Sunday, April 28

World population growth history

The number of people on earth didn't hit one billion until about 1804.

Adding the next billion took just 123 years.

Adding the next billion took 33 years.

Adding the next billion took just 13 years--as did adding the each of the next 3 billions.

I'm not part of the school that believes governments should enact draconian population-control measures, but connnecting dots like this is pretty thought-provoking.  Reason is that the big cities are cesspools of the worst of human behavior, and growth of those cities is almost certain to make that worse.

Doesn't bode well.

Saturday, April 27

Ogabe administration: Illegals are entitled to become American citizens as a "civil right"

Three days ago Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech to a convention of the "Mexican American Defense and Educational Fund," in which he said "our neighbors who are undocumented"--no Democrat calls them "illegal aliens"--have a civil right to become US citizens.

The exact quote: 
Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country is essential. The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented – by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows – transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and human rights.

You need to see this to believe it.  Video here.

Okay, let's see if I've got this straight:  Holder was hand-picked by Obama for the position of AG, so you'd think he would have cleared any policy this radical with his boss rather than just winging it.  So evidently it's now the policy of the Obozo administration that people who enter the U.S. illegally nevertheless have the right to become U.S. citizens.

Rights are funny things.  If you're already a U.S. citizen the government doesn't believe you have the right to demand that government officials obey the law--as in Ogabe's unilateral decision to stop deporting illegals, in violation of U.S. law.  Or as in Eric Holder's department intentionally selling guns to straw buyers who re-sold them to Mexican drug cartels.  But that same government has suddenly decided that illegal aliens have the right to become U.S. citizens--that it's one of their civil rights.

Say, Mr. Holder--you lying, lawbreaking, socialist POS--if this theory applies to Mexicans, wouldn't it apply equally to everyone in the world?  So under this new policy wouldn't it mean anyone could sneak into the U.S. and be guaranteed a path to citizenship?  Wow.

By the way, Mr. Holder:  There's already a "path to earned citizenship" for anyone interested.  It's described in detail in this arcane set of words called "laws of the land."  You really should check those out sometime, since it's clear you have almost no acquaintance with any of them.

Friday, April 26

Boston bombing story, part 83

Okay, you gotta read the story at the link.  It's from the Boston Globe and is an interview with the guy who was carjacked by the Marathon bombers.

I really can't condense it, but one thing jumped out at me:  The guy is a 26-year-old Chinese immigrant--who asked the paper to call him Danny instead of his real name.  He came here in 2009 to work on a master's degree in engineering, had started a company and was doing very well--hell, he was driving a $50,000 Mercedes.

I couldn't help comparing Danny's story with that of the bombers:  They'd been given citizenship, scholarships, welfare--seemingly everything--but were mad as hell at the U.S. and all Americans.  They hadn't done very much positive but had largely been slackers.  They didn't seem on a good path.

I wondered if anything other than chance might have accounted for the vast difference in their situations.  Was Danny from a wealthy family, perhaps?  A spy financed by the Chinese army, perhaps?  Could it be that the mother of the bombers--from TV clips seemingly twisted and hyper-dramatic--had passed her negative world-view on to her sons?

Unfortunately, since I've been thoroughly indoctrinated in Political Correctness by our alleged betters in government--with the vital help of our Mainstream Lying Media--I can't come up with anything else that might explain the difference. 

It's a complete mystery.

Dem operatives forged signatures on petitions that got Obama on the ballot in '08

An Indiana jury has found that both Obama and Hillary Clinton got on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election by fraudulent means. 

Two Democratic political operatives were found guilty on all counts of forging signatures on petitions needed to place Obama and Clinton on the 2008 presidential ballot.

Prosecutor Stan Levco told reporters that the guilty verdict was "not a verdict against Democrats, but for honest and fair elections."

He went on to say that blame for the conviction of these fine, upstanding fellows should really rest with George Bush, since Bush invaded Iraq, which prompted 19 idealistic young Muslim men to fly some planes into some nearly-vacant real estate in New York City.  This act caused "post-traumatic stress disorder" to the two Democratic operatives, leading to their confused but well-intentioned conduct.

Besides, he added, rules involving elections are really complicated, and no one had ever told the two Democratic officials that forging signatures on a petition was illegal.  "It was a totally understandable mistake," he said.

Asked to comment, the head of the Voting Rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice said there is absolutely no evidence of vote fraud in the U.S., and that the prosecution of these two upstanding Democrats was nothing more than a "witch-hunt" by Republican extremists trying to suppress votes in the minority community.

It's possible those last 3 grafs may have gotten garbled in transmission but I think you get the drift.

Thursday, April 25

Obama: Use of chemical weapons by Assad would be a "game-changer." Wait....

What world figure said “the use of chemical weapons is a game-changer”?

Why, that was none other than Barack Hussein Obama.

But that was way back in...oh, just ages ago.  And now the White House has received conclusive evidence that the regime of Bashir Assad in Syria has used the nerve gas "sarin"--i.e. a chemical weapon--on Syrian rebels.  Congressional leaders have reportedly received a letter from the White House confirming this conclusion.

Well well well...  So Barky "drew a red line" regarding use of chem weapons, and Assad used 'em.  What do you think Barky will do now that Assad has crossed his line?

If you answered "Not a damn thing," you have a solid understanding of how Obama operates.

See, Obama never thought events would call him on his "red line" ultimatum about the use of chemical weapons.  His m.o. for his whole life has been "Say anything to get to the top and don't worry about whether you'll ever be called on it, because everyone will give you a pass.  Because you're half-black and have a gift of gab.

And if anyone should be foolish enough to question one of your past statements that turned out to be outright bullshit, just mouth some lofty platitude and change the subject.  No one will try to drag you back to the topic, and anyone who did try would quickly be shouted down by your lackeys.

Let's play Armchair National Strategist for a minute:  Is there a *single person* in this country who honestly believes that if New York harbor or Baltimore or Hampton Roads was vaporized by a conveniently-"lost" Iranian atomic bomb, Barky would order U.S. forces to retaliate with nuclear weapons?

I don't think for a second that he'd order any military retaliation at all--even if proof of the bomb's origins was unequivocal.  Reason is that there would always be enough "wiggle room" that would allow him to rationalize doing nothing.

Democrats may retort that this is simply impossible--that if a nuke destroyed half of New York harbor and isotope signatures identified the bomb as Iranian or North Korean or Pakistani, Obozo would be *compelled* to retaliate in kind.

Sorry, no way.  This is the gang that thought they'd get away with a bullshit story that the killings of four Americans in Benghazi was caused by Muslim outrage over a goofy video. They'd rather lie to the American public than call on the U.S. military for help.  (The only reason they're still in Afghanistan is that they can blame that war on Boosh and the GOP.)

Nuclear weapons strategy in two sentences:  If you have nukes and your enemy thinks you just *might* use them, the chances of him attacking you go way down.  But if your enemy thinks you absolutely would *never* use them, their deterrent value drops to zero.

Which is exactly where we find ourselves at the moment.

Saturday, April 20

The so-called "gang of 8" senators rolled out their 844-page immigration "reform" bill Thursday.  For supporters the timing couldn't have been better since the search for the Boston Marathon bombers pretty much crowded it off the nation's front pages and news programs.  Then the shoot-outs Friday ensured that the details of the bill wouldn't make it into the public domain in more than a technical way.

Wait, isn't publicity something that's normally sought after?  Normally, yes, but in this case the bill's supporters actually don't want publicity, because their so-called "reform" bill would provide amnesty to at least 11 million illegal immigrants.

Yep, amnesty--as I've been telling you for a month.  It also provides for the expedited awarding of "green cards" to roughly 4.5 million relatives of those granted amnesty.  It would also increase the inflow of blue-collar and professional workers to more than 1 million per year.

So the bill will recruit roughly 11 million more Democratic party voters.  And now for the "reform" part:

So as you see, the bill is tough but even-handed and fair.

Oh, and during the televised senate press conference the head of the union representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers tried to ask New York senator Chuck Schumer a question about the bill.  Tried three times, and Schumer ignored him.

Well, didn't completely ignore him, as security personnel grabbed him and escorted him out of the conference room.

See how democracy works, kids?  It's that open, "transparent" government Lord Obama promised would happen under his benevolent reign.  It allows open, robust debate on all topics--at least those it approves of.  And anyone can ask questions of the leaders.  Of course they don't have to answer, and if they think you're gonna ask one that might make them look...bad...they'll have you thrown out.  But you can certainly ask.

I suspect the Founders are spinning in their graves at the state of the U.S. government in 2013.

Sunday, April 14

Two theories of history

There are two broad theories of history:  The first holds that a handful of heroic figures can change the outcome of events, and thus the course of history.  Since this theory was formally outlined before the age of political correctness it was called the "great man" theory.

By contrast, the other theory is a bit depressing:  It holds that because major nations are so large, the sum of the beliefs and acts of all a nation's people has such massive inertia that it can't be altered by any one person.  Thus even if a heroic person manages to inspire fellow citizens to win one battle against impossible odds, it won't change the course of history because a nation eventually, inevitably goes where the collective desires of its citizens take it.

Accordingly, this destination is beyond the power of one person to change.  This probably has a name but I'll call it the "momentum theory" of history.

These competing theories seem to be analogous to the religious ones of free will versus pre-destination.

As a big fan of free will I would like to think a determined, inspired person can change the course of history for the better.  Unfortunately the combination of a media totally devoted to supporting one party, and a government that has arrogated to itself the power to buy the votes of the indigent and low-skilled, would seem to be beyond the power of any single person to counter, short of war.

Moreover, the momentum theory has a crucial advantage:  people who live off the taxpayers typically have significantly more children than the average--and their offspring are more likely to vote to increase the number of taxpayer-funded "freebies" they can get. Thus the number of people who will vote for politicians who promise them more taxpayer-funded benefits will grow exponentially.  If 52% of voters vote Democrat today, that figure may not decline in the future.

For the first 120 years after the signing of the Constitution we could count on its seemingly clear language to restrain the federal government to its original, Constitutional functions.  But thanks to liberal judges and corrupt pols the Constitution has been discarded as the supreme law of the land.

And if this isn't enough, in a few months the number of people voting for taxpayer-funded "freebies" will be swelled by 11 million currently-illegal aliens who will be given American citizenship, courtesy of Obama, the Democrats and a handful of corrupt RINOs.

If anyone out there has any ideas about how to get this country back to the Constitution I'd love to hear 'em.

Gas prices have almost doubled in just 5 years--MSM yawns

Victor Davis Hanson lives in California's central valley, and thus has a front-row seat to watch the decline of the former Golden State--which is by all evidence simply the leading edge of the trajectory of the whole U.S.

As many bloggers do, Hanson is struck by the way the media ignores things happening now that they always wailed were so awful before Obozo took office.  For example, he notes that when Bush was in office the Lying Media constantly wailed about high gas prices.  They disproportionately hurt the poor!  They were high because Booosh was conspiring to increase profits for his friends in Big-Oil!

But with Democrat Obama in charge, have you read or heard much in the MSM about how high gas prices are?  Seen any breathless lead stories on the nightly network news?

Democrats snark that the reason you don't see such stories is simply that the price of gasoline hasn't risen much since Obozo took office.

Hahahahahahaha!  In fact, when Bush left office the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline in the U.S. was $1.90.  As I'm writing this it's something like $3.70.

In other words, the price has almost doubled in just five years.

Normally you'd think this would be a huge story--any time the cost of a basic commodity that so many have to buy to get to work jumps an average of 20 percent per year, the media have historically screamed it from the rooftops.

But today, with a Dem in the White House and Dems controlling the senate?  Crickets....totally a non-issue.

What would normally be a headline story is a non-issue because the media ignore it, knowing that the average voter can't remember what the price of anything was even a year ago.

And of course, most NY and DC media types don't care how much gas costs since it doesn't directly, significantly affect them.  Sweet, huh.

Saturday, April 13

"Our southern border is more secure than ever." New radar says that's a crock

One of the standard tricks Democrat presidents and congresswhores use to win support for ghastly laws that normally would never pass is to include a provision in any controversial bill that's designed solely to overcome any misgivings opponents might have about said bill.

For example, Americans are rightly concerned about the huge wave of illegals sneaking across the Mexican border, and a majority want the border to be secured as a pre-condition before any so-called immigration "reform" (actually the waiving of virtually all substantive restrictions on immigration. 

Accordingly, the authors of the laughably-misnamed immigration "reform" bill included a provision solemnly promising that the Border Patrol and other fed agencies will catch 90 percent of would-be illegal crossers.

Of course it should be obvious to any adult that neither congress nor a president can be sure this will be achieved, so the bill includes another provision that if--by some wild chance--the promised goal of 90% apprehension isn't achieved, a federal commission will be created--and funded with a billion dollars of your money.

Well there ya go, citizen.  Nothin' to see here.

Come on.  No rational person can possibly believe that creating a federal commission will magically solve the problem of waves of foreigners illegally sneaking across the border.  (If you believe that I've got some oceanfront property in Kentucky I'll sell you really cheap.)  All the provision does is provide cover that will enable RINOs to claim that the so-called "reform" bill they voted for really really reduced illegal immigration.

To be blunt: Anyone who buys that BS is too stupid to live.

And on that topic:  Anyone recall hearing or reading about Obozo and congressional Dems claiming--constantly--that their policies have made the Mexican border "more secure than ever before"?   Well for the past year or so the Border Patrol has been flying a sophisticated new radar on a small drone aircraft over the southern border. 

The radar--on loan from the Army--is kinda different from most, in that it can see people.  And what it sees is transmitted back to the operator.

Where it's recorded.

You can see where this is going, right?

Between October and December of last year the Border Patrol claims to have apprehended a total of 410 people crossing into the U.S. illegally, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting. (That figure may just be for Arizona--the linked story doesn't specify.)

Guess how many people the drone airborne radar spotted crossing into the U.S. during that same period?

Over seven thousand.  And that's the number of illegals detected by *one* radar, which obviously can only see a limited area of the border at any given time.

In other words, the feds caught less than six percent of the people who illegally entered the U.S. across the Mexican border during that period.

The recently-retired head of the Tucson sector of the Border Patrol claims the government is deliberately being misleading about how many illegal crossers made it into the U.S..  Gosh, why in the world would the Obama administration want to do that?

Oh, did we mention that a so-called immigration "reform" bill is about to be passed by the Dem-controlled senate?  With help from RINOs?

But don't worry, Citizen; everything's juuuuuuust fine.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

What was that old saying again?  Something along the lines of  "People get the government they deserve"?

Monday, April 8

Obozo postpones missile test to avoid riling North Korea, then claims "We are absolutely not bowing to pressure from them."

Did anyone else notice that the Obama administration has ordered that a routine, long-planned test launch of a missile--from California--be postponed, so as not to upset North Korea?

Did you also notice that the same administration of fools and liars announced "We are absolutely not bowing to pressure from North Korea"?

Yep, on Sunday senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer said the decision was "absolutely not" a retreat after Pyongyang's recent aggressive actions against the U.S. and its allies in the Western Pacific.

Yes, he actually said that.  What's even crazier is that over the past 24 hours that exact phrase has appeared roughly 12,000 times as a graphic on all the television networks.  (The phrase "not bowing to pressure north korea" returned 2.5 million hits.)

It's so amusing to watch the MSM uncritically broadcast even an obvious lie by the Obozo administration.  But not surprising, since half of all Americans are literally unable to recognize a brazen lie by a Democrat when they see one.

No surprise at all.

Sunday, April 7

Illegal entry across Mexican border up 500 percent over a year ago

As the Obama administration claims the U.S. border with Mexico has never been more secure, high-ranking Border Patrol officials in Texas are seeing a surge of illegal immigrants in the Rio Grande Valley.

Between August and December of last year the number of people crossing illegally into the U.S. from Mexico was five times higher than a year earlier, according to the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies.  Border Patrol sources said many of those entering illegally are Central Americans and South Americans.

The huge increase in the number of illegals seems to be an unintended consequence of the Democrat-led push for so-called immigration "reform"--widely expected to be amnesty for those already here.  Apprehended illegals say that between the expected amnesty for those already here and the recent Obama policy of releasing illegals detained by the Border Patrol, entering the U.S. illegally has become a no-lose proposition.

Significantly, in the past those caught crossing illegally usually opted to be sent back to Mexico, but now an increasing number are invoking their right to a hearing, for two reasons:  First, budget cuts mean they are likely to simply be released in the U.S, as the Obama administration did with some 3000 illegals in the last two months.  Second, they believe establishing a record of their arrival in the U.S.--despite coming in illegally--will help when the president or congress gives amnesty to all illegal aliens, as expected.

Unintended consequences of a Democrat policy?  Who could have guessed?

Saturday, April 6

Man uses rifle to kill a mom defending her daughter; MSM ignores story

In Arizona on April 1st a 25-year-old man entered the home of a mother and her 13-year-old daughter and demanded that the mother agree to let him have a "romantic relationship" (as the reporter described it) with the 13-year-old.

When the mother refused, the man pulled out a rifle and fatally shot the mother.

Yes, the killer used a rifle--the same class of weapon allegedly used by the Sandy Hook shooter.

Since the shooter used one of those awful, kid-killing rifles, and killed an unarmed mother who was trying to protect her daughter from what the mom saw as an unwise relationship, you'd think this story would have been headline news on the alphabet networks for at least a week.

What?  You say you didn't hear a word about this?

Wow, that's astonishing.  Why would the MSM ignore this story?  It had one of those demon rifles, and a man shooting an unarmed mom trying to keep her daughter out of trouble.  You'd think that would have been national headlines.

Yet the national media totally ignored it.  Given their priority goal of demonizing privately-owned guns--let alone the demon rifle--the lack of national media coverage doesn't make sense.

Oh, wait. You don't suppose the media's disinterest be because the killer was an illegal alien, do ya?  Cuz, you know, you can understand that a story about a scary rifle being used to kill an unarmed mother trying to protect her 13-year-old daughter is only newsworthy if the shooter is a white male American.  If the killer is an illegal alien the MSM immediately reclassifies the story as "not newsworthy."

Oh, and guess which side of the so-called immigration "reform" push the MSM will take?

"Let's give everyone a guaranteed income!"

Y'know, it's just totally unfair that some people in the U.S. have to get by on meager welfare or disability payments.  So here's a great idea:

Why not have the federal government give every person in the nation an amount of money each month equal to the average wage of all working people?  We could call the program "guaranteed income," and it would end poverty in a single day.

That is so cool!

What's that?  Did you ask how such a program can be funded?  What a ridiculous question!  You must hate the poor!  You must be a racist!  Sexist!  You must hate children and single moms!  Because a guaranteed income program would greatly benefit those groups.

I don't have to explain how the government could afford such a program, because it doesn't matter:  The government can simply borrow the money needed.  After all, it's for the children.

You say you think giving everyone a guaranteed income would increase the number of people deciding not to work? Nonsense!  We know that's nonsense because we like what we do, so it follows that everyone enjoys work.  So your charge is baseless.  And we know that because we're professors.

If I were to seriously advocate the above idea, virtually every American with an IQ over 90 would see the obvious flaws.  But if a couple of leftist professors wrote it and a national magazine published it, every leftist and Democrat and so-called "progressive" would proclaim it a fabulous idea.

And of course this idea was published--way back in 1966--in the Nation..

If you follow politics you've probably heard of the "Cloward-Piven strategy"--a plan that's been described as having been designed to destroy capitalism and conservative government by overwhelming both with "demands" from people insisting that it's your responsibility (thus your obligation) to give them all the fruits of hard-working middle class people--without their having to work.

I'd seen clips of Piven speaking but had never seen their defining article until today. here and prepare to be astonished as professors Cloward and Piven outlined their plan in The Nation magazine 47 years ago.

Of course The Nation is also the mag that published the line, "Cheap oil, once a boon, is now a bane," so they're definitely nuts.

March job growth anemic--Team Obozo says economy "continues to recover"

Yesterday the federal government released the jobs report for March--which showed the lowest job creation in months.

Predictably, this was characterized by Team Obozo as yet another sign that the economy continues to recover.

Yes, White House chief economist Alan Krueger boldly claimed that the dismal March job-creation figure "provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression.”

Ah yes, economy "continues to recover."

Remember all the critical stories by the Lying Media about the so-called "jobless recovery" back when W was president?  That talking point--put out by Dem strategists and eagerly repeated by virtually every network and news outlet--pushed the message that even if the stock market was doing well, one couldn't reasonably claim the economy was "recovering" if job growth was anemic.

Have you heard or seen that phrase "jobless recovery" in the MSM lately?  No? 

Gosh, I wonder why it's not being mentioned.

Just kidding, citizen!  You haven't heard that phrase because our economy is actually going great guns!  BOOMING, I tells ya!  Just ask Team Obama. 

Krueger added that the jobs report was evidence that country needed to continue the policies of Lord Obama, and got in the usual Dem talking point that it was vital that we “continue the policies that are helping to build an economy that creates jobs and works for the middle class as we dig our way out of the deep hole that was caused by the severe recession that began in December 2007.”

In other words, if we have any economic troubles now, they're all Bush's fault!  Because everyone knows that even a president as brilliant and powerful as Lord Obama couldn't possibly dig the economy out of the huge hole dug by Bush in a paltry five years.

On the other hand, five years is more than enough time to wreck it:  "Cash for Clunkers", porkulus bill, pouring money on so-called "shovel-ready jobs" that didn't exist; billions of government grants to so-called "green energy" companies that promptly went bankrupt; more federal borrowing than ever;  draconian EPA regulations intended to close coal-fired powerplants (the ones that make electricity at the lowest cost); and finally, that masterpiece of economic destruction, Obamacare--which has had the wonderful effect of causing companies with fewer than 50 employees to refrain from hiring new employees in order to stay below the number that would trigger a huge increase in insurance and regulatory costs.

Brilliant.  But of course, each of those disastrous programs bought votes for Democrats, so it was well worth whatever they cost the taxpaying peasants.

A billion dollars missing from some gummint program?

After hurricane Katrina seven years ago, the government gave a billion dollars to residents of New Orleans to--as Diane Sawyer puts it--elevate their homes or otherwise reinforce them to reduce damage from the *next* hurricane.  The average grant or gift was $30,000.

And I know y'all will be shocked--shocked--to hear that according to ABC News, most of the homeowners simply pocketed this "free" money and spent it on something else.

This is why the Founders--the men who drafted, debated and ratified our Constitution--did not give the federal government the power to spend money in that way.  And for the first 150 years of our republic that prohibition was honored.

But eventually, power-hungry or merely deluded and shortsighted presidents--with the support of a majority of congresswhores of the same bent--began ignoring that restriction.  Oh, but they had the best of intentions.  And every dollar they "appropriated" from the treasury (i.e. from the taxpayer) was intended to ease the suffering of someone somewhere.

And it's usually said to be "for the children," so who could complain?

Problem is, where do you draw the line?  If congress can give a billion to ease the misfortune of one group, why not to another, and then another?

Indeed, what would prevent congress from giving a billion dollars to, say, Egyptian farmers who'd suffered crop failure after a drought?  Or a mere $100 billion to give "free" breakfast and lunch to schoolkids in politically-favored areas?

And of course the answer is:  Once that door is opened even a tiny bit, all restraints are off.

Oh, and that $700 million that vanished into the pockets of New Orleans residents instead of being used to "elevate" their homes?  Chump change--considering that the same federal government has passed bills appropriating $51 Billion taxpayer dollars to give to voters in the New York area hit by hurricane Sandy.

Just curious:  I pay a huge amount every year for homeowner's insurance.  My mortgage requires that I do that, and it seems to be a pretty sound idea.  So did the residents of NYC and surroundings just not have such insurance?  And if they didn't, should taxpayers be forced to bail them out?

Rhetorical question, of course, since you already have.  Courtesy of a congress and president who ignore the Constitution.  As did their far too many of their predecessors.

Patrick Leahy thinks we need to rush through immigration "reform"

Patrick Leahy is a Democrat senator from Vermont, and a hard-left so-called "progressive."  He chairs the senate Judiciary Committee, which is a very powerful post.

Recently senator Marco Rubio sent Leahy an letter urging that immigration "reform" [ha.] be done in a transparent, un-rushed manner.  Leahy replied by letter that "if we do not act quickly and decisively we will lose the opportunity we now have to fix our immigration system.”

Tells us, senator Leahy, what is it you think has happened in the past few weeks or months that gives us this allegedly unique "opportunity" to allegedly "fix" immigration.  What is it, in your view, that will be irretrievably lost if we take the time to debate bills before opening the floodgates to ten million more immigrants, drawn by a sudden amnesty or such?

I hope you'll forgive me if I cynically conclude that you're simply posturing to pressure Republicans into supporting a rushed bill granting amnesty, because you want to legalize the 11 million or 15 million or 20 million or how many illegals are here now, because you're highly confident that they'll vote for your party.

Hell, we know a lot of 'em are voting now, even though it's illegal.

Oh, that's right:  They're already here illegally, so what's the big deal about voting illegally?

Patrick, I hope you have kids.  And I hope they eventually realize that you've been working tirelessly to give away their country.