I’ve been listening to Rush Limbaugh talk about the proposed “immigration reform.” He hit the nail on the head when he said that Americans, not illegal immigrants, are being treated like the law breakers. That is definitely the tone that I’ve been picking up from Congress and I don’t like it.

I’ve accepted the fact that we can’t deport all of the illegal immigrants who are here already. That’s an unreasonable expectation. However, I don’t think it is unreasonable for us to expect the government to protect our borders and to crack down on businesses who are hiring illegals. These actions MUST BE TAKEN BEFORE GRANTING AMNESTY or anything close to it.

If I were a Congressman who insists on granting amnesty, I would ask myself the following question: How can I sell an unpopular amnesty to Americans? The answer: by assuring them that the borders are sufficiently secure and that the government is cracking down on businesses who are hiring illegals.

I’ve heard many things about the Fair Tax plan over the last few years, but it never really caught my attention….until now. I’ve been doing some reading on it lately (fairtax.org is a great resource for anyone who wants to learn more) and I’m now a full fledged supporter of the Fair Tax. Why? Because it will replace the federal income tax with a sales tax and phase out the IRS (and its enormous budget). Additionally, it will confront those Americans who hide their fortunes from the IRS (tax shelters) by making them pay taxes based on their consumption. I’m not trying to play a Democrat-style class warfare card, but it does annoy me when Americans use the country to make their fortunes, and then proceed to hide it from the country. It’s especially annoying when I see politicians do it. They increase our taxes while hiding their own money from the country!

I think Al Gore and other global warming nuts should have to shovel my drive way every time it snows.

Because they can't.

This excerpt is from a Marine who asked for his amputated arm back:

"I am going to have it stuffed and use it as a club when I get back to my unit.....besides I scratch and shoot with my other hand anyway."

Classic.  Read the rest.

This is pretty funny.

Earlier this week, the French foreign minister Philippe Douste-Blazy, stated that Iran "plays a stabilizing role in the region".  This just goes to show that when the French are wrong, they are really wrong!

There should be.  My opinion of Jimmy Carter?  He's disgraceful.  The end.

I just read a post from a blog named Mere Rhetoric.  They do a good job of responding to the latest Jimmy Carter annoyance.

 The Public Expression of Religion Act which is sponsored by Senators Brownback and Hostetter seeks to prevent the ACLU from collecting American tax payer money while undermining American tax payer values.  Stop the ACLU, who follows all efforts fight the ACLU, has more information. 

Unbelievable!  Jane Hamsher has a post on the Huffington Post that shows a photo shopped picture of Bill Clinton (in sunglasses) standing with Joe Lieberman who is in BLACK FACE!  What the F****!  To make matters worse, her post is not even relevant to the picture.  She doesn't write anything about ethnicity or African-American issues.  She doesn't acknowledge or explain the picture.  It just sits there for everyone to see.  People with half a brain know that a white person in black face is an insult to black people.  So, you BETTER have a damn good reason for using a picture like the one Jane used.

UPDATE:  Better yet, DON"T USE IT AT ALL!

UPDATE:  Has anyone heard from the NAACP?  Jesse Jackson?  Al Sharpton?  Just checking.

Yes, I know that the comments were way out of line.  Even if you're drunk.  But he issued an apology which I think is sincere (doesn't he look sincere to you?).  There are two quotes from the Washington Post that I think sum up my feelings regarding this issue:

1.  If he stopped working with people in Hollywood who behaved badly, Guber added, "I'd only work with one person -- and that would be Cinderella."  Peter Guber (a Hollywood producer)

2.  "If he said it, he's at best a putz."  Sidney J. Sheinberg (former MCA Inc.)

Now, back to Hizbullah....

On Sunday, France claimed to be stepping up and taking the lead on the Middle East crisis.  Now, they won't even show up to a meeting to discuss the deployment of an international force to Lebanon?  Damian at Pave France has a great post regarding France's leadership during the latest Middle East crisis.

Also, Yahoo News has more on the so-called French leadership.  They really are sad:


Wasn't their opinion already radical?  Can anyone remember a time when the Muslim world was not against the West?



Oh I see.  We've only been asking for an end to hostilities.  We didn't demand it like the French did.  Well, let's hope that Hizbullah is as willing to quit fighting as the French.  Yeah, I know that's a cheap shot, but I think you saw it coming.


Oh come on!  Why have a FORCE if they can't fight.  This could explain why the French riots lasted for so long.  The police didn't want to confront the rioters until they stopped rioting.

Findland, the EU president, is concerned that Israel's actions may fuel more support for Hizbullah.  This is after France says that Iran is a stabilizing force in the Middle East (via LGF).  Iran?  Stablizing?....Seriously?

I guess this shouldn't be such a shock.  Not when people are actually upset with Israel because of their so called "disproportionate" response to HIzbullah's acts of war.  Disporportionate?  What?  This is a war.  This is not a pee wee league football game where everyone is a winner for showing up!  Come on people!!

Quick, somebody call Jesse Jackson.  The Palestinians are trying to steal his livelihood.

Seriously people, where is she?  How do we keep losing her?! 

I feel like elaborating on my post about Bush speaking to the NAACP....

This organization was founded in 1909 to help black people.  It was an honorable organization with honorable goals.  However, things have changed.  Now, the NAACP is to black people, what the United Nations is to world peace....useless.

How does repeating Democratic talking points (and myths) help to improve the lives of the people who you claim to serve?  It doesn't.  How do vicious attacks on a sitting president improve the lives of the people who you claim to serve?  It doesn't.  If you are an advocate for a particular group or community, you HAVE to remain neutral when it comes to the American political parties.  The NAACP refuses to do that.  They work harder to improve the employment rate of Democratic politicians than the black community.  

As an advocacy organization, the NAACP should be creating the talking points based on the people's needs.  In other words, they are supposed to deliver the people's message to the government.  Instead, they are bringing Democratic talking points to the people.  It's a one-way conversation.  Just yesterday, Barak Obama had this to say:

"Don't be bamboozled. Don't buy into it," Obama said, trying to anticipate Bush's speech, which is expected to touch upon his support for extending the act.

Is he giving the NAACP it's orders?  Is it a coincidence that the Democrats would have a black man give the order?  Well, we'll see how the NAACP responds after Bush gives his speech.

Once an advocacy group pledges allegiance to one party (as the NAACP has done), they render themselves useless when the other party is in power.  This in turn renders them useless to the people who they serve.  The NAACP should behave as if it is the black community's lawyer.  Lawyers have to defend their clients regardless of the judge's politics.  The NAACP may not like Bush and the Republicans, but they have to work with them if they want to meet their people's needs.

It's important to note that the black community can survive during Democratic AND Republican presidencies.  as a matter of fact they can (and will) thrive!  There is not one law that has been passed by the Bush Administration or the Republican Congress that will prevent the black community from reaching its goals. 

The NAACP attacked Bush's social security plan.  They did everything they could to make sure it failed.  As the black community's lawyer, they should've responded by educating the black community about this issue  (why social security has to be fixed, what the government is doing about it, etc).  They should've discussed the benefits of the proposed plan (such as preventing the government from dipping into social security to pay of it's debts).  At the same time they could've explained the NAACP's position.  Based on the community's feedback, they should've negotiated with the Republican and Democrats for a better deal.  Instead, they played race card.  They presented the plan as a Republican attempt to deny them an essential governmental program.  Now, social security is headed towards bankruptcy.  This is good for Democrats because they blocked a Bush initiative (they expressed their satisfaction during Bush's last State of the Union Address).  That makes them look good to their donors.  It doesn't help the black community (or anyone else who's not a Democratic politician).

Black people are victims because our so-called community leaders and politicians need them to be.  Black people will always be victims because there's too much money to be made and too many votes to be had.  I am anxiously awaiting the day when the black community realizes how strong they are as a community and as individuals.

By the way, did I mention that I'm a proud black man?  Does that change your opinion of this post?

UPDATE:  Here's the text of Bush's speech to the NAACP.  I haven't had a chance to read it all yet.

Links
Michelle Malkin
La Shawn Barber
Gatewaypundit