Thursday, December 29, 2011

He's the Guy, and Here's Why

This morning, I read a couple of opinion pieces that made me think a little bit differently about the upcoming Republican primaries and the November general election.

In Ann Coulter's weekly column, she identifies two issues she believes are critical in the 2012 elections, explains why, and goes on to break down the candidates' positions on those issues and arriving at the one candidate who she believes will do a good job with them as President.  In a rebuttal of sorts, a fellow conservative by the name of Jen Kuznicki blasts Coulter for her endorsement, asserting that she must have lost faith in the conservative ideals she has long championed, and infers that Coulter's main concerns are staying in the spotlight and selling books.

In this painfully long run-up to the 2012 elections, I have been underwhelmed and disappointed by the field of Republican candidates.  Herman Cain was my choice, but he's no longer an option.  I have problems with each of those remaining, and have a feeling it will be yet another situation where I'm having to hold my nose while casting my vote in November.  I really don't like that.  But then again, if you read my last blog installment, you know there will never be a viable candidate that lines up perfectly with my views so I just look for one that comes the closest.

Getting back to the point, if you've read my blog over the years, you also know what my number one hot-button issue is with government, policy, and politics - illegal immigration.  This happens to be one of the two issues Coulter talks about in her column, and what she says about it is spot-on.  Not only is the government's perpetual failure and indifference towards securing the borders and punishing those who are here illegally just plain wrong on it's face, it also has the effect of fundamentally changing the voter base in border states (see California) and eventually, America.

While illegals don't have the right to vote, many of them have family members here that do have that right.  And thanks to liberals fighting tooth and nail against any requirement to show valid identification in order to cast a ballot, along with help from liberal fraud machines like ACORN, illegal aliens DO vote.  And because Democrats openly support amnesty for illegal aliens and are tepid in their support of tighter border security, they typically get the votes of illegals and their legal family members.

The second issue Coulter cites is Obamacare.  We can debate the merits of this legislation until we're blue in the face, but the bottom line is that the vast majority of conservatives believe it to be a perfect example of government overreach.  A government takeover is NOT the right way to address the problems with our healthcare system - or any other problems - and we absolutely cannot let Obamacare stand.  The United States Supreme Court will hear the case against Obamacare in March, and a ruling is expected before Election Day.  In the event that the Court rules even part of it to be constitutional, it's critical that conservatives put forth a candidate for president that can appeal to undecided voters and beat Obama in the general election - otherwise, Obamacare is here to stay.  Forever.

The candidate that Coulter endorsed in her column is Mitt Romney.  Shocking, indeed, to anyone familiar with Ann Coulter.

Yes, his state healthcare legislation while governor of Massachusetts was the model for Obamacare (often referred to as Obamneycare).  But his position is that any legislation concerning healthcare should be taken up at the state level as opposed to the federal level, and he has promised to overturn Obamacare because of that.  He claims that Romneycare is popular with residents of that state even today, and it was the right thing for Massachusetts.

I don't care, because I don't live there, but that's fine and dandy if liberal Massachusetts wants to have government run healthcare.  Let them have it and pay for it, and leave me alone.  He is absolutely right that healthcare mandates are not the federal government's business any more than car insurance is (auto insurance requirements are driven by states, not the feds).

Romney is also one of only two Republican candidates that aren't fellating the business and Latino lobbies when it comes to illegal immigration and border security.  He has been steadfast in his support of E-Verify, the system that allows employers to validate prospective employees' eligibility to legally work in this country.  Aside from the un-electable Michele Bachmann, every other Republican candidate opposes the use of E-Verify.  Consequently, I automatically oppose the election of any of those candidates.  Period!

An interesting inference that Kuznicki makes in her piece is that Ann Coulter has lost faith in the American people.  This is a point that warrants some exploration, as decades of voter turnout records will tell you that the majority of Americans are apathetic about voting and politics; they simply don't care enough about what's going on around them to take a few hours every four years to study the candidates and then take fifteen minutes to cast their vote.  The last presidential election produced hordes of young, new voters thanks to a shrewd strategy by the Obama campaign, targeting a demographic whose lives rise and fall based on the latest American Idol results and wouldn't bother to look too hard at the actual issues.  While some of those voters have woken up over the years of Obama-driven misery, most have not and will likely return to the polls, blindly voting for their messiah once more.

Whether Ann Coulter has lost faith in the American people or not is irrelevant.  The People gave us Obama, so I'm not inclined to have a whole lot of faith in the majority, myself.  However, Coulter is right on the money in her latest view - it's critical to the future of this nation that we secure the border and stop illegal immigration in its tracks, or there won't be another conservative in the White House for decades. And if the Republicans don't beat Obama in 2012, Obamacare will live on and serve as the precedent for more, ever-deeper overreaches by the federal government into states' rights and into the daily lives of individual citizens.  And not even the Supreme Court will stop that, since Obama will probably have an opportunity to appoint one or two more Supreme Court justices, shifting the balance of power to the left.

So, it's Mitt Romney for president, folks.  Obama's got to go, and we just gotta hope Romney does what he says he'll do, and doesn't do what he says he won't.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

'Twas the Night Before Solstice...

With credit to Dan Gainor of Fox News...good stuff!

Twas the night before Solstice, and all through the park
No protesters were stirring, even after the dark.
Occupiers were seething, all mad at The Man,
’Tis Wall Street we’re blamin’ and we’re not a fan.

When out of the mud there arose a great crash,
Perhaps it was thugs or a junkie on hash.
I undid my sleeping bag, made fine from bamboo.
(Thank Gaia it was clean and recyclable too.)

I climbed from the muck (or maybe the mire),
And looked through the tents or just a bit higher.
My friends to the left (there were many of those),
They continued to sleep. They continued to doze.

I heard a loud voice or maybe some chanting,
“Whose street? Our street!” someone is sleep ranting.
I shuffled through the crowd, across frozen ground.
Somewhere nearby an answer must be found.

The camp light was eerie, lit bright by the moon.
No, that’s just a camera and some NPR loon.
Then an Escalade pulled up with a flash.
With 400 horses, that sleigh cost big cash.

The hybrided monster held a huge crowd inside.
All sipping Cristal and pimping their ride.
Their SUV silent, the crowd raised a toast.
They toasted their master. They toasted their host.

He called out to them for he knew them by name.
Each one of them bowed – they were pawns in his game.
Now Van Jones! Now Holder! Now some Hollywood vixen!
On Marx! On Mao! It’s capitalism we’re fixin’.

They threw open the doors and threw lots of scratch.
When giving out money, his record unmatched.
He pulled tight on their strings with Gepetto-ish pride.
They did all he said since he ruled the lib side.

The flunkies moved quickly, through marchers all sleeping.
Through tents and police lines, the givers went creeping.
They threw their support to Occupiers they found.
They handed out money and iPads all ’round.

Protesters were silent, no more police they would F.
And Pepperspray cop now unneeded as ref.
They dreamed of revolt both global and red,
While images of Occupying marched through their heads.

Then the black car door opened just one more time.
I saw a foot clear as the door it did chime.
The Hungarian elf with briefcase in hand,
Jumped out of his car dressed decidedly grand.

His attire was Armani, from head to his toe,
And his shoes were so shiny, it seemed they did glow.
He was dressed to the nines, with lots of zeros.
He funded the left. He was one of their heroes.

His silver head furrowed, as he started to frown.
His bushy eyebrows raised as he looked around.
The bags ’neath those eyes were full like a stocking.
His look it was sour, from many a Beck mocking.

His fingers were black from counting his money.
His jowels jiggled some and he talked a bit funny.
That he was a sly fox, it need not be stated.
Which is for best, since we know Fox he hated.

He spoke not a word, but his hands traced a nine.
Then did it again to mock a popular whine.
Then held up a finger (you know which he’d present),
Boasting “I’m the 1 of the 1 of the 1-est percent.”

He walked to the sleigh, as the flunkies bowed down.
And reclined in the back as he raced out of town.
But I heard him holler as they sped from the sight,
Nothing of Christmas or to all a good night.

“Occupy away! Go ahead, do your worst.
“Shut down ports, banks and bridges – just let me know first.”
“Since I’m on the inside, I’ll make lots of dough.”
“That’s how I got rich,” as he laughed “Ho, Ho, Ho.”

Read more:

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Income "Inequality": Good or Bad?

The mainstream media have been very busy lately, between churning out as many stories as possible about the accusations of impropriety against Herman Cain, working feverishly to ensure the Occupy protests stay firmly atop the fold, and "reporting" anything and everything they can find critical of the diversity among income levels in America.

The accusations against Cain are pretty typical election season muckraking by the leftist lapdog media, no surprise there.  The effort to keep the Occupy movement in front of everyone's consciousness might help the left, if only those darn protesters weren't raping children, pushing little old ladies down stairs, assaulting police officers, trashing businesses, and other various & sundry acts of "peaceful protest".

But I digress, as the issue that stuck in my craw today is being touted as "income inequality".  Big and prominent on the Yahoo homepage today is a link entitled, "Remake America: Income Inequality".  Yahoo claims this is a "conversation" they want to have about "solutions", after running a short video of people moaning and whining about their low-paying job, having to pay the mortgage for a house they can't afford, the rising cost of groceries and gas, and bleating about how "unfair" it is that the rich are rich and they are not.

Evidently Yahoo thinks the answer is to "remake America", much as Obama wants to "fundamentally transform" her.  Apparently Yahoo hasn't been paying attention to what has been going on in the country; Obama is racking up failures in his bid to transform America almost as fast as the country is racking up debt.  Just another example of how the left utterly refuses to learn from history, and demonstrates its collective insanity by trying the same things over and over again, expecting different results.  I guess it's Yahoo's turn to give insanity a whirl.

Life isn't fair, and there is always going to be "income inequality" in a free country.  That's just how it is, and always will be.  In fact, aside from free will, there is little else that is equal.  Folks say there is equal opportunity for everyone, but let's face it, not everyone has the same opportunities.  This isn't the fault of the country, the system, the left, right, or begins and ends at home.  Young people define "normal" as what they experience in their lives up until they're an adult.  Kids that grow up in the 'hood without a dad and whose mom is a crack whore on welfare and food stamps see that life as "normal", and after years of listening to mama whine that it's someone else's fault, they believe that it must be true...because they don't know anything else.

As adults, they've got to wise up and break that perpetual cycle.  The only way that a society can have "income equality" would be if some central power were responsible for distributing "income" to the people.  Guess what kind of systems THOSE are, boys & girls?  Socialism, Marxism, & communism.  Totalitarian systems of government that turn the principles of freedom and liberty on their ear.  In these societies, the people are dependent on the all-powerful government for everything, from food, clothing, housing, education, medical care, and transportation.  You own nothing; you are merely a subject with no rights, aside what the government gives you.  You do as your masters tell you, or you are beaten, tortured, and killed.  Forget about free speech.  Protests of any kind...dissent of any strictly forbidden.

Look at East Germany (oops, it's gone), the Soviet Union (whoops), Vietnam, Cuba, and China for some case studies on income equality.  You'll notice a pattern - government officials and their lackeys have all the wealth, while the vast majority of people in these systems are poor when compared to the vast majority of Americans.  The Vietnamese do not live in opulent luxury; most are happy to have a mud hut to sleep in.  Cuba and China have enacted reforms, but again, the majority are poor.  Before the USSR and East Germany ceased to exist, their people were....poor.

But, by God, they had their equality! 

Here in America, we don't need to be "remade" or "transformed".  We are built upon the bedrock principles of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  It may not be easy to make your own way here, but the rewards are great.  Regardless of how bad an economy is, a free people always have the opportunity to rise above it and drive on.  Here in America, you reap what you sow.  Work hard and do the right thing, and the possibilities are endless.

All of these people who are villifying our system and wistfully yearning for income equality should go spend a month living in one of those countries mentioned above. They'll come back with a new appreciation for the freedom and opportunity they have in the United States of America. 

The same appreciation the rest of us already have.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

The Injustice Department Strikes Again

Once again, the federal government has punished one of its own border agents after he didn't treat an illegal alien drug smuggler nicely enough.

For those that are too lazy to click the link above and read the whole story, it goes like this: the Border Patrol got a tip that illegals were crossing the Rio Grande with drugs.  Agents responded and caught one of them with a 75-lb backpack full of marijuana, in addition to another 75 pounds of drugs at the scene.  The illegal alien was taken into custody, given immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying against the Border Patrol agent, and the agent goes to jail.

Apparently the agent used a technique of raising the illegal alien's handcuffed hands behind his back to bring him to the ground as he was resisting arrest.  No bruises or marks were found on him (except for where his backpack full of drugs dug into his shoulders) and he did not complain to anyone about mistreatment by the agents.

So right after he was arrested, it would seem that the kid was given access to a representative from the Mexican consulate who then coached him to complain of being beaten and abused.  The Mexican government filed an official complaint.  Internal investigations by Homeland Security and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) did not find any wrongdoing by the agents during the arrest.

But the desk jockeys over at Obama's Justice Department - thousands of miles removed from the situation, and almost a year later - somehow arrived at the conclusion that an agent did something wrong.  The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas brought charges, a trial was held, evidence and facts were blatantly ignored, and the Border Patrol agent was sentenced to two years in prison for improper arrest.

This is the same Justice Department that is guilty of badly botching an operation that allowed thousands of American guns to be purchased on behalf of Mexican drug cartels and taken across the border into Mexico, where one of them was used to kill a federal agent.  The DA's office is the same office that brought charges against officers Ramos and Compean for shooting a drug smuggler several years ago, and the same DA's office that prosecuted a local sheriff for shooting out the tires of a van full of illegals that were trying to run him over.

It should be no surprise that, yet again, the Justice Department is wrong.  The gross negligence and outright hostility that Attorney General Eric Holder and his department demonstrates toward actual justice rises nearly to the level of treason.  Holder's incompetence has resulted in lost American lives and the wrongful punishment of American federal law enforcement agents for *gasp!* enforcing the law.  Now, it seems another American will lose his freedom for years simply for doing his job.

Oh, and the illegal alien drug smuggler?  The one given immunity from prosecution?  Yeah, he was probably given a green card as a reward for his attempted drug smuggling and false testimony against an innocent American.

This is just another example of the contempt and hostility that the leftists in charge of the federal government have towards the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law.  The government refuses to do its Constitutionally-mandated job to secure our borders, actively prevents law enforcement agents from enforcing federal immigration laws, and happily rewards illegal alien criminals for smuggling drugs across the border and perjuring himself in federal court.

In many states, if someone breaks into your home, you can legally shoot them full of holes and never be prosecuted in either criminal or civil court.  That makes perfect sense.

The United States of America is home to We the People.  Much in the way that we pay taxes to support police departments to keep our streets safe, we also pay taxes to support our federal government in doing its job to keep our nation safe.  But the cops can't be everywhere at once protecting everyone all the time.  That's why "castle doctrine" laws have been passed that provide immunity from prosecution to those who employ deadly force in the defense of themselves and their property.  Similar challenges are faced by our Border Patrol and other federal law enforcement agents while trying to keep our country secure, and one way we could deal with that is to allow them the use of deadly force - hell, ANY force - to protect the home of We the People.

Because today, if someone breaks into your home and the federal government had its way, you'd have to show that intruder (er...undocumented resident) some respect and treat him nicely, or your ass is going to jail.

Now, folks, does that make any sense whatsoever? 

I'm SICK and TIRED of our federal government actively working against American principles.  We The People don't want people crossing our borders illegally.  We the People don't want those people bringing drugs into our country.  We the People generally don't have a problem with illegal alien drug smugglers getting smacked around a little (maybe a lot) before being tossed back over the border, especially if they're resisting arrest. We the People understand that illegal aliens wouldn't have anything to complain about if they didn't break our laws coming here illegally in the first place.

We the People secure our individual homes with locks on our doors.  The federal government should secure America, our collective home, accordingly.

And in the case of an intruder?

Shoot 'em full of holes.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Occupiers: Clueless or Treasonous?

In cities across the country - and indeed the world - groups of people have gathered to protest banks, corporations and the rich under the "Occupy Wall Street" banner.  In talking with these protesters, one would be hard-pressed to find consensus on the group's mission or what it wants, but generally speaking, they are whining about not being rich - while villifying the rich.

Yeah, doesn't make sense to me, either.

They moan in blogs written on their $1,600 Macbooks about their student loan debt, cry from the comfort of their living rooms about being expected to pay for the mortgages they signed up for, scream out with their $4.50 Starbucks lemongrass frappalattecinos in hand about how life isn't "fair" and that there's so much "inequality" in the world.

They bellyache about their job prospects after studying art, dance, basket weaving, and other worthless crap. They screech in texts sent via their $250 iPhones that they can't afford health insurance, and that life in America is so horrible and terrible, and it's all the rich's fault.

Conspicuously missing from this movement is a clear message about what exactly it wants.  Google "Occupy Wall Street", and next to the link it says "NYC Protest for American Revolution", yet inside their website they say they want to "restore democracy in America", and are fighting against "social injustice".

History shows that revolutions are actions that aim to rid a nation of one system, and replace it with another.  While America is not a pure democracy, it is generally accepted that we have a democratic system in place already.  That hasn't changed since the founding of the United States of America, so it's unclear what exactly they want to "restore".

Taking into account the overarching theme of these gatherings, and everything that the Occupiers themselves have written and said about their protests, one can only conclude that they do indeed want a revolution.  A second American revolution, that would replace the Constitutional republic/democracy that we have today with a socialist, Marxist, or even communist system.  "From those according to their ability [the productive and rich], to those according to their need [the poor limp, lame & lazy]".

In fact, the Communist and Nazi parties in the USA have both declared their agreement with, and support of, the Occupy movement.

Given the demographics and the ideological bent of those involved in the protests, it's not a stretch to conclude that most of them voted for Obama - if they were old enough to - back in 2008.  This would mean most of them are simply clueless and harmless, and just looking for an excuse to complain and rabble-rouse with those similarly situated.  It sure doesn't hurt that there are plenty of young 20-something hippie chicks that are a part of this novel social experiment.  And to me, it's unthinkable that any American with a clue would support a revolution aiming to replace our system of government that is built upon the foundation of individual liberty with one that is more oppressive.

Or, are they smart and intelligent and know what they're doing?  Do they really want to see freedom and liberty and the American way relegated to the past, in favor of a system that guarantees this "social justice" they clamor for?

Thousands of these protesters have already proven they have no respect for the law, given the staggering number of arrests during their protests.  Images of American flags being walked on, and clips of protesters singing "f*ck the USA" are all over the internet.  So is there a real revolution in the making?  Will the Occupy movement turn into something more structured, and will it take action to overthrow the government?  Are they treasonous?

Nah, if they had all of that drive and determination, they'd have good jobs and would be on their way to being rich themselves. I think they're just a bunch of whiny dumbasses.  Nothing to see here.  Obama will lose his keys to the White House next November, and if the Flea Party is still around, they too will fade into obscurity, a slightly humorous yet sad stain on the fabric of history.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Don't Be A Sheep!

This just in from the Department of What's Wrong with the Country:

King County, Washington is forcing people to wear life vests if they want to swim, tube, etc. in any of the county's rivers.

Obama's food police is expanding its crackdown, forcing companies and restaurants to reinvent their foods - or else.

It seems that when some people are elected to office, they believe that somehow, overnight, they have become smarter, more sensible, and just plan BETTER than those who elected them. With this belief, they set out to codify their overreaching ideas - in our best interest, of course - since they believe we are all too dumb to make it through life on our own.

Sure, there are those who aren't real bright and don't make the best decisions for themselves. Many of those are children and it's none of the government's business how we choose to raise our children, good or bad. The rest are adults who really shouldn't be taking up space and breathing up air anyway, and probably wouldn't be if it wasn't for some other piece of legislated nannyism put in place years ago.

There are plenty of other countries in the world that dictate to people how they are allowed to live their lives. Some of those people are fine with coasting through life, responsible for nothing, and have become accustomed to getting only what they're given or allowed by the government instead of having the freedom and responsibility to win or lose while making their way through life.

I am not one of those people, and this is NOT one of those countries.

Regulations like these chip away at the freedom and liberty that this once-proud nation was founded upon, and are absolutely unacceptable. Big-government liberals and RINOS dismiss the slippery-slope argument, but really...what is to stop government from making us all wear helmets, elbow pads, and knee pads while walking down the street? After all, it would be for our own good, and might prevent tens of deaths every year, nationwide.

I'm sick of government overstepping its bounds and forcing its tentacles into every corner of our lives. It is in our kitchens, our bedrooms, our bathrooms....nowhere is safe.  Government today is like a must feed on more and more of our money and grow bigger in order to enforce each new regulation.

It's outrageous that government is more concerned with dictating to companies how to make their foods - and what we should be eating - than keeping our borders safe from invasion by illegal aliens. I'd rather take my chances eating a bowl of Frosted Flakes than walking down the street in El Paso or Nogales.

Look, if some idiot decides to go tubing down the river and drowns because he can't swim or he gets too drunk to hold his head out of the water, that's HIS problem. It's natural selection; Darwin in action. The VAST majority of us know better, and we don't need to be forced into lifejackets because 1% of the population suffers from severe, chronic stupidity.

But, it's YOUR fault.  We hold the ultimate power in the country, as unlikely as it seems.  We The People vote these morons into office, and when a great number of The People are more concerned with who won American Idol than what the country's leaders are doing, we get these megalomaniacs in office that say all the right things on the campaign trail and do all the wrong things after assuming office.

This is a quintessential Rant of the Anti-Sheep. Everywhere I look, there is apathetic sheep(le) that just don't give a shit.  Thanks to the sheep, government will keep on doing this kind of thing until we're all screwed.  And that point is NOT far off; just ask about 50% of the economists in this country. 

So, I'm here to save the world.  You're welcome. 

Be sure to VOTE in every election, local and national.  Unless you're a sheep, in which case, The X Factor is coming on soon.  Better not miss it.

Monday, April 18, 2011

Newspapers, Idiots, and Illegal Aliens

It's been over a year since my last blog entry, and I've been wanting to resume my writing. My wonderful fiance' Sammie has started a blog about her weight loss, and that was the catalyst for my return to Blogger.

To get warmed up, I'm going to re-post my last entry, below. New content will be forthcoming in a couple of days. Meanwhile, enjoy!


A couple of years ago, I overcame my addiction to the newspaper. I had maintained a 7-day subscription since 1993 but the constant liberal slant, rapid rise in the cost of home delivery, and abundant free sources of news on the internet all combined to make me say "enough is enough", and I let my subscription lapse.

However, from time to time I will indulge in this harmless vice and buy a paper. Yesterday was one of those days; I picked up the Sunday edition of the Dallas Morning News on a whim. I almost put it back when I realized they are now three bucks; the last time I bought one on a Sunday, they were a dollar.

Anyway, I didn't get a chance to read it until this morning and I didn't get too far before I was immediately reminded of one reason I no longer subscribe. One of the columnists successfully tore my tolerance tendon. Not just tweaked it, but tore that already-fragile part of my mental anatomy completely apart.

The title of his column hinted at the stupidity I would find below. "Migrants are the best of both worlds", it said. "Okay, I'll bite", I thought.

The author, Steve Blow, sets the stage by describing an illegal alien he calls Ernesto as "sweet natured", "an incredibly hard worker", and "a family friend". Blow details for us a conversation he has with Ernesto (in Spanish, even though Ernesto has been here for seven years) about how Ernesto walked for four days in the desert, paid a coyote $2,200 to help him cross the border illegally, and how his knee causes him occasional pain as a result.

Blow goes on to admit that a large percentage of Americans would like to see this illegal alien arrested and deported, but then bravely declares that - perhaps selfishly - he thinks Ernesto should be allowed to stay because "he [Blow] wants the best for his country".

It's right about this time that I could feel my tolerance tendon starting to tear.

Then, Blow continues by trumpeting the benefits of people like Ernesto who, in his opinion, represent "the best of their countries - the most ambitious, the most hardworking, the most daring". He somehow believes that all of the challenges they faced to get here, including breaking the law by illegally crossing the border, means that they would not be lazy, aimless, timid, or indifferent, and instead would be hard workers once they were here. Only the most "dedicated and determined" would make it, he says, and calls our border enforcement a "highly efficient screening system".

Rrrip! So much for my tolerance tendon.

As I sit here writing this, the rest of the newspaper remains unread. I could not allow this tripe to go without an immediate and strong rebuttal, so I am closing the loop on this display of Mr. Blow's mental midgetry with a letter I sent to the editor this morning, and by writing this blog posting.

Moving right along. I fail to understand why illegal aliens that exhibit dedication and determination (and a lack of values) in breaking our laws deserve the reward of legalization when it takes just as much dedication and determination to come here legally. Those who take the latter path demonstrate a higher moral character and are therefore much more welcome in America.

In fact, one could argue that this combination of traits would lead to more crimes. Their values didn't stop them from illegally crossing the border, so who's to say they wouldn't illegally cross the threshold of someone's home, too, and burglarize it? What would stop them from raping the cute little gringa whose lawn they mow every week? Knocking over the liquor store and shooting the clerk? All of those things take dedication and determination, too - in addition to a lack of values, moral character, and respect for the law. The same traits they demonstrate in coming here illegally.

Mr. Blowhard is not only selfish but also shameful in his belief that rewarding illegal immigration is what is "best for his country". I’m not sure what country he thinks he lives in, but MY country was not built with the labor of scofflaws, and it’s unacceptable in MY country to reward those who break the law to come here, no matter how "sweet natured", hard-working, dedicated, and determined that illegal aliens are.

Believe it or not, I'm not a total asshole incapable of feeling compassion for my fellow man. If for some reason our immigration laws are inadequate, then we need to change them. The apathy demonstrated by our elected representatives on the subject of immigration is unacceptable. We need reform to include stronger border security and a fresh look at immigration law in terms of quotas and making the process more efficient.

Meanwhile, we need to make it extremely difficult for illegal aliens to enjoy life in America so that they return home on their own. We have tried amnesties before, and our government has proven their unwillingness and/or inability to hold up their end of the bargain. Only a fool does the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Let us NOT be fools.

What's best for America is We the People participating in the political and legislative process, and We the People holding our government representatives accountable for their actions or lack thereof. What is NOT best for America is for We the People to allow and encourage lawbreaking.

Shame on you, Steve Blow. I hope the next chat with your family friend is interrupted by an INS agent knocking at your door, and that he is accompanied by an IRS agent, code compliance people, and the head of your HOA.