Gay Patriot Header Image

GayPatriot’s America Podcast:DADT, Servicemembers United

Many thanks to Alex Nicholson and Jarrod Chlapowski for joining us tonight. Alex and Jarrod are Director and Deputy Director of Servicemembers United” — an organization comprised of young Iraq and Afghanistan veterans opposed to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law signed by President Clinton.

Alex and Jarrod are true American heroes and great representatives of the American gay community. I personally applaud both their military service (cut short by DADT) and their current activism on behalf of their fellow gays and lesbians who want to serve our nation in uniform.

If you would like to know more about the “12,000 Flags for 12,000 Patriots” event this weekend, make sure to visit the Servicemembers United website.

One American flag will be placed on the Mall for each discharged service member. According to organizers, these flags will stand as a testament to the national security harm caused by this discriminatory law, and will serve as the backdrop for a series of events honoring LGBT service members, their sacrifice, and their fight to serve with dignity.

*****

NOTE: We will be having more podcasts as Election 2008 moves into high gear. More details later, but I am hoping to have LIVE GayPatriot Election Night broadcasts on BlogTalkRadio.com the evenings of the Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire primary, and the Feb. 5th MegaPrimary.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

68 Comments

  1. Call to Duty is their old group that is now Servicemembers United.

    Comment by John — November 25, 2007 @ 4:02 pm - November 25, 2007

  2. Will you be taking calls?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 25, 2007 @ 5:39 pm - November 25, 2007

  3. Dunno, you gonna behave? ;-P

    Comment by John — November 25, 2007 @ 6:12 pm - November 25, 2007

  4. 9 PM EST, I take it. 🙂

    Remember, this is a global blog.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 25, 2007 @ 6:13 pm - November 25, 2007

  5. Off-Topic, Please, oh please, let this rumor be true, “Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) plans to resign his seat by year’s end, a senior Republican official told Politico. “

    Trent Lott, the biggest pig at the pork barrel & the guy who pouted that “talk radio was running America” after the Amnesty bill spun in. The Senate would be better for his absence.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2007 @ 9:38 am - November 26, 2007

  6. Trent Lott epitomizes everything that was dysfunction with GOP Leadership in the 1990s and 2000s

    Good riddence

    Comment by Vince P — November 26, 2007 @ 10:00 am - November 26, 2007

  7. It’s true: let the celebrations begin!

    Comment by John — November 26, 2007 @ 10:22 am - November 26, 2007

  8. Wow, all this terrible talk about how bad Trent Lott is/was.

    Like conservative posterboi Tom Delay, conservative Speaker Denny Hastert, conservative Larry “I’m not gay” Craig, conservative felon Duke Cunningham and others, conservative Senator Trent Lott got terrific ratings from the American Conservative Union –the oldest and most reliable rating service that tracks conservative issues in Congress.

    Just for the record, Trent Lott is a solid conservative. He’s one of YOU guys and emblematic of the deep problems that conservative Congressional leadership has wrought –he had an 88 rating in 2006 from the ACU (his lifetime/career rating is even higher at 91) and is in the same class of rating as Talent, Hutchison, Hatch, Brownback & Coleman.

    I’m glad that some conservatives here have finally caught the light of day dawning on them and see that progress means getting rid of conservatives like Lott… but I’m guessing that “loyalty” for that same bunch is hardly a family or personal value given the speed at which they turn on solid, loyal conservatives who carried the conservative water pail on issue after bloody issue.

    Or maybe it’s that cynicism is the overarching “family value” here?

    BTW, good luck on the PodCast; I hope it’s more enlightening and credible than the one with Patrick Sammon.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 26, 2007 @ 10:37 am - November 26, 2007

  9. I oppose Lott’s leadership (or lack thereof). not his voting record.

    The fact the GOP squandered its golden oppurtunity in the 2000s to lead this country to a better structure of government is Lotts fault, is Hasterts fault and all the rest.

    I dont care that he voted correctly on bills that were finally drafted.. that’s the minimum expectation I would have for someone in his position.

    I do care about the bills that were never even proposed because of lack of courage and immigination… the things that a leader are made of.

    Comment by Vince P — November 26, 2007 @ 10:44 am - November 26, 2007

  10. Trent Lott was an old-time, opportunist pol, addicted to pork and willing to bend over for Democrats if it kept the pork flowing.

    I only wish the Democrats cared less for power, and more for clearing out the bottom feeders from their side of the trough. If the right can celebrate the removal of Trent Lott, the left ought to be happy to see Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, or Robert Byrd clean out their desks as well.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2007 @ 10:50 am - November 26, 2007

  11. Frankly, I’d choose conservatives like Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, and Jeff Sessions over “moderates” like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Snarlin’ Arlen Specter any day. What’s the point of having a Republican party if it’s going to have the same tax-and-spend, big government, environmental extremist, open borders, pro-abortion on demand policies as the Democrats?

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2007 @ 10:55 am - November 26, 2007

  12. Lott is a prime example of everything wrong in American politics today. This isn’t about left and right. It’s about getting your job done. I never appreciated what a skilled Senate Majority (and sometimes minority) leader Bob Dole was until he resigned to run for president and the torch passed to the next generation. Dole got things done. His generation won a World War. It was hard. They sacrificed and they didn’t always get their way. Dole took a lot of hits for compromising but he got things done for the American people and worked with Democrats to do that.

    What do we have to show for the time baby boomers have been running things? Irresponsibility and no thought to the future. It’s shameful. Lott is about pork. He also compared homosexuality to kleptomania which I have not forgiven (nor did he ever apologize). And of course there’s his racist past (speaking to white supremacist groups plus the comment that led to his resignation).

    Lott is an incompetent idiot. I’m not a fan of Republicans, but really I’m sure you can do better. There’s not much chance of a Democrat picking up that seat, but surely you can find someone who isn’t a crook or a moron to represent Mississippi in the Senate.

    Comment by Houndentenor — November 26, 2007 @ 11:12 am - November 26, 2007

  13. Like I said, the country would be better off if Democrats like HT cared as much about cleaning up their party as Republicans care about cleaning up their own.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2007 @ 11:14 am - November 26, 2007

  14. Hey V the K, Trent Lott is a pork lover, but not the king of pork. That title goes to the piggy twins of Alaska: Sen. Ted Stevens & Rep. Don “bridge to nowhere” Young.

    Comment by Jimbo — November 26, 2007 @ 12:22 pm - November 26, 2007

  15. And those two can go to Hell, too. But you’ll never hear our counterparts make the same complaint about Robert Byrd or John Murtha. If Stevens and Young are pigs, Byrd and Murtha are hawgs. Hilldog didn’t do too badly herself, larding up $500M in pork barrel spending to pay off her cronies in the most recent spending bills … even though she didn’t get the $1 million for the Woodstock museum.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2007 @ 12:32 pm - November 26, 2007

  16. It gets better, Lott is resigning so he won’t be pinched by new ethics rules. A scumbag to the end.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2007 @ 12:43 pm - November 26, 2007

  17. Harry Greid gushes over Trent Lott while Red State says good riddance and hopes he’ll be replaced by a “real conservative.”. The thesis that Trent Lott represents the conservative movement would appear to be rather misleading.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2007 @ 1:53 pm - November 26, 2007

  18. I do care about cleaning up my own party. I’m appalled that William Jefferson is still in the House. They found the bribe money in his FREEZER! Throw bums like him out. Both parties. I have always said this.

    Comment by Houndentenor — November 26, 2007 @ 2:00 pm - November 26, 2007

  19. Reading this thread, it’s weird how MM takes an ethics issue and a very positive development – Lott leaving; smart conservatives kicking the scumbag on his way out – and transmogrifies it into another instance of MM’s battle with the phenomenon he perceives or mis-perceives as conservatism. And even insults / criticizes people for supporting MM’s own view (that Lott is bad). MM, sorry but you are one weird dude.

    #12 Houndentenor – I agree with the first 60% of your comment. A delightful experience. As for the rest, I wouldn’t place too much stress on Lott’s “alleged racist past” if I were you – many Democrats have a lot more racism going than Lott ever did. That Lott is a pork-hogging scumbag in it for the buck, is sufficient reason to condemn him, IMO. Also, just curious, do you have anything to say about Nancy Pelosi’s campaign finance scandals?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2007 @ 3:13 pm - November 26, 2007

  20. Well, “Click” and his echo chamber (#19) come out to help “Clack” in his Cynics Chair. ILC, the only sorry one here is you and the shameless way you go out of way to exercise those TitanicSized grudges of your LilliputanBrain –damn, you hold grudges long after they are no longer relevant. OK, I admit; the Nativist racists won the last round on immigration reform –the forces of reform and compromise failed.

    Sorry, VdaK, but Trent Lott is squarely, solidly “conservative”. He was in the House. He was in the Senate. He is by the ACU’s august and irrefutable standard. He IS one of you guys… he isn’t a moderate, he isn’t a progressive, he isn’t a centrist. He’s another conservative like Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Denny Hastert –carrying the conservative’s water pail for far longer than warranted.

    The lasting impact of conservatives in power in Congress is a runaway budget, a tradition of cheap seat political games on issues meant to feed the base some red meat and a weakening of the standard of moral conduct for govt servants in America.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 26, 2007 @ 3:43 pm - November 26, 2007

  21. VdaK writes “The thesis that Trent Lott represents the conservative movement would appear to be rather misleading.”

    The only thing misleading, Missey, is your continued attempts to paint the conservatives who gave us runaway budgets, cheap seat games on political issues of the moment, symbolism in place of substance (flag burning, UN control of the military, 2nd Amendment rights, TerrySchiavo etc) and litmus tests run amuck.

    Nawh, conservatism is the dowager political movement in America today… like Eleanor Roosevelt for the Dems in 1960s, everyone needs to give her lip service but the old coot is slowly fading away. Good riddance.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 26, 2007 @ 3:51 pm - November 26, 2007

  22. …those TitanicSized grudges of your LilliputanBrain…

    Really? Kindly name one then, if you know so very much about me 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2007 @ 4:07 pm - November 26, 2007

  23. conservatism is… slowly fading away. Good riddance.

    And, I love it when you get surreal. Makes me TINGLY, baby!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2007 @ 4:11 pm - November 26, 2007

  24. “TitanicSized grudges of your LilliputanBrain”

    Says the guy who can’t get over the fact that 70-80% of the American people do not side with him on open borders and mass amnesty for illegal immigrants.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2007 @ 4:14 pm - November 26, 2007

  25. OK, I admit; the Nativist racists won the last round on immigration reform –the forces of reform and compromise failed.

    Which part of “racist” is it to insist that people, regardless of race or country of origin, follow and respect United States immigration law?

    Which part of “nativist” is it to assert that the United States has full authority and sovereignty to control its own borders, and to expel from the country those who deliberately violate them and its laws?

    “Reform and compromise” was, Matt, what you called it the last time this was tried, in which case, like this one, amnesty was exchanged for promises of enforcement.

    End result? Amnesty and zero enforcement. Had you kept your promises the first time, there wouldn’t BE twelve million illegal immigrants to deport; most of them never would have gotten here in the first place, and the remaining few would have been caught and deported right away.

    The American people are not stupid. Nor are they particularly wild about you and your La Raza/Jesse Jackson allies calling them “racist” and “nativist” for believing that the United States has the right to protect its own borders, expel those who violate them, and take care of its own legal citizens and legal immigrants first.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 26, 2007 @ 4:50 pm - November 26, 2007

  26. I strongly support legal immigration – with an emphasis on well-meaning, skilled and/or educated people of any race or country.

    As a supporter of legal immigration, I necessarily oppose illegal.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2007 @ 5:25 pm - November 26, 2007

  27. Since I don’t have any disagreement here. I support immigration and oppose illegal immigration. Most Americans feel the same way. That’s not really the problem.

    What do we do about it? There are a lot of people complicit in the problem. You can’t tell me that people don’t know they are hiring workers who do not have work visas. I have dealt with people renewing visas and I know what a pain in the ass it is. They know they are doing it. The reason the problem has not been fixed is 1) no one wants to piss of Hispanic voters at the polls and 2) many businesses exploit cheap illegal labor as a way around paying decent wages or offering benefits (or even operating a safe work environment.

    So, it’s easy to talk about enforcement, but how will that work? How many INS agents would it take to find and deport all the illegals in the country?

    Note: I’m not arguing against enforcement. It’s just that I’m not hearing anyone offering a feasible plan for how to deal with the problem. I think this is indicative of American politics these days. This is a hot button issue that can be pressed by various people to excite various constituencies. But I rarely hear anything that sounds like a reasonable, actionable plan for addressing the problem at hand.

    Comment by Houndentenor — November 26, 2007 @ 6:01 pm - November 26, 2007

  28. The best way to solve this problem is to create a system that employers can use to validate the status of everyone they hire.

    Strictly enforce this and the illegals who are here will deport themselves.

    Comment by Vince P — November 26, 2007 @ 6:14 pm - November 26, 2007

  29. Houndentenor, first, it would help if the politicians in Washington were actually committed to having the INS do enforcement. There was a famous case a few months ago, I forget the INS agent’s name… but he was persecuted by his management, essentially because he took his duties seriously. (Patterico.com covered it) So telling our existing border agents “OK, you can actually do your jobs now” would be an improvement.

    Second, we can take measures to increase the productivity of border agents and “canalize” the illegal inflows. Aka fence, “virtual technological fence”, and other names.

    Third, we can start giving Mexico real pressure to do real reforms of their society and government so it is a free country, not a hellhole its own people want to flee from.

    Fourth, much more can be done to make it easier to track illegals in this country and more important, penalize the employers who hire them. I won’t name names, but this idea may be particularly touchy for some in this thread. I will also turn the floor over to NDT, V or others for specific helpful ideas.

    After all that is in place and our borders are secure: then let’s talk about amnesty, who should get it and after how long, etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2007 @ 6:21 pm - November 26, 2007

  30. P.S. Note the first 3 things I propose don’t even affect the question you raised, i.e., what to do about illegals who are already here. That’s intentional. In other words, first can we please JUST get our borders under control? That would be a 1 million percent improvement. THEN we can talk about what to do about the ones already here, who should be deported and whether that’s practical, blah blah blah.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2007 @ 6:26 pm - November 26, 2007

  31. You can’t tell me that people don’t know they are hiring workers who do not have work visas.

    Well, quite frankly, the forgers are pretty darn good these days.

    And ironically, the ACLU, in its argument against the REAL ID Act, whined that “birth certificates are not standardized, and are easily forged”.

    All you need to verify your identity for a job is a driver’s license or other government-issued photo ID and a birth certificate or Social Security card; all you need to get a Social Security card is a birth certificate or a good forger.

    And, curiously, how are we supposed to “know” that they don’t have work visas, when they present us with these expertly-forged documents that even police can’t tell apart? Is it by their dress? Their manner of speaking? Their skin color? Their country of origin? Anything else that, if we were to actually use it, would get us hit with a lawsuit for discrimination?

    Furthermore, under current law, it is illegal to fire someone for providing you with an incorrect or false Social Security number; the no-match letters that the Social Security Administration explicitly state that employment action may not be taken against an individual for receiving one.

    How many INS agents would it take to find and deport all the illegals in the country?

    Not as many as you might think.

    You see, once it was made public knowledge that the government was actually enforcing the immigration law, you’d be surprised how many people would self-deport rather than wait and have their property and money confiscated.

    Furthermore, once local governments were required to follow Federal law and actually report and arrest illegal immigrants, that increases by thousandfolds the number of eyes, ears, and handcuffs the INS has out on the street.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 26, 2007 @ 6:51 pm - November 26, 2007

  32. …70-80% of the American people do not side with [MM] on open borders and mass amnesty for illegal immigrants.

    Which makes 70-80% of Americans “racists” and “Nativists” as MM just stated above… while the other 20-30%, with their hard-core vested interest in blocking all reform short of total victory for their side (unlimited amnesty) are “compromisers” and “reformers”.

    Anything is possible, in SurrealLand.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2007 @ 7:06 pm - November 26, 2007

  33. The thing is, the GOP elites have done such a fine job of driving away their base that they are almost fiscally bankrupt in addition to morally bankrupt. The GOP congressional committee has only $2M in cash on hand compared with $30 M for the Sorocrats. I don’t see this as something the conservatives did, or something the moderates did, it’s something the Republicans did.

    So, Michigan Matt probably will get his wish. In 2008, there will probably be a lot of politicians in the mode of Gerald Ford and Lincoln Chaffee elected to office. Of course, they will be Democrats.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2007 @ 7:36 pm - November 26, 2007

  34. Dunno, you gonna behave?

    Just for that, you can have it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 27, 2007 @ 1:20 am - November 27, 2007

  35. Anything is possible, in SurrealLand.

    Or New Fallujah.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 27, 2007 @ 3:02 am - November 27, 2007

  36. Talk about SurrealLand. People act as if sending people back to their native country is the most horrible thing you can do to them. And in the case of Mexico, that country tacitly agrees. The Mexican government screams that returning people to Mexico violates their human rights. It’s like they’re saying. “Our country is a hellhole. How dare you make our citizens live here.”

    Surreal indeed.

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2007 @ 8:27 am - November 27, 2007

  37. Wow, the Echo Chamber is on overdrive when it comes to immigration reform, secure borders and moving forward on the issues instead of using them like Civil War Era bloody shirts to placate the red-meat irrational Right base. Wave those shirts boys; it’s all you got left.

    Sorry to have again inflamed our native Nativists here, but the INESCAPABLE truth is that conservatives in control of Congress had nearly 2 decades to “get serious about border security” and, at least, 4+ years after 9/11 to stop demagoguing the issue and lead. Did they? Hell no… they were too busy playing pork barrel politics and huckstering on countless issues to take time to “get serious” about border security. Besides, if they had acted, what would be left for all those “angry conservatives” to be angry about? Oh, that’s right… they still have Area 51 to go after.

    Now that that approach of the conservatives’ strategy on good govt has failed, it’s time to blame the GOP. How convenient of those arm-chair conservative cynics. The Party is taking lots of heat from voters and conservatives are, like scuttling rats on a proverbial sinking ship, searching for the portholes.

    Nawh, guys, the opportunity to address illegal immigrant problem has passed and we can all collectively thank the bloody-shirt waving conservative crowd -angry at all and leading on nothing- for another missed opportunity to secure compromise and reform. They won; everyone else lost.

    Conservatives still haven’t learned that you can’t hold the reigns of govt for 20+ yrs and then be credible in bitching about the big, bad, evil govt. You guys were –WERE– the govt. Today’s immigration policy was hatched in the ShiningHill days of Ronnie… the policy and budgetary prefereneces for 20+ yrs were approved by conservatives in control of Congress.

    And for the record, NDXXX, nearly 70-80% of Americans supported immigration reform –just like baseball, Moms and apple pies. But they also think the govt is covering up past visits from outer space aliens, the world didn’t evolve but was created about 7,000 yrs ago and that most of the world speaks English (it’s only about 20%, btw).

    Careful what you hold as a standard for acceptable belief.

    I’m glad to see the conservatives still use illegal immigration as their bloody shirt issue… I guess that’s why Tancredo is doing so well in the race for GOP nomination.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 27, 2007 @ 11:09 am - November 27, 2007

  38. Yeah, that driver’s licenses for illegals things worked out real well for Hillary, didn’t it?

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2007 @ 12:03 pm - November 27, 2007

  39. Sorry to have again inflamed our native Nativists here…

    And, MM officially calls his opponents **on this blog** Nativists. (Did I win the pool?)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2007 @ 12:21 pm - November 27, 2007

  40. I guess “Nativist” is the new sneer-word for “Patriot.”

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2007 @ 12:29 pm - November 27, 2007

  41. Well, MM supported moonbat claims / insults of Kevin’s in this other thread, so… I guess nothing should surprise me.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2007 @ 12:40 pm - November 27, 2007

  42. I guess “Nativist” is the new sneer-word for “Patriot.”

    Just another smear used by the perpetually gutless sorta like racist, sexist, bigot and homophobe.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 27, 2007 @ 12:59 pm - November 27, 2007

  43. Leaving the spin aside, the Bush-Kennedy Immigration reform bill boiled down to a guarantee of amnesty in return for a promise of enforcement. And we know how well the government keeps its border security promises.

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2007 @ 1:10 pm - November 27, 2007

  44. Some questions for ND30:

    I’m not actually in disagreement with you on this, just some questions.

    1. Is there no database by which employers can verify work visas?

    2. Am I really to believe that illegal workers taking minimum wage jobs can afford state of the art forged documents? I would think that the first step would be to crack down on the document forgers. That is a felony, no?

    3. Do most of these workers have a lot of property to confiscate? Yes, there are some people who have means and are here because the taxes are so much lower than Europe, etc., but I don’t think those are the people we are talking about in this debate.

    4. I’m surprised I don’t hear more people concerned that this is a national security issue. If this many people can get into the country illegal, why wouldn’t I believe that people who are here to do us harm (rather than just get a job) aren’t here as well. Couldn’t Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups get in the same way that illegals enter?

    Comment by Houndentenor — November 27, 2007 @ 1:56 pm - November 27, 2007

  45. I’m surprised I don’t hear more people concerned that this is a national security issue… Couldn’t Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups get in the same way that illegals enter?

    On this blog, some people (like yours truly) have been saying that for months if not years.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2007 @ 2:07 pm - November 27, 2007

  46. 4. I’m surprised I don’t hear more people concerned that this is a national security issue. If this many people can get into the country illegal, why wouldn’t I believe that people who are here to do us harm (rather than just get a job) aren’t here as well. Couldn’t Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups get in the same way that illegals enter?

    This is the primary reason the border should be sealed now. First the Southern and then the Northern. I am appalled that anyone would oppose such a thing.

    When people start with the name-calling “racist” and “nativist” etc.. I have to wonder what planet they’re living on. How could they be so ignorant about the fact that every Islamic group in the world is sending people into this country via Latin America.

    The complaceny of the Left is a sham.

    Comment by Vince P — November 27, 2007 @ 2:20 pm - November 27, 2007

  47. 1. Is there no database by which employers can verify work visas?

    First, we need to clarify something.

    In the United States, you must demonstrate both your identity and your right to work in this country as a condition of being employed.

    The latter is automatically granted to citizens of the United States, permanent residents (as in, green-card holders), and those here on work visas, which are temporary permissions granted for various reasons by the government to work in this country (H-1, L-1, E visas, etc.)

    Work visas are not the problem to verify; one, they’re difficult to forge, two, the government keeps an accurate database of them with extensive information, and three, verifying them is not considered in any way a privacy issue. In fact, because of these, the actual number of forged visas we see is very minimal; the same applies to green cards.

    Instead, what most people do is to simply forge birth certificates — since being born in this country guarantees you citizenship — or Social Security cards, since (in theory) you cannot get a Social Security number unless you have demonstrated citizenship or have a valid right to work here by other means.

    To directly answer your question, yes, I can verify work visas directly, and there is a system (Basic Pilot) that has the rudimentary ability to verify that a Social Security number is valid in the SSA’s database (basically automating the process that we already do of sending them Social Security numbers of new hires to match). However, Basic Pilot’s own rules state specifically that its system being unable to verify a Social Security number or producing a mismatch MAY NOT be used as grounds for terminating the employee. In short, even if they come back with a fake SSN, I have to go through the entire appeals process to get authorization to fire them or risk a lawsuit (usually filed by a union), and during that time I am employing an illegal immigrant.

    Furthermore, to make matters even better, the Democrat Party and its affiliated groups absolutely oppose any such verification database. This demonstrates the lies that Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and so forth push; they insist employers should have to verify people, but they adamantly oppose any means of doing it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 27, 2007 @ 2:42 pm - November 27, 2007

  48. #46 – Except, Vince, MM probably wouldn’t consider himself a leftist. (Yet.)

    He seems to consider himself the “one, true, pure” breed of Republican – implied throughout his #37 comment. “Conservatives” are not the bedrock of the Republican party, but the authors of its decline from the heights of love it experienced in the Ford-Nixon-Watergate era. Only the 0.1% of the country that is both pro-amnesty and classically Gerald Ford / Michigan Republican, is pure enough (in heart and ideology) to magically conjure 51% at election time, by the purity of its wishing.

    Like I said – Anything is possible, in SurrealLand.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2007 @ 2:48 pm - November 27, 2007

  49. 2. Am I really to believe that illegal workers taking minimum wage jobs can afford state of the art forged documents? I would think that the first step would be to crack down on the document forgers. That is a felony, no?

    From the article I cited:

    High-quality fake ID’s can cost $50 to $200.

    Not exactly a problem, especially when it’s a choice between getting that and not being able to get a job.

    And second, yes, it is a felony; however, if we want it to be effective, it should be a felony with automatic confiscation of property and assets and imprisonment. Otherwise, they simply continue merrily onward.

    Also, keep in mind that the Democrat Party may not WANT to enforce this law; after all, forging a birth certificate allows you to demonstrate citizenship, and allowing you to demonstrate citizenship allows you to register to vote. Why would they want to crack down on people doing that, especially when illegal immigrants are so easily roped into voting Democrat?

    3. Do most of these workers have a lot of property to confiscate? Yes, there are some people who have means and are here because the taxes are so much lower than Europe, etc., but I don’t think those are the people we are talking about in this debate.

    Doesn’t matter. If you are in the United States illegally and carrying out criminal activity (and possession of false ID, etc., is criminal activity), your property here is subject to seizure and confiscation.

    4. I’m surprised I don’t hear more people concerned that this is a national security issue. If this many people can get into the country illegal, why wouldn’t I believe that people who are here to do us harm (rather than just get a job) aren’t here as well. Couldn’t Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups get in the same way that illegals enter?

    Of course.

    People don’t realize what suckers we are. In Finland, for instance, illegal immigration is grounds for automatic imprisonment, no ifs,ands, or buts. Ironically, in Mexico, illegal immigrants are not guaranteed ANY constitutional protections; they are barred from owning land, holding jobs, receiving any government anything, and are subject to CITIZEN’S arrest and imprisonment.

    I have always thought that the best thing for the US to do would be to immediately enact laws making our illegal immigration policy the same as Mexico’s. What are they going to do, say we’re violating human rights?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 27, 2007 @ 2:59 pm - November 27, 2007

  50. Bush should thank God that principled conservative opposition killed his Amnesty bill. Otherwise, it was just a matter of time before a terrorist with a valid z-visa (which the government was required to issue automatically within 24 hours of an application) perpetrated a terrorist act and that would have been Bush’s legacy.

    Just like the 9-11 hijackers who were able to easily acquire valid, state-issued drivers licenses of the kind Eliot Spitzer wanted to hand out like library cards.

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2007 @ 3:00 pm - November 27, 2007

  51. Can we get back to the subject of the post?

    I promise I will do an immigration post but only if you all treat each other with respect and not get into personal attacks.

    Nuf said…topic is DADT — Clinton’s Gay Legacy.

    Comment by GayPatriot — November 27, 2007 @ 3:17 pm - November 27, 2007

  52. I wasn’t calling MM a Leftist. I dont get the impression that he is.

    Comment by Vince P — November 27, 2007 @ 3:18 pm - November 27, 2007

  53. I promise I will do an immigration post but only if you all treat each other with respect and not get into personal attacks.

    Well, we had an Iraq post where Ian declared that I’m an anti-military racist whose ass will be kicked by his boyfriend. Can’t wait to see what comes next. ;P

    PS: Not complainin’, just sayin’. I thought it was pretty damn funny. If there were ever any doubt that Ian’s an ass clown, well there it is.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 27, 2007 @ 11:57 pm - November 27, 2007

  54. 51: Ummm…and what did 6 years of complete Republican control of congress and the executive branch do to reverse it? Yes, I agree dadt was probably the worst thing Clinton did as president (yes, getting a bj in the white house was not the worst thing he did). I notice that every time someone points out something unpleasant a Republican does in office, conservatives here blather on about “really move on”, “let it go”, “don’t live in the past”. Interesting how you still love to rip on the guy who hasn’t been in the white house for over 6 years. You conveniently ignore that it is overwhelmingly Republicans who have systemically vilified gays in this country, particularly using the anti-marriage initiatives as a way to get conservative voters to the polls. I also notice that the push to repeal dadt has only come about now that congress is under control of the Democrats and that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel with regard to Bush leaving office in January of 09.

    Comment by Kevin — November 27, 2007 @ 11:57 pm - November 27, 2007

  55. (yes, getting a bj in the white house was not the worst thing he did).

    How about lying about it and then telling you to your face (essentially) that it’s none of your goddam business? How about the Clintonites rushing to defend it by trying to convince us that it’s o.k. to lie? etc.etc.etc. You got a position on that?

    I notice that every time someone points out something unpleasant a Republican does in office, conservatives here blather on about “really move on”, “let it go”,

    I haven’t, but I also realize that you don’t exist on the same plain of reality as most folks. BTW, where did the name MoveOn.com come from?

    Interesting how you still love to rip on the guy who hasn’t been in the white house for over 6 years.

    Because he’s responsible for it. I know that word is an alien concept to liberals so let me make it plain: He’s the one who signed it into law. Nobody else did and that fact didn’t change once he left office. By that same asinine logic, then Bush will not be responsible for anything once he leaves office and you won’t be able to blame him for anything. Am I right?

    You conveniently ignore that it is overwhelmingly Republicans who have systemically vilified gays in this country,

    Can you offer any real examples instead of GayLeftBorg talking points? Further, just what the hell have liberals done for gays that we should dole out tons of many and all our votes for?

    particularly using the anti-marriage initiatives as a way to get conservative voters to the polls.

    As I recall, it wasn’t. However, it lived on in the minds of the GayLeftBorg who wanted to make sure anybody gullible enough would believe that were true.

    Besides, an election is coming up. Isn’t this just another liberal ploy to get gay votes and tons of cash?

    I also notice that the push to repeal dadt has only come about now that congress is under control of the Democrats

    I also notice that an election is coming up. Given that the liberals haven’t really done a damn thing positive for gays in the past and the fact that the vaunted liberal congress hasn’t done a goddam thing, besides pander to unions and trial lawyers for the past 11 months, why in the hell should I believe that anything will change?

    They also promissed to end corruption, yet it marches on unabated.
    They also promissed us full disclosure on pork.
    They also promissed us longer work weeks in congress.
    I can go on, if you like.

    Their 100 Hour Reich went over like a fart in church. They’ve accomplished nothing but pandering to the big donors and driving their approval rating to the lowest in history.

    Seriously. What makes you think they give a sweet damn about you?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 28, 2007 @ 2:35 am - November 28, 2007

  56. I would argue that not doing a damn thing about al Qaeda despite repeated terror attacks against the U.S. was the worst thing Clinton did in office, but there are a lot of things to choose from.

    Comment by V the K — November 28, 2007 @ 6:22 am - November 28, 2007

  57. I notice that every time someone points out something unpleasant a Republican does in office

    I also notice that every time a liberal does something unpleasant, the media covers it up like a turd in a cat box as much as possible.

    Or if you point out what a liberal does in office, libs shrug it off and say “he hasn’t been in office for X years”.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 28, 2007 @ 6:41 am - November 28, 2007

  58. “I would argue that not doing a damn thing about al Qaeda despite repeated terror attacks against the U.S. was the worst thing Clinton did in office, but there are a lot of things to choose from.”

    waahhhhh waaaahh clinton. too bad those little inconvenient things called facts get in the way of your blanket statement. the republican controlled congress at the time decided going on vacation was more important than fighting terrorism at the time.
    http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

    Comment by bozo the neoclown — November 28, 2007 @ 6:49 am - November 28, 2007

  59. Yeah the media really covered up that Monica Lewinsky thing. We hardly heard about that at ALL.

    Comment by Houndentenor — November 28, 2007 @ 12:02 pm - November 28, 2007

  60. Yeah, and the media sure have been probing those campaign contributions from impoverished Chinese busboys with no valid addresses. And they’ve been totally on Hillary’s case about not releasing her White House records from the first Clinton Era. And, man, oh man, are they ever giving her a tough time for having classified documents thief Sandy Berger and impeached bribe-taker Alcee Hastings on her campaign staff.

    Oh, wait, I forgot… they haven’t been questioning any of that.

    Comment by V the K — November 28, 2007 @ 12:31 pm - November 28, 2007

  61. V the K: Have you heard about the Hillary – Peter Paul scandal?

    Comment by Vince P — November 28, 2007 @ 12:32 pm - November 28, 2007

  62. Guys, this back-and-forth sniping is interesting and all but it ain’t exactly germane to the issue of DADT. Did any of you listen to the podcast? Do you have anything to say about that or DADT? If not, please take it to another thread. Thanks.

    Comment by John — November 28, 2007 @ 1:13 pm - November 28, 2007

  63. In 2006 Tammy Bruce was on CSPAN for one of those long extended interviews.

    http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=193300-1&highlight=bruce

    At the time index 36:10 of the Windows Media Video video a gay guy calls in to challenge Tammy Bruce on Bruce’s ambivilience regarding DADT and then challenges Bruce’s friendship with Dr. Laura.

    I think Bruce handles both these questions well.

    I too am ambilvilent about DADT.. though i found a lot of arguements of the Anti-DADT side to be pursusaive.. Bruces defence of DADT made a lot of sense to me too.

    I recomend the entire video .. it’s an hour long interview and i’m only half way through it.

    Comment by Vince P — November 29, 2007 @ 6:30 am - November 29, 2007

  64. Bruce writes: “Can we get back to the subject of the post? I promise I will do an immigration post but only if you all treat each other with respect and not get into personal attacks. Nuf said…topic is DADT — Clinton’s Gay Legacy.”

    Thanks Bruce… it was getting kind of hard to breathe under this jam pile of redmeat conservatives. Reminds me Wolverine football this season and all the late hits our quarterback took on the field. Glad to see a “penalty flag” come out even after the jampile was high and the late hits had their effect. I’m going to help by not responding to the erroneous non-DADT comments slung (or smeared) in my direction.

    BTW, I support DADT until the military brass says it can go by the wayside. #1 goal of the military should be to protect us and kill our enemies when necessary. #239 goal should be social engineering and the adoption of self-esteem building policies that parallel society’s changing values (like repeal of DADT).

    Wow, I guess that really makes me the Leftie all these redmeat conservatives have been claiming… I’m out! The closet can no longer hold me!! Hear me roar… not.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 29, 2007 @ 12:15 pm - November 29, 2007

  65. And, still more name-calling from MM. Keep it up! 😉

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2007 @ 2:03 pm - November 29, 2007

  66. ILC ‘pines: “And, still more name-calling from MM. Keep it up!”

    Hey ILC, Bruce and John asked you to stay on the topic of DADT. As someone who is so fond of mentioning this is BRUCE’s blog and we are all guests here, try to attend to his requests and stop tossing peanuts from the gallery. You ‘jiggy w/ dat?” Kewl ILC.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 30, 2007 @ 12:18 pm - November 30, 2007

  67. Hey ILC, Bruce and John asked you to stay on the topic of DADT

    Incomplete answer. They asked YOU to stay on the topic of DADT. You made a show of it, while carefully mixing in your trademark name-calling. Good job! 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 30, 2007 @ 3:53 pm - November 30, 2007

  68. (i.e., you among others; all of us; please check your comment #37, if you don’t believe you were included)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 30, 2007 @ 4:12 pm - November 30, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.