January 31, 2008

Tom Tancredo endorsed Mitt Romney on December 20, 2007. Tancredo favored strict enforcement of immigration laws and deportation of all illegal aliens. On this issue I strongly supported Tom Tancredo. Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul remain in the race for the Republican nomination. Out of the four Ron Paul has the strongest stance on immigration and enforcing our immigration laws. Most importantly he is against rewarding criminals. Unfortunately he doesn't have a realistic chance of winning the Republican nomination. I agree and disagree with Ron Paul on various issues but his stance on immigration and illegal aliens is as perfect of a stance as I could desire. 

I will address the two candidates who have a realistic chance at winning the nomination. John McCain and Mitt Romney will compete for and one will eventually be the Republican nominee. After a primary victory in Florida John McCain is the current frontrunner but Mitt Romney is alive and well. McCain and Romney represent two different stances on illegal aliens already present in the United States but only one is acceptable. 

McCain accues Mitt Romney of flip flopping on the issues. Romney's most notable flip flop is regarding his stance on abortion. McCain has no shame because he is in no postion to be criztzing other canidates about flip flopping. John McCain has an inordent amount of flip flops on his liberal record. Only second to Hilery Clinton among the remaining presidential canidates. To what extent has McCain flip flopped on immigration?

McCain-Kennedy was a massive immigration amnesty bill that was ulitmately defeated. It would of legalized millions of illegal aliens already present in the United States. In essance rewarding people for being criminals. Now he claims he has heard the people and wants to secure the boarder.  Will McCain deport the portion of people who are currently illegal but oddly enough are paying income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare? McCain will only deport the approxmately two million illegal aliens commiting crimes. Strange how McCain only considers two million of the illegal aliens criminals when the reality is every single of one them is a criminal. Simply entering this country illgeally alone you immediately become a criminal. 

Mitt Romney would give illegal aliens already present in the United States a varying time period determined by each individuals situation as to when they would have to leave. I believe he is being to generous and Romney is as wrong as McCain in refusing to pull an illegal alien out of school. Our government is paying for illegal aliens to receive an education, a terrible one but still an education at that. I'd rather my tax dollars go to building prisons for these criminals rather then attempting to educate them. Ultimately Romney is superior to McCain on the issue but both appear weak.

I'm against being civilized with criminals. Regardless of there reasoning for being in the United States illegally, it comes down to the fact all illegal aliens are criminals. All criminals should be punished not rewarded. Would you reward a rapist for committing a rape? Both of these acts are severe crimes and the people who commit them deserve to be severely punished. 

Personally I believe anyone caught crossing our boarder illegally should be shot on the spot. That's terrible! We need to be compassionate toward these parasites! Give me a break. I don't feel sorry for these people. I despise these people. I refuse to acknowledge politically correct reasoning as to why we should accept illegal aliens. I have the same amount of respect for illegal aliens as I do for rapists, and murders. None. 

How about rewarding the immigrants who go through the process of becoming a United States citizen legally? It appears they will receive the short end of the stick if McCain and the liberals get their way.

Notice McCain will not directly answer the following question. Hypothetically, if McCain were president would he approve the amnesty bill he proposed? He claims it is dead and would never return. I can only hope by the time the Republican primaries are complete McCain is politically dead and never to return.

Matthew Slater

November 29, 2007

What uniquely qualifies Hilary Rodham Clinton to be President of the United States of America? A question no supporter of her presidency can answer adequately. Yet if you ask that very same question except insert Rudy Giuliani instead of Hilary Rodham Clinton, his supporters will give numerous adequate answers. This is because Hilary Rodham Clinton is not qualified to be President of the United States of America. If she were not married to Bill Jefferson Clinton she would have as much chance of winning the presidency as I do.

As disturbing and mindless as this may sound, the fact of the matter is some women in this country are set to support Hilary Rodham Clinton based solely on gender. Clinton's stance on key issues will ultimately be irrelevant. Possessing the same genitals will be all that is necessary for Clinton to obtain their vote. Which ultimately has the consequences of subjecting this country to serious danger.

Mark Penn, the pollster and senior strategist of Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, predicted that nearly a quarter of Republican women would vote for Hilary Rodham Clinton if she were the Democratic presidential nominee. Mark Penn's prediction seems outlandish and provokes the argument that women are unintelligent enough to vote for Hilary based solely on gender.  If you're a woman voting for Hilary based on her socialist mentality and desire to destroy the United States of America, at least you see eye to eye on her agenda. To blindly vote for Hillary based on gender is the equivalent of adding two plus two and somehow equaling seven.

What is relevant is that the these dumb women will dumb down a portion of this election with there stupidity and a false belief that now is the time for a woman president. I personally have no problem with a woman becoming president of the United States of America. As long as she is qualified for the job but the fact is Hilary Rodham Clinton is not qualified.

As a presidential candidate Clinton's views frighten me. The fact she is a woman has nothing to do with my decision to not vote for her. The entire Democratic Party including Clinton has moved into the realm of Karl Marx. Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. Can this ideology be used to describe the Democratic Party's vision for America? Definitely describes the vision of Hilary Rodham Clinton.

Wealth distribution plays a major role in Communistic ideology. It insures that everyone is afforded basic amenities. Is it a coincidence that wealth distribution is part of the liberal agenda? The liberal philosophy has become tax the high earners and give to the low earners. People don't spend multiple years in college to obtain a high-income position to have their wealth distributed to people who have done nothing to improve their current position. I believe welfare programs should be eliminated entirely quite honestly. People abuse the welfare system. Many are simply lazy and not genuinely poor. It's an injustice to screw people out of money they earned and give it to those who have done nothing. It's time for Americans to earn what they desire not rely on the government to rape high earners of the money they worked for!  Yet Hilary believes money should be distributed just like in the teachings of Kyle Marx. It appears Clinton has learned well from her teacher.

Finally, I'm a frequent listener to radio programs such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin. I do not consider myself a conservative but I agree with these three hosts a majority of the time. If you read liberal websites such as Media Matters for America they will tell you Rush Limbaugh regularly feeds his audience a diet of falsehoods, misstatements, distortions, invective, and childish put-downs in service of the conservative movement. Yet Media Matters for America distorted Rush Limbaugh's phony solider remark.  Media Matters will have you believe that Rush Limbaugh referred to military personnel who criticized or opposed the war in Iraq as "phony soldiers." The truth is Rush Limbaugh was referring not to any actual soldier but a phony one or one that pretended to serve, notably Jesse MacBeth. You can research what these hosts say and you will find they are correct most of the time but a biased liberal website like Media Matters for America can't be your source. They claim to correct conservative misinformation but this website is filled with liberal biases, misinformation, and a deep hatred for conservatives. As proven by my prior example and there are many other examples as well.  The entire site is a fraud. Media Matters for America is doing more misrepresenting of facts in a week then any conservative could possibly do in a year.