1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Real Failures of Immigration Policy

Kurt114 Wrote: Jul 13, 2014 4:51 PM
Mr. Chapman is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts. There are too many fallacies in this column to address them all. BTW, his theory that increased border enforcement results in increased illegal immigration makes no sense whatsoever. His assertion of increased enforcement seems to be based on numbers that the administration had to admit before Congress had been manipulated. Mr. Chapman might do himself a favor if he limited his subject matter to things that he has some minimal amount of knowledge about.
Clever. However, "The Tea Party" just means average Americans who pay the taxes that government redistributes. The author disagrees with this majority of Americans who want our immigration laws enforced. Also, belief in limited government does include the expectation that the feds will perform their basic functions, such as securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws. In addition, he cherry picked the economic studies. Look the cities like LA and Dallas to see what a glut of illegals does to schools, hospitals, and jail populations. I'm not buying it.
In response to:

When Kids Show Up at Our Borders

Kurt114 Wrote: Jul 06, 2014 7:06 AM
I had an idea what Chapman's position would be based on reading him over the years. It's really simple, Mr. Chapman. If we enforce our immigration laws in a consistent manner fewer will violate them in the future. If we don't secure our border and monitor visa overstays more "undocumented foreigners" will violate our laws. Mr. Chapman, go to South Texas for a while and marinate in the fruits of our lax enforcement, then write a column after you know what you are talking about. I left Texas out of self preservation. Buddy, you don't have a clue.
Just request the e-mails from the NSA.
Odd. I was just reading that oil prices were on the rise as a result of turmoil in Iraq, yet this article cites lower fuel costs. In my region, much of our electricity comes from coal plants, and our bill went up by about 50% recently. I am on a cost averaging plan, so this increase was not seasonal. Maybe these increases haven't been factored in yet. Maybe my experience isn't the norm. In my world, costs are up much more than 2% year over year. We are learning ways to get creative with beans and rice. We are indefinitely putting off major purchases and avoiding the mall as our discretionary income falls due to increasing expenses. Still have to save money in order to turn it over to the IRS next spring. Can I claim the federal government as a dependent on my tax return?
In response to:

Rubbish: Emails Don’t Get Lost

Kurt114 Wrote: Jun 16, 2014 7:49 AM
It's become clear that we no longer have the rule of law in this country, assuming by the term "rule of law" we mean an equal application of the law. The "law" is a tool to be used for political purposes, to punish enemies and protect allies. This perversion of the rule of law risks nullifying the citizens' right to seek redress. When the legal system is the vehicle of oppression, how can it also be the vehicle for overturning that oppression? Dangerous times. Notice how nobody in the current administration has done the perp walk.
The opposition to sound money will be brutal. Too many are profiting from the current fiat system. Also, our government relies on dollar production to continue its deficit spending. A collapse of the dollar will have to precipitate moving back to a gold standard. That seems to be the direction we are moving towards.
In response to:

Wrong Lessons from Cantor Defeat

Kurt114 Wrote: Jun 13, 2014 9:59 AM
Ms. Chavez is nothing if not consistent. Race first in all things. She cites polls that support her position and ignores the ones that don't. Secure the border, track visa holders, and then talk to us about legalization.
This is what the breakdown of law and order looks like. This is what happens when we elect people to office who choose not to faithfully execute our laws. We are past the point of no return. If by some miracle the feds began enforcing existing law, as it pertains to immigration, I have no doubt there would be a violent response. I fought the good fight, was even employed in law enforcement in a border state back when just being illegal was enough for ICE to deport somebody, but gave up and moved far away. The border states are past the tipping point, politically and demographically, and enforcement will no longer be tolerated by the new majorities.
It was taught in some college classes that only whites can be racist, because, according to one way of thinking, an element of racism requires that the oppressing group be in control of the political and economic environment. Holder's Justice Department seems to have extended this way of thinking into Civil Rights Division. Now then, if the President and the Attorney General are both black, what group is in control of the political and environmental environment? And what group, by their own twisted definition of racism, would be the oppressor? And what groups, then, would be incapable of being racist, by virtue of being out of power? They reject Webster's definition of racism, for obvious reasons.
1 - 10 Next