I am better than those who are not American. Pride is fine. Arrogance and disrespecting others is not.

Evil is what I call people who wish to destroy other ideas and the people that believe in them. I also believe that evil people will not be reformed. Could Hitler have been reformed? Could those who carried out Hitler’s wishes have been reformed? No. I do not believe that people with the capacity to slaughter innocents can peacefully share this world with others. A Hutu that is willing to kill his neighbors in exchange for a farm of his own will not, in my opinion, be reformed.

There is no room is this world for people that won’t share this world with others. There is no place in this world for ideologies that exclude all others. Such people and ideologies are non-negotiating and beyond reform.

A few years ago following some senseless slaughter of innocents I thought of a solution I called the “Kevorkian Express”. Every person in the world would have to answer one question, “Do you want to kill anybody else in this world?” If their answer is yes, they would die. They would not be killed by others. They would in a sense have killed themselves by expressing a desire to kill another. The Kevorkian Express turns evil upon itself. You can think of it as a minor modification of the Golden Rule. First do unto yourself the worst you would do unto others.

I’m not suggesting that others should be killed or I too would be eliminated by the Kevorkian Express. Rather, I am merely suggesting that each of us should first treat ourselves just as we would mistreat another.

There should be no court of appeal for Evil and there should be no court of appeal for terrorists. Catch them. Give them a ticket to the Kevorkian Express. No arraignment, no trial, no appeal, no probation, no parole, no pardon. Let them answer the Question.

Friday, June 08, 2007


"The happiest people don't HAVE the best of everything. They just MAKE the best of everything they have."

I have to keep working on this one!
How are you doing?

Monday, March 19, 2007

Ben Stein's last Column for E! Online was BS

One of my best friends recently sent to me a copy of the last column Ben Stein wrote for E! Online in 2003 titled "How Can Someone Who Lives in Insane Luxury Be a Star in Today's World?” Ben's column makes the reader feel good about himself while pointing the finger of blame for the reader's lack of values on Celebrities.

I agree that celebrities are not heroes but Ben has blamed the celebrities instead of the people who idolize them. As part of the news media Ben takes a little blame but the news media only sells what the Public buys. It’s the Public’s moral values and senses of civic and social duty that are lacking. Ben has pointed the finger of blame in the wrong direction.

Ben said, “Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails”. Are these the only people that are eating up the wealth of the nation and ignoring the “have nots” that eek out a meager living or none at all. BS. We appreciate what Ben wrote because WE are not riding in limos and Porches nor having our nails done by Vietnamese girls and are therefore blameless. Is it only the rich celebrities that are not doing their share? BS.

Ben has made his reader's feel good about themselves, good about their under-appreciated public servants and angry as hell at the rich people that aren’t helping out. I think Ben's last column was just "feeding the monkeys at the zoo". This kind of editorializing only further divides the people of this country. We the People are the problem. We make the celebrities. We made Ben Stein. We accept the mentally ill trying to survive on our streets. We accept the employment of underpaid illegal aliens.

THEY are not the problem. WE are the problem. Jesus said, “And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.