Mark my words - if the GOP tries for a contested convention, and nominates anyone who does not have the most delegates, the GOP will effectively, and with that single stroke, accomplish what liberals have been trying to do for a hundred years - destroy America. And this is not an idle statement.
If the GOP nominates someone other than the winner of the primaries, millions of Republicans will, out of disgust and anger, stay home in November. Their votes will already have been disregarded, so why bother? And that would easily hand the White House over to Hillary Clinton. But that is not the worst part...
During her tenure as POTUS, she will be able to nominate between one and three justices to the Supreme Court, and while all would be liberal, her first nominee would be the most liberal - and dangerous - ideologue of all: Barak Obama.
Out goes the right to bear arms. Out goes religious liberty. Out goes any constraints on the power and growth of the government. In other words, out goes the American way of life, liberty and independence.
Mark my words...
Monday, March 21, 2016
Sunday, March 13, 2016
Believe it or Not, the Zombie Apocalyse is Here
Liberals - and especially Bernie Sanders - are trying to sell socialism to the American people, and most particularly to our youth - those who know nothing about the consequences of socialism. Ask anyone who has ever lived under socialism and they will tell you it is the pits.
In a capitalist society, there are winners and losers. Some will grow very rich by creating Apple, or Microsoft. And others will end up in poverty, with the majority somewhere in between. This is simply because there is no meaningful innovation (like Apple) if there is no reason to create it - if the creator is not going to get rich, there is no point in investing your life and resources into the gamble. Because all innovation is a gamble - maybe it will sell (Apple), and maybe it won't (choose any bankrupt business attempt). Income inequality is normal and necessary in a capitalist society, because innovation creates both winners and losers.
In a socialist society, no one is a winner. Everyone make the same money, has the same everything. No trophies for any superior effort. No wealth for those who work harder and smarter. The incentive to try harder, or invent something is missing. If you cannot win, even if you come in first, what is the point in running the race? Ergo, under socialism, if there are no winners, that makes everyone a loser. Mediocrity for all. And without innovation, that mediocrity will grow weaker and weaker until society crumbles, because no one is pushing society forward with innovation. Want an example? Look at North Korea, or the now defunct USSR. Look at a night shot from space of North and South Korea - the south is all lit up. The north is dark - only the elitists in PyongYang have electricity.
Our youth, for the most part, do not understand that, because the liberal school system, liberal college professors and liberal media do not teach these things. They only teach one side - "income inequality", for example. They prey on the ignorance they have created in our children in order to push their liberal agenda. As Saul Alinski stated in "Rules for Radicals", these people are nothing more than "useful pawns" that help the powerful to achieve greater power.
By allowing our educational system and the media to be hijacked by far-left liberals, we have created the monster that can - and likely will - destroy America. They are intentionally breeding mindless zombies who will help the elitists push forth their evil - yes, EVIL - agenda. Make no mistake - the "Zombie Apocalypse" is upon us
/.
In a capitalist society, there are winners and losers. Some will grow very rich by creating Apple, or Microsoft. And others will end up in poverty, with the majority somewhere in between. This is simply because there is no meaningful innovation (like Apple) if there is no reason to create it - if the creator is not going to get rich, there is no point in investing your life and resources into the gamble. Because all innovation is a gamble - maybe it will sell (Apple), and maybe it won't (choose any bankrupt business attempt). Income inequality is normal and necessary in a capitalist society, because innovation creates both winners and losers.
In a socialist society, no one is a winner. Everyone make the same money, has the same everything. No trophies for any superior effort. No wealth for those who work harder and smarter. The incentive to try harder, or invent something is missing. If you cannot win, even if you come in first, what is the point in running the race? Ergo, under socialism, if there are no winners, that makes everyone a loser. Mediocrity for all. And without innovation, that mediocrity will grow weaker and weaker until society crumbles, because no one is pushing society forward with innovation. Want an example? Look at North Korea, or the now defunct USSR. Look at a night shot from space of North and South Korea - the south is all lit up. The north is dark - only the elitists in PyongYang have electricity.
Our youth, for the most part, do not understand that, because the liberal school system, liberal college professors and liberal media do not teach these things. They only teach one side - "income inequality", for example. They prey on the ignorance they have created in our children in order to push their liberal agenda. As Saul Alinski stated in "Rules for Radicals", these people are nothing more than "useful pawns" that help the powerful to achieve greater power.
By allowing our educational system and the media to be hijacked by far-left liberals, we have created the monster that can - and likely will - destroy America. They are intentionally breeding mindless zombies who will help the elitists push forth their evil - yes, EVIL - agenda. Make no mistake - the "Zombie Apocalypse" is upon us
/.
Saturday, March 12, 2016
The Dirty Little Secret Behind "Free" Tuition
There is a dirty little secret about "free college tuition" that liberals like Hillary and socialists like Bernie are hiding.
Here is the scenario:
John Doe wants a college education so he can get a good job making big money. He wants free tuition, naturally, so he votes for someone like Hillary or Bernie. What he does not understand is that nothing can truly be "free" - someone, somewhere is going to pay, by way of ever increasing taxes, and it will be the people who have money who will pay - the kind of people John Doe is going to college to become.
John succeeds, and becomes a CEO making good money. But it does him no good, because the policies that gave him a free education are the same policies that will now take his money from him, in high taxes, so liberals like Hillary can give free college, free health care and free whatever to the NEXT young person.
People need to understand - there is no such thing as a free lunch. You are going to pay, one way or another, sooner or later, for everything you get.
But the worst part is this - there is only just so much room at the top. Over 90% of those who get a college education will never end up at the top. They get their "free education" only to end up none the better off for it. With free college, even MORE people will go, and even more college grads will end up flipping burgers. Because there is just so much room at the top.
If you do get free tuition, you will eventually become the one that liberals steal from in order to "pay it forward" to the next guy. You WILL pay, many times over.
Of course, none of the liberals will tell you this - they just offer "free" stuff in order to extort votes from people under false pretenses.
Here is the scenario:
John Doe wants a college education so he can get a good job making big money. He wants free tuition, naturally, so he votes for someone like Hillary or Bernie. What he does not understand is that nothing can truly be "free" - someone, somewhere is going to pay, by way of ever increasing taxes, and it will be the people who have money who will pay - the kind of people John Doe is going to college to become.
John succeeds, and becomes a CEO making good money. But it does him no good, because the policies that gave him a free education are the same policies that will now take his money from him, in high taxes, so liberals like Hillary can give free college, free health care and free whatever to the NEXT young person.
People need to understand - there is no such thing as a free lunch. You are going to pay, one way or another, sooner or later, for everything you get.
But the worst part is this - there is only just so much room at the top. Over 90% of those who get a college education will never end up at the top. They get their "free education" only to end up none the better off for it. With free college, even MORE people will go, and even more college grads will end up flipping burgers. Because there is just so much room at the top.
If you do get free tuition, you will eventually become the one that liberals steal from in order to "pay it forward" to the next guy. You WILL pay, many times over.
Of course, none of the liberals will tell you this - they just offer "free" stuff in order to extort votes from people under false pretenses.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
The NH Primary is NOT the NH Primary
With the New Hampshire primary less than a week away, it's importance is the latest entree for the news media. But what the media overlooks (because they are ignorant of it) is that the New Hampshire primary is NOT the New Hampshire primary - it is the Massachusetts primary, held early.
I was raised in New Hampshire and spent over 50 years in that beautiful, rugged state. And up until recently (the last 25 years), New Hampshire was populated by rugged, individualist Yankee conservatives. But as happens with all good things, people who covet what you have will come and take it from you.
The people of Massachusetts - particularly Lowell, Lawrence and Methuen - who had already ruined their own state with their liberal policies and politics, saw and envied the freedoms and lifestyle of New Hampshire. They wanted that for themselves, as they grew sick of the results of their own liberalism. So, they began emigrating into the cities of southern New Hampshire - first Nashua, then on to Manchester.
That, in and of itself, is not bad, but for the fact they brought with them those same liberal values that they were running from. Flooding the New Hampshire cities and becoming the vocal majority (conservatives tend to actually BE conservative and are seldom vocal), these liberal emigrants soon elected liberal politicians, resulting in the same policies that caused the rot in Massachusetts.
And because liberals tend to be pushier, louder and more prone to bullying than conservatives, it did not take long to turn "red" New Hampshire into a "blue" mini-Massachusetts.
This same scenario occurred in Vermont. A peaceful, quiet farming state, where cows outnumbered people until the 1960's, the liberals of New York saw it as a better place for raising children, and living peacefully. Many emigrated to the cities of Vermont, wresting control from the quiet conservatives. And now, Vermont has become so liberal that they elect socialists like Bernie Sanders into office.
When I first visited Jackson Hole, Wyoming, it was little more than an intersection in a beautiful landscape, in the foothills of the Rockies. It was TOO beautiful, because as others discovered it, many moved there to partake of its beauty every day. In fact, so many moved there that it has become a roiling, busy city. The backdrop of the Rockies is still there, but the simple, quiet beauty of Jackson Hole is long gone.
People ruin what they treasure most. It's a lot like the old saying, "You always hurt the one you love".
So, for the sakes of those quiet, rugged individualists who have managed to survive the liberal onslaught from Massachusetts, I want you to know I empathize with you, recognize you, and sorely wish we could return New Hampshire to its roots and the values that made it so attractive in the first place. Perhaps conservatives should make a stab at being more vocal, pushier, and not quietly sit back and let others take what we treasure.
/
I was raised in New Hampshire and spent over 50 years in that beautiful, rugged state. And up until recently (the last 25 years), New Hampshire was populated by rugged, individualist Yankee conservatives. But as happens with all good things, people who covet what you have will come and take it from you.
The people of Massachusetts - particularly Lowell, Lawrence and Methuen - who had already ruined their own state with their liberal policies and politics, saw and envied the freedoms and lifestyle of New Hampshire. They wanted that for themselves, as they grew sick of the results of their own liberalism. So, they began emigrating into the cities of southern New Hampshire - first Nashua, then on to Manchester.
That, in and of itself, is not bad, but for the fact they brought with them those same liberal values that they were running from. Flooding the New Hampshire cities and becoming the vocal majority (conservatives tend to actually BE conservative and are seldom vocal), these liberal emigrants soon elected liberal politicians, resulting in the same policies that caused the rot in Massachusetts.
And because liberals tend to be pushier, louder and more prone to bullying than conservatives, it did not take long to turn "red" New Hampshire into a "blue" mini-Massachusetts.
This same scenario occurred in Vermont. A peaceful, quiet farming state, where cows outnumbered people until the 1960's, the liberals of New York saw it as a better place for raising children, and living peacefully. Many emigrated to the cities of Vermont, wresting control from the quiet conservatives. And now, Vermont has become so liberal that they elect socialists like Bernie Sanders into office.
When I first visited Jackson Hole, Wyoming, it was little more than an intersection in a beautiful landscape, in the foothills of the Rockies. It was TOO beautiful, because as others discovered it, many moved there to partake of its beauty every day. In fact, so many moved there that it has become a roiling, busy city. The backdrop of the Rockies is still there, but the simple, quiet beauty of Jackson Hole is long gone.
People ruin what they treasure most. It's a lot like the old saying, "You always hurt the one you love".
So, for the sakes of those quiet, rugged individualists who have managed to survive the liberal onslaught from Massachusetts, I want you to know I empathize with you, recognize you, and sorely wish we could return New Hampshire to its roots and the values that made it so attractive in the first place. Perhaps conservatives should make a stab at being more vocal, pushier, and not quietly sit back and let others take what we treasure.
/
Saturday, January 16, 2016
The Great Auto Insurance Rip-Off
Maybe you have not noticed, because it is so "standard", and accepted as the norm. But auto insurance is a huge rip-off.
I'm not referring to the fact that, should you file a claim, they raise your rates and get their money back (which means you are not really insured at all). No, I am referring to the theft that insurers participate in when you have more than one vehicle.
You see, they charge you for each vehicle. Sounds reasonable on the surface, but think about it - insurance premiums are for the purpose of covering the insurers risk. Now, if you drive 10,000 miles a year, are 30 years old and have a clean record, that determines "risk" level. Now, if you get a second car, you must pay a second premium - for the same 10,000 miles, because you are still driving 10,000 miles a year, no matter how many vehicles you own. And if you get a third car, you must pay a third premium for that same 10,000 miles.
The risk to the insurer has not increased at all, but they charge you additional premiums none the less.
If insurance companies were honest instead of corrupt, they would insure the DRIVER, based on the driver's level of risk (miles driven, driving record, age etc), and that coverage would cover any vehicle he drives, since changing vehicles does not increase risk to the insurer.
Sure, you can say that each vehicle has a different value, and there is more risk for a Mercedes than a Chevy. But that is easily handled by insuring the driver for his most valuable vehicle.
Of course, you might argue that the driver could stick to owning only one vehicle, but that is not realistic for many drivers. Take myself, for example - I own a car for daily transportation. But I sometimes have to haul materials and supplies, so I also have a truck. And since car shows are a favorite past-time, I also own an antique 1980 Porsche, driven only to shows. And, being an avid biker for over a half century, I have a Harley.
That said, I tend to only drive about 12,000 miles per year. And that mileage does not change, or increase, because of owning additional vehicles, so the risk level for the insurer does not increase. Yet, they certainly increase my premiums! Each vehicle must be insured separately. It's a huge con perpetrated by insurance companies and sponsored by the state legislatures.
Maybe it's time for us to rebel - to notify our legislators that we will no longer allow insurers to rip us off, and tell our state representatives and senators that they should require insurers to insure the driver, not the vehicle. And insurers should be prohibited from padding the premiums to make up for any losses, since they are only losing the money they have been stealing, anyway.
I'm not referring to the fact that, should you file a claim, they raise your rates and get their money back (which means you are not really insured at all). No, I am referring to the theft that insurers participate in when you have more than one vehicle.
You see, they charge you for each vehicle. Sounds reasonable on the surface, but think about it - insurance premiums are for the purpose of covering the insurers risk. Now, if you drive 10,000 miles a year, are 30 years old and have a clean record, that determines "risk" level. Now, if you get a second car, you must pay a second premium - for the same 10,000 miles, because you are still driving 10,000 miles a year, no matter how many vehicles you own. And if you get a third car, you must pay a third premium for that same 10,000 miles.
The risk to the insurer has not increased at all, but they charge you additional premiums none the less.
If insurance companies were honest instead of corrupt, they would insure the DRIVER, based on the driver's level of risk (miles driven, driving record, age etc), and that coverage would cover any vehicle he drives, since changing vehicles does not increase risk to the insurer.
Sure, you can say that each vehicle has a different value, and there is more risk for a Mercedes than a Chevy. But that is easily handled by insuring the driver for his most valuable vehicle.
Of course, you might argue that the driver could stick to owning only one vehicle, but that is not realistic for many drivers. Take myself, for example - I own a car for daily transportation. But I sometimes have to haul materials and supplies, so I also have a truck. And since car shows are a favorite past-time, I also own an antique 1980 Porsche, driven only to shows. And, being an avid biker for over a half century, I have a Harley.
That said, I tend to only drive about 12,000 miles per year. And that mileage does not change, or increase, because of owning additional vehicles, so the risk level for the insurer does not increase. Yet, they certainly increase my premiums! Each vehicle must be insured separately. It's a huge con perpetrated by insurance companies and sponsored by the state legislatures.
Maybe it's time for us to rebel - to notify our legislators that we will no longer allow insurers to rip us off, and tell our state representatives and senators that they should require insurers to insure the driver, not the vehicle. And insurers should be prohibited from padding the premiums to make up for any losses, since they are only losing the money they have been stealing, anyway.
Friday, December 18, 2015
Common Sense Immigration Reform
What with terrorists trying to get here, drug cartels bringing in almost 80% of all narcotics, and other "illegal" or "undocumented" workers driving American citizens out of the workforce, immigration reform is perhaps the most crucial issue of our time. The problem lies in the fact that it appears no two people, let alone parties, can agree on how to fix the problem. That is strange, when you consider all it requires is a modicum of common sense and a willingness to be reasonable. The following plan provides all sides with a good deal of satisfaction - those on the right get a secure border, while those on the left get a system that allows honest, working families to to come here and better themselves. It also protects American citizens from terrorists, gang members and those who "steal" jobs from citizens who may need those jobs. All sides get about 80% of what they want.
Bear in mind, NO reasonable, common sense plan is going to give everyone everything they want. The best we can do is compromise in a way that addresses the most important issues for all sides. This plan does that. Any person unwilling to "give" a little is someone who has nothing to offer.
I propose the following, and if any politician finds fault with it, I request they state those objections AND THE VALID REASONS FOR THEM! The first portion of this plan may not make liberals happy, but the second portion addresses those concerns.
So, here are the main points:
1) Securing the border
2) Providing honest, hard working families with the opportunity to stay here and work
3) Weed out the criminals, terrorists, and gang/cartel members
4) Prevent "illegal" immigrants from participating in the welfare system
5) Prevent them from voting in any election, or holding any public office
6) In no case shall any adult person who came here illegally be permitted to achieve citizenship, only legal work status, since they knowingly broke the law to get here. Children under the age of 16, brought here WITH their parent(s), may apply for citizenship at age 18 and follow the same process as any other legal immigrant. If children of illegal immigrants, upon reaching adulthood shall choose to serve at least 4 years in the United States military, and serves honorably, they shall be granted citizenship.
First and foremost, we must secure the border only because of the terrorist threat. If not for terrorists trying to access our soft targets, it really would not be necessary under this plan to secure the border. But in these times, no immigration reform can be put into place until the border is secure - we must stop the bleeding before we can heal the body.
Once we are relatively certain that our borders are capable of keeping out terrorists (yes, I know - they have other ways of getting in, but THIS plan is about immigration reform, not just national security), we can then deal with the immigrants already here and confront the visa system and other methods of entry to our nation. And here is how we effectively deal with those "harmless immigrants" already here.
First and foremost, all illegal immigrants who are criminals, gang members, and/or have been convicted of any felony would be immediately deported. If they ever return, they will be imprisoned for not less than 5 years, and then deported again. And if they still return, they are imprisoned for 10 years.
No reform measures shall be put into place that will do any harm to American citizens. Period. Americans come first. Always. To this end, we should first make it unlawful to provide any type of welfare or public assistance to anyone without legal status to be here (green card, for example). If they are here for work, and make a better life for their families, then they need to work. Nor can their children attend school unless the parent(s) are following the rule of legal status (see below). And then we must make it a serious felony for anyone to employ any illegal immigrant without legal status. Anyone employing any other person must be required under penalty of law to verify the legal status of any applicant. If someone hires an immigrant who does not have legal status, that person shall be fined heavily and, if a second offense, jailed for a minimum of one year. This weeds out those who are not here to improve themselves (criminals, terrorists and cartel/gang members), and forces all others to obtain some form of legal status.
Now here is why this is important - if a person cannot find work, they will self-deport, since they need to eat.
So far, this plan is not adequate for those with a liberal mindset, so here's where we accommodate them in a common sense way.
At this point, every immigrant who does not have legal status will have a choice - gain legal status, or leave. And this plan makes it a simple matter to gain legal status.
First, every illegal immigrant who chooses to stay must apply for a "semi-permanent" worker visa. Immunizations will be provided and a records check will be done, and anyone with a felony will be deported. And if they ever return, it's 5 years in prison. And anyone with any ties to terrorist or cartel organizations would be deported or jailed, depending on the circumstances of that association.
Hard working, honest families will receive their work visa which would allow them to compete for jobs and gain employment. With a work visa, immigrants may work and send their children to school. But there is still a hitch - they must be self-supporting. If they fail to be self-supporting, their work visa would be revoked and they would be deported.
Now here is an important facet of the plan that no one is talking about, but it is critical - paying taxes versus no access to welfare benefits, or voting in our elections. Our nation was founded because we did not accept "taxation without representation", and we cannot subject others to that, either. So, here is a "new bone" for both the right and the left - in exchange for these immigrants having to be self-supporting and unable to collect from the public coffers, and to prevent them from voting (they are not citizens), these immigrants would be free from income taxes (local, state & federal), but they would be required to pay FICA/Medicare taxes, so they can collect Social Security & Medicare benefits upon retirement and do not become dependent upon welfare. This gives liberals a strong point - these immigrants, not being taxed, will have an even better chance of bettering themselves and their families. But only if they are self-supporting!
To further insure these worker immigrants do not vote, they may obtain state or federal issued ID's, including a driver's license, provided that all state and federal ID's are "chipped" - embedded with a chip that identifies the legal status of the individual. A legal immigrant is not a citizen, and cannot vote, and their chip will indicate that. All people choosing to vote would be required to produce such an ID and all voting centers would be required to check the ID against the state/federal database. There is no LEGITIMATE reason for not requiring a valid ID, provided that at least one form of state/federal ID is available free, upon request, to any citizen or immigrant with a work visa. Any citizen, or immigrant with a work visa, who is unable to appear to make such a request and prove their legal status may demand that their local or state government provide them with the means to appear and apply, at no cost to the individual.
Bear in mind, NO reasonable, common sense plan is going to give everyone everything they want. The best we can do is compromise in a way that addresses the most important issues for all sides. This plan does that. Any person unwilling to "give" a little is someone who has nothing to offer.
I propose the following, and if any politician finds fault with it, I request they state those objections AND THE VALID REASONS FOR THEM! The first portion of this plan may not make liberals happy, but the second portion addresses those concerns.
So, here are the main points:
1) Securing the border
2) Providing honest, hard working families with the opportunity to stay here and work
3) Weed out the criminals, terrorists, and gang/cartel members
4) Prevent "illegal" immigrants from participating in the welfare system
5) Prevent them from voting in any election, or holding any public office
6) In no case shall any adult person who came here illegally be permitted to achieve citizenship, only legal work status, since they knowingly broke the law to get here. Children under the age of 16, brought here WITH their parent(s), may apply for citizenship at age 18 and follow the same process as any other legal immigrant. If children of illegal immigrants, upon reaching adulthood shall choose to serve at least 4 years in the United States military, and serves honorably, they shall be granted citizenship.
First and foremost, we must secure the border only because of the terrorist threat. If not for terrorists trying to access our soft targets, it really would not be necessary under this plan to secure the border. But in these times, no immigration reform can be put into place until the border is secure - we must stop the bleeding before we can heal the body.
Once we are relatively certain that our borders are capable of keeping out terrorists (yes, I know - they have other ways of getting in, but THIS plan is about immigration reform, not just national security), we can then deal with the immigrants already here and confront the visa system and other methods of entry to our nation. And here is how we effectively deal with those "harmless immigrants" already here.
First and foremost, all illegal immigrants who are criminals, gang members, and/or have been convicted of any felony would be immediately deported. If they ever return, they will be imprisoned for not less than 5 years, and then deported again. And if they still return, they are imprisoned for 10 years.
No reform measures shall be put into place that will do any harm to American citizens. Period. Americans come first. Always. To this end, we should first make it unlawful to provide any type of welfare or public assistance to anyone without legal status to be here (green card, for example). If they are here for work, and make a better life for their families, then they need to work. Nor can their children attend school unless the parent(s) are following the rule of legal status (see below). And then we must make it a serious felony for anyone to employ any illegal immigrant without legal status. Anyone employing any other person must be required under penalty of law to verify the legal status of any applicant. If someone hires an immigrant who does not have legal status, that person shall be fined heavily and, if a second offense, jailed for a minimum of one year. This weeds out those who are not here to improve themselves (criminals, terrorists and cartel/gang members), and forces all others to obtain some form of legal status.
Now here is why this is important - if a person cannot find work, they will self-deport, since they need to eat.
So far, this plan is not adequate for those with a liberal mindset, so here's where we accommodate them in a common sense way.
At this point, every immigrant who does not have legal status will have a choice - gain legal status, or leave. And this plan makes it a simple matter to gain legal status.
First, every illegal immigrant who chooses to stay must apply for a "semi-permanent" worker visa. Immunizations will be provided and a records check will be done, and anyone with a felony will be deported. And if they ever return, it's 5 years in prison. And anyone with any ties to terrorist or cartel organizations would be deported or jailed, depending on the circumstances of that association.
Hard working, honest families will receive their work visa which would allow them to compete for jobs and gain employment. With a work visa, immigrants may work and send their children to school. But there is still a hitch - they must be self-supporting. If they fail to be self-supporting, their work visa would be revoked and they would be deported.
Now here is an important facet of the plan that no one is talking about, but it is critical - paying taxes versus no access to welfare benefits, or voting in our elections. Our nation was founded because we did not accept "taxation without representation", and we cannot subject others to that, either. So, here is a "new bone" for both the right and the left - in exchange for these immigrants having to be self-supporting and unable to collect from the public coffers, and to prevent them from voting (they are not citizens), these immigrants would be free from income taxes (local, state & federal), but they would be required to pay FICA/Medicare taxes, so they can collect Social Security & Medicare benefits upon retirement and do not become dependent upon welfare. This gives liberals a strong point - these immigrants, not being taxed, will have an even better chance of bettering themselves and their families. But only if they are self-supporting!
To further insure these worker immigrants do not vote, they may obtain state or federal issued ID's, including a driver's license, provided that all state and federal ID's are "chipped" - embedded with a chip that identifies the legal status of the individual. A legal immigrant is not a citizen, and cannot vote, and their chip will indicate that. All people choosing to vote would be required to produce such an ID and all voting centers would be required to check the ID against the state/federal database. There is no LEGITIMATE reason for not requiring a valid ID, provided that at least one form of state/federal ID is available free, upon request, to any citizen or immigrant with a work visa. Any citizen, or immigrant with a work visa, who is unable to appear to make such a request and prove their legal status may demand that their local or state government provide them with the means to appear and apply, at no cost to the individual.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
The REAL Reason for Violence in the Middle East
It is not so difficult to figure out why there is always such violence between Muslims and Jews, provided you know either the actual history or are familiar with the story of Abraham - considered the Father of both religions.
Sorry anti-Semites - these facts may tick you off.
Abraham's wife was barren, so Abraham had an illegitimate son (Ishmael) with an Arab hand maiden. Later, God reportedly intervened and allowed Abraham's barren wife to have a son (Isaac). Now there were two sons - Ishmael, an Arab, and Isaac, a Jew.
At one point Abraham is ordered to sacrifice Isaac - either by God, as a test of faith, or by Satan, to eliminate the righteous. But at the last moment by God's intervention an angel stopped him.
Years later, blind and on his death bed, Abraham called for his son, Isaac, to bestow upon him the entire wealth and land Abraham had accumulated, since Isaac was his only legitimate heir. But Ishmael came instead, and fooled his blind father into thinking he was Isaac. And Abraham mistakenly bestowed the inheritance upon Ishmael.
Ishmael, the Arab son, had stolen Isaac's inheritance.
Ishmael went on to lead the Arab tribes (from which Muhammad was descended), while Isaac went on to lead the Jewish tribes (from which Jesus was descended).
To insure that he would keep that which he had stolen, Ishmael spent his life trying to destroy Isaac and the Jews.
Fast forward a few thousand years, the Disciples of Jesus write the Books of the Bible, and a few hundred years later Muhammad writes the Qu'ran, bringing the Arab tribes together to form a caliphate and to destroy all Jews and infidels. The violence against the Jews continued with a passion, as Arabs still feared losing that which they had stolen. The fighting between them has never stopped, and will not until one or the other - or both - are destroyed.
The Crusades began because the Arabs waged war against the Jews and were intent on taking Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. As Christians, King Richard and the Knights Templar waged war against the Arabs (and lost).
ALL the violence in the Middle East is instigated by the Arab Muslims, intent on destroying every vestige of the Jewish people, as they represent the true heirs of Abraham. In fact, the Qu'ran actually requires the destruction of the Jews. The Bible, on the other hand, does not call for the destruction of the Arab tribes.
What we have here is the eternal war between two sons, one Good, the other Evil. And when the "End Times" come, it will be brought about by these two factions in their final battle to destroy one another, and the entire world will be caught up in it.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)