Wall of America

There has been much talk and many proposals on how to handle the illegal immigrant situation. Senator McCain and Senator Ted Kennedy came together in a joint effort and proposed an immigration reform bill that would lead to the amnesty and eventual citizenship of approximately 12-million illegal immigrants, which was eventually defeated in the Senate.

Illegal immigration is a very sensitive subject where 80% of the American People wanted some sort of immigration reform, which included the closing and securing of the border. After much hesitance by the Bush Administration the solution was to build a fence along the border. The cost of such a fence is of course, enormous, and the fence itself, is of course a joke. Any U.S. marine could get over the fence within a few seconds. This is a shoddy attempt, at best, to appease the American People at Taxpayers expense.

We at America’s Voice are not against immigration, but we are opposed to illegal immigration. Although the fence is a good idea, we at America’s Voice believe it should be on a grander scale. We believe that the fence should be replaced by the “Wall of America”.

The “Wall of America” would be on the scale of the ‘Great Wall of China’. This wall would essentially be a super highway consisting of 4 to 6 lanes across, 50-feet high and about 30-feet deep. The walls on both sides would consists of re-enforced concrete about 5 to 8-feet thick. There would be guard towers every half mile on the Mexico side containing the latest in surveillance technology. These towers would also be large enough to allow the border patrol to station an officer in the tower. These towers would be accessible via steps or an elevator from inside the wall in an open space between the walls below the highway.

This open space under the highway would be 3-stories deep where the ground floor would also be a highway specifically for the border patrol and/or possible troop movements along the entire stretch of highway above. The other two lower stories could house the control rooms that monitor the cameras and any other listening devices to prevent tunneling or explosions of any sort.

On the American side there would be on and off ramps at various locations, especially where there is current border crossings. These locations would have the usual GAS, FOOD, and LODGING available, like any other U.S highway.

The "Wall of America" would be built completely on the American side of the border by anyone who would be willing to work on the project for a fair wage and benefits. Each border state would be responsible for building their section of the wall, which would be funded by both the state and the U.S. Government via tax dollars.

If we can fund a war, wouldn’t the money be better spent putting thousands of people and ex-military solders to work to build a monument that could easily become the 9th wonder of the world leaving behind a testament to the determination and engineering genius of Americans from the 21st century?

Once completed each border state could put a toll on the part of the highway that runs through their state to recoup the money spent in building it. Since this would be a modern marvel it could also be billed as a tourists attraction that would allow tourists from around the world to travel the 720 miles of highway stopping along the way at the Hotels that would surly be built.

The “Wall of America” would provide the security along our border that the American People want, provide thousands of jobs and eventually become a tourist attraction, thus providing even more jobs because of increased tourism and more importantly give our politicians time to come up with a very real and comprehensive Immigration reform policy.

Joe Biden’s Patriotic Taxes

Joe Biden says it’s patriotic to pay higher taxes. On ABC’s Good Morning America when asked about Obama’s plan to tax the wealthy he said "It's time (for the well-off) to be patriotic." Thus, if citizens don’t pay MORE taxes they’re not patriotic. I’m willing to be less Patriotic if he’d like to be more Patriotic and pay my taxes for me. Wouldn't it be MORE Patriotic for the Congress and Senate to reduce wasteful spending so us Patriots don't HAVE to pay more taxes?

The idea of taxing the wealthy sounds great. It’s the whole Robin Hood (or Obama Hood in this case) idea of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. The Robin Hood story is a good one but it’s just that…a story. We happen to live in the REAL world. In the REAL world the wealthy don’t really pay taxes.

In our REAL world we have Trickle Down economics. Ronald Reagan was right. Everything trickles down from the wealthy to the middle class and on down to the poor. Like it or not, agree with it or not the fact is that the good trickles down and the bad trickles down as well.

If taxes are raised on the wealthy they’ll raise the prices of goods and services the rest of us use. They’ll wrap the new taxes into the cost of doing business and pass that cost on to the rest of us (a.k.a. trickle down). The wealthy own businesses and hire employees. They’ll raise prices and/or reduce staff. While it’s true we non-wealthy citizens will pay fewer taxes we’ll pay more for goods and services. The end result is the non-wealthy will foot the bill and have less money to take care of their family’s while Joe Biden credits the wealthy for being MORE Patriotic than the rest of us.

Link to story at kcstar.com

The Audacity of Bad Judgment

At the Republican Convention Sarah Palin ad libbed a joke in response to audience cheers from Alaska women: "You know what the difference is between a hockey mom and a pit bull?" she asked, pausing perfectly. "Lipstick!" Since then there have been signs at the McCain/Palin rally's along the same lines stating "Read My Lipstick" and so forth with the "lipstick" theme. Sarah Palin, as far as we know, is the only one of the four candidates that wears lipstick on a regular basis (although I have my suspicions about Biden). Thus, the word "lipstick" is hers in this Presidential Campaign.

Yesterday, after commenting on the Republicans policies (or lack thereof), Senator Barack Obama punctuated his comments with the line "You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig". Granted this is a very old line used to imply that no matter how much you pretty up something it doesn't change what it is. An ugly pig is still a pig and a bad policy is still a bad policy.

John McCain has used a similar line in the past about wrestling with pigs. When asked about Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean's criticism of him as "a blatant opportunist'' McCain replied that he doesn't want to "go down" to that level and "I think it was Bob Dole, you know, that said you don’t want to get into a wrestling match with a pig, You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.” This was an analogy about sinking to a low level rather than actually calling anyone a name.

Even IF Obama didn't intend to call Sarah Palin a pig was it a good idea to exercise bad judgment and use a line that can be construed as if he was calling Sarah Palin a pig? Even IF McCain was calling Howard Dean a "pig" is it a good idea to sink to the same low level and call the most popular Governor in the United States a "pig"? Is sinking to lower levels going to get us the change we need in Washington?

Awhile back Barack Obama convinced many people that while he lacked experience he would make up for it with good judgment. I try to pick out the rare things he says that I agree with in an attempt to accept him as our President should he win in November but then he goes and does silly childish things like this. When is this "good judgment" going to kick in? It seems he also has a lack of experience with GOOD judgment as well.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080910.htm

Dem Ticket Upside Down

The Presidential tickets seem to be upside down. Joe Biden is missing and Barack Obama is playing the Vice Presidential attack dog role by calling Sarah Palin a liar. Why is the Presidential candidate of one party calling the others Vice Presidential choice a liar? Where's Joey Biden? Attacking the other candidates is the Vice Presidential candidates role. John McCain is a little quieter recently too. It seems this election is suddenly Barack Obama versus Sarah Palin and both are acting like Vice Presidential candidates. Except only one of them truly is a Vice Presidential candidate.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/09/obama-accuses-maverick/

Party Crashers

Isn’t it funny that more protestors were arrested at the Republican convention in Minnesota than the Democrat convention in Colorado?

It was the Democrat anti-war protesters causing a ruckus in Minnesota this week and last week in Colorado it was the Democrat anti-war protesters that…hey, wait a minute. The same people were the biggest protesters at BOTH conventions.

Hmmm, so the Republicans left the Democrats alone to have their convention but the Democrats couldn’t return the favor. Which party was the mean one again?

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0446401720080905

http://cbs4denver.com/politics/saint.paul.denver.2.810733.html

Palin Power

Wow, a lot is being made of a speech writer helping write Sarah Palin’s speech last night. Is it because she’s a woman that they’re picking on her? The men don’t write 100% of their own speeches either. Could ANY speech writer do all the research necessary to include all her personal items and accomplishments WITHOUT her being involved? No way.

Does anybody think that any of these politicians write their own speeches? It’s extremely rare. I think it was Chris Mathews (the news guy) who was a speech writer for both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Even Jerry Lewis helped JFK with his speeches during JFK’s presidential run. JFK would send him speeches and ask Jerry Lewis to make them more entertaining.

Sarah Palin's speech was obviously exceptionally written, genuinely honest and superbly delivered or they’d have more to pick on than just WHO wrote it.

Ironic Democrat Contradictions

Isn’t it ironic that the Democratic Party is the one upset most about Sarah Palin’s 17-year old daughter being pregnant (she’ll be 18 in October)? Isn’t this the party that promotes Women and Women’s rights the most? Over 55% of the Democratic Party is Women. This is the party that supports a Woman’s right to choose. This is the party that says Women CAN juggle work and family successfully. This is the party that says Women don’t have to be married to raise a family. This is the party that demands equal pay for Women. Would these pro-choice Democrats prefer that she had an abortion a few months ago or wait a couple of more months to jam a tube in its head during birth and suck its brains out? Militant Pro-choicers do tend to forget that LIFE is one of the choices.

Are they saying that Sarah Palin is a bad parent because she couldn’t manage to control a teenage girl 100% of the time? Even parents who are home all the time become pre-mature grandparents. Are they aware there’s are over 750,000 pregnant teenagers in America right now? Are they ALL the product of bad parenting? Are these teenagers not responsible at all for their own actions? With parents, schools, and even TV shows promoting safe sex is it really safe to assume there’s even one pregnant teenage girl who had absolutely no idea pregnancy was possible?

To insinuate she’s a bad parent because of her daughter’s personal actions is irresponsible. I’m sure when Ted Bundy got into the University of Washington his friends and family congratulated his parents for doing such a good job of raising this intelligent well-behaved young man. At what point did THEY become bad parents? Teenagers are going to be teenagers. All a parent can do is teach them what they can. If a teenager chooses to ignore the warnings then that’s not the parents fault. That’s where personal responsibility comes into play.