Big Dogs Weblog

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

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

Fences Make Good Neighbors

Oct 8, 2007 Immigration

The United States has been playing with the idea of putting a fence up on its southern border to keep the ILLEGALS from walking across unabated. I say playing because this has not been taken very seriously by our elected leaders who would prefer to build a superhighway across the border and grant amnesty to all who can sneak in. This is important work for our leaders who must ensure that their family’s businesses are appropriately staffed with ILLEGALS doing the work Americans will not do. Without all the ILLEGALS, who will keep the landscape of their million dollar homes looking nice?

The President of Mexico is also opposed to a fence between the countries. Felipe Calderon believes that we should be building bridges, not fences and has voiced his concerns to President Bush who seems hell bent on doing whatever Mexico wants. Felipe Calderon was very appreciative of Bush’s efforts to pass an amnesty bill (they call it immigration reform) and he thinks it is important to allow his people to work here. He wants us to be friends.

I am all for being friends with Mexico. So let us explore this a bit further. Would you want friends who sneak into your house and take things to which they are not entitled? How many of you have friends who break into your home, eat your food, force you to pay for their health care, and make you pay them money because they are poor? If you have friends like this, you do not need enemies. Under Calderon’s logic, we should consider robbers who break into our houses as our friends.

If Mexico wants to be friends they can start by keeping their people home. They can also show good will by teaching their people how to come here legally rather than showing them ways to get here in violation of the law. Mexico can then send the US billions of dollars to pay for the services its people are using. He could also send crews to the border to clean up the terrible mess made by his citizens as they shed their waste in route to our country. We need a fence to keep the Mexicans honest about their efforts to be good neighbors.

I imagine that if two people lived next to each other and one of them had a dog that kept relieving itself in the other neighbor’s yard, there would be problems. If one neighbor erects a fence, the dog stays where it belongs and there are no hard feelings. This is because fences make good neighbors.

Calderon indicated that he has a problem with all the Mexicans coming to the US because they lose their hardest workers. If this is truly the case then the fence will also solve his problems and allay his concerns.

In any event, it is not his business nor is it his concern. If Mexico had any regard for the law a fence would not be necessary but since they do not we need a fence to keep the dogs from relieving themselves in our yard.

Source:
Yahoo News

Tags: border fence, Immigration, Mexico

Texas Girl’s Death 100% Preventable

Sep 28, 2007 Immigration

Melanie Goodwin was found early Tuesday morning, she had been beaten and her body set on fire. Police are looking for a man named Ernesto Reyes, the last person she was seen with before her body was discovered. The written story does not indicate it but Fox TV reported Reyes is an ILLEGAL who has a criminal record. Since he has a criminal record the government was aware of him and since he is an ILLEGAL, this death was 100% preventable.

The police will, no doubt, eventually locate Reyes and if he is found guilty he will probably get the death penalty since Texas is a state with no problem using that form of punishment. If Reyes is the one who did this there is no doubt that he should receive the toughest penalty possible and the death penalty is the way to go. However, if he is in fact ILLEGAL then the federal government is complicit in the death of Goodwin.

The government allows ILLEGALS in here and does little to stop the tide of people who cross our borders in violation of the law, a law that our elected officials took an oath to uphold. Unfortunately, many of those politicians, from both parties, work against efforts to enforce the law and pander to the law breakers.

American citizens expect their government to protect them. The willful disregard for the law by those elected to uphold it makes our country less safe and leaves us open to these kinds of horrific crimes. Ms. Goodwin’s family should sue the government for the wrongful death of this young lady.

If this were my daughter or wife Reyes might just get 7.62mm punishment.

UPDATE: The Florida Masochist commented that Reyes is here legally, according to a news report. He has a criminal record but did not meet the requirement to be deported. If that requirement included his crimes or if he had been jailed instead of released, she would be alive. This was still 100% preventable.

Tags: illegals, Immigration, justice, murder

Citizenship Exam Stresses Principles

Sep 28, 2007 Immigration

The government has tested a new citizenship exam and that exam will be an option up until October of next year when it will become the only exam. The test has open ended questions and requires more than rote memorization. There is also word it will stress principles of our government. The first one I would like to see addressed is the principle of law. Perhaps there should be questions about the ethics of sneaking into a country and then demanding amnesty and a green card. Perhaps we should be asking about the idea of people being rewarded for crime rather than following the law.

I think these ideas are better than part of the test that asks about US rivers (the new test does). The only thing that most know about a river is that they have to cross one to get into this country. Now I have no problem with the test so long as it is given to people who have earned the privilege of taking it. It should not be a guarantee, it should not come as part of an amnesty package and it should not be given to those who lack the ethical and moral character to be here. This means no law breakers, no ILLEGALS, and no amnesty.

For those who did it the right way and will take the test, I commend you. Don’t forget what you have learned. You worked hard to get where you are and we welcome you. Those who do not belong here can explore the river while heading in the other direction.

Sometimes unrelated trackbacks to: Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, AZAMATTEROFACT, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Tags: citizenship, illegals, Immigration, Link Fest, rivers, test