Wednesday, March 28, 2007
* I don't care if illegal immigrants have young kids who are American citizens, we still ought to deport the illegals authorities come across. The parents can decide if they want the kids with them or raised by someone else legally in this country. Lots of parents decide their kids, for one reason or another, would be better off being raised by someone else... some do it for academic reasons, in order to get their kids into a better school than would otherwise be the case. Others do it for athletic reasons, choosing to have their kids live away in order to be closer to coaches and/or better competition. And still others do it because they're seeking a more stable environment for their kids. There's nothing special about illegal immigrants - or their kids - that entitles the parents to stay in the country.
UPDATE: Great minds thinking alike, here's John Hawkins similar take.
* Apropos of the old joke, England has proven they're impotent, the only question is just how bad utterly powerless they are. It wasn't simply that England didn't do anything to force Iran to release the captives, it was that what England did was so blatently weak. Releasing GPS coordinates in order to prove the sailors were in Iraqi waters? Saying that more serious actions would be taken, only to backpedal within the hour? Threatening to scream to the United Nations? What idiots thought one of those would intimidate the Iranians? I would extend my sympathies to the sailors for it would appear that they're going to be in Iraq for quite a while... but, given Blair's proven lack of intestinal fortitude, I think the sailors will be home pretty soon... there's no question that Blair will bend over... the only holdup is that the Iranians have yet to decide just how far they're going to insist Blair bend over.
* Even though I wish our troops were out of Iraq right now, the Democrat's attempt to impose conditions on Bush's ability to command the military needs to be squashed. The way I see it, assuming the Democrats refuse to budge, Bush has two choices. he can sign the bill and refuse to follow the timetable by claiming it is an unconstitutional limitation of Presidential powers, or he can refuse to sign the bill and continue to keep the troops in Iraq notwithstanding the lack of appropriated funds, arguing that his powers as Commander in Chief are superior to the powers of Congress to appropriate funds. As for the first option, remember that a Presidential signature on a piece of legislation doesn't make it constitutional (think: line-item veto). Either way Bush goes, by the time the lawsuits made it through the courts, even assuming Bush lost, one of three things would have happened: his surge would have worked and he'd be bringing the troops home anyway, he would have thrown in the towel and would be bringing home the troops, or his term would be over and he'd be leaving the mess for his successor to deal with.
* Part of the reason public employees are thought of so poorly can be found in the example of Lawrence Small, who recently resigned as Secretary of the Smithsonian after disclosures that he had spent a boatload of money padding his own backside: first class travel, unnecessary decorating, etc. If fewer public workers, from Congress on down, viewed the public as a means of making themselves rich and/or comfortable, then maybe the public wouldn't think of them as being a bunch of corrupt leeches sucking money out of our pocket.
* A throwaway line of liberals is to accuse war supporters of not 'making a sacrifice' to support the war effort. Well, a whole bunch of money leaves my pocket every other week to pay for the war efforts. As there are many things I would rather spend my money on, and with the dictionary defining 'sacrifice' as giving up something of value, my monetary contributions sure count as a sacrifice.