No Nanny State - Molon Labe!

Can we require communists to take at least one econ class before they open their pie holes?


I swear, I feel just like this kid pictured above, when I read crap like this. It seems that a group of teachers at a private school in Washington state decided that private property was a bad thing. Everyone and everything will be equal.

According to the article, the students had been building an elaborate "Legotown," but it was accidentally demolished. The teachers decided its destruction was an opportunity to explore "the inequities of private ownership." According to the teachers, "Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."

Uhm, we call that Communism. Oh, and the parents of the kids that are paying the tuition - thus the salaries of the teachers - must be a little more "equal", right? I'm guessing that if they can afford to send their kids to this private school, they must be pretty capitalistic. Oh the conflict the teachers must endure when they accept their pay checks....

Anyways, these nut jobs coerced the kids to "just go along with the program".

At the end of that time, Legos returned to the classroom after the children agreed to several guiding principles framed by the teachers, including that "All structures are public structures" and "All structures will be standard sizes." The teachers quote the children:

"A house is good because it is a community house."

"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes."

"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building."

Now, since this is a private school, I don't think there should be any intervention into this practice. If these parents what their kids to grow up as a bunch of communist drop outs, that's their choice.

I would love for these teachers to be able to tell us how everything is going to be paid for in this socialist nirvana. That's the part they always seem to leave out when painting their bucolic picture. Birds chirping, children playing and the sun shining. They forget to tell you how the bills will be paid, and the food put on the table.

Funny how every single time communism has had power in a country, it has failed miserably. Without exception.

Read a book, you freaks.

Oh, there was one glimmer of hope.

Not all of the students shared the teachers' anathema to private property ownership. "If I buy it, I own it," one child is quoted saying.

Ahhhh, a neo-capitalist. I'm getting all dewy-eyed......

I read Fred On Everything on a regular basis. If you don't know about him, he's an ex-pat
American now living in Mexico. Long and storied career in the service, then as a journalist. Irreverent and poignant, I think is the best way to describe him.

His latest essay hit it out of the park for me. Every word he wrote is exactly how I feel - I just can't say it as well!

We are becoming a nation of obedient drones. We don't fight for our freedoms, we accept and embrace regulation.

What then is the national character today? I think we are first an obedient people. We submit. We are comfortable with authority, and seem to be most comfortable when we are told what to do. We prize security, safety, and predictability. Increasingly we accept being treated like convicts at airports and elsewhere. We want to be taken care of. We can do few things for ourselves. We expect government to decide much that was once regarded as outside of government’s ambit. And we are to the marrow of our bones incapable of rising against the creeping tyranny. So much for Marlboro Man.

Part of the reason people go into business for themselves is to be able to set their own direction, to have a sense of self, and to have to worry about how you're going to pay the mortgage. My job in banking is highly regulated - to an unreal extent.

It's about trade-offs, I guess.

I can't realistically see The People's Republic lessening regulation any time in the near future. Most likely, the exact opposite will happen.

Geez, what has happened to us? Fred talks about being a boy in Virginia, and being able to walk down the road with a rifle over your shoulder, and no one batting an eye. I remember here in The People's Republic seeing - quite often - trucks with full gun racks. Try either of those things today, and you'll end up with a SWAT squad on your ass. What's worse is, most sheeple will think that is a good thing. Gotta be safe; Gotta expect the worst.

I just want to cash everything in and move to some remote area of Wyoming or Montana. Maybe some of these "whack jobs" portrayed in the media are the ones that have it right.

With Micro-Fucked, that is.

I have always been, well, not a fan of Microsoft. Buggy releases, annoying bots, incompatibility with other programs, etc., but most of the time, they get things mostly done. Today, while working from home, they finally pushed me over the edge. No more getting fucked by Bill Gates. I'm going to a Mac as soon as finances allow.

As I said, I was working from home on a Sunday. Doing an economic [yawn] report that will go to the Board on Wednesday. This is important. I opened up the report I did 6 months ago, and tried to do a "Save As" operation. MS Office froze up like a spinster librarian. I tried again, same result.

At the bottom of the "Sorry we just fucked you, again" window that popped up, I see a link that says it will explain what happened, and how to fix it. I click the link.

It's an Office Update page. I click a link that looks at my hard drive, and up pops a list of shit I need to download. OK. I click and the hard drive starts humming, progress bars are progressing, and BAM! Everything stops, and it tells me the installation program does not have access to certain network resources (WTF? I'm not on a network at home), and that I need to give it an alternate path to a file called PROPLUS.MSI.

Like a dumbass, I first search through all of the directories that are likely suspects, but I find nothing. I then do a search of my whole fucking drive. Nothing.

Being the resourceful guy I am, I go online to find a copy of the gotdam program. What I find from a Google search are over 56,000 potential sites. Fuck. I click the first few, and all of the "resolutions" are, "get the CD". No shit. The MS site says basically the same thing.

How could these fucks have lasted this long? I hope to my ever-loving God that the alternatives to Office (Open Office, Google Docs and Spreadsheets, etc) finally crush those cocksuckers in Redmond.

I am sick and tired of being their Beta test site whenever they roll out a new product (I just "upgraded" to XP after the SECOND service pack was finally released).

After I went to the MS site, it asked me if my problem had been solved. I told them, "Yes, you cocksuckers, you will no longer be a problem in my life. I'm moving to Mac."

He's a LOOOOOOOOng shot...

Great article on Ron Paul, the Texas congressman, running for president.

We can only hope that someone like him or Tom Tancredo get the nod.

Why the need to run our lives?

When I read stories like this, I just want to scream.

Long story short: Skinny, dorky, "hippy" college sophomore gets caught in possession of "Magic Mushrooms". Because of mandatory sentencing laws, kid can go to state prison for eight years. Seems that possession of 'shrooms, a Schedule I narcotic in the eyes of the Feds - the same as heroin, and considered worse than meth or crack - has only one thing that could get a more harsh sentence - murder. Parents spend retirement savings, kid gets off on a technicality.

Utter, unadulterated horse shit.

Who did this kid hurt? Who was injured because he wanted to get high? Because these mushrooms are natural, does that make God a drug manufacturer? That last one may seem like a bit crazy, but it is no less crazy than government officials putting Americans in jail for performing an act which harms no one else. The only "crime" is offending the sensibilities of the lawmakers and enforcers.

Late last year, some cocksucker in Congress (is that an oxymoron?) slipped in an amendment to a war appropriations bill that, in essence, makes online gambling illegal.

Again, why? How does gambling online hurt anyone at all? If you're an addictive gambler, having online poker rooms and sports betting shut down won't change a damned thing. Just like an alcoholic or a drug addict, people with addictive personalities will do anything to feed the beast. Prohibition never has, and never will work.

If these bastards had half of a brain between them, they'd work with the online companies and get their cut of the tax revenues these places generate. But that would be using common sense.

Most of these prohibitionists are smart folks, at least on paper. If they would take a minute to read any history, they would find that not once, never ever, in the history of the world, has any prohibition EVER been successful. We still have drugs, whores, alcohol, porn - vice - and we always will.

The prohibition merely makes it more profitable to the sellers and more damaging to the buyers. The prohibition, in and of itself, generates crime. Since "the law" won't protect the sellers, they have to protect themselves. Just ask The Bloods, The Crips, MS13 or Al Capone.

The ONLY way to stop or manage Moral Vices is through education. That's why we have churches, mosques, temples, parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, counselors, etc. Teach people that taking meth can - and most likely will - ruin your life. Your teeth will fall out, you'll pick your skin raw, you'll sell your soul for a high. But if they still decide to go down that path, so be it. Make a choice and be prepared to deal with the consequences.

How else do we learn? What lesson would the boy in the first story learn by being sent to prison, getting fucked in the ass on a daily basis, and beaten at will? Would he emerge a better person? Would the net benefit to society be in the "plus" column?

How about this as our newest Amendment to the Constitution:

Not withstanding local public decency or zoning laws, No action performed alone by a consenting adult, or performed in congress soley with other consenting adults shall be deemed illegal, so long as no others are harmed or had their rights abridged while said action was performed, or as a result of the action being performed.

The combination of the 9th and 10th Amendments already protects this freedom. Sure, it leaves a lot of pretty disgusting things open, but why is that wrong? If some community wants to make it illegal parade around nude in public, that's fine. The next community up the road may see that as just fine. The Federal government is not empowered to have a say in the matter.

Well, it shouldn't have a say...

This is pretty damned funny. Bush and Condie reprising the old Abbott and Costello bit...

Eight dead people in two separate incidents. How many fewer dead would there have been if the American citizens in those two states had been able to exercise their Second Amendment rights, and carry a firearm without government permission? Punks get off one shot, crowd returns fire. Instead, eight die waiting for the police to show up.

I wonder what the families of the dead think...

I hate when non-PC thought gets in the way...

With all of the hand-wringing going on with Global Warming, and the potential impact on our very lives, as well as our way of life, I find it very interesting that the "Man Made" crowd does not want any sort of conversation on the issue. It's done; It's settled.

The idea that science speaks against their position, is simply unthinkable. This runs counter to their life-theory that everything man does is bad, we must fix it, and, while we're at it, must suffer for the sins of our fathers. They simply can't continue living with the idea that what is happening has a very good chance of being a recurring natural phenomenon.

I have been reading a number of stories about natural causes of global warming. One of them is about how, from time-to-time, our magnetic poles actually switch position. North goes south; south goes north. This has happened many times in our earth's history. This is not conjecture, this is fact.

It looks like we may be in the middle of one of these flips. They happen, on average, every 200,000 years and last for up to 5,000 years. Read these excerpts from this article that was written in 2002 - Pre-Gore hysteria:

The Earth's magnetic field also stretches several hundred miles into space and protects us from the sun's charged particles and cosmic rays by focusing them towards the poles. This is where they appear as the northern and southern lights as they excite gases in the atmosphere.

and

During a field reversal, this protective magnetic shield is going to be weak and might even disappear for a century or more. That might drastically affect the weather. There is a growing body of evidence that the sun's highly charged particles batter the upper atmosphere so hard that some of the assault filters down into the atmosphere around us, influencing the wind, atmospheric pressure and temperature.

and

Without our magnetic shield, those solar particles might create havoc with the weather.

An now there's further evidence that the sun, and not man, is responsible for some, if not all of the changes happening to our earth. Although the Religion of Man Made Global Warming treats it as heresy, the evidence is beginning to filter in.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

Wow, there might actually be conflicting evidence to Man Made warming?

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Hmm. I dunno. Sounds fishy to me. What is this Solar Activity thing yer talkin' about?

The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

Heresy! Heresy, I tell you. This is nothing so much as fabricated gobble-dee-gook! Try and prove it, you Non-Believers you!

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation.

Oh.

Don't you just hate it when facts and science get in the way of a good scare tactic?

Who knows what the actual cause is of global warming, IF that's even really happening? Could man have a hand in a negative impact? Sure. It just does not seem very likely to me. All of the science I've read shows that our impact - if it exists - is on the scale of hundredths or thousandths of a degree. I just won't get my panties in a wad over that, when the major contributor seems to be good old Mother Nature.

If these hand-wringers wanted to be helpful, they would be out inventing ways to protect our asses from the increased solar rays. But that would actually be a helpful, productive activity, and it's a little difficult getting all excited about a new sun block.

Especially when your follow-up act to inventing the Internet, is supposed to be saving the planet.

PS: Whenever you get some evangelical Man-Made nut in your face, have them go to JunkScience.com to cool their jets. Great site.

If ya can't beat 'em...

I'm currently reading Propaganda Techniques by Henry T. Conserva. My intent is not so much to understand how we're being manipulated by government and NGOs, but in learning how to use these techniques to advance certain political stances I hold. A How-To manual of sorts.

While I never thought this would be an easy task, I'm seeing a common thread through most of the successful propaganda campaigns, and I'm having difficulty applying this to my causes.

This common thread is fear.

This goes back to some of the earliest days of our country. Scared of the Chinese Devils and their opium dens? Start prohibition of drugs for personal use. Scared of blacks raping your white daughters? Start controlling gun ownership. Scared of some drunk killing your baby on the freeway? Start road blocks with no probable cause.

I could go on and on. Virtually every Nanny State law we have is based on either fear or guilt (minimum wage, affirmative action, welfare, etc). But fear seems to work the best.

How do I apply this to my causes? Guns, for instance. I believe that any person 18 years or older (an adult in our society), anyone not a violent felon and those not judged to be mentally incompetent by a court, should be able to carry a weapon - concealed or not - anywhere they wish, with no need for a license/permit. Courts of law and private property owners prohibiting guns would be the only exceptions.

How do you engender fear in favor of this position? The Brady Bunch, et al, have done a very skillful job of promoting the idea that it was guns, and not some deranged nut, that caused Reagan, Brady and the others to get shot. They have employed numerous techniques mentioned in the book to get their agenda heard and embraced. Just show the bodies, full of holes, gushing blood onto the sidewalk. Guns bad. People die. Save your loved ones while there's still time.

Something similar happened in March of 2006 in the small town of Elk Grove, near Sacramento. Whack-job just started firing on people in a restaurant-district. He shot 3 people before the police, who just happened to be in the area, shot him. He killed one guy on the scene, and another died later of his wounds.

What would have happened if 50% of the other people in the area had concealed weapons? Bad guy would have shot the first guy - maybe - then been gunned down himself. But because these people were not able to easily arm themselves, at least two extra innocent people were shot.

How do you sell that? How do you gain sympathy for this position? How do you market the idea that being strong and self-reliant is preferable to being beholden to the government for your safety?

Education, by itself, is not the answer. Facts and figures can only go so far. One new, "senseless gun death" on the evening news can be used to negate logic in the minds of the public. There must be an emotional "catch" around which people can rally.

I need some marketing whiz out there to show me the light. Show me that "catch". Show me how to sell this idea of safety through self-reliance. I've got the steak: Show me the sizzle.

My other Senator finds her voice. Kind of...

It seems like I've been writing my representatives A LOT lately.... I sent an email to Senator Barbara Boxer regarding the upcoming minimum wage increase. I told her, in no uncertain terms, that it was a horrible idea, and would actually hurt those it intended to help.

True to form, she (or her office) replied without actually reading my message. "He's from the Bay Area, so he must be FOR the wage increase, right?" Wrong.

First is her reply to my message, and my rebuttal.

Thank you for writing to me in support of increasing the federal minimum wage. I appreciate hearing from you.

[sigh]

The minimum wage is about fairness, a fair wage that rewards people for an honest day's work. Like you, I believe that an increase of the minimum wage is needed to help lower-wage workers make ends meet. That is why I voted for the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 (H.R.2), a bill that would increase the federal minimum wage by $2.10 an hour in three steps over two years from the date of the bill's enactment - the first adjustment to the minimum wage since 1997.

The Senate passed H.R.2 on February 1, 2007 by a vote of 94-3, signaling a strong bipartisan consensus that an adjustment to the minimum wage is overdue. I believe it is shameful that in the world's wealthiest nation, the federal government does not require employers to pay a living wage. An increase to the minimum wage would give an immediate raise to 5 million workers and benefit another 7.4 million workers as a result of indirect wage increases. Please know that I am committed to ensuring that these workers receive the fair pay that they deserve.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write to me about this important issue.

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

What a pinhead. My reply:

Senator,

Clearly, you have not actually read a single word of the letter I've sent you. Not surprising, I guess. Let me make this perfectly clear, maybe even clear enough for your computer bots to glean it from the text of this message. I OPPOSE any form of minimum wage increase. As I demonstrated in my earlier letters, minimum wage increases do nothing other than hurt small businesses - the ones hiring the minimum wage earners - as shown in the link I gave you about people getting laid off after a state-wide minimum wage bill was passed.

Additionally, by artificially paying individuals more than the market says they are worth, you give them an incentive NOT to better their education or skills. Why should they? Senator Boxer will get them a raise! You are keeping the poor and uneducated, well, poor and uneducated. Your policies hurt those you pretend to help, but make you feel better about yourself. And it will probably get you a couple of extra votes.

I must tell you that the most frightening sentence in your letter was this one:

I believe it is shameful that in the world's wealthiest nation, the federal government does not require employers to pay a living wage.

Excuse me!? When did we become the People's Republic Of America? I thought that when a Central Committee set wages, that was Communism. Are you confused about the country which you represent? You remember America, right? Self-reliance and all that? I would love for you to show me the Constitutional amendment that grants the federal government the ability to manipulate wages.

Minimum wage hurts small business, hurts lower wage earners, hurts the economy, hurts America. Makes Senator Boxer feel better. Fair trade, no? No.

Let's see if Commissar Boxer replies..

Draw and quarter the whole lot of 'em...

This gotdam cradle-to-grave crap has just got to stop. I damn near kicked in my TV this morning when I saw this story on Good Morning America.

For millions of working moms, those first weeks after giving birth are a time away from work to recover and bond with their new baby.

But increasingly the question is: Who pays for that time off work?

Hey, can you guess where this one is going? Of course, the right answer to their question would be, "The time off should be paid for by the woman and man that decided to bring a child into this world".

A study out this week from Harvard and McGill University in Canada shows that of 173 countries surveyed, only five provided no form of paid maternity leave — Papua New Guinea, Lesotho, Swaziland, Liberia and, perhaps surprisingly for some, the United States.

"I do think American women are not aware of how bad they have it," said mother Michelle Porter.

How bad they have it!? How about this bitch: I'll gladly authorize the use of my tax dollars to ship your sorry ass off to any one of the countries that pays for maternity leave. I'll even send your fat, bloated, Nanny State-suckling carcass in first class style. But you can never come back. Ever.

Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd says that only 12 percent of U.S. companies offer paid maternity leave, even though 71 percent of all mothers work.

Hey Chris, did you know that 87% of all fathers work, and only 0.5% of all employers pay for blowjobs (all in Nevada)? Blowjobs allow us to relax and better focus on the CORNHOLING WE'RE GETTING FROM POLITICIANS LIKE YOU!

Late Thursday, he (Dodd) proposed expanding the family medical leave act to allow all employees in the country at least six weeks of paid leave to care for a newborn or any sick family member.

Oh, so if a family member gets knocked up or is sick, the government or the business has to pay for this? Have you lost your ever loving mind? Just what we need: Another incentive for people to spit out more kids, regardless of their ability to care for them. Fucking brilliant.

This prick, in typical politician style, knows he has to say something to pull the heart strings of the GMA hostesses.

"We take better care of pets and your automobile than we take care of your child in this country," Dodd said.

Hell, combine any mention of pets, pregnant women and kids, and you've got the GMA gang twitching in the baby-maker.

You want a shocker? This story actually had a government official that was against this. I damn near shit myself. Look at this exchange between Vargas and Karen Czarnecki, deputy assistant secretary of labor:

ABC News' Elizabeth Vargas said to Czarnecki: "It's up to a person to save enough money before they have a baby to be able to stay home for a few weeks and recover and spend some time with that new baby?"

Czarnecki said: "Yeah, I think people have to take responsibility for themselves and they shouldn't always look to government to have an answer for them."

Clearly, Ms. Czarnecki has not been in politics very long. Personal responsibility? Surely you jest.

Hat tip to the Senator

In early January, I wrote a letter to my direct federal representatives: Diane Feinstein, Barbarba Boxer and new representative Jerry McNerny. The subject was the Bush Administration's desire to reward illegal aliens with Social Security Benefits.

Today, I got a reply from Senator Feinstein. This one actually looked like some sort of thought went into the reply.

Below is her reply to my original message, and my additional comments.

Thank you for contacting me about the eligibility of illegal
immigrants for social security benefits. I welcome the opportunity to
respond.

I do not support giving Social Security benefits to any person
who is not properly entitled to those benefits under the law. Social
Security retirement benefits are formulated based on the amount of
money a person contributes to the system and those persons receive a
benefit once they reach the eligibility age. All persons who receive
Social Security retirement benefits contribute to the system and illegal
aliens are not eligible to receive benefits. Additionally, the Senate is not
currently discussing any proposal to grant Social Security benefits to
illegal immigrants.

Having said that, I have concerns regarding the prudence of
taking away work credit for future citizens of the United States and I do
not believe that the United States government should take away earned
benefits for workers while simultaneously attempting to incorporate them
as full members of our society.

I have not heard that there is a problem with illegal immigrants
receiving benefits through the use of false identification numbers.
However, identity theft is an issue that I take seriously and one that I
have worked vigorously to combat while serving in the Senate. For this
reason, I have reintroduced the "Social Security Number Misuse
Prevention Act" (S. 238) in the new Congress, which would amend the
Federal criminal code to prohibit the display, sale, or purchase of social
security numbers without the affirmatively expressed consent of the
individual, except in specified circumstances. I hope the Senate will
move forward promptly to pass this bill.

Once again, thank you for writing. I hope you will continue to
keep me informed on issues of importance to you. If you have any
additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my
Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841 or visit my website at
http://feinstein.senate.gov. Best regards.

And my reply:

Senator Feinstein,

Thank you very much for your reply. It is much appreciated. I would like to bring to light some inconsistencies in your stance.

You state that you only support benefits going to persons that are eligible to receive them. I concur. You are intimating that you believe that a person who earned social security payment while here illegally should be able to benefit from that illegal activity should they become legal residents or citizens. Is that correct? To provide them with any type of government compensation for work that was done illegally would do nothing other than encourage others to also break the law. You'll get paid off in the end, so why not do it?

Let's say, for argument's sake, that you do believe they should get benefits for work done illegally, once they become legal. To receive those benefits, are they then required to pay us back for the social services they used while here illegally? Health care? Housing? Food? Education? It's only fair, isn't it? They used our services illegally, should we not expect to get reimbursed before we provide for their retirement?

Finally, I am utterly shocked you could make a statement to the effect that you have not heard of illegal aliens using false Social Security numbers to obtain benefits. Such a statement is, at the very least, disingenuous. Is not living in America a benefit in and of itself? Are not receiving housing subsidies, education for themselves and their children, WIC, health care, etcetera, etcetera, all benefits?

I direct you to this article in the Herald Tribune by John Leland of the NY Times - hardly an anti-illegal alien publication.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/04/news/id.php

An excerpt or two:

Maria, 51, came from Mexico City illegally six years ago and bought a counterfeit green card and Social Security card through a friend for $180. She earns $6.50 an hour, and like most of the seven million working illegal immigrants in the United States, she pays income tax and Social Security tax.

and

While no one knows how many of these mismatches [the annual 8 to 9 million name-to-SSN mismatches] are illegal immigrants, a Government Accountability Office study found that employers with the most mismatches were concentrated in industries that hire a lot of illegal immigrants, including agriculture, construction and food service

This problem will not be corrected by trying to fix the ills of the world. It is not our problem and it is not our obligation to care for illegal aliens that come from countries not as economically viable as the US. As a US Senator, the scope of your duties is ONLY for legal residents and citizens. We must first assist our own poor. Our own illiterate. Our current policies keep our poor at the lowest economic strata, with little chance for growth. The 10 to 20 million illegal aliens are a workforce that keeps low-end wages depressed.

Senator, do what is right. Work for enforcement of our current immigration laws. Don't reward law-breaking illegals. Get perp-walk photos of some high-profile CEO's of companies hiring illegals. Get these plastered on the nightly news and the daily newspapers. The illegal jobs will dry up, and the pay scale of American poor/legal residents will soar. Our borders will become more secure because only those with non-work related desires - terrorism, drugs, etc. - will be crossing. The volume will be manageable by the Border Patrol.

Once again, I thank you for your reply. I look forward to hearing from you on these comments.

Will lightning strike twice. I'll post a reply if I get one.

You've gotta be kidding me...

We all heard about the weird, face things that were placed around the country - in 10 different cities - that caused a major panty-knot in Boston. They called out every terrorist-related department they have access to. They basically shut down the damned city.

This just kills me:

"Just a little over a mile away from the placement of the first device, a
group of terrorists boarded airplanes and launched an attack on New York City,"
police Commissioner Edward Davis said in an interview with The Associated
Press.

The first device? What would you call an Etch-a-Sketch? A Terrorist Communications Device? And what the hell has the proximity of the airport have to do with these marketing tools? Oh, that's right, you need to try and tie the emotion of 911 into your little piece of crap city.

Jesus Frigging Christ. Have we become such a bunch of pussies that we have to shut down a major American city because of the "fear of terrorism"?

If so, the bad guys have won.

Why the hell couldn't someone with an ounce of sense just go look at the thing? Have all of the testicles in the city been outsourced? Why is the first response, "Call in the Marines"?

"The city clearly did not overreact. Had we taken any other steps, we would have
been endangering the public," he (the police commissioner) said.

You big fucking pussy, YOUR actions DID endanger the public by needlessly pulling resources from other duties. You perpetuate a sense of helplessness among the Boston citizenry. You, and those like you, are the major problem with the country. Everyone is helpless, and the government wonks make sure it stays that way. Stay dependent upon ol' Uncle Sam.

Didn't they used to tar and feather in Boston?