Dies y Seis de Septiembre (Mexican Independence Day)

Yesterday, in honor of Mexican Independence Day, I was wearing my Mexican soccer jersey - the one styled after their 2006 World Cup uniforms.

Since we were headed out the door to a friend's house, I grabbed a green cap instead of my standard NRA cap to "go with" the jersey.  The cap I chose has "U. S. Border Patrol" emblazoned on the front.    When we got to my friend's house another friend said "Wow, you are really sending a mixed message with your Mexico shirt and your Border Patrol hat!"  Before I could say *anything* a third friend said "Oh No He's Not!"

Who cares, right?   The part that is funny to me is that the guy who made the crack about a "mixed message" is a legal immigrant to this country (from another continent).    Also the friend that jumped to my defense is Hispanic (born here in the USA).

I say all that to lead into this - apparently a Majority Of Latinos In Arizona Supported the much ballyhooed Arizona immigration law, commonly referred to as Arizona SB 1070.     I know, the fact that Latinos supported the law didn't get much (if any) airtime from the "Mainstream Media" but then again, the "MSM" also seemed to neglect to mention the fact that this law basically supports existing Federal regulations.

This is not to mention the fact that, considering everything my buddy from another continent had to go through to get here, I would think he would be vehemenantly opposed to illegal immigration and acutely aware of the fact that people who do not go through the proper channels are breaking the law.

Minorities

I received this as an email.      Feel free to pass it along or comment.

We need to show more sympathy for these people.

* They travel miles in the heat.
* They risk their lives crossing a border.
* They don't get paid enough wages.
* They do jobs that others won't do or are afraid to do.
* They live in crowded conditions among a people who speak a different language.
* They rarely see their families, and they face adversity all day ~ every day.


I'm not talking about illegal immigrants ~ I'm talking about our troops!


Doesn't it seem strange that many Democrats and Republicans are willing to lavish all kinds of social benefits on illegal’s, but don't support our troops, and are even threatening to defund them?


Please pass this on; this is worth the short time it takes to read it.

Sotomayor : LA RAZA, judicial activism, etc.

I received this from RightMarch.com - it has some good info on nominee Sonia Sotomayor. I left in a couple of the links to send blast faxes to Congress. There is also a link to send a free message to your Senator at the bottom of the post and I put it here. As always, you can also send a FREE message directly to your U.S. Senators by selecting here.

Barack Obama's Nominee for the Supreme Court is a Member of LA RAZA -- Select Below to Tell the Senate to REJECT Sonia Sotomayor: https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rm_sotomayor/?a=2501

ALERT: Not only has President Barack Obama picked a liberal judicial activist as his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court...

... she turns out to ALSO be a member of the pro-illegal immigration group LA RAZA!

IT'S NOT TOO LATE. We can STOP the nomination of the far-left Judge Sonia Sotomayor? YES -- but only if YOU join your voice with hundreds of thousands of others, demanding she be rejected!

This is not some unfounded "internet rumor" -- none other than the prestigious American Bar Association has listed Sotomayor as a member of the National Council of La Raza, "a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police," according to WorldNet Daily.

"La Raza" means "the race"... and is a group that also has connections to organizations that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America! In fact, in 2006, the late Rep. Charlie Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan -- which sees "the Race" as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs (in Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas).

Can you imagine if a Republican nominated a Caucasian judge for the Supreme Court, who was a member of a group called THE RACE that advocated government programs and actions favorable only to white people? Seriously?

Don't forget -- Sonia Sotomayor is the same woman who stated at a symposium sponsored by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in October 2001, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

You read that right -- Judge Sotomayor said that HER experience as a "wise Latina woman" would make her a better judge than a white man would be!

So, in Sonia Sotomayor, we're facing a judge who will "interpret" the law based on her ethnic background, rather than based on the LAW itself. In fact, she has gone even further to say, "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

As if that wasn't enough to prove her race-based (and gender-based) bias on the bench, that's not all she said:

"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions... enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging."

Now, we find out she was also a member of LA RAZA. What's next -- going all the way, and nominating an actual illegal immigrant?

SEND YOUR BLAST FAXES NOW TO EVERY SINGLE U.S. SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR! https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rm_sotomayor/?a=2501

Barack Obama threatened during the presidential campaign to nominate liberal judicial activists who would push their left-wing policy preferences, instead of simply applying the law in a neutral manner. In selecting Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his threat and picked the most extreme nominee possible!

Over the last couple of weeks, Obama has stated that he wanted his pick for the highest court in the land to have "empathy" and not someone who's about some "abstract legal theory." He wanted someone who is going to be "compassionate" in deciding cases, and implied that his pick should not just stick to the rules handed down to us by the founding fathers. There's only one problem: that's what the Supreme Court IS about!

The real problem we face is this: what the far left have not been able to pass legislatively -- because the American people simply DO NOT support a far-left agenda -- they want to impose on the American people through the courts. THAT is why Obama has nominated Sotomayor: to push the Supreme Court further and further left, to advance that liberal agenda.

As proof, you only have to look at what liberals feel about her: Sotomayor is a favorite of far left special interest groups. In addition to her record as a hard left judicial activist, Sotomayor has been recommended for the Supreme Court by none other than Nan Aron of the VERY liberal "Alliance for Justice," who stated in a 2004 memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Sotomayor had "been through an initial vetting and fit into the criteria that WE believe should be the standard for any Supreme Court justice."

BUT... the "Alliance for Justice" believes that the Supreme Court should be all about legislating from the bench and imposing that far-left agenda on the American people! And THAT is who Barack Obama has nominated to serve the rest of her life on the U.S. Supreme Court!

Judge Sotomayor has already proven her bias, both before and after her time on the bench. For 12 years, she was one of the most active board members of the "Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund," where she played an active role in their aggressive stances on issues affecting Hispanics like police brutality, the death penalty and voting rights. According to the New York Times, "One of the legal defense fund's most important suits charged that a Police Department promotional exam discriminated against minority candidates. It was filed on behalf of the "Hispanic Society of the New York Police." The exams, the group charged, did not really measure the ability to perform in a more senior position, and were yielding "unfair "results: Too many whites were doing well, and too many Hispanics and African-Americans were not."

Apparently, two decades later, the now-Judge Sotomayor was still whistling the same tune: in one of her most controversial decisions, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor approved of the city of New Haven's racial quota system and its decision to deny 18 firefighters their earned promotions -- based on their skin color. This even provoked her own colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes (a fellow Clinton appointee) to object to the issued opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case!"

There are some serious problems with the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor that every single U.S. Senator NEEDS to look at when considering her for this high position. Here's the biggest one:

The Supreme Court itself says that this woman is WRONG!

Sotomayor has a TERRIBLE record as a Circuit Court judge, of being REVERSED by the U.S. Supreme Court over and over again. In fact, OVER HALF of her decisions as a Court of Appeals judge have been STRUCK DOWN!

You read that right: OVER HALF of Judge Sotomayor's decisions as a Circuit Court judge that have come up for review have been REJECTED -- OVERRULED -- STRUCK DOWN by the United State Supreme Court!

If the U.S. Supreme Court says this woman is wrong, HOW CAN THE U.S. SENATE SAY SHE IS RIGHT???

The answer is, they should NOT. But it's up to US -- YOU AND ME -- to make that LOUD AND CLEAR to them!

TAKE ACTION: Even pundits on the left are critical of Obama's pick of Judge Sotomayor. Jeffrey Rosen, writing in The New Republic, discussed his investigation of her background, writing, "I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative." Going further, Rosen writes:

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?")

Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed shock and disappointment at Sotomayor's recent approval in Ricci v. DeStefano of the city of New Haven's racial quota system and its decision to deny 18 firefighters their earned promotions -- based on their skin color.

So it's not just a bunch of biased right-wingers who are worried about Sotomayor's competence to be on the Supreme Court; even experts on the left, including lawyers and fellow judges who worked with her, have expressed serious doubts about her "intellectual capabilities" on matters of law!

Just four years ago, when speaking at Duke Law School, Judge Sotomayor "let slip" what is probably the most famous quote of her career: responding to a question on the pros and cons of different types of judicial clerkships, she let her TRUE beliefs slip out: she stated that the court "is where policy is made!" She tried to correct her slip, by joking that "I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don't 'make law,' I know, I know." In other words, she made it clear that she believes judges DO MAKE LAW!

SEND YOUR BLAST FAXES NOW TO EVERY SINGLE U.S. SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR! https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rm_sotomayor/?a=2501

Knowing that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a supporter of pro-illegal immigration groups, that she's a far-left judicial activist, that she is intellectually unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court, and that people on the left AND the right feel the same way... How can we possibly just sit by and let Barack Obama impact this Court for YEARS to come, in the worst possible way?

The answer is, we CAN'T. So we've set up our website to enable you to send "Blast Faxes" to every single U.S. Senator AT ONCE, urging that they REJECT the Judge Sotomayor as unqualified to sit on the bench!

For about what it would cost you in time and telephone charges, you can send Blast Faxes to Democrats, Republicans, Independents -- EVERYONE in the U.S. Senate, DEMANDING that they STOP this liberal judicial activist from ascending to the highest court in the land!

In fact, we've set up two different faxes -- one for Republicans, demanding that they filibuster this nomination until Obama pulls Sotomayor's nomination (or she withdraws herself); and one to Democrats and Independents, demanding that they at least not allow her nomination to be rushed through and that her out-of-the-mainstream, far-left ideological beliefs be examined thoroughly.

We need to attack this nomination on all fronts -- so we've set up our Blast Fax system to do just that!

SEND YOUR BLAST FAXES NOW TO EVERY SINGLE U.S. SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR! https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rm_sotomayor/?a=2501

Please, take action right away to STOP this far-left-wing judicial activist from being confirmed to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court!

Sincerely,William Greene, PresidentRightMarch.com PAC

P.S. As hundreds of thousands of faxes now begin to pour in to the offices on Capitol Hill, the RightMarch.com PAC is ready to LOBBY HARD to make sure that our Congressmen follow through on our demands. But lobbying costs money -- so we need YOUR help to keep pounding away on these legislators to do the right thing!

By the way -- don't be fooled by President Obama's claim that Judge Sotomayor is a "bipartisan pick," just because President George H.W. Bush appointed her to the district court. The first President Bush nominated her in 1991 ONLY because the New York senators had forced on the White House a deal that enabled Democrat Senator Moynihan to name one of every four district-court nominees in New York! In 1998, when President Clinton nominated Sotomayor to the Second Circuit, 29 Republican Senators voted against her.

We need ALL FORTY Republican Senators voting against her this time -- PLUS at least a few more Democrats, to prevent her from ascending to the highest court in the land, and imposing her judicial activist philosophy on America for the rest of her life!

As always, you can also send a FREE message directly to your U.S. Senators by selecting here. Thank you!

No More Anchor Babies!

Received today from RightMarch.com

ALERT: We have a chance today to "plug up" one of the biggest holes in American national security -- a hole that has led to millions of illegal immigrants being granted the "right" to stay in this country, even though they broke the law to get here.

That "hole" is called "birthright citizenship" for so-called "anchor babies" (children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents) -- and a bill has been re-introduced to STOP it.

After the Civil War, the 14th amendment was introduced into the Constitution to allow slaves to become US citizens after the emancipation. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined. Since then it has been misused for decades to allow literally millions of illegal alien "anchor babies" -- and their illegal parents and families -- to remain in this country.

These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an "anchor" for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.

In some hospitals in Texas, administrators estimate that 70% or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. It's the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is, most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills.

This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.

Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet.

Hospitals bear the costs when illegal immigrants enter the country for the express purpose of giving birth. But illegal immigrants also use emergency rooms, public roads, and public schools. In many cases they are able to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and even unemployment benefits. Some have fraudulently collected Social Security benefits.

Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We MUST end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally -- including the anchor baby incentive.

TAKE ACTION: No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens.

You read that right. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one's birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.

Thankfully, Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) has once again introduced his Birthright Citizenship bill that would eliminate automatic citizenship for children born in the United States. The "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009" (H.R.1868) would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make it more difficult for children born in the U.S. to gain citizenship.

Under the proposed legislation, a person born in the United States, in order to gain citizenship, must have at least one parent who is:

• a U.S. citizen or national;
  
• a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or
  
• an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

PLEASE, send a FREE message right away, urging YOUR U.S. Representative to co-sponsor and actively support H.R. 1868, the "Birthright Citizenship Act":

https://writerep.house.gov/

It's time to END "anchor baby" citizenship for illegal aliens!

Promises, promises, promises.

BO has promised:
He’ll fix immigration.
Offshore drilling will be okay.
Healthcare for all.
Abortion will not be federally funded or mandated.
Lower taxes for 95% of Americans.
Iraq war will be over soon.
He will negotiate with Iran with no preconditions.
A $3000 tax credit to employers for each new employee.
We’ll be able to keep all our guns.

BO is already being tested:
Russians have stated that they will place missiles on Poland’s border (1st time since Cold War).
Hamas has fired into Israel.

And the man hasn’t even had his first security briefing yet.

Deportation By Attrition

While surfing for "odd news" I ran across this article. It is about illegal immigrants returning to Mexico because of stricter laws going into effect in Arizona.

Just a couple exerts from the article: (emphasis mine)

Dozens of immigrants are leaving the U.S. daily, and even more are expected to leave once the sanctions law takes effect in January, provided the law survives a last-minute legal challenge, said Rosendo Hernandez, president of the advocacy group Immigrants Without Borders.
"If people can't find work, they won't be able to pay their bills, so they will leave," Hernandez said. [Thats the idea]
In what are considered bellwethers of permanent moves back to Mexico, the Mexican consulate in Phoenix has seen a dramatic increase in applications for Mexican birth certificates, passports and other documents that immigrants living in Arizona will need to return home.

The situation of the specific family featured in the article is described:(again, emphasis mine)

They and their two children had originally entered the United States legally with tourist visas and then stayed beyond the expiration dates. The couple had no legal status to work in the U.S., but both were able to get jobs using fake documents, Jorge at a small landscaping company, Liliana at a Burger King. Two years ago, their third child, Michael, was born in Arizona, making him a U.S. citizen.

Just a heads up - some of the comments on the article are just flat racist. Two communication problems can be seen when the issue of immigration is discussed:
1) Some people have a problem expressing their political views without stating their prejudice; this gives rise to the other problem
2) Some people seem to feel that any comments concerning the illegal immigration problem are inherently racist.

Look folks, any country that cannot (or will not) defend its borders ceases to be a sovereign nation. Illegal immigration in this country is a problem and it's not racist to say so. To ignore the problem of illegal immigration is tantamount to putting your head in the sand.

Merry Christmas.

Huckabee Endorsed by Republican Sportshooters Association

I'm a few days late seeing this one but according to Mike Huckabee's website, he recently received the endorsement of the Republican Sportshooters Association. (heck, I didn't even know there was such an association but I like it)

You may ask yourself "Why is he checking out Huckabee's news releases?" Well I'm still trying to make up my mind.

What I've figured out so far:

Guiliani - lots of name/face recognition ("America's mayor" for one) but a LOUSY record on abortion, immigration and gun control. I'm really hoping that a true conservative gets the GOP nomination.

Thompson - lots of name/face recognition (Law & Order, several movies, a stint in Congress) and from what I can tell, Fred is solid Pro-Life, solid anti-amnesty and a solid supporter of the 2nd Amendment.
[ Here is my more thorough analysis of "Rudy vs Fred" ]


Huckabee - some name/face recognition (as former Governor of Arkansas he claims that he has "beaten the 'Clinton machine' twice"). Mike states that he has "been in the pro-life camp since [he] was a teenager" and his record as Governor supports a strong Pro-Life position. Some have debated this but his quotes need to be taken in context.
From what I can tell, Huckabee is anti-amnesty when it comes to people who broke the law to get and/or stay here BUT NOT their children. Some have taken his remarks and actions to be a "soft" position on immigration but not when you see the whole picture. (The "drive-by media" is so good at twisting soundbites)
And, according to the Republican Sportshooters Association and ontheissues.org, Huckabee's position on the 2nd Amendment is right on target. (i'm allowed the occasional pun, yes?)

Romney - some name/face recognition (former governor of Massachusetts - how did a Republican get elected governor of "Kennedyland"?) One of my friends is quite vocal about the fact that he won't vote for the man simply because he's a Mormon. I have to agree that if a person can be duped by Joseph Smith I'm not real comfortable with that person being the one on the business end of "the red phone". That being said, I think it is frankly contrary to the principles that our country was founded on to vote for or against someone simply on the basis of their religion. Not to worry - I believe there are several (non-religious) reasons that Romney is not the right candidate for the GOP.
Mitt claimed that he said he was "personally against abortion" but his record as Governor was decidely wishy-washy (at best). His ads make him out to be a firm, "black and white" Pro-Life candidate but his change to a Pro-Life stance has been a recent one. Romney was not as tough on immigration as he would like for us to believe. And all the quotes that I find for him on the subject of gun control are just vague. I could argue any one of these for either side (so he's NOT clearly a defender of the 2nd Amendment). And don't even get me started on his use of the useless phrase "assault weapon".

McCain - quite a bit of name/face recognition (he's been a senator for as long as I can remember and chaired a few important committees). What can you say about John McCain on the issues? The ONLY thing that is consistent about John McCain is that, given any issue (abortion, immigration, gun control, etc), he will consistently make every effort to straddle the fence and take no solid stand on anything. Yes, McCain has made some good statements but his statements kowtow to his audience - not the kind of guy that we need in the White House.

Creative "Solutions" to Immigration

Its not a joke - somebody is actually trying to get a game show produced called "Who Wants to Marry a U.S. citizen?" Reuters has an article about it.

This is like a bad SNL skit.

Fred vs Rudy - ontheissues.org

This information is from ontheissues.org
They list Fred Thompson as a "Moderate Conservative" and Rudy Guliani as "Moderate Libertarian Conservative"

Here are some one-line summaries of statements the fellas have made on four issues:Abortion, Gun Control, Immigration and War & Peace. Go to each man's ontheissues.org page to get the full quotes they made on these issues. I have put my opinion of the candidate's stance in italics following each set of issue statements.

Fred Thompson on Abortion:
Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007)
Appoint strict constructionist judges. (Jun 2007)
Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Fred is strong Pro-Life.

Rudy Guliani on Abortion:
Ultimate decision by woman, her conscience & her doctor. (Aug 2007)
Allowing choice keeps government out of people's lives. (May 2007)
Seek bipartisan ways to reduce abortion & increase adoption. (May 2007)
Giuliani donated to Planned Parenthood throughout 1990s. (May 2007)
Ok to repeal Roe v. Wade, but ok to view it as precedent too. (May 2007)
Allow states to fund or not fund abortion. (May 2007)
Encourage adoptions; ban partial-birth abortion. (May 2007)
Embryonic stem cell research ok if limited properly. (May 2007)
FactCheck: Encouraged adoptions; but over-stated results. (May 2007)
Pro-choice; no ban on partial-birth abortions. (Dec 1999)
Rudy is Pro-Choice but is trying to appear "centrist".

Fred Thompson on Gun Control:
Allowing concealed carry could have limited VA Tech massacre. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
Fred is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

Rudy Guliani on Gun Control:
Focus on criminals, not on guns. (Sep 2007)
NYC gun control laws made NYC safest big city in US. (Sep 2007)
Gun control reduces urban crime; no effect on hunting. (Feb 2007)
NYC sued two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors. (Jun 2000)
All gun owners should pass written test. (Mar 2000)
Rudy supports Gun Control.

Fred Thompson on Immigration:
Opposes amnesty in any form. (Jun 2007)
Nation loses sovereignty if it cannot secure its own borders. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)
Fred is a supporter of Border Security (but he could have done better).

Rudy Guliani on Immigration:
Declared NYC a sanctuary city, and crime fell. (Sep 2007)
Need tamper-proof IDs, and database for immigrants. (Jun 2007)
Reform bill fails to document who left US and who's here. (Jun 2007)
Shouldn't be debating LEGAL immigration, only ILLEGAL. (Jun 2007)
Allow immigrants to work, with tamper-proof ID cards. (May 2007)
Change rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)
Supports Senate guest worker plan & path to citizenship. (Nov 2006)
Rudy seems to support Border Security but he needs to understand - there is no such thing as "tamper-proof" only "tamper-resistant".

Fred Thompson on War and Peace:
I would do essentially what the president's doing in Iraq. (Jun 2007)
Take any chance to not get run out of Iraq. (Jun 2007)
Internationalizing war effort will not win the war. (Jun 2007)
President must decide on war based on unclear evidence. (Jun 2007)
Prophets of doom are wrong--we can't cut-and-run. (Jun 2007)
Goal of Iraqi enemies is to demoralize us. (Jun 2007)
Serious & painful international sanctions on nuclear Iran. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)
Voted NO on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
Voted YES on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)
Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. (Nov 1995)
Fred is strong on finishing the job we started in Iraq.

Rudy Guliani on War and Peace:
We've never won a war while discussing how to retreat. (Sep 2007)
Negotiate with Iran, but fully prepared for force. (Sep 2007)
Winning in Iraq is one battle in overall terrorist war. (Aug 2007)
Keep option open to attack Al Qaeda in Pakistan unilaterally. (Aug 2007)
Iran's danger is handing nukes over to terrorists. (Jun 2007)
Keep option for tactical nukes to prevent Iranian nukes. (Jun 2007)
Take on nation-building in Iraq, to reduce US terrorism risk. (Jun 2007)
Democrat timetable for retreat "fundamentally irresponsible". (May 2007)
We did not invite the 9/11 attack by attacking Iraq. (May 2007)
FactCheck: Did say GOP is fundamentally irresponsible on war. (May 2007)
Only thing worse than invading Iran is Iran having nukes. (May 2007)
Withdrawal from Iraq encourages future terror attacks. (Nov 2006)
Liberating the Iraqis is something we should be proud of. (Aug 2004)
The terrorists have heard from us. (Aug 2004)
Removing Saddam needed to be accomplished. (Aug 2004)
You are either with civilization or with terrorism. (Oct 2001)
No need to understand reasons for terrorism-just stop them. (Oct 2001)
Iraq: More inspections; counter OPEC’s oil production cuts. (Feb 2000)
Rudy is strong on finishing the job we started in Iraq.

Fred is looking better to me but I'm not quite ready to join the Friends of Fred just quite yet.

3 Cheers for LEGAL Immigration

Today the Application for Citizenship for my wife goes into the mail. (That is one long form!)

The process of immigrating to the US of A "by the rules" is tedious at best. She originally emigrated on a fiance' visa for the express purpose of getting married to me. They told us that it would take six months and it only took nine months. (Oy!)

The process of becoming a naturalized citizen is not much better. But this is NOT A REASON to break the rules. A friend of mine at church recently became a naturalized citizen after a long process and I think that he would tell you that it is worth the effort.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

Two reasons for this particular post:

1)A couple different times I've had one friend or another ask me something to the effect of "Do you have to be so political?" or they've just come right out and said "You're too political." But it has been my experience that once people understand why I feel the way I do, then, oftentimes they no longer see me as being "too political". (This doesn't work 100% of the time but most people get it)

2) Several people close to me either are in the long process of legal immigration / naturalization or they have already come through the arduous process of legal immigration /naturalization to the USA. Interestingly enough, my acquaintances who are legal first generation immigrants rarely question my political zeal. Go figure.

So to remind myself (and for the benefit of my friends who may not understand) how our system of government is supposed to work here in the US of A, and why our system of government works so well (even though it doesn't look like it sometimes), I will be presenting a series of posts on the Constitution, traditions and some of the reasons behind our patriotic ideals.

Happy (early) Fourth of July!!

10 Principles for Immigration Reform

from NumbersUSA: (emphasis mine. Don't hate me - this plan is not half as tough Mexican immigration laws and enforcement.)
1. The purpose of U.S. immigration policy is to benefit the citizens of the United States.

2. Since immigration policy can profoundly shape a country, it should be set by deliberate actions, not by accident or acquiescence, with careful consideration to ensure that it does not adversely affect the quality of life of American citizens and their communities.

3. Immigration policy should be based on and adhere to the rule of law. Immigration laws must be enforced consistently and uniformly throughout the United States.

4. Non-citizens enter the United States as guests and must obey the rules governing their entry. The U.S. government must track the entry, stay, and departure of all visa-holders to ensure that they comply fully with the terms of their visas, or to remove them if they fail to comply.

5. The borders of the United States must be physically secured at the earliest possible time. An effective barrier to the illegal entry of both aliens and contraband is vital to U.S. security.

6. Those responsible for facilitating illegal immigration shall be sought, arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law and shall forfeit any profits from such activity. This applies to smugglers and traffickers of people, as well as to those involved in the production, procurement, distribution, or use of fraudulent or counterfeit documents.

7. U.S. employers shall be given a simple and streamlined process to determine whether employees are legally eligible to work. Employers who obey the law shall be protected both from liability and from unfair competition by those who violate immigration law. The violators shall be subject to fines and taxes in excess of what they would have paid to employ U.S. citizens and legal residents for the same work.

8. Those who enter or remain in the United States in violation of the law shall be detained and removed expeditiously. Illegal aliens shall not accrue any benefit, including U.S. citizenship, as a result of their illegal entry or presence in the United States.

9. No federal, state or local entity shall reward individuals for violating immigration laws by granting public benefits or services, or by issuing or accepting any form of identification, or by providing any other assistance that facilitates unlawful presence or employment in this country. All federal and law enforcement agencies shall cooperate fully with federal immigration authorities, and shall report to such authorities any information they receive indicating that an individual may have violated immigration laws.

10. Illegal aliens currently in the United States may be afforded a one-time opportunity to leave the United States without penalty and seek permission to reenter legally if they qualify under existing law. Those who do not take advantage of this opportunity will be removed and permanently barred from returning.