How could it not cost the already-overspending government a lot of money?

Poor people -- even the working poor -- simply do not pay more in taxes than they consume in tax-supported services. Poor people pay their own payroll taxes -- entirely for their own benefit, not to subsidize anyone else or pay for any other public good -- and a small amount of state sales taxes (which do not nearly cover the costs of the general public benefits they utilize) and, at most, a tiny amount of actual income tax. (Actually, very few of the working poor pay any income tax at all; they've been more or less elimiated from the income tax rolls entirely.)

So now the government -- already running deficits and overspending -- wishes to import twelve million new working-poor citizens and millions of additional family members either too young or too old to work at all?

What impact does this have on Medicare? Medicaid? Supplemental Social Security? Funding schools and hospitals?

Where does the government thing it's going to get this $2.5 trillion from? The pathway-to-citizen ex-illegals pulling down $25,000 per year?

No, from you, of course.

You owe it to them, you know? Not only are you responsible for providing for this nation's poor, you also, somehow, picked up the obligation to subsidize and support the poor of the entire hemisphere somewhere around 2002.

You never agreed to this, you never voted on it. And yet this new obligation was imposed on you.

By President Bush -- because he cares enough to fund his compassison with your money.

Posted by: Ace at 02:07 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

I feel odd doing this -- something I've mocked when the left does it -- but it's time.

Write, call, and fax your Congressmen and Senators -- especially Republican ones -- and let them know you will never vote for them or their party again should the immigration bill actually pass.

And let them know that you don't particularly trust them on national security, spending, or taxes either, so they won't wrongly believe those trump cards will still win the hand for them. Let them know if this isn't scuttled -- if the border isn't secured first, verifiably, before any amnesty legislation passes -- you will no longer vote for, volunteer for, or donate to any Republican candidate for any office ever again.

Not a dime, not a vote.

It's time to let them know they're walking into the abyss. Inform them in no uncertain terms that they are attempting to purchase the votes of new "Americans" who split 5:1 Democratic by losing your reliably conservative vote forever.

The Plan: Inchoate anger and threats don't motivate these people.

Actual evidence that the threat is serious might.

Here's my official Important Action Alert:

Every Republican who considers this a sell-out should, within the next week (the quicker the better) change his party affiliation from "Republican" to anything else.

It can always be changed back in time for the primaries, if that's a worry. But we need a concrete, tanglible demostration of strong disapproval of this deal -- security first, then and only then a pathway to citizenship -- and we need to demonstrate we're quite willing to vote our interests.

Or rather not vote our interests, since so few of us have Representatives or Senators (and certainly not a President) willing to vote our interest.

A tidal wave of Republicans changing their affiliation to Indpendent, Libertarian, Reform, Constitution Party, hell, even Democrats will catch their attention pretty damn quick.

Calls and emails and letters will be ignored.

The sudden decline of registered Republicans by 50% will not be.

Write: ...your Congressman here to let him know you've changed your party affiliation.

This may or may not be the address for contacting your Senator by email -- I can't tell, because the page is down due to a server error. Possibly, hopefully, it's overwhelmed.

This site lets you search for contact information.

Contact the RNC here. The email address seems to be info@gop.com. Here are the digits:

Information: 202.863.8790

Phone: 202.863.8500

Fax: 202.863.8820

It's probably best to do say you've changed your affiliation after you already have. Otherwise, they'll see the promises of affiliation-switching not matched by actual changes in affiliation, and will assume, probably correctly, you're willing to eat yet another sell-out and ask for more.

You can write with the threat of doing this before you do it, but only claim you've done it once you actually have. This way they'll know you're serious, and not just blowing hot air.

Changing party affiliation takes a tiny amout of work -- but the fact that millions of people are willing to do this will let them know we're also pretty serious about not doing any trivial work on election day, or at least not doing the work of pulling a lever for them.

Bonus: A lot of people have Democratic/liberal Congressmen and Senators, so there's hardly anything to be gained by writing to them.

That's the cool thing about simply changing party affiliation -- the results get registered, and are tangible and verifiable, and are noted by the Republican establishment even if you're deep in the blue parts of blue states.

Another Good Idea -- Send Them A Copy Of Your Change of Affiliation Form: That's what Drew did:

My county board of elections lets you download the voter registration form (same form for registering as changing party). I printed and filled it out then scanned a copy. Went and dropped it in the mail.

When I was done with that, I emailed a copy to the RNC and the NYS Republican Party (if there really is such a thing anymore). I told them I would be happy to change back if this doesn't pass but if it does I am done with them.

It's sort of unfair surprise if the GOP is deserted by its base without being notified of the very real possibility that could happen. After all, we've eaten all their bullshit for years and years; why would they think now would be any different?

So let them know that there are consequences coming. And then let them make an informed decision.

Posted by: Ace at 12:59 PM | Comments (156)
Post contains 786 words, total size 5 kb.

I fully support these courageous heroes:

Hundreds of prostitutes, anti-globalisation dissidents and bemused bystanders brought Padua to a standstill yesterday as they protested against the cityÂ’s clampdown on the worldÂ’s oldest profession.

...

“We are here to defend our rights,” said Kristal, a 6ft transsexual Brazilian who led the protest. “My mother always taught me to rebel against every violation of my rights. I am a Paduan citizen and I pay my taxes.”

Finally, a cause I can really get behind.

The prostitutes were appealing against a decision from Mayor Flavio Zanonato to issue ¤50 (£30) fines to their clients.

Since prostitution is legal in Italy, except in cases where women are coerced into it, the mayor was forced to target the men searching for sex. So far, 14 kerb-crawlers, including two men in their 20s, have been given on-the-spot penalties by patrolling policemen.

However, the prostitutes hit back by issuing “pink coupons” to their clients, promising that they would refund any fine “in kind”.

I like the equation: Gettin' Busted=Gettin' It On. If American hookers did this I'd be up to my ears in fineass trim, except that in my case they'd have to hand out those pink coupons for getting caught urinating in public.

Several clients marched in yesterday’s protest to “show solidarity”. Corrado Baldin, a 46-year-old factory worker, proudly held up a sign at the rally which read: “I am a client!”

He described himself as a philosopher who paid for sex “once every two months or so” to “relieve the boredom of life”.

Also, the boredom of not having whore-rash all over your scrotum. Because life is just too damn short, you know?

Posted by: AndrewR at 12:42 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

Amnesty.

I have to confess I don't know enough about this to have an opinion I'm comfortable ranting about. Certainly, given the Senate's general pro-amnesty position, I'd have to guess it's a full-on sell-out. But I don't know -- what, exactly, are the provisions for securing the border, and how confident are we the government will actually honor any such provisions?

I have rather little confidence in Bush to secure the border. He hasn't done so for six years and I don't see him doing so now that Mexico is de facto an autonomous region of the United States of America.

Here are the main provisions:

* "The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers."

I have nothing against a temporary worker program, assuming it would be based on US economic needs rather than Mexico's. The problem is that this entire debate seems to center not what is best for the US but what is best for Mexico, not what benefits Americans but what benefits poor hardworking Mexicans.

I have nothing against poor hardworking Mexicans. But this country's government does not exist primarily to serve their interests.

* "Key senators in both parties announced agreement with the White House Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S."

There's the amnesty part, which is hardly a surprise, because most politicians seem to have regarded amnesty as a given. The only debate seemed to be what alternate term to use to convince Americans amnesty was not amnesty.

My own take? I don't see how any plan could have avoided amnesty. It would be odd to allow millions of Mexican workers into the country but bar/deport the Mexicans already working here -- i.e., trade the current twelve million illegals for another twelve million legals. It wouldn't have worked. The current illegal population just would have ignored the law.

Given the fact that amnesty of some sort was almost guaranteed to be part of the deal, it was critical to me that the border be secured in fact, and not in theory, so that this amnesty would be the last amnesty, at least for a generation, rather than these 12 million being simply the crest of breaking wave of millions upon millions of more illegals.

Does the bill actually secure the border? Of course not.

* The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so- called "point system" that would for the first time prioritize immigrants' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.

Seems silly, in the sense that it won't be enforced. It's not like Mexico is sending us hundreds of thousands of engineers and doctors every year. They're sending us millions of unskilled laborers.

* The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and—after paying fees and a $5,000 fine—ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.

A rhetorical gimmick -- those granting amnesty can claim, while trying to keep a straight face, that the illegal immigrants haven't broken a law as their first act in America, as they have a second "first step" into America, this one legal.

But you can't regain your virginity, now can you? You can't unring the bell.

* They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed. A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated.

On paper, this accords with what I'd like to see -- yes, you can begin a pathway to citizenship, but only after the border has been sealed and we have a guarantee that the flood of illegal immigrants will become at most a trickle.

But I have no confidence in the government to actually do this. So this is a rhetorical ploy designed not to secure the border but to insulate politicians from the charge of rewarding lawbreakers and encouraging tens of millions more to do likewise.

* Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time. Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.

Sounds good. Temporary workers should be, in fact, temporary. But this provision assumes that illegal immigrants will suddenly start obeying US employment/visa/immigration law, something they're not doing now, and something they're even less likely to do given the US government's preferred method of solving the illegal immigration problem is to simply legalize it.

* In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it's an unfair system that rips families apart. Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card—except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.

This is good. I doubt it will be enforced, though. Illegals will continue bringing their relatives into the country to use US services (without paying taxes for them), and ultimately the left will agitate to grant citizenship to millions upon millions more of chain-immigration arrivals.

Incidentally, doing so makes the entitlement problem even worse. Medicaid isn't going to become more solvent thanks to millions of new elderly or sickly arrivals (grandparents, older parents of immigrants) who've never paid a dime in payroll taxes. Each immigrant pays barely anything in taxes -- these aren't highly paid workers, after all; at most they pay payroll taxes, which only partially cover their own Social Security and Medicare (with subsidization from richer taxpayers); they're definitely not paying enough to cover several children and several older people at or near retirement age.

Incidentally, while the article mentions "fortifying the border" several times, there's not a single specific statement as to how the bill addresses this. Which suggests it doesn't address it specifically. In other words, it's pure bullshit.

Overall, I guess I've worked myself up into having an opinion: The hell with the Republican Party. They can win lose the next election without my help.

Dix Illegal Immigrant Terrorists Allowed Here By INS For Sixteen Years, Entered Via Mexico: Wonderful.

I suppose I should observe the 48 hour rule. And I suppose I may lose traffic. But I think, unless my thinking seriously changes, that I am now officially and independent, that I despise the GOP, and that they're scarcely more serious about security than the Democrats. At least not so much more that I should put up with their bullshit and support them.

Take care, fellers. Good luck winning anything with 1) the loss of tens of millions of Americans who used to vote for you but will now no longer vote for anyone and 2) tens of millions (or more!) freshly-minted "Americans" who vote Democratic by a 5:1 margin.

Posted by: Ace at 12:32 PM | Comments (48)
Post contains 1285 words, total size 8 kb.

At least for me. Bruce Campell + hot chicks + lounge rendition of Hungry Like the Wolf + Old Spice, which just happens to be the Ace of Spades scent of choice now that I find out Brut and High Karate are both front companies owned by Hamas.*

* I have no actual evidence of this. But the fact that these companies didn't hire Bruce Campbell certainly "raises questions" about Brut's and High Karate's terrorist ties, no?

Posted by: Ace at 12:07 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

I know y'all want to talk about it, and Ace doesn't appear to be around to throw up a thread for ya, so have at it in this one.

To get you started, here is a link to the National Review editorial opposing the immigration bill.

I'd post more, but I'm off to my Berlitz "Speak Spanish in 30 Days" class my basic rule of blog etiquette is that, as it is his blog, Ace gets first crack at all the important stories.

I will note, though, that Hot Air has a bunch of interesting links, so you might want to check them out as Allah is updating like a madman.

Posted by: Jack M. at 12:03 PM | Comments (35)
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

This one by Stephen King, in Entertainment Weekly.

So I run into one of my Constant Readers and — everybody's a critic — the guy says, ''Your column's suckin' out lately, Steve. You're losin' your edge.'' My first impulse is to tell him I have a cozy place where he can put my column, but since he looks like a recently retired Hell's Angel, I rethink this option. Instead I ask him what he thinks would make a good piece.

''Best rock songs of all time,'' he says. ''That subject always starts arguments, especially if you don't put 'Stairway' on there.''

I realized he was right. Especially since the idea of putting ''Stairway to Heaven'' on such a list grosses me out. So I decided to take my biker buddy up on his idea. Twenty-four great songs, one for every hour of the day, picked by the Infallible Me.

If nothing else, this will give everyone something to fight about other than politics.

Posted by: Slublog at 08:58 AM | Comments (111)
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

Don't know why I'm posting this. Please bear with me.

This pic jumped out at me because this turtle looks exhausted, and vaguely delicious. How soft is the shell of a softshell turtle? I want to know.

Because it looks like if you were to sink a big cake knife into it, the surface would give some resistance before you sliced through to the rich spongy filling. Maybe crack a little bit like hard chocolate. And your guests would fight over those thin crispy edges there.

Also, I think if you saw one of these turtles in real life you'd have an uncontrollable urge to go flip it over. It's just asking for it. I bet that's how the native kids used to spend half their day. Just running around flipping every flat turtle they could find.

I'm just sayin'; I can understand why this animal is teetering on the edge of extinction.

Thank you for your time this morning. I'll be in Ace's office if anybody needs me. It's time for my quarterly review. Wish me luck!

Posted by: LauraW. at 06:27 AM | Comments (61)
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

The financial disclosure forms have been released, and sure enough, it seems that studying poverty is really good business.

[Edwards'] biggest single source of earned income was his $479,512 salary from Fortress Investment Group, the hedge fund for which he was a consultant last year.

Edwards has made fighting poverty a signature element of his campaign. He has said his work for a fund that generally caters to the wealthiest of investors was designed to educate him about the relationship between poverty and wealth and should not overshadow his work for the poor.

Why can't he just bring himself to admit that he worked for the hedge fund because he wanted to make some money? Half a million in the bank makes his explanation about researching poverty ring a little hollow. If this were about research alone, surely a guy worth $30 million could have done a little pro bono work, right?

After all, this is a guy who says Jesus would be appalled by people's focus on their "selfish-short-term needs." I guess the short term need to pocket an easy consultant fee doesn't count.

So what are the results of Edwards' lucrative research? What new and fresh ideas does he have to combat poverty? Well, take a look - it's a blend of government programs and mandates on business, initiatives which will require increased taxation to fund.

You know, John Edwards' America looks like a pretty nice place. Too bad his party is trying to tax middle class folks out of it.

Posted by: Slublog at 05:39 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

Apparently, the sight of one of the royals actually acting the part for a change was just too much for the Ministry of Defence.

Prince Harry will not be deployed to Iraq due to concern about the number of "specific threats" made against his life, the head of the British Army announced this afternoon.

The 22-year-old prince, who is third in line to the throne, had been due to fly out to join the rest of his Blues and Royals squadron in the south of the country.

But his deployment has now been cancelled, although the Ministry of Defence has not ruled out sending him to the region in the future.

Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the British Army, said in a statement that the risk to the prince and his men was "unacceptable".

"There have been a number of specific threats – some reported and some not reported - which relate directly to Prince Harry as an individual," he said.

"These threats expose not only him but also those around him to a degree of risk that I now deem unacceptable."

Well, thank God for that. It would be a damn shame if a prominent British figure was caught in a display of American-style heroism or some shit. He might have even shot someone.

He should have told them that he wanted to go to Iraq to campaign against landmines like Diana; they'd have had him over there in a second.

Oh well. Maybe we can sign him up for the Marines.

Posted by: AndrewR at 01:38 PM | Comments (62)
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.