Double standard illegal status

After watching this caravan of illegals headed for the border, It reminded me of something.

I don’t know why it is that having illegals on your doorstep should cause instant knee-jerk sympathy and compassion? That we just have to reach out to save them, as if plucking them out of a pond to rescue them from drowning? Why make them into victims?

And I don’t get why we are compelled to organize, send lawyers into the masses to give them talking points or aid their conspiracy to penetrate our borders, by hook or crook?

No, all that seems to be routine while Americans are disgusted. We were told back when Elian Gonzales was deported that he just had to go back, as much compassion as people may have about it. The rule of law was supreme, they said.

So why is it that, like the old wet foot dry foot policy, that a mere foot here automatically grants you some status, and access to our courts, and has all these benefits? As if the burden of proof is on us as to prove why they need to go back, why they cannot just stay. Of course many leftists want them all to stay — like an entitlement program.

Well, this got me thinking of a parallel to this border crisis. I have the answer, we do have laws and immigration laws. When someone touches ground at JFK from a foreign country, one does not automatically become a citizen. You aren’t granted special status and all these benefits by setting feet on ground, simply by stepping off a plane.

Those people are already documented who they are etc. They don’t get to say, “I’m here now so you cannot throw me out or send me back.” They are not teamed up with a lawyer on arrival to stake their claim of entitlement. I don’t know anyone who would accept that.

Just a thought

Right Ring | Bullright

JFK’s ‘foreign policy’ Dems never talk about

Politics of incompetence

Ann Coulter has busted the myth about the golden child, JFK’s foreign policy disasters. (right, its plural)

Crimea River” goes to the heart of JFK’s foreign policy, which brought on the bay of pigs, and where Khrushchev walked all over the amateur bootlegger. That’s the part Dems never talk about with JFK. It’s the moon or his fiscal policy they point to. But it sure doesn’t appear he carried any gravitas overseas.

Ann points out how they even turned JFK’s bay of pigs into a myth.

The Kennedy Myth Machine has somehow turned JFK’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis into a brilliant foreign policy coup. The truth is: (1) Russia would never have dared move missiles to Cuba had Khrushchev not realized that JFK was a nincompoop; and (2) it wasn’t a victory.

But its about much more than JFK. Read it here, good for a few reality chuckles:

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2014/03/05/crimea-river-n1804802

One small leap for mankind, one giant JFK myth busted.
Truth never seems to have any consequences for progressives. But it does leave a stain.

RightRing | Bullright

Contrasts on the historical JFK day

Fifty years have passed and the contrast between JFK and Obama could not be stronger. They seem polar opposites.

Obama is no JFK. But more importantly, thank God that JFK was no Obama. Would we even be here now? Listening to Kennedy’s words, Obama was not in the same league.

People keep rationalizing to make excuses for Obama. They point out other politicians screwed up. Except Obama ran as the non-politician. He ran as the outsider, and the antithesis to Washingtonian problems. He ran on transparency- not corruption.

Now the Obamaholics’ best argument is what, that he is just like every other power-hungry, self-centered, corrupt politico? So he’s okay. That’s his defense. And except that the reason people supported him was because he was not supposed to be typical.

So when you compare him to JFK there is no comparison. Everybody likes JFK too. But he was anti-communbist. What would he do in a party of communists?

Oh, and then they use the size of the problem as an excuse for Obama. Because problems are so bad and big, that somehow transforms the hero into a victim…anything to avoid seeing him as the villain. As I said, he’s no JFK.

Problems are supposedly the reason Barry ran, but the problems are now his crutch for all his problems.

Obama ran for the most powerful job in the world so that he could be accountable for nothing, so he could blame everyone else. Does that sound JFK? He ran to put people down in their place. He ran to be inspirational, and yet he’s the textbook example for deceit.

Words from JFK’s speech he never gave to Trade Mart:

Ignorance and misinformation can handicap the progress of a city or a company, but they can, if allowed to prevail in foreign policy, handicap this country’s security.

And his words for the welcome dinner:

And our duty as a Party is not to our Party alone, but to the nation, and, indeed, to all mankind. Our duty is not merely the preservation of political power but the preservation of peace and freedom.

JFK: a big-spending big-government liberal- not.

JFK Museum Updates Exhibit Following Complaints by Conservative Author

Author: JFK was ‘tax-cutting, pro-growth politician’

BY: Alana Goodman | Free Beacon | October 18, 2013

The John F. Kennedy museum in Dallas told the Washington Free Beacon that it is planning to “completely update and revise” its permanent exhibit after a historian accused it of falsely depicting the 35th president as a big-government liberal.
Ira Stoll, author of JFK, Conservative, called on the Sixth Floor Museum last month to revise alleged “inaccuracies” in its exhibit regarding Kennedy’s views on social programs, the federal deficit, and tax policy.
The Sixth Floor Museum chronicles Kennedy’s legacy and his assassination in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.
Nicola Longford, executive director of the Sixth Floor Museum, said the permanent exhibit is 25 years old and in need of updating. She said the institution is planning a major overhaul after the 50th anniversary of Kennedy’s assassination next month.
“While Mr. Stoll has taken issues with the content of a few exhibit text panels, and encouraged priority attention for substantial updating and revision, it bears stating that this exhibit text is almost 25 years old,” said Longford. “Clearly the world has changed dramatically during this quarter century and now half century since the assassination.”
She added that the museum’s “intent has always been to completely update and revise our core exhibit post fiftieth anniversary (November 2013) and it is at this time that we will carefully review and consider all comments and recommendations.”
Stoll wrote in a letter to Longford that he was “troubled by some passages of the permanent exhibit text about Kennedy and his administration that struck me as inaccurate or misleading.”
He disputed the exhibit’s claim that “massive new social programs were central to Kennedy’s New Frontier philosophy,” calling it “just not true.”
“Kennedy was against ‘massive new social programs,’” wrote Stoll. “Kennedy described his own Medicare plan, accurately, not as ‘massive’ but rather as ‘a very modest proposal.’ And, as [Arthur] Schlesinger [Jr.] noted, he chose not to fight for even that.”
Stoll also took issue with a passage that refers to Kennedy’s “philosophy of using induced deficits to encourage domestic fiscal growth became a mainstay of American government under later administrations, both Democratic and Republican.”
According to Stoll, “Kennedy’s recipe for growth was not a deficit; it was a tax cut that, both by changing incentives and by putting more money in the hands of the private sector, would yield growth that would ultimately narrow the deficit by increasing federal revenues.”
Additionally, the exhibit discusses the positions of one of Kennedy’s liberal economic advisors, Walter Heller, without mentioning the views of Kennedy’s “more conservative Treasury Secretary, Douglas Dillon,” wrote Stoll.
He said Kennedy’s own statements and actual policies hewed closer to the conservative view.
“As for the idea that Kennedy’s deficits were a ‘radical departure’ from [President Dwight] Eisenhower’s balanced budgets, that is not supported by the evidence,” wrote Stoll. “Kennedy’s annual deficits—$3.3 billion in 1961, $7.1 billion in 1962, and $4.8 billion in 1963—were modest by modern standards and as a percentage of GDP.”
When contacted by the Free Beacon on Friday, Stoll praised the museum’s response to his letter.
“I’m thrilled to learn that, after receiving my letter based on the research in my book, JFK, Conservative, calling inaccuracies to their attention, the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas has announced plans to revise its exhibit text panels,” he said. “I hope the new exhibit text portrays JFK as closer to the real JFK I describe in my book—a tax-cutting, pro-growth politician who favored welfare reform, free trade, domestic spending restraint, and a balanced budget over the course of the business cycle.”
Stoll’s book, JFK, Conservative, was released on Oct. 15. It argues that the 35th president, idolized by liberal Democrats, was actually a conservative on economic and national security issues.

Shocked that they were caught revising and distorting JFK. But they are now going to remodel the exhibit. Revisionists caught again. The truth is the enemy of the left.