WELCOME TO MEXICO, YANKEE

There is an article in the header that shows why an immigrant is against Driver's Licenses for illegals. Just click it.

I wanted to get your attention for this post. I know it succeeded in a couple of cases.

.

I'm not sure which political party I'm the most disgusted with over this Driver's Licenses (DL) for illegal aliens business. .

The Democrats, in general, seem to feel that it would be ok to give them out to people who are in this country illegally. Some of the Republican candidates agree with this. .

.

I have a problem with this, however. Since the States issue DL's why should they surrender this right to the Federal government?

.

While watching the almost total lack of any action in any sphere by the sitting Senate and House representatives over the past year, it occurred to me that we don't really need any Federal law ordering the states to issue, or not issue, DLs to illegals. It has been stated that far too many bills (laws, acts, whatever) are approved or disapproved by our representatives without that person even reading them. It may sound cavalier on my part, but it has to be an ugly fact. If it isn't true, then why are so many of them bad and totally inadequate for the subject they concern? After all, the majority of our reps are college grads and the majority of them are lawyers. I've heard, from other sites, that the poor dears are so overworked they sometimes don't have time to read what they are voting on.

.

Busy with what? Well, they have to see all the lobbyists and other people with an axe to grind to help individual businesses. And then there are the (paid for) trips to other lands, vacation spots, holiday events and tours and meetings in various locations around the U.S. and the world.

.

But about issuing DLs to illegals. Is it possible that those in power don't grasp the fact that once one has a DL, it is a simple matter to register to vote? Voter registration cards are easy to get, easy to fill out and easy to return to the registrar. If you remember the application you filled out years ago, they don't even ask if you are a citizen. So I guess that means we must be quite willing to allow non-citizens to elect our law makers. Maybe we should send a few millions to China and Iran and Russia and North Korea and any other country that wants them? And let's not forget those countries that our State Department says we shouldn't visit. They'd probably love to help elect a President and Representatives for us.

.

I'm quoting from a comment in http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071115/OPINION03/711150362 "Iowa on its own, however, could issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. It's a matter of public safety. That's why the New Iowans Policy Task Force, created by former Gov. Tom Vilsack, asked the 2007 Legislature to consider doing just that. That idea went nowhere, and it's not likely to go anywhere in 2008, especially after what happened in New York. Ignoring the problem, however, will not make it go away."

.

Iowa, and all our states need to recognize that we, and the illegals, are a mobile country. If I can get a license from Iowa (or any other state) it is a simple matter to then apply for a new license from any other state as a new resident.

.

I seem to remember a famous American who said, unequivocally: "Beware of entangling alliances." I feel like a definite minority accepting that quote.

BILL RICHARDSON AND THE PORK BARREL

Sometimes the things one wants are way too big to handle.

It seems our Governator, Bill Richardson, was at a cook out in Des Moines, Iowa and, as is usual with him, wasn't paying attention to what he was doing.

Of all the funny things (funny is used loosely) he thought he'd show off as a man of the people and take a turn at flipping pork burgers. But his gas got in the way and one of the regular cooks yelled that he was only burning the pork. If you want to tick an Iowan off, just burn his pork burger. The Governator got yelled at for not paying attention to what he was doing. (If he's done that here in N.M., somebody would have pointed it out it was business as usual.)

So he quit his turn at the BBQ and went on trying to peddle himself to the Iowans in attendance.

He had the cajones to remark that he had to beat someone of "significance" in the Iowa primary. He failed, however, to name anyone of "significance" in that primary. Just as well, I guess. So far, I haven't seen anyone of significance in either political party.

But the thing I liked in the newspaper's coverage, was the picture of fat Bill turning a couple of patties. Talk about posed.

Perhaps the picture of our Governator working a pork barrel brought images to my mind. Not nice images. Because he would owe a lot of jobs to people you don't want to hear about.

I am becoming more and more discouraged about the coming (yes, it will arrive sooner or later) election. Not one candidate has told us we're about to go down the toilet if we don't make some serious changes in this country. They all seem to want to go on with "business as usual".

There are web sites all over the 'net that are for this or that candidate, party or a particular axe they have to grind. But I don't see anything that leads me to a man/woman who makes me believe that he/she has answers that just might work.

Some are just absolutely not worthy of my trust. Others are deceptive and kind of slimy.

Obviously, I will never make a good Party man. I have a need to believe in the general goodness, honesty and common sense of anyone who wants my vote.

Yep, I was one of those who hated Lyndon Johnson's lies, who denigrated Richard Nixon's stupidity in denying wrongdoing, who was revolted by Clinton's lies, who still detests both Bush's falsehoods.

It has always been sort of a wanting on my part not to have my Commander In Chief be a liar. And worse yet, a liar who should recognize he's going to be found out, but seems oblivious to the idea that cheap lies will forever be found out. Maybe it's that kind of stupidity I don't like.

Jim Hightower is quoted if you click on the header.

WHAT AMERICA WANTED IN IRAQ

want

The Bush Administration, the One Worlders, the NeoCons, the Military, the Religious Right, a number of other groups really had no idea what we, the American Public, wanted to happen in Iraq.

We did not want what we got. We did not want a dragged out, let's not try to hurt anyone, slow moving, profit making, our tax money spent to fatten corporations war, nor what seems to be becoming an eternal war.

WE WANTED REVENGE. Plain and simple, we wanted these half smart assassins to pay a price that would preclude any further need for our military intervention anywhere in the world. We wanted them to understand that any further acts of terrorism would bring only death, destruction and horror to any country that dared to challenge us. We didn't want incompetent "leadership", nor half baked generals who had to consider what was best for the Industrial Complex, our tax money being thrown down a bottomless pit, our soldiers being maimed and killed because of inadequate and incompetent planning. Simply put, we wanted the results of World War II on a smaller scale.

What we got was another Vietnam, another Korea. But on a much larger scale. Yes, there have been fewer men killed and wounded than in those wars, but we are also fighting a much smaller and more confined war.

The Republicans didn't get it right. Now, the Democrats aren't getting it right. "Surge" isn't the answer. Withdrawal isn't the answer. The only answer that will regain American's trust in their government is all out warfare. A very good general once said that "the purpose of armies is to smash, destroy and bring the enemy to their knees."

I may not be Jewish but it seems to me the Israelis have the answer that will solve our crisis. It seems to work like this: For every weapon you fire at us, we will fire a hundred at you. There will be no mercy. If you hide in populated areas we will retaliate far beyond your capabilities. If you do not hide, the results will be devastating.

It's time, sir. It is time.

CAN'T TAKE A JOKE?

A friend sent this to me. I don't know where it was published but I will give credit if I can find out. I'm not interested in having MoveOn dictate what I can hear and read. Nor am I particularly interested in either Reed nor Obama. I've already lost in interest in the Republicans and now it is getting to the point where I may lose interest in the Democrats. "LOS ANGELES (March 10) - Nevada Democratic Party officials said Friday they were canceling a presidential debate co-sponsored by the Fox News Channel, following a joke chairman Roger Ailes made about Democratic candidate Barack Obama. In a letter sent to Fox News, Nevada State Democratic Party Chairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Ailes "went too far" with comments made the night before. The letter makes no reference to a crusade by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org to boycott Fox, which it calls a "right-wing mouthpiece." Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards dropped out of the debate Thursday, citing in part Fox's participation. The letter also does not specify which comments by Ailes lead to the decision, but a Democratic source told Reuters it was a joke Ailes made about Obama and President Bush during a speech Thursday night. "We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments," Collins and Reid said in the letter. "We take no pleasure in this, but it the only course of action." Fox News Vice President David Rhodes responded with a written statement criticizing the Democrats for caving in to MoveOn.org. "News organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus, which appears to be controlled by radical fringe out-of-state interest groups, not the Democratic Party," David Rhodes said in the statement. the past, MoveOn.org has said they 'own' the Democratic Party. While most Democrats don't agree with that, it's clearly the case in Nevada," he said. The joke by Ailes came during a speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation First Amendment Dinner on Thursday night and -- while playing on similarity between Obama's name and Osama Bin Laden -- appears to be directed more at Bush than the senator. "It's true that Barack Obama is on the move," Ailes said during the speech. "I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said 'Why can't we catch this guy?"'