Obama Wars
See other Obama Wars Articles
Title: I'm a Liberal Democrat. I'm Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why.
Source:
The Huffington Post
URL Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-g ... ral-democrat-im_b_6169542.html
Published: Nov 17, 2014
Author: H. A. Goodman
Post Date: 2014-11-17 10:57:06 by Hondo68
Keywords: None
Views: 69846
Comments: 113
The editor of Breitbart Unmasked, a site that I enjoy immensely and find informative, recently told me that supporting Rand Paul disqualifies a person from being labeled a progressive. My rebuttal was that he might be right. However, I also mentioned that Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia agreed with my latest Congress Blog piece. In the article, I explain why Rand Paul is correct in questioning the legality of President Obama's troop deployments. Sadly, people at UC Berkeley are more interested in protesting Bill Maher than condemning a conflict George McGovern stated weakens our country in the same manner as Vietnam. Hundreds of airstrikes, over 3,000 soldiers deployed, and a request for $5.6 billion is a war, folks. Had President Mitt Romney just doubled our military presence in the Middle East and launched airstrikes that even the Kurds and the Free Syrian Army have criticized, the reaction would have been entirely different from liberals throughout the country. We once again have over 3,000 American boots on the ground in Iraq (without a peep from the anti-war left), only months after a VA crisis that caused veterans to die as they waited for health care, and about the same time as the publication of this book by an American general. To make matters worse, Congress is too cowardly to even debate the issue, despite calls for a discussion by Rand Paul. In the meantime, our values as a nation have succumb to fear mongering and paranoia. Since 9/11, we've had to endure ideologues like Sean Hannity, a man who vehemently defends enhanced interrogation, yet is too chicken (insert the next word) to get waterboarded himself; even after promising on television that he would do so for charity. To prove that waterboaring is indeed torture, Christopher Hitchens actually did get waterboarded, yet the thought of nearly drowning apparently terrifies Fox's tough, football throwing host. Even petitions calling for Hannity to back up the bravado, or the fact that such interrogation methods endanger U.S. soldiers and besmirch our value system, haven't been enough to alter the conservative view of this un-American tool of statecraft. Alas, only Selsun Blue and unicorn tears, not water being poured onto his smug face wrapped in cloth and gasping for oxygen, will ever grace the Fred Flinstone-like visage of Sean Hannity. In contrast, Rand Paul has called for the GOP to reject Dick Cheney for defending torture and asserted that Cheney helped launch the Iraq War to profit Halliburton. Only Rand Paul provides a voice for people disgusted by the fear peddlers on Fox, the tepid rebuttals to their madness by leading liberals like Hillary Clinton, and the media driven paranoia that shapes public policy. Today, over 40 percent of Americans favor ground troops in Iraq, just several years removed from the end of a deadly counterinsurgency war. Upholding Obamacare is important, but pales in comparison to the prospect of perpetual American military involvement in the Middle East or the destruction of our value system because of terrorism. Rand Paul is my candidate in 2016, even though the Tea Party would consider me Joseph Stalin's love child. I'm for immigration reform and believe that illegal immigrants benefit this country. I've written many articles criticizing Tea Party paranoia. I'm against demagoguery from people like Paul Ryan who unfairly target inner city citizens and I'm for the federal legalization of gay marriage and marijuana. I think Ted Cruz is a buffoon and that we should listen to Stephen Hawking over Senator "Green Eggs and Ham" on climate change. Finally, I've also written two novels about the evils of religious fundamentalism and political demagoguery. On all these possible points of contention with Rand Paul, the reality is that he isn't Ted Cruz or Lou Dobbs on these matters. Sen. Paul is a self-described "moderate" on immigration, much to the dismay of Tea Party Republicans. Paul's recent Bill Maher interview shows he's open to cleaner energy alternatives. Most importantly, Paul doesn't abide by the right-wing rhetoric blaming poor people for their predicament, or claiming God wants people to do this or that. Congress at the end of the day has the power of the purse, so if President Rand Paul scares you on economic matters, simply remember that only Congress can repeal or alter government programs and decide on budgets. I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but in 2016, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul will be my choice for president. On issues that affect the long-term survival of this country; grandiose concerns like perpetual war that could send generations of Americans fighting and dying in the Middle East, domestic spying that could eventually lead to a police state, and numerous other topics, Rand Paul has shown that he bucks both the Republican and Democratic penchant for succumbing to public opinion, an overreaction to the terror threat, and a gross indifference to an egregious assault on our rights as citizens. Yes, I'll have to concede some of my beliefs and roll the dice as to whether or not he'll flip-flop on issues, but Hillary Clinton and President Obama have changed their views on everything from gay marriage to marijuana legalization and Iraq, so I'm taking an educated gamble with Sen. Paul. Hillary Clinton alone has gone back and forth on enough issues to make the former Secretary of State a human version of Pong, so I'm not too worried about voting for Paul. Below are ten reasons this Democrat is voting for Rand Paul in 2016 and if my liberal membership card is revoked, I'll live with that; I'm not an ideologue like Sean Hannity, I'm an American. 1. Rand Paul will be more cautious with waging war than Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. Sen. Paul has called Obama's ISIS war illegal and isn't against defending American interests through military intervention, but stresses the importance of Congress making these decisions. Hillary Clinton, in contrast, thinks we should have armed the Syrian rebel groups several years ago. Try naming even one of the Syrian rebel groups and explaining their differences with ISIS. Furthermore, The Week states that "Clinton's instincts appear to be far more hawkish than Barack Obama's." Imagine a more hawkish Obama and you'll get the next President Clinton. Also, famed neocon Robert Kagan is one of Clinton's advisers and states in The New York Times, "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy." That should tell you how liberal Clinton will be on matters of perpetual war in the Middle East. 2. The Los Angeles Times has referred to Paul as "one of the foremost critics of the government's domestic spying program." In early 2014, Sen. Paul filed a lawsuit against the NSA over domestic spying. Neither Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, nor any other candidate in 2016 has made this a top priority in their campaign. Sen. Paul has also voted against PATRIOT Act Extension bills, voted for an amendment that prohibits detention of U.S. citizens without trial (which of course didn't pass the Senate), and his voting record protects American citizens from politicians paranoid over terrorism. Sen. Paul was vehemently against the NDAA Indefinite Detention Bill that passed in 2013, because, "This bill takes away that right and says that if someone thinks you're dangerous, we will hold you without a trial. It's an abomination." 3. Rand Paul has teamed up with liberal Democratic Sen. Corey Booker to reform the criminal justice system. Their bill would improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans who've been adversely affected by non-violent criminal sentences. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush don't care about reforming the criminal justice system, and if they do, it's on the bottom of their to do lists, far behind cozying up to Wall Street and increasing America's military presence in the Middle East. 4. POLITICO states Hillary Clinton is "Wall Street Republicans' dark secret" in 2016. I don't see Clinton as being any more liberal than Paul on Wall Street or banking, although perhaps she'd be more willing to save failed corporations than the Kentucky Senator. Also, Paul is one of the few Republicans who's addressed the GOP's love affair with corporations, stating that, "We cannot be the party of fat cats, rich people, and Wall Street...corporate welfare should once and for all be ended." 5. Sen. Paul thinks Edward Snowden was treated unfairly as a whistleblower and should have only spent "a few years" in prison. No other candidate in 2016 would dare take that position. The Wall Street Journal criticized Paul's position on the Snowden matter, and their criticism actually makes me like Rand Paul in 2016 even more. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is "puzzled" why Snowden would want to leave the U.S. and feels he might have helped terrorists with his disclosures. 6. Rand Paul publicized the issue of a possible government drone strike, on American soil, against American citizens. No, I'm not making this up. I don't want to get blown up eating a burrito at Chipotle because I visited Egypt to see the pyramids and happened to sit in a café frequented by a terrorist. In 2013, Rand Paul asked Eric Holder whether or not American citizens could be targeted by drones on American soil. Jon Stewart has a great segment about this. Eric Holder actually answered that theoretically, yes, drone strikes to kill Americans on U.S. soil could be viewed as legal, depending on the circumstance. If this doesn't frighten you, then vote for Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, since neither one cares about this matter. Issues like drone strikes on American soil, against Americans, is why I don't believe in conspiracy theories. This sort of thing is being discussed today in plain sight, yet only Rand Paul and a few others have shown outrage over the potential of our government to possibly target its own citizens. If it's not an ISIL beheading video, nobody seems to care nowadays. 7. Rand Paul could bring back an era in American politics when conservatives and liberals socialized with one another. This alone would solve some of the gridlock in Washington. Paul has worked with 7 leading Democrats on a number of issues; working on everything from judicial reform, NSA surveillance, the limits of presidential authority to launch strikes in Iraq, and other issues. Imagine Ted Cruz reaching out to Nancy Pelosi, or Mitch McConnell having lunch with Hillary Clinton. Rand Paul, on the other hand, has worked to emulate this picture. 8. Rand Paul will not gut the economic safety nets of this country in the manner espoused by Paul Ryan and others. He doesn't want to dismantle Social Security. I do disagree with his view of the SNAP Program and certain other issues. However, Paul has stated, "I'm for a social safety net, but it should be minimized to helping those who can't help themselves." I don't ever recall Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan making that type of statement and mainstream Republicans do everything in their power to promote the view that safety nets equate to communism or socialism. 9. Neoconservatives hate Rand Paul. They like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush a lot more, and The Weekly Standard, National Review, and others have voiced their reservations about a Rand Paul presidency. If neocons disagree with you, then you must be doing something right. 10. Rand Paul could be the answer to our philosophical conundrum as a nation. We're stuck with a GOP who thinks the globe is one giant Stratego board game with God helping roll the dice, a Democratic Party more focused on defending Obamacare than stopping endless wars or protecting civil liberties, and a populace that cares more about beheading videos than the erosion of rights or the welfare of our warriors. Is Paul the answer? I'm not certain. But compared to Hillary and Jeb Bush, I'll take the man who stated, "I do blame the Iraq War on the chaos that is in the Middle East." If Rand Paul picks Mike Huckabee as his running mate, I'll "evolve" towards Hillary. However, if Rand Paul picks someone reasonable who possesses his value system, I'll take my chances. President Rand Paul will be a nice change from Bush 2.0, Bush in a pantsuit, and especially Bush's brother. In 2016, I want someone who can protect us from ourselves and protect us from the media/terrorist driven fear that keeps America in endless war and allows attorney generals to rationalize a drone strike on American soil. Paul was also the first 2016 contender to visit Ferguson, and for some reason I just can't imagine Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush taking a moment to find out why Ferguson took place, and what steps are needed to solve that intractable situation.
Poster Comment: The author explains why, if you're not a Rand Paul supporter, you're working for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Rand Paul or Hillary Clinton? Take your time, you've still got about 2 years to decide.
Mark Wilson via Getty Images
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-72) not displayed.
.
.
.
#73. To: Liberator (#67)
I was wondering what that construction project out on I70 just west of Columbus was for? Another good place would be around Cleveland, Cincinnati and W. Dayton so the plantation dwellers can't escape!
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Also noticed it has gotten kinda quiet too.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
There should be a fence, absolutely. My point is simply that it will never happen.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
HAHAHAHAHA!! YOU are one funny old fart!
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
I'm a Right Wing Conservative (Charter member of the NRWC) and I would love to cast a vote for either Trey Gowdy or Scott Walker.
I'm a Right Wing Conservative (Charter member of the NRWC) Hillary appreciates your support, by voting for those losers. I'm a member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy", and Hillary's worst nightmare.
One high enough that it might keep out snails? My point is simply that it will never happen. Why not in your opinion? Especially IF your Fuehrer's unconstitutional EO is allowed to stand? Didn't he promise to "increase security" at the border? Oh, never mind -- that means adding Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder to run it.
HAHAHAHAHA!! YOU are one funny old fart! What am I wrong about? Laughing like a deranged ex-hippie cat-lady because there's MORE?? Face facts -- You still believe Der Fuerher has NOT violated the Constitution -- not even ONCE. And he (or you) hasn't ANY idea how Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS targeting, scandals ad nauseam have been authorized and been FUBARED without his knowledge. Bwaahaa! Uh-huh. He ONLY discovers these scandals days later...on Tee-Bee!! He never even knew Gruber. Didn't know Rev. Wright wuz a racist; Hardly knew Bill Ayers. How adorable a fanboi you are!! Hey -- Remember when you used to swoon and faint during his campaigning days when he promised to "heal the planet"? Oh, I get it -- President B. Hoosane Fuehrer IS the George Washington of our time, right?? My bad...(Seig HEIL!!)
"border security" has been an issue since the Reagan administration. We've been treated to gop controlled congress and dem controlled congress... We've had republican and democrat presidents.... 24+ years and no meaningful change to our country's "border security" Clearly there are more powerful people who benefit from an open border than there are powerful people who would benefit from a closed border. It's that simple. IMHO ...Didn't he promise to "increase security" at the border?... Yes! and gwb promised a fence.......
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
LOL - seriously!! You're hysterical !!! Are you sober?
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
You know that Ray Charles is dead right? Have you been getting your weekly copy of the National Enquirer?
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
We've been treated to gop controlled congress and dem controlled congress... We've had republican and democrat presidents.... 24+ years and no meaningful change to our country's "border security" Yes, it's true the border has always been an issue. BUT...Only B. Hoosane has changed the RoE of the BP not to "DO NOTHING." None of the other Presidents did "NOTHING." A fence was needed, but at least during the other Presidents' admins the BP could still arrest, fire at, or prevent intrusion. Clearly there are more powerful people who benefit from an open border than there are powerful people who would benefit from a closed border. It's that simple. IMHO. Yes. The beneficiaries are: 1) The Dem Party Those for whom this is a LOSE-LOSE: 1) The GOP Can't address the charges? Thought not :-( I'm reading your bio. It SEZ you've always been a bleating tool of authoritah and socialist slave. Did your emasculation begin on the playground in 2nd grade? Did the girls abuse you?
Then he IS the PERFECT man to run 0buma's "border security"!
Yes. The beneficiaries are: 1) The Dem Party The parties on lines 2-5 bought the last election with $4 Billion.....
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Yes, Dubya was also a lying tool. HOWEVER, he didn't order the BP to act like mannequins, didn't publicly and personally invite Mexicans to invade the US, and didn't invite hundreds of thousands of illegals into America, then bus them all over the country...LIKE 0buma. Oh...and Dubya didn't run the 0buma-led F&F Op that killed BP agents, Americans and Mexican citizens.
Your silly ranting is entertaining, but pointless. By all means keep it up!!!
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
I'm glad we're on the same page then.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Yes, but in the Dems' case, their investment buys 40 million new Dem voters. The GOP support is led by the Rockefeller RINO-globalists of their party. At least 75% of the GOP are conservatives who OPPOSE the Mexican invasion and violation of the USCON and national sovereignty... The question is why YOU support the Mexican invasion? How do you and yours benefit? In fact, how has 0buma made America a better place in your opinion -- seriously??
Good. Then at least you're not 100% insane :-)
By all means keep it up!!! The ball is in your court...The charges of mindless sycophancy without reason remains unanswered. In your opinion does 0buma authorize ANY of these operations? Does he bear ANY responsibility for his scandals?? Does he have ANY idea WTH is going on?? (I mean other than down in his "Man-Cave" with Reggie Love?) GO!! tick...tick...tick...
Of course it's quiet over there. The red diaper dopers took over. I wouldn't be surprised Demoncratic Underworld infiltrated and contaminated the site.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
No sodomy threads? Are sneakypete and gaydubyapegler no longer posting?
Frankly, I quit checking. Too boring. And I have better things to do. How many times can you beat a dead horse any way? All the odd priorities and "important" stuff are covered by the usual suspects as some conservatives remain, (out of habit.) They help balance the hypocrisy and misguided. Over there you've got the Homo lobby, the Atheist lobby, the anti-Christian Lobby, the Russian lobby, the Pot lobby. What else is there to discuss? Neutralizing Christian voices is a special priority for obvious reasons; The Dark hates the Light. Without a Judeo-Christian based moral and ethical citizenry and government no Constitution or "America" can survive. Anyone who refuses to concede this simple equation (even if they aren't Christian) is lost and deluded. I wouldn't be surprised Demoncratic Underworld infiltrated and contaminated the site. Paid (and pro-bono) shills have been a problem at LP as well as other sites. But then there's also THIS factor to consider: Outside money may be dropped directly into the coffers of a site owner in order to influence a statist/leftist/globalist agenda. We witnessed exactly that firsthand during Dubya's regime when FR became a GOP Satellite that supported the illegal invasion at a critical time when it *could* have made a difference. Countless posters who staunchly voiced opposition to Dubya's destructive policy it were purged by JR while ALL criticism of Der Arbusto was verboten. DAMAGE DONE.
Don't forget the third wheel: Homo-San. Q: How does one support "gay" marriage yet claim they aren't tools of the Left and hand-maidens of the destruction of America?
Quite accurate. "The struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith." RONALD REAGAN, speech for National Association of Evangelicals, March 8, 1983
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
40 Million? Please show your work. The question is why YOU support the Mexican invasion? How do you and yours benefit? The "mexican invasion" took place many years ago. There has never been any serious effort on the part of "our government" to stop, or even slow it. I don't support it, but what can I do about it? "Immigration" isn't even on my top ten list of issues I care about. I don't benefit, but like the vast majority of Americans, I am not harmed by it either. OK - So...President Obama issues an EO that allows people who are already here, and have been for some time, who work and spend money in their community, and raise their kids, and want a normal life, to stay without the threat of a middle of the night raid and deportation. OK by me, doesn't cost me a dime, doesn't affect my life at all, and maybe adds a few more tax- payers to the general population. I don't feel the least bit threatened by "immigrants" - and I'm glad that these folks want to become Americans. ... how has 0boma made America a better place in your opinion -- seriously?? I doubt that your question is serious, but I'll answer it anyway. Here are things that I feel strongly about, and have been supported by President Obama - 1. War in the ME - I am against war. I am especially against the wealth transfer that masquerades as war in the ME. (please pardon my language) Fuck the Iraqis, fuck the Afghans, fuck the Israelis, the Palestinians, the house of saud, the oil industry, and the military industrial complex. President Obama has at least not waged more war. 2. Banking regulation - Gramm–Leach–Bliley - and the de-regulatory legislation that preceded it almost crashed the global economy to benefit the ultra-rich banking cabal. president Obama has supported renewed banking regulation that might prevent future melt-downs. 3. Health Care - I believe (100% completely) that in the richest, most productive, most prosperous, most innovative country in the world, no AMERICAN should ever have to face financial ruin because a family member is sick, injured, or afflicted. The President's ACA took a step toward assuring health security. Disagree if you wish, it won't change my mind. I'm in favor of doing what benefits Americans first.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
What was Libya? ISIS? Drone attacks on citizens.
Then why isn't imigratoin one of your issues you see as important. Oh yeah it wont "cost you a dime". In the meantime your fellow countrymen you claim to care so much about are going to have to pay more welfare for these forcing invaders. There are studies that these new "immigrants" use more welfare then the general population. Also your fellow Americans will see their wages driven down by wetbacks that will work below what it costs to to hire a REAL American. No you don't care about Americans. You care about it not costing you "dime". Or at least you think it wont. But you are to ignorant to see that it will.
Please cite your source. A different opinion: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2014/1122/What-Obama-immigration-plan- means-for-US-economy
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
You post fake links with opinions that don't exist. I post facts from the Census. Not some hackjob from the Christian Science Monitor that was obviously discredited and removed. Using U.S. Census Bureau data from 2010 and 2011, the group analyzed the more than 50 million legal and illegal immigrants and their American-born children under 18 years of age. Large numbers, the limited immigration advocacy group found, are struggling in poverty, reliant on welfare and uninsured. The study found that in 2010, 36 percent of immigrant-headed households receive benefits from at least one welfare program, compared to just 23 percent of households headed by U.S. natives. Among households with children, immigrant welfare households outnumbered non-immigrants by a similarly wide margin: 57 percent to 40 percent. http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/09/census-data-high-immigrant-participation- on-welfare-rolls/
Might want to check your source.... "4.0.4. - Page not found." New Link!! http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2014/1122/What-Obama-immigration-plan- means-for-US-economy USA LATEST NEWS WIRES What Obama immigration plan means for US economy Obama's new immigration orders could boost labor income by $6.8 billion, helping to generate 160,000 new jobs and $2.5 billion in additional tax revenues, say economists. But immigration reform by Congress would do more. By Josh Boak, Associated Press NOVEMBER 22, 2014 WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's expansive executive action on immigration is good for the U.S. economy — just not as good as partnering with Congress on broader reforms. Announced Thursday, the executive order would prevent the deportation of about 4 million parents and guardians who lack the same legal status as their children. By gaining work permits, they will likely command higher wages, move more easily between jobs and boost government tax revenues, according to multiple economic analyses. "This is focused on people who are already in the economy today, who are contributing mightily but are basically operating in the shadows," said Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. "Their economic potential is being held back." Recommended: Could you pass a US citizenship test? The new order could boost labor income by $6.8 billion, helping to generate 160,000 new jobs and $2.5 billion in additional tax revenues, according to estimates by Hinojosa-Ojeda. The findings dovetail with separate research showing that a 1986 amnesty measure raised incomes for illegal workers in the years that followed. TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGECould you pass a US citizenship test? PHOTOS OF THE DAY Photos of the weekend Still, any gains from the executive action would be modest in the $17 trillion U.S. economy. White House officials estimate that the executive order would expand gross domestic product less than 0.1 percent a year over the next decades. Along with the Congressional Budget Office, independent economists say growth would be much stronger with a broader overhaul that would more than double the number of illegal workers eligible for legalized status, in addition to reforms that would attract high-skilled immigrant workers who are more likely to lead and found new companies. The Senate passed a measure last year to fix the immigration system, but it stalled in the Republican-majority House that favored a step-by-step approach. The CBO estimated the Senate-backed reform would have added another 0.33 percent annually to GDP growth. The president's order "falls short of a comprehensive reform that would have a more sweeping effect on the economic landscape," said Joel Prakken of the forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers. More substantial reforms could lift economic growth by an additional 0.24 percent a year — or about $41 billion — for the next two decades, according to an analysis that Prakken contributed to last year for the Bipartisan Policy Center. The reforms could also cut the federal debt by $1.2 trillion over the same period, increase home construction, lift wages and add 8.3 million workers to the economy. A broader overhaul would also create a framework for attracting more immigrants, which would mute the negative economic impacts of an aging population. As more Americans retire, the percentage of the population with jobs has slipped, limiting the ability of the economy to expand. But the executive order would do little to promote additional immigration, nor would it fully address the concerns of technology companies looking for high-skilled foreigners. Obama's plan does not raise the current annual limit of 65,000 so-called "H-1B" visas for skilled workers, although he promised to streamline some of the rules governing them. Scientists, engineers and computer programmers all earn higher wages than the comparatively low-paid workers who would be helped by Obama. Silicon Valley entrepreneur Mike Galarza knows the issue first hand. A native of Mexico, he described a daunting bureaucratic obstacle course to obtain a visa that allowed him to launch Entryless, an online business accounting startup, last year in Menlo Park, California. Now he's struggling to find talent. Galaraza said he recently lost a job candidate with a Ph.D. in computer science because there were no more H-1B visas available. "The U.S. is not welcoming enough to entrepreneurs who want to create value for the American economy," Galarza said. "I'm glad if (Obama) is able to help those 5 million people, but he needs to focus on the issue of tech workers and foreign entrepreneurs, as well." Groups such as the Center for Immigration Studies have critiqued the benefits of adding immigrants, noting that many U.S. citizens are still searching for work more than five years after the Great Recession ended. By giving these workers legal status, it will inevitably help their earnings prospects but do little for the rest of the economy, said Steven Camarota, the organization's research director. But the business community disagrees, saying they need immigrants in order to expand their operations. In response to Obama's executive action, Buffalo Wings & Rings estimates it would be able to add five restaurants to its more than 45 franchised outlets. "For us, it's an opportunity," said Philip Schram, executive vice president of development at the Cincinnati-based chain. A 2013 survey by the advocacy group Small Business Majority showed 84 percent of small business owners are in favor of immigration reform. Owners believe it will help them have a more stable workforce, especially in industries like agriculture, hotels and restaurants, said the group's CEO, John Arensmeyer. The obstacle has been that jobs in agriculture don't appeal to people born in the United States, so Jim Gilbert, owner of Northwoods Nursery in Molalla, Oregon, hires immigrants to tend to the plants he grows and sells. "There are not enough people to do the jobs we need to do," Gilbert said.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
In some cases they seem to be the same posters, once Putin started showing off his man boobs the LP knitting women fell head over heels in love. The one in France seemed to have been on the rebound after she was spurned by a guy in Arizona, and went on to prove the adage about a woman scorned with her anti-American vitriol. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 seems to apply in these cases: 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/09/census-data-high-immigrant-participation-on- welfare-rolls/
You quote a propaganda opinion piece. I'm talking about real numbers. There is no reason illegals should get one cent from me or any REAL American. These wetbacks, Arabs etc that come here aren't real Americans.
Interesting. I guess they don't want you to put links to their site. My link didn't work twice. Put the first few sentences in Google and you will get to the site. My link is what their link is but it does't take you there for some reason.
Yes and to top it off, Obola has made foreign policy decisions, or lack of making them, which sets us up for more wars.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Libya had the government they deserved under Qaddafi, just like Iraq under Saddam. The Middle East is not fit for representative government, most of the third world is the same way. They are unable to put moral chains upon their own appetites, and as a result the restraint must be forced down upon them by the strongest tyrant. They behave the same way when they move into Western nations, formerly civilized cities like Detroit become degenerate cesspits.
Q: How does one support "gay" marriage yet claim they aren't tools of the Left and hand-maidens of the destruction of America? Speaking of the elPee sodomy squad, gaydubyapegler proved the adage about a broken clock being right twice a day. That's as good as watching ISIS and Hezbollah killing each other in Syria.
Did you really expect anything different from someone who supports the Democraps agenda?
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I don't feel the least bit threatened by "immigrants" - and I'm glad that these folks want to become Americans. Disagree if you wish, it won't change my mind. I'm in favor of doing what benefits Americans first. Really then you might want to ask the almost 13% of Americans who are unemployed/underemployed how they feel about all this new competition for jobs! (Bet they would disagree with you). The only reason big business wants them here is because they can get away with paying them less and not furnish any health care, and if I'm not mistaken they can't fight it in court because they won't be American citizens!!!!!! Your buddy Obola is selling your ass down schitt creek without a paddle and you can't/refuse to see it..... All so they can finish turning this country into a 3rd world schitthole and keep themselves in power, they could give a schitt less about you!!!!!!! BTW please let us know when you get fired and replaced by a wetback, OK?
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
If you have one around your sanitarium compound, then why not the border?
#74. To: redleghunter, Liberator, AKA Stone (#64)
#75. To: Liberator, CZ82 (#67)
...then why not the border?
#76. To: Liberator (#69)
Jameson doesn't believe in personal, local, OR nation sovereignty; He/she believes in President Darth Vader, coercive tyranny and fascist/Marxist dictates.
#77. To: hondo68 (#0)
#78. To: IbJensen, *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars* (#77)
I would love to cast a vote for either Trey Gowdy or Scott Walker
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#79. To: Jameson (#75)
There should be a fence, absolutely.
#80. To: Jameson (#76)
Jameson doesn't believe in personal, local, OR nation sovereignty; He/she believes in President Darth Vader, coercive tyranny and fascist/Marxist dictates.
#81. To: Liberator (#79)
Why not in your opinion?
#82. To: Liberator (#80)
#83. To: Liberator (#79)
#84. To: Jameson (#81)
"border security" has been an issue since the Reagan administration.
2) Globalist-run business
3) Mexico and Third World riff-raff
4) The Elite Globalist-Firsters
5) Subversive haters of the USA
2) ALL citizens and classes of America's economic strata (except "rich" globalists)
3) The US Constitution
4) The USA
#85. To: Jameson (#82)
Are you sober?
#86. To: Jameson (#83)
You know that Ray Charles is dead right?
#87. To: Liberator (#84)
Let me fix this for you..
2) Globalist-run business
3) Mexico and Third World riff-raff
4) The Elite Globalist-Firsters
5) Subversive haters of the USA
6) The GOP
#88. To: Jameson (#81)
(Edited)
Yes! and gwb promised a fence.......
#89. To: Liberator (#85)
Can't address the charges?
#90. To: Liberator (#88)
Yes, Dubya was also a lying tool.
#91. To: Jameson (#87)
(Edited)
The parties on lines 2-5 bought the last election with $4 Billion.....
#92. To: Jameson (#90)
I'm glad we're on the same page then.
#93. To: Jameson (#89)
Your silly ranting is entertaining, but pointless.
#94. To: CZ82, Liberator (#74)
#95. To: Liberator (#66)
It didn't take long. LP is back to Putin, Ukraine and pot 24/7.
#96. To: redleghunter, CZ82, nativist nationalist, out damned spot (#94)
Of course it's quiet over there. The red diaper dopers took over.
#97. To: nativist nationalist (#95)
(Edited)
No sodomy threads? Are sneakypete and gaydubyapegler no longer posting?
#98. To: Liberator (#96)
Neutralizing Christian voices is a special priority for obvious reasons; The Dark hates the Light. Without a Judeo-Christian based moral and ethical citizenry and government no Constitution or "America" can survive. Anyone who refuses to concede this simple equation (even if they aren't Christian) is lost and deluded.
#99. To: Liberator (#91)
Yes, but in the Dems' case, their investment buys 40 million new Dem voters.
#100. To: Jameson (#99)
President Obama has at least not waged more war.
#101. To: Jameson (#99)
Disagree if you wish, it won't change my mind. I'm in favor of doing what benefits Americans first.
#102. To: A K A Stone (#101)
There are studies that these new "immigrants" use more welfare then the general population.
#103. To: Jameson (#102)
There are studies that these new "immigrants" use more welfare then the general population. Please cite your source.
#104. To: A K A Stone (#103)
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/09/census-data-high-immigrant-participation-%20on-welfare-rolls
#105. To: Liberator (#96)
...the anti-Christian Lobby, the Russian lobby...
#106. To: Jameson (#104)
#107. To: Jameson (#104)
#108. To: Jameson (#104)
#109. To: A K A Stone (#100)
What was Libya? ISIS? Drone attacks on citizens.
#110. To: A K A Stone (#100)
What was Libya? ISIS? Drone attacks on citizens.
#111. To: Liberator (#97)
Don't forget the third wheel: Homo-San.
#112. To: A K A Stone (#107)
You quote a propaganda opinion piece.
#113. To: Jameson (#99)
OK by me, doesn't cost me a dime, doesn't affect my life at all, and maybe adds a few more tax- payers to the general population.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]