This is written in response to comments of Ken Jackson, questioning my views of Senator McCain due to his voting record, found in the post Senator Obama overseas - polispeak and votes

Ken,

Thank you for you response. I must say that I enjoy well-informed thought out comments.

While I must admit that it was a failure on my part for not mentioning the nature of Senator John McCain’s voting record there is a notable difference between the candidates. First off there is the question of Senator John McCain’s voting record. While you may be focusing on the last 4 years he has been in elected office for 25 years. Thus to evaluate his voting record effectively, and in full comparison, requires looking at 25 years of votes.

The next point to keep in mind is that I would not say that McCain has voted 95% along the Republican party line. While it is well documented that Senator Obama has voted the most liberal of all Senators in office, a review of McCain does not find that same fact. Note that just 1 ½ - 2 years ago McCain was lauded as the Democrats’ Republican. The liberal media hailed him as a progressive Republican willing to deviate from the pack. Such descriptions argue that 95% seems far too inaccurate.

Also of note is the fact that while there are several notable votes where McCain has voted Republican, as in his votes to maintain the Bush tax cuts (thus preventing a de facto tax increase), he has also voted bi-partisan as well as introducing legislation that was far from Republican party line. A great example is the immigration reform bill that was voted upon not more than 2 years ago, and was favored by many Democrats and some Republicans.

Senator Obama cannot say the same on any of these points. If I am incorrect please provide me sites or records that I might review.

To your points on the Surge, you are correct that the terms of the surge are vague. Depending on which political party you look at the Surge has had varying amounts of success. But the key in my mind is that the Surge has been an (at least limited) success and not the complete failure promised by Harry Reid and others (before it ever started, in fact from the moment it was proposed).

As you yourself admit, 15 out of 18 benchmarks have been achieved to some degree. That’s roughly 83%, give or take the various levels of success of each benchmark. By any standard that is a success, except to Harry Reid and other far-left groups.

I do not claim that the success is enough, or that it is finished. There will not be a finish to any plan in Iraq until the last U.S. combat troop leaves that nation. That is not to say that a military base will not be created in Iraq, but that is no different than the bases that exist in Korea, Germany, Japan and other nations over the past multiple decades.

Now I submit this thought as well. It is not possible to have any long-lasting or final result if Iraq is not at relative peace. If active fighting is occurring in the streets, and the people of Iraq are unable to even go to market for goods without being shot at or have IED’s go off, then nothing can be resolved. Thus the military action of the Surge is practically the most important portion of the entire plan.

Now I fully agree with your point on taking care of the veteran’s. My father was a veteran of Viet Nam, I served in the Marines, and several members of my family have served in the Army. So please do not doubt my commitment to servicemen and their families.

I do not believe there is any former service member that would not prefer to see this conflict ended quickly with as few American lives lost as possible. I also believe that each of us at one time or another vowed to give our lives for our nation, as determined by our President and the Congress, in all their wisdom (or lack thereof). While we may not agree with how the orders originate, we have to believe that ultimately they are for the greatest good of our nation.

While Iraq may have started under bad terms, at best, at this point to not win means that those orphans and any that are in difficulty will be convinced that America is the root of all their ills (which could well be false). As we all know quite well such disaffected individuals have a penchant for becoming fanatics and suicide killers. Thus in 5 to 10 years after a loss and retreat the potential for another massive attack on American soil increases exponentially.

But there is no excuse for the manner in which our veterans are being treated upon coming home. We are obligated to provide them better medical and mental care than they are receiving currently. At the same time there is an undercurrent in this nation that would look upon or military brethren in the same manner as those soldiers that returned to a hostile home after Viet Nam. Groups like Moveon.org (which are major Obama supporters) are little different than Hanoi Jane Fonda in my mind; and they need only slight provocation to go from their current ‘support’ of troops to outright dismissal of them.

As for McCain not supporting out troops, Factcheck.org argues your point. They state directly that he has in fact voted to increase funds for veteran care, consistently

“Specifically, in 2004 McCain voted against an increase of $1.8 billion, but an increase of $1.2 billion passed by unanimous consent. In 2005 he voted against an increase of $2.8 billion, but voted for a $410 million increase. And in 2006, he voted against a $1.5 billion increase, but voted for an $823 million increase.

There was no dissent for the 2004 amendment, and the 2006 amendment passed unanimously. In 2005, the alternative spending increase passed with a healthy 96-to-4 bipartisan stamp of approval. Also, it's worth mentioning that the president does not express an opinion on every amendment offered in the Senate. So it is not accurate to say McCain "took Bush's side" on these votes.

The union group also cites a fourth vote, a March 2007 vote by McCain against a war spending supplemental that passed the Senate but was vetoed by the president. The bill did include $1.77 billion in additional funding for veterans' health care benefits. However, McCain voted for an alternative version of the supplemental that was quickly introduced, passed and signed into law. And it actually included slightly more money for veterans' health benefits, $1.79 billion.”

Now you may want to question why McCain has not voted in favor of more funding for our veterans, but that is different than

“a man who turns his back on fellow soldiers”

as you stated.

As for any other point on his care about our soldiers I refer to this other item from Factcheck.org. McCain has received awards from

• 1995 Congressional Award from the VFW
  
• 1992 VFW's Americanism Award
  
• three or four Legislator of the Year Awards from American Legion
  
• The VFW PAC has endorsed McCain in every congressional election since 1984
  

I have to believe that these organizations would not present awards to Senator McCain if he was not doing something (or a lot) in favor of military personnel and families.

And Senator Obama, who has never served a day in his life, and therefore cannot appreciate fully the sacrifices families and service members make daily, cannot make the same claims. Thus while I understand and appreciate your concern, I believe that on these issues Senator Obama is inferior to McCain.

But if you have proof to correct my positions, or cause for me to reconsider my position I am open to hear them.

Labels: American Legion, Congress, Harry Reid, immigration policies, Senator John McCain, veteran issues, VFW, voting records

Concluded from Pros and Cons of Republican Presidential candidates Part 2...

Mitt Romney

Pros –


• Former Governor
  
• Strong Business Experience
  
• Very Religious
  
• For the Death Penalty
  
• Finish Iraq war
  
• For Privatizing SSI
  
• Waterboarding (Torture ok)
  
• Pro-Education
  
  Cons –
  
  
• Few understand his religion
  
• Flipped Abortion
  
• Flipped gay marriage
  
• Unknown position about minorities
  
• Pro-GPS tracking of convicted criminals for life
  
• Mixed Gun Control
  
• Mixed Immigration policies
  
  
  Fred Thompson
  
  Pros –
  
  
• Former Senator
  
• Anti-abortion
  
• For the Death Penalty
  
• Pro-Education
  
• Anti-Gun Control
  
• Finish Iraq war
  
• Waterboarding (Torture ok)
  
• Reform SSI
  
• No Nukes in Iran
  
• Anti-Flag Burning
  
• Anti-Immigration
  
  Cons –
  
  
• Known for TV/Movie Roles
  
• Mixed on gay marriage
  
• Mixed on Minorities
  

Well there you go. I know I did not include the internet favorite Ron Paul. The fact is that while he may be popular on the net, his views are generally seen as extreme and nutty. He has no real following around the country on any poll. And as for Alan Keyes, where the hell did he come from? Are you kidding?

I hope this helps, because the most important decision in the last 3 decades faces the nation in this next election. In my opinion the Presidential Race of 2008 will determine the direction of the country for the next decade or longer, and most of the things done will be irreversible.

Your vote counts, don’t give it frivolously or cheaply.

Labels: death penalty, Fred Thompson, immigration policies, Iraq War, Mitt Romney, political issues, Presidential candidates, republican candidates, tax policy, waterboarding

Continued from Pros and Cons of Republican Presidential candidates Part 1...

Mike Huckabee

Pros –


• Governor
  
• Anti-abortion
  
• For the Death Penalty
  
• Finish Iraq war
  
• Anti-gay marriage
  
• For Privatizing SSI
  
• Anti-Gun Control
  
• Very Religious
  
• Fair Tax
  
• Pro Education
  
• Decent Minority Rights
  
• Against 3 strikes laws
  
  Cons –
  
  
• Virtually unknown to the general public
  
• Very Religious
  
• Anti-Torture
  
• Ok with Pathway to Citizenship
  
• Fuzzy on Immigration in general
  
  
  Senator John McCain
  
  Pros –
  
  
• For the Death Penalty
  
• Anti-Torture (he has huge conviction and reasons)
  
• Current Senator – Long term position
  
• Military Hero
  
• Anti-gay marriage
  
• Anti-Gun Control
  
• Strongly Finish Iraq war
  
• For Privatizing SSI
  
• Anti-Flag Burning
  
• Pro-Minority Bills
  
• Limit Judges Legislating
  
  Cons –
  
  
• Flipped on Abortion
  
• Mixed on Education
  
• Anti-Torture
  
• Pro-Pathway to Citizenship
  
• Pro-Immigration Reform
  

Continued in part 3...

Labels: death penalty, immigration policies, Iraq War, Mike Huckabee, political issues, Presidential candidates, republican candidates, Senator John McCain, tax policy, waterboarding

Not long ago I created a list of Pros and Cons of the leading Democratic Presidential candidates. To be fair and to see the differences I have complied a Pros and Con list for the leading major Republican candidates.

I do not presume that this list is all-encompassing. I recognize that while I have tried to be neutral, just as I was with the Democrats, I’m sure there are areas where my personal views entered. I do not claim my list is complete or how everyone feels. But I believe it is accurate.

Some issues may fall on both sides, because depending on personal views it is a positive or negative. Most are far more easily categorized. If you disagree, please make a comment and give your reasons why. You may be right, so why not share your thoughts?

You can see some of my source information at On The Issues and 2008 Election ProCon.

Now for the breakdowns (in alphabetical order):

Rudy Giuliani

Pros –


• 9/11
  
• For the Death Penalty
  
• Finish Iraq war
  
• No Nuke Iran
  
• Waterboarding (Torture ok)
  
• Mayor of largest U.S. City
  
• Lower taxes
  
  Cons –
  
  
• Mixed on Gun Control
  
• No International experience
  
• Flipped on gay marriage
  
• Mayor was highest level of public service experience
  
• Relies heavily on 9/11
  
• Flipped on Immigration policies
  
• Horrendous Civil Liberties (Amidou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, ect)
  
• Sold out 42nd Street to corporations
  

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: death penalty, immigration policies, Iraq War, political issues, Presidential candidates, republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani, tax policy, waterboarding

Given the attention, and strong feelings on immigration, there is no surprise that it is a hot topic among the various Presidential candidates. Each has staked out a position, usually running along political party lines. But there is an aspect of immigration that gets far less attention and is perhaps the answer to the issue.

Many of the illegal immigrants in America at this time are Hispanic/Latino. That is neither a negative nor an accusation. The fact is, as best as can be determined, that there are some 12 million illegal immigrants from Spanish-speaking nations. The main reasons they have come to America is because they are looking for work, a high standard of living, and the ability to provide families in their home countries with a better life funded by the American dollars they send to them. I cannot fault those reasons. That does not change the fact that they have broken U.S. law.

[I must state that I have very strict views on immigration. I have spoken before on these views. To simply state it, I do not believe any illegal alien, or undocumented immigrant if it makes some sleep better, deserves any rights or public aide in America.]

While many are suggesting that the answer to this issue is a wall along the Southern border (while completely ignoring the larger and virtually unwatched Northern border) or placing National Guard troops on patrol, few are looking at the other end of the issue. Improving the quality of life and income in the native countries of these illegal immigrants.

Improvements of the trade agreements and ability to conduct international business would reach the people of those nations and thus help stem the flow into the United States. It will not end the illegal immigration issue, but it could improve it far more than a wall or troops.

But the key leading presidential candidates seem to be questionable in their resolve on this issue. As noted in an article at the Latin Business Chronicle,

“Measured by their voting records and/or statements, Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney are the best candidates, while Democrat John Edwards is the worst. Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton - the frontrunners in the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively - both have mixed records. The two have, however, been developing in different directions. While Clinton previously was seen as more favorable to free trade, she now is more critical, whereas Giuliani appears to have gone the opposite way.”

While Mr. Rudy Giuliani seems to be improving his position on free trade, which thus improves the chance to reduce illegal immigration at its source, Senator Clinton is traveling in the opposite manner. Mr. Giuliani is a bit trickier to decipher as he was merely a Mayor, albeit that the city was New York City. His choices and position is not nearly as strong as a political decision that impacts the entire nation.

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: illegal immigrant, immigration policies, presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Hillary Clinton

I read something that is quite interesting. It deals with the standing of the Democratic Presidential candidates, and the Democratic Party in general. It’s a view that is actually obvious, but no one seems to take on seriously. There is basically one voice among the Democrats, and that voice is far from the center.

From the various positions Democratic candidates have mentioned, like national healthcare and retreat from Iraq, and their actions, like going to the Daily Kos convention while ignoring the DLC convention, we see a picture that runs towards the left. That is an important observation, not because that is a good or bad thing, but rather that it is not what the average American agrees with. The average American is acknowledged to not be severely right or left on the political spectrum, but in the center. There may be an issue that they will go to the left and another that goes right, but the balance is to the center overall.

Given that fact, I have to wonder what will happen after the primaries. Given that the top Republican Presidential candidates are closer to the center than the extreme right, what will Democratic candidates do? It may be fine to be targeting an extreme vocal portion of an individual party to win a primary but that won’t work in a general election. Or will it?

Immigration is a huge issue. Will the Democratic Primary winner that the view of the extreme left, and if they don’t how can they pull back from positions made so far? National healthcare affects millions of Americans, and the extreme left want a more socialized medicine, as espoused by pundits like Michael Moore. Yet average Americans do not want to absorb the cost or usual inefficiencies found in government run programs (I submit the effectiveness of the DMV and Veterans Administration as examples). And the question of an immediate retreat from Iraq, as has been promised my virtually every candidate, matching the desires of the extreme left and similar to the disapproval of the war held in the general populace. Still most military advisors note that such an action will lead to instability that will definitely cause more American military loses of life and eventually attacks on America itself. Can the democratic primary winner back away for an instantaneous retreat the extreme is calling for and still win?

There are many issues and many views for each. I do not question which is right or wrong. I merely wonder that if presidential candidates have aligned themselves with extreme views of their respective parties, can they still serve the more centrist general populace in a manner they will approve of. I have to wonder that if extreme views are held today, and more centrist views are stated after the primaries, what position will a presidential candidate actually pursue after being elected.

Maybe it’s me but I wonder which points of view will be the ones affecting the nation and our lives for the next 4 years?

Labels: Democratic Party, election 2008, immigration policies, Iraq War, national healthcare, presidential candidate, republican

With half the over, and pundits as well as candidates crowing about how much money they raised, I have prepared to release the current results of my poll on who might win the 2008 Presidential election. Before I mention who is leading my informal poll I want to bring up something far more important. It’s not the question of how much money is coming to each of the candidates from the healthcare lobby (which is substantial – Senator Clinton leads on that) or other corporate donations. It’s not how the candidates have used the internet to gain funds from the general public (which even with the record breaking numbers raised by Senator Obama pale to the lobbyist and corporate donation). I’m not even looking at how pundits are so focused on the issue of money raised they discount anyone who has not raised enough money (like Mr. John Edwards and Senator McCain). No, the issue is that while every candidate has a website, roughly 42% of the public can’t find answers about the issues.

According to a iCrossing study, 42% is the number of people searching for information on issues and candidates only to find nothing is there. This includes websites for the candidates themselves. You might say well if those Americans that are say 45+ are looking they are not as familiar with the internet and computers, so it might be a mistake on their part. If you did say that yoou are wrong. The emphasis of those looking online for information are between thwe ages of 18 – 35.

Forty-seven percent of those who go online for information about candidates and issues use search engines to conduct their research, equal to the 46 percent who do not.

Of potential voters who are looking for election information online, 61 percent of 18 to 24 year olds and 55 percent of 25 to 34 year olds seek answers on user-driven content sites such as blogs, YouTube and Wikipedia.

Issue- oriented searches dominate over explorations of candidates' voting and personal histories by a margin of nearly two to one; yet nearly all candidates rank poorly for issue-based search visibility.

I want to emphasize that last part, nearly all candidates rank poorly for issue-based search visibility. Why is it so difficult to find answers about issues on a Presidential candidate’s website? They want to tell you how friendly, joe-average, just like you, they are, but they won’t speak clearly and definitively about say national healthcare. Or what is their exist strategy for Iraq, or what happens after we are gone. Information gets fuzzy about social security, or providing an education to ALL the children of the nation. Not even a straight answer on what they want to do about illegal immigration.

Let me be clear, I’m not saying that they have a soundbite; I’m talking about a plan. A beginning, middle and end. A structured outline that anyone who can read can understand or at least follow. You can easily learn why Mr. John Edwards paid $400 for a haircut, or that Senator Obama quit smoking, or how many times Mr. Rudy Giuliani has appeared in drag. But do you care? Is any of that more important to making sure that when you go to sleep at night, or your loved ones go to work, that you won’t have to fear a terrorist attack? How does the information they give compare to whether they can ensure that the American dream of your children living a better life than yours will be a reality?

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: immigration policies, Iraq War, Mitt Romney, presidential candidate, presidential election, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

Let’s think about what happened today. It’s May 1st and thousands of illegal aliens took to the streets throughout the nation today. Their goal was getting immigration reforms passed that would legalize their presence in the nation. Almost sounds impressive.

That is if you don’t consider the fact that these illegal aliens do not have the right to assemble, the right to free speech, cannot vote, nor have representation in the government. Those are rights of citizens of this nation. In effect they just gummed up the works in various major cities, increasing the need for police and law enforcement officials which will be paid for by myself and other citizens since these illegal aliens do not pay taxes either. That just pisses me off.

Yes I’m sure there were citizens in the crowds as well. But there were many illegal immigrants as well. Were it up to me, I would have used the manpower of law enforcement officials at the protest sites to round up as many illegal immigrants as possible and deport them all. Why this wasn’t done makes no sense to me.

I’ve seen the news all day showing various individuals complaining how may of the illegals have created families and are part of communities having lived in this nation for decades. Is this supposed to make me feel bad about their situation? The fact they have been a drain on the system for decades, and knowing that my tax dollars have helped to pay their medical bills and college tuitions without any contribution from them is not endearing to me. Do you feel bad that all the money you have paid in taxes every week and by April 15th every year goes to benefit people that NEVER pay taxes or have them taken out of their pay?[ok, not all your taxes but yet a good portion of them] Do you feel bad that there are entitlement programs in existence just to help them have better lives, and we cannot get relief or help from those same programs because we make too much money and are citizens of our own country? Makes me all warm and fuzzy.

I’ve listened to the illegal aliens and ultra-liberals cry about how families are being broken up with the current policy. But I forgot when it was I invited any of these people to come here, and then have kids. Each of them knew that if they got caught they would be deported, so it’s not a sudden risk just was added by the government. In addition, many of these illegal immigrants know that many liberal cities and officials won’t deport a family that have children (especially if the child is a citizen by being born here) who cannot support themselves. I have no doubt that some chose to have children just so the difficulty is increased. Smart plan, but highly deceptive. Hardly endearing.

Were it my choice, I’d deport the parents and the kids go into the governments care. I’d rather pay taxes for the state to raise a kid than keep their parents illegally in the nation longer. They made the choice and knew the potential problems. I don’t feel bad when the consequences of their actions come to fruition as negative actions to them.

I have to ask another question. If so many illegal immigrants have the balls to clog up our streets, protesting our laws, and making demands of us, why in the world don’t they go and change the government and laws in their own lands? Maybe for some it’s because it would take hard work, time, and there wouldn’t be any bleeding hearts waiting in the wings ready to give away their hard earned assets for no reason other than the fact they exist. Maybe that is part of the reason, maybe not. Either way they still don’t deserve any of the things we allow them to have here. The very least they could do while enjoying this free ride is to get out of the streets and stop demanding anything.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: college tuition, illegal immigrant, immigration policies

Concluding Response to comments on Immigration and student aid for college...

Given that there is no identical nation to America, the similarities to other nations cultures is hit and miss in a buckshot pattern. 1 million immigrants of any nation would have varying degrees of integration difficulty. Canada is no better or worse than any other country.

I also feel a subtle confusion has occurred. The assumption is that your comments are comparing similar groups of immigrants. This is not the case. When you mention 15 million Hispanics you mention they are poor and from the 3rd world. You forgot to mention that they are also illegally here. To my knowledge most illegal aliens are poor and from lesser countries. That is why they come to America and other nations. To improve their lives. Immigrants that are rich, and/or from non-3rd world nations tend to be less likely to immigrate illegally. They have a lesser need, and time is not a factor that is detrimental to them. In addition the more poor the individual, and the worse the conditions of their native country the less likely they are to have higher educations. That does not mean they are stupid, just less educated. Doctors of any nation have less difficulty immigrating than do bricklayers, in any nation.

To be fair 750,000 poor Canadians that speak French, with sub-high school educations (by American standards) and enter the nation illegally would be a more accurate comparison. Given that comparison do you feel they would integrate into society easily even though they come from a 1st or 2nd world country?

Also do you feel that if 15 million English speaking, middle or higher income (American standard), white-collar, German or Italian (as an example) illegal immigrants were in the nation would that raise the ire and national cries for immigration reform? Does it change if they are now Hispanic? Does it change if they are less educated or don’t speak English or any of the other factors? What combination makes illegal immigrants a national issue? How much of a factor is the fact that many illegal aliens are identifyable due to language and color of skin?

Thus I do not feel that I have made an invalid cry of racism. In fact I mentioned it as a factor, which I have not noted you disputing. I did not state that it was the only reason, which you imply. In comparing apples to apples my opinion does not change. I do not want any illegal alien to receive any benefit derived from citizen taxes. I do think that Canada has proven to be a greater danger to national security than Mexico and continues to be to this day. Efforts to improve national security via heightened activity on the Mexican border is a waste of money if there is no effort to improve the Canadian border as well. The legal immigration policy of the United States is skewed to Europe at the near exclusion of many other nations.

You do not provide facts that dispute any of the points I have made. You have not commented on the immigration policy of this nation which does have a racial component to it. You ignored the point of the post which was the compensation of illegal aliens with money that comes from citizen taxes. You did not touch the point that terrorists have come via Canada into this nation illegally and thus more should be done to secure that border. You ignored the point that language is equally as important in identifying illegal aliens as is skin color.

If you feel I am racist, please tell me why. But do not claim I have made a racist commentary when you take a portion of what I said without considering the whole of what I have said.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Canada, education, homeland security, illegal aliens, immigration policies

I just heard about something that is offensive and troubling. It seems that Representative Virgil H Goode Jr. has a problem with Muslims. I come to this conclusion via his comments made in a December 5th letter. If you have not heard about this you should.

The letter in question states, “I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped,“ among other choice words. It makes me ask what is wrong with Representative Goode.

I assume something must be wrong with him because if there is not, and he is reflecting the views of his constituents in Virginia, then there are problems in this nation that are worse than what I would have guessed. I must say that Representative Goode, and any person that agrees with him, do not represent me or other Republicans I know. I can’t imagine how a narrow-minded view of this nation could have representation in this government. Yes I realize the President is very religious and that factors into many of his decisions, but at the same time I do not see him promoting religious persecution.

Rep. Goode, as well as Mr. Dennis Prager and others that fail to think (in my opinion), seems terrified that any other religion exists. Especially if they exist in this nation. Perhaps they have all forgotten that this nation was created in part due to the hope of religious freedom. Perhaps they forget that this nation has always been a mix of cultures and nationalities and religion. The original 13 colonial states and territories represented Spain, England, France and other nations. Every single person that signed the Declaration was an immigrant.

But that is only part of the problem with this letter. I would like to know how a person’s religion has anything to do with immigration, legal or otherwise. It would seem that Rep. Goode and others have no idea what issue they wish to be lashing out about. This letter is a sweeping statement of how small-minded some can be, I feel.

Let me slow down and focus, unlike this letter. First I am angered by what I see as blatant fear of Muslims, whether they are American or otherwise. If this letter were aimed at those who are Jewish the outcry would be huge. If it were against Lutherans, or Protestants, or born-again Christians Rep. Goode would have calls to be removed. Why should it be any different when this is directed against Muslims?

Second, the private swearing in ceremony has nothing to do with the position the politicians are elected to do. I doubt that a Jewish politician is asked to use a Bible, and the official swearing in is devoid of any religious connection (due to a little thing called separation of church and state). Rep. Keith Ellison is free to use (or not use) any religious tome he chooses. He hasn’t asked anyone else to use the Koran, or become a Muslim. Only a fool, in my opinion, would demand that everyone believe and do what one group says – except perhaps in a dictatorship or Communist state.

Third, immigration is a separate issue. Rep. Ellison is a native African American citizen.
Fourth, what is wrong with Muslims living in America? Many Americans are Muslim and since some of them will have children it seems natural that the number of Muslims will grow over the next century even if none immigrated to this nation. So what’s wrong with that? The number of Muslims has been growing in America for decades. The actual statement from Rep. Goode seems to be that Black or Arab or non-White Muslims are a bad thing for America. If that is correct it is blatant racism. That kind of thinking once justified slavery, and genocide. Actually it still does, which is a shame.

Fifth, what values and beliefs is Rep. Goode afraid of losing? What resources could be swamped? The freedom of speech or religion? The freedom to elect representatives to our government? The desire to raise a family and do a good day’s work? How might an immigrant change that or any religious group? Should these “strict immigration policies” extend to Jews or Catholics or Lutherans? Should these “strict immigration policies” extend to non-Christian immigrants from France, England, Germany, Italy, Russia, or just those who come from those nations and are not Caucasian?

I have this to say, the world is not just one religion. It never has been. I doubt if it will ever be as long as humans walk the earth. Fear of the unknown is powerful and destructive. It benefits no one. In my opinion those who wrap themselves in such a cloak diminish what makes us human and American.

Legal immigration to this nation should not be based on religion or color. But this is the real world and color has always been a factor (I recall that the percentage of immigrants from European nations was roughly 70% of all immigrants) which is sad. Some wish that they can hide from the reality of the world. They feel like that American should be the all white nation that movies, television shows and their romanticized memories of the 50’s seem to depict. Thankfully this is not true.

Individuals of color and various religions have helped to create the nation we live in and the quality of life we enjoy. At least a third of this nation is non-Caucasian, and different religions are a reality. This is part of the strength of America. To limit that is to limit our greatness. To try to penalize citizens, or others in the world, for their personal freedoms is to descend to a nation more like Communist Russia (penalized Jews and Russian Orthodox Christians) or China or North Korea (filled with paranoia and still preparing to finish fighting a war that stopped 50 years ago) than to be what we are or hope to be.

This is not merely what I would call small-minded. This is stupid [I define ignorant as a lack of knowledge, stupid is the ability to have knowledge and the refusal to act on that ability] and dangerous. Perhaps people in Virginia think that Rep. Goode is a great elected official, perhaps he has done well for them. I don’t know as this is the first I’ve heard of the man, but the first impression he has made leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth. I can only hope more feel the same.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, born-again Christians, Dennis Prager, immigration policies, Rep. Keith Ellison, Rep. Virgil Goode