Thursday, April 27, 2006

How would senators treat squatters on their private property?

It would appear that Tweedel Dee and Tweedel Dum have reached an open borders agreement. Now that Dee (President Bush) has assured Dum (Dems) that “guest worker” is nothing more than a euphemism for quick & sure citizenship irrespective of when you slipped into the country or what crime lies in your background. Dee has essentially said we’ll give you 11 million votes if you give us cheap labor.

Well how cheap is that labor going to be at the next economic downturn? How cheap is that labor going to be as the next 11, 12, 15, 20 million illegal aliens stream across our border with no interest in America other money? We’ve seen the demonstrations. We’ve heard the call by La Raza for reunification of the American Southwest with Mexico.

Where would our economy be today if we had allowed market forces to push labor costs for the “jobs Americans just won’t do” to a level that Americans would do them or that necessity and innovation would have created a machine to do the task? The whole illegal immigration mess reminds of the Fram oil filter ad with its famous tag line, “You can pay me now or you can pay me later” implying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Well Dee & Dum offer not a gram’s worth of prevention and the cure has long ago passed the pound level and headed toward tons.

As a test, a group ought to go set up tents on yards of Senators who support this nonsense. Offer to cook, clean, cut the grass and other odd jobs “that senators just won’t do.” Then keep calling in more and more people. Heck, the senator can’t arrest them all, can he? After a while, the squatters claim to be family member and demand the rights of a family member. The senator now must pay the health care cost of his “guests”, send the kids to private schools and buy their first cars for them.

How do you think the senators would react? They’d go nuts! These people are breaking the law! Why I can’t afford a hundred squatters on my property, even if they do the work I won’t. Well how is that any different from what they propose for the country?

This is the latest example that Bush is not a conservative. Nice guy, good president in the main, but he is no conservative. There is something about forgiving a crime because too many people engage it. Rush Limbaugh has proposed that 11 million of us simply not pay taxes next year and see if the “there are too many to prosecute” mantra holds.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

All they have to do is...

"On way to speech, Bush motorcade passed the EXXON station next to the Watergate, where gas prices were $3.29, $3.39 and $3.49 a gallon...”

This was the headline on the Drudge Report. Well what does that tell us about gas prices? Price fixing? Well there is a $.20 difference in price from the high to low. So how can there be price fixing? I thought the whole idea of price fixing was that the price was fixed. Silly me.

Well, I don’t know why gas prices are so high. All these oil companies have to do is hire a couple hundred of the world’s best geologist. Then all they have to do is send them around the world to some of the dangerous places looking for oil. Then all they have to do is hire a couple hundred guys to drill down about 5 miles. When they discover a dry well, all they have to do is start the whole process over again.

When they hit oil, all they have to do is hire a couple of thousand guys to build an environmentally safe pipeline hundreds of miles to nearest sea port. Then all they have to do is have a fleet of supertankers worth hundreds of millions of dollars each and crewed by seamen capable of sailing around the world.

Then all they have to do is build another pipeline from the port of debarkation to a refinery which costs five hundred million dollars. Then all they need is a crew of competent engineers to run the refinery 24-7. Then all they need is about 24 different distribution systems to get the various fuel blends to right markets.

Then all they need are thousands of gas stations which are located on some of the most expensive real estate in town. Then all they need to do is sell their product at or near the price of their 20 or so other competitors.

Oh yeah, all they need to do is all of that - safely while complying with a mountain of state, national and international regulations. Given the minimal amount of effort involved, I can’t imagine why gas should cost more than a quarter a gallon.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

The government is investigating gas prices; prices will go up as a result

The president is ordering an investigation into why gas prices are so high. Let me guess what they will discover. Could it be that price of crude oil went to $75? Nooo. Well then, could it be the taxes in excess of $.45 per gallon. Noooo. If the government is so concerned about gas prices why don’t they suspend the taxes – at least while they investigate? You’re kidding – right? Well then, how about the fact that we have to drag all of the crude in from foreign countries because the government won’t allow domestic exploration? Noooooo. Well then it must be the government requirement for more than a dozen different blends that foul up the distribution system. Noooooooo. Well then it has to be some macro economic forces which are a combination of all of those forces coupled with America’s insatiable appetite for gas guzzling cars and complete unwillingness to explore alternative fuels – right? Noooooo.

What the government investigation will determine is that gas prices are so high because Exxon gave Lee Raymond a $400 million retirement package. That’s right; it’ll all boil down to one man’s hard work and ingenuity resulting corporate profit and a nice retirement settlement. Exxon’s board must be totally tone deaf. Who did they bounce Lee’s retirement package off of - obviously nobody with an ounce of public relations sense. I could care less what they pay Raymond. Unless he agrees to share his retirement with me, what he gets will have not one penny’s influence on my bank account or the cost of gas. But didn’t anyone at Exxon say, hey you know gas is about three bucks a gallon, Joe six pack might get the wrong idea if we pay Lee FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS – HELLO ARE YOU CRAZY.

The investigators will determine that the oil companies taking a $.10 profit on each gallon of gas is obscene – even while government takes on average 4.5 times that much. Then the investigator will blame Americans. Those big cars are driving up demand, reducing supply and causing the cost to go through the roof. We need to tax the gas guzzling cars. Well excuse me, but if $.45 of every gallon of gas is tax, aren’t the gas guzzlers already being taxed? Huh, well yes, I mean no, I mean not enough. Well how do you tax a Hummer at the pump without taxing the Prias at the same rate?

So the investigators will devise a policy that kills off safe, sport utility gas guzzling cars. Highway deaths will sore, tax revenues will decline. Gas per gallon will go up. Why? How can that be? We’ll be using less gas and supplies will increase and the price will go down – right? Well, while gas supplies will skyrocket due to more energy efficient cars, gas usage will plummet causing a shortfall in tax revenues so politicians will do what politicians do – raise taxes for the problem that they created.

What really needs to be investigated is why anyone in Washington D.C. is drawing a public pay check.

The president lied

OK, I give up. The president lied. He said that there were weapons of mass destruction and there weren’t any. He bombed innocent people and it appears that the president did it for political purposes - President Clinton that is.

After two of our embassies went up in smoke in East Africa in 1998, President Bill Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan claiming the factory produced chemical weapons. Turns out it didn’t and the action had more to do with DNA on a certain blue dress in D.C. than with chemicals in the Sudan. Not a peep has been heard from the MSM since.

Now, the MSM, 6 tired and retired generals, and half of the nation’s pols are all singing Bush lied because no WMD has been found in Iraq. Odd don’t you think, given that the WORLD KNEW Saddam had WMD and only Clinton knew about the Sudanese Aspirin factory. Seems to me that if we were playing on any kind of a level playing field, Bill Clinton would have some splanin to do and so would Saddam.

Clinton should be splanin why he bombed an aspirin factory and Saddam should be splanin what happened to the WMD. How cool would it be if President Bush visited Saddam the day before he’s scheduled to have his head lopped off and says, I’ll pardon you if you tell me where the WMD went. Saddam spills his guts and Basshar Assad and Vlad Putin are confronted with video of Saddam telling the world that the WMD was moved by Russians to Syria.

Bush says thanks, your pardoned, now all you have to do is work it out with the Iraqis. Saddam’s head rolls right on schedule.

Friday, April 21, 2006

A couple of Marines Murtha "wouldn't serve" with

A letter from some executive at the Raytheon Company to his employees:

Raytheon Company

Last week, while traveling to Chicago on business, I noticed a Marine sergeant in Dress Blues traveling with a folded flag, but I did not put two and two together. After we'd boarded our flight, I turned to the sergeant, who'd been invited to sit in First Class (and was seated across the aisle from me), and inquired if he was heading home. "No sir" he responded. "Heading out?" I asked. "No. I'm escorting a Marine home." "Going to pick him up?" "No. He is with me right now. He was killed in Iraq. I am taking him home to his family."

The realization of what he had been asked to do hit me like a punch to the gut. It was an honor for him. He told me that, although he didn't know the soldier, he had delivered the news of his passing to the soldi er's family and felt as if he did know them after so many conversations in so few days. I turned back to him, extended my hand, and said, "Thank you. Thank you for doing what you do so my family and I can do what we do."

Upon landing in Chicago, the pilot stopped short of the gate and made the following announcement over the intercom. "Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to note that we have had the honor of having Sergeant Steeley of the United States Marine Corps join us on this flight. He is escorting a fallen comrade back home to his family. I ask that you please remain in your seats when we open the forward door, so as to allow Sergeant Steeley to de-plane and receive his fellow soldier. We will then turn off the seat belt sign." Without a sound, all went as requested.

I noticed the sergeant saluting the casket as it was brought off the plane, and his action made me realize two things: I am proud to be an American, and I will continue to fly on American Airlines because it respects what our soldiers do every day. So here's a public thank-you to our military for doing what they do, so we can live the way we do. And if there are no tears in your eyes now, you could use a heart transplant.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Allen in 08, for now, but Rudi if we must

If Republican voters across the country decide that the party cannot cope with a conservative like George Allen and look toward a more Liberal candidate, I hope they opt for Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani over John McCain.

Rudi is at least honest about who he is. I do not trust McCain who has taken a straight razor to the first amendment, voted against tax cuts, advocates open borders, assails the SecDef in the middle of a war, attacks President Bush for five years before deciding that he’d better cozy up to the head of his party in time for 2008.

Rudi is Liberal to be sure, but to the extent that there is such a thing, he’s an honest Liberal. He’s not a McCain Liberal who votes against tax cuts before arguing to make them permanent. Rudi doesn’t get caught up in campaign corruption before blaming it all on the First Amendment and somehow come out as a political reformer for limiting free speech instead of a crook for taking the tainted money that caused the need for reform in the first place.

Rudi is tough with none of the vindictive mean-spirited charm of McCain. Rudi is a no non-sense guy who will throw a ten million dollar check in a man’s face if doesn’t like what that man says about his country. McCain will stuff the check into his pocket and then go about passing laws to shut the man as well as everyone else in America up.

If Republicans insist on entering a third Presidential Election without a conservative at the top of the ticket, I prefer Rudi. Rudi would then be free to employ the Bush gambit selecting a veep with strong conservative credentials and no presidential aspirations of their own, but I’m not sure Cheney is up to another 8 years as veep.

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

The man speaks

Go here click on Pentagon Briefing and watch the first ten minutes to find out what’s going on with the gang of 6 of 8,000. Watch the whole thing if you have time instead of the snips the MSM provides.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Now that they've found their courage, order them all back to active duty

What to do with the six big shots? If I were President Bush, I’d order every one of them back to active duty. I’d put all six in a room and say, OK what went wrong? The first to speak up would be Gen Zinni – NOT ENOUGH TROOPS!!! I’d then call in Gens Franks, Abizaid, and Casey. I’d ask Gen Franks point blank with everyone in the same room, did you have enough troops? Franks would say yes. The war lasted three weeks and was, by any measure, a success. Case closed.

Then I’d ask Gens Abizaid and Casey, do you have enough troops now? They both would answer yes. More US troops equals more US casualties. More US troops equals less of an Iraqi face on operations. More US troops equals a slower transition to Iraqi control. At that point I’d look Gen Zinni in the eye and say, Gen your argument is with these men not the SecDef.

Then I’d ask the others, now what’s your problem? Rumsfeld’s a bully they’d say in unison – nodding approvingly toward one another. Then I’d march the SecDef in. The six would immediately begin looking for a way out of the room. Don, I’d say, these boys say you’re a bully. Rumsfeld’s response would be along the lines of, these guys lack the courage to speak up, to do their duty and I’m a bully?

What about that boys, I’d ask. Well did we say bully? Ahhh, what we clearly meant was that the SecDef was bullish on America. Yes, yes that’s it bullish on America. Really Mr. Secretary we meant no offense.

Then I’d ask the six incarnates of Jomini what else went wrong? Well never should have disbanded the Iraqi army, they’d opine. What about that Mr. Secretary. Rumsfeld might say, well I’d been advocating that the US train and equip an Iraqi army in exile for years before the war. The congress and the leadership within the Pentagon at the time thought that that was a bad idea. Now in hindsight, they all appear to be for it.

With regard to the Iraqi army as it stood after the fall of Baghdad, Rummy’d continue, there was no army. And we could not be sure that if we tried to reconstitute it we wouldn’t be putting leaders of the current insurgency into positions of authority. Also, these guys argue from a position of perfect hindsight. How do they know that had we reconstituted the Iraqi army that the Shia wouldn’t have gone into open revolt? That Ayatollah Sistani wouldn’t have joined with Sadar and started a real civil war – not phony one the media talk about. They don’t know. All they know for sure is that they don’t like me.

Boys, what about that? Well, they’d stammer, not at all Mr. Secretary we love and respect you. Having come to an agreement, I’d thank them and retire them. They’d leave the White House, hold a press conference and call for the SecDef’s resignation because he wouldn’t listen. But we’ve been there.

Monday, April 17, 2006

Six against Rumsfeld - Rumsfeld wins

The talk over the weekend was all about SecDef Rumsfeld. Sunday morning TV was a buzz with the topic. These six retired generals have been hailed by the media as the only military men that really know what they are doing. Of course facts do not support that. Let’s look at the arguments.

Rumsfeld doesn’t take military advice. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Pete Pace disagrees. In fact, Gen Pace has gone record stating that this SecDef has made unprecedented efforts to get military input. What the six malcontent generals are really complaining about is that Rumsfeld didn’t accept “their” advice - even though in the case of the four recently retired Army generals they apparently lacked the courage to offer their “best military judgments” while on active duty.

In the case of Marine three star General Newbold, he has admitted that didn’t speak his mind forcibly enough and apparently only feels comfortable taking on the SecDef from the safety of a TV studio or OpEd piece instead of face to face. The sixth guy Marine Gen. Zinni attacks Rumsfeld in an effort to hawk a new book.

Six guys from a class of thousands speak out against the SecDef and the MSM plays it as if the military has laid down its arms and refuses to take orders from its civilian masters until there is a change in the Pentagon.

One of these tough guys actually called Rumsfeld a “bully”. Wow, what are they going to accuse Rumsfeld of next? “He gave us wedgies when we disagreed with him.” How much good are these guys if they can be “bullied” by a 60 something year old man from doing their duty?

They call Rumsfeld arrogant. This is really the pot calling the kettle black isn’t it? Here are six retired guys five of whom were unwilling to speak up while they were in the room trying to mollify their consciences by calling for the ouster of the civilian head of the department that they once served. That is arrogance. Besides, one man’s arrogance is another’s √©lan. I suspect anyone in power needs a degree of self-assurance and bravado or he’d be crippled by indecision. That self-assuredness and bravado could easily be taken as arrogance.

Friday, April 14, 2006

Finding their voices a bit too late

Well finally a subject I knew something about. The “so-called” military revolt against SecDef Rumsfeld. When I was a young officer in the Marine Corps, I learned that I could argue forcibly for my position up to the point of decision. After that I had two choices, get on board or resign my commission. Apparently there is a third road.

A crew of former generals has taken to enjoying the fruits of their retirement while taking pot shots at the SecDef. Trust me on this one. When these pillars of silly putty wait for the security of retirement to take their shots at the SecDef it says more about the military being better off without them rather than the current SecDef.

Gen. Wesley Clark proved that the military is becoming as politicized as every other corner of American society. This cannot be a good thing. I didn’t agree with much of anything that Presidents Carter and Clinton did domestically, internationally or militarily but I wrote not a single word against either administration while on active duty or since other than the moral failings of Clinton. As far as I recall, I engaged in no derogatory conversations. Although I voted in every general election, I never registered as a republican or had so much as a bumper sticker on my car while on active duty.

These guys are certainly entitled to their opinion. But I worry that the apolitical nature of our military is being eroded by their actions. Also, keep in mind that the current SecDef has come to the Pentagon to turn the place on its head. When people see their pet projects axed or minimized they tend to take it personally. Everyone of these guys has an ego the size of the Pentagon itself. When something doesn’t go their way, they take it personally. There is probably a bit of that going on as well.

At any rate, their complaints would have had a much greater affect if these men had demonstrated the courage of their convictions by resigning their commissions in protest at the time of decision rather than waiting for the security of retirement to find their voices. The last point I’d make is the hypocrisy of these men. While they heap great praise on the military that they once served honorably, they must believe that it is being led by craven self-serving know-nothings. How can they hold the generals serving this SecDef in high regard at the same time trash the civilian head of the department?

The answer gentlemen is that those serving the SecDef have the courage of their convictions. The courage you apparently lack. We don’t know their political position because those serving have followed the long tradition of military service of voicing your opinion to the point of decision then getting on board or resigning.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

American flags for the cameras only

Yes give us another 12 million just like these. Looks as if the open borders crowd has been reading Lex. They have exchanged their Mexican flags for upside down American ones. Look for more and more American flags in the communist organized open borders demonstrations. But don't be fooled. Once amnesty is granted, out will come the Mexican flag as symbol their true aliegance. The American flag are just for show.Posted by Picasa

Save your Mexican flags for 5 May

There is a straw man being floated by the open borders crowd that goes - well Italians, Irish and Germans all carry their flags and nobody gets upset. Well no we don’t. This straw man is being trumpeted by illegals with thick accents and by lib and conservatives with an open borders agenda.

I know that Lex’s readers are too smart for this. When a group of fully assimilated legal Italian immigrants and their families gather once a year to celebrate Columbus Day, we don’t get upset. On St. Patrick’s day when everyone in American somehow traces their family’s origin to Ireland and totes an Irish flag in a parade, nobody gets to upset. When Americans greet one another in a beer tent in broken German over an oompa band nobody gets upset.

When a group of 12 million illegal aliens take to the streets waiving the flag of a corrupt and failed country not as a good spirited celebration of their heritage, but rather as an in your face flaunting of our law and our generosity, well yeah we get upset.

We’re off to Lisbon for a few days. See you Fri with a full report on something.

Friday, April 07, 2006

Secrets and lies

President Bush authorized the leak of classified material – I doubt it

The press is a buzz with the notion that President Bush authorized the leaking of classified material on pre-war intelligence. Probably not. Most Americans could care less about the arcane process of classifying and declassifying material. In general terms, he who classifies material, can then declassify it.

So if the NSA, which is an arm of the executive branch of government, provided material to the president, then the executive can declassify that material. The next shoe to drop in this Abu Ghraib like non-scandal that will not die because the MSM wants desperately for something to be there, will be that the president DID NOT authorize the disclosure of non-covert, non-covered, ex-CIA field agent and current open CIA analyst Valerie Plame.

So, in the end, the president authorized declassification of certain pre-war materials to explain to the American people why the Wilson’s were full bovine excrement. The Wilson’s, one of whom was supposedly working for America, were engaged in an active effort to undermine their government.

Dems will howl, “The president is using our intelligence for political purposes!” I’d say shinning the light of truth down the Wilson’s alleyway of lies was the minimum the administration could have done. Ms. Wilson should have been immediately sacked from the CIA. Mr. Wilson should have been made to explain his double dealing against his own government in some official setting - like a court room.

Immigration reform, it’s a lie

The Senate yesterday tried for a compromise on immigration reform, but those pesky law and order types got in the way. “Come on” shouted the reform minded open borders supporters, “do you want to have to cut your own grass?!!” America first Senators saw the bill as long on amnesty and short on any effective measures to stem the flow of illegal aliens into the country or punishment of illegal aliens already here.

In a strange twist, former anti-immigration Dem Senator Harry Reid said, "Republicans are still deeply divided on this issue, and we must protect this from those senators bent on gutting the bill with hostile amendments." Apparently Senator Reid, who sponsored a tough bill against illegal aliens in 1993, has changed his mind. What, besides the political fortunes of his party, has changed Sen. Reid’s mind? The world wonders.

The current reform bill is a lie. IT IS AMNESTY. But worse than that, it offers no border security or enforcement mechanisms. It is the maintenance of the status quo under gale force bloviating from the bloviating class of do-nothings aka politicians.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Did we do the terrorists a favor?

Here is an interesting mental exercise. A man on the Rush Limbaugh show the other day said he’d wished that flight 93, the one brought down in the Pennsylvania field by the passengers, had hit the Capitol Building. Maybe that would have waked this country from its slumber on terrorism.

The occasion of the discussion was the soon to be released movie Flight 93. Many are howling - too soon. Well then don’t go. I think the film ought to be mandatory for everyone in the country 17 years and older. I think it ought to mandatory viewing once a quarter for journalism majors. Every member of Congress ought to be required to view the film in one of those famous “Town Meeting” settings once a week.

But as we approach the 5th year anniversary of 9-11, it seems the only permissible mentions of the tragic events in the MSM are to slam Bush and or America. They will not show us the graphic photos of three of our iconic buildings in flames and ruin, but they run 24-7 loops of half-a-dozen unsupervised prison guards in Abu Ghraib doing the dopiest things – that has been going on for nearly TWO YEARS now. OK we got it little Lyndie England had a naked Iraqi terrorist on a dog leash.

But think about Flight 93. Did the heroes aboard actually do the terrorists a favor? That’s hard to believe. But think about it. Where would we be today if the people’s house, the Capitol building, had been struck? Where would we be if the casualties of 9-11 had been 4,000 and spread across the entire nation? Where would we be if one-quarter of the House and Senate had to be replaced in special elections with 9-11 only 30, 60 or even 120 days removed? Where would we be with the skeleton of our beautiful Capitol Building as a constant reminder that you cannot make deals with snakes?

I think we would be a much more committed nation.

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Sensible immigration reform

Steps to a sensible immigration reform bill would include the following.

Build the fence.

First commit to build a fence completely across our southern border. First, a 15 foot type that allows no foot or finger holds; then a second fence or wall with 150 meter lane between the two obstacles. The second barrier needs to be 15 feet high and constructed at least 8 feet into the ground. It should be electrified, not in the shock producing sense, but rather to prevent tampering and tunneling. Every foot of the lane between the two obstacles should be covered by cameras, sensors, human observation or all three.

If we do not commit to this measure anything else we do will fail. Any law passed today will be a forerunner to the immigration bill 10-20 years down the road. Today we address 11-12 million ilegals, tomorrow it’ll be 20-25 million.

Amnesty if you must

If amnesty is the price to get the wall built, amnesty it is. But it should be called amnesty as a signal that politicians have failed in their duty to regulate immigration and ensure a uniform naturalization process. We cannot allow the same pols that got us into this mess an escape hatch for their dereliction and cover as if they are tough on illegal aliens.

Amnesty should include:
only those who have been in the country 5 years or more.
only those who have no criminal record
only those 26 years of age or older.
a stiff fine based on the number of years in the country illegally.
a fine for current and past employers.
a requirement to learn English.
end of the line privileges behind EVERYONE who has followed the rules.

Pass “English as the official language legislation”

It makes little sense to have a requirement for immigrants to learn English, then have our courts say everything that the government does must be multilingual. Stop bi-lingual education in schools. Stop printing ballots in every language known to man. Stop providing bi-lingual driver’s tests. This is a government only proposal. Private companies may do whatever they wish to attract customers.

Stop providing illegals with the rights of citizens.

No, contrary to what Sen Clinton says we are not criminalizing the good Samaritan. Basic health, food and shelter should be provided. We should not be providing welfare benefits, public K-12 schooling or higher education at in State tuition rates.

Establish a workable immigration procedure.

Get the people we need into the country quickly, accurately and TEMPORARILY. It’s the 21st century. We can do this.

Fine anyone hiring an illegal.

$10,000 per illegal on the first offense. $100,000 per illegal the second offense.

Once we have secured the border, stopped catering to illegals as if they were citizens, cut off the welfare support, simplified legal entry, and dried up the illegal job market, I think we can begin to ensure a uniform naturalization process.

Monday, April 03, 2006

Myths on immigration

You can’t deport 11-12 million illegals already here.

So deport 100,000. If there are so many illegals, it’s what military men refer to as a target rich environment. Round up 100,000 or so and deport them. If I were trying to enter this country illegally, I’d be redoubling my efforts to get it done before the current bill in the Senate passes. Does the current immigration bill differentiate between an illegal who has been here for 15 years working and raising a family and one who came across the border yesterday to take advantage of the impending legislation? How about a provision that says you must be at least 26 years old, in the country for a minimum of five years and or have a legal spouse and children. Any bill ought to end the provision that any child who happens to be born in America is an American. A better law would be that any child born anywhere in the world to an American parent is an American.

Illegals do work Americans won’t do.

No, they stifle innovation and keep wages artificially low. The fact that they are illegal means that employers pay illegals whatever the employers want. The fact that labor costs are kept artificially low means that the innovations that would naturally occur to increase profit and productivity are put on hold while cheap labor keeps profit at an acceptable level.

If anyone thinks that the only jobs illegals are taking are in agribusiness think again. In 1999, while stationed in the Washington D.C. area, I used to walk from the metro stop near my home through a construction site. All of the labor from bricks and mortar to carpentry was being performed by Hispanics. Not all of them legal I’d wager.

America is at or near full employment. America needs illegals or the economy will suffer.

No, America needs more legal immigrants. And that is the one argument I never hear on the other side of this issue – an argument for uniform legal immigration at a rate that will support the country’s labor needs. If we need 11-12 million more immigrant laborers, Congress ought to see to it legally, temporarily and in a uniform manner. It should not just wave a hand and say everyone who broke our laws is now an American citizen because we don’t what to pay the neighborhood kid $20 to mow the lawn when we can get a crew of 8-10 illegals to do it better for $15.

Also, booms don’t last forever. For every boom there is a bust. When this boom ends one of two things will happen. Illegals will continue to be employed below scale pushing American citizens onto welfare or illegals will flood the welfare system.

Saturday, April 01, 2006

1 Apr 2027

HUNA's celebrate after the Annexation of Main Posted by Picasa

How America Vanished

1 Apr 2026

The Senate in the United State of Maine today took up a bill authorizing a wall between the Hispanic Usadas of Norte America (HUNA) and the last continental vestige of what was once the United States of America. Libs argued that there were already 3 million illegal aliens in the State - we can’t remove them all; they were doing work that other Main citizens wouldn’t do and were just escaping the crushing poverty in the HUNA.

Neocons in Main, which has the highest per capita income in the world and despite its size remains the World’s sole super power, are afraid that Main, like the rest of the former United States will soon be annexed by HUNA. We watched bit by bit as the rest of America was overrun by poor under educated illegal immigrants after President McCain’s open border program in 2009. We will not let it happen here, one racist anti-immigration neocon insisted.

HUNA came into being in 2010. Mexico took advantage of McCain’s open border by emptying its towns of the poor and jails of criminals. The American Southwest became a dumping ground for drug runners and hardworking illiterate day labors. Not understanding that it was America offering them an opportunity, the illegals insisted that the Mexican flag be flown over all public buildings. Soon they took to burning the American flag.

When the Southwest became a huge welfare state, McCain threw up his hands and declared that everything west of Mississippi river was more like 7th world Mexico than America. In order to save 15 trillion a quarter in welfare payments, McCain had congress return to Mexico everything America had gained through the dubious Louisiana Purchase and the illegal and immoral Mexican-American war. Mexico not wanting anything to do with what was a dysfunctional state – even by their standards – immediately granted their new acquisition independence.

In 2011 McCain ordered an open border between the new HUNA and New United States of America. Meanwhile many Americans tried to get into Canada. Canada’s health care system and social welfare system couldn’t stand the load. The Canadian government hired HUNA illegals and constructed a 25 foot concrete wall with a 12 foot electrified fence on top along its entire 2000 mile border. The project was constructed under budget and ahead of schedule.

In 2012 McCain was elected to a second term. The Justice Department found that at least 75 million votes were cast by illegals but declared that it had no impact on the election’s outcome. McCain won by a million votes. Florida once again played the swing role in the Electoral Collage. McCain carried Florida. In an odd happenstance ignored by Justice, McCain alone received more votes than the total number of registered voters in the state.

Acting on his mandate McCain immediately took up ceding the New American south to HUNA. Soon after, the New-fangled American mid-West was ceded. Then most of the Contemporary United States’ Northeast was granted to HUNA except for New York which became a possession of Puerto Rico. By the end of McCain’s second term all that was left of the original United States was the New and Novel United States in the extreme Northeast. The Joint Chiefs recommended that a defensible border be established around the State of Main. The remainder was declared a “no-mans land.” The military maintained the border until the election of another Lib in the last election who immediately declared an open border.