The Asylum Scam

I often find columns by our resident leftists to be entertaining, and even amusing, and Anthony Breznican’s “Debunking Baker’s Latest Column” on 10 July (Link) was no exception.

He starts out with the SOP leftist bleat about being victimized: “(Baker) also decided to make a series of personal attacks against me, but I’ll ignore those insults and distortions. They are beneath our community newspaper.”

What was that “insult”? I said he lied to his kids. But what does he call the things I wrote that he’s “debunking”? “Baker Lie”, in boldface type and all. I guess it’s not “beneath our community newspaper” if he’s doing it. Hypocrisy, anyone?

I’ve been debating leftists for literally decades, and I’m still amazed at their lack of self-awareness.

I think his first “debunking” is instructive of the quality of his material:

BAKER LIE: ‘… they wouldn’t have been separated from their kids, which is exactly the same thing that happens to ANY lawbreaker who’s arrested for any crime.’

“THE TRUTH: Crossing the border is a misdemeanor, seldom prosecuted in cases of asylum seekers. USA Today reports it usually comes with a fine of $10. This is like someone ringing your doorbell to ask for help after a car accident — and you calling the police to have them arrested for trespassing. American law has never mandated seizing the children of people charged with misdemeanors. Ask anyone who has been caught driving without a license, or shoplifting, or engaging in disorderly conduct. In America, the punishment fits the crime, and caging young children over a misdemeanor is cruel and unusual.”

Now, while the majority of what he wrote is actually true, it doesn’t directly respond to, or in any way negate, what I specifically wrote. In fact, it’s pretty much irrelevant. There are a whole lot of misdemeanors for which people are jailed. The definition of a “misdemeanor” is that it is a crime for which the maximum sentence is one year or less in jail. And just as I wrote, if someone is sent to jail – for whatever length of time – their kids don’t accompany them. What Breznican is doing here is indulging in the timeworn leftist tactic of misdirection and obfuscation. That’s pretty much his go-to SOP.

Further, those kids weren’t “caged”. They were placed in facilities which are more accurately likened to daycare facilities. But then, there’s no emotional drama in that, is there?

A bit later he writes:

BAKER LIE: He writes about the Obama administration’s policy of processing the claims of asylum seekers and then releasing them on bond with a court date. In court, their request for asylum will either be accepted or denied. ‘Those illegal aliens for the most part never showed up in court for their hearings,’ he writes.”

But that’s not what I wrote. I didn’t restrict my statement to “asylum seekers”. Yet another attempted bait-and-switch.

Which brings me to what I believe is the underlying, and far more important, reality of this issue. This was clearly illustrated by the now-infamous cover photo of the July 2 edition of Time magazine. That cover juxtaposed a picture of a crying little girl looking up at a seemingly indifferent Trump, symbolizing his – and I assume others’ who aren’t part of the illegal alien lobby – lack of empathy for those seeking “asylum” at our southern border.

But even before publication it became known that the kid’s mother wasn’t actually a legitimate “asylum” seeker, and had in fact taken the kid to be used as the “beard” for the mother’s request for asylum, which itself was phony. It turns out that Mom had taken the little girl without Dad’s knowledge (Link), and that she was never, in fact, separated from her daughter at all.

Yet even though they knew that their cover illustration was a lie, Time decided to go ahead with it anyway. False and misleading or not, it made a political point for them that they wanted to have made. So much for integrity from the left, at least on this issue (and almost any other, in my experience).

Ask yourself this question: if someone from Central America truly wants legitimate asylum, why would they go all the way to the US border when they have to pass through Mexico to get there, a country with very accommodating laws on asylum and immigration? (Mexican asylum) Why wouldn’t they just stay in Mexico?

The reality is that our border has been under invasion for decades, and I think that in many, if not most, cases this “asylum” claim is just a scam. People in Central America can read the news and access the internet just as easily as you and I can. There are hordes of lawyers who specialize in the subject, not to mention those, such as the coyotes, who profit from motivating people to make the trek.

Those people know that if they can pluck the heartstrings of America and get us weeping about little kids there’s one heckuva chance that once they show up at the border and wrap themselves in the mantle of asylum with a couple of cute kids in tow, they’ll wind up getting to stay.

Could this be why there’s been a 1700+ percent (!) increase in asylum claims at our southern border in the last ten years? (Percentage increase) I think we’re being gamed.

What do you think?

 

©Brian Baker 2018

 

(Also published today in my local newspaper, The Signal)

Advertisements

A Leftist Lies. Shocking, I’m Sure

 

On 20 June The Signal published a column by Anthony Breznican, entitled “Family separation is cruel — but familiar”, which I found to be very interesting and informative.

For those who don’t know who he is, Breznican is a local hard-left activist, and I think his column offered a telling insight into that mentality.

He starts out by telling a story about a conversation he had with his two little kids, aged 9 and 5, while on the way with them to a demonstration in downtown LA about the separation of kids from illegal alien border jumpers. Per Breznican, as he tells it: “I said these are people following the rules. They are asking for help, not sneaking in.”

He goes on to say: “Rather than keeping the families together while we figure out their situation, like we used to, we are separating the children from the parents, and putting them in detention camps.”

And of course, from there he goes on to rant against Trump and Steve Knight, our local congressman who’s running for re-election.

Several things jumped out at me. The first was about the parental wisdom of taking such little kids, especially a 5-year-old, to a political demonstration. I’m a parent and grandparent, and wouldn’t have dreamed of doing such a thing, even though I’m also very politically active. I think it’s a really, really bad idea, regardless of one’s political affiliation.

But more importantly, and illustrative of the mindset of the hard left, is the disconnect from actual facts that we see in the things he told his kids.

Exactly what “rules” have the border jumpers been “following”? In what alternate universe are they “not sneaking in”? They certainly haven’t gone through any legal process to arrive here on our border. If they had, they wouldn’t have been detained in the first place, would they? And they wouldn’t have been separated from their kids… which is exactly the same thing that happens to ANY lawbreaker who’s arrested for any crime, as I wrote in my last column.

Further, this separation policy isn’t anything new at all. The policy was set in place as a result of a consent decree signed in 1997, while Clinton was President, to satisfy the judgment in a law suit filed in federal court, and these separations have been going on since then, under Clinton, Bush, and Obama. So, sorry Breznican, but “we used to” separate families for quite a while, in fact.

There have been periods when the percentage of those caught jumping the border and detained was lower, such as under the “catch and release” doctrine, particularly under Obama, and look at how well that worked. Pretty much not at all, because once released, those illegal aliens for the most part never showed up in court for their hearings, disappearing into the vast sea of the illegal alien underground. It was basically a de facto open border policy, which is exactly what the left really wants, of course.

To summarize, and put it plainly, in order to indoctrinate his young kids into his ideology, Breznican has flat-out lied to them. That’s what I found so illuminating about his column.

Now, it doesn’t exactly come as a surprise, since the American left uses flagrant lies to advance their agenda as a matter of course. That’s just SOP. But it was certainly fun to see it so blatantly illustrated in that column.

Well, I guess Trump’s stolen the left’s thunder now, having changed the policy under executive order so as to not separate kids from their parents. So, instead of being transferred to some form of foster care suitable for young kids, I guess they’ll be accompanying their illegal alien parents to detention.

How ironic. Breznican should be careful what he wishes for. But I have faith in him. I’m confident that with a little… manipulation… of the truth he and his cohort of fellow American socialists will still find some way to carry on with their smear campaign against Trump and, by extension, Knight.

It’s what they do.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2018

 

(Also published today in The Signal)

 

Who’s Responsible for Lawbreakers’ Kids?

 

The latest outrage du jour from the left is the separation of the children of illegal aliens from their parents if those adults are put into detention after being caught sneaking across the border.

Is it sad? Of course it is. No one likes the idea of kids being separated from their parents. But who’s actually responsible for it occurring?

When parents are arrested for other crimes – let’s say embezzlement, for the sake of discussion – what happens to their kids when the parents are locked up? Are the kids sent to jail, too, so that they’re not “taken away” from their parents? Of course not. The idea’s frankly absurd.

Those kids are placed in some form of foster care pending the outcome of the legal proceedings, and any incarceration that might follow. That’s exactly what takes place with the kids of these illegal aliens: the kids are placed in the care of agencies whose function is to take care of them.

This policy and practice isn’t “Trump’s fault”, though the left and the Never Trumpers seem to relish trying to make that argument. It’s the law, plain and simple, and it’s also good practice as far as the welfare of the kids goes, considering the circumstances.

Just like the hypothetical embezzlers I mentioned above, the illegal alien parents made the decision to break the law and cross the border illegally. That’s indisputable. Therefore, if anyone’s at fault for their kids being taken away and put into foster or institutional care, it’s the parents themselves.

What are the alternatives being proposed by those who oppose this practice? As far as I can tell, the silence is pretty deafening, other than some vague idea that Trump must “do something” to change this practice. But do what?

The law requires this practice. So is Trump supposed to ignore the law? We all know that Obama did that all the time, legislating by fiat with his “pen and a phone”, but that certainly doesn’t make it proper or legal. Trump isn’t Obama (thank God).

Is this yet another emotional hook the illegal alien lobby can hang their open borders agenda on? You bet it is. The American left and the cheap labor advocates, along with the Never Trumpers, are tugging the heartstrings of the country, hoping to advance their cause.

The net effect would be to once again turn illegal aliens into even more of a special class that’s immune to the regular order of law, granting them more special privileges that don’t apply to American citizens, such as our embezzlers. Let’s be honest here. The real, though unstated, goal of all this noise is to stop the practice altogether of detaining border jumpers.

Well, then, maybe we should just stop incarcerating all lawbreakers who have kids. Why not? If that separation is unbearably cruel for the kids of illegal aliens, is it any less cruel for the kids of other lawbreakers?

If people want this practice to end, the proper way to do that is to enact some legislation to that effect. Unless and until that happens, current law defines the practice.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2018

(Also published today in  The Signal)

 

More On My City Council Excellent Adventure

How interesting.

Over the last few days, since the City Council’s May 8 open meeting at which they voted to oppose “sanctuary state” status, I’ve read a couple of letters published in The Signal, as well as the staff’s own editorial, characterizing the meeting as being pretty much an out-of-control near-riot.

Having been there myself, and addressed the Council, I have to wonder if those people are talking about the same meeting I attended.

As I discussed in my last column (“Mission Accomplished”, May 10), though emotions ran high I thought Mayor Weste did a pretty good job of keeping things under control and moving forward.

I was in the back of the room and could see pretty much everything that was happening. Contrary to Roselva Ungar’s assertions that it was the “red hats” causing all the commotion (“Shocked at behavior,” May 15), both sides had their adherents periodically misbehaving by waving their signs and placards, and shouting or speaking loudly against speakers who represented the opposing view.

The Signal’s own editorial (“A dark hour for discussion,” May 15) took the position that the deputies should have ejected the boisterous, or the entire meeting should have been cancelled and adjourned. Well, all I can say is, welcome to the modern era.

Maybe ejecting some of the misbehavers would have quieted down those who remained. We’ll never know, but it also could have led to a much nastier scene. Our modern political zeitgeist would encompass either outcome. Mayor Weste clearly decided to play it safe.

But adjourning the meeting would have been the wrong move to make. It would have been a de facto capitulation to “sanctuary state” supporters if the city failed to address the issue one way or the other once it was on the agenda. This is a favored tactic of, primarily, the left, as we see on campuses regularly when they stage raucous “protests’ and effectively shut down scheduled events and prevent conservative speakers from making their speeches and presentations.

Are we to allow our own City Council meetings to be victimized the same way?

There are those who say we shouldn’t have been involved in this issue at all, but why would that be true (unless, of course, you didn’t like the outcome)? This state is a part of the Union yet felt free to declare its own immigration policy. By that same logic we’re a part of this state and are perfectly free to declare our opposition to that policy. In fact, if we had our own police force instead of contracting with the county sheriff, I think it would have been interesting to instruct our cops to disregard the state’s edict altogether.

As to any “expense” incurred, as I mentioned in my last column it will be pretty minimal, since all we’re doing is filing an amicus brief in support of the suit against the state that’s already been filed by the federal Justice Department. The staff attorneys can do that, and they’re on salary.

Ultimately, it boils down to this: Why on earth should we be laying out a “welcome mat” (per Alan Blake in “Legal immigrant’s response”, May 15) for illegal aliens? What part of “illegal” do people not understand?

©Brian Baker 2018

 

(Also published today in my local newspaper, The Signal)

After-Action Report: Mission Accomplished

As promised in my last column, Tuesday night (May 8) I attended our City Council meeting at which the topic of joining the federal law suit against Commiefornia’s “Sanctuary State” legislation was the main item on the agenda.

Our Council meetings start at 6 PM, but there was a lot of noise from both sides of the issue (thanks for the heads up, Facebook) that there were going to be activists brought in to flood the meeting, so I decided to get there early, arriving at 4 PM. True enough, by the time I arrived there was already quite a crowd, which continued to grow, representing both sides of the debate.

The doors opened at 5:15 and the mass flooded in. It was definitely SRO (standing room only) in the main chamber, and an overflow room with live video feed was opened across the hall, which was also filled to capacity. In fact, the main chamber where I sat was doubtless in violation of fire safety codes by exceeding legal capacity.

There were a couple of hundred speakers who’d filled out the cards needed to address the Council, according to Mayor Weste’s estimate, and statements went on for several hours. I’ve been to, and spoken at, many Council meetings over the years, and I’ve never seen anything like it before.

Emotions ran high, as was to be expected, but overall the over-capacity crowd behaved itself, and Mayor Weste did a great job of keeping things running in an orderly fashion. My turn to speak came at about 8:30, and if you’re interested, you can see it here:

http://santaclaritacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=1921&Format=Agenda

I show up at the 1:58:45 mark.

The Council ended up voting unanimously to join the Federal lawsuit against the state by filing an amicus brief, as well as sending a position paper to other elected representatives at the state and federal levels.

I know there are many – primarily, if not exclusively, on the left – who will denigrate this action as a meaningless gesture and in some respects that’s true. Will last night’s Council vote change one single thing about what takes place in this city? Not even a smidgen.

But its symbolic importance is huge, and symbols have meaning. After all, what is our flag but a symbol that stands for a country and its set of values? Or a crucifix, or Star of David, or Red Cross? They’re all symbols that convey some meaning.

The same holds true for last night’s Council vote. It’s a clear signal that not all of hard-left-blue Los Angeles County is on board the socialist train that is this state. That’s a very strong statement to make at a very nominal cost, a few hours of the legal staff’s time.

For me personally, it was also hugely symbolic. It means that this community, in which I chose to make my home after having spent what’s now the first half of my life as a nomad living quite literally all over the globe, is still the one I fell in love with, and still represents the values I hold dear.

The Council vote was very gratifying. My thanks to all of them.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2018

(Also published today in my local newspaper, The Signal)

“Sanctuary State” Nonsense

On May 8th our City Council is going to be discussing the issue of joining several other California cities and counties in opposing this state’s declaration of “sanctuary state” status for illegal aliens.

I plan to be there, and address them on this issue.

Having spoken before the Council before I know there’s a time limit of three minutes per person, and I don’t think I can say all I want to in that time frame, so I’m going to put some of my thoughts here.

In 2010 Arizona enacted a law authorizing their police to enquire into the immigration status of people with whom the cops were in contact. That law was challenged in the case of Arizona v. United States “…on the theory that Arizona was trying to move in on the federal government’s superior power to enforce federal immigration laws”, and the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) held that several provisions of the Arizona law were unconstitutional because “…they either operated in areas solely controlled by federal policy, or they interfered with federal enforcement efforts.” (Link)

When SCOTUS issued their ruling in 2012, the illegal alien lobby jumped for joy. How come now, all of a sudden, they think it’s okay for this state to do the very same thing that Arizona did, namely “move in on the federal government’s superior power to enforce federal immigration laws” and “interfere with federal enforcement efforts”?

Got hypocrisy much?

I have little doubt the Council will hear a litany of illegal alien sob stories. In anticipation, I’ve got a little sob story of my own.

Kate Steinle was strolling along the pier in San Francisco with her father when she was shot down and killed by an illegal alien named Jose Inez Garcia Zarate. Zarate had already been deported five times; he was on probation in Texas; and had already been convicted of seven felonies. But because of San Fran’s “sanctuary city” policies, Zarate had been released from the San Francisco County Jail to roam free and ultimately kill Steinle.

Some others: Edwin Jackson killed by Manuel Orrego-Savala; Jamiel Shaw Jr. murdered by Pedro Espinoza; Sheriff’s Deputy Danny Oliver murdered by Luis Enrique Monroy Bracamontes: our own Sheriff’s Deputy David March was murdered by Armando Jose Arroyo Garcia; and there are a host of others, not only those murdered, but victims of other crimes, too.

We hear politician/cops (who shouldn’t be confused with actual street cops who work for a living) talking about “sanctuary” – meaning the refusal to enforce the law – allowing people to “come out of the shadows” and somehow help them enforce other, more palatable (I suppose) laws.

Maybe we should consider letting drug dealers “come out of the shadows”, too. Or embezzlers. Maybe thieves and shoplifters. In fact, we can refuse to enforce all kinds of laws and let the offenders all “come out of the shadows” if we want. Why limit it to just illegal aliens?

One other thing. The illegal alien apologists try to obfuscate this issue by conflating legal immigrants and illegal aliens. It’s intellectually dishonest. The vast majority of those of us who oppose “sanctuary” or regularization of illegal aliens is perfectly clear about the distinction between the two, and view legal immigrants as an entirely separate and distinct group. This issue is unrelated to them.

They also talk about this country being a “nation of immigrants”, as if American Indians are the only people “native” to this continent. But that’s also specious. The term “native Americans” is generally, and incorrectly, applied to American Indians, who are the aboriginal – the original inhabitants of any region – people of this continent, but even they were “immigrants” in that they got here from Asia. So just like those Indians, anybody born here is a “native” of this country, simply having arrived later. Any person born here is a “native American”, by definition.

So there we have it. I’m certainly urging the City Council to move forward in opposing this “sanctuary state” nonsense. We’ll see what happens at the meeting.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2018

 

(Also published today in my local newspaper, The Signal)

 

 

The Witless, Gutless GOP

If you keep up with the political scene, you know that in the wake of the political massacre the Dem/socialists suffered in this year’s mid-term elections Obama has vowed to take unilateral action on Obama dictatorseveral issues, most notably illegal immigration, by granting illegal aliens de facto amnesty through Executive Order.

In spite of the fact that such an action is clearly illegal and exceeds a President’s constitutional authority – as noted by no less an authority than Professor Jonathan Turley, noted legal scholar and self-proclaimed “social liberal” (Newsmax article) – Obama seems determined to again ignore and bypass Congress on this (and several other) issues.

As I’ve discussed previously,  impeachment – though warranted – is impractical at this point. Obama’s in his last two years of office; it would be politically counter-productive in the extreme; and the net result, even if successful, would be at best a Pyrrhic victory, leaving Crazy Uncle Joe Biden in the Oval Office. It makes no sense to jump from the frying pan into the fire.

However, as a result of the mid-terms the GOP has taken control of the Senate, securing two of the three levers (House, Senate, President) of legislative control. Now that Harry Reid has been removed from the equation as the Despot Of The Senate, they can easily pass a budget that prevents Obama from spending any funds whatsoever to advance his unilateral actions. They completely control the power of the purse strings.

So, in light of this undeniable mandate given to them by the American people, what’s been their response, along with their bobble-head sycophants in the Establishment GOP?

scared childIt reminds me of a little kid scared of the Bogeyman and other monsters hiding under his bed.

Both Mitch McConnell, the new Senate Majority Leader, and John Boehner, the incumbent House Speaker, have already stated that they won’t allow a government shutdown in a budget war with Obama.

I hope that the next time I’m in the market for a new car my salesman has the negotiating skills of Boehner car dealershipand McConnell. I’ll end up owning the dealership.

They’re scared that any government “shutdown” will be blamed on them, and they’ll suffer politically in the next election. Well, first of all, we just HAD an election about Obama’s policies – as he himself stated – and it turned out GREAT for the GOP.

Secondly, who even worries about any such “shutdown”? Did anyone even notice the last time it happened? Thirdly, it takes two to tango, and any such impasse in negotiations is just as much – if not more so – Obama’s fault as it is the GOP’s… which after all, and again, controls two of the three levers of legislative power. Can’t the GOP find ANYONE who can clearly state that simple fact (other than me, and I’m not even a Republican)?

On top of everything else, we just had an election on these issues; it’s TWO YEARS until the next one; and no one’s even going to remember a “shutdown” that happens now when that time rolls around.

If these gutless GOPers aren’t going to stand up for what they were elected to do, what’s the point in even ever voting for them? How can they ever claim any justification for their very existence, if all they’re ever going to do is play patty-cake with Obama, and let him control the agenda and negotiations on his own terms?

After all, as Obama himself stated, “elections have consequences”.

Someone should alert the GOP to that, and send them a memo.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2014

Marco Rubio: Judas Goat

For a couple of years now we’ve been hearing how Marco Rubio is the “new face of conservatism” that the GOP seems to be pinning its hopes on for a resurgence in electoral victories at the national level.

th[1]He’s a “person of color” (to use the socialists’ terminology) with truly “conservative” chops, we’re told.

Then why is he the GOP point man on yet another round of amnesty for illegal aliens?

We’ve been down this road before. This is just a rerun of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli debacle in which we were promised all kinds of things — “border security”, employment checks, etc. — in return for a “one time, never to be repeated” amnesty. It was going to cure ALL our illegal alien problems.

Well, the only thing we EVER got was the amnesty for over 3 MILLION illegal aliens. And here we are, once again, 27 years later with over THREE TIMES AS MANY illegal aliens as we had then.

Reagan later regretted signing it into law as one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency.

Are we going to be stupid enough to repeat history? “Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it” – Santayana.

Yet here we are, once again, hearing the same old same old. SSDD. Rubio is standing there as the face of the “Gang of Eight” – yet another “gang” that nobody elected to anything – supposedly “negotiating” a gargantuan public policy without any public input or debate. Who elected these eight guys to decide how the entire country is going to treat the problem of our invasion by illegal aliens?

According to Rubio, the illegal aliens will have to face some minor bureaucratic requirements and pay a $2000 “penalty”, after which they can be “legalized”, get green cards, and ultimately apply for full citizenship. Which means voting rights.

Oh, brother… $2000 in “penalties”?… That’s IT????????

Hell, here in Commiefornia you can get fined more than that for a traffic offense. This is total bullpuckey. And, of course, the same old empty promises about the “border security” that not only never happens, but can’t even be defined by any measurable standard anymore, thanks to the amnesty apologists from both parties currently (and previously) in office.

th[6]The Republicans who keep trying to foist this nonsense upon us keep claiming that this horde of under-skilled uneducated people is somehow going to magically turn into future conservative/GOP voters if we simply show some sympathy and “understanding” and let them “come out of the shadows”. What planet are these fools living on?

This group is EXACTLY the demographic of future Democrat/socialist voters by a HUGE margin: scofflaws, unskilled, uneducated, high crime rate, high illegitimate birth rate, low income, many (if not most) of them from ethnic minorities. Prime Democrat subjects. Please… THESE are future conservatives?

Which brings us back to our title, “Marco Rubio, Judas Goat”. Any self-professed “conservative” who stands for amnesty – under whatever guise or alias – is a Judas Goat, frankly, for exactly the reasons I’ve delineated above. Just like the animal Judas Goat who leads his fellow goats into the abattoir to slaughter, Rubio and fellow “conservatives” who promote amnesty for illegal aliens are leading this entire country to destruction.

As far as Rubio ever getting elected President: fuggeddaboudit. His career as a “conservative” is over. That’s proved to be a complete lie. He’s no more “conservative” than that turncoat “maverick” McCain.

ANYTHING that “legalizes” illegal aliens is amnesty. Period. And any purported “conservative” who supports it is no true conservative at all.

© Brian Baker 2013

Now I Know How Alice Felt In Wonderland

Well, Hillary Clinton finally “recovered” from her head trauma injury or whatever, and deigned to appear in Congress to testify on BenghaziGate. She put on quite the show, too, with much wailing and tears and shouting and gnashing of teeth and table pounding.

It reminded me of the old law school adage that goes: “When the fact are on your side, pound on the facts. When the law is on your side, pound on the law. When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound on the table”.

Well, that she did. If we see her wearing an Ace bandage in upcoming pictures, we’ll all know why.

clintonAt one point in her histrionics, when asked about why she and others were busy blaming the slaughter on that silly video that no one had seen, she screamed: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Well… of course, THAT’S not the right question. The RIGHT question to ask is what difference it made at the time. At the time, Obama was trying to take the credit for killing bin Laden and solving all our problems in the Middle East with his dazzling diplomacy and military brilliance. The idea that BenghaziGate was due to al Quaida loyalists attacking our diplomatic mission would have destroyed that narrative, betrayed him as the incompetent fool he is, and endangered his chances at re-election. So we, the people, were lied to.

As to what difference it makes “at this point”: well, Nixon was undergoing impeachment proceedings NOT for the Watergate break-in… but for lying about it after the fact, Miss Self-Righteous Sanctimony. As was your own husband, Mr. Bill “I Never Had Sex With That Woman” Clinton, who was impeached NOT for “not having sex” with Monica Lewinsky, but for lying about it after the fact, and in fact committing perjury.

THAT’S why it matters “at this point”, Hillary, you nitwit.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *

In other news…. In my last essay I published an email exchange between my congressman and me highlighting his – and the GOP’s – failure on the issue of the debt ceiling.

Weeellll… the hits just keep on a’coming.

This last week or so, the GOP in all its continuing idiocy seems to have decided to really gulp the socialist’s Kool-Aid and not only jump on the scamnesty for illegal aliens bandwagon (known as “comprehensive immigration reform”), but hitch up the horses, polish the woodwork, play all the instruments, and lead the parade.

60383b09-5fe5-3c06-9309-dd3707a28c5c

With Schumer… What does that tell you?

They’ve trotted out their pet “minority” apologist to sit in the driver’s seat: Marco Rubio, in the role of Judas goat. Of course, you have John McAmnesty riding shotgun, with Lindsay Graham on trombone, the Chamber of Commerce hitting the piano and drums, all while the socialist cheering section sits on the sidelines laughing their butts off.

These knuckleheads claim that we have to bring the 11 million (surely a ridiculously low estimate) illegal aliens “out of the shadows”. The first thing that popped into my mind was: are we planning on bringing all the child molesters “out of the shadows”, too, by legalizing kiddie sex? If not, why not, if that’s your big rationalization?

ANYhoooo… supposedly, we’ll get a “secured border” first, after which the illegals will get a “pathway to citizenship”. Then they’ll all magically turn into Republicans, apparently.

Really! I’m not kidding! That’s REALLY what these idiots believe!

First of all, I’m old enough to remember 1986, and the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty which Reagan signed into law, promising amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens in return for… drum roll, please … a secured border, tighter controls, and employer sanctions for hiring illegals! Whoa! Déjà vu all over again! The same thing we’re hearing NOW!!!

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Reagan later regretted signing that bill into law, knowing he’d been bamboozled, because the only thing we ever got out of it was the amnesty. Now here we are, 27 years later, with THREE TIMES as many illegal aliens as we had before Simpson-Mazzoli, having the same damned discussion with the same damned rationalizations, excuses, and empty promises.

This is an absolutely IDIOTIC idea. Why does immigration reform have to be “comprehensive” at all? Secure the damned border FIRST. And only THEN do we even start talking about anything else.

These moronic GOPers are like a bunch of lemmings, running right over the cliff with the Dumbocrats steering the way in committing national suicide, with the deluded and stupid idea that they’re somehow going to win over minority voters. That ain’t NEVER gonna happen while the leftists can keep playing the “race card”. It just ultimately creates an even larger pool of voters dependant on government handouts. And guess who THEY’RE gonna vote for. This is just expanding that “47%” demographic that Romney was pilloried for correctly pointing out.

thCA1VYQ35Stupid Republicans.

© Brian Baker 2013

Greeceifornia

If the states are, as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis described them, “laboratories of democracy”, then California is the preeminent example in this country of the pitfalls and perils of socialism run amok.

It’s no secret that this state has been swirling the financial drain for many years now, spinning in a maelstrom of red ink. Massive deficits, accompanied by soaring taxes and Draconian regulatory burdens, have joined to drive out productive people and the companies that employ them. This state has about 14% (about 1/7th) of the nation’s population, and about 1/3rd of its welfare recipients. About 25% of the country’s illegal aliens live here (LINK).

We have among the highest state and local tax burdens in the country. We rank #6 in state and local tax burden per capita (LINK), but bear in mind that large percentage of people on welfare and the illegal aliens. If you factor them out, we’d be even higher on that list. We rank at #48 in state business tax climate, being better than only New York and New Jersey. We have the highest sales taxes in the country; we have the second-highest gasoline taxes, bested only by New York (LINK) by a mere 1/2 cent/gallon.

2008-Tea-Party_024-web-2_copyright

The Democrats rule this state with an iron fist; their GOP “opposition” is comprised for the most part of a bunch of, shall we say, “moderates” (to put it kindly). All you have to do is look to our former Governator to see an embodiment of the problem there.

Those same Democrats are owned by the unions of both government workers and the private sector. The government-worker unions alone have managed to burden this state with wage levels and benefit costs that are bankrupting us, and there’s absolutely no effort among the ruling elites to do anything whatsoever to address that problem.

For years we’ve had annual deficits that have been in the tens of billions of dollars. Yet somehow, in spite of that, current Governor Jerry Brown and his minions have found the money to enact the state DREAM Act to fund the educations of illegal aliens, and to proceed with a high-speed train to nowhere that’s going to cost in excess of $100 Billion, according to the best estimates.

In what shouldn’t surprise anyone, Brown released a statement on May 12th that our budget shortfall this year is $9.2 billion more than projected (LINK), for a total of about a $16 billion shortfall. It seems that “…tax collections have not come in as high as expected and the economy isn’t growing as fast as hoped for.” I guess that’s what happens when you scare all the productive people out of the state with confiscatory taxes and punitive regulations coupled with insane spending priorities.

So… what’s the latest “solution” to our problems being proposed by Brown and the rest of the socialists… er, I mean, Democrats? If you guessed “more taxes!”, you win a one-way ticket to Athens. Greece, not Georgia. (Well, not really. But you get the point.)

We have two competing ballot propositions coming up that would raise taxes. Brown’s would raise income and sales taxes (and remember, our sales taxes are already the highest in the country); the competing ballot would only raise income taxes.

Brown, as is SOP, threatens that failure to enact his proposition will “…force severe cuts to schools and public safety…”. Notice how these “failures” to pass tax increases never “force severe cuts” to funding for illegal aliens, or bullet trains to nowhere, or pay increases and outrageous benefits to government union workers, or anything like that. No, we’ve got plenty of money for those things, somehow.

The hypocrisy, ineptitude, cynicism, and downright turpitude pile up so fast you need wings to stay above it. This is government failure on a massive scale.

We are Greeceifornia.

Photobucket

© Brian Baker 2012