Saturday, July 31, 2010

Fallacy of "Immigration Reform"

I am mystified by the acceptance of the term "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" as a label by anyone (other than those in favor of amnesty for those in our country illegally) as a description of the discussion of the failure to secure our borders along with the questions posed by so many people in America illegally.

They are totally different questions and history has proven that they must be discussed and a workable solution found separately.

President Reagan got a so-called comprehensive reform package passed, but Congress reneged on the requirement to secure the borders. Those of us who remember this governmental failure and dereliction of a Constitutional duty will rebel if Congress were ever to try to con us again.

I do not know what constitutes appropriate action on the part of the federal government, but I suspect that most people feel that current law required the Federal Government to control our borders. The are not doing that. Seems to me some smart person who was also a lawyer (or knew of a smart lawyer) might bring a writ of mandamus to require the Federal Government to do its sworn job.

Same thing holds for those in the country illegally. Perhaps a writ to require that Federal Officials track down those in the country illegally and deport them and to track down those in the country who hire them and fine and jail them might be in order? I dare say that if all employers who hire those who are not here legally were fined and jailed, those who could no longer find jobs and were here illegally would leave or take whatever action our law required to become legal. So...exactly what is meant by "reform"?

And...what is with this "if your born here, you are a citizen" stuff. No other country in the world, as far as I know, allows this. Sort of akin to "if you break into the bank and give birth to a child while there, you will be arrested, but the kid can take whatever he or she likes...and later can get you out of jail." Seems just a tad illogical, doesn't it?

Thursday, July 29, 2010

How did Dodd last this long

In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn) recently proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify. His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained,"passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it."

Really? How un-democratic! And how many times did his constituents re-elect this guy? Oh, how I wish I could stop reading the news...

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Would a loss of Congress lead to 4 more years for Obama?

I sometimes hate it when a mental light bulb goes on late at night, especially late when I am trying to get to sleep. Last night was just such an occasion, and I really didn't like what I saw as it went on.

Consider this. The economy is in the tank and people feel threatened by the deficit and the now beginning-to-be-visible costs of Obama Care. The Democrats could very well loose the House of Representatives in November and their majority in the Senate. Sounds good for traditional thinkers, right?

Well, maybe not so much.

A Republican Congress would prevent the continuation of the big government, anti-business changes and threats of changes that have stifled any real business growth that would take us out of this morass and bring unemployment down. And Republicans would possibly be able to get some pro-business legislation or at least some relief for small business enterprises. This would lead to a real positive change in the economy.

Do you believe for one second that Obama would not claim credit for an obfuscate the real causes of any economic improvement? With his snake-oil-salesman's ability, he would go around telling all how he saved them all. In other words, it might just lead to his re-election in 2012. If, and it is a big if, the Dems lose Congress, the Republicans had better be on their toes to document their part in any improvement in the economy, or they will have won the battle but lost the war.