©2018 Burt Prelutsky

The only positive thing I can say about our current immigration policy is that thanks to the dummycrats-Democrats insisting on keeping our borders open and doing away with ICE; creating sanctuary cities and states; preventing foreign felons from being deported or even jailed; encouraging illegal aliens to vote; refusing to do away with chain migration and the visa lottery; and, in every instance, putting the concerns of foreigners ahead of the concerns of American citizens, the dummycrats-Democrats stand to lose seats in both houses of Congress next November.

One of the few politicians in Washington who seems to have given the problem the attention it deserves is Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas. A recipient of the Bronze Star, former 2nd Lt. Cotton served in both Iraq and Afghanistan with the 101st Airborne.

Last September, he delivered a speech at Hillsdale College’s eighth annual Constitution Day Celebration. It seems that he has what constitutes a novel idea -- novel at least for a U.S. senator -- namely that our immigration policy should exist in order to benefit America, not as a pressure release for the social and economic failures of Mexico, Honduras, Columbia, El Salvador and Venezuela.

One of the many salient points he made was that as a result of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, signed by Lyndon Johnson, we now have a million unskilled immigrants a year pouring into the country, mainly because they happen to be related to people who are already here. “That is why,” Sen. Cotton points out, “we have more Somalia-born residents than Australians, even though Australia is nearly twice the size of Somalia, and Australians are better prepared, as a general rule, to integrate and assimilate into the American way of life.”

What’s more, they speak English, mate.

Sen. Cotton goes on: “In sum, over 36 million immigrants, or 94% of the total have come to America over the past 50 years for reasons having nothing to do with employment. And that’s to say nothing of the over 24 illegal immigrants who have come here. Put them together and you have 60 million immigrants, legal and illegal, who did not come to this country because of a job offer or because of their skills. That’s like adding almost the entire population of the United Kingdom. And this is still leaving aside the millions of temporary guest workers who we import every year into our country.

“Unlike many open-border zealots, I don’t believe the law of supply and demand is magically repealed for the labor markets. That means that our immigration system has been depressing wages for people who work with their hands and on their feet. Wages for Americans with high school diplomas are down two percent since the late 1970s. For Americans who didn’t finish high school, they’re down a staggering 17 percent. Although immigration has a minimal effect overall on the wages of Americans, it has a severe negative effect on low-skilled workers, minorities, and even recent immigrants.

“Is automation to blame in part? Sure. Globalized trade? Yes, of course. But there’s no denying that a steady supply of cheap, unskilled labor has hurt working-class wages as well. Among those three factors, immigration policy is the one we can control most easily for the benefit of American workers. Yet we’ve done the opposite.

“I know the response of open-border enthusiasts: they plead that we need a steady supply of cheap unskilled labor because there are ‘jobs that no American will do.’ But that just isn’t so. There is no job Americans won’t do. In fact, there’s no industry on which the majority of workers are not natural-born Americans -- not landscapers, not construction workers, not ski instructors, not lifeguards, not resort workers, not childcare workers -- not a single job that over-educated elites associate with immigrants. The simple fact is, if the wage is decent and the employer obeys the law, Americans will do any job. And for tough, dangerous, and physically demanding jobs, maybe working folks do deserve a bit of a raise.

“’No American will do that job.’ Let me just pause for a moment and confess how much I detest that sentiment. In addition to being ignorant of the economic facts, it’s insulting, condescending, and demeaning of our countrymen. Millions of Americans make our hotel beds and build our houses and clean our offices; imagine how they feel when they hear some pampered elite say no American will do their job. And finally, I must say, that sentiment also carries more than a whiff of the very prejudice of which they accuse those concerned about the effects of mass immigration."

I don’t often quote a politician at such length, but that’s because none of them, with the exception of Donald Trump, ever says anything worth repeating, except to serve as targets for my ridicule.

⦿   Speaking of questions, one that I would frequently ask people is how old they would think they were if they didn’t know their actual age. Interestingly enough, only one person ever told me he would think he was older than he was. At the time, he was about 55 and said he'd guess he was 65.

Recently, when my wife asked me that question, probably because I wasn’t suffering with a sore back or painful fingers from an attack of rheumatoid arthritis at the time, I said, “Mid-fifties.”

In fact, if it wasn’t for those damn mirrors, I'd probably say mid-40s.

⦿   In real life, I have never known a couple that ever remarried the same person after getting a divorce, but in the rarified world occupied by celebrities it is almost commonplace.

I was already aware of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, but with eight marriages to her credit, it was almost impossible that she wouldn’t have married the same guy twice. The same holds true for Larry King, who has been married nine times, twice to someone named Alene Akins.

But the list is a lot longer than you’d guess. It includes Ben Stein and Alexandra Denman, Stan Laurel and Virginia Roger, Barbara Walters and Merv Adelson, Pamela Sue Anderson and Rick Salomon, Richard Pryor and both Jennifer Lee and Flynn Belaine, Eminem (aka Marshall Mathers) and Kim Scott, Judge Judy and Jerry Sheindlin, Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson, Elliott Gould and Jennifer Bogart, Marie Osmond and Steve Craig, Jean-Claude Van Damme and Gladys Portugues, Dionne Warwick and William Elliott, Paul Hogan and Noeline Edwards, Rosemary Clooney and José Ferrer, George C. Scott and Colleen Dewhurst, Lana Turner and Steve Crane, Jane Wyman and Fred Karger, William Saroyan and Carol Marcus, Natalie Wood and Robert Wagner and, finally, Rodney Dangerfield and Joyce Indig. 

While it’s true that a few of these couples stayed married the second time around, the majority didn’t and, instead, provided their divorce attorneys with a second bite of the apple.

I’m not sure how to explain it, but my theory is that those who achieve great fame and fortune, particularly in show business, are simply too arrogant to admit they made a mistake and move on like normal unhappily married people.

⦿   Speaking of dummies in authority, as some of you already know, here in California, the state legislature keeps passing one insane bill after another. Just the other day, while having lunch with my wife at a coffee shop, I found myself on the verge of making a citizen’s arrest when our waitress, the brazen hussy, broke the law by handing us plastic straws.

Views: 23

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

DON'T COME AND DO NOT BRING KIDS.   GOD WHAT MAKES PEOPLE THINK THEY CAN JUST MARCH INTO THIS COUNTRY...........................................................

they were told by their country, by previous pres and liar-nObama they are welcome which is a big lie




Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert


OMG!! -> Government Now Wants To Seize Your Car For Going 5MPH Over The Limit

We’ve discussed this on and off for several years now. Civil asset forfeiture is a legal process that allows the government to seize assets and cash from citizens without any due process or judicial oversight.

You don’t even have to be charged with a crime. You are assumed guilty unless you can somehow prove your innocence.

Of course, not everyone has this ability… if you aren’t local, state, or federal law enforcement, this is called stealing, and you go to prison.

But the government is actually a bigger problem than common thieves.

A 2015 report showed that law enforcement used civil asset forfeiture to steal more from US residents than every thief, robber, and burglar in America combined.

About $4.5 BILLION worth of cash, cars, homes, and other property is taken by civil asset forfeiture each year – hundreds of millions more than common criminals steal.

And it happens at every level. Your local cop can use civil asset forfeiture just like your state trooper. And then any one of the armed agents of the US government—from the FBI to the Fish and Wildlife Service—can rob you for whatever reason they want.

This travesty continues to grow because the cops who take your stuff get to keep it. Police departments and government agencies around the country depend on civil asset forfeiture to boost their budgets.

Cops will literally keep some of the cars they take as squad cars. And they make a fortune auctioning off the houses, boats, and anything else they confiscate.

Obviously this gives cops an incentive to steal, whether or not they actually think the property was used in a crime, or acquired illegally. Remember, civil asset forfeiture adds billions every year to their bottom line.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case of civil asset forfeiture.

Tyson Timbs was convicted of selling a small amount of drugs to an undercover police officer. He was sentenced to house arrest, and paid about $1,200 in fines.

But then police used civil asset forfeiture to take his $42,000 Land Rover which Timbs purchased with money from a life insurance policy after his father died. The money did not come from selling drugs, or any other illegal activity.

Timbs sued, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court, because every lower court in Indiana said the forfeiture was perfectly legit.

The case revolves around whether or not the seizure of the Land Rover was an excessive fine under the 8th amendment, and whether or not this protection against excessive fines applies to state governments.

And the public got some crazy insight into the government’s position.

The Indiana Solicitor General was arguing in favor of civil asset forfeiture when Justice Stephen Breyer asked him a hypothetical.

Breyer asked, if a state needs revenue, could it force someone to forfeit their Bugatti, Mercedes, or Ferrari for speeding? Even if they were going just 5 miles per hour over the speed limit?

And the utterly appalling answer from the Indiana Solicitor General was, yes.

That’s right… the official government position is that they can steal any amount of your property in “connection” with any crime whatsoever, no matter how trivial the crime may be… even exceeding the speed limit by 5 miles per hour.

This is how overbearing and authoritarian the government has become in the land of the free.

This is how much power your local cop has… and the power only grows as you go to state, and federal officials.

If there is any solace in any of this, it is that the other Supreme Court Justices were reportedly laughing at this exchange.

The justices seemed incredulous that Indiana’s top lawyer was using such absurd assertions and flimsy reasoning in his arguments.

So, for now, we can keep our cars if we get pulled over for speeding. But that may not always be the case…

Depending on how this is ruled, it could pave the way for even more egregious abuses of power… or it could curb the practice, and reign in these thieves in uniforms.

Just understand where the government is coming from. These politicians, bureaucrats and officers think they can do whatever they want. Absolutely anything goes, with no limitation whatsoever.

And that makes it a little tough to feel like you really live in the land of the free.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service