What I think we should do about immigration.

    First of all to all of those that used to read this blog when I was active how are you doing? I actually had been trying to get into this blog for awhile, but I never could remember what my user name was after taking five years off. It just came to me a couple of secs ago. This started has a Facebook post. I was going to post What I think we should do about immigration. Then I started thinking about how long of a post that would be and I thought I'd try to come to my old blog and post it here instead. So that's what I will do.

     The whole immigration debate has now gotten so out of hand that apparently democrats were willing to shut the government down. Now I have my own opinions about President Trump which if I decide to continue making post in the future I'm sure you will learn about. However considering the Democrats shut the government down over something that was not urgent or even related to a spending bill it's hard to see how you can blame anyone but democrats for not at least voting to pass that CR last night. Now on to what I want to say about immigration.
     
    The immigration debate is complicated ans confusing in several ways. First off I don't really think most people are looking to get rid of people who were bought here when they were kids and have lived several years without causing any problems. Of course the issue is then what do you do? We can't just allow them to stay and keep the status quo because if we do in 30 years we are going to be doing the same thing over again. We know this because about 30 years ago Reagan granted amnesty to illegal immigrants and now we are in the same situation we were then. So there is no way America should do anything without first making sure this is the last time we will have this problem. This thing with people being deported five times then committing a major crime has to stop. If we deport someone it needs to be almost a certainty that person can't just walk back across the next day. This obviously means a wall/border security. Now if we can get the border security to make sure this is the last time we will have this problem what do we do with the people who are already here?

     My solution would be to allow the people who were not born here to apply for permanent residency, but not citizenship. The children that were born here are citizens. Anyone who thinks anything else just as a reading comprehension issue. The constitution is very clear that if you are born in America you are an American. So if you want to get rid of people who have kids in America you are advocating separating children from their parents and grandparents and I just can't agree with that line of thinking, which is why I support permanent residency for those people. I also wouldn't go try and track down every illegal that lives in the country and deport them. I mean if they aren't causing any trouble and they are not voting what's the point? Now I would be for deporting any illegal who commits a felony or a major misdemeanor. Misdemeanor assault for example would be something that could be a deport-able offense. However we shouldn't be checking immigration status on speeders unless it's someone going 90 in a 45 or something along those lines. Minor traffic violations do not need to turn into high speed chases causing death because the person behind the wheel thinks they will be deported if they pull over.

     In conclusion there is really no reason to be stupid about this issue. It's really not that hard. Get the border secured, and then treat the people who are here, and who have not caused any issues while they have been here like human beings. However the key to all of this is getting the border secured. Republicans aren't going to give an inch until they get that done. They took the Democrats word on border security thirty years ago and here we are right back in the same place.

The Ban Against Guns on Bases Has to End

A couple of days ago it was reported that the FBI was on the lookout for a man who planned to carry out a Fort Hood style attack. Today an attack was carried out at Ft. Hood and so far 4 people soldiers have lost there lives and 14 more are injured. For the record as of right now it appears that the two things have nothing to do with one another. This is a terrible tragedy one that should not be exploited for political gain. I only have one question, why weren't those soldiers carrying their weapons? It seems to me that if any one should be allowed to carry a weapon it would be a soldier. Our soldiers are trained to handle firearms and have shown bravery and honor on the battlefields in Iraq, and Afghanistan. When you combine that with the fact they were expecting an attack of this sort it just seems logical that there should have been an order given to have all soldiers armed on base. Of course it shouldn't take an order it should just be the norm. If those soldiers were armed the shooter never would've been allowed to take even one shot. We wouldn't even be calling him the shooter we would be calling him the idiot who tried to attack a military base full of armed soldiers. Actually we probably wouldn't be calling him anything at all, because if they were armed it would've probably prevented the attack from ever happening. Will someone please explain to me how we let our military bases become gun free zones. A lot of people will take this opportunity to take shots at President Obama. While I disagree with almost everything he does the rules barring soldiers from carrying on base far outlive his presidency. That decision was made by former President Bill Clinton. According to an article posted on the Washington Times on November 11, 2009. The article went on the say "Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood." This article called for the ban to be lifted after the first Ft. Hood attack. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/#ixzz2xmjMinuC Wait a second Clinton, Obama didn't we have a President in between there? Yes the truth is a small part of the blame for the first attack could be laid at President George W. Bush's feet. He had eight years to lift the ban and failed to do so. I'm honestly surprised that wasn't one of the first things he did. Maybe the issue was just never bought up to him? However why you can lay a piece of the blame there for the first attack once there was an attack lifting the ban would just be common sense right? I guess not. For reasons staggering the imagination President Obama did not lift the ban in the wake of the second attack. Why? What possible explanation could there be? Honestly the only one I can think of is the President thought if he just increased security that it would prevent crazies from getting onto bases or maybe the President has a irrational fear of guns. Well Mr. President I have news for you, you can't stop crazy. No matter how much security is provided there is no guarantee that someone won't slip through the cracks, and while a gun was used to commit the act they could've also stopped it cold. Attacks like the two on Ft. Hood are almost impossible to prevent because they come from people that are believed to be allies. Maybe they were an ally at one point then they changed due to something they saw, or heard. In any event it is time to stop the madness. The only way to protect our soldiers is to allow them to protect themselves. Mr. President lift this ridiculous ban so we never have to read headlines like today's again.

I'm Back

Hey everyone, It's been a very long time since I have posted on this site. So long it took a day to figure out how to post with this new format. I updated my Paypal account yesterday not that anyone has ever donated but I figured I'd do it just in case. I love talking about politics, but it's alot easier to spend time posting when you are single. I've been married for almost four years. As you can see that's almost the same about of time it's been since my last post. I'm hoping I will start posting more now. I've said I would in the past and not kept my promise so I'm not making one this time. Feel free to leave me a comment on this post especially if you are one of the bloggers I used to keep in touch with.

Defending Nikki Haley

Governor Nikki Haley has been criticised by some in South Carolina for giving pay raises to members of her new staff. She is paying her Chief of Staff $125,000 a year. That is close to a 25% increase from the amount Governor Sanford paid his Chief of Staff. Trey Walker her 2nd in command will get a 40% increase and on it goes. Just looking at those numbers you would think Governor Haley had reneged on her promise to streamline government and was giving pay raises to everyone right? Wrong.

While Governor Haley is paying her staff more per person than Governors Sanford and Hodges she is actually spending $944,732 less on them overall. Governor Haley has hired less staff than the last two governors. So while they get raises they will have more responsibilities. This governor's staff will consist of only 16 people. Also while she is paying some of her staff more than Governor Sanford she is still paying them less than previous governors. Her Press Secretary Rob Godfrey is being paid $3,000 more than he was in Sanford's administration, but almost $3,000 less than Governors Beasley and Hodges paid their press secretaries. She also hired Sanford's top lawyer and is paying him $600 less a year than did Sanford.

It appears to me that critics of the Governor are grasping at straws to find fault where there is none. I used the example earlier today of a boss having two employees that each made $10 an hour. He fires one and gives the other guy a raise to $14 a hour the boss still cuts pay by 30% and this is what Governor Haley has done. She has hired less staff, but paid those staffers more while still cutting overall spending. If this is an indication of how she will govern I'd say we're off to a great start.
http://www.wltx.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=117656&catid=2
http://www2.wsav.com/news/2011/jan/14/haley-defends-her-staff-salary-increases-ar-1343760/

Passports Issued to Thousands of Registered Sex Offenders

The Obama Administration has been issuing passports to people involved in sex tourism since the beginning of his presidency. The reason, they did not know that in December 2008 then President Bush signed a law to deny these people passports. Considering Obama was the President-elect you would think that he might what to pay attention to what laws were going into affect right before he took office, or at least have someone pay attention for him. The GAO (Government Accounting Office) says that it wasn't until this April that the state department was informed of this law.

This is dereliction of duty by the President and his Sec of State. To not be aware of a law that is supposed to keep children safe from sexual predators is abhorrent. Oh and it gets worse, "In one case study, the sex offender was issued a passport in his name while in prison, which is allowed under federal law, while another was issued a passport after becoming delinquent in child support, an offense for which State must deny passports. Based on interviews with local police departments, several of our cases showed that sex offenders left the country and moved to Mexico." Mexico is a country listed as a sex tourism destination by our State department. I guess these people are now having a good time having sex with children in Mexico.

Now you would think the State Department would just take responsibility say we'll make sure this doesn't ever happen again and be done with it. However their response was something quite different, The State Department also took issue with the title of the GAO report, "Passports Issued to Thousands of Registered Sex Offenders," calling it "misleading." We are concerned that it conveys more 'shock value' than factual accuracy," reads the response. The title also fails to convey that GAO found no evidence that the offenders used their passports to commit sex offenses abroad," the letter reads.

Well of course these people didn't use their passports to commit sex crimes abroad they just wanted to go to a country that the U.S. list has a sex tourism destination to get a tan. GIVE ME A BREAK! Now I'm not saying every person that goes to Mexico is involved in sex trafficking, but if your already involved in that industry I think it's a pretty good bet that's why your going there.

Surely that's all the bad news out of this report, unfortunately no.

Additionally, 30 of the sex offenders who are federal employees were identified through salary data provided by the Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Postal Service and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

"It also is disturbing that the GAO found examples prior to that new law where the State Department issued passports to convicted sex offenders who fled law enforcement, received government housing subsidies and work for the Post Office. This report raises a lot of serious questions about how effectively the government protects us from child predators," Grassley said.

WOW! Let me see if I have this right not only were they fleeing from law enforcement that were also give government housing and jobs. Not just any jobs, but jobs in the postal service which means they might be putting the mail in my box every day. If that doesn't scare you I guess nothing does. I think it should go without saying that sex offenders should not be allowed to have federal or state employment. I like to think we could find a better character of person to work in our government, but wait there's more.

According to GAO, about half of the 4,500 sex offenders who received passports lived in five states -- California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Michigan -- and at least 12 individuals were approved landlords in the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 housing program during the two years before the study's time frame.

So it's not bad enough that people have to live in government housing, but now they have a sex offender has their landlord. Would you want a sex offender coming to your door collecting rent once a month. I'm not saying they need Donald Trump to be the landlord but could we at least find someone who isn't a sex criminal.

Finally, "The GAO acknowledged that the number of sex offenders it found receiving passports might have been low, because the data compared passport database records to the National Sex Offender Registry, which could lack or contain invalid Social Security numbers."

So the GAO is saying that with all the bad news in this article the situation is probably worse than we know.

Now not all this happened on President Obama's watch, but President Bush signed a law aimed at dealing with this and President Obama basically didn't bother to find out about that law. How can you be President and not know about a law that was signed about one month before you took the Oath of office? It's not like it was signed 30 years ago and everyone had forgotten about it, or that it was an unimportant and seldom used statue that just appeared in a line of a bill. This was a law written to protect children and punish sex traffickers from other countries.

The GAO lays out some examples of what it is talking about on pages 11-13 of it's report. You can find the report at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10643.pdf
However I should warn you that it is very disturbing.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/15/thousands-sex-offenders-issued-passports-travel-abroad/

Captialism defeats Socialism at the World Cup.

Anyone watching the World Cup knows that the French embarrassed themselves while the Americans fought through adversity to win their group for the first time since the first world cup. I believe the reason for this can be found in comparing freedom to socialism.

The French team came to the World Cup by way of a handball goal against Ireland. Even the most novice soccer fans knows your not suppose to use your hands in soccer. Then after getting here they embarrassed themselves. Nicholas Anika was sent home after an argument with their head coach Domenech. This resulted in the French team boycotting practice the next day. Then of course Domench retaliates by keeping the French captain Partice Evra off the field for the final game which South Africa won 2-1. France still could have made the next round with a win. After the game Domenech refused to shake the hand of the South African coach. There's also a video of one of the French managers throwing a clipboard but I can't seem to locate that. You probably saw it on ESPN anyway. Let's compare this to the Americans

The United States ties heavily favored England to open play, Then goes down 2-0 in the first half to Slovenia and comes back to tie. Then has their game winner disallowed by a terrible call by a official. Today the U.S. again has a goal disallowed by a terrible call. They have to score in extra time to advance. Meanwhile there was no skipped practices no one was sent home for being mean to the coach and the captain Landon Donavan scored the winning goal.

So what was the difference in the two teams. The French team was more talented by most accounts. They didn't get anywhere near the amount of bad breaks the Americans did. I think the difference is the France felt entitled to be here. The French team believed everything should be handed to them, much like it is in France. When things started going poorly for them they looked for someone to blame instead of sucking it up and playing hard. The coach blamed the captain the team blamed the coach the manager just quit and has a result the French managed all of one goal in the world cup and even that came when they were behind by two.

Capitalism teaches us that we are responsible for ourselves no matter what the circumstances. In other words when the going gets tough the tough get going. Socialism teaches that when the going gets tough go look for someone to blame then tell them to give you their money. Of course were experiencing a little of that with this administration here in America but I'm praying that doesn't last past
2012. Capitalism will always defeat Socialism and this is just another example.

You Can't Clean Up Oil Wthout Fire Extinguishers and Life Vests?!?

Today the oil clean-up was halted by bureaucracy. The Coast Guard stopped barges that were to be used in the oil clean-up because they could not confirm the boats had fire extinguishers and life vests. "We are all in this together. The enemy is the oil," said Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Dan Lauer. Unfortunately this appears not to be true the enemy of Louisiana and the rest of the Gulf Coast is bureaucracy. The barges have now sat for twenty four hours while thousands of barrels of oil have spilled into the gulf coast. Of course Governor Jindal tried to contact the White House without success. However Jindal is not the only governor that is having problems.

Governor Riley of Alabama is also experiencing difficulty trying to get anything done.

"The governor said the problem is there's still no single person giving a "yes" or "no." While the Gulf Coast governors have developed plans with the Coast Guard's command center in the Gulf, things begin to shift when other agencies start weighing in, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"It's like this huge committee down there," Riley said, "and every decision that we try to implement, any one person on that committee has absolute veto power."

Hey President Obama put one person in charge of the decision making. If you want them to run it by you first by all means, but quit allowing bureaucracy to harm the country. You can't keep having different people giving different answers to every question. Put one person in charge. Oh wait you did, your in charge! At least you say you are. Take control of this situation before all of the beaches on the East Coast are covered with oil. Or at least ask someone else too. Maybe a President with a backbone who knows something about oil. Kinda like the last guy we had in there. I think I'm going to go out and by one of those President Bush miss me yet shirts.

Seriously, this is what happens when you allow someone with no experience running anything to run a country. You almost can't even blame Obama for this, He doesn't know what to do because he never learned. He had no experience running anything before he became President. I mean Heck he only served 153 days in the U.S. Senate before his campaign started. I'll admit he probably had no business running for President having no experience, but 53% of the country voted for him. I guess this really goes back to an old saying, "Be careful what you wish for you just might get it." I wonder if Obama is wishing he had left this President thing to someone who has a clue how to lead.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379&page=1