“O’ Really…Really?”
By
Russ Jackson
Arizona, Going Rogue?

I was not sure if I was going to tackle this issue due to the very delicate nature of the debate. In fact, I would say that the intensity of this issue is as great if not greater than the health care reform debate recently held.

So, going forward, I will try to handle it with caution. First, let me set something up real quick. I do not begrudge people trying to make a better life for themselves or their family. It is my belief that the majority of illegal immigrants in the country are here with this exact purpose in mind: to find decent paying jobs so they can support their families back home. These folks come here from less fortunate countries and take on tons of manual labor jobs and are paid well below the minimum wage to do so. What is really sad is that well below minimum wage in America is still vastly superior to whatever wages they can receive in their home countries. It has to be, otherwise why risk being arrested time and time again by crossing over the boarder illegally. I am stating that I do not agree with them doing so, I am stating that I can sympathize with the situation. More on this later…

On July 27th, the 9th circuit court of appeals struck down parts, but not all of the Arizona immigration law. Those backing reform, and general amnesty for illegal immigrants feel this is a victory. Now, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV (although that would be great since it would mean I was employed!). However here are just my gut feelings on this whole fiasco (and it is a fiasco).

First, obviously there is an illegal immigrant issue within the United States. Even the ones that are here just to pursue better employment are still a drain on the public resources without putting much back (no taxes, majority of dollars earned sent back to their home country). Then there are the illegal folks who are here for nefarious reasons. The drug runners, the kidnappers, the Mexican Mafia and all those folks who seek to profit by inflicting misery on others. Obviously these are two different problems that need two different solutions. The second problem (the nefarious ilk) poses a danger to the actual citizens of the United States in the form of physical harm. While the first problem poses economic and resource allocation issues. Knowing that multitasking is a very difficult job for our Federal Government, shouldn’t we choose one to focus on first? Which of these problems is more important? I know my vote lies with the nefarious crime ridden drug running types. Your mileage may vary, but I am guessing the citizens of Arizona were focused on the drug running and gang violence when they formulated the new law.

Where does the responsibility lie for controlling the border of our nation? I think the obvious answer is the Federal Government. The Feds claim they are doing the job of border patrol. Arizona says they are not (hence the new legislation). So, there is a disconnect here since both can not be right. Both may perceive they are right, but they can not both be correct. Just from learning a few things while in the professional world, my guess is that the ones that are closer to the problem have a better feel for what is real, and what is perceived. Also, it is obvious from multiple polls conducted over the last several weeks that the majority of the citizens in Arizona support the new law. Now, I don’t know if the new law would actually make any difference in the number of deportations, or number of crimes stopped and/or prevented. Chances are, we may never know. I will say this though, regardless if the law is ever enacted or is struck down in the Supreme Court, my guess is that the real agenda for Arizona was achieved. To bring light to the actual problems occurring on the border states and force some action, any kind of action, from the Federal Government. So, mission accomplished for Jan Brewer.

Now, I have two questions for consideration. The first is an easier question to answer (but government officials want to make it complicated), and the second question is a little more complex.

Question #1: Can border security be achieved without complete immigration reform? The simple answer is…maybe? OK, this question is not as easy as one might think. But let us consider this first as far as placing importance on securing the boarder. Having a tight border is not just related to illegal immigrants crossing the boarder looking for work. In fact, that concern should be at the bottom of the list. The top reason to secure the boarder has nothing to do with working immigrants, or racial profiling, or getting mad that “them there Mexicans are stealin’ our jobs!” That was done in my best southern hick accent, just so you know…

The number one reason for securing the boarder is (drum roll please!) preventing terrorists and other foreign operatives from entering the country and really doing some damage. So, to this citizen, the whole argument from the left falls so short (oh we are racial profiling!) from the actual dangers that it is not even funny. Now that the real problem is on the table (porous border that can allow terrorists and other foreign operatives in) I think it is easy to answer Question #1 now. Yes, the border can be better secured, and really should be (not just the southern one) for National Security reasons regardless of immigration reform.

Question #2 (and this may make some folks uneasy, but I am really curious)
Where are all the legal immigrants and why are they not screaming the loudest about illegal immigrants? I mean, theses are the people who put in the hard work, dedication, and patience on earning the right legally to work here in the United States. They did things the legal way. They pay taxes, contribute to this great society of ours in the US and both the US and they are better for it. So I do not understand why they would not be the first people to stand up and say “No” to amnesty? Please do not take this the wrong way, I just know that if I worked my butt off for something, and then saw the same thing just given away freely, I would be a bit perturbed. I am sure part of it has to do with family ties and other things…but I would be very interested to see someone who has done things the legal way answer this question.

I do not doubt that there are problems in our immigration system. It probably is too long, too cumbersome, and difficult to achieve. We may need to increase the actual numbers of legal immigrants we let in each year. I am sure there is reform that is needed. There is also a need to deal with the 12 million some odd illegal (working legal jobs) immigrants as well. I will have to tackle those issues at another time though, as my fingers are growing weary tonight J.

Take care all, and thanks for reading! As always, comments are welcome!

Starkimus
7/28/2010

“O’ Really…Really?”
By
Russ Jackson
Commentary on the “Ed Shultz Show”

On July 26th, Ed Shultz had Howard Dean on to discuss the whole “Fox News” issue concerning Shirley Sharrod. Dean basically said that it was Fox’s fault that Sharrod was fired. He explained that Fox was racist and had a racist agenda. Even when Ed (correctly) pointed out that Sharrod was fired before the story broke on Fox News, Dean brushed this aside and stated again that Fox had a racist agenda and was invested in the downfall of Barak Obama. To see some actual facts to this whole show down, please visit
http://johnnydollar.us/files/100725fhwir.php.

First question is this, how in the heck did Howard Dean even get on the Democratic radar back in 2004? I mean really, based on this interview alone, most forward thinking people would come to the conclusion that at best Howard Dean lives in his own little world, or at worst, needs psychiatric help. Now, I get that Dean and his left leaning comrades have an agenda. And that agenda includes smearing anyone who does not agree with them. But, a person who has sat as the Democratic Chair and held other prominent positions in government (Governor) should have enough sense to back down when confronted with overwhelming facts. You know what, forget all that. The simple fact that it is OK for Howard Dean to proclaim an entire News Organization as racist is plain wrong. Where is the outrage from the left on this? The left claims to be the holder of tolerance, and compassion. Where is the outrage from the ACLU, or Reverend Al Sharpton? They all claim to be against racism, and here you have Howard Dean using the R word on national TV. Not a whisper from the left. Hardly even a whisper from the right. If I sat on the board in FOX, I would be firing a lawsuit for slander and deformation of character against Mr. Dean on pure principle alone, regardless if it ever went to court, and regardless if I could win or not. Screw the cost, I would raise such a stink against Mr. Dean for his scandalizing, baseless, disparaging remarks that he would be forced to find a cave to live in.

You can bet that if the situation was reversed, and Michael Steele stood up and said that MSNBC was racist for not covering the New Black Panther situation and that whole scandal in the Justice Department that the NAACP, the ACLU, and every other jack in the box who ‘claims’ to be looking out for humanity would jump all over Steele, and force his resignation at the very least.

Second question is this: Can you disagree with the President of the United States and not be a racist? Well, the obvious answer to that question is a resounding yes regardless of the color of his skin (our current President just happens to be African American this time). However, according to multiple pundits’ in the left leaning media, it is obvious that if you disagree with any of the Presidents policies, that you are racist and just want to ‘beat the black man down’. What rubbish. While the left wants to play these silly games, the United States sinks deeper into debt and continues a deep recession that at this point has no end in sight. To be sure, the republicans are really not much better at the moment, and all the country can really hope for at this point is more deadlock in Congress and the Senate before any more damaging bills are passed into law.

So lets get to today. Again, I am watching the Ed Shultz show, and for those of you who do not know what that is, it is MSNBC’s poor attempt to counter the successes of Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannidy. I do not normally watch Ed’s show, but lately I have decided that if I am going to see the right slant, I should at least attempt to stomach the left slant. And in all reality, Ed himself can be pretty entertaining, much more than say Keith Oberman (story for a different day). An aside on all of these commentary type TV shows. First off, they are for entertainment value only. Do not be tricked into forming an opinion solely based off of any of these commentary shows. Do your own homework. They all have their own agendas (making money is #1). To be sure, some of the agendas I can agree with, others I can not. The point is, watch all of these shows (including radio programs of any political persuasion) with a large grain of salt.
So, all of these shows follow a similar pattern. The host proclaims their views at the beginning of the show aka O’Reilly’s ‘Talking Points’ or Ed’s ‘Burning Topics’. This is followed by a few guests that are basically on the show to parrot the hosts point of view. It is pretty hilarious if you watch these things closely. All of these hosts ask leading questions, interrupt their guests to no end, and have to get the last word. I guess that works, after all it is their show right? Right… Lastly, each host will have some poor schmoe with an opposing view on to illustrate that the host is indeed fair and listens to both sides. In reality, they over talk the opposition, continuously try to put words in their mouths, and basically try to make the opposition look silly or stupid. Shows like Hardball, O’Reilly, Hannidy and Countdown with Keith Oberman follow this same basic format.
OK, back to todays show. This afternoon, Mr. Ed had some poor guy on from the Heritage foundation. First off, this poor lad was unprepared to deal with the mighty Ed Shultz, and Ed hammered his guest on the republican stance of not repealing the Bush Tax cuts on the ultra rich. First, lets take a look at Ed’s opening commentary. Ed starts off the show by proclaiming that removing the tax cuts on the rich (passed by the republicans in 2002?) is not a tax increase. It is just going back to the status quo. I guess that works in theory but in reality taxes on some people will go up and the general principles of a recession point to lowering taxes, not raising them. To be fair, raising taxes on less than 10% of the American people by only 2% is kind of hard to argue against when the Nations debt is out of control. It is hard to have the position of saying “No” to higher taxes while saying the “debt must be reduced”. Or is it? I will explain in a second. But, to put things in context, it is pretty hard to defend that position and if I were from the Heritage Foundation, I either would not have accepted the interview, or put a more seasoned warrior on there to battle the mighty Ed Shultz. Needless to say, Ed hammered his point home and made this guy look silly.
Now, back to the point on defending the ultra rich tax increase (regardless of what the status quo was, it is a tax increase on some people and that is a fact). How do you defend not raising taxes on the ultra rich? Those increases will not affect me, will not affect anyone in my family, and most likely will not affect anyone I interact with. Now, I have to give some credit to Ed, even though I disagree with about 99% of his view points. Ed said on National TV that the tax increases (or tax reduction repeal if you’re a left leaning reader) will affect him, and he was OK with that. So, props to Ed for putting his money where is mouth is.
Here is what I have to say about ANY Tax increases to any part of the American population (individual, small business owner, corporate, and that even includes BP). NO! Until the current federal government and administration can prove they can be fiscally responsible with our money, they have no right to raise any taxes. Zero, zilche, nada, the federal government has pretty much lost all credibility in this voters eyes and are in essence behaving like a bunch of children. But that is an issue for another day. I would agree to tax increases (even on the middle class) only under these conditions. 1) All federal employees take a minimum of 10% pay cut. 2) All federal employees take a minimum of 15% benefits cut (including medical and pensions). 3) All federal employees take a minimum 30% budget cut for food and travel. 4) The Federal budget is cut by 5% every year until a balanced budget is reached. 5) All raises in taxes go to pay off the US debt. I have many other suggestions as well, but the point is this. The federal government, the US Congress, and the President of the United States need to put their money where their mouth is, just like Mr. Shultz did today. Until the federal government can show that they are willing to tighten their belts like the majority of the American people have had to do over the last few years, they have zero credibility and zero right to increase anyone’s taxes.

Thank you for reading “O really…Really??” by Russ Jackson, take care all! And look for more, because I am one of those unemployed people with nothing better to do than rant about the current sorry state of affairs in this great nation of ours.

Starkimus
7/27/2010

New Beginings

My first blog: A dip in the vast Internet pool

Greetings my fellow readers and Internet junkies. I am bored, bored and somewhat unhappy. I am using this blog to share my thoughts and feelings regarding the current state of the United States. I will post commentary on the evening 'news shows' as well as the radio programs I listen too. I will share my views on all of these on a weekly basis (maybe more depending on the week). Typically I will be choosing a controversial topic that both the left and the right are completely screwed up on, and share the common sense point of view that our entire Government is ignoring (mostly on purpose).
Eventually I will post more information on my background, and the reasons I have started this blog. However, for now, it is enough to know that there are many people out there in my same boat. Many people who feel that the current state of affairs in America is unsatisfactory and many folks who feel underrepresented by their own 'representative' government.

I welcome all critics and praise. Feel free to post what you think, or let me know via email. Challenge me, challenge my views, make me think. All of these things are welcome. What is not welcome are ad ho min attacks on my character, and I promise not to promote the same. If I get some facts wrong, correct me. If I get some facts right, point that out too. I have no pride, and can take pretty much take anything you can dish out, as long as it is based in fact, and not in some imaginary world.

Take care my friends!
Stark Out!