Working for logical immigation reform based on a stable population, a recognition of the finite nature of our natural resources and the adverse impact of continued growth on our quality of life, standard of living, national interest, character, language, sovereignty and the rule of law. Pushing back and countering the disloyal elements in American society and the anti-American rhetoric of the leftwing illegal alien lobbies. In a debate, when your opponents turn to name calling, it's a good sign you've already won.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott Opposes Real Free Speech

The Freedoms That Make Us Great!
The Freedom of Speech

Vanity Fair columnist, author, and world-famous contrarian, Christopher Hitchens writes about the freedom of speech in the third of a four part series on our freedoms. His opinion is a simple one. “The right of others to free expression is part of my own. If someone’s voice is silenced, then I am deprived of the right to hear or read. Moreover, I have never met nor heard anybody I would trust with the job of deciding in advance what it might be permissible for me or anyone else to say or read or write. That freedom of expression consists of being able to tell people what they may not wish to hear, and that it must extend, above all, to those who think differently, is , to me, self-evident.”

This seems to suggest that however contrary to our own beliefs and however contrary to the good manners demanded by democracy and pluralism, there is much to be gained by not only allowing but promoting the presentation of alternate views and different opinions. We don’t learn very much from those who agree with us. That’s just preaching to the choir. We learn from open-minded and thoughtful consideration of different points of view even when they are expressed in ways contrary to good manners. This is a principle all bloggers should observe in the interests of freedom of speech and of broadening our understanding of difficult problems.

Monday, March 28, 2011

Obama on Immigration

The White House

March 24, 2011

Dear Ultima :

Thank you for writing me. I have heard from many Americans concerned about immigration, and I value your input as we work to address this pressing challenge.

We are all united under the principles etched onto our Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Our nation has always prospered from this generous and hopeful spirit. Yet, today, our immigration system is broken and a large portion of our economy depends on millions of workers living in the shadows. We are a Nation of laws and a Nation of immigrants, and we must reconcile these traditions.

For too long politicians in Washington have exploited this issue to divide us rather than searching for practical solutions that unite us. We must put politics aside and offer a comprehensive solution that secures our borders, enforces our laws, and reaffirms our rich tradition of welcoming immigrants.

There is a broad consensus around building a solution that stops the flow of undocumented workers across our borders and prevents employers from hiring undocumented workers. However, we know that enforcement is only part of the solution. We must also require undocumented immigrants who are already here to step out of the shadows and onto a responsible path to citizenship by demonstrating sound character, a commitment to America, and a strong work ethic.

To learn more about my policies on immigration, please join me on line at: For additional information, visit or call 1-800-375-5283. Again, thank you for writing.

Barack Obama

(The only things changed from the original letter are the seal, which was embossed on the stationary rather than printed in color, and the name and address of the addressee.)

March 28, 2011

President Barack Obama,

I am honored by your note of March 24, 2011 on the subject of immigration. Written in the late 1800s when immigration was nearing its peak and the U.S. population was only about 50 million, Emma Lazarus’s famous sonnet was an expression of her empathy for those who had fled the anti-Semitic Pogroms in Eastern Europe. The sonnet is a poignant reminder of our immigrant past but the operative word in that phrase is the word “past.”

Our population has now increased six-fold. No one should deny that conditions are different than they were in the late 1800s. There are many things in our past: child labor, prohibition, lack of women’s suffrage, Jim Crow laws, and segregation. Few thinking Americans want to go back to that “past” yet some of us continue to cling to the idea of “our immigrant past” without a second thought about its appropriateness as a model for the fully-settled and fully-developed America of today with more than 300 million people.

Our immigrant past of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries should not be our guide for the future. Times, society and the availability of natural resources have changed dramatically. There are several movements in the U.S. such as Zero Population Growth (ZPG) and Negative Population Growth (NPG) but they have failed to gain traction. It is as though we have convinced ourselves that population-driven economic growth can be sustained indefinitely. We seem to have ignored the fact that the “limit” of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero. (The more there are of us, the less there is for each of us.) We badly need a national objective of a stable population to be achieved as soon as possible. Why aren't these issues a part of the public dialogue on immigration?

Of course our nation has prospered from the generous and hopeful spirit expressed in the Lazarus sonnet but does anyone really believe that what was a good thing in the 1800s must necessarily also be a good thing today? We are indeed a Nation of laws and, although we once were, we should no longer be a Nation of immigrants. We can reconcile these two traditions by giving more substantial weight to all of the changes that have occurred in our country since the peak of immigration. Our traditions clearly need to be rebalanced to fit the vastly changed circumstances of our country. Again, why does no one speak about immigration reform in those terms rather than in terms of a broken system and the conditions that prevailed over a hundred years ago?

Although a ten year moratorium on immigration would be welcomed by many, few would suggest that we close immigration indefinitely. Instead we should limit the total immigration quota to 200-250 thousand per year including all chain immigration of spouses and minor children of citizens or permanent residents, but exclusive of foreign students, temporary migrant farm workers, tourists and others for whom there is a demonstrated need. We must focus that smaller quota on the skilled labor and scientists we need to remain competitive in the global marketplace. We should expedite citizenship for foreign students who are interested and who have completed the PhD degree in engineering, physical or biological science, mathematics, and medicine.

We need to level the playing field so that all skilled applicants have an equal opportunity instead of granting a special privilege to adult relatives of citizens or permanent residents. The new quota will reaffirm our rich tradition of welcoming immigrants who can benefit our country rather than those who would strain our budget and further stretch our finite natural resources. To do otherwise will certainly result in a decline in both our quality of life and standard of living.
Your letter states, “There is a broad consensus around building a solution that stops the flow of undocumented workers across our borders and prevents employers from hiring undocumented workers.” The problem is our unwillingness to take the steps necessary to bring that consensus to fruition. We cannot stop the flow of illegal aliens by granting those already here a pathway to citizenship. We cannot stop employers from hiring them unless we implement E-Verification across the board immediately. The best way to accomplish both objectives is vigorous and continuous internal enforcement based on mandatory E-verification across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, current and potential new hires.

Some say the repatriation of a significant number of illegal aliens is not feasible but, from a logistic point of view, they are dead wrong. Using a heavily damaged transportation system, eight million ethnic Germans were repatriated back to the heartland of Germany from the East in less than a year following the end of World War II. Many died because of a lack of food and warm clothing during the winter journey in 1945. They were given thirty minutes to appear at the railroad depot and allowed only one suitcase.

No one proposes such draconian measures for the illegals in this country. The advocates of the repatriation of large numbers of illegals favor a systematic, humane approach based on E-verification of work status and attrition through enforcement.

Over the past several years we have invested a great deal of resources into strengthening our borders by increasing staffing and improving infrastructure. We have yet to revise the rules of engagement so that there is no catch and release. Illegals apprehended at the border or internally must be sentenced immediately to at least six months working on border infrastructure. It is estimated that an illegal alien who persists in his or her attempt to get across the border has an ultimate probability of success of about 95%. Illegal aliens believe that if they can escape the immediate environs of the border and the clutches of the border patrol, they will be home free. This constitutes a strong argument for vigorous internal enforcement as a part of any immigration reform.

The East Germans found to their dismay that even mine fields, machine gun towers, multi-layered fences and walls did not deter those who wished to escape to the West. Why? Because they knew if they made it, they would never be repatriated? We need to take that lesson to heart.

The East German experience illustrates the need for the repatriation of a large enough number of illegal aliens to send the clear message that if you come here without proper authorization, we will apprehend you, sentence you to work on border infrastructure for at least six months, and then repatriate you to your homeland with the admonition that if you return you will do hard time as a repeat offender. This is the clear solution to border security. This approach has not been implemented to a sufficient degree to send a message to those who would violate our borders. This is the sine qua non of border security.

You wrote, “We must also require undocumented immigrants who are already here to step out of the shadows and onto a responsible path to citizenship by demonstrating sound character, a commitment to America, and a strong work ethic.” There is no consensus on this point. This is the area of fundamental disagreement. In looking for what you have called that “illusive middle ground” the beginning point always seems to be amnesty for those who are already here. That is not the middle ground --not even close. We tried that in 1986 and it failed for lack of enforcement. Now we must try a different approach. We can determine who, among the millions of illegals, are essential to our economy and who are not. That is the middle ground and that is where we should begin.

Recently, you have stressed the need for developing coalitions to deal with international problems like those posed by Libya. Applying the same logic to the matter of immigration we need to build a broad domestic consensus on how to proceed. That consensus will never be achieved as long as proposals include a blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens.

Thank you again for your willingness to share your thoughts with me.

Ultima (pseudonym)

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott Chortles Insanely

Dee Perez-Scott chortles because a “survey of Latino citizen voter indicates they hold widely negative views of the Republican Party. The results of the poll were not a surprise to anyone. Latinos have long been uninformed about their own long term self interest. Like other misguided Democrats, Latino citizen voters simply believe in “tax and spend” as a solution to everyone’s’ problems so that as many citizens as possible become dependent on government largesse rather than the products of their own labor.

Dee reports that “Republicans do not understand that the most important issues for Latino Voters are Jobs and the Economy; then Education; then Taxes & Government Spending.” That is one of stupidest statements I have ever read. “Jobs and the economy” have been at the top of the list of priorities for both parties throughout the last election. The question has always been how to achieve those priorities by more government spending or by putting our financial house in order before the world calls in our debt. This is one of the problems of surveys. If the depth of knowledge of the respondent is low or extremely low, the results are will be garbage. How can a survey of Latino citizen voters determine what Republicans think are the most important issues? Wouldn’t it make more sense to ask the Republicans? This survey is a joke.

Dee Perez-Scott cites from the survey several major concerns Latinos have about Republicans include:
a. Republicans favor the rich/wealthy. This is an old manufacture of the Democrat propaganda machine. Informed voters would notice that no proof is offered. If this is true, one would have to wonder why billionaires like Gates, Soros and Buffet are Democrats. The majority of Republicans are not rich or wealthy.
b. Republicans are selfish and are out for themselves. This is another common misconception. To begin with, everyone is out for themselves first. This applies especially to politicians.
c. Republicans have a negative immigration agenda and do not represent the average person. Republicans have a positive immigration agenda and clearly represent the majority of the American people. It is an agenda that will help America rather than add to its problems. Their immigration agenda is to enforce the law, secure the borders, reduce the number of legal and illegal immigrants to a level consistent with a stable population, and focus the quota on the highly skilled people America needs. Latinos obviously are ignorant or uninformed when it comes to these matters or they would see that the Republican Party is perfect fit for them.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott Flips her Lid.

In a note to Senator Lori Klein of Arizona, Dee Perez-Scott asks, “Do you really think because you read a racist letter it is valid and representative of the real situation? You use all the buzzwords and nonsense of the right, including mentioning Mexico’s immigration policy.”

Not so fast there Dee. I suppose you never use the “buzzwords” of the Left. Both sides use the language that best describe their views or positions. It is vital to understand compare the Mexican and American constitutions and laws regarding immigration. There is nothing “silly or stupid” about those comparisons or the resulting conclusions. Dee follows her personal anti-America party line and that exposes her extreme biases and ethnocentric position on just about everything. It’s unfortunate that she tends to think that all of this anti-Americanism will get her the attention of like- minded treasonous followers. Treason is a strong word but when a person persists in supporting illegal aliens instead of his or her fellow Americans and resists every attempt to control the borders and deport illegal aliens, there is only one word for it. Treason!
Dee said, “Last I checked the United States was not a third-world country, and comparing our laws to the laws of a nation where people are escaping due to corruption is silly and stupid.”
She may have the right words “silly and stupid” but they should be applied to her rather than to those who believe such comparisons are important and necessary to put the matter into perspective.
Some of those involved, like Dee, are closet-Reconquistas as indicated by their support of illegal aliens and, indirectly or directly, their support of the return of the Southwest to Mexico. Many illegal alien students may be of similar mind as evidenced by their insistence on special Hispanic history courses and clubs that specialize in America hating.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Rep. John Culbertson say 84% 0f Illegals are never Prosecuted.

Eight Out of Ten Illegal Aliens Apprehended in 2010 Never Prosecuted, Says Border Congressman
Washington ( – An illegal alien apprehended by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency during the year ending last September had an estimated 84 percent chance of never being prosecuted, according to figures compiled by the office of Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas). Culberson said that the 84 percent of illegal aliens who were not prosecuted in fiscal 2010 “had a chance of being home in time for dinner” after spending just a few hours in U.S. custody. Dee Perez-Scott applauds.

Shouldn't this be cause for impreachment of Obama? A gross failure to secure the borders. Isn't that what we hired him to do? Shouldn't we fire him now!

Friday, March 11, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott: Union Excesses give Unions a Bad Name

Here is a list of some of the nefarious demands of the public unions in Wisconsin. This what gives them a bad name.

union excesses

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

The silent killer of America’s economy

Written by Marita K Noon on March 08, 2011, 12:12 AM

Currently at least 18 states have legislation proposed or pending—44 bills—relating to the RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) (according to the American Legislative Exchange Council). Despite the various campaigns pulsating throughout the country, no one seems to know what an RPS really is. Fewer are aware of the potentially lethal impact the RPS could have on America.

The RPS—or Renewable Portfolio Standard is the silent killer of the American economy. “Silent” because its presence is nearly unknown. The nightly news is occupied with Middle East and Midwest unrest and the public is fascinated with the unintelligible rants of Muammar Gadhafi and Charlie Sheen. With little media or public attention, 29 states have enacted an RPS and 7 more have agreed to voluntary goals.

The RPS is a legislated mandate requiring a certain percentage of a state’s electricity “portfolio” come from renewable energy (typically referring to wind and solar) by predetermined dates. Most states’ standards are 15% by 2015, and 20% by 2020. Maine is the most aggressive with a goal of 40% by 2017. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama announced that he’d like to see 80% clean energy by 2035. Renewable energy is known to be more expensive for the consumer than electricity generated from traditional sources—even with subsidies of about $24 per magawatt hour (based on data from the Energy Information Administration). During a hearing for the New Mexico state-wide cap and trade program, the supporting attorney stated, “The reason for Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) is because renewables are more expensive. No one would choose them if it wasn’t required.”

Despite the high cost and intermittent availability, renewable energy is touted as the savior and environmental groups lobby legislators to push for mandates—or higher mandates when the states have already voted in the RPS. But, from what is renewable energy “saving” us?

The need for renewables is based on two lies. The first is that we “need” to get off of oil. Yes, we do need to get off of our dependence on oil from regimes that hate America, but we have plenty of oil here; there is no shortage. Access shortage, yes. Oil shortage, no. (Plus, electricity does not generally come from oil.) The second lie is that we must use “clean” energy—meaning that which does not produce CO2. This premise is based on the theory that CO2 causes global warming, global warming is human-caused, and stopping CO2 emissions will save the planet.

The RPS is not just a state issue. Based on these fallacies the federal government is also attempting to mandate more expensive energy. Senator Bingaman, Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has repeatedly advocated a national RPS of 15% called a Renewable Electricity Standard. (All of this, while support for climate change legislation and/or regulation is waning. Many states have bills that will reverse, reduce or modify their RPS. Promise of a potential RPS repeal was part of Ohio Governor Kasich’s successful campaign. New Hampshire should be the first state to pull out of their participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.)

Regardless of whether state or federal, a new study reveals that these mandated renewable energy requirements will deliver a “devastating blow” to the economy. The American Traditions Institute has analyzed the potential for a national standard at various percentages and the existing RPS from several states. Though the exact numbers differ, the results were the same. Energy prices will increase for both individual citizens and industry. Jobs will be lost and household expenses will climb.

At a time when cities and states are facing record budget shortfalls, the RPS will also inflate their costs. A “2010 Report Card on Renewable Portfolio Standards by State,” done by solar power advocates, reveals that the cents per kilowatt-hour are generally higher with states with an RPS—and this is before they meet goals as high as 40% renewable energy. Local governments pay for the lights, heating and cooling, elevators, and computers in government buildings. They pay to keep the streets lit. Leaving cities in the dark could cause crime to rise.

Energy use and America’s Economy go hand-in-hand—meaning any effort to reduce energy availability or increase costs serves to kill a recovery that is barely clinging to life.

Renewable energy is not wrong. There are many cases when wind or solar are the best option. But mandates that raise costs could add fatal pressure to the American economy. Renewable Portfolio Standards are the silent killer.

Marita Noon is the Executive Director at Energy Makes America Great Inc. the advocacy arm of the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy--working to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom and the American way of life. Find out more at Marita is also regular contributor to Conservative Action Alerts.

I agree that renewable energy is not wrong. However, my electric co op informed us members that wind energy credits have to be sold and noone is buying them. It would cost thousands of dollars for the Co-op to switch from coal plants to wind, solar or any other kind of energy. I have decided to cut back severly on my electric usage because I am not even going to be prepared to pay for it in the future. I may have to get some lamp oil soon!

Save energy, fire a Congress person.

In reply to Ginny....I wouldn't wait to start buying lamp oil...DO IT NOW before you find it hard to locate it. I have a huge stock of it already and boxes of candles and am planning to leard how to make candles. I have gone even farther..I bought a large drum similar to that at Convenience stores but half the size and buried it to store Gas in and was buying it when the prices were much lower and added a fuel stabilizer (WILL KEEP IT FROM GOING BAD FOR FIVE YEARS)you can buy in most WalMarts and Auto Parts stores. The same applies to having an alternate means of cooking your food. A dual burner camping stove works great. and stock up on the propane fuel it needs. If you haven't stocked up on food and water GET BUSY before the shelves are almost empty or the food prices hit the heavens. I have all that and Solar power and other NEW sources to produce the power I will need for my home. We all need to think outside the box and imagine what could go wrong at the worst and get busy to be prepared. ...OH...don't forget to have yourself well armed and have plenty of ammunition on hand. When thing really go bad people will lose it ...and many will try to even steal ones firewood or break into your home whether you are in it or not. ON the food...order it from the ready store over the Internet and get some MREs...there are places you can buy these as well. They contain the same nutrition that is packed into the military MREs only packaged different. GOOD LUCK!

Dee Perez-Scott Opposes Immigration Reform

Dee Perez-Scott opposes meaningful immigration reform and prefers to support illegal aliens.

Immigration in its many forms has become the main driver of America's population growth. Newly arriving immigrants of all categories -- legal, quasi-legal and illegal -- now add at least 1.1 million to yearly U.S. population growth of 3.3 million. Net new arrivals and births to immigrants together total 2.1 million, nearly two thirds of all current population growth, and presaging more future growth from their second and later generation descendants. The total foreign-born population reached 35 million in 2005.

Plain Talk and Tough Strategies for Immigration Curbs

There are three interacting streams in today's mass immigration: illegal immigrants, legal immigrants and "quasi-legal" (or fictional "temporary") immigrants. All bring in people for extended or permanent stays, adding them to the nation's resource-consumptive population base. The new entrants compete for jobs, particularly with less skilled residents. All streams are now largely ungoverned by any effective numerical limits or rational comprehensive management.

America needs the omplete elimination of illegal and quasi-legal immigration and reduction of current legal immigration by 80 percent.

Illegal Immigration: Raising the Costs and Risks

Illegal immigrants are those 500,000 to 600,000 aliens each year who sneak across America's borders, or use fraud to pass through our ports of entry, or acquire a temporary visitor visa and remain permanently.

Assuming an aroused public can inspire our sluggish government with a will to enforce, there are many promising ideas already circulating among restrictionist legislators, enforcement professionals, and reform-minded citizen groups.

Sustained, regular enforcement of existing rules and penalties would significantly curb illegal immigration. Effective and sustained internal enforcement based on E-verification of work status is the sine qua non of border security in depth. Continuing improvements in infrastructure, staffing and the rules of engagment at the border are essential but ineffective in the absence of total internal enforcement. Illegal aliens must understand that they will be identified, detained, and deported involuntarily. Immigration decisions need to be made within 24 hours of the aliens' apprehension. With a rigid set of guidelines, these decisions can be rendered by justices of the peace except for the most difficult poltical asylum cases. If you are here and do not have proper authorization and documentation, appeals of removal orders will be limited to one week from the date of the immigration decision. To accomplish this goal we need:

Mandatory imposition of fines and/or jail terms -- for illegal entry, illegal presence, document and visa fraud, and knowingly hiring illegal aliens -- would hasten the end of illegal immigration.

More physical and technical barriers to entry, with sufficient manpower to maintain and police them.

Better rules of engagement so lethal force can be used on gun and drug smugglers and sick persons and pregnant women are not admitted under any circumstances.

A streamlined process of deportation, which is now mired in interminable appeals.

Regular E-verification of legal immigration status during transactions with government, banking, health care and real estate sectors to detect illegal aliens and ensure their removal.

Sizable increases in the number of investigators, border patrol agents, federal attorneys, judges, immigration justices of the peace and more detention space and personnel to make these steps work. Payment of operators of detention facilities on the basis of detainee throughput rather than detainee days. Immigration justices of the peace embedded in all detention facilities.

Systematic enlistment of local and state law enforcement agencies to cooperate with the Federal government in identifying and turning over illegal aliens to the DHS (Department of Homeland Security)as suggested in Arizona's SB1070 law.

All these tougher measures would conform to prevailing public opinion, as demonstrated in the rush of congressional bills now seeking them (See House Bill HR 4437 passed in December 2005) and in opinion polls. In a 2003 poll , two-thirds or more of the respondents supported mandatory prison terms and fines for illegal immigration, detention of illegal aliens by state and local government, and strict application of fines or criminal penalties on employers who knowingly or unknowingly hire them. A documented failure of the E-vefication system is the only excuse that should be considered.

Legal and Quasi-Legal Immigration: An 80 Percent Reduction

Most of the official immigration numbers count annual grants of legal residency -- a little less than one million in 2004 -- rather than the real-world inflow of people.

And there are several million more in the pipeline for green cards and the accompanying right to bring in families. Naturalization of the alien opens the door without limits to his spouse, children and parents, and, within limits, to his adult children and his siblings. "Chain migration" powers both illegal and legal immigration. Therefore chain immigation must be eliminated. Adult relatives of citizens and permanent residents must compete on a level playing field with other applicants. Spouses and minor children of citizens and permanent residents must be counted against the over all quota.

To stop the chain migration snowball and immigrant-fed population growth, legal immigration should be cut to not more than 200,000 per year, a level supportive of eventual reduction of U.S. population. An 80 percent cut will mean eventually ending all family reunification.

The new ceiling of 200,000 admissions should be used to satisfy core U.S. national interests.

a) Humanitarian -- Up to 30,000 for permanent humanitarian admission of the most endangered refugees and asylees. All other humanitarian admissions would be for short terms only.
b) Work -- 110,000 for PhDs in physical science, engineering, math, or mediciemn, other skilled professionals, technicians, artists and entrepreneurs and their immediate families. There would be no admissions of semi-skilled or unskilled workers.
c) Special Needs -- Up to 10,000 slots to cover an array of special immigrant allocations, such as religious ministers, rare specialty workers, military recruits, and foreign employees of the U.S. government.
d) Existing so-called "temporary" visas for workers and professionals -- These now account for 220,000 "quasi-legal" immigrants a year. They should be abolished and skilled labor needs met under the 200,000 limit.
e) Transitioning Away from Family Reunification -- Family reunification should be phased out. Petitions of U.S. citizens for nuclear families approved before enactment would be honored. For five years thereafter 50,000 slots a year would be allotted for qualified spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens under strict eligibility rules. Afterward, the 50,000 numbers would be prorated among the three permanent categories.

Other steps to keep the numbers low are:

An absolute ban on amnesties and Mariel-type mass "emergency" admissions.

An end to citizenship by birth for "anchor babies" born here to illegal and temporary visa aliens, now seen as required by the 14th Amendment. Anchor babies born to illegal alien parents accounted for 380,000 births in 2004, nearly 40 percent of all births to immigrants. Bills regularly introduced in Congress would end automatic citizenship with a clarifying statute. If legislation fails, the constitution should be amended.

Friday, March 4, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott echos John Morton

John Morton who heads Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stated the obvious when he said “With regard to the border, there’s a difference between the border being sealed and the border being secure.” But he went off the trolley when he went on to say, “Crime is a part of life here in the United States and other countries. The beauty of our country is we have a very strong system of the rule of law.” No one thinks the U.S. or any other country is crime free but he doesn’t seem to realize that illegal aliens and their supporters, like Dee Perez-Scott, regularly denigrate the rule of law. If we had a strong system of the rule of law, ICE would not be focusing solely on drug and weapons trafficking but would be a strong advocate for vigorous and continuous internal enforcement based on E-verification to deny illegal aliens the opportunity for employment that brings them here. There may be more Border Patrol and ICE agents but they are not getting the job done because they are hamstrung by the rules of engagement and the policy directives from above.
Morton said, “The border is as secure as I’ve ever seen it in 20 years in law enforcement.” That’s almost laughable. If it was secure, we would not have 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country with more coming in every day. Our borders can never be secure until we identify, detain, and quickly and involuntarily repatriate illegal aliens with the admonition that if they return they will do hard time, two years for the first repeat offense, five for the next, and ten for the third. They say immigration courts are clogged with cases. There is a simple solution to that problem: issue a rigid set of criteria for immigration decisions, swear in justices of the peace to handle all but the most difficult political asylum cases, and require the immigration decision to be made within 24 hours with only a week for an appeal.
Some say there are too many illegal aliens to even consider such a major and costly effort. That is total nonsense. The aliens are better off now than they were when they came here so they and their employers can certainly pay their way back to their homelands. Eight million ethnic Germans were relocated back to the German heartland from the eastern territories in less than a year in 1945-6 using a transportation system heavily damaged during the war. What is lacking is the political will on the part of the Obama administration. To say that they believe in the rule of law is a joke as long as they leave millions of illegals roaming the streets in America.
One commenter said, “What planet did this moron (Morton) come from! "Read Texas Farmers Under Attack at the Border" miles and miles of open border with no fencing!
Another added, “My son was a member of Customs and then was with ICE when Homeland was formed. He can tell some horror stories about what was/is going on at the border. He is no longer with ICE.”
A third said, “I would like to see just how many times this guy has ever been to the border. He's too busy in Washington trying to do the Obama spin that he doesn't have a clue what is going on down here. I live in Texas and immigration is an issue. My daughters have had terrible times trying to get jobs and when they do the wages are horrible because of immigration. If you could see the emergency rooms at all the hospitals it looks like you’re in a third world country. The schools are even worse. No wonder America is broke.”
“Considering that we've had virtually ZERO border security for the past 20 years, it isn't really a consolation to know that we a tiny bit now.”

Dee Perez-Scott's Ten Poorest Cities

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit , MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY 29..9%
3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%
5. Miami , FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis , MO 26.8%
7. El Paso , TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%
10. Newark , NJ 24.2%

U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007
What do the top ten cities
(over 250,000) with the highest
Poverty rate all have in common?

Detroit , MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961.

Buffalo , NY (2nd) hasn't elected
A Republican mayor since 1954.

Cincinnati , OH (3rd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1984.

Cleveland , OH (4th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989.

Miami , FL (5th) has never had
A Republican mayor.

St. Louis , MO (6th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1949.

El Paso , TX (7th) has never had
A Republican mayor.

Milwaukee , WI (8th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908.

Philadelphia , PA (9th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1952.

Newark , NJ (10th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1907.

Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats
Yet they are still POOR!
"You cannot help the poor
By destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak
By weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity
By discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up
By pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man
By inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage
By taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently
By doing for them,
What they could and
Should do for themselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott’s Blog shows repeatedly how deeply ingrained incivility is on the left

The anti-taxpayer demonstrators in Madison, Wisconsin, and elsewhere across this broad land, once again showed the left at its well-mannered, thoughtful and fair-minded best.

Budget-balancing Governor Scott Walker is regularly compared to Hitler. For the left, economy measures invariably end in an iron dictatorship, war and genocide. Such nonsense violated all of the tenets of civility.

Bob Fitrakis, a poly-sci professor the University of Wisconsin, whose student-robots are demonstrating with members of SEIU and AFSCME, warned that the dispute about pension and health insurance contributions and collective bargaining is “ultimately about preventing the United States from becoming a full-on fascist state” and "saving the last shreds of American democracy.” He should be ashamed of himself.

If Fitrakis wants to see facism in action, he should try holding a pro-Tea Party sign at one of the labor rallies in support of Wisconsin public employees. He would be well advised to wear a combat helmet and Kevlar vest and take a bodyguard with him.

If you want to understand how deeply ingrained incivility is on the left, consider the college campus.

There is no place in America that liberals dominate more completely than academia. If today’s liberalism had anything to do with civility, the campus would be a place of tolerance, diversity of opinion and polite debate.

Instead, American higher education is characterized by intimidation, forced uniformity of opinion and brutish behavior. Out of cowardice or complicity, on many campuses, administrators have given the most obnoxious students a de facto veto on which views may be expressed.

The list of conservative speakers who’ve been shouted down or had their speeches disrupted is longer than Lindsay Lohan’s rap sheet. Among the victims are David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, Daniel Pipes, Star Parker, former Congressman Tom Tancredo, John Yoo (a member of the Bush Justice Department), the late Jeane Kirkpatrick and yours truly.

At Columbia, which resembles the Place de la Guillotine during the Reign of Terror, when it comes to dissent, a student who’s a decorated Iraq War veteran (who was shot 11 times in the line of duty and spent two years undergoing rehabilitation for his wounds) was heckled and called a “racist” by fellow students for defending U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

Occasionally, the savages suffer the consequences of their assault on free speech. It was just announced that 11 members of the Muslim Student Union will face criminal charges for shutting down a speech by Israel’s Ambassador Michael Oren at the University of California at Irvine last year.

Orange County Asst. District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, warns: “We must decide whether we are a country of law or a country of anarchy. … in our democratic society, we cannot tolerate a deliberate, organized, repetitive and collective effort to significantly disrupt a speaker who hundreds have assembled to hear.”

Most of the liberals who run our colleges and universities don’t agree. Civility for them, but not for us. That is consistent with Dee Perez-Scott’s point of view.

Definitions of "civility" usually include “civil,” “polite (not rude),” “courtesy,” “good manners” and “the act of showing regard for others.” The left views these habits of the heart as mindless conformity and artificial social constructs designed to stifle individuality.

Civility doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s founded on concepts like religion (which teaches the worth of every human being and that we are all answerable to a higher authority), etiquette and democracy (which stresses the rights of all). There was a time, fading from memory, when the watchword of liberalism was: “I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Now, it’s, “Agree with us, or die.”

The old virtues were in vogue when I was growing up in the ‘50s, but now are almost entirely abandoned by liberals. The latter started to swing away from civility during the anti-war movement of the ‘60s. This accelerated with the rise of radical feminism, gay militancy, multiculturalism, misanthropic environmentalism and the other angry movements of the left.

Yet, they still complain about our lack of civility, while kicking us in the groin. Dee Perez-Scott is a master of this with her demonizing of the Republican Party, the Tea Party and anyone who disagrees with her liberal agenda.

A marvelous statement on civility is contained in the movie “Blast from the Past.” In it, Brendan Fraser plays Adam, a 35-year-old man raised in a fallout shelter by his eccentric but loving parents. He emerges into the world of 1990s Los Angeles with 1950s values.

He falls in love with Alicia Silverstone’s character (Eve) and she with him. In the movie’s best dialogue, Eve’s brother discloses that Adam told him, “Good manners (civility) are just a way of showing other people we have respect for them.” Also, “His short and simple definition of a lady or a gentleman is someone who always tries to make sure the people around him or her are as comfortable as possible.”

If this sounds like today’s liberalism to you, then you must have spent the past 50 years in a fallout shelter yourself.

It’s not just the slander and intimidation that’s going on in Wisconsin – the signs comparing Gov. Walker to Der Fuhrer, the Tweets calling for his assassination – but the fact that liberal leaders either refuse to condemn such extremism, or egg on the mob. Dee Perez=Scott always presents her side of an issue or her view of current events without a word about the merit of opposing views.

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka ignored repeated calls to condemn, or at least disassociate himself from, the more violent rhetoric of striking public employees. He could just as well have been Dee Perez-Scott who always writes outrageous and demeaning diatribes on her blog and never disassociates herself from the extremists she allows to post.

Speaking at a labor rally in Boston, in support of the Madison strikers, Massachusetts Congressman Mike Capuano urged the assembled goons to “get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.” Not that they needed much encouragement, but the hard hats preceded to rough-up and terrorize counter-demonstrators. Dee’s rhetoric also incites violence directly or indirectly.

Capuano later issued a pro-forma apology for his “choice of words,” which is also SOP for the left. “You’re racist/fascist scum in league with the Devil, who deserves to die. Oops, sorry about my poor choice of words. Now, can we please discuss how talk radio has debased the political debate?”

Adapted from an article by Don Feder, former Boston Herald Writer

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott Smears Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and the Republican Party – Again!

We have previously commented on the excesses of some unions that have caused several states to be on the brink of insolvency. One of the biggest drains on state budgets in addition to the sweetheart contracts with public sector workers is Medicaid. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, like other governors faced with major budget deficits, is following their lead by proposing to drop Medicaid coverage for 250,000 people who have middle class incomes. Dee Perez-Scott claims that Brewer has extended tax cuts to “Rich Big Business” but she neither provides any details about those tax cuts nor bothers to mention their legitimate purpose of stimulating the local economy to create jobs. As I mentioned in a previous blog, it will be interesting to see what Dee has to say when Obama does the same thing, granting tax breaks to businesses so they can create more jobs. She will, of course, see that as a horse of a different color. She has never been able to see any point of view except her own. That is a serious and debilitating shortcoming.
Had the Administration backed SB1070 instead of opposing it, perhaps the attrition of illegals would have achieved the same level of Medicaid reductions the Governor proposes. So who is really at fault here? I suspect those like Dee Perez-Scott who are in favor of every form of welfare, like most bleeding-heart liberals, and who support the illegal aliens in our country who drain off countless millions from programs like Medicaid. She sees nothing wrong with a productivity- robbing, cradle to the grave welfare state. Some of us have to be more sensible and reflect on what made our country great: industriousness, personal responsibility, and self-reliance. Dee would drain the states’ treasuries and then lay on more taxes in the tax-and-spend mode typical of the democrats. Others have to deal with the real world and begin to cut back on the things that were never part of our beginnings as a nation.
Dee Perez-Scott, of course, never indicates how much more she would be willing to pay to in taxes to fund Medicaid for the medically indigent and the illegal aliens who pop into Parkland Hospital in Dallas in large numbers to drop their instant citizen babies at taxpayer expense. Since Dee Perez-Scott doesn't understand the Republican agenda, I have repeated it here:

The Republican Agenda is:
. Reduce spending to save our country from financial ruin.
. Rein in the Unions that have brought states to the brink of bankruptcy.
. Restore the concept of personal responsibility to everyone.
.Enable businesses to create new jobs by reducing their taxes and making them more competitive.
. Combat the creeping socialism of President Obama and defeat his Alinskyite blueprint for America