Big Dogs Weblog

Hillary Finally Takes a Position

Nov 14, 2007 Immigration, Political

Hillary Clinton finally took a position on issuing driver’s licenses to ILLEGALS (she calls them undocumented) by declaring that she agrees with New York Governor Spitzer’s decision not to issue them. Hillary sort of supported his position when he was going to issue them, then said no, then say yes and left it at a maybe. Since Spitzer has finally decided the Hildabeast figured it was OK to take a stand. She also indicated that, as President, she will not issue driver’s licenses to ILLEGALS and that she will fix the immigration problem in America.

The President is not the person to fix these things. Congress is the body that is supposed to come up with bills that address these kinds of issues. After it is worked out it is sent to the President to be signed into law. The President can tell Congress how he wants things and they can work together but the biggest thing the President gets to do is sign it into law or veto it. Hillary Clinton will have little success with immigration if the Congress does not act. She had a better chance of doing something as part of the Senate and yet I can’t seem to find any bills she has authored to address the problem. The only thing she has done is criticize GOP efforts to toughen criminal laws regarding ILLEGALS and blame the Bush administration for a problem caused by Democrats long before he ever took office. In fact, Bush and Congress tried to ram amnesty down our throats and Hillary voted for that plan. She wants to give them licenses but not until she gives them amnesty. Hillary Clinton votes to help ILLEGALS.

I am sure this is not the last we have heard on this issue. If a poll comes out in a few weeks indicating that Hispanics are supporting another candidate and they cite this stance as the reason, Hillary will change faster than you can shake a stick.

Tags: amnesty, Congress, criminal laws, Democrats, governor spitzer, hildabeast, Hillary Clinton, Immigration, immigration problem, President, take a stand, veto

Follow the Bouncing Hillary Ball

Nov 7, 2007 Immigration, Political

Hillary Rodham is still having trouble with the issue of driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS. It has been over a week since she answered the question about it several different ways and twenty-four hours after her waffle she came out in support of giving ILLEGALS licenses. It would appear, despite her claims of being clear on the issues, that she has not been clear on this one. In her latest nuance, Rodham says that issuing licenses to ILLEGALS should depend on the state. She stated that in a state like New York there is a huge security problem and a lot of ILLEGALS but that in other states it might not be a big deal. I guess the idea that it is wrong to reward ILLEGAL activity at all has never crossed her mind.

I know I have indicated that Rodham is a poll driven candidate but it would appear as if she is on the other side of public opinion on this one. About 77% of Americans surveyed [Washington Times] do not favor allowing ILLEGALS to get a driver’s license and yet, depending on when you talk to her, Rodham is for it, against it, for it and against it, or believes it is up to individual states [Breitbart]. Perhaps she is in favor of it because people often register to vote at the same time they get a license (motor voter) and if they do not have to prove they are legal when getting the license they do not have to prove they are eligible to vote. Obviously, it helps Democratic candidates to have a huge number of ILLEGAL voters on the books and Rodham is probably pandering to that large contingency. A huge Hispanic vote cannot hurt her in the election.

Obtaining a driver’s license is a privilege, not a right (though ILLEGALS have few rights under our Constitution) and bestowing a privilege on people who do not deserve it is wrong and counter productive. If the government of any state rewards bad behavior then the result is more bad behavior. By allowing ILLEGALS to get licenses we are telling them that what they did is perfectly OK and that they can continue to break the law. There is a lot of public outrage when ILLEGALS break the law and commit some terrible crime but what should we expect? We do not punish them for their initial bad behavior so they continue to exhibit bad behavior.

This is not to say that there are not millions of hard working, good people in this country who happen to be here ILLEGALLY but the fact is, even the good ones broke the law to get here. Hillary Rodham is fond of blaming this on Bush and saying that this country does not have an immigration policy. She is wrong on both counts. First of all, Ted Kennedy gave us both of the huge amnesties of the past and he promised after the last one that it would never be necessary again because the Congress would fix the problems. Here we are 23 years later and we still have the mess but we have millions more ILLEGALS. Kennedy and the Congress dropped the ball long before George Bush became president. Additionally, Bush tried to give a huge amnesty package that was defeated by the Republicans (and some Democrats) in Congress after the public outcry.

As for the idea that this country does not have an immigration policy, this is plain hogwash. We have plenty of laws concerning entering this country and we have rules that are supposed to be followed. The problem is not that we do not have a policy, the problem is that this country fails to enforce it. Instead of securing the border and stopping the flow of ILLEGALS, our government jails the border patrol agents who are trying to enforce the law while people continue to walk in unabated.

The United States Congress needs to get its head out of its rear end and start enforcing the laws we have and we need to start deporting ILLEGALS we catch. We need to jail those who break the law and we need to hold judges and elected officials responsible for failures in the system. Unfortunately, this issue will not receive the proper attention until an ILLEGAL rapes or murders a politician’s or judge’s wife or daughter or until one of their family members (or the entire family) is wiped out by an ILLEGAL driving a vehicle with or without the license Hillary wants them to have.

As for Rodham, she has bounced this ball back and forth for more than a week and is still unclear as to her position. I imagine it will change a few more times before the primary and she will take a more firm stance against it, should she make it to the general election. Hillary fails to understand that ILLEGAL behavior is wrong and that people should not be rewarded for it.

But, that should not surprise us. She and hubby Bill have been involved in a lot of illegal activity. Their people have also been involved in illegal activity for the benefit of the Clintons. Those people are rewarded for what they do, no matter how wrong it is.

Sandy Berger, anyone [The Hillary Project].

Tags: Congress, Democrats, Hillary, illegal activity, illegals, Immigration, public opinion, security problem, waffle

Democrats Spin Failures into Successes - Reward Selves

Oct 27, 2007 Political

The Democrats took control of Congress in January and they planned to put their aggressive agenda into play. They had already promised America that they would be transparent and ethical. Since taking the reigns of power they have been neither transparent nor ethical. They have put billions of dollars of earmarks into legislation and often done so under the cloak of darkness. There are even earmarks for organizations no one can prove exist and those earmarks passed despite concerns that the recipients might not actually be around. The fact that Jack Murtha put in those earmarks should concern everyone as Murtha was caught on video tape trying to take a bribe.

The Democrats said they would go to a 5 day workweek. They have trouble with math because the day starts in the evening on Monday and they are done by noon on Friday. To these people, that is a 5 day workweek. Now the Democrats plan to reward themselves for all the “hard” work they have done by reducing the workweek starting next year. They claim that it is to give them more time in their districts but we all know it is so they can campaign and work to get a bigger control of the Congress. Everything they do is designed to get more votes and greater power. Rangel’s tax scheme is designed to have minimal impact on people making less than $150k (individual) or $200k (couple) because the Democratic base largely falls under those targets. The tax increase is designed to hurt people who generally vote Republican so basically, the tax increase is designed to make Republicans pay for government and social programs and to get more Democrats elected.

Many of the Democrats are justifying the short workweeks scheduled for next year by claiming that they worked really hard this year. Some claim they had to work hard to clean up the messes of 12 years of a Republican majority and some claim that they need to spend more time with their constituents. I want to know how they have not had enough time already. Every time there is a federal holiday they get the entire week off. They take the entire month of August off and they take time off whenever they feel a need to be in their districts or to attend a meeting paid for by some lobbyist. They are a disgrace and can lay little claim to success for this year. Their crowning achievement, to them, is passage of a minimum wage increase. They act as if this was some big deal and they did what they promised but the fact is, they attached this increase to a war funding bill that had nothing to do with a minimum wage increase. They did this because they could not have gotten it passed otherwise.

In reality, the Democrats have been dismal failures this year. But they still thump their chests and claim they did a great job so they want to work fewer days a week next year. They have complaints because they have not gotten a pay raise and they have families at home who they would like to spend time with. Well boo frickin hoo. The members of our military have families from whom they are separated and they do not get a week off for the holidays and they do not get a month off at a time. They do their jobs and they get paid a hell of a lot less than members of Congress, who are overpaid for the work they actually do.

I have an idea. Most people who have real jobs work about 240 days a year (excluding any vacation they might take). How about if Congress has a schedule where they must work 240 days a year to get paid. They can either work 3 weeks a month in DC and spend 1 week each month at home or they can work 4 days a week (days that must add up to at least 40 hours) and spend Friday-Sunday at home. They may also have off the normal federal holidays AND ONLY THOSE HOLIDAYS (not the entire week). Each member must spend 240 days a year working in DC on the job or they do not get paid.

Instead of patting themselves on the back and giving themselves rewards, Democrats should be asking why the approval rating of Congress is near single digits. Perhaps they should be worrying about why they are failing to accomplish anything that they are supposed to do as in approve a budget.

I think if they want to spend more time in their districts we should replace them in the next election so that the job will not be such a burden to them.

Source:
New York Times

Tags: bribe, Congress, constituents, democratic base, Democrats, earmarks, rangel, social programs, tax increase, tax scheme

Get Rid of S-CHIP Altogether

Oct 19, 2007 Political

There was a big battle this past week after President Bush vetoed the huge expansion of the S-CHIP, a program designed to provide heath care coverage for the children of families who make too much to qualify for Medicaid and too little to afford private insurance. There were provisions that led us on the path to socialized medicine and they have been addressed so now I will focus on whether we need S-CHIP at all.

The argument made by those who support S-CHIP and its expansion is that people cannot afford 1200 dollars a month for insurance. We have to help the children and we have to help the poor. Now it has been shown that insurance can be obtained for around $500 a month but we can use the $1200 figure that the Democrats like to bounce around. I have come to the conclusion that we do not need the S-CHIP program and that it should be abolished because the poor can afford that amount of money. I have wondered about something for some time and Hillary Clinton’s supporters helped me to finally put the pieces together.

Let me explain. I have wondered how this country can be in the dire financial straights that the left likes to portray it. According to the left the economic numbers are bad and we have a terrible economy (despite numbers that are about the same as when the other Clinton held office). I knew this had to be wrong and I continually asked how it is that a country with such a bad economy could collectively donate so much money to political candidates. Look at the amount of money that has been donated to all of them combined and to Obama and Clinton in particular. How does a country with such a bad economy afford to give like this? Then I began to wonder about our poor and the S-CHIP.

My thoughts about S-CHIP started about the time the Hsu thing was breaking. In that story there were countless numbers of people who donated money to Hillary Clinton. These people donated $2300 despite circumstances that demonstrated that they should not have that kind of money to donate and yet they did! I mean, how could people who cannot afford $1200 for health insurance pony up $2300 for a candidate?

I thought it must be some kind of fluke but it evidently is not because today it was revealed that Hillary again received hundreds of thousands of dollars from people who make very little. This is the latest news:

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers [sic] are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton’s campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser [sic] in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown. [LA Times]

The 2000 Census shows that the average annual income for that area is $21,000 or right at the poverty level. The Democrats, are pushing for an expansion of S-CHIP that would cover families that make three or four times the poverty level because they cannot afford the $1200 a month for private insurance. I think that the donations that Mr. Hsu collected from poor folks and the donations described in this article clearly show that people right at the poverty level certainly can afford health insurance premiums. Any individual or family that that has $1000-$2300 of disposable income to spend on a political donation can certainly afford to pay the measly cost of health insurance.

There will, of course, be skeptics who think I am way off base here and that I am once again bashing the poor because I am one of those cold hard Conservatives who does not care about anyone. People are entitled to that opinion but I offer this; there are only two explanations for these donations. The first is as I described and that people can afford them which means, as I stated, they can afford health care.

The second is that these are illegal donations to the Clinton campaign. Now I know that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid promised that this would be the most ethical and transparent Congress in history but that has not quite panned out and I also know that the Clinton’s have a long history of unethical and illegal behavior. However, Hillary will never admit to any wrong doing and her supporters and puppets in the media will not investigate or go after her for her ethical and criminal lapses even when video evidence of her illegal activities exists and has been introduced in court. There are a few folks in this story who say they did not donate and others who cannot be found, but it is unlikely the media will give this a real look. They have to protect mother Hillary.

Since they will not investigate, that only leaves us with the conclusion that poor people can afford their own health insurance. Unless of course Senator Clinton would like to refute that conclusion. So, having laid this all out I have this demand to make of Senator Clinton:

Either admit to your illegal behavior and withdraw from the presidential contest or introduce a bill to abolish S-CHIP. Either people need S-CHIP and you are a criminal or you are not a criminal and your poor donors, therefore, do not need the program.

The ball, as they say, is in your court Senator…

Sometimes unrelated trackbacks to: Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, , A Blog For All, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Stix Blog, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, The Populist, , Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Nuke’s, , third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, Grizzly Groundswell, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Tags: chip program, Congress, Democrats, help the children, Hillary Clinton, Hsu, medicaid, Obama, political candidates, private insurance, socialized medicine

Stark Contrast with Sanity

Oct 18, 2007 Uncategorized

Today the Congress attempted to override the Presidential veto of the vastly expanded S-CHIP bill. The President wants the program to continue but he does not want it expanded as greatly as the Democrats do. The plan would allow states to cover children in families of four making $82,000 a year and “children” up to 25 years of age. The Democrats trotted out people who have benefited from the program which made no sense because they are already covered. It is estimated that about 10 million of the people who do not have insurance are eligible for one program or another but have not signed up. We need to get them on board and stop playing these games of expanding government control.

Pete Stark, a Congressman from California, took the floor for his two minutes and he was nothing short of a demented old fool. I have now found someone serving who is as much of a doddering senile old fool as Robert Byrd. This senile man called the President a liar and said that he [the President] sent children to be blown up for his own amusement. Breitbart has the video which includes an admonishment for referring to the President in personal terms (I guess that is bad form). In any event, this demented guy needs to retire and spend his waning days playing with silly putty and collecting sock navel lint.

The Democrats were out in full force touting the children and how everything was for the children. From what I saw of Stark, maybe we need to put some money aside to send old fools like him to the “home.”

Maybe in this guy’s world the President sends kids to be blown up for amusement but God must have allowed this imbecile to be in Congress and on TV for the amusement of the rest of us because this guy is a joke.

Tags: children, Congress, Democrats, lunatic, override, Pete STark, Political Commentary, rant, S-CHIP, veto