I remember when I finally received my Texas State drivers license. I was very excited. I took the time and money and signed up for drivers education and after school for 6 weeks I went to the class. I admit, I did fail the actual driving test once. I was speeding in a school zone and broke the law. I made sure that did not happen the second time.
I wish I knew about Maryland's license laws back then. It would have saved me time and money, as well as having to face the guys after failing the drivers test the first time. It seems that you are not required to have any documentation stating that you are in the United States legally or even a resident of Maryland to receive a license. I came across an article online that outlined Maryland's drivers license policy. Maryland is one of four states that do not require applicants to prove that they are legal U.S. residents in order to get state issued driver's licenses. Maryland lawmakers are considering changing the laws because they fear some people may try to deceive the state. Imagine that. Illegal immigrants attempting to obtain a driver's license by using deception. Say it isn't so. I apologize for the sarcasm but after reading the story I could not believe this is actually transpiring.
Maryland officials have reported that 68 people have applied for Maryland licenses and all used the same address. Must be a very big house. Those in favor of issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens believe it gives law enforcement a larger database to use when crimes are investigated. They also believe auto insurance coverage will increase. This argument is ridiculous. We are rewarding illegal aliens with licenses so they will not operate a car illegally. How does this make any sense at all. Illegal aliens are getting licenses so they will have a valid, legal form of identification. I doubt the next stop after the DMV will be the local Farmers Insurance office.
Businesses are now running ads in Spanish-language publications in several East coast states encouraging illegal aliens to take advantage of Maryland's mind boggling laws and receive legitimate identification. Maryland lawmakers must close this loop hole. Can anyone really take a Maryland I.D. card seriously? Of course Democrats will say this is discrimination - we are picking on the poor immigrants. They are here illegally, they are breaking the law everyday they remain here. We are rewarding criminals. Maryland should arrest everyone who fails to provide documentation that they are here legally on the spot. This would take care of illegals driving without licenses.
Maryland is not alone, Hawaii, New Mexico and Washington all have similar laws.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Breaking Down Borders
It is official - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has lost her mind. Speaker Pelosi told a group of legal and illegal immigrants that the U.S. enforcement of the immigration laws are "un-American" and should be changed. Apparently the deportation raids on individuals who broke the law by entering this great country illegally should be stopped. Nancy seems to believe that breaking families up and tearing parents away from their children is ridiculous. I agree if that were the case. Our country has been built on the sweat and blood of immigrants. My family came from Ireland and Italy, but guess what they came here legally. They did not break any laws and filed all the needed paperwork. These statements made by Pelosi are an insult to all hard working legal immigrants all over the United States.
Deportation raids are a necessary part of life in the United States. It is estimated that we have a minimum of 12 million illegal immigrants already residing in the country. These illegal immigrants are a drain on the tax paying Americans who are now put in direct competition for lower paying jobs. California is almost bankrupt. Illegal immigrants cost the tax payers millions of dollars a year in medical expenses alone. When an illegal immigrant visits a hospital with no insurance who do you think pays for all the services. The American tax payers do. Mrs. Pelosi may not have a problem with that but most Americans do. We should not be rewarding people who are breaking the law. I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their family, but what kind of example are they setting for the same children they want to better by breaking the law. In my opinion a very poor one.
Nancy Pelosi is pandering to a minority group of voters - I think it is time she starts to listen to the majority in the United States. This is amazing. The leader of Congress is advocating law enforcement to disregard the laws of the nation. What is next? It is okay to murder or rape as long as you say you are sorry. The sad part is with Obama in the White House and the Democrats in control of the Congress it is only a matter of time before we throw out all immigration laws and open the flood gates. I guess national security is no longer a concern for Mrs. Pelosi. It must be nice to live in Pelosi's world. Just wait until something happens to one of her family members.
Deportation raids are a necessary part of life in the United States. It is estimated that we have a minimum of 12 million illegal immigrants already residing in the country. These illegal immigrants are a drain on the tax paying Americans who are now put in direct competition for lower paying jobs. California is almost bankrupt. Illegal immigrants cost the tax payers millions of dollars a year in medical expenses alone. When an illegal immigrant visits a hospital with no insurance who do you think pays for all the services. The American tax payers do. Mrs. Pelosi may not have a problem with that but most Americans do. We should not be rewarding people who are breaking the law. I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their family, but what kind of example are they setting for the same children they want to better by breaking the law. In my opinion a very poor one.
Nancy Pelosi is pandering to a minority group of voters - I think it is time she starts to listen to the majority in the United States. This is amazing. The leader of Congress is advocating law enforcement to disregard the laws of the nation. What is next? It is okay to murder or rape as long as you say you are sorry. The sad part is with Obama in the White House and the Democrats in control of the Congress it is only a matter of time before we throw out all immigration laws and open the flood gates. I guess national security is no longer a concern for Mrs. Pelosi. It must be nice to live in Pelosi's world. Just wait until something happens to one of her family members.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Spend Spend and Spend Some More
President Obama is about to sign the $410 billion dollar spending package Congress just passed. This should get the economy jump started right? All of our economic woes are about to come to an end. We are not that lucky. This spending bill is full of earmarks totalling 7.7 billion dollars!!! I seem to remember President Obama vowing to end unnecessary spending and controlling government spending. I guess since he is already elected he is not bound by pre-election rhetoric.
President Obama admitted that this bill is "imperfect", but is still choosing to sign it. This bill is laden with funds for domestic programs that President Bush would not allow in previous bills. Republicans called for Obama to veto the bill and go back to the drawing board and create a responsible bill that would allow Washington to keep the lights. The Democrats, instead decided to include programs that provide more free handouts for Americans who have shown they are not willing to better themselves. The bill's sole purpose was to ensure Washington had the funds to continue to conduct business. Now it seems it is just an attention of the stimulus package passed earlier this year.
The spending is already out of hand and at this rate the Democrats have free reign over Congress and the White House. There is no end in sight. We are increasing the size of government and it is at our expense. We are spending money that we do not have. Unemployment is at its highest since 1983 and we are taking away tax cuts from the companies that create jobs. This does not make sense at all. In capitalism companies provide jobs and financial security for people, not the government. Socialism is knocking at the door and President Obama and the Democratic Congress seem very eager to answer the knocks.
Hopefully the American people will see what is really happening and make Obama a one term president. If we don't we are going to spend countless years making the transition back to capitalism. Socialism is an idea that looks good on paper but when introduced into the practical world does not work. We can not spend our way out of this situation. We need to let the economy work itself out. I am not saying let all companies go under but we need to be fiscally responsible and right now we are not.
President Obama admitted that this bill is "imperfect", but is still choosing to sign it. This bill is laden with funds for domestic programs that President Bush would not allow in previous bills. Republicans called for Obama to veto the bill and go back to the drawing board and create a responsible bill that would allow Washington to keep the lights. The Democrats, instead decided to include programs that provide more free handouts for Americans who have shown they are not willing to better themselves. The bill's sole purpose was to ensure Washington had the funds to continue to conduct business. Now it seems it is just an attention of the stimulus package passed earlier this year.
The spending is already out of hand and at this rate the Democrats have free reign over Congress and the White House. There is no end in sight. We are increasing the size of government and it is at our expense. We are spending money that we do not have. Unemployment is at its highest since 1983 and we are taking away tax cuts from the companies that create jobs. This does not make sense at all. In capitalism companies provide jobs and financial security for people, not the government. Socialism is knocking at the door and President Obama and the Democratic Congress seem very eager to answer the knocks.
Hopefully the American people will see what is really happening and make Obama a one term president. If we don't we are going to spend countless years making the transition back to capitalism. Socialism is an idea that looks good on paper but when introduced into the practical world does not work. We can not spend our way out of this situation. We need to let the economy work itself out. I am not saying let all companies go under but we need to be fiscally responsible and right now we are not.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Give all the Arabs Nukes?
I was sitting down talking to my buddy Marty today and he had a very interesting idea. He wants to give nukes to Iran, Jordan, Syria and Egypt. At first I was shocked, he is a very conservative guy and is very intelligent. I thought he was just making a joke but then he made a very good point.
If all these countries have nukes what would be the incentive to actually use them. He cited the cold war as his example. Russia and the U.S. both had enough nukes to destroy the world several times over. Why did this not occur? A nuclear strike would ensure the destruction of both nations. He is correct. Neither the U.S. or the Russians were willing to take that step.
My counter argument was what would stop these countries from providing the material or the actual bomb to an independent terrorist organization to use on foreign soil? His response was repercussions would be too great for them to take that chance. This is where we disagreed. I think it would be a big jump to think once a rogue nation such as Iran or even North Korea to all of sudden have a sense of responsibility. Marty countered with all exploded nukes can be traced back to the mining of the materials and then the responsible party would be exposed. Marty also believes that the loss of revenue and trade would deter these nations as well.
Marty made some great points and it does make sense if you remove the fact that some of these nations are run by lunatics. When you believe God is on your side and you are doing his will reason goes out the window.
I enjoy my conversations with Marty and will continue to write about them. I hope you do to.
If all these countries have nukes what would be the incentive to actually use them. He cited the cold war as his example. Russia and the U.S. both had enough nukes to destroy the world several times over. Why did this not occur? A nuclear strike would ensure the destruction of both nations. He is correct. Neither the U.S. or the Russians were willing to take that step.
My counter argument was what would stop these countries from providing the material or the actual bomb to an independent terrorist organization to use on foreign soil? His response was repercussions would be too great for them to take that chance. This is where we disagreed. I think it would be a big jump to think once a rogue nation such as Iran or even North Korea to all of sudden have a sense of responsibility. Marty countered with all exploded nukes can be traced back to the mining of the materials and then the responsible party would be exposed. Marty also believes that the loss of revenue and trade would deter these nations as well.
Marty made some great points and it does make sense if you remove the fact that some of these nations are run by lunatics. When you believe God is on your side and you are doing his will reason goes out the window.
I enjoy my conversations with Marty and will continue to write about them. I hope you do to.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
What was Steele thinking?
Michael Steele, the new Republican party leader, has shown the world just how lost the Republican party really is. His statements regarding Rush were completely unacceptable. Attacking Rush turned the attention away from the irresponsible spending the Democrats are pushing through Congress and gave them more ammunition to use against our party.
I think Michael was a good choice to lead the RNC. However, in party fighting only gives the Democrats what they ultimately want. They want the party to be in disarray. If you are an on the fence voter, it sure looks like we are. President Obama is an extremely popular President at this time. Whether or not he continues to remain this popular is completely up to how the citizens respond to his stimulus package. Right now we are spending billions of tax payer dollars to bail out companies that misused funds and revenue. If it were not for the fact that these companies employ countless Americans they would be out of business by now. Saving these companies is necessary but handing free money out is not the answer. These companies must be regulated to ensure we are not in the same position 7 or 10 years from now.
Unfortunately right now no one is reporting this. The Liberal media is having a field day with the in party fighting. Steele may not agree with everything Rush may say (and neither do I) but the man has a listening audience of 20 million people. He is the conservative voice for our party. People take to heart what he has to say. If Steele disagrees with Rush that is fine, do it in a manner that does not show weakness. Someone must have whispered in Steele's ear because he apologized almost immediately after being grilled on Rush's talk show.
The Republicans must unite and stand strong against Obama's socialist regime. Bickering and name calling does not show the American people that the party is committed to returning to its core beliefs. We have roughly 2 years to figure out who we are going to run against Obama in the next election. We need to get back to the basics and not let petty disagreements split the party. All attention must be focused on the obscene Democrat spending. If the stimulus plan does not work that will be our biggest gun in the next election. We may have the opportunity to retake both houses as well as the White House.
As a Republican I hope we can get our act together. If we do not we are doomed and at the mercy of the new American Socialist Party.
I think Michael was a good choice to lead the RNC. However, in party fighting only gives the Democrats what they ultimately want. They want the party to be in disarray. If you are an on the fence voter, it sure looks like we are. President Obama is an extremely popular President at this time. Whether or not he continues to remain this popular is completely up to how the citizens respond to his stimulus package. Right now we are spending billions of tax payer dollars to bail out companies that misused funds and revenue. If it were not for the fact that these companies employ countless Americans they would be out of business by now. Saving these companies is necessary but handing free money out is not the answer. These companies must be regulated to ensure we are not in the same position 7 or 10 years from now.
Unfortunately right now no one is reporting this. The Liberal media is having a field day with the in party fighting. Steele may not agree with everything Rush may say (and neither do I) but the man has a listening audience of 20 million people. He is the conservative voice for our party. People take to heart what he has to say. If Steele disagrees with Rush that is fine, do it in a manner that does not show weakness. Someone must have whispered in Steele's ear because he apologized almost immediately after being grilled on Rush's talk show.
The Republicans must unite and stand strong against Obama's socialist regime. Bickering and name calling does not show the American people that the party is committed to returning to its core beliefs. We have roughly 2 years to figure out who we are going to run against Obama in the next election. We need to get back to the basics and not let petty disagreements split the party. All attention must be focused on the obscene Democrat spending. If the stimulus plan does not work that will be our biggest gun in the next election. We may have the opportunity to retake both houses as well as the White House.
As a Republican I hope we can get our act together. If we do not we are doomed and at the mercy of the new American Socialist Party.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Fairness Doctrine
President Obama has publicly stated that he is against the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. My question is why are Democrats in Congress bringing a dead issue up yet again? Sen. Hardin (D-Iowa) and Sen. Stabenow (D-Mich) are calling for hearings to revive the outdated doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine was implemented in 1949 and revoked in 1987 under President Reagan. The Doctrine was then blocked by Bush 41 in 1991 with a veto threat. The Doctrine is not needed and is unfair to radio stations and talk show hosts. In a nutshell the Doctrine would require talk radio stations to give equal time and opinions on (conservative and liberal) all topics discussed. This would force radio stations to change their entire lineup. The radio stations are successful because of the content they air on a daily basis. Listeners, not the US government, should determine what radio stations air. It is a business and a big one at that. Imagine listening to Rush or Michael Savage by choice and then having to stomach Al Franken. I doubt any conservative could take more than 3 minutes of Al at one time. The show would fail and advertisers would pull their support. Air America has tried and failed in almost every market imaginable.
Requiring stations to have opposing views would mean the end of radio talk shows as we know it. The stations would have no choice but to change their format. The stations would not be able to afford the failing shows. They would, by law, have to continue to take huge losses to enable the successful shows to remain on the air or just decide to play the hits of the 80's. Talk radio is extremely popular and very profitable. Laws requiring stations to air shows no one really wants to listen to anyway is just UNFAIR. It is unfair to the listeners, hosts and employees of the station. What happened to free enterprise - the American dream? It seems that the Democrats only consider what benefits their causes and views to be fair. Last time I looked at my radio it had a button that if pushed, can change the station. I have more than one option in my market. I do not need Obama and his minions telling me what is good for me or what I should listen to. Air America had its chance - seems no one cared to listen.
The Fairness Doctrine was implemented in 1949 and revoked in 1987 under President Reagan. The Doctrine was then blocked by Bush 41 in 1991 with a veto threat. The Doctrine is not needed and is unfair to radio stations and talk show hosts. In a nutshell the Doctrine would require talk radio stations to give equal time and opinions on (conservative and liberal) all topics discussed. This would force radio stations to change their entire lineup. The radio stations are successful because of the content they air on a daily basis. Listeners, not the US government, should determine what radio stations air. It is a business and a big one at that. Imagine listening to Rush or Michael Savage by choice and then having to stomach Al Franken. I doubt any conservative could take more than 3 minutes of Al at one time. The show would fail and advertisers would pull their support. Air America has tried and failed in almost every market imaginable.
Requiring stations to have opposing views would mean the end of radio talk shows as we know it. The stations would have no choice but to change their format. The stations would not be able to afford the failing shows. They would, by law, have to continue to take huge losses to enable the successful shows to remain on the air or just decide to play the hits of the 80's. Talk radio is extremely popular and very profitable. Laws requiring stations to air shows no one really wants to listen to anyway is just UNFAIR. It is unfair to the listeners, hosts and employees of the station. What happened to free enterprise - the American dream? It seems that the Democrats only consider what benefits their causes and views to be fair. Last time I looked at my radio it had a button that if pushed, can change the station. I have more than one option in my market. I do not need Obama and his minions telling me what is good for me or what I should listen to. Air America had its chance - seems no one cared to listen.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Attacking the American Family
It seems that Congress is at it again. Sen. Barbara Boxer is trying to impose U.N. laws upon American citizens. Sen. Boxer is calling for the Senate and the Obama administration to review and pass the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty. The passing of this treaty would greatly limit a parents ability to raise their children without government interference.
The U.N. has established a Committee on the Rights of the Child which is an 18-member panel in Geneva. The United States already has strict laws protecting children from neglect and abuse by parents. I myself do not have any children but I could not imagine American parents being governed by a committee in Geneva. The treaty would essentially allow children to make decisions for themselves that parents traditionally have had the responsibility to make for them. In my opinion children are not equipped with the knowledge or maturity level to make life altering decisions.
I have checked out the U.N. site and have the link below. It is interesting.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
It seems that the United States already has most of these laws and agreements in place. Ratifying the treaty would only hurt the sovereignty of the United States. Congress needs to focus on how to fix the economy and our credit institutions. Holding hearings about steroid use in baseball and telling parents how to raise their children seem to be secondary issues. Most parents are reasonable and do the best they can to ensure their children become responsible and productive members of society. Of course mistakes are made but it is a learning process. Parents want their children to be the best they can be. They certainly do not need Congress infringing on their rights.
The treaty would also infringe on religious rights. Some religions require certain medical procedures and treatments. If this treaty is ratified it could very well require parents and medical practitioners to conform to government mandated treatments. It would also make it much easier for outside influences to undermine basic human beliefs that are instilled into children by the parents.
The U.N. has established a Committee on the Rights of the Child which is an 18-member panel in Geneva. The United States already has strict laws protecting children from neglect and abuse by parents. I myself do not have any children but I could not imagine American parents being governed by a committee in Geneva. The treaty would essentially allow children to make decisions for themselves that parents traditionally have had the responsibility to make for them. In my opinion children are not equipped with the knowledge or maturity level to make life altering decisions.
I have checked out the U.N. site and have the link below. It is interesting.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
It seems that the United States already has most of these laws and agreements in place. Ratifying the treaty would only hurt the sovereignty of the United States. Congress needs to focus on how to fix the economy and our credit institutions. Holding hearings about steroid use in baseball and telling parents how to raise their children seem to be secondary issues. Most parents are reasonable and do the best they can to ensure their children become responsible and productive members of society. Of course mistakes are made but it is a learning process. Parents want their children to be the best they can be. They certainly do not need Congress infringing on their rights.
The treaty would also infringe on religious rights. Some religions require certain medical procedures and treatments. If this treaty is ratified it could very well require parents and medical practitioners to conform to government mandated treatments. It would also make it much easier for outside influences to undermine basic human beliefs that are instilled into children by the parents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)