Saturday, December 17, 2011

Newspeak illustrated

I have an AT&T Internet service, which gives me a YAHOO! portal to retrieve my sbcglobal e-mails.  (My, that's a interesting road, but not today.)

At any rate, YAHOO! has some of the lamest news stories.  Like the Top 10 cities for (fill in the blank).  You click on the story and it teases you to no end before it finally allows you to look at the Top 10 one at a time.  I've learned not to click on such stories.

Well, YAHOO! has a feature called Shine.  And the latest Shine story was about how the rumor that the incandescent light bulb is going away is FALSE.  (How green of YAHOO! to post a story like that.  The Gen Xers will love it.)  The intent is to calm our fears.  The government is not changing anything, they say.  Sort of.  Like FactCheck or MediaMatters or AttackWatch, they got it wrong.

As the story unfolds I get confused.  Actually, the 100W light bulb really is going away.  They've got a 72W that costs more but seems brighter.  And they don't even say anything about the CFL that most people will buy to replace the 100W incandescent that really isn't going away according to the story because you're supposed to buy the more expensive, new and improved 72W, because the government is forcing the 100W off the market.

Link here:

Now, I don't think YAHOO! got the message yet that Congress pulled the enforcement funding from the New Years Day law, so the new law is DOA for now.

But this last minute courage isn't anything but election year fluff.  Companies that sell bulbs have been making plans for this change for months.  I really doubt they'll go all out to retool for the old 100W bulb just for a few months.

Ya gotta love Congress.  ...and YAHOO! for trying to spin the liberal agenda into gold.

PS- This super-secret new technology is called...Valdemort...I mean halogen.  But if the reporter had journalistic integrity she would have owned up to the fact that the manufacture of incandescent 100W bulbs was outlawed by Congress and you will need to buy 72W halogen bulbs (some of which look like the old incandescent) in the future.  But that would make it sound like government is telling us what to do with our lives.

Saturday, December 10, 2011

The White House Position - December 2011

I recently received a form letter from The White House on immigration.  This is apparently the latest authoritative position of Obama himself:

December 9, 2011

Dear Friend:

Thank you for writing.  I have heard from many Americans concerned about immigration, and I appreciate your perspective.

Americans are rightly frustrated with our Nation's broken immigration system, and I share that frustration.  We need an immigration system that meets America's 21st century economic and security needs, and that can only be achieved by putting politics aside and coming together to develop a comprehensive solution that continues to secure our borders, holds businesses responsible for who they hire, strengthens our economic competitiveness, and requires undocumented immigrants to get right with the law.  That is how we can reaffirm our heritage as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.

My Administration has invested an unprecedented amount of resources, technology, and manpower to secure our borders, and our efforts are producing real results.  Today, our Southern border is more secure than ever with more law enforcement personnel working along it than at any time in American history.  Along with significant reductions in the number of people trying to cross the border illegally, crime rates along the border are down, and we have seized more illegal guns, cash, and drugs than in years past.  In addition to doing what is necessary to secure our borders, my Administration is taking action against employers who knowingly exploit people and break the law, and criminal immigrants who pose a threat to the safety of American communities. 

I remain deeply committed to working in a bipartisan way to enact immigration reform that restores accountability and responsibility to our broken immigration system.  The Federal Government has the responsibility to continue to secure our borders.  Those immigrants who are here illegally have a responsibility to pay taxes, pay a fine, learn English, and undergo background checks before they can be considered for legalization.  At the same time, we need to provide businesses a legal way to hire the workers they rely on, and a path for those workers to earn legal status.  Stopping illegal immigration also depends upon reforming our outdated system of legal immigration.  We should make it easier for the best and brightest immigrants to stay here and help create jobs in America.  The law should also stop punishing young people who were brought to this country illegally as children by giving them a chance to stay and earn a legal status if they pursue higher education or serve in our military. 

By creating a 21st century immigration system that is true to our principles, our Nation will remain a land of opportunity, prosperity, and freedom for all.  To learn more about my Administration's efforts regarding immigration, or to read our Blueprint for Immigration Reform, please visit:

For additional information and resources on current immigration and enforcement efforts, I encourage you to visit or call 1-800-375-5283.


Barack Obama

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Why we like Gingrich and Cain

It is fascinating to watch the GOP presidential candidates.  The flavor-of-the-month theory sure is playing out.  Perry has a couple of weeks of fame, then Cain, followed by Gingrich.  All the while Romney keeps coming back as the choice for those of us willing to "settle" for a ho-hum candidate.

With all the TV exposure (I'm suffering from debate fatigue myself) and all the media hyping, we are being played like a yo-yo.  But that's a topic for another day.

I think we like Gingrich and Cain because they are plain-spoken.  They are willing to say the things that need to be said; things we'd like to say about the direction of our country.

No one does that better than Newt and Herman.  Romney plays the moderate and talks like a politician is supposed to talk.  He's got the lingo down...things like, "Mistakes were made," and "My esteemed colleague from Illinois,"  blah blah blah.

We are looking for some candor; some truth-telling; a little vicarious venting.  We want a candidate to tell us that Obama is clueless about what drives the economy.  We want a leader who is willing to call out this administration and congress for spending too much and leading us too far to the left.

Most of all, we want plain talk so we can figure out where they stand and what they'd do if elected.

I think that if they are this rehearsed in the primary season, they will be no good to us at all once they start wooing the moderates.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Newt's Folly

GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has endorsed a form of amnesty for illegal aliens that apparently has the following features:
1) The illegal must have longevity.  Newt mentioned an example of 25 years in the United States.
2) He must have family roots here.
3) He must already have a job.
4) He must not have a criminal record.
5) He will not be offered citizenship.

From what I can see, he's not offering much.  In 2001, the Bush administration was comfortable with the figure of 3 million illegal aliens, far less than the 12 million here now.  So, what's he offering?  Maybe 500,000 green cards?

As for taking citizenship off the table, that means nothing to the illegal aliens.  Here's a chart showing the percentage of the 1986 amnesty group who later became citizens.
This illustrates the falsehood of declaring that illegal aliens want the American Dream.  They don't.  They want to work here and take advantage of our standard of living, but they really don't buy into our Constitutional Laws and our free market economy.

They are perfectly willing to live three of four families to a home and send $300 a month back home.  Our main source of all immigrants is Mexico, and their naturalization rates are pathetically low.  Only about 25% of eligible Mexicans bother to naturalize, despite campaigns like fee discounts, free classes and even programs to get them on the voter rolls, such as  the Al Gore "Citizenship USA" program in 1995.

It appears that Gingrich is offering a plum to attract brown voters without really doing much.  Such a move is smart, but oh so dumb.  Any form of amnesty is just plain wrong for America and sends the wrong message.  To reward bad behavior is never a good idea.  And any amnesty really fails to address the litany of local problems caused by black market immigration.

If we don't control entry, we lose everything afterwards.  Who are they?  Why are they coming?  Will they become a public charge?  Are they capable of self-insurance?  Will they need subsidies for food and housing?  Do we have the capacity to educate them?Are they healthy?  Do they have criminal intentions?  Are they terrorists?

They have bypassed the very reasons we have immigration laws in the first place.

And Newt is spitting in the face of our own unemployed as well as those who are waiting to come here legally.

Perhaps most important is the push back required to hold the line against the 165 million people in the third world who have an eye on the United States as their new home.

What do you do with the 12 million?  You enforce the law and they will self-deport.  Mandatory E-Verify and a review of the existing workforce will put pressure on those who have false documents and, more importantly, leave unscrupulous employers without excuse.  Prosecute the business owners and you will see a vast improvement in compliance.

Deporting people who are here illegally (rather than apologize for them) will send a message that it is no longer safe to live here without papers.  They WILL go home once they know we are serious about enforcing our laws.

Gingrich is dead wrong on this one.

Source link on chart:

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Free Baba Suwe!

How embarrassing!  After 25 days, they've got nothing for the evidence room.
"Leading Nigerian comic actor Babatunde Omidina, known by the stage name as Baba Suwe, raises his hands after being freed on bail for peddling on hard drugs by the Lagos High Court. Omidina was arrested last month at Lagos international airport on suspicion of ingesting drugs to smuggling to Europe but after 25 closely monitored bowel movements produced nothing suspicious" 

Follow the link for a photo (of Baba, not the bowel movement):

Friday, November 4, 2011

2012 - Year of the Illegal Alien

The presidential race is bound to be far different than 2008 when it comes to the subject of illegal aliens.

Rick Perry is proposing a guest worker program that will allow illegal aliens to get work permits, but not citizenship.  (The sleight-of-hand here is that only about 22% of Mexican immigrants actually want to become U S citizens.  They want the jobs and the freebies, but they don’t really care about naturalization.)

And, like George W. Bush, he demands that we don’t call it amnesty.  (That joke is no funnier this time around, Rick.)

I praise Perry for putting this on the table, because it smokes out the positions of the other candidates in the process.  Four years ago we didn’t really have that catalyst.  The strategy then was to avoid talking about it.  But the GOP debates have given an airing of the issue.  And that is likely to continue.

Chalk it up to the economy or the Tea Party or New Media, but the candidates can no longer hide from the immigration issue.

And the race card has been played so much that it no longer gets the attention of any but the most ardent Obama supporters.  You won’t change their minds no matter what you do.

Obama has made his bed and can only continue to preach legalization.  He’s got the party platform requiring it.  He’s got the unions demanding it.  He’s got the Latino activists crying for it.  He’s got an unkept promise hanging over his head.  The man has nowhere to run.

And his previous trick of isolating the message with Univision and Telemundo no longer works.  The information is out there to the general public as soon as he utters the words, and it only makes him look sly for trying.

And so, cracking down on illegal aliens sells well for the GOP.
1)     Conservatives like it
2)     The economy calls for it
3)     It separates them from the message on the left
4)     It speaks to the rule of law
5)     There are abundant examples to make the point

Still we must guard against proposals that appear to be fixing the problem, but really do not.  Perry’s guest worker permit is one of them.  It is very popular these days.  Utah has a bill in the works and even Obama is pushing for it.  It is nothing more than 245i on steroids.

Another cop-out is the old “Build the dang fence,” message.  Border security IS important, but inadequate by itself.  Candidates need to talk about E-Verify, visa control, interior enforcement, detention beds, fed-local cooperation, making unlawful presence a felony, tightening up ID theft punishment, worksite raids…

There are large numbers of people watching for the message, and far more outlets for reliable media information.  Candidates can no longer control the message by controlling the old media.  And conservatives are tied together with e-mail, newsletters, blogs, websites, Facebook, Twitter…the narrative is wide open this time around.

Link to Perry’s amnesty program:

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Whose money is it anyway?

Remember the Drew Carey improv show, "Whose line is it anyway?"

Well, thanks to Tyler Hensley, a young man from Napa, we have the political equivalent of that question.
On September 12, 2011, Tyler asked the GOP Presidential candidates:
"Out of every dollar that I earn, how much do you think that I deserve to keep?"

 Mormon apostle Dallin Oaks made a similar point regarding tax deductions at a recent Senate hearing on charitable donations,  He said, “Some economists and other scholars contend that this is, in effect, a tax expenditure because tax revenues are reduced by the benefit granted. In other words, because the government could have denied the charitable deduction there is a government expenditure in its granting the deduction and forgoing the revenue. By that reasoning the personal income we think is ours is really the government’s because of its choice not to take it away by taxation. That is surely an attitude not shared by most Americans.”  (October 18, 2011 Senate Finance Committee Hearing)

Here is a transcript of the answers given to Tyler's question at the debate:  

QUESTION: Hi. My name is Tyler Hensley (ph). I'm from Napa, California. My -- well, first of all, thank you guys for coming out tonight. My question is, out of every dollar that I earn, how much do you think that I deserve to keep?

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, (R-MN.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Oh, I love that question. I love that question.



BLITZER: Governor Huntsman?

FORMER GOV. JON HUNTSMAN, (R-UT.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I've come out with a tax program that basically simplifies, lowers, flattens the rate, why? Because I did it as governor in the state of Utah; I believe that that experience means something.

And I look at people who are earning, you in the workplace, trying to make ends meet. You ought to be given a competitive tax code. We need to clear out the cobwebs. We need to clear out the deductions, the loopholes, the corporate welfare, and all the subsidies. And for you, you know, we leave it at 8 percent, 14 percent, 24 percent. Those are the three rates that I think would work on the individual income side.

On the corporate side, I think we recognize the reality that a whole lot of companies can afford to have lobbyists and lawyers on Capitol Hill working their magic. Let's recognize the reality that they're all paying 35 percent. We need to lower that to 25 percent. So let's phase out the corporate subsidies and clean out the cobwebs and leave it more competitive for the 21st century.

I can tell you, by doing that with our tax code -- and I know, because we did it in a state that took us to the number-one job creator in this country -- it will leave you and your generation a whole lot better off.

But the thing that you all need to be worried about is the debt that is coming your way, because we have a cancer that is eating away at the core of this country called debt. And it's going to eat -- eat -- eat alive this country until your generation gets active in the 2012 election cycle and finds a leader who can address debt and growth.


BLITZER: Thank you, Governor.

Speaker Gingrich, some of the biggest companies in the United States, the oil companies, they got -- I guess some would call government handouts in the form of tax breaks, tax exemptions, loopholes. They're making billions and billions of dollars. Is that fair?

FORMER REP. NEWT GINGRICH, (R-GA.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You know, I thought for a second, you were going to refer to General Electric, which has paid no taxes.


You know, I -- I was -- I was astonished the other night to have the president there in the joint session with the head of G.E. sitting up there and the president talking about taking care of loopholes. And I thought to myself, doesn't he realize that every green tax credit is a loophole...


... that everything he wants -- everything General Electric is doing is a loophole? Now, why did we get to breaks for ethanol, breaks for oil and gas, et cetera? We got to them because of this idea, which the young man just represented. If we make you -- if we make it possible for you to keep more of your own money, you will do more of it.

We have a simple choice. We can depend on Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, or we can encourage development in the United States of manufacturing, as Rick said. We can encourage development of oil and gas. We can do it by saying we're going to let you keep more of your money if you create more of what we want. I'm for an energy- independent America, and that means I favor people who create energy.


BLITZER: But I just want to follow up, Mr. Speaker. If you eliminate some of those loopholes, those exemptions, whether for ExxonMobil or G.E. or some other companies, there are those who argue that is, in effect, a tax increase and it would violate a pledge that so many Republicans have made not to raise taxes.

GINGRICH: Yes, a lot of people argue that. They're -- they're technically right, which is why I'm -- look, I'm cheerfully opposed to raising taxes. This government -- we have a problem of overspending. We don't have a problem of undertaxing.

And I think that it would be good for us to say, we're not going to raise any -- which is why I'm also in favor of keeping the current tax cut for people who are working on Social Security and Medicare. I think trying to raise the tax on working Americans in the middle of the Obama depression is a destructive policy. So I don't want to have any tax increase at any level for anyone. I want to shrink government to fit income, not raise income to try to catch up with government.

So, I guess none of the candidates had an answer for him.  Too bad, because the foundation of policy is ideology, and none of the candidates did very well, did they?

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

The GOP in Vegas

Last night was the GOP presidential debate in Las Vegas, broadcast by CNN.

More than ever the candidates talked about immigration reform.  The fence was the first topic and a couple of people suggested all 2,100 miles of it.

That may be overkill, but others talked about strategic placement, drone monitoring and a rapid response by BP agents.  That's more like it.  Our problem in the past is that executive control of enforcement on the border amounted to enforcing to the desired number.

For example, if you want to "prove" that fewer people are trying to cross, you either TBS (meaning that when you catch someone, instead of doing the paperwork you simply tell them to turn around) or you sit on an "X" (meaning that the BP agents position themselves in one spot, allowing illegals to avoid arrest by using another path).  There are ways to make the numbers say anything you want.

Some candidates talked about military presence ("boots on the ground") to stop the flow.  The obvious follow-up question involves the rules of engagement.  Will they patrol the border?  Will they carry weapons?  We learned that when they "call out the guard," all they are doing is acting as construction workers to put up light poles  and build fences.  A few sit in buildings and monitor screens for movement.

Real military presence would mean true force-multipliers for the BP.  And when you do that, expect backlash from Mexico.  Are these candidates willing to stand tall against Calderon?  That seems like a stupid question, but this president and the last one have been cowards when it comes to Mexican diplomacy.

Some of the GOP candidates were bold enough to talk about mandatory E-Verify.

None talked about deportation, detention beds, withholding benefits and local cooperation programs.

I'm glad they are talking about enforcement, and glad they are talking tough.  But there is still much that is left unsaid.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

AWOL Senators

Perhaps Washington is too busy.  Perhaps they have too many meetings.
But one thing is certain: They do a lousy job of representing us.
A case in point is a Senate Finance Committee hearing held today (October 18, 2011)
Keep in mind that this committee consists of 24 members, about half from each party.

The topic was tax deductions for charitable giving.

Now, some photos of the proceedings:
This screen shot shows Max Baucus as Chairman.  He will open the meeting and stay for 20 minutes of the two hour hearing.

Grassley makes an appearance and makes a statement, then leaves.  He shows no interest in what the presenters have to say.

Cardin, Carper and Thune also attended parts of the hearing.  And they had questions for the panel of five.
At one point, about 75 minutes in, Hatch excuses himself, leaving the meeting without a chairman.
At the end, he was alone to swing the gavel.

How in the world do our leaders expect to lead when they don't even attend the meetings?

Here's a nugget of truth from one of the presenters at the hearing:

“Some economists and other scholars contend that this is, in effect, a tax expenditure because tax revenues are reduced by the benefit granted. In other words, because the government could have denied the charitable deduction there is a government expenditure in its granting the deduction and forgoing the revenue. By that reasoning the personal income we think is ours is really the government’s because of its choice not to take it away by taxation. That is surely an attitude not shared by most Americans.”

Elder Dallin H Oaks, Senate Hearing on Charitable Giving, October 18, 2011

For the record, here is a list of all the Senate Finance Committee members.

Chairman: Max Baucus, Democrat MT
Ranking member: Orrin Hatch, Republican UT

John D. Rockefeller IV WV
Kent Conrad ND
Jeff Bingaman NM
John F. Kerry MA
Ron Wyden OR
Charles E. Schumer NY
Debbie Stabenow MI
Maria Cantwell WA
Bill Nelson FL
Robert Menendez NJ
Thomas R. Carper DE
Benjamin L. Cardin MD

Chuck Grassley IA
Olympia J. Snowe ME
Jon  Kyl  AZ
Mike Crapo ID
Pat Roberts KS
Michael B. Enzi WY
John Cornyn TX
Tom Coburn OK
John Thune SD
Richard Burr NC

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

A 46-year-old time capsule

That was then...
this is now.

I take you back to the year 1965.  It was a time of unrest in America.  Students were burning everything from bras to draft cards, with a few American flags and effigies of Presidents thrown in for good measure.

A prophetic voice sounded in the form of Gordon B. Hinckley, then an apostle of the LDS Church.  (We would do well to note that Mitt Romney’s father was probably in attendance at the meeting.  It is clear that he raised his children according to the principles outlined by Hinckley.  Obama was probably never taught anything of the sort, since his mother was one of the protesters of the day.  Just sayin’.)

Hinckley opened the Saturday morning session of the LDS General Conference on October 2, 1965.  His sermon was titled, “A Charter for Youth.”

Below are excerpts from his remarks: 

It is a four-point charter. It is a bill of entitlement, setting forth briefly some of those priceless values we owe every young American, and the youth of the world. They are—

1. A home to grow in.
I mention first a home to grow in. I recently read an article written by a young man who roamed the Berkeley campus and its environs. His descriptions were clever, but his illustrations were tragic. He told of a girl, a student from an affluent home. Her father was a man of means, an executive of a large corporation, loyal to the company, loyal to his club, loyal to his party, but unwittingly a traitor to his family. Her mother had saved the civic opera, but had lost her children. The daughter, a child of promise, had become entangled in a student revolt, and without an anchor, had quit school, and had drifted to the beatnik crowd, her will-o'-the-wisp satisfactions coming only from nights of reveling and days of rebellion.

Of course, her father mourned and her mother wept. They blamed her, evidently unaware of their own miserable example of parenthood which had done much to bring her to the tragic circumstances in which she found herself.

As I read that account there passed through my mind the classic statement uttered at this pulpit by President McKay—"No other success can compensate for failure in the home."

It is the rightful heritage of every child to be part of a home in which to grow—to grow in love in the family relationship, to grow in appreciation one for another, to grow in understanding of the things of the world, to grow in knowledge of the things of God.

I was recently handed these statistics taken from the county records of one of our Southwest communities. In 1964 in this county of which I speak, there were 5807 marriages and 5419 divorces, almost one divorce for every marriage. Can we expect stability out of instability? Is it any wonder that many of our youth wander in rebellion when they come from homes where there is no evidence of love, where there is a lack of respect one for another, where there is no expression of faith? We hear much these days of the Great Society, and I do not disparage the motives of those who espouse it, but we shall have a great society only as we develop good people, and the source of good people is good homes.

It was said of old, "Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it" ( Ps. 127:1).

2. An Education Worth Striving For
I move to the second premise of this charter for youth—an education worth striving for. Time will permit little more than a brief mention of a few observations.

Education has become our largest business. On the basis of economics alone, it is larger than steel, or automobiles, or chemicals. On the basis of its influence upon our society, its impact is incalculable. Its very size, particularly in our universities, has brought into relief its most serious problem—a lack of communication between teacher and student, and a consequent lack of motivation of those who come to be taught.

A recent article in one of our national magazines contained this statement from a college teacher: ". . . there has hardly been a time, in my experience, when students needed more attention and patient listening to by experienced professors than today. The pity is that so many of us retreat into research, government contracts, and sabbatical travel, leaving counsel and instruction to junior colleagues and graduate assistants . . . What is needed are fewer books and articles by college professors and more cooperative search by teacher and taught for an authority upon which to base freedom and individuality." (J. Glenn Gray, Harper's Magazine, May 1965; p. 59.)

The great thoughts, the great expressions, the great acts of all time deserve more than cursory criticism. They deserve a sympathetic and an enthusiastic presentation to youth, who in their hearts hunger for ideals and long to look at the stars. Nor is it our responsibility as teachers to destroy the faith of those who come to us, it is our opportunity to recognize and build on that faith. If God be the author of all truth, as we believe, then there can be no conflict between true science, true philosophy, and true religion.

3. A Land To Be Proud of
I move to the next—a land to be proud of. Congress recently passed a law inflicting heavy penalties for the willful destruction of draft cards. That destruction was essentially an act of defiance, but it was most serious as a symptom of a malady that is not likely to be cured by legislation. Patriotism evidently is gone from the hearts of many of our youth.

Perhaps this condition comes of lack of knowledge, a provincialism that knows nothing else and scoffs at what little it knows. Perhaps it comes of ingratitude. This attitude is not new. Joshua, speaking for the Lord, doubtless had in mind this same indifference when he said to a new generation that had not known the trials of the old: ". . . I have given you a land for which ye did not labour, and cities which ye built not, and ye dwell in them; of the vineyards and oliveyards which ye planted not do ye eat" ( Josh. 24:13).
We shall not build love of country by taking away from our youth the principles which made us strong—thrift, initiative, self-reliance, and an overriding sense of duty to God and to man.

A terrible price has been paid by those who have gone before us, this that we might have the blessings of liberty and peace. I stood not long ago at Valley Forge, where George Washington and his ragged army spent the winter of 1776. As I did so, I thought of a scene from Maxwell Anderson's play in which Washington looks on a little group of his soldiers, shoveling the cold earth over a dead comrade, and says grimly, "This liberty will look easy by and by when nobody dies to get it."

How we need to kindle in the hearts of youth an old-fashioned love of country and a reverence for the land of their birth. But we shall not do it with tawdry political maneuvering and enormous handouts for which nothing is given in return.

Love of country is born of nobler stuff—of the challenge of struggle that makes precious the prize that's earned.

This is a good land, declared by the Lord in the scripture in which we believe to be ". . . a land . . . choice above all other lands" ( 1 Ne. 2:20), governed under a constitution framed under the inspiration of the Almighty.

4. A Faith To Live By
And now the fourth premise of my charter—a faith to live by.

It was said of old that "where there is no vision, the people perish" ( Prov. 29:18). Vision of what? Vision concerning the things of God, and a stem and unbending adherence to divinely pronounced standards. There is evidence aplenty that young people will respond to the clear call of divine truth, but they are quick to detect and abandon that which has only a form of godliness but denies the power thereof ( 2 Tim. 3:5), "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" ( Matt. 15:9; see  JS—H 1:19).

I have sincere respect for my brethren of other faiths, and I know that they are aware of the great problem they face in a dilution of their teachings as some try to make their doctrine more generally acceptable. Dr. Robert McAffee Brown, professor of religion at Stanford, was recently quoted as saying:

"Much of what is going on at present on the Protestant scene gives the impression of being willing to jettison whatever is necessary in order to appeal to the modern mentality . . .

"It is not the task of Christians to whittle away their heritage until it is finally palatable to all." (The Daily Herald, [Provo, Utah], August 12, 1965, p. 13-A.)

To this we might add that what is palatable to all is not likely to be satisfying to any, and particularly to a generation of searching, questioning, seeking, probing young men and women.

In all the change about them, they need a constancy of faith in unchanging verities. They need the testimony of their parents and their teachers, of their preachers and their leaders that God our Eternal Father lives and rules over the universe; that Jesus is the Christ, his Only Begotten in the flesh, the Savior of the world, that the heavens are not sealed; that revelation comes to those appointed of God to receive it; that divine authority is upon the earth.

Source link:

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Crosshairs aren't new

There is a great deal of noise these days about how mean spirited our criticism has been toward our politicians.  Everyone is on high alert whenever anyone talks about "crosshairs" or words with any sort of double meaning.

My personal observation has been that the left has redefined criticism as hate speech.  Disrespect of the president happened all the time, but became a "civility" issue in January of 2009.  Hmmm.

Dick Cheney was on WLS radio yesterday and he was asked the question about this lack of civility.  His answer was an interesting one.  He said he was ill-qualified to judge the question, but that he recalled that when he first moved his family to Washington in 1968 there were 14,000 US troops in the streets of DC.  Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King had been killed that year and people were marching in the streets all the time. 

I remember those days.  I recall civil right marches, anti-war marches and feminist marches. 

I remember regular burnings of the flag and effigies of the president.  You don't get more uncivil than that!

The Tea Party has a reputation for hauling out their own trash and policing the area to pick up the garbage left by others.  And yet they are painted as hateful.

The real problem is that they are tugging at the leftist narrative and challenging the progressive movement on its corrupt leadership and self-serving motives.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the people blowing things up aren't conservatives.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Libertarians and the GOP

I'm sifting through my thoughts these days, challenged by the GOP debates and Ron Paul, the Republican.

A friend asked me a few years ago if I was a Libertarian, and I had to admit that I was leaning in that direction.  Their message of limiting government appealed to me.  I was tired of Washington telling me what kind of toilet to buy and my city telling me where I could park on my property.

Joining the Tea Party parade of less government and lower taxes was a natural mutation for Libertarians.

But here's the problem, and Ron Paul exhibits it perfectly.  Libertarians are incompatible with Republicans in these key areas:
1) A strong defense.  Paul would argue that he is in favor of a strong defense if our enemies were selected constitutionally.  We find common ground in the actions of Obama regarding Libya.  But he goes too far.  He says Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal wars as well.  How so?  Congress has approved and funded both wars.  Two presidents have chosen to fight there.  How are they not constitutional wars?

He gets away with that rhetoric because America is tired of both wars.  And we need to have that discussion, but it is simplistic on Paul's part to simply pull out because it doesn't pass the constitutionality test drawn up by Libertarians.

2) Legalizing street drugs.  That's a common saw of Libertarians.  It just doesn't sit well with conservatives.

3) Paul opposes the Real ID program.  On the surface, we're all tired of government tracking.  But at some point he's going to be looking in the mirror regarding immigration enforcement.  Like it or not, "Show me your papers," is the law for all non-citizens.  Come to think of it, we all must show our drivers license or ID to a police officer upon request.  Paul might say he supports Arizona, but that doesn't square with his liberty side.

4) The ACLU.  Most Republicans have a real problem with the ACLU.  We maybe side with their efforts 1% of the time.  Libertarianism is what the ACLU stands for.

5) Extreme application of concepts.  Be it the Federal Reserve, public education, health care or foreclosure, the Libertarians have taken an extreme view.  Conservatives want the Fed audited and better controlled; Paul wants it abolished.  Just how do you do that?

6) Lack of party standing.  When you want to get something done in Washington, you need votes.  It is a matter of those pesky checks and balances.  President Paul would have very few votes to work with.  He's too far out there.  How would he possibly get anything done, especially with his plan to reinvent government.  He has few Congressional votes behind him.

For me the Libertarians need to stay within their own party.  We've seen what happens when the far left creates a White House staff and tries to pull America to an extreme.  How would Ron Paul be any different?

Thursday, September 29, 2011

The Ron Paul take on Immigration

From Ron Paul 2012 website


A nation without borders is no nation at all.

It just doesn’t make sense to fight terrorists abroad while leaving our front door unlocked.

Unfortunately, for far too long, neither major political party has had the courage to do what is necessary to tackle the problem.

Instead, we’re presented with so-called “solutions” that involve amnesty proposals or further restricting Americans’ civil liberties through programs like REAL ID.

Ron Paul opposes both of these schemes and believes they will only make illegal immigration and the problems associated with it worse.  He has been proud to see states exercising their Tenth Amendment rights and protecting their citizens by refusing to comply with the unconstitutional REAL ID law.

While the federal government neglects its constitutional responsibility to protect our borders, it continues to push mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care to illegal immigrants at a time when the states are drowning in debt.   This must not be tolerated any longer.

Like most Americans, Ron Paul also understands just how valuable legal immigration is to our country.

Immigrants who want to work hard, obey our laws, and live the American Dream have always been great assets.

If elected President, Ron Paul will work to implement the following common sense reforms:

* Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

* No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

* Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration.  As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.

* Protect Lawful Immigrants – As President, Ron Paul will encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers.

As long as our borders remain wide open, the security and safety of the American people are at stake.

As President, Ron Paul will address immigration by fighting for effective solutions that protect our nation, uphold the rule of law, and respect every American citizen’s civil liberties.

Source link:

Now, my take on Ron Paul's take.

I like his message.  He's got good things to say about border security, sovereignty in general and amnesty.  But he tends to be a great critic; what he lacks is a road map to dismantling bureaucracy.  And his opposition to Real ID, coupled with his history as a champion of civil liberties, makes me wonder just how he's going to get rid of the illegals already here.

I can see an internal conflict in the mind of Ron Paul when police are asking about immigration status.  Methinks he'd be more like Eric Holder than Joe Arpaio.

And when he talks about streamlining the immigration process, is he really advising that we raise the quotas and make entrance easier?  We already issue a million green cards a year.  I fear he might be suggesting that we allow the free market to dictate who comes here, and that the process is a mere formality.

He gets some credit for at least making it an issue on his website and taking a stand.  Most candidates are quiet about illegal aliens.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Little Bo-peep and immigration enforcement

Do you remember the nursery rhyme about the lost sheep?
“Leave them alone, and they’ll [go] home,
wagging their tails behind them.”

Before discussing how that applies to illegal aliens, let me provide a little background. 

Were you aware that in January of 2004 the Bush administration conducted a survey of the people the Border Patrol caught crossing into the United States?  Well, they never published the report, but Judicial Watch (after an 18-month battle over freedom of information) was able to get some of the survey results.  The analysis concluded:
• 45% crossed illegally based on rumors of a Bush administration amnesty.
     • 63% received Mexican government or media information supporting the notion of a Bush administration amnesty.
     • 64% previously entered the United States illegally.
     • 80% desired to apply for amnesty.
     • 66% desired to petition for family members to join them in the U.S.

Point #1: When politicians talk about a “guest worker program,” desperate people in the Third World respond.

Source link (a 17-page pdf report):

The GWB efforts at amnesty were somewhat cyclical, resembling a roller coaster.  As a candidate and up to August 2001, he was pushing for amnesty.  9/11 changed all that and he was rather shy about immigration reform for a few years.  (Who wouldn’t?  The terrorists played our lack of immigration enforcement like a fiddle to get themselves into position.  Be it expired visas, drivers licenses, college student verification or local law enforcement cross-checks, we failed to detect people who should not have been here.)

But Bush was back on the stump in January 2004, an election year.  And he pushed hard as an advocate for illegal aliens.  He would continue that push until he realized that the American voter would not tolerate amnesty without showing some control of the existing situation. 

And so Bush began enforcing the law.  He began building the fence.  He stepped up worksite raids.  He found more detention beds.  He started cooperating with local police (287g).  He threw money at visa control.  He talked about the virtual fence.  He went out of his way to show he was serious.

The result of his stepped-up enforcement was a reversal of the flow at the border.  Illegal aliens were going home.
Source link:

Point #2: When we enforce the law, even on a small scale, illegal aliens return home.

Now, back to Bo-peep.  “Leave them alone…”  What does that mean?  Well, we’ve all heard the politicians lumping illegal aliens in with noble immigrants.  And they love to defend things like the DREAM Act and in-state tuition.

The political rhetoric of “Hard workers wanting to make a better life for themselves,” or “Doing jobs Americans won’t do,” or “Wanting to pursue the American Dream,” only encourages illegal aliens to come here and stay here.

Leave those hackneyed phrases alone and they will get the idea that there isn’t an amnesty program around the next corner.  Instead, talk about enforcing the law and the word will spread.  We need to send this message to illegal aliens: Americans have wised up to the scam and we’re going home.  Or better yet, we’re not even going to try to sneak in.

We have the tools to enforce the law.

SAVE could be used by social service agencies (the ones crying that they don’t have enough resources with all these budget cuts) to screen for unlawful presence.  Our welfare reform legislation of 1996 was both tough and powerful.  Let’s use it!

Local law enforcement can and should be screening the people they are booking and identifying to ICE the illegal aliens who cross their path.  LESC is the database for screening.  287G and Secure Communities can be used to build the partnership.

E-Verify can help to dry up the jobs illegal aliens are taking.  Also, audits and No-Match letters need to be implemented.

Obama is not helping when he talks about giving green cards to illegal aliens on the deportation list.  These are the fugitives, like his uncle Omar and aunt Zeituni, who were ordered deported and failed to appear for departure.  Now he wants to review them all and reward the nonviolent ones with work permits.  Wrong message, Mr. President.

Governor Perry is wrong to offer them in-state tuition.

Governor Huntsman is wrong to offer them work permits.

Strong signals of interior enforcement will result in self-deportation.  Let’s give that a try, shall we?

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Candidate review

So, after the CNN debate in Tampa last night, I was looking for some way to categorize the candidates on their talents and abilities.  I decided that if someone wanted to be president, they also ought to have the combined talents to serve as cabinet members.  After all, the President is the boss of all the departments.

I asked myself if I could picture a particular candidate in a specific cabinet post.  Some were obvious.  Ron Paul as Secretary of Defense or Education?  No way!

And could I envision Romney running Labor?  Not likely.

So, here's the grid.  It's my own take on things.  Some have the skill set while I'd give the job to others for their general ideology on the subject.

At the end of the day, Newt has the most talent...yet I still can't support him for President.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Deseret News Snooze

The Deseret News, owned and controlled by the LDS Church, takes a pro-amnesty position regarding illegal aliens.

As I blogged a couple of weeks ago, their story indexing tends to equate the topic of "Immigration" with all sorts of other things.

Here are the "Most recent headlines" they chose to post in the Immigration section of their on-line edition.

Four of the stories are really about terrorism, though they would be the first to tell you that illegal aliens are not terrorists.

One is about labor, but Obama's Labor Department is on a campaign to secure the rights of illegal aliens in the workplace.  That one fails the immigration test as well.  Had Biden mentioned it in his speech, and had that comment been reported in the story, perhaps.  But he didn't and they didn't.

The murder trial of the gay student is odd.  Neither the victim nor the suspect are immigrants.  I just have to scratch my head for any remote connection.

The Libyan rebel's past is another non sequitur

At one time I thought perhaps the Deseret News was trying to cast immigration enforcement advocates in a bad light by lumping them with evil-doers.  At this point, I simply believe they've lost it.

Friday, September 2, 2011

A GRAND idea

This is the Grand America Hotel in Salt Lake.  It is a 5-star hotel, arguable the swankiest in town.

They just announced that after an audit of their personnel files they are firing their illegal aliens.
This was all done on the up-and-up.  The company explained that they have been screening employees since 2001 and checking their records against the federal database since 2006.  (That would have been Basic Pilot, or perhaps the Social Security file search.)

Last October they brought in the feds to do an audit and as a result they are terminating an undisclosed number of employees.  (A local Latino activist says the number is 120, but he says a lot of things.  The company says the actual number is much smaller.)

This is a bold move.  The Grand America stands alone here, and they are standing tall.

On the other side of the issue, they face the following foes:
  • Governor Herbert- he is a proponent of guest worker status for illegal aliens.
  • Attorney General Shurtleff- see above.
  • About half of the General Assembly- see above.
  • Police Chief Burbank- Opposed to immigration inquiry by his department.
  • LDS Church (The elephant in the room)- Openly supports guest worker amnesty.
  • The hospitality trade group- They claim illegals are needed because $12/hour jobs go unfilled.

Kudos to Grand America.

Although it is not specified in the articles I read, they are most likely using a program called ICE IMAGE.  It is not a new program.  Companies become partners with Immigration and are trained to spot illegal applicants.  In exchange, ICE performs an audit of the existing employees to weed out illegals already on the payroll.  Info here:

Source links on Grand America:

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Praising Obama

It doesn't happen very often, but I've got kudos for President Obama.

He's made some real progress in two years.

Recall the Cambridge, Mass incident in July of 2009.  Obama quickly commented that the police officer who arrested his pal Henry Gates "acted stupidly" by demanding that Gates come out on the porch and show some ID.

Here we are in August of 2011 and Obama's uncle Omar was arrested in Framingham, Mass for drunk driving and was being held by ICE on immigration violations.

What does Obama have to say about that?  "The White House had no comment Monday."

See, the prez is learning.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Whatever happened to Uncle Omar?

This little tidbit slipped past me last week.  I suppose it's just one of those articles that doesn't fit the narrative.
Obama was in the news last week because he has chosen not to enforce immigration laws against those who are deemed non-violent by the Department of Justice.

But here's another Obama relative, Uncle Omar, who is an illegal alien driving drunk.  One has to wonder if he's a non-violent one.

Obama's illegal uncle arrested; 
'Uncle Omar' almost hits cop car, tries to call White House

By Kerry Picket, Washington Times

Published on August 28, 2011

The Australian is reporting that Onyango Obama has retained Cleveland lawyer Margaret Wong. This is the same immigration attorney who successfully represented Mr. Obama's sister Zeituni, when she managed to avoid deportation to Kenya. Mr. Obama pleaded not guilty at his remand hearing.

*Clarification: Onyango Obama nearly hit the police car. He did not actually hit it, according to police reports.

A number of media outlets have already reported that an illegal immigrant from Kenya by the name of Onyango Obama, 67, was arrested last week on Wednesday after he nearly rammed his SUV into a police car in Framingham, Massachusetts.

He was later charged with DUI among other violations. I spoke to Framingham Public Information Officer Lieutenant Delaney who told me that when Onyango Obama was asked at booking if he wanted to make a telephone call to arrange for bail, the Kenyan immigrant replied: "I think I will call the White House."

 It should be noted that the Times of London, highlighted an Onyango Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, when the British daily found President Barack Obama's “Aunt Zeituni” living in Boston illegally.:

    Dreams From My Father was first published in 1995, and the story of how Mr Obama returned to Kenya in 1988 to trace his roots has become the cornerstone of his political biography. Yet the US media appears to have overlooked the passage indicating that at least one relative of Mr Obama’s had moved to America and might still be there.

    Two thirds of the way through the book Mr Obama’s half-sister talked about Africans who had emigrated to the West and were never heard of again, “like our Uncle Omar, in Boston . . . They’ve been lost, you see”.

    A few pages later Mr Obama meets his step-grandmother, Sarah, for the first time in the village of Kogelo. On the walls of her hut are photographs of Omar, “the uncle who had left for America 25 years ago and never came back”. Touchingly, she asks the future presidential candidate if he has any news of Omar, her son and Mr Obama’s half-uncle.

The article continues:

    This triggered a six-week search, one that would lead eventually to Boston and to Aunt Zeituni. Public record searches found traces of O. Onyango Obama, Uncle Omar’s real name, in Boston. A friend and a former landlady said that he now uses the name Obama Onyango.

    In the course of searching for Uncle Omar The Times found a Zeituni Onyango, who also played a prominent part in Mr Obama’s book.

    In the memoir Auntie Zeituni, Uncle Omar’s sister, explained the family’s complex family tree to the future presidential candidate, introduced him to other relatives and fed him a herbal remedy for an upset stomach.

Also, a wikipedia page about the president's family that has not been edited since August 2 mentions Uncle Omar:

    Omar ObamaHalf-uncle of Barack Obama,[126] born on June 3, 1944 in Nyang’oma Kogelo. Oldest son of Onyango and Sarah Obama, resides in Boston, Massachusetts.

The daily log from the Framingham Police Department shows the Onyango Obama that was arrested last week in Framingham, a Boston suburb, has the birth date of June 3, 1944.

Metrowest Daily first reported Onyango Obama's arrest:

    After the near crash, Onyango Obama, 67, told Officer Val Krishtal that Krishtal should have yielded to his Mitsubishi SUV, according to a report filed yesterday in Framingham District Court.

    Krishtal said he and another driver had to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting the SUV, which rolled through a stop sign and took a quick left turn.

    Obama said he doubted the officer slammed on his brakes because he did not hear the tires squeal, the report says.

    Krishtal said he was on Waverly Street headed toward South Street when his police car was cut off. Krishtal pulled the SUV over around 7:10 p.m.

    Obama failed several field sobriety tests and was arrested. At the police station, Obama failed a Breathalyzer test, registering .14. The state legal limit is .08.

    Obama was charged with driving under the influence of liquor and driving to endanger. He was also cited for not using a turn signal.

According to article, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement has warrant for his arrest and ICE previously ordered him to be deported back to Kenya. In the meantime, a judge has not set bail on the driving charges but ordered that he be held on the ICE warrant.  

Source link:

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Campaign update

It has been a few weeks since I looked at the pack of GOP candidates.  Rick Perry grabbed some headlines with an invoice he sent to Washington to cover incarceration of illegal aliens in Texas.

So, I took a look at Perry's website.  It does not satisfy.  He has a brief mention of the border fence, but it is not a statement on his immigration policy proposal.

Bachmann gives the issue the same treatment.  Secure the border is all they want to talk about.  That's right out of the Michal Steele playbook and it misses the point.

They are pandering because there is very little opposition to the phrase, "Secure the border."

What I need to hear is a definitive statement on worksite enforcement, local cooperation, detention and deportation.  No one dares put it up on their website.

Sure, I understand website design enough to know that you cannot get too wordy, but it is very simple to link to a white paper or a speech or a newspaper article that amplifies your position.

We are still playing the game of soundbites when we have the bandwidth to share volumes.

Get with it, candidates!

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

What's immigration got to do with it?

I tend to keep an eye on immigration issues by watching the on-line newspapers around the country.
Above is a screen shot from one such newspaper.
As you can clearly see below the mug of Big Sis it says, "Immigration headlines."

But take a look at what they've chosen to throw in there.  Sure, the immigration topics are there, but so are stories about Syria and MLK and "unmarked graves in Kashmir."

Whenever some skinhead goes on a rampage, it ends up in the Immigration index.  Like the Giffords shooting was indexed there.

I've complained to the paper, but they have a history of not responding to anything.

The newspaper used to be a bastion of conservatism in the reddest state in America, but they took an editorial view with their owners in favor of amnesty.  The rag is the Deseret News of Salt Lake City.

Some background on deportation

Warning: Get ready for some alphabet soup acronyms.

In rough numbers, The United States has a list of approximately 550,000 illegal aliens who have been ordered deported.  In a good year we find and deport about 40,000 of them.  We also add to the list each year, so there isn’t much net gain going on.

The agency in charge of making decisions on deportations is the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR.

Of course, one may appeal the decision to the BIA, aka Board of Immigration Appeals.

If you’d like, the structure and process are explained here:

The entire process is under the umbrella of the United States Department of Justice, Eric Holder’s responsibility.

The EOIR is so concerned that many illegal aliens do not have legal representation that they set up free training for lawyers who wish to represent them pro bono.

Here are a couple of tidbits relating to the deportation situation.  During the final days of the 2008 presidential campaign a woman by the name of Zeituni Onyango was detected as an illegal alien living in subsidized housing ( I thought that’s not supposed to happen) in Massachusetts.

Onyango is Obama’s aunt.  In the fallout, George W Bush declared it was not to be made a campaign issue and told Homeland Security to screen all deportees for any political connection and avoid any reprisal actions.  At the same time Obama denied that he even knew she was in the United States or illegal.

The First Aunt’s story is an interesting one.  She came to the United States on a visa in 2000.  In 2002 she sought asylum from Kenya.  She went through a two year appeals process (see EOIR and BIA above) and was ordered deported.  She had her day in court (actually several of them) and lost her case.

Zeituni’s actions after that are typical.  She was issued a deportation order…and disobeyed it.  Actually, the number of people who actually show up for their deportation is in the single digits.

In the summer of 2008, Bush tried to coax people to comply by rolling out Operation: Scheduled Departure.  He invited the 457,000 non-violent illegal aliens with run letters to step out of the shadows and volunteer to go home.  In return, they would be given a short extension to tie up loose ends and would not be prosecuted for defying the original order.

A whopping eight (that’s 8) people came forward.

Now, back to Ms. Onyango...
So, Obama’s aunt got a high-powered immigration attorney (Margaret Wong) to represent her after her exposure to the law in 2008.  It is unclear how a woman living in poverty in Section 8 housing can afford such legal representation.  Either the DNC paid the bill or Wong took it as a pro bono case. 

It took a couple of years, but the judge ruled that Onyango could stay and made her “legal” once again.  At no time did the judge even imply that her original deportation order was invalid or that the original judgment was flawed in any way.

Fast forward to the summer of 2011.  The Obama administration issues new orders regarding deportation for all those on the deportation list.  He orders the review of 300,000 cases and authorizes the issuance of work permits.  In short, he has changed the rules.

Through nothing more than a change in procedure he signals to the world that violent crime is a prerequisite to deportation.  Whatever happened to unlawful presence and the statute that calls for the remedy of deportation?

And how can he be allowed to undo all that due process already given?

Clearly, Obama has usurped power over the United States Code and past bona fide judgments by the DOJ.  He has done so without even presenting his case before Congress. 

The checks and balances, so vital to our system, have been trampled by the Obama White House.

Source Link:

Now, let’s say Sasha and Malia are not coming to dinner when they are called.  Maybe they come about 10% of the time.  Otherwise, they ignore the rule.

Word around school is that Barack is a “mean dad” for requiring the children to come to dinner.  Some of Sasha’s friends have even sent letters to the White House.

The Obama solution?  Send cookies and candy bars to their room.  Meanwhile, the children of DC are starving.

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Gov Jan Brewer gets slapped, then gets back up

So our pals at Facebook removed Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's negative comments about Obama's back door amnesty plan.  I guess dissent is only tolerated in certain ways.

But she put the post back up and it looks like it will stand as written this time.

It's worth a read, from someone who is living the nightmare of an open border and telling the truth about an administration that doesn't take the law seriously.

This is a slap in the face to all of us who want stricter enforcement of immigration laws.  A tip of the hat to Gov Brewer for delivering the message we all feel about this sham.