Immigration - Illegal And Otherwise

I am not anti-immigration.  To use the cliche - we are a country built by immigrants.  I am, however, against giving immigrants who are here illegally or are not yet citizens rights enjoyed by our citizens.

I am especially against amnesty for all.  We've tried that and still they come. The problem is there are the good and the bad.  Why in heavens name should we give amnesty to those who break our laws?  They've already broken at least one by coming in illegally.  Why give them a pass therefore compounding it?

The same applies to the so called dreamers. I have no problem that if they've registered they be given an opportunity to stay but if they want citizenship they must go home and get in line with those doing things by the law.

Most of the focus is on our border with Mexico and those crossing there but be sure there are many coming across our northern border too.  They just don't happen to be Mexican or Hispanic. Does the southern border scrutiny make us racist?  No. It is merely the area the media focuses on and the sheer numbers who have crossed in that area.

It's not an easy issue to solve because our lawmakers have let it get way out of hand by not making sure the laws on the books are enforced. The issue of merit, the ability to contribute is paramount.  We cannot take adequate care of our own under privileged and until we are able to do so we should not be welcoming those who do no more than add to those numbers.

Who does it hurt? Every single one of us because a vast amount of tax payers dollars go to care for them.  Feed them, house them, take care of their medical needs and educate them. And in too many cases incarcerate them which adds to our already overcrowded prison systems.

Consider the estimated number of DACA people is around 800,000. They are not all pure of heart.  The law of averages will dictate a certain number of them will be criminal. That is reason enough not to give them carte blanch amnesty.

Congress needs to first agree on the requirements for residency before moving on any type of amnesty.  It has gotten out of hand in places who claim to be sanctuary cities or states.  A friend in California is leaving the state because of it.  The last straw was when they passed a law that prohibited her from telling her house cleaning service that she did not want an illegal in her home.

She had no way of knowing how well the service vetted their employees - or if they were even required to do so. That is, I'm sorry, letting the inmates run the asylum.

Will Congress do it right?  I'm betting no. They're too busy with their puffery. It makes me angry, yes angry, that we citizens are becoming the disenfranchised and without our government putting us first we have little chance of changing it.

What Makes Democrats Tick?

Why is it that the Democrats in Congress have such contempt for the very people they are supposed to represent?  Oh sure, they always parade before the microphone and tell us that everything the Republicans bring forth is to the detriment to the country.  We're supposed to swallow their dictums hook, line and sinker.

Well, I for one, am sick and tired of their silly games.  Their opposition is purely for the sake of opposition in the faint hope something they do will bring down the President.

I've got news for them.  He's more resilient than they are!  Unlike others before, he won't slink into hiding and avoid the controversy; he jumps into the middle of it.  It seems that at least his own party is beginning to come around and stand with him.

In fairness to the Dems, the Republicans are just as bad when the Dems are in power.  Isn't it time for it to stop and have intelligent and civil debate on the issues instead of all this pouting when they don't get their way? It makes me wonder what sort of sheep we've put in office and tend to keep.  Why do we do so?

Have you every looked at their faces when they line up behind their leadership?  They are all so dour, both parties, that it is obviously an unpleasant undertaking to serve us.  More of them should opt not to run again.

I listened to Alan Dershowitz the other evening where he was criticizing his own party and calling for more centrists. He's right.  I'd like to take him one step further however.  He voted for Hillary.  He's a staunch Democrat.  But knowing what we know about Hillary and the entire Clinton operation I wonder how he could vote for her.  That he really didn't want Trump?  I get that but is that enough to vote for Hillary?  I'd love to have him explain it.  Or is voting the party line what one does no matter what.

It's going to be an interesting political year. I don't trust what anyone says the  mid-terms are going to be because I don't believe they are really talking to we, the people. No one has asked me nor anyone I know exactly what it is we want and expect from our elected officials.

So what do I do?  I guess I'll just tell them here.  For instance what are we going to do about Turkey's Erdogan bombing the Syrian rebels who we support? Inquiring minds want to know.

Stay tuned.

Why I Cannot Be A Republican In Idaho

If you ever sit and wonder why the likes of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the type of candidates we end up nominating for the presidency, perhaps I've found a reason.

For clarification's sake let me say that I am and long have been registered as an independent.  When I was younger I thought myself pragmatic.  That's when I believed both parties wanted what was best for the country but had differing ways of reaching those goals.

No more. Politics has become too much of a haven for those wanting to feed at the public trough for life.  That's why so many special interests have the grip that they do.

Since I've been here in Idaho I've watched politics on both the local and statewide level with a sense of foreboding.  Even at these levels we are not choosing the best; mainly because the really good people don't run.  That by the way is a generality.  We have some superb candidates from time to time. But only time to time. Today I'm going to address the Republicans who are running a bit amok.

The process runs into trouble when local level workers hijack the party for their own interests. They have their own agenda. This would appear to be the case here.  The Republican leaders are due to have a conference to discuss the party platform before the next session of the Legislature kicks off.

Understand that local committeemen and women are in place to help Republicans win elections, not dictate what they should and should not believe. So why is it they want said candidates to be required to support the party platform in it's entirety or be pinpointed as "unfaithful" to the GOP.  Isn't that something the voters should decide? What candidate worth his or her salt agrees with everything in a party platform?  If they do they might as well be robots.  That may be preferable but then I'd be afraid of whoever was programming them.  It all comes back to the people in charge and how they got there.  I want to hear debate.  Not boilerplate.

While the platform contains the usual Republican diet of fiscal responsibility and lower taxes it then veers sharply to the right by urging the purchase of gold and silver, eliminating the election of Senators and going back to the appointment of same, and the ability to nullify any federal law deemed to "violate state sovereignty".  It seems to me what people should invest in is their business, not something that should be dictated (urged)  by a political party? And who would appoint those Senators?  The legislature.  No thanks.

So much for the "big tent".  Shouldn't candidates have a right to disagree with components of a platform and defend their reasoning without fear of being politically blackmailed?  Most party platforms usually are but guidelines anyway and are rarely, if ever, strictly adhered to.  Who does all this "deeming" and scheming anyway?

The claim is the loyalty oath requirement was dumped shortly after it was installed but I'm thinking they just blurred the edges a bit.  The very idea of loyalty oaths, or whatever name they're assigned,b makes my skin crawl.

It's time to wrap it up for now and the year. We go into a new year with an uncertain future at best. Neither party is showing it's strength at this point and 2018 is going to be another year of political transition.  It will be interesting to see what the voting public chooses.

The Silence Is Deafening!

What goes around comes around.  Yesterday there was a headline on Drudge that said Bette Midler was demanding an apology from Geraldo Rivera.  I was waiting for someone to bring the focus to him because I remember back when he rather enjoyed bragging about his conquests.

FOX's own.  Don't you love it?  It was Bill O'Reilly who got this sexual harassment era started when FOX let hm go.  Now it has gone full cycle.  Yet I have not heard word one on FOX about any of this.  Maybe it stings a little too much since they've so enjoyed wallowing in other peoples miseries.

Maybe, too, as far as news cycles go this one has run its course.  One can only hope.

There have been womanizers for as long as I can remember.  No one should be pointing fingers - neither Republicans, nor Democrats nor broadcast networks nor film studios.  Everyone has a piece of this pie.  A lot of people have escaped the worst.  Clinton and Kennedy if you want to start at the highest levels.  Don't forget David Letterman.  Then there are the invisible others that hound and harass that are never heard about because they have no level of  power or celebrity.  But it does go on.

It seems we tend to address our problems with a high degree of overkill.  Just read the headlines about our President.  Those who think he is so mentally unstable he should be institutionalized just cannot give it a rest.  Morning Joe is perhaps the most ludicrous and without realizing it makes himself look as unbalanced as he claims Trump to be.  Overkill.

I don't think it will put the President in an institution but perhaps it can bring to a halt the bad behavior by men who indulge in it because they think their power or celebrity either gives them a pass or immunizes them from consequences.  Wrong.

Sure they're embarrassed.  Dirty laundry is never attractive.  Ashamed?  I have my doubts on that one. Repentant because its the proper thing to say. Too bad they didn't equate proper with their behavior.

Cheers to the women who have had to courage to say enough is enough and call these men out.  Hopefully their recollections are the accurate ones and they haven't come forward with the hope of making a few bucks, or worse, exacting revenge for some slight.  The men sure are remembering things differently.  Somewhere in between you'll probably find the truth.

It's a new month now.  The holiday season is in full swing.  Too many people will be having a less than pleasant one because of the questionable behavior of a whole passel of people, mostly on the political front.  It may not be sexual harassment but it is harassment never-the-less and will leave those accused but innocent with scars that are just as deep.

To paraphrase Dickens ~ it is the best of seasons, it is the worst of times.

The Jenny Sanford Rule

While discussing the misbehavior epidemic that is currently dominating our headlines, a man asked me, "How do these guys explain this to their wife and kids?"  Who was the man?  My husband.  He is as dumbfounded as I am about the whole sordid trend. I know that and I trust that. I wonder if the wives of the accused had that same faith in their spouses only to have it shattered in the glare of the media.

Most of the men named to this point are old enough to have grown children; at the very least old enough to understand.  I can't help but wonder where Dad was when teaching the kids proper behavior was taking place.  Working late no doubt.  Wink, wink.

There are victims other than those who lodged the complaints.  There are those wives and children.  What must they think?  How many will clench their teeth and stand by their men like Eliot Spitzer's or David Vitter's?  I'll never forget the look on their faces as they tried to  put up a brave front for the TV cameras.  And these guys were only involved in prostitution rings.  There, at least, the women were willing.

Personally, I most admire Jenny Sanford, the former wife of Congressman Mark Sanford. Sanford  disappeared from a hiking trip only to turn up in Argentina with his soul mate.  Mrs. Sanford said, in essence, "Okay, I'm outta here."

Why do wives stay?  Is it because on their own they wouldn't be able to maintain their lifestyle?  Do they really love the guy so unequivocally that he, in their eyes, can be forgiven anything? Wow.

I think if it were me back in the day I'd have taken the Jenny Sanford route. Even if my lifestyle changed, I think I could have made a decent living and could have lived with myself knowing I hadn't condoned something horribly out of step with honesty, decency and trust.

How do the kids react?  That I cannot answer.  I should think such a revelation would have put a wedge in their relationship with their Dads.  At least it should.

Yes, there are victims all around. Since I'm not particularly prone to victimhood in my own circumstances and I have the freedom to self-identify  these days I think I'll identify as decent with a strong moral compass. I hope the victims of this mass lunacy will find it within themselves to do the same.