HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Layoffs  NaturalBornCitizen  FastandFurious  OPSEC  Benghazi  Libya  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice 

Calling all FReepers: We need to wrap this baby up by the end of the month. If you have not yet made your donation, please do so today. We can do this. Thank you very much!!

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $74,903
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 85%!! Less than $13.1k to go!! We can do this. Thank you all very much!! Let's git 'er done!!

Posts by Aetius

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Karl Rove surrenders to ObamaCare

    05/08/2015 10:54:54 PM PDT · 36 of 70
    Aetius to The Ghost of FReepers Past

    They also promised to stop Obama’s illegal executive amnesty during the campaign. We saw how quickly they caved on that.

  • Cop Did a Nice Thing When Political Commentator Forgot Her Wallet. She Called Him Racist For It

    05/08/2015 10:45:52 PM PDT · 4 of 65
    Aetius to Impala64ssa

    She is vile.

  • Don’t forget how the Soviet Union saved the world from Hitler

    05/08/2015 10:43:02 PM PDT · 40 of 132
    Aetius to dead

    True. I should have said that it was astonishing that they were able to keep fighting after sustaining such losses.

    I guess they were one of only a few nations that had the population to do so.

  • Don’t forget how the Soviet Union saved the world from Hitler

    05/08/2015 10:34:52 PM PDT · 31 of 132
    Aetius to tcrlaf

    It’s astonishing the number of casualties the Germans inflicted on the soviets in the first two years, and yet they kept fighting.

  • Don’t forget how the Soviet Union saved the world from Hitler

    05/08/2015 10:30:58 PM PDT · 27 of 132
    Aetius to re_nortex

    Didnt Patton make comments about wanting to push the soviets out of Europe after Germany’s defeat?

  • Don’t forget how the Soviet Union saved the world from Hitler

    05/08/2015 10:22:19 PM PDT · 21 of 132
    Aetius to MinorityRepublican

    There is no doubt that the Soviet Union took the heaviest hit and did most of the fighting and dying against Germany. The scale of the war on the eastern front dwarfed that on the western.

    I’m not so sure they saved the world from Hitler though. Certainly Europe would have been lost, but with the American mobilization to fight Japan, I wonder how much of a threat Hitler would have been to us. It would have taken Gemany years to build a navy strong enough to attempt a highly unlikely invasion, plus we would have still had a large advantage in manpower. On the other hand, if German scientists had more time and resources to develop advanced weapons systems and, of course, a nuclear bomb, then no country would have been safe. And Hitler would have controlled vast natural resources in Ukraine and Russia, plus possibly the Middle East too, giving him tremendous economic power.

    It’s interesting what-if analysis.

  • Congressman Gowdy Grills John Kerry Over Stealth Muslim Refugee Program

    05/08/2015 6:56:15 PM PDT · 29 of 63
    Aetius to concernedcitizen76

    Good for Gowdy, but unfortunately Republican leaders are almost as terrible on unending mass immigration - of which admittance of unsuitable Muslim refugees is a part - as Obama and the Democrats. This problem has been growing for decades. Bush could likely have ended this insanity after 9-11but unfortunately he was worthless on immigration.

    Now even though refugee and asylum visas are bringing in garbage like the Boston marathon bombers and the wannabe Somali jihadists out of Minnesota, those programs rarely receive any critical examination.

  • Concerns Of Muslim Immigration Surge Into Western World Come Into Focus

    05/08/2015 9:38:46 AM PDT · 12 of 15
    Aetius to george76

    Bush had the perfect chance to end this madness after 9-11. He could have either pushed for an end to mass immigration in general, or targeted Muslim nations for exclusion. Instead he was atrocious on the issue. Instead of getting good, conservative immigration reform, he helped popularize the nauseating “religion of peace” nonsense. And since 9-11 Muslim immigration into the US has increased, which is just insane. Of course no one, not even Sessions (who is the best Senator on immigration) will broach the subject.

    It wouldn’t be hard to end this madness, and it wouldn’t even require targeting of Muslim nations. We should (1) end extended family chain migration by eliminating adult siblings as a category (2) absolish the absurd Diversity Lottery visas and (3) severely restrict, to almost zero, refugee and asylum visas.

    Taken together these things would drastically reduce Muslim immigration.

  • Sen. Jeff Sessions: Top Five Concerns With Trade Promotion Authority (Covert Immigration Bill)

    05/06/2015 10:31:47 AM PDT · 17 of 21
    Aetius to Wolfie

    In the hands of someone like Obama, or of most leading republicans today, immigration would likely prove to be among the biggest, if not the biggest, problems with TPP.

  • CNN anchor Chris Cuomo: The First Amendment doesn’t protect hate speech, you know

    05/06/2015 10:21:36 AM PDT · 50 of 86
    Aetius to 7thson

    Exactly. The Left comes up with the Constitutionally unfounded idea that ‘hate speech’ can be excluded from First Amendment protections, and then, of course, the Left gets to define ‘hate speech’.

    It is a scary proposition. If a Democrat wins in 2016, or if a Republican wins and is unable (or unwilling) to get a conservative Sup Court nominee approved, then once Scalia or Kennedy retire then there will be at least a 5 vote majority to strip destroy Free Speech by making exceptions for so called ‘hate speech.’ And leading the way in defining ‘hate speech’ will be far-left, radical, loathsome, despicable groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center.

  • Sen. Ted Cruz is the least likely choice for 2016 presidential election (Wait'l you hear why)

    05/04/2015 8:33:39 PM PDT · 31 of 65
    Aetius to 2ndDivisionVet

    Senator Hatch is increasingly worthless, so quoting him means nothing.

    If the government had shut down over Obama’s executive amnesty then it would have been Obama and the Democrats shutting it down, nit Cruz and the GOP.

    Where does he get the idea that Cruz would be a big deportation guy? I wish he would, but I don’t get that sense from him.

    And I doubt that Cruz denies climate change - everybody knows that the climate changes - he’s probabaly just guilty of denying that it’s man-made, and of not supporting ruinous policies that won’t do much to alter temp changes anyway.

    And to say that opposing more gun control hurts Criz is nonsense. This is one of the few areas where conservatism hasn’t been badly beaten in the culture war.

  • Healthcare For Those In U.S. Illegally Could Cost California $740 Million A Year

    05/04/2015 8:24:01 PM PDT · 22 of 38
    Aetius to Steelfish

    I’m sure it will be much more than that.

  • Jeb Bush 2016: 5 Immigration Quotes That Explain (Most) Of The Candidate’s Views

    05/04/2015 8:22:10 PM PDT · 2 of 4
    Aetius to 2ndDivisionVet

    Scaling back unending extended family chain migration is a good idea, but who believes Bush would really push for that? He’d drop that the second the professional ethnic grievance groups took serious aim at him.

  • Belgistan? Sharia showdown in Brussels?

    05/04/2015 8:12:42 PM PDT · 7 of 8
    Aetius to Capt. Tom

    Muslim immigration to the United States has increased since 9-11. That’s just insane. Bush had a great chance to end mass immigration in the aftermath of that, but sadly he was about as bad as any leftist on immigration.

    I have no hope for Europe.

  • On Immigration, Scott Walker Bucks the Beltway Consensus

    05/04/2015 8:10:17 PM PDT · 50 of 51
    Aetius to DoughtyOne

    I agree with all of your preferred policy changes on immigration.

    As to Walker; maybe you’re right, and he is unworthy of trust. I hope his recent comments on immigration represent a genuine reflection and change of heart on his part, but maybe it is all just a lie. After all, he left himself wiggle/weasel room to later decide that unending mass legal immigration is great for Americans.

    Cruz is probably better on illegal immigration, though isn’t he okay with allowing a legal status for some illegals without citizenship? Whatever the case on that, Cruz is bad on legal immigration. I’ve yet to see him criticize any element of it. He did vote against the Gang of Eight bill, but during the debate over it he proposed an amendment to increase H1B five fold, and voted against a Sessions amendment to limit overall legal immigration.

    Rubio can’t be trusted. Jeb is atrocious. Jindal has called for huge increases in legal immigration too. Snyder and Kasich would likely be horrible on the issue too.

    So if you are right about Walker, then it seems there is no hope at all for good, conservative comprehensive immigration reform from any of the candidates.

  • Columba Bush, Wife of Jeb Bush, Takes on Greater Role in Campaign

    05/01/2015 1:54:14 PM PDT · 5 of 19
    Aetius to jimbo123

    Great. I can’t wait to hear her echo Jeb on how immigrants are so superior to native born Americans and that the country is doomed if we don’t join Jeb in allowing in even more future Democrats.

  • Gay activists claim redefining marriage won’t hurt anyone, but that’s a lie. Just ask Canadians.

    05/01/2015 1:48:05 PM PDT · 21 of 46
    Aetius to wagglebee

    It’s hard get a feel for what Americans even think of the obvioius attacks on true liberty. Regarding the question of whether or not wedding vendors should be forced to take part in gay weddings, I’ve seen polls showing drastically different results, with the more recent ones being worrisome. Is it the wording, or is that more and more people are accepting the far left narrative that these small business people are ‘haters’ who should either conform, or be destroyed?

  • Belgistan? Sharia showdown in Brussels?

    05/01/2015 1:43:33 PM PDT · 5 of 8
    Aetius to Capt. Tom

    They’re not exactly hiding their plans either. ISIS openly admits that they will use migration as a weapon against the West.

  • Scott Walker, labor market protectionist

    05/01/2015 1:38:42 PM PDT · 52 of 60
    Aetius to Lakeshark

    I wish Walker had gone all the way and called for a reduction in legal immigration. But you’re right, just by saying that the interests of Americans should be considered, and that the reflex/default position shouldn’t necessarily be ever-more legal immigration, that put Walker to the right of Cruz on legal immigration. And it put him firmly in the mainstream of the views held by Republican voters and Americans overall.

    To be fair, Cruz has been mostly good and consistent on illegal immigration. And to be fair, he’s been consistent on legal immigration, but he’s been consistently bad because he apparently supports unending and increasing mass legal immigration.

    Also to be fair, Walker has not been consistent on illgal immigration, and I don’t trust him on it. And he hasn’t always taken a more populist tone on legal immigration. He has made comments in the past suggesting he too would support huge increases in legal immigration. But from he’s saying now it seems as though he has actually thought about the issue and changed his mind, and that should be commended.

    I like Cruz. I’ll vote for him if he wins the nomination. But it seems some of his supporters take any criticism of him very personally. I mean, are we not supposed to notice that he’s so liberal on legal immigration?

  • Scott Walker, labor market protectionist

    05/01/2015 1:24:48 PM PDT · 51 of 60
    Aetius to impimp

    You want to increase legal immigration above the million or so we already admit each year? Considering that this million or so already consists mostly of natural Democrats, wanting to increase that influx is like saying you want to hasten the demographic destruction of conservatism.

    Unless of course you think an increase can happen that somehow changes the current natural Democrat makeup? How so? What category could be increased and not increase the number of future Democrats? H1Bs?

    If there are categories you think should be increased, then why necessarily call for an increase in overall legal immigration? Why not call for an increase in a desirable category set against a decrease in others? Why not abolish the ridiculous Diversity Lottery visas Ted Kennedy came up with? Why not severely restrict refugee and asylum slots? Why not limit family migration to spouses and minor children?

  • Scott Walker, labor market protectionist

    05/01/2015 1:12:34 PM PDT · 50 of 60
    Aetius to ClearCase_guy

    Illegal immigration is a huge problem, but it’s unending mass legal immigration that is altering the nation’s demography in the Left/Democrat’s favor.

  • Scott Walker, labor market protectionist

    05/01/2015 1:11:30 PM PDT · 49 of 60
    Aetius to American in Israel

    What do you mean about drastically limiting legal immigration? We admit over one million legal immigrants per year, most of which are natural Democrats by the way. We have unending extended family chain migration. We have Ted Kennedy’s absurd Diversity Lottery visas. We have refugees. We have asylum seekers. We have H1B visas. We have all sort of ‘temporary’ worker permits.

    We are limiting legal immigration in the sense that with open borders the 1 million or so we admit each year would be many times that, but with all we allow it’s hard to say we aren’t very generous.

    There is too much illegal immigration, and there is too much legal immigration.

  • Scott Walker is Right About Reducing Legal Immigration

    05/01/2015 1:02:06 PM PDT · 38 of 38
    Aetius to JRandomFreeper

    I didn’t realize I was trying to make rules. I was just requesting responses to specific points, to which you’ve sort of done, so thank you.

    Cruz may have won 40% of Hispanics in 2012, but he won the race because of his overwhelming share of the white vote. There is no denying that. If it were up to Hispanics in Texas, Cruz wouldn’t be a Senator today. Cruz can go on about Hispanics being natural conservatives because of work ethic, but they don’t vote that way, and they don’t take conservative views on most of the big issues when polled on them.

    Republican dominance in Texas has come from the realignment of the state’s conservative white population. This is why Texas hasn’t gone the way of California; it’s not because Texas Hispanics are a little less Democrat than their California counterparts, but rather because Texas whites are a lot more conservative than whites in California.

    But this won’t hold forever. If the GOP can hold onto 70+% of the white vote in Texas then they’ll avoid a California-like collapse into near irrelevance, but eventually 70% of whites won’t be enough guarantee victory. It definitely won’t be able to deliver landslide victories that the GOP has become accustomed to in Texas for too much longer.

    These pro-Democrat demographic shifts are largely driven by the excessively high levels of legal immigration, year after year, decade after decade, that Cruz supports.

    I don’t know which will play a bigger role in the election in the end - illegal or legal immigration, but ideally both would be big considerations. If Cruz (or Bush, or Christie, or Rubio) is the nominee, then it will probably be a rhetorical war between him and Hillary to see who can wax most poetic about how much they love legal immigration, with no consideration at all given to the idea that there can be too much of it. Cruz may think his calls for increasing legal immigration will give him an edge with immigrant groups, but Hillary could just match him on that, and then the issue is neutralized with Hispanics and Asians and those two groups just go back to their default pro-Democrat position.

    And when it comes to illegal immigration, all will say they oppose amnesty, some will say there should be a path to citizenship, some will say no to a path to citizenship, and none of them will call for most illegal aliens to back to their country of origin.

  • Scott Walker is Right About Reducing Legal Immigration

    04/30/2015 2:11:14 PM PDT · 33 of 38
    Aetius to JRandomFreeper

    If you don’t want to go back and forth anymore that’s fine, but if you’re going to respond, then why not respond to specific points or questions?

    This thread is about legal immigration. So a focus on that issue here is logical. And anyway, legal immigration is not some little hobby horse of an issue or concern. It shapes the nation’s demography, and what is more important than that?

    And you have no answer to question about the long term consequences of mass legal immigration. That’s good in one sense, because it suggests that you accept the reality of immigrant community preference for the Democrats. But again, what do you think is going to happen? What will happen in Texas when 70% of the white vote can no longer carry the day for Republicans? Do you think Cruz is a transformative figure who will convince immigrant communities to turn away from their support for big government Democrat policies?

  • Scott Walker is Right About Reducing Legal Immigration

    04/30/2015 1:54:35 PM PDT · 29 of 38
    Aetius to JRandomFreeper

    What you’re saying about one man deciding something makes no sense. That’s obvioulsy true that one man can’t decide an issue, unless we’re talking about Obama and his executive amnesty that is. But people have positions. By your logic, if I can’t criticize Cruz for being liberal on legal immigration because he can’t control it anyway, then why can we praise him for being good on the Second Amendment? He doesn’t control that either. As a Senator, he has one voice and one vote. On the Gang of Eight bill, he used his voice forcefully against the bill and voted against the bill. But in debate over the bill he also used his voice and vote to strike against not even reducing legal immigration, but simply capping it at very high level. It wasn’t high enough for him!

    There is no confusion about legal and illegal immigration. Cruz has been good on the latter, though surely a man as smart as he is knows that legalization without citizenship would not be able to stand. But on the former, Cruz is quite liberal.

    As far as an agenda goes, I really don’t understand this whole hero worship. Is Cruz infallible to you? Is he perfect? Is he beyond criticism?

    And I ask you again, what do you think is going to happen if we continue a legal immigration policy that imports millions each decade, the majority of which are natural Democrats?

  • Ted Cruz: “There is no stronger advocate for legal immigration in the U.S. Senate than I am”

    04/30/2015 1:38:19 PM PDT · 60 of 101
    Aetius to TADSLOS

    What lies? Name one?

    Are you so enamored of Cruz that you take any criticism of him as personal, or out of bounds?

    And as far as going elsewhere; unless blind worship of politicians is part of being conservative, I’ll put my conservative views up for any to judge.

    And as far as the question of legal immigration goes, how do you think most conservatives feel about it? If told the truth that we admit a million or so legal immigrants per year, would most conservatives want to maintain that level, or reduce it, or increase it (like Cruz)? It’s fairly obvious that support for ‘increase it’ would come in a distant third place.

  • Ted Cruz: “There is no stronger advocate for legal immigration in the U.S. Senate than I am”

    04/30/2015 1:26:01 PM PDT · 57 of 101
    Aetius to TADSLOS

    You can’t grasp simple concepts can you? Does agreeing with Jordan on this one issue make one a follower of social justice government?

    If so, what does that make you? If you support mass legal immigration, then you are on the side of pretty much the entire Left. Do you not understand that?

    I say again, the list of Leftist supporters of unending and ever increasing mass legal immigration is long and frightening. The list of Leftists who support reducing legal immigration is much smaller, and in your case, consists of one long-dead Congresswoman.

  • Ted Cruz: “There is no stronger advocate for legal immigration in the U.S. Senate than I am”

    04/30/2015 1:21:27 PM PDT · 56 of 101
    Aetius to right way right

    “Actually he has, but your too stuck on one upping a fellow freeper to understand it.”

    When has he done so? See my last response to you. Has Cruz called for reducing slots given to these Democrat-importing categories?

  • Ted Cruz: “There is no stronger advocate for legal immigration in the U.S. Senate than I am”

    04/30/2015 1:18:08 PM PDT · 55 of 101
    Aetius to right way right

    But that would still be an increase on the one million or so legal immigrants we admit each year. I’m not talking about the number of illegal aliens who make it in each year, just legal levels. It would go from approximately 65,000 H1B visas a year to 325,000, an increas of 260,000 legal immigrants per year.

    I commend Cruz for being consistenly good on illegal immigration. He does not support a path to citizenship, which is great. I think allowing (most of) them to stay will eventually make citizenship inevitable (afterall, who but a latino-hating racist would want to deny a legalized illegal full citizenship...is what you’d hear about 5 seconds after a legalization-without-citizenship-bill is signed into law), but I’ll give Cruz the benefit of the doubt in thinking that he thinks that can be avoided.

    But as to H1B visas again. If Cruz thinks we needs such a massive increase so much (despite their being no real shortage of such workers and graduates),then why not call for the increase against a decrease elsewhere? Why not call for abolishhing Ted Kennedy’s absurd Diversity Lottery visas? That’s 50,000 a year right there? Why not call for drastic reductions in refugee and asylum visas? That would lessen our chances of getting scum like the Boston Marathon bommbers or the wannabe Somali jihadists out of Minnesota. Why not cut of chain migration by restricting family based visas to spouses and minor children? My point is, there are a lot of places that could be cut to make way for the additional H1B visas Cruz thinks we are in such dire need of. Why does it always have to be more overall?

  • Ted Cruz: “There is no stronger advocate for legal immigration in the U.S. Senate than I am”

    04/30/2015 1:05:24 PM PDT · 51 of 101
    Aetius to TADSLOS

    Where have I lied? If you’re going to make the charge, back it up jerk.

    I understand that you’re embarrassed that your absurd Barbara Jordan point was so easily dismantled and refuted. I understand that you have no response to the fact that the leftist forces in support of mass immigration (and in opposition to Jordan on this one issue) is a long and frightening list. But it’s no reason to make false charges. You made a very stupid point. Just accept it.

    I would be happy if Cruz were to reveal a position on legal immigration that doesn’t involve a large annual influx of mostly natural Democrats. But he hasn’t done so yet.

  • Ted Cruz: “There is no stronger advocate for legal immigration in the U.S. Senate than I am”

    04/30/2015 12:54:12 PM PDT · 48 of 101
    Aetius to TADSLOS

    So it’s obvious you can’t respond to specific points. You just say things, very stupid things, and go about your way.

    You don’t even realize that ‘big tent Republican’ philosophy encompasses your support for mass legal immigration, in the mistaken assumption it will bring Hispanics into the tent.

    Anwyay, how do you feel about being in league with Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, the mainstream media, La Raza, and Gutierrez in support of pro-Democrat mass immigration?

  • Ted Cruz: “There is no stronger advocate for legal immigration in the U.S. Senate than I am”

    04/30/2015 12:49:25 PM PDT · 47 of 101
    Aetius to cripplecreek

    So you have no answer, other than ridiculous name calling.

    What is it with this hero worship? Cruz is not a perfect being. He’s just a man, with strenghts and weaknesses like anyone else. On most issues he is probably the best candidate the GOP has, but he is liberal on legal immigration. Why can’t you admit that?

    Is Cruz off limits for criticism?

  • Ted Cruz: “There is no stronger advocate for legal immigration in the U.S. Senate than I am”

    04/30/2015 12:45:37 PM PDT · 45 of 101
    Aetius to TADSLOS

    That you resort so quickly to juveline name calling strongly suggests that you’re a leftist at heart.

    Refute one thing I said. You can’t. Where did I lie?

  • Ted Cruz: “There is no stronger advocate for legal immigration in the U.S. Senate than I am”

    04/30/2015 12:41:03 PM PDT · 44 of 101
    Aetius to right way right

    What do you mean? Cruz is on record for wanting to increase H1B visas by 500%. And he has spoken in more general terms about support for increasing legal immigration in general.

    These aren’t assumptions. They are straight from Cruz himself.

  • Ted Cruz: “There is no stronger advocate for legal immigration in the U.S. Senate than I am”

    04/30/2015 12:38:20 PM PDT · 42 of 101
    Aetius to TADSLOS

    On immigration at least, Barbara Jordan was right. And there is hardly anything pro-Constitution about mass immigration. In fact it would be the opposite, since mass immigration is undeniably importing many more supporters of un-Constitutional big government Democrat politics than limited government, pro-Constitution principles.

    And do you really want to play the game of guilt by association? I’ll take that any day in terms of aligning those in favor of less immigration against those in favor of unending and increasing mass immigration. Yeah, we’d have Barbara Jordan on our side, but you’d have pretty much everyone else on the Left and pretty much every organ of the Left. You have almost all Democrats today. You have the mainstream media. You have Obama. You have Hollywood. You have the professional ethnic grievance groups. You have radical university professors and administrators.

    It’s no contest.

  • Ted Cruz: “There is no stronger advocate for legal immigration in the U.S. Senate than I am”

    04/30/2015 12:26:28 PM PDT · 39 of 101
    Aetius to cripplecreek

    Walker is far from perfect on immigration, and may not be sincere. But why isn’t Cruz fair game for his liberal position in support of unending (and increasing) mass legal immigration?

  • Ted Cruz: “There is no stronger advocate for legal immigration in the U.S. Senate than I am”

    04/30/2015 12:23:25 PM PDT · 37 of 101
    Aetius to Cincinatus' Wife

    Many more Americans support reducing legal immigration than support increasing it. Support for reduction often enjoys majority or at least plurality support. It is a very mainstream position, much more so than that favored by the WSJ, professional ethnic grievance groups, the Democratic party, and pro-mass immigration Republicans.

    An ‘electable’ Republican could easily hold this position. In fact, it could be a huge plus for him. It should be considering the popularity of that view with Americans.

    That’s not to say it would be easy. Supporting a reduction in legal immigration, though popular with the people, would be very unpopular with the media and the GOP donor class. A candidate espousing such views would be mercilessly savaged by the press, and may be abandoned financially by the business wing of the party.

    So it is tricky, but it’s worth a real try. The alternative is to allow unending mass immigration to import ever more future Democrats and demographically destroy any hope of small government conservatism.

  • Scott Walker is Right About Reducing Legal Immigration

    04/30/2015 12:15:24 PM PDT · 26 of 38
    Aetius to JRandomFreeper

    Tiny and inconsequential you say? That’s how you describe Cruz’ support of unending, pro-Democrat, mass immigration? That’s how you describe his support for dramatically increasing this influx?

    Just as Reagan couldn’t win California today, at some point a Cruz like politician won’t be able to win Texas. Well, it’s not exactly apples to apples, since whites in Texas are conservative and vote overwhelmingly for the GOP, while the same is not true of Calif whites. But thanks to the mass immigration that Cruz supports, eventually 70% of whites in Texas won’t be enough to guarantee victory.

    I mean, what do you think is going to happen if we keep importing millions of natural Democrats each decade?

  • On Immigration, Scott Walker Bucks the Beltway Consensus

    04/30/2015 12:05:09 PM PDT · 48 of 51
    Aetius to DoughtyOne

    I’m not defending Walker on illegal immigration. I’m merely saying this tame suggestion that the interests of American workers be considered when setting legal immigration policy makes him superior to the other top-tier candidates on legal immigration. It’s sad to say that, because Walker didn’t even call for a reduction in legal immigration like I wish he had. It’s sad because merely saying the default position on legal immigration shouldn’t always be MORE, MORE, MORE makes him stand apart from the other candidates.

    I don’t dispute the importance and magnitude of the illegal alien problem, but I do disagree with you acting as though legal immigration levels of over a million per year are no big deal. If you think over a million per year isn’t significant, then I’m sure Jeb Bush (as well as Rubio, Christie, and maybe even Cruz) would have a great solution for you to stop future illegal immigration...just increase legal immigration so massively that pretty much anyone who wants to come can do so legally.

    So no, I don’t think Walker is the only one who wants to address legal immigration. But I think the way he wants to address it is much better than the others. The others seems to have their marching orders from the chamber of commerce and from professional ethnic grievance groups.

    But nothing is likely to come of Walker’s promising comments. Again, he didn’t actually call for a reduction in legal immigration, and he left himself some wiggle/weasel room to later support increasing legal immigration if he decides (as the WSJ and La Raza constantly tell us) that mass immigration is actually good for American workers.

    As to legal immigration specifically; I’m glad you mentioned refugee and asylum immigrants. Whether it’s 40,000 or 70,000 or somewhere in between, that’s too many. It’s too many to effectively screen, which is why we end up with murderers like the Hmong hunter in Wisconsin, human garbage like the Boston Marathon bombers, or wannabe jihadists like the Somalis in Minnesota. And now we get Syrians! Nothing to worry about. What could go wrong?

    Why should the United States take so many from cultures that are not just foreign to our own, but in many cases outright hostile to it? There are nations better suited for them. When it comes to reducing legal immigration, refugee and aslyum visas should be at the top of the chopping block, along with Ted Kennedy’s absurd Diversity Lottery visas (50,000 per year).

    As to the figure of roughly one million total legal immigrants per year, I think that’s a lot. It’s way too many. The current influx is comprised mostly of natural Democrats. And considering how how adult siblings can be brought in via family reunification visas, that produces unending chain migration. We already know how many future Democrats that we can import from Latin America. We are getting a good taste of how many we can get from Asia, and the tentacles of chain migration are expanding ever more in Africa and the Middle East. I wonder how they’ll vote?

    It’s legal immigration that is demographically dooming any hope for small government conservatism because Democrat-favoring legal immigrants and the Democrat-favoring children they have are casting votes. Yes, illegal aliens vote illegally, mostly for Democrats, and that problem will probably grow, but voting wise their numbers are dwarfed by legal immigrants.

    Anyway, what is your ideal end game? What if we could end illegal immigration and send most illegal aliens home? What then would you do about the ten million or so heavily Democrat legal immigrants we admit each decade? Maintain it and let the immigration-driven movement towards the left continue? Increase it and hasten the demographic destruction of conservatism? Or reduce it, and give conservatism a demographic fighting chance going forward?

    The more different aspects of immigration are brought into the debate, the better. There should be discussion about illegal and legal immigration. That way we can get a better idea of where candidates stand than we get by the standard and meaningless tripe when they say “I’m opposed to illegal immigration and amnesty, but I support legal immigration” Okay, then define amnesty please. Okay, then tell me how much legal immigration you support.

    More information is better, and I’m glad Walker had made legal immigration levels a part of the debate. If Walker is bad on illegal immigration then he should be hit for it, but so too should someone like Cruz be hit for being bad on legal immigration.

  • Scott Walker is Right About Reducing Legal Immigration

    04/30/2015 11:14:35 AM PDT · 24 of 38
    Aetius to JRandomFreeper

    My only agenda regarding Cruz is to point out the truth that he is liberal when it comes to legal immigration. We already admit over a million legal immigrants each year, most of them natural Democrats, yet Cruz wants to increase those current levels. To be fair, he wants a completely unneeded massive 500% increase in H1B visas, and one could argue that group is less likely to be future Democrats than all of those coming via family reunification visas, Diversity Lottery visas, refugee visas, aslyum visas, etc. But why is Cruz fine with such large numbers from those very pro-Democrat groups? Why not support a reduction in those?

    I’m not sure what the point is on legislatures versus the executive in making law. The difference is clear, but Cruz currently is a legislator. In that role he cast a good vote against the terrible Gang of Eight bill, but during the debate over it he also voted against an amendment from Senator Sessions to cap legal immigration at an absurly high and generous level. He explained his vote by saying he wants to increase legal immigration.

    And if Cruz ever does become President, then he would have a big part to play in the fate of any legislation. If a bill made it to him that would not grant amnesty, but would massively increase legal immigration, would he sign it into law? I bet he would, thus hastening the demographic destruction of conservatism. If a bill reducing legal immigration made it to his desk, would he sign or veto it? I bet he’d veto it.

    I don’t want this to be a thing where any criticism of Cruz is taken as total opposition to him. Other than legal immigration, I like Cruz. If Cruz is the nominee, I’ll vote for him. It’s just that even if he is elected President I don’t think he’ll do anything to slow or halt the immigration-driven demographic shift of the nation towards the left.

  • Scott Walker is Right About Reducing Legal Immigration

    04/26/2015 9:38:35 PM PDT · 22 of 38
    Aetius to JRandomFreeper

    Is it? Most of republican elites try spinning a fairy tale that Hispanics, for example, are natural Republicans despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They tell us not to worry about the unending importation of groups that vote at least 60% Democrat every time, or they tell us to worry, but say all will be fine if we all just surrender unconditionally on immigration policy.

    I like Cruz on most issues, but he is a liberal on legal immigration. In the end that will matter more than anything else when the electorate is comprised of too many who will never consider voting conservative.

  • Scott Walker is Right About Reducing Legal Immigration

    04/26/2015 9:09:21 PM PDT · 18 of 38
    Aetius to JRandomFreeper

    Demographics is destiny. Mass legal immigration is importing millions of future democrats every decade. It has helped turn Calif and other states blue. It has helped turn red states purple. It will probabaly make Texas competitive in the not too distant future.

    In its demography-shaping power, legal immigration has no rival.

  • Scott Walker is Right About Reducing Legal Immigration

    04/26/2015 9:04:47 PM PDT · 17 of 38
    Aetius to Kaslin

    Walker has not called for reducing legal immigration. I wish he would. He’d be my favorite for the nomination if he did. Reducing legal immigration would be good for the country and would preserve a fighting demographic chance for conservatism. But all Walker actually said is that the interests of American workers should be considered in setting legal immigration policy. That gives him wiggle/weasel room to later say that he agrees with the WSJ and the chamber of commerce that unending and ever-increasing legal immigration is actually good for Americans!

    I’ll give the author credit in that he didn’t say Walker wants to end legal immigration, as some on the right and left have falsely done. The author is right that support for reducing legal immigration is a widely held mainstream American view. It’s much more popular than support for increasing legal immigration. But Walker hasn’t actually gone there yet, and who knows if he will.

  • On Immigration, Scott Walker Bucks the Beltway Consensus

    04/26/2015 8:40:26 PM PDT · 46 of 51
    Aetius to DoughtyOne

    Fair enough...Walker has flip flopped and who knows if he is sincere. But at least he is suggesting that that the interests of American workers be considered in setting legsl immigration policy. That alone makes puts him ahead of the others on legal immigration.

    It’s very disappointing that Cruz is so liberal on legal immigration, supporting not just the current high pro-Democrat levels, but also wanting to increase them. To his credit Cruz has been good and consistent on illegal immigration, but he seems oblivious to the demographic disaster that is unending mass legal immigration.

  • On Immigration, Scott Walker Bucks the Beltway Consensus

    04/26/2015 8:30:30 PM PDT · 45 of 51
    Aetius to conservativejoy

    Cruz has been good on illegal immigration, but he’s terrible on legal immigration. Not only is he apparently fine with current mass legsl immigration, he wants to increase it even more. In other words, he supports a voter-importing program for Democrats.

    Walker may or may not be sincere. It should be noted that he hasn’t actually called for a reduction in legal immigration. I wish he would, as that would make him the only GOP candidate pushing conservative immigration reform, but he hasn’t.

    Supporting mass immigration, even if it’s all legal, is the same as supporting the demographic destruction of conservatism. In that, Cruz is just as bad as Bush, Rubio, or any Democrat.

  • Sean Hannity ...Plan To Unite Tea Party & Establishment Republicans ... 2016

    03/03/2015 7:35:55 AM PST · 36 of 40
    Aetius to LegendHasIt

    He is a dolt.

  • Boehner to Allow Clean Homeland Security Vote (Updated)

    03/03/2015 7:34:33 AM PST · 26 of 39
    Aetius to Cyman

    Yes, but this time it is McConnell’s fault more than Boehner. McConnell had chips he refused to play.

    He could have nuked the filibuster, passed the House bill, and then made it clear for all to see that Obama was the one shutting down part of DHS for the sake of illegal aliens. Even the media would have had a hard time spinning out of that simple truth.

    Or McConnel could have simply done nothing. He could have kept trying to pass the House bill, and let the Senate Dems keep filibustering it until the partial shutdown occurred. This time it would have been obvious that it was the Senate Democrats who were shutting down (part of) DHS, all for the sake of protecting illegal aliens.

    But he did neither. He could have kept a united front with Boehner and the House, but McConnell caved first, and put Boehner in a tough position. This is on McConnell. He is either a bufffoon who got played by Reid and Obama, or he is a spineless coward, or he cleverly orchestrated this whole cave at the behest of his Chamber of Commerce masters. It’s probably a combination, but whatever the case, this is McConnell’s fault.

    Having said that, I certainly do entertain the idea that it was a coordinated cave between these two cretins. I’m sure Boehner wants most to please his Chamber masters just like McConnell, and perhaps he and McConnell came up with this ruse, this pretend fight against the executive amnesty.

    Whatever the case, it doesn’t matter now. The Court decision will be overturned, and at least five million illegal aliens will be on their way to receiving more public benefits and eventual Democrat voting.

  • Commander of US Army in Europe Sees Russia Mobilizing for War

    02/15/2015 9:28:01 PM PST · 135 of 253
    Aetius to ansel12

    Putin would be a comic figure if he wasn’t so dangerous. One can only hope that Russia will get better leadership someday.

  • On the Impossibility of Fighting ISIS

    02/15/2015 9:24:13 PM PST · 4 of 39
    Aetius to lbryce

    Of course western militaries could crush and defeat ISIS if allowed to do so.

    But the true danger for the United States and Europe is what you get at by saying we invite them to our shores. Without our insane immigration/refugee/asylum policies, there wouldn’t be much to fear. The best defense against Islam is not stop allowing muslim immigration. If we didn’t let them in, then their ability to hurt us would be greatly diminished.

  • Ennio Morricone 'My Life In Music'

    02/15/2015 9:13:47 PM PST · 5 of 25
    Aetius to Perdogg

    “Ecstasy of Gold” is one of the best pieces of music ever used in a film. It’s perfection.