Deja Vu, All Over Again

Obama 2010: “It’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs.

Obama 2012: “Colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.”

***

Obama 2010: “And we should continue the work by fixing our broken immigration system.”

Obama 2011: “I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration.”

Obama 2012: “I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration.”

***

Obama 2010: “We face a deficit of trust.”

Obama 2012: “I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust . . .”

***

Obama 2010: “We can’t wage a perpetual campaign.”

Obama 2012: “We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign.”

Attribution: Weekly Standard

Just Say NO, to Ron Paul

Federal Reserve:

I absolutely agree with Ron Paul. Shut down the Federal Reserve. Woodrow Wilson created it. I need to consider nothing more. Anything enacted by the Wilson administration is de facto, bad for the country.

Abortion:

Mr. Paul has stated he is firmly pro-life. I believe him. He also says it is not the purview of the Federal Government. The congressman believes life begins at conception but reluctantly says it is a States Rights issue, citing the Tenth Amendment.

I wasn’t aware that the murder of innocents was an issue at all. Who but a psycho would be in favor of murdering innocent people? If you believe life begins at conception, and when else would it begin, you can’t also believe that a State has the right to pass it’s own law condoning murder. It’s kind of a Ten Commandment issue, which trumps even our Constitution.

Death Penalty:

Ron Paul admits he was pro-death penalty & is now opposed to the death penalty, chiefly out of fear than an innocent person may be sentenced to death.

Michael Moore, He's right on every Issue!

I am pro-death penalty personally. I have yet to hear a compelling argument against it. Could a mistake be made? Absolutely! Humans are not perfect. Overwhelmingly the evidence against a death row inmate is so compelling as to prevent the mistake. Many have said my position is inconsistent. How could anyone be pro-life & pro-death penalty? What about the whole, “Thou shall not murder [kill]”? Abortion is the taking of an innocent life. The death penalty is not.

Illegal Immigration:

I agree with Paul, that illegal immigration should be attacked economically first. Stop all federal funding for illegals. No welfare, food stamps, free hospital care, etc. If you give things away, you’ll have more people lining up for the giveaways. Take away the incentive to stay here & they’ll leave.

He is against amnesty. I agree with that.

He does not support deportation. I support deportation. The Congressmen stated, “Sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home–isn’t going to happen and shouldn’t happen”. I disagree. By taking away the financial incentives, that number would be reduced greatly.

Foreign Policy:

This is the biggie. I am not at all a fan of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. It’s not only flawed, but also dangerous. I concur that troops should come home, but not for the same reasons. I also think our troops should leave Afghanistan immediately.

He states, “There really is nothing for us to win in Afghanistan. Our mission has morphed from apprehending those who attacked us, to apprehending those who threaten or dislike us for invading their country, to remaking an entire political system and even a culture … This is an expensive, bloody, endless exercise in futility. Not everyone is willing to admit this just yet. But every second they spend in denial has real costs in lives and livelihoods … Many of us can agree on one thing, however. Our military spending in general has grown way out of control.”

I agree with him that most of the conflicts we’ve become entangled in are useless and unconstitutional. If however, the cause is Constitutionally justified, the cost should be immaterial. I hope he would agree.

Regardless of my agreement with him on a lot of domestic spending issues, his isolationism and stance on Iran and Israel absolutely disqualifies him for any consideration as the nominee.

While the President and Congress, together, control domestic issues, foreign policy is much more the authority of the Executive Branch and the Commander in Chief.

I could agree with Ron Paul’s stance on every domestic issue, but when I cannot trust the judgment of our Commander in Chief, he is eliminated from consideration, period.

The Migration of Newt, Back to the Left

Newt has officially lost me. I was starting to warm to the idea of supporting him. He has had so many strong debate performances; one couldn’t help but to want to jump on board.

For the longest time I called Newt a convenient Conservative, meaning he spoke as a conservative when it was popular & convenient to do so. Whenever he started to get pushback, he was able to eruditely move back toward the mushy middle.

He has fooled me for the last time. I have had enough. I will not support Newt. If he becomes the nominee, of course I will vote for him, holding my nose, once again. I would vote for Spongebob Squarepants rather than Obama.

During last night’s debate Gingrich morphed into a George Bush, compassionate conservative clone. His answer to an illegal immigration question jolted me out of my mesmerized state. I guess I should thank him for snapping me back to reality.

He argued the children of illegal immigrants should not be ripped away from their families. He said that he did not believe Americans wanted to take people who have lived in the country for 25 years and expel them over a crime committed long ago.

He exclaimed that we would have a hard time explaining the uprooting of an entrenched illegal that has been here for 25 years, working, paying taxes, with a family & children in school. He added that he doesn’t see how the republicans, who claim to be the party of the family, could destroy families that have been here for a quarter of a century?

I wouldn’t have a hard time explaining it. It’s quite easy. Here it is.
Mr. or Ms. Illegal; You’ve broken the law for 25 years. Now you’ll finally be punished. It will be your choice to break up your family because of it. Here’s a solution; Take your family with you.

For illegal aliens to live & work in this country, there are only 2 possible scenarios, both unlawful (3, if you count MS 13). You are either committing tax evasion by working here illegally or committing identity theft (fraud) by using someone else’s Social Security number to pay said taxes. Pick your poison.

John Adams said, “ We are a nation of laws, not of men”. Obey the law or change the law. Don’t just ignore the law.

I also don’t wish to hear that Ronald Reagan did it.

Sorry, but it's a fact. I don't like it either.

He screwed up. He believed the lies that were told to him by the democrats about sealing the border, which of course, never happened. Shame on him for believing the dems. He made a mistake.

A few more questions: What if they have been here for less than 25 years? 25 seems like a rather arbitrary number.
What if, after all this time, they still can’t speak English?
When citizens get sentenced to prison, don’t they get ripped from their families? What if the illegal has no family?

In a 2007 Meet the Press interview, Mitt Romney said that illegals should be able to sign up for residency & a path to citizenship. Newt didn’t go that far. He was very careful not to mention anything about citizenship, just someway to make them legal.

This is pulled directly from Newts New Hampshire Campaign emailing, The Daily Newt: “Newt does not believe we have a binary choice between forcibly deporting 11 million people or letting them all stay. Newt recognizes that in some cases where people have lived in the United States for 20-25 years, have had children here, have joined churches and civic groups, and have OTHERWISE lived law-abiding lives, we are unlikely to forcibly deport them but find a way to make an exception for such families, and regularize their status without providing citizenship.”

It continues, “One idea for how to handle such humanitarian exceptions proposed by Gingrich is to empower local communities with the authority to allow those with long-established roots in the neighborhood a legal residency status, but not citizenship. Newt believes local communities are at a better vantage point to determine if those there illegally should stay or go. Under this system, kind of like Selective Service System boards, we will send home those without 20-25 years of residency here and family and community ties.”

Who will be the arbiter of that policy? Arbiter, “Mr. Illegal, have you been here for at least 20 years?” Mr. Illegal, Oh Sí!” Arbiter, “Ok, you may stay”.

Yes, and once they somehow become legal or “regularized”; of course it will end there. No one will ever push it to the next logical conclusion, citizenship. Right.

Mr. Speaker; Madame Pelosi is waiting for you to join her on the couch again.