Tuesday, October 25, 2005

America Should Torture Sub-Human Islamic Terrorists

There is a lot of talk in Washington about codifying certain rules against torturing Islamic terrorists held in U.S. custody. It is strange that we are even hearing about this story. I do not think that most Americans take much time during their day to concern themselves with the U.S.' treatment of savage Islamic terrorists. Quite the contrary, I would say that it is natural, and even healthy, to wish these individuals harm. Life typically operates under the principal of treating others as one would like to be treated. Such a policy makes sense most of the time, but makes little, if any, sense with the terrorists: the terrorists would never reciprocate and honor such a policy. They consider such policies a signal of "weakness"--a signal that we cannot fight fire with fire. Further, when we torture terrorists, it is not because they are infidels and sub-human savage Islamic fundamentalists, but rather because torturing these wicked beasts may lead to intelligence data that can be immediately used to fight terrorists around the world. Torturing Islamic terrorists would not place U.S. servicemen and women in harms way because we are highly unlikely to ever attack a civilized nation that agrees with the Geneva Convention. The U.S. only goes to war against savage beasts. These savages should be tortured in the most painful method possible to extract information from them. We should also publicize such video to areas of the world where terrorist savages congregate (essentially where the Muslims reside)--as a signal of deterence. Further, we ought to state that we will no longer support these terrorists' religious practices. Their Koran ought to be confiscated and instead they should be given Bibles. You don't see any Christian terrorists, do you? Secondly, they will be fed pork, and if they do not eat it, they will be force-fed. If we in the West continue to proclaim the false lie that these terrorists are not true "Muslims," then we should provide these individuals with Muslim-friendly meals, or carpets, or Korans, or show them where Mecca is.

Friday, October 21, 2005

Illegal Immigration

If there's one thing that makes me angry lately, it is the rapid rise in wanton foreign invading Mexican illegal aliens. As the number of illegal aliens rises, I predict that there will be a rise in racism against Mexicans, perhaps properly so, especially since the population will believe that such individuals do not respect the sovereingty of the United States and are thus less trustworthy in other civil and criminal matters.

  • The illegal alien problem is pressing and urgent: Los Angeles schools are overcrowding to the max; Mexican gang members are engagnging in domestic terrorism everyday, and we're doing nothing to deport such individuals.
  • We need to send the Mexican illegal aliens back because their cultural attributes are not Western and they do not hold our values. Mexican majority cities are dirty, do not maintain the same standards as other cities do, and their school systems are dysfunctional.

  • Further, as Mexican illegal aliens become a larger part of the population, corporations will not hold to the same high standards as they once did since they will actually cater to the tastes and wishes of Mexican illegal alien nationals -- people with whom do not hold to the same high standards that assimiliated Westerners do. It has taken a long time to develop certain Western values in the United States.

  • We cannot continue as a great nation if the individuals coming across the border each day illegally subscribe to inferior third-world nation's values, which Mexico certainly is. Since corporations follow consumer preferences, corporate standards will only remain high so long as its customers maintain high standards. Mexican nationals are used to a lower level for quality and standards for products and services. These lowered expectations could effect corporate behavior to the detriment of U.S. citizens.This is a time period when draconian laws are necessary to protect the national security of the United States.

  1. Some civil liberties of illegal aliens may have to be curtailed. I would support banning Mexican civil rights organizations from enganging in any political action since such organizations are likely facilitators of treason against the United States.
  • We should prohibit the sale or purchase or Spanish language newspapers,
  • ban licenses for Spanish-language television or radio programming.-
  • We should build the wall around the United States and Mexico as high as possible with barbed wire and the national army ready to shoot any invaders.-
  • We should impose taxes on these wire transactions to Mexico at a rate of 45% to 60% at all banks, wire transfer facilities, bank cashing facilities. This would reduce the amount of money that is sent back to Mexico that props up that corrupt country.-
  • Employers ought to be fined $50,000 per day, per illegal alien worker, along with all profits derived from hiring an illegal alien over an American citizen, permanent resident, or other valid visa.
  • - Illegal aliens should not be provided any healthcare (even if they are able to pay), education, or any other welfare benefit.- All property owned by an illegal alien shall be transferred, without compensation, to the Department of Homeland Security.--
  • Further, we need to counter the immigration from Mexico with immigrants from nations that do subscribe to our values. As a result, I, as a future Congressman, would allow for an unlimited number of immigrants (and provide them with very rapid citizenship) from the following nations: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Finland, Switzerland, England (Muslims will be excluded), New Zealand, and Japan.

We Urge the Senate to Reject Miers

We have been dissapointed with Bush's decision to nominate unqualified political hack Harriet Miers. We urge the Senate, including our foes the Democrats, to oppose this nominee.

There is no evidence at all that Miers has ever seriously thought about important constitutional issues prior to this nomination. We're tired of lame-brain Justices such as Souter and Stevens and Kenned. We won this election--it is time we Republicans nominated someone who will vigorously argue the constitutional theory of originalism. For these reasons, we urge the Senate to reject the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Democrats Support 100% Tax Rate

Washington – Democratic Members of the House of Representatives announced today a new tax plan, creating a new marginal tax bracket of 100% for all taxpayers. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced the plan with a smile, saying, “While President Bush’s tax cut plan goes to the rich, this plan will help the average American family since all their money will go to Washington, D.C. and we will have an opportunity to expand social welfare programs to benefit them.”

Many conservatives have criticized the plan, calling it similar to communism. House Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) called it a “power grab by a few socialists in the House.” Rep. Henry Waxman angrily responded: “If we don’t impose this new tax of 100% on every American’s income, we will never be able to provide seniors a prescription drug benefit, Social Security modernization, and affordable daycare.”

Some Americans have looked at the plan with skepticism, but Democrats said that most Americans do not understand the plan yet. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that “this plan is a bit more complicated and it is premature to criticize the plan.” He also added: “I am troubled by the amount of criticism this plan has received.”

University professors have been some of the most avid supporters of the tax plan. Robert Smith, Ph.D., a professor of political science at an east coast Ivy League school recently told a class that this “100% tax rate will help bring about a more cooperative, less hierarchical and better managed livelihood of our economic sphere.” Most students sat quietly and took notes.

When asked why he keeps most of his money abroad in tax-sheltered accounts, Smith defended this practice by saying that he was conducting important research and could not be bothered, as everyone else will under the plan, of having to lobby Congress to get a stipend for personal usage. “My research,” Smith later said, “has to do with Marxist philosophers who live in clubs sipping champagne in France, which is vitally important.”