At the blog for the Department of Justice there are two postings that got me thinking and a little bit angry. First was a posting about a Peruvian woman and a Bahamian women sentenced to jail time for helping illegal immigrants into the United States. Next was a story about a Brazilian husband and wife team sentenced to jail for helping illegal immigrants into the United States.
Why don't we just kick them out of the country? Oh yeah. Because of the sequester there were illegal aliens let out of holding for deportation because it was too expensive to keep them in custody. At least there is a consistent policy of no deportation here but now aren't we going to pay to house, feed, and guard them, sort of like they were in holding? What about the sequester?
Another thing that bothered me was that the blog postings wrote that these people people were bringing in "undocumented migrants." This is crazy. These "undocumented migrants" were breaking the law and the individuals going to jail were accomplices. Politicians are pandering to forgive illegal immigrants of their trespasses but we are putting their accomplices in jail during the sequester. It's like letting off a murder but a friend that helps bury the body is the one that goes to jail.
Another thing about the Department of Justice using the term "undocumented migrants" that bothers me is it screams like that George Carlin joke: [paraphrased] "if he's legally drunk, what's the f***ing problem?" If they are "undocumented workers" instead of being "illegal aliens" then what is the crime? Even more priceless is both posts in the title use "Alien Smuggling," not "Illegal Alien Smuggling." The Department of Justice is doing everything they can to make the illegal aliens sound innocent by using the adjective "undocumented" in the posts and "smuggling" in the title as if something was being done to them. Yet, read the post and you find out the illegal aliens pay for the services or someone else pays on their behalf. In fact, one of the cases involved the illegal aliens going from Brazil to France to England to the Bahamas to the United States so that it would appear as if they were tourists. These illegal aliens took a freaking vacation through Europe and the Bahamas as a way to break our laws! But we are going to forgive them and throw their travel agents in jail.
April 15th is coming up and I am going to find a dumb*** accountant and convince him to tell me to take a European slash Caribbean vacation as a write off. He signs the tax forms as the legal preparer and I claim to be the ignorant trodden worker that took his advice. Sweet. I'm the innocent victim.
As if it is not enough that these "undocumented migrants" were "smuggled" by twelve inch bananas, they are taken advantage of and get jobs and earn money. And so what does the government do? Fine and/or jail employers that hire illegal aliens.
Companies or employers/entrepreneurs that hire illegal aliens face fines and/or jail time. Really? Those that will give money for work are bad people/organizations?
It is just a way to blame business for the illegal actions of others. People come here to get jobs and the government is going to punish the employer for hiring someone the government did not stop from entering? The employer should understand better than the government who should be here? The employer should be better at enforcing the law than the government else be expected to be punished for not being more efficient than the government?
This is beyond crazy. The government wants to forgive the law breakers but punish the accomplices. Those that would give pay for work are also punished. So how else should the criminal entrants survive? The government teat?
The fur flying arguments among parties leaves me without knowing the truth. One side says illegals are suckling on government resources. The other side says they are hard working people earning their way because without documentation they can not suckle on the teat. And the government says they will jail or fine those that hire illegals, which leaves illegals without a job.
So what is really going on? I don't know anymore.
Legal immigration needs to be reformed. It is too expensive and complicated. It has caused a problem to want people to forgive the most law breaking part of the problem, those that enter illegally, and yet punish the most humanitarian, those that get them to a better life or give them a job.
This is why the government needs limited powers. It is not evil. It is stupid.
Showing posts with label Class Warfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Class Warfare. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Whose Phone Is It? #ObamaPhone debunked?
People are real fired up about this #ObamaPhone meme!
Conservatives are having a field day with the comments a woman made because she got an "Obama phone." She is going to vote for Obama and predicts Obama will do more. It illustrates for the conservatives the portion of the population that feed off the government largess at the taxpayers expense, and she shouts it loud and proud.
The liberal blogs are getting upset over the conservatives having a field day with the meme because there is no such thing as an Obama phone. They think the conservatives are stupid for perpetuation the meme.
There is no "Obama phone?" Technically it looks like there is not. The "Obama phone" has quite a history:
The conservatives' point is not that there is an "Obama Phone" but that this woman illustrates the awful 47% that can be bought off for her vote on government swag.
In the end, the liberals trying to make fun of conservatives over the Obama phone concept are really making fun of the Obama supporter whom thinks she has an Obama phone. And the conservatives are making fun of her for being proud of her government hand out.
However, do not worry about your tax dollars going to this program. It is funded by a charge on your phone bill called a "Federal Universal Service Charge." This charge is, of course, mandated by the government. So if you do not want to pay for these free phones you simply have to stop owning and paying for your own phone. As long as you pay for your phone, you are paying for hers.
Just to confuse matters a little more, the blog Jammie Wearing Fools points out that there is an Obama Phone website.
Conservatives are having a field day with the comments a woman made because she got an "Obama phone." She is going to vote for Obama and predicts Obama will do more. It illustrates for the conservatives the portion of the population that feed off the government largess at the taxpayers expense, and she shouts it loud and proud.
The liberal blogs are getting upset over the conservatives having a field day with the meme because there is no such thing as an Obama phone. They think the conservatives are stupid for perpetuation the meme.
There is no "Obama phone?" Technically it looks like there is not. The "Obama phone" has quite a history:
- Communications Act of 1934. President Franklin Roosevelt[tAW]
- The Lifeline program started in 1984. President Reagan[tAW]
- The Lifeline program expanded in 1996. President Clinton[tAW]
- SafeLink started in 2008. President George W. Bush[E][TP][FC]
In the end, the liberals trying to make fun of conservatives over the Obama phone concept are really making fun of the Obama supporter whom thinks she has an Obama phone. And the conservatives are making fun of her for being proud of her government hand out.
However, do not worry about your tax dollars going to this program. It is funded by a charge on your phone bill called a "Federal Universal Service Charge." This charge is, of course, mandated by the government. So if you do not want to pay for these free phones you simply have to stop owning and paying for your own phone. As long as you pay for your phone, you are paying for hers.
Just to confuse matters a little more, the blog Jammie Wearing Fools points out that there is an Obama Phone website.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
47% and no Change
By now you have probably heard the Romney 47% comments on hidden video. I have yet to see a nice continuous video to see the thing uncut. I keep hearing both sides spin what is being said. Even the Obama campaign.
The following video is the Obama campaign trying to make hay out of it and totally flubbing it. To me it sounds like when Romney talks about the 47% he means the 47% of voters who will vote for Obama no matter what. He goes on to generalize the type of people supporting Obama.
Some people say he is talking about the 47% that do not pay taxes. Are you kidding? If the people that didn't pay taxes were voting for Obama and only part of the 53% tax payers were undecided meaning most were for Romney this election is moot. There will be civil unrest as the tax payers rise up and revolt. First stop, the nearest Occupy demonstration to kick some 4$$.
But watch and the pay attention to the Obama clip in this.
You can't change Washington from the inside? Really. Wasn't Obama's message Hope and Change? But he got elected because of change. But what good does that do if you can't change Washington from the inside? It's a circular problem.
Then he cut taxes on the middle class and passed health care, i.e. ObamaCare? Didn't SCOTUS just call it a tax? A mandatory tax with a special separate penalty? That sounds like a raise in taxes.
And the people made ObamaCare happen? Not really. Remember all of the special exemptions? And now we know that Al Franken did not win the election because of all of the ineligible felon votes! That means there would not have been enough votes for ObamaCare if Franken's opponent was in office. For ObamaCare to pass some more "deals" would need to be made.
Obama is right. He couldn't change Washington. He had to make all sorts of special deals to get legislation passed. Does that sound like change?
But ObamaCare is popular among his supporters. In fact, Romney is correct in that Obama supporters depend on the government. In fact this "Vote Early" video has the supporter claiming that health care is a "right."
Wow. Doctors. You hear that? Everybody has a right to your services. You have to serve them under government decree according to the Obama supporters.
Yeah. This in no way sounds like socialism, dependence, or government force. But there are definitely victims. Doctors and tax payers.
The following video is the Obama campaign trying to make hay out of it and totally flubbing it. To me it sounds like when Romney talks about the 47% he means the 47% of voters who will vote for Obama no matter what. He goes on to generalize the type of people supporting Obama.
Some people say he is talking about the 47% that do not pay taxes. Are you kidding? If the people that didn't pay taxes were voting for Obama and only part of the 53% tax payers were undecided meaning most were for Romney this election is moot. There will be civil unrest as the tax payers rise up and revolt. First stop, the nearest Occupy demonstration to kick some 4$$.
But watch and the pay attention to the Obama clip in this.
You can't change Washington from the inside? Really. Wasn't Obama's message Hope and Change? But he got elected because of change. But what good does that do if you can't change Washington from the inside? It's a circular problem.
Then he cut taxes on the middle class and passed health care, i.e. ObamaCare? Didn't SCOTUS just call it a tax? A mandatory tax with a special separate penalty? That sounds like a raise in taxes.
And the people made ObamaCare happen? Not really. Remember all of the special exemptions? And now we know that Al Franken did not win the election because of all of the ineligible felon votes! That means there would not have been enough votes for ObamaCare if Franken's opponent was in office. For ObamaCare to pass some more "deals" would need to be made.
Obama is right. He couldn't change Washington. He had to make all sorts of special deals to get legislation passed. Does that sound like change?
But ObamaCare is popular among his supporters. In fact, Romney is correct in that Obama supporters depend on the government. In fact this "Vote Early" video has the supporter claiming that health care is a "right."
Wow. Doctors. You hear that? Everybody has a right to your services. You have to serve them under government decree according to the Obama supporters.
Yeah. This in no way sounds like socialism, dependence, or government force. But there are definitely victims. Doctors and tax payers.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Everyone Loves an Underdog
Romney raised more money than Obama in May. This news seems to be catching on like wildfire. I first saw this news on a post at Obama's campaign site. The post takes this news and spins it into a tale of Obama fighting the rich and powerful because Romney's contributions came in large amounts and Obama's contributions came in small amounts.
In fact, there is a new "panic" video put up by the Obama campaign:
None the less, if Obama does not raise as much money or more than Romney every month, he will be painted as an underdog. Romney will always be portrayed as the rich man buying his way to the White House. Walker's recent victory in the recall election has been attributed to the fact he got more contributions. Who raises more money really isn't news unless you want to use it to gain underdog status and promote a dramatic rising from the ashes victory, and the next step will be for the Obama campaign to insert Walker's victory into Obama's quest for a second term.
So what were the numbers for May?
Romney will continue to get tagged as getting special interest and big dollar donations. Obama will get tagged as getting his money from the people. Obama doesn't care about the rich; he cares about the poor and middle class. You can see his sincerity with the Sarah Jessica Parker and Anna Wintour commercials and the George Clooney dinner. Obama in no way can be connected with the rich like Romney can.
Remember. The meme is Walker won because of money. Now, every time Romney raises more than Obama, Romney is buying the election, even if in the end Romney ends up short.
In fact, there is a new "panic" video put up by the Obama campaign:
None the less, if Obama does not raise as much money or more than Romney every month, he will be painted as an underdog. Romney will always be portrayed as the rich man buying his way to the White House. Walker's recent victory in the recall election has been attributed to the fact he got more contributions. Who raises more money really isn't news unless you want to use it to gain underdog status and promote a dramatic rising from the ashes victory, and the next step will be for the Obama campaign to insert Walker's victory into Obama's quest for a second term.
So what were the numbers for May?
But what are their current war chest totals?May Fundraising
Obama $60 Million Romney $76.8 Million
Romney has five months to close a $102 million gap. If he can raise $16.8 million more than Obama every month he will still end up $18 million short. Romney having one good month on Obama does not make Obama an underdog. Romney can keep doing this good and Romney will still be the underdog financially. But the frenzy across the news will not paint it that way.Current Totals
Obama $277 Million Romney $175 Million
Romney will continue to get tagged as getting special interest and big dollar donations. Obama will get tagged as getting his money from the people. Obama doesn't care about the rich; he cares about the poor and middle class. You can see his sincerity with the Sarah Jessica Parker and Anna Wintour commercials and the George Clooney dinner. Obama in no way can be connected with the rich like Romney can.
Remember. The meme is Walker won because of money. Now, every time Romney raises more than Obama, Romney is buying the election, even if in the end Romney ends up short.
Monday, June 4, 2012
The Poor
MoveOn.org has done it again. Trying to show how awful America is without really understanding their own example. See as they tell us that we have a high rate of children living in poverty.
Did you read how poverty is determined?
Since America is a really rich country, the poor in America are richer than the poor in other countries. Iceland has the lowest poverty rate according to this chart. Remember that country went broke? Imagine how low the median income is there. You don't need to imagine. Here are the numbers:
So if you make less than $1,580.55 in Iceland you are considered poor. If you make less than $25,706.50 in the United States you are considered poor. Someone in the United States earning 8 times more than the Icelandic median income is considered poor?
It is time to bring out this gem of a video from Bill Whittle at PJTV.com. It describes what the poor in America have.
Did you read how poverty is determined?
% of children living in households with equivalent income lower than 50% of national medianDid you catch that? This chart is trying to compare apples to oranges. Instead of a single standard to determine poverty, each country uses different numbers to determine who's poor.
Since America is a really rich country, the poor in America are richer than the poor in other countries. Iceland has the lowest poverty rate according to this chart. Remember that country went broke? Imagine how low the median income is there. You don't need to imagine. Here are the numbers:
2011 Median Income
Iceland 410,000 ISK ($3,161.10) United States $51,413
So if you make less than $1,580.55 in Iceland you are considered poor. If you make less than $25,706.50 in the United States you are considered poor. Someone in the United States earning 8 times more than the Icelandic median income is considered poor?
It is time to bring out this gem of a video from Bill Whittle at PJTV.com. It describes what the poor in America have.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Angela's note to the President : a Commentary
The following is a letter from an Obama supporter on the Obama site. My commentary is made in blue when necessary.
Angela's note to the President
By Lauren Peterson on
"I was part of the energy that sparked a movement to get you elected. A "movement," not a campaign? A "movement" to change America? I believed in everything you said in Chicago that night about change and hope. I thought it was "hope and change." I know you had a mess to clean up in Washington upon your arrival Blame Bush., and as an uninsured American I was waiting patiently for Obamacare. She had no intention of correcting her insurance problem herself? She intended on waiting for government? I graduated from grad school during the recession and still can’t find full-time employment No kidding. Neither can a lot of people., but cried during the State of the Union when you proclaimed the worth of teachers and educators. What? "I like teachers." Boo hoo! Really?
"Now, as a lesbian woman who 'married' her partner of nine years last July (technically a civil union), I am just so overwhelmed. Overwhelmed, about being married? Are you looking for government to make marriage/civil unions less "overwhelming?" I believe in you He's a man, not a god. and always knew that you are a fair and just man who cares about all Americans—not just those at the top Have you not been listening? He hates the top! He wants to destory the top. He is promoting class warfare., but all of us who are trying desperately to have some peace and live a decent and modest life." You will not get peace if he has his way. The government telling you that you must buy a product is not living in peace. The only peace you will have is when the energy market is destroyed and you will have nothing to power your iPod.
—Angela, Illinois
Monday, May 7, 2012
Obama Opposes Balancing the Budget
Somehow I missed this, but the Obama campaign is officially against balancing the budget. On November 17, 2011 the Obama campaign posted the following scare graphic that is a sample of the PDF you can download that tells you how bad a "Balanced Budget Amendment" would be.
The claim is a balanced budget is done on the backs of the middle class.
How?
If you are middle class you do not need government help. This tactic is of course to scare the most likely voters to embrace an irresponsible government. Try to convince them that the government needs to spend money on them.
Ignore all of the class warfare rhetoric. Let us just say for a moment that the cuts that the scare graphic illustrates are true. Isn't it better to cut the programs than to have the country go bankrupt and have zero funding in the end?
Obama is betting that people are selfish and short sighted. Unfortunately, that is fairly true.
The claim is a balanced budget is done on the backs of the middle class.
How?
If you are middle class you do not need government help. This tactic is of course to scare the most likely voters to embrace an irresponsible government. Try to convince them that the government needs to spend money on them.
Ignore all of the class warfare rhetoric. Let us just say for a moment that the cuts that the scare graphic illustrates are true. Isn't it better to cut the programs than to have the country go bankrupt and have zero funding in the end?
Obama is betting that people are selfish and short sighted. Unfortunately, that is fairly true.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
A Fair Screwing
The White House has released a video today about taxes. Funny, the post before this highlights a video from LearnLiberty.org that is also about taxes. The contrast between the two videos is absolutely frightening.
This video officially states that the White House has ZERO interest in helping you, but want to punish rich people to make you feel better about making things "fair."
What was the justification that millionaires pay at least 30% makes it fair? How do you come by that number?
I love how he uses the fictional character Will Bailey as a reference for pointing out that the concept of the progressive tax system has been around more than a century. That is not an argument for the merit of a system. Dictatorships and slavery are even older. Is it okay to support those concepts if a fictional character points out how long they have been around?
If you watched the LearnLiberty.org video you might have noticed that their numbers look a little different. The White House puts the 1960 high tax rate at 50%. LearnLiberty.org puts the number at 90%. Who was right? Wikipedia says 89%. The White House chart is wrong. Was the truth a bit too scary to show? And why is the fact that tax rates going down is the wrong direction? Should they only go up?
Is this really all we are going to get from this White House is class warfare? Someone is doing better than you. Let's punish them.
Pathetic.
This video officially states that the White House has ZERO interest in helping you, but want to punish rich people to make you feel better about making things "fair."
What was the justification that millionaires pay at least 30% makes it fair? How do you come by that number?
I love how he uses the fictional character Will Bailey as a reference for pointing out that the concept of the progressive tax system has been around more than a century. That is not an argument for the merit of a system. Dictatorships and slavery are even older. Is it okay to support those concepts if a fictional character points out how long they have been around?
If you watched the LearnLiberty.org video you might have noticed that their numbers look a little different. The White House puts the 1960 high tax rate at 50%. LearnLiberty.org puts the number at 90%. Who was right? Wikipedia says 89%. The White House chart is wrong. Was the truth a bit too scary to show? And why is the fact that tax rates going down is the wrong direction? Should they only go up?
Is this really all we are going to get from this White House is class warfare? Someone is doing better than you. Let's punish them.
Pathetic.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Wake Up GEN44!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)