This is a continuing, if not regular, feature of this blog, whiich is to give you the wit and wisdom of old movies (and sometimes books) on dames. The first principle, of course, is that all women are dames, and that references to dames, girls and women are interchangeable. Here are some examples from "The Happy Time" (movie rating, 73 out of 100, where 60 is about the cut off for a movie worth seeing):
A man and his wife should not both work; everyone knows that. (From a man watching hi swife work, while drinking wine from a water cooler)
Never marry a wife with a career. She will tread on your feet all of your life. (From the same man described aboove)
That is how American women show affection. I have been to Detroit. (From an uncle of a boy who has shown the black and blue marks where a girl has repeatedly kicked him)
We have solved the problem: the sons will go to university, and the daughters will go to work. (Fom the samme man quoted in the first two examples above, as to how he "solved" the dispute with his prospetive son-in-law over whehter to send his hypothetical grandchildren to work, or have them educated at the son-in-law's expense)
As readers of this blog know, I have been forced (by sexist leftist, like those of CNN) to come out of the closet as a feminist (to my great shame and mortification). I was surprised to learn that some men had alredy embraced feminism, even in the 1950s. The idea of women working, while men and boys take it easy, is and idea to which I am becoming more favorable all of the time. Now that I have come out of the closet as a feminist, I feel I might as well go the whole. way. Women deserve to get the full respect to which they are due.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Mitt Romney "Evolves" on Illegal Immigration: Hell Will Freeze Over Before I Vote for Mitt Romney!
Okay, the first part of the headline comes from The Liar Network (CNN), including Candy Crowley. Now CN, and the rest of the mainstream media, have beeen PUSHING Romney to "evolve" on illegtal immigratin. So when the people on CNN say that Mitt Romney is 'evolving on illegal immigration, just like Obama on gay mlarriage (and so many othher things), yu cant rely on CNN to be tellling the truth. Indeed, I ndeeed, this was one of Candy Crowley's LIES that I did not address int he article on Candy Crowley, liear. This is the CNN attempt to adopt the OBAMA LIE on illegal immigratin: tht the main illegal immigratin "issue' i this election is the "Dream Act", and Presidentt Obama's attempt to UNILATERALLY adopt the "Dream Act" --despite Obama saying a year ago that he had NO such authority. What th eLIARS at CNN are trying to do is folllow Obama's lead, andd make the issue of "illeal immigraitn" ALL abut the rather unimportant (except as a lying ply Obama shoud not get waywith) part of the illegal immigratin debate (if, thhat is, yu don't realize that Obama and leftist democrats fully intend for any "exceptiion" to immigratin laws to CNOSUME THE RULLE (the laws, such that really nly the exception is enforced). Still, it is simply a LIE that Romney's positoin on 'illegal imigratin" is "evvolving". Rather, the indicatins are the Romney's "position" on the Dream Act (whatever tghat is at any individual time) is "evolving". This is a very different thing ffrom the way cNN puts it. But there is a reason CNN is The Liar Networrk.
"Okay, Skip. You say that CNN is made up of liears, and it is proably so that they are pushing Romney further than Rmney either wants to go or has said he iis connsidering gong. So how can you be so vehement about Romney in the headline, when yu know thee people of CNN are liears."
First, let me clarify the headline, byond the turththat I don't think (for now) that Romney's entire position on illeagal immigratin (unsually statd to be "immigratin" on CNN, where "illegal immmiggratin is somewhat more offensive--under CNN policy--that the "N" word). is probably not YET chaniging much. That is a CNN LIE. But the last part of the headline, about Hell freezing over, is correct. But what is my position on OBAMA? As for Obama, I will not vote for Obama until BOTH Hell freezes over tAND the sun goes out (or explodes into a black hole, or whatever). Thus, yu can see that I believe Roney is "better" than Obama--jsut not enough better to justify voting for him. You don't see much distinctin? Well, enither do I and that is the roproblem Theoretically Romney is proabably considerably better than Obama, although not actualy "good". The problem is that, IN PRACTICE, Romney will probably be very little better, and perhaps wrse, while BURDENING "conservatives" with the consequences of his failure. Still, I admit it is possible I am wrong on this, because Obama is REALLY BAD. But at least the GOP has incentgive to fight against Obama. They have no such incentive as to Romney as President.
You now know where I am coming from. This brings us to illegal immigratin, and teh constant BETRAYALS of GOP establishment candidates like Romney and McCain. I simply cnnoat STAND teh betrayals. I could not live with myself if I voted for peole--during th e rest ofmy life--who I KNOW are going to betray me in fundamental ways. George W. Bush is teh LAST of those I will ever vote for.
What about Mitt Romney on illegal immigration? Well,, I suspect--if he can--that he will totally BETRAY me if he is elected, no matter what he does before the electin (where even Romney can't poossibly beelive he can get away with a real "reversal"). Jeb Bush,, who I thin of like I think of OBAMA (where both Hell and the sun would have to dramatically change before I would ever vote for him for nayting) said that he thught Romney had "boxed himself in on illegal immigratin"-implying both that the conservative positin on illegal immigratin is wrong AND that Romney would realy like to have another position if he had not had to LIE to win the GOP primaries. Now this says more about Jeb Bush, and the "Bushites", than it does about Romney, as we KNOW how bad George W Bush and Jeb Bush are on illegal immigratino. Still, there are more than enough signs that Romney WILL betray me on this, even if he does not do so before the leectin Indeed, Romney has ALREADY BETRAYED ME.
"Skip, yu jsut said Romney had not yet betrayed you, and you don't believe CNN when CNN tries to say that Romney is rethinking his entire positon on illlegal immmigraitn." All true, and irrelevant. The way Romney has BETRAYED me, and taken ten years off of my life (from frustatin) is the way he--and his "surrogatess"--are letting Obama and CNN CONTROL THE DEBATE. Romney and his surrogates should not even be talking aub the "Dream Act", as if it is immportant. Romney, and his poeople, should have INSTANTLY made this an issue of Obama vx. the AMERICAN PEOPLe. As this blog ha state, 75%--according to CNN---of the American people SUPPORT lthe Arizona law on illegal imigratin. Why does Romney want to be worrlying about iillegal immigrants and the 25%. Romney has been HANDED (by Obama) a WINNING issue, and is turning ti into a lOSING issue.
Obama againt DEMOCRACY, and the American people. That is how Romney needs to be appproaching this.: accusing Obama of being interested in nothing but lPOLITICAL GIMMICKS, even if he has to break the law (his OWN interpretatin of the law) to do it. Romney should be saying that he is OPEN to ideas on NARROW ways to make our immigraitn lwaws fairer--including a law giving a path to citizenship to people whoo honoralby serve a full term n the U. S. military, which Romney hsould say would already bee law except athat Obama wants to makke political poinnts rather than get passed what CAn+N be passed. Romney SHOULD be saying that teh MAIN problem now is to SToP illegal immmigratin, and the incentives for illegal immigants to think that they should come here (because they will be able to stay once they get here) So Rmney can say he is open to NARROW ways to make our immigraitn laws better, but will first focus his attention on the MAJOR problems of illegal immigration. Romney should continually SUPPORT tgehe Arizona law, and ntoe the way the AMERICAN PEOPLE supprot it. If President aObama paid as much attentin to SUPORTING ARIZONA, and evverctive Federal enforcement of immigratin laws, then we would be in a positoin to considert he NUANCES of "weaking" the law. All President Obama is interested in is getting around the immigratin llaws and NOT LISTENING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
no. I am orry. You cant tell me that Rmney is takng this "fight " to Obama and CNN. Rather, Romneyand his people are acting "defensive" for no apparent reason. Do you wonder that I beleive Rmney wil lBETRAY me on tis issue at the drop of a hat (or maybe without the dorop of a hat)? You should not wonder at it.
No, it is not ture that my entire focus is on illegal immigraitn, although it mroe than irks me to be on the WINNING SIDE of this important issue--while looking up and seeing the people supposedly on "my side" talking like I am a HICJK who does not understand the full issues here. I have previusly said that I--for now, although that was turrue of Rmney in 2008--would ssupport Marco Rubio for PRESIDENT, although NOT for re-electin to the Senate (when his seat comes up). This bog has previously noted the BETRAYLS of Marco Rubio of the Tea Party. That was BEFORE Rubio began pushing to BETRAY ME on illeagl immigratin. Still, as with Marco Rubioo, I would considder him ENOUGH better than Obama to vote for him against Obama. I won't have that choice. What that meaans is that Tomney had already FORGETED my vote before he became "ssquishy" on some aspects of illegal immigration (AFTER jumping on Rick Perry for Perry's own versoin of the "Dream Act"). No, I am not going thourgh al of the BETRAYALS of Mitt Rmney now . I have previously gone though some of them in this blog. The overall BETRAYAL is that Rmney takes on almost EVERY issue like he is trying to do with illeal immigraitn: AVOIDNG really pushing CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENTS in favor of CONSERVATIVE PLATITUDES. They are not nearly the samme thing. Roomney is NOT "fighting" for "conservatism". He is merely "fighting" to become President, without really "fighiting" for any "conservative" positin that is under any kind of attack. .
Nope. I can't stand it, no matter how bad Obama is. And I had no illusions about Obama the first time, which did not keep me forom NOT voting for McCain. Hell WILL freeze over before I ever vote for Mitt Romney for President.
P.S No proofreading, spell checking, editing or revisons of any kind (bad eyesight). Oh, I might occasionally catch an error as I am typing, or later see an error i will correct in a HEADLINE. Otherwise, whaqt you see is exactly the way I typed it the very first time--typos and all.
"Okay, Skip. You say that CNN is made up of liears, and it is proably so that they are pushing Romney further than Rmney either wants to go or has said he iis connsidering gong. So how can you be so vehement about Romney in the headline, when yu know thee people of CNN are liears."
First, let me clarify the headline, byond the turththat I don't think (for now) that Romney's entire position on illeagal immigratin (unsually statd to be "immigratin" on CNN, where "illegal immmiggratin is somewhat more offensive--under CNN policy--that the "N" word). is probably not YET chaniging much. That is a CNN LIE. But the last part of the headline, about Hell freezing over, is correct. But what is my position on OBAMA? As for Obama, I will not vote for Obama until BOTH Hell freezes over tAND the sun goes out (or explodes into a black hole, or whatever). Thus, yu can see that I believe Roney is "better" than Obama--jsut not enough better to justify voting for him. You don't see much distinctin? Well, enither do I and that is the roproblem Theoretically Romney is proabably considerably better than Obama, although not actualy "good". The problem is that, IN PRACTICE, Romney will probably be very little better, and perhaps wrse, while BURDENING "conservatives" with the consequences of his failure. Still, I admit it is possible I am wrong on this, because Obama is REALLY BAD. But at least the GOP has incentgive to fight against Obama. They have no such incentive as to Romney as President.
You now know where I am coming from. This brings us to illegal immigratin, and teh constant BETRAYALS of GOP establishment candidates like Romney and McCain. I simply cnnoat STAND teh betrayals. I could not live with myself if I voted for peole--during th e rest ofmy life--who I KNOW are going to betray me in fundamental ways. George W. Bush is teh LAST of those I will ever vote for.
What about Mitt Romney on illegal immigration? Well,, I suspect--if he can--that he will totally BETRAY me if he is elected, no matter what he does before the electin (where even Romney can't poossibly beelive he can get away with a real "reversal"). Jeb Bush,, who I thin of like I think of OBAMA (where both Hell and the sun would have to dramatically change before I would ever vote for him for nayting) said that he thught Romney had "boxed himself in on illegal immigratin"-implying both that the conservative positin on illegal immigratin is wrong AND that Romney would realy like to have another position if he had not had to LIE to win the GOP primaries. Now this says more about Jeb Bush, and the "Bushites", than it does about Romney, as we KNOW how bad George W Bush and Jeb Bush are on illegal immigratino. Still, there are more than enough signs that Romney WILL betray me on this, even if he does not do so before the leectin Indeed, Romney has ALREADY BETRAYED ME.
"Skip, yu jsut said Romney had not yet betrayed you, and you don't believe CNN when CNN tries to say that Romney is rethinking his entire positon on illlegal immmigraitn." All true, and irrelevant. The way Romney has BETRAYED me, and taken ten years off of my life (from frustatin) is the way he--and his "surrogatess"--are letting Obama and CNN CONTROL THE DEBATE. Romney and his surrogates should not even be talking aub the "Dream Act", as if it is immportant. Romney, and his poeople, should have INSTANTLY made this an issue of Obama vx. the AMERICAN PEOPLe. As this blog ha state, 75%--according to CNN---of the American people SUPPORT lthe Arizona law on illegal imigratin. Why does Romney want to be worrlying about iillegal immigrants and the 25%. Romney has been HANDED (by Obama) a WINNING issue, and is turning ti into a lOSING issue.
Obama againt DEMOCRACY, and the American people. That is how Romney needs to be appproaching this.: accusing Obama of being interested in nothing but lPOLITICAL GIMMICKS, even if he has to break the law (his OWN interpretatin of the law) to do it. Romney should be saying that he is OPEN to ideas on NARROW ways to make our immigraitn lwaws fairer--including a law giving a path to citizenship to people whoo honoralby serve a full term n the U. S. military, which Romney hsould say would already bee law except athat Obama wants to makke political poinnts rather than get passed what CAn+N be passed. Romney SHOULD be saying that teh MAIN problem now is to SToP illegal immmigratin, and the incentives for illegal immigants to think that they should come here (because they will be able to stay once they get here) So Rmney can say he is open to NARROW ways to make our immigraitn laws better, but will first focus his attention on the MAJOR problems of illegal immigration. Romney should continually SUPPORT tgehe Arizona law, and ntoe the way the AMERICAN PEOPLE supprot it. If President aObama paid as much attentin to SUPORTING ARIZONA, and evverctive Federal enforcement of immigratin laws, then we would be in a positoin to considert he NUANCES of "weaking" the law. All President Obama is interested in is getting around the immigratin llaws and NOT LISTENING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
no. I am orry. You cant tell me that Rmney is takng this "fight " to Obama and CNN. Rather, Romneyand his people are acting "defensive" for no apparent reason. Do you wonder that I beleive Rmney wil lBETRAY me on tis issue at the drop of a hat (or maybe without the dorop of a hat)? You should not wonder at it.
No, it is not ture that my entire focus is on illegal immigraitn, although it mroe than irks me to be on the WINNING SIDE of this important issue--while looking up and seeing the people supposedly on "my side" talking like I am a HICJK who does not understand the full issues here. I have previusly said that I--for now, although that was turrue of Rmney in 2008--would ssupport Marco Rubio for PRESIDENT, although NOT for re-electin to the Senate (when his seat comes up). This bog has previously noted the BETRAYLS of Marco Rubio of the Tea Party. That was BEFORE Rubio began pushing to BETRAY ME on illeagl immigratin. Still, as with Marco Rubioo, I would considder him ENOUGH better than Obama to vote for him against Obama. I won't have that choice. What that meaans is that Tomney had already FORGETED my vote before he became "ssquishy" on some aspects of illegal immigration (AFTER jumping on Rick Perry for Perry's own versoin of the "Dream Act"). No, I am not going thourgh al of the BETRAYALS of Mitt Rmney now . I have previously gone though some of them in this blog. The overall BETRAYAL is that Rmney takes on almost EVERY issue like he is trying to do with illeal immigraitn: AVOIDNG really pushing CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENTS in favor of CONSERVATIVE PLATITUDES. They are not nearly the samme thing. Roomney is NOT "fighting" for "conservatism". He is merely "fighting" to become President, without really "fighiting" for any "conservative" positin that is under any kind of attack. .
Nope. I can't stand it, no matter how bad Obama is. And I had no illusions about Obama the first time, which did not keep me forom NOT voting for McCain. Hell WILL freeze over before I ever vote for Mitt Romney for President.
P.S No proofreading, spell checking, editing or revisons of any kind (bad eyesight). Oh, I might occasionally catch an error as I am typing, or later see an error i will correct in a HEADLINE. Otherwise, whaqt you see is exactly the way I typed it the very first time--typos and all.
Obama: Out of Touch with the American People, as He Goes for the Illegal Immigrant Vote
You remember the CNN poll, which Erin Burnett (on CNN) told yoiu was consistent with her research into ALL polls on the subject: 75% of Americans SUPPPORT the 'harsh" Arizona law on iillegal immigratin. The same poll showed that62% of NON-WHITES support the Arizona law.
Obama's reactin: to try to BRIBE "Hispancis" with an ILLEGAL gesture. How do I know it is ILLEGAL? President Obama tol me so, hwnn he said a year ago that hh did not have the authroity to unilaterally IMPOSE the "Dream Act" on the country. Well, he has done it anyway, becuse the LAW does not matter to Obama. The limits of his "authortiy" do not matter to Obama. ALL that matters to Obama is the 2-12 electioin, which gives lyou a good idea of how OUT OF CONTROL an Obama will be who gets re-elected. There are no limits to the UNILATERAL "authority" he may claim for himself.
But talk about being oOUT OF TOUCH with the American people!!! 75% of the American people clearly have a big PROBLEM with illegal immigration in this country . First, Obama SUES to subvert democracy and sTOP the Arizoan law that is supported by that 75% of the American peole . Then he acts like the 75% don't even exist, by acting like the CRITICIAL "problem" in this country is the LIMITED number of people. who might be "covered" by the "Dream Act" that Obama now says he has IMPOSED by dictatorial fiat. See the prvius article, about how the "Dream Act" is a LIE, designed to get popular support for 'innocent children", while DELIBERATING ignoring the problem of STOPPING both illegal immigration and illegal immigrants staying in this country once they get here (encouraging more to come). Arizona addressed the what the American people perceive as the REAL PROBLEM. Obama merely addressed his false, manufactured, ideology-driven idea of how to "frame" the "argument" in a way that he, himself, is suggesting wil only affect a LIMITED number of people. Yu just can't get any more OUT OF TOUCH with the American people as this.
President Obama is as much as saying to Hispanics: "I know that ILLEGAL immigratin is your main concern, and the way I am going to HELP you (lol) is to ASSOCIATE you entirely with illegal immigrants." Yep. Among other thinngs this is RACIST and FALSE. (the idea that most Hispanic Americans in this country either are associated with illegal immigrants or want to be). This is the "tail wagging the dog." Obama, and leftist Democrats, want to turn tkhe entire debate on illegal immigration into a debate about the SIDESHOW of how we should handle "innocent children" brought here by their parents (as distinguished by "innocent children" in Mexico, or elesewhere, whose parents are playing by the rules. Mayor Blloomberg, of course, has told us that this is alomst NO ONE, since most illeal imigrants LEAVE THEIR CHILDREN AT HOME when they come here to work. But Mayor Bloomberg, of course , is an ass. But I digress (sort of--although Bloomberg indicates the sheer, blatant diishonesty of proponents of illegal immigratin in this country). To whom is Obama intending to appeal? The STUPID (willing to be deflected with talk of "innocent children" from the real issues of illegal immigration)? The 25% of the American people who do not support the Arizona law on illegal immigration? He certainly is not trying to appeal to the 75% of the people who SUPPORT the Arizona law, except with DECEPTION.
The media, of course, is ready and willing--dishonest partisan hacks that they mostly are--to "carry the water" for Obama by turning the whole "debate" on illegal immigratin into a "debate" on this SIDWSHOW. Obama has UNITLATERRALLLY changed the LAW that has existed in this country FOREVER, even though the Reagan "amnesty" in 1986 was supposed to "solve" the problem for all future time. That was before Obama and the Democrats saw a POLITICAL opportunity to try to use 'illegal immigratin as a "wedge issue" to "get" the "Hispanci vote' (again, RACIST in itself, in the expanded version of the term, even though Hispanics aare really "white"). But our media is perfectly willing to accept the Obama theesis that what matters here is POLITICAL PANDERING to illegal immigrants in a way that DECEIVES the American people as to just how OUT OF TUCH Obama is.
The problem is that Mitt Romney, and GOP establishment peole, play into this Obam/media narrative. They ACT like the narrative CHOSEN by Obama and the media is the ground on which this "battle" should be fought. You can't get any dumber than that. Talk about trying to THOW AWAY a WINING issue!!!! Here is what Romney , and his surrogates, should be saying EVERY time they aree asked about Obama and tehe "Dream Act": "Our President has no respect for the law, and is willing to do and say anything that he thinks will help his electin: including what he said he had no authority to do merely a year ago. Worse than that, President Obama is totally out of touch with the American peole, who understand the real problem of stopping illegal imigratin. 75% of the American people support the Arizona law on illegal immigratin Taht tells you that the American peole understand that we have a real prolbem here. President Obama shows no such understanding, and merely wants to defect people away from the real problem. Mitt Romney certainly supports the idea of giving a path to citizenship for a person who honorably serves a ful term in the U.S. military. , Indeed, it is DMOECRAS and President Obama who effectively BLOCK that change in the law bly insisting upon it being tied to more extensive changes for totally political reasons. Mitt Romney has certainly indicated that he has an oopen mind on very narrow changes in or immigratin laws to address limited cases of injustice. But, as is true on thhe econmy, Mitt Romney is keeping his eye on the main problem. We need to STOP illegal immigration, and we need to enofrce the law. We need to discourage illegal immigrants form coming here, and form saying here--not encourage them. And we need to get the eocnomy going, instaead of making husge uissues out of things that are mnor aspects of bigger problems we face. Mitt Romney is not going to treat the Dream Act as the main problem in illegal immigratin , or some excuse for Presdientt Obama's refulsa to eenforce the law-even to the pint of sing Arizona for merely trying to help enforce the law. Mitt Romney is with 75% of the American people on this. Barack Obama evidently wants the illegal immigrant vote. You will remember that Obama's Homeland Security department has said that they will essentially ignore illegal immigrants who have committed no crime, since it is supposedly a waste of resources to deport them. So this new political stunt of Obama is actually a rETREAT from the positn his administration has already taken: that illegal immigrants in this country should only be deported if they commit a eserius crime. Mitt Romney is not going to turn the serius debatgte abut how to stop illegal immigratin into a false debate abut trying to fin some limited area of the law that we might want to consider changing in a narrow way, using the correct legal process by which we do things in this country. First , we need to get a real handle on our problem of illegal immigratin Then we can worry abut the side issues."
Are Romney and hsis people taing this aproach of accusing OBAMA of being out of touch? I don't think so. See the planned article, to be posted soon, abut my reactin to the Romney camlpGO estalbishment reactin. But the pint of this article is that it is President Obama who is out of touch with the American people. EVERY single time that the subject of illegal immigratin is brought up, any Romney spokesman needs to bring up the poolls showing that 75% of the Amercan people agree with Rmney tat thePresident Obama had no business suing Arizona, but should have thanked Arizona for making a raleffort to deal with the prolem, as distinguished from an Obama political stunt. It is a MISTAKE not to doe this , and I have seen Romney surrogates anxous to make that mistake. Well, lwait for the article on that.
Thus, thkere is no doubt that President OIbama is OUT OF TOUCH with the American people on illegal immigration, and merely wants to conceal that with political stunts. If Mitt Romney loses this issue by letting tObama and the emdia frame it their way, then he deserves to lose the election. President Obama should not get anywhere appealing to the illegal immigrant vote, even if the Democrats are tyring their best to make it possible for illlegal immigrants to vote--by trying to block all attempts to prevent voter fraud.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Obama's reactin: to try to BRIBE "Hispancis" with an ILLEGAL gesture. How do I know it is ILLEGAL? President Obama tol me so, hwnn he said a year ago that hh did not have the authroity to unilaterally IMPOSE the "Dream Act" on the country. Well, he has done it anyway, becuse the LAW does not matter to Obama. The limits of his "authortiy" do not matter to Obama. ALL that matters to Obama is the 2-12 electioin, which gives lyou a good idea of how OUT OF CONTROL an Obama will be who gets re-elected. There are no limits to the UNILATERAL "authority" he may claim for himself.
But talk about being oOUT OF TOUCH with the American people!!! 75% of the American people clearly have a big PROBLEM with illegal immigration in this country . First, Obama SUES to subvert democracy and sTOP the Arizoan law that is supported by that 75% of the American peole . Then he acts like the 75% don't even exist, by acting like the CRITICIAL "problem" in this country is the LIMITED number of people. who might be "covered" by the "Dream Act" that Obama now says he has IMPOSED by dictatorial fiat. See the prvius article, about how the "Dream Act" is a LIE, designed to get popular support for 'innocent children", while DELIBERATING ignoring the problem of STOPPING both illegal immigration and illegal immigrants staying in this country once they get here (encouraging more to come). Arizona addressed the what the American people perceive as the REAL PROBLEM. Obama merely addressed his false, manufactured, ideology-driven idea of how to "frame" the "argument" in a way that he, himself, is suggesting wil only affect a LIMITED number of people. Yu just can't get any more OUT OF TOUCH with the American people as this.
President Obama is as much as saying to Hispanics: "I know that ILLEGAL immigratin is your main concern, and the way I am going to HELP you (lol) is to ASSOCIATE you entirely with illegal immigrants." Yep. Among other thinngs this is RACIST and FALSE. (the idea that most Hispanic Americans in this country either are associated with illegal immigrants or want to be). This is the "tail wagging the dog." Obama, and leftist Democrats, want to turn tkhe entire debate on illegal immigration into a debate about the SIDESHOW of how we should handle "innocent children" brought here by their parents (as distinguished by "innocent children" in Mexico, or elesewhere, whose parents are playing by the rules. Mayor Blloomberg, of course, has told us that this is alomst NO ONE, since most illeal imigrants LEAVE THEIR CHILDREN AT HOME when they come here to work. But Mayor Bloomberg, of course , is an ass. But I digress (sort of--although Bloomberg indicates the sheer, blatant diishonesty of proponents of illegal immigratin in this country). To whom is Obama intending to appeal? The STUPID (willing to be deflected with talk of "innocent children" from the real issues of illegal immigration)? The 25% of the American people who do not support the Arizona law on illegal immigration? He certainly is not trying to appeal to the 75% of the people who SUPPORT the Arizona law, except with DECEPTION.
The media, of course, is ready and willing--dishonest partisan hacks that they mostly are--to "carry the water" for Obama by turning the whole "debate" on illegal immigratin into a "debate" on this SIDWSHOW. Obama has UNITLATERRALLLY changed the LAW that has existed in this country FOREVER, even though the Reagan "amnesty" in 1986 was supposed to "solve" the problem for all future time. That was before Obama and the Democrats saw a POLITICAL opportunity to try to use 'illegal immigratin as a "wedge issue" to "get" the "Hispanci vote' (again, RACIST in itself, in the expanded version of the term, even though Hispanics aare really "white"). But our media is perfectly willing to accept the Obama theesis that what matters here is POLITICAL PANDERING to illegal immigrants in a way that DECEIVES the American people as to just how OUT OF TUCH Obama is.
The problem is that Mitt Romney, and GOP establishment peole, play into this Obam/media narrative. They ACT like the narrative CHOSEN by Obama and the media is the ground on which this "battle" should be fought. You can't get any dumber than that. Talk about trying to THOW AWAY a WINING issue!!!! Here is what Romney , and his surrogates, should be saying EVERY time they aree asked about Obama and tehe "Dream Act": "Our President has no respect for the law, and is willing to do and say anything that he thinks will help his electin: including what he said he had no authority to do merely a year ago. Worse than that, President Obama is totally out of touch with the American peole, who understand the real problem of stopping illegal imigratin. 75% of the American people support the Arizona law on illegal immigratin Taht tells you that the American peole understand that we have a real prolbem here. President Obama shows no such understanding, and merely wants to defect people away from the real problem. Mitt Romney certainly supports the idea of giving a path to citizenship for a person who honorably serves a ful term in the U.S. military. , Indeed, it is DMOECRAS and President Obama who effectively BLOCK that change in the law bly insisting upon it being tied to more extensive changes for totally political reasons. Mitt Romney has certainly indicated that he has an oopen mind on very narrow changes in or immigratin laws to address limited cases of injustice. But, as is true on thhe econmy, Mitt Romney is keeping his eye on the main problem. We need to STOP illegal immigration, and we need to enofrce the law. We need to discourage illegal immigrants form coming here, and form saying here--not encourage them. And we need to get the eocnomy going, instaead of making husge uissues out of things that are mnor aspects of bigger problems we face. Mitt Romney is not going to treat the Dream Act as the main problem in illegal immigratin , or some excuse for Presdientt Obama's refulsa to eenforce the law-even to the pint of sing Arizona for merely trying to help enforce the law. Mitt Romney is with 75% of the American people on this. Barack Obama evidently wants the illegal immigrant vote. You will remember that Obama's Homeland Security department has said that they will essentially ignore illegal immigrants who have committed no crime, since it is supposedly a waste of resources to deport them. So this new political stunt of Obama is actually a rETREAT from the positn his administration has already taken: that illegal immigrants in this country should only be deported if they commit a eserius crime. Mitt Romney is not going to turn the serius debatgte abut how to stop illegal immigratin into a false debate abut trying to fin some limited area of the law that we might want to consider changing in a narrow way, using the correct legal process by which we do things in this country. First , we need to get a real handle on our problem of illegal immigratin Then we can worry abut the side issues."
Are Romney and hsis people taing this aproach of accusing OBAMA of being out of touch? I don't think so. See the planned article, to be posted soon, abut my reactin to the Romney camlpGO estalbishment reactin. But the pint of this article is that it is President Obama who is out of touch with the American people. EVERY single time that the subject of illegal immigratin is brought up, any Romney spokesman needs to bring up the poolls showing that 75% of the Amercan people agree with Rmney tat thePresident Obama had no business suing Arizona, but should have thanked Arizona for making a raleffort to deal with the prolem, as distinguished from an Obama political stunt. It is a MISTAKE not to doe this , and I have seen Romney surrogates anxous to make that mistake. Well, lwait for the article on that.
Thus, thkere is no doubt that President OIbama is OUT OF TOUCH with the American people on illegal immigration, and merely wants to conceal that with political stunts. If Mitt Romney loses this issue by letting tObama and the emdia frame it their way, then he deserves to lose the election. President Obama should not get anywhere appealing to the illegal immigrant vote, even if the Democrats are tyring their best to make it possible for illlegal immigrants to vote--by trying to block all attempts to prevent voter fraud.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Will Cain: "Cooper Indian" on CNN
A "cooper Indian" is what Mark Twain called James Fenimore Cooper's fictional verison of an American Indian (Native American) that Cooper described in his "Leatherstocking Tales". This refers to Twain's famous critical essaly on Cooper's fictin. Twains' pont was that a "Cooper Indian" bore no relationship to a real American Idnian.
I have previusly said that basicaly ALL "conservatives" on CNN seem to bear no relationship to real conservatives. This may be becaus CNN corrupts them. Bu, whatever,the reason, a "CNN conservative" bears the same relationship to a real conservative as a "Cooper Indian" bears to a real Indian in the French and Indian War (at least as Twain describes it--I would be more kind to Cooper, who was hardly trying for "realism"). Will Cain IS a Coope Indian (or a CNN conservative--if yo prefer). He bears no real relatioinship to a real conservative.
I have thought that for some time. But I made the mistake of surfing CNN today, and saw the introductin to their "business" report show. Will Cain was PRESENTED (I kid you not) as a "conservative" who agrees taht we shuld not "cut spending now", because the ecoomy is in such sad shape.
I am sortty, Mr. Cain. You CANNOT be a conservative, and have that positin. The idea that the AMOUNT of Federal Government spending cannot be cut in a bad economy is abusrd. It does not matter if yyou agreewith that or not. The pont is that it PORVES my pont about "CNN conservatives" (who evidently KNOW what they have to say to stay n CNN, as panel members or whatever). Noope. You simply CANNOT be a"conservative ' and have this position. Can yo be a Wall Stret econmic fascsist with this position? Sure you can. But you can't be a real conservative, who actualy beleives in a SMALLER Federal Government in ALL times, and al circumstances (beynd, maybe, an all-out war like World War II).
Sorry, Will Cain. Three strikes and you are out. No, I am not even going to describe the first tow strikes, and I am not interested in the "nuances" of Cai's "position" Will Cain is NOT a "conservative". He is a "CNN conservative"---not at all the same thin (at least as fictional as James Fenimore Cooper's Indians).
I have previusly said that basicaly ALL "conservatives" on CNN seem to bear no relationship to real conservatives. This may be becaus CNN corrupts them. Bu, whatever,the reason, a "CNN conservative" bears the same relationship to a real conservative as a "Cooper Indian" bears to a real Indian in the French and Indian War (at least as Twain describes it--I would be more kind to Cooper, who was hardly trying for "realism"). Will Cain IS a Coope Indian (or a CNN conservative--if yo prefer). He bears no real relatioinship to a real conservative.
I have thought that for some time. But I made the mistake of surfing CNN today, and saw the introductin to their "business" report show. Will Cain was PRESENTED (I kid you not) as a "conservative" who agrees taht we shuld not "cut spending now", because the ecoomy is in such sad shape.
I am sortty, Mr. Cain. You CANNOT be a conservative, and have that positin. The idea that the AMOUNT of Federal Government spending cannot be cut in a bad economy is abusrd. It does not matter if yyou agreewith that or not. The pont is that it PORVES my pont about "CNN conservatives" (who evidently KNOW what they have to say to stay n CNN, as panel members or whatever). Noope. You simply CANNOT be a"conservative ' and have this position. Can yo be a Wall Stret econmic fascsist with this position? Sure you can. But you can't be a real conservative, who actualy beleives in a SMALLER Federal Government in ALL times, and al circumstances (beynd, maybe, an all-out war like World War II).
Sorry, Will Cain. Three strikes and you are out. No, I am not even going to describe the first tow strikes, and I am not interested in the "nuances" of Cai's "position" Will Cain is NOT a "conservative". He is a "CNN conservative"---not at all the same thin (at least as fictional as James Fenimore Cooper's Indians).
Candy Crowley, CNN and IIllegal Immigration: Liar on The Liar Network
A doctor practicing medicine--such as doing a major heart operation-without a license is an undocumented doctor, in the same sense that an illegal immigrant is an "undocumented" immigrant. The same applies to a person without a driver's license: defefinitely an undocumented drive. Truckers withut the documentation to drive the big rigs safely: undocumented truckers--including those truckers who fail to keep a proper log showing lthhey have gotten enough sleep Doesn't it SOUND so much better to refer to all of these people as merely undocumented? Why shuld ew actually enforce teh LAW on any of these problems involving mere documents? Airline pilots fling without a license? No broblem. Merely undocumented pilots. Did you realize that we have been too harsh on the 9/11 terrorists? They wre merely undocumented pilots who couuld not get work as an ariline pilot soely because of our HARSH rules on documentatioin. The NRA needs to take note. A person caught without a propre gun permit is merely an undocumnted gkun owner. Who is to say he could not have gotten the proper documentation if he had only tried? And the INNOCENT CHILDREN. Can you really say that a child allowed to rrive a car by his parent, without bothering to get a driver's license, is a BAD PERSON? Obviously, we just need to let such a child drive, while this problm with paperowork is cleared up.
Proponents of illegal immigration are some of the most DISHOENST people who have ever lived. They are absolutely incapable of being honest, probably because they know their positoin is so WEAK. And CNN-The Liar Network--has some of lthe most dishonest illegal immigration lproponents. There is a reason taht CNN has EARNED the name: "The Liar Network". This blog has already pubished many articles about the DISHONESTY of CNN on this subject: One of the last ones was titled Erin Burnett: Liar on The Liar Network". Enter Cady Crowlye.
Again, CNN has a POLICY not to refer to illegal immigrants as "illegal immigrants". That, alone, shows yu how DISHONEST CNN is, and how dishonest the whole pro-illegal immigratin "movement" is. This is an Orwellian Big Lie, and these people know it. The idea is to make it SOUND like there is no problem with being an illegal immigrant--to make it SOUND like it is just like leaving yur driver's license in yur other purse. This is obvius, but for you DISHOENSTR people out there, I will explain this to yu. The problem is NOT that illeagl immigrants to not have to "proper documents". The problem is that they CAN'T GET the proper documents (at least in what they consider a reasoanble amount of time). It really is EXACTLY like an airline pilot without a proper pilot's license. If he COULD get a proper pilot's license, he would have one. Thus, to even mention "documents" in conncectin with illegal immigratin is a Big Lie right out of Orwell's "!984". Illeal immigratin has NOTHING to do wityh documents. Enter Candy Crowlye, LIAR, on Friday on CNN.
Candy Crowley is a liar. How else can yu describe someone wh won't even use the CODE phrawse , "undocumented immigrant", even though it is a Big Lie. Candy Crowley actually DESCRIBED illegal immigrants as being people "without documents', and "without proper documentation". How much of a LIAR do you have to be to be this BLATANT abut it. look at Candy Crowlley, and you will now You have to be one of the WORST, most "politically correct", liars who has ever lived: one of the worst liars on The Liar Network. (by a thin margin, since EVERYONE on The Liar Network is one of the worst liars who ever lived.
Candy Crowley was not through. On CN, les are like peanuts: you can't tell just one. Crowly ws there to talk about how "children" of illegal immigrants born in their home country are "innocent", because they are not here from their own choice. This idea is another of the Big Lies of proponents of illegal immigratin. It is, of course, the Dream Act idea "dreamed up" by PRO-ILLEAGL IMMIGRAATN LIARS in order to start the ball rollling on AmNESTY. The whole ide is to USE the idea of 'innocent children" to shift the focus away from illegal immigratin (a term they, whch explains CNN policy, simply refuse to use) to "compassin" for illegal immigrants. Never doubt me on this one. This is 100% vertain. Notice that the TERMS of the "Dream Act" have CHANGED pretty radically as time a gone on. It is nothin gmore than an EXUSE to get SOME kind of AMNESTY bill passed: both as a POLITICAL BRIBE and as a DISHONEST way to moving toward general manesty. So Candy Crowley trotted out this LIE about chilldren of illegla immigrants born in another country being so "innocent". The key thing that illegal immigrants ignore of course, is that this has nothing to do with "innocence" or "guilt". Children born in another country,, to citizens of that country, were SUPPOISED TO GROW UP IN THAT COUNTRY. To send them back to that country is to send them back where they ARE sSUPPOSED TO BE. It has nothing whatever to do with "moral guilt".
"Smkip, surely you are not saying children who are brought here at a young age are not 'innocent'? Oh, yu DISHOENST Lpeople (talkinga abut Candy Crowley, and other proponents of illegal imigration). It is IRELEVANT whether children of illegal immigrants are "innocent". It is a matter of where they are SUUPPOSED TO BE. Are proponents of illegal iimmigratin saying that children wh MAKE it past border security are ENTITLED to stay here (as a reward for braving Obama's predator drones, machinie guns, and border lpatrol agents--not to mention alligators in moats--as Obama brags that he has "improved" border security)? (LOL). Actaully, of coure, the LIARS who represent the pro-illeagl immigratin forces in this country actually do beleive this . But what makes "children" wh make it here more "inocent" than chiren who stay in their wown country? Remember, Mayor Bloomberg--one of the few people probably MORE dishoenst than Candy Crowley, buth who was NOT challegned on the point by the DISHONEST Fareed Zakaria on The Liar Network---maintains that illegal immigrants in this coutnry usually LEAVE THEIR CHILDREN AT HOME. . Proponents of illegal immigratin will say absolutely ANYTHING--sonsistent or not. Atain, WHY are children in Mexico 9fr example), who WANT to come to the United Staes, LESS INNOCENT than people who MAKE IT here (when they are supposed to be frowing up in Mexico) No reason. Proponents of illlegal immigratin just want to USE "compassion" for "innocentr childr" (Crowley ,yu really are one of the most DESPICALBE LIARS who ha ever lived).
Proponents of illegal immigratin , includng Cowley, actually regard ADULT illegal immigrants as jsut as "innocent" as the childre--merely tryin g to make a better livfe for thiemselve; hard working people who HELP thi scuntry (Mayro Bloomberg again). I am teelling you, and there is nothing upon which I am more certainly right, that proponents of illegal immigration really MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT for all illegal immigrants.. They just KNOW lthat they cannot SELL their insane obsession as to adults. Therfore, they are tryig to USE "inocent children", because they think they can SELL that one to GULLIBLE lpeople (using LIE after LIEl-includng the Big Lie about their itnet). I Agree, by the way, that it is not really a MORAL FAULT for illeagl immigrants to want to make a better life for themselves, even if it means violating the law. I am not "blaming" ilegal immigrants for wanting to come heer. I am bllaming US--people like CNN and Candy Crowley, and other pro-illegal immigrant "activists") for makng it POSSIBLE for them to stay here: thereby ENCOURAGING THEM TO KEEP COMING HERE ILLEGALLY. It is IRRRELEVANT, again, whether these are "good, hard working people". peple like liar Candy Crowey want to put the focus on he illegal immigratn, and whether the person is a "bad person". HOGWASH (lying hogwash). The focus as to ilegal immigratin MUST be on STOPPING illegal immigratin, and not encouraging peple to stay here when they are SUPPOSED TO BE SOMEWHER ELSE. This has absolutley nothing to do with morality. In the end, it has to do with the fact that we cannot AFFORD an "opern border" with Mexico We cannot AFFORD to try to solve the 'poverty problems" of Mexico (or any other country) a, as well as our own. The illegal immigrants who come here might be the BEST peole around--the most "innocent and deserving"--and we still could not AFFORD to simply invite illegal immigrants into this country. We know, of course, that illegal immigrants are not that "good". They ar a mix of "good" and "gad"--"inocent" and not-so-nnocent. But it does nto matter. They are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HERE, and we canot AFFORD to ENCURAGE THEM TO COME HERE. It is simly INSANE to say that illegal immigrants are "more worthy" than the peole who STAY IN MEXICO (or whereve). It HAS to be the other way around. No, it is not that illegal immigrants are automatically "bad people". But they viiolated the law by coming here, AND by staying here. Can yo really say that the people who OBEY the law, and stay in their own country HOPING to get here LEGALLY are not just as worthy, and at least marginally lesss worthy (as a group) because they are where they are not supposed to be?
Again, it is like that airline pilot, or trucher, wthout a license ("proper documentatin", in the LYING language of Candy Crowley). A trucker whout proper credentials MAY be jsut as good a lperson, and even just as goood a driver, as someone whow has GONE THRHOUGH THE HOOPS of getting the legal documentation to operate legally. But is not the person hwho goes through the legal process MORE WORTHY, for that reason alone. than the person who tries to get around the legal lprocess? The answer is obvius.
"But, Skip, surely you can't say that a person who came here illlegally at the age of, say, 7, shuld be DEPORTED when they have attended school here all of those years, and graduated from high school." Notice I refuse to evenCOMMENT on the versions of the Dream Act that suggest that an illegal immigrant has a rIGHT to havve the "Aermican Dream" of GOING TO COLLEGE. No. Yu will guess that I don't agree with President aObama that an Americn-born AMERICAN CITIZEN has a RIGHT to go to colege. This idea that we shulc "encourage" ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to go to college is more than I can stand. I start foamig at the mouth when I hear that one, or arguments that impleidly endorse that idea. But is there SOME argumetn that there is something "unfair" about a person who really knows only hoow to live in America, and may not even speak th language of the other country? Notice how this "argument" means ACCEPTING that we have LOTS of people--despite that LIAR, Mayor Bloomberng--who have ived here ILLEGALLY for MANY YERS> As far as I am concerned that merely emphasizes how IMP:ORTANT it is to STOP THAT. We should NOT have illegal immigrants able to lieve, work, and send their children to American schoools WITHOUT INTERFERENCE. That means we have FAIILED to discourage illegal immigratin, and to enforce our laws. yep. I AM saying that we shuld NOT let children who are here illegally go to an American public school, any more than we should let children STLL LIVING IN MEXICO go to an American public school (which it has been documented has happened, and continues to happen). There erally should be NO ONE who graduates from an Aermican public hishg shcoool, after gong all four years as an illegal immigrant. The PARENTS should nto be allowed to exist in this countgry for that many years. Even i fwe don't turn children away from school, we shouild IMMEDIATELY move to DPEORT them (and their parents). Gain, the problem is US, and not the illegal immigrants. But I refuse to make OUR PROBLEM not capable of solutin by invoking the relatively FEW cases where you might well "feel sorry" for a child who has (because we refuse to enforce our laws) "grown up" in this country. The way we are gong, the problem jsut never ends. I refuse to acceept that, and I especially refuse to let LIARS like Candy Crowly, and the others on CNN, deflect me fromt he real issues here. I would rather let Congressmen get special bills passed for INDIVIDUALS who really can show it would be a "hardship" for theem not to be allowed legal tatus in this counntry b, because they have llived here so long, since childhood.
Candy Crowley, lLIAR that she is on The Liar Network, actaully described presidentt Obama's idea of an ADMINISTRATIVE "Dream Act" (whch he said a mere year ago he had NO AUTHORITY to implement) in some of the sttranges t terms I have ever heard (as befts a LIAR, without any seemng recognition that they are strange). Crowley said that Obama's new "policy" would apply ONLY t peple who had come here beforeage 16, and who are NOT YET 30. Say whatt???????According to Mayor Bloomberg, of course, MOT illegal immigrants are "too young" to need much health carre. But let us pass by Mary Bloomberng as a PATHOLOTICAL LIAR who wil say anythikng. This tells you al yu need to know abut there being NO LOGIC behind each and everry, of the many "versiion" of the "Dream Act". Let us take tow peole. One person came here 50 years ago, at the age of 7. Another person came here ALONE, wihout his parents, at the age of 15 to get a beter life. No. I don't care who supposedly "fits" the Obama criteria. It is all a LIE anyway. The intent is not to deprot ANYBODY, and to give legal status to as many people as possible. But what MANIAC thinks that a person who came here at age q0, or maybe 5, has has now been here 50 years, has a WORSE "equitable' case merely becaluse he is over 30? So help me, that is how Crowley described it: that Obama's new "policy" only aplied to peple UNDER 30. But, then, Crowley is a LIAR. The whole purpose, of course, is to merely make it IMPOSSIBLE to DPORT anyone under the age of 30 (if that is the insane "cut off"). The idea of EVERY "Drema Act" versin is to allow a category of peole to TELL THE INS taht they fit the criteria, and avoid deportatin Will the INS EVER really "investigate" all of these claims, and-even if they eventually do--will no tth eperson be here YEARS beofre the INS even "rejects" the claim (which will not men deporatin because the INS still won't worry about it--espeically if someone like Obama is President). This is all a LIE.
You doubt me? Never do that. Let me explan to you a "policy" I MIGHT be inclined to "endorse" if I did not think we should NOT ALLOW illegal immigrarants to be "educated" in American public schools. Say that you did not allow a person to even APPLY for "legal status" unless they FIRST had these CERTFICATIONS:
1. that they have attended (for the number of days that mean real "attendance") an American high shcool for FOUR YEARS, and graduated
2. a certificatin (from whom may be some sort of problem, but could be done, along with the type of TEST that must be passed) that the person is FLUENT i the English language (a test, by the way, on whether the person should realy have "garaduated" from high school).
No, I am nost through. This law would make it a FELONY for a person to either give or present a FALSE certificatin of either of these things--includng a SCOOL representative certifying either attendance or graduatin that did not occur. Can you imagine the HOWL that would come with this kind of requirment to actualy PROVE yu "qualified" BEOFRE YOU COULLD STOP DEPORTATIN , OR EVN APPLY. Again, this hwole "Dream Act" thing is a LIE. I have no patience wiht people who do not understand that. Now I can usndersnad some peole SNOWED by the LIES here. Taht is why I do not give peole like Candy Crolwy, and the otehr peoe of CNN a "pass". They are DISHONESTT, and I will coninue to show you that until my dyig breath (ope--sorry to disappoint--not imminent).
This whle Candy Crowlye "reprt", of cure, was really part of the President Obama eleciton campaign, as was the OBAMA VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW (according to Obama). The facts, and the "logic" of this whole attemt to USE "innocent children", are NEVER "examined. It is all propaganda, and that is how yoiu have to understand it. It is all a LIE. Even if you think there are a FEW children who "deserve" to stay here, this is still a LIE. Do you wonder, by the way how a 15 year old illegal immmigrant could really "graduate' frm hisgh shcoool legitimately? I do. You have to be able to count the number of such children on yur fingers--okay, maybe we can ge generous and add your toes. This is all a LIE.
P.S. No proofreadiding or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Proponents of illegal immigration are some of the most DISHOENST people who have ever lived. They are absolutely incapable of being honest, probably because they know their positoin is so WEAK. And CNN-The Liar Network--has some of lthe most dishonest illegal immigration lproponents. There is a reason taht CNN has EARNED the name: "The Liar Network". This blog has already pubished many articles about the DISHONESTY of CNN on this subject: One of the last ones was titled Erin Burnett: Liar on The Liar Network". Enter Cady Crowlye.
Again, CNN has a POLICY not to refer to illegal immigrants as "illegal immigrants". That, alone, shows yu how DISHONEST CNN is, and how dishonest the whole pro-illegal immigratin "movement" is. This is an Orwellian Big Lie, and these people know it. The idea is to make it SOUND like there is no problem with being an illegal immigrant--to make it SOUND like it is just like leaving yur driver's license in yur other purse. This is obvius, but for you DISHOENSTR people out there, I will explain this to yu. The problem is NOT that illeagl immigrants to not have to "proper documents". The problem is that they CAN'T GET the proper documents (at least in what they consider a reasoanble amount of time). It really is EXACTLY like an airline pilot without a proper pilot's license. If he COULD get a proper pilot's license, he would have one. Thus, to even mention "documents" in conncectin with illegal immigratin is a Big Lie right out of Orwell's "!984". Illeal immigratin has NOTHING to do wityh documents. Enter Candy Crowlye, LIAR, on Friday on CNN.
Candy Crowley is a liar. How else can yu describe someone wh won't even use the CODE phrawse , "undocumented immigrant", even though it is a Big Lie. Candy Crowley actually DESCRIBED illegal immigrants as being people "without documents', and "without proper documentation". How much of a LIAR do you have to be to be this BLATANT abut it. look at Candy Crowlley, and you will now You have to be one of the WORST, most "politically correct", liars who has ever lived: one of the worst liars on The Liar Network. (by a thin margin, since EVERYONE on The Liar Network is one of the worst liars who ever lived.
Candy Crowley was not through. On CN, les are like peanuts: you can't tell just one. Crowly ws there to talk about how "children" of illegal immigrants born in their home country are "innocent", because they are not here from their own choice. This idea is another of the Big Lies of proponents of illegal immigratin. It is, of course, the Dream Act idea "dreamed up" by PRO-ILLEAGL IMMIGRAATN LIARS in order to start the ball rollling on AmNESTY. The whole ide is to USE the idea of 'innocent children" to shift the focus away from illegal immigratin (a term they, whch explains CNN policy, simply refuse to use) to "compassin" for illegal immigrants. Never doubt me on this one. This is 100% vertain. Notice that the TERMS of the "Dream Act" have CHANGED pretty radically as time a gone on. It is nothin gmore than an EXUSE to get SOME kind of AMNESTY bill passed: both as a POLITICAL BRIBE and as a DISHONEST way to moving toward general manesty. So Candy Crowley trotted out this LIE about chilldren of illegla immigrants born in another country being so "innocent". The key thing that illegal immigrants ignore of course, is that this has nothing to do with "innocence" or "guilt". Children born in another country,, to citizens of that country, were SUPPOISED TO GROW UP IN THAT COUNTRY. To send them back to that country is to send them back where they ARE sSUPPOSED TO BE. It has nothing whatever to do with "moral guilt".
"Smkip, surely you are not saying children who are brought here at a young age are not 'innocent'? Oh, yu DISHOENST Lpeople (talkinga abut Candy Crowley, and other proponents of illegal imigration). It is IRELEVANT whether children of illegal immigrants are "innocent". It is a matter of where they are SUUPPOSED TO BE. Are proponents of illegal iimmigratin saying that children wh MAKE it past border security are ENTITLED to stay here (as a reward for braving Obama's predator drones, machinie guns, and border lpatrol agents--not to mention alligators in moats--as Obama brags that he has "improved" border security)? (LOL). Actaully, of coure, the LIARS who represent the pro-illeagl immigratin forces in this country actually do beleive this . But what makes "children" wh make it here more "inocent" than chiren who stay in their wown country? Remember, Mayor Bloomberg--one of the few people probably MORE dishoenst than Candy Crowley, buth who was NOT challegned on the point by the DISHONEST Fareed Zakaria on The Liar Network---maintains that illegal immigrants in this coutnry usually LEAVE THEIR CHILDREN AT HOME. . Proponents of illegal immigratin will say absolutely ANYTHING--sonsistent or not. Atain, WHY are children in Mexico 9fr example), who WANT to come to the United Staes, LESS INNOCENT than people who MAKE IT here (when they are supposed to be frowing up in Mexico) No reason. Proponents of illlegal immigratin just want to USE "compassion" for "innocentr childr" (Crowley ,yu really are one of the most DESPICALBE LIARS who ha ever lived).
Proponents of illegal immigratin , includng Cowley, actually regard ADULT illegal immigrants as jsut as "innocent" as the childre--merely tryin g to make a better livfe for thiemselve; hard working people who HELP thi scuntry (Mayro Bloomberg again). I am teelling you, and there is nothing upon which I am more certainly right, that proponents of illegal immigration really MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT for all illegal immigrants.. They just KNOW lthat they cannot SELL their insane obsession as to adults. Therfore, they are tryig to USE "inocent children", because they think they can SELL that one to GULLIBLE lpeople (using LIE after LIEl-includng the Big Lie about their itnet). I Agree, by the way, that it is not really a MORAL FAULT for illeagl immigrants to want to make a better life for themselves, even if it means violating the law. I am not "blaming" ilegal immigrants for wanting to come heer. I am bllaming US--people like CNN and Candy Crowley, and other pro-illegal immigrant "activists") for makng it POSSIBLE for them to stay here: thereby ENCOURAGING THEM TO KEEP COMING HERE ILLEGALLY. It is IRRRELEVANT, again, whether these are "good, hard working people". peple like liar Candy Crowey want to put the focus on he illegal immigratn, and whether the person is a "bad person". HOGWASH (lying hogwash). The focus as to ilegal immigratin MUST be on STOPPING illegal immigratin, and not encouraging peple to stay here when they are SUPPOSED TO BE SOMEWHER ELSE. This has absolutley nothing to do with morality. In the end, it has to do with the fact that we cannot AFFORD an "opern border" with Mexico We cannot AFFORD to try to solve the 'poverty problems" of Mexico (or any other country) a, as well as our own. The illegal immigrants who come here might be the BEST peole around--the most "innocent and deserving"--and we still could not AFFORD to simply invite illegal immigrants into this country. We know, of course, that illegal immigrants are not that "good". They ar a mix of "good" and "gad"--"inocent" and not-so-nnocent. But it does nto matter. They are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HERE, and we canot AFFORD to ENCURAGE THEM TO COME HERE. It is simly INSANE to say that illegal immigrants are "more worthy" than the peole who STAY IN MEXICO (or whereve). It HAS to be the other way around. No, it is not that illegal immigrants are automatically "bad people". But they viiolated the law by coming here, AND by staying here. Can yo really say that the people who OBEY the law, and stay in their own country HOPING to get here LEGALLY are not just as worthy, and at least marginally lesss worthy (as a group) because they are where they are not supposed to be?
Again, it is like that airline pilot, or trucher, wthout a license ("proper documentatin", in the LYING language of Candy Crowley). A trucker whout proper credentials MAY be jsut as good a lperson, and even just as goood a driver, as someone whow has GONE THRHOUGH THE HOOPS of getting the legal documentation to operate legally. But is not the person hwho goes through the legal process MORE WORTHY, for that reason alone. than the person who tries to get around the legal lprocess? The answer is obvius.
"But, Skip, surely you can't say that a person who came here illlegally at the age of, say, 7, shuld be DEPORTED when they have attended school here all of those years, and graduated from high school." Notice I refuse to evenCOMMENT on the versions of the Dream Act that suggest that an illegal immigrant has a rIGHT to havve the "Aermican Dream" of GOING TO COLLEGE. No. Yu will guess that I don't agree with President aObama that an Americn-born AMERICAN CITIZEN has a RIGHT to go to colege. This idea that we shulc "encourage" ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to go to college is more than I can stand. I start foamig at the mouth when I hear that one, or arguments that impleidly endorse that idea. But is there SOME argumetn that there is something "unfair" about a person who really knows only hoow to live in America, and may not even speak th language of the other country? Notice how this "argument" means ACCEPTING that we have LOTS of people--despite that LIAR, Mayor Bloomberng--who have ived here ILLEGALLY for MANY YERS> As far as I am concerned that merely emphasizes how IMP:ORTANT it is to STOP THAT. We should NOT have illegal immigrants able to lieve, work, and send their children to American schoools WITHOUT INTERFERENCE. That means we have FAIILED to discourage illegal immigratin, and to enforce our laws. yep. I AM saying that we shuld NOT let children who are here illegally go to an American public school, any more than we should let children STLL LIVING IN MEXICO go to an American public school (which it has been documented has happened, and continues to happen). There erally should be NO ONE who graduates from an Aermican public hishg shcoool, after gong all four years as an illegal immigrant. The PARENTS should nto be allowed to exist in this countgry for that many years. Even i fwe don't turn children away from school, we shouild IMMEDIATELY move to DPEORT them (and their parents). Gain, the problem is US, and not the illegal immigrants. But I refuse to make OUR PROBLEM not capable of solutin by invoking the relatively FEW cases where you might well "feel sorry" for a child who has (because we refuse to enforce our laws) "grown up" in this country. The way we are gong, the problem jsut never ends. I refuse to acceept that, and I especially refuse to let LIARS like Candy Crowly, and the others on CNN, deflect me fromt he real issues here. I would rather let Congressmen get special bills passed for INDIVIDUALS who really can show it would be a "hardship" for theem not to be allowed legal tatus in this counntry b, because they have llived here so long, since childhood.
Candy Crowley, lLIAR that she is on The Liar Network, actaully described presidentt Obama's idea of an ADMINISTRATIVE "Dream Act" (whch he said a mere year ago he had NO AUTHORITY to implement) in some of the sttranges t terms I have ever heard (as befts a LIAR, without any seemng recognition that they are strange). Crowley said that Obama's new "policy" would apply ONLY t peple who had come here beforeage 16, and who are NOT YET 30. Say whatt???????According to Mayor Bloomberg, of course, MOT illegal immigrants are "too young" to need much health carre. But let us pass by Mary Bloomberng as a PATHOLOTICAL LIAR who wil say anythikng. This tells you al yu need to know abut there being NO LOGIC behind each and everry, of the many "versiion" of the "Dream Act". Let us take tow peole. One person came here 50 years ago, at the age of 7. Another person came here ALONE, wihout his parents, at the age of 15 to get a beter life. No. I don't care who supposedly "fits" the Obama criteria. It is all a LIE anyway. The intent is not to deprot ANYBODY, and to give legal status to as many people as possible. But what MANIAC thinks that a person who came here at age q0, or maybe 5, has has now been here 50 years, has a WORSE "equitable' case merely becaluse he is over 30? So help me, that is how Crowley described it: that Obama's new "policy" only aplied to peple UNDER 30. But, then, Crowley is a LIAR. The whole purpose, of course, is to merely make it IMPOSSIBLE to DPORT anyone under the age of 30 (if that is the insane "cut off"). The idea of EVERY "Drema Act" versin is to allow a category of peole to TELL THE INS taht they fit the criteria, and avoid deportatin Will the INS EVER really "investigate" all of these claims, and-even if they eventually do--will no tth eperson be here YEARS beofre the INS even "rejects" the claim (which will not men deporatin because the INS still won't worry about it--espeically if someone like Obama is President). This is all a LIE.
You doubt me? Never do that. Let me explan to you a "policy" I MIGHT be inclined to "endorse" if I did not think we should NOT ALLOW illegal immigrarants to be "educated" in American public schools. Say that you did not allow a person to even APPLY for "legal status" unless they FIRST had these CERTFICATIONS:
1. that they have attended (for the number of days that mean real "attendance") an American high shcool for FOUR YEARS, and graduated
2. a certificatin (from whom may be some sort of problem, but could be done, along with the type of TEST that must be passed) that the person is FLUENT i the English language (a test, by the way, on whether the person should realy have "garaduated" from high school).
No, I am nost through. This law would make it a FELONY for a person to either give or present a FALSE certificatin of either of these things--includng a SCOOL representative certifying either attendance or graduatin that did not occur. Can you imagine the HOWL that would come with this kind of requirment to actualy PROVE yu "qualified" BEOFRE YOU COULLD STOP DEPORTATIN , OR EVN APPLY. Again, this hwole "Dream Act" thing is a LIE. I have no patience wiht people who do not understand that. Now I can usndersnad some peole SNOWED by the LIES here. Taht is why I do not give peole like Candy Crolwy, and the otehr peoe of CNN a "pass". They are DISHONESTT, and I will coninue to show you that until my dyig breath (ope--sorry to disappoint--not imminent).
This whle Candy Crowlye "reprt", of cure, was really part of the President Obama eleciton campaign, as was the OBAMA VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW (according to Obama). The facts, and the "logic" of this whole attemt to USE "innocent children", are NEVER "examined. It is all propaganda, and that is how yoiu have to understand it. It is all a LIE. Even if you think there are a FEW children who "deserve" to stay here, this is still a LIE. Do you wonder, by the way how a 15 year old illegal immmigrant could really "graduate' frm hisgh shcoool legitimately? I do. You have to be able to count the number of such children on yur fingers--okay, maybe we can ge generous and add your toes. This is all a LIE.
P.S. No proofreadiding or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Friday, June 15, 2012
Bill Clinton and Mre. George Zimmerman: Perjurers Toogether, Bukt Not Jailbirds Together--as Perseckution/Lyhnching of Zimmermans Continues
What is bial? This is a seriuos question, becuause the dishoenst media is NOT asknig it."Bail" is a guarantee that a person will soiw up for a tril. It is NOT a "punishment". Yes, the "seriusness" of the charge affect bail,, but that i theoretically because th emroe serius the charge the more likely hat a person will not show up for tril. The people trying to LYNCNCH George Zimmerman, racists that they are, should remember that a person is still considred innocent until proben 'tuilty" in this country.
This is significant in the George Zimmerman case, bececause the people who want to LYNCH George Zimmerman DO regard bail as a PNNISHMENT--although they regard the bet "punishment: as enver letting George Zimmerman see the outside of a jail cell. No, that is not the purpose of bail eiher: to keep a person in jail, even though the person shows that he is going to show up for tril.
Here, the judge set abil at $250,000: more than sufficient, you would tink, in a cae which looks to be mainly a MANSLAUGHTER case. Yet, the judge, the media, and the people trying to lynch George Zimmerman (some redundancy ther) acted SHOCKED that the Zimmermans "misled" the court about the mojney they were receiving from DONATIONS. The unfari and unbbalanced network even suggested that George Zimmerman was in danger of a "guilty" verdictr MAINLY becalues of his "dishonesty" at the bail hearing. Hogwash. This "dishonety" at a BIL hearing cannot possibly be the basis of a "guilty" verdict. In fact, I don't think it is ADMISSIBLE in teh criminal tril Yet, the prosecutin ,and the lynch mob in the media ((includng at the unfair and unbalanced network, as the "yynch mob" people know who they are), seems to be aiming to try George Zimmerman for MURDER by "trying' him over the BAIL HEARING. To me, that is a total abuse of the justice systtem, and a continuation of thhe POLITICAL persecutin of George Zimmerman No, I will NOT back off of this last statemetn. This is all about POLITICAALl persectuion . Note that does not mean that a case for mansaughter can't be made, , or even that a charge of manslaughter should nto have been brought. But the DECISINS in this case are based on POLITICS and the MEDIA. I am not tal taling here about the partisan politics of the electin, but abut the POLITICS OF RACE. You will remember that the MEDIA lynch mob, and the other members of the lnch mob, were willing to convbict George Zimmerman of murder--or at least charge him with that AND with a Federal crime--ased on a "f------- coons" "racial slur" that NEVER HAPPENED. They were also willing to say taht George Zimmerman ws the one BEATING UP Trayvon Martin, wwhen iit appears that the OBVIUS evidence is taht such a thing DID NOT HAPPEN. The ONLY injuries to Trayvon Martin, besides teh gunshot, were apparently contusins on Martin's knuckles from STRIKING ZIMMERMAN. Waht does it say about the prosecution case aainst Zimmerman that they seem to want to "try" Zimmerman for EVERYTHING BUT the murder of Trayvon Martin.
No. I don't understand what al of the fuss about the bial hearing is . The defendant ALWEAYS "cries" poor". The judge, teh prosecutin, and the media seem tobe suggesting that the prupose of a bail hearing is to TAKE EVERY DIME from the defendant. That is absurd. Sue,re, the more money a defendant has, the more ABILITY a defendant has to "take it on the lam". But does that justify UNDNREASONABLE bail? This is a TRIKC question since a defendant has a RIGHT to REASONBALE BAIL in this country. $250,000 seems a reasonable bail to me, if a little high. Did not the prosectuin, and the media, KNOW that George Zimmerman was likely to gt "contributins". "But," they WHINE, we did not know HOW UUCH Zimmerman was getting. Fine. INCREASE THE BAIL. Remember, again, the PUROSE of bail is to get the defendant to SHOW UP FOR TRIAL. Did George Zimerman, desite al of this money he supposedly now has, show any indicatin of FLIGTH? I didn't see any.
Again, the PUROSE of bail is NOT to take every last dime the Zimmermans have. Look at the INSULT here to the people who have GIVEN MONEY to try to help the Zimmermans getg a fiar shake (the people giving money correctly thinking that Zimmerman is being lYNCHED). Why shuld those donatins go to a BAIL BONDSMAN. Thus, yu have the situati where a HYPED "tempestiin a teapot" is being USED to PUNISH George Zimmerman --anow hiswife-for POLITICAL reasons. This woman Florida prosectuor is another one of those peole I do not want to ever know (NYC mayor Bllomberg being the first to be announced as on tghat list). Again, all you had to do was hold another hearing to INCRFEASE THE BAIL, if that wereindicatged. I don't think it was indicatted although you might want to do some increase just to DISCURAGE "misleading" the court? You disagree with me tohnn this: always a dangerous thing to do. What if HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DLLARS had been donated to Zimmermman in the two weeks AFTETER the bail hearing. As far as Zimmerman showing up for tril, is this any DIFFEREENT than the mney being donated before the ail hearing? Nope. It is the SAmE, as far as any effect on Zimmerman being a "fflight" risk. Again, the prosecution, the judge and the media seem to tink that it is a perfectly obvius GOAL of bial to tTAKE AWAY EVER DIME THE DEFENDANT HAS. Nonsense. That is what the LAWYER does (joke, which I can make since I was a Texas tril lawyer for more than 300 years, although erarely a criminal defense attorney).
I haev taken a long time getting to the main point of this article (what else is new?). George Zimmerman's wife was ARRESTED, and her MUG SHOT "ublicized", foor alleged PERJURY at the bail hearing. NO ONE is charged with perjury for wht they say at a bail hearing, UNLESS they actually know of a PLAN to not show up at trial. Remember Bill Clinton? He committed OBVIOUS perjury. But it was ABOUT SEX, and the idea is that "NONE
" worries about PERJURY about sex. I actually thought that was a strange "defense" for a President of the United States, especially when he also LIED directly to the American peole. But I agree with the general idea that PERJURY is not a crime "charged" very often. As stated, it is a crime charged when a person has lrealy AFFECTED teh performance of the Aemrican justice system in a way that cannot be esily remedied. Thus if you PERJURE yourself to either "get a murderer" off, or put someone in jail,m then yu can expect a perjury charge. There are two other circumstances when a charge of perjury (hard to rove, realy) i brough:
1. The prosecution is out to GET the person charged wwith perjury, and this is a form of HARRASSMENT.
2. (really ancilliary to 1. above): The prosectuion wants to USE the perjury charge as a BARGAINING CHIP. Thatis what I think is happpening here. The prosectuin irying to PERSECUTE Zimmerman's wife to put PRESSURE on Zimmerman to make a "plea deal" (praobly for a form of manslaughter, proably with at least some jail time). This is the kind of thibng ou sue against AL CAPONE. No, I don't thiink i is appropirate here. I jsut told you that I have formed a DISLIKE for this prosecutor-one of the few times I have ever agreed with Alan Dershowitz (who knows whether I ever spell his name right since I always forget right after I look up the spelling). There is something UNSAVORY about trying to get at a man through his wife. And what does it say about theprosecution's casse? I think they KNOW that they have a WEAK case. I have told you that I hink they haeve NO case for "second degree murfder", altlthough there was always a possible case of manslaughter (as there is in a bar fight, where someone ends up dead). The supposed "racial element", which was the ONLY reason for ginving this case the national attentin it does NOT deserve, is GONE.
3. I know I said "two", but wha I said in two above brings up thethird element specific to this case. If you have a WEAK case, but may end up having to ggo to ttrial for POLITICAL reasons (insisting upon a second degree murder plea, for example), what do you do with a WEAK CASE. You do wht this prosecutor is doin, what the media is doing, and what the Zimmerman lynch mob is doing: YOU CHANGED THE SUBJECT. Youtry the case agaainst Mark Fuhrman (sp. again?) and the LAPD. You try the case, if yyu are this prosecutor, based on the BAIL HEARING. Yu try to "discreditt" BOTH Zimerman and his wife, even though it has NOTHING to do with wheterh Zimmerman committed murder. Nope. It really has nothing to do with his "credibility" on the KILLING. Bkill Clinton has been shown to be more of a liar than George Zimmerman, and a lot of people give him credibiity. I have even said that I regrret nto voting for Bill Clinton, who did more for CONSERVATIVES in this country thahan any othher President, with the eceptin of Ronald Reagan.
You are talking about GETTING A LOVED ONE OUT OF JAIL. Is there ANYONE out there who thinks that thehere is not a Hell of a lot of incentive to "fudge" the truth, in ways that are NEVER prosecuted? Sure there is. And it is not lie this is anan 'issue" in the case itslelf You are going to have to pay 10% to a bail bondsman, and you are NEVER going to get that mmoney back.
No. I am sorry. Unless I am missing something, this charge against Zimmmerman's WIFE is PERSECUTIN to bolster what appears to be a WEAK prosecutin casde. There is another side benefit here for the prosecutin: trying to INTIMIDATE George Zimmeran from TESTIFYING on "self-deense" (or under the Florida "stand your ground" law). That is Zimmerman's main problem in the case. The preseuctin's case turly is VERy WEAK, except for that. HOW does Zimmerman make a real case for self-defeannse, without testifying? And if he does testify, is the prosecutin gong to be ALLLOWED to "try" Zimmerman for eveyrthihng BUT the alleged murder. Or, of course, will Zimmerman make such a fool o fhimself on cross-examinatin that his lawyer can never let him be in a positin to be cross-examined?
Bottom line, oif yu lost it in al of the words: The charge against Mres. Zimerman is dESPICABLE. The "mug ht" goes byond despiable, and into the usual media area of ABSOLUTE EVIL. This blog haws shown yu that the modern "journalist" is one of the mains sources of EVIL in our society Again, I don't mean this as hyperbole. The mission of this blog for a decade or so, has been mainly to PROVE this.
The lynching of George Zimmerman continues. F------ coons (talking aobut our "journalists", black and white). No, I don't know what it means, jsut like I don't hink AnYONE knows what the archaic "racial slur" means today Still. Don't yu think that mot "journalists" (bagain, balck, white, yellow and red), LOOK like they are "f------ coons"? Some raccoons may be "cute", but the face on a PERSON would be sort of disgusting. When I look at a "journalist", I think I will seee a RACCOOON from now on Their faces--especially the women--look like that anyway. Or am I etting my agenda carry me away, like the evil peole of the media? Mayve. As I have said, I am NOT a Christian (a point I have in common with Barack Obama, as Bill Maher and I aagree).. I don''t turn the turn the other cheek. If the UNFNFAIR "journalists" think I am gong to be totally "fair", they have an9other think coming.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Sometimes, I ye words, wrong, spell words incorrectly, and garbele ssentences (no editing or proofreadig) deliberagtely , just to get SYMPATHY as a BLIND PERSON You now, for me it doesn't work. I must be dong something wrong. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I sued up ALL sympathy iwth which I was born by--at maximum---the age of 10. I thik people sense that. If only all people hasd such a good reading on today's "jurnalis' Hey, wait a minute, I think they HAVE.
This is significant in the George Zimmerman case, bececause the people who want to LYNCH George Zimmerman DO regard bail as a PNNISHMENT--although they regard the bet "punishment: as enver letting George Zimmerman see the outside of a jail cell. No, that is not the purpose of bail eiher: to keep a person in jail, even though the person shows that he is going to show up for tril.
Here, the judge set abil at $250,000: more than sufficient, you would tink, in a cae which looks to be mainly a MANSLAUGHTER case. Yet, the judge, the media, and the people trying to lynch George Zimmerman (some redundancy ther) acted SHOCKED that the Zimmermans "misled" the court about the mojney they were receiving from DONATIONS. The unfari and unbbalanced network even suggested that George Zimmerman was in danger of a "guilty" verdictr MAINLY becalues of his "dishonesty" at the bail hearing. Hogwash. This "dishonety" at a BIL hearing cannot possibly be the basis of a "guilty" verdict. In fact, I don't think it is ADMISSIBLE in teh criminal tril Yet, the prosecutin ,and the lynch mob in the media ((includng at the unfair and unbalanced network, as the "yynch mob" people know who they are), seems to be aiming to try George Zimmerman for MURDER by "trying' him over the BAIL HEARING. To me, that is a total abuse of the justice systtem, and a continuation of thhe POLITICAL persecutin of George Zimmerman No, I will NOT back off of this last statemetn. This is all about POLITICAALl persectuion . Note that does not mean that a case for mansaughter can't be made, , or even that a charge of manslaughter should nto have been brought. But the DECISINS in this case are based on POLITICS and the MEDIA. I am not tal taling here about the partisan politics of the electin, but abut the POLITICS OF RACE. You will remember that the MEDIA lynch mob, and the other members of the lnch mob, were willing to convbict George Zimmerman of murder--or at least charge him with that AND with a Federal crime--ased on a "f------- coons" "racial slur" that NEVER HAPPENED. They were also willing to say taht George Zimmerman ws the one BEATING UP Trayvon Martin, wwhen iit appears that the OBVIUS evidence is taht such a thing DID NOT HAPPEN. The ONLY injuries to Trayvon Martin, besides teh gunshot, were apparently contusins on Martin's knuckles from STRIKING ZIMMERMAN. Waht does it say about the prosecution case aainst Zimmerman that they seem to want to "try" Zimmerman for EVERYTHING BUT the murder of Trayvon Martin.
No. I don't understand what al of the fuss about the bial hearing is . The defendant ALWEAYS "cries" poor". The judge, teh prosecutin, and the media seem tobe suggesting that the prupose of a bail hearing is to TAKE EVERY DIME from the defendant. That is absurd. Sue,re, the more money a defendant has, the more ABILITY a defendant has to "take it on the lam". But does that justify UNDNREASONABLE bail? This is a TRIKC question since a defendant has a RIGHT to REASONBALE BAIL in this country. $250,000 seems a reasonable bail to me, if a little high. Did not the prosectuin, and the media, KNOW that George Zimmerman was likely to gt "contributins". "But," they WHINE, we did not know HOW UUCH Zimmerman was getting. Fine. INCREASE THE BAIL. Remember, again, the PUROSE of bail is to get the defendant to SHOW UP FOR TRIAL. Did George Zimerman, desite al of this money he supposedly now has, show any indicatin of FLIGTH? I didn't see any.
Again, the PUROSE of bail is NOT to take every last dime the Zimmermans have. Look at the INSULT here to the people who have GIVEN MONEY to try to help the Zimmermans getg a fiar shake (the people giving money correctly thinking that Zimmerman is being lYNCHED). Why shuld those donatins go to a BAIL BONDSMAN. Thus, yu have the situati where a HYPED "tempestiin a teapot" is being USED to PUNISH George Zimmerman --anow hiswife-for POLITICAL reasons. This woman Florida prosectuor is another one of those peole I do not want to ever know (NYC mayor Bllomberg being the first to be announced as on tghat list). Again, all you had to do was hold another hearing to INCRFEASE THE BAIL, if that wereindicatged. I don't think it was indicatted although you might want to do some increase just to DISCURAGE "misleading" the court? You disagree with me tohnn this: always a dangerous thing to do. What if HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DLLARS had been donated to Zimmermman in the two weeks AFTETER the bail hearing. As far as Zimmerman showing up for tril, is this any DIFFEREENT than the mney being donated before the ail hearing? Nope. It is the SAmE, as far as any effect on Zimmerman being a "fflight" risk. Again, the prosecution, the judge and the media seem to tink that it is a perfectly obvius GOAL of bial to tTAKE AWAY EVER DIME THE DEFENDANT HAS. Nonsense. That is what the LAWYER does (joke, which I can make since I was a Texas tril lawyer for more than 300 years, although erarely a criminal defense attorney).
I haev taken a long time getting to the main point of this article (what else is new?). George Zimmerman's wife was ARRESTED, and her MUG SHOT "ublicized", foor alleged PERJURY at the bail hearing. NO ONE is charged with perjury for wht they say at a bail hearing, UNLESS they actually know of a PLAN to not show up at trial. Remember Bill Clinton? He committed OBVIOUS perjury. But it was ABOUT SEX, and the idea is that "NONE
" worries about PERJURY about sex. I actually thought that was a strange "defense" for a President of the United States, especially when he also LIED directly to the American peole. But I agree with the general idea that PERJURY is not a crime "charged" very often. As stated, it is a crime charged when a person has lrealy AFFECTED teh performance of the Aemrican justice system in a way that cannot be esily remedied. Thus if you PERJURE yourself to either "get a murderer" off, or put someone in jail,m then yu can expect a perjury charge. There are two other circumstances when a charge of perjury (hard to rove, realy) i brough:
1. The prosecution is out to GET the person charged wwith perjury, and this is a form of HARRASSMENT.
2. (really ancilliary to 1. above): The prosectuion wants to USE the perjury charge as a BARGAINING CHIP. Thatis what I think is happpening here. The prosectuin irying to PERSECUTE Zimmerman's wife to put PRESSURE on Zimmerman to make a "plea deal" (praobly for a form of manslaughter, proably with at least some jail time). This is the kind of thibng ou sue against AL CAPONE. No, I don't thiink i is appropirate here. I jsut told you that I have formed a DISLIKE for this prosecutor-one of the few times I have ever agreed with Alan Dershowitz (who knows whether I ever spell his name right since I always forget right after I look up the spelling). There is something UNSAVORY about trying to get at a man through his wife. And what does it say about theprosecution's casse? I think they KNOW that they have a WEAK case. I have told you that I hink they haeve NO case for "second degree murfder", altlthough there was always a possible case of manslaughter (as there is in a bar fight, where someone ends up dead). The supposed "racial element", which was the ONLY reason for ginving this case the national attentin it does NOT deserve, is GONE.
3. I know I said "two", but wha I said in two above brings up thethird element specific to this case. If you have a WEAK case, but may end up having to ggo to ttrial for POLITICAL reasons (insisting upon a second degree murder plea, for example), what do you do with a WEAK CASE. You do wht this prosecutor is doin, what the media is doing, and what the Zimmerman lynch mob is doing: YOU CHANGED THE SUBJECT. Youtry the case agaainst Mark Fuhrman (sp. again?) and the LAPD. You try the case, if yyu are this prosecutor, based on the BAIL HEARING. Yu try to "discreditt" BOTH Zimerman and his wife, even though it has NOTHING to do with wheterh Zimmerman committed murder. Nope. It really has nothing to do with his "credibility" on the KILLING. Bkill Clinton has been shown to be more of a liar than George Zimmerman, and a lot of people give him credibiity. I have even said that I regrret nto voting for Bill Clinton, who did more for CONSERVATIVES in this country thahan any othher President, with the eceptin of Ronald Reagan.
You are talking about GETTING A LOVED ONE OUT OF JAIL. Is there ANYONE out there who thinks that thehere is not a Hell of a lot of incentive to "fudge" the truth, in ways that are NEVER prosecuted? Sure there is. And it is not lie this is anan 'issue" in the case itslelf You are going to have to pay 10% to a bail bondsman, and you are NEVER going to get that mmoney back.
No. I am sorry. Unless I am missing something, this charge against Zimmmerman's WIFE is PERSECUTIN to bolster what appears to be a WEAK prosecutin casde. There is another side benefit here for the prosecutin: trying to INTIMIDATE George Zimmeran from TESTIFYING on "self-deense" (or under the Florida "stand your ground" law). That is Zimmerman's main problem in the case. The preseuctin's case turly is VERy WEAK, except for that. HOW does Zimmerman make a real case for self-defeannse, without testifying? And if he does testify, is the prosecutin gong to be ALLLOWED to "try" Zimmerman for eveyrthihng BUT the alleged murder. Or, of course, will Zimmerman make such a fool o fhimself on cross-examinatin that his lawyer can never let him be in a positin to be cross-examined?
Bottom line, oif yu lost it in al of the words: The charge against Mres. Zimerman is dESPICABLE. The "mug ht" goes byond despiable, and into the usual media area of ABSOLUTE EVIL. This blog haws shown yu that the modern "journalist" is one of the mains sources of EVIL in our society Again, I don't mean this as hyperbole. The mission of this blog for a decade or so, has been mainly to PROVE this.
The lynching of George Zimmerman continues. F------ coons (talking aobut our "journalists", black and white). No, I don't know what it means, jsut like I don't hink AnYONE knows what the archaic "racial slur" means today Still. Don't yu think that mot "journalists" (bagain, balck, white, yellow and red), LOOK like they are "f------ coons"? Some raccoons may be "cute", but the face on a PERSON would be sort of disgusting. When I look at a "journalist", I think I will seee a RACCOOON from now on Their faces--especially the women--look like that anyway. Or am I etting my agenda carry me away, like the evil peole of the media? Mayve. As I have said, I am NOT a Christian (a point I have in common with Barack Obama, as Bill Maher and I aagree).. I don''t turn the turn the other cheek. If the UNFNFAIR "journalists" think I am gong to be totally "fair", they have an9other think coming.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Sometimes, I ye words, wrong, spell words incorrectly, and garbele ssentences (no editing or proofreadig) deliberagtely , just to get SYMPATHY as a BLIND PERSON You now, for me it doesn't work. I must be dong something wrong. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I sued up ALL sympathy iwth which I was born by--at maximum---the age of 10. I thik people sense that. If only all people hasd such a good reading on today's "jurnalis' Hey, wait a minute, I think they HAVE.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Voter ID Laws and Leftist Insanity
The left, includnig the Obama Adminnistration, has somehow gotten on this "crusade" AGAINST voter ID laws. As best I can figure, leftist Democrats WANT to encourage VOTER FRAUD in this county. Tal abuout OUT OF TOUCH. Look at these items upon which Presddient Obama has put himself in OPPOSTION to at least 71% of the American peole:
1. IIllegal immigratin, and especaily the "harsH' Arizona law (gets 75% indorsement from the Amercian people, accourding to those right wing fanatics at CNN, who conducted the poll)).
2. Health Care individual mandate (whole law doesn't do much better), which is oposed by about 70% of the American peole.
3. These voter ID laws, supported, again, by abut 70% of the American people.
I know the (TOTALLY INSANE) "argument": that "minority" voters are much more likely to not have a governmet issue d picture ID than others. Now I can almost buy this as to ILLEGL IMMIRANTS, who leftist Democrats really do want to VOTE.. But if you are an American citizen, and do not have some kind of goovernment issued ID (I have a mere ID, and not a driver's license, because I can't see, and it cost me all of $8)., you have what normal eople would regard as much more SERIOUS (for an individual) problems than not being "allowed" to vote. Tink of the things you CANNOT DO if you don't ahvve a government ID:
1. Drive a car.
2. Drink, or even buy alcohol at the supermarket (unless you look OL, like me).
3. Enter a Fedeeral BUILDING. This is not jsut the Federal courthouse. You can't even visit the IRS. I know. I TRIED (sort of), as I preented my EXPIRED Teas driver's license rather than my current ID. All I wanted was to get a form from the IRS. I was flatly told: This ID is no good. I CAN'T LET YOIU IN. No alternatives. No choices. Just a flat: "GO AWAY, unless you can present a proper ID" (which I eventually found).
4. Enteer tthe El Paso Counnty Curthosuse, whihc holds lall of the courts of general jurisdiction AND the records office (vital statistics, deeds, births, deaths etc.). How do you even GET MARRIED without a government ID? You can't even get in the building to get a license, even if you dont have to present an ID there (which you probably do).
5. Enter the MUNICIPAL CURT building in El Paso. This means that you can't respond to a traffic ticket without a government ID, or even PAY a traffic ticket. Now, of course, you don't really need to have a governmnet ID to be a DEFENDANT in a criminal proceeding, so there probably is a way to gte in without an ID. But it is HARD. There are BIG OBSTACLES.
6. Get on a plane. Heck. You may have truble getting IN THE ARIPORT.
7. Use a CHECK., and maybe even a credit card (depending on the entity to which you present the card).
8. Even set up a bank account (unless you use on e of those banks that was SEEKING the business of ilegal immigrants--do such entities even exist anymore, and do they really accept NO GOVERNMENT ID?)
9. You have a PROBBLEM if you are tstooped by the police for ANYTHING, unless--of course,--you are in a "sanctuary city", and they think you are protected as an illegal immigrant.
10. You try to get into any number of places, including some SPORTS EVENTS, without any Id.
You get the idea. The list couuld go on and on. I am sorry. It is jsut NO T A PROBLEM that more 'minorities" don't have an ID in this country. The total NUMBER of peole that fit in this category, once you exclude WANTED FELONS and ILKLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, has to be a numbre you can cunt on yoiur fingers and toes (an exaggeratin, but not much of one).
Look at how BAD letist Democrats aare. I am sorry again, these are just nOT NICE PEOPLE. Think of how much MORE "good" you would do for "ninorities" by HELPING THM GET AN ID. I mean. It realy is HARD to exist in this country without one. And lok at all of this TIME and MONEY being spent to ENABLE VOTER FRAUD. If you spent even a FRACTION of that time and money--the Justice Department is SUING, for God's sake--on makn gsure poeple HAD an ID, I really can't believe there wulld be AnYONE left who idd not have one. You could BRIBE people to TAKE ONE, and come out ahead (in money and time)? What do I conclude fro this?
It is obvius. Leftist Democrats,--as usual--are NOT INTERESTED in "minority" individuals. What they are interested in is VOTES, and this strange mental aberration with regard to voter ID laws can ONLY be explained by tghe fact that leftist Democrats want the VOTES;--not so much the ovtes of those FEW peole who don't have an ID, and cnat' get one, but the votes that are FRAUDULENT. Now you would thin a SIDE "motivation" here would be to assert a FALSE "outrage" at the GOP for "voter suppression". However, look at those pll results again. Do leftist Democrats really GAIN by going aginst 70% of the peole? I just don't see it.
Then there is SEcURITY Waht if a state ismply required an ID to GET INTO A POLING PLACE, as a matter of SECURITY? Sounds lie a perfectly intelligent idea to me. Hey. Is not a big ooling placde at least as likely a "target" as the El Paso Federal building that contains the IRS? Well, maybe using the IRS is not such a good example. But you get the idea.
No prooofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight, which is why I don't have a driver's licesne or a car).
1. IIllegal immigratin, and especaily the "harsH' Arizona law (gets 75% indorsement from the Amercian people, accourding to those right wing fanatics at CNN, who conducted the poll)).
2. Health Care individual mandate (whole law doesn't do much better), which is oposed by about 70% of the American peole.
3. These voter ID laws, supported, again, by abut 70% of the American people.
I know the (TOTALLY INSANE) "argument": that "minority" voters are much more likely to not have a governmet issue d picture ID than others. Now I can almost buy this as to ILLEGL IMMIRANTS, who leftist Democrats really do want to VOTE.. But if you are an American citizen, and do not have some kind of goovernment issued ID (I have a mere ID, and not a driver's license, because I can't see, and it cost me all of $8)., you have what normal eople would regard as much more SERIOUS (for an individual) problems than not being "allowed" to vote. Tink of the things you CANNOT DO if you don't ahvve a government ID:
1. Drive a car.
2. Drink, or even buy alcohol at the supermarket (unless you look OL, like me).
3. Enter a Fedeeral BUILDING. This is not jsut the Federal courthouse. You can't even visit the IRS. I know. I TRIED (sort of), as I preented my EXPIRED Teas driver's license rather than my current ID. All I wanted was to get a form from the IRS. I was flatly told: This ID is no good. I CAN'T LET YOIU IN. No alternatives. No choices. Just a flat: "GO AWAY, unless you can present a proper ID" (which I eventually found).
4. Enteer tthe El Paso Counnty Curthosuse, whihc holds lall of the courts of general jurisdiction AND the records office (vital statistics, deeds, births, deaths etc.). How do you even GET MARRIED without a government ID? You can't even get in the building to get a license, even if you dont have to present an ID there (which you probably do).
5. Enter the MUNICIPAL CURT building in El Paso. This means that you can't respond to a traffic ticket without a government ID, or even PAY a traffic ticket. Now, of course, you don't really need to have a governmnet ID to be a DEFENDANT in a criminal proceeding, so there probably is a way to gte in without an ID. But it is HARD. There are BIG OBSTACLES.
6. Get on a plane. Heck. You may have truble getting IN THE ARIPORT.
7. Use a CHECK., and maybe even a credit card (depending on the entity to which you present the card).
8. Even set up a bank account (unless you use on e of those banks that was SEEKING the business of ilegal immigrants--do such entities even exist anymore, and do they really accept NO GOVERNMENT ID?)
9. You have a PROBBLEM if you are tstooped by the police for ANYTHING, unless--of course,--you are in a "sanctuary city", and they think you are protected as an illegal immigrant.
10. You try to get into any number of places, including some SPORTS EVENTS, without any Id.
You get the idea. The list couuld go on and on. I am sorry. It is jsut NO T A PROBLEM that more 'minorities" don't have an ID in this country. The total NUMBER of peole that fit in this category, once you exclude WANTED FELONS and ILKLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, has to be a numbre you can cunt on yoiur fingers and toes (an exaggeratin, but not much of one).
Look at how BAD letist Democrats aare. I am sorry again, these are just nOT NICE PEOPLE. Think of how much MORE "good" you would do for "ninorities" by HELPING THM GET AN ID. I mean. It realy is HARD to exist in this country without one. And lok at all of this TIME and MONEY being spent to ENABLE VOTER FRAUD. If you spent even a FRACTION of that time and money--the Justice Department is SUING, for God's sake--on makn gsure poeple HAD an ID, I really can't believe there wulld be AnYONE left who idd not have one. You could BRIBE people to TAKE ONE, and come out ahead (in money and time)? What do I conclude fro this?
It is obvius. Leftist Democrats,--as usual--are NOT INTERESTED in "minority" individuals. What they are interested in is VOTES, and this strange mental aberration with regard to voter ID laws can ONLY be explained by tghe fact that leftist Democrats want the VOTES;--not so much the ovtes of those FEW peole who don't have an ID, and cnat' get one, but the votes that are FRAUDULENT. Now you would thin a SIDE "motivation" here would be to assert a FALSE "outrage" at the GOP for "voter suppression". However, look at those pll results again. Do leftist Democrats really GAIN by going aginst 70% of the peole? I just don't see it.
Then there is SEcURITY Waht if a state ismply required an ID to GET INTO A POLING PLACE, as a matter of SECURITY? Sounds lie a perfectly intelligent idea to me. Hey. Is not a big ooling placde at least as likely a "target" as the El Paso Federal building that contains the IRS? Well, maybe using the IRS is not such a good example. But you get the idea.
No prooofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight, which is why I don't have a driver's licesne or a car).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)