Tag Archive for 'Immigration'

Fred’s Man in Georgia!

Published
by
Wilson
on September 20, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Sen. Chip Rogers (R-21) has just accepted the position as Executive Director of presidential hopeful, Fred Thompson’s Georgia campaign. In this interveiw I try to get Chip to tell us Georgians why Fred is the man.

We cover the issues from the Iraq War (which Chip still likes to call that War on Terror!), to yesterdays defeat of the Democrat’s effort to do something to bring the troops home for a rest, to immigration, to health care and then throw in a few Georgia topics as well.

Red state, red state, red state. I don’t want to give up the fight for the Democrats in ‘08, but Fred is going to be tough to beat in this state–unless he makes a mistake, maybe a big one at that.

At least Chip and I both hope that Fred’s entry into the race will diffuse some of the divisive issues that have monopolized state and federal politics too much since the 2000 race. You know the ones: abortion, gay rights, religion and the like, all issues which this country needs to solve in some manner, once and for all.

 
 Senator Chip Rogers (R-21) [27:54m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (254)

The Cost of Free Trade: The American Worker and Standards

Published
by
Wilson
on September 19, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

David Sirota is a political journalist and author of “Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Government Conquered Our Government and How We Take it Back.” David is one of those voices in the wilderness tryiing to get us to wake up and do something to take back this country from the lobbyists.

I wish I could blame all the power of lobbyists on the Republicans, but I am afraid the need for money infects both parties and most candidates. In the current race, John Edwards is one of the few candidates in contention that has taken a strong stand against taking money from lobbyist and PACs.

And I still catch my breath when I realize that NAFTA passed under Bill Clinton. Boy was he wrong about NAFTA! NAFTA did a lot to the American worker, but nothing for him.

Something is wrong, bad wrong in this country and I am glad to say that it took the unbelievable abuses of the system by Bush and the Republicans to make me care. Well, now I care! In this interview David and I cover a lot of territory about the problems, but the point to be made is the solution.

We have got to get our politicians off the lobbyist teats. The answer is ultimately to realize that when it comes to politics, free speech means the right to buy a politician. Get rid of the right to buy them and we just might discover some real politicians. You know, the ones that have the guts to stand up for what is right! The ones that can do what is right without worrying about losing monetary support for re-election.

We have allowed this system of legalized bribery long enough. You can lobby without making campaign contributions. Common cause, AARP and other public interest groups lobby on the strength of their positions, not the thickness of their wallet.

What we need:

1. Publically funded elections.
2. Ballot access for more parties especially on the local and state level.

When both Democrats and Republicans have to face ordinary people running for public office without a monetary advantage, each of us will get a lot more respect from our elected officials.

 
 David Sirota, Author [30:51m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (262)

We Were Invaded Earlier Today! Do You Understand?

Published
by
Wilson
on September 10, 2007
in Blog
. 0 Comments

Can anyone explain to me why Mexican truckers have unrestricted access to American highways?

Is it really provided for in NAFTA?

Did President Bush really sign an order September 1 allowing this?

This isn’t just about the economic effects of Mexican truckers taking over American jobs. What about the effect on border security? I thought we were in a war on terrorists!

And if you don’t think this is a threat to your health, wait until you meet one of these guys–driving on your side of the road.

When (and it is only a matter of time) they kill you or maime you, who will you sue? Nobody in America! Maybe this is an effort by American companies to avoid all liability for bad drivers.

Do they have insurance to cover their liability for negligence like American truckers do?

Can they even read the damn road signs? What makes you think they can?

Anyone inspecting the vehicles they are driving to determine if it is in good working order? Is it a safe vehicle?

Whether it is the federal DOT or some other agency, the buck stops with George W. Bush, the worst president in the world.

And do you see the connection with immigration reform? Do you see why they don’t want to build a fence? Because the powers that be are determined to undermine our economy even further and create the United States of North America.

I will not vote for or support any candidate for president that supports this kind of crap. It is truly disgusting. I hope everyone is offended by this total breach of security and national sovereignty as I am.

Our government has no intention to protect us from China or Mexico. All the progress we made in the last 50 years insuring that the products we buy don’t kill us is just going down the drain.

Right now, John Edwards seems to be the candidate with a sensible position.

And then on top of that, the news tonight (CNN-Lou Dobbs) is that the Border Patrol at busy crossings like El Paso, TX have been told not to conduct thorough inspections of vehicles entering the U.S. from Mexico. Speed over security!! That is just nuts. Worse than nuts, but I won’t say it, but to myself. Why don’t we just publish a pamphlet for terrorist: “How to Cross the U. S. Border Without any Hassle!”

Immigration? Since When Has it Been Discriminatory to Enforce the Law?

Published
by
Wilson
on September 1, 2007
in Blog
. 1 Comment

When I read about a ruling where a federal judge orders that a law not be enforced, I react with one of two assumptions: (1) it concerns a liberal law, maybe on the environment, and some judge is letting business have its way, or (2) it concerns a conservative law attempting to legislate morals. I can handle either of these situations, because at least there are clear lines of demarcation between the liberal and conservative positions.

And then there are those stupid rulings which just make no sense, like this one in California where a federal judge enjoined the Bush Administration from warning employers that they may be employing illegals who have used phoney social security numbers. I don’t get it! I know some (a lot, maybe) people think all this hoopla over immigration is racist, or somehow ultra conservative, or something else. Well, let’s go back to what I think is the original question: “Do you believe everyone from anywhere should have the right to enter the US anytime at anyplace for any reason and stay as long as they want?” If you do, call me, we need to talk! If you think not, then there is no reason to be concerned about enforcing the immigration laws.

If you are puzzled by the immigration issue, you only have to do one thing: FOLLOW THE MONEY!

On what other issue are Democrats and Republicans supporting the same amnesty legislation? On what other issue are liberals who think the illegals should be allowed to stay on the same side as big business? On what other issue are consevatives arguiing that the laws of this country should not be enforced? On what other issue if foreign, poverty level workers aligned with employers?

Dear God in Heaven! This isn’t about racism. We have had immigration laws since 1790. For a hundred years no one argued that it was nuts to have an orderly policy by which people from other countries enter the US. Why all of a sudden is it so important that people from Mexico have this unlimited right to break our laws, cross our borders, such that our courts prohibit our Executive Branch from enforcing our laws. After all, it is hard enough to get Bush to enforce any law! In fact, I am suspicious that the ruling is exactly what the Bush Administration wants. After all, it has been pushing amnesty just like every other policy big business wants it to push. So on immigration it can appear to win either way: Enforce the laws and look good. Get enjoined and look good. Don’t enforce the law and look good. If this isn’t proof this is a screwed up issue they are lying to us about, I don’t know what is!

I have said it before and I will say it again and again. Big business wants cheap labor. Americans want to make more money, not less. Illegals are paid less. Even if they make $60K a year, they are making less than an American would in the same situation. If we need migrants to pick vegetables, that is fine. They are excellant people and some of the best workers. I have nothing against them, not one thing. But there are legal ways for them to enter America and illegal ways. If we need to reform guest worker programs, fine, then lets talk about that, but for goodness sake, do we really want to enjoin law enforcement from enforcing the law?

Not in this instance. Not to benefit big business. Not to encourage worker exploitation. Not to cheat Americans out of jobs, not even one.

Interview with Steve Elliott, Founder, GrassFire.org, on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

Published
by
Wilson
on August 25, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

If you are motivated to get activated about certain political issues, then you need to check out GrassFire.org. Steve Elliott, its Founder, is sold out to the idea that citizens can impact political issues and decisions. GrassFire’s focus is on conservative, faith and family oriented issues and while I may not support every position GrassFire maintains, I think it is right on when it comes to the SPP and immigration issues.

President Bush, President Felipe Calderon of Mexico and Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada met in Montebello, Canada last week as part of the third meeting of the Security and Properity Partnership of North America.

If you have never heard of the SPP, you really need to listen to the interview. “The SPP is a White House-led initiative among the United States and the two nations it borders – Canada and Mexico – to increase security and to enhance prosperity among the three countries through greater cooperation.” I am more than a little suspicious of any initiative by the Bush White House. Do you remember the last time we entered into a “prosperity” agreement with Mexico. Apparently, it wasn’t our prosperity that was to be benefited. Yes, I mean NAFTA, the bipartisan effort in the Clinton administration that sent hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs to Mexico. I don’t want any more prosperity like that!

According to Steve, the SPP operates in secret. Freedom of Information requests by citizens don’t get much response. Members of Congress can’t find out what the SPP is doing. The concern is that the SPP is some sort of vehicle by which agreements will be reached between the executive branches of the governments of America, Canada and Mexico which are never submitted for ratification by the U.S. Senate which would be required by the Constitution if they were treaties, not agreements. If that is the purpose of the SPP, then it is truly a reprehensible association.

You can read more about the SPP at its website. It even has a section that denies anything underhanded is going on. However, if you read the SPP, I am sure you will note the overwhelming smell of B.S. coming through just about every line of text. Jibber-jabber.

One of GrassFire’s primary issues is border security and the fence. All I can say is, watch the video and then go ask your Congressman or Senator “Where’s The Fence?”

 
 Steve Elliott, Founder, GrassFire.org [28:08m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (257)

Interview with D. A. King, Founder, Dustin Inman Society

Published
by
Wilson
on August 9, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

My last post made me realize that in my efforts to get used to my new website format, I had failed to post an interview with D. A. King taken at the time of the vote on the immigration bill. As many of you know, D. A. has devoted his life to making our government do 2 things: (1) secure the borders, and (2) enforce the laws.

I have interviewed D. A. numerous times on the show over the course of the last year. When I started looking into this “problem” it was in the context of Georgia Republicans, like Senator Chip Rogers, sponsoring legislation to make it harder for illegal aliens to get state welfare benefits and force employers to require proper documentation for hiring. I can’t say I thought it was racist, I just thought it was something to stir up the people, the voters, over nothing. Get them to the polls for other purposes. It’s been done before.

I have said it before and I will say it again, I was completely and totally wrong!

I have nothing against immigrants, but immigrants are people who get here legally. Those that came here legally paid a price in time and effort and expense, that illegals did not pay. The reason for coming was essentially the same, the method of arrival was totatlly different.

But more important to me is the answer to this one question: “Do you believe anyone from any place should have the right to enter America at anytime?” I doubt anyone believes this, especially if they have any regard to this country and its future. If you agree the only common sense answer to this question is “No!” then, I suggest you consider the next step. How do you keep them out?

Yes, I believe in a fence. Yes, I believe in the enforcement of the law. Yes, I am sorry that illegal mothers and fathers made the wrong decision and gave birth to American citizens when they themselves had no right to be here. I am sorry that they could be separated but that is their choice if they leave their children here when they return to Mexico. They don’t have to leave them. I feel just as sorry for the children of criminals who are separated from their parents by jail.

We did this immigration reform once in 1986. They, the politicians, promised to secure the borders and enforce the laws. They lied. They did neither. Then it was 2 or 3 million who were forgiven their crime. Now, they want to give amnesty to another 10 million to 20 millions without securing the borders or enforcing the laws, so that in another 5 or 10 years we can do it all again.

Why? Simple. With NAFTA they exported our manufacturing plants to Mexico for one reason: cheap labor. Well, the jobs they couldn’t export (the guy that works on the elevator, the train engineer, the computer operator) are the expensive ones, the ones that make more than minimum wage. Corporate America is tired of having to pay decent, hard working Americans more than minimum wage so that they can have a life. Corporate America wants cheap labor once again in America for the jobs they can’t outsource. Make millions of people legal who would love to earn $10 an hour and the guys getting paid $20 an hour will lose their jobs. Just wait and see! You think is all about migrant farm workers? As the TV commercial says: “What’s in your wallet?”

Don’t believe me! Fine. Then you tell me what the big deal is? Tell me why enforcing the law is what we expect everywhere, except when it comes to dealing with illegal aliens. Tell me why the U. S. Chamber of Commerce is the number one proponent of amnesty if it isn’t because business is just looking for cheap labor. Tell me who makes the money and who loses in this contest. This ain’t about racism. It ain’t about being mean or unsympathetic. This is about corporate America kicking the working American one more time, maybe the last time.

I know there are many of you who don’t agree. I just hope you are facing facts, not propaganda. I am tired of the propaganda.

 
 D. A. King, Dustin Inman Society [28:02m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (332)

Read the Lozano v Hazelton Decision…

Published
by
Wilson
on July 29, 2007
in Blog
. 0 Comments

All 206 pages of it.

While the folks who support immigration reform are claiming victory, remember, this is not a final decision. It will be appealed to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the loser there will almost certainly ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. To do so, they will apply for a writ of certiorari following the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal.

On a scale of 1 to 10 in the course of federal litigation, a favorable ruling at this level is virtually meaningless. While it is emotionally uplifting to win at any level, any attorney who knows anything about litigation, especially in federal court, would not feel particularly comforted by the decision.

Message to both sides: You have your work cut out for you!!

Interview with Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)

Published
by
Wilson
on June 28, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), tells us why he does not support the Senate Immigration Bill and also comments on the War in Iraq.

 
 Standard Podcast [31:10m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (277)

Interview with Congressman John Barrow (D-12, GA)

Published
by
Wilson
on June 27, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Congressman John Barrow (D-12, GA), discusses the proposed immigration bill pending in the Senate, and the Farm Bill, particularly the provision that would require food imported from abroad to show the country of origin.

 
 Standard Podcast [27:25m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (275)

Interview with Erick Erickson, Political Strategist, Blogger and Candidate for Macon City Council

Published
by
Wilson
on June 8, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Erick Erickson, Political Strategist, Blogger and Candidate for Macon City Council, discusses the Immigration Bill, Fred Thompson for President, and his own campaign for political office.

 
 Standard Podcast [26:16m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (255)