Opinion: Immigration Protests In Murrieta

I support the immigration protesters in Murrieta, CA. Despite what some ideologues and amnesty supporters would have you think, these people are not racists or against immigrants. I think these protesters represent what a majority of Americans want and feel: an end to illegal immigrants, an end to policies that support illegal aliens over U.S. citizens, an end to liberal (by this I mean weak) immigration policy and reform of immigration policy that rightly places the interests of the U.S. citizen over that of foreigners and entities (read: business, politicians, political parties, etc.) that exploit these immigrants. Additionally I believe many Americans want citizenship requirements changed to stop the use of anchor babies and illegal immigrant children as an exploitive justification to allow illegal immigrants to remain.

While the Obama administration has been more active in deporting illegal aliens, it has also been weak in others or outright manipulative in pushing an even more weakened immigration system by advocating amnesty and cynically using children of illegal aliens (whether the child is a citizen or not) to induce an emotional response from the public rather than a well thought out logical response that truly addresses the issues surrounding immigration. This is not aided any the main political parties in the United States (the Democrats and Republicans) holding the country hostage to their equally twisted political agendas that benefit no one but their own power and greed.

While most Americans can empathize with the illegal immigrants (especially the children recklessly endangered by their parents getting here) I think they also understand that, just like we cannot be policeman to the world, we cannot be caretaker of the world either. We, as a nation and as much as we may want to, simply don’t have the resources to do so and maintain our own nation, economy, and people.

California Considers Outlawing Discrimination Against Unemployed

California Considers Outlawing Discrimination Against Unemployed

A bill introduced Jan. 5 and sponsored by Democratic Assemblyman Michael Allen wouldn’t allow unemployed job-seekers to sue for discrimination, but companies that violate the law would face investigation and fines of up to $10,000.

“There’s been an increasing utilization of using this as a crude screening process to keep applicants from even being interviewed,” Allen told The Huffington Post. “It’s better to be proactive rather than to let this become a common practice.”

I rarely like government making regulations on business given the plethora of bureaucracy such laws often create, but this is one of those times were such regulations I feel are necessary. I’ve known several people that were denied jobs simply because they were currently unemployed at the time the interviewed. I was once told that I fit all the criteria for a position but that I was not selected to be hired solely on the grounds that I was not “currently employed” while undergoing the hiring process. I discussed the issue with the HR person, who agreed with me that it was silly not to hire a perfectly qualified candidate based on their current unemployment, but ultimately it was the bosses decision to make. While I felt it unfair I moved on as working for such a company, in my opinion, isn’t worth it as such an attitude often reflects a lack of commitment and respect by the employer towards their employees.

Unfortunately, I’ve heard similar stories from assorted friends, family, and associates over the years, particularly when the recession really hit hard between 2008-2010. I’ve even seen posts at job board over the last couple years while I was hunting for contract and freelance work with the ridiculous requirement that one must be employed in order to be hired. In other words, it’s slowly becoming a serious problem and a means used by some unscrupulous employers to justify their personal biases. (I still get amusement over an HR person for a foreign company wanting to hire American engineers and designers insisting I was lying about being a U.S. citizen because I had a “strange accent”. I assume they meant my native Arizonan accent, which is rare and really not that noticeably different.)

Yes, employers want their employees to be up to date on their skills, but an employed person is not necessarily one who has kept current for their field. (I’ve certainly met enough to confirm that over the years.) This desire for skilled labor does not justify discrimination in any form, especially against those who need the work the most: the unemployed.

I guess it’s a good thing I simply don’t get the need of others to discriminate. If someone’s qualified and can do the job, who cares about their appearance, gender, beliefs, or any of the rest. If they can do the job and work with their fellow employees to accomplish tasks, that is what should matter.

California attacks law abiding citizens’ rights, again.

I shouldn’t be surprised this is coming out of California given other recent stupid legislation coming out of that state’s city and state governments (like the attempt to ban circumcision and the DREAM Act).

Gov. Signs Bill Banning Open Carry of Handguns

Brown signed AB144 by state Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena Monday morning. The bill will make it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded handgun in public or in vehicles. Violators could face up to a year in prison or a potential fine of $1,000 when the law takes effect Jan 1.

So in California they would rather have everyone either disarmed or carrying their weapons concealed (legally or not). Got it. And this is supposed to protect the public…how? Oh right,  it won’t. So instead the police are going to have to worry about more law abiding citizens hiding weapons from them and lying about their presence in the car rather than knowing the people have them outright. How does that help the police? Criminals aren’t going to tell the cops if they’ve got a weapon or not. Oh right, this isn’t about safety. It’s about putting in place the frame work for forced gun ownership registration and criminalizing constitutionally protected rights.

How about loaded handguns? Or does California conveniently have a law prohibiting the open carry of loaded handguns? Either way, it’s pretty ridiculous. Only a moron openly carries a handgun that is unloaded when not in an area that requires the gun to be unloaded.

It’s all about stripping the citizenry of their rights so that when the same government clowns that wrote and supported this law attempt to strip the citizens of more rights later the populace will be helpless before their tyrannical oligarchy. The arguments used in defense of this legislation are laughable with claims of “vigilantes shooting people in the park” (paraphrasing here), protecting police (by making their jobs more difficult and dangerous), curbing gang members (who likely don’t care about obeying the law anyway), and so on. The arguments defy logic, but then these are politicians. We all know today’s politicians lack common sense let alone any sense of logic or reason.

I suspect this law will challenged as an attack against law abiding citizen’s 2nd Amendment rights though I doubt anything will be done correct this error given the number of other states that also have similar infringements on the books that the people in those states simply accept with out thought or question. Knowing that, I hope more and more people in California openly carry their rifles in public to make their point about the stupidity of the law. Unfortunately, knowing the fascistic government officials in California, they’ll then try to pass a law banning public carrying of rifles as well.

Wake up America. You’re rights are being taken away from you everyday from both ends of the political spectrum. If you remain silent on the elimination of one right, you have no reason to complain when the rest of them are taken away from you.