The second great external challenge to the Common Defense is from the nut jobs that follow a religion that considers everyone else an infidel who should be killed or converted. Here the arguments are more subtle and so more dangerous.
The current Administration is simply not fighting this war. Of course, there is military action in Afganistan and Iraq. Whether is goes far enough or too far is a subject for a different debate. The subject here is whether the Administration gets understands what it is fighting.
There are organizations of nuts who clearly want to do as much harm to this country and its citizens as possible. The idea of promoting the common defense is that he government needs to do whatever is necessary to stop it and protect people. And do they? No. This Administration's primary concern is whether these nuts get the proper legal treatment. The international conventions on the subject clearly define that the people captured as part of these movements are not subject to the conventions covering captured soldiers. The vast majority of them are not US citizens and in no way need to be afforded the protections of the US Constitution that they are trying to destroy. Those that are US citizens are guilty of treaon and can be legally shot in time of war. In the face of all of this, the debate is about whether these guys were properly given the Miranda rights that they are not eligible for in the first place. The administration is putting their responsibility to provide for the common defense at the bottom of thgeir priority list.
Perhaps the Administration's problem in seeing this comes from an inability to realize what they are fighting. These are self proclaimed religious warriors fighting according to their interpretation of the tenants of their religion. (Whether this is what the religion really dictates is another debate for later.) But this Administration does not get the religion thing. They don’t do the religion thing at all so just can’t understand what the big deal is. To them, these nuts are just another group clinging to their guns and Bible but this time it’s a Koran and not a Bible.
Until this Administration figure out what its responsibilites are they have no chance to do what is necessary.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
The Common Defense - Part One
The first responsibility of the government is to protect its citizens against outside attacks – you know that “provide for the common defense” thing. A government that cannot do that it is worthless to its citizens. It is before promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty because unless the citizenry is safe, the General Welfare and Blessings of Liberty are meaningless concepts.
There are currently two challenges to the common defense. The first is unrestricted immigration. Unrestricted immigration is overwhelming our economy. Our social services are in jeopardy – schools, hospitals, the judicial system and other services are strained to the breaking point.
The politically correct amnesty brigade has a list of justifications for continuing to allow this flood.
This is a “country of immigrants” is often the first thing heard. True enough, but previous waves of immigrants passed through whatever were the legal processes of immigration at the time. Not so now. People are now moving from where they are to where they can get more stuff. (Government services) It is not my problem - or yours - that there are other countries that cannot provide for their own citizens because their politicians are even more corrupt and economically idiotic than ours. We have enough trouble dealing with our own dopes. The idea of immigration policy is that people who have something to contribute should be encouraged to come here, assimilate to the country and make their contribution – whatever it is. The idea that the government is encouraging people not to assimilate is an insult to those who passed this way before. Government mandates to have all signs in multiple languages, translators for everything, NYC schools teaching in over 100 languages does not help people assimilate. Think about the need for signs that say “Vote aqui”?
Another reason given for doing nothing is that actions against illegal aliens would be racist since the overwhelming majority of the illegals are Hispanic. To say that this is convoluted logic is an understatement. Incredibly, we are apparently to believe that if only more illegal aliens were white, then preventing illegal immigration would be politically correct! As always, it is someone else’s fault so they blame the Canadians! According to this bit of double-speak, if only more Canadians were streaming across the border, the government would act.
The last major argument is that “they” take jobs that “we” won’t do and at wages “we” won’t take. Ask the 10% of the people that are unemployed if they would take these jobs at the same untaxed wages. This argument also doesn’t answer the question of how these jobs were performed before this flood of illegals. That is because before the flood, lawns were mowed, holes were dug, restaurants were staffed, all the other stereotypical jobs got done and businesses got along just fine.
While the illegal flood crests, these people here who just don’t get the “illegal” part of illegal alien. Since they don’t get the illegal part, they oppose any effort to stop it. And the illegals join their protests. It is the height of folly that people who are here illegally protest against the law that says they are illegally and against any attempt to enforce those laws. Suppose another criminals banded together to do the same thing?
None of these make any sense.
There are currently two challenges to the common defense. The first is unrestricted immigration. Unrestricted immigration is overwhelming our economy. Our social services are in jeopardy – schools, hospitals, the judicial system and other services are strained to the breaking point.
The politically correct amnesty brigade has a list of justifications for continuing to allow this flood.
This is a “country of immigrants” is often the first thing heard. True enough, but previous waves of immigrants passed through whatever were the legal processes of immigration at the time. Not so now. People are now moving from where they are to where they can get more stuff. (Government services) It is not my problem - or yours - that there are other countries that cannot provide for their own citizens because their politicians are even more corrupt and economically idiotic than ours. We have enough trouble dealing with our own dopes. The idea of immigration policy is that people who have something to contribute should be encouraged to come here, assimilate to the country and make their contribution – whatever it is. The idea that the government is encouraging people not to assimilate is an insult to those who passed this way before. Government mandates to have all signs in multiple languages, translators for everything, NYC schools teaching in over 100 languages does not help people assimilate. Think about the need for signs that say “Vote aqui”?
Another reason given for doing nothing is that actions against illegal aliens would be racist since the overwhelming majority of the illegals are Hispanic. To say that this is convoluted logic is an understatement. Incredibly, we are apparently to believe that if only more illegal aliens were white, then preventing illegal immigration would be politically correct! As always, it is someone else’s fault so they blame the Canadians! According to this bit of double-speak, if only more Canadians were streaming across the border, the government would act.
The last major argument is that “they” take jobs that “we” won’t do and at wages “we” won’t take. Ask the 10% of the people that are unemployed if they would take these jobs at the same untaxed wages. This argument also doesn’t answer the question of how these jobs were performed before this flood of illegals. That is because before the flood, lawns were mowed, holes were dug, restaurants were staffed, all the other stereotypical jobs got done and businesses got along just fine.
While the illegal flood crests, these people here who just don’t get the “illegal” part of illegal alien. Since they don’t get the illegal part, they oppose any effort to stop it. And the illegals join their protests. It is the height of folly that people who are here illegally protest against the law that says they are illegally and against any attempt to enforce those laws. Suppose another criminals banded together to do the same thing?
None of these make any sense.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
A Truth!
Remember when the First Dope said that his health care plan would cover everyone except illegal aliens?
Turns out that he was telling the truth. His plan is to just announce that the illegal aliens are no longer illegal. No problem. He just signs another bill – no debate – no chance for the supposed Party of No to say “No” – he just does it by presidential fiat. So the "sort of" illegals get covered by Social Security and all the other benefits. Voting for people with green card sis next. Watch for it. Remember when this was a democratic republic?
Turns out that he was telling the truth. His plan is to just announce that the illegal aliens are no longer illegal. No problem. He just signs another bill – no debate – no chance for the supposed Party of No to say “No” – he just does it by presidential fiat. So the "sort of" illegals get covered by Social Security and all the other benefits. Voting for people with green card sis next. Watch for it. Remember when this was a democratic republic?
Saving Money
The newest report is that the savings rate is up but personal spending is unchanged. It looks like people know what to do even if the government doesn’t. A higher savings rate is good. A higher savings rate means more money is available to lend. That is what banks do. It gives a lie to the Administration’s constant statements about the lack of credit availability. Credit is available. The Administration just wants to go back to when the availability of credit meant that anyone who could fog a mirror could get a car loan or a mortgage. That is what caused the problem in the first place. The real problem now is that people/businesses don’t want to borrow in the face of uncertainty. Uncertainties like: How far up are taxes going to go for individuals and businesses? What will this health care thing cost? Will it be profitable to hire another employee? What is the next thing that this Congress will do to redistribute income?
Saluting
The Army is investigating whether some officers were not properly referential enough when referring to The First Dope and Vice-Dope. These officers did not disobey any orders; they expressed the opinion (that they thought was of the record) that the President is a dope as are some of his minions. It has clearly happened before that officers have thought the President was a dope. But his is not MacArthur/Truman; this is a few aides. The difference is that this President does not tolerate anything less than idol worship. It is laughable to think that these inquiries were not instigated by the White House. So, it is “off with their heads” as a lesson in Obama’s version of free speech to everyone in the military and out. And this is from a President who does not know what is proper when the National Anthem is played and will not display the Flag at his speeches.
Equal Opportunity Racism
Ruth Ginsburg announced that "the prospect of three women on the Supreme Court is exhilarating" and was praised for it; Sotomayer says that a "wise Latina woman" would be better for the Court and gets a pass. Could another Justice say "that I look forward to serving with as many white guys as possible because that would be really cool" and avoid the racial backlash. Exactly what is the difference? They are all racist statements.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Spin
Democrats action about the 9/11 bill and small business bills is pure posturing. The Republicans want to add an amendment to insure none of this tax money gets distributed to illegal aliens. Fine, add the amendment and vote on it. The Democrats want to spin this like the Republicans are voting against benefits to 9/11 people. Seems like there is a clear right and wrong here.
But the local paper calls this a “gotch” amendment. When there is an amendment that makes sense to the majority of the people, why is it obstruction to want to vote on it?
But the local paper calls this a “gotch” amendment. When there is an amendment that makes sense to the majority of the people, why is it obstruction to want to vote on it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
