Jb's Blog

views on current events

Archive for the ‘Conservative Views’ Category

Immigration Policy

with 6 comments

I am NOT racist. I am NOT violent. I am in favor of legal immigration policy which has been a major contributing factor in making the United States what it is. But…

demands

Folks, we’ve simply GOT to get our national head around the immigration situation in this country. The demands being placed on our society are simply inconceivable (see photo). These demands would be ridiculous even if they were made by legitimate citizens, much more so when they come from those who have invaded our boarders illegally. Granted, these demands are not made by all who advocate for unrestricted immigration or for amnesty, yet they are the logical conclusion to those policies, and they are actually being made, and expected, by many.

Here are a few facts which should be setting off alarm bells:

Based on 2007 Census data, the Center for Immigration Studies reported:

  • The nation’s immigrant population (both legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007.
  • Immigrants account for 1 in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in eighty years. In 1970 it was 1 in 21, in 1980 it was 1 in 16, and in 1990 it was 1 in 13.
  • Overall, nearly 1 in 3 immigrants is an illegal alien. Half of Mexican and Central American immigrants and one-third of South American immigrants are illegal.
  • 31 percent of adult immigrants have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives. Since 2000, immigration increased the number of workers without a high school diploma by 14 percent, and all other workers by 3 percent. This means that our growing immigrant population is comprised primarily of unskilled labor, contrasting with earlier immigrant waves in which immigrants were skilled in ways which enabled them to contribute significantly to the benefit of society as a whole.
  • The proportion of immigrant-headed households which draw on at least one major welfare program is 33 percent, compared to 19 percent for native households. In 2004, immigrant households received nearly three dollars in immediate benefits and services for each dollar in taxes they paid. — http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/upload/sr_14.pdf
  • The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children under 18 is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children.
  • 34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989. With government run/subsidized healthcare on the way, the implications of this fact are staggering considering the public (taxpayers) will be on the hook for these related healthcare costs.
  • Immigration accounts for virtually all of the national increase in public school enrollment over the last two decades. In 2007, there were 10.8 million school-age children from immigrant families in the United States.
    http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back1007.pdf
  •  

    The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that

  • 9 percent of the population of Mexico was living in the United States in 2004.
  • 57 percent of all illegal immigrants in the U.S. are Mexican. Another 24 percent are from other Latin American countries.
  • 55 percent of all Mexicans in the U.S. are here illegally.
  • By 2050, Hispanics will be between 29 percent and 32 percent of the nation’s population.
    http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf
    http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/cb08ff-15.pdf
  •  

    In 2008, a study from Manhattan Institute reported that the current level of assimilation of all recent immigrant groups is lower than at any time during the great migration in the early twentieth century. Some ethnic groups assimilated better than others, but Mexicans were the least assimilated overall, and assimilate at the slowest rate.
    http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_53.pdf

    The Mexican government promotes the idea of extraterritorial nationalism among its citizens – the concept that Mexican citizens have an indigenous claim to large sections of the southwestern United States. Mexican president Zedillo said (July 23, 1997)

    I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important – a very important – part of it. — http://zedillo.presidencia.gob.mx/pages/disc/jul97/23jul97-2.html

    This attitude is shared by Mexican citizens at large. Zogby International reported that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement “The territory of the United States’ southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.” — Results of poll of U.S., Mexican citizens, United Press International, June 12, 2002 —

    National Council of La Raza (“The Race”) is a popular organization which works tirelessly against the assimilation of Hispanic aliens into American society and for the continuation of illegal Hispanic migration into our country. Here are a few facts about La Raza and its stance on the issues:

  • La Raza views the United States as an irredeemably racist nation.
  • favors racial and ethnic preferences for minorities in the workplace and in higher education.
  • supports open borders and amnesty for ALL illegal aliens.
  • supports the DREAM Act, which is designed to allow illegal aliens to attend college at the reduced tuition rates normally reserved for in-state legal residents.
  • advocates “reform” that would give illegal aliens full access to taxpayer-funded health care services.
  • characterizes any reduction in government assistance to illegal border-crossers as “a disgrace to American values.”
  • supports access to driver’s licenses for illegal aliens.
  • supports voting rights for illegal aliens. ??????
  • opposes the Aviation Transportation and Security Act requiring that all airport baggage screeners be U.S. citizens.
  • opposes the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act, which would empower state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws.
  • opposes the REAL ID Act, which requires that all driver’s license and photo ID applicants be able to verify they are legal residents of the United States, and that the documents they present to prove their identity are genuine.
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=473b1006-dea4-4340-b1a2-ac0838de5714
  •  

    Leaders (and supporters) of La Raza have worked their way into the highest levels of our society and our government.

  • Raul Yzaguirre was president and CEO of La Raza for thirty years. Hillary Clinton appointed Yzaguirre as co-chair of her presidential campaign and assigned him to lead her outreach to Hispanics.
  • John McCain was honored by La Raza in 1999. McCain appointed Juan Hernandez as his Hispanic outreach director. In a Nightline interview on ABC News (June 7, 2001), Hernandez, who holds dual citizenship, said,

    I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think ‘Mexico first.’ — Nightline Interview, ABC News, June 7, 2001 —

  • President Obama appointed Cecilia Munoz, senior vice president of La Raza, as director of his Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.
  • Given La Raza’s agenda, how can it be in our country’s best interest to be placing their leaders in positions of authority and influence in our society and our government? What does it say about those who make these appointments?

    Unabated immigration from Mexico takes huge amounts of money out of the U.S. economy. In 2006, over 27 percent of Mexico’s labor force was working in the U.S., sending “home” $20 billion in remittances. That equals one-third of the total wage earnings in the formal sector of the Mexican economy and 10 percent of Mexico’s exports.

    How can our country, our society, survive such a continuing stream of aliens who won’t submit to our law (on the proper way to immigrate) who are encouraged above all to avoid assimilation, who make ridiculous demands on the society they are invading (again, refer to the above photo)?

    What do we do about our federal government’s refusal to enforce immigration law, while they continue to push in every way possible to throw our borders wide open and look for new ways to grant amnesty to millions of people who are here illegally?

    We’ve simply GOT to get a handle on this. We’ve got to. To not reign this in is societal suicide.

    Much of the information which inspired me to write this piece came from reading the chapter ‘On Immigration’ from Mark R. Levin’s book Liberty And Tyranny, from observing contemporary news sources, and from simply THINKING.

    Think, people. Think!!!

    Promises Shomises

    leave a comment »

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall anything in the Health Care Bill about the individual mandate (tax) being limited only to those who earn more than $250K per year.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=1&ref=politics

    Same here. While this is still just a legislative proposal, don’t lots of peeps making less than $250K hold shares in funds which profit by engaging in currency trading?
    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/109869-currency-tax-a-way-to-invest-in-our-future-rep-stark

    And here, on Cap and Trade. Anyone living in the US who consumes ‘energy’ or products which require energy use in their creation will ‘necessarily‘ see tremendous increases in the cost of everything. There will be no escaping these ‘new tax increases’ even if you make less than $250K.
    http://www.americansolutions.com/energytax/2010/07/punishing-you-for-bps-spill.php

    I’m so sick of politics. And especially tired of political promises. Why don’t we hold politicians responsible for what they promise? Those who continue to allow them to skate on their bold promises have essentially taken that over-used Clinton era mantra and modified it to “it’s only about politics.” Come on, folks: Get your heads out of the sand…

    Written by jb

    July 21, 2010 at 11:30 am

    Repost: Degeneration of Democracy

    leave a comment »

    Repost of an insightful article by Thomas Sowell, here:
    http://tinyurl.com/2acuqem

    When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics. Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler’s rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

    “Useful idiots” was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

    Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive. In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

    The president’s poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

    Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

    And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

    Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP’s oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated. But our government is supposed to be “a government of laws and not of men.” If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion– or $50 billion or $100 billion– then so be it.

    But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without “due process of law.” Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

    With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

    If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don’t believe in Constitutional government. And, without Constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a “crisis”– which, as the president’s chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to “go to waste” as an opportunity to expand the government’s power.

    That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

    When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country’s wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard’s restrictions on the printing of money.

    At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law “for the relief of the German people.” That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people– indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

    If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

    The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP’s money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed “czars” controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

    Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power– versus the rule of law and the preservation of freedom– are the “useful idiots” of our time. But useful to whom?

    Congress Displays Contempt for Our Constitution

    leave a comment »

    Courtesy of Walter E. Williams’ 11.11.2009 post. I think he’s spot-on-target with this, and YES, it worries me.

    At Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Oct. 29th press conference, a CNS News reporter asked, “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Speaker Pelosi responded, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” The reporter said, “Yes, yes, I am.” Not responding further, Pelosi shook her head and took a question from another reporter. Later on, Pelosi’s press spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNSNews.com about its question regarding constitutional authority mandating that individual Americans buy health insurance. “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

    Speaker Pelosi’s constitutional contempt, perhaps ignorance, is representative of the majority of members of both the House and the Senate. Their comfort in that ignorance and constitutional contempt, and how readily they articulate it, should be worrisome for every single American. It’s not a matter of whether you are for or against Congress’ health care proposals. It’s not a matter of whether you’re liberal or conservative, black or white, male or female, Democrat or Republican or member of any other group. It’s a matter of whether we are going to remain a relatively free people or permit the insidious encroachment on our liberties to continue.

    Where in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance? If Congress gets away with forcing us to buy health insurance, down the line, what else will they force us to buy; or do you naively think they will stop with health insurance? We shouldn’t think that the cure to Congress’ unconstitutional heavy-handedness will end if we only elect Republicans. Republicans have demonstrated nearly as much constitutional contempt as have Democrats. The major difference is the significant escalation of that contempt under today’s Democratically controlled Congress and White House with the massive increase in spending, their proposed legislation and the appointment of tyrannical czars to control our lives. It’s a safe bet that if and when Republicans take over the Congress and White House, they will not give up the massive increase in control over our lives won by the Democrats.

    In each new session of Congress since 1995, John Shadegg, R-Ariz., has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, a measure “To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.” The highest number of co-sponsors it has ever had in the House of Representatives is 54 and it has never had co-sponsors in the Senate until this year, when 22 senators signed up. The fact that less than 15 percent of the Congress supports such a measure demonstrates the kind of contempt our elected representatives have for the rules of the game — our Constitution.

    Written by jb

    November 26, 2009 at 10:54 pm

    Differences: Conservative vs. Liberal

    leave a comment »

    I’d like to cite a source for this, but I don’t know where it originated. It was sent to me by my brother Rand. And judging from my own personal experience and observation, it seems significantly sad-yet-accurate.

    If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
    If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

    If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
    If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

    If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
    A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

    If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
    If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

    If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
    Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

    If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
    A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

    If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
    Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

    If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
    A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

    If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
    A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

    If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
    If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he’s in labor and then sues.

    If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended.”

    Written by jb

    October 17, 2009 at 2:04 pm

    Associations and Influences

    leave a comment »

    More on a developing theme of politicians being less than Truthful with us in what they tell us.

    Watch this video of Candidate Obama telling us the type of people who have influenced his views.

    Vodpod videos no longer available.

    Obama, as a candidate, also said that these influences would be the type of people with whom he would surround himself if elected President. Actually, he indicated more “when” than “if.” “Who will be surrounding me in the White House,” is what he actually said.

    Now that the former candidate has been in office for nearly eight months, how has he performed on that promise? How did we get from the (mainly) mainstream influences he named while a candidate, to the actual appointment of radical individuals like Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, Carol Browner, and Mark Lloyd? Why is it that he has created positions in his administration for thirty-seven “Czars,” completely bypassing the Constitutional requirement for Senate scrutiny and confirmation in their appointment? Could it be that he knew full well that the individuals he has appointed to surround himself with would never be able to get through the process of Senate approval because of their out-of-the-mainstream (to say the least) views and agendas?

    Humm… it would appear that Candidate Obama may have been less than honest with us when telling us who his influences were, and would be. Either that, or something happened to change his mind after the point where he gave us that list. Or both. I say it’s both. And the thing that happened to change his mind was this: Inauguration. Government and politicians will say whatever they feel is necessary to achieve their agenda, whether what they say is True or not. At the point he made that promise, Candidate Obama’s main objective was to get elected, and he said what he knew his target audience would want to hear. Once he was inaugurated as President, he no longer had to maintain pretense about his associations and influences. After inauguration, he could move on to his ultimate agenda of radically changing our entire system.

    It seems to me that this is yet another example which lends support to Joe Wilson’s outburst during the President’s address to Congress this week, but then that’s perhaps better saved for a future post.

    What a politician says is not nearly as important as what a politician does. What a politician says only consists of what we sadly accept as meaningless words, for which we simply will not hold them accountable. Why is this?

    What a politician says can do us no real harm. What a politician does definitely can. And frequently does.

    And that’s where we are, today.

    Written by jb

    September 12, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    The Law

    with 2 comments

    One of my best friends for many years was a man named Jackie Street. Jackie was one of those rare and unique people who made everyone he met feel that they were his best friend. I’ve never known anyone who had more respect and love for the U.S. Constitution than Jackie. He spent long hours studying The Constitution and the writings of those who gave it to us in an effort to understand their intentions and the reasons why they formed our Government in the way they did. Years ago, he brought my attention to a short book by Frederic Bastiat, a French economist and statesman, called The Law. Jackie felt that this was such an important book that he bought a number of copies and handed them out to people he felt would benefit from reading it.

    First published in 1850, The Law was written during a period when France was rapidly turning to complete socialism. Bastiat laid out in a common sense way the argument(s) against the move toward Socialism in his political environment, and his explanations and arguments are — word for word — equally valid when applied to our situation in the United States today.

    The Law is available for reading on-line, and I highly recommend that people do just that. The issues we now face in this country are critical ones for our future, and this book, even though it was written more than one hundred and fifty years ago, is extremely helpful in clarifying our understanding of the real purpose of Government and Law, and in helping to shape our views of what we should expect from them.

    Do yourself a favor and read this short book. I pulled it out recently, and realized just how applicable it is to our current situation. Even though Jackie Street is no longer with us, I’m sure he’d be glad you did.