O’Hare Invaded by ILLEGALS
Nov 8, 2007 Immigration
Nearly two dozen people have been arrested and charged with crimes in an operation that involved ILLEGALS working at O’Hare airport. The ILLEGALS had security badges and were able to gain access to many areas of the airport. I am sure there are those who will say that these poor people meant no harm and were only looking for work. That might be true but they once again broke the law and this time the national security implications are even worse than their violation of our borders.
It is one thing to be able to sneak across hundreds of miles of unattended borders but to sneak into an airport that is supposed to have a high level of security raises a lot of concerns about just how secure we are. Perhaps these people meant no harm but if they did they would have had virtually unfettered access to anything they wanted to destroy and they could have put thousands of lives at risk. Fortunately, they were arrested as were their employers who developed the scheme that used phony Social Security numbers and ID badges. I hope the employers get a very long jail sentence.
I realize that we need to hold employers accountable and in this case, they are. I have often written that huge fines against employers who hire ILLEGALS would solve a lot of the problems (and increased pressure is working in some states). However, in this case the employers, or at least one of them, is suspected of being here ILLEGALLY. Since people who come here ILLEGALLY have no respect for the law it is not a stretch to say that ILLEGAL employers will have the same disregard as is clearly demonstrated in this case.
We need immigration reform and we can have it immediately by enforcing the immigration laws we have. We can make it a felony to be here ILLEGALLY (it is a felony when one is caught crossing the border ILLEGALLY but not when they are caught being here ILLEGALLY). We can also ensure that the United States Code that makes it every law enforcement agency’s job to enforce immigration law is followed. Police in all states need to be given the power to arrest and detain on the suspicion of being an ILLEGAL immigrant (in accordance with established code).
There are many other things that can be done but that would take politicians from their important jobs of running for office, seeking donations, and ruining the country.
Source:
My Way News
Tags: illegals, Immigration, immigration laws, immigration reform, national security implications, o hare airport, security badges, social security numbers, united states code
Follow the Bouncing Hillary Ball
Nov 7, 2007 Immigration, Political
Hillary Rodham is still having trouble with the issue of driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS. It has been over a week since she answered the question about it several different ways and twenty-four hours after her waffle she came out in support of giving ILLEGALS licenses. It would appear, despite her claims of being clear on the issues, that she has not been clear on this one. In her latest nuance, Rodham says that issuing licenses to ILLEGALS should depend on the state. She stated that in a state like New York there is a huge security problem and a lot of ILLEGALS but that in other states it might not be a big deal. I guess the idea that it is wrong to reward ILLEGAL activity at all has never crossed her mind.
I know I have indicated that Rodham is a poll driven candidate but it would appear as if she is on the other side of public opinion on this one. About 77% of Americans surveyed [Washington Times] do not favor allowing ILLEGALS to get a driver’s license and yet, depending on when you talk to her, Rodham is for it, against it, for it and against it, or believes it is up to individual states [Breitbart]. Perhaps she is in favor of it because people often register to vote at the same time they get a license (motor voter) and if they do not have to prove they are legal when getting the license they do not have to prove they are eligible to vote. Obviously, it helps Democratic candidates to have a huge number of ILLEGAL voters on the books and Rodham is probably pandering to that large contingency. A huge Hispanic vote cannot hurt her in the election.
Obtaining a driver’s license is a privilege, not a right (though ILLEGALS have few rights under our Constitution) and bestowing a privilege on people who do not deserve it is wrong and counter productive. If the government of any state rewards bad behavior then the result is more bad behavior. By allowing ILLEGALS to get licenses we are telling them that what they did is perfectly OK and that they can continue to break the law. There is a lot of public outrage when ILLEGALS break the law and commit some terrible crime but what should we expect? We do not punish them for their initial bad behavior so they continue to exhibit bad behavior.
This is not to say that there are not millions of hard working, good people in this country who happen to be here ILLEGALLY but the fact is, even the good ones broke the law to get here. Hillary Rodham is fond of blaming this on Bush and saying that this country does not have an immigration policy. She is wrong on both counts. First of all, Ted Kennedy gave us both of the huge amnesties of the past and he promised after the last one that it would never be necessary again because the Congress would fix the problems. Here we are 23 years later and we still have the mess but we have millions more ILLEGALS. Kennedy and the Congress dropped the ball long before George Bush became president. Additionally, Bush tried to give a huge amnesty package that was defeated by the Republicans (and some Democrats) in Congress after the public outcry.
As for the idea that this country does not have an immigration policy, this is plain hogwash. We have plenty of laws concerning entering this country and we have rules that are supposed to be followed. The problem is not that we do not have a policy, the problem is that this country fails to enforce it. Instead of securing the border and stopping the flow of ILLEGALS, our government jails the border patrol agents who are trying to enforce the law while people continue to walk in unabated.
The United States Congress needs to get its head out of its rear end and start enforcing the laws we have and we need to start deporting ILLEGALS we catch. We need to jail those who break the law and we need to hold judges and elected officials responsible for failures in the system. Unfortunately, this issue will not receive the proper attention until an ILLEGAL rapes or murders a politician’s or judge’s wife or daughter or until one of their family members (or the entire family) is wiped out by an ILLEGAL driving a vehicle with or without the license Hillary wants them to have.
As for Rodham, she has bounced this ball back and forth for more than a week and is still unclear as to her position. I imagine it will change a few more times before the primary and she will take a more firm stance against it, should she make it to the general election. Hillary fails to understand that ILLEGAL behavior is wrong and that people should not be rewarded for it.
But, that should not surprise us. She and hubby Bill have been involved in a lot of illegal activity. Their people have also been involved in illegal activity for the benefit of the Clintons. Those people are rewarded for what they do, no matter how wrong it is.
Sandy Berger, anyone [The Hillary Project].
Tags: Congress, Democrats, Hillary, illegal activity, illegals, Immigration, public opinion, security problem, waffle
Let’s Hear it for the Girl, uh, Candidate
Nov 5, 2007 Political
As has been posted, Hillary Rodham was terrible in the last debate and she managed to take several positions on the same issue over a span of two minutes. She has finally come out in favor of allowing ILLEGALS to have driver’s licenses. It took her about twelve hours to formulate an opinion which means she had to see how her position played with various groups and then select the one that would do the least amount of harm. Hillary left the debate acting like a victim and her campaign talked about all the boys ganging up on the girl. This has gotten the attention of one feminist [Kate Michelman] who is aligned with John Edwards:
“When unchallenged, in a comfortable, controlled situation, Sen. Clinton embraces her political elevation into the ‘boys club,’ ” Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, wrote in a posting on a blog of the liberal group Open Left.
“But when she’s challenged, when legitimate questions are asked, questions she should be prepared to answer and discuss, she is just as quick to raise the white flag and look for a change in the rules,” Michelman said. “It’s trying to have it both ways.” LA Times
Interestingly, as soon as Hillary and her campaign became painfully aware that the picking on a woman card was not playing well, they changed positions and said that she was being attacked because she is the front runner. That should have been the position all along but they made it about her sex and probably thought that would play considering their past success with such a ploy. however, when B. Hussein Obama said that he never complained that he was being picked on because he was black it took the wind out of Clinton’s sails.
Hillary, of course, is really trying to play it both ways. She is trying to appear as a strong woman, able to mix it up with the guys, but using the victim status to appeal to women. She recently said she felt comfortable in the kitchen (as opposed to not wanting to stay home and bake cookies) and now she is telling folks to bring their mops, vacuum cleaners, and brushes [ABC] because the woman will have to clean up the mess left by President Bush. Any mess they find will not equal the stains that her hubby left behind when he was in the White House. Now that, was a mess that needed cleaning.
In any event, here she is playing to the women as if only a woman can clean up the mess but also subliminally saying that cleaning up after men is a woman’s task. This is the way she quietly plays both sides of the issue and it is what Michelman is, in part, talking about. Hillary wants to be one of the guys but she wants to appeal to the June Cleaver’s of the world as in little Hillary Homemaker. Hillary could not keep her own house clean when she was in there the first time so what makes her qualified to clean it up now? If she gets back in there and Bill has unfettered access to interns all the mops in the world will not help.
Clinton stumbled in the last debate because she was unable to answer a question that she should certainly have had an answer to. If she could not answer it, it would have been wiser to say she had not looked at it and did not want to comment. When she waffled around and took several positions, she looked anything but presidential.
Hillary has terrible ideas for this country. They are ideas based on government doing everything for people at the expense of those who earn the money in this country. She is a socialist and wants socialism for us but she cannot say that. She must appear as if she is mainstream America.
That is, until she wins. Then she can do what she wants and we will be powerless to stop her. It is all about winning and the power. Once she has that, our country will never be the same.
Others discussing similar items:
Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Midnight Sun, , A Blog For All, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Phastidio.net, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Nuke’s, DragonLady’s World, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Stageleft, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: , front runner, Hillary, illegals, John Edwards, kate michelman, liberal group, Obama, socialism, strong woman, victim status
Hillary’s Defenders; Stop Picking on the Girl!
Nov 1, 2007 Political
As much as Hillary Rodham wants us to believe that her sex has nothing to do with her candidacy her actions and words convey a different message. A candidate should be judged on qualifications and not on whether he, or in this case she, will be the first of something to hold the office. I will be the first woman, Jew, black, or whatever is not a valid reason and it is not a qualification to hold the office.
Hillary wants us to believe that she is qualified and her sex is not important to the process but then she cannot help but invoke the “I will be the first woman president” into her speeches. She has told, time and again, the story about some elderly woman claiming to wait her whole life to see a woman president and Hillary will make that dream come true. This is not ignoring her sex as a qualification.
Her campaign staff or apologizers, as I call them, have already used the “picking on a girl” mantra after Hillary’s reported poor showing in the last debate. Hillary was unable to clearly answer several of the questions and waffled on the questions and took two different positions during the same debate. Hillary was unable to express her true feelings about the insane plan in New York to issue driver’s licenses to ILLEGALS. My opinion is that Hillary did not have the opportunity to take a poll to decide which way to come down on the issue so she tried to leave an opening. Of course, the very next day she came out in support of the plan which means someone told her to support it to get the immigrant vote. This has to be the reason because most New Yorkers oppose giving licenses to ILLEGALS at all. It is possible that Hillary was trying to decide if she should answer it in a way that would appeal to general voters possibly feeling she has the primary nomination locked up. In any event, she did not exercise leadership.
Her rivals have been attacking her more ferociously lately because she is the front runner and she showed at the last debate that she has trouble when she has to defend herself and when she has to think for herself. Hillary though, has a mop up team that goes into action when the Hildebeast needs to be protected or when she needs to be explained (which usually means she made a mistake and they clarify her position so that it appeals to the group that will give the most votes).
Hillary picked up a major union endorsement and the guy announcing it gave her boxing gloves and said six guys against one girl, that was fair, she is one tough lady. This is, once again, invoking the pity party for the “girl.” Six guys did not attack one girl. Six other candidates attacked the leading candidate. However, the Clinton backers had to try and downplay Hillary’s poor performance by redirecting the focus to the issue of sex. How would it play out if Obama were the front runner and the candidates had attacked him and the statement made was “six whiteys against a black man. That is a fair fight, he is one tough brother.” I imagine that would not go over well in certain circles. The issue of sex should be just as offensive and as much of a non issue.
Hillary Rodham is running for the presidency and her sex is not an issue in the race. If she is not tough enough to handle the attacks then she does not belong in the race. If the attacks rattled her so much that she performed poorly (in addition to her not knowing what focus group to support) then this is information we need to make a judgment about her ability to handle the job. How will she act if she is attacked by a bunch of thugs at the UN? Will her people claim that the bullies picked on a girl?
All I can say is that over the last seven years George Bush has been attacked much more severely than Hillary was during the debate or has been since she announced her candidacy. The left in this country suffers from Bush derangement syndrome and they attack all things Bush. He has been called vile names, people have wished death upon him, and Hugo Chavez called him Satan and some people in this country agreed. No one came out and said that he was being picked on because he was a poor Christian or some other lame excuse.
Bush never seems rattled by the name calling and he ignores the people who engage in such behavior. Hillary can criticize him all she wants but he has much tougher skin than she does. She might want to be one of the guys but it is tough if she is going to cry like a girl when things get tough. Make no mistake, her people are saying the words for her so she is the one crying.
Related items:
The Hill
Washington Post
More at GM’s Corner
Tags: campaign staff, candidacy, front runner, hillary rodham, illegals, jew, new yorkers, Obama, woman president
Ghost Whispers; MA Dems Speak for the Dead
Oct 12, 2007 Uncategorized
There is an election next Tuesday to fill a vacant US Congressional seat in the state of Massachusetts and the Democrats have sunk to a new low, if you can believe they could get lower, by invoking the name of the Republican candidate’s dead brother. Here are the players in this story:
- Jim Ogonowski – Republican candidate for the vacant seat
- Niki Tsongas – Democratic candidate for the vacant seat
- John Ogonowski – Deceased brother of Republican candidate. John was a pilot of an airplane that was hijacked on 9/11 and he was killed when the terrorists who hijacked it, crashed it.
- Peg Ogonowski – Spouse of deceased pilot John
- Chester G. Atkins – Former Congressman who held the contended seat until he was defeated in 1992. Now has a public affairs firm
Jim is running for an open seat in Congress and he is very much against ILLEGAL immigration. He does not believe that ILLEGALS should receive amnesty and he believes that immigrants should have to learn English. His opponent, Niki, has a very opposite view on ILLEGAL immigration, much closer to the Ted Kennedy school which is why we have had two amnesties and now have millions of ILLEGALS here. Interestingly, immigration was the issue that cost Atkins the seat, oh so long ago. Atkins was an advocate for Cambodians coming here and settling in the Merrimack Valley district. John had no problem with the Cambodians because they came here LEGALLY. He allowed them to farm a portion of his property to grow specialty crops, stuff used in the Asian community. Atkins lost because of his support of the Cambodians.
Fast forward to today and Atkins, who supports Niki, is saying that Jim’s dead brother John would side with Tsongas on the immigration issue and that he had a better understanding than Jim does. Jim states that this is ridiculous because the Cambodians came here legally and the immigrants that Jim is against are all the ILLEGAL ones. Like many Americans, Jim does not like the way ILLEGALS come here, use services, get Social Security, take jobs, crowd emergency rooms and speak their native language and expect us to do the same. Jim does not agree with ILLEGAL immigration.
I cannot imagine that the people of this area of Massachusetts would vote for Tsongas and support allowing ILLEGALS free reign. These folks put Atkins out of office for supporting LEGAL immigrants so I find it very hard to imagine that they would support someone who is siding with the ILLEGAL ones. I know this is Massachusetts but even as liberal as they are, they have to be able to see the difference and which candidate supports our laws and which one does not. The problem is that the Liberals always neglect to discuss the ILLEGAL part. They always say that we are against immigrants (just before they call us racists) when none of us are against immigration, we are against ILLEGAL law breakers who sneak in like thieves.
Back to John and Atkins’ claim that John would have supported the ILLEGALS and was better than Jim, who Atkins calls a racist for his views. Just to clear it up, Mexican is not a race, it is a nationality. It is an old trick from the left’s play book to call the race card. No matter what the issue, they will find a way to call a Republican a racist regardless of the circumstances. Let me make this clear for Atkins and any other idiot who was educated in the public school system, Expecting people to obey the law, expecting the government to enforce the law, and refusing to reward those who break the law are not racist acts. If a black man robs a bank and his white neighbor saw it and calls the police and a white cop arrests him, the white guys are not racists. They simply respected the rule of law, something the left finds increasingly difficult. However, invoking the name of a dead man who cannot attest to the veracity of the claims made by Atkins is just wrong. It is also plain wrong to bring up his name and put the family through this.
To her credit, Peg called this politics at its worst and she was right. The Democrats in this situation chose to use a hero from 9/11 to score points with voters. If this is not bad enough, the dead hero is the Republican candidate’s brother. They are trying to convince voters that even Jim’s brother would be on their side. As Jim points out, it is ridiculous. He states that it is ridiculous for the Atkins to make like he would know John better than his family and, as Jim indicates, he would not likely support ILLEGALS especially since many of the 9/11 hijackers were here ILLEGALLY. Peg and Jim both question whether Atkins actually knew John. Neither remember him ever mentioning Atkins and since John is dead it would not be beyond a Democrat to do pretend he knew him just to score political points.
I hope the voters of Massachusetts will see through all of this and will elect Jim Ogonowski and his tough stance on ILLEGAL immigration. I hope that they will not only reject Tsongas for the support of ILLEGALS but also for the lowness to which the Democrats have sunk in this race.
One last thing. Ever notice how when President Bush mentions 9/11 the left goes nuts. They claim he is using scare tactics and is using 9/11 to stir emotions. They tell us that it happened 6 years ago and we need to move on, let it go, blah, blah. Interesting how they will invoke the memory of someone killed on 9/11 if they think it will further their quest for power.
I also think it is worth noting that it is possible that John would support the Democrats. It would not be the first time in history that dead people supported Democrats though usually they show their support by voting for them on election day…
If you live in the 5th District in Massachusetts and you want to honor the memory of John, vote for his brother Jim next Tuesday.
This story is from the AP.
Others:
Blogs for Bush
Tags: 9/11, Democrats, election, illegals, Immigration, Massachusetts, Political Commentary