Winning the argument

[budman]

1st in a series of "Winning the Argument"

What the liberal whiners say:

'Drilling in the ANWR will hurt the environment'
'Drilling in ANWR won't reduce the price at the pump ONE penny for at LEAST 10 years'
'Drilling in the Anwr won't make an impact on our foreign dependence'
'Drilling in the Anwr will only help Exxon make more money'
'And, what about the mating habits of the Caribou?'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:

- Yes, Al Gore paints a picture of the ANWR drilling site that is stunningly beautiful. How dare we even THINK of damaging ANWR'S majestic mountain peaks and the unsurpassed splendor of its gorgeous valleys, with pools of spring water bubbling down the mountain side. Unfortunately, while this may accurately describe the incomparable beauty of Yosemite National Park, it has NO relation to the site for proposed drilling site in ANWR.

Just a tiny fraction, 1.5 million of the 19.5 million acres are to be used at all, and only 2,000 acres are to be used for the permanent infrastructure... the pipelines, oil wells, etc. There is virtually no chance that the environment will be harmed.

Here's a photo of the proposed drilling site:


 
Magnificent, isn't it?

- Ah, the "no-relief-for-10-years", argument. Since President Bush removed the Executive ban on off-shore drilling on the outer continental shelf a little over a week ago, the price of oil has dropped $25 per barrel!!!!! Just TALKING about domestic drilling drove down the price. The price at the pump has also decreased already. There are other factors, like a slightly strengthening dollar and the fact that suppliers are now worried about decreasing demand. However, the President's announcement got the ball rolling in the right direction, and probably, at least in part, caused some of the other factors to occur.

Imagine if Congress picked up the ball now, and did their job. And dare we even consider a day when we have an actual energy policy that includes domestic drilling in ANWR, or the newly discovered Bakken reserve in Montana, and South Dakota, building nuclear power, give tax breaks to companies who develop alternative forms of energy, etc? Not to mention the oil shale reserves in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. Utah congressman, Chris Cannon, said that the estimate is that we have 4 TRILLION barrels of oil available there...more than in the entire Middle East. So much for not having an impact on our foreign dependence. ANWR alone, is expected to yield 876,000 barrels of oil, per day.

- Drilling in ANWR WILL make Exxon-Mobile or whatever oil company drills there, more money. AND? Your point? Is it now considered evil to make money in America? If they're willing to take the risk, survey the land, find the oil, put up the rigs, extract the oil from the ground, put it in the pipeline, deliver it to the refinery, and finally have it shipped to the gas pump, why shouldn't they make a profit? It's not a cheap process, and there's no guarantee of a huge payout in the end. As an example, there's an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, called Thunderhorse, operated by BP (British Petroleum), that before it pumped out even ONE OUNCE of crude oil, it cost BP, $7 BILLION. That's quite an investment. Thunderhorse is currently pumping around 43,000 barrels per day now, and eventually, they believe it will produce 250,000, but it won't be up to full capacity for more than 3 years. It's nowhere near profitable yet.

Big oil is getting hammered right now by Congress over their profits. But guess who profits more from the oil industry than even the oil industry? Yes, your government. According to the Tax Foundation, from 1977-2004, big oil made $643 billion in profits. Nice. During that same span, Federal and State governments made $1.343 TRILLION in tax revenues from big oil. Nicer. I think your liberal friends might be mad at the wrong people here.

- As for the mating habits of the caribou, thrown off of their amorous ways by unsightly oil rigs, I recommend...Caribou Viagra. Or Cialis. Or which one is it, that has the couple sitting outside in separate twin bathtubs, holding fingers across the porecelain as they gaze out over a majestically beautiful landscape...ANWR, perhaps? What the heck, have Exxon spring for Cialis, AND a couple Caribou tubs. Plus, maybe they should throw in a few speakers on the rigs to pipe in some Michael Buble. If that doesn't do it, the stinking Caribou don't deserve to procreate.

[Anoriginal]

 

[mrbones]

That field would look better with ATV tracks on it. Preferably circled donuts and zig zags.

[budman]

That field would look better with ATV tracks on it. Preferably circled donuts and zig zags.

there you go....destroying the environment...

[dynodon]

NICE !!!!! Well said

[budman]

2nd in a series of "Winning the Argument"

The issue:

Taxes

What the liberal whiners say:

1.'The rich don't pay their fair share'

2.'The working class carries the full load in this country, while the rich just keep getting richer, and paying LESS'

3.'How about those 50 hedge fund managers Barack Obama talks about all the time who made $29 billion, but actually paid less in taxes than their $60,000 a year SECRETARIES!'

4.'I'm sick and tired of all the corporate welfare in this country'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:

1.Really? According to the Tax Foundation, the top 1% of wage-earners in this country pays nearly 40% of the burden (an 11% INCREASE over 1999, when WHO was President? Oh that's right...Bill Clinton). Not fair? Well, you may be saying, 'that's because they have ALL the wealth!' Wrong again. The top 1% of earners account for just 21% of the total adjusted gross income. Hmm. Come to think of it...you're RIGHT! That really isn't fair. They're paying DOUBLE what they should be. By the way, the top 10% of earners pay 70% of the load. When you get all the way down to the top 50% of earners, they account for 96.4% of the entire tax burden. The next 10% pays 3.6%. And the bottom 40% of wage earners...pay NOTHING. That's right, nothing. In fact, they pay nothing, and then often get a "refund" (handout) at years end.

2. Now this argument, to me, is null and void, since it comes straight from the "Communist Manifesto" by our friend, Karl Marx (no, not Richard Marx, the singer with the hair...this is the OTHER Marx brother) Simply substitute the words "working class" for proletariat and "rich" for bourgeousie, and voila! Class warfare, Marxist style. Besides, do you know ANY rich people who don't work hard? Only 2% of this country's rich inherited their money, like the Kennedy's...the rest, earned it.

3. The "50 Hedge Fund mangers' who made a combined $29 billion is one of my favorite Barack Obama campaign stories. It's true of course. At least the part about how much money they made. Legally, by the way. But for a billionaire to pay less in taxes than his secretary, is preposterous at best. It's impossible. I need to see their 1040 form for proof. If they pay a smaller percentage than their secretary did, their accountant needs to be made President of the United States of America, immediately. No campaign, no election. The first ever APPOINTMENT to President in American history...just based on amazing skills.

It's also interesting to note that one of those Hedge Fund managers, of whom Obam speaks, but never names, is....George Soros. $2.9 Billion last year. Keep those Moveon.org ads coming Georgie! being the big-hearted, big government guy he is, it's surprising he hasn't voluntarily written out huge extra checks to the Federal Government to make up the discrepancy.

4. For this, I refer you to yesterday's article on the evil oil companies...who, from 1977-2004 made over $643 billion in profits! But, during that time span, their disgusting "corporate welfare" situation allowed them to pay a paltry $1.343 TRILLION in state and federal taxes. What a free ride.

[budman]

How to win the argument de jour with logic and facts

The issue:

'Creeping Communism-Demonizing Big Oil'
(This differs from last weeks "drilling in ANWR" thesis...and is just a quickie to SHUT LIBERAL PIE HOLES about oil companies!)

What the liberal whiners say:

1. 'None of these greedy oil companies are spending nearly enough money on alternative energy sources'
2. 'It's great that Barack Obama has promised to take their profits and give them to the states and working families'
3. 'But $11 BILLION in ONE quarter, that's just evil'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:

1. Let's see. They're called OIL COMPANIES for a reason. They find, drill for, and deliver OIL. Some, like British Petroleum HAVE made the business decision to branch out and develop new sources of energy, but in the United States of America, should the government be dictating to private businesses what they spend their money on?

2. Is it, comrade? Glad you think so. If Obama is elected, and follows through with taking oil profits, do you think it will STOP with oil profits? Their profit margin is only 7-11%. Why not take a chunk of Microsofts much larger profit margin? Or the cell phone industry or hoteliers? The markup on diamonds is up to 1000%...isn't that obscene? As for whether or not states and/or "working families" have the right to the profits oil companies have made, I guess that depends on whether you adhere to the U.S. Constitution or the Communist Manifesto.

3. If these money making oil companies are so bad because they make money, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must be positively angelic for running their businesses into the ground and having to be bailed out by the government? IndyMac and Bear Stearns, truly saintly. Miserable failures, who required bailouts with taxpayer dollars seem to completely escape the ire of the democrat/liberal whining machine. Those who succeed at what they're doing and prosper, are vilified. Well, СЧАСТЛИВЫЙ СЛУЧАЙ, comrade.

[trx#9]

When large companies take capitalism to far, yes the government should step in. It's the same as when a hurricane blows through a state and companies start to price gouge. You can't trust the good of people anymore in this country, people are out for blood money and don't care who they hurt.
Oil companies are the reason were in this predicament. Why don't they release all these high efficient engines that they been buying up for years.

[budman]

Where do you draw the line as far as how much profit you are allowed to make? As stated before, the profit margin on a gallon of gas is small compared to what our government takes in taxes for doing NOTHING! In my business we are around 20 - 25 % profit. Big Oil is only 7-12%. They make so much more because of high volume. But who does own Big Oil? Look in your 401-K and I'll bet you do. If not, then you have done a terrible job in investing wisely.

[budman]

The issue:

Global Warming Part I: The altruistic planet savers

What the liberal whiners say:

1. 'What do you have against Al Gore? That man is simply trying to save this planet!'
2. 'And that wonderful, handsome, Richard Branson has promised to unselfishly give almost $4 billion in proceeds from his aviation business to fight global warming!'
3. 'It really shows just how bad this problem is when a lifelong oil man like T. Boone Pickens says it's time to change to wind!!!!!!'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:

1. What I have against Al Gore is simply this: he's a fat, stinking hypocrite. We'll cover his energy gorging next time. For now, let's focus on his motives. There's a famous quote by Al that I've always loved; "I live a carbon-neutral life, and both of my businesses are carbon neutral." The fact is, he's not even on the same planet as carbon-neutral, but here's the real story. He tells us his conscience is clear because he buys "carbon offsets". What Gore doesn't say is that the "offsets" he buys are from his own company, GIM (Generation Investment Management). He's saving the planet by investing in his own company?

2. It's true that big-hearted billionaire Richard Branson pledged all the profits from his Virgin Aviation business for the next 10 years to go toward combating the most critical problem the world has ever faced, global warming. But instead of Branson sending $4 billion to send polar bears life preservers, refrigerating Greenland or saving endangered Pygmy tribes in New Guinea, he's simply investing the money in his new business venture, Virgin Fuel. Like Gore, it seems he's just found another way to enhance his own bank account.

3. Yeah, good ole Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens has a plan for alternative energy too. He's spending a TON of money to let us know that the country needs to break it's addiction to oil and switch to wind. Surely that has NOTHING to do with the fact that he's invested $2 billion to build wind turbines, and is working on hooking up a power grid from the wind farms in West Texas all the way to Dallas. The great thing about wind as opposed to oil is, wind is subsidized by the taxpayer dollars to the tune of $25 per kilowatt hour. In other words, we pay his expenses, HE reaps the profit. There's more. At Pickens behest, the Texas Legislature changed a law allowing him, through his wife and ranch manager, eminent domain rights over 200,000 acres worth of groundwater rights in Roberts, Texas that could bolster his budget another $1 billion. But it's all about the planet, right?

[budman]

The issue:

Global Warming Part II: We're melting

What the liberal whiners say:

1. ‘Scientific consensus...everyone now knows we're experiencing catastrophic climate change...except the "flat-earthers"'
2. 'Just keep denying it, and we'll keep get hotter temperatures, our crops will burn up, all our water will evaporate and the boiling oceans will cause stronger, more frequent hurricanes'
3. 'What's the harm in believing in global warming? The worst that can happen is, we'll have a cleaner planet'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:

1. If by consensus you mean-there's totally NOT a consensus, you're exactly right. The list of scientists who've signed a petition stating their opposition to the ‘consensus’ is now 31,000 strong and growing...9000 of whom are PHD's. You can visit the site at www.oism.org/pproject

2. Well, it's interesting then, that in the last 10 years, the temperature has remained steady, and in fact last year, declined. It almost seems like that 2 million degree burning ORB in the sky called...um, THE SUN...had something to do with the temperature on this planet!?!?! During the warmer '90's, solar flares were at their peak...over the past decade, solar activity has returned to normal. Let's talk about crops for a minute. Don't they grow BETTER in warmth? It seems to me there's not a lot of food growing in Antarctica. During the "Medieval Optimum Period" a time of unusual warmth in the Northern Hemisphere from 800-1300 AD, people prospered, because there was more FOOD. As for the "boiling oceans", scientists place 3500 temperature probes in the oceans to monitor just how hot the water is getting. Guess what they found? NO warming at all...in fact, they discovered slight cooling.

3. There's no harm...IF you would enjoy going back to a time when men lived in mudd-huts, beat their clothes on rocks to get them clean, and travelled 10 miles in just a day and a half on a donkey...a time when rats spread diseases like the bubonic plague through the European Continent faster than Al Gore spreads his lips over a jelly donut. In short, what's being proposed by the hard core global warming freaks is an end to life as we know it. They would RADICALLY change our civilization and tax us (Al Gore's figure is $3 trillion in taxes to start, plus cap and trade carbon taxes) into a Great Depression. The only ones who would prosper in the new "climate change" reality are the three we mentioned yesterday-Al Gore, Richard Branson, T. Boone Pickens.

[budman]

The issue:

The Surge in Iraq

What the liberal whiners say:

1. 'It didn't work'
2. 'OK, it worked because of the amazing work of the men and women in the U.S. military'
3. 'Actually, the Surge worked better than anyone could've imagined, even President Bush and thingy Cheney has no idea it would work like this'
4. Well, come to think of it, while the Surge may or may not have worked, it really wasn't the Surge that helped anyway. It was the Sunni tribes that stop the violence in Iraq'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:

1. Really? Violence against U.S. troops is down 80%...the number of U.S. combat deaths in July (5), was the lowest since the invasion. Violence against Iraqi civilians is also down about 70%. We've turned over more and more provinces to Iraqi control...their infrastructure is being rebuilt and their economy is on the rise. Iraq's oil production is up to around 2.5 million barrels per day and they just posted a budget SURPLUS of $70 billion. In fact, the Surge has worked so well, it now seems that it may be possible to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

2. Exactly. And, I know know you don't want to give ANY credit to the hated, evil, BUSH, but someone deployed those troops against a ton of opposition...or did they deploy themselves?

3. OK, so now you're saying that Bush and Cheney deployed the troops against all the opposition they faced to do it, in the belief that the Surge would FAIL? I'm sorry, that seems like a really stupid argument, even for YOU and Barack Obama.

4. Oh, so now you're taking back your praise of the men and women in the American military? The Sunni tribes were able to take back their neighborhoods because of the incredible accomplishments of our troops. By the way, Barack Obama said at the beginning of the Surge that, not only would 20-30,000 more troops NOT help, it would actually make the situation WORSE. The only thing consistent about Obama and other liberals on the Surge has been their wrong-ness.

[budman]

The issue:

The Border: Part One of thousands of arguments about Immigration

What the liberal whiners say:

1. 'Putting up a fence along the border sends the wrong signal to a friend and ally'
2. 'The only people crossing the border are good, decent, hard-working family people, here to make a better life'
3. 'The last thing we need is another Berlin Wall...this is supposed to be America!'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:

1. Do YOU have a fence around your property? Is your neighbor offended by it? Did you put it up because you're a hateful racist, bent on keeping all who don't look like you off your property? Of course not. The old saying good fences make good neighbors has never been more true.

2. Well, there are some of those, and we'll discuss them another time. But there are also many drug smugglers and criminals, intent of harming American citizens. There are many like Jose Medellin, who just last week was finally executed for his crime of raping, torturing and brutally murdering two innocent teenage girls in Houston, Texas in 1993.

There are also armed military incursions across our border on a regular basis. Just last week, a U.S. border agent was held at gunpoint by Mexican military who'd crossed the border. They held him until back up border patrol agents arrived, then the retreated back across the border. Last month, Mexican commandos crossed the border all the way to Phoenix, Arizona, where they riddled a home with over 100 bullets, killing the American citizen inside, and had planned to ambush police responding to the incident, but ran out of ammunition. Several were caught by Phoenix police, the rest retreated back to Mexico. This is the 42 armed incursions into the United States by Mexican commandos since October...there's been over 300 since 2005. By the way, the Mexican authorities said their military personnel didn't know they'd crossed the border...a FENCE would help with that. After all, some might call an armed, military incursion across our border, an act of war.

3. First of all, we're not talking about a wall, we're talking about a fence. A fence designed to keep criminals, smugglers, potential terrorists, and yes, illegal aliens out...not, as was the case with the Berlin Wall, to keep our citizens IN. No one is trying to escape this country, so the Berlin Wall comparison shows that you possess all the intelligence of a bathroom bowl brush.

Over 1 MILLION people were apprehended by U.S. agents trying to sneak into the country last year. The Border Patrol estimates that they catch one in three. That means 2 million illegal aliens were successful sneaking into our nation. 2 MILLION per year! No nation of earth can sustain such an illegal influx.

[budman]

The issue:

ObaMyths: Yes, this time, the idiot will most likely be your conservative friend. All of these ridiculous email rumors about Obama weaken our position, thus, they need to be addressed. There are way too many real, factual problems with Barack Obama to get sidetracked in Urban Legend.

What the liberal (or in this case, misguided conservative) whiners say:

1. 'Barack Obama is a secret radical Muslim!'
2. 'Barack Obama refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance!'
3. 'In his first book Obama wrote: "I will stand with the Muslims if the political winds shift in an ugly direction'
4. 'Barack Obama was sworn in on the Quran, NOT the Bible'
5. 'Barack Obama's ears are so big, if he's elected President, he could cause a total eclipse of the sun if he goes up in Air Force One!'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:

1. No, he is a converted Christian, whose father was Muslim. There is no evidence at all of his having been raised at some radical Madrassa in Indonesia during his childhood. That was a rumor thought to have originated from the Hillary Clinton campaign. A far better and TRUE argument is that he spent 19 years in the radicalized "Black Liberation Theology" Trinity United Church, with Pastor Jeremiah Wright. With "BLT's" origins in Marxism and hatred for whites, this should be a concern to ANY thinking American. It is also accurate to say that Barack Obama has some VERY radical associates. Anti-American Reverend Jeremiah Wright for one. Weather Underground terrorist, William Ayers, who bombed the Pentagon in the early '70's for another. The mentor to whom he refers in his first book, "Dreams From My Father", Frank Marshall Davis, was a Black poet and avowed member of the Communist Party USA. He mentions in that same book that in college, he preferred the company of Marxist professors, among other radicals. So, a Muslim? No. An extremist and a Marxist? Yes.

2. The true origin of this rumor, is that at a particular campaign appearance during the primaries, Obama was onstage with Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson. When the National Anthem was played, Hillary and Richardson both placed their hands over the hearts for the anthem. Obama stood with his hands clasped in front of him. Disrespectful? Yes. He has also alternately said he wouldn't wear a flag pin on his lapel, then said he never said that, then said he would, then didn't again. Obama also recently removed the American flag from the tail section of his customized campaign jet, and replaced it with his "O" logo. Ego over patriotism?

3. Actually, he doesn't say anything like this statement in his first book. Someone took what he said about being careful in a post 9/11 world, not to remove any groups rights, and twisted it into the "Muslim" statement, but he makes no specific reference to Muslims at all.

4. Obama was sworn in on the Bible, like everyone else. This rumor confuses Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, with Obama. Ellison was sworn in on the Bible in the group ceremony with all the other freshmen in Congress, then used the Quran for his private ceremony. In their private ceremony, officials can be sworn in on the Yellow Pages if they want.

5. After checking with NASA's solar scientists, this one actually appears to be true.

[budman]

The issue:

Obama's Experience and Qualifications

What the liberal (or in this case, misguided conservative) whiners say:

1. 'Barack Obama will bring UNITY to our country to finally get things done!'
2. 'Yeah well, Obama is a Washington outsider, which is exactly what we need right now'
3. 'Barack Obama is one of the great communicators of our time, he's a brilliant speaker who can fire up a crowd'
4. 'He'll bring change, and anything is better than Bush, right?'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:

1. Really? Can you name even ONE instance where Barack Obama worked in a united way with Republicans on ANY issue? His positions are so far to the left, there's no way he could reach out to anyone but extreme left wing liberals. He's never shown the least bit of interest working with members on the other side of the isle. On the other hand, John McCain has "reached across the isle" numerous times...McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman to name just a few. If your really want UNITY or bi-partisanship, John McCain is definitely your man.



 
2. Unfortunately, Obama has spent SO much time outside Washington, that we have absolutely no idea what he would do once he was inside. He was a "community organizer in Chicago, an Illinois state legislator, and a U.S. Senator since 2005. From that to President of the United States? Asked what Barack had accomplished to recommend him for the job, I was told recently that Barack Obama had "organized the Black people." Hmm. First, I hadn't realized the Black people were DISorganized? There's nothing worse than an entire minority group running around helter skelter, is there? So, thank you for that, Barack. That must have been during the "community organizer" days? But when pressed to name specifics on a legitimate accomplishment, Obama supporters are stumped. Even staunch Obama supporter, Texas state senator Kirk Watson, when asked by Chris Matthews on national television this past February 19th, to name just one thing Obama has ever accomplished, Watson couldn't come up with a single thing.
Not one. This was of course, before Chris Matthews felt the "thrill going up his leg" for Obama, and pledged him his troth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o&eurl=http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/13814/

3. Adolph Hitler could fire up a crowd too. I'm not comparing the two, I'm just saying that's not necessarily the best recommendation for president. I went to a Barry Manilow concert with my wife once, he had the crowd (well, the WOMEN in it, anyway) pretty fired up. As for Obama's communication skills, I still like the fact that he communicated to us that we have 57 states, plus one he hasn't visited yet, plus Alaska and Hawaii...for a total of 60? Had he not communicated that information, I'd be under the mistaken impression we still had just the 50 states. Also the priceless tire inflation communication, just might save our nation, as well as the planet.

4. Uh, wrong. Karl Marx wouldn't be better than Bush. Neither would Vladimir Lenin. Let's not forget his quote from the front page of the Wall Street Journal a few months ago: "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably. Equitable distribution of wealth talk should frighten to the core all American citizens who love life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The one big bill to Barack Obama's credit right now is another of his proposals to redistribute wealth. It's called the World Poverty Act. If passed into law, it would take $845 billion from U.S. taxpayers, and redistribute that money to other nations through the UN. Sound good? If so, we'll see you in the cheese lines Comrade!

[budman]

The issue:

What to do with 20 million illegal aliens

What the liberal whiners say:

1. '20 million can't continue living in the shadows'
2. 'We MUST provide a path to citizenship for these people, who other than being undocumented, are just good, decent, hard-working folks'
3. 'We can't deport 20 million people, it's just not practical...even if we could, it's inhumane to separate families who have anchor children here'
4. 'Our economy won't be able to handle all these undocumented workers leaving their jobs to go back home'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments

1. First of all, they're NOT "living in the shadows"...for the most part, we know where they live, work and go to school. It's not like they're invisible, we see them every day. Many congregate regularly at day-labor sites, right out in the open.

2. There's nothing we must do, except what's right for this country. And rewarding 20 million people who've broken our laws with citizenship is the worst thing we could do. we did it for the 2 million illegal aliens here in 1986, and the problem got worse by TEN TIMES. It's often forgotten that they're not just breaking our immigration laws. There is also nearly always at least identity fraud and/or identity theft and tax evasion too. If you're a citizen, will the government just look the other way for those crimes and say...'oh well, he's otherwise a good, decent, hard-worker'? Don't think so.

3. We cured polio, sent man to the moon, defeated Nazism and Communism, but we can't put people on a bus and send them home? Of course we could, if we had the will. But we don't need to anyway. It's been proven over and over. Enforce our laws and REMOVE INCENTIVES. It isn't nuclear physics. If there is no reason to be here, and we show that we're serious about respect for, and upholding our law, they will SELF-deport. In Tulsa, Oklahoma, shortly after the state passed tough new anti-illegal alien legislation, 15-25,000 illegals deported themselves. Tougher laws had the same affect in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Georgia, Florida and elsewhere. As for separating families with anchor children, it's the responsibility of those who've broken our laws to decide whether to take their kids back to their home countries with them, or find homes for them here. No one worries about U.S. criminals being separated from their families. Not to mention border agents, Ramos and Compean, who've been separated from THEIR families for 19 months and both have had their lives ripped apart.

4. Illegal Aliens represent about 4-5% of the workforce. Our unemployment figure is just over 5%. Hmm...full employment possibilities? Also, the exodus wouldn't happen all at once, but gradually. Not only will the illegals be replaced by those currently unemployed, but it would give our young people (our kids) who can't find employment now new opportunities. We also need to cut off welfare to able-bodied Americans, who would then be more likely to go out and earn a living.