Tuesday May 15, 2007, 10:49 pm

and isnt that a form of terrorism, if not Psychological WarFare?

Tuesday May 15, 2007, 10:50 pm

Time to get out the old CDs

Wednesday May 16, 2007, 8:04 am
With all due respect Carol, if you actually read the article, he makes some very valid points. And these are points that are at the forefront of this debate, and not held merely by Charlie Daniels. As a conflict resolutionist, this is a public conflict, it's becoming intractable, and the fact is that each and every person who enters the U.S. illegally (whether from Mexico or not) is breaking the law. So this isn't as "cut and dry" as one might think.

And there are lots of Americans who feel this way, whether they admit it or not!!! Those who forefathers were Founders, or whose ancestry includes soldiers that have fought in all the wars since this country was born. Personally, I think that if they want "amnesty" they should put on a uniform, go fight in the war, spill some blood, and then they can have amnesty!!! Otherwise, compassion or not as some may see this view, it's not OK to break the laws of any country, and then flaunt the fact that you have, demanding of its citizens something that by law they need not give!!! Sorry if this alarms you.

Wednesday May 16, 2007, 8:55 am
Maureen, You have a lovely and unique name. Compliments to you.
I hate leaving long trailers/comments but this issue is signiicant and should be front page Care every week.

Charlie Daniels is a LEGEND and when LEGENDS speak I DO pay attention.

Below please note comments I have been posting.

Quote/ not mine: The reason they are encouraging massive immigration - legal and illegal is because it keeps the consumer market stumbling along - they are thrashing our domestic economy... as we are dispossessed of our homes and jobs, economy activity is kept up - albeit at a lower level as foreigners from third world countries come here and take our places at lower rates.

FACT FINDINGS: Bush looks at Mexico's elite and sees kindred spirits.

Returning to the CIS report, Mexico's elite pays itself handsomely while investing little in the education of its people and expecting the American people to pay for the failures of Mexico.

These same politicians turn a blind eye to the fact that, when petroleum earnings are excluded, Mexico collects taxes equivalent to 9.7 percent of GDP—a figure on par with Haiti. In addition, the policy makers (1) spend painfully little on education and health-care programs crucial to spurring social mobility and job opportunities, (2) acquiesce in barriers to opening businesses in their country, and (3) profit from a level of corruption that would have made a Tammany Hall precinct captain blush — with $11.2 billion flowing to lawmakers in 2004 alone.

Many Mexican officials enjoy princely lifestyles, while expecting the United States to solve their social problems by allowing the border to serve as a safety-valve for job seekers.

We should separate and isolate ourselves from Mexico. Otherwise America's racial hierarchy will increasingly come to resemble Mexico's.

Mexico is a very corrupt place.

Corruption. A study by the highly respected Private Sector Center for Economic Studies (Centro de Estudios Económicos del Sector Privado) estimates that 34 percent of businesses made "extra-official" payments to legislators and bureaucrats totaling $11.2 billion in 2004.26 In a similar vein, Transparency International (TI) ranked Mexico as tied for sixty-fifth to sixty-ninth place among 158 countries surveyed for corruption. TI found Mexico to be even more corrupt than nations like South Korea, Bulgaria, Colombia, Cuba, and Brazil.

The United States should build a large wall with Mexico, not only to keep out Mexican immigrants but also to separate the United States from such a corrupt and backward society.

One of my favorite summaries by
Stephanapoulos:
Is the issue central enough to really be the force behind a presidential campaign.

Tancredo:
I don't know. How can I say for sure?
All I can tell you is how strongly I feel about it.

I happen to believe it is one of the most important domestic policy issues we can deal with. It touches so many parts of our lives.
If you want to talk about education, we certainly can - the impact of illegal immigration on our schools.
If we want to talk about health care we certainly can - and the impact of illegal immigration on our medical system.
Eighty-six hospitals closing in Southern California in the last few years because of the impact of illegal immigration...

Wednesday May 16, 2007, 9:00 am
To summarize, two thirds of all the money deposited in Mexico’s banks belongs to a handful of accounts (144,000), leaving a mere one third of all the available resources to the rest of the population. The government has done nothing to reverse this situation, on the contrary, every day it contributes to concentrate income by pampering monopolies, failing to impose a fair and balanced tax system and allowing more corruption than ever before.

This means that only a handful of Mexicans are able to save and only they are able to get an education, open new businesses and grow their capital, in other words, only they have a future, the rest of the population lives day to day, with almost no savings and therefore no chance of a better future.

For the United States, these are bad news. There is a positive correlation between wealth concentration and migration to the United States, the more wealth lands in few hands, the more empoverished mexicans try to cross the border so more concentration only means more trouble ahead also for the American People.

n 2000 there were 124,500 mass affluent individuals in Mexico and 29,700 high net worths and by the end of 2004 there were 184,300 mass affluents and 49,300 high net worths holding EUR72bn in onshore liquid assets between them. Although mass affluents account for 79% of the population, they hold only 30% of the liquid assets.

The total number of mass affluent individuals in Mexico is expected to increase from 184,300 in 2004 to 269,400 in 2009, representing a compound annual growth rate of 7.9%.

The number of high net worth individuals is also expected to increase over the next five years and at a higher rate than the number of mass affluents. The compound annual growth rate of high net worth individuals over the 2004-2009 period is forecast at 8.8%, with the number increasing by just over 50% from 49,300 in 2004 to 75,000 in 2009.

They need to spend half the effort of hiring lawyers to change our constittution into making theirs functionable

Wednesday May 16, 2007, 9:09 am
Maybe you can find this article posted about May 8th ...

How Eisenhower Solved Illegal Border Crossings From Mexico | Csmonitor.Com visit site
US Politics & Gov't (tags: )

- csmonitor.com
Bill Chambers, who worked for a combined 33 years for the Border Patrol and Naturalization Service (INS), says politically powerful people are fueling the flow of illegals.

Wednesday May 16, 2007, 10:07 am
Greetings Carol, and thanks for the compliment on the name!!! I have always loved it and it goes to my Celtic roots, which as you are quite aware as demonstrated above, is a very important issue and relates to each and every individuals identity; and then that identiy translates into the national identity, or nationalism! =D

The points you raise are very serious indeed; so was that which Charlie Daniels stated; and I too listen when a LEGEND speaks, as he speaks for thousands of Americans (if not millions!!!) who feel the same way. And there is NOTHING WRONG with nationalism; it's a problem when it becomes nationality--in the sense that we should take up "racial profiling" or some other horrid schema (which has been done, I duly note so there's no uproar and backlash!!! lol) insofar as human against human on the basis of identity.

I think one of the big reasons that so many Americans are upset over this issue (aside from the obvious reasons, which are the first noted in conflict resolution!!!) is that those who are immigrating, even LEGALLY, doing it properly and by the book, are bringing their cultures with them (cultural diffusion; predominantly through language. For more see Franz Boas, or Du Bois, Bidney and others); however, when they get to America, they don't INTEGRATE with the American culture that we devised in the 200+ years of building this young country. And She is young, comparatively speaking!!! And so many don't know our history, or the history of the world, for that matter. So that integration is watered down even more; they form their own ethnic areas in large metropolis' . . . and voila, the problem deepens, as Daniels points out.

I also recognise the issues that many of those residing in Mexico face; that the government is corrupt, and that they desire a better life. However, that has to be earned, don't you think? And I don't want a Mexican flag waved in my face whilst those here without the proper paperwork, DEMAND from me--the citizenry--what they do not have a right to demand. They are entitlements, yes . . . however, they are entitlements to the citizens who have paid for them!!! Through taxation et cetera.

Each and every point that you raise, or another raises, are all what we call "perspectives," "frames" or conflict cleavages (nice one huh? rofl; they always have to have some biological component that seems gender biased, yes? *smile*) that need be considered when we are confronting these issues. Many Americans feel that the right to be a citizen with all the rights, privileges, and accolades thereunto appertaining . . . it has to be earned!!! I always wonder why they don't fight back against the government which oppresses them. Those are words that Americans hold sacred, and I believe that they would follow those orders in the Declaration of Independence in any way that they had to; what do you think?

Great discourse! Thank you so much for the exchange . . . and let's keep it going. You are absolutely correct, it needs be on the front page every day . . . and all Americans need to have their voices heard; as for those who are here illegally, whilst a GUEST in our country, you are afforded all the same privileges that we fought for. However, once you overstay or break the law . . . you are also subject to those laws, just as every single citizen is. Many have come here for that reason . . . to enjoy those rights that we alone have in our Constitution. Thus, many don't take too kindly to it when those who are here outside of the laws and regulations of the United States, and particularly when you seek to harm us--whether through loss of jobs, or through use of social programs, or through a terrorist or criminal activity that infiltrates the community in which you "reside"--and justifiably so. That's nationalism! =) For country; for the greater good, and as in "United We Stand, Divided We Fall!!!"

The points you raise about the top 1% holding all the world's wealth, economic disparity has long been a tool of conflict; these are the very things that Marx discoursed on, followed by Weber; they are the ones who gave us bureaucracies (Weber on that one!!! lol) and then there were others who contributed in many ways--though not without conflict in the process of writing--and resulted in the Constitution. Somewhere here, we citizens have to take some responsibility that demonstrates WE "get it," insofar as our own apathy has allowed those to corrupt, and center the world's wealth amongst a few, and not heed the lessons of history.

Which brings us to education et cetera!!! And the language? Do you go to France and have a machine inquire as to whether you want French or English??? I don't think so, however I could be incorrect given that I've not been to France. The NATIONAL language--and thus by means of precedent and the language the Constitution is written in--is ENGLISH!!! That's a MAJOR point--conflict cleavage--in this immigration issue. Whew!!! Okay . . .she's stepping down off her soapbox for the time being!!! rofl

Thank you again Carol, for an extremely thoughtful response and engagement in this topic!!! It's not an easy one to confront! =)

Peace & orca spirit, Maureen.

Friday May 18, 2007, 2:26 pm
The new litmus test for the GOP blogs? Forget abortion, it's all about the brown people and immigration. Blogometer has a rundown of the right-wing blogs and how they've turned on McCain over immigration.

IMMIGRATION: It's 1986 All Over Again

Tons of negative reaction against the Senate immigration plan. First the case against:

The Corner's Rich Lowry: "This is the key thing to understand about the immigration deal-the amnesty effectively happens no matter what. As soon as the bill is signed into law illegal immigrants get probationary legal status. Before any of the enforcement happens. So the ordering is exactly the same as 1986-amnesty first, enforcement later. ... will you trust the Democratic administration we will probably have in two years and its secretary of homeland security? This has disaster written all over it."

The Corner's Heather Mac Donald: "Republican supporters of the Senate's latest amnesty bill are trying to distract voters by dangling before them the requirements for an illegal alien to become a citizen or purchase a green card. ... Its key feature is rather that illegal aliens, according to press reports, can immediately have their illegal status wiped away with a temporary-residency permit, available virtually upon demand. That's it. The rest is noise."

a retired Border Patrol agent reader of Michelle Malkin's: "I resent the attitude and actions of the Senate and House with respect to aliens in the USA. With IRCA in 1986, all things pertaining to illegal aliens in the USA were going to be answered. We were going to make employers responsible. Let me tell you: If there was ever a US Attorney scandal, it was their refusal to prosecute the violators. It only took about 1 year for every one concerned [to realize] that it was just hot air from Washington."

Reactions to the deal as understood:

Kathryn Jean Lopez emailer: "Death Ride of the Republican Party...as soon as I email this, I'm figuring how to change my California voter registration over to independent. I'm done.

The Corner's Kate O'Beirne: "I just talked with a veteran conservative activist whose group doesn't engage on the immigration issue but who is glum about the expected reaction of the conservative grassroots to the immigration deal. 'We'll all be hurt. They'll just stay home,' he predicted. 'They'll figure they didn't support Republicans in order to federalize education, create a big, new entitlement program, and grant amnesty to illegals.'"

Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit: "This sends a great message doesn't it. Come here illegally, and it's OK. Why? Because we're scared of the protests and want to mollify big business."

more K-Lo email: "The last two years of this Bush presidency will well prepare us well for the Hillary years. We won't be able to tell the difference

Right Wing NewsJohn Hawkins: "Any senator who votes for this bill, in my view, does not deserve your support and I would strongly encourage you not to volunteer for him or contribute money to his campaign. Moreover, although I don't believe in protest votes, if I were going to refuse to pull the lever for a Republican over a single vote, it would be over this monstrosity.

Not a site prone to advocacy, The Corner's Mark Krikorian directs "frustrated and perplexed and despairing" readers to voice their dissent with the RNC, NRSC, and NRCC. Sending bricks to Congress is always an an option too.

Kausfiles is also thinking strategy: "Perhaps House Democrats could be subtly encouraged to hold a large hearing, attended by activists from the undocumented community, at which spokespeople loudly demanded not just instant legalization but free instant legalization! ... They might also emphasize that they do not think they are immigrants at all--this is their homeland! We stole it from them. ... Not only would these hearings mobilize Latino opposition to the compromise, they might also turn off the rest of the country (much as some famous hearings featuring George Wiley's welfare rights activists soured the country on the guaranteed income).

Captain's Quarters is the lone dissenter: "Here's the problem with the hard-liner arguments, which amounts to 'they'll never engage the border-security and workplace enforcement portions.' Well, that could be true of any immigration bill, even if it completely matched the conservative position on immigration."

Kausfiles responds: "That's silly. You could pass "the border-security and workplace enforcement portions" and then see if they worked--and tightened them if they didn't--before you went ahead with amnesty. ... There doesn't have to be a bill, remember. Bipartisan cooperative "action" isn't necessarily always a great thing (as the 1986 amnesty showed). The country is not in crisis, only Bush. The no-bill status quo, Lowry's own magazine notes, has been moving in a good direction on immigration, with greater enforcement (and rising wages at the bottom)."

Friday May 18, 2007, 10:09 pm

Its been 7 years of terror, arrogance, unsettled disasters, self-serving agendas, deceite, corruption, and all so extreme that it gave the Dem's a platform to run on.

Banks were the first to begin offering us; "spanish or english". Now our Border Guards are imprisoned for doing their job, the illegals are given green cards and monatary settlements for breaking our laws.

Congress heard Lou Dobbs speak in March 2007 in a Congressional Hearing, without any response.
: "Corporate America and our country's political elites have combined to put this country's middle-class working men and women into direct competition with the world's cheapest labor. Salaries and wages now represent the lowest share of our national income than any time since 1929. Corporate profits have the largest share of our national income than at any time since 1950."

Putting any time into immigration talk is more waste of our tax dollars, when it is our present laws that need only be exercised.

C. Daniels is right when he says, They will have riots next.

Even Lou Dobbs was the most disgusted tonight, than I have ever seen him.
This is a slap in the face!