|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 18, 2007 20:43:44 GMT -6
The latest Senate Amnesty & Open Borders scam is another example of how our Senate has become nothing but a chamber of cheap labor advocating Corporate shills. The latest "compromise" plan entails granting immediate amnesty to 12 million illegal alien workers, in addition to providing for 400,000 additional "guest" workers. (See the Yahoo News Story describing how the Senate is selling out American workers to help Corporate America keep wages down. This latest plan will award new Z-visas immediately to all illegal aliens already here, thus making their status legal. And thus making it legal for employers to hire them, instead of American workers. The highly touted fines and touch-back provisions only apply to those seeking citizenship. But if those newly amnestisized illegal immigrants don't choose to become legal citizens, they could still remain in the United States and work (but now legally). This plan would essentially end ALL prosecution of employers hiring illegal immigrants, because all of the previously illegal immigrants would now become LEGAL Z-visa holders. As such, their hiring by employers (instead of Americans) would be completely legal. How in the hell can this be called a "compromise"? This simply makes all illegal employers and illegal immigrants legal, in one fell swoop. This is blatant, unmitigated AMNESTY, by any definition. Lawbreaking illegal immigrant workers (and employers) will suddenly become legal, without paying ANY penalty. (Again, it's only when applying for citizenship that the fines and the "touch-backs" apply.) Thus our legal workforce will instantly be expanded by 12 million workers.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on May 19, 2007 20:27:56 GMT -6
Did you catch McLaughlin? Comrade Buchanan really took corporate apologist Mort Zucherman to task over his support of this bill. Buchanan said that this will gut the US middle class, and that we simply don't need this massive influx of low wage workers. He also mentioned that teen unemployment is the highest in history, in part because illegals are taking the traditional entry level service jobs that teens once filled.
Traitor Pelosi ( I never was comfortable with her at Speaker) says she needs 70 Republicans to pass this bill. Buchanan says it will rip the party apart if it passes with Republican help.
What the hell are these democratic "leaders" thinking? they came to power with the wave of new populists, and are completely turning their backs on the rank and file.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 21, 2007 2:43:32 GMT -6
Did you catch McLaughlin? Comrade Buchanan really took corporate apologist Mort Zucherman to task over his support of this bill. Buchanan said that this will gut the US middle class, and that we simply don't need this massive influx of low wage workers. He also mentioned that teen unemployment is the highest in history, in part because illegals are taking the traditional entry level service jobs that teens once filled. Buchanan has this nasty habit of being right on trade and immigration. And here he goes again, being right. I've never been comfortable with Pelosi either. She's generally favors amnesty and open borders, and is not very good on trade either. And I'm still angry that Pelosi stated early on that "impeachment is off the table." What the hell are these democratic "leaders" thinking? they came to power with the wave of new populists, and are completely turning their backs on the rank and file. I agree completely. This is the kind of crap that is making Ron Paul look like such a good candidate for President. So far he's the only candidate against amnesty, who has also voted "nay" on all free trade agreements, and who also wants to get us out of Iraq ASAP. It seems like the Democrats, or at least the party leadership, have lost any interest in the concerns of the people who voted them into office.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on May 21, 2007 7:10:22 GMT -6
I may be mistaken, but isn't Ron Paul one of the three Repub candidates who don't believe in evolution? There's something about him that disqualifies him in my view.
GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 21, 2007 13:02:05 GMT -6
Graybeard, I don't know about Paul's "evolution" stand. Categorically denying evolution would be surprising, since he's an M.D., who's educational background by requirement is heavy in natural science. To at least some extent, some amount of evolution has been essentially proven by science. However, no one has ever been able to reproduce life from scratch, nor is anyone close to doing so. I suspect that Paul believes in "creation," as most scientists do to some extent. I'll have to investigate that. If Paul categorically dismisses evolution, it certainly is a problem. From my own science background, it's difficult to believe that man's existence resulted entirely from non-living basic elements. There are just too many unexplained holes in that theory. On the other hand, it's just as difficult to believe that there hasn't been considerable evolution of living forms to more advanced forms. That's already been demonstrated in numerous cases. I don't believe evolution and some form of creationism are mutually exclusive. There's no denying evolution. But evolution provides no believable explanation for how things got started- be it life, or even the basic complex organization of atoms, molecules, and compounds. There certainly is some advanced understanding of how life exists and how basic elements, and even atoms, are put together. But there's essentially 0 understanding of how it all got started. ---- Regarding Ron Paul, I don't agree with his anti-abortion stance. And if he favors more church involvement in government, I'm concerned about that as well. However, the general sense I get from Ron Paul is that he's a strong advocate of civil liberties and individual freedom. As such, I suspect he'd oppose any Church-State connection. Here is Ron Paul's presidential campaign website: Ron Paul 2008Here is Paul's congressional campaign website: Ron Paul for Congress
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on May 21, 2007 17:34:04 GMT -6
I was checking Paul's site at lunch. I agree with his stands on the war, immigration and trade. I am not in complete agreement on taxes, as any truly fair tax system must be progressive in nature, as the wealthy benefit more from the rights and privileges of government than the less well off.
So far I am liking what Paul is saying. As a long time labor democrat, I am completely disgusted with the current crop of sell out and substance free democratic candidates (except Edwards, but he all but blew his credibility as a populist with his 400 dollar hairdo).
Guilianis comment in the last debate was clearly a rehearsed and cheap shot at Paul, much like Bentsen's "Kennedy" comment directed at Dan Quayle.
I would be troubled if Paul was an evolution denier, but it wouldn't necessarily be a deal killer, provided as UC has said, he does not allow any further erosion of the separation of church and state.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 22, 2007 0:35:57 GMT -6
I am not in complete agreement on taxes, as any truly fair tax system must be progressive in nature, as the wealthy benefit more from the rights and privileges of government than the less well off. Paul's tax position is my major concern as well. He voted for Bush's tax cuts in 2001. If he still favors continuing those high-end tax cuts, it would be inconsistent with his fiscal hawk position. Even Reagan finally had to raise taxes. In the tax area, Paul seems may have let his libertarian ideology overpower his fiscal (and populist) common sense. It doesn't appear, however, that he believes tax cuts are the solution to every problem, like other Republicans. So far I am liking what Paul is saying. As a long time labor democrat, I am completely disgusted with the current crop of sell out and substance free democratic candidates (except Edwards, but he all but blew his credibility as a populist with his 400 dollar hairdo). I'm disappointed that Edwards has grown silent on any trade and globalization issues. I've yet to hear him condemn the malignant growth of unrestricted free trade and globalization. And like most other Democrats, he seems to be on the wrong side of immigration (i.e., in favor of Comprehensive Amnesty). Guilianis comment in the last debate was clearly a rehearsed and cheap shot at Paul, much like Bentsen's "Kennedy" comment directed at Dan Quayle. "Ghoul"-iani is just a disgusting puke. He should try getting waterboarded, and see how he likes it. As far as his comments to Paul, Ghouliani came out the loser with the television audience. Paul whipped his torture-loving ass in all of the post-debate polls. __________ G.O.P. = Grand Old Plutocrats
|
|