In response to Daron Christopher's letter "Immigrants are opportunity" (May 14 and TribLIVE.com): The proposed Pennsylvania legislation that he criticizes, like its Arizona cousin, is not anti- immigrant; it is anti-illegal immigrant!
When will you people have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that this measure and measures like it are to address a specific problem? It's a problem, by the way, that 70 percent of legal immigrants recognize as a threat to them.
Of course we want immigrants in this country, but anyone whose first acts upon entering are to break the law and fail to respect our sovereignty is not an immigrant. He is a criminal.
Pennsylvania's population and economic declines are made worse by the additional costs associated with burdens on law enforcement, entitlement spending, medical costs, etc., brought on by illegal immigrants accessing public services.
Enforcing the rule of law, reducing regulations and lowering tax rates will bring people and businesses back to this state, not more tax breaks and tuition assistance -- they are what got us here.
Oh, and by the way, the regions that Mr. Christopher says are "most accepting of different cultures -- New York, San Francisco, Austin" -- and other bastions of liberal policies are foundering, not flourishing. He should drink less Kool-Aid!
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
In response to Immigrants are Opportunity (TribLive Friday, May 14, 2010).
The proposed legislation, like its Arizonan cousin, is not anti immigrant; it is anti ILLEGAL immigrant! When will you people have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that this and measures like it, are designed to address a specific problem. A problem, by the way, that 70% of LEGAL immigrants recognize as a threat to them! Of course we want immigrants in this country; but anyone who's first act upon entering is to break the law and fail to respect our sovereinty is not an immigrant. They are a criminal.
Pennsylvania's population and economic declines are made worse by the additional costs associated with burdens on law enforcement, entitlement spending, medical costs, etc. brought on by ILLEGAL immigrants' disproportional access of public services. Enforcing the rule of law, reducing regulations, and lowering tax rates will bring people and businesses back to this state; not more tax breaks and tuition assistance - they are what got us here.
Oh, and by the way, San Francisco, New York, Austin, and other bastions of liberal policies are floundering, not flourishing. You should drink less koolaid!
Pennsylvania's population and economic declines are made worse by the additional costs associated with burdens on law enforcement, entitlement spending, medical costs, etc. brought on by ILLEGAL immigrants' disproportional access of public services. Enforcing the rule of law, reducing regulations, and lowering tax rates will bring people and businesses back to this state; not more tax breaks and tuition assistance - they are what got us here.
Oh, and by the way, San Francisco, New York, Austin, and other bastions of liberal policies are floundering, not flourishing. You should drink less koolaid!
Monday, September 21, 2009
What State Department?
I think that a well-balanced democracy following the rule of law and ousting a leader who extra-constitutionally tried to become a dictator is a good thing.
So, how's come the US is punishing Honduras?
So, how's come the US is punishing Honduras?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
800lb Gorilla in the room
Our founding fathers; arguably the brightest collection of persons of their time; were able to format the most successful government in human history in a document encompassing only 14 pages -- that is today's pages, single spaced, and with a standard font; and that includes all 27 ammendments!
So, the most powerful, most successful, wealthiest, safest, most free contry in human history was put together inside of 14 pages; but our representatives are trying to pass laws that are over 1,000 pages? Are you kiding me?
How about a law that restricts any law passed by the federal government to the word limit of the Constitution?
So, the most powerful, most successful, wealthiest, safest, most free contry in human history was put together inside of 14 pages; but our representatives are trying to pass laws that are over 1,000 pages? Are you kiding me?
How about a law that restricts any law passed by the federal government to the word limit of the Constitution?
Friday, September 04, 2009
Disclosure: This is not my work; but still and all a nice lesson
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'
Acorn stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.'
Rev. Jeremiah Wright then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.
Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders
who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'
Acorn stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.'
Rev. Jeremiah Wright then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.
Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders
who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Competition Prescription
In respoonse to 'Competition Prescription' TribLive letter from Jay Lynch on 8/17/2009.
Do your apples taste like oranges?
I have heard this argument many times n the last few weeks, and it seems no one ever challenges the basic premise! Fedex would not be able to compete with the post office if it were treated as private insurers will be under proposed legislation. If the government told Fedex when to ship, where to ship, and how much to charge; there is no way it could compete! Yet this argument has been applied to healthcare?
Government intervention is the current leader in responsibility for escalating healthcare costs; so, by all means, let's have more!
~~Original~~
There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about health care reform. But why are insurance companies saying they can't possibly compete with a taxpayer-subsidized insurance program?
Is FedEx unable to compete with the taxpayer-subsidized U.S. Postal Service? Have taxpayer-subsidized Penn State and Pitt driven CMU and Allegheny College out of business?
If a government program will be designed and administered by idiots, what are the insurance companies afraid of? Putting the government plan out of business should be easy. But perhaps competition from a federal plan may force them to reduce their administrative costs (including executive compensation), prevent them from altering physician/patient decisions, and end offensive and immoral practices such as "rescission of coverage" when a policyholder becomes seriously ill.
Let's put our faith in free enterprise by adopting a taxpayer-funded plan and challenging private insurers to put it out of business.
Jay Lynch
Do your apples taste like oranges?
I have heard this argument many times n the last few weeks, and it seems no one ever challenges the basic premise! Fedex would not be able to compete with the post office if it were treated as private insurers will be under proposed legislation. If the government told Fedex when to ship, where to ship, and how much to charge; there is no way it could compete! Yet this argument has been applied to healthcare?
Government intervention is the current leader in responsibility for escalating healthcare costs; so, by all means, let's have more!
~~Original~~
There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about health care reform. But why are insurance companies saying they can't possibly compete with a taxpayer-subsidized insurance program?
Is FedEx unable to compete with the taxpayer-subsidized U.S. Postal Service? Have taxpayer-subsidized Penn State and Pitt driven CMU and Allegheny College out of business?
If a government program will be designed and administered by idiots, what are the insurance companies afraid of? Putting the government plan out of business should be easy. But perhaps competition from a federal plan may force them to reduce their administrative costs (including executive compensation), prevent them from altering physician/patient decisions, and end offensive and immoral practices such as "rescission of coverage" when a policyholder becomes seriously ill.
Let's put our faith in free enterprise by adopting a taxpayer-funded plan and challenging private insurers to put it out of business.
Jay Lynch
Friday, February 13, 2009
Do not give us health care...
In response to "Give us health care" (TribLive, Friday, February 13, 2009) -- Gary, the length and breadth of your misunderstanding of America is mind-numbing! Did you grow up here? Universal healthcare is referred to as "Socialized medecine" because that is what it is. Any 'service' that the government provides, or completely funds, for every member of society is socialized (and we all know the government's record providing services). Our rights are set forth in the United States Constitution, and free healthcare does not seem to be among them, I checked.
America became the wealthiest, most successful nation in the history of humankind by providing the freedom and liberty necessary for individuals to use their available resources and talents to create wealth; not by using the power of government to seize one's wealth to give to another! A wealthy citizenry provides freely for those less fortunate.
You seem to be confusing the term 'health insurance' with 'health care'. Every American currently has access to the best health care in the world (80% of all innovations in pharmacological and procedural care in the world originate here), and cannot be denied necessary services at any hospital. The "First World" nations that provide universal healthcare routinely ration and deny services, particularly advanced, expensive, or experimental (you know, tomorrow's standard) ones. And if the good old US was not around to provide the procedures and cheap drugs? Well, picture healthcare in Cuba or The pre-1990 Soviet Union, where only a small number of elite party members can achieve anything similar to a routine doctor's visit; the average working Joe never sees a hospital until a few hours before (or after) his death.
I would submit to you that any person who owns a new car, hd widesreen tv, etc.; and does not have health insurance, has their priorities messed up. They do not, however, have a right to free health insurance.
WOG
America became the wealthiest, most successful nation in the history of humankind by providing the freedom and liberty necessary for individuals to use their available resources and talents to create wealth; not by using the power of government to seize one's wealth to give to another! A wealthy citizenry provides freely for those less fortunate.
You seem to be confusing the term 'health insurance' with 'health care'. Every American currently has access to the best health care in the world (80% of all innovations in pharmacological and procedural care in the world originate here), and cannot be denied necessary services at any hospital. The "First World" nations that provide universal healthcare routinely ration and deny services, particularly advanced, expensive, or experimental (you know, tomorrow's standard) ones. And if the good old US was not around to provide the procedures and cheap drugs? Well, picture healthcare in Cuba or The pre-1990 Soviet Union, where only a small number of elite party members can achieve anything similar to a routine doctor's visit; the average working Joe never sees a hospital until a few hours before (or after) his death.
I would submit to you that any person who owns a new car, hd widesreen tv, etc.; and does not have health insurance, has their priorities messed up. They do not, however, have a right to free health insurance.
WOG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)