Tag Archives: illegal aliens

2 Cents Worth On Life Its Ownself

Alrighty, let’s take a tour around the world and see what’s going on in all those corners of the globe….

We can start close to home in South Texas where we are being inundated with thousands of illegal aliens walking across the border with impunity and no apparent opposition.  The underground and smoke signal network of communication has been in existence since time immemorial.  Those kids, and more to the point, their parents, are aware of the vaguely disguised “invitation” of our guy in the White House that any and all Hispanics are welcome as future Democratic voters if they just cross the border.  Doesn’t it strike anyone else as a bit suspicious that all these so-called refugees claim that they are subject to intimidation and threats from gangs and drug cartels.  We’re expecting 90,000 this year alone.  How many gang members do they have in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras?   I personally don’t see refugees in those media photos but moochers.

Rule number one for any nation since the beginning of time is to have a border.  Each nation has the right and duty to  its citizens to defend its border.  Every nation must have the right to control and regulate the flow of foreigners and commerce across it borders.   That is the foundational definition of  being a nation.

Africa.  Well, the French after almost two years still have troops chasing radical Moslems around Mali.   Nigeria couldn’t be more of a mess Boko Haram roaming around killing and kidnapping more or less at will.  The Congo is beset with turmoil from radicals attacking and killing when the notion strikes them.   Libya and Egypt are both teetering on the brink or sinking into totalitarian status due to the conflict with radical Moslems.   Even a “stable” and democratic Kenya is subject to routine slaughter and attack from Moslems and radicals.   Somalia?  enough said.

Our friends in Europe are clearly rethinking their liberal policies regarding immigration and the influx of Moslems from North Africa and the northern and western marches of the Mid East.  France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and even Sweden are seeing growing and more vocal opposition to open borders and increasing immigration of Moslems.

Sentiment against central governments is growing much stronger across the European landscape whether the central government be domestic or the European  Parliament in Brussels.  Catalonia is voting on separation from Spain.  The Belgians are taking a fresh look at their centuries old joinder of the French, Flemish and Germanic portions of their nation with many calling for independence.  Surely you are aware the Scotland will vote in a few months on independence from the United Kingdom and predictions are for a very close vote.  Northern Italy is stirring even harder and more volubly for cutting loose the southern portions of Italy and letting them make their own way.  The Balkans remain on edge after nearly two decades of alleged peace between their Christian areas and the Moslem portions of that area.  The Ukraine?  Well it is getting plenty of press these days.

Who knows how Iraq will evolve over the next few weeks and months.   The radicals look to have at a minimum a permanent nation-state to consolidate power and use as a base to slowly but surely spread their barbarism in that immediate area of the world and even worse to then plan long term strikes against the West at times and places of their choosing with impunity.  It is very apparent that the US and all Western nations will not intervene in a way that would force them out of the areas they now occupy.  The Shia Iraqis don’t have the will to make a  war against them in those northern reaches and drive them out.  Even if Iran sent troops and everything they had available it wouldn’t work.  Look at the map and consider the demographics as you look.  The geography and Islamic peoples of those regions don’t favor driving out those fiends.  Iran can’t afford the  cost in treasure and military resources and personnel it would take to remove those Islamists even with the help of what exist of the Iraqi army.  That huge swath of earth looks likely to descend into a new dark age for some time to come.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are more or less the same problem sitting across two borders.  The Taliban will take over in reality or behind the scenes in running Afghanistan as soon as we are gone.  Who is going to stop them?  Serious question.  Pakistan can probably and likely will bumble along more or less as it has for decades.  Always on the edge of self-destruction but strong enough to thwart an outright collapse.

In the Far East China is on the march and Japan is slowly but inevitably renewing its martial aspirations.  Sitting between them is the powder keg the two Koreas.   China is readying its aircraft carrier and will use it to intimidate its neighbors and even strike the weaker ones when they feel they can without repercussions.  It is in our long-term strategic interest to back Japan in this growing and volatile mix.   It would be a disaster for China to be allowed free rein in such portions of the Asian area as they wish.  The Philippines just reached yet another in the endless series of truces with the Moslems on its island chain.  It won’t last either.  Lordy how many of those have there been since the SpanishAmerican War?

Saudi Arabia is allegedly an ally and how many of the 9/11 attackers came from there?  We should only trust when we can verify.  Be vigilant and hope some day those peoples will move beyond the 9th century in their outlook on the world and be able to tolerate other views. They are entitled to their own religion and culture and we have no problem with that but they should not be permitted to impose a Caliphate across any section of the modern world with the repression and of differing views.

Be brave,,,,fear never wins the battle and always leads to retreat.   olcranky.wordpress.com




Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Affairs, government, history, immigration, military history, terrorism, War

Immigration And Fraud Fines Amendment–Identity Theft

The Gang of Eight has asked for input on new ideas to make their proposed immigration overhaul bill better.  For the time being I’ll not get into the question of whether anyone here illegally deserves any path to citizenship however long it may be.  We’ll leave for another day the economic cost and alleged benefit analysis of allowing several millions of low educated folks become citizens and what they bring to the table.   Let’s talk about the fines and requirements for that path to citizenship that is hawked by the 800 plus page proposal.   They do have a lot to say about the fines that will be imposed and the fees charged to the illegals when they apply for citizenship.  But there is one area that should be fined that is totally missing from the conversation so far.

Many liberal Democrats will make the case that illegals pay taxes.  They refer to the payroll taxes for social security and medicare.  They use this to counter the argument that they don’t pay income taxes.  There might be some partial truth to this but there is an element of that argument that is completely ignored by those Democratic proponents and the media.   They overlook the fact that those illegals that did pay payroll taxes only did so by fraud of one type or another.   To pay those taxes the illegal must have had a social security number.  Without that number they would not be paying anything.  That is the admission card.  Now exactly how did that illegal get a social security number?  They lied, cheated and committed fraud somewhere along the way, that is how.  They used a social security number that they stole from someone else, simply lifted it from some data somewhere or they made up false documents to apply for a social security card number.    There is simply no way they could honestly come by a social security number.

If they are using your social security number, perforce, they have committed identity theft.  This will cause you untold headaches with the IRS.  That agency is difficult enough to deal with under the best of circumstances and when someone else has claimed a refund or otherwise utilized your social security number you are in a quagmire of hurt.  If they paid  social security taxes using your number then your calculations for benefits when the time comes will be askew and will take lots of your time and energy to straighten out with Social Security so you can get what you deserve after paying in for a lifetime.  Having to fix the problem of a fraudulent refund being paid to an illegal or one of their cohort will be a nightmare for you and will delay till the end of time you getting the refund that you are really entitled to receive.   Don’t take my word for this, ask around, you’ll find someone who has been a victim and let them tell you the horror story trying to get everything straightened out.

In addition to any other provision of this proposed immigration bill there should be an amendment adding new fines and criminal penalties against illegals who have lied, cheated or committed fraud obtaining or using any social security number.  If they stole your  number they should pay a fine.  If they forged documents to get a social security number they should pay a fine.   If they lie on the application papers for that path to citizenship about using a social security number in any way they should pay a fine and also that should be a criminal offense with strong sentences and an automatic disqualifier for citizenship.  Automatic so no judge as discretion to order otherwise.

For identity theft for your social security number I believe the fine should be at least $10,000.00 and that money should be refunded directly to the victim of the identity theft.   I doubt any of the victims would oppose that idea.  Even that would only be partial recompense for the trouble they caused by their theft.  If the illegal forged document or lied on documents to get a social security number then they likewise should pay a fine of not less than $10,000.00 and that money should go directly to border security.  If they try to cover up their past deeds by lying about it on any of the applications for citizenship or legal status they should be jailed; that should be a federal crime and punishable by imprisonment for at least 3 years and then deportation or only deportation at the discretion of the government.  And no exception for the fact that they may have family members in the US.  If they lie, they go, period.

It is reprehensible enough that they violated our sovereignty but really despicable that they lied regarding a social security card number and caused so much grief to someone.  They should pay these fines and face these criminal sanctions if they continue their fraudulent behavior.   Unless and until these modifications are made part of the immigration bill then I for one don’t want to even discuss it.  I want justice for the true American citizens that have been damaged by these illegals and their actions.  If you agree let others know.  If you disagree that is fine but explain to the victims of identity theft why that theft will go unpunished.

“A friend is one who warns you.”  Anonymous.  http://www.olcranky.wordpress.com


Leave a comment

Filed under Economics, Foreign Affairs, government, immigration, Politics

Schools, Illegals, Debt Crisis–Revisit Plyler?

Many of you may not be aware that it was a Supreme Court decision almost 30 years ago that required the States to provide a free public education to illegal aliens in this country.  The case was Plyler v. Doe.  You can use your search engine to look up the case.  I encourage you to do so.  If you disagree with any of my comments then form you own but at least have them based in law and fact.  You don’t  have to be a lawyer to understand the rationale of the case.  Read it and also read the dissent by Burger.  It was a 5 to 4 decision.  The decision was very much fact based and perhaps it is time to revisit that issue anew. It is timely because of the incredible debt burdens facing the US and the individual State–California comes to mind.  The financial burden of educating or at least allowing attendance in our schools for illegal aliens is enormous.  You can find your own estimates about how many there are in California, Texas and Arizona and then multiple that number by the average cost per child for public education.  It is a staggering multi-billion dollar number each year for the respective States.

A little history about the Plyler case is in order for those not familiar with it.  As is so often the case this lawsuit was not brought by a poor down trodden  illegal Mexican against the State of Texas.  There was a liberal organization that was promoting this issue.  They picked the plaintiffs and they certainly carefully picked the court where they would file suit.  The filed before Judge William Wayne Justice.  A very, very liberal judge in the Eastern District of Texas.  He would have made a San Franciso liberal look like a right winger by comparison.  If a case before him involved a current liberal cause asserting some alleged civil right you could predict the outcome when the suit was filed.  The only issue would be how he would manipulate the facts to conform with his personal views of social needs and his view of the world.

The Plyler case does acknowledge the constitutional position that there is no right to a public education under the Constitution.  This they had to do because education is a State matter reserved to them under the 10th Amendment.  They used tortured interpretations of the 14th amendment to justify their majority opinion.  It was an equal protection of the laws case according to them.   The case recognizes that it is limited to the particular facts before the Court at that time.  The Court acknowledge that States and the US can discriminate among classes of people within their borders for legitimate and compelling reasons.  Thus illegals were denied many social welfare benefits such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamp benefits and many others.  The distinction must be for a legitimate public purpose.  The State of Texas argued that saving huge sums of money that could then be used to improve its school system for its citizens and resident aliens was a legitimate purpose but the Supremes in their infinite wisdom said no.  They wax eloquent about their opinion that a well education population is good for society and that the children are here for reasons beyond their control because it was their parents that brought them here.  Interestingly the Supreme majority recognized that the States have a right to bar some privileges to illegals.  Specifically the States can prohibit employment of illegals because it furthers a Federal goal of stopping illegal immigration.  You might note that a few States have begun this process in the last couple of years and their illegal population has declined–see Oklahoma.

You also must be reminded that the Texas law challenged in this case did allow the illegals to attend public school; it did require them to pay the tuition to the State for this educational opportunity.  The Supreme Court blithely ignores this factor.   They do have to acknowledge that the States have the right to help enforce Federal policy for deportation of illegals and that these children are subject to deportation along with their parents under Federal law.  They ignore any comment on the fact that these kids were able to be identified for purposes of the suit as plaintiffs and thus their parents which would bring deportation which is a legitimate State purpose.  Justice Burger in his dissent notes this inconsistency.  The majority rejects the notion that saving billions of dollars is in the public interest of a State.   What more “compelling government interest” could there be in these times?  

The majority concludes by stating that if a State wishes to prohibit a public education to illegals it must justify it by “showing that it furthers some substantial State interest”.   They stated that it was not done in this particular case.  The matter is not done.  Our facts are different now than they were 30 years ago and the financial conditions of the nation and the States are certainly much different now than then.  The issue should be re-litigated with new evidence of the financial burden.   We also have a different court at the moment and it might be more receptive to the need to reduce State budgets.  I mean California can’t pay its bills. Why is it paying the bills for illegals to attend their schools. 

Please read the case for yourself.  It is another classic example of judges legislating from the bench.   Burger in his dissent makes it clear.  Just because the legislative or executive branches of government don’t perform  as some might want that does not justify the judiciary taking the role of legislative power brokers creating law them deem in the best interest of a State or the Nation.  That is why we have elections.

“The Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, n0r does it vest judges with a mandate to try remedy every social problem”. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 US at 74.  www.olcranky.wordpress.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Economics, Foreign Affairs, government, immigration, Politics

2 Cents For These?

The following are worth what you paid for them but the asking price is still 2 cents per each as they say on the loading docks.

When you have spent an hour on the tarmac with no word from the cockpit about take off or pulling up the the gate, you wonder if those pilots were “distracted” with their computers and heated discussions about company policy.  Like the policy for keeping passengers informed.

The current health care proposal to have a public option but with a provision to allow States to opt out of the program has one glaring fault.  The folks in Kansas might not want to have anything to do with a Federally run and mandated health care program and decide not to participate.  But, but, but, the new Federal taxes of all stripes being implemented to pay for the program will still be in place so those good folks in Kansas will still pay the taxes and the people in Michigan will get the benefit of the program with a subsidy from Kansas.  That’s a real Hobson’s choice opt out if I ever saw one.

One wonders sometimes if the US will survive the length of the Roman Empire.  The myth of Remus seeing the 12 buzzards flying over Rome supposedly meant that the empire was to last for 12 centuries and that turned out to be pretty close to the facts.  Will the US enjoy ascendency for 12 score of years?

You watch the news and see our troops and allies training Afghan soldiers with modern weapons and how to use proper infantry techniques.  Then sometimes they are firing larger weapons like machine guns.  It is usually some scruffy looking fellow who looked like he just came in from the fields.  Am I the only one that has a concern that all we may be doing is supplying and training our future adversary on the field of battle?

Now our good friends at GMAC are back asking for more money.  This time it appears to be about 3 or 4 billion more in addition to the 12 billion it has already received to make loans for Government, Inc.’s autormobile industry.  Hmm, let’s see if GMAC went out of business then folks would have to get their car loans from a local or regional bank or even a credit union.  Wouldn’t that be a good deal for everyone.  I thought we were all worried about those too big to fail banks.   Why don’t we let the local banks have that business and stir the local economies.  Government, Inc. is subsidizing GM and Chrysler and they are subsidizing GMAC and there is no end in sight.  You really think the UAW will ever agree to meaningful changes to their contracts to make our auto industry truly competitive as long as Government, Inc. will be there to pick up their tab with taxpayer money from throughout the nation?

Interesting to see that someone finally is reading our Constitution.  Note the recent letter from some members of Congress to the guy in the White House that he can’t accept the Noble prize without approval of Congress.  They are right.  Hate to rain on anyone’s parade but one would hope that occasionally the current gang in Washington would follow the law and the press would hold them to it.  The provision is not comlicated.  Art. 1, section 9….”No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any Office or Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or Foreign State.”  It is not a big deal if followed but it is our law and either it should be followed or not.  Maybe we will ignore it jsut as we do our own immigration laws and pretend they don’t exist.

Speaking of Art. 1, section 9, it requires that there be a “regular Statement and Account of the Receipt and Expenditures of all public money”….. Do you think the off books accounting used for Medicare, Social Security and soon the other like comports with that Constitutional requirement?  Don’t we have the right to demand under that section as legitimate an accounting as is required by other public companies regulated by the SEC?  Government, Inc. official would be prosecuted for fraud if that were held to the accounting standards of the private market.   They make “material misrepresentations” with every alleged budget and accounting they submit. 

Rather than give money to big banks and GM why not use that money to fund big increases in the NASA programs.  It would create thousands of new and well paying jobs.  It would continue the true nature and purpose of Man to venture out and test the new and explore.  It would have side benefits not yet imagined.  We could send a manned crew to Mars.  The scientific knowledge alone would pay for it down the road.  What are we getting for our money in GM or Citigroup?

When you go to the hospital and they make you put on one of those darn gowns with your rear end exposed wouldn’t you prefer to be dressed as you like and tell them you will be glad to undress for their exams or check ups everytime they need one?  I mean those gowns are not a medically necessity it is for the convenience of the staff which I appreciate but gee whiz.  They are so demeaning.  I would rather dress and undress 8 times a day but be able to look normal between times.  It would sure elevate my mental state, don’t know about you.   Then you probably have a cuter rear end than I do.

How is it that the Holidays seem so far away at Easter and then you get hot and before you can blink they are only 7 weeks away?

“The Democratic Party has a vested interest in depression at home and war abroad.  Its leaders are always troubadours of trouble; crooners of catastrophe.  Public confusion on vital issues is Democratic weather.  A Democratic President is doomed to proceed to his goals like a squid, squirting darkness all about him”….  Hard to believe but that is from the New York Times, February 1959.   It could apply to their headline for tomorrow.    http://www.olcranky.wordpress.com



Leave a comment

Filed under business, Economics, Foreign Affairs, history, Politics, Socialized Medicine

Birth Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

The new Administration is pushing for a revamp of our immigration laws and policies with Sen. Schumer taking the lead role at the moment.  We all know that when they talk about “comprehensive” reform that they mean amnesty for the illegals here.  It is only a question of the timing and terms for them to receive their amnesty but the ultimate goal of US citizenship is there for the taking and of course it goes without saying the Democrats will reap a great percentage of those new votes of these newly minted citizens.  As this debate renews itself it would do us all well to revisit at least one of the basic premises of the supporters for this revised policy and for that matter the rulings of some of the courts allowing rights equivalent to those of citizens  in certain instances.  We constantly read or hear in the news that everyone born in the US is automatically a US citizen.  Everyone is under the false impression that anyone and everyone who births a child on US soil makes that baby a citizen.  Even teachers in school glibly propound this proposition.  That is simply not the case.   Illegals who have children here do not confer on those  children automatic citizenship.

Let’s start at a dangerous place by actually reading the Constitution.  In fact take a look at the entire language in the 14th amendment regarding citizenship rather than a portoion of it.  (As always, I urge everyone to get their own copy of the Constitution, one of those little softcover versions, they only cost a couple of dollars.)   It is to be remembered that the Constitution does not define citizenship anywhere except in the 14th Amendment and that was done about 75 years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights became law.  The pertinent portion reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….”.   All attention is given to the first clause of that sentence about being born or naturalized here.  But the clause has a second requirement that is completely ignored by everyone.  The “and” is conjunctive and critical.   To be a US citizen you have to fulfill both of the provisions in that clause.   Simply being born in the US does NOT make you a citizen unless you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

There are several examples that make the rationale for the second phrase apparent.  The most obvious one was the question of the Indians.  That amendment was passed right after the War Between The States and there were still lots of Indians roaming all over the West.  The debates and comments by the politicians made it very clear that the children of Indians were not US citizens.  They were clearly born here but they were  not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Indeed Indians didn’t become citizens for most of them until 1923 by special act of Congress for those willing to pledge their allegiance to the US.   The concept of jurisdiction went all the way back to British common law and was based on the idea  that every person born within the King’s realm was his subject and owed the King allegiance willingly or otherwise.  That whole notion  was refuted by our Revolution.  Under the monarchial systems of old there wasn’t really a concept of citizenship but a birthright obligation to the King.  That notion was denied in the democracies  that began to emerge in 18th and 19th century when citizenship was voluntary by the governed. 

Everyone on US soil is subject to our criminal laws.  Even diplomats are but they have special exceptions due to the requirements of international relations and they are sent home and never prosecuted.   Whether you are a citizen or not you are subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of law.  That is true in all countries.  Suppose criminals from France came here trying to escape prosecution, a man and a woman.  She is pregnant and while they are on the run she gives birth to a child in Chicago.  That child is not a US citizen because although he was born on US soil he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.  He doesn’t meet the requirement of the second phrase of the 14th amendment.  Children follow the loyalty of their parents in the law.  Those parents would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US, never pledging any loyatly to it.  That language has meaning and has an impact.  It wasn’t placed there merely to fill space on the page.  It would be absurd to make any and everyone who happened to be physically born in the US a citizen.  Those French would not have any allegiance to the US and neither would their child.  None of them are subject to the jurisdiction, by loyalty, to the US. 

Illegal immigrants fall into the same category.  Those parents have no right to citizenship and certainly their children born here don’t either.  Indeed their loyalties are to their home country in the eyes of the law and we are a nation allegedly built on the concept of the rule of law.   Congress could clarify this if it wanted by specifically denying citizenship to anyone born here to parents in the country illegally.  The Supreme Court has only ruled on the issue once in an off hand way but that case has a huge distinction because it was dealing with legal residents and their offspring.  I hope that false arguments about who is and who is not entitled to citizenship will not obfuscate the vital issues we face when dealing with the influx of illegal aliens who by their very actions deny the authority of the US rather than demonstrating any allegiance to it principles.

There are two types of mass in the universe.  The first is gravitational mass which means the attractive force of one body on another.  Then there is inertial mass which references the resistance of a body to any accleration.   Mass is a more scientific word for what we commonly call weight.  www.olcranky.wordpress.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Affairs, government, history, immigration

Fences and Walls Make Better Neighbors

Ben Franklin and others long ago recognized that good fences make for good neighbors.  That has been true for lo these many millenia.   Earliest man quickly learned how to construct walls around the places where they lived and later raised their crops as a protection against the wild beasts and from the ravages of their fellow man bent on mischief.

There is the Great Wall of China, the fences that line the entire 38th parallel in Korea separating the north and south, there was the Berlin Wall until Reagan got it torn down, the Walls of Jericho, the fencing along portions of our southern border with Mexico and all the great cities of Europe had their walls surrounding them from Greek and Roman times until only the last few centuries.  There is a long and tried history with the use and protection of the walls or fences.  The Great Wall of China was built to protect it from the Mongols and it worked reasonably well for a very long time.  Hadrian’s wall in the north of England kept the Scottish hordes from middle and lower England for a long period of time.    That fence and minefield separating the two Koreas has worked out pretty well for us for over 50 years so far.  With the way things are going in North Korea we should be glad that it is there.   I do recall several times over the last few decades when one liberal or the other thought we should dismantle it as a gesture of good faith to the North!    Funny how no one is talking like that now.

Fences don’t project a negative or hostile attitude toward those on the other side of the fence necessarily.  Some neighbors who are close friends have fences between their homes and are happy for the privacy it affords.   Yes, a fence does convey the message that “this is mine” and entry is by permission only.  There is nothing wrong with that at all unless you want to live in a society that does not permit private ownership of property.  The Commies didn’t allow private ownership and even they built walls.  Their walls were all by the State and definitely conveyed the message that this did not belong to you and you couldn’t cross without the requisite permit.   They had not only the Berlin Wall but they had “walls” everywhere.  During the Cold War the people in the Communist lands couldn’t travel anywhere even within their own borders without a pass from the government.  They had walls within walls. 

We need a wall along our entire southern border, not just the 700 miles that was planned.  I use the past tense because it is obvious that the new guy will not even build out that much.  Mexico is in near chaos at the moment and has been teetering on the brink of such a condition for years now.  Their cultural is fine for them if they like it but it is not an American cultural or even close to it.  They have a very socialistic outlook on economic theory.  I offer Pemex as exhibit A in that regard.  They have tried to expand their economy with experiments here and there with some free market efforts but they have been feeble and mostly ineffective.   They do in fact look to the Government as the answer to all their problems andissues.   They do not comprehend the concept as we know it of the rugged individualist.  They are more like the Chinese and view most things through a group effort whether that “group” is a political set or subset of their nation, the Catholic Church or some cartel these days.  We of course have some of that cooperative spirit ourselves as do all peoples.  There has to be some of it to have any sense of community or willingness to join together for a common good.  But the differences in magnitude are tremendous between Mexico and the US in that regard.  We will never be pals with Mexico.  We can and should be good neighbors.    We have the right to expect the same thing from them.  The corruption there is to the point of being now endemic and so corrosive that it is accepted as the ordinary course of business.  We need to protect ourselves from the negative effects of that corruption.  There is absolutely no evidence on the horizon that that situation is going to change anytime soon.  Policemen are bribed and bought regularly and they even resign or are assasinated on a weekly basis.   Their army is no better.  Who could you turn to there for help?   

Let’s build that fence and make it airtight.  We will be better off for it in the long run.   We have the right and the obligation to our own citizens to protect ourselves from the violence corruption and cultural and economic differences between our nations.  If they are allowed to continue to swarm over the border we will become the Balkans.  If you think it couldn’t and won’t happen I suggest you read some more history.  They will not quit coming until they can’t.  Every nation must decide its own destiny and those peoples ultimately get and deserve the government and economic system they allow to rule them.

If my math is right Government, Inc. has just doled out over 7 billion to the car companies to build those green cars, electric.  That is in addition to all the tens of billions that was already advanced to them.  How many people will pay the extra price for those electric cars.  I have another concern for those folks.  I wonder how long the batteries last in those cars?  Ten thousand miles?  One thousand miles.  What will it cost each time they have to be replaced?  I bet it is more than pocket change.  Just buy four size D batteries at the store.  In addition where will they go to get them replaced?  Will you have to leave your car there for an entire day to change the batteries?  What will be the service charge for those new batteries?   It is going to be an expensive proposition, far beyond anything that has been discussed  to date.   http://www.olcranky.wordpress.com

1 Comment

Filed under business, Culture, Economics, Foreign Affairs, geography, government

Budget Alternatives That Follow the Constitution

Ther are vocal defenders of the proposed budget of the new administration and a fair number of critics.  The defenders constantly harp that those opposed to the budget are simply saying no and not offering alternative solutions to fiscal and budgetary demands.  Well, I am happy to offer some thoughts on how to change the budget and reduce the future deficits.   I believe these few suggestions are only an example of the direction the budget could take that would improve our economy and enhance our federalist system of government. 

First we could require that every agency and department of government reduce its staff by 3%.  Yes, you heard me right, lay off people.  There would be no exceptions.   The Pentagon would not be required to reduce mililtary staff in uniform but the civilian workers there would be reduced.  Those workers remaining would take up the “slack” to the extent that there really is any slack in the first place to make up.  I personally doubt any of those government workers are all that over worked compared to those toiling in the private market place.  They have cushy jobs and they damn well know it.  Some would say “but what about the FAA or Homeland Security”?  I would answer that I firmly believe that any organization that large is ripe with more than 3% “dead wood” in the employee stock.  I am quite confident that the suprevisors could think of at least 3% of folks that they would love to can now but can’t because of all the restrictions on firing federal employees.

Second, every department and agency would be required to reduce its budget by 5%.  I mean actually reduced year over year without those phony adjustments that they put in every year for inflation.  As you all know right now they plug those increases into each year’s budget and if the increase is reduced that is considered a reduction in the Federal budget.  Don’t we all wish we could handle our personal budgets that way.  I mean in plain language that if a budget for a department was 1 billion in ’08 that it would be $950,000,000.00 for ’09.  That is a real deduction just like private business has to endure and private citizens do when their revenues are lower. 

Third, I would require Homeland Security to remove all illegal aliens from the public school systems around the country.  The Supreme Court ruled in Tyler v. Roe that they were permitted to attend schools.  But that ruling did NOT say they had a right to be in the country.  You should read that opinion for yourself by the way.  You don’t have to be a lawyer to see the tortured language and reasoning of the majority in the opinion to realize how absurd that ruling was.  In Texas alone more than 5 billion dollars are expended annually to pay for these illegals–and that estimate is way on the low side.   Don’t tell me it can’t be done.  Of course it can.  Every one of those children and their parents are committing a fraud on the citizens of the respective states each time they attend school.  It is a criminal fraud.  If you aren’t a citizen are you entitled to a loan from the Home Loan Administration?

Fourth, the following departments of government would be eliminated and shuttered: Commerce, Education, Labor and Energy.   I challengedyou to think long and hard about what benefit you receive from any of these agencies of government.  The census can be done by another branch or even the post office.  You are reminded that the Constitution has no provision whatsoever for the Federal government to be involved in the educational process.  That is a matter that is a State issue and responsibility.  It is also a right reserved to the States under the 10th amendment.  As part of this process I would require that every dime that the Federal government is spending on education in whatever form be excised from the Federal budget through tax cuts on individuals and business.  That money would not be collected in the first place and would remain with the people and the respective states.  Then the states would be free to raise their taxes as they saw fit to offset the loss of Federal funds, penny for penny if that is their wish.  The same money would be spent on education but all the decisions and the power to make decisons regarding the use of those funds would be at the State level where it is supposed to be under the Constitution in the first place.   If some states did not wish to raise their taxes in an offset amount that would be their choice.  This would put a stick in the spoke of  “national” education standards.  I for one want there to be 50 different standards.  The genius of the Federal system is the ability to innovate and experiment by all 50 states.  Let’s have that laboratory of ideas bubbling and boiling all the  time. 

That is only a few ideas and a starting point.  I bet you can make your own list of agencies and departments that could be downsized.  If the Tax Code were simplified how many employees could be canned at the IRS?   It is only because it is about 70,000 pages long that it needs that many employees.  If the standard form was only two pages long how many employees would be needed to process our returns?  How many of you have had a dispute with the IRS and sent them documents only to receive something back, late, that is non- sensical or unrelated to the issue at hand?

Lastly, we don’t need to spend all those trillions on bailouts and handouts.  If a company or bank is a loser then let it fail and the regulators deal with it or the bankruptcy court.  I for one do not buy the argument of those crying wolf in Washington.  They do that to advance their own agenda.   They rightly believe our fear makes us more maleable.   The market would have already repaired most of the damage done by now and the cost certainly wouldn’t have been any worse than the trillions Government, Inc. is expending. 

I would invite anyone to add to my thoughts on cutting the budget and deficits.  We are not sheep and I trust the people.  We  have some good ideas also even if we are not the “smartest guys in the room”.

The proposed 100 million “reduction” in a 3.7 trillion budget is an insult to our intelligence as much as the “savings” from no troops in Iraq when they aren’t going to be there anyway.  That is like me saying I am saving $50,000.00 next year because I am not going to the South of France and spend a month on chartered yacht that would cost that much.

1 Comment

Filed under business, Economics, government, immigration, law

Walls–Tangible and Legal

The current administration is making noise about reforming the immigration laws for our nation.   The old bug-a-boo of “comprehensive” reform is being bandied about again.  Of course that simply means all0wing law breakers a way to gain undeserved citizenship and indeed to award illegal behavoir.  I wonder how all those seeking entry and citizenship into our country who have followed all the rules will feel when they  see others who did not follow the rules elbow their way to the front of the line.

From the earliest recorded times all cities had walls.  You have all heard of the walls of Jericho if no others.   Virtiually every town of any size would have a wall around it.  This wall was for security of those residents inside and to protect them from dangers coming from afar.  The walls all had gates.  Those gates had guards.  They were there to regulate entry to the city.  Only those who complied with the requirements of the city were allowed entry.  Rome had extensive walls around it.  Likewise all the ancient cities of Europe.  Earliest London had a wall around the city from Roman times to centuries later.  They served a good purpose.    Only those who were believed to  comply with the laws and customs of the city were allowed to enter.  Regulating those wishing to gain access to an independent city-state was important for their survival and growth.   A linchpin of sovereignty for any nation is controlling its borders and preventing those it does not want to have access from entry.  Indeed when there are no borders that borderless territory throughout history has generally been considered hinterlands or barbaric areas.  Much like northwest Pakistan today.

Nations had borders that were “walls” by using the major geographic features of the area.  Rivers and moutains are the most obvious examples of this.  Rome used these formations and rivers to mark boundaries all the time.  European nations used the major rivers of that region to mark the boundaries between countries and do to this day.    Sometimes barriers were built such as the Great Wall of China.  That was a vast undertaking and designed to protect and define its borders and control the flow of peopole.  Using barriers to control the flow of people is as old as mankind and the current use of them is nothing new.  We are using a “wheel” that has already been invented eons ago. 

Nations have also used the law to regulate entry to their domains and for citizenship.  Rome controlled vast reaches of the known world.  Roman law applied except as Rome allowed local law to be enforced to maintain the peace.  A good  example of that is Israel.   All the ancient Israelis were subject to Roman law and the Judaic laws at the same time but not all were permitted to be citizens of Rome.  That was a prized status and Rome had restrictions on who could become a citizen.  The most famous of these was probably Paul.  He was a Jew but he also attained Roman citizenship.  You recall after his trial in Israel he pled his right as a citizen to appeal to Rome.  That is why he was shipped to Rome. 

It is right and proper that the US should have laws and walls to protect the American identity and provide security to its citizens.  Everyone today should be acutely aware of that need after 9/11.  To allow those who have violated our laws to get a preferred place in the line for citizenship is to erode respect and obedience to our laws generally.  Once that respect diminishes too far we face a perilous future.  It is our belief in laws and respect for their even handed enforcement that sets us apart from so much of the world.  Do you believe that Mexico has the same heritage and respect for the rule of law as we do here?  They certainly have no regard for our laws and I doubt they have mujch respect  for their own laws south of the border.  If they break our laws for entry what makes anyone think they will respect or obey our other laws.  

Just this weekend I heard a pundit on TV discussing the economic crisis and the fact of Government, Inc. removing presidents of companies and taking over banks without regard to the law or the Fifth Amendment, state that he didn’t care if such action was Constitutional or not because we are in an emergency!   At least he was straightforward about it.   I say that the wall of the law is our best and last refuge in turbulent times and also to protect  the fundamentals that are the basis of our democracy here.  When that respect is gone then truly what do we have to depend on?    We need walls now as much as ever.  We should finish the walls on our southern border and expand them.  We must enforce the existing laws of the land including those to arrest and expel illegal aliens.  If we don’t then who or what is in charge of deciding the other major issues of our time?   Are we to become a nation based upon the whims of the moment–the rule of the mob of the moment?   Who decides which laws will be enforced?  Don’t ignore our laws.  If there is ample support then repeal laws but maintain a respect and reverance for the rule of law.  When those walls come tumbling down you don’t know what will replace it.  It sure won’t be the paradise many predict.  It will lead to a balkanization of our country and a big step down on a spiral to anarchy.

A “dog robber’ was an assistant to a field grade officer in the armed forces.  Its use goes back at least to WWII.  His job was to provide goodies and perks for his boss.  He would use the black market or otherwise pillage to get better food, housing, etc. for his commander. Not all commanders used them, indeed the good ones did not.  This niche in the military was the foundation for the movie “The Americanization of Emily” a number of years ago with James Garner and Juile Andrews.

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture, geography, history, immigration

Immigration, part deux, and Taxes

I read an article today that mentioned again for the zillionth time that illegal immigrants are really good for us and our economy because they pay taxes i.e., social security and medicare and bless their hearts they don’t even get any benefits back for them.  I really don’t like it when folks try to blow smoke my way and fog up the true facts.

First, I bet you have heard of a W-4 form that everyone who is working and paying taxes must have for the employer and certainly must have filled out before ANY taxes are withheld by an employer.  Did it ever occur to this essayist that the information on that form had to be invalid, a lie!   Whose social security number did the illegal alien use?  You can bet damn sure it wasn’t his.   Furthermore, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to indicate that even when they do fill one out with whatever SS number they use that they put down large numbers of exemptions so that there is virtually no income tax ever withheld.  If they pay any taxes then one of your fellow citizens has been a victim of identity theft.  Surely, I don’t need to explain what a hassle and pain such an event is–credit reports, IRS issues and even worse–potentially being on a criminal list somewhere.  The writer felt sorry that they didn’t even get any of those benefits from social security.   Of course they may have also messed up someone else’s social security record along the way and that person may not get all they were entitled to receive.   Oh, by the way, filing false documents with the IRS is a federal crime.  Crossing the border may not yet be a federal crime but lying to the IRS is.

Second, with regard to the argument that they don’t get medicare benefits, I beg to differ.  In my community our public hospital is overwhelmed with illegal aliens giving birth and receiving other medical care absolutely free.  They don’t pay a dime.  Our hospitals just like the ones in your area are required to render services to anyone who shows up at the door even if they have no means of payment.  Their bills are covered by taxpaying citizens of the good of USA.  I would bet a dollar to a doughnut that the situation is the same in your neighborhood.

As I have said before, I don’t mind intelligent discussion of any issue, including immigration but I despise twisted logic and outright distortions of the truth.  If someone wants to say that they feel sorry for illegal immigrants and as a matter of charity they are willing to overlook their misdeeds to get here and abuse our system then say so and defend that position.   Don’t  tell me they pay taxes like you and I do.  They either don’t pay them or they are using false information when they fill out their W-4; there isn’t any other conclusion than those two.

Watch Saving Private Ryan this weekend or honor a vet in some other way.  Freedom is never cheap or easy.   The pleasures you have today in your life (and you should really add them up) were indeed bought with the suffering of your ancestors and fellow citizens.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics