In What World…

In what world is it a bad idea to require voters to identify themselves before we allow them to vote? There’s lots of press these days on the subject. My own state of Texas will be voting on it again when the legislature reconvenes later this year. Proponents of the requirement believe that this is the only way to avoid the most easily committed form of voter fraud. Opponents, meanwhile, insist that in person voter fraud has rarely if ever occurred and that this is an unnecessary burden to the poor, disadvantaged minorities. What?? I thought minorities were now treated equal and able to earn a living and obtain a drivers license just like millions of others in this country…But enough of my personal insight. Let us break this down;

1) Opponents of voter ID feel that no ID should be required because no-one is committing onsite voter fraud. Really? How would you know?? If it is happening, as many suspect it is or soon will, there is no way to detect it. That is why it is a good idea to go forward with proper IDing of voters.
2) Opponents also like to point out that it is much easier to call into question absentee voting (where some fraud has actually occurred.) Such as that from our troops overseas. Who were also discounted during the last election. By the democrats who know that most troops will vote republican. Because democrats treat the troops like crap.
3) In case you haven’t guessed by now, it is usually prominent democrats behind these articles and they always drag out some ‘example’ of how voter ID will “punish” some unfortunate soul who so desperately wants to ‘make a difference’ in our elections by exercising their right to vote. In the latest AP article on the subject it was a “32 year old mother of seven who says it would cost her at least $50 to vote in person.” (Side note: unless she’s the recently widowed wife of a hard-line Catholic, I’m guessing she’s made some pretty poor decisions in her life…is this the person we want choosing the next leader?) This, my friends, is the perfect voter in the democrat’s eyes. She has depended on the government to take care of her and her offspring for years and will eagerly vote for anyone who promises more government interference in her life. Govt. medical care? Damn right! $5,000 per child at birth? Bring it on…I’ll have some more! Never mind that she’s getting a free ride courtesy of our hard working butts which will soon be taxed to death! This is why the democrats are so adamant about her right to vote. By the way, I notice they never tell us how many of the past elections she has voted in…
Bottom line is that we have to identify ourselves damn near everywhere we go so why should voting be any different? This is perhaps the most sacred of our national past times. To elect the leader of the free world we enjoy every day. Whether we appreciate it or not. I stand behind every American’s right to do so. In this day and age it is entirely too easy to get on the voter rolls if you don’t belong there. Voter ID cards are as accessible as the nearest PC. The opportunity for fraud is huge and never has it been more important to combat it. There will always be innocent victims, there will always be exceptions. If we do nothing, we invite the problem to grow. If this keeps a few democrat ‘superstars’ who have a lifetime of poor decisions behind them from voting so be it. Not all republicans are rich you know. Plenty of them will be hit as well. To play this off as party politics is irresponsible.

How Dumb Are We??? Part 1

All right...so I get that we should have a warning label on cigarettes. After all, when several laboratory rats were given enough nicotine to get an elephant high a few of them developed cancer. We also have to have a warning label on coffee cups so that when some imbecile decides to drive around with a hot cup between his or her legs they can't sue the vendor when they burn themselves. And naturally, all poisons need to have that big ominous skull and crossbones to let you know that this item could KILL you. So why is it that a U.S. consumer advocate group has to try so hard to get a "black box" warning label on Botox injection treatments?
Warning: instructive content ahead! Botox is a trade name for Botulinum toxin A which is a neurotoxin designed to block signals to muscles so they won't contract. Fine for getting rid of wrinkles but highly deadly if it spreads beyond your face. Generally, when things go horribly wrong, it will spread to the neck and chest and cause respiratory distress. So far, 16 people have died due to complications from Botox injections. Four of them were under the age of 18. Is it worth it?
Now I have to say that there are some medical conditions that are bettered by Botox injections. However, the vast majority of the injections are for vanity. People don't get Botox by accident, they sign up and pay for it. Over and over again. There should not be any doubt that this is dangerous. If I were a doctor dispensing these injections I think step one would be to have the customer sign a consent form after having read a disclaimer on the dangers of putting POISON in your face! The consumer group wants to have boldface blackbox warnings on the boxes that it comes in but I hesitate to say that it is not nearly enough. The customer probably never sees the box anyways and the doctor should already be well aware of the dangers. A better idea might be to put warning labels in magazine advertisements. That way people understand from the start. As for me, do I really care about the 16 poor souls who died from this treatment? Not really, but don't think me callous. Far more people die from doctors mistakes and automobile accidents. After all, I'm a 40 something guy with a beer gut and no illusions about where my face is going. For me, the wrinkles on my face are badges of honor for where I've been and what I've done and seen. Women are not the same as men and find these type of vanity treatments necessary as they grow older. Fair warning ladies, what you don't like could kill you.

Why would an American Leave America?

These days, it seems everyone wants to be an American. Whether that means they enter the country legally or otherwise it seems millions of third worlders from everywhere are literally (in some cases) dying to get here. So what would cause a naturalized citizen to flee?
Accused murderer Cesar Laurean (who IS a member of the Marine Corps, but hardly a Marine) has reportedly fled to his native Mexico to avoid being captured by U.S. authorities. No surprise there. From what we can tell, there is a pretty strong body of evidence that he may have killed another member of the Marine Corps and her (and possibly his) unborn child. These crimes are easily worthy of the death penalty under North Carolina statutes where the crimes were commited and where he would be tried. Deservedly so in my opinion. So in order to avoid going to trial, he fled across the (wide open) border into Mexico where he can hide. Now, why do I care?
Before the man has even been caught, a prosecutor in the U.S. (federal? state? who knows?) has offered Mexican authorities a deal that if he is captured in Mexico, they will NOT seek the death penalty. Why? Because Mexico, like MANY other countries in the world, do not agree with the death penalty. Because of this they will not allow the extradition of criminals to the U.S. for fear they will be tried and executed. O.K., so actually they could not care less. This is just another way to stick it to the big, bad U.S. of A. Pretty silly for a bunch of folk who continually piss and moan that we spend waaay too much time worrying about what they do. Even Saudi Arabia who gets it from all sides about their continuing treatment of women as petty property will deride us over our "barbaric" practice of capitol punishment. So here we are, with a suspected (double) murderer on the lam in Mexico and the authorities there are already holding us over a barrel for someone who hasn't even been tried. Again, why do I care?
Personally, I don't. I hope this chickensnot POS spends the rest of his waking days looking over his shoulder. Marines have long memories. So do fathers. And murder happens every day in Mexico with far less consequence than it does here. Principally, I believe this to be the biggest crock of crap going these days. We have spent decades giving and giving and taking and taking from the third world idiots lying just south of our border. (I said it!) We've been giving in terms of economic support and trade agreements to the tune of billions of dollars. We've been taking in the form of lawbreakers, gang members, murderers and rapists who continue to stream across the border into the U.S. in order to recieve free education, housing and medical care. While we are freely taking care of Mexico's prisoners (and they PREFER we never them home) we have to kowtow to these morons to get back one jacka$$ who may or may not be found guilty. We're talking about a country that lets the drug gangs own the streets in the border towns. They have billions in natural resources that go under utilized while the majority of the populace languishes in poverty. The rich have been getting richer and the poor poorer for longer than the U.S. has been around and they dare hold us over a barrel on principal? I think an invasion is in order. Once the suspect is found and jailed in Mexico, let the chuckleheads in Washington work on negotiating his extradition while a company of real Marines parachutes in to extract his a$$ to Lejune where he can face a proper military tribunal. When Mexico complains, and they will, let's give 'em a collective SCREW YOU, finish the fence and cut them off. I mean literally, figuratively and especially monetarily. Then lets extradite all the criminals they have sent here over the years. And charge them for the cost with the threat of dire consequences if they don't pay up. The time for political correctness is gone. It is way past time to call a leech a leech and charge them for their trouble. I recommend the United States become expansionist again and simply take over any country that gives us crap. Or bomb them back into the stone age. Either way is fine by me.

And the greed rolls on…

A report recently published by the federal government details some of the almost 500,000 claims against the government and Army Corps of Engineers over the damage caused by hurricane Katrina. I am sure that lots of them are legitimate claims. I’m sure that many of them are reasonable. I am also sure that many are just a continuation of some peoples’ dependence upon the government to provide them with the life they feel they deserve. Almost 250 of the claims are for one billion dollars. This includes a 77 billion dollar claim by the City of New Orleans. No surprise there, after all, it was Nagin and his minions that saw to the redistribution of the annual funds for levee maintenance. One individuals claim is for 1 quadrillion dollars. I don’t even know how many zeros that is. I DO know that it dwarfs the U.S.’ annual gross domestic product of 13.2 trillion dollars in 2007.
So, where to start? I know that there is no price tag for a human life, but only 14 of the 247 billion dollar claims involve wrongful death. The highest I’ve ever read about were several hundred million. This is a whole new level of greed. I don’t know when it became fashionable to make the government pay for your grief, but it is surely in full swing now. Over the years since Katrina, most ‘victims’ have received over $178,000 each to cover loss. This is in addition to any insurance one might have had. (Paltry, of course, to the average 1.5 million awarded to survivors and victims families of the 9/11 attacks.) So who decides what is legitimate and what is not? Hopefully NOT the democrats who would sell their souls for another hundred votes. As much as people would like to believe it, it was NOT George Bush who caused the hurricane. It was NOT George Bush who destroyed the inadequately built levees. It was NOT George Bush who delayed permission for National Guard troops bringing relief to the damaged areas. (That was up to the Governor.) Funny how we can whine daily about all the money “wasted” waging the war on terror in Iraq but never utter a peep about the horrendous amount of money being thrown at New Orleans with no tangible results. Now, on top of that, we have these greedy leeches demanding more, more and even more. When will it end? When we put our collective feet down and say enough! Folks who worked hard and paid dues and had insurance before the storm are doing fine now. They have rebuilt their lives and are for the most part moving on. Others are hoping for a never ending gravy train funded by you and me.
Now here’s the REALLY sick part. 15 of the billion dollar claims were filed by businesses. This includes insurance companies. Wait a minute…why would an insurance company file a claim against the government? Pure, simple greed. I’m sure they were insured and have since rebuilt their facilities. So whats the claim for? Is it because they had to pay a lot of claims? That is why people pay premiums. If the company will go broke otherwise, so be it. Consumers are most often at the losing end of the insurance gamble. I could not care less if the insurance company loses sometimes. Is it to compensate their employees for whatever they went through? No, it’s a claim for the company. This tells me that the only benefactor of a windfall payoff from Uncle Sam would go directly in the pockets of the business owners. Why? They are GREEDY!
Lawyers for some of the claimants proclaim that there is no way you could put a price tag on the horror these folks went through. In fact, they say, nothing like it has ever occurred in our country. It’s true, that New Orleans DID suffer some unique circumstances. As did the victims of Hugo, Andrew, the California wildfires, annual midwest flooding, the northeastern floods, various tornados…etc, etc. The difference is that New Orleans has many minorities in its population who feel they were done wrong and that it is up to the government to fix their woes. If one were poor and homeless before the storm, what gives them the right to be a millionaire after the storm? Simple greed. We have soldiers in Iraq VOLUNTARILY suffering through circumstances that make Katrina look like a picnic. These young men and women do this for Honor and Duty and VERY LITTLE PAY. Shame on everyone who just wants a bigger piece of a pie they didn’t earn. In my mind, the government doesn’t owe a damn thing to the city of New Orleans or anyone else. If you were not insured that is your problem, not the problem of my tax dollars. You went through a horrible ordeal, yes, as have many before you and after. Time to move on.

Anti-Illegal Immigration? Damn Right!!

Andres Oppenheimer is the Latin-American editor and foreign affairs columnist for the Miami Herald. He wants us to become educated on the 5 myths of the “anti-immigration” movement as they call it. He says we are actually a bunch of elitists and racists who hate all people who aren’t white and speak English. Well, not in so many words but it is certainly implied. So let us look at these “myths” one by one and break them down.

1) “We are only against illegal immigration. Undocumented immigrants should get in line for Visas.” Andres says that ‘this is deceptive because you can’t demand that people get in line when, for the most part, there is no line to get into.’ First let’s call these people what they are. Calling them ‘undocumented’ tries to erase the fact that they are lawbreakers. They know this, which is why they cross the border at night and sneak across the desert using coyotes or Mexican Government furnished GPS devices or gut instinct to guide them. Calling them ‘undocumented workers’ implies that they stroll over the International bridge and settle in to a nice job and pay taxes like a regular Joe. This, as you say, ‘for the most part’ isn’t true. As for “the line,” it’s a figure of speech meaning that you apply for a work visa, settle into a job, learn English and apply to take the tests and become a citizen. If your Visa runs out before you become a citizen you either petition for a renewal or you go home. As millions have before them. Just showing up with a willingness to work means nothing to me. Citizenship is EARNED, not given. As for the ‘immigrant-starved’ labor market, I find it hilarious that as soon as seven meat packing plants were shut down due to ICE raids they immediately started processing applications from LEGAL immigrants for the job. He also says we want to slow legal immigration from 1 million a year to 300,000 or so. Why not? In today’s world we have to be more careful about who we let in. (Yes, I said it!!) We need to reduce the flow to get security back under control. We can’t save the world but we can help our own country from bursting at the seams.
2) “Anti-Immigration advocates are not anti-Hispanic.” Oppenheimer’s next line starts ‘maybe many aren’t.’ Well duh! But then he points out that no one is lashing out about ‘illegal immigrants from Canada.’ Gee, when WAS the last time a couple hundred thousand of them marched down the street waving that oak leaf flag demanding we all speak French and give them free health care? For that matter, when was the last time anyone marched the streets with signs in ANY language other than English demanding anything? The Chinese, Vietnamese, German, Irish and Russian immigrants don’t do that. Probably why there is no backlash against them. But then no one is denying them a free ride because they are learning the language and becoming productive citizens. They are earning the ride. As for backlash against Latinos, legal and otherwise, the same reasoning applies. Consider that your kid in school is held back in class because the bi-lingual instructor is too busy helping the struggling Hispanics (3rd and 4th generation Americans) to figure out the subject matter. Is that fair? I think not. Bi-lingual education puts ALL students further behind and punishes those who care enough to learn the local language. It starts in the home with a false sense of ‘heritage.’ If you were born here or have become a citizen, English is your native language. Period. By the way, when I go through the checkpoints, the border patrol asks me for ID and I’m whiter than white. Being asked for an ID is not discrimination.
3) “We are a Nation of laws and the law says you have to enter the country legally.” He them argues that we are also a nation of immigrants. What this has to do with breaking the law is beyond me. Immigrants, like MY forefathers, do not cross borders illegally, avoid taxes, refuse to learn the local language and demand that we learn theirs and live 20 to a home. And by the way, he explains, nearly half of all ‘undocumented immigrants’ (there he goes again, as if they came over and someone neglected to do their citizenship papers) entered the country legally and overstayed their Visas. No, they broke the law by not going home when the Visa expired or tried to get it renewed.
4) “Building a border fence will solve the problem.” No it won’t. I actually agree with him on this one. However, it’s a good start. The right fence will make it more difficult to come over and will start to shift the flow to more manageable territory. (For those who will cry that we are making it too hard on the illegals and more might die, let them get in a bathtub sized boat in Haiti and navigate their butts here like someone from a really bad country. That might get my attention.) As for the demands of the labor market that keeps them coming, I already pointed out that we DO HAVE LEGAL immigrants in need of jobs. They just don’t get hired because they want a living wage, not the crap that companies can get away with paying to illegals who won’t complain. It has always been said that good fences make good neighbors. I agree.
5) He concludes that those of us that get criticized by the likes of him believe his type to be ‘amnesty’ and ‘open borders’ supporters. Well, gosh, you are. If the truth hurts so be it. He claims he supports “border protection” and an “earned path to legalization for millions of undocumented workers who pay taxes and are willing to learn English.” Guess what? The immigrants here on work visas that are willing to learn English and pay taxes have already earned a path to legalization. I see them on TV once a month being sworn in as citizens. They are good, hard working productive citizens whom I am proud to call Americans. We don’t need a new path, we need the old one followed.
His final conclusion is this: “Let’s call things by their names, and agree that most opponents of a comprehensive immigration package are anti-immigration.” You couldn’t be more wrong. If you want to call things by their names, then call the lawbreakers what they really are. Whether they came here right to start with or entered the country illegally (thus the moniker illegal alien) they ARE lawbreakers and THEY KNOW IT! So do you. Shame on you for defending them.
Furthermore, let’s conclude that we don’t need a comprehensive immigration package, we need immigration law enforcement. Laws are already on the books that the Government and big business have outright ignored for too long. They are also lawbreakers.
His final paragraph states that we should solve the current crisis by legalizing ‘undocumented workers’ and increase economic integration with our good neighbors down south in order to “reduce poverty and emigration pressures south of the border.” The only way to solve Mexico’s economic problems is to eradicate the stronghold of the drug warlords and the government that hold the majority of their economic holdings. The United States already gives millions in economic aid every year not to mention the 40 MILLION that goes south annually from the “dues paying” undocumented workers here. Mexico needs to fix itself. They have the natural resources to become a power player in the world but would rather rely on us to hold them up. The time has come for change, all right. I didn’t work hard all my life to give away my social security to “undocumented workers.” Feel free to donate yours.

Why hasn't she been Imused??

OK...so we all know who Don Imus is and what happened to him. For those of you living in caves and bomb shelters, the one time and still popular radio talk show host referred to a women's university basketball team as a bunch of "nappy headed hoes." Did he mean that he thought the girls all had bad hair and sold their bodies for sex every night? Certainly not, but it was a highly inappropriate remark for ANYONE of either sex or any color to make. As a result, a huge hullabaloo resulted. (If you want details, Google it.) So now we learn that last Friday a white female broadcaster for the Golf Channel (viewership 75mil. U.S.) named Kelly Tilghman suggested that young golfers should "lynch Tiger Woods in a back alley." EXCUSE ME?? Now I have not seen the footage and could only guess at the context of this quote. My point is that it JUST DOESN'T MATTER! She didn't say they should take him out or get rid of him or even kill him. She said they should LYNCH him. Anyone over the age of...say 10, knows that lynching is a method of killing uniquely associated with black Americans. To suggest anyone should "lynch" Tiger Woods (who is part black) is about Imus times a million. Imus' remark was to me nothing more than a poor choice of words. Tilghmans remark? Beyond reprehensible. So, why has there not been a national flap over this yet?
I have a few ideas, none of them provable. First, we can conclude that being this was on the Golf channel, no one was really listening. That is not to say that people who might watch the Golf channel are a bunch of racists who wouldn't care about the remark. But they are probably more interested in leaderboards and handicaps.
My next thought is that maybe we are learning to ignore these things in the sense that making a headline out of it will not let it just fade into the background where it will eventually disappear. Plastering it on every TV set from coast to coast just magnifies everything about this type of thing. I think that is the wrong approach which is why I also think the VMA killer's taped message should have never seen the light of day. With continuous rebroadcasting we keep brining it back to life every hour on the hour.
Another thought is that perhaps Al Sharpton and his ilk just had it out for Don Imus and were waiting for any excuse to vilify him. Maybe they just don't want to trash on sweet little Kelly whereas trashing ugly ol' Don was "fun." Afterall, she did apologize on air (albeit two days later) and has reportedly tried to contact Woods' 'people' to arrange a personal apology. (I hope they tell her to 'pack sand.')
If I were running the Golf Channel, and I'm not, I would be looking for a new commentator. A slip of the tongue is one thing. This is waaay overboard. A quick search of the Golf Channel website revealed nothing about this incident which means they just want to quickly put it behind them. As long as she works there, I don't see that happening. This girl should be looking for a new job. A poor choice of words is one thing. This was quite another.

Judge Judy - RACIST!

Ahh...here we go again. Another disgruntled former employee is suing his ex-employer because he feels he was wrongly terminated. To add fuel to the fire, implications of racism are brought forth. Far be it fom me to suggest that a minority employee might actually get fired for the legitimate reasons that were stated on his termination papers. Of course, if he WERE actually let go for the reasons provided he wouldn't have a case and we wouldn't be reading this. However, with a claim of racial bias we can get a case, national headlines and lots of harumphs and head shakes from the affected minority community. Specifically, here are the 'opinions' in question - THR, ESQ. Entertainment & Media Law Blog: Complaint Alleges Racial Screening of 'Judge Judy' Cases
OK. So, arguments of racism aside, is it wrong to do away with cases that don't bring viewers? After all, TV shows live and die by their ratings. If Judge Judy viewers prefer cases with white folk to cases with black folk should we sink the show in the name of racial equality? Let's be blunt here. BET would lose viewers by inviting Drew Carey and Ellen to do new shows. The conventional wisdom says that they would do much better by coming up with shows starring 50 Cent and Whitney Houston. This isn't racism, it's business. The Judge Judy program is free to aim shows at whatever they feel their demographic is.
Next, let's look at the allegations. The producer says he was told "We're not doing any more black shows;" "I don't want to hear no black language on T.V.;" "I don't want to hear black people arguing;" and other comments. So after seven years as a producer this is what he comes up with? I bet Judge Judy would call that evidence circumstatial at best. Maybe even simple opinion? Fine. Let's just say it is all true. Again, we are trying to keep a show alive by keeping ratings up by pandering to the core audience. If I am the core audience, I have changed the channel. I, too no longer wish to see black people arguing on TV. I am sick and tired of illiterate, cursing, trash talking, hip-hoppish caricatures of human beings on my television whining about how someone owes them something just because, yo. So, if you are in charge of the show, how do you win my viewership back? By playing shows I want to see. By eliminating the type of show that drove me away. If this practice is racist, I'm suing the producers of "Sisters!" I want more shows that concern issues that are important to ME, damnit!
To sum up, let's be blunt some more. I am sick and tired of 24% of the population determining 100% of what I see and hear on television. Between the hispanic and black communities, the crap being shoved down my throat in the name of "diversity" is really starting to tick me off. It isn't bad enough that the left-wing nut jobs are ruining every decent program out there by making it about their own political agenda (global warming, etc.) But whatever decent TV is left is besieged by worthless boycotts and lawsuits if there isn't enough 'color' in it. I wonder how many minorities who complain about the lack of their 'type' on TV have actually considered making the sacrifice of going to college, getting a degree and becoming a television writer? Probably very few, I'm guessing. Much easier to be part of the problem than the solution. Got fired? Get over it! And leave the race card in the deck where it belongs.

Tom Teepen doesn't lie...

...nor does he tell the whole truth! You see, Arizona has become the first of the individual states to go above and beyond the federal government to practice ACTUAL ILLEGAL ALIEN CONTROL! Yes, instead of erecting showy fences or passing worthless legislation, they elected this year to hit the illegals where it hurts...in the pocket. As of yesterday, companies caught with illegal aliens in their employ will have their business license suspended for a few weeks. The second offense will cause them to have the license revoked! Properly enforced, this should make a sizable dent in the flow of illegal job seekers crossing the border. So what's the problem???
According to Teepen's column today, we are going to punish the poor business owners who have been taking advantage of the illegals by paying them squat for years. No wait, we're going to punish the business owners for supporting law breakers who should, by LAW, be immediately deported. No...that can't be right. This... all... makes... sense. Maybe he wants us to ...oh heck I don't know what he wants. But he is predicting a huge gap in available workers...DUH!!
His first assertion is that people in the offices of Phoenix will be unwilling to go work in the fields. Yeah...but people making the minimum wage in a fast food restaurant might be excited to make some decent dough in the open air. But, he points out, AZ. has a low 3.3 employment rate. Well, Tom, other places ave high unempoymnt rates and willing workers looking for jobs When ICE raided the seven meat-packing plants and sent all the workers packing, LEGAL African immigrants moved into the towns and took the jobs. Hmmm....legal Americans gladly stepping into jobs vacated by illegal aliens. Imagine that! And they said it couldn't be done...
His next assertion is that Arizona's ecomomy will suffer under the lack of illegal workers making under the table wages that they then send home. Wait! What? Yes, I am serious. Then again, what I set out to say is that T. Teepen doesn't tell the whole truth. What will be missing as the illegals leave is the tremendous strain on Arizona's healthcare and school systems. Let's talk about that. While we're at it, let's discuss the wages that will be going into the tax base from legal workers. Hmm...sounds like a boost to the ecomomy to me. Not to mention, living wages for deserving workers. What's not to like, Tom?