Is there one foul word I can use that basically takes all the others and lumps them into one? Because I can't think of a better way to express the outrage I feel when I read this list of reasons the Senate Immigration Bill is (as Lee puts it) a "giant steaming load of crap."
You simply have to read it--all of it--but here's a preview of some of my favorites. If these don't convince you that we are being represented by a bunch of traitors, I don't know what will.
1) The Senate Bill Would Make It Impossible To Deport Most Illegal Aliens For Years"What about illegal alien protection? The alien and their families who file applications for amnesty “shall not be detained, determined inadmissible, deported, or removed until their applications are finally adjudicated, unless they commit a future act that renders them ineligible with amnesty.” With tens of millions of applications, this amnesty, this provision essentially guarantees an illegal alien years of protection in the United States, even if they do not qualify for the amnesty." -- Jeff Sessions
2) Consultations Between United States And Mexican Authorities At The Federal, State, And Local Levels Are Required Before A Fence Can Be Built
Although this isn't, as some opponents of the Senate bill have portrayed it, giving Mexico a veto over the fence, what is going to come of it other than delay and condemnations of the project? The whole point of building the fence is to keep people on the Mexican side of the fence from entering our country illegally. The people in Mexico oppose building a fence for exactly the same reasons that we want it built. So, it's like home owners and burglars getting together to discuss the new locks and alarms that are being put into place. It's really none of their business and even if it were, they oppose the fence, so what's to discuss?
6) The No-Sharing For National Security Purposes Clause
"The bill forbids the federal government to use any information included in an application for amnesty in national-security or criminal investigations." -- National Review
That means if Osama Bin Laden were to apply for citizenship and mention on the application that he was currently living in New York, it would literally be illegal to tell the FBI. Does that really make any sense?[And my all-time favorite reason these Senators should hang their heads in shame (or better yet, have them severed from their bodies and handed to them, preferably by some of the terrorists their bill will likely admit to our beloved country)]
22) Social Security For Illegals [Read that one again, slowly, make sure it sinks in]
Unfortunately, the Senate has now voted to give "undocumented workers" credit for the money that they contributed to Social Security while they were here illegally. That's a big mistake and not just because it rewards illegals for breaking our laws or because we're going to be taking money that would otherwise be going to Americans and giving it to illegals.
Since these illegals have used fake numbers, maybe even multiple fake numbers, and even real numbers that belong to other people, it's going to be incredibly difficult to untangle the mess and figure how much they've really contributed, if anything, to Social Security.This move, like a lot of others the Senate has made while working on this amnesty bill, puts the welfare of illegal immigrants above that of the American people.
It's a good thing this happened in Atlanta.
ATLANTA A group of robbers in Atlanta picked the wrong victim.Police say former Marine Thomas Autry fought off four attackers last night with a pocket knife. They say he killed one and seriously wounded another.
Detective Danny Stephens says Autry was walking home from his waiter job when attackers armed with a shotgun and a pistol chased him. The detective says Autry pulled the knife out of his backpack when the group caught him.
Stephens says the 36-year-old's "training kicked in and he knew what to do." He kicked the shotgun out of one attacker's hands and stabbed a 17-year-old girl who jumped on him, as well as a man who also attacked.
The suspects fled, but police say they found them at a hospital, where the girl was pronounced dead.
Stephens says they face robbery and aggravated assault charges and are suspected in other robberies over the past week. Autry will not be charged.
All I can say about this Marine myself is "HOO-RAH!"
[Thanks to Lee for the link.]
Lou Dobbs "gets" it and is willing to share it with the rest of us (even if most of us won't bother to listen:)
President Bush believes in the mystical power of free markets to solve seemingly every domestic public policy issue, and the president's faith-based economic policies, including so-called free trade, have led us to higher record trade and budget deficits.Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, is still in a post-election campaign that is attracting the amount of attention today that it did in his failed attempt for the presidency in 2004. And while he's still fighting the swift boat controversy, he has not articulated a national economic strategy.
The Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, says he wants border security first and then pushes through an illegal immigrant amnesty bill. The Minority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, between attending boxing matches for free, believes requiring that English be our national language is racist.
Sen. John "Straight-talkin' " McCain, R-Arizona, is beginning to take on the form of a political pretzel as he shapes his pandering for a run for the 2008 presidential election. And Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, is now lined up with corporate America in supporting the onslaught of cheap foreign labor into this country while forsaking his party's historical alliance with working men and women and their families.
These men are jaw-dropping, awe-inspiring symbols of their respective party's lack of commitment to truth, the American Dream and our nation's middle class. How are we supposed to take these political leaders and the parties they represent seriously?
Anyone else out there thining what I'm thinking? Lou Dobbs in '08? Hey, couldn't be any worse than the choices we will have.
Seriously, how will YOU vote when your choices look like this:
Hillary vs. McCain
Gore vs. Frist
Or flip the candidates around, who cares? No difference really.
Can I get a collective yawn please? OK, now that we have that out of our systems, can I get a collective "HELL NO, WE WON'T GO!" (to the election that is)
That's reality folks. If we continue to coast along, whining about the high price of gas, bitching about how long the war is taking, but being unwilling to accept what it will take to fight it properly (and win it more quickly, i.e., a little less political correctness, a whole lot more profiling and suveillance), fuming about illegal immigration as we brag about our pristine lawns and affordable mini-mansions, shake our fists in the general direction of Iran while shedding tears for the Caribou in Alaska, then we deserve what we get. If they are wishy-washy it's because we are too. These are the men (and women) we've put in charge after all.
What is wrong with me? Here I am, in a new city, desperate to make friends with other moms so my kids can grow up normal, not hating me as the "mom who drove everyone away," and I just can't seem to find any other moms who see anything in the world the way I do.
Do most women seriously walk around thinking it's their sworn duty to only care about things that make them seem warm and fuzzy and caring and compassionate in an uber-obvious kind of way? Are most women/moms really THAT superficial, that true-to-type?
What the hell am I talking about?
OK, so I joined this local moms group, and they have a discussion board, and lucky for me, I haven't posted often enough to qualify for what they call the "Sandbox" (the area of the board reserved for controversial topics like politics and such), but I read it, just to see if I can spot anyone like me. Mind you, I'm not looking for total agreement, I like a little debate, a little discussion, but is it too much to ask for someone who isn't just going to toe-the-feminist line on ALL subjects ALL the time?
What has set me off? OK, here it is: Someone posted a poll to find out what the moms think the next big foreign policy focus ought to be. On the list were the Israeli/Pali mess, Iran, Darfur, and a few other things that escape my memory they were so inconsequential. What do you think got almost HALF the votes (of dozens of responses):
DARFUR
Yes folks. Above the lunacy of Iran having nuclear weapons, and quite possiblyprobably sparking WWIV by trying to obliterate Israel, they put the American intervention in Darfur, a problem so far-removed from our national interest it's ridiculous.
Am I cruel? Do I love genocide? NO. Make that HELL NO! I think the people perpetrating that obscenity should be strung up by their balls forthwith, just NOT BY US! I can think of several countries more responsible for that mess than we are (China comes to mind). Why is it that when it's poor starving Africans who are being slaughtered by evil people, it's so obviously our problem, but when it's anyone else, even our own people, we should butt out?
Then I read some Abortion posts, and at least there was some sanity there. At least some of the women were intellectually honest enough to admit that they were pro-choice, anti-abortion in the sense that they wanted people to have the choice, but for there to be fewer abortions. Just one teensy weensy problem there: The so-called "choice" movement's agenda doesn't make the same distinction. You can't support them and their ilk and want fewer abortions. If it were up to them, there would be abortions on demand, shit, every 12 year-old could get one during recess without Mommy or Daddy knowing about it, at least if Planned Parenthood had its way.
Are there women out there with whom I could be friends who get this? Are there moms who are well enough informed (by someone other than Katie Couric, John Stewart or Anderson Cooper) that have young kids and live in Charlotte? If there are, and they're reading this, will they PUHLEEZE save me from my loneliness. It's really awful when you go to a playgroup and everyone around you "assumes" you agree with their views just because you too have ovaries.
And I thought it was bad living in MA, seems moms here are rooting for Al Gore in '08 also! Some of them want to take a field trip to see his stupid movie! Lord, HELP ME!!!!!!!!!
Just got back from Va-cay in Charleston. At least that's what it's supposed to be called when you leave home to sleep elsewhere for a few days, don't have to cook or do housework, and are surrounded by opportunities for recreation to spend gobs of money.
When you do it with a toddler and infant in tow? Then it must be called something else entirely. Not sure what exactly, but definitely something other than "VACATION" comes to mind.
All I know is, I've never been so glad to come home to my own house (where I know the toilets are clean), sleep in my own bed (without a squirmy toddler kicking me and snoring into my ear all night), live on my own schedule (which includes at least one nap and a predictable bedtime for both kids) and eat meals that are free (or close to it) and don't include being on the receiving end of dirty looks from weary waitstaff or fellow diners who are either childless or have already forgotten what their own kids were like as babies.
I'm sure in a few days, when I have the energy to put it all in perspective (and get the fun pictures off my husband's laptop), I'll realize we had a blast and made some great memories, but right now, this picture of Emma on the carriage tour of the historical city of Charleston pretty much captures how we all feel.
Bruce has (unwittingly) ruined my day. He reports that:
The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment -- even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents.
I'm so angry, I can hardly breathe. I've been a victim of identity theft. What now? Is the SSA going to intrude upon my life trying to find money in my SS account that "rightfully" belongs to one or more of the over 100 people who've masqueraded as me for the past ten years? Am I going to suddenly look at my account--what little there is of it--and find money gone that used to be there? Oh sure, I may not have worked for it, but I sure as hell worked to clean up my credit and fight off bogus charges of various and sundry crimes (check fraud, grand theft auto) perpetrated under my name by illegal aliens. Isn't it a fair exchange for my trouble that I get to keep what puny amount such people may have accrued--that is IF they took a moment or two away from their lives of crime to work for a living, and IF that work was done for semi-responsible employers who actually withheld from them.
I would expect nothing less from the Democrats in the Senate, but the GOP members? "Pandering" is too dignified a term for what they are doing. Why not "pander" to the majority who are outraged by this for a change? You know, the people actually ALLOWED to vote in the mid-term elections?
Oh that's what will be next...They'll pass a law allowing illegals to vote on the forged and stolen documents they've used to collect SS benefits. I mean, it's only fair, right?
AAAAARGH!
Isn't it sad that we Americans are so ignorant of our own history? Isn't it even sadder that we have already forgotten the words of some of our truly great leaders?
Americanization - Theodore Roosevelt, 1915The foreign-born population of this country must be an Americanized population - no other kind can fight the battles of America either in war or peace. It must talk the language of its native-born fellow-citizens, it must possess American citizenship and American ideals. It must stand firm by its oath of allegiance in word and deed and must show that in very fact it has renounced allegiance to every prince, potentate, or foreign government. It must be maintained on an American standard of living so as to prevent labor disturbances in important plants and at critical times. None of these objects can be secured as long as we have immigrant colonies, ghettos, and immigrant sections, and above all they cannot be assured so long as we consider the immigrant only as an industrial asset. The immigrant must not be allowed to drift or to be put at the mercy of the exploiter. Our object is to not to imitate one of the older racial types, but to maintain a new American type and then to secure loyalty to this type. We cannot secure such loyalty unless we make this a country where men shall feel that they have justice and also where they shall feel that they are required to perform the duties imposed upon them. The policy of "Let alone" which we have hitherto pursued is thoroughly vicious from two stand-points. By this policy we have permitted the immigrants, and too often the native-born laborers as well, to suffer injustice. Moreover, by this policy we have failed to impress upon the immigrant and upon the native-born as well that they are expected to do justice as well as to receive justice, that they are expected to be heartily and actively and single-mindedly loyal to the flag no less than to benefit by living under it.
We cannot afford to continue to use hundreds of thousands of immigrants merely as industrial assets while they remain social outcasts and menaces any more than fifty years ago we could afford to keep the black man merely as an industrial asset and not as a human being. We cannot afford to build a big industrial plant and herd men and women about it without care for their welfare. We cannot afford to permit squalid overcrowding or the kind of living system which makes impossible the decencies and necessities of life. We cannot afford the low wage rates and the merely seasonal industries which mean the sacrifice of both individual and family life and morals to the industrial machinery. We cannot afford to leave American mines, munitions plants, and general resources in the hands of alien workmen, alien to America and even likely to be made hostile to America by machinations such as have recently been provided in the case of the two foreign embassies in Washington. We cannot afford to run the risk of having in time of war men working on our railways or working in our munition plants who would in the name of duty to their own foreign countries bring destruction to us. Recent events have shown us that incitements to sabotage and strikes are in the view of at least two of the great foreign powers of Europe within their definition of neutral practices. What would be done to us in the name of war if these things are done to us in the name of neutrality?
Exactly.
It's high time we realized (and acknowledged) that the illegal foreign-born population currently living and working (and stealing and dealing and killing) in our nation are doing us more harm than good. In this sense--regardless of their "intentions"--they are more enemies than friends.
For more on this, read what I have to say on Pete's site.
AAAAAAARGH! What a load of CRAP!
OK, it's official. This President and this Congress don't give a RAT'S ASS about the integrity of our border, our population, our culture, our economy, nothing that matters to US. All they care about is appeasing the stupid shallow thinkers amongst us (i.e., most of the people who were more concerned with the foul-up in their Tivo schedule tonight than the content of the President's speech, in other words, most Americans), and securing their campaign funds from Big Bidniz (or votes from future illegal aliens).
Here's the GIANT loopholes I see, and I'm just lil 'ol me, not some edumacated lawmaker:
Border Security
We're gonna take two years to put up fences and staff the border patrol?? National Guard are there to build things, but not to actually SHOOT the invaders? What a colossal waste of their time (and our tax dollars). We're not militarizing our borders because Mexico is our "friend???" Is he fucking serious? With friends like Mexico, who needs Islamofascists? Perhaps someone ought to tell the President that the MEXICAN border is militarized. So they're our friend but we're not theirs (or is it the other way around, I'm so confused)?
This is BULLSHIT. We need Israeli razor-wire, and we need it NOW. We need dogs--lots and lots of vicious dogs, and we need to make sure they are lean, hungry and trained to hunt intruders and hold them at bay until Border control can get there with the guns and the trucks. In the water where we can't put the wire? Alligators. Lots and lots of them. Just collect a few from Florida and set them loose down there. Let them try to cross at those points, I dare them. Not our right to stock shared bodies of water with alligators? Well, it's not their right to stock them with PEOPLE, that's how I see it.
And anyone on the border with a gun should be allowed to USE IT if they try to apprehend an intruder and that intruder runs. I don't give a shit if the guns are loaded with tranquilizer darts, they shouldn't be simply for show.
Ending catch and release? Well and good, but what about those countries that won't take their vermin back? What then? Do we still release them, or can we at least ship them back to Mexico from whence they came? If Mexico didn't mind admitting them and allowing them (or encouraging them) to cross our borders, let THEM deal with their shit, not us.
Guest Worker Program
This is the one that pisses me off the most. I've lived in two European countries that have such things (France and Austria). In both cases, the so-called "guest workers" NEVER FUCKING LEAVE! Never is a looooooooooong time folks. The President says they'll "have to leave." Oh reeeeeeally? How exactly would that work? When they come in, what are we gonna do? Forbid them from dating and having sex? If they impregnate someone while here, we gonna force them to abort? Because once they are preggo with a potential American citizen, guess what? They get to STAY. Once they marry an American, they get to STAY. Once they marry--even each other--they have "roots in the community" do they not? And for sure they're gonna have kids unless you forbid them from staying more than 9 months and refuse to allow them entry if they're already pregnant. Are we gonna require a pregnancy test of all comers then? Hey, I'd support all of the above (other than abortion), but I strongly doubt the President would.
So what we'll have then is illegal immigrants (because no guest worker program is gonna eradicate that, no matter what anyone says--there will always be employers who don't want the red tape) AND guest workers, and neither of them will speak English, want to be citizens or ever ever leave!
What about the massive beurocracy that will go with this program? But more on that in a minute...
"Path to Citizenship"
HOLY FUCKING SHIT this is stupid. This is the most retarded aspect of the whole deal. They'll "get in line?" Behind whom? If they get to stay here, they're not in line behind anyone on the legal path because those poor slobs are back home in their country of origin, not living here, working here, using our benefits, etc...
How exactly will they "get in line?" Will they be told to show up at a certain place at a certain time and register, pay their fine, sign up for English classes, pay their back taxes, etc...? Just one teensy tinesy problem...WHAT THE FUCK YOU GONNA DO IF THEY DON'T? You say it's impossible to deport 12Mil people? What about 10Mil? Even 5Mil would be hard to deport, but do you honestly think we're gonna get even 7Mil people to voluntarily do any of this when they'll still be waiting years for citizenship and it will cost them money they surely don't have NOW? Spare me, really, get a grip.
For starters, these people don't (most of them) want to be citizens. They're not gonna send their small kids to do this, they are already citizens, so what's in it for the parents? The government has admitted it can't deport them ("deep roots" and all), they'll feel reassured and not do a g-damn thing. Think about it! Do you speed? SURE YOU DO! You know it's illegal. You know it's dangerous. But you do it anyway. Why? Because in your head, you're working the crude imaginary stats that make you feel better about breaking the law. You're figuring "Hey, everyone else is doing it too. Why would they/should they stop me? They can't--as a practical matter--stop everyone who's doing it? Why NOT try and deal with the consequences IF I get caught? Chances are I won't get caught MOST OF THE TIME, and I'm in a hurry/selfish/lazy/indifferent, why not?"
The illegals here already are gonna say the same damn thing. People don't voluntarily admit to breaking the law. They just don't. Not when the authorities are TELLING them outright that it's impossible to enforce the law they're breaking as it is. Why would it be any MORE possible to enforce a new modified law? Hint: IT ISN'T! Even an illegal immigrant with no education can figure out that much, why can't our brilliant politicians? Beats the hell out of me!
Now let's talk about that bureaucracy I mentioned earlier. Who's gonna staff this registration process? Will they all be bilingual? Who's gonna take the forms, process the verifications, background checks, take the money for fines, teach the English classes, check up on the people to make sure they're complying with their requirements? Who's gonna administer the tests to see if these people even NEED English class? Do they all have to take it no matter what? What about those who crossed illegally or overstayed who do NOT speak Spanish? We got enough TOEFLs to cover them too?
And most importantly: WHO THE FUCK IS GONNA PAY FOR ALL THIS SHIT? (Hint: If you thought illegals were expensive NOW, whoa....)
Then there's the inevitable reality that you cannot create a massive bureaucracy and then dismantle it. So, the people you hire and the agency you create to handle the 12Mil will work hard to keep themselves relevant. That means they are an instant lobbying group for allowing MORE illegals to cross somehow, or for going easy on the guest workers who stay and want the same treatment, and before you know it, we are in the business of importing low wage workers LEGALLY at the legal citizen's expense. Unless these fines really are "meaningful" (i.e., in the 10s of thousands per lawbreaker), you and I are picking up the tab, you watch.
And I haven't even touched the issue of how long people have been here! The President hinted that there would be a different standard for those who just arrived (have been here a "short time") vs. those here with "roots". As I said above, it don't take too long to put down roots! I saw a couple of illegals crossing who were interviewed on TV who ARRIVED pregnant! You gonna deport them and keep their American citizen kids? Does that make sense? Now we have to support orphans? Please!
How is the government going to establish--with any credibility--that these people have been here as long as they say they have? For all intents and purposes, THEY AIN'T HERE NOW! That's why they call them UN-DOC-U-MEN-TED genius! We don't know who they are, and that means we sure as hell don't know where they are, when they came or why. So when they show up and say they've been here for years, how are we going to sort through the forged documentation they do have, the birth certificates they may or may not have for their kids (baby Juan could have been born at home after all, prove he wasn't), etc...? I foresee a shitstorm of confusion that will make it not only easy as pie to lie and continue to forge documentation, but quite lucrative for those who want to.
OK, maybe we can't deport all 12 Mil, but we can make them WANT TO LEAVE! How? Get rid of their shitty jobs. Simpy ditch them or make it not worth it for their employers to risk hiring them or keeping them if they can't verify that their documents are REAL.
HOW? Create a National Identity card based on passports or birth certificates AND social security cards. Make the SSA verify that the SS# is legally the person who's applying too, not some dead person, not some person who exists in triplicate (or more). Have that card be swipable and include biometrics. Now, REQUIRE employers (all of them) to use these cards for ALL their employees as soon as the SSA can verify that all US Citizens or legal aliens have received one, and make the deadline for getting one TIGHT, like everyone must have them within a six month period. That will make it harder to copy/forge, all the documentation necessary or conterfeit the process, never mind cultivate corrupt officials in on the program.
Watch a whole bunch of employees just not show up. OK, now they have no job and, having no job, they have no way to live here. Those who don't go home of their own accord will then be a hell of a lot easier to round up and send home. If they have kids under 18 here, too bad, so sad, your kid can stay if they have an American citizen sponsor to live with, if not, they go home with you until they are 18. We're not going to shoulder the burden of raising your kids for you, and they are not old enough to take care of themselves. Want to keep the family together? Go home. You say home is here? Willing to submit to a background check, live in a camp where we can keep an eye on you and willing to work off your back taxes doing shit work we assign to you? OK. When you're paid up and can pass an English test, THEN you can stay as a citizen, with your kids, whatever. Too restrictive for you? THEN GO THE FUCK HOME!
As for the employers (waaaah)? Not our problem. We've watched our wages plummet thanks to their greed. They need to pay more and hire Americans, simple. Can't? Go out of business. Too bad, so sad.
Keep employing illegals and get caught? $100,000 fine PER PERSON you hire AND 10 years in prison even for first offense. If you turn in an employer doing this? You get a reward of 10K, paid for of course out of the fines. All other fine money goes to the state in which the employer hired the employees to pay for the benefits the state had to offer that illegal resident. Catch a few of those employers and jail them and that behavior will stop pronto, you watch. No new huge bureaucracy needed, just use the SSA and IRS properly, note employers making shitloads of money but paying surprisingly low amounts of SS withholdings (or note SS#s getting money withheld multiple times from multiple states on the SAME DATES) and then use regular law-enforcement. Shut down demand, supply will dry up. It's way easier than the so-called "War on Drugs," and that hasn't stopped us from pouring trillions into that futile effort! Maybe if we stop the flow of illegal aliens who are here to clean offices, pick lettuce and make hotel beds we can spot the drug dealers more easily.
The bottom line is this so-called reform is anything but. It's just a recipe for more bureaucracy, more illegal behavior, more corruption, MORE PEOPLE HERE ON OUR DIME WHO OUGHT NOT BE HERE!
I'm so frustrated I could scream. We need to shut the border down, period. We need NOT to follow in Europe's decrepit footsteps. We need NOT to offer gifts of citizenship to people who snuck in here. However hard working they may be, they started as criminals. We have to remember that!
Tonght's speech was a joke. It was nothing new. It was full of half-measures, spending money we don't have and false promises. The scary thing is, this speech and the bogus legislation that it will spawn have me wishing for another 9/11 style attack that can be easily and clearly traced to our lack of seriousness about border security and immigration policy. I think it's going to take a massive tragedy to force our politicians to give a shit about us, I really do.
But you gotta have something, right? That seems to be the mindset of the anti-Bushies in the media and on Capitol Hill.
Let me make this simple for the morons out there who are just aghast at the "revelation" that the government is collecting lists (LISTS, not content, not names or addresses, just LISTS OF NUMBERS) of their phone calls:
YOU DO NOT OWN THESE NUMBERS, NOR THE RECORDS OF THE TIMES AND DATES ON WHICH THEY WERE USED!
It's just that simple. Your phone numbers are not "yours." They are merely leased to you, on loan if you will, for as long as you choose to pay your bill to the companies that do own them! Think about it. If you move, say from Boston to North Carolina, do you get to KEEP your phone number? Even if you have a digital phone service that lets you try to "keep" your original number, it may not be able to allow you to because of pesky little things called area codes. Either way, you are not the owner of the information.
And why is it perfectly OK, no problem, not a violation of privacy and to be expected without question that your phone company collects "lists" of your phone calls, but not OK that the government have the same information? Why is the government so much less trustworthy than Verizon or Bell South? Or let me put it another way: When was the last time the government called you at the dinner hour citing some pattern of behavior of yours and offering to sell you a product based on that pattern?
I'm waaaaaaaaiting............
This whole thing makes me so angry. I don't know who I'm more angry at, the Democrats who insult our intelligence on an hourly basis by pretending to be all outraged and horrified that something (they knew about for years and started when their boy was in office) is going on, or the MSM who place this "news" above (we're talking waaaaaay above) the news that--once again--that lunatic in charge of Iran threatened Israel and called it a "totalitarian state." Shouldn't the headline in all the papers have read: "Pot calls kettle black: What else is knew?"
(Wait a sec...That could apply to pretty much the entire newspaper...)
Why is it that Americans willy-nilly hand over or allow collection of the most personal of information by all manner of commercial interests, but get all queasy when it's the government doing the collecting?
Do you have a grocery store loyalty card? CVS card? Hallmark Gold Crown Card? Blockbuster card? Do you even know what these things are FOR? Do you get that those companies have on record (and available for sale to any and ALL who'll pay for the information, regardless of the way they plan to use it) everything you've ever bought from them? Why should I be OK with the notion that Harris Teeter keeps a record of what kind of Tampons I buy (I, me, the person with my name, remember, they have all this attached to my NAME AND ADDRESS), but the government shouldn't know that my phone number called another phone number, without my name and address attached?
It's absurd the amount of information we give away for free, to be sold by the receiver who will never give us a dime for it in return. But God forbid the government wants to build a reliable database with which to search out patterns of calls in order to identify possible terrorist activities. No, that would actually be a worthwhile use of that data, can't have that. But if the President wants to send us all another ten catalogs we didn't ask for, for worthless merchandise we don't want and don't need, killing entire forests, wasting postage, fuel and other sources of energy in the process, NO PROBLEM!
I'm so disgusted with how stupid we have all become, really. If I were in the military, I'd have to seriously wonder who the hell I was fighting and possibly dying for (i.e., people too brain-dead to deserve it).
Back when I wrote this post, in honor of last Mother's Day to be exact, I didn't expect to receive any responses from anyone. Well I never did get a response from the President (not even the form letter...*sniff*), but I did get a lovely note from a reader who agreed with me and who--despite living in Hillary-territory--is no fan of the left-leaning "soccer-mom"-mocking, illegal "undocumented worker"-defending crowd (poor thing must feel trapped in hell every time she leaves her house or turns on the local news).
She is on board with the notion that we SAHMs need to do something, but neither of us can figure out what that something IS! We agree (it seems) on the following:
Then let's assume that having more discretionary income would mean we'd be better able to:
Problem is, the government won't do it because it is OUR MONEY. They want us to continue being forced to give it TO THEM. Who are THEY? They are the ones with less than no incentive to let us keep our coin, so how do we do it? What is the carrot (or the stick)?
My suggestion was--for starters--that we (SAHMS and SAHDS)--simply stand up and be counted. We need to first make it impossible for the politicians to continue to define us as "soccer moms" who have plenty of money and time to kill, and who are naive, ignorant or myopic (as in only care about choice or school funding) when it comes to policy making. We need them to see that--first and foremost--we are HOME ECONOMISTS. We know what we spend, where and why, and we control the purse strings. We may not earn the money, but we say where it goes once we get it--after taxes--so why not let those who are taxing us fight to get what they get in the first place?
To me, standing up and being counted is the first battle. Anyone have any other bright ideas? The President and Wall Street can insist all day long and twice on Sundays that the economy is going gangbusters, but SAHMs aren't feeling it. And if we aren't feeling it, you can bet our families aren't either. And if our families aren't, well then, you have what's commonly called a "low opinion" of the government in charge!
There's no such thing as a "base" that doesn't include SAHMs, no such thing as a constituency that matters without us, and yet as a group we are largely SILENT. Why????
Well I say it's about time we spoke up. How? I'm working on that, but I'd appreciate any and all feedback from y'all as to how exacty to do it!
OK, how much do you want to bet Hillary either wants this or is in on it?
First there was Clinton-Gore. Could Clinton vs. Gore be next?For former Vice President Al Gore, a rash of favorable publicity surrounding this month's opening of his movie "An Inconvenient Truth," and the growing political resonance of its subject -- global warming -- are stoking the most serious speculation about a Gore political comeback since his loss in the 2000 U.S. presidential election.
In 2008, that could mean a once-unimaginable battle for Democrats' nomination between Bill Clinton's former vice president and his wife, Hillary Clinton. To some pro-Gore Democrats, worried about Mrs. Clinton's electability, that is part of the appeal.
See right now people assume she has zero competition, but that's not true at all, not by a long shot. Warner--while he lacks name recognition--could get a lot of red-staters excited about him because he's southern and pro-gun. There are others too, hawkish MALE Dems who could step into the ring with her and--while having a hard time beating her at the fund-raising game--could steal some of her thunder by pointing out how polarizing she is with the vast "rest" of the country that doesn't live in NY, LA, Boston, San Francisco and the other urban liberal oases. Al Gore steps in, with his celebrity and ability to hog the limelight (if only because he's such a freak-show every time he opens his mouth)? Those other candidates are invisible, no question. In the run up to the nomination, it would be the Al and Hillary show, 24/7, and what better way for her to appear mroe moderate? What better way for her to seem rational, sane, even warm and fuzzy than to be pitted against Mr. Unhinged himself?
The Gore loyalists live in a fantasy world. The truly loyal who are actually VOTERS are very few indeed. The rest of his supporters won't put down their bongs long enough to register, much less vote in a primary election ("Hey dude, what's a primary anyway?"), so all they've got is the ability to steal airtime from anyone who might try to challenge Comrade Clinton.
And maybe that's the whole point. Maybe even Laurie David doesn't really want a Gore Presidency, she just wants us to think she does, wants HIM to think she does because at their core, all the Democrats really want is to regain power. They believe in the cult of personality and the power of the MSM because they created the cult and are the MSM, and to a certain extent they are right. If they can get every TV set tuning in to watch this political battle of the Titans, they can also steal the thunder from any Republican candidate, at least until way after the conventions, and by then most independents will be so relieved that there's no possibility of a Gore Presidency, they'll almost be willing to cast their vote for Hillary just as a thank-you for making that nightmare go away!
Better hope she's up against McCain if this happens. Don't get me wrong, on most fronts I'm no fan of his, but he's the one guy on our side who could credibly challenge her national security credentials and ability to serve as CIC of these United States. And since at the end of the day in the national election, that's what still matters most to actual v-o-t-e-r-s, he's who we'll need to defeat her.
And if you don't think she should be defeated, that she MUST be defeated, all I have to say to you is, can I have some of what you're smoking? I could use a little visit to Alice's Wonderland right about now myself.
One thing is certain, if it ever becomes apparent that she has a real chance of winning the Presidency, I'm getting my ass out of the stock market so fast it will make your head spin (and so should you).
OK, Dad is out of the woods. He was moved on Monday to the "Transitional Care Unit" (rehab floor), and they are taking MUCH better care of him there.
Of course it probably didn't hurt that:
Lessons learned?
So now perhaps I can start to get back to my life, clean my house, fill my fridge, pay attention to my kids, my husband and the world in general (and you know when that happens I'll be back to blogging for sure). But first I must get some sleep. Even we insomnomaniacs need some from time to time, especially after a week of dealing with idiots.