If ever there was an incompetent, unqualified, ill-prepared, inexperienced and incompetent Cabinet member in the NObama administration, it would have to be Eric Holder. Well, on second thought, maybe he's second to Tim Geithner, but it's a close race.
If you haven't been following current events, the latest trick in Holder's bag of Stupid Human Tricks is the lawsuit the US Department of Justice has filed against the state of Utah over its new immigration enforcement law. For some reason, Holder seems to think that the Utah law, along with the laws recently passed by Arizona, Alabama, and South Carolina, violate the United States Constitution. He doesn't specifically say how, and after reading the laws themselves I can't figure out where he gets his ideas from.
Maybe he's getting them from the same group of morons who gave him advice on the "Fast and Furious" scam, I dunno.
In any event, Holder is now suing Utah and delaying yet another state's attempts to control crime within their borders. Yes, that's right, friends and neighbors, Utah is attempting to control crime, as are the other three states who have passed immigration laws. And before all of you bleeding-heart liberals out there start crying and whining and playing your sad song on your harps, here's how it works. I'll start from the bottom of the list and go up.
3) The number of illegals being incarcerated across the nation, specifically in the midwest states, is rising at an alarming rate. Why is that, you say? Well, it's like this: regardless of what other bleeding heart liberal organizations want you to believe, the population of our prison system is controlled not by the color of the criminal's skin, but by who commits the crime and gets convicted. It's a simple as that.
2) Crime in the states that have a high number of illegal immigrants is on the rise. Need proof? Just check out the stats provided by the states themselves, or if you're suspect of those stats because deep in your bleeding, liberal heart you just know that those states are "cooking the books" to justify their "illegal" laws, then check out the FBI stats and get ready for a shocker.
1) Entering this country without going through the proper procedures already set in place - in other words, entering this country ILLEGALLY is a CRIME in and of itself, which makes illegal immigrants CRIMINALS.
And since the NObama administration has done next to nothing to enforce the federal immigration laws already in effect, the states have chosen to exercise the rights guaranteed to them by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. All Holder and his band of merry idiots have done is try to find ways not to do their jobs; that, and come up with new laws that will make the immigration process "easier."
If it got any easier all it would take is the immigrant stepping foot across the border or stepping off the boat. If the process takes too long, don't pass a new law - fix what's broken and get the system working instead of wasting time and taxpayer's money by filing frivilous and unjustified lawsuits against the states trying to protect themselves.
The states of Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah have shown by their actions that they care more about the safety and security of their legal residents than they do about hurting the feelings of a bunch of criminals who want to do nothing more than come to our country, make money, send it home, and not pay taxes while sponging off of the local government's medical and educational facilities. (And if you think the last two aren't happening, you need to do some research, quick.) And before you liberals out there start playing the "they're just trying to find work and better themselves" song on your harps, let me tell you right now that I think that's crap. I'm all about finding work and bettering themselves, and if someone wants to come to this country for that purpose then I'm all for it. But do it LEGALLY so you don't take work away from LEGAL citizens, and most of all so you PAY TAXES like the rest of us to help pay for the services that you use. If you're not willing to do that, then just stay home because we neither want nor need your sorry ass here.
These states obviously care more about their citizens than the NObama administration does, and that is a sad state of affairs indeed. When NObama took office he swore an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," and so far he's failed miserably at his job. Eric Holder is simply following the leader and is but one of a long line of dancing buffoons that is the NObama administration.
There are several upcoming events that I am most assuredly looking forward to, those being the completion of the investigation into the "Fast and Furious" scheme (which will, I hope, result in Holder's losing his job), the reviewing of "NObamacare" by the Supreme Court (which will result in the law being overturned, I hope), and the Presidential elections of 2012.
And you all know how I hope that one turns out.
IHC
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
What Do Fish, Houseguests, and "Occupy" Protesters Have In Common?
They all start to smell after two days. And after two months, I'm sure most of the protesters are pretty ripe right about now.
The "Occupy Wall Street" protest that started two months ago and spread across the nation and the globe was a good idea at the time it all started, and it sent a very important message to all concerned. That message was received loud and clear: the American people were sick and tired of being taken advantage of by those who are infected with the disease of "Corporate Greed." But as any Union member who's ever walked a picket line will tell you, after a while the protesters stopped being taken seriously and started to become nothing more than a nuisance that people wished would just go away. Such is the case with the "Occupy" protesters world-wide, and here in this country it didn't help the protester's image any when it was discovered and reported that former ACORN leadership was behind the so-called "unorganized" protest to begin with. (That's a topic I could devote a whole posting to, but I'll save that for another time.)
So when things ran the logical course that they were destined to run and both the officials in the affected cities and the people in those cities started getting tired of the protesters, the public officials started moving them out. The protesters immediately cried, "You're violating our First Amendment rights!" which is, of course, bullshit.
So let's take a look at the First Amendment and see just why that defense is bullshit, shall we?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The areas of the amendment which the protesters are citing are the parts concerning freedom of speech and the right of the people "peaceably to assemble." Some will tell you it's also about petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances, but since no one submitted any kind of written petition or motion to any branch of any government in connection with the protests that I'm aware of, I'll throw the BS flag on that one.
So do the protesters have the right to stand out in public and display their displeasure in both words and signs? Absolutely. You can say whatever you want about the government, voice your displeasure and opinions as much as you want however you want, and as long as you're not libelous or defaming anyone with your words you may rest assured that you will NOT be arrested for voicing your displeasure with the government. After all, THAT is what this particular part of the First Amendment was aimed at, you know - the Colonists were tired of getting arrested by British soldiers for simply talking bad about the King, so they made this the first - and most important - of the Bill of Rights.
And in voicing their opinions and displeasure, do the protesters have the right to gather in groups and shout as one? Sure they do - as long as they do it PEACEABLY and do not break any laws doing it.
Having said all that, one cannot help but wonder why anyone with an ounce of common sense would say that the protester's rights under the First Amendment were being violated when the municipalities around the globe started kicking them out and arresting them. The First Amendment guarantees the protesters the right to assemble and speak their minds, but there are several things it does NOT give them the right to do, such as:
Camp out overnight in a city park where camping is prohibited by local ordinance.
Throw rocks, bottles, and plates at police.
Take a dump on police cars.
Take a dump on the American flag.
Use the bushes of said parks as toilets.
Break into and occupy empty buildings.
The protesters have done all of these, and are therefore in violation of local laws and do NOT fall under the protection of the First Amendment. Any first year law student will tell you that.
All of this aside, I think the thing that strikes me the most about the protests is this: where are these people finding the time to protest for two months? Oh, I see, you're unemployed - of course, that's why you have the time!
Hey, here's an idea for ya: instead of sitting on your ass protesting for two months, why not do it for a few days and then devote the rest of your time looking for a job?
Oh, I see, you're one of those mindless "Michael Moore followers" who think that they're entitled to what I worked my ass off to get without having to work for it yourself. You think you're entitled to get what you want for free, and that the government should just hand it over to you - after taking it away from me.
Well, I got some bad news for ya, skippy - it don't work that way, no matter what Michael Moore tells you. (And here's a shocker for ya - Michael Moore is one of those "1%" folks you've been bitching about for the past two months, although he doesn't want you to know that.)
So I suggest you stop waiting for the gravy train to stop at your front door, get off of your dead ass and go get a job - THEN you can legitimately complain about how bad the government is treating you.
In the mean time, you need to just STFU and go away.
IHC
The "Occupy Wall Street" protest that started two months ago and spread across the nation and the globe was a good idea at the time it all started, and it sent a very important message to all concerned. That message was received loud and clear: the American people were sick and tired of being taken advantage of by those who are infected with the disease of "Corporate Greed." But as any Union member who's ever walked a picket line will tell you, after a while the protesters stopped being taken seriously and started to become nothing more than a nuisance that people wished would just go away. Such is the case with the "Occupy" protesters world-wide, and here in this country it didn't help the protester's image any when it was discovered and reported that former ACORN leadership was behind the so-called "unorganized" protest to begin with. (That's a topic I could devote a whole posting to, but I'll save that for another time.)
So when things ran the logical course that they were destined to run and both the officials in the affected cities and the people in those cities started getting tired of the protesters, the public officials started moving them out. The protesters immediately cried, "You're violating our First Amendment rights!" which is, of course, bullshit.
So let's take a look at the First Amendment and see just why that defense is bullshit, shall we?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The areas of the amendment which the protesters are citing are the parts concerning freedom of speech and the right of the people "peaceably to assemble." Some will tell you it's also about petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances, but since no one submitted any kind of written petition or motion to any branch of any government in connection with the protests that I'm aware of, I'll throw the BS flag on that one.
So do the protesters have the right to stand out in public and display their displeasure in both words and signs? Absolutely. You can say whatever you want about the government, voice your displeasure and opinions as much as you want however you want, and as long as you're not libelous or defaming anyone with your words you may rest assured that you will NOT be arrested for voicing your displeasure with the government. After all, THAT is what this particular part of the First Amendment was aimed at, you know - the Colonists were tired of getting arrested by British soldiers for simply talking bad about the King, so they made this the first - and most important - of the Bill of Rights.
And in voicing their opinions and displeasure, do the protesters have the right to gather in groups and shout as one? Sure they do - as long as they do it PEACEABLY and do not break any laws doing it.
Having said all that, one cannot help but wonder why anyone with an ounce of common sense would say that the protester's rights under the First Amendment were being violated when the municipalities around the globe started kicking them out and arresting them. The First Amendment guarantees the protesters the right to assemble and speak their minds, but there are several things it does NOT give them the right to do, such as:
Camp out overnight in a city park where camping is prohibited by local ordinance.
Throw rocks, bottles, and plates at police.
Take a dump on police cars.
Take a dump on the American flag.
Use the bushes of said parks as toilets.
Break into and occupy empty buildings.
The protesters have done all of these, and are therefore in violation of local laws and do NOT fall under the protection of the First Amendment. Any first year law student will tell you that.
All of this aside, I think the thing that strikes me the most about the protests is this: where are these people finding the time to protest for two months? Oh, I see, you're unemployed - of course, that's why you have the time!
Hey, here's an idea for ya: instead of sitting on your ass protesting for two months, why not do it for a few days and then devote the rest of your time looking for a job?
Oh, I see, you're one of those mindless "Michael Moore followers" who think that they're entitled to what I worked my ass off to get without having to work for it yourself. You think you're entitled to get what you want for free, and that the government should just hand it over to you - after taking it away from me.
Well, I got some bad news for ya, skippy - it don't work that way, no matter what Michael Moore tells you. (And here's a shocker for ya - Michael Moore is one of those "1%" folks you've been bitching about for the past two months, although he doesn't want you to know that.)
So I suggest you stop waiting for the gravy train to stop at your front door, get off of your dead ass and go get a job - THEN you can legitimately complain about how bad the government is treating you.
In the mean time, you need to just STFU and go away.
IHC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)