Editorials

3 Comments Posted on Editorials, George W. Bush, Illegal Immigration

simply outrageous

i don’t understand this strategy by the US government in dealing with illegal immigration.

from the daily bulletin:

While Minuteman civilian patrols are keeping an eye out for illegal border crossers, the U.S. Border Patrol is keeping an eye out for Minutemen — and telling the Mexican government where they are. According to three documents on the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Web site, the U.S. Border Patrol is to notify the Mexican government as to the location of Minutemen and other civilian border patrol groups when they participate in apprehending illegal immigrants — and if and when violence is used against border crossers. A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed the notification process, describing it as a standard procedure meant to reassure the Mexican government that migrants’ rights are being observed.

so the US government doesn’t want to seriously deal with the illegal immigration issue. not only that, but they are actively helping the mexican government find those who are willing to do something about the problem. michelle malkin has more here(where the DHS labels the report “inaccurate”) and here.

if this is happening on ANY level, it’s wrong. i am finding it hard to accept that those who break our laws to get into this country should have any rights. of course they shouldn’t be abused, but they should be arrested and deported when they are caught. there’s nothing inhumane about enforcing our laws.

there are many areas where i agree with bush 43, but he’s making it harder and harder for me to defend him. i agree with him on social issues, iraq, and on the selection of conservative judges to the supreme court. i can’t defend this. we elected this guy for the most part because of concerns about national security and the GWOT. i think it’s fair to say that his report card is incomplete at this point.

president bush should care just as much as securing the borders of this country in addition to his concern about the security and future of iraq. right now i just don’t see that commitment to this country’s security.

related:

U.S. Border Patrol: Reporting To Mexico? –california conservative

1 Comment Posted on Editorials, Illegal Immigration

illegals and the rest of us

i’m opposed to illegal immigration. how’s that for analysis? maybe i should elaborate just a bit on that. i don’t think that anyone who is here illegally, whether they are mexican or any other nationality, should be allowed to stay in the country. i’m not sure that there is a simple way to address that problem. it’s clear that we need to make the attempt to enforce current laws as they exist today. however, we have seen that the current system is broken and needs to be fixed. that should be something that both sides should agree on. the disagreement is about what we do to fix the problem.

i find it annoying that people who sneak into our country, break our laws, and continue to flaunt those laws by staying in the country, have the audacity to complain about having no rights. citizens have rights. non-citizens do not. employers in this country are breaking our laws to give those people jobs, and for this concession, they get people walking out to join a protest. yeah…that makes sense to me. if the mexican people should protest about anything, it’s their ineffectual socialist government that keeps them in poverty. if we really want to help mexican citizens, we should start introducing a different economic model for them, not a brand-new guest worker program.

there are laws in place ALREADY that address many of the current problems we are having with illegal immigration, as california conservative points out. we need to start enforcing the laws we already have. making it easier for someone who sneaks into the country to become a citizen seems kind of backward to me. we shouldn’t reward people who break our laws by giving them a shortcut to citizenship, especially because there are people here already who are trying to go through a legal citizenship process.

what message does that send to those who actually want to be citizens of this country? let’s be clear on this. many of these illegals don’t really want to be US citizens. so giving them the option doesn’t really make sense. our priorities are screwed up when talking about this issue. border security should be the top priority as well as enforcing current immigration laws. even if we will never see terrorists cross the border through mexico, it is still important that we know who is coming into our country. then maybe we can entertain all these other suggestions.

related:

we don’t need no stinkin’ reform –california conservative
the intellectual dishonesty of the open borders crowd — right wing nut house

tags: illegal immigration

2 Comments Posted on Democracy, Editorials

the meaning of citizenship

We Americans are citizens, not “subjects” like our British cousins. We used to see citizenship as meaning the ability to vote, to speak-up, and to hold a claim on rights bought and paid for with the blood of patriots selflessly spilled on our behalf. With this legacy came certain obligations. Not simply paying taxes, but actively contributing to the national defense, taking the time to learn about political issues and voting, and, as dramatically embodied in the classic New England Town Meetings, taking part in civic life to produce a better community and country.

The American Thinker— thomas lifson

we are beginning to recognize that it is no longer enough just to vote. we have to keep a closer eye on those d.c. politicians, because even the good ones go astray sometimes. it’s now up to us to keep them accountable. that’s our responsibility as citizens of this great country. it’s easy to get cynical and to believe that we can’t make a difference. it’s so tempting to just give up on the whole deal, and say to heck with all of them, but we can’t. this country belongs to us, and we should have a say in its future.

3 Comments Posted on Editorials, Random Musings

Christians vs. south park

the last thing i ever thought that i would do on this blog is defend comedy central’s south park. i don’t even watch the show. i’ve only seen commercials and short previews for it. i have seen enough to know that the majority of south park episodes would offend just about everybody at some point. the creators of south park are equal opportunity offenders and everybody gets skewered. it’s a fair point that Christians are more likely to get abused on this show than Muslims, as recent events have demonstrated.

i just don’t see how it’s possible for outside groups to tell comedy central what kind of junk they can put on the air. comedy central is a cable channel, after all, and isn’t subject to the same restrictions put on regular broadcast channels. most of those who are terribly offended by this show probably don’t watch it on a regular basis. that’s the way we should handle shows like this. if you don’t like the content of south park, don’t watch it. boycott comedy central’s advertisers if you want to. write letters of protest and share your opinion with the network, as many have already done. if comedy central doesn’t lose any viewers, it won’t really matter to them what Christians think of shows like south park.

it’s admirable that people of faith are brave enough to stand up and say that pictures of Jesus Christ should be just as respectful as those of Mohammed. it’s less likely that Christians will riot and burn things here in the united states than it is that Muslims will do so. BUT…i’m not convinced that either would happen here in america. we have better things to do with our time than organize protests around something trey parker and matt stone decided to make their characters say on south park.

maybe the Christian community would have more impact on the culture if they were more interested in changing lives than on changing what’s on TV. that’s not to say that their criticisms of shows like south park are unfair, or that they should shut up and deal with a corrupt culture that celebrates this kind of entertainment. absolutely not. i’m just saying that we should be just as concerned about people as we are about TV shows.

related:

CNN.com – ‘South Park’ aims at censors, hits Bush, Jesus
Michelle Malkin: CARTOON DHIMMITUDE
Sister Toldjah– Southpark and Mohammed – art imitating life

Technorati Tags: , ,

10 Comments Posted on Editorials, George W. Bush, Iraq

we were right to get rid of saddam (part 2)

(continued from part 1)

i have a question for my democratic friends who agree with me that we had to get rid of saddam. let’s say that the united states decided not to invade iraq, but that we still wanted to kick saddam out of power. how do you propose that we accomplish this goal? do we continue pushing the UN to keep an eye on saddam? do we make more threats? do we encourage the UN to pass more scary resolutions? WWJKD? (what would john kerry do? the world will thankfully never know.)

i have heard the argument that saddam was no more evil than dictators of other countries who treat their people worse than dogs, and that the united states doesn’t interfere militarily in all of those countries. i disagree with the first part, and acknowledge the second part. there are a few reasons why the united states doesn’t interfere militarily in every case of human rights violations or oppressive governments. for one thing, even though we have the best and most capable military in the world, there’s not enough of ’em to deal with all people struggling against their governments. saddam hussein’s iraq supported terrorism, which made it a top priority of previous and current presidential administrations. this made saddam a threat to the security of the middle east and also to the security of the united states. any links to al-qaeda are still to be conclusively proved in the minds of many. however, there are other groups associated with saddam that were involved in terrorist activity, as i’ve mentioned before.

for those who opposed the war in iraq from the beginning, and for those who oppose it now, that ship has sailed, ladies and gentlemen. what’s done is done. saddam is out of power. that’s a good thing. iraq is slowly progressing toward becoming a country friendly to democracy. the process is not as quick as we would all like to see, but there is no other alternative to seeing iraq through its current struggles.

ok…i’m ready now…bring on the violent disagreement. 🙂

Technorati Tags: , ,

Posted on Editorials, Iraq

we were right to get rid of saddam (part 1)

saddam is no longer ruler of iraq, and that’s a huge step in the right direction for the future of iraq. we did the right thing by getting rid of him. he was a threat to us and to neighboring countries. bush said that saddam had chemical and biological weapons because he did have them in the past, and it was reasonable to believe that he still had them. of course, with saddam not fully co-operating with the UN weapons inspectors, there’s no way to have concrete proof that the US and the UK and others got it wrong. all saddam had to do to stop the invasion, if no WMDs were present, was to allow full access for the weapons inspectors. two possibilities exist. either saddam had a death wish, or he had something he was hiding from us. do you really think saddam was stupid enough to risk invasion of iraq just so that his neighbors could still have the illusion that iraq was armed with WMD? i guess it’s possible. after all, saddam was never known for his great military strategy.

based on what we knew about saddam’s history, isn’t it logical to err on the side of caution? ask yourself what would have happened if bush was right and saddam used those WMD’s. imagine the political fallout from that decision to do nothing about saddam. dubya was screwed either way with this decision. either he lets a guy with a known history of being evil to his own people and starting wars with other countries keep on breaking the rules and potentially acquire WMD, or he uses military force to remove saddam as a threat. what a tough decision.

there are many good reasons why saddam had to be replaced. that’s what the president was arguing — that saddam was a threat who needed to be dealt with. his press people were not on message when they responded affirmatively to the questions about saddam being an “imminent threat”. that’s just a matter of semantics, i guess, because even though the President didn’t use those exact words, he did emphasize the urgency of dealing with saddam sooner rather than later.

i don’t want the US to be the world’s policemen. i don’t want the US to be constantly bailing out countries that should be handling their own business. in an ideal world, the UN would be handling these international affairs and enforcing its own regulations against rogue members. this world can never, and will never, exist. the UN has too many of its own internal problems to effectively handle the problems and concerns of its members. that’s why i’m not convinced that even if the UN is reformed, it will ever meet our expectations.

(to be continued–comments return after part 2 is posted)

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Posted on Democrats, Editorials, Republicans

you can’t blame newt for these republicans

read the first part of the contract that started the gingrich revolution:

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.

That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.

This year’s election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.” To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

it then goes on to list specific policy initiatives, designed to check spending, restore accountability to congress, and to reduce big government. that’s what the american people voted for then, and this is what they still want to see. this is what republicans said they stood for in 1994, and they put it in writing in the contract with america(full text here).

i suppose it’s easy to forget something that was written over ten years ago. we can argue about the effectiveness of the policy proposals here, but the contract for america set an agenda and made specific suggestions to address problems. it took the republicans quite some time to figure out what changes to suggest, and how to sell it to the voters. like the british labour party, they needed to re-package themselves and make their agenda marketable to the average person. the contract was part of the marketing strategy, and it worked pretty well.

what does the republican party stand for now? what can they point to as achievements during their time in power? do they even deserve to hold on to their majority? you know that the party is in trouble when the criticism leveled at them by the former leader of the revolution is quoted by democrats. i was flipping past c-span and i saw a virtually empty room with democrats talking to themselves, holding up clever posterboards with gingrich quotes and the ugly deficit numbers, and generally preaching to the very small choir that was assembled there. i’m not sure exactly what the purpose of the meeting was, but it sure was entertaining to watch. in any case, newt was right then, and he is right now. the republicans have fallen off the wagon. maybe it’s time for some tough love for them administered by the voters of this country.

i don’t really want to see the republicans lose congress. i still think they are a better alternative than the democrats. i will do all i can to help defeat the current democrat in my congressional district, because we need a change there. i’m just saying that a good hard slap in the face and defeat in ’06 wouldn’t be the worst thing to happen to the republican party. it might even produce the radical reforms needed to bring the party back to its small-government roots.

i guess i should say something about tom delay here. he did the right thing. the political fallout or non-fallout i will leave for pundits to determine.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Posted on Editorials

maybe the world would be better off…

if the united states just left it alone to fend for itself. it’s not our problem that foreign dictators oppress people. it’s no business of ours if countries don’t get along with each other and make threats about destruction of their opposition with bombs and guns and shiny WMDs. why should we care if one country wants to invade another country, as long as we are not the target for possible invasion? after all, we have no right to tell other countries how they should act.

so don’t call the united states anymore. talk to the UN. see how well they help countries in need. why not just let the UN take charge of foreign affairs? after all, they have been so effective in controlling rogue elements in their membership and handling peacekeeping missions. why not let them handle military action in rebellious countries which may or may not have WMDs yet? this is a great idea. then none of the chaos happening in the world today can be blamed on president dubya or on the united states.

i would argue that the failures of the UN to deal with their own members have made US military action necessary in Iraq and elsewhere. maybe that’s just because i hate the UN and recognize how much they have screwed up their role in the international community. maybe not. in any case, i think the contributions made by the united states to the rest of the world have been generally positive, and that, while we have not handled every situation perfectly, we deserve much more credit that we could ever expect from the rest of the world. criticism of the united states is sometimes justified, and not entirely unexpected. i’m not asking for the international community as a whole to be our new best friends, just that they would say thanks for the help once in a while.

that’s all i have to say about that. comments return with future posts.