Amnesty Bill Advances

The US Senate just voted 64-35 to revive the god-awful, down right treasonous amnesty bill. Of course, this horrible piece of legislation, in any form, will not pass - at least not in the House. But here again, our out-of-touch, arrogant political leaders have once again ignored common sense, integrity and the will of the people to instead push a bill that would reward criminality, weaken American sovereignty, encourage more waves of illegal immigration and over-population, disenfranchise the American lower class by bringing a lower foreign class to undercut job opportunities, and all the way around fail to protect American security. Murderer-moron Edward Kennedy had this to say:

"This may not be perfect, but it is the best opportunity we have to do something significant and substantial, and I believe that the bill is good."

This bill is the complete opposite of "good." Doing "something" is in no way preferable if that "something" actually makes things worse. Last year you, our Senators, House representatives and President did do something "significant and substantial," by voting to fund a border fence. Of course that was just a lie for election purposes. The government has completely failed to follow through on actually supplying us with this layer of protection; much in the same way our government has failed to protect us and our Border Patrol agents from the violence of border crossing. In fact, those sworn to protect us, our patriotic officers, are vilified, attacked and imprisoned for doing that which is in the best interest of our country by these very slimeballs that now want to grant amnesty to intruders, trespassers, drug smugglers and dealers, gang bangers, murderers, assaulters, identity thieves and all around disrepecters of our nation, laws, culture and persons.

In the end, the US Senate serves special interests - those that profit from the hiring of illegal aliens, and the bigoted ethnic entitlementists, socialists and anarchists that wish to destroy liberty by slowly dismantling our republic.

More on Obama

Let's look a little more at what Obama had to say at a church convention on June 23, 2007.

At every opportunity, [the Christian Right have] told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design," he said.

I've already discussed the hypocrisy in Obama's attacks on Christians who have right-leaning views, while at the same time trying to portray himself as some sort of "hope peddler." But what exactly is Obama trying to imply with this sentence? Rather than actually addressing his own stances on any of these issues, he cowardly dances away from them, pushing them aside, asserting they are not important. While it is true that the left often portrays the religious right as being single-minded in their concerns, simply because these issues may or may not be high priorities to some in no way suggests that these are their only concerns, nor that they lack opinions on other issues. But it would be a mistake to imply that they might agree with Obama on other issues. Plus, it is hardly true that the these issues are not high priorities for certain groups on the left, be they the pro-choice crowd, gay lobbies or the atheists. The left has gained plenty of mileage by scare-mongering about Supreme Court nominations and the possibility of a loss of "abortion rights." What Obama is really saying here is that making these particular issues a priority, emphasizing single issues, is some sort of a distraction. I'm sure NARAL and gay rights activists would be pleased to hear that.

So rather than actually telling us what he thinks, or would do, about these issues, he avoids substance completely. Much in the same way his attacks on the religious right are easy - he peddles "hope," but offers no solution. Why bother even addressing the perceived problem with the religious right if he offers no plan about it? It's a non-issue, as I seriously doubt he would propose legislation to "fix" it (or if he did, it would be wildly unconstitutional and fascist). He plays around with nothings rather than giving us answers to the somethings that concern a number of people on the left, on the rightm and in the middle. In fact he is really implying we should not really even care about these somethings. And as dismissive as he is to these issues, they are really important to a lot of folks. Some see abortion as murder, mass murder; some see it as a fundamental reproductive right. The key point of debate being the fundamental question: when does human life, and human rights and liberty, actually begin? Whatever your conclusion, not something to be brushed aside. The same with gay marriage - it's really very important to a lot of gay couples who view themselves as being discriminated against, and equally important to those religious individuals that believe society should not endorse or condone such behaviors.

Here's my advice to Obama. Don't even bring up issues if you are too cowardly to reveal your stance on each. Or, if you're legitimately unsure or undecided, tell us that. But do not attempt to sweep these issues under the rug in a pathetically transparent move to avoid giving the voting public the facts it deserves about you to make an informed opinion. If you want anyone's vote, they deserve to know where you really stand. Enough of your formless, wishy-washy image-making. Tell us what you really think; give us details. All we're getting now is worthless fluff.

Obama the Hypocrite

Lot's of people fell for Barack Obama's (Barack Oh-BORING!) flash at first, but even Democrats are beginning to see through his lack of substance in growing numbers. I may not be a fan of Hillary Clinton, but at least there are substantive issues behind her for disliking her. Obama is just an empty shell, devoid of substance.

This weekend, Barack Hussein Obama said the following at a church convention on June 23, 2007:

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart... Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us."

So, Barack-ster, you're complaining about divisiveness by singling out and attacking a particular group, blaming them for what is wrong with America? Right, you're so much different and better than they are.

Now I'm not a big fan of the Christian Right, nor am I a big fan of Obama-man, but I'm not off trying to pretend to be some middle-of-the-road uniter, somehow above the fray of partisan politics (as B.O. tried to suggest he was at the Democratic Convention a little while back). The Christian Right is perfectly entitled to have opinions about others, just as you are to have opinions about them. I don't fault Obama for disagreeing with the Christian Right. I have no problem disagreeing with them myself over a variety of issues. But for him to act somehow superior to them, while at the same time engaging in the behavior he's decrying, is just pathetic.

I am so sick of slick politicians with their lies and propaganda. Cut the crap! I cannot count the times I've seen these jackasses contradict themselves, or spin themselves into illogical spirals of unreason, in an attempt to sound as if they're actually saying something worthwhile or vaguely in tune with some unclear concept. Oh, he's for unity. I'm voting for that fucker. Debate the damn issues, and stop vilifying the other guy - and most ESPECIALLY stop vilifying the other guy by saying all he does is vilify you. Discuss something important. If people want to believe abortion is evil, fuck it, let them. We don't have freedom of religion in this country just so some dipshit, empty-headed Presidential candidate can complain about it. Religion has not been hijacked - there are just *gasp* differences of opinion that are theologically based, just as there are differences of opinion that are based on all kinds of other reasoning.

Probably the most vile aspect of the Obama quote is his use of the word "hijack," a word associated with terrorism, which is in turn is associated with the religious fundamentalism and violence of extremist Islam.

Denice Denton, Still Dead

Those of us that work for the UC System received this annoying little message via email today from UC President Bobby Dynes:

TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY

Dear Colleagues:

As some of you may recall, June 24 marked the passing of one full year

since the death of Denice Denton, who served as Chancellor of the

University of California, Santa Cruz. I would like to take a moment to

pause and reflect on this great talent who was with us for far too short

a time, but who had a tremendous influence on so many throughout the

University and across the nation. As I recalled at her memorial

service, Denice moved us forward into new territories of excellence and

inclusiveness. Along the way, she inspired us, by her own example, to

strive always to be better people, and she challenged us to see our

differences as strengths to build upon and as opportunities to grow.

The University of California is the better for her having come our way

and, in remembering Denice, I hope we will continue to build upon the

rich legacy she left us.

The Santa Cruz campus has posted a special tribute to Chancellor Denton,

and it can be found at

http://www.ucsc.edu/administration/denice_denton/anniversary.asp. I

encourage you to take a moment to visit it and to be inspired by this

extraordinary and gifted individual.

Sincerely,

Robert C. Dynes

President

Now, of course, a corrupt piece of crap like Dynes would be the first to be unable to distinguish between "new territories of excellence" and innovative ways to rip off the taxpayer or bypass ethical behavior. When she was hired, the UC system also hired her lesbian lover to a newly created position in the UC Office of the President, which is in Oakland, which paid $192,000 annually. Denton received benefits that weren’t disclosed when she was hired - part of a UC executive scandal which also implicated our lovely President. She also managed to get $30,000 spent for a freaking "dog run" as part of $600,000 in renovations to the chancellor’s campus house.

Behavior such as this is the exact opposite of "[inspiring] us, by her own example, to strive always to be better people." Unless you of course you consider her an example of how not to behave.

But of course, since she was a lesbian, her incompetence and thievery are to be ignored by the lunatic left that has infested UC campuses with their insane agenda of diversity-bigotry over rational thought and fairness. In some great quest for "inclusiveness" people are to be judged on labels rather than morality and ability. I'm sure she was a fine engineer, but she was a piss-poor administrator and an even worse example of a principled person. She was a militant entitlementist, who thought anyone that dared disagree with her was a bigot, but it was she who showed true prejudice by suggesting she deserved special privilege and consideration due to her sexual orientation.

That said, that she chose to take her own life is a tragedy.

Feinstein Equals Fascist, But Does Not Equal Fairness

Check out what the so-called "liberal", anti-liberty, pro-fascism, pure-evil twat Senator Dianne Feinstein had to say about free speech on FNS yesterday:

WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator Feinstein.

Oklahoma Senator Inhofe says that he overheard Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton three years ago complaining about talk radio and saying that there should be a legislative fix. Both of them deny it ever happened. But let me ask you about yourself. Do you have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the fairness doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It’s explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information. This is a very complicated bill. It’s seven titles. Most people don’t know what’s in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty — we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system.

This bill fixes those flaws. Do I think there should be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view? Yes, I do, particularly about the critical issues of the day.

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I’m looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

Color me shocked. First off, let's look at her insane assertions about the immigration bill. If anyone is dwelling in extremism and hyperbole, it is Feinstein. She is being "explosive," and downright insulting, suggesting that those that hold different views, be they listeners or hosts, regarding this bill someone are ignorant of what is in it. Believe it or not, Dumb-anne, those opposing the bill are fully aware of what the legislation entails. People are aware it is "complicated," but complexity does not necessarily translate to actual reform or effectiveness, especially considering that we have the laws we need already on the books, and they have not been enforced. Disagreeing with whether or not this bill works, or is fair, is not the same as not comprehending what it does.

She also puts forth the moronic "silent amnesty" argument in favor of this bill, but fails to address the fact that those opposed to it want neither silent, nor government endorsed, amnesty. People on and listening to talk radio are quite aware that the current administration and Congress does NOTHING to enforce the laws of the land now, in fact granting "silent amnesty," but fails to fix it. This bill only makes things worse, will encourage more illegal immigration, rewards illegal behavior, and offers no real solution. If she actually LISTENED to some talk radio, she would hear that hosts go into the flaws in the current system all the time. It's bullshit to assert that because people are opposed to this current attempt to "fix" the system, that they are opposed to fixing the system at all. There was an attempt to start fixing the system last year - by building hundreds of miles of new border fence (not a comprehensive fix by any means, but a start) - which was passed by Congress and signed into law, yet that has not yet been built.

Equally insulting is the assertion that talk radio "pushes" people into certain opinions, views or actions. People listen to talk radio hosts because they agree with them (or enjoy disagreeing with them). It's not like they've suddenly become brainwashed by the radio waves. Heck, what would motivate them to tune-in in the first place? What is most chilling about Feinstein's pathetic attempt at reasoning here is that somehow this disagreement justifies censorship or governmental control of media content. And even worse, it targets only a tiny sliver of the media and biased opinion. What you will not hear Feinstein calling for is a Fairness Doctrine effecting the editorial sections of liberal newspapers, liberal bias in college classrooms, leftist slant on TV News or comedy shows, left-wing bias in movies or music, or any of a million other forums. And what amazes me is that liberals and Democrats will foam at the mouth in these forums, online, etc., about how Bush and the Republicans are attempting to erode civil liberties with the Patriot Act or calling for an end to bias in college education, but have no problem pissing all over the 1st Amendment when it comes to opinions that don't fall in sync with their own.

Guess what, Dumb-anne, you or anyone else has no right to "present the other side" on someone else's editorial forum. And attempting to silence dissenting opinion is about as fascist as you can get. But it's about the sort of utter hypocrisy I've come to expect from the Democratic Party. No wonder Congress has an approval rating as low as Bush's.