Monthly Archives: March 2006

Forlorn In The USA: The March Against Illegal Alien Reform

People referred to as “undocumented workers”, which is lib-speak for “illegal aliens”, are wildly upset at a bill passed by the U.S. House in December, sponsored by Republican Wisconsin Rep. James Sensenbrenner

The bill calls for tough border security and enforcement measures and would make it a federal crime, instead of a civil offense, for undocumented workers to live in the country.

Now, those who are here illegally are organizing marches:

PHOENIX (Reuters) – As many as 15,000 immigrants and supporters marched through Phoenix on Friday in the latest of a series of protests in major U.S. cities that seek to stop legislation seen as punitive to undocumented workers.

Los Angeles students also walked out of at least 20 county schools on Friday, protesting proposed extension of a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, said a Los Angeles Unified School District spokesperson.

Some “hundreds of thousands” will march through downtown Los Angeles on Saturday, one organizer predicted, while Chicago police on March 10 estimated that 75,000 to 100,000 rallied to protest tough changes in immigration law.

If the I.N.S. is smart, they’re using this opportunity for “roundup time”. It’s not often that it’s this easy.

The marchers aren’t alone, however, as Sensenbrenner’s bill has critics on both sides of the aisle. Some think it’s over the top, and some think it’s not enough and ineffective.

As for the students walking out of school to protest the extension of a wall, how many out of a thousand knew what they were doing, other than missing adaptive algebra, history, and kickball day in gym?

One measure in the bill calls for harsher penalties for those who employ illegal aliens, meaning that the bill is also being fought by owners of beachfront homes in Malibu and on Long Island. Paying union scale for a maid and gardener could spell financial disaster for some of those residents.

The protests are taking place from si to shining si, and all places in between. Even Georgia:

On Friday morning, tens of thousands of workers were no-shows at their jobs in Georgia in response to a bill that was passed by the Georgia House Thursday. The legislation — which still needs state Senate approval — would refuse services to adults living in the U.S. illegally and tack a 5 percent surcharge onto wire transfers from illegal immigrants. Close to 200 people assembled outside Georgia’s Capitol building holding signs that read: “Don’t panic, we’re Hispanic” and “We have a dream too,” CNN reported.

Nothing screams to the world “we have a right to work here!” more effectively than not showing up for work.

America is great, isn’t it? In what other country in the world can people take to the streets en masse, yell “we’re here illegally!”, and be lauded instead of removed? The answer to that is, “countries that didn’t exist for very long”.

John Edwards Chases An Economic Ambulance

This evening I ran across an A.P. article about trial attorney John Edwards. The former VP candidate and Senator held something called an “anti-poverty conference”. The story is entitled “Edwards’ poverty conference sees middle class slipping“. As soon as the middle class not only slips, but falls, they’ll be handed Edwards’ business card.

Of interest was reading about speakers at a conference hosted by a wealthy trial attorney, who has tan lines in the shape of ambulance lights, showing abject concern on the issue of the enormously high cost of, for one example, health insurance.

It’s fairly laughable, really. A trial attorney and his friends complaining about high insurance rates is like the Menendez brothers whining about being orphans.

Tax Day Cometh: A Not-So-Friendly Reminder From The IRS

Since the dawn of man, we have been filled with a motivation to move forward. We’re wondrous creatures in our adaptability and ingenuity. We’ve created fire, tools, the wheel, medicine, machines, space travel, automatic garage door openers, and Hip-Hop. Okay, seven out of eight ain’t bad.

Over all those thousands of years we’ve been pushing our intellects to become a better, more efficient civilization. Arguably, we have.

There is an urge in all of us that tugs at the core of our biological makeup, just as it did a thousand years ago. An urge that’s so overwhelming that we’ve stopped fighting it. For many of us, if this need is not met, it could be at the cost of our very survival. We’ve come a long way to be sure, but at our core, once we reach the “chewy nougat” that makes up the center of our genetic candy bar, we still have one perverted thought:

“How can I get my hands on some of his stuff?”

Cave dwellers asked themselves that, and if they didn’t get what they wanted, they used their club to achieve those ends. These days people are far more civilized. Now when people ask themselves how they can get a hold of your stuff, they get elected to congress. And if that still doesn’t get them some of your stuff, then they come over and club you.

They don’t do it themselves though, since it would be difficult to get re-elected after wearing a blood stained Armani on the campaign trail.

Enter the I.R.S., which gives politicians the ability to commit crimes without leaving any fingerprints on the gun, and demonstrates for us the single component that separates modern man from primitive man; Subcontracted coercion.

Paying taxes wasn’t always such a treacherous undertaking. For a long time this country was run on very limited funds. Up until the early 1800’s the government was operated purely on internal sales taxes and revenue from a gigantic powdered wig closeout sale. Then in 1817 the government got rid of internal taxes and functioned completely on tariffs on imported goods. Can you imagine running the bloated monster of a Federal Government we have today solely on the 4% we’d get from taxes imposed on imports of tennis shoes and plastic novelty poop?

We were created with the ability to create. All this is evidenced in the brilliance of many of our finest moments, from medicine to art to science. But that all came to an end with the adoption of the 16th amendment in 1913. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations.

All the creative energy that would have gone into curing disease, designing grand buildings, music, and exploring the farthest reaches of the universe, now goes into trying to figure out a way to write off our lawnmower as a dependant. In 1913 we stopped creating and evolving and started scheming.

On the upcoming “Tax Day” next month, all the people who owe money will line up at the last minute at the post office to send off the forms that they hope are filled out correctly. Those of us who get a refund have sent our forms in already, because we’re excited about getting money back. Why? I have no idea. It’s like letting your friend borrow your Mercedes and then a year later having him give you back the steering wheel and a tire.

In a mere couple of weeks, America’s biggest homework assignment of the year is due. I think the government chose the middle of April because they thought that in the springtime, as a young man’s fancy turns to other things, his hands will be too busy to notice that his pocket is being picked.

—–

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed by clicking here.

Lord of the Fleiss: Charlie Sheen the New Leader of 9/11 Conspiracists

Up until recently, I was beginning to think that Charlie Sheen wasn’t the son of Martin Sheen. The first clue was that he had the same last name, and what child of Martin Sheen has the last name “Sheen”? Not many.

The second clue was that Charlie seemed to have confined his exploits to prostitutes and general debauchery like booze and cocaine. Chuck’s arrests weren’t like his dad’s, such as when Martin was busted in 1995 for his five-decade-late protest of the dropping of **Fat Man and Little Boy on Japan.

(**note to liberal youngsters: when we say “Fat Man and Little Boy” we’re not talking about Michael Moore and George Stephanopoulos)

But all good things must end. Charlie can’t fight the Martin Sheen genes anymore, as he’s now saying that 9/11 couldn’t have happened the way the government tells it. The collapse of the World Trade Centers looked like a “controlled demolition” to him, and he doubts a plane actually hit the Pentagon.

Of course, Charlie was baked on Acapulco red and had a whore sitting on his face at the time, but dammit, he knows what he saw! 

And just when I thought a Sheen had risen ‘high’ enough to escape the moonbat vacuum…

Et tu, Chuck?

For the other side, click on the “comments” tab and hear from those who are defending Charlie’s take. Questions for those who are pro-conspiracy: What did the government, or whoever was responsible, do with all the people who were ticketed on the plane that didn’t hit the Pentagon? Was it shot down over the water? Are they being held captive in the same hangar where the moon landing was faked? (theories abound, but most I’ve heard about are quickly shaved by Occam’s Razor)

And the biggest question of all: How many people would it have taken to pull off this enormously deceptive operation, and how is it possible to keep them all quiet? That’s even more amazing than all the other parts of these theories put together.

More late stuff…your help needed…

I’m working on a column about this. Not really on Sheen, but more on the accusation of conspiracy. My opinion is clear, but I’m open to considering things such as, if this was an “inside job”, then who is responsible, and what is the hard evidence against these people. I’m looking for facts, not just wishful “Bush did it to jack up oil prices…” talk, with ghosts running around planting explosives everywhere.

“WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, and so were the towers”…. great, then who did it? You can’t indict a stick of dynamite. Where are the passengers from the plane that didn’t hit the Pentagon? Evidence please, not theories that were spelled out in Oliver Stone’s bong water.

In the absence of any of this information, the entire debate is running around in circles, and this is relegated to “perfect crime” status, and there is no such thing, meaning there was no such perfect crime, just the crime that exists as we know it… terrorism.

 —–

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed by clicking here.

Do Pacifist Hostages Appreciate The Violence That Freed Them?

Almost four months ago, four people described as “Christian peace activists” were taken hostage while in Iraq by a group calling itself the “Swords of Righteousness Brigade” (much to their chagrin, “Legion of Doom” was already taken).

Not long ago, Tom Fox, one of those hostages, was found dead. Last week, I wrote a column revolving around this for The American Spectator entitled “Peace at Any Cost“.

Well, fortunately for the three remaining hostages, British Special Forces weren’t pacifists, because they have stormed the place where the members of the “Christian peacemaker team” were being held and freed them. The pacifist peace activists protested loudly, denouncing the violence that was taking place in order to save their lives. Just kidding.

Release-by-force the “worst case scenario” for the peace-at-any-cost movement?

The preference for the peace-at-any-cost movement clearly would have been for the terrorist captors to employ a humane “catch and release” policy for captured pacifists. This would have offered an opportunity for the anti-war movement to point to their release as proof-positive of the effectiveness of simply taking the time to talk to those with whom you have disagreements.

As a matter of fact, it’s just been reported that more U.S. citizens than ever are studying the Arabic language, perhaps partly out of a sense of anticipating the need for similar negotiations.

If only the peace activists had been released, all unharmed and unaided by outside force, this would have demonstrated the importance of learning about these victims of society who some wrongly refer to as “enemies.”

This would teach future captives to learn about the terrorists as individuals– flip through their family albums, appreciate their sylish hesitance to wear white belt bombs after Labor Day, provide them a much needed opportunity to talk out some childhood issues, and discover the best brand bodybag to retard seepage during long waits at security checkpoints.

The freed “abductees” would have spent the next several months as media darlings. But all that ended when British Special Forces stormed the building and rudely disrupted the Swords of Righteousness Brigade gathering. My guess is that the next SRB meeting will be able to be held in a phone booth.

Of course, the abduction or violent rescue wouldn’t have been necessary had Bush and Blair listened to the peace activists in the first place, right? And that question brings us to this…

Late add:

Here’s a press release by the Christian Peacemaker Teams. Read it and shake your head. They’re glad the hostages were “released” (your captors tend to lose their grip once they get a bullet through the head), and there is not a single mention in the lengthy statement of the British Special Forces troops who risked their lives to get these misguided people out alive. Not surprising.

Even later add:

As news concerning the rescue operation continues to flow in, Damien, in the comments section, says the following:

It was a joint coalition rescue. There was no shots to the head or Swords of Righteousness Brigade gathering. The hostages were alone when the rescue took place. Gratitude would be good except that all the family members seemed to think that the hostages had just been released by their captors. As in “let go willingly”.

The search and rescue operation, according to some accounts, took well over a dozen days, so how do we know that no shots were fired? Maybe not right at that moment, but there may have been some Swords of Righteousness Brigade charter members who inexplicably didn’t make it home for dinner on some given night. There could be a very good reason that the hostages were in the place alone.

That said, if the hostages families were told they were simply “released”, then we’ll eagerly await the “thank you” to those in the coalition who spent a couple of weeks tracking where the hostages were being held and risked their lives coming to get them. At the same time, we’ll also wait for credible evidence of the existence of the abominable snowman.

One would think that an organization that is sickened by the invasion of Iraq by foreign troops who are there illegally and killing innocent civilians would have, especially since they were apparently in the house by themselves, demanded to be left alone by the meanie occupiers.
—–

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog is accessible by clicking here.

New York and California: Best Environmentalists, Worst Air? Discuss.

Quiz question for today:

How is it that California, specifically the L.A. area, and New York, specifically the Manhattan area, home to some of the most environmentally conscious liberals on the planet– land where smoking is banned at all places indoors, and even outdoors in some towns, people drive kumquat powered hybrid cars (California), use public transportation en masse (NYC), get night sweats over cow flatulence, and spastic colon over drilling ANWR, can have air in their own backyard that is among the nation’s most toxic?

Bonus question:

Why don’t they move?

Answers due by Friday.

Viva La Unemployment! French Riots Take The "Work" Out Of "Workforce"

This took a lot of de Gaulle! Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, trying to get a grip on unemployment in France, enacted labor market reforms which basically included eliminating tenure, or a “guaranteed” job, for just the first two years of employment.

This caused over a million younger people to take to the streets (that and cattle prods from French labor unions), not bother finding a job, and riot over de Vellepin’s refusal to revoke the law.

Here are the basics:

Villepin drafted the legislation almost entirely on his own and involved only his closest advisors. The surprise approach he used to introduce the reform was also his idea. In an attempt to avoid confrontation with the public, de Villepin rammed the law through parliament with little debate and without consulting France’s powerful unions.

The point of the law, of course, is to help exactly those young people now taking to the streets. In should encourage employers to hire young people, especially poorly trained youths from troubled neighborhoods.First-time jobholders up to 26 years old, the decree says, could be let go without reason during the first two years of their employment contracts thereby lessening the risks for employers. But the student movement, together with the left, sees the legislation as the beginning of the end of workers’ protections against being fired, and the groups plan to fight until the government gives in.

This of course isn’t the first attempt by the French to lower the unemployment rate. There is reason to doubt it would work, however, since France has a history of idiotic ideas when it comes to attempting to lower the unemployment rate (being rude to tourists apparently only qualifies as a hobby, and not a career for the average Parisian).

Just over a year ago, some serious berets were in a French braid twist over the relaxation of the 35 hour a week law, which made room for up to 13 hours of overtime per week. 50,000 took to the streets, with a possible 300,000 nationwide to march–“on the clock”, of course.

But relaxing the 35 hour work week law wasn’t the “solution” to unemployment. What was? One thing most French never wanted to surrender: the original 35-hour law.

France originally limited the work week to 35 hours because, get this–it was an attempt to lower the unemployment rate. Any overtime would force an employer to hire more staff instead of just pay fewer people to work longer.

You have to appreciate the thinking there, which is not unlike that of the American left, meaning that it’s creative, but won’t hold water. If French reasoning behind the 35-hour work week law sounds like a good idea, consider this–if making up ground on a high unemployment rate can be solved by lowering the number of hours worked per person, at what point does that become a stupid idea (hint: at any point).

The 35 hour work week doesn’t, of course, acheive the intended purpose of dramatically lowering the unemployment rate. This will lead to the next great idea in socialist theory: the 20 hour per week maximum…then ten hours…then five hours. The decline in working hours will continue until nobody is working at all. Somehow, in socialist minds, this will achieve full employment? Good luck.

Now, with de Vellepin’s proposal, French youth are sacre-bleu-ing all over the place. It is a fine line to walk, isn’t it? They don’t want to work and are now rioting over the right to not be fired from essentially nothing.

Could something of this magnitude ever happen in the United States? Vote for Hillary and load Congress with more Kennedy types and let’s find out.

—–

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the rest of the blog is accessible by clicking here.

Viva La Unemployment! French Riots Take The “Work” Out Of “Workforce”

This took a lot of de Gaulle! Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, trying to get a grip on unemployment in France, enacted labor market reforms which basically included eliminating tenure, or a “guaranteed” job, for just the first two years of employment.

This caused over a million younger people to take to the streets (that and cattle prods from French labor unions), not bother finding a job, and riot over de Vellepin’s refusal to revoke the law.

Here are the basics:

Villepin drafted the legislation almost entirely on his own and involved only his closest advisors. The surprise approach he used to introduce the reform was also his idea. In an attempt to avoid confrontation with the public, de Villepin rammed the law through parliament with little debate and without consulting France’s powerful unions.

The point of the law, of course, is to help exactly those young people now taking to the streets. In should encourage employers to hire young people, especially poorly trained youths from troubled neighborhoods.First-time jobholders up to 26 years old, the decree says, could be let go without reason during the first two years of their employment contracts thereby lessening the risks for employers. But the student movement, together with the left, sees the legislation as the beginning of the end of workers’ protections against being fired, and the groups plan to fight until the government gives in.

This of course isn’t the first attempt by the French to lower the unemployment rate. There is reason to doubt it would work, however, since France has a history of idiotic ideas when it comes to attempting to lower the unemployment rate (being rude to tourists apparently only qualifies as a hobby, and not a career for the average Parisian).

Just over a year ago, some serious berets were in a French braid twist over the relaxation of the 35 hour a week law, which made room for up to 13 hours of overtime per week. 50,000 took to the streets, with a possible 300,000 nationwide to march–“on the clock”, of course.

But relaxing the 35 hour work week law wasn’t the “solution” to unemployment. What was? One thing most French never wanted to surrender: the original 35-hour law.

France originally limited the work week to 35 hours because, get this–it was an attempt to lower the unemployment rate. Any overtime would force an employer to hire more staff instead of just pay fewer people to work longer.

You have to appreciate the thinking there, which is not unlike that of the American left, meaning that it’s creative, but won’t hold water. If French reasoning behind the 35-hour work week law sounds like a good idea, consider this–if making up ground on a high unemployment rate can be solved by lowering the number of hours worked per person, at what point does that become a stupid idea (hint: at any point).

The 35 hour work week doesn’t, of course, acheive the intended purpose of dramatically lowering the unemployment rate. This will lead to the next great idea in socialist theory: the 20 hour per week maximum…then ten hours…then five hours. The decline in working hours will continue until nobody is working at all. Somehow, in socialist minds, this will achieve full employment? Good luck.

Now, with de Vellepin’s proposal, French youth are sacre-bleu-ing all over the place. It is a fine line to walk, isn’t it? They don’t want to work and are now rioting over the right to not be fired from essentially nothing.

Could something of this magnitude ever happen in the United States? Vote for Hillary and load Congress with more Kennedy types and let’s find out.

—–

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the rest of the blog is accessible by clicking here.

Belzer's Morons, Jackson's Ferris Wheel of Justice, and Email Concerning Both Columns

Couple of quick notes this morning.

An earlier blog post regarding actor/comedian Richard Belzer’s comments on the U.S. military being unintelligent unemployable dopes is now a column in The American Spectator today. If you missed the post in question, check out the column at the Spectator.

Here’s an email from Ron R. concerning the Belzer column:

I just read a bio on Belzer after reading your article. The only interesting item was the fact that he only has one testicle.

My apologies to Mr. Belzer. Apparently he’s only half as nuts as I thought.

Also, yesterday’s column at WorldNetDaily where I tried to have a little fun with freaky in “The ferris wheel of justice rolls over Jacko“, generated the following email from Stephon A., which I’ve edited down. (Brevity is the soul of wit, but Stephen obviously cared not to be witty)

A very cute article (The Ferris wheel of justice rolls over Jacko). Your attempt at wit of Jackson’s character falls flat on its face. All of you so called journalist are the same. You are all so fascinated with him that you just can’t bear that the man is free and found not guilty.

Journalist? If this guy was trying to be insulting for retribution for the MJ column, he succeeded. Okay Stephon, you got me. We’ll call it even. Deal?

I can’t blame him for not knowing the difference between opinion columnist and journalist. Hell, the mainstream media often doesn’t even know the difference.

Belzer’s Morons, Jackson’s Ferris Wheel of Justice, and Email Concerning Both Columns

Couple of quick notes this morning.

An earlier blog post regarding actor/comedian Richard Belzer’s comments on the U.S. military being unintelligent unemployable dopes is now a column in The American Spectator today. If you missed the post in question, check out the column at the Spectator.

Here’s an email from Ron R. concerning the Belzer column:

I just read a bio on Belzer after reading your article. The only interesting item was the fact that he only has one testicle.

My apologies to Mr. Belzer. Apparently he’s only half as nuts as I thought.

Also, yesterday’s column at WorldNetDaily where I tried to have a little fun with freaky in “The ferris wheel of justice rolls over Jacko“, generated the following email from Stephon A., which I’ve edited down. (Brevity is the soul of wit, but Stephen obviously cared not to be witty)

A very cute article (The Ferris wheel of justice rolls over Jacko). Your attempt at wit of Jackson’s character falls flat on its face. All of you so called journalist are the same. You are all so fascinated with him that you just can’t bear that the man is free and found not guilty.

Journalist? If this guy was trying to be insulting for retribution for the MJ column, he succeeded. Okay Stephon, you got me. We’ll call it even. Deal?

I can’t blame him for not knowing the difference between opinion columnist and journalist. Hell, the mainstream media often doesn’t even know the difference.