©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: 19

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 Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Goodbye 2020: Clinton Ordered By Federal Judge To Submit To Questioning

( – Just when Hillary Clinton began hinting that she’s ready to run again in 2020, she has been ordered by a federal judge to submit to questioning about the use of her private email server to convey classified documents during her time as Secretary of State.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan made the order as part of a lawsuit from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

“Court rules late today Hillary Clinton must answer more email questions — including key q’s about the setting up of her email system,” wrote Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a tweet following the ruling.

Judicial Watch 🔎 @JudicialWatch

BREAKING: Judicial Watch announced today that, following JW's court battle, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that Hillary Clinton must answer – under oath – two additional questions on her controversial email system within 30 days.

Judicial Watch: Federal Court Ordered Hillary Clinton to Answer Additional Email Questions Under...

 (Washington, DC) –Judicial Watch announced today that U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that within 30 days Hillary Clinton must answer under oath two additional questions about her...
Tom Fitton  @TomFitton

Breaking: Court rules late today Hillary Clinton must answer more email questions -- including key q's about the setting up of her email system. Court denied our request to unseal vid depositions of Clinton aides. Great work by Michael Bekesha!

As a statement from Judicial Watch explains, the ruling is the latest development in the group’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, which they began to discover why former deputy chief of staff to Mrs. Clinton, Huma Abedin, was allowed to work at the State Department while also engaged in “outside employment.”

Clinton now has 30 days to answer two key questions from a list of 25 questions composed by Judicial Watch.

The questions the judge selected are:

1) “Describe the creation of the system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.”

During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

This new development is huge because it means that the two critical scandals from Clinton’s time in the State Department, her private email server and the Benghazi attacks, are facing fresh scrutiny in both the legal system and the court of public opinion.

And while Clinton likely had little chance of any run in 2020, this makes it even less likely she will stand even a shred of a chance.

We’ve have got to hope and pray that at long last, this leads to the long overdue criminal charges we’ve all been waiting to see.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service