“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Monday, May 28, 2007

Truth or Consequences on Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants



Joe Murray: One Criminal Immigration Response Deserves Another
By: Joe Murray, The Bulletin
05/25/

"Compromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a loaf is better than a whole loaf," mused famed English writer G.K. Chesterton. With decades passing since Chesterton penned those words, it appears the U.S. Senate has not only agreed to give away its half of the loaf in regards to immigration reform; it is also throwing in the keys to the store.

Last week, a group of U.S. senators proved that politics (or, in this case, special interest) makes strange bedfellows. This Tequila troupe of piñata politicos, led by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), created an immigration bill unlike any seen before. This dynamic duo, however, was not without assistance, as Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) were more than happy to hold the pencil as an eraser was taken to the border.

For a number of weeks Senators and White House officials had been working behind closed doors to draft a comprehensive immigration reform package that would protect America's bleeding border while simultaneously dealing with the 12 million-plus illegal immigrants already in the nation. The result? A Corona Compromise.
Despite the preemptive proclamations by Sen. Specter that the Senate bill "is not amnesty," the devil is in the details of this legislation, and it is clear that while the amnesty may not be de jure, it is clearly de facto.

Just what exactly does the bill do? Well, it immediately legalizes the 12 million immigrants who evaded the U.S. Border Patrol and broke into the country. Rather than facing deportation, these immigrants now face open arms and a "Z visa." Put simply, this bill not only allows illegals to stay in the country; it makes Uncle Sam roll out the red carpet of citizenship for them.

Under the bill, the path to citizenship, starting with a Z visa, will be an 8-13 year journey. During that journey, only the head of household will have to return the native country, briefly, to file papers and obtain citizenship. And to quell any fears, the right to re-entry back into America is guaranteed.

While the Gang of 12 argues that the denial of instant citizenship is proof that the deal is not amnesty, such an argument is as hollow as Nicole Richie, because even though the illegal immigrant may not be technically a citizen, he will be treated like one. Just look at the details hidden within the Z visa program.

A Z visa is available only for an illegal alien, and, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the probationary benefits include work authorization, protection from removal, and a Social Security number. These benefits are granted immediately and are subject only to the submission of an application (with fingerprints) and a 24-hour wait on a background check.

And what about the border security concerns (i.e., triggers) the Gang of 12 argue must be realized before the humanitarian elements of the bill kick in? The Z visa probationary benefits are not subject to such triggers and begin as soon as the bill is signed by President Bush -border security be damned.

Another interesting tidbit is that the illegal immigrant who "comes out of the shadows" does not have to become a U.S. citizen. A Z visa is valid for four years and can be renewed indefinitely. An applicant for a Z visa need not understand English but merely demonstrate "an attempt to gain an understanding of the English language" upon renewal of the visa.

Translation: Those Mexican immigrants that broke into America out of love of currency rather than love of country will be permitted to stay indefinitely. Their wallets will be filled with money while their hearts are retained by Mexico.

Make no mistake, this bill is de facto amnesty and will create a tsunami of immigrants that will crash upon America's shores. If a person can break into this nation and obtain citizenship without significant repercussion, what does that say to the rest of the world?

It says America does not value citizenship; it values cheap labor. It does not value a sense of national pride; it values the Wall Street bottom line. It says we granted amnesty twice, and we will be sure to do it again. It says America is on the road to becoming a third-world nation that will be unrecognizable in the next 50 years.
This immigration bill is a watershed moment for America, as it will determine whether she retains her status as a great nation or becomes the "polyglot boarding house" feared by Teddy Roosevelt. The face of America is changing and the white population that used to claim the majority mantle is no longer reproducing-it is no longer sustaining the population.

Rather, third-world people of different races are coming to America in droves, and unlike the Germans, Irish and Italians that came before them, these people are not assimilating into the culture. They are holding onto the apron strings of the Motherland and establishing cultural barrios in the hearts of American cities.
If this immigration deal passes and 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants are thrust into the U.S. population, the character of America will be under siege. America will no longer be one people united by a common history, language, culture, literature and history. She will become a people whose only common denominator is the almighty dollar. And as Texas taught Mexico a century or so ago, a country needs more than currency to command loyalty.

"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities," Roosevelt told the Knights of Columbus. This is what the immigration debate is all about.

It is clear that the American people do not want this Corona Compromise jammed down their throats, as a Rasmussen poll showed only 26 percent of voters favor the proposal. Sensing the storm clouds over the horizon, President Bush, so desperate for a legacy that he would turn over our borders to Mexico City, has dispatch Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to quell dissent.

"If they don't leave, then you are going to give them silent amnesty. You're either going to let them stay or you're going to be hypocritical," Chertoff said. Translation: Chertoff will not do his job. Such an understanding was further realized when Chertoff proclaimed that the deportations sought after by some Congressmen were "not going to happen."

Enough is enough. This Administration, while more than willing to secure the borders of a desert nation who wants neither our presence nor our aid, has told America that it has no intention of filling the gaps in America's borders. Such an act is criminal.


©The Evening Bulletin 2007



113 comments:

  1. Whether its illegals here or venezeulan students, once the help gets ideas of its own, its harmful to government efficiency.

    Its hard enough creating consensus without the public getting involved.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm wondering: can local towns publicize animal control euthanizing procedures? For troublesome animals, it may be a way to drum up community spirit on both sides of the issue. It will no doubt bring in new people to the Ward and get our local culture noticed and patronaged.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a good week coming up to hit on your congressfolks. They ought to be hanging around the district somewhere, hit up their local headquarters nearest you. Letter to the editor can't do any harm. Ask them to respond to the tough questions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wonder if I can sell Pre-Z-Visas that they can use when they file for the real thing? It will just have whatever info they want on it but I'll just have to absorb the printing costs and the rest is gravy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Aldie says:
    Z jokes on you Senor!
    Z is a ticket to the "Humane" Shelter.
    Don't be late!

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Awakening: The Real 'Surge' In Iraq

    At WRKO’s Pundit Review Radio, Michael Yon spoke on The Awakening from Hit, Iraq.

    Led by Sheikh Abd al-Sattar from Ramadi, The Awakening is the national anti-al-Qaeda grassroots movement that sprang from the Anbar Salvation Council.
    Its significance for Iraq and Iraqis going forward is difficult to overstate. In the interview, Yon observed:

    A new day is dawning and it looks like a real chance for some kind of success here in Iraq and I can tell you my spirits are substantially lifted just over the period of the last couple of months. I see 2007 is going to be a serious year for progress.

    In Diyala province, now essentially al-Qaeda in Iraq’s corporate headquarters having lost the initiative in Anbar, local tribal leaders have publicly announced the existence of the Diyala Salvation Council.
    - Steve
    http://threatswatch.org/
    ---
    Maybe we'll succeed in Iraq while we give the Homeland to Mexico.
    Michael Jerkoff and King Whorehe.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not sure where we could put a punitive work camp, be it in the budget or on the land.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The world is watching our southern border, as long as they realize that it's open.

    When we pass a bill that gives people the impression that there are new benefits to be had in the United States, and that's the Senate bill, you will have a stampede for the U.S. border that will overwhelm our border forces."

    -- Duncan Hunter

    ReplyDelete
  9. Is that contingency a provision in the bill? They should warn our leaders that we'll soon have even more spare capacity to pick up the slack for America's increasing laziness.

    Really wish they'd impeach him, but they won't cuz he's with the left on this.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I picked up quite a few Idears at that Dachau link Deuce gave us.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The American People will need to not only match Bush's Poker Hand of Compassion but also raise it!

    Ask not what the INS can do for you, ask what you can do when an Illegal rear-ends you? Take his hastily written check on good-faith. He is a new super-citizen of North America and does not understand your Legalistic USA ways.

    ReplyDelete
  12. King Whorehe Memorial Concentration Camp.
    We Focus Minds.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. America is like Rabbinal Judaism prior to Christ: excessively legalistic.

    It will take a Mexican Christ, composed of 20 million little pieces, to save us from our pharisees and to teach us to love one another.

    What else will we have when living standards are innovated to levels unseen in America in a century?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Take the check, let him rear end your wife to show your gratitude and appreciation for your new neighbor's new "legal status."

    ReplyDelete
  16. They're dreamers those undocumenteds are. It'll take awhile for us to catch up with their curve. W must be ready to teach us by the cattle-car load.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Isn't the fact that they Drink Coca Cola more than enough proof of their patriotism and love of our culture and it's values?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask not what you can do for your country, ask what you and your country can do for others.

    Nite

    ReplyDelete
  19. It's sufficient for Coca-Cola and probably the administrators at the USO.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yep, good people Doug, not a beer can in sight.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The new arrivals will have high paying jobs doing things US Citizens CANNOT Do.
    Such as seeing Images of Mary burned into Manhole Covers.
    ...only farmers in Idearho can come close to matching that.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Uh oh, Bobal's destined for the Chertoff express: "other" is not used in that way in North America, unless you are a properly certified 501c.

    ReplyDelete
  23. We'll just have Sheriff Joe "Forget" a few trainloads each week on sidings in the AZ Desert.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I know if I was a manager, I would love to avoid US citizens and just work through a more classic developing-world model where I tell a strong-man what to do and he gets the half-citizens to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. They need to remake Lord of the Rings and make Frodo an Illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Fellowship in a complicated legal and tax environment.

    Only trained bureaucrats can truly divine the terrain. Our Secular Mystics. Serve eerily similar historical functions with issues like this. You wouldn't think its mysticism given that they don't speak in tongues or meditate, but don't be fooled.

    ReplyDelete
  27. With legal status, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  28. He'll be granted it cuz he's doing work the rest of middle earth cannot do. So said George Bush the Gray.

    ReplyDelete
  29. DC Speak is damned near speaking in tongues.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm sure their are academic definitions for mysticism and speaking in tongues etc that would describe political "discourse" or whatever the cool name is

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Your family's Security is assured.
    This new law has "triggers" that must be pulled before these hard working patriots can begin the long, arduous, and expensive "road to citizenship."
    Honest
    "

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Build a 12 foot fence,
    they'll "procure" a 13 foot ladder.
    "

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Build 2 12 foot fences,
    they'll steal a GD 13 foot tall bridge.
    Don't mess with these people's drive to become citizens.
    "

    ReplyDelete
  34. "These people just come here to work.
    We'll have to force them to take food stamps and free medical care and college tuition.
    "

    ReplyDelete
  35. Imagine that..President Ike Eisenhower had an immigration problem too!

    Operation Wetback

    No I didn't make up the name. People weren't so PC back in the day....

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'll have to check that out.
    Fund said border crossings went from near a million to 50k in no time.
    Ike was such a dunce.
    As was RR.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Gosh, I thought I was having paranoid delusions, but maybe not:

    " "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."

    ReplyDelete
  38. "Eisenhower became increasingly concerned that profits from illegal labor led to corruption."
    ---
    Paranoid Right Wing Freakazoid.

    ReplyDelete
  39. There's no way we could deport all these people, or deal with them in any way w/o granting them legal status.
    ---
    " Around 488,000 people fled the country for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimates that 500,000-700,000 illegals had left Texas voluntarily. "

    ReplyDelete
  40. Help me, for I suffer Hysteria, and I don't suffer it well!
    ---
    Seneca the Younger said...
    Doug, with all due respect, get your own goddamn blog; then you can put whatever you like at the top.

    The notion that this is the "single most important" issue to come up this session is hysteria.
    Put out the fire in your own hair before you complain about your neighbors.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Gosh,
    If Seneca the Younger says so, it must be so.

    ReplyDelete
  42. And so the good citizens marched their children to the ovens.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  44. It's what your Daddy and all our heroic ancestors fought for.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I didn't know Seneca was French, but then, what do I know?

    ReplyDelete
  46. The fundamentals are unchanged. There is a big earnings gap between the United States and Mexico or other poor countries.

    The cost of migrating continues to drop, despite increased border patrols, because of network effects and easier communication. And despite a few well-publicized raids, there is little punishment for hiring illegal workers.

    The bill does little to change these fundamentals. Don't expect it to do much to change the outcome.


    An Echo from the 80's

    ReplyDelete
  47. Profiling is a Capital Offense.
    Do not Profile!
    Your Country Must Die!
    ---
    "They adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on the street and asking for identification.

    This practice incited and angered many U.S. citizens who were of Mexican American descent. Opponents in both the United States and Mexico complained of "police-state" methods, and Operation Wetback was abandoned.
    "
    PBS Wiki link.
    ---
    If people are incited, or angered, you must give them what they want.
    Fair's Fair.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Sam,
    All it does is legalize them upfront, with promises to enforce later.
    Samo Samo, but new bennies, the better to give the country away.

    Faster, Please!

    ReplyDelete
  49. "How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico" ,
    John Dillin - Christian Science Monitor
    ---
    Mr. Coppock says he "cannot understand why [President] Bush let [today's] problem get away from him as it has. I guess it was his compassionate conservatism, and trying to please [Mexican President] Vincente Fox."

    There are now said to be 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. Of the Mexicans who live here, an estimated 85 percent are here illegally.

    ReplyDelete
  50. The American public cannot afford the immigration bill. We want the border fence finished from one end to the other.

    We want armed National Guard troops guarding the border along with our Border Patrol agents. We want drug dealers shot if they try to cross the border.

    We want the illegals rounded up and sent back to their countries of origin as soon as possible.


    The Borders

    ReplyDelete
  51. I need a social "Safety Net"
    ---
    My burned hairs are gittin in the Tuna Salad.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Mmmm,
    Tuna and burned hairs.
    Reminds me of the time...

    ReplyDelete
  53. Every year, Americans hear repeated promises from Washington, D.C., of real immigration reform. This drumbeat of empty rhetoric invariably includes pledges of better border security and a guarantee that the millions of illegal aliens already living in our country will be punished.

    ...

    Americans have also asked, first and foremost, for border security. We can't fix the problems inside our borders until we fix the problems on our borders.

    ...

    The legislation does nothing to hold employers accountable for hiring illegal aliens. Providing such accountability could be done with a twofold process that punishes employers for knowingly disobeying the law, while also providing them with the tools needed to verify that the documents of the workers they are hiring are authentic.


    Fails on All Counts

    ReplyDelete
  54. Never got this when entering the bar before:
    Bandwidth Error

    - The page you requested no longer exists or is temporarily unavailable.
    We apologize for this inconvenience. Please visit the BlueDomino homepage or use the links on this page to find the information you need.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Out of WHAT Shadow?
    George Will
    ---
    It would provide legal status to most of the illegal immigrants who were here before this past Jan. 1.
    The government, however, has no cognizance of those who are here illegally.
    They have proved by their presence here that they have limited regard for U.S. legal niceties.
    So, what is to prevent those who have arrived since Jan. 1, and those who will continue to arrive by the millions, while—"while" means years—the border is supposedly being secured, from fibbing about when they arrived?

    This legislation is, as any "comprehensive" solution to the interlocking problems that are called "the" problem of immigration is bound to be, baroque.
    ---
    "Protecting one form of lawbreaking may require protecting others as well. The city of Maywood in Los Angeles County declared itself a sanctuary zone for illegal aliens this year. Then it got rid of its drunk-driving checkpoints, because they were nabbing too many illegal aliens. Next, this 96 percent Latino city, almost half of whose adult population lacks a ninth-grade education, disbanded its police traffic division entirely, so that illegals wouldn't need to worry about having their cars towed for being unlicensed."
    ---
    The White House fact sheet said, earnestly but ungrammatically, that under the legislation, "The undocumented worker comes out of the shadows to acknowledge they [sic] have broken the law."

    This rhetoric reached comic absurdity when CNN interviewed Chuy Arias of Los Angeles. He said on camera that he has been here illegally for 12 years. Referring to him, with the delicacy that serves a political agenda, as an "undocumented worker," today's synonym for "illegal immigrant," CNN's reporter said Arias was eager to "come out of the shadows."

    So, Arias can simultaneously be "in the shadows" and discussing his illegal status on worldwide television. Who knew?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Still Looking for a Laugh

    Mel Brooks talk about everything from his musical of 'Young Frankenstein' to David Hasselhoff to smoking in the movies.

    It Was 40 Years Ago Today

    We asked readers for their then-and-now portraits from the Summer of Love and today—and they sent them. Far out

    ReplyDelete
  57. Bush the Neoliberal
    By Richard Cohen

    Another pundit that sees reality, and is taken aback by it.

    Does not fit the profiled stereotype image, manufactured by Mr Rove, of Mr Bush.

    A lot like Dorthy, Toto and the man behind the curtain.

    It is funny to see, that what Wretchard and the Iby Leaguers were so afraid would happen to US, in victory, Mr Cohen observes happening to US, in defeat.

    "... The debacle of Iraq has cost us -- and others -- plenty in lives. But in the end, it will cost us our soul as well. "

    doug, with all due respect, it was twenty years ago, today, that Sgt Pepper taught the band to play, not forty.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Those Anbar tribal leaders and their current status, just another point of proof of US policy failure in Iraq, since the invasion.

    Those tribes are part of the Iraqi past, not it's future, so spoke L Paul Bremmer, back in '03.

    We could have cultivated the tribal leaders from the get go, but they were the ENEMY of progress and US, then.

    Now they are the "future hope"

    We're so lost, we're found grasping at straws, that by their very existance display US failures.

    ReplyDelete
  59. An Enemy of my Enema is about all there is left to try.

    ReplyDelete
  60. That would be my friend, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  61. In Iraq we have an Army, whose General tells US cannot win, while in the US, the President tells US that the Immigration and Labor Laws cannot be enforced.

    Every thing is just "To Hard" for our current Government to accomplish.

    So change the goals and declare victory, Mr Bush will do it on the border, why not in Iraq?

    In my state, of AZ, the situation on the border is much more dangerous to the security of the Republic than the border bandit bombers of Basra.

    Truth be known

    ReplyDelete
  62. Our Future Hope is taking a big Dump.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Well, things that were easily done in 1954 just cannot be done anymore.

    Might incite and anger some folks, ya know.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "Eisenhower became increasingly concerned that profits from illegal labor led to corruption."
    ---
    Compassionate Globalist George with his Harvard MBA could teach Ike a thing or two about profits.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Hey where's Trish "Psycho" Trash and Asshole "Moonbeam" Ash?

    They must be down at the border pre positioning water jugs in the Arizona desert and handing out maps to the illegals.

    Or they're busy tromping through the countryside graveyards ripping the flags and flowers from the graves of the fallen soldiers.

    One other possibility is that they are in morning the withdrawl of Cindy Sheehan from active anti-war work.

    It's already 9:40 and I haven't heard the foul mouth of Trish"Psycho"Trash yell "shit" yet.

    No doubt both are angry over the history of Operation Wetback

    ReplyDelete
  66. Speaking of Operation Wetback

    I think the most telling aspect of that operation was shown to be that if you begin a serious effort of rounding up illegals a far greater number than you actually arrest flee the country.

    That is securing the border with a wall, a 300 foot wide swath of cleared and mined land and towers armed with infrared guided SAW's is a first priority. Once out we keep 'em out..

    Oh, and if Mexico raises a stink and says thinks like "war like measures employed" we just ignore their asses. Pass the ammo.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I do find it interesting that JD Haywurth's loss in November is laid at the door of his immigration stance, not the fact that JD was percieved as an arrogant asshole.

    A 20/30 clubber, par excellance.
    My brother has a picture of JD "kissin' the baby", well now the kid's pushin' 20.

    Spin that top.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected?

    "I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

    So said Abe Lincoln to the Young Men's Lyceum in Springfield. Observing the Senate last week, and looking over the latest figures from the Census Bureau, America is now risking national suicide.



    Last week, senators meeting in secret produced a bill to legalize our 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. If a path to citizenship becomes law, nothing will stop the next invasion. As President Bush acknowledges, 6 million tried to breach our Southern border in his first five years. One in 12 -- 500,000 -- had a criminal record.

    According to the Census Bureau, from mid-2005 to mid-2006, the U.S. minority population rose 2.4 million, to exceed 100 million. Hispanics, 1 percent of the population in 1950, are now 14.4 percent. Their total number has soared 25 percent since 2000 alone. The Asian population has also grown by 25 percent since 2000.

    The number of white kids of school age fell 4 percent, however. Half the children 5 and younger in the United States are now minorities.

    What is happening to us? An immigrant invasion of the United States from the Third World, as America's white majority is no longer even reproducing itself. Since Roe v. Wade, America has aborted 45 million of her children. And Asia, Africa and Latin America have sent 45 million of their children to inherit the estate the aborted American children never saw. God is not mocked.

    And white America is in flight.

    In the 1990s, for the first time since the Spanish came, whites left California. Two million departed. From July 1, 2005, to July 1, 2006, 100,000 more packed up and headed back whence their fathers came. The "Anglo" population of the Golden State is down to 43 percent and falling fast. White folks are now a minority in Texas and New Mexico. In Arizona, Hispanics account for over half the population under 20.

    The future is not in doubt. Why ought this be of concern?

    First, while the black and Hispanic population combined is now 85 million -- five times what it was in 1960 -- half of all black and Hispanic kids drop out of high school. And the average math and reading scores of the half who graduate are at seventh-, eighth- or ninth-grade levels.

    And the future is not so sanguine as it seemed 50 years ago. As I write in "State of Emergency":

    "In 1960, 18 million black Americans, 10 percent of the nation, were not fully integrated into society, but they had been assimilated into our culture. They worshiped the same God, spoke the same language, had endured the same Depression and war, watched the same TV shows on the same four channels, laughed at the same comedians, went to the same movies, ate the same foods, read the same newspapers and went to schools where, even when segregated, we learned the same history and literature and shared the same holidays: Christmas, New Year's, Washington's Birthday, Easter, Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day, Columbus Day. Segregation existed, but black folks were as American as apple pie, having lived in this land longer than almost every other group save the Native Americans.
    "That cultural unity, that sense that we were one people, is gone."

    Today's immigrants exceed in number anything any nation has ever known. They now come from cultures and countries whose people have never before been assimilated by any First World country. Not only is the Melting Pot broken, it is rejected by our elites. Minorities are urged to hold onto their own language, customs, traditions. Identity politics is in. And the largest cohort, Mexicans, comes from a country with a historic grievance and a claim on the territory they are entering.

    Moreover, since the cultural revolution of the 1960s, we have been fighting one another over issues of race and ethnicity, history, heroes and holidays, morality and religion, right and wrong.

    All over the Western world, multiethnic, multicultural countries are coming apart over language, ethnicity, history. The Soviet Union broke into 15 nations, Yugoslavia into half a dozen. Czechs and Slovaks divorced. Scots want separation from England. Catalans and Basques seek independence. Corsicans and Bretons want out of France. Northern Italians want to secede. Only immigrants who prefer Ottawa prevent Quebecois from breaking free of Canada.

    As we see from the election battles in Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Mexico, race and ethnicity are not receding as issues, but rising. In South Central Los Angeles, black and Hispanic gangs are at war over race and turf.

    Addressing the Knights of Columbus in 1915, Theodore Roosevelt warned, "The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."

    In every way possible, Americans have said they do not want to take this risk with their country. Why then are our elites taking it?

    ReplyDelete
  69. I'm still hanging about Habu reading the banter and witnessing your meltdown. It seems you get yourself all caught up muttering irrational things and your blood pressure rises as you flail about with nothing rational to say so all you can do is hurl invective.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Today's immigrants exceed in number anything any nation has ever known. They now come from cultures and countries whose people have never before been assimilated by any First World country. Not only is the Melting Pot broken, it is rejected by our elites. Minorities are urged to hold onto their own language, customs, traditions. Identity politics is in. And the largest cohort, Mexicans, comes from a country with a historic grievance and a claim on the territory they are entering.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Some would say it is due to their illumination, habu.

    One Worlders, pursuing a New World Order.

    Internationalists not nationalists.

    Nationalism is a dirty word.

    We are the world.

    ReplyDelete
  72. hey Asshole why aren't you churning out some incorrect leftest propangnda?

    Let me help this is always a big one with the pinkos..

    Bush did it for the oil. Kill our soldiers for the oil.Oil,Oil,Oil

    There ya go..

    Or you could say stuff like "We unilaterally went into Iraq, or any number of other Rosie "Comspiracy" O'Donnell themes.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Here's some New World Order thoughts.

    A federal program, Ronald Reagan used to say, is the closest thing to eternal life here on earth. Even the Gipper conceded he failed to get control of the federal behemoth.

    At least he tried. But what can be said for the conservative movement today, as one witnesses the Wall Street Journal battle to save the $400,000-a-year tax-free sinecure of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, imperiled because Wolfie parked his World Bank squeeze over at State at a fatter salary than Condi Rice's?

    There was a time when the Republican Party would have seized on this scandal to try to defund this 63-year-old relic. No more.

    Yet, what is the purpose of keeping the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, the United Nations and its agencies, and NATO, all of which date to an era long gone?

    The World Bank and IMF were created when the United States was the greatest creditor on earth. The bank was to lend for the reconstruction and development of Europe and Asia. The IMF was to provide loans to help members with balance of payments problems.
    When Europe and Asia recovered, the need for the World Bank came to an end. By 1971, when the United States closed the gold window and let the dollar float, the need for an IMF to maintain fixed rates of exchange, in a world of floating rates, disappeared.

    Yet both institutions reinvented themselves as lenders of last resort to bankrupt Third World regimes, and Republican presidents and a Republican Congress went along. Why?
    Why should the United States, now the world's largest debtor nation, go out into the capital markets and borrow billions, so the World Bank and IMF can continue to subsidize the most corrupt and least competent regimes on earth? Does this make sense?

    Between them, the Japanese and Chinese have amassed $2 trillion -- two thousand billion dollars -- in reserves. Why not turn the IMF and World Bank playpens over to them?
    Though the soft-loan window of the World Bank, the Institutional Development Fund, was created to help "the poorest of the poor," 8,000 of the 10,000 World Bank employees live and work in the Washington area, where "World Bank neighborhood" is a realtor's way of saying, "You can't afford it."

    The United Nations is another case in point. American kids were once taught that it was the "last best hope of Earth." Now, the thing is a source of comic relief. Last year, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was bested for top honors in the elocution contest when Hugo Chavez had the General Assembly in foot-stomping hilarity with his remarks about having been preceded on the podium by "El Diablo," the Devil -- George Bush -- who had left the stench of sulfur from hell.

    This weekend, we learned the chairmanship of the U.N. Committee on Sustainable Development will be going to Zimbabwe, "Comrade Bob" Mugabe's African paradise. Four years ago, Khadafi's Libya, which was behind the air massacre of our college kids on Pan Am 103, was elected to chair the U.N. Human Rights Commission.

    Ought not a self-respecting nation, as we once were, laugh at these antics, get up, pay our share of the tab, walk out and let the nutballs have the asylum? What is the matter with us?
    As for NATO, it was indeed the most successful alliance in history. The United States and its partners stood guard on the Elbe until the Cold War came to an end. But what is the need for a NATO to defend Europe against the Soviet Empire and Soviet Union, when both ceased to exist more than 15 years ago?

    When the Red Army went home from East Berlin, East Germany, Eastern Europe, the Baltic states and Ukraine, why did we not also come home? Forty-six years ago, Ike urged JFK to start bringing U.S. troops home, lest Europe become dependent upon us. Now, instead of ceding NATO to the Europeans and pulling out, we have moved NATO onto Russia's front porch and driven Moscow into the arms of Beijing.

    Why, when the defense of Europe is done, cannot we celebrate with champagne, close up shop and go home? Why can we never let go? Why must we retain all these relics at immense cost to American taxpayers?

    In the IMF, World Bank and United Nations, we are talking about scores of thousands of the highest-paid government bureaucrats around. The money we could save by ceding NATO to Europe, bringing the troops home, letting Europe pay for its own defense and using the funds saved to rebuild our armed forces would be immense.

    At least Ronald Reagan said goodbye to a corrupt UNESCO, walked out, and killed the U.N. power grab of the world's oceans and their resources by refusing even to consider the Law of the Sea Treaty.

    And President Bush? He has rejoined UNESCO, started paying dues again and, says WorldNetDaily, is about to push to have Congress bring the United States under the Law of the Sea Treaty.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I have to go take a Ash-Trish. So with the latest issue of "Guns and Ammo" in hand, I'll be back..

    In the meantime Ash why don't you find the bus schedule and plan that step-off-the-curb move.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Mentioned that Law of the Sea deal a few weeks back.

    Can't stop progress.

    Vote Republican Values
    Vote Foley.

    Mr Bush says he cannot enforce US Law.
    It is beyond him and US.

    But sign on to new International Accords, give him a pen.

    ReplyDelete
  76. still look'in for "Guns and Ammo"

    In the interim this is choice.

    Foundations of Betrayal

    DiscvoertheNetworks.org is a wonderful tool, constantly updated, that sheds a needed spotlight on the organized wealthy leftist foundations and others who are the funders, and what they are funding. The Bible teaches readers to be discerning: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” DiscovertheNetworks.org is an effective “fruit inspector”: It shows who this enemy is and what they are doing to undermine American values and sovereignty

    The main finding in Foundations of Betrayal is that wealth indeed controls the culture. And many big super-rich foundations have used their wealth to change America’s culture to one of big government, multiculturalism and a “if it feels good, do it” permissive cultural philosophy. Examples abound in the book, from foundations that push an internationalist agenda at the expense of American sovereignty to “charitable” groups that fund a radical environmental and open borders strategy. There is particular foundation abuse allowed by a more lenient IRS in recent years, in terms of acquiescing to blatant partisan lobbying and outright dishonesty.

    How did private, tax-exempt foundations end up becoming political when they were created for charitable purposes? How come they gravitate toward the Left? Name for us some of the most destructive foundations. What destruction do they perpetrate?

    Ford. Carnegie. Pew. MacArthur. The names go on of these corporate titans.



    Many of the founders of America’s private tax exempt foundations would be horrified and angry if they had lived to see how their original donor intent was changed by their heirs and successors to a left-wing, anti-free enterprise agenda.



    Modern liberalism effectively infiltrated the media and educational system in recent decades. Why should we be surprised that liberals would worm their way into positions on foundation staffs and boards?



    Foundations of Betrayal documents how extensive and how anti-capitalist and anti-American their agendas have become. My new book names the Ford Foundation as perhaps the largest and most radical of these entities, with in-depth emphasis on its early funding of blatantly pro-Communist groups to its recent funding of radical Islamic groups and even support for suicide bombers. The American Civil Liberties Union, of all groups, even recently rejected Ford money because of links to terrorism. Billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute is “No. 2 and trying harder” and the book extensively documents the radical activities of Rockefeller, Carnegie Pew, Hewlett, Bullitt, MacArthur, Cummings, Heinz, Turner and a host of other foundations. I underscore that their massive funding of climate change propaganda, in particular, is a vehicle by these elites to saddle the American people with a billion-dollar United Nations bureaucracy to control our economy and bring it down to the level of others around the world.

    Give us your interpretation of the psychological mindset here of the superrich liberal. He benefits from American freedom and prosperity and becomes wealthy from it. Yet then acts to destroy it. Is it a death wish or what? A guilt complex?



    Kent: The psychological mindset of all too many of these super-rich liberals is an incredible sight to behold. Many of the presidents and board members of these foundations are self-hating -- typified by the quote of a third-generation Rockefeller, Laura Chasin Rockefeller. She actually said: “It’s hard to get rid of the money in a way that does more good than harm. One of the ways is to subsidize people who are trying to change the system and get rid of people like us.”



    Others like Soros actually hate what the United States stands for and seek to fund anti-American organizations. I quote Soros saying that the “main obstacle to a just and stable world is the United States.” Other heads of foundations and their key staffers are starry-eyed socialists and/or one-world government types. That is their mindset. And the current president of the Ford Foundation thinks we need to “understand” radical Islam, as opposed to fighting those Islamists who want to kill any Westerner they can.



    FP: Is there a shadow government in America?



    Kent: Foundations of Betrayal is crystal clear with the evidence: this mind-boggling left-wing army of super-rich foundations, controlled by a basically amoral elite, are truly an “invisible government.” They control politicians and ignore court decisions while faithfully plodding along with their agendas. They are even extending control, as the book documents, over people of religious faith. The National Association of Evangelicals, which receives grants from the Hewlett Foundation, represents millions of people. Yet a big feature of the NAE’s work now is the promotion of Al Gore-style “creation care.” Incredible.



    FP: Foundations of Betrayal reveals that a lot of the behavior of these foundations is actually even criminal. Tell us about some of the criminality that is involved here and why there is only silence surrounding this issue. How come nobody gets prosecuted?



    Kent: There is indeed criminality and silence surrounding some of the big foundations and groups they fund. For example, public charities follow the so-called “20-and-5” lobbying rule: Spend no more than 20 percent of the organization’s annual revenue for direct lobbying with legislators, and spend no more than 5 percent for grassroots lobbying where the group urges others to influence legislators. Groups are subject to an excise tax if they violate that, and can and should lose their tax-exempt status if they exceed the permitted amounts by more than 50 percent over a four-year period. Furthermore, the attorneys general of all 50 states can do a lot more with regard to criminal oversight of foundations operating within their jurisdictions. In my book I cite several states that have cracked down, including Michigan’s attorney general Mike Cox. His office is currently probing the radical Ford Foundation for, among other things, illegal lobbying, potential conflicts of interests involving trustees and ignoring donor intent.



    FP: What can citizens do to get these foundations to stop what they are doing? Is there a way to actually reform a foundation? What can some Congressional controls do?



    Kent: Citizens can use the power of their influence— from contacting their members of Congress to speaking out on their local talk radio program or in letters to the editor of their local newspaper— to put pressure on Congress to develop a backbone and exercise meaningful oversight over foundations, especially ones that have been awarding grants to terrorist-linked groups. Indeed, all Americans ought to be asking: Why shouldn’t Congress insist that these incorporated endowments pay full corporate taxes and end political activities? If they are to be tax-free, shouldn’t they be responsible to a public whose taxes carry the load they are shirking? I conclude in Foundations of Betrayal that it may be best for Congress to pass strict, narrowly tailored reform legislation that would just make the Internal Revenue Service a far more vigorous and effective policeman of abuses, which overwhelmingly occur on the left.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I see Habu, you are asserting that Americans are sheep and can't think for themselves right?

    ReplyDelete
  78. can anyone confirm the rumor that Psycho Trish is forming a new organization to replace Sheehan's departure?

    Conveying
    Untruths
    Not
    Truths
    Sisters

    just ask'n..it would be a perfect fit.

    ReplyDelete
  79. BTW.. a very nice Psycho Trish Ash dump....dinner on the way Ash..just call it Tofu

    ReplyDelete
  80. Ash....we found your themesong

    Dancing Queen

    Revel in it honey.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I thought Congress was not in session this week but I quess it is. Call those representatives, folks. This is my day to go hold my sign on 21st Street. Stop by your Congressional office in your district. Later.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Cindy Sheehan, the “peace mom” who made headlines in 2005 by staging a marathon protest outside President Bush’s Crawford, Texas, ranch, said Monday that she no longer wants to be seen as a leader of the anti-war movement.

    In a 1,245-word missive entitled “Goodbye Attention Whore” posted on the liberal DailyKos blog, Sheehan said her campaign to end the war in Iraq had strained her relationship with her children, cost her a marriage and left her nearly penniless.

    “This is my resignation letter as the ‘face’ of the American anti-war movement,” Sheehan wrote. “I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost.”


    “I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a ‘tool’ of the Democratic Party.” Sheehan wrote. “However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the ‘left’ started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used.”


    Too F'in bad bitch ..Trish move in quick the bodies not even cold yet.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Psycho Trish .. themesong lyrics for your new organization....

    If you're down in Acuna and you ain't up to being alone
    don't spend all your money on just any honey that's grown.
    Go find the Mexican blackbird and send all your troubles back home.

    They all call her her "puta" 'cause no one really knows her name.
    She works the cantina, dancin' and a-lovin's her trade.
    Her mama was Mez'can and her daddy was the ace of spades.

    Oh, let's drive that old Chrysler down to Mexico, boy.
    Said, keep your hands on the wheel there.
    Oh, it sure is fine, ain't it?
    Now, ya got it! Hand me another one of them brews from back there.
    Oh, this is gonna be so good.

    Mm, she's hot as a pepper but smooth as a Mexican brew.
    So head for the border and put in an order or two.
    The wings of the blackbird will spread like an eagle for you.

    Oh, one more time,
    can you roll me another Bull Durham, please?
    Can't you do it with one hand, boy?

    ReplyDelete
  84. "Don't worry, she only kills when she's crazy"

    ReplyDelete
  85. Asbergerwithcheese says;

    Is Trish's idol is Margo Kidder?..

    ReplyDelete
  86. America is like Rabbinal Judaism prior to Christ: excessively legalistic.


    In the old days, it was the Temple Cult establishment. Today, it's the established Republic itself. You swear loyalty to men with money, not to the legitimate will of a democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  87. If any of you missed Trish and Ash trashing Memorial Day just read yesterday's post and how the honored our fallen heros.

    ReplyDelete
  88. If any of you missed Trish and Ash trashing Memorial Day just read yesterday's post and how the honored our fallen heros

    ReplyDelete
  89. Discoverthenetworks.org

    allow it to load

    The Network

    ReplyDelete
  90. Ok the link is not working to the area of Discoverthenetworks.org that I wanted to display.

    However if you'll go to the site and fond the white botton on the righthand side of the page, use it, you'll get quite a show.

    Networks

    ReplyDelete
  91. Deuce,

    I'm click'n that counter buddy ..later gotta go out and wear my new INS T-shirt or Border Patrol T-shirt and see how many wetbacks take off runn'n.

    Picket some construction sites..probably have to go heeled & concealed

    ReplyDelete
  92. The Air Car:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4

    h/t: Buddy Larson

    ReplyDelete
  93. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Hey baby, Come and get your love

    Redbone

    Tighten Up baby

    Tighten Up

    ReplyDelete
  95. The aforementioned Stephen Cohen quote was cut off in a manner that I think didn't reflect fully what it said, but leaves much to debate:

    "Bush's neoliberal instincts have come a cropper across the board. His appointees have too often been incompetent, and his well-intentioned education act is underfunded. But it is with Iraq that real and long-term damage has been done. For years to come, his war will be cited to smother any liberal impulse in American foreign policy -- to further discredit John F. Kennedy's vow to "pay any price, bear any burden . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty." We shall revert to this thing called "realism," which is heartless and cynical, no matter what its other virtues. The debacle of Iraq has cost us -- and others -- plenty in lives. But in the end, it will cost us our soul as well."

    ReplyDelete
  96. ...which of course would lead into two debates. One over what the American foreign policy tradition actually is, and second, over if it actually matters in the face of the present and future.

    ReplyDelete
  97. And I guess, how much middle ground there is between the two positions.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Cutler,
    Thank God, I thought the Mothership had landed and snatched everybody..

    but their are responsible blogger being vigilant...

    did you try the Discoverthenetworks.org and the whit botton ..it really is cool ..from the diagram you can zap a head and it will change the diagram to reflect the chain in that organization...takes a minute to load but it is cool.

    ReplyDelete
  99. there,their,they're wear me out.

    This next song goes out to Psycho Trish and her lietmotif of hating our war dead.

    Relieve that tension Trish..

    Marvin Gaye

    ReplyDelete
  100. A good piece about debates in the "American Right" from the Opinion Journal, here.

    Excerpts:

    "On a variety of issues that currently divide the nation, those to the left of center seem to be converging, their ranks increasingly untroubled by debate or dissent, except on daily tactics and long-term strategy. Meanwhile, those to the right of center are engaged in an intense intra-party struggle to balance competing principles and goods.

    One source of the divisions evident today is the tension in modern conservatism between its commitment to individual liberty, and its lively appreciation of the need to preserve the beliefs, practices, associations and institutions that form citizens capable of preserving liberty. The conservative reflex to resist change must often be overcome, because prudent change is necessary to defend liberty. Yet the tension within often compels conservatives to wrestle with the consequences of change more fully than progressives--for whom change itself is often seen as good, and change that contributes to the equalization of social conditions as a very important good.

    ...

    In contrast to much European conservatism, which harks back to premodern times and the political preeminence of religion and royalty, in America--which lacked a feudal past to preserve or recover--conservatism has always revolved around the preservation of individual liberty. Of course modern conservatism generally admires virtues embodied in religious faith and the aristocratic devotion to excellence. It also tends to emphasize the weaknesses of human nature, the ironies and tragedies of history, and the limitations of reason and politics. At the same time, it wishes to put these virtues and this knowledge in liberty's service.

    Balancing the claims of liberty and tradition, or showing how liberty depends on tradition, is the very essence of modern conservatism, the founding text for which was provided by Whig orator and statesman Edmund Burke in his 1790 polemic, "Reflections on the Revolution in France." The divisions within contemporary American conservatism--social conservatives, libertarians, and neoconservatives--arise from differences over which goods most urgently need to be preserved, to what extent, and with what role for government."

    ReplyDelete
  101. Cutler,
    An very good piece. I have often wished that;

    "The conservative reflex to resist change must often be overcome, because prudent change is necessary to defend liberty.

    The pace of change is much quicker now. Last week the Republicans acknowledged that they were far behind the curve in utilizing the Internet for campaining. I thought ,"How pitiful", given that the one thing Howard Dean did do was prove the efficacy of the Internet in campaigns. Yet conservative lag behind after getting five or six years notice that this is the way, or a new way.

    Conservatives will also NOT take to the streets and get rowdy...they just can't do it, even in defense of what they believe in...that too is pathetic.

    Well, if this Illegal Immigration /Amnesty bill passes the conservatives worries will be over. The reason is a shopworn quote that the Library of Congress cannot even attribute to any one person.

    A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

    The amusing thing is this:
    The word democracy does not appear either in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. Instead, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

    Conservatives are not ,by and large , willing to stake their lives, their fortunes, or their sacred honor on the Republic...those days are gone. Nowdays they won't even hazard getting arrested in a protest march.

    I've got to reregister independent.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Trish and Ash approve of this no doubt.

    Police arrest 2 teens at parade
    Allegedly threw eggs at marchers
    By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff | May 29, 2007

    Standing ramrod straight in dress blues and crisp khakis, the seven color guard members lifted their rifles for one of the most solemn moments of any Memorial Day parade, the 21-gun salute. Hundreds who had gathered to witness the tribute watched in silence.

    Just then, the eggs came flying. One glanced off a tree branch, and landed far away from the marchers in yesterday's Memorial Day Parade in Rockland, said Ryan Durfee , a former Marine who was marching in the color guard. Another crashed 8 feet in front of the color guard.

    "Too close for comfort," Durfee said last night.

    After the throwing , Durfee said he saw two teens run from their backyard into their house, and two police officers chase after them.

    Rockland police said last night that they arrested two 13-year-olds and charged them with disorderly conduct and assault with a dangerous weapon, a felony.

    Rockland Police Chief John Llewellyn told FOX-25 TV that the culprits were a "couple of 13-year-olds that just wanted to cause some trouble and they picked the wrong time and the wrong group of people to do it to."

    Durfee said the color guard completed its 21-gun salute despite the disturbance. But last night at the Rockland Veterans of Foreign Wars center , emotions were still raw, said Steven MacDonald , the post commander.

    "It's very discouraging, especially on a day like today," MacDonald said. "We don't need somebody throwing eggs at us. That's crazy. It's unacceptable."

    MacDonald said several veterans are planning plan to show up at Hingham District Court today to demonstrate their disgust as the two teens are arraigned in the juvenile session.

    ReplyDelete
  103. The 4th of July is coming up. Think we could get Trish and family, fully masked like banditos to burn an American flag, You Tube it and send us a copy?
    Odds?
    2:1
    3:1
    4:1
    When interviewed she said, "It just got too close to the grill, we were using it as a tablecloth and it just caught fire"

    ReplyDelete
  104. A War of Words
    By Thomas Sowell

    It has long been recognized that those on the political left are more articulate than their opponents. The words they choose for the things they are for or against make it easy to decide whether to be for or against those things.

    Are you for or against "social justice"? A no-brainer. Who is going to be for injustice?

    What about "a living wage"? Who wants people not to have enough money to live on?

    Then there is "affordable housing" and "affordable health care." Who would want people to be unable to afford to put a roof over their heads or unable to go to a doctor when they are sick?

    In real life, the devil is in the details. But the whole point of political rhetoric is to make it unnecessary for you to have to go into the specifics before taking sides.

    You don't need to know any economics to be in favor of "a living wage" or "affordable housing." In fact, the less economics you know, the more you can believe in such things.

    Conservatives, on the other hand, have a gift for phrasing things in terms that are unlikely to arouse most people's interest, much less their support.

    Do words like "property rights," "the market" or "judicial restraint" make your emotions surge and your heart beat faster?

    There are serious reasons to be greatly concerned about all these things. But you have to have a lot more facts and more understanding of history, economics, and law before you see why.

    An issue can be enormously important and well within most people's understanding. Yet the way words are used can determine whether people are aroused or bored.

    One of those issues is what legal scholars call "takings." There is a masterful book with that title by Professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School.

    But if you are in a bookstore and see a book with the title "Takings" on its cover, are you more likely to stop in your tracks and eagerly snatch it off the shelf or to yawn and keep walking?

    Takings are not a complex idea. But it needs explaining.

    Let's suppose you live in a $400,000 house.

    If, on a Wednesday afternoon, the government announces that it is planning to "redevelop" the area where your home is located -- that is, demolish the area so that something else can be built there -- by Thursday morning, your $400,000 house could become a $200,000 house.

    The market reacts very quickly in anticipation of future events.

    Several years later, when the government actually gets around to demolishing the area, they may offer you $200,000 for your property -- or perhaps $150,000, if they use an appraiser who knows that he is more likely to get more business from the government if his estimates are on the low side rather than the high side.

    In either case, you are out at least a couple of hundred grand. Has the government "taken" that much from you, without paying you the full compensation for your property, as required by the Constitution of the United States?

    Such theoretical questions were made vividly real, and people were vividly outraged, when the Supreme Court in 2005 declared that governments at all levels had the power to seize private property, not only for such government activities as building reservoirs or highways, but also for turning the property over to private developers to build shopping malls, casinos, or whatever.

    The Constitution says that government can take private property for "public use" if it compensates the owner. The Supreme Court changed that to mean that the government could take private property just to turn over to others, so long as they called it a "public purpose" like "redevelopment."

    Politicians are experts at rhetoric, especially if that is all that is needed to justify seizing your home and turning it over to someone else who will build something that pays more taxes.

    All hell broke out, once people now understood that the issue called "takings" was about politicians being able to seize their property, virtually at will, for someone else's benefit. But it was a liberal court decision, not the words of conservatives, which created that understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Question, are Americans required to get biometric cards (legal status employment verification cards) for employment same as ILLEGALS? will homeland security process them?

    ReplyDelete
  106. A not many days ago, we analyzed the 2010 day-dream baseball pitcher sleepers to sentinel in 2010. Today, we assess as a look at the more important side of the equation - invention baseball hitters sleepers.
    [url=http://www.green-horizon.org/index.php/member/67532/ ]Jack[/url]

    ReplyDelete