Blogcritics Author: Big Dog

Is Giuliani a One Trick Pony?

Big Dog — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:17:14 EDT

One of the big items on the Giuliani check list is his stance on the Second Amendment. Rudy has had a transformation with regard to this very important piece of our Constitution.
Rudy Giuliani has a huge following across the country as he works to gain the Republican nomination for the presidency of the United States. Giuliani is running as a Republican and touts his "conservative" views but his major claim for qualification is how he handled the events of 9/11. He uses the events of 9/11 as his credentials to lead...

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Maryland Wants to Be a Progressive (Tax) State

Big Dog — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:33:04 EDT

The state of Maryland has a flat tax rate in that everyone pays the same tax rate on any income over $3000. The flat tax rate for the state has been in effect for some time with the only fluctuation being in local taxes, a measure from long ago that sucks more money from the wallets of wage earners. Maryland's new governor, Saint Martin O'Malley, wants to change the way people in this state are taxed so that people will pay their fair share. In O'Malley's world, fair share means rich people pay a lot more than poor people and Marty wants to accomplish this by implementing a progressive tax system.It is a fact that the wealthy already pay the largest amount, or shoulder the biggest burden, of taxes in this country. While many will make the argument that the poor pay more in things like tobacco taxes (because they are more likely to use tobacco products) this is a specious argument because tobacco use is a voluntary behavior. Mandatory taxes, as through income tax, is not something anyone can control. The bottom two quintiles of wage earners receive more government (read tax money) than the top three quintiles. In fact, the bottom two use much more in taxes than they pay in and in fact use more in raw dollars than the rich.O'Malley and his Democratic henchmen in Maryland have spent the state into a financial abyss. There is a huge black hole of mandated programs without funding sources which has created a structural deficit. The money has to be made up somehow and the governor will start off with a progressive tax on income. There is no doubt that there will be an increase in the sales tax, gasoline tax, and a tax on services (except the services of lawyers because the legislature is made up of ambulance chasers). The progressive tax will force higher wage earners to fork over more money so that it can be redistributed to those who make less and consume more. This, of course, is socialism 101 and Saint Martin seems to be at the head of the class when it comes to income redistribution and the defeat of capitalism.Taxes stagnate the economy and will hurt Maryland in the long run. This is especially true because the Democratically controlled legislature loves to spend money like there is no tomorrow. The only good that will come out of this is that the progressive tax will hurt Howard and Montgomery counties, Maryland's two wealthiest. They also happen to be heavily populated with Democrats who were on the O'Malley bandwagon when he ran for office.I can think of nothing sweeter than those rich Liberals getting socked in their wallets by the very man they voted into office. While I personally hope it makes life miserable for them I know that the reality is this progressive tax scheme will hurt every tax payer who earns a decent living. The state will attempt to balance the books off the backs of the wealthier citizens while giving away billions in tax dollars to welfare mothers addicted to crack and ILLEGAL immigrants who are here to do the jobs welfare mothers on crack won't.I have an idea. How about if the state of Maryland cuts unnecessary spending and gets a handle on what is going out and where it is going? How about the idea of not making a program without a way to pay for it? Nah, that would require responsible leaders and the politicians in Maryland have shown they are not responsible and it is evident they are not leaders.Sources: WBAL TV 11 Tax Foundation Special Report (pdf)

Don't forget to sign the petition to prevent amnesty for ILLEGALS.
Big Dog is retired after 24 years of service in the Regular Army and National Guard. He currently works as an Occupational Health Nurse Consultant and spends a lot of time pushing Conservative issues. Be sure to visit Big Dog's Weblog for more articles.

Immigration History Lesson and Where to Go from Here

Big Dog — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:18:33 EDT

Many in our country see immigration amnesty as a natural good for this country. The well-to-do [from both parties] require domestic workers to keep their lawns looking good and to watch their offspring while mom and dad attend their country club meetings. Many Americans, especially those born in the last few decades, do not understand the history of immigration, especially amnesty packages that usually accompany them.There are many arguments against the immigration amnesty bill. It rewards lawbreakers, it dilutes our nation, it allows unskilled or low skilled workers to take jobs from Americans at lower wages and as a result suppresses wages. Republicans want it because big business likes the cheap labor to pad the profit margin and Democrats want it because they want the cheap domestic labor and the increased voter block (that votes heavily Democratic). Supporters of this bill say that it provides for the security of this nation and it will secure our borders. The amnesty bill that just died its second death is thicker than the Bible and contains so much legal mumbo jumbo that it would be hard to enforce and Americans have no real reason to trust Congress to uphold their end of the deal. Supporters talk a good talk but once they get these ILLEGALS on board and have waved the amnesty wand they will find a number of reasons not to secure the borders. We will be told that it is now unnecessary because we have absorbed the ILLEGALS. Ted Kennedy is the sponsor of this bill and he is pushing hard for it. In defeat he asked what we are to do now. During the debate he told us that the border was a jungle and border patrol agents wasted time catching landscapers rather than terrorists. NOTE: If the border is a jungle and agents are catching landscapers, why not put them to work landscaping the jungle?Kennedy has been through all this before and each time Americans have been promised that the amnesty would have no impact on us, that it would not take jobs from Americans and even, that there would be no further amnesty. For those who were not around and for those who have not read about it, I present the history of Kennedy immigration amnesty through his quotes:1965: "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."1986: "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this."2007: "Now it is time for action. 2007 is the year we must fix our broken system." NROConservatives know that you get more of what you pay for, therefore it was absolutely incorrect when Kennedy said in 1965 that we would not be flooded with immigrants or that our ethnic mix would not be upset or even that the standards would not be relaxed. We have an entire southwest that is changing into a Hispanic country within a country and the ethnic mix in California is quite pronounced. We have gone from the under 200 thousand a year that were allowed here in 1965 to 12 to 20 million living here illegally, so we were flooded with immigrants. The legal Hispanic population has increased greatly since that time so that Hispanics make up a larger portion of the population than blacks (and only second to European whites). We see that the government failed to secure the borders or enforce the laws which certainly relaxed the standards and, there can be no doubt, that Kennedy's last sentence about taking American jobs was dead wrong.In 1986 Kennedy told us that we would only be giving citizenship to under 1.5 million people and that there would be no further amnesty bills [like this]. Since 1986 the number of ILLEGALS in this country went from 4 million to 12-20 million and the newest Kennedy fiasco seeks to give them a path to citizenship. Perhaps Kennedy was drunk or hungover when they taught math in school but this number far exceeds the number he touted a mere 21 years ago. Additionally, the newest attempt to legalize immigrants is an amnesty bill and while Teddy might argue that he escaped with the "like this" clause, the fact is the previous amnesty bills came with promises that were not kept.Those who oppose this new bill are labeled as racists, xenophobes, and (as I was) nativists. The fact of the matter is, this is our country and we have a right to say who gets to come here and under what circumstances they get to do so. Americans, who overwhelmingly do not support this bill, want other measures taken before we deal with those who are here ILLEGALLY. We want a moratorium placed on immigration so that we can get a handle on the people who are here. We want tough penalties and fines for employers who have ILLEGALS on their payrolls and we want the border secure. By cracking down on employers the market for jobs will dry up and ILLEGALS will go elsewhere as evidenced by the crackdown in Panama City Florida. The sheriff has been showing up at construction sites with 5 or 6 cars and watching for people to run. They then pick them up for trespassing or speeding (as they ran through someone's property or sped off) and report them to Immigration. The result is that ILLEGALS are leaving because employers are not hiring them. This can work across the country if we just enforce the law.Once we have a cooling period where we have secured the border (with a fence or a wall as San Diego did), once we have weeded out the ILLEGALS from the job market by cracking down on employers and once we have a handle on what we have in this country (which should reduce through attrition as ILLEGALS find it more difficult to get work) then we can get to work on a truly comprehensive bill that would allow seasonal and guest workers to do some of the work we do not have enough people to accomplish. During that down time we can also clear the nearly 4 million person backlog of those waiting to get here legally.One very important thing that needs to be done with regard to immigration is for Congress to revisit the 14th Amendment. I have written before discussing the 14th and how it was designed to confer Citizenship upon former slaves and their natural born children. The authors of the Amendment never intended it to confer Citizenship on children born to people who were here ILLEGALLY or to parents who are not citizens of our country. This has been discussed at length and the author's own words clearly spell this out. However, the statement "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been misinterpreted and misapplied. It means you must be a subject of the state (and therefore the country) and have an allegiance to the US as in being a citizen or emancipated slave. We can clear this up if Congress passes a law that says one must be born to citizens to be a citizen and then invoke Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to exempt the law from judicial review. This would allow the stated intent of the 14th to be carried out without activist judges interpreting it to fit their points of view and keep people from having "jackpot" or "anchor" babies to game the system.America is not a nation of immigrants. We are a nation that came from immigrants but the majority of us came from families of people who, for generations, were born here. We welcome immigrants who come here legally with open arms and expect them to assimilate into our society, just as our founders intended. The melting pot took people from all places and molded them into Americans. This is an absolute must if we are to maintain our identity and our sovereignty as a nation.Americans do not trust Congress to do what is right. They [Congress] have demonstrated that they can not do what is right and have failed miserably the other two times they had the chance. Now, instead of lumping everything in one bill, we want them to take baby steps. Do the right things that are needed first and then we can figure out how to handle the issue of the people involved.That, Senator Kennedy, is where we go from here.As an aside, does anyone see it as wrong that Ted Kennedy was involved in the first amnesty and 42 years later he is still at it? If ever there was a poster child for term limits, Kennedy would be it.

An Interview with Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan, Authors of Caucus of Corruption

Big Dog — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 04:23:31 EDT

I had the pleasure of interviewing Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan, the authors of Caucus of Corruption, a great book that levels the playing field by pointing out the corruption in the Democratic Party. I read and thoroughly enjoyed the book and reviewed it here. BIG DOG: Your book, Caucus of Corruption: The Truth about the New Democratic Majority, focuses on corruption within the Democratic Party. What do you say to critics who might claim the book is partisan and ignores the corruption within the Republican Party?MATT: First, I would tell them to read the book, because we do recognize that there is corruption in the Republican Party and we do say that corrupt Republicans should be removed from power and kicked out of the party. The problem with those critics is they don't want people to know about corruption in the Democratic Party. They'd sooner keep the corrupt Democrats in power than risk letting honest Republicans have any political advantage or control.MARK: We can be sure that those who are accusing us of being unfairly partisan weren't at all upset as the way the MSM -- and the Democratic leadership -- ruthlessly ignored the facts of Democratic corruption. One longstanding Democratic tactic in these matters is misdirection - like when Clinton was wrapped up in his adultery scandals, Democrats were all about how this or that Republican did it, too. We're not doing that - what we're doing is acknowledging the totality of corruption in our politics by highlighting the long-ignored Democratic aspect of it. BIG DOG: You point out the corruption involving William Jefferson of Louisiana, a case that has been building for nearly two years. In the book you discuss the fact that the Democrats failed to remove him from his committee seat until after it was reported by the AP that a video of criminal activity existed. How do you address critics who feel Jefferson is innocent until proven guilty and that if the people of Louisiana put him back in office despite the allegations, he should be left alone unless he is convicted? MATT: It's amusing to see Democrats pull the "innocent until proven guilty" line now because any time a Republican is accused of wrongdoing, whether the charges are unfounded or not, they immediately label that Republican as guilty. Howard Dean was calling for Tom DeLay to go back to Houston and serve his jail sentence four months before DeLay was even indicted... and it was a bogus indictment no less.MARK: There is also a matter of our good judgment; while Democrats were scattershot in their condemnations of any hint of GOP scandal, what people really need to do it take a look at the situation and see what sort of action is warranted. In DeLay's case, the specious nature of the accusations coupled with the clear partisan bias of the prosecutor should, in the minds of rational people, have resulted in everyone ignoring the charges or at least questioning their validity. In Jefferson's case, the fact that two people have already pled guilty to bribing him, plus the videotape evidence puts the accusations against him in a much stronger light, and bring with it the requirement for much sterner action to protect the people against corruption. BIG DOG: So many supporters of the Democratic Party seem to buy into the idea that their elected leaders have done no wrong and that anyone who questions their acts is just launching a partisan attack. To what do you attribute this blind loyalty?MARK: Obviously people want to believe their party holds the moral high ground, because they're the ones that best represent their beliefs in Congress. The problem is when party loyalty blinds you to the truth about those people who are supposed to be representing you. We would like to believe that Democrats will read our book with an open mind and then ask themselves if they really want these crooks representing them.MATT: We know this is wishful thinking given the track record rank-and-file Democrats have in re-electing people who are demonstrably corrupt.BIG DOG: As you point out in the book, generally, when elected Republicans are caught doing something wrong (or even accused as in the case of Tom Delay), Republicans across the country join Democrats in calling for them to be held accountable for their wrong doing. With the Democrats, we do not see this same call for justice with regard to elected Democrats who commit crimes. Do you think that the proliferation of social entitlements and the lax moral values (abortion, same sex marriage) espoused by the Democratic Party has numbed their constituency with regard to what is right and what is wrong or, in your mind, is there some other reason they ignore Democratic wrong-doing?MARK: That pretty much explains their thought process; lay down with dogs, come up with fleas. If you are a person who not only commits adultery but thinks it not that big a deal, then you're probably going to excuse it in others. For Democrats, the worst sin is hypocrisy - and this comes out in a demand that those who have high standards rigidly adhere to them, while those with lax standards be allowed to get away with them.BIG DOG: In Caucus of Corruption, you point out that corruption runs across party lines with each party having its share of corrupt politicians. I know that ideally you both would like to see more conservative Republicans in office but, if the next election guaranteed that everyone in Congress (who is up for reelection), corrupt or not would be replaced, would you be happy with that even if Democrats held a majority of the House and Senate?MARK: I'd be happy to see the corrupt politicians go, regardless of which party ended up with majority status. Of course I'd prefer to see the Republicans in the majority - and in addition to getting rid of corrupt politicians, we must bear in mind that we must also get people who will fight against corruption tooth and nail; the Jefferson's of the world would not be as damaging as they are if everyone was on the lookout for them.MATT: Based on our research, and from the examples we've seen of Republicans being accused of wrongdoing, I think if all corrupt politicians (Democrat or Republican) were magically booted out that Democrats would not end up with a majority.BIG DOG: Your stated goal is to level the playing field and report the other half of the problem of corruption in Congress, the half largely ignored by the mainstream media. Why do you feel the media ignores the ethical problems of the Democrats while gleefully reporting any instance of Republican wrong doing?MARK: Recent reports suggest that nine out of ten journalists donate to Democrats. That explains it pretty well. Additionally, reporters tend to be of a liberal social ideal, and thus they just don't get worked up over corruption they way you'd think. We're all deeply flawed, but most MSMers add to this the additional flaw of thinking that the concept of "flaw" is old fashioned. BIG DOG: Lacking a platform, the Democrats ran the 2006 election based largely on the Republican "culture of corruption." Putting aside the corruption you exposed in your book, what is your assessment of the performance of the Democrats, after nearly six months in the majority, with regard to their pledge to run the "most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history?"MATT: It seems clear to me that the Democrats were -- and are -- unready to govern. As we pointed out in Caucus of Corruption, back in 2005 Harry Reid was saying it would take a miracle for Democrats to win a majority in 2006. The so-called miracle happened but this didn't change the fact that even now they are back in power they have absolutely no leadership. Worse yet, Democrats spent no time in their years as the minority reassessing their views and adapting their liberal platform to modern reality. MARK: If such a thing is possible - but, possible or not, it is dead certain that if corruption were off the table in 2006 and Democrats tried to run on, say, their 2004 party platform, they would have got creamed... not just failing to get a majority, but they would have lost seats. As a for-instance, the Democratic party is still committed, in their platform, to federally-funded abortion-on-demand. Whatever one might think of the merits of that position, the fact remains that it is supported only by a tiny minority - and that provision was first inserted into the platform a generation ago.Democrats want power, but they don't even know anymore why they want it, other than it is "cool" to have the perks of power. In my view, after a quarter-century of observing politics, I've never seen a worse party leader than Nancy Pelosi; and I do believe she will be rated the very worst Speaker we've ever had. She couldn't even corral enough votes to raise the minimum wage without attaching it to a war-funding bill - and this in a time when in State after State in 2006 the American people voted to increase the minimum wage! Core party issue, popular with the people, hold a majority in Congress... still couldn't get it done. BIG DOG: Matt, the Senators from your home state of Massachusetts [John Kerry and Ted Kennedy] are the standard bearers for the Democrats in the Senate and their combined service in the Senate is nearly 70 years. What, if any, ethical issues or acts of corruption did you discover involving either of them? Regardless of what you might or not have found, why do you think the people of your state keep putting them back in office?MATT: Besides killing someone and accusing American soldiers of war crimes?If there is an argument for term limits, then Senator Kennedy is it. If I could explain why he keeps getting reelected, I would. But it is beyond comprehension. Of course, recalling that Gerry Studds got reelected six times by the voters of his district makes me believe that the most simple explanation is that Democrats just don't care about having corrupt and immoral leaders in their party.BIG DOG: Mark, Senator Harry Reid of your state has a whole chapter devoted to him in Caucus of Corruption. How do the people back home perceive him and why do they keep putting him in office, especially considering Nevada is a red state?MARK: The usual way for a red State Democrat: don't tell anyone at home what you're doing in DC. Reid campaigned for reelection in 2004 as an "independent for Nevada"; nary a mention of his party affiliation and he wasn't exactly out there front and center helping other Nevada Democrats in their campaigns... and I don't recall much help to Kerry that year. The perception of Reid is changing, however, and there is some speculation that he won't try for re-election in 2010. The stories of his crooked land deals as well as his advocacy of defeat in Iraq are souring the people of Nevada on him. BIG DOG: You guys have worked together for several years on Blogs for Bush and now you have co-authored a book that should be quite successful. Do you have any plans for a future project and if so, what are they?MATT: Trust me, we've only just gotten our feet wet with the first book!MARK: We have a couple book ideas percolating in our heads right now, but we're really concentrating on Caucus of Corruption at the moment. The blogging will continue because we both enjoy that very much.BIG DOG: OK guys, thanks for taking the time to answer a few questions. Good luck with the book and I look forward to reading your next one.MATT: Thank you. Our pleasure!I highly recommend Caucus of Corruption to members of either party. Mark and Matt are right, we need to get rid of the bad politicians regardless of their party affiliation. As they say to those with substance abuse problems, recognition of the problem is the first step to recovery. Caucus of Corruption provides the tools for the electorate to recognize the other half of the corruption problem. Once the problem is recognized we can put our country on the path to recovery.

Book Review: Caucus of Corruption - The Truth about the New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan

Big Dog — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:16:18 EDT

The words "Republican Culture of Corruption" are, as John Kerry might say, seared, seared into our memories after that phrase was used as a campaign slogan to help hapless Democrats regain the Majority in both Houses of Congress. Americans are well aware of ethical problems of members of the Republican Party because those problems have received a great deal of attention in the media wing of the Democratic Party. For people who do not pay attention, the Democrats appear squeaky clean while knuckle-dragging, ethically challenged Republicans are involved in every corrupt thing imaginable. The media loves to report on Republican missteps but ignores the fact that Republicans try to rid Congress of those Republicans who are found to be corrupt. More importantly, the media ignores blatant corruption and illegal activities on the part of the Democrats. For their part, the Democrats view their acts as perfectly normal because they are honorable people who would not do anything wrong.In Caucus of Corruption, Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan point out the ethical and legal challenges faced by many members of the Democratic Party. Margolis and Noonan acknowledge Republican corruption in the beginning of the book but the focus is on the Democrats in order to bring balance to the story. Everyone knows the Republicans' stories (thanks to the Democrats and their sock puppets in the media) so this book, as Paul Harvey would say, is the rest of the story. According to the authors: Everyone in government who is corrupt should be removed and see justice. Yet removing everyone who is corrupt is not the objective of the new speaker of the House, or any of her fellow Democrats, no matter how much they claim it is. It is time, and past time, to bring balance to the debate.This book tells the side of the story that Democrats ignore and the mainstream media refuses to tell. It is the story of a political party that has long been given a free pass by the media for their illegal and unethical ways. It is a story if influence peddling, character assassination, and hypocrisy. It is a story that must be told if real reform is to happen...Caucus of Corruption starts by specifically pointing out the ethical issues that involve Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel, and then moves to practices that have been abused by members of the Democratic Party. Issues such as privately funded travel, family hiring, and election law violations are spelled out clearly and concisely in order to bring balance to the debate. Margolis and Noonan present factual evidence and lay it out clearly along with the references to where the information can be found. One of my favorite parts of the book is where they point to what Howard Dean said about Jack Abramoff only involving Republicans. They then proceed to show all the Democrats involved and how they acted quite differently in the circumstances surrounding their actions with the Republicans.The picture painted by the authors is not pretty because not only do they expose the corruption of the Democrats, but by doing so they show how corruption runs across both aisles in Congress and how the concept of absolute power has corrupted absolutely. I do not pretend that the authors are unbiased because I have read their work in the past and I know they are conservatives who want a conservative agenda in this country. I also know that they, like many conservatives, call for the dismissal of any Republican found to be ethically challenged while noting that those on the left ignore, or dismiss ethical lapses and explain it away as some kind of attack on their morality by their political enemies.Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan bring balance to the debate. They have taken the ethical problems of the Democratic Party and put them up front so that they have equal billing with the Republican lapses reported by the media wing of the Democratic Party. The authors make few references to Republicans except when pointing out how Republicans were expected to act one way with regard to corruption while Democrats were allowed to act another. Obviously, Republican problems have been reported and the purpose of this book is to show the skeletons on the other side.I highly recommend Caucus of Corruption to anyone who wants to know how corruption is spread throughout our Congress. Margolis and Noonan do a great job of leveling the playing field and exposing the other side of the corruption, the side dismissed by the left and ignored by the media. Armed with this information and that which has been presented in the past, voters in America can better assess the jobs of those who portend to be above board and working in our best interests and then decide the best method to right this great ship. While I highly recommend this book, I will conclude using their words: The Democrats had their chance to dominate the debate about corruption. But the tables have now been turned. With this book, you are now armed with an inconvenient truth about the Democratic Party. If left unchecked, corruption has a corrosive effect on both government and society, so it must be brought to light. It is time to expose the corruption and hypocrisy of the Democratic Party, not just for the sake of removing Democrats from office, but for the sake of the health and proper functioning of our government, and of the United States of America.How can anyone argue with that? If you care about this country it is worth the read, regardless of political affiliation. By the way, Caucus of Corruption would make a great Father's Day gift...

Must Keep Pressure On Senate Against Amnesty

Big Dog — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:29:58 EDT

The Senate bill that would have made millions of ILLEGALS legal with the stroke of a pen has been pulled off the table for a while. There are many who say that it is dead but that is not the case. Those in the Senate, from both parties, who want this bill are going to try and ram it down our throats. I heard them on the news all day Friday talking about how the bill will be back and they will get this done.We can not let up on them. We must continue to call them and continue to let them know that we are not happy with this bill. They need to know that a smile and a wink from them along with reassurances that they will do the right thing is not enough any more. The American public does not believe what the Congress tells us and for very good reason, they lie. Every time they push a bill down our throat it ends in a disaster and it ends with billions of dollars wasted. This happened in 1965 and 1986 when immigration amnesty bills were passed (each sponsored by Ted Kennedy) and we were promised that these would end ILLEGAL entry into our country. In the 1980s there were four million ILLEGALS and now there are at least three times that many. It looks like their promises were empty once again.If the Congress of the US wants us to buy into these things they are going to have to earn our trust once again. They, especially those on the left, love to tell us that the President has low approval ratings but the ratings of Congress are lower than the President's. This is a clear indication that America does not trust Congress to do a good job and does not feel Congress is currently doing a good job. This is because time and again Congress fails to do a good job. They introduce bill after bill and enact more and more laws. They need to understand that it is OK not to introduce new legislation. They need to understand that they are not there to make laws for the sake of making laws and that when they do make some law it has to be simple, needed, and enforceable without screwing millions of taxpayers. This is a hard thing for them to do.If the Congress wants to gain our trust they need to show us they are serious about securing our border. They keep talking about how this bill will accomplish that but the fact is the first thing they will do is strip the provisions that secure the border. Then they will strip the penalty portions and we will end up with amnesty and a still unsecured border. The Senate needs to introduce a bill that requires a wall be built to secure the border between the US and Mexico. We need that done FIRST because we do not trust them to do it last. I would bet that if they put a check box on the tax forms to allow $5 be added to a person's taxes or deducted from their refund to finance a wall, millions of people would do that so long as the money was strictly dedicated to building the wall. In order to gain our trust they must also have an accurate method for employers to verify the status of an applicant. Any employer caught hiring ILLEGALS must be fined $10,000 PER ILLEGAL employee and ILLEGALS captured must spend 90 days in jail before deportation.One more thing that will gain our trust is for Congress to revisit the 14th Amendment and ensure that the original intent of the Amendment is carried out and that is people born to non-citizens of the US are NOT citizens of the US and we need to revoke all the citizenships that have been given based upon the erroneous ruling by the SCOTUS and by the misapplication of the 14th. The people who wrote it clearly intended it to mean that a person born to parents who had an allegiance to someplace other than the US were NOT citizens. We must clear this up so that we can stop the jackpot babies from being born here.After Congress earns our trust by doing these things (which will curb and reduce the number of ILLEGALS here) then we can discuss guest worker programs and what to do with those remaining here. Any provision must include a cut off date so that any ILLEGAL who has not come forward by that date will automatically be permanently ineligible for legal status in this country and will be deported. It must include a provision so that any person caught here after being deported spends time in a jail. If Congress truly wants reform they need to stop giving us lip service and do the right thing no matter how tough it is. They need to gain our trust again and they need to understand that they work for us not the other way around. They also need to know that those who support the bill in its current form will be a target in the next election. John McCain is already toast and while part of the reason is because he has gone bonkers, his undying support for his bill has been his undoing and he will not be in the Presidential race much longer.There are others who will be in real danger of losing their jobs in the next election because there is a groundswell and it is going to be like a tsunami by the time November of next year rolls around. If B. Hussein Obama thinks that there is a quiet riot boiling in the black community, he should stick around to see the not so quiet riot in the next election if this bill is reintroduced and passed. George Bush is not running again but there are many of them who are and they are going to pay for this.If these Bozos need some lessons on how to be tough then they can contact any number of constituents who will be happy to help but I think my plan as outlined above is a great start. And I did that without a lobbyist (or in Kennedy's case, a bottle or two of scotch)...

Mr. President, I Will Tell You What Is Right for America

Big Dog — Wed, 30 May 2007 09:48:47 EDT

I have been a supporter of President Bush since he was nominated by the party over seven years ago. He was certainly a better choice than either of the Democrats running, and I have generally agreed with his policies. I support the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and I believe that we need to wipe out what people call Islamic extremism but what is really mainstream Islam. I have, however, disagreed with him on several issues, and the most important one is illegal immigration. The President of the United States does not have a clue when it comes to immigration and securing our borders against an invasion from the south. President Bush, along with several Republicans, has sided with Ted Kennedy in supporting an amnesty bill that will ruin this country. I would have thought that these people in DC would have learned from the last two Kennedy-sponsored amnesty bills that were touted as the end to illegal immigration but ended up giving us more illegals than before. They can deny that it is amnesty and point to sanctions, but those sanctions will soon disappear, and we will be left with millions of freeloaders who suck up resources and bring us down. One only needs to look at what they did to Mexico and what they have done to the towns they have taken over in the US to know that things will get worse, not better. President Bush is out on the trail trumping up this bill and trying to tell people why they should support it. I believe that President Bush has always wanted a way to grant millions of illegals amnesty and to allow them to live here and sponge off the taxpayers in this country, and now that the Democrats are the majority he has the forum in which to do it. He has been beaten up so badly over the past six years that I believe he is willing to do anything to pass this so that he will have some sort of legacy. Believe me when I tell you that the legacy will be of a failed presidency and the ruination of America if he has his way. The problem with those in DC is that they do not listen to the majority of people in this country who do not support this bill. They just feel that we do not understand. Here is what the President had to say: "Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like," the president said. "If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it."You can use it to frighten people," Bush said. "Or you can show leadership and solve this problem once and for all." BreitbartMr. President, I have the utmost respect for you and the office you hold, but you are dead wrong on this. What is right for America is to close our borders and not reward those who came here illegally. I don't care how many fines you levy, I don't care what you call it, and I don't care how much so-called bipartisan support you claim to have, this is wrong and it rewards illegal behavior. It also cheapens the efforts and sacrifices of those who did all the right things and came here legally and who we welcome with open arms. It tells the world that America has laws that it does not enforce, and that it is OK to do what you want here and you will be rewarded. I am willing to bet that any people, citizens or not, who showed up at the White House uninvited and acted like they were entitled to live there would be arrested. They would be perceived as a threat and they would be prosecuted accordingly. Well, Mr. President, America is our White House and people are coming into it all the time and they are uninvited. Instead of doing the same thing to them that you would do to a trespasser at the White House, you are telling them that it is OK and they will be rewarded.American citizenship is one of the most cherished things a person can achieve. Many of us were blessed by the grace of God to be born in the United States but many people risk their lives and spend their life's savings to come here legally and do things the right way. When the first act a person does in this country is to break the law, that person is not worthy of citizenship.Mr. President, the majority of Americans who oppose this amnesty know what is right for America and want to do the right thing. That right thing is to toughen our immigration laws so that merely being here illegally is a felony and we want law enforcement to work together to capture and deport or jail (depending on other potential crimes) those who are here illegally. The horror of 9/11 happened in part because law enforcement agencies were not allowed to work together. The way immigration is set up, sir, law enforcement is not allowed to work together to get illegals out and keep them out. Instead of deporting or locking up illegals, you are locking up border patrol agents who are doing their jobs. To add insult to injury, you are giving the real criminals amnesty. We Americans also know that closing our borders is the right thing to do and that no solution to this problem will ever work until we accomplish this. We also know that Ted Kennedy does not have the best interests of America at heart and he has taken us down this road before, only to put us on a path to slow death by infiltration. Death is what you get when you let Ted Kennedy drive.Today is Memorial Day, a day when we honor those who gave their lives in defense of this country. Those brave men and women are spinning in their graves at the thought that they gave their lives to defend this nation only to have politicians in DC give it away. They must be heartbroken that this country is being overrun and will be taken over without a shot ever being fired.If you listen carefully on a quiet night, Mr. President, you can hear the tears of those interred at Arlington National Cemetery. Our war dead weep for this once great nation and the inability of its leaders to protect what they willingly died to preserve. Considering their fate, who can blame them for expecting more from our leaders?As an American citizen I am entitled to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Consider this petition an exercise of my First Amendment rights. I encourage others to exercise this right as well.

Satire: Michael Moore is a Heck of a Guy

Big Dog — Thu, 24 May 2007 20:39:57 EDT

I used to despise Michael Moore. I think his movies about Columbine and 9/11 are distortions and outright lies, but it's at least possible that his newest movie Sicko might be different. I think it is probably full of distortions and I have no use for Moore's artistic style but I am heartened by what Moore himself is doing with the profits. Michael Moore is going to donate all of the money generated from the sale of tickets to Sicko to provide health insurance for as many uninsured people as he can. Evidently, Moore was touched by the American Idol Gives Back program that raised millions of dollars for the poor in Africa and the US. Moore believes he can start his own movement and this film is the perfect vehicle to do it.Inside sources indicate that Moore will eat the production costs and will use every cent of money from the sale and distribution of his movie to ensure that as many uninsured as possible have health care. Moore still believes that Cuba's system is superior to ours, but believes that if he produces a film that points out perceived problems in the health care industry and then does nothing about it he will be a hypocrite, something he does not want to be.Sources also say that this is not a ploy to get the US to drop its investigation of his potentially illegal trip to Cuba. Evidently, Moore is willing to let the chips fall where they may on this issue so long as he can get insurance for as many people as possible.Skeptics doubt Moore has good intentions and believe he is only stroking his own narcissistic ego but others familiar with the producer say he truly believes in this cause. One source even said that Moore was going to donate 1 million dollars of his own money to the insurance cause. Rumors that Moore was trying to take the wind out of American Idol's sails by becoming a one man social cause are unfounded, insiders say.This is nice of him. Maybe if he can use some of that money to send ILLEGALS home there will be even less of a burden on the health care system and my premiums will go down.

Joyous Day In Maryland With Electric Rate Hikes

Big Dog — Wed, 23 May 2007 20:14:21 EDT

I have written several times before about the Baltimore Gas and Electric (BG&E) rate hike and why it is warranted. For those who are unfamiliar, I will give the condensed version. Maryland has had Democrats running the state for decades. The last Governor was the first Republican in more than three decades. In 1999, long before he served as Governor, the Maryland General Assembly and the Public Service Commission (PSC) along with Governor Glendening (a Democrat) decided that deregulation of the energy company would be good for business by forcing competition (O'Malley's brother-in-law was a member of that PSC). The fact that some of the key players received a lot of money from lobbyists did not play into this (no, not at all). They passed a bill that held BG&E to 1993 electric rates for seven years. When that time was up there had been no competition (who wants to do business where you can not make money because you are held to 1993 rates?) and the rates were scheduled to go up 72%. Governor Ehrlich tried to get a plan that would ease this burden but indicated that eventually people would have to pay the piper. Baltimore City Mayor (Saint) Martin O'Malley opposed this plan, took it to court and got a 15% increase instead of the Ehrlich plan or the entire 72%. Then, O'Malley ran a campaign based upon his concern for our working families and he told everyone he beat back Ehrlich and his PSC. O'Malley said the reason that they would not do anything was because Ehrlich and the PSC were in bed with the energy companies. The Saint Martin plan did not allow customers to opt in to pay the full increase. Instead, the government told people they had to phase it in and pay an interest charge (and this from people who can not balance their own budget). The legislators in Annapolis deferred any further rate talks until after the gubernatorial election which O'Malley won. The affluent people in the wealthy DC suburbs voted for him and the poor folks in Baltimore City and the poorer DC suburbs voted for him and that is all you need to win in Maryland because they are the most populated areas (and are infested with Democrats). People voted for Saint Martin because he was looking out for them, their champion and because he was a Democrat. Well, things seem to have changed a bit since Saint Martin pledged to prevent the 50% increase from taking effect (the next increase due under the plan worked out by Marty with the help of the court). He promised that he would not let the evil energy company screw the people, dragon slayer that he is.Saint Martin got in office and appointed his own PSC, honorable people who were not like those business lackeys of Ehrlich's. These were Saint Martin's chosen ones who were going to look out for the people. During the last legislative session, Saint Marty's first, nary a word was uttered about rate hikes as the state worried about pressing things such as smoking in bars and apologizing for slavery. The session ended without the issue being addressed and Saint Martin, who was so vocal about Ehrlich and rate hikes, was remarkably silent on the issue.Today, Martin O'Malley's Public Service Commission allowed the rate increase of 50%. The did it reluctantly, as if that makes a difference. They also did it because there was no legal basis to stop it. There was only a legal basis when a judge helped out Marty so he could look like the people's champion. Here is what the PSC had to say:"It is with reluctance, but with little legal option, the commission had determined that the supply cost justifies the rate hike," Commission Chairman Steven Larsen said at an afternoon news conference. WBALThe evil Ehrlich PSC had the same options but they were branded as unacceptable by the Saint. He and his Lt. Governor have vowed to do something to take the strain off working families but if they really could and if he really intended to when he was full of bluster while charging Ehrlich with crimes against humanity, wouldn't he have done so before now? The truth is he scored a short term victory at the hands of the court and he won an election based partly upon a promise he had no intention of keeping. Marylanders who are in the BG&E service area will now pay a 75% increase. Yes, 75% or 3% higher than the original increase. You see, Saint Martin got the first increase held to 15% which people have been paying. Now they will have 50% added on top of that for a grand total of 75%. That Saint Marty sure knows how to help the poor working stiffs.I will start off by stating that the increase does not affect me because I moved out of their area several years ago and my utility company has increased with the market so I am where I need to be. The poor folks in Baltimore and the surrounding counties are the ones who are going to feel this and they are feeling it just in time for the hazy, hot, and humid Summer for which Maryland is famous. Just in time to run the AC and watch that electric meter spin like a Frisbee on steroids. And God help me, I love it.I have known for a long time that pain is a great teacher. If a person grabs a pot lid and gets burned that person will check next time. People tend to avoid the things that hurt them. This rate increase is going to hurt a lot of people, especially this Summer when it is a million degrees in the shade. I am very happy that this will happen because the bulk of the people who voted for Saint Martin because he was their hero will be the ones affected and I want them to suffer. I want them to have to decide between being cool or eating. I want them to have to get rid of cell phones or cable TV to afford their electric bill. I want them to be screaming for mercy for voting for Martin O'Malley. Yes, I want this to be excruciatingly painful to them so they will think about their vote each and every time they open their electric bills. This might sound mean spirited and nasty to many of you and I intend it to be. The people who vote to put tax and spend Democrats in charge of Maryland year after year do so based on promises of more government handouts and more social programs. They are never concerned that those who worked and paid taxes had to support them through those programs. They never cared because it was some other person who had to pay and not them. Well now they have to pay and I want it to be the most agonizingly horrible pain they have had to deal with in their lifetimes. I want them to understand that it is just as painful for us taxpayers to foot the bill for them as it is for them to pay their electric bills. I want them to understand that because of social programs put in place by the people they vote for, we taxpayers have had to do without so they could benefit and I want them to get burned so badly by this that they think carefully before they blindly select anyone so long as there is a D after his name.Add the tax increases on gasoline, sales of goods, and a number of other things that Saint Martin will get next year and we have the makings of a real pain fest for some time to come. What you reap, so you shall sow and these folks are definitely reaping what they have sown. It is about time their selection hurt them instead of the tax base.I feel badly for elderly folks who will be in the heat and have to decide between cat food and AC but they voted for Saint Marty too so they can either see if he will let them stay at the Governor's mansion or find out now which cat food is the most palatable.Oh my, this will be a fun Summer. I wonder how long it will be before the folks demand O'Malley's head on a platter? I bet O'Malley blames Ehrlich for the whole mess long before the people make that demand.As an aside, Bob Ehrlich and his PSC must feel a bit of vindication over all of this. I am sure that Ehrlich actually feels terrible about it and is worried about the people it will affect. He has a hell of a lot more class than I do. I say, let them eat cake.

Barbara Boxer Responds

Big Dog — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:48:50 EST

I wrote a letter to Senator Boxer expressing my concerns about the way she questioned Condoleezza Rice with regard to not having children. To her credit, Boxer sent me an email response. In it she makes the same statement that she has made to the press about the issue. She explained to me that she was trying to make a point about whom the war affects. I understood quite well what her intent was when she made the statement, but I appreciate her response. I still feel that it was unnecessary and that it was a knock on women who choose not to have children. Like I said before, the war will not affect either woman for the reasons Boxer stated but then again it will not affect anyone who chooses not to join the service. It will not affect any member of Congress because they are all too old to serve (unless they are already a reservist).Let me say this Ms. Boxer. Please leave the members of the military alone and let them do their jobs. As Liz Cheney pointed out in today's Washington Post, you are making a mistake in interpreting the results of the last election. She indicates that the American people said they wanted change in the direction of the war but they did not say they they wanted to lose or that they wanted to fight the war here. Americans want to win and cutting and running is not winning, regardless of what name you call it. Our men and women in uniform volunteered for service and they are reenlisting to continue to serve. They understand the mission and they do not want politicians trying to undermine them as happened in Vietnam. Mark my words Ms. Boxer, and you can pass this on, if you hand victory to the enemy and bring our troops home in shame you will likely never get another group of people willing to fight any future battles. Think about how it will feel when a really bad thing happens and no one answers the call to arms. If you and your colleagues allow this to happen I will strongly encourage the thousands of military members I know to end their service when their time is up and I will tell the prospective recruits with whom I speak to consider another profession because our elected leaders do not have the guts to stay in a battle for the long haul and they will make you sacrifice and bring you home in defeat. I am a strong supporter of the military and have a great deal of time in service. I think that it is a great place to learn skills, discipline and patriotism but in order to gain the trust of the military the leaders must be trusted. If you cause our defeat you will never be trusted again. Look how long it took to rebuild our military after the Congress allowed us to be disgraced in Vietnam. The failed rescue attempt in Iran during the hostage crisis was a direct result of low morale and poor training as a result of the backlash of Vietnam.The world situation will get worse before it gets better and if we do not have a good military we will be screwed. The leaders might think they can start the draft if such a situation develops but that just might result in civil disobedience the likes this country has never seen. How dare our so called leaders draft people to fight when they would not let them fight when they were perfectly willing. I pray for this country because our Congress lacks leaders in either party and they spend more time worrying about how to be reelected than they do winning. If they worked as hard to win the war as they do to win reelection we would be done by now.This item at the end of the email got my attention:Since American forces went into Iraq in March 2003, more than 3,000 of our troops have been killed and over 20,000 more have been wounded. Yet we are nowhere near a solution to the grave crisis in Iraq - and the price goes higher and higher. Again, thank you for writing to me. Please do not hesitate to contact me about this or any other issue of concern to you, and please know that I will continue to speak out as clearly as I can against this escalation.The death of any service member is tragic and the horrors of war are things that no one should have to live with. The reality is that wars are sometimes necessary. Ms. Boxer, we lost this many people on Normandy Beach during the D-Day invasion. What would our history be like today if you and this Congress had been in charge? Would you have called for the "redeployment" of our troops and allow the Germans to win? Would you have felt comfortable knowing that by cutting and running you allowed millions more Jews to be slaughtered? How would you feel knowing that all of Europe was taken over by German and its allies? What kind of world would we be living in today if people such as you and your colleagues had been taking the decisions at that crucial time in our history? Lastly, How would you feel knowing that it was only a matter of time before the newly formed German Empire assaulted the United States in its quest for World domination?These are real questions and they apply just as much today. Radical Islam is hell bent on killing or converting the World to their twisted religion and imposing Sharia Law. You Ms. Boxer will not hold a position of power in such a state. You will be relegated to second class citizen, worth only half a man and you will be beaten for failure to comply. This might sound like an alarmist position but keep in mind what has taken place in places like France, the UK, and Somalia. Listen to what our enemy says and pay attention. We need to fight and win the war over there to keep them from coming here. If we allow them to get here and bring the fight to us it will be a little too late to point fingers (though Boxer and the Democrats will blame George Bush). In the movie The Karate Kid Pat Morita's character said "fighting not good, but if must fight, win." We need to keep that in mind. We can win by allowing our soldiers to see some unity at home and seeing their so-called leaders stand behind them in this battle. To do anything less is disgraceful and traitorous. If Congress allows us to be attacked again because they decided that they did not have the testicular fortitude to fight AND win then we will need to try them for treason and execute any who are found guilty. Think Hussein video.Senator Boxer made it clear that she will continue to speak out against sending more troops. Perhaps next time Boxer gets a chance to email me she can explain why so many Democrats were calling on the President to send more troops a few years ago but now they think it is a bad idea. Boxer supported John Kerry for President and when he was running in 2004 he called for 40,000 additional troops in Iraq. Why is it she does not support the man who is President when he wants to put more troops there? Could it be partisan politics and placing the desire to win above national security and our troops' safety?Our military is full of the best and brightest and if the members of Congress would actually listen to them instead of pretending to know everything they would see a group of people who want to come home, but not until they finish their mission. The death of an American soldier is a tragic thing but the death that soldier suffers when his leaders betray him by raising a white flag is the most painful, vile death that can be imagined. Soldiers who fight for their country and die in battle have died an honorable death. The death by a thousand cuts inflicted by the cut and run policies of inept, self centered leaders is the most despicable, dishonorable way any human being can die.Shame on Congress if they allow it to happen.