Watch this video (see #4 from last time): www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEOeGBv1340. This is a Care Bears episode compared to the movie “Passion of the Christ” from a violence standpoint, but it is appalling, when you consider the first amendment tenets of free speech and free assembly. The video consists of Mexican immigrants, whether legal or illegal, protesting against white and black citizens who marched to the Los Angeles City Hall exactly one year to the day, on March 25, 2007, that the illegal immigrants held their protest marches through streets all over the country. It is highly unlikely that the illegals who marched in 2006 had to contend with the same amount of vitriol, or with as great a number of protestors. The immigrants in the video above held megaphones, attempted to burn American flags, held the flag upside down in a sign of disrespect, and attempted to shout down those marching. The legal citizens of this country were protected and ushered to city hall flanked by hundreds of police officers in place to guard against a riot. I wonder who, as taxpayers, was on the hook for paying for the additional security used that day.
They're coming: People think that this is just a concern of big cities that are being overrun and can lovingly take their children to dance class in Portsmouth, New Hampshire or enjoy their habitual over-priced cup of latte in Seattle, Washington. The threat of this country being overrun is very real, and a dope like me simply writing about it is insufficient as an indictment on the government. The link I provide above is only part 5; just imagine how empowered the immigrants will be after ten more years of uninterrupted deployment into our country.
An economy of words: I have written many words over the course of 22 posts on this overall topic, and was bound to use some words with which not everyone is instantly familiar. The subject matter demands many words. I do not consider Ruskin's approach possible when one grants that his topics were not as comprehensive, nor as era defining as this overall topic: “For certainly it is excellent discipline for an author to feel that he must say all he has to say in the fewest possible words, or his reader is sure to skip them; and in the plainest possible words, or his reader will certainly misunderstand them.”- John Ruskin (A Joy For Ever). The subject more worthy of an excess of words- the economic subjection of an entire class of people authored by their country’s own liberal and conservative politicians, or topics about architecture, modern painters, art criticism, storm clouds, and mountain flowers? Those Victorians were so pretentious. Ruskin was so high-minded he was probably proud of his own gag reflex.
Disclaimer: A couple of the articles or websites I use to further reveal my concerns about immigration’s affect on the middle class are of a more questionable character. I do not doubt the genuine temper of the frustration expressed, but rather, cannot completely verify the veracity of the events as portrayed. Nearly all of the other references I have included throughout this rather protracted governmental and political tirade have seemed verifiable, respectable, or otherwise accredited. When they have seemed incomplete, or nonsensical, I have included comments questioning the credibility of the source, the messenger, or the message itself. Suffice to say, the problem of immigration is taxing this country on many levels and in many ways. I began to look at the reasons why immigration is such a difficult issue for the economic middle class, and the country as a whole last time. Here we go again.
More information relative to an Independent’s desire for more comprehensive, swift, and realistically enforceable immigration control:
1) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1896366/posts (for #s 1-3 below)- Open Borders Senators Plan End-Run Dream Act Amnesty tells of the grass roots fight of an anti-immigration group that is attempting to out maneuver a pro-immigration group. Amendment 2237 (otherwise known as The Dream Act) to the Defense Authorization bill which proposes to give millions of illegals amnesty. (All kinds of information contained in the piece, but I just can’t quote all of them);
2) the freerepublic.com piece contains 26 talking points that the anti-immigration group wants people to be made aware of that they deem as negatives to the average U.S. citizen. Unfortunately, many of the talking points under this heading- “Talking Points to Prevent Attaching Provisions of the SKIL Act” are due to the lack of interest plenty of whites or blacks currently residing in this country have for the idea of keeping a full time job. (So, when someone who complains about the economy, immigration, taxation, the prices of necessary cost items, etc. is labeled reactionary and that all will be taken care of, maybe by some caped crusader type, perhaps by the name of Super Delegate. Given the amount of information I have compiled and provided, I would say, those who do not complain are probably causing the problem);
3) (mindful of #3 from last time)- the most telling talking point to me is the first one- “Increase the annual cap for ‘temporary’ nonimmigrant visas from 65k to 115k. But that’s just the first year (after that, if the cap is met in any year, it can be further increased by 20 percent for the next year with a ceiling of 180,000 per year.” That is why I would be so concerned about point #3 I made last time, that the federal government can redefine the word illegal just by allowing amnesty, or by adjusting the numbers on any one of the different types of visas they already allow, which are adequately outlined in the link directly above. Constantly having to qualify the difference between legal and illegal immigration, in order to be careful so as not to offend the liberals or the illegals, is wasted time and effort. Both of them offend us constantly, the liberals with their caterwauling and the illegals with their very presence (in PLENTY of instances). Those against illegal immigration better decide to find the number of immigrants more objectionable than how the people or the government refers to them, or we are quite a bit further on our road to hell than we might otherwise think. If only 8,000 crossed the border each year and only 1% of them committed crimes or 5,000 competed with Americans for wages I don't believe Americans would so disparage their contributions. Do not so marry the word 'illegal' to the word 'immigrant,' because two components so often wed are difficult to combat, or when the divorce is made legalathom with logic when separated. Hell, some companies are producing flameless candles. When will wordless blogs be made available? You wish.
Redefinition: As I believe I have proven, the federal government is run by a number of politicians who might have what many would call, questionable motives (see the laundry list I provided in part 21 concerning Citigroup’s involvement with politicians). Changing the fact that plenty of illegals could instantly be reclassified as legal is not outside of their scope of powers. Considering what politicians can do to subject the major tenets of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution to the various state constitutions, (see part 20) take lobbyist or special interest money and say they don’t, (all of them), steal verbiage directly from someone else’s speeches and brush it off (Obama), or waffle on any issue so that they can play favorites to two diametrically opposed constituencies (all politicians, but specifically Hillary Clinton on the very issue of illegal immigrants being allowed the right to obtain driver’s licenses). Re-qualifying the phrase- “illegal immigration” by adjusting what people consider to be legal from a political definition standpoint may pacify a jellyfish going through renal failure, for it is too busy trying not to intake liquids, as it is swimming in the ocean, but won’t calm a conscientious objector. (Jellyfish don't have kidneys you say- just work with me. I have been operating under the assumption that Americans actually have rights since early May of 2007- so we may both be wrong.) The link I provide in #1 above details the rubber stamping of temporary or seasonal workers, employers paying immigrants wages irrespective of what type of Visa has permitted them into the country, expedites the processing of millions of immigrant applicants, (prospectively and allegedly without background checks), allows illegals to receive in-state tuition rates at public universities and makes illegals eligible for federal student and federal work-study loans all at taxpayer expense, while PLENTY of United States citizens may not be able to receive the same benefits.
Kidding Ourselves, see #3 from last time: A December 6, 2007 Time.com article written by Michael Kinsley- “Kidding Ourselves about Immigration,” attempts to qualify of our objections (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1692059,00.html). I anticipated this type of argument many years ago and responded to Kinsley online. He writes: “let’s not kid ourselves that all we care about is obeying the law and all we are asking illegals to do is go home and get in line like everybody else . . . we are basically telling people to go home and not come back.” The pre-ellipsis part of that quotation is accurate, but the second is not. If anyone completely discounts what many of the illegals have done for this country, they are weak-minded and those that are realistic about their contributions should need and want some, but not all, of them to come back. Kinsley’s major point is that we object to their presence whether they are considered legal or illegal and offers to test a theory- to increase legal immigration (which still doesn't address the problem of the millions coming here in a non-legal manner). My point is that if we draw a line in the sand, which is symbolic of our ardor and disgust, and shout at the top of our lungs that we have had enough, focusing on the illegality of the immigrants here now, our leading objection will have been removed if the politicians make them legal. Americans should focus their attention on the total number of immigrants needed to keep this country running as smoothly as possible, however they are defined. Some middle class, and some poor have obviously been adversely affected by the presence of excessive numbers of newcomers. A man who feels so violated should not be made to, or be expected to abridge his words. Further, if the politician's continued arrogance goes unchecked and the immigrant's continued progress goes unhindered, there will be nothing left but reasons for action. People work too hard and obtain such reasonable economic expectations based upon their history of labor to have the path to their deserved prosperity so obstructed. No one should be advocating action that lies outside of the law, but in times of desperation, people have chosen to act unlawfully with the best of justifications. May all guests be made aware of the seemingly apathetic and amiable, but overwrought host; the immigrant may be at some point the fly in the room full of hosts tired of reading their magazines.
Redefinition II: I have worked at a legal publishing company and have seen a lot of legislation come through. Sometimes the most significant action some bills propose is the alteration of one word for another, done for the sake of modernizing the law, making it consistent with other more important legislation, or political correctness. Consider the word retarded . . . which became handicapped . . . which became disabled. What is next- bone-weary leading onto sapped? Now, the various state governments making these changes aren’t really altering the definitions of the words, they are altering the connotations of those words as it pertains to referencing a person’s overall psychological or physical abilities. The nature of any living language has been, and always will be, fluid. New words are added to dictionaries every year and some definitions change because of how people use the words (the connotation alters or adds to part of the definition). So, illegal alien became illegal immigrant (which allows present day immigrants to draw the connection to the people’s that came to inhabit this nation in the early 20th century who were of European ancestry, who abided by the laws and customs of the land- who assimilated). Immigrants are using the connotations that surround the word ‘immigration’ to their advantage. Supported by the fondness and genealogy many Americans can credit to past periods of excessive immigration, liberals are arguing on their behalf using that exact reasoning. Therefore, liberals are coming to favor the words- undocumented workers. Give me a break. Garbage men are refuse-management technicians; a serval with psoriasis is a dermatologically-challenged non-bantam bespeckled feline. I contend, tweaking the normal political correctness dictionary with a more cynical interpretation that immigrants are legal-bypass insurrectionists.
Government immigration failures: Even when the government has passed legislation to improve the situation at the southern border of the United States, we get this news: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23382776%20%20which%20addresses#6 from last time. The story: “ ‘Virtual Fence’ Along Border to be Delayed” (WashingtonPost.com, February 28, 2008). Boeing, the company awarded the contract to work on Project 28, which would have been a “28-mile pilot project south of Tucson” chose the wrong type of tower-mounted sensors and surveillance gear, according to the Department of Homeland Security, who were doing what while Boeing made such decisions? Apparently the “initial deployment of the Secure Border Initiative network, did not work as planned or meet the needs of the U.S. Border Patrol.” The article goes on to explain why, but that particular why is not important. The ‘why’ that matters is- why weren’t state department officials in attendance as proactive liaisons monitoring Boeing’s progress on a matter of such importance to the country’s national security, keeping our country’s southern border from being continually infiltrated? The Bush administration’s push to “speed the project during last year’s immigration debate led Boeing to deploy equipment without enough testing or consultation.” That information coupled with the idea that border patrol agents were not involved in any of the planning, are huge governmental mistakes. I have often found it makes the most sense not to consult the people who actually know about the business at hand, from computer applications a programmer will never use in a productive environment, to a surveilliance system which might keep those out of our country who threaten our way of life. Granted, this initiative was billed as the “most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history,” according to president Bush. The article also mentions that given this setback, the required redesign that would use more reliable surveillance equipment would not be completed until about 2011. There are plenty of other particulars indicated in the article about how many miles of fence were to have been built, by what date, and for how much, but what is the difference . . . by the time they complete the damn fence there will be so many Latin Americans in our country we may as well move to theirs.
Allowances, #4 from last time: If we are constantly proposing bills which would grant 12+ million people amnesty, the type of amnesty that allows the rest of the illegals here already to bring their entire families in, credit them for having paid into social security when they were illegal, allow them licenses while they are illegal, allow them to vote when they are illegal, allow those that are legal to undermine the economic and political will of actual Americans by supporting those that are illegal, and allow illegals, and legals for that matter, to continue to feel empowered by the types, frequency, and fervency of their adopted offended natures, with them thinking they are the afflicted, then we are in a world of hurt.* Certain members of mankind, have learned what members of the animal community instinctively have demonstrated for millions of years. When you are weak, act as if you were strong. Attempt to represent your physical form as being larger than it is, and attack so that you will not have to defend.
McCain on immigration: McCain, during a republican party primary debate “warned that harsh immigration views voiced by some Republicans have driven Hispanics away from the party . . . he supported changing immigration laws and creating a path for citizenship for illegal immigrants.” That approach Mr. McCain, is a harsh immigration view. Until you determine how many immigrants we NEED here, I might suggest not driving non-immigrants away from your party. The Associated Press article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22173520/ from December 9, 2007, also reveals, “Republicans have had trouble courting (emphasis mine) Hispanics, who have become an increasingly significant source of votes.” Consider that- politically powerful. Repeatedly on cable news programs, pundits and hosts address the immigrant voting bloc to which candidates must continue to appeal. Another sentence from the article: “The Republican presidential candidates sought to embrace Hispanics in a Spanish language debate Sunday, striving to mark common ground with a growing (emphasis mine) voter bloc while softening the anti-illegal immigration rhetoric that has marked their past encounters.” Yes, massage the immigrant’s collective ego; why limit your specialization to merely lying to millions of white and black people. There is a new brand of credulous people waiting to lap up your double-speak pontification.
Clinton on immigration: "Clinton, after being questioned about a plan to grant driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, Mrs. Clinton at first seemed to defend it, then suggested she was against it, until finally, pressed for a direct answer, she accused the moderator, Tim Russert, of playing ‘gotcha.’ ” You are damn right Mrs. Clinton, we like to pretend that the politicians we are duped into voting for are only speaking out of one side of their ass. Members of the African-American community, who consider the snitch, rather than the pedophile, the bigger criminal, have that in common with some politicians choosing that style of dysfunctional accusation management technique- to put a liberal appelation on the endeavor- I would simply call it- bullshit management (see the Executive Decision paragraph below). In short, do not act the part of Jack Nicholson from A Few Good Men- we can handle the truth, providing you Mrs. Clinton, know what it is. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21571943. In the New York Times article of November 1, 2007 written by Marc Santora, all three of the major democratic presidential nominees at the time (Clinton, Edwards and Obama) were in favor of some form of allowing illegal immigrants a license to drive an automobile. Democrats are not only charged with picking their poison, but also in picking ours. Democrats must be immune to the type of poison or have the antidote. The antidote is $$ which tends to insulate you from all kinds of problems including someone taking your job, because it will be at least 40 years before we have a former illegal immigrant running for president. My guess is that illegal immigrants have about as much respect for our Constitution as they do for us, that is, if they even know what our Constitution is all about. Judging from the YouTube link I included in the first paragraph above, they haven't been made aware of the first amendment.
Obama on immigration: Obama has actually said that illegals would not be likely to drive in New York, but he is in favor of allowing illegals driver’s licenses. The implication is, given the population of the city of N.Y. a lot of people don’t drive who might have licenses; it is expensive to own a car, to pay for insurance, gas, and besides, when you are likely to travel four blocks in half an hour given the traffic, what is the point. So, what would they need licenses for- to vote? Thinking that immigrants would need licenses to drive would be foolhardy. Have I gotten to the part about the thing with the stuff who drove a van into a bus and killed four children? I thought so. People on weighty issues such as immigration, abortion, and capital punishment are incredibly shortsighted. They always think allowing immigration or not allowing capital punishment is the right thing to do. However, if their innocent little girl were riding that bus, or murdered in a state that does not allow lethal injection, they would perhaps spend some of the empathy they keep in reserve. Concerning California Latinos, which comprise 1 in 5 voters: “Granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants . . . It’s a huge issue for Latinos, who want them. It’s also a huge issue for the general electorate, which most vehemently does not . . . driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants helped undo former Gov. Gray Davis.” (“Obama Takes Big Risk on Driver’s License Issue,” Carolyn Lochhead, January 28, 2008, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/28/mnh1ul57q.dtl).
License to drive . . . me nuts!: Turns out I didn’t know the half of it until I searched for the MN house proposal (House File 1899 from 2007) I recalled while thinking of yet another in a long string of state or federal legislation which would give illegal immigrants rights they shouldn’t have; shocking, a democrat proposed, and democrats widely supported it. House File 1899 would have given non-citizens the right to vote in local elections. It seems a license, or picture ID is required for the following- applying for social security, becoming a Medicare, Medicaid, or food stamp recipient, boarding airplanes, getting student loans, renting movies, cashing checks, and registering at school. And I thought licenses would allow them to destroy this country in one way- by voting in a public election. Look at the options they have of how to make our country bend to their will. It seems that being overly concerned about an illegal’s right to drive once equipped with a license is not our biggest problem when you consider how much of a drain on any state’s economy social aid programs like Medicare, Medicaid and food stamp allocations actually are. I gave numbers on the former two in part 5- $721 billion from the 2007 federal budget goes to social aid programs. You don't imagine any illegals are recipients of food stamps or Medicare? Nah. See http://www.mngop.com/sd42/vote_fraud.html. I’ll get to a little more of this next time.
Proposed Legislation: There are so many rotten, smelly onionous layers to the debate about immigration it makes me ill. I propose a law that mandates anyone who speaks out on behalf of illegal immigration that desires for them to have driver’s licenses, a vote, back social security contributions, or welfare benefits to have a skin graft using a flap of skin from their rump and have it placed over their lips. Those with such delusional qualities should be muted, to the benefit of a country that economically, socially, and environmentally cannot support the carte blanche approach to allowing any and all illegals into the country. If they continue to desire to propose legislation that is so unconscionably pro-immigrant in written form, following said skin graft procedure, proposition two would allow for our right to tie their fingers together so that they can neither manipulate a pen nor use sign language to communicate their desires. Enacting the Skin Graft Bill would be no more a violation of anyone’s first amendment rights than say- being a senator of Oklahoma and desiring that a state law, which he claims is hurting the state economically, be repealed. One provision of the law the not OK republican senator wants repealed “provides penalties for harboring and transporting illegal immigrants.” The senator “said that provision is causing hardship for property and business owners and concern among churches and charity groups that provide services to undocumented workers.”
Oklahoma is not OK: Below that story, to be found at: http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=488091, (Associated Press, December 4, 2007) are some responses from what would appear to be Oklahoma voters who are disgusted with their senator’s take on immigration, especially as harboring and transporting of illegal immigrants is a federal crime under Federal Immigration and Nationality Act Section 8 USC 1324. One respondent in the chain of this story mentioned that he or she had googled the senator and found that “he owns a construction business!!!” I am satisfied with the number of exclamation marks used and decided not to capitalize the quoted words as the respondent had. See below concerning a much desired House Resolution 895, concerning a more formal, and empowered process of congressional ethics investigations. Everyone knows what the words- conflict of interest mean-right? See, because there are PLENTY of immigrants in the CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS.
Federal Law: The largest component of that story is that the OK senator desires to have his state law override the federal law, unless he is unaware of the latter. I write again, the threat of secession is pretty minimal. The federal government needs to step in and override a state’s rights to subject the will of any particular state’s American people to the selfish and ethically-challenged aims of the politicians whom they unwittingly elected to represent them. This would not require a tax increase, which should calm republicans, because as we know, republicans have never authored a bill proposing to raise taxes. How about another example? OK- see next paragraph. (Trust me, I’ll get to the freedom of speech and secession issues in due time . . . think of it as foreshadowing. Reading my offerings must be a bit like foreplay with a porcupine- very time consuming, very difficult and painful, but worth it after you’ve finished and survived, provided you didn’t get stuck.)
Executive Decision, see #8 from last time: Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty signed an executive order on January 7, 2008 that gives some state agents a role in enforcing immigration law and requires the state to review millions of driver’s license photos for possible fraud.” Excellent! Other equally important ordinances were included in the E.O. He described his ideas as “ ‘reasonable steps to help combat illegal immigration.’ ” Immediately, according to the story “Pawlenty Revives Push against Illegal Immigration” (http://www.am1500.com/categoryfolders/pstories/s305491.shtml) democrats were instantly critical of the move. One democrat said “ ‘He’s doing it again in 2008 . . . This is an election cycle and I am very disappointed that our governor has chosen to use this issue as a political issue to advance his political agenda.’ ” There is always an election cycle. Candidates have been debating for the presidential election since the summer of 2007, at least, and the general election will not be held until November 4, 2008. I can see her point. On the one hand- we have the very offensive political maneuver of a governor acting with the consent of the governed, as the overwhelming majority of people in the state and country would back Pawlenty’s move, and on the other hand- we have the much more important, often overlooked political platform agenda of . . . timing. Madame democrat- get out of the way, or we should have every right, under the swiftly advancing Skin Graft Bill to soon enough begin to call you- Butt Lips.
Pawlenty, with a republican controlled house after four years in office could not get an immigration bill through, and he stands little chance of doing so now that Minnesota democratic immigration reparationalists hold the majority in the house. Democrats are probably still empathetic to Mexicans because of the lands we took following the U.S. victory in the Mexican-American War in 1848. A scarecrow in traction in a love affair with an overweight beaver with a yeast infection in its cankle is less fawning than are the democrats over the illegal immigrants.
De-bunked hysteria: I have been accused of not being grounded and of rushing to each economic, political or social issue I have addressed with an overriding sense of hysteria, hoping to find the worst and in fact finding it. You cannot dismiss the affections of a platypus with hyperglycemia and always welcome those of a Zebra equipped with a tourniquet around its neck is what they must be saying. I was forwarded an email from someone that addressed the now debunked assertion that there was somehow a bill coursing through congress that would pay illegal immigrants social security. Perhaps the source was this: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/senate-gives-illegals-aliens-social-security or something of the sort, and the refutation comes from this, or something very like it, from the more reliable factcheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/article447.html. The former boasts the headline “Senate Bill Will Give Illegal Aliens Social Security.” What is more troubling is the picture of two streets meeting in an unidentified metropolis filled with people, which I suppose is a city filled with immigrants (see the picture following the title, contained in the first link). The title of the latter link is- “Republican Campaign Theme Debunked: Social Security for Illegal Immigrants.” People, if we follow all the bait that hysterical nut-bags put out there then we are no better than those who overuse the word- ‘racist.’ A caterpillar with leukemia set to wrap itself in a cocoon feels less empowered than that brand of wreck and the caterpillar is about to become the highly-prized, more naturally appreciated for its brilliant colors- butterfly. Still, a motion which would pay former illegals back social security benefits must not seem so wrong to an out of touch politician. Immigrants can turn to liberals for all of their partner in crime needs. The truth is that the bill, which passed the senate 62-36 in May of 2006, would allow immigrants to receive back social security benefits IF it were approved. The fact that it was even proposed is more slavishly, contemptibly predictable than this one guy in the office fond of sweater vests who I could tell you by looking at him thinks he is a big deal because he matriculated at both St. Thomas and William Mitchell College of law. I think you have to graduate looking like a prick or they won't give you a diploma, just as you must abandon reason to be a registered democrat.
The Specter, see #8 from last time: That bill, the Arlen Specter bill, which passed the senate, but never passed the house, would give the estimated 11-12 million illegals a path to citizenship as long as they pay a fine, back taxes, and meet such requirements as learning English. The email sent to me would lead one to believe that president Bush had a bill which passed both legislative bodies and was set to either sign or veto it, based on the thousands of signatures the email claimed to deliver. It is disheartening to know that a ghastly bill of that type was such a presence and could pass through either legislative body. The reality is no chimera, would break our spirit, and alter our countenance. But, proposals very like that have been hovering over congress, as almost ghost-like apparitions, for the past couple years. At least four bills have been proposed or sponsored since 2005. Specter should stick to meekly investigating the NFL commissioner’s right to throw away tapes, which proved that the New England Patriots were illegally taping signals given by opposing defensive coaches. He brought no weight to that endeavor, apparently, he was tapped out after proposing and getting to the floor for a successful senate vote, an immigration bill that proposes to reward tens of millions of law-breakers with rights granted to those who have paid all their lives into a social aid program. Thing is, it may be a moot point- I do not see anyone actually getting these benefits. However, if democrats controlled the country, my guess is that they would justify all immigrants to receive full benefits and that actual Americans would get none. Very, very haunting, spooky democratic doppelgangers. (I love thesaurus.com.)
PS 1: I received the email the fourth week of February 2008 and all of the Google hits returned germane to the Specter bill in question concerned datelines from 2006. Way to be proactive, no wonder we are losing. The second link from the De-bunked hysteria paragraph above is actually mentioned in the October 10, 2006 factcheck.org site. We seem unable to organize on this issue, almost as if we are speaking different languages, like in the Tower of Babel story from the bible, (which I brought up in part 12). At least the immigrants haven’t been able to change our language . . . not yet. After the amnesty bill is passed, how long will it be before there are co-national official languages?
PS 2: This post-script has nothing to do with a video gaming system. The factcheck.org link above reads: “Mexico said it would complain to Washington about plans to build security fences and deploy the Guard. ‘There are 12 million Mexicans on the other side, 12 million people who live every day in anguish about the need for a reform to let them live peacefully,’ ” Derbez said. I do not know how peacefully they are living here, or how peacefully we are living with them here. I would love to send Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez the link to the You Tube video I included above while having military personnel perform the little known, but acceptable form of torture upon him- perhaps the Mexican reason installation technique. This is a technique which delivers intelligence into the minds of otherwise ignorant Mexicans. Derbez is the type of scoundrel who would whine to a municipality that his neighbor should not be allowed to put up a fence in his own yard to keep Derbez’s mastiffs from constantly defecating in it.
Ethic and Ethnic: I now receive a number of emails advocating activism in politics because I financially contributed to Common Cause a couple months ago. One such email I received contained this text- “The House is scheduled to vote this week on a resolution (H.Res. 895) that will institute, for the first time in history, an independent Office of Congressional Ethics with the power to file and investigate ethics complaints. The independent panel’s reports will be made public, and new timelines and reporting requirements will stop the Ethics Committee from burying complaints for years without action.” At least it is a start. I don't know that a vote on whether or not an Ethics Committee is granted powers to pursue the very politicians that might vote it down is a wise choice. Perhaps the people should be voting on the measure . . . they have more to lose. The only people currently allowed to file an ethics complaint against a member of congress is another member of congress. I would rather trust the objectivity of a Packer fan asked to measure the career achievements of the recently retired Brett Favre, to assign him a place in the list of the greatest quarterbacks in league history than leave for a vote the installment of a Congressional Ethics Office to the congressmen and women who would stand to get cited subsequent to its adoption. More than half of 2008 voters would need to vote yes on the Take Action Minnesota proposed amendment which would allow non-citizens the right to vote in local elections, for it to become part of the state's constitution. Illegal immigrants would not be permitted to vote under the measure.
“Of all the mischiefs, none is so afflicting and fatal to every honest hope as the corruption of the legislature.” – Thomas Jefferson
The public is overwhelmingly in favor of an aggressive immigration bill which would enforce the southern border. Perhaps there should also be an Ethnic Committee to ferret out of office those politicians who continue to subject the will of Americans to the (Latin Americans) whose ethnicity is better explored, revealed, and practiced South of the border.***
* I will demonstrate the veracity of each of these charges by the end of this sub-topic.
** People may not know how drunkenly subjective people from Green Bay can be. (PS. Favre is no better than eighth and no worse than twelfth all time among quarterbacks. Tell me he is better than Unitas, Elway, Bradshaw, Montana, Marino, Peyton Manning, or Brady).
*** And I only mean those that it is determined are not needed in this country, not all legal or illegals who are currently in the United States.
Head to: saveourstate.org for more information.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment