There is a lot of talk about, much with glee, about the inevitably of the demise of the Republican Party, a white male ever being president again and the adjustment of standards to accommodate the growing Hispanic population.
Most of the expansion of the Hispanic population has come from illegal and unfettered immigration.
We have the absurdity of rewarding law breaking with modifications of our own society. We need to change in order to satisfy the needs of a dependent class because they are in the US illegally.
What exactly are we supposed to do? Why are we supposed to do it?
The simplest way of course is to capitulate and join the Democratic Party or better yet, borrow their ever changing and ever demanding agenda, photocopy it and call it Republican. Up until the appearance of the progressive baby boomer generation, there was a common practice of cultural acceptance and adaptation of mostly European immigrants to the dominant US language and culture. That all changed under the Kennedy’s.
Immigration was turned on its head to satisfy a kaleidoscope, no, a piñata of third world cultures that came to the US, resistant to accept the prevailing culture. Some called it, celebrating diversity. Some called it cultural suicide. Make your conclusions as to where it has brought us.
If I understand the argument, the bad white part of the American population has to get with it and do what they are told or be marginalized. They are to be parted from more of their property and give a more fair share of their property to a noble needy class. World standards trump American standards. To resist is to be racist. It is impolite to notice and mention that you have noticed the change.
I suggest plan B.
Since diversity and immigration is the future, let’s get it on. There are tens of millions of Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, Czechs, Greeks, Italians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Indians, Japanese, Moldavians, Serbs, Cubans, Romanians, Jews and Christians in Arab lands, Koreans and Slovaks that would love to come to the US and overstay their visas. Let them. Encourage them. Bring their talents, their money and their education to the US.
Lets celebrate diversity with people that will accept our values and strengthen our culture. You will not have to get these people to learn English. In fact, you will not be able to stop them. You will not be able to stop them from saving money or building capital and businesses. They will create jobs, improve real estate values, improve schools and communities. They will also vote. They will understand what it means to be an American and will say so.
How would you do it?
Since the intent is political, it needs to be done on a state by state basis. Texas, California, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Florida, Virginia, Georgia and the Carolinas would be perfect candidates as they have the known attraction, economy and size to offer and receive economic and political opportunities from these future American Citizens.
Bring it on.
The 1965 Immigration Act: Anatomy of a Disaster
ReplyDeleteBy: Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, December 10, 2002
America's current mass immigration mess is the result of a change in the laws in 1965. Prior to 1965, despite some changes in the 50's, America was a low-immigration country basically living under immigration laws written in 1924. Thanks to low immigration, the swamp of cheap labor was largely drained during this period, America became a fundamentally middle-class society, and our many European ethnic groups were brought together into a common national culture. In some ways, this achievement was so complete that we started to take for granted what we had achieved and forgot why it happened. So in a spasm of sentimentality on the Right and lies on the Left, we opened the borders.
Born of liberal ideology, the 1965 bill abolished the national origins quota system that had regulated the ethnic composition of immigration in fair proportion to each group's existing presence in the population. In a misguided application spirit of the civil rights era, the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations saw these ethnic quotas as an archaic form of chauvinism. Moreover, as Cold Warriors facing charges of "racism" and "imperialism," they found the system rhetorically embarrassing. The record of debate over this seismic change in immigration policy reveals that left-wingers, in their visceral flight to attack "discrimination," did not reveal the consequences of their convictions. Instead, their spokesmen set out to assuage concerned traditionalists with a litany of lies and wishful thinking.
Chief among national concerns was total numeric immigration. Senate floor manager and Camelot knight-errant Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, assured jittery senators that "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually." Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, further calmed that august body, insisting "the total number of potential immigrants would not be changed very much." Time has proven otherwise. Average immigration levels before the 1965 amendments took effect hovered around 300,000 per annum. Yet 1,045,000 legal immigrants flooded our cities in 1996 alone.
The 1965 "reform" reoriented policy away from European ethnic groups, yet implemented numbers similar to 1950's rates in an attempt to keep immigration under control. However, Congressmen managed to miss a loophole large enough to allow a 300 percent in immigration, because they did not take into account two "sentimental" provisions within the bill. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens and political refugees face no quotas. Their likely impact on the nation was ignored, presumably because aiding families and the dispossessed cast the right emotive glow.
DeleteYet leftists could sound like hard-nosed defenders of the national interest when necessary. In urging passage of the 1965 bill, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, D-New York, wrote in a letter to the New York Times, "The time has come for us to insist that the quota system be replaced by the merit system." As if merit is the operative principle along the Rio Grande today! Similarly, Representative Robert Sweeney, D-Ohio, insisted the bill was "more beneficial to us." In fact, the 1965 bill made "family reunification" - including extended family members - the key criterion for eligibility. These new citizens may in turn send for their families, creating an endless cycle known to sociologists as the immigration chain. The qualifications of immigrants have predictably fallen. Hispanic immigrants, by far the largest contingent, are eight times more likely than natives to lack a ninth-grade education, and less than half as likely to have a college degree.
The bill did not end discrimination based on what President John F. Kennedy called "the accident of birth." (This of course begs the question of whether birth within the nation, the basis of common national community, is just an accident, but let that pass for now.) It de facto grossly discriminates in favor of Mexicans and certain other groups.
Not only has the bill failed in its stated purpose, it has realized many of its critics' worst nightmares. Concern mounted that this bill would radically change the ethnic composition of the United States. Such things were still considered legitimate concerns in 1965, in the same Congress that had just passed the key civil rights legislation of the 1960's.
Specific influx predictions that were made seem tragicomic today. Senator Robert Kennedy predicted a total of 5,000 immigrants from India; his successor as Attorney General, Nicholas Katzenbach, foresaw a meager 8,000. Actual immigration from India has exceeded by 1,000-times Robert Kennedy's prediction.
Senator Hiram Fong, R-Hawaii, calculated that "the people from [Asia] will never reach 1 percent of the population." Even in 1965, people were willing to admit that we have a reasonable interest in not being inundated by culturally alien foreigners, and it was considered acceptable to say so on the floor of the Senate. Try that today, even as a supposed conservative! (Asians currently account for three percent of the population, and will swell to near 10 percent by 2050 if present trends continue.)
The only remaining Congressman who had voted on the 1920s quotas, Representative Emanuel Celler, D-New York, insisted, "There will not be, comparatively speaking, many Asians or Africans entering this country." Today, the number of Asians and Africans entering this country each year exceeds the annual average total number of immigrants during the 1960s.
DeleteYet the largest ethnic shift has occurred within the ranks of Hispanics. Despite Robert Kennedy's promise that, "Immigration from any single country would be limited to 10 percent of the total," Mexico sent 20 percent of last year's immigrants. Hispanics have made up nearly half of all immigrants since 1968. After a 30-year experiment with open borders, whites no longer constitute a majority of Californians or residents of New York City.
As immigrants pour in, native Americans feel themselves pushed out. In 1965, Senator Hugh Scott, R-Pennsylvania, opined, "I doubt if this bill will really be the cause of crowding the present Americans out of the 50 states." Yet half-a-million native Californians fled the state in the last decade, while its total population increased by three million, mostly immigrants. This phenomenon also holds true in microcosm. In tiny Ligonier, Indiana, (population 4,357) 914 Hispanics moved in and 216 native Americans departed during the 1990s. Hispanics now outnumber the Amish as the area's dominant minority.
Thirty-plus years of immigration at historic levels have also had an economic impact on America. In 1965, Ted Kennedy confidently predicted, "No immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge." However, political refugees qualify for public assistance upon setting foot on U.S. soil. The exploding Somali refugee population of Lewiston, Maine, (pop. 36,000) is largely welfare-dependent. Likewise, 2,900 of Wausau, Wisconsin's 4,200 Hmong refugees receive public assistance. In all, 21 percent of immigrants receive public assistance, whereas 14 percent of natives do so. Immigrants are 50 percent more likely than natives to live in poverty.
Ted Kennedy also claimed the 1965 amendments "will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." Teddy cannot have it both ways: either the immigrant will remain unemployed and become a public charge, or he will take a job that otherwise could have gone to a native American. What is presently undisputed - except by the same economic analysts at Wired magazine and the Wall Street Journal who gave us dot-com stocks - is that immigrant participation lowers wages.
Despite the overwhelming assurances of the bill's supporters, the 1965 Immigration Reform Act has remade society into the image its critics most feared. Immigration levels topping a million a year will increase U.S. population to 400 million within 50 years. Meanwhile, exponents of multiculturalism insist new arrivals make no effort to assimilate; to do so would be "genocidal," a notion that makes a mockery of real genocides. Instead, long-forgotten grudges are nursed against the white populace. Native citizens take to flight as the neighborhoods around them, the norms in their hometowns, are debased for the convenience of low-paid immigrants and well-heeled businessmen. All the while, indigenous paychecks drop through lower wages and higher taxes collected to provide social services for immigrants. And this only takes into account legal immigration.
These results were unforeseen by liberals easily led about by their emotions. Others were not so blind. Jewish organizations had labored since 1924 to unweave national origins quotas by admitting family members on non-quota visas. The B'nai B'rith Women and the American Council for Judaism Philanthropic Fund, among other Jewish organizations, supported this reform legislation while it was yet in subcommittee in the winter of 1965. Roman Catholics had the twin motivations of still-evolving social justice doctrine and the potential windfall of a mass influx of co-religionists from Latin America. Other organized minorities pressured for increased immigration to benefit relatives in their homelands. The ultra-liberal Americans for Democratic Action, the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild joined the chorus. Further, the Communist Party USA supported higher immigration on the grounds that it destabilizes working Americans.
DeleteAmericans must realize demographic trends are not inevitable, the product of mysterious forces beyond their control. Today's population is the result of yesterday's immigration policy, and that policy is as clearly broken as its backers' assurances were facetious. A rational policy will only come about when native Americans place the national interest above liberal howls of "prejudice" and "tribalism."
If the 50 percent plus one majority of the electorate wants higher taxes, they should go ahead and elect a Democartic majority in the House in 2014. In the meantime, Republicans should avoid doing Obama's dirty work and stand firm on tax reform. If the highest rates get tweaked up a little as part of a grand bargain, so be it. A reformed and simplified tax code would boost growth, which the wealthiest would benefit from the most. In such a grand bargain, it makes snse to ask them to pay a point or two more. But if the higher taxes are simply to aid Obama and the Democrats in buying more voters off with transfer payments, forget it.
DeleteThe snowball began rolling down the hill so to speak with the passage, by the democrats, mostly, of the immigation reform bill of 1965.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
Since then we've let in here millions upon millions of third worlders. Was not supposed to change our culture, but it has of course. If we let anyone in, it ought to be people from eastern Europe who have lived under communism, or their parents had, and have had the stories told to them. They are less likely to look to the state for all things.
The Republicans nominated a gentleman who was the epitome of a Thurston Howell caricature who was easily defined before our “insiders" could do their job on his campaign team.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats have won the battle of indoctrinating America's children for 40 years in our school systems, entertainment, and media. Unless we learn to take those things back, we are finished.
One thing to remember about the Hispanic and Asian communities is that they are as entrepreneurial as any of the old European ethnic groups and can be expected to see the economy in terms that will be more closely aligned with the Republicans than with the public-sector-dominated Democrats. The Democrats have been singularly unwilling to address the concerns of small business about competitiveness, regulation, and taxes. If the Republicans can develop a strong pro-entrepreneur immigration policy,there may not be an emerging Democratic majority.
ReplyDeleteBHO is a transcendent figure. To middle-aged white men like me, he is just another flawed politician. To many young people and Hispanics and virtually all African-Americans he is way more than that. His cult of personality is a significant factor in his coalition.
ReplyDeleteCalifornia offers an interesting case. Here is the result of congressional voting on Tuesday:
ReplyDeleteU.S. REPRESENTATIVE: 25TH DISTRICT
Lee C. Rogers (D) 79,597 (44.8%)
Howard P. “Buck" McKeon 98,090 (55.2%)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: 26TH DISTRICT
Julia Brownley (D) 105,734 (51.7%)
Tony Strickland ® 98,635 (48.3%)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: 27TH DISTRICT
Judy Chu (D) 115,910 (63.4%)
Jack Orswell ® 66,777 (36.6%)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: 28TH DISTRICT
Adam Schiff (D) 140,381 (76.0%)
Phil Jennerjahn ® 44,433 (24.0%)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: 29TH DISTRICT
Tony Cardenas (D) 82,233 (74.2%)
David R. Hernandez (NP) 28,564 (25.8%)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: 30TH DISTRICT
Howard L. Berman (D) 71,420 (39.5%)
Brad Sherman (D) 109,311 (60.5%)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: 32ND DISTRICT
Grace F. Napolitano (D) 94,920 (65.4%)
David L. Miller ® 50,297 (34.6%)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: 33RD DISTRICT
Henry A. Waxman (D) 126,880 (53.7%)
Bill Bloomfield (NP) 109,297 (46.3%)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: 34TH DISTRICT
Xavier Becerra (D) 90,579 (85.6%)
Stephen C. Smith ® 15,186 (14.4%)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: 35TH DISTRICT
Joe Baca (D) 48,385 (44.3%)
Gloria Negrete McLeod (D) 60,866 (55.7%)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: 37TH DISTRICT
Karen R. Bass (D) 152,769 (86.4%)
Morgan Osborne ® 23,969 (13.6%)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: 38TH DISTRICT
Linda T. Sánchez (D) 109,080 (67.2%)
Benjamin Campos ® 53,291 (32.8%)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: 39TH DISTRICT
Jay Chen (D) 78,822 (40.9%)
Ed Royce ® 113,746 (59.1%)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: 40TH DISTRICT
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D) 57,716 (59.4%)
David Sanchez (D) 39,494 (40.6%)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: 43RD DISTRICT
Bob Flores (D) 43,598 (29.4%)
Maxine Waters (D) 104,931 (70.6%)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: 44TH DISTRICT
Janice Hahn (D) 75,678 (60.0%)
Laura Richardson (D) 50,393 (40.0%)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: 47TH DISTRICT
Alan Lowenthal (D) 93,047 (55.4%)
Gary DeLong R 74,952 (44.6%)
On a district by district basis, a few million new residents would have a major impact on reestablishing a political defense against the Democrats.
I refer to a few million new residents on a national basis, strategically placed in targeted districts.
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats took a similar strategy by passing legislation forcing communities to accept subsidized housing. Of course, the Democrats made everyone else pay for it.
ReplyDeleteThe Repubicans enjoyed exclusive control of the Federal government for many years since 1965.
ReplyDeleteDuring portions of Nixon, Reagaan and Bush Jr tenures. The Reagan era immigration reforms which supercede the 1oyt )egislation, go unmentioned in the commentary. US immigration policy. Is, and has been, a bi-partisan success story. The fact that some do not like the current state of affairs does not diminish the Republican's role in it.
One cannot rewrite reality by ignoring decades of real life.
1965 is what was meant by 1oyt.
ReplyDeleteThe California numbers compare to Obama's margin in the Electoral College, with him garnering almost 70% of the vote.
The Mexicans came over to pick our crops. They worked fast, and cheaply, and we were thrilled to have them. It was kind of like a "free lunch." You know what they say about that.
ReplyDeleteLet's not overlook Reagan's amnesty bill.
Interestingly, most of the "white guys" that are the angriest about Obama's election will actually benefit considerably, long and short term, from the Democrat's win.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of them fall squarely into that demographic that would pay the most for Romney's tax-break for the top 1%.
And, while you're casting about for "reasons, why?" don't miss the Giant 10 Ton Elephantress in the Room - The Largest Voting Bloc of All broke decisively for the Won.
ReplyDeleteWimmin.
The Republicans decided to go back to the old "keep'em barefoot and pregnant" social/poltical philosophy of Jimmy Sunday.
Paul Ryan said "Rape was just another form of conception." Romney had a governing history in Massachusetts, and a counseling history in the Mormon Church, that confirmed that his beliefs were the same as Ryan's.
The argument went beyond abortion, and into the realm of "birth control," and being forced to carry rapists' babies to term.
Throw in a few issues such as "The Lily Ledbetter Act," and the Republicans were in trouble with the Single Largest Voting Bloc in America.
Billy Sunday
DeleteI think the Republicans missed the same thing I missed. Those "Single Women" making it through the "Likely Voter" screens weren't waitresses down at Chiles, but "Single Professional Women."
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats lasered in on them. The Dems found'em, and pounded'em. And, Turned'em Out.
Oh, Noes!
ReplyDeleteAvalanche on Bullshit Mountain!!
:)
In other words, the reason this electorate looked so different from the 2008 electorate is almost entirely attributable to white voters staying home.
ReplyDeleteEspecially in Ohio. :(
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106.html
On the other hand, Stalin couldn't have done better than in parts of Philly, where some precincts astoundingly had 99%!!! for Obama.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnd then, there is the addled old white/red male rural geezer vote to consider as well.
DeleteSingle Women:
ReplyDeleteObama 68%
Romney 30%
He won the under 30 crowd big.
ReplyDeleteThe amazing thing is that the Dems were able to get the "Under 30" Crowd to Turn Out. The Pubs were betting, big, that they wouldn't.
DeleteThose replete with the wisdom of experience.
DeleteRep. Ron Paul, whose maverick presidential bids shook the GOP, said in the wake of this week's elections that the country has already veered over the fiscal cliff and he sees no chance of righting ship in a country where too many people are dependent on government.
ReplyDelete"We're so far gone. We're over the cliff," the Texas Republican told Bloomberg Television's "In the Loop" program. "We cannot get enough people in Congress in the next 5-10 years who will do wise things." The video can be seen at http://www.bloomberg.com/video/ron-paul-on-fiscal-cliff-and-vows-to-compromise-MYkAiqYBTaiHwXZL9Tvxkw.html.
Mr. Paul, who is retiring after 12 terms in the House, said voters on Tuesday rejected Mitt Romney because he had opposed the government bailout of General Motors and Chrysler.
"The people in the Midwest voted against him: 'Oh, we have to be taken care of!' So that vote was sort of like what we are laughing at in Greece," Mr. Paul said.
"People do not want anything cut," he said. "They want all the bailouts to come. They want the Fed to keep printing money. They do not believe we have gone off the cliff or are close to going off the cliff. They think we can patch it over, that we can somehow come up with a magic solution."
He added, "You cannot have a budgetary solution if you do not change what the role of government should be. As long as you think we have to please the world and run this welfare state, all we will argue about is who will get the loot."
Read more: Ron Paul: Election shows U.S. 'far gone' - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/nov/8/ron-paul-election-shows-us-far-gone/#ixzz2BelkROrW
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
A lot of people like R. Paul's anti-war policies, but, "financially," he's just a Crank.
DeleteHe's all wrong about this. He's all wrong about virtually everything "financial." His policies would have, certainly, put us into Great Depression II.
The more I think about it the more I like your idea deuce. There simply is not enough of us native Americans and those lower class cultures are dragging America down into the Democratic abyss, the culture of dependant diversity. We screwed up when we released the slaves and gave them the vote and now we are sliding down the slippery slope with all them Hispanics. I miss the America of old when men were men and women stayed home caring for their little native Americans. Diversity is diluting the military AND the country. Republicans know the right path we just need to engineer the population of the future in order to be relevant.
ReplyDeleteThey played Taps at BC. (Someone posted the lyrics.) Seriously.
DeleteMove over Diane. There's a new drunk in town. And he's much more entertaining.
:) Could you just promise to engineer the extra millions somewhere other than the intermountain west, we are still making out all right there. Out in Montana they voted to get the aliens off the dole, for instance.
DeleteNovember 07, 2012 11:11 am • Associated Press
Montana voters have ratified..... The other measures require parental notification for minor girls' abortions, deny services for illegal immigrants, declare corporations are not people and forbid governments from issuing health insurance mandates.
Buck
http://kylesmithonline.com/?p=9860
DeleteTaps it is --
I’m not normally given to hyperbole, but it’s all over for the Republican party as we know it and hence all over for the United States of America as we know it. The Reagan period now looks like a blip. Only once has a Republican presidential candidate won the popular vote in 24 years.
We’ve lost when we were the incumbent party and the economy was perceived to be doing badly; we’ve lost when we were the challenger party when the economy was doing even worse.
In future, our elections will be like those in Britain or New York. We will be presented with a choice between a statist liberal and an out-there uber-liberal. And with the uber-liberal enjoying the full backing of the media and Hollywood, it’ll by no means be an easy win for the ordinary Mike Bloomberg or David Cameron-style liberal, who will be portrayed as a heartless plutocrat if he happens to come from money, or as a hopeless rube if he happens to come from nowhere......
They just put Florida into the Obama coumn. That makes it
ReplyDeleteObama 332
Romney 206
Engneering the "population" might work; engineering the "turnout" in Ohio, and Florida sure didn't. :)
Romney should have had Sarah Palin on the campaign trail with him. It would have helped with the evangelical vote, which many are speculating account for the missing whites.
ReplyDeleteNow that the election is over Ruf when can we expect the big Obama report on Benghazi? Everyone is dying to know about it.
Nobody "Really" cares about Benghazi, Bob. It was just politics.
DeleteThe CIA, The State Dept, The DOD - they mess up sometimes; everybody knows it. And, in the Middleeast/N. Africa? It's guaranteed. They'll investigate for a while, and then even the right-wingnuts will move on.
Ah, nobody really cares...
DeleteThat is really disgusting and beneath you.
The CIA, The State Dept, The DOD
But not your Obama.
.
DeleteHey, if Rufus doesn't give a shit about something, then nobody "really" cares.
.
ReplyDeleteThe wind lobby & friends, fighting for survival
posted at 5:19 pm on November 8, 2012 by Erika Johnsen
The wind industry and their well-monied interests have been locked in an epic death struggle to get Congress to — yet again — extend the wind production tax credit that ensures the industry’s survival. I’m sure they’re breathing a huge sigh of relief now that the Great Defender of All Green Subsidies is set for another term in the White House, as he’ll help them champion their rent-seeking cause with the public by continuing to vocally couch wind as one of the renewable energies “of the future.” (How it is that President Obama knows how to read the domestic-energy tea leaves better than free-market signals still eludes me.) They’ve still got to get past Congress, however, and they’re giving it all they’ve got, via The Hill:
Advocates of expiring tax credits for wind power projects will greet next week’s return of Congress with a multi-front campaign for extension of the incentives in the lame-duck session.
A bipartisan group of governors, under the umbrella of the 28-member Governors’ Wind Coalition, will hold a Tuesday press conference calling for an extension of the production tax credit that’s scheduled to expire at year’s end. …
Separately, the Sierra Club has blanketed a Capitol Hill metro station with ads in advance of a multiday “wind week” campaign next week to promote extension of the credits.
“Wind power makes clean energy, good jobs and better future. Don’t blow it,” some of the ads state, showing images of people working on wind projects. …
“Wind week” will involve labor, environmental and wind industry groups, the Sierra Club said.
You can read about my great and profound love for this, my most favoritest subsidy in the history of evah, here and here (hint to regulars: government “investments”).
The wind-industry says that tens of thousands of jobs will be lost if the tax credit doesn’t get another chance, which is perfectly true — in the short term. During the election season, President Obama faulted Mitt Romney for calling wind-industry jobs “imaginary,” but Romney was right on the money on that one. If these jobs are so very dependent on government assistance for their survival, they are jobs that come at the opportunity cost of heightened productivity, economic growth, and more robust jobs if those resources were spent elsewhere, rather than being poured into a wildly quixotic endeavor that can never seem to make it in the free market.
But when has the inability to compete on its own merits ever stopped industries lucky enough to land in the arena of political favor? That’s what big government is for, right?
Do you not understand that all that Wyoming Coal comes from "Public" lands?
DeleteDo you have "any" idea what the Public gets paid for that coal?
Of course not; let me help you.
$1.00 a Ton!
That's right, goombah; one freakin' lousy dollar per ton.
How's that for a subsidy?
Do you not know that the same production tax credit that wind gets, new Nuclear also gets?
Of course you don't.
You just copy and paste their bullshit propaganda. Lord knows why.
Write your Congressman now.
DeleteLeast you have finally admitted that your favorites get subsidies too.
And whose fault is it?
DeleteDemocrats have controlled Congress nearly twice as long as Republicans in the last 50 years.
Another option for you is to file a Federal lawsuit. Happens all the time up this way.
DeleteOr, call President Obama, and ask him why this is going on four long years after He has been President.
How about re-engineering the policies to fit the public.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul is slightly behind the curve, if after 24 years in Congress he has only now figured out what drives the process.
The idea is to set a goal, then engineer a way to achieve it. Not to bemoan the sucess of those that won the last round of the culture war.
We could simply kill off those groups that won't conform to Republican ideology or is that a too simplistic approach?
ReplyDeleteToo simplistic, and sinful as well, Jenny.
DeleteBut that was the course of action that Bill Ayers advocated, back in the day, the guy that wrote Obama's book, but his targeted group was the Republicans.
Good idea. The public has been against illegial immigration, and ObamaCare.
ReplyDeleteBut it isn't working.
Perhaps we should all wish we had the Puerto Rico option, vote for independence.
Our country is really fucked up. I'm going to take a nap.
ReplyDeleteThe "Country's" fine.
DeleteSome of the "people" need a little work. :)
The private sector and middle class is doing great.
Deletehttp://twitchy.com/2012/11/08/forward-obama-won-had-to-fire-22-employees-small-business-owners-on-twitter-doing-same/
Deletehttp://twitchy.com/2012/11/07/boeings-defense-division-unexpectedly-announces-layoffs-facility-closings-on-day-after-election/
Deletethere are no jews of any number left in the arab lands, but thanks for considering them...
ReplyDeletehttp://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/08/video-hey-how-about-romney-for-obamas-secretary-of-business/
ReplyDeleteBipartisanship!!
ReplyDeleteАlso ѵіѕіt my wеbsіte .
.. payday loan online
my website :: payday loan,
To cash Your adjacent Step Written report: Clearwire
ReplyDeleteGets More hard cashunforeseen fiscal Emergency Jessica Alba
Ditches The Sunbathing In party favourAnd Payday Loans Online Delaying determination Bedsocks All The furore For Payday Loans Online-StrappedYou Can Online
Payday Loan In Iraq business enterprise holding - A boonAnd Payday Loan From The Bible German Payday Loan Rector Payday Loan reckonerFranchising Opportunity In fighting Drug Trafficking
To payday loan In
third base
my web page > payday loan
Hi there! I know this is kinda off topic however , I'd figured I'd ask.
ReplyDeleteWould you be interested in trading links or maybe guest authoring a blog article or vice-versa?
My blog covers a lot of the same subjects as yours and I feel we could greatly
benefit from each other. If you might be interested feel free to send me an e-mail.
I look forward to hearing from you! Terrific blog by the way!
My webpage: best cellulite treatment