Thursday, February 03, 2005

Defeating Republican Scams

I didn't watch the State of the Union speech by the twice appointed ruler of America....I had more important activities to attend to. Instead, I attended my local Democratic meeting to listen to the Boulder County Sheriff, Joe Pelle, talk about the Patriot Act and it's effects on local law enforcement. I won't go into all the details but, there is one very interesting situation he did address. Illegal and undocumented workers.

The Patriot Act, according to Sheriff Pelle, has shift the burden of enforcing immigration laws to the state and local law enforcement agencies. He explained that by doing this, people who are here illegally or have no documentation are fearful of contacting law enforcement when a spouse or employer abuses them. His concerns were that, his department is a public safety entity and is placed in an awkward position by the Act. It is a clear ploy by the republican party to maintain cheap labor for their corporate donors because, if law enforcement endorses the position of maintaining public safety and trust then, they cannot enforce immigration laws effectively without violating the trust of people being abused or victimized by crime.

The next issue on the agenda was Social Security. What most people hear in the republican controlled media is that, the Trust Fund will be bankrupt or will go bust by some particular date (depending on which spin channel you view). The largest drain at this point in time is the tax cuts for the rich and the illegal occupation of Iraq by Imperial America. Many economists have shown, with great accuracy, that the tax cuts are the largest problem with Social Security at this time. Repeal of these cuts would keep Social Security viable, indefinitely.

What we see now is a blatant waste of taxpayer money, funding stolen from the Social Security Trust and increased borrowing from this appointed regime to carry out the fraud on America. The republican party has always been a party of economic failure and it is no different now. Social programs, organized labor and brown people are being attacked by the racist right around the world and, with these actions there comes good news. Good news that accompanies the defeat of any bully or liar....The demise of the republican party.

Working people should take a strong stance against the anti-working people republicans in several ways. One way is to involve yourself in the political process. If a worker, who is republican, supports the party of economic failure then, that worker consistently votes against his/her best interests. Educating these workers is difficult. They are conditioned to soundbites; small bits of information that are designed to mislead. Breaking through the shell of the closed conservative mind is not impossible. During the 2004 election, republican voters who supported the occupation of Iraq, were asked which one of their children they would choose to die in this war. The answer was always a resounding, "None of them", but it was explained that they had no choice and they must sacrifice one of their children. This strategy worked quite well and strengthened the Democratic Base. This action showed that lying is not necessary to bring about truth but, only to run on a campaign of fear that was so well demonstrated by the republican party.

Another way to demonstrate to a republican worker that their interests are not a consideration of the republican party is to address the bankruptcy laws being utilized today. Corporations are being allowed to use the bankruptcy system to steal pension and healthcare funds from workers who have worked for them, earned them and deserve these benefits. A good way of breaking through the closed conservative mind is to get between them and their money. This action also, helped the Democratic base with an increase in membership.

Through all the smoke and mirrors, activists, like myself, are seeing the demise of the republican party. Covertly attending local republican meetings one can see and sense the fear and urgency these people have. They know they are dying as a party and they are beginning to turn on their own legislators. And I am more than happy to agitate their little world.

Simple minds are an easy thing to waste.


At 2/03/2005 4:33 PM , Blogger yada said...

"patriot", what's interesting to me is that you feel local law enforcement should not be handling these immigration but before kerry lost the election, he suggested that local law enforcement should handle terrorism. that seems a little backwards to me. so they can and should be trusted with our national security, but not average everyday immigration laws?

i know you have, in the past, accused me of being a "right wing-nut", but this issue of national security is the only reason i voted republican in 04. this is my main concern. so before you accuse me of having "mental issues" or being "republican scum" or whatever other slanderous remarks you thow around, maybe think about your statements and how generalizing people and trash talking them pushes them further away from your "side".

At 2/03/2005 4:39 PM , Blogger ProgressivePatriot said...

Immigration is a federal issue and, the Sheriff does not feel he should be enforcing it. The opinion is not mine.'I pay Federal tax for the issues like immigration and it should be handled by the Feds.
The chimp's regime is in business for corporate interests only and not ours.

At 2/03/2005 4:41 PM , Blogger ProgressivePatriot said...

On the issue of voting republican...I, personally don't want you on my side. I prefer people with a backbone not a flip-flopper.

At 2/03/2005 4:55 PM , Blogger yada said...

"no back bone" and "flip flopper" are just what your loser kerry was called. seems to me you are well versed on the subject.
i am neither. i am someone who recently evaluated my opinions on some of these political issues, but then after talking to rude and assuming asses such as yourself, i have been pushed to the right. i personally don't give a damn what side you want me on.
so just keep shooting down other opinions. clearly yours is the only one that matters.

At 2/03/2005 5:54 PM , Blogger yada said...

and by the way, terrorism is a federal issue also.

At 2/03/2005 6:50 PM , Blogger ProgressivePatriot said...

Flip flopper is what Kerry was called but, it is what the republicans do.
I should stay on the don't understand the underlying issues and we aren't here to be your teacher.
Terrorism isn't a local law enforcement issue either.

At 2/03/2005 7:07 PM , Blogger yada said...

thanks for helping me prove my point, terrorism isn't a local law enforcement issue.
i'm not looking to you to teach me anything "patriot". don't flatter yourself. stick to the issues.

At 2/03/2005 7:15 PM , Blogger ProgressivePatriot said...

I never left the issue......are you getting confused??

At 2/03/2005 7:29 PM , Blogger 88 said...

You should have watched the State of Union Address and you would have realised why you lost and we won. It is a difficult concept but when people invade your country someone must pay. Thank God that the majority of Americans agree.

At 2/03/2005 7:34 PM , Blogger yada said...

actually "patriot" you did. as usual you skirted my comments to take cheap shots. typical.
amen 88.

At 2/03/2005 7:49 PM , Blogger ProgressivePatriot said...

What comments babs?? You claimed the Sheriff's concerns were mine. You claim I don't realize terrorism is a federal issue.

You aren't hard to 'skirt' you have no mental order. Abstract or maybe scatter-brained possibly.

At 2/03/2005 7:52 PM , Blogger ProgressivePatriot said...

Actually 88, I don't watch the chimp ever. I don't like the lies and scams he and his handlers pull on America.

It wasn't actually a was an infomercial to scam people into a ponzi scheme.

As far as losing....prove that the Democrats lost....there is still an investigation ongoing..if you know something then bay all means report it. But, the election is a moot point now...the chimp was selected by Congress this time.

At 2/04/2005 5:48 AM , Blogger yada said...

you did in fact avoid my main point. why was it ok to suggest that local law deal with terrorism (suggested by john kerry and supported by every liberal i talked to) but not handle something like immigration issues. that was my point "patriot".

At 2/04/2005 6:15 AM , Blogger ProgressivePatriot said...

I answered that....local law enforcement needs to act in the scope of public safety defined by trust...I have never heard any liberal suggest terrorism be handled by local law enforcement....centrists maybe but, not liberals.

At 2/04/2005 2:16 PM , Blogger Amy said...

babs and 88..
what the hell are you talking about?
you're not making any sense.

I'm also condfused about “when people invade your country someone must pay” tell me who exactly invaded our country?

And what are we doing to track down terrorists on our own soil? And what are we doing to prevent terrorism. Please explain because I don’t see it.

At 2/06/2005 1:41 PM , Blogger yada said...

amy, as i was once told by an asshole extreme liberal, i am not here to teach you. educate yourself.

At 2/06/2005 3:20 PM , Blogger ProgressivePatriot said...

babs....Amy knows the answers to the questions she asked you. Now, answer her questions...quit avoiding the issues and, by all means, quit skirting the issues.

At 2/06/2005 4:18 PM , Blogger yada said...

"patriot", i do not skirt issues and avoid questions. i do, however refuse to repeat myself so you and your followers can pick apart what i say, hear what you want to hear, then distort it and then tell me and the world how wrong i am and maybe even resort to petty name calling.

how dare i have an opinion different than yours?!

At 2/06/2005 4:36 PM , Blogger ProgressivePatriot said...

You didn't answer the questions..

At 2/09/2005 6:06 AM , Blogger Michael Moore-on said...

Being in law enforcement, I feel somewhat qualified to speak on this. I work for a county. Lib, should I only enforce county laws? According to your logic, state police will enforce state laws, municipalities will enforce town laws. It's ludicrous! I live in a border state with a seasonal immigrant population, it would be foolish to simply rely on the federal government to patrol our borders. We (law enforcement) come into contact with far more people in any given day. That whining Sheriffs assertion that illegal immigrants will not call LE because of poor documentation is a crock. They won't call PERIOD because they will be deported. If the Sheriff refuses to do it, his agency would have to at least make the referral to the feds, and bingo! same outcome.

By the way, this was huge problem even under slick willie, how it became a "republican scam" under the Patriot Act is intensely interesting to me. We've been dealing with this situation for decades. No points for you.

At 2/09/2005 8:45 AM , Blogger ProgressivePatriot said...

I don't know what kind of law enforcemnet you are in but, the illegals do call local law when abuse occurs. The sheriff, a very good one by the way, does not want the trust they have to be lost to some repig scam the chimp is trying to push through in order to cut costs and propel his budget.
Being in don't have a clue when it comes to illegal immigration from the south....not even close to a clue.
The Feds enact federal laws then....the feds enforce them. Local law can enforce the laws made by locals.

At 2/09/2005 8:46 AM , Blogger ProgressivePatriot said...

If the patriot Act were enforced like the chimp wants it....the borders would be closed but, he can't do that....his corporate pals needs cheap labor from the south.

At 2/09/2005 11:45 AM , Blogger Michael Moore-on said...

Lib, ALL of our illegal immigrants come from the SOUTH. Every summer and fall I have to re-learn spanish as mexicans (some vietnamese) flood our state to pick blueberries, strawberries, potatoes and broccoli. There is a core that stays and works various egg farms. Try not to educate me about Maine, I don't pretend to know Colorado. I work for a sheriff's department myself, 15 years. They simply DON'T call. If that sheriff is not making referrals then he should be voted out. You can't pick and choose the laws you'll enforce.

At 2/09/2005 12:00 PM , Blogger Amy said...

um Michael moron. Those immigrants that flood your state to pick blueberries and cranberries are here legally. The come as guest workers for the summer and go back to Mexico. If they have come here illegally in the past they get denied a visa.
My boyfriend is an immigration lawyer in New York.

At 2/09/2005 12:27 PM , Blogger Amy said...

I was sitting this one out because I really hate to debate freepers who don’t have all the facts, but then I saw all of you have it sort of wrong (and right). So just for the sake of keeping us honest...

In a nutshell, immigration falls under The Department of Homeland Security. Immigration laws are Federally enforced. The problem with shifting the burden of immigration to local law enforcement offices is a money issue. Who is paying for the law enforcement? Your local property taxes. So border towns will have much higher costs now as a result of the extra work. Local law enforcement offices are going to have to pay for extra cops to chase down illegals. I believe the administration did this as a matter of practicality. The Department of Homeland Security is already way overburdened with deportations and other court proceedings. BF has a client who is here legally and has been waiting for his permanent green card since 97. The person was approved in 97 but the paperwork was either lost or forgotten. There aren’t enough enforcement officials to go and hunt down all the illegal immigrants. So their shifting that burden on to local law enforcement offices. It is practical; however this will drive up costs of property, state and local taxes in the long run. If the Department of Homeland Security would federally subsidize certain towns where extra law enforcement is needed then it would take the burden off those localities.

Also, on a final note, many immigrants are here legally. There is such a thing as a temporary guest worker visa for 6 months. Many Mexican landscapers get them.

At 2/09/2005 12:32 PM , Blogger Amy said...

One other thing. Just because someone is here illegally doesn't mean they will be deported if caught it depends on how they came here and if they got arrested for something else. On the other hand someone who is here legally can be deported if they are convicted of a crime.

At 2/09/2005 12:40 PM , Blogger Amy said...

Look in the mirror.

Iraq didn't attack us, Iraq never attacked us. If you want to know why we were attacked I suggest you watch PBS on Sunday night for the repeat of this week’s Frontline Documentary. Frontline: House of Saud. It is a 2 hour long documentary on the history of Saudi Arabia and its connenctions to Al Qaeda.
Or you can watch it on line here:


At 2/09/2005 1:00 PM , Blogger Michael Moore-on said...

Amy, jeez, we republicans like sound bites remember? First, we DO have ILLEGAL immigrants here in Maine, they are the ones I was referring to, not the legal variety. The illegal ones get hired at less money and never EVER call the police. Second, I wasn't suggesting that we (LE) become the Border Patrol, just that we can (and should) be included in the overall picture to tighten our borders. My buddy Lib was suggesting (among other things) that because they are breaking federal law, this enormous task should fall squarely on the feds. Thirdly, illegal immigrants (here) assume they will be deported once caught, so they run...often, at least I assume that's what they're thinking when they take off. Next time, don't be so quick to judge.

At 2/09/2005 1:53 PM , Blogger ProgressivePatriot said...

Maine is a long ways from the Mexican border. Your law enforcement problems with illegals is nothing compared to what we get in Colorado or New Mexico or Arizona.
You may spend $5 more in taxes to cover the costs of enforcing Federal law but, it is going to cost me $100. There is a big difference between there and here. Colorado, specifically the intersection of I-25 & I-70, has more illegal immigrants pass through it than any other place in America.

Thanks for the input Amy!!

At 2/09/2005 4:14 PM , Blogger Amy said...

Michael you're missing the point. Your state law enforcement expenditures are lower. Patriot made an excellent point.

The reality is most of the illegals are here because they want a better life, they mean no harm. The point of enforcing border control and protection is to avoid terrorism. There are really two main issues surrounding immigration: labor (not necessarily of the cheap variety, we import highly skilled labor too) and terrorism. South American immigrants aren’t the problem, it is companies who exploit cheap labor and tax enforcement. Locking up Mexicans doesn't solve the underlying problems nor does it help us.
I propose the following solutions:

-A national minimum wage of all workers, including illegals.
-Forcing all companies to employ people on the books regardless of legal status. (The company would not be punished for employing illegal immigrants, but they would be punished for paying below minimum wage and paying off the books).
-Encouraging and enforcing all workers to file taxes properly - no more black market economy for the sake of national security.
Tax enforcement would not only close the gap on the budget gap but it would stop companies from exploiting cheap labor.
Then we should crack down on undocumented people coming across the border while expanding the number of legal visas.
The government doesn't really want to crack down on illegal labor; businesses make huge profits off cheap labor.

BTW, the 9/11 hijackers were here legally. So there are other measures we have to take from a foreign policy standpoint to discourage terrorism.

At 2/10/2005 6:07 AM , Blogger Michael Moore-on said...

Um, Amy you missed the point and then morphed it into something else. I was merely pointing out that ILLEGAL immigrants aren't going to call the police no matter what kind of relationship you claim to have with them. Changing their status is the only solution. That in itself opens another whole can of worms.

Lib, nice try with $5 and the $100, but the Feds tax us equally. They don't target states by the services they (we) provide. By your logic the Navy bases in Norfolk must cost Virginia (not all Americans) Billions.

At 2/10/2005 8:14 AM , Blogger ProgressivePatriot said...

My logic is fine.....I am able to coinsider more than just Federal taxes. If you reread what I said you will see I am talking about local taxes going to federal enforcement....a much higher expense here that in Maine.

At 2/10/2005 10:40 AM , Blogger Michael Moore-on said...

I doubt it Lib, check your sources, Maine is THE highest taxed state in the country. We just narrowly lost a tax cap to Gov. Baldacci's lies. Certainly not a bragging point here...

At 2/10/2005 11:38 AM , Blogger ProgressivePatriot said...

Again...relative....nothing to do with overall tax rates....relative rates proportional to the amount of load on the local enforcers relative to the immigration issue.
My taxes would be lower if the problems were addressed outside the 'lock 'em up' attitudes of the state republicans.
Look up Congressman Tancredo....look at what the real problem is.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home