Agents of Amnesty

They never learn.

Over twenty years ago, Congress approved of the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform and Control Act, which gave amnesty to over three million illegal aliens. The bill gave precedent to a disturbing trend: amnesty now, enforcement later - or never.

But things have gotten much worse.

Due to the heat that this issue has packed with the American public, pro-amnesty Senators had the audacity to work behind closed doors and draft over 400 pages of guidelines for rewarding crime and drafting unenforceable laws. At least 12 million illegal aliens will be given citizenship if the plan passes. Rumor has it that any illegal who receives amnesty will be able to haul along 11 relatives. That could potentially mean 132 million people will be given citizenship on a bargain deal. The Senate is scheduled to debate the amnesty bill on Monday.

The usual suspects are passing the Kool-Aid around: Ted Kennedy, Arlen Specter, and John McCain, with Presidente Bush eager to sign his John Hancock on the bill. You know you're in trouble when Ted Kennedy lives a day without calling Bush a liar.

Your troubles may be worse than you think.

If we invite 132 million people into the country without bothering to assimilate them, English may become our second language. Bilingualism, or as I call, Babelism, will destroy America's economy. Worse, they will impose their way of life on Americans to the point where we are strangers in our own country.

Atheofascists Petition Against the Creation Museum

It's amazing what passes for science today. A secular consensus somehow equates that any opposition towards a dominant scientific theory is irrational - especially if it could lead to a debate. We can't let that happen, can we?

So it's not surprising that Dr. Eugenie Scott, the Director of the National Center for Science Education, has been out trying to convince other scientists to sign petitions against the Creation Museum, which is scheduled to open in less than two weeks.

Dr. John Pearse, the President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, has joined the chorus by writing the following in response to Scott's letter:

"Museum of make-believe facts being opened in the Cincinnati area. She [Eugenie Scott] is directing it mainly to our members in the Kentucky-Ohio-Indiana area, but the Core Officers and I think it should go out to all of you. The new museum could be a fun thing to go to if it was taken as a sort of Disneyland of anti-intellectualism. However, it is a serious frontal attack on evidence-based reasoning, and as such is a real threat to educating an informed, modern citizenry."

Sorry, Doc. When you are challenged with an alternative viewpoint backed by 55 videos, amongst many other resources that the Creation Museum has to offer, calling it the "Disneyland of anti-intellectualism" doesn't end the debate.

If Pearse was the least bit unreasonable in his argument that "evidence-based reasoning" is threatened by the sight of a Creation Museum, then Scott might as well consider a lobotomy. She resorts to scare tactics directed at college-bound students and their parents:

"Students who accept such material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis."

On the other hand, she must wonder why so many scientists with PhDs have devoted their passion towards defending and rationalizing Creation Science.

In a letter to Pearse, she continues her anti-religious tirade:

"This museum is viewed with dismay by teachers and scientists because it will present as scientifically valid religious views such as special creation, a 10,000 year old Earth, Noah’s Flood, and the like."

Why is the Darwinian community threatened by this museum?

A few possibilities - Darwinism is like a religion, those who subscribe to evolutionary biology in full accept it as fact, and are unwilling to debate it. Another possibility could be much worse: they will destroy religious freedom at all costs, even at the cost of our constitutional rights.

How is such an activist movement helpful for democracy, let alone science?

If you aren't doommongering in favor of a dominant theory, you're considered a Nazi. That's basically the rhetoric of the global warming alarmists. Similarly, the Darwinists have enormous power that they refuse to give up. They have undoubtedly succeeded in their social engineering crusade in our public schools.

Yet, one can only hope to see real scientists emerge and approach the subject objectively enough to engage in a healthy debate.

A Bureaucrat With a Mental Case

I don't know where to begin on John Edwards. He has got to be embarrassed at least half the time he makes the headlines. And we're talking the Goliath Media. From his kneejerk obsession with class warfare to his trip to Wal-mart to buy his son a Playstation 3, to his 28,200-square-foot home and $400 haircuts, he has proven himself to be a man of excess.

His latest stunt is almost minor in comparison, but it may potentially effect all Americans.

According to NewsMax, John Edwards' proposals could cost American tax payers $1 trillion. If successfully enacted, this could be the largest shopping spree in American history.

While many Democrats have proposed tax cuts for the middle-class, John Edwards makes no such promise. In a recent interview with the Associated Press, Edwards defended his plan to hijack the middle-class for the common good.

"I think for me, as opposed to the additional tax relief for the middle class, what's more important is to give them relief from the extraordinary cost of health care, from gasoline prices, the things that they spend money on every single day that are escalating dramatically."

His proposal for health care alone is projected to cost between $90-$120 billion a year. Employers would be forced to provide insurance or contribute to the coverage of every worker. The federal government would then pay the tap for low-income Americans. Edwards would fund his plan by rolling back the Bush tax cuts. According to the Laffer Curve, tax cuts pay for themselves by generating more government revenue in the long term as a result of allowing Americans to keep a higher percentage of their paycheck. A tax increase on the wealthy may help generate government revenue in the short-term, at the risk of numerous long-term consequences, including less job creation in the private sector, a decrease of economic activity, and reductions in employee benefits. Ergo, an increased progressive income tax and a requirement for employers to provide coverage would be an illogical contradiction.

Like many hardliners in his party, his goal is not only to fight poverty, but to end it as we know it. His War on Poverty will cost an annual $15 billion-$20 billion. Reagan once famously said, "Some years ago the United States declared war on poverty, and poverty won." At the end of the day, Reagan was right. During the Reagan era, so-called "decade of greed", private charity doubled. Social programs are well-intended, but they have historically benefitted middle-class social workers far more than the poor.

Other high-ticket items on the annual Edwards shopping list include a $13 billion energy fund, $5 billion for foreign aid, and a $1 billion rural recovery plan. He has also hinted federal assistance for college tuition, a border security plan, and federal funding for stem cell research. The costs have yet to be projected. Current figures estimate that John Edwards has already made $125 billion worth of annual proposals.

In addition to his enormous budget, Edwards has a few setbacks in his personal life. His wife is not expected to live for another ten years, although she has publicly approved of Edwards' decision to run for office.

On a far less serious matter, his hair has made headlines across the globe. The media couldn't help but succomb to the sensationalism of his whopping $400 haircuts. So that's where all the Coulter Cash went. In addition to his Antoinettesque lifestyle, bloggers have had field days with this YouTube video:

Prison vs. Work

I haven't been in the mood to post anything serious, lately. I've had this sitting around in my hard drive, and can't wait to delete it. Having said that, you may end up doing the exact same thing. After reading this, you will realize that crime does pay after all - as long as you turn yourself in.

IN PRISON ... you spend the majority of your time in a 10x10 cell.
AT WORK ... you spend the majority of your time in an 8x8 cubicle.

IN PRISON ... you get three meals a day.
AT WORK ... you get a break for one meal and you have to pay for it.

IN PRISON ... you get time off for good behavior.
AT WORK ...you get more work for good behavior.

IN PRISON ... the guard locks and unlocks all the doors for you.
AT WORK ... you must often carry a security card and open all the doors for yourself.

IN PRISON ... you can watch TV and play games.
AT WORK ... you could get fired for watching TV and playing games.

IN PRISON ... you get your own toilet.
AT WORK ... you have to share the toilet with some people whopee on the seat.

IN PRISON ... they allow your family and friends to visit.
AT WORK ... you aren't even supposed to speak to your family.

IN PRISON ... all expenses are paid by the taxpayers with no work required.
AT WORK ... you get to pay all your expenses to go to work, and they deduct taxes from your salary to pay for prisoners.

IN PRISON ... you spend most of your life inside bars wanting to get out.
AT WORK ... you spend most of your time wanting to get out and go inside bars.

IN PRISON ... you must deal with sadistic wardens.
AT WORK ... they are called managers.

For as tempting as it is, I advise you not to get locked up. If too many of us get locked up, too few will be left to pay the expenses.