Border Security

A lot of attention has been made this election season on the topic of immigration. Those on the right have been promoting border security and deportation as a means to reduce the tide of illegals flowing into the country. Those on the left have been promoting comprehensive reform, amnesty and punishing the employers of illegal aliens. There are a few problems with those ideas. There is a legal way to become a citizen or even a documented worker. It might take a while, but to be a citizen of this country is worth the wait. I constantly hear about this comprehensive reform, I've never heard what it means though. My only thought can be that the libtards are using "comprehensive reform" as another word for amnesty. Amnesty is one of the worse things we could do to our country. Americans are having trouble finding jobs and the libtards want to magically overnight add 12 million more people to the job hunt, that sounds like a great idea (sarcasm added). A weak argument claims that these illegals do the work that Americans won't do. Americans can't do the work because an illegal is doing it. We have programs like social security and medicare that will be swamped with new beneficiaries as 12 million people enroll on these failing programs. Libtards want to give amnesty to 12 million people on the basis that they will become loyal democratic voters. They figure if they give them social security, medical care, welfare, food stamps and all the other entitlement programs America offers for it's citizens, they will automatically vote for the party that got them citizenship. I'd say it would be a safe bet, at least for the first few years. The worst part about illegal aliens is most of them are already receiving entitlement benefits reserved for American citizens. It amuses me that one of the libtard answers to curb illegal immigration is to punish the employers who hire illegals. The government already requires businesses to check the immigration status of all employees. An I-9 has to be filled out by the employer and signed by the employee under the penalty of perjury that they are legally in this country. I'll be the first to admit, there are employers out there that knowingly hire illegals but that's only half of it. What about the illegals that lie and have forged or fake identification? How can we expect employers to act as immigration officials when immigration officials don't? According to the federal government, you can't ask someone to prove they are legal.

I feel the biggest area we need to fix and quickly is border security, not only because of the illegals coming across looking for work or a better life but because of the drug cartels that are smuggling drugs, humans and God knows what else into our country. Drug cartels have taken over parts of the United States, in response, the federal government sends signs down to warn US citizens that foreign criminals are controlling this part of OUR country and that we shouldn't go there. Instead of sending National Guard troops, increasing Border Patrol agents or even building a fence "the admin" decides that signs would be better. Signs, really? Better than armed troops, I think not. Drug cartels are targeting county sheriffs of US states. Drug cartels are sending armed groups of assassins to secure US soil to make sure no shipments are hijacked. These are heavily armed and highly equipped mercenaries that have one mission, don't let anything happen to the shipments. US consulate was gunned down by cartel gangs. US citizens have been killed by cartels on US soil and the gov't hasn't even spoke to Mexican officials about it. It took a couple of weeks before Mexico even started an investigation. Another problem is other gov't bureaucratic departments. Department of Interior and EPA require such extensive studies and reports it takes months of paperwork and investigative studies to allow our agents access to areas that illegals are using to cross the border.

"The simple truth is that we've lost control of our own borders, and no Nation can do that and survive. We ignore America's lost sovereignty at our own peril." Ronald Reagan. I hate to say this, but maybe we should look at some immigration policies from around the world. Mexico uses it's military to pick up and deport illegal immigrants and it's a felony to be in the country illegally. 2 years for the first offense and 10 for a second offense and even those who aid illegals are classified as criminals. They are just as tough on legal immigrants. If you can't sustain yourself, provide to the economy, mentally unstable or are a criminal you can't stay in Mexico as a LEGAL immigrant, let alone illegally. I don't want to become northern Mexico or even southern Canada, I want to stay the United States of America, I want our government to enforce our immigration laws. I want our government to deport and prosecute those that break our laws and most importantly, I want all US citizens to be safe from drug gangs from neighboring countries when they are on US soil. We should not put up signs warning US citizens of danger, we should put up a sign in Spanish that says "Usted está entrando en los Estados Unidos, este país es protegido por la fuerza llena del ejército de Estados Unidos. Retroceda ahora o enfrente el consecuencias."

Eminent domain, this land is my land

In most elections the candidates in the major races garner most of the attention; sometimes the ballot questions can have a much bigger impact than the winner of an election. There are a four statewide questions and one county advisory question. The first one I want to discus is state question #4, relating to eminent domain.
Eminent domain is basically the right of the government to take property from a private citizen for public use. Legally it's a lot more complicated and if you have ever had to go through an eminent domain preceding I'm sure you would agree. There are two sections in the Nevada Constitution under Article 1 that deal with eminent domain, section 8 and section 22. Both sections basically explain how the government can take private property. They are required to provide just compensation and the burden of proof to prove public use is on the side of the government.

By looking over the Nevada Constitution, specifically the sections relating to eminent domain, the eminent domain clauses appear to be very good. They were overwhelmingly passed by voters in two consecutive elections and have many safeguards in place to ensure, as fair as eminent domain can be; the private property owner is protected. This was put into the Nevada Constitution by the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land (PISTOL) in response to the federal government's abuse of the eminent domain clause and the City of Las Vegas' abuse of the eminent domain clause. The PISTOL clause limits the transferring of private property for anything other than public use; it also contains language on establishing fair market value and just compensation. Passage of question 4 would broaden the power to use eminent domain to transfer property from one private party to another, extends the limit the government has to actually use the property, from 5 years to 15 years. The PISTOL initiative was adopted to provide citizens the power to fight against the government and protect their private property.

With all the work that has gone into protecting the property of rights of Nevada citizens, it would be detrimental to begin to erode those strengths now. Vote no on question 4, let's keep the government out of our property, when need to stop the unconstitutional taking of our property.

Only verbal jabs in this debate

Last night, Senator Harry Reid and Sharron Angle had their made for TV debate. The debate was carried on stations throughout the state, on CSPAN and in a few foreign countries. Because of the actions of the public at the last gathering, the public was not allowed to this debate. Supporters of both candidates had areas on the sidewalk and sections in the parking lot to voice their support. Security was tight to get in, so I arrived a little early and Vegas PBS did an excellent job checking everyone and getting us into the studio and to our seats.

In opening statements, Senator Reid stressed his number one job was to create jobs and pointed to the stimulus, small business tax credit, financial reform bill and Obamacare as ways he created jobs. Angle countered by pointing out the Reid was a career politician that was for big government even though big government has failed to live up to it's promises.

On immigration, Reid used "undocumented" where Angle used "illegal" to describe the illegal immigration problem. Angle was tough on border security and Reid is for amnesty or as the democratic talking point calls it, comprehensive immigration reform. Reid constantly towed the party line and continued the attack on the evil insurance and banking industries and continuously referred to Angle as extreme.

Angle pressed the Senate Majority Leader on the financial reform bill, the bill that had no impact on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a player in the housing bubble, and the need to audit the Federal Reserve. Reid, several times, tried to reach across the aisle with references to Senator John McCain and President Ronald Reagan on issues like social security and its solvency. The highlight might have been Angle's comment to "Man up" on his dodging the answer regarding social security.

Another area I felt where Reid struggled was on the Department of Education, or as he referred to it, Department of Energy. Angle is for a reduction in the DOE; Senator Reid tried to defend it by naming several programs that are administered on the state level, not needing the federal funding where Angle pointed out the need to keep that federal money on the state level instead of Washington getting its cut.

In their closing remarks, Senator Harry Reid tried to come off as pro business, after bashing them throughout the debate. He came off as sounding as if he was saying he was for us poor little people. Sharron Angle stood up proudly for American exceptionalism and promoted free market and more freedom. In my opinion, Sharron Angle out debated Senator Reid. Reid towed the party line and stayed along the democratic talking points that we have been hearing for the past few months and are seriously wearing thin.

The Liberal Lie

The democratic propaganda machine is working overtime this year for the mid term elections. Most political strategists are predicting big wins by the republicans, fueled mostly by the Tea Party. Like most campaigns, everything is shaded to the left or right and gone is the days where candidates debated issues and we are now in the age of the attack campaign. Budgets and deficits are among the top issue on the campaign trail and no one, at least politicians, wants to face the inevitable, tough decisions need to be made to try and save the country.

Elimination of the Department of Education - The DOE has a budget of over $100 billion and does not teach a single student. Most school funding comes from the state and local levels, not the DOE and every state has a department of education. Since the creation of the DOE in 79, school and student achievement has been going in the wrong direction.

Elimination of the Bureau of Land Management - Created within the Department of the Interior in 1946 and has a budget of over $1 billion. Shouldn't the Dept of Interior manage the land, why is another level a bureaucracy needed?

Elimination of the Department of Homeland Security - Created after the horrific incidents of September 11 has a budget of $56 billion. Is there really a need for this department, don't we have the FBI and local law enforcement agencies? We have DEA, ATF and a few more alphabet agencies with law enforcement officers, couldn't they just share the info between each other? While we are on it, we should eliminate the DEA and other federal law enforcement agencies, after all we do have the FBI.

Housing and Urban Development - Created in 1965 with a budget of nearly $50 billion, this department does the same thing that all the state HUD agencies do, can you say duplication?

If you just scroll through the list of federal bureaucracy you can see the layer upon layer of duplication, especially with state agencies. Take a look at that list and you can find endless agencies that could be eliminated. That alone would not do the trick, entitlements and defense comprise most of the budget and areas of those should be trimmed back. Social Security, for example, will pay out more this year then it receives. How is that a sustainable program that should be left alone? It needs to be looked at. Retirement age should be raised, people are living longer now than they did 50 years ago and that's causing a strain on the system. Another problem with the system is the payments didn't stay in a private account, it went into the general fund for the corruptacrats to spend as they see fit. Medicare and medicaid are so filled with abuse and fraud, clamping down on those programs would potentially save hundreds of millions of dollars.

If the corruptacrats in Washington were serious about balancing the budget and reducing the deficit, it could be done. It would take a reduction in spending and eliminating wasteful programs and bureaucracies.

One thing that seems to be constantly overlooked by the libtards is the concept of states rights. The right of the individual state to govern itself. Libtards always throw racism into the states rights. "If you're for states rights, you want to go back to segregation because you're a racist." I think most libtards should agree with the states rights argument, after all they could create a socialist utopia within a state. States rights doesn't mean racism, it means freedom from a central government controlling lives while thousands of miles away. If the people within a state want to socialize medicine, they can. If the people of a state want to ban hate speech they can. If the people of a state want to ban firearms, they can. The thing most libtards seem to miss is the Constitution applies to the federal government, not the states. Conservatives, Tea Partiers, Beer Partiers, Libertarians and other groups are screaming about the federal government overstepping their constitutional enumerated powers. They aren't saying that we need to eliminate all government, they are saying we need to limit the federal power grab. If the people of a state want the state to control every aspect of their lives, they can vote that way. I wouldn't live there and the wonderful thing about America is I could move to another state or work to elect different people in my state, a state where people want to live the same way I do. Federalism is a wonderful system, 50 states living side by side, each one living by it's own rules, not bullied by a central government to submit it's sovereignty, not forced by a central government to fund bankrupt neighbors or bribe neighboring states to make everyone follow along.

It just goes to show that libtards aren't interested in freedom, they don't think rationally. They want to control your life, every aspect down to the clothes you buy and food you eat. It's done for your own good, because you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself. Everything is done for the greater good based solely on emotion and knee jerk reactions, no rational thought involved; in fact, the libtards would say no rational thought allowed.

The basis of freedom and liberty is simple and Andrew Wilcow says it best. My freedom includes my right to be free from you. Why should I be responsible for someone else's irresponsibility?