Two great quotes from Presidents from two different parties.
"It [paternalism] perverts the patriotic sentiments of our countrymen and tempts them to pitiful calculation of the sordid gain to be derived from their government’s maintenance. It undermines the self-reliance of our people and substitutes in its place dependence upon governmental favoritism. It stifles the spirit of true Americanism and stupefies every ennobling trait of American citizenship. The lessons of paternalism ought to be unlearned and the better lesson taught that while the people should patriotically and cheerfully support their government, its functions do not include the support of the people."
- Grover Cleveland (D)
"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. …
If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces."
- James Garfield (R)
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Today's Lesson in History
I pulled this from a section in today's National Review.
In 1922, Great Britain created the state of Jordan out of 80 percent of the Palestine Mandate — a geographical, not an ethnic, designation. The territory in the Mandate had been part of the Turkish (not Arab) empire for the previous four hundred years. Then in 1948, a U.N. “partition plan” provided equal parts of the remaining Turkish land to Arabs and to Jews living on the banks of the Jordan River. In this plan, the Jews were assigned 10 percent of the original Palestine Mandate, while the Arabs received 90 percent. None of this land had belonged to a “Palestinian” nation or a Palestinian entity. In the previous 400 years there had never been a province of the Turkish empire called “Palestine.” The entire region out of which Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank were created was known as “Ottoman Syria.”
In what would prove to be a continuing pattern, the Jews accepted the partition’s grossly unequal terms; their portion consisted of three unconnected slivers of land, of which 60 percent was arid desert. The Arabs, who had already received 80 percent of the Mandate land, rejected their additional portion, as they would continue to reject any arrangement that would allow for a Jewish state.
Immediately, five Arab nations launched a war against the Jews, who repelled the Arab attacks and established a Jewish state. When the fighting ended, the parts of the partitioned land that had been earmarked for the Arabs — namely, the West Bank and Gaza — were annexed by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, and disappeared from the map. There was no protest from the Arab world at the disappearance of “Palestine” into Jordan and Egypt, no Palestine Liberation Organization, no complaint to the U.N. The reason for the silence was that there was no Palestinian identity at the time, no movement for “self-determination,” no “Palestinian” people to make a claim. There were Arabs who lived in the region of the Jordan. But they considered themselves inhabitants of Jordan or of the Syrian province of the former Ottoman Empire. The disappearance of the West Bank and Gaza was an annexation of Arab land by Arab states.
Arab and Western revisionists have turned this history on its head to portray the Jewish war of survival as a racist, imperialist plot to expel “Palestinians” from “Palestine.” This is an utter distortion of the historical record. The term “Palestine Mandate” is a European reference to a geographical section of the defeated Turkish empire. The claim that there was a Palestinian nation from which ethnic Palestinians were expelled and which Israel now “occupies” illegally is a political lie.
In 1967, the Arab states attacked Israel again, with the express aim of “pushing the Jews into the sea.” Again they were defeated. And once again defeat did not prompt the Arab states to make peace or to abandon their efforts to destroy Israel. At an August 1967 summit in Khartoum, Arab leaders declared that they would accept “no peace, no recognition, and no negotiations” with Israel. This is the permanent Arab war against Israel. It is a war driven by religious and ethnic hatred, which is the only durable cause of the conflict in the Middle East.
Don't forget everyone, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
In 1922, Great Britain created the state of Jordan out of 80 percent of the Palestine Mandate — a geographical, not an ethnic, designation. The territory in the Mandate had been part of the Turkish (not Arab) empire for the previous four hundred years. Then in 1948, a U.N. “partition plan” provided equal parts of the remaining Turkish land to Arabs and to Jews living on the banks of the Jordan River. In this plan, the Jews were assigned 10 percent of the original Palestine Mandate, while the Arabs received 90 percent. None of this land had belonged to a “Palestinian” nation or a Palestinian entity. In the previous 400 years there had never been a province of the Turkish empire called “Palestine.” The entire region out of which Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank were created was known as “Ottoman Syria.”
In what would prove to be a continuing pattern, the Jews accepted the partition’s grossly unequal terms; their portion consisted of three unconnected slivers of land, of which 60 percent was arid desert. The Arabs, who had already received 80 percent of the Mandate land, rejected their additional portion, as they would continue to reject any arrangement that would allow for a Jewish state.
Immediately, five Arab nations launched a war against the Jews, who repelled the Arab attacks and established a Jewish state. When the fighting ended, the parts of the partitioned land that had been earmarked for the Arabs — namely, the West Bank and Gaza — were annexed by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, and disappeared from the map. There was no protest from the Arab world at the disappearance of “Palestine” into Jordan and Egypt, no Palestine Liberation Organization, no complaint to the U.N. The reason for the silence was that there was no Palestinian identity at the time, no movement for “self-determination,” no “Palestinian” people to make a claim. There were Arabs who lived in the region of the Jordan. But they considered themselves inhabitants of Jordan or of the Syrian province of the former Ottoman Empire. The disappearance of the West Bank and Gaza was an annexation of Arab land by Arab states.
Arab and Western revisionists have turned this history on its head to portray the Jewish war of survival as a racist, imperialist plot to expel “Palestinians” from “Palestine.” This is an utter distortion of the historical record. The term “Palestine Mandate” is a European reference to a geographical section of the defeated Turkish empire. The claim that there was a Palestinian nation from which ethnic Palestinians were expelled and which Israel now “occupies” illegally is a political lie.
In 1967, the Arab states attacked Israel again, with the express aim of “pushing the Jews into the sea.” Again they were defeated. And once again defeat did not prompt the Arab states to make peace or to abandon their efforts to destroy Israel. At an August 1967 summit in Khartoum, Arab leaders declared that they would accept “no peace, no recognition, and no negotiations” with Israel. This is the permanent Arab war against Israel. It is a war driven by religious and ethnic hatred, which is the only durable cause of the conflict in the Middle East.
Don't forget everyone, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Environmentalism and Integrity
Once again I find myself using a blog post as a comment response to a Facebook conversation. This works out well though as I get to flesh out my ideas and thoughts. I will for the sake of continuity of reading paste the specific comment I am responding to. If you want to view the entire thread you may view it here.
“’There is nothing ‘clean and green’ about your efforts.’ is an outright lie. Environmentalists don't promote deep water drilling. But Palin promotes deep water drilling or do you forget 2008 when they were screaming ‘drill baby drill’
None of the oil drilled in the US belongs to the US it belongs to Corporations that can choose to sell it to Americans or choose to sell it to the Chinese. “
There was also part of the original comment that stated, “Wouldn’t be a Sarah Palin article if it wasn’t riddled with half truths and outright lies.”
This was in response to a portion of a previously posted comment of mine which included the request to “Please do me a favor and point out the outright lies in her message so I can research that myself. Preferably with sources.”
I had planned to respond to this a little sooner but it happened just as I was getting ready to head out on a cruise with my beautiful wife. It has given me a bit more time to consider a portion of my response. I started thinking about the charge of an author’s article being “riddled with half truths and outright lies.” The theme of Integrity has been on my mind a lot the last several weeks. After looking at great examples of integrity such as George Washington along with several other people in history and a few that I know personally, I have come to the decision that leveling a charge against someone’s integrity is the absolute most serious charge or claim you can make against a person. It goes to the very character of one’s soul. In my opinion you need to absolutely make sure you have all of your facts lined up straight before leveling such a charge and make sure those facts are indisputably verified. In regards to the specific example cited in the quote above, I believe I have addressed it logically below as part of my response.
How an oil lease works.
You lease your land to the company that has the ability to produce, or extract, the natural resource. They typically give you a percentage of what they sell the product for. It is the same for state and federal governments. YOU control access to the land, therefore YOU own the land and all minerals contained therein. A private company is given a lease to develop the resource and they pay a percentage of the money they make for your granting them access to the natural resource. Whether a private individual or a government, you would never see a single red cent from the natural resource unless it was developed. The company “producing” the natural resource is paying you to access the resource. You own the resource. Most leases are for a specific amount of time. Most also include clauses that say you can sell the lease to somebody else if they don’t develop the resource. As you, or in the case of government, the state, has control over the terms of the lease, and can even specify the amount of time the lease is good for, YOU OWN THE RESOURCE, NOT THE OIL OR GAS COMPANY. When the lease is up, they can no longer develop that resource. I know a lot of people say, a percentage (the average is up to 25%) really isn’t fair, but considering the immense cost to develop natural resources you score pretty good. You do none of the work but get a pretty good payday at the end of the day. Besides, 25% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_and_gas_law_in_the_United_States
Objective vs Subjective
Palin’s statement that the work of “Extreme” environmental groups is not green is subjective. My college humanities class that I just completed spoke about critics in the world of the humanities and using critical skills in real life. There are two types of observations a critic uses, those that are subjective, and those that are objective. Objective observations would be the factual ones such as “the movie was filmed in black and white.” Subjective observations would be one such as “that movie was lame.” Palin made a subjective criticism there which cannot fall into the realm of being an outright lie because she was not claiming to state a fact. She was using a subjective opinion to describe her view on the results of over 30 + years of environmental lawsuits that tie up the ability of developers who have been granted leases by the government to develop our natural resources so they cannot be developed. As a result, developers have had to go further out to areas where the “Extreme” environmentalists could care less.
Extreme vs Environmentalism
I would like to think most people view themselves as friendly to the environment and attempting to be good stewards of the resources God has blessed us with. It is something that Governor Palin has addressed several times. Yes we need to be responsible, but at the same time we cannot lock everything up so we can all have feel good tingles running down us. There is a difference in wanting to be a good steward over the environment and taking those views to the extreme. That is what Palin is addressing and she is well acquainted with it. The State of Alaska has been declared ground zero for extreme environmentalism. From people attempting to blow up pipelines to filing frivolous lawsuits, they see it there. There is this article documenting “extreme” environmentalism to this essay written showcasing how “Global Warming” has been elevated to that of a religion by those on the left.
While groups like Green Peace have moved farther to the extreme side in completely limiting and locking up even good land use, one of its cofounders, Patrick Moore had this to say about Nuclear Energy. In the same article he discusses the lack of dependability in using energy sources such as wind and solar. Because Mr. Moore has turned against the more “extreme” environmentalists and suggested common sense approaches to some of our energy and environment concerns, in true Alinsky fashion they have turned on him.
Domestic vs International Development
You mentioned that the oil companies can sell to the Chinese if they want to. That is very true. I could sell my Toyota corolla to the Chinese if I wanted to. Because of the terms of the lease, the developer can sell to whomever they want. However, most developers prefer to sell to locations that are much closer to where they are extracting the resource. Less cost involved. It’s a tenet of basic economics. That is why the Chinese are pursuing their own leases and production capabilities. Coincidentally they just inked a HUGE lease deal with Cuba. The Chinese will drill in the same waters that are affected by the current spill and based upon their STELLAR work safety record I am sure the Chinese will develop it much more environmentally friendly then we do our own resources. So, China will develop what they need for themselves and who is left to buy their surplus, oh yeah us. Not only will China control all of our national debt but they will control a large portion of the oil we then use.
Decreasing Consumption
This one is very simple. In order to decrease consumption of something you have to produce a viable alternative. Otherwise demand for the original product will never go down. Once again, it’s basic economics. How can you decrease the demand for oil if you do not have a viable alternative to it? Some alternatives have been looked at, but none of them are to the point where they can decrease demand because they are either too expensive or do not produce a true economic benefit for the consumer, i.e. save them money. Once an economically viable alternative is found, developed, able to be produced at a low enough cost that people can afford it, you still have to develop a national infrastructure to make use of it. I am a believer in developing and using alternative sources, but it is something that has to currently be a long term goal as neither a cost effective alternative nor the infrastructure exist to carry out such a plan. In regards to oil, you also have to look at all the things that are made from petroleum products. Even if we all drove rainbow powered cars you wouldn’t even make a dent in petroleum consumption. You would need to eliminate something like plastic. This means, no IV bags, no IV tubes for the hospitals, no Vaseline, etc. It means no effective packaging method to keep food fresh and inexpensive for the public, no tvs, no computers, no radios, pretty much most of the products used by the public would have to disappear or use less cost effective and less safer alternatives to meet that demand. Here is a partial list of items made from oil.
http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm
Energy and the Environment are subjects I have tackled here, here, here, and partially here.
As always everyone, keep yourself informed and don't be afraid to speak out.
“’There is nothing ‘clean and green’ about your efforts.’ is an outright lie. Environmentalists don't promote deep water drilling. But Palin promotes deep water drilling or do you forget 2008 when they were screaming ‘drill baby drill’
None of the oil drilled in the US belongs to the US it belongs to Corporations that can choose to sell it to Americans or choose to sell it to the Chinese. “
There was also part of the original comment that stated, “Wouldn’t be a Sarah Palin article if it wasn’t riddled with half truths and outright lies.”
This was in response to a portion of a previously posted comment of mine which included the request to “Please do me a favor and point out the outright lies in her message so I can research that myself. Preferably with sources.”
I had planned to respond to this a little sooner but it happened just as I was getting ready to head out on a cruise with my beautiful wife. It has given me a bit more time to consider a portion of my response. I started thinking about the charge of an author’s article being “riddled with half truths and outright lies.” The theme of Integrity has been on my mind a lot the last several weeks. After looking at great examples of integrity such as George Washington along with several other people in history and a few that I know personally, I have come to the decision that leveling a charge against someone’s integrity is the absolute most serious charge or claim you can make against a person. It goes to the very character of one’s soul. In my opinion you need to absolutely make sure you have all of your facts lined up straight before leveling such a charge and make sure those facts are indisputably verified. In regards to the specific example cited in the quote above, I believe I have addressed it logically below as part of my response.
How an oil lease works.
You lease your land to the company that has the ability to produce, or extract, the natural resource. They typically give you a percentage of what they sell the product for. It is the same for state and federal governments. YOU control access to the land, therefore YOU own the land and all minerals contained therein. A private company is given a lease to develop the resource and they pay a percentage of the money they make for your granting them access to the natural resource. Whether a private individual or a government, you would never see a single red cent from the natural resource unless it was developed. The company “producing” the natural resource is paying you to access the resource. You own the resource. Most leases are for a specific amount of time. Most also include clauses that say you can sell the lease to somebody else if they don’t develop the resource. As you, or in the case of government, the state, has control over the terms of the lease, and can even specify the amount of time the lease is good for, YOU OWN THE RESOURCE, NOT THE OIL OR GAS COMPANY. When the lease is up, they can no longer develop that resource. I know a lot of people say, a percentage (the average is up to 25%) really isn’t fair, but considering the immense cost to develop natural resources you score pretty good. You do none of the work but get a pretty good payday at the end of the day. Besides, 25% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_and_gas_law_in_the_United_States
Objective vs Subjective
Palin’s statement that the work of “Extreme” environmental groups is not green is subjective. My college humanities class that I just completed spoke about critics in the world of the humanities and using critical skills in real life. There are two types of observations a critic uses, those that are subjective, and those that are objective. Objective observations would be the factual ones such as “the movie was filmed in black and white.” Subjective observations would be one such as “that movie was lame.” Palin made a subjective criticism there which cannot fall into the realm of being an outright lie because she was not claiming to state a fact. She was using a subjective opinion to describe her view on the results of over 30 + years of environmental lawsuits that tie up the ability of developers who have been granted leases by the government to develop our natural resources so they cannot be developed. As a result, developers have had to go further out to areas where the “Extreme” environmentalists could care less.
Extreme vs Environmentalism
I would like to think most people view themselves as friendly to the environment and attempting to be good stewards of the resources God has blessed us with. It is something that Governor Palin has addressed several times. Yes we need to be responsible, but at the same time we cannot lock everything up so we can all have feel good tingles running down us. There is a difference in wanting to be a good steward over the environment and taking those views to the extreme. That is what Palin is addressing and she is well acquainted with it. The State of Alaska has been declared ground zero for extreme environmentalism. From people attempting to blow up pipelines to filing frivolous lawsuits, they see it there. There is this article documenting “extreme” environmentalism to this essay written showcasing how “Global Warming” has been elevated to that of a religion by those on the left.
While groups like Green Peace have moved farther to the extreme side in completely limiting and locking up even good land use, one of its cofounders, Patrick Moore had this to say about Nuclear Energy. In the same article he discusses the lack of dependability in using energy sources such as wind and solar. Because Mr. Moore has turned against the more “extreme” environmentalists and suggested common sense approaches to some of our energy and environment concerns, in true Alinsky fashion they have turned on him.
Domestic vs International Development
You mentioned that the oil companies can sell to the Chinese if they want to. That is very true. I could sell my Toyota corolla to the Chinese if I wanted to. Because of the terms of the lease, the developer can sell to whomever they want. However, most developers prefer to sell to locations that are much closer to where they are extracting the resource. Less cost involved. It’s a tenet of basic economics. That is why the Chinese are pursuing their own leases and production capabilities. Coincidentally they just inked a HUGE lease deal with Cuba. The Chinese will drill in the same waters that are affected by the current spill and based upon their STELLAR work safety record I am sure the Chinese will develop it much more environmentally friendly then we do our own resources. So, China will develop what they need for themselves and who is left to buy their surplus, oh yeah us. Not only will China control all of our national debt but they will control a large portion of the oil we then use.
Decreasing Consumption
This one is very simple. In order to decrease consumption of something you have to produce a viable alternative. Otherwise demand for the original product will never go down. Once again, it’s basic economics. How can you decrease the demand for oil if you do not have a viable alternative to it? Some alternatives have been looked at, but none of them are to the point where they can decrease demand because they are either too expensive or do not produce a true economic benefit for the consumer, i.e. save them money. Once an economically viable alternative is found, developed, able to be produced at a low enough cost that people can afford it, you still have to develop a national infrastructure to make use of it. I am a believer in developing and using alternative sources, but it is something that has to currently be a long term goal as neither a cost effective alternative nor the infrastructure exist to carry out such a plan. In regards to oil, you also have to look at all the things that are made from petroleum products. Even if we all drove rainbow powered cars you wouldn’t even make a dent in petroleum consumption. You would need to eliminate something like plastic. This means, no IV bags, no IV tubes for the hospitals, no Vaseline, etc. It means no effective packaging method to keep food fresh and inexpensive for the public, no tvs, no computers, no radios, pretty much most of the products used by the public would have to disappear or use less cost effective and less safer alternatives to meet that demand. Here is a partial list of items made from oil.
http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm
Energy and the Environment are subjects I have tackled here, here, here, and partially here.
As always everyone, keep yourself informed and don't be afraid to speak out.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Something to Think About
Got this in an email from someone. I verified some of the links, haven't verified all of them but it's a good start for someone wanting to dig into more information on this one. I'll probably have some interesting things to say in my personal blog when I chat about my cruise to Mexico last week.
What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America ? ( note: ILLEGAL - here without papers )
I, Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a column titled, 'Mexican Visitor's Lament' -- 10/25/07.
I interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver last week. Hernandez said, 'They (illegal aliens) pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes...What Happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?' Hummm, I thought, what would happen, so I did my due diligence, buried my nose as a reporter into the FACTS I found below.
It's a good question - it deserves an honest answer. Over 80% of Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America? The answers I found may surprise you!
In California , if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominant language again.
In Colorado , 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grand-kids - would move back 'home', mostly to Mexico . That would save Coloradans an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 billion) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs.
It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.
Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.
Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67 percent drop-out/flunk-out rate because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our gridlocked cities in Colorado. Denver 's 4% unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.
In Florida , 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America , the rule of law, and English.
In Chicago , Illinois , 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free experience.
If 20 million illegal aliens returned 'home' --
If 20 million illegal aliens returned 'home', the U.S. Economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn't be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 Billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local, state and city coffers.
No more push '1' for Spanish or '2' for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our over-crowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.
We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country.
In cities like L.A. , 20,000 members of the ' 18th Street Gang' would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!
Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal aliens!
America 's economy is drained. Taxpayers are harmed. Employers get rich. Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to the aliens' home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America 's economy - which currently suffers an
$8.7 trillion debt.
At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California , Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupt out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act.
Americans wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country-brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.
Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the 'progressives' on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11 percent of our greenhouse gases.
Over one million of Mexico 's poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville , Texas to San Diego , California in what the New York Times called, 'colonias' or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty,
filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, electricity, roads or any kind of sanitation.
The New York Times reported them to be America 's new ' Third World ' inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonias.
(I've seen them personally in Texas and Arizona ; it's sickening beyond anything you can imagine.)
By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico. We should invite 20million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a better life in Mexico . We already invite a million people into our country legally more than all other countries combined annually. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation.
It's time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and our way of life.
Interesting Statistics!
Here are 14 reasons illegal aliens should vacate America , and I hope they are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them:
1. $14 billion to $22 billion dollars are spent each year on welfare to illegal aliens.
( that's Billion with a 'B' ) - http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2.. $2.2 billion dollars are spent each year on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. - http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $7.5 billion dollars are spent each year on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 billion dollars are spent each year on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they still cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
5. $27 billion dollars are spent each year for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. - http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars 'PER DAY' is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. That's $1.2 Billion a year. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 28% percent of all federal prison inmates are illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $190 billion dollars are spent each year on illegal aliens for welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. - http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 billion dollars per year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime probl em in the US. - http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year 2005, there were 8 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border with as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from other terrorist countries. Over 10,000 of those were middle-eastern terrorists. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine, crack, Guns, and marijuana crossed into the U.S. from the southern border. - http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12.. The National Policy Institute, estimates that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion, or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.& nbsp; - http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute..org/publications.php?b=deportation.org/publications.php?b=deportation
13. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $65 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin, to their families & friends. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. The dark side of illegal immigration: Nearly one million sex crimes are committed by illegal immigrants in the United States !' - http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
Total cost a whopping $538.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!!!
What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America ? ( note: ILLEGAL - here without papers )
I, Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a column titled, 'Mexican Visitor's Lament' -- 10/25/07.
I interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver last week. Hernandez said, 'They (illegal aliens) pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes...What Happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?' Hummm, I thought, what would happen, so I did my due diligence, buried my nose as a reporter into the FACTS I found below.
It's a good question - it deserves an honest answer. Over 80% of Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America? The answers I found may surprise you!
In California , if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominant language again.
In Colorado , 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grand-kids - would move back 'home', mostly to Mexico . That would save Coloradans an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 billion) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs.
It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.
Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.
Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67 percent drop-out/flunk-out rate because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our gridlocked cities in Colorado. Denver 's 4% unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.
In Florida , 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America , the rule of law, and English.
In Chicago , Illinois , 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free experience.
If 20 million illegal aliens returned 'home' --
If 20 million illegal aliens returned 'home', the U.S. Economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn't be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 Billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local, state and city coffers.
No more push '1' for Spanish or '2' for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our over-crowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.
We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country.
In cities like L.A. , 20,000 members of the ' 18th Street Gang' would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!
Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal aliens!
America 's economy is drained. Taxpayers are harmed. Employers get rich. Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to the aliens' home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America 's economy - which currently suffers an
$8.7 trillion debt.
At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California , Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupt out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act.
Americans wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country-brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.
Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the 'progressives' on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11 percent of our greenhouse gases.
Over one million of Mexico 's poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville , Texas to San Diego , California in what the New York Times called, 'colonias' or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty,
filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, electricity, roads or any kind of sanitation.
The New York Times reported them to be America 's new ' Third World ' inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonias.
(I've seen them personally in Texas and Arizona ; it's sickening beyond anything you can imagine.)
By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico. We should invite 20million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a better life in Mexico . We already invite a million people into our country legally more than all other countries combined annually. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation.
It's time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and our way of life.
Interesting Statistics!
Here are 14 reasons illegal aliens should vacate America , and I hope they are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them:
1. $14 billion to $22 billion dollars are spent each year on welfare to illegal aliens.
( that's Billion with a 'B' ) - http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2.. $2.2 billion dollars are spent each year on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. - http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $7.5 billion dollars are spent each year on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 billion dollars are spent each year on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they still cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
5. $27 billion dollars are spent each year for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. - http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars 'PER DAY' is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. That's $1.2 Billion a year. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 28% percent of all federal prison inmates are illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $190 billion dollars are spent each year on illegal aliens for welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. - http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 billion dollars per year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime probl em in the US. - http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year 2005, there were 8 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border with as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from other terrorist countries. Over 10,000 of those were middle-eastern terrorists. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine, crack, Guns, and marijuana crossed into the U.S. from the southern border. - http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12.. The National Policy Institute, estimates that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion, or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.& nbsp; - http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute..org/publications.php?b=deportation.org/publications.php?b=deportation
13. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $65 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin, to their families & friends. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. The dark side of illegal immigration: Nearly one million sex crimes are committed by illegal immigrants in the United States !' - http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
Total cost a whopping $538.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!!!
Monday, May 24, 2010
Monday Quotes on the Constitution
“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was, of course, in France at the time the… Bill of rights [was] passed in Congress and ratified by the states. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.”
- Chief Justice William Rehnquist
For those that want to know about the letter President Jefferson sent.
"On January 1, 1802, President Thomas Jefferson sent a letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut, in response to their congratulations upon his winning the presidency. In it, Jefferson referred to a “wall of separation between church and state.” He wrote this in the context of perceived threats the Baptists felt were coming from the state, not the other way around."
- Chief Justice William Rehnquist
For those that want to know about the letter President Jefferson sent.
"On January 1, 1802, President Thomas Jefferson sent a letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut, in response to their congratulations upon his winning the presidency. In it, Jefferson referred to a “wall of separation between church and state.” He wrote this in the context of perceived threats the Baptists felt were coming from the state, not the other way around."
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Freedom of Speech... Under Attack Again
Seriously, am I turning into a conspiracy nut or is Freedom of Speech truly under attack again. As in, under attack by our own government. This last weekend, the President said that with the 24 hour news cycle and information on the internet, there can be "too much information." What the what? How can their ever be too much information? He went on to say that their is so much information out there you can't tell what is true and what is less than truthful. Information has been out there forever. At no time has anyone said there was too much information, unless they were attempting to suppress said information. What information can be out there that the government could be afraid of?
Here is what the President said in his own words.
"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter," Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.
"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation,"
Since when was information a distraction? This is how it has always worked. People view the information out there, they see if it passes the smell test, then they see how it fits with their belief system, and then they work to reverify it with multiple sources. The founders wanted a robust debate in our society. That is why Free Speech is encapsulated in the FIRST Ammendment to the Bill of Rights.
This last week the President also announced his pick for the next Supreme Court Justice. She doesn't believe that all speech should be free. Consider this quote dug up by the First Amendment Center's David L. Hudson, who found it in a government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
The 1st Ammendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So, no law "abridging the freedom of speech." That means no law whatsoever. Societal costs is such a red herring for Progressives to further their own agenda to control every single aspect of our lives. See my paper on Progressivism for more information on how Progressives feel about people being smart enough to make their own decisions.
Also going along with these two would be the FCC attempting to "reclassify" the internet. They are doing this to control it, and therefore the information that flows through it. They attempted to implement "net neutrality" through the normal means and were shot down by both congress and the courts. Now this part of the executive branch is just deciding to go against what was decided by congress, the courts, and going against well established precedent set by itself under administrations that were on both sides of the aisle, to get what they want. Whatever happened to separation of powers?
There is a reason I selected the quote I have at the top of my blog. The first thing tyrrants do go after is your voice, your freedom of speech. Consider the following quotes from previous Supreme Court Justices.
"Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
- Thurgood Marshall
"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
- William J. Brennan, Jr.
So, judge for yourself whether or not I am going a little loony, but I have to say this has me extremely worried. There was the flag email address to report to the WhiteHouse any falsehood your friends may be spreading about health care. Now the President says there is "too much" information out there and is attempting to appoint someone to the court with no judicial experience that has ideas of limiting speech for the "greater good." All while the FCC is trying to take over the internet.
As I mentioned before, do some of your own research. Look into some of these things yourself. Oh, and if you believe the most technologically savvy President in history doesn't know how to work an iPod (he gave one to the Queen with all his speeches on it as a gift) then I have some ocean front property on the East side of the Vegas Strip I wanna sell ya.
Remember, keep yourself and informed and do not be afraid to speak out.
Here is what the President said in his own words.
"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter," Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.
"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation,"
Since when was information a distraction? This is how it has always worked. People view the information out there, they see if it passes the smell test, then they see how it fits with their belief system, and then they work to reverify it with multiple sources. The founders wanted a robust debate in our society. That is why Free Speech is encapsulated in the FIRST Ammendment to the Bill of Rights.
This last week the President also announced his pick for the next Supreme Court Justice. She doesn't believe that all speech should be free. Consider this quote dug up by the First Amendment Center's David L. Hudson, who found it in a government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
The 1st Ammendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So, no law "abridging the freedom of speech." That means no law whatsoever. Societal costs is such a red herring for Progressives to further their own agenda to control every single aspect of our lives. See my paper on Progressivism for more information on how Progressives feel about people being smart enough to make their own decisions.
Also going along with these two would be the FCC attempting to "reclassify" the internet. They are doing this to control it, and therefore the information that flows through it. They attempted to implement "net neutrality" through the normal means and were shot down by both congress and the courts. Now this part of the executive branch is just deciding to go against what was decided by congress, the courts, and going against well established precedent set by itself under administrations that were on both sides of the aisle, to get what they want. Whatever happened to separation of powers?
There is a reason I selected the quote I have at the top of my blog. The first thing tyrrants do go after is your voice, your freedom of speech. Consider the following quotes from previous Supreme Court Justices.
"Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
- Thurgood Marshall
"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
- William J. Brennan, Jr.
So, judge for yourself whether or not I am going a little loony, but I have to say this has me extremely worried. There was the flag email address to report to the WhiteHouse any falsehood your friends may be spreading about health care. Now the President says there is "too much" information out there and is attempting to appoint someone to the court with no judicial experience that has ideas of limiting speech for the "greater good." All while the FCC is trying to take over the internet.
As I mentioned before, do some of your own research. Look into some of these things yourself. Oh, and if you believe the most technologically savvy President in history doesn't know how to work an iPod (he gave one to the Queen with all his speeches on it as a gift) then I have some ocean front property on the East side of the Vegas Strip I wanna sell ya.
Remember, keep yourself and informed and do not be afraid to speak out.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Compare and Contrast: Monday Quotes
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge . . . would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
- John Adams
"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood. . . . For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property and subdivides their inheritances: what remains but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the troubles of living?"
- Alexis de Tocqueville "Democracy in America"
- John Adams
"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood. . . . For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property and subdivides their inheritances: what remains but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the troubles of living?"
- Alexis de Tocqueville "Democracy in America"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
