Wakey, wakey

Before the election I read that the EPA had ignored legal requirements on posting proposed regulations twice this year.  We still are getting the mushroom treatment on Fast & Furious &  Benghazi.  Just after the election, the UN arms control treaty was fast tracked & “the fiscal cliff” became a story again.  Boeing & a lot of other companies have announced lay-offs.  FYI, to escape ObamaCare via part-time workers, they have to work less than 30 hours a week.  A headline is, “The New 29 Hour Work Week?”  Not surprising, I see a lot of conservatives in shell-shock.  The funny thing is, I don’t see much liberal celebrating.  Gloating, back-patting, sure.  Not much happy celebrating, like they realize there is a storm coming.  I wonder what that could be?

(CNSNews.com) – It’s Friday morning, and so far today, the Obama administration has posted 165 new regulations and notifications on its reguations.gov website.

In the past 90 days, it has posted 6,125 regulations and notices – an average of 68 a day.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. I’ve seen plenty of gloating in our local paper. The name calling still has not stopped. We started a thread on immigration last night, could someone please bring that forward. I am off to work now and will be tied for the day.

  2. the USDA delayed its release nine days past the semi-official deadline, far past the election, and until Friday night to report August foodstamp data. One glance at the number reveals why: at 47.1 million, this was not only a new all time record, but the monthly increase of 420,947 from July was the biggest monthly increase in one year. One can see why a reported surge in foodstamps ahead of the elections is something the USDA, and the administration may not have been too keen on disclosing.

    Then there’s this shocking statistic:

    Finally, going back to the start of the official start of the depression in December 2007. In the 57 months from then until August 2012, there have been 4.6 million jobs lost even as Americans on foodstamps and disability have risen by 21.2 million.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/11/another_obama_record_he_can_be_proud_of.html#ixzz2C1K1Arfj

  3. Stephen K. Trynosky says:
    November 11, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    Time for a letter writing campaign to our congressmen. Time to find something we can ALL get behind. Charlie and I hashed this out a while back and I think are in more or less agreement. There will be a huge push on immigration soon, the Republicans may be set to cave completely.

    Gingrich had it nailed. If you come forward, if you have no criminal record, then you will get legal resident status with all rights and privileges and no chance of deportation unless you do something in the future really bad. You do not get “citizenship”. That is the penalty. You can access all services and enjoy all benefits of legal residency but the penalty, out of, if nothing else but fairness to those who have played by the rules, is no citizenship.

    Before anyone does a kneejerk disagreement ask yourself, if this were polled among current illegals in this country, how would they vote? Not you, not Nancy Pelosi, but the real flesh and blood human beings this affects. If all you really care about are these people living in the shadows being exploited, which is all I ever hear, you should be ecstatic in your support for this. If you are not, then you have an agenda other than those people.

    Time to put up or shut up.
    Reply

    T-Ray says:
    November 11, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    I offered my solution on here a few months back. I would support this but with some additions. Before any program can be sold to the populace, the border needs to be closed. Also, we need to improve the process for allowing individuals to immigrate legally thus taking pressure off the border. Part of my previous offer was to allow individuals to self deport and then return after a specified period of time to gain the right of citizenship. I would be willing to offer such a solution to my local newspaper editor.
    Reply
    Stephen K. Trynosky says:
    November 11, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    I can live with that. There are some details that should be hammered out. Heard Rush, again, I think the 25 year thing might be negotiable but it has to stay at 25 permanently, not 20 then 15, then ten then tomorrow at 3 PM.
    Reply
    T-Ray says:
    November 11, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    I also must add, that Rush offered his support for legalization with citizenship but with a 25 year ban on voting rights. Have not heard if he has any takers from the left.
    Reply
    d13thecolonel says:
    November 11, 2012 at 8:00 pm

    I could support some realization of the ones already here….ONLY….if you close the border now, institute voter ID….and you MUST be a citizen to vote and hold office no matter how small.
    Reply
    Murphy’s Law says:
    November 11, 2012 at 8:46 pm

    I could definitely support this with this added- no in-state tuition for your kids, no freebie welfare programs…..no food stamps, no free medical care etc. If they say they came here for a better life, they damn well better be working for it, and not taking it in the form of entitlements.

    That will weed out the ones who really came here to get our goodies from the ones who came here to WORK.

    Murf
    Reply
    Stephen K. Trynosky says:
    November 11, 2012 at 9:09 pm

    Murph

    This is where we have to be willing to negotiate. If your kids are American born, there is no issue they get what you and I get. If they are smuggled in (highly unlikely) from my perspective, then they become legal residents with rights attached.

    This is the price we have to pay to shut the damned door for once and for all on illegals (non negotiable). The Colonel is right, I dunno how they blew the door shutting part during Reagan’s administration but that has to be done first.

    I think we all have to worry about being betrayed because, that’s really what happened before. The problem will be with the left who Rush challenged to stand up last week. We need people on board here who will never give up on the truth and all who really care about the future of this country. They have to get together on this issue as a grassroots issue and shove it down the collective throats of both political parties. I’m not kidding when I suggest that the illegals here be polled on WHAT THEY WOULD WANT and accept. F— LaRaza and the political whores. If an honest poll showed 75%, which I feel is quite possible, would take the deal, then lets see the opposition ignore that.
    Reply
    Todd says:
    November 11, 2012 at 10:35 pm

    Murph,
    You can’t put these kinds of restrictions on this. You’re just continuing the second-class standard.
    Reply
    T-Ray says:
    November 11, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    I’ll start the ball rolling with a proposal. Feel free to modify it.

    1. The border will be closed be suitable means with metrics in place to measure the effectiveness of the closure process.
    2. Simultaneous with border closure, immigration policies will be liberalized to increase immigration rates and reduce the time from application to acceptance or rejection to less than 6 months.
    3. All states will implement voter ID laws that ensure voters are citizens.
    4. All states will issue drivers licenses that clearly state the citizenship status of the individual.
    5. When the President certifies, using the predetermined metrics, that the border has effectively been closed for 6 months, the open amnesty period will begin
    6. All illegal residents have one year to report to immigration authorities and register.
    7. Upon registration and provided they have no felony convictions, they will be granted a 5 year provisional residency with all rights of individuals with that status. Deportations for felony convictions will be permitted.
    8. At the end of the five year provisional period, again with no felony convictions, the resident will be granted full citizenship with one proviso, they cannot vote for another 20 years. Individuals must renounce all allegiance to their source country. They will not be subject to deportation.
    9. Any children of registrants who are 16 or younger at the time of registration will be granted 5 years of resident status as their parents. Upon reaching their 21st birthday, again with no felony convictions, they will be granted full citizenship with voting rights.
    10. Any individual who completes 4 years of military service and is granted an honorable discharge will be granted full citizenship with voting rights.
    Reply
    Stephen K. Trynosky says:
    November 11, 2012 at 9:15 pm

    No citizenship. Permanent legal residence for their lifetimes unless they get a felony conviction. .

    You make them citizens without voting rights and the courts and the ACLU will be on your back in five minutes or less.

    Agree on military service. You get it all and citizenship too.(whole different ball of wax) but this would also probably lead to a court challenge for setting up “classes”.

    Let’s keep at it ladies and gentlemen, and when we have a short, sweet 1 page polished summary that we can agree on, lets put it out to everyone we know.
    Reply
    T-Ray says:
    November 11, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    OK, then green card status forever. I too was worried about two classes of citizenship. Are you OK with kids under 16 getting citizenship?
    Reply
    Todd says:
    November 11, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    I am. We don’t want to “keep them down” if they came here young and this is pretty much the only country they know.
    Reply
    Black Flag® says:
    November 11, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    Trynosky – hmm, that sounds like a right proper English, Spanish or French name, right?

    Ooohh… not? So your family immigrated here, huh?

    Now, you want to stop others from coming here.

    Never think what would have happened had that been done to your family right?
    Reply
    Todd says:
    November 11, 2012 at 11:01 pm

    Black Flag,
    Different time – different world – different circumstances.

    Now, you want to stop others from coming here.

    We’re a country of laws – which aren’t working right now. We’re not trying to stop others, we’re trying to find a solution to the current situation so those already here can become a legal part of society, those in the future can come here legally.

    We’re looking for a solution…
    Reply
    Black Flag® says:
    November 11, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    Yep, everything is different, huh?

    “Freedom for me, but not for you” – is the mantra you are searching for, Todd.
    Todd says:
    November 11, 2012 at 10:51 pm

    T-Ray,
    A good start. Some comments.

    1. The border will be closed be suitable means with metrics in place to measure the effectiveness of the closure process.

    This means a GREAT BIG HIGH WALL right? With constant monitoring for breaches, tunnels, car ramps (did anyone else see that story about a week ago??). This will be expensive – are you willing to spend the money?

    2. Simultaneous with border closure, immigration policies will be liberalized to increase immigration rates and reduce the time from application to acceptance or rejection to less than 6 months.

    Agreed

    3. All states will implement voter ID laws that ensure voters are citizens.

    This is touchy. If there’s plenty of lead time (the voter-id law passes today, but takes effect in 2016 to give people time) and id’s are free.

    And the voter-suppression/intimidation crap has to stop – billboards scaring people, mailings with incorrect info, etc.

    4. All states will issue drivers licenses that clearly state the citizenship status of the individual.

    Ok – with #3 stipulations

    5. When the President certifies, using the predetermined metrics, that the border has effectively been closed for 6 months, the open amnesty period will begin

    Agreed. Will you accept it if Obama makes this certification? 🙂

    6. All illegal residents have one year to report to immigration authorities and register.

    Not sure about the timeline, but the other details would affect this.

    7. Upon registration and provided they have no felony convictions, they will be granted a 5 year provisional residency with all rights of individuals with that status. Deportations for felony convictions will be permitted.

    No provisional period. Register and pass the checks and you’re in. Felonies within 5 years could result in deportation.

    8. At the end of the five year provisional period, again with no felony convictions, the resident will be granted full citizenship with one proviso, they cannot vote for another 20 years. Individuals must renounce all allegiance to their source country. They will not be subject to deportation.

    No. What’s the difference between “resident” and “citizen who can’t vote”? Just too complicated.

    9. Any children of registrants who are 16 or younger at the time of registration will be granted 5 years of resident status as their parents. Upon reaching their 21st birthday, again with no felony convictions, they will be granted full citizenship with voting rights.

    Agreed.

    10. Any individual who completes 4 years of military service and is granted an honorable discharge will be granted full citizenship with voting rights.

    How about “4 years of honorable military service” will be granted full citizenship with voting rights. Why wait until they’re discharged?

    I don’t mean to nit-pick – thanks for putting out some ideas.
    Reply
    T-Ray says:
    November 11, 2012 at 11:53 pm

    Yes policing the border will be expensive, but without sealing it off, the problem will just continue. It must be done. We assumed it would be done in ’86 but here we are back trying to solve the same problem. Amnesty will not pass without the border problem being corrected first. I would look to guys like D13 to supply solutions.

    There is more to voter fraud than just ID’s but D13 stipulated it as a condition. I do not want to block any citizen from voting once. Voter IDs should be free. In fact I had one when I first registered in IL. It was not a picture ID as most were not at that time. Adding citizen status to driver’s licenses would make the issue moot for most people. Most states now issue picture IDs similar to driver’s licenses to non-drivers. My wife has one. I will leave the other voter fraud issues for another time.

    Re: #5 Border security certification: If the metrics for certification are done properly, and the process is open, then I would accept certification from the President whoever is in the office. This would be done in a report to Congress who of course should raise a fuss if things are not proper.

    Re #7, provisional period. This was the period in which deportations could happen. That would be the one provision. After five years felony convictions would be treated like any other resident. But I am open to making deportation open ended.

    Rel #10, I’m good with one honorable hitch in the service.

    It’s not nit picking. Comments are good and will allow us to come to a consensus with a final product might have some traction. The problem is actually simple to solve if we stop screaming at each other.

    I agree with SK that we should poll the immigrants for their input.
    Reply
    Stephen K. Trynosky says:
    November 12, 2012 at 10:02 am

    Actually, we walked over the Bearing straight some 14,000 years ago. That’s where the slanty eyes and high cheekbones come from. Can’t wait till the human genome project is complete.

    Are you totally open borders? I like immigrants, if they came here by the rules.

    Either you are mistaking me for some Nativist fool or are open borders or are deliberately obscuring the issue. In any event you are wrong.
    Reply
    Stephen K. Trynosky says:
    November 12, 2012 at 11:00 am

    See, I like this refining the ideas.

    1. Build the damn wall. Cheaper in the long run. Not fooling when I called it a highway project. Six lane highway with a noise barrier on the south side. Government is damned good at that noise barrier thing, especially here in the east.

    2. Why would you want to increase immigration rates? Current numbers are roughly a million legally every year? Not that you can undo what RFK did in ’65 but how about making it an equal playing field for all immigrants, white and non white. How about looking for education and re-instituting medical standards? These are not “make and break” as far as I am concerned but should be on the table for negotiation.

    3. Voter, ID, photo ID is a no brainer. You need it to get into any Federal, State, city or well run private office building in NYC. I still have both my NY and NJ Voter ID card issued when I registered in ’73 and ’77 and used to have to show. When you talk about potential fraud think about this for a moment. In our neighborhood, three out of four of my children are still registered despite them being out of the house (and state) for 7 to 15 years! Can’t get them off the rolls!

    4. And damn the expense, we will send teams to nursing homes and backwaters to issue those ID’s. Cheaper in the long run.

    5. No president, governors of three of the four affected southern border states. federal; government is suspect after the Reagan Amnesty.

    6. A year to 18 months is good for me. After that, door is closed. After the day the law is passed and signed, anyone coming and caught is automatically precluded from residency in the future no matter if they sneak in again or if they try legally.

    7. I would make it provisional permanent simply because the opposition will say it is a ploy to have them surface and kick them out five years later. Only really bad behavior will get you bounced.

    8. Right now, all resident aliens have a resident alien card. When you go for your ID, you will have to prove date/place of birth and it will be so noted. Hell, we can issue a credit type ID card that can be scanned or swiped. We have a national instant background check for gun buyers. K-mart can tell if you are go or no go in seconds. What’s the big deal?

    9. Born here, no problem, smuggled in as a youth? Full voting citizenship, to be determined excellent negotiating ploy. (you are going to have to give some things up)

    10,. Military service is a no brainer but I think will be subject to a court challenge. Current rules allow fast track for resident aliens, might be a good precedent.

    We, even Flag, are doing here what the congress never does anymore, refining a concept through give and take based on ideas, precedents and common sense. We are actually fighting the entire political establishment who wants nothing changed. Everybody else should jump in here too. maybe we can work up a one page bill and somehow get it through to someone who has political traction. It really should not be more than one page. Should have the support of the “real” immigrant community not the radical La Raza types. By the time something like this got to congress, the “but what if” guys would peck it to pieces unless grassroot support stopped that. An example: Manny comes to the US illegally at 18 gets drunk at 19, gets picked up in a stolen car and convicted of GTA. Gets deported, sneaks back in, lives a quiet peaceful life, wife and three kids for 20 years, comes out in the amnesty period (to deport or not to deport?) Problem is if there is an exception, then they will just come up with another weaker scenario until finally they have watered it down to nothing. My own personal solution involves both sides taking a chance, Manny comes forward, lays it on the line and it goes before a three judge panel (local) who make the call and a recommendation to the State governor for a special provisional pardon for the prior offense. . .
    Reply
    Todd says:
    November 11, 2012 at 10:32 pm

    Stephen,
    I can agree to this in general.

  4. gmanfortruth says:

    🙂

  5. As long as men believe solving non-violent human problems requires violence – the circling the drain continues.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I will embrace open borders when Mexico, Central and South America REJECT Socialism in all its forms.

      Otherwise you are just speeding up the decay of the USA.

      The effect is no different than having millions of Californians suddenly move to Montana, for example.

  6. :S

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    As you guys try to build a horse by committee let me offer a few basic things that might sway your thinking.

    1. The Constitution applies to EVERYONE within the USA, unless it specifies CITIZEN. So voting is the only real difference between Resident and Citizen in your proposals thus far.

    2. The only thing Residency provides is a TAX LOCATION for State and Local taxes, along with a drivers license.

    3. We currently have WORK VISAS for anyone to come here and work LEGALLY. Why do you really need anything else?

    4. If these people really want to be US Citizens then why deny them that opportunity. Especially if the border is closed/controlled.

    5. Those who wish to be Citizens need to attend English and other classes that teach them what being an American means and gives them a better chance of succeeding.

    6. Illegal alien problems are integrally linked to the need for WELFARE REFORM.

    7. If you are going to limit the number who can enter the country then that should EMPHASIZE the BRAINS not the BRAWN. Once you accept control as right, then you should accept the fact we do not need millions more unskilled laborers in this country. And this goes back to WELFARE reform.

    8. Anyone BORN here automatically gets CITIZEN status under current law. If you are going to create a new group of NOT CITIZENS or WORK VISAS then their children born here, or brought here, should NOT be CITIZENS.

    9. Any attempt to deal with migration across the Southern Border has to include dealing with DRUG and other criminal trafficking.

    What ever rules are developed they should be simple, low in number and based on easily identifiable and objective criteria.

    Open borders is one solution that fits this criteria.

    Closed borders is another.

    Now what are the others? Read, set, GO.

    • “5. Those who wish to be Citizens need to attend English and other classes that teach them what being an American means”

      I didn’t realize speaking English was a requirement to being a US Citizen.

      Also, who will be teaching these classes as to ‘what being an American means’ — sounds like complete propaganda/indoctrination to me. Would you be OK with a liberal progressive teaching this class? I imagine you would not.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        The Citizenship test used to require some ability to speak the language.

        Correct, I would not let a Progressive teach the classes. Education not propaganda.

        But the classes were more about general history and then the citizenship obligations and rules.

        I suppose they can go about their life not learning English. But then I thought we were a Country. How well will they do if they cannot converse with anyone else. How does a country bind itself if not by language, among other things.

        I find it strange that history shows us how a common language was needed to bind people to a productive Nation/Country, but the minute one suggests that those who wish to become Citizens should learn our language it is somehow offensive.

        • “should” learn English is very different than “must” learn English.

          If you refuse to let a Progressive teach, then I will refuse to let a Conservative teach the class, for the same concerns. Now what? It also seems that you have switched from your initial post about teaching ‘what being an American means” to now teaching about ‘general history’. Which would you be looking to teach? If the former, you need to provide a lot more information as to what you believe should be taught.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            Teach about Freedom, Liberty and Justice. How our system works and how the Socialist philosophy is counter to our system.

            Buck, these classes used to be taught as condition to taking the test. I assume they still are. So if you can’t read the test I guess you can’t answer the questions.

            Are you afraid the Mexicans might reject their Socialist roots if we teach them history?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Buckster 🙂 How are you Sir? Hope all is well with the family! On the subject of education, I have gone back in time and reviewed a great deal of State of the Union speeches. There is a common theme, education is broke and we need to “Invest” in it. Year after year, speech after speech, both political parties. The common denominator is……government. What say you (how to fix it)?

          • Here you go, you have to change nothing, nothing at all. The same way it has been since my grandparents day unless the lawyer in you insists on finding some new “rights”. Which, I unfortunately acknowledge is quite possible.

            http://www.uscitizenshiprequirements.net/

            Hey, guys, the amateur here on the internet knows all you have to do is google “US Citizenship requirements”

    • 1. Actually it applies to everyone in the US. It outlines certain privileges additionally to citizens
      “We the People of the United States”
      “The right of the people to be secure in their persons”

      2. Pretty much
      3. Why require them?
      4. If they want to be slaves…(shrug)
      5. If one wishes to be a slave, one probably should follow the requirements so issued to be one.
      6. It’s “problems” – yes, true. Illegal immigration is not a problem itself.
      7.Why make such a determination? A man is free to use his talents – whether God gave him strength in his arms or head should make not a difference.
      8. Then what are they? Global non-citizens? Impossible to make.
      9. Why is this a specific problem when it does not appear to be a specific problem between California and Nevada?

      • Are you for totally open borders?

        • I believe in freedom.
          Therefore, restriction on non-violent men is vile.

          Open borders, you bet.

          Consequences: saturation of welfare system, leading to collapse of such.
          Welfare system will collapse anyway without open borders. It is doomed regardless.

          Open borders may accelerate but not cause the collapse of welfare system.

          More workers always improves an economy.
          More workers who want to work and not welfare will come.

          Economy improves as the welfare system collapses.

          All good by me.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Agreed.

            State borders are a way of determining which set of coercive actions you are subject to. Whatever the aspect of society you wish to delve into, the result of force is inevitably the same, …utter failure.

            Get rid of them all.

          • “Consequences: saturation of welfare system, leading to collapse of such.
            Welfare system will collapse anyway without open borders. It is doomed regardless.”

            Yeah but, isn’t that the government backing said system? So what you are proposing is the collapse of our government, sorta like what the Greek’s are going thru right now? Except we do not have a European Union that would want to make sure we stay solvent. Sure, the economy would get better, after the depression and a restructured government.

            • No, it will not collapse the government, merely welfare.

              Government will not be able to fund its programs and renege. This does not end government, but merely ends its promises.

          • I note that you use the term economy improves I think in a cavalier manner. For whom? All? .I think not. 100 workers vying for one job does not an economy improve. It does improve the bottom line for the employer. You seem quite capable of ignoring labor history. While there may be some merit in a Darwinian approach to economics, It is outweighed by the real damage that is caused.

            Last week, the dumbest of all governors, Cuomo Jr. in NY announced that 10 gallons of gasoline was free to anyone at five national guard armories in the city of New York. Within hours the armories were surrounded by hundreds of cars. The fact that this promise was an impossible one and the dumbest governor on record (soon to be the next president) made the offer without obviously even thinking about the logistics involved, he made it anyway. I see a parallel with your unrestricted immigration (you too Bottom Line). Offer jobs, jobs, jobs to everyone from everywhere and they will come. And there are……no jobs! If you think that they will just sit back peaceably and starve to death, you have missed a lot of history over the past few centuries. the rioting in the streets will not just be those south of the border types, it will be native born Americans who used to be in the middle class but have now become serfs.

            One way or the other this welfare system collapses the only question is the amount of ensuing violence involved. Personally, you guys can stand with Louis XVI and Nicholas II if you want. I will not have your six.

            The purpose of this exercise in immigration policy for me is to get a sense from all of you out there what you would accept. I really want everyone to chime in on the proposal I made. I want it picked apart, criticized and red penciled. I have a hunch that the anarchist wants no plan which is fine, that is a no vote based on a cloud coo coo land view of the world (no offense I used to believe in Santa Claus too). But it is time for America to stand up, offer a solution and then sell it. To make it so simple that even the viewers of “American Idol” can get it. To make it so simple it cannot be pigeonholed. To go to every town hall meeting and use the words of the opponents against them. Poll the illegals. Dammit, if I were in their shoes, I know what I would take, not want maybe but take with the sure and certain knowledge that I was going to be protected against the coyotes and predators and the people who hire me at $75.00 per day and pay me $ 25.00., from the guy who charges me $ 125 per week to hot bunk in an overcrowded apartment. From the guy who wants a kickback or he’ll turn me in. Sorry if I sound like Tom Joad but sometimes you have to do what is right.

            Want to increase immigration, want to bring in two, three four times what we have now, great, but that is a different argument for a later date. It does not solve the current problem which is slowly but surely eating this country alive.

    • Lets see what we got here JAC.

      1. Constitution applies to everyone but only a citizen can vote.
      2. Residency as in”legal resident” merely means you are here and have no fear of deportation. You cannot be exploited.
      3. The guys pouring over the border do not have nor would they seek work visas. There are limits on the number
      4. Why would you want to reward bad behavior by allowing them full voting citizenship? There are two issues here. A. you then discourage
      nothing and get more of what happened after Reagan’s amnesty. . B. Politics then rule. As I said, poll the illegals. See what they want at minimum.
      5. We supposedly have the English and basic American history/civics right now. Irrelevant for permanent legal residents. Should be a
      voluntary option ESL classes, not any requirement.
      6. Welfare reform is problem # 2, cannot be linked if you want to get anything done.
      7. That is a separate issue from illegals. That has to do with legal immigration and what RFK did in ’65. Problem # 3?
      8. Nope, the law should be changed, the original “born here” argument, goes back to Reconstruction. It is ingrained. This might be problem #4
      which would only derail problem # 1, stopping illegal immigration and legalizing those already here. Besides, it is the party that starts with a “D” that wants to create a permanent underclass.
      9. Close the border helps. Deciding on legalizing drugs or really having an honest to God war on them is an issue for another day.
      10.If the issue is illegals and the fallout from having this in migration creates huge problems then the answer is self evident. Close, not open
      border with continued, perhaps enhanced legal migration coupled with a path to a legal status for people already here.

      Buck, as an aside, that is an argument for citizenship. I believe that there used to be that requirement as was basic civics. As in three branches of government, republican democracy, etc. To do a legalized residency with permanent resident status, no such requirements need apply. We want something that is exactly one page long and not subject to but, but, but, or what if, what if, what if? It should actually be easy. I know that is a difficult concept for an attorney.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        SK

        There is NO need for a special Federal Category, ie Resident.

        Under the Constitution a person is a Resident of the USA of they are a Resident of a State within the USA.

        All that is needed is Citizen and those who are Visitors or Working.

        If we secure the border and enforce the employer rules and cut off Welfare to anyone but Citizens, then there is no other group needed.

        Simply give Citizen to those who wish to stay and a Work Visa to those that don’t.

        Yes, this is amnesty once again. But so what? If they want to be US Citizens then send them to the classes and give them the test and grant them Citizenship.

        The real problem is the conflict between the number of Citizens we wish to allow vs Work Visas. The demand for emigration to the USA is greater than our willingness to receive them. And we should be careful or be overrun by the Socialists.

        • “we should be careful or be overrun by the Socialists”

          So we should allow immigration, but at the same time, not allow anyone to immigrate whose political philosophy is different from your own? And yet you represent the ideals of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’? I’m clearly missing something here. It seems you are espousing the need for prospective citizens to learn English and take classes indoctrinating them to your believes of what America is or should be, coupled with the need to be careful not to allow those dreaded Socialists from becoming citizens of “Your” America. But someone who advocates for true freedom and liberty, as you so often do, surly wouldn’t stand for some government bureaucrat defining what is and is not ‘America’ and limiting immigration to so-called ‘true believers’.

          • I agree with JAC. Do we have to fight about whether we are a capitalist country? I hope not. Lots of immigrants have come here running FROM socialism TO capitalism. Because you prefer socialism doesn’t change the fact that we are capitalist so your argument is false.

            • So Anita, do you support some type of ideological test as a prerequisite for citizenship?

              • No but that doesn’ t mean that we have to cater to any other ism. They can believe whatever they want to believe but when it comes down to it they have to follow capitalism. Otherwise we need to adjust some documents.that isn’t going to happen..

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                I hadn’t thought of that but I think you have a good idea there.

                Yes, and ideological test.

                If you want to be a Citizen you must disavow allegiance to any philosophy, belief or country that does not honor FREEDOM.

                And yes Buck, a Free Nation may restrict those who want to enter, just as I can restrict who enters my house. That is the nature of being a Nation.

                But of course, therein lies the rub. Or the “contradictions” as BF would call them.

                I noticed that you once again avoided addressing a direct question. WHY is it now so offensive to have a Citizenship test which includes some working knowledge of English? Why after decades of a model that seemed to work is the Progressive so set to undermine that system? Why is it that the same indignation is not aimed at the Easter Europeans? Why is the sympathy directed primarily to those of Hispanic origin?

              • Here is the Oath of allegiance to the United States. Which I think has been required for citizenship forever.

                http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=facd6db8d7e37210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=dd7ffe9dd4aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

                Back to basics. First, my postings here have to do with non citizens who are precluded from voting citizenship because they snuck in. Therefore the requirements for citizenship, WHICH WE SHOULD ALL KNOW anyway!!!!! are not really relevant. It has often been said that naturalized citizens have a better understanding of the US, it’s constitution and laws than the native born do. I see some evidence of that here today. Shame.

                Hey Buck, catch that part about bearing arms in defense of the constitution. Guess we don’t take Quakers.

              • Anita, there is no requirement anywhere I can find to being a capitalist. Besides, your idea, my idea, Buck’s idea, BF’s idea, Charlie’s idea and Donald Trump’s idea of capitalism are all probably mutually exclusive. BF the capitalist would throw you out of work by importing 10,000 people willing to do what you do all in the name of improving the economy. I wouldn’t. Promise.

              • JAC, the bit about bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution takes care of all your concerns and for good measure you have to renounce your allegiance to foreign potentates too. Still irrelevant. We are talking about roughly 11 million people who have come in already and are running under the 1940 radar ICE uses.

          • Forget the classes they already exist. You also have to take the oath. Here is the web site, learn something!

            http://www.us-immigration.com/index.html?referrer=adwords&gclid=CLL3zOTUyrMCFQqe4AodQWYAJA

            If I can’t get all you guys to accept a lowest common denominator than we are all lost. If you have an opinion on this stuff, then you certainly should know something about it or be willing to learn. “I demand” or “I insist” mean absolutely diddly squat.

        • JAC, I am losing you on this and I think you are working Buck into a frenzy. Firstly there is already a category for permanent legal resident and I am surprised you don’t know that. That is what the green card is all about. It is your option to exercise the citizenship thing right now if you have that card. People spend their entire lives here never using it. I have friends in it for their own personal/financial reasons.

          Immigration restrictions should be based on need (ours) and nothing else. Numbers may change from year to year, education levels may change. As much as I would like to agree with you on socialists, I can’t/won’t. Who cares. Saying something like that gets somebody like Buck to reject it out of hand.

          • SK,

            Demanding an ideological purity test should get anyone to reject the proposal out of hand, not just someone like Buck.

            JAC,

            I agree that a nation has the right to restrict immigration, no argument here. However, it is extremely dangerous to promote the concept of an ideological test to attempt to restrict someone whose political philosophy differs from your own. Be careful because one day that ideological test may well be used to prohibit conservatives just as easily. As for language, do long as there is no official US language, I don’t believe you can require prospective citizens to be fluent in any given language. While it may be a good idea to learn English for ones own success and opportunities, who are you to require them to be fluent?

            • Buck, I agree but you know there are some just like there are some who would want it restricted to Norwegians, Episcopalians, Gays or non-gays. That is why it should be reduced to one stinking, lousy, page with no “buts” or “What if’s” and I am even confusing myself now, it is not relevant to a discussion on how to provide legal resident status to people coming here illegally. can’t get bogged down in crap.

              Going to try to catch some dinner now, wonder if it will be Chinese tonight or Italian.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              What is your hangup with having an “official National language”?

              • I didn’t say whether I am for or against imposing an official national language. But it is a FACT that, currently, there is no official national language. Given this fact, how do you force future citizens to learn a language of your choosing as a prerequisite?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              Sorry, but I took your comment as being opposed: ” As for language, do long as there is no official US language,….”. I guess the second part of that was to explain the first part.

              An “Official Language” does not REQUIRE that people learn that language. It simply means that the US is OFFICIALLY and English Speaking Country and that the Govts does not HAVE TO print documents in other languages. In the good ol’ days this provided added incentive to learn English if you wanted to live hear.

              If we think it of National importance to allow immigration to the USA then we should fund the schooling needed to make those people as productive as rapidly as possible. This includes teaching them English.

              The alternative is an increasing Balkanization based on ethnic and national origins. I am seeing some of that here in the Portland area. It makes people vulnerable to all kinds of predators.

              • JAC,

                On the one hand you say having an official language does not require people to learn that language. On the other you say that prospective citizens be required to learn the language. Which one is it?

              • Neither of my grandmothers ever learned English. They both lived in ghettos of their own making. My grandfathers learned functional English to survive in the work world. I think for citizenship you should have a working knowledge. The ghettos unfortunately have become city sized these days. Canada has the dual language issue for a lot longer than us. From all that I have seen and heard, the French only speakers who have a rudimentary knowledge of English, really do themselves no favors. It does however allow them to bitch and moan about discrimination a lot. It is one thing to want to save your culture, it is another to commit economic suicide.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            S.K.

            I believe you will find the “Green Card” is a relatively new invention, that is in the last 40 years or so.

            My point about resident vs. Citizen goes back to the Constitution. A Green Card is nothing more than a Work Visa if I understand it correctly.

            I see no reason to put those people already here who truly want to be Citizen through some modified approach. Let them apply, take classed, take the test and take the oath.

            We have done this before. But the failure was in the promise to secure the border. So…….Secure Border First………….wait 5 years………that will allow time for those who want to stay to start their paperwork and classes…………..then allow Citizenship.

            I see no purpose in not allowing Citizenship. That is if we have removed the incentives and ability to game the system ONE MORE TIME.

            It seems to me the only penalty is NOT VOTING under your proposal. Why is that so important?

            Now lets look at the FAIRNESS issue here. I don’t see that it is any more FAIR to let an illegal Alien stay as a resident or a Citizen. Not to the people who want to come here but don’t break the law to do it.

            So the only truly FAIR thing is to do what Texas is doing. Hammer the employers and control the coyotes and other smugglers. Halt the Welfare and let the Illegals SELF DEPORT. Unless our unemployment stays high. Then we could hire people to round up the Aliens for deportation.

            • I have an ulterior motive besides fairness, I mean, people have been waiting patiently on lines for decades to come here legally. We teach that all you really have to do is sneak in. Then there is the little matter of buying votes. If there are no votes to buy, a whole lot of problems are automatically solved. Imagine getting Jerry Brown to agree to the Texas approach or the traditionally democratic governors of New Mexico. I fear that it is too late to wait for self deportation and insist on employer background checks. That window closed four or five million people ago. Many of these folks have married or have local ties now. Kicking them out on the 11 O’clock news would be tantamount to evicting someone on Christmas eve. So, lets go for something attainable and new that can be crafted to explode in the face of opponents. I even came up with a name for the new law, The “border security and undocumented alien protection act.” Try screwing around with that!

              • Just A Citizen says:

                S.K.

                The LEFT will eat you alive for including the word “alien”. Change that to “immigrant” and you have a title.

                Under our current law a “permanent resident” can apply for Citizenship after 5 years. At least that is what I got from my review. So you are now creating another category. This seems to complicate rather than simplify to me.

                The more I look into it the more it is obvious that the issue is the NUMBER of people we allow to immigrate for Citizenship. We cannot take those that want to come here. This automatically creates the demand for “illegal” immigration.

                As for Self Deportation I think that far more returned since 2008 than many realize.

                What you are now arguing is that we need a new Federal Law because certain States will not obey the Federal Laws on the books. Seems to me that is a poor reason for ANOTHER Federal Law.

                I also don’t see how your proposal avoids the Fairness issue at all. Those that broke the law get to stay. They get all the benefits except Voting. This includes working, govt provided education, health care, etc, etc, and of course College Scholarships (Dream Act). Their kids are Citizens if born here or Permanent Residents if brought here. Their family that snuck in also get to stay. Everybody is happy.

                Except those who are STILL waiting in line and those who can’t find work because of the depressed labor market.

              • We deny voting rights to felons even though they are citizens. So we already have a group of second class citizens. I see nothing wrong in creating a class of permanent residents who are not entitled to voting rights or to full citizenship as the penalty for breaking our laws on entry. The immigrant debate is caught between two extremes. The right does not want to face the reality that they are here and insists they be deported or punished. The left wants them to have everything with the hope of garnering a large voting bloc in the future. In the meantime we have an underclass that does not pay taxes, illegally claims and gets welfare, rips off SS IDs, drives w/o insurance, and in general flies under the radar to prevent capture and deportation. States are fighting with the Feds and wasting money in the process on lawyers. (Sorry Buck, but that is money being pissed down a hole.)

                http://immigration.about.com/od/lifeintheus/a/publicbenefits_2.htm

                The above link describes benefits (welfare) available to immigrants both those w/o green card status and those with. It seems like the apparatus is already in place.

                Re; the Dream Act. Going to college is not sufficient service to the country to warrant a gift of citizenship. It is not equivalent to military service. Maybe a hitch in some civilian service corps could be a substitute for military service.

              • JAC, there are many permanent residents working here, including my friend Chris from Germany who have been here 35 years, married, worked, had five children, two who entered into the service, one in the Peace Corps and one a Forest Ranger in Montana and have never applied for citizenship. Why? Simple, he would lose the various benefits he contributed to while working in Germany before he immigrated. There was this young woman I met at Ground Zero right after 9-11, a Canadian citizen working in the US as an RN who desperately wanted to join the Army Nurse Corps but could not because an Officer must be a US citizen. Seemed stupid to me at the time since among other things there is a genuine RN shortage in this country but, there are rules. Note that a non-citizen cannot be civil service either.

                What I think you need to do my friend is realize that we can spend the next 20 years arguing about this and have another 11,000,000 illegals move in, or we can cave to the left, give everybody everything and watch another 22,000,000 move in or, come up with a workable but not perfect answer which takes politics off the table and allows these people to come up out of the shadows and stop depressing the labor market and like out grandparents, great grandparents etc, begin to assimilate into the country.

                Other discussions about immigration numbers etc, all have to wait. This is the 600 lb. gorilla and presented honestly and openly to the immigrant community (which will be a bitch to do) can fly through with their full support.

    • This is an interesting topic in that it is very effective at revealing the ideological conflicts within each party.

      • So, jump in, add something.

        • I thought it was fairly self-evident, really, particularly on the Republican/conservative side. You can’t hold freedom as a principle and then arbitrarily restrict it only to people living in/born in an arbitrarily drawn polygon on a map. If I could figure out what the Democrat platform’s principles actually were I could probably point out that conflict more clearly, but it starts with having no problem micro-managing and over-controlling every other aspect of society but not wanting to exercise any control over the border.

          • Also all it really comes down to is the perception (real or imagined) that immigrants would be more likely to vote Democrat – thus Democrats want more immigrants and Republicans want fewer immigrants. No principles involved or required.

            • Yes but Republicans want cheap labor and lawn services. That is not a joke. The Republican establishment argues strongly all the time to throw open the doors. It is the people who hold them back. talk someday to some poor shnook named Juan or Esteban or Wilfredo and ask him if he thinks that people who have jumped the line that he stood on to come to this country are helping or hurting him. You may be surprised at the answer. Nine times out of ten you will find out that they make his life more difficult and competing against them for entry level jobs makes it impossible to go beyond that level. I know two Dominican contractors, entrepreneurs and all around good guys whose businesses tanked because they could not compete with illegals who had no expenses, no insurance. Think what it takes to run a small construction company in a place like NYC honestly.

              After the recent storm last week, I noted that almost all the workers for the tree companies in Northern NJ these days are Mexican. Ten years ago, the vast majority were young whites. Would you have me believe that those whites have gone onto better jobs as computer programmers or rocket scientists? As the Duke used to say, “Not hardly pilgrim”.

  8. gmanfortruth says:

    Is anyone else besides me having a problem with the media calling election results before the votes are counted (or very few counted). I think it’s all a hoax to begin with, but how can anyone who believes that voting makes a difference not question this? I won’t bother to mention all the voter fraud being mentioned, cuz unless Mr. Maddow says so, it”s not true anyway 🙄 Immigration, how the country became, and how it will be destroyed. I’ll try to explain that later. Climate change, seems to me that the climate where I live in Pa is the same it has been since I was born. The weather is changing today, as it usually does quite often, but I don’t think that humankind is remotely harming the earth, causing the climate to change, that is utter hogwash. The FEMA camps helping out those on the East Coast are not very pleasant, so the reports go. They aren’t designed to help people anyway, are they! FEMA will also have 15 warehouses full of cool stuff to be used, for what, nobody seems to know. Very windy today, even worse than “Sandy”. I wonder where the unemployment rate will go up when the Obamacare layoffs get counted, or will it just go down because twice as many people quit looking for work? Just Musing 🙂

    • G-man,

      Is anyone else besides me having a problem with the media calling election results before the votes are counted (or very few counted). I think it’s all a hoax to begin with, but how can anyone who believes that voting makes a difference not question this?

      It’s called “math” – or more specifically “statistics”.

      Jon,

      Do you have a source that shows Republicans cannot do math?

      See G-man’s comments above.

      • Jon,
        Megan Kelley to Karl Rove on Election Night:

        Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?

        PRICELESS!

  9. Bottom Line says:

  10. Gotcha SK..We all have some brushing up to do. I thought it was written in stone somewhere that we were capitalist. Keep hammering away. I had never read the oath of citizenship before tonight..I wonder how many Americans have read it.

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    S.K.

    “AC, the bit about bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution takes care of all your concerns and for good measure you have to renounce your allegiance to foreign potentates too. ”

    REALLY???

    OK then Stephen, WHICH Constitution? The one the Framers thought they wrote, the one the Anti-Federalists thought they wrote, the one in print, or the one that the SUPREME COURT CREATED.

    I think you see the problem. Although the oath should generally be enough…………except…………all that crap about bearing arms and doing as directed if written in law. You see that part can be contrary to the first part.

    And talk about the IRONY…………it was the Progressive Movement Politicians who pushed for these promises of military service.

    • The current oath dates to 1953 during the “red scare”. I missed parts when I first scanned it and did not realize that non-combatant service was allowed and on request, God could be dropped. I believe the intent is the same as it was when I took the oath in the military, to the document promulgated at the Constitutional convention. I am harassed all day and night for my stand on language and the meaning of words. You prove the validity of my point. As Br. Patrick said in US History II, “It says what it means and it means what it says”. Don’t like what it says, amend it!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        SK

        I agree that given some basic education in our history and civics, that a simple oath to protect and defend the Constitution is all that is needed. After all, there should be some understanding of what that oat means and why it is so different than others.

        By they way, I am not up to speed on all our immigration laws and categories, etc. because I am an American and never tried to emigrate to here. 🙂

        After digging on the “Green Card” I do find the idea of “Permanent Resident” somewhat silly unless that is ONLY for those who have qualified for Citizenship Application.

        I noticed that this “category” is broadly used around the world. I wonder what its history is. Perhaps it goes back to when nobody had immigration requirements.

  12. Naturalized: Andreas Klebsatel became on Dec. 16, 1737, a naturalized citizen and
    “His Majesties Liege Subject within the Said Colony” of New York. From ‘Laws of the
    Colony of New York,’ Chapter 662.

    My 5th-great grandfather.

    Oaths of allegiance have been used on this continent for some time.

    • Thank you!

      • I think I get as frustrated as you with this site. We have lots of intelligent well, read people here who like to talk theory but have a very difficult time of concentrating on a single idea and coming to a consensus on it. SK, I encourage you to keep after them.

        We have rule of law. There is only one Constitution. We may argue over its meaning but there is only one. It is the supreme law of the land which is why we swear allegiance to this scrap of paper instead of any potentate.
        We have national borders which are different than state borders. We have a right to defend them and define who comes across them. That is what national sovereignty is about. I have visited Canada several times on business. The minute that I say I am there to do some work other then to sight see, sell or for academic reasons, I end up in immigration filling out forms.

        The well regulated militia of the 2nd amendment was defined in most state constitutions as all able bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60.

        Also as I understand, there is citizenship with full rights including voting, permanent residence with work permits (green cards), temporary visas with work permits and time limits, visitor visas with time limits, and student visas with time limits. I do not know if there is a permanent resident status w/o work permission. One thing I am not certain about is if green card holders can get welfare and other benefits. I would think if they are legally here with permanent residence, they pay taxes, they would be allowed all benefits.

        SK, you are correct. The proposal should be a one page bullet list of no more than 12 items.

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    “JAC,

    On the one hand you say having an official language does not require people to learn that language. On the other you say that prospective citizens be required to learn the language. Which one is it?”

    One is the law and the other is my opinion of what we should do.

    And OFFICIAL LANGUAGE does not FORCE anyone to learn English. It only means the Govt cannot be forced nor has to provide multilingual documents. Like Canada for example.

    But I do think that those who want to be Citizens should learn the language and that their Citizenship Test and Oath be administered in English.

    But I also think we should fund the teaching of English so that these people will succeed.

    This does not mean they have to be fluent. But some working command of the language should be needed to get Citizenship. Oddly I don’t see this as a problem except with one group. That being the Mexicans and folks from Central/South America. Which leads me full circle to my question as to why requiring them to learn English is now an issue when it wasn’t back in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s.

    Why do you oppose requiring someone to learn our language as a condition of Citizenship?

    • Fighting the language issue is a distraction from what SK is trying to accomplish. I do agree the English should be the “official” unifying language. However, I do not agree that we should force people to learn it. Historically, the immigrant generation usually does learn some English, at least enough to conduct simple business. It is the next generation that we should target. With ESL programs, we make it too easy for the kids to slide by not being fully conversant in English.

      My grandfather had sibling born in Denmark and the US. His oldest sister was 10 when she came over. I asked Mom if she had ever heard her Dad speak Danish. Never. I remember my great Aunt as well although she was very old and I was very young. I do not remember ever hearing her speak with an accent. Kids learn languages quickly. Concentrate on them.

    • My focus above on the language requirement is not meant as a distraction, but a real issue with your policy initiative. As you readily admit, the United States does not have an official national language. Yet you seek to force prospective citizens to learn your language. Why? Now, if there was to be an official national language, I could better see your argument to mandate future citizens to have a working knowledge of English. Though this to me would still fly in the face of your concept of freedom and liberty.

      But to T-Ray’s point about encouraging prospective students to learn English through funding and education initiatives, I’m all for that. So long as it isn’t made a requirement to become a citizen.

      Of more concern to me is your concept of an ideological purity test to become a citizen. There is a difference between stating an oath to the United States, its Constitution and laws on the one hand, and mandating that all future citizens adhere to your political philosophy on the other. What’s next, kicking out existing citizens who do not meet your ideological test?

      Yet another issue I have with the above policy initiative on immigration — and I’m not sure who had initially suggested it nor where you fall on this point — is the waiting period suggested between being granted citizenship and being granted the right to vote. Once you grant someone citizenship, they must be granted all attendant rights and privileges, especially the right to vote. Either they are now a citizen or they are not. Your thoughts on this?

      • Buck, please go back to the requirements to be a citizen as they exist now. They answer all your questions regarding language, civics lessons and time frame. ESL classes are available everywhere.

        To my initial points these are all distractions and irrelevant. I am trying to deal with the conservative number of 11,000,000 people who are already here. Some for 20 minutes and some for 20 years. These people are living in the shadows. they are forced to stay within their ghettos out of fear where they are exploited repeatedly. They get jobs off the books where they are paid far less than the minimum wage. They sometimes get legit jobs where they pay taxes but can never stay because, as happened in my company on a very large project, someday Social Security or IRS or ICE will show up and ask why three workers out of 75 happen to have the same Social Security number. Many are married or have children and are still subject to deportation. Even I know we cannot deport them.

        The solution is screen them and keep them but give no political hack an advantage to encourage more of such immigration which I think is part of what happened last time. Believe it or not, I am interested first and foremost in the people involved have known many of them and worked with some including those here on visitors visas who are illegally working and raising families. Hence it is called:

        The Border Security and Undocumented Alien Protection Act of 2013

  14. A small hijack here……I promise to get back to immigration…….but I have a serious question as to motive that I would like to ask those that claim to be “progressive” or liberal. I have been monitoring several companies that have been outspoken about the economic impact on their bottom line with the implementation of the ACA. They have been open and honest in their assessment of the costs and what they have chosen to do about it. Some are stopping expansion plans, some are reducing employees to a minimum to get under the cap required by the ACA, some have stopped hiring, and some are going to offset the costs with layoffs.

    Why are they being attacked by the media as racist? Why are they being attacked as trying to derail the ACA? Why are boycotts being organized because of their decisions?

    Is it expected by the liberals and the progressives to just pay the price? Is it expected by the liberals and progressives for the companies to just absorb the loss? Do the liberals and progressives want these companies to go bankrupt and out of business because of their decisions? Do the liberals and progressives feel that these companies must justify their position?

    These are simple yes and no questions, please.

    • One liberal in my local paper simply said Papa John should just raise the price of pizza 25 cents. Now if every company raises their prices to cover the costs instead of reducing costs, labor etc., we are in for one large increase in costs. I would not classify this as inflation as these are real costs that are being covered. As such the real cost of the ACA is much greater than what the CBO computed. It to would be interested in an explanation.

      Your forgiven for hijacking the immigration thread if you contribute one good idea. 🙂

    • Good Evening Colonel,

      I can’t claim to be a liberal, but I can attempt to answer your questions based on my opinions…

      Is it expected by the liberals and the progressives to just pay the price?

      That is exactly what they expect. I have long held that the progressives who attempt to set policy in the market prefer to live in the ideal world as opposed to the real one. I really don’t mean that as an insult. In the ideal world, taxes go up, revenue increases and nobody gets hurt. But unfortunately these policies are implemented in the real world, where businesses do what they are supposed to do: make adjustments based on the new circumstances.

      Is it expected by the liberals and progressives for the companies to just absorb the loss?

      I think my previous answer handles this one too.

      Do the liberals and progressives want these companies to go bankrupt and out of business because of their decisions?

      No. Let’s be honest. In the majority of these cases, we are not really looking at bankruptcy. Papa Johns is all over the news. They guy is worth $300 million plus. If he chose to, he could eat the loss and not really feel it too much. Now for small business owners who could face bankruptcy, I imagine that most progressives won’t be looking to boycott them. They will simply understand that these are the consequences of the policies in place. THOSE businesses will garner understanding from the left.

      Do the liberals and progressives feel that these companies must justify their position?

      Absolutely they do. Remember, the base starting point for the vast majority of progressives is the stance that businesses are greedy. As such, they hope to force them to be “not greedy” by boycotts, policy changes, etc.

      The bottom line, Colonel, is that progressives, by and large, simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE WORLD OF BUSINESS WORKS, despite people like me pointing it out to them time and time again. Now before you lefties here get upset with me, allow me to explain what I mean by that. I have told you over and over that there is no such thing as a tax on a corporation. EVERY tax on a corporation is passed on to the consumer in some way. EVERY SINGLE ONE. So when you raise taxes on business, what you are really doing is raising taxes on the consumer who relies on that business, be it for an economical pizza dinner or for health care.

      What is interesting is that in the Papa Johns situation, the folks who want to boycott them have taken as their primary position that he is a greedy asshole because he could instead pay for this increase in health care by raising the price of each pizza by 15 cents (I will ignore the fact that this is a COMPLETELY MADE UP NUMBER MEANT TO CAUSE AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE. No one but the folks who pay the bills at Papa Johns have any clue what the actual cost increase would be). So despite ignoring my warnings for the last bunch of years, the left, in a truly bizarre twist of positions, is in fact DEMANDING that Papa Johns increase the cost of the pizzas (read as: pass the cost on to the consumer. sound familiar? ). And they will conveniently forget that this is the exact thing that they were warned would happen.

      And let’s pretend for a second that they magically knew that the 15 cent number was correct. That wouldn’t be a big deal, right? I have seen people from the left all over Facebook saying they would gladly pay the extra 15 cents for a pizza. But add that 15 cents to EVERY SINGLE THING THAT YOU PURCHASE AND CONSUME. 15 cents more per gallon of gas. 15 cents added to the cost of each of your 75 items in the grocery cart. Before you know it, you have dramatically increased the total amount of money each and every single American is paying for their consumer goods. Fortunately for you, poor voters are still not bright enough to realize that their health care really isn’t free after all. They will vote for your party again so they keep the free health care, free phones, free welfare, free unemployment.

      You have to hand it to the Progressive movement. They devised a plan to increase the amount of money they take out of the pocket of every single American, while also ensuring that those same poor people will thank them for doing so and ask them to do more! A brilliant plan for increasing their power base. A horrible plan for maintaining freedom in our country.

      The conservatives in America may be crazy. But the Progressives are just plain dangerous.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Trying to add 15 cents to everything we purchase would be far to complicated for most Progressives. They only understand simple things, like tax the rich business owners. And the answer to that wonderful idea is layoffs. THen they whine and call for a boycott. Since the ACA affects every single business (including restaurants). Maybe the Progressives should just stay home and learn how to cook, make it a real boycott. Now, if the grocery stores decide to have layoffs too, they can boycott them as well. All this for something that has failed miserably anyway, the costs of Health insurance is way more expensive than it was 4 years ago. 🙄

    • Colonel,

      Short answers to all your questions:

      Need examples.
      Need examples.
      Need examples.

      Yes – Sort of – but it’s not that simple.
      No.
      No.
      Yes.

      You did ask for simple yes and no answers, right?

      More to come…

  15. Thanks everyone…I will await a reasonable response from the left now. Simple economics shows that it is not as easy as adding some fiction of an increase to a pizza or a car or a loaf of bread.

    Health care costs are going up an average of 30% now….the ACA is going to end up raising health care by over 40%. What is government going to do next….eliminate the part time worker?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good Mornin Clonel 🙂

      We have a slow week between seasons, with bear opening this Saturday. I have had success in calling bears into us , having called 5 in September, so it might be interesting.

      I have to wonder how many MORE people are without health insurance as compared to 4 years ago. Considering the cost increases, I’m guessing that the number is much larger now, but, we will never hear about it because the media don’t want the truth to be told (unless it comes from Mr. Maddow of course as she is all knowing). Chilly this morning, only 27 degrees after being 70 yesterday. Hope you have a great day 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel

      Good morning Sir. Back to cold and wet here. But snow back home. I miss the snow.

      Back to your question. I answered your question about the Govts’ next move when they passed the ACA. I am convinced the ACA was viewed by them as a FIRST STEP towards a National Health Insurance program. MEDICARE for everyone.

      Then when costs continue to escalate and Docs keep turning down Medicare you will see National Health Care.

      I give the whole evolution about TEN YEARS.

    • Colonel,

      Can you please explain this:

      Simple economics shows that it is not as easy as adding some fiction of an increase to a pizza or a car or a loaf of bread.

      Please provide facts to support both of these:

      Health care costs are going up an average of 30% now….the ACA is going to end up raising health care by over 40%.

      Maybe this is the solution:

      What is government going to do next….eliminate the part time worker?

      Still more to come…

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Todd, Since the ACA has NO caps on what can be charged for premiums, how do you believe that the law will LOWER the costs of insurance?

        • Gman,

          Where did I say “I believe that the law will LOWER the costs of insurance?”

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I never said you believe that, I asked a question based on the intent of the law. The word “Affordable” is kind of important and I was asking for your opinion. THen again, you could also believe that it won’t lower prices. I guess I’ll wait for your answer to find out 🙂

            • Gman,

              Doesn’t creating a marketplace, where companies can sell insurance, and people can buy insurance, create competition and therefore the best prices?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Todd,

                Creating a marketplace would indeed do that. The problem is that nothing is being created, it already exists. While nobody has been watching, the countries biggest providers have been buying out the little competition. In most states, only two or three companies will compete, with the potential for one mother company owning all of them. Small companies can’t compete with the big boys. In short, the large companies don’t have to lower prices, they are competing with noone. Same question back at you. Will the law lower prices in your opinion?

    • ****************************************************
      Colonel,

      The two issues around health care – they are tightly related:
      * How people pay for health care costs
      * Raising health care costs

      #1 – How people pay for health care costs.

      Since WW2 (or sometime around there), for the most part, it has been employer funded, whether the employer is a private business or government.

      This has worked pretty good. It allows insurers to rate large pools of workers together, it provides stable funding for the insurance, it creates common (or at least a fairly small number of) health insurance plans that providers have to deal with in a given community, it provides fairly good insurance coverage when one spouse has a “good” job that provides benefits, even if the other spouse does not work or has a part-time job that does not provide benefits.

      Yada, yada, yada – you know – “Leave It To Beaver”.

      Walmart was one of the first companies to break this trend. Instead of hiring – lets say – 100 full-time workers at a store, they hire 200 part-time workers. This saves Walmart money and drives down the price of the stuff Walmart sells. But it also forces the “little mom & pop stores” out of business, many of which had more full time workers and provided benefits. This has become the common trend – you’ve pointed it out many times – businesses switching to more part-time workers or switching to “contractors” to avoid the costs of full-time workers.

      This trend results in more and more part-time jobs with low pay and no benefits, and fewer full-time jobs with good pay and benefits.

      The net result is that society is forced to pay for this difference. The families where both parents work multiple part-time jobs with no benefits end up using the Emergency Room for their health care. When they can’t pay the bill, those of us that do pay our bills (the insured) end up picking up those costs.

      This “using the Emergency Room for their health care” is something you’ve endorsed in the past (it’s the Texas model, right?). But it is the worst way to provide health care, both from an individual health standpoint and from an economic standpoint – it delivers lousy care at extremely high cost.

      Which leads us to:

      #2 – Raising health care costs

      The issues in #1 above contribute to the raising health care costs.

      But medical and technological advances are the biggest part.
      * We’re providing/using more health care per person
      * We’re providing/using more advanced, really expensive health care per person
      * We’re saving people that just a decade or two ago would have died sooner

      All of this leads to longer, better lives – at least for those who can afford it. But it’s really expensive.

      Some questions for you:

      Is there any value to being a “Good Corporate Citizen” and providing good paying, family supporting jobs?

      Or is all about the bottom line for the business and its owners? Does anything else matter?

      • Hi Todd, thanks for your response. I will answer your questions first. (1) Is there any value to being a “Good Corporate Citizen”…..I do not know the definition of Good Corporate Citizen but my definition is providing jobs for what I, as the owner, considers fair compensation…and not what someone else deems fair and equitable. I get to define it because it is my risk and my money and expertise. People can choose to work for me or not on the basis of what they consider fair and equitable. The value to me would be the type of employee that I attract with my compensation level. As a business owner, I have no moral responsibility to provide anything else than what I, as an owner, wish to provide. My moral compass is what I determine my company to be. No outsider nor government agency should have the right to define my moral aptitude nor define what makes me a good company or bad. That would be solely up to the prospective employee to decide upon their own. If I do not offer what they want or wish to have, the prospective employee should shake my hand, say thank you for the opportunity, but your company does not offer what I need and then go down the road and seek employment elsewhere.

        Is it all about the bottom line for the business and its owners? Yes, sir, it is. Does anything else matter? No sir, it does not. The only caveat here would be an ethical and honest business venture that abides by the laws of the land.

        Any prudent businessman will offer the best that they can do within the confines of their business. No one can and should expect anything else. If the government decided to pass laws that conflict with the design and structure of its stated mission, then a business owner has a choice. Absorb the cost, pass the cost on to employees, and/or raise prices. Either of those choices are independent of each other or some can be combined. However, as a business owner, if I want a 10% profit…that is my choice. I can do whatever I want to get to my 10%. I can make one of the three choices or a combination of all. It is unreasonable, unethical, and morally wrong to expect me to offer what I do not wish to offer and to absorb what I do not wish to absorb. My decisions, as a business owner, have one design……that is the expected survival of my business. How I get there, legally, is my affair and no one else.

        I see an ethical problem with an organized boycott specifically designed to close a business simply because they make a business decision.

      • @ Todd….You said “This “using the Emergency Room for their health care” is something you’ve endorsed in the past (it’s the Texas model, right?).” No sir, I do not endorse this at all and it is not the Texas model. What Texas does is budget and spends within its budget. Our health care system, such as it is, does not and cannot run in the red. I do not condone the “running to the ER with a common cold” at all….but there are a plethora of minor emergency clinics and county clinics available for these illnesses.

        I support the balanced budget and I support the tax structure than Texas has……with one exception. That exception is in the educational field as I do NOT support the Robin Hood tax. But I do support living within ones budget and that is what Texas does. Can you say that about the other states? Business and people are flocking here for some reason.

        • One other item, that I missed. Texas is also a pay as you go state. (Public parks, lakes, etc have fees paid at the gate for entrance)….Want a boat? you will pay a fee….want a plane, you will pay a fee and higher property taxes….we like this sort of way.

      • In enough volume, it makes business sense for companies to provide health insurance to employees since they get effective volume discounts so that the cost to them is less than the value to the employee – win-win, no government intervention or subjective morality required.

  16. The Voters Who Stayed Home
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333135/voters-who-stayed-home-andrew-c-mccarthy#

    But the story is not about who voted; it is about who didn’t vote.

    • I admit to being sorely tempted to vote but in the end I couldn’t consent to be ruled by the system.

      • No, you just decided not to have a voice in the system.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          I disagree. DK voiced opposition to the system.

          A not vote does carry with it a voice. If done deliberately it is an expression of opinion. Unfortunately that opinion is told to an empty forest. Nobody knows what it is or how many share it.

          But it does NOT help solve the problems if there are enough who still vote.

          • Fine-silence equals something. But what-is the question.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              V.H.

              More importantly, how is that opinion any more effective than those expressed by voting?

              I see little difference in the outcomes, so I am not sure just what it is the NOT VOTING crowd thinks they are accomplishing.

              Other than standing on principles.

              • What principles-and it is a serious question? what principle is not voting at all standing for. We have a government-it isn’t going away simply because they sit at home. So none of the people running spoke for them. None of them. Not Romney, Obama, Gary or Jill or whoever else was out there-none of them? Do they expect a perfect candidate-because they will never get one?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              V.H.

              You will have to ask them. GMan says the system is rigged so he will not participate. So how does that make the system “unrigged”?

              As for principles, I struggle with that one myself. Although I get closer each cycle. BF’s priniciples mean he should not vote. I have no problem with that.

              My principles do not prevent voting. But that leaves “vote for who/what”. I personally don’t demand perfect. But I am demanding a position on certain key values. Like and understanding and this plan to protect Freedom, Liberty and Justice. There is also the ethical issue of voting for someone who is “acceptable” but who you know does not accept Freedom fully. By voting FOR this person you are sanctioning their actions later.

              REAL change will come when we can all stand on principle and not be forced to accept the “least of two evils”. Where I differ from GMan, BF and others is that I recognize the only way to get there is to be ACTIVE and to PARTICIPATE in the system. Maybe it will fail, maybe it won’t. But change has occurred in big ways in the past by those who did participate. BUT, that means far more than just voting.

              That is where I think to many people hang their “not voting” hat. Voting alone in a corrupt system will not eliminate corruption. You have to actively seek out and support and then sell those who are NOT corrupt.

              As I see it there are two ways to change a system. Voting and Guns.

              BF and others have pointed out accurately that ridicule or discrediting Govt is a peaceful means of over throwing a Govt. This is true but it ignores the next step. Once it is taken down, people VOTE on the replacement. The alternative is the Russian Revolution.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                JAC and V.H.

                I stuck with my principles. I will not be a part of legitimizing corruption, and I am speaking of the Federal level. It is impossible to change what is going on in D.C. I agree with you JAC about change and guns, I believe that’s what it will take. I have seen good people go to D.C. only to be corrupted by the game. IMHO, our Federal govt has lost it’s legitimacy, I would support Succession at this point. I would support removing the corrupt group in D.C., by force if need be, rewrite the rules (as I have written about) and replace the corrupt system with a sytem that can’t be corrupted. WE NEED A REVOLUTION, it don’t have to be violent, but it needs done. We have lost our Republic. Since I do not believe that those in D.C. are representing the people, I will not perticipate in the corruption. Hope that helps 🙂

              • gmanfortruth says:

                OH, I forgot. I also feel the election is totally rigged and is mostly useless. They know who will win long before the people vote, then they brainwash the masses to believe that actual votes elected these people. BullDookie!

        • gmanfortruth says:

          VH, I did not vote. I will no longer partake in a fantasy about having a voice. We have no voice, the corruption is too strong. You were given your choices, how do you believe that you really have a voice?

        • You assume that my vote would matter either way, and that by somehow not voting it not only ‘doesn’t speak’ to anything but I give up being able to speak out in other ways.

          The principle I stand on I can best state as: If someone holds me up at gunpoint and I give them my wallet, that does not mean I agreed that it should be allowed to happen. If I recognize a vote that is held (by participating) electing an individual to go around holding up myself and others at gunpoint, then participating in the system means I agree that its outcomes should be allowed to happen.

          • Exactly.

            Test what you vote was worth.

            Pretend you didn’t vote.

            Did it make a difference?

            There ya go!

            • Long deep breath………. you forgot we’re talking 40 million eligible voters didn’t vote. At the very least those 40 million could have made a difference who won.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      BF

      You are exaggerating the amount and nature of the no vote discussion. First of all, it is primarily limited to the LOSERS camp.

      Second, it is limited to HOW TO WIN, not about validity of Govt, itself. Which of course relates back to Item One.

      Note what is missing from the discussion. Gary Johnson got over 2 million votes. An INCREASE for the Libertarian Party.

      • Nah,

        The commenter is trying to wrap the drop in voter participation from a paradigm of “voting” – not one of a whole dismissal of political process.

        He argues “if we just had the right guy” they would vote.

        No, they would not.

        Johnston simply received the Paul votes of those that didn’t vote for Obama or withdrew completely.

        It is telling.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          BF

          I agree that there is a story in the voting turnout and in how that voting unfolded at national vs. state levels.

          But I think we are all making a lot of assumptions about what it all means without better data.

          I would propose one thought, my opinion of course. That is that the drop off in Obama’s vote represents the people who were overcome by the Aura and who have now realized their folly. If this is true, it may speak well of Americans in the future. Nothing like a Messianic leader falling flat to help restore the American distaste for Messiahs.

          One can hope anyway.

          • Bottom Line says:

            I thought O’bama was the ‘Antichrist’. ..or is that supposed to be the messiah, …or whatever these new age weirdos call it?

          • Agreed.

          • All that may be true-but Obama is still the president-so those 10 million or whatever the exact number is and the other 2 million who didn’t vote for Romney or anyone else-what have they accomplished? People know they don’t like Obama or Romney or anyone else but have no idea why-well O is probably crying in distress while he continues destroying this Country.

            • Bottom Line says:

              What about the people that didn’t go out and rob a liquor store? What about the people that didn’t hire someone to shoot someone else in the head? What about the people that didn’t donate to the local violent gang? What did they accomplish?

              A: The same thing non-voters did…they DIDN’T support or play a role in violating others.

              • Oh, is that your goal-so you can sit back and claim you are not guilty of anything bad that happens in this Country. Fine , I hope it makes you feel good. But the bad is happening with or without you-but good- well that is being silenced-by your silence.

              • Bottom Line says:

                V,

                Trying to bring change by voting is like making sandwiches for the nearest violent street gang and trying to sweet talk them into stop being mean. As soon as they have their sandwiches, it’s “get lost lady”. Votes work the same. All you do is support it.

                You cannot fix a broken system by playing by it’s broken rules.

                Change isn’t going to happen until the system is wrecked enough that people are desperate enough to accept new ideas. Voters still have faith, real change waits.

              • Exactly, BL!

                People do not move unless they are very uncomfortable and in pain.

                That does mean the system has to fail before the most of the People “wake up”.

                The few that are already awake, trying to jostle the rest out of the numbness, sigh in frustration, because we are, unfortunately, pulled along into the morass with them.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Indeed, Flag.

                But, as you know, it is coming. It is only a matter of time. How many societies have collapsed before? Of course, everything is interwoven globally, as will be the change.

                Functional limited government = Thesis
                Overgrown dysfunctional wrecked government = Antithesis
                New Order = Synthesis

                We’re going to have a New World Order. The questions are what will it take to push the first domino, and whether it will be one of tyranny or freedom. It is ultimately up to the people. It’ll be interesting to see how the transition to the next stage of our social evolution plays out.

                We’ll get there eventually, hopefully with as little suffrage as possible.

                Just to add,

                I didn’t follow anything election related the whole time…(except for viewing Perry’s step down speech)…I don’t know anything other than Obama won. I am glad I spared myself all the BS that would have only added to my already heavy load of life’s BS. I have about as much interest in elections as I do staring at a blank wall.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              V.H.

              There is much data missing. So your conclusions are premature.

              We do not know the overlap of the decreased vote for Mr. O and Mr. R. How many, if any voted for someone else? How many did not vote at all? How many DIED over the past 4 years. That would be most likely part of Mr R’s potential vote.

              We do not know the REASONS for those voting or not voting, at least in enough detail to draw solid conclusions.

              The fact is, however, that many people simply didn’t see the choice is such stark terms as many of us. So is that their fault or the candidate who did not make his case very well?

              • I don’t care-I’m just angry-Nit picky logic can take a holiday-All I know at this moment is that people who sat here for 4 years and talked about how bad Obama was for this Country-sat at home and allowed him to be re-elected. They didn’t even bother to vote for another person who stood more for their values than Romney did. They just did nothing. They just let the greater EVIL WIN!!!!!

                Now i’m just not gonna talk about this anymore. Because I know people have a right to make their own decisions based on their own ideas of right and wrong. But I also have the right to be mad as hell at them for ignoring the greatest danger in this election and to my mind that is Obama and his crew. And from their own words-I think they know it.

              • Much of the story is about how Obama had X million less votes so has no real mandate to do whatever he wants. Whereas a Romney win, however narrow, would’ve been seen as vindication for the progressive Republicans to go do whatever they want. In that context not voting is actually a proper response.

            • Low turnouts are like low approval ratings, they scare the politicians even if it seems like there’s no effect on their rhetoric.

              Once the federal government becomes unable to project its power beyond DC it will become irrelevant to everyone else.

              • DK

                I think I agree with what Limbaugh said today and has said before. When the left loses, it acts though it won and makes the winner believe it. His example, was them coming right out and saying that you are not going to get a conservative judge on the SC. When the right or more correctly the moderate right manages to squeek out a victory, we give them what they want.

                From what happened four years ago, you would have thought that Obama had the numbers LBJ had in ’64 against Goldwater. He saw it as a mandate. Over the past week it is obvious that he thinks that his mandate is not only still there but has grown. Now personally I think the guy could use a good shrink he actually has had a pretty F—– up life which I think leads to his disconnect with this country and its principles. .

                Republicans never get a mandate, not even when Nixon trounced McGovern. Nixon spent five years giving the left everything they wanted and did not buy a single vote when push came to shove on possible impeachment. I guess Reagan came the closest and that was only because he knew who he was. His administration succeeded because of him. Bush I won the mandate not with the election but with his leadership in the Gulf War. He then squandered it in a year by breaking his pledge on taxes. Clinton thought he had a mandate but got his ears pinned back smartly and then went to the middle, fooling the rest of the country into thinking Democrats were normal people. 9/11 gave Bush II the mandate which then he proceeded to blow by being a stand off president, appearing uninvolved and surrounding himself with some incredibly incompetent people, Cheney. Rumsfeld and Rove come readily to mind. want to blame somebody for Obama? Blame Bush. That I can agree with.

                Our dear leader has no illusions that he is not the anointed one, chosen by some deity or other to bring his sense of enlightenment to the rest of us ,miserable wretches. I somehow doubt that Romney would have been the same.

              • Republicans had a pretty solid mandate from 2002-2006 and we got a completely unfounded war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. Yay?

                Obama had a pretty solid mandate from 2008-2010 and we got Obamacare (more a health insurance bailout than anything else) and the stimulus bill (a govt/construction union bailout).

                Now in 2012 Obama has no mandate – and a vindicated Republican-controlled House that not only kept but expanded control, which was not present in 2008.

                Most people “in the middle” see their two choices as “someone like Bush” or “someone like Obama” – no wonder so many people don’t vote.

              • Bush lost the popular vote and squeeked by on the electoral. His mandate was a result of the WTC attack and he ran wild with it. It was the same mandate every wartime president gets initially with the same bad results. Someday check out what it was like to be a Huttite during the Wilson Administration. Bad enough they spoke ancestral German.

                Obama’s mandate was all in his head and still is. He got a break by not being Bush. Honestly, I think Hillary would have run McCain into the ground and I don’;t even like her. Obama was just an unknown quantity and thereby benefitted. He also projected leadership. Would have been much better for the country had he gone to Hollywood. Nero and Caligula felt they had mandates too.

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    S.K.

    re: “Other discussions about immigration numbers etc, all have to wait. This is the 600 lb. gorilla and presented honestly and openly to the immigrant community (which will be a bitch to do) can fly through with their full support.” and your other related comments.

    You or T RAY brought this issue up in the beginning. If you do not recognize the connection between Flow and the current level of illegals, along with future pressure, then nothing you do now will change anything.

    The results will be exactly the same as the last two times we granted amnesty.

    I suggest you go back to my first post on this topic above, my list.

    I most certainly did not ignore the people who are already here. I said I think they should be given a chance to become Citizens IF they want to be Citizens. If not then issue a Temp Work Visa. That is ONCE THE BORDER IS CLOSED.

    • JAC, I agree, close the border.

      The new law will open something like this

      Acknowledging the need to secure the borders of the United States it is hereby directed that the Federal Government through it’s department of Immigration and naturalization services prepare a report, within three months, showing the major points of entry (cross border) of illegal immigrants. If it is determined that 60 plus percent of such immigration flows through a given geographic boundary, it is then directed that the Federal Highway department begin the process of surveying said boundary for the purpose of constructing roads adjacent to a concrete and steel barrier being no less than twenty feet in height. The Highway department has been selected due to their expertise and success in constructing similar barriers along federal highways which pass near urban/suburban areas. Federal highway funds will be used for the construction.

      Within six months of the decision to construct any such barrier, the US Department of interior is required to provide the Federal Highway department with suggestions as to openings in the newly constructed barriers to permit normal wildlife migration. Simultaneously, within the same time period, the INS is directed to provide plans for the constant monitoring 24/7 of these wildlife routes.

      Upon passage of this law, the INS will begin a process of registering all undocumented immigrants currently in the United States. Such records may not be used for any purpose under this bill other than determining eligibility for potential legal resident status.

      Upon completion of construction of the barriers along the border, and certification of their adequacy by the governors of the states affected, the INS shall begin to issue Permanent Resident visas to previously screened undocumented aliens. Others, who have not yet registered have 24 months from the certified completion of the barrier to register for screening. They must provide documentation that they have been in residence prior to the date this law was passed. No new undocumented immigrants arriving after the date of the passage of this law are eligible for permanent resident status and shall be deported to their country of origin at the expense of the United States.

      well?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        S.K.

        As a law it is too prescriptive. But the methods are worthy of evaluation.

        So, is it agreed that we can not allow ALL those who want to enter the USA to enter the USA when and where ever they want?

        Do we agree that ONLY those who have filed for and received some sort of APPROVAL shall be let into the USA?

        Do you have any opinion on the number of people we should allow to immigrate per year? Any standards regarding education, wealth, etc??

        Complete lottery or deliberate recruitment?

        • JAC, The quantity is an issue.

          Not that I know what went on in his head but the decision by Robert Kennedy to push to change the format of immigration, specifically giving preference to third world people and cutting back on visas to Europeans smacks of creating a permanent, dependent underclass. At the time, after the Goldwater loss, the Democratic party could do pretty much as it pleased and it did. The results are apparent in the arguments we are having here. It has created a multi tiered country where we are no longer the great melting pot but rather this “mosaic”.

          When my grandparents immigrated, there was a great need for raw labor in this country. We were at the tail end of the industrial revolution. They arrived in the early 1900’s and were in their twenties, if that. Had they lived into their eighties they would have seen a country that no longer needed the strong backs they offered. They were tunnel miners. By the ’60’s that was replaced by strip mining which was one hell of a lot safer and a lot less labor intensive.

          So, times change, needs change and just when they are changing the fastest the US government decides to open the doors to people with even less skills than my grandparents. Brilliant! But as I said, not having just been born in the cabbage patch, I suspect that Senator Robert F. Kennedy had an ulterior motive. Which intentionally or not is working out quite nicely for his side and he was too damned smart for this to have been “accidental”.

          I believe over a million people come here annually legally to stay and work. The number can be easily checked. Is this enough? With an 8% unemployment rate it is. With a more likely 17% real unemployment rate it really is. Importing unskilled labor into this country when native born blacks and Hispanics have an off the wall unemployment rate is nothing short of a crime and certainly a mortal sin. Even way back, I wondered why we did not solve our problems rather than put them off. That is why I am suggesting that we all seriously think about our feelings on the issue. It touches on almost everything else in this country that we bitch and moan about from crime to poverty to welfare to education to race relations.

          BF drives me nuts. I can quote some of his stuff when he attacks me for wanting to revive jobs in “smokestack” industries which he considers obsolete in the US yet wants open borders providing the kind of labor that only can be used in smokestack industries. That is some cognitive dissonance going on there.

          • Who are you to tell me that I can’t hire a hard-working Mexican for $50k a year vs a lazy American for $60k a year? Why is it ok if I import a rural person from Kansas instead?

            • The more appropriate analogy, and from my experience is the hard working illegal Mexican for $ 2.00 per hour plus a kickback vs the legal Mexican immigrant for $ 8.00 per hour. That’s the real world. Been there, seen it time and time again.

              Regarding the Kansian, doubt you would get him for $ 2.00 per hour, doubt he would hot bunk and live on beans. see my comment below regarding Oakies and the great depression or just watch “Grapes of Wrath”.

              • If you’re not going to answer the question, why even bother to reply?

                Even given your fantasy scenario vs mine, who are you to say I can’t hire someone at $2.00/hr from Mexico if he’s willing to work for that? Good for him for out-competing the guy who wanted $8.00/hr.

                Moreover, if you didn’t try to harass and persecute the immigrant then he wouldn’t be scared or desperate enough to take a job at $2.00/hr in the first place.

                Either you hold freedom as a principle or you don’t, you can’t say ‘freedom for me and anyone in my box but not for you because you’re outside my box’.

                What about the other scenario? What if Texas decides they don’t want any moochers moving in from the northeast after their states collapse and decide they want to tighten up their borders with other states and prevent people from moving in. Would that be more or less okay than treating people from Mexico the same way?

          • STK,

            You believe you see a dissonance – but it is because you have distorted positions

            – and like a pilot lost in the clouds, you are flying by the seat of your pants, and not your instruments – so you steer the plane to level with the clouds – thinking you are flying straight… but the clouds are, in reality, rolling and tumbling. So you look outside and the plane looks level…all the while you are heading for an out of control crash.

            You refuse to discard contradictions and refuse to rely on reason from a principle – to you, I appear to be rolling and tossing… but it is you watching your clouds.

            Read below post to “SUFA” (mostly you).

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    My response to your questions of late yesterday.

    “My focus above on the language requirement is not meant as a distraction, but a real issue with your policy initiative. As you readily admit, the United States does not have an official national language. Yet you seek to force prospective citizens to learn your language. Why? BECAUSE THERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT BIND A PEOPLE TOGETHER AS A NATION. THESE ARE CORE VALUES AND LANGUAGE. LANGUAGE IS ALSO ONE OF THE KEYS TO AVOIDING THE CREATION OF PERMANENT GHETTOS AND OTHER ENCLAVES OF IMMIGRANTS WHO NEVER BECOME PART OF THE LARGER SOCIETY. I VIEW IMMIGRATION TODAY MUCH AS I VIEW EMPLOYEE RECRUITMENT. I WANT GOOD PEOPLE THEN I TRAIN THEM IN OUR BUSINESS CULTURE AND COMMUNICATIONS. I GIVE THEM WHAT THEY NEED TO SUCCEED. THIS IS PART OF THE COST OF RECRUITING NEW EMPLOYEES BECAUSE I KNOW I WILL GET A POSITIVE RETURN IN THE LONG RUN.,

    “Now, if there was to be an official national language, I could better see your argument to mandate future citizens to have a working knowledge of English. Though this to me would still fly in the face of your concept of freedom and liberty.” THE TERM “NATIONAL LANGUAGE” IS USUALLY USED IN CONTEXT OF A LAW MAKING SUCH A DESIGNATION. THESE LAWS DO NOT REQUIRE PEOPLE LEARN ENGLISH. ON THE OTHER HAND AMERICA DOES HAVE A NATIONAL LANGUAGE, IT IS AMERICAN ENGLISH. THIS IS MUCH LIKE YOUR ARGUMENT THAT WE ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION BUT THEN AGREEING WE ARE A CHRISTIAN DOMINATED NATION. ONE IS A LEGAL DESIGNATION THE OTHER A CULTURAL REALITY.

    YES, THE IDEA OF REQUIRING CITIZENS TO LEARN ENGLISH IS CONTRADICTORY TO MY CONCEPT OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY. AT LEAST TO A LARGE EXTENT. I DO BELIEVE IN GOVTS PROPER ROLE TO PROTECT OUR FREEDOM, LIBERTY AND RIGHTS. TO THE EXTENT THAT IMMIGRATION STANDARDS SUPPORT THAT ROLE THEN IT IS APPROPRIATE. MY RESPONSE, HOWEVER, IS BASED MOSTLY ON THE REALITY OF WHAT AMERICA IS TODAY, NOT ON MY IDEAL OF WHAT IT SHOULD BE. AT THE SAME TIME I THINK MY CRITERIA WILL HELP US INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF MAINTAINING FREEDOM, LIBERTY AND JUSTICE AS CORE PRINCIPLES.

    “But to T-Ray’s point about encouraging prospective students to learn English through funding and education initiatives, I’m all for that. So long as it isn’t made a requirement to become a citizen.” YOU STILL AVOID ANSWERING MY QUESTION AS TO WHY YOU THINK THIS INAPPROPRIATE. YOU KEEP SAYING YOU DON’T LIKE IT BUT HAVE PROVIDED NO EXPLANATION THAT I CAN SEE.

    “Of more concern to me is your concept of an ideological purity test to become a citizen. There is a difference between stating an oath to the United States, its Constitution and laws on the one hand, and mandating that all future citizens adhere to your political philosophy on the other. What’s next, kicking out existing citizens who do not meet your ideological test?” GOOD IDEA. ONE CAN ONLY HOPE! 😉

    “Yet another issue I have with the above policy initiative on immigration — and I’m not sure who had initially suggested it nor where you fall on this point — is the waiting period suggested between being granted citizenship and being granted the right to vote. Once you grant someone citizenship, they must be granted all attendant rights and privileges, especially the right to vote. Either they are now a citizen or they are not. Your thoughts on this?”

    I GAVE THIS IN MY ORIGINAL LIST. ONCE WE SECURE THE BORDER THEN WE ALLOW THOSE WHO TRULY WANT TO BECOME CITIZENS TO BEGIN THE PROCESS. THIS MEANS THEY GET A GREEN CARD AND THEN HAVE 5 YEARS TO MAKE APPLICATION. TIME ENOUGH TO TAKE THEIR ENGLISH AND HISTORY CLASSES. 🙂

    IF THEY DO NOT REALLY WANT TO BE CITIZENS THEN ISSUE THEM TEMP WORK VISA. I DON’T KNOW THE PERIOD BUT LETS SAY THREE YEARS TO GIVE THE GOVT TIME TO GET THEM INTO THE SYSTEM AND SET UP A CHECK SYSTEM. BECAUSE THOSE ON TEMP VISA HAVE TO LEAVE OR GET THE VISA RENEWED.

    I DISAGREE WITH A BROAD GROUP OF CITIZENS W/O VOTING RIGHTS. THAT WILL ONLY FUEL FURTHER CONCERNS OVER VOTING FRAUD. BUT THEN I DON’T KNOW WHY CERTAIN FELONS ARE DENIED THEIR VOTING RIGHTS EITHER. THOSE CONVICTED OF TREASON I COULD UNDERSTAND. BUT THE REST I SIMPLY DO NOT.

    • The reason I am against your insistence on requiring prospective citizens to learn English is pretty simple, and I believe I have explained it — English is not the official national language of the United States; in fact, there is no official national language.

      What you are trying to accomplish here is coming up with a way to provide a path to citizenship, but only grant this path to those who agree with your views and principles on what America is (or what America should be). Hence the requirement that they learn English. The requirement that they not ascribe to a socialist political philosophy. The requirement that they be indoctrinated to strive to maintain your view of ‘freedom, liberty and justice’.

      On the issue of citizenship and voting — I agree with you. During a provisional residency period before attaining citizenship, clearly there should be no right to vote. However, immediately upon becoming a citizen, the right to vote must be granted. I also agree in terms of felons — once they have served their time, their voting rights must be restored. I feel convicted felons should probably have the right to vote even while serving their time, but can see both sides of the argument in this context.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        What a strange response. You are against requiring English because we have no law designating English as our national language. But then you oppose having such a law. WHY???

        • How is this response strange — you are the one advocating for mandating future citizens speak English when English is not even the official national language of the US.

          I oppose having such a law because I don’t believe it necessary. The real question is why do you support imposing an official national language? It would appear to me this goes against your central tenet of freedom and liberty.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            I have given you my reasons at least twice. I have given you a Malkin article to read where others have explained similar reasons. These reasons go much deeper than the existence of a “law” or “official” mandate.

            This is an ENGLISH speaking nation Buck. So WHY do you have a problem requiring NEW IMMIGRANTS learn English?

            The sum of your stated reason is that you simply oppose requiring NEW Citizens to learn English at some functional level as a condition of Citizenship. So how can they function as a Citizen WITHOUT a functional understanding of the language?

            • This is an English speaking nation just as it is a Christian nation. Does this mean you support a requirement that all prospective citizens become Christian?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                Answer the question Buck. WHY are you opposed?

              • Opposed to what — mandating a language requirement for citizenship given that there is no official national language or establishing English as the official national language?

                Either way, I believe I’ve answered the question above.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                You have NOT answered the question. You said you oppose requiring English because there is no OFFICIAL language. But then you oppose an Official Language. You have never explained WHY beyond making this circular argument.

                WHY do you oppose requiring Immigrants to learn English as a condition of Citizenship?

                That is a pretty straightforward question Buck. It has nothing to do with whether there is an “OFFICIAL” language. It has to do with your opposition to the concept.

              • JAC — quite simply I oppose requiring English for prospective citizens because English is not the official language of the United States. This isn’t circular. My opposition to this requirement has everything to do with the fact that there is no official language. Since there is no official language, how do you force people to learn English to become a citizen? I can’t bring myself to understand the logic you are using here. Make English the official language and I could well support imposing such a requirement (even if I don’t necessarily like the idea), especially provided funding is provided for these courses.

                Does that answer your question?

                Meanwhile, I await your answer as to your support of a requirement mandating prospective citizens become Christian (since we are a Christian nation)…

              • Well for one thing -one can’t force people to become Christians.

              • I agree VH. But do you believe one can force someone to speak a given language?

              • JAC,

                To add in re language requirement — what about the logistical issues — How fluent does one have to be? What is someone, try as they might, just can’t pick up a new language?

              • Actually, what I think is that we have to do something about people entering this Country illegally-whether or not they speak English is a secondary issue that I simply don’t think much matters at this point. All our arguing has accomplished is a lot more people being here illegally. How about we start with Closing the border and giving the people here residency without citizenship. Then how about we stop coddling these people and help every child learn English as part of their school work instead of allowing them to use their 1st language. In a short period of time there really wouldn’t be a language problem. If their parents can’t or don’t bother to learn the language, then the second generation would. The problem in my mind is that we make it too easy for people to decide not to bother. Which is why, I personally think we should have a national language, but that doesn’t mean every person must speak the language to be welcome here.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    MORE ON IMMIGRATION REFORM…………..by Malkin

    Buck, this article includes more on the points I was making about assimilation.

    http://michellemalkin.com/

  20. gmanfortruth says:

    Is this just a test, or is this the beginning of the Zombie Apocalypse ? http://godfatherpolitics.com/8053/austerity-measures-to-begin-in-ohio-next-year/

    What sucks about this, is it will hurt some who really need it, namely the elderly.

  21. Is this secession movement really going to get anywhere? You have to keep hitting “more” at the bottom to see all the petitions from all the states and the number of signatures they have collected.
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions

    • gmanfortruth says:

      It would be nice if it did, but more likely it will be ignored. It will take alot more than this to fix the mess in DC.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Godzilla

      It will go NO PLACE.

      It is aimed at the wrong target for starters.

      Petitioning the White House is meaningless.

      Petitions should be constructed and sent to the State Legislature.

    • oops

      • Hey V.H. since you posted a southern rock band, ever listen to Blackberry Smoke?
        If you like bluegrass, or “newgrass” as this genre is called, check these guys out, new favs, and a cool video:

        • Well, I have to admit-bluegrass isn’t my favorite music-but I do like some that I’ve heard. Victory a little to twangy for me 🙂 but I like this one.

  22. I am not commenting on the affair, but this is weird

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2232288/David-Petraeus-Paula-Broadwell-conquests-Did-Wikipedia-editor-try-reveal-affair-January.html

    ‘Petraeus is reportedly one of her many conquests:’ Did anonymous Wikipedia editor try to reveal CIA chief’s affair in January?On January 26 2012, an anonymous editor wrote on Paula Broadwell’s page on the website: ‘Petraeus is reportedly one of her many conquests’
    Attempt to trace anonymous poster using IP address was unsuccessful

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    “Meanwhile, I await your answer as to your support of a requirement mandating prospective citizens become Christian (since we are a Christian nation)…”

    I NEVER proposed such a requirement. Your attempt to create equivalency is absurd.

    • Is it really so absurd? Your support for a language requirement is rooted in your statement that we are an English speaking nation. In the past you’ve also argued that we are a Christian nation. So why not a religious requirement as well?

      • Because Christians do not believe in forcing people to be Christians. So a Christian Nation would never force anyone to be a Christian. JAC is right- it is not equivalent. Not knowing the language is a societal road block to success. Not being a Christian is not.

        • But who are you to mandate someone else learn English all because you believe it to be in their best interest? VH – I didn’t realize you were all about the greater good!! Welcome to the dark side… 🙂

          • We’re all for the greater good Buck-we simply believe your way is the wrong way to acheive it. And who am I , why I’m an American citizen so I get a vote. And if you look at my words, I didn’t say people had to know the language-I simply said we should have a national language. There’s a difference but if we are going to look at it-why shouldn’t people who have 5 years to assimilate not have at least an elementary understanding of the language. At least enough too recite the pledge and know what it means. As far as the citizen test-I have no objection to it being given in another language. Some real good people who are maybe a little old to really take too a new language shouldn’t be turned away.

            • VH, I’m confused by your reply — do you believe there should be a language requirement as a prerequisite for US citizenship, or not?

              • That’s because I’m not sure myself. I see a lot of truth in both arguments. And I am soft hearted enough that the idea of a good person being denied citizenship just because they don’t have a good grasp on the language bothers me. But it also bothers me, maybe a little bit more that not knowing the language hurts the Country because it hurts them and their ability to succeed. So at this point I am more interested in doing everything possible to encourage and help people learn the language. And I think that must include not making it too easy to get along without knowing the language. Not sure where that leaves me but I am thinking about it 🙂

          • Buck,
            Your new client is a millionaire. He really wants you to represent him. He cannot speak English and refuses to have an interpreter. I know you want his cash..so how does that work?

            • Well, if he refuses to have an interpreter, then I can’t represent him, now can I? Oh well, that’s his choice. He is free to hire an attorney fluent in whatever language he speaks.

  24. Immigration:

    The issue I see here is a problem with framing.

    There is this continuous belief that immigration is bad because….. it comes from this one place … across an border

    Yet, it is not bad if it comes from another place not across a border.

    The complaints about immigration however do not make any reference to why a border makes a difference.

    To rephrase:
    Many people argue about restricting trade with another country, by using arguments pro/con about trade itself. But the arguments can be applied to all trade … so what is the argument difference merely because of a line on a map?

    There maybe trade issues because of that line – say national security, for example, but that is not an argument about TRADE but of SECURITY.

    So this is the problem with V.H/SKT/others arguments – they are about immigration not borders, and thus create a hypocrisy because they do not level the very same complaints against immigration between States, though the arguments equally apply.

    • We are supposed to be the United States of America-that means people should be able to move from State to State without being harrassed. If our borders are secure we would have no need to worry about State to State migration unless you are suggesting every State should be it’s own little Country. What are you talking about-this one I simply don’t get-I don’t always agree with you but I do at least understand what your point is? This time I don’t 🙂

      • Exactly my point.

        You believe people should move unmolested across these lines, but not those lines – without providing any fundamental reason to why that line is different than any other line.

        What is the fundamental of a line that determines a person should be molested in crossing it or not?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          NATIONAL BOUNDARIES.

          Just as it has been for Centuries.

          • So what about them?

            Why does a line define molestation or not when crossing “this line” and “not that line”.

            That’s the point – the argument against one is applied to other – yet, it isn’t.

            Wholly irrational.

      • My principles do not change based on where I live or what lines you draw on a map.

    • That sir is so patently absurd as to be not worth an answer.

      • Yea, I walked right into that one didn’t I 🙂

      • Oh? Let’s say Texas is doing quite well for itself and doesn’t want a bunch of freeloaders from New York coming in and dragging them down. Should they or should they not be able to deny them entry/residency? Why is it, in principle, any different if they come from Mexico instead?

        Using the current law to argue principle is like proving that the world is flat by pointing to a 2D map – when the data you start with is wrong (does not agree with your principle), your conclusion can’t be right.

  25. Bottom Line says:

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    BUCK

    From the Govt Site governing Immigration and Citizenship

    Applying for U.S. Citizenship

    Becoming a U.S. citizen has many advantages including the right to vote and the ability to sponsor relatives to come to the United States. The U.S. Citizenship Application (Form N-400) is completed by Lawful Permanent Residents (Green Card holders) over age 18 who meet the eligibility requirements to apply for citizenship.

    Eligibility Requirements

    In order to apply for U.S. citizenship, you must meet the following requirements:

    Be at least 18 years old

    Have had a valid Green Card at least five years. If you are married to U.S. citizen you may apply after three years with a valid Green Card. Or, if you have served in the United States armed forces during war, you may apply for U.S. citizenship without first obtaining a Green Card if you were in the United States upon enlistment into the U.S. military.

    Have maintained continuous residence in the United States for at least five years (or three years if you are married to a U.S. citizen)

    Have been physically present in the United States for at least two and a half years (or one and half years if you are married to a U.S. citizen)

    Have lived in the state where the Form N-400 is submitted for at least three months

    Be able to read, write and speak English………… 🙂 HOLY CRAP BATMAN. SAY THAT AGAIN! 🙂

    Have a general knowledge of the fundamentals of U.S. history and government

    Be a person of good moral character and willing to abide by the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      BUCK

      Like I said way back in the beginning of this discussion. All you have to do is make the test in English and the Oath in English and the Application in English.

      If they can’t complete the paper work and test then NO CITIZENSHIP.

      • Wow! Go figure. Needless to say, I completely disagree with this requirement given that English is not the official language, but ok then. Makes me question whether or not this requirement is being overlooked as I happen to know a few citizens who do not speak English.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Buck

          Are you sure they are a citizen and not a Permanent Resident?

          I have met quite a lot of people here who don’t seem to speak English. That is why I brought up the issue. I knew it was required in the “Good Ol’ Days” but thought it must have been dropped.

          We both stand here with egg on our face.

          Now I wonder if they are getting just enough English to pass the test then forget going beyond that point. I just know I don’t like the balkanization that seems to be growing around these areas where there is virtually no English spoken. I see second generation kids struggling as well. Something isn’t matching up between reality and supposed policy.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Buck

      P.S. The headline instruction for completing Form N-400 says Complete In Plain English.

      • Well, seems like it is already law-so why are we arguing about it-you can have legal residency without knowing the language but you have to be able to speak English to become a citizen-so lets get back to what people need to do to become a legal resident and when or if they can apply to be a citizen. But how we go about closing the border is also a biggy. Shouldn’t we just leave it upto the States to come up with a plan which they will enforce.

  27. Look, SUFA.

    I have to point out that the specific objections so charged by you above – like so many other objections raised by old immigrants against new immigrants – isn’t unique to immigration.

    Anytime people change where they wish to live and change where they wish to work creates social changes and it is not altered by the crossing of artificial boundaries.

    We can no more claim those who benefit from some change in moving to a new place that do not cross “this” political borders somehow is “different” then moving across another political border.

    You cannot legitimately argue against immigration by pointing to real or imaginary problems with relocating workers in general.

    An argument against immigration must isolate something unique that is SPECIFICALLY caused by crossing international borders. That argument must then plausibly explain why that unique “something” renders that SPECIFIC relocation to be somehow different than what takes place across other political borders and why the latter is not detrimental to the domestic economy when former is argued opposite.

    And while these arguments against any migration are nearly always found wanting, at least they focus on the legitimate issue at hand, namely, on the alleged uniqueness of one that crosses one set of political borders vs another (rather than on alleged problems with any migration in general).

    So, the fact that some workers lose jobs because of relocation of other workers from one place into another, for example, is no argument against immigration. It might be an argument against ALL relocation/migration in general, or against individual choice, or against innovation, or against competition, or against personal empowerment – but it’s no argument against IMMIGRATION because that fact isn’t remotely unique to international borders vs, say, a state one, since it occurs with both.

    So, I await a legitimate argument from anyone based on what I raised here.

    • I actually started this one above but you mentioned this post so here I am.

      Nope, you are the one who told me months ago that “those” industries are gone in this country for some cockamamie reason like we are all technologists here. Yea right! So, if the industries are gone then the jobs are gone and according to you good riddance. That in turn leaves us with a limited number of positions available at McDonalds, Taco Bell, Burger King etc. to share.

      In case you did not notice it somewhere along the line, the borders between the states are open by mutual agreement way back when. The borders between the states of the European Federation are open by mutual agreement. I am going to assume here that in the latter case, it was determined that the member states looked at the possible effects of immigration (for job purposes) and determined that since the quality of life in member countries is so similar that there would not be a mad rush between Germany and Spain to relocate so that you could quadruple your income. Nor, was there the fear that immigrants from Spain would work for a quarter of what German workers got. The laws of those countries regarding workers and workers rights are pretty similar. Now if the economies continue on their projected path, I believe that you will see the dissolution of the Union and immigration/worker restrictions re-imposed.

      While Americans may relocate within the 50 states, they do so with the understanding that they will not be exploited, extorted in the move.

      You have to think back to the great depression when the “Oakies” descended on California to find an internal comparison with modern day illegal Mexican immigration. Not terribly sure but I believe there were incidents where the California border was shut down to new immigrants because of overcrowding in migrant camps, lack of work and general chaos. The tripling of welfare rolls in New York City and I assume other Northern cities in the period 1966-1980 was brought about not be external immigration but internal immigration from the American South. In my early career I did a tremendous number on “intake” interviews for assisted housing in this time frame and the people were pouring up here from The Carolinas and Georgia. The joke among these relocatees was if you sought welfare in your home state, they just offered you a bus ticket to NY, Boston or Chicago. Anecdotal perhaps but that’s what I got during interviews.

      In the ideal world, wages would be the same in all nations. Worker protections would be the same, quality of life would be the same, political freedom would be the same and the number of relocations would be minimal. Those things do not and are not likely to exist. Immigration illegal or otherwise from countries outside the United States that have the same quality of life have decreased in the past fifty years because of the rise in the standard of living. That which continues is mostly for particular jobs or promotions and is offset by reverse migration. Some, is a result of politics directly or indirectly, eg. English physicians relocating to the US because they have had it with Socialized medicine but most are economic and are related to highly specialized fields.

      Again, this is not my issue here. You are in opposition to my proposal. Nuff said. I think you fall into the category of “I got mine, screw you”. Lot of my neighbors are like that.

      • Nope, you are the one who told me months ago that “those” industries are gone in this country for some cockamamie reason like we are all technologists here.

        I made no such claim.
        You strawman right out in the first sentence.

        I wasted no time by not reading the rest – out with the garbage, sorry.

        • When I was advocating a return to a manufacturing economy, you never told me that those days were gone and in effect good riddance? I know that being 65 causes some mental slippage but not here.

          You did not read the rest because you can’t answer it and you can never admit being wrong, not even a little. Charlie is spot on with that.

          • No, I said that economies move to higher orders of division in labor – and explained that once, the 85% of the people worked on farms, now 1% – where did these people go?

            YOU would complain “Oh my God, we need more farming jobs!!” – no, we don’t.

            In 1960, 65% workers were factory.
            By 1980, 35%.

            You now complain “Oh my God, we need more factory jobs!!” – no, we don’t.

            That’s the challenge I face here and with others – economic illiteracy.

            And no, I posted a commentary on precisely the problem with yours (and others, too) anti-immigration arguments – they are not arguments at all but veiled racism. But since you do not want to appear racist, you pretend to make up complaints about immigration that actually apply to ALL worker migration, but blame different conditions to exist because merely it is a different line that is crossed.

            I do not wish to waste time debating more nonsense then you have already supplied.

            Make a valid point, based on some knowledge and reason, and I’ll respond

            Otherwise you are, indeed, like Charlie.

      • So, let me get this straight.

        The borders between the States are open, therefore, the migration of workers between the States creates no problems at all – no unemployment problems, wages aren’t impacted, crime is static, and welfare is -well- for the poor.

        But if the borders between the States -for whatever reason- are closed, suddenly migration of workers between the States creates all sorts of issues of unemployment, low wages, crime, welfare squatters, etc.

        And you think you have provided some sort of reasoned argument to why the former is benign , while the latter is malignant.

        • Apples and oranges my friend, apples and oranges. You would be absolutely right if this was 1932 and the dust storms were blowing away Oklahoma but today, you are wrong.

          Currently there is the oil boom in North Dakota and people are pouring in. there is not enough anything for them except jobs. In 1899, people were pouring into Alaska and the Yukon to find gold. Not many did, Ultimately, most went home, many died, there was little law and order.

          Everything has to do with the scale of magnitude. the purpose of legal immigration is to control the flow and basically fit the parts together though that may be a fantasy. Unrestricted immigration is a no holds barred, every man for himself operation which has ended badly for all involved except, of course for ivory tower theorists like yourself, political hacks, people majoring in the social sciences and crooks.

          If you called me a racist to my face, sir, I’d probably pop you one. That and the MF term are total no-go’s for me. I will not reciprocate though I am tempted to unload a stream of invective on you.

          In your prior post, you acknowledge the lack of need for factory jobs. You then talk about how all hunky dory unlimited immigration is. Just how many McDonalds can we sustain? As the need for unskilled labor dries up the need for immigrants with no skills dries up. Immigrants with the skills you desire tend to come in through the front door rather than the back. Nobody, to my knowledge is arguing about this. Whether they come from the University of Guatamala, of London, of Taipai, of Nairobi, of Cairo is immaterial. They bring skills that are in short supply in a country where the most popular majors beside drinking and screwing include Communication and Theater.

          • Oh, and I have actually made you resort to name calling, that is a major event, hope Charlie is around.

          • Its not apples and oranges – that’s the point.
            It is make-believe complaints that have nothing to do with immigration whatsoever.

            You show migrating workers create social change – yeah, so what?

            It is no different regardless of any line on map.

            Yet “this line” you make up stories about the differences.

            Yes, racist as you do not apply your complaints to “Americans” on the move, but you do apply it to a particular class of non-americans on the move.

            You support unrestricted migration over this line, but not over that line for specious reasons of little merit. Your complaints against the latter equally exist in the former – yet, you do not complain about it in the former, just the latter.

            Your last paragraph is economic illiteracy at its finest.
            You do not understand that labor is an economic good, and the supply and demand are economic laws that apply to economic goods. So, instead, you create a crackpot theory of your own, apply it as if it was a truth, get a bizarre answer, then use that bizarre answer to justify other bizarre behavior.

            • Right, sure, well, guess what there are hoards of illegal Irish in the NW Bronx who have overstayed their visas and have skill sets in construction that are totally lacking here. Yet they can’t get those permanent visas and you know what? My proposals apply to them too.

              • I was missing the proper term.

                I retract “racist” – you probably don’t care about the race at all.
                As an “old” immigrant, you resist “new” immigrants as they challenge your personal status quo.

                You are an Ethnocentrist – prejudicial not by race but by culture.

              • Or, perhaps, a Chauvinist? (Searching for the proper term)

                an extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of any group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards rival groups.”

              • Oh, BF, BF, when oh when, are you gonna stop using nastiness as a crappy way to try and win an argument? I would think your supposed high intelligence would make this trick unnecessary.

              • The term is specific and defined, and applied appropriately to the dialogue.

                The excuse for blocking the migration of free men is not based on reason applied upon a principle of Rights but by Ethnocentrism or Chauvinism.

              • But you raise precisely the real problem.

                Though racism was not the right word as what really is going on is more than merely based on race- .. you and SKT and others do not like being classified with such descriptions of prejudice based on ‘what’ a person is (instead of the character of such a person).

                So you don’t like the terms such a chauvinism – so, other excuses regardless of how implausible and crackpot the theory maybe, are used as if they held universal truth – but the root – “we deserve the job, not that damn Mexican” is really the argument in play.

              • Even if you believe that BF-there are ways to say things, and ways to say things. And you know it! And if you don’t You need to learn!!!

              • Sorry – you know I do not beat around the bush or pull punches.

                If there is a moral principle being perverted, I do not sugar coat it.

              • BS-you are simply rude and you try to win by calling people names based on YOUR principles, not theirs, sometime I wonder if you actually believe in freedom or just BF’s version.

              • Nonsense.

                You support others hiding behind “politeness” while their philosophy is vile and evil.

                Nope, sorry. Evil is evil – and I am not polite to it at all.

                I call it by what it is, and if you want to hide evil behind some veil of propriety, that’s you – but I’ll root it out by truth and by its name.

              • Regarding your follow up comments on status quo, ethnocentrism, and chauvinism. I believe Col. Potter in “MASH” would have called it horse hockey. I see no reason not to concur.

                Just who in the hell is overabundant labor an economic good for? You? The guy down the block who wants his lawn done for peanuts? Surely not for Jose and Juan unless they improve their language arts and education which is of course impossible since they work for $ 250.00 per week in a city where you have to earn $ 500 per week just to stay above water and don’t have the time.

                I hate to keep going back to the Cole fields of Pennsylvania all the time with my arguments. But it was a mighty struggle for the miners to break out of poverty, to end company housing, the company store and being charged $ 10.00 for breaking a $ 2.00 shovel. you died in a mine accident and your family had to be out of the house the next day. Pit the Welsh against the Irish, the Irish against the Slavs. A truly great economic benefit alright for the steel companies, the railroads and the mine owners who, were, in many cases, the same people. Ever hear of the Coal and iron Police?, The Mollie Maguires? You sit in your ivory tower or mountaintop bunker and don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

                I am a lucky and fortunate man to have been born when and where I was at the time I was. Had I been around in those coal fields under those conditions at the dawn of the last century, I would be your worst nightmare.

              • Just who in the hell is overabundant labor an economic good for?

                Complete nonsense.

                There is no overabundance of labor – I give you facts – 3.5 million a year, 150,000 a month new jobs and you spew nonsense.

                You argue that people choosing to not work should be protected from those that do want to work.

                And yes, like any economic good, a price reduction in its costs DOES BENEFIT YOU no less than a price decrease on any valued economic good.

                You claim to understand economics – yet, the simple basics elude you.

                You want to artificially increase prices for some economic good? Why? Why does that make economic sense? And if it does for this economic good, why not apply it to all economic goods in the market if it makes economic sense?

                In other words, you economics is utter crackpottery.

                Your specious examples prove nothing. You hide behind a conclusion, and throw out effects of actions as if they were the cause. You do not actually study in depth the complexity of the circumstance to REALLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENS and where the real cause exists.

                But your lack of understanding doesn’t stop you from making outlandish arguments based on outlandish claims.

    • Also – saying that moving around between the states is okay because it’s allowed and moving in from another country is not okay because it’s not allowed is a non-sensical argument that has nothing to do with whether either case is right or wrong. Principles don’t depend on the current state.

      A real-life parallel – now that Colorado has passed their legal-marijuana bill, the Republicans there are fretting about how they’re going to get a flood of deadbeat reefers coming in from other states to be a huge drain on society. Is that good, bad? Should Colorado close their borders down? Only to Mexicans for some reason?

      On the other hand, Taco Bell and Papa John’s are opening a bunch of new franchises there in anticipation of the increased business.

      There’s always unintended/unforeseen consequences to every action.

  28. Okay, are we gonna continue the conversation to come up with an immigration plan-or are we gonna let the no government people stop the conversation -by turning this into another discussion of no government vs. reality instead?? We could of course do both but we never seem to do that.

      • Wow, The numbers are a little surprising. I have always heard we weren’t letting enough people in.

        • The numbers aren’t right – they are worthless projections.

          We aren’t letting enough in – the US requires 3.5 million new workers every year

          This the historical per month INCREASE in new workers.
          There has not been -ever- a negative increase since WW2, and since 1980 at least 140,000 new workers a month.

          • Well, available jobs seem to be down right now. Having babies is down and the number of old is increasing. So I have no idea how many people this Country can handle or needs to sustain itself. A lot of factors are involved. How many people do we allow in per year now-do you know? Does anybody know?

            • No, there are more jobs then ever ready and waiting.

              There are a lot of people who do not want those jobs and are willing to do nothing instead.
              Do not confuse availability of jobs with a willingness to do the job.

              The country can sustain itself with -in human practical terms- infinite number of people. The more people, the more of your problems get solved.

              Have you not noticed that the more people there are in the world, the better your lifestyle gets?
              It just bugs me that people cannot see the most obvious cause/effect of humanity = humans solve problems; more humans, more problems solved.

              Immigration = 500,000 NEW documented immigrants a year (average over decade) – far short of the number of new jobs created per year. (3.5 million new jobs)

              This is the problem with SKT arguments – he argues about unemployment being created by immigration – but he has no facts.

              The facts are, 3.5 million new jobs are created every year and the vast most of them are not filled. There is absolutely no job shortage in the US. There is a large shortage of willing workers.

              So, he wants to punish those “new” immigrants that want to work those jobs because “old” immigrants don’t want to work. Bizarre.

              • Okay, 500,000 a year are let in legally. And per you we don’t need a limit. Well, I suppose that is one opinion.

              • Oh, sure Flag, everyone can work for nothing. Tons of great jobs out there that don’t pay a living wage. Tons more coming. . We’d all love to go back to Dickensian times. No doubt there would be some great new literature produced. Stick with Nicholas II and Louis XVI if you like.

                I thought you were a supply and demand guy, you know, supply goes up, prices come down on Cars, TV’s whatever. Why exactly do you think this does not work for people. Shall I say Great Depression again, Dustbowl, Oakies? Get real.

                VH, the number is over 1,000,000.

              • Oh, sure Flag, everyone can work for nothing.

                Nonsense comment.

                Tons of great jobs out there that don’t pay a living wage.

                Utterly baseless assertion devoid of fact.

                I thought you were a supply and demand guy, you know, supply goes up, prices come down on Cars, TV’s whatever. Why exactly do you think this does not work for people.

                Absolutely true!

                There is a glut of unskilled workers who do not want to do unskilled work.
                There is a supply of unskilled workers who are willing to do unskilled work.

                Because you wish to reserve the unskilled jobs for those that are not willing to do them, you want to prevent others who are willing to do that job.

                Very, very strange.

      • Thanks LOI.

    • It always comes down to a failure to present principles or if those principles are presented, a failure to apply them.

      You want to continue pushing forward agreeing to ignore basic human rights – and then pretend YOUR rights will be protected by the same gang that just obliterated your neighbor’s.

      You cheer the former, and when the latter happens to you, you cry and weep and moan to God to save you.

      As 1 Samuel 8 says:
      “On that day the Lord will not hear you”

      • Funny, Tom Clancy wrote about a 747 being used to take out the whole government years before 9/11. He has also written about terrorist being assisted by Mexican drug dealers to cross our border. The US stands out in having undefended borders as most of our policy. It seems to me, times have changed. It used to be immigrants wanted to come to America to join our society and become American’s. Now many want to come here and change America into what they want, reclaim it for Mexico or live here under Sharia law. Others want to come here and live a better life than was available in their home country, many living off our entitlements.

        I think I’m echoing JAC, SK & others but, close the border (to illegal immigrants), fix our entitlement programs.
        PS, others have felt all alone before. A little mood music for the Flagster.

        • Mexican drug cartels have no reason to assist terrorists. To what gain?
          There is no sense in attracting even more US military against them then already provided. Add terrorists, the cartels would be reeling.

          The boogyman simply does not exist. You are more likely to die by lightening – 5x over – then worry about a terrorist in America. The boobyman is useful for providing more authority over YOU.

          People here live off entitlements – so your claim “people want to live off entitlements, therefore close the borders” is a irrational conclusion. If the problem is entitlements, then deal with that problem not an artificial one, because you will create a big, new problem trying to solve one that does not exist.

        • Did you read the Michelle Malken article Jac posted. I think these words are still very relevant especially the last paragraph.


          The Founding Fathers were emphatically insistent on protecting the country against indiscriminate mass immigration. They insisted on assimilation as a pre-condition, not an afterthought. Historian John Fonte assembled their wisdom, and it bears repeating this Independence Day weekend:

          *George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, stated that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that “by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.”

          *In a 1790 speech to Congress on the naturalization of immigrants, James Madison stated that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.”

          *Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1802: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.”

          Hamilton further warned that “The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”

          The survival of the American republic, Hamilton maintained, depends upon “the preservation of a national spirit and a national character.” “To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”

          These words, of course, don’t mean we shouldn’t have immigrants, obviously our Country has always welcomed immigrants-but it does make a pretty good argument for making sure that we don’t let them overwhelm us, allowing them to change us from our founding principles.,if we want to keep America, America.

          • fast forward 120 years to that progressive Theodore Roosevelt who often and with great emphasis denounced hyphenated Americans. One of the reasons I like TR is that he could be so confusing. Was reading this morning a condemnation of both great progressives Roosevelt and Wilson (who hated each other). There is something about Roosevelt though. A brilliant intellect coupled with a man who actually did things a whole lot of things and a whole lot of really dangerous, put your life on the line things at that. there is a lot more there to bite into and chew on than that intellectual Woodrow Wilson, a man of great ideas (flaming racist too) but no practical experience.

            As a sickly child myself, I admired Roosevelt. Many, many of the things he came up with were based solely on his personal experiences with people, he was perhaps the most gregarious of our presidents. I think that is why I am always mentioning people and events I have either seen first hand or been involved in. Nothing like actually trying ideas out in the real world.

            Today I had the opportunity to sit down at my old job and crack a bottle of Presidente (wonderful Dominican beer) with Leo and his brother David. These two were born in Ecuador. They are in their fifties, immigrated here as young men in the early ’70’s. Both speak virtually accentless English, have become American citizens and are blue collar workers. Leo was a contractor, now an employee of a contractor and David works with him. Politically, Leo, the older brother by a year is a conservative. David leans towards Che Guevera. Their Father, in his eighties, is a Physician in rural Ecuador.

            I posed them the question about permanent residency with no voting rights. Leo is for it. David against. However, David is against illegal immigration period. If you do get through the door though he believes there should be a pathway to citizenship. When I asked him why, he said that he would want it. I then pointed out that this does not count, “you did it legally”, I told him, it would not apply to you. He still disagreed with me because, he would not like it. I then asked the magic question about the fairness of allowing people who have snuck onto the line ahead of you, That gave him pause, suddenly it became personal. Unfortunately we had to break at that point but I do believe that he too would have come around. Both, as immigrants agreed that the quantity of immigrants depressed wages and made the competition for jobs much tighter.

            The new manager who forced me out of that job, is according to Leo and David, employing illegals exclusively. Contracting to pay them appx. $ 8,000 per apartment for the labor in a gut renovation and then demanding up to $ 4,000 in kickbacks to stay working. I suspected that he was doing this when he first came on board. If anyone has some really good suggestion on how to blow this over to IRS I will take it. I can’t prove it, they would have to do the leg work.

            Another of the 8,000,000 stories in the naked city.

    • VH,

      or are we gonna let the no government people stop the conversation -by turning this into another discussion of no government vs. reality instead??

      I think the conversation has already been stopped…again…so much for “free speech”…

      • We shall see.

        • But like I said-We can do both or neither-no one is forcing people not to continue the conversation. If the conversation ends-we stopped it -by letting the conversation end. No one took away our free speech.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        Not stopped at all. Just add your own two cents. Those of us interested will continue along with you.

        Ignore the rest.

        So do you agree with the basic principles that a) As a Nation we have right to control immigration, and b) That there does need to be some limit on the numbers?

        • Well, JAC-I agree with both statements 🙂

        • JAC,
          Yes, I agree with A & B.

          But the discussion has been – Stopped – Derailed – Confused – enough that I don’t know what the “status” is, and don’t have time to read thru stuff to figure it out.

          This is Black Flag’s modus operandi whenever there’s a conversation he doesn’t like. It’s basically a Denial Of Service attack – drag the conversation on new tangents, overwhelm people with LONG-WINDED posts, attack people just enough to stop the discussion, but not enough to tip his hat too far – so people lose interest and the discussion ends.

          Ignore the rest – yes that is the solution – but it’s hard to do…

          I’m constantly amazed how much he is tolerated here…

          • Hilarious.

            You have zero principle from which to argue your position – so its my fault for asking for it!
            When you -rarely- apply a modicum of principle, you contradict it at the first disagreeable hurdle – so its my fault for calling your attention to your inconsistency.

            You want your whim and nonsense to be somehow respectable and you go red and stomp your feet when I laugh at you.

          • Perhaps this would be a good starting point-SK’s breakdown of a possible bill
            JAC, I agree, close the border.

            The new law will open something like this

            Acknowledging the need to secure the borders of the United States it is hereby directed that the Federal Government through it’s department of Immigration and naturalization services prepare a report, within three months, showing the major points of entry (cross border) of illegal immigrants. If it is determined that 60 plus percent of such immigration flows through a given geographic boundary, it is then directed that the Federal Highway department begin the process of surveying said boundary for the purpose of constructing roads adjacent to a concrete and steel barrier being no less than twenty feet in height. The Highway department has been selected due to their expertise and success in constructing similar barriers along federal highways which pass near urban/suburban areas. Federal highway funds will be used for the construction.

            Within six months of the decision to construct any such barrier, the US Department of interior is required to provide the Federal Highway department with suggestions as to openings in the newly constructed barriers to permit normal wildlife migration. Simultaneously, within the same time period, the INS is directed to provide plans for the constant monitoring 24/7 of these wildlife routes.

            Upon passage of this law, the INS will begin a process of registering all undocumented immigrants currently in the United States. Such records may not be used for any purpose under this bill other than determining eligibility for potential legal resident status.

            Upon completion of construction of the barriers along the border, and certification of their adequacy by the governors of the states affected, the INS shall begin to issue Permanent Resident visas to previously screened undocumented aliens. Others, who have not yet registered have 24 months from the certified completion of the barrier to register for screening. They must provide documentation that they have been in residence prior to the date this law was passed. No new undocumented immigrants arriving after the date of the passage of this law are eligible for permanent resident status and shall be deported to their country of origin at the expense of the United States.

            well?

            • Nicely done.

              The walls of your own prison, built by your own demand, will serve you well.

              • Horse hockey!

              • What is sad, is the day you realize that if you build a wall that keeps free men out, you’ve built a wall that keeps slaves in – it will be too late for you. The gate will be locked with you inside.

                You don’t even see that happening to you right now.

                I point to 1 Samuel 8

                The Lord said:

                Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know about who will reign over them and what he will claim as his rights.”

                HE will take
                …your sons
                … your daughters
                …the best of your fields and vineyards and olive grove and give it to his attendants
                …your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials.
                …your cattle he will take for his own use.
                …your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.

                When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from what you have chosen,
                …..but the Lord will not answer you in that day.

                But the people refused to listen.
                “No!” they said. “We want this!
                Then we will be like all the other nations!

                When Samuel repeated it before the Lord, the Lord answered:
                “Listen to them and give them what they wish”

  29. @BF…..in order for me to discuss with you my view on immigration…….do I have to accept your premise of “artificial lines on the map” as a basis for further discussion?

    • As I pointed above, an explanation to why “this line” creates a unique, verifiable, concern then we are good.

      • Black Flag,
        Do you consider the “artificial lines on the map” that define your private property to be valid?

        • Absolutely – however…

          That is an individual right – and further, when a violation of rights happens, it has to be shown to be a violation, typically a “cost” or a “harm”.

          You walking across my grass does not violate my rights .. no cost or harm.
          You driving across my grass leaving tire marks is a violation of my rights – a cost has been incurred and harm has been done to property.

          • Black Flag,
            Who says it’s an individual right?

            Why do you get to define “walking across my grass” as not a violation but “driving across my grass” as a violation?

            I have planted some very delicate grasses and clovers, and your big boots will trample them.
            One person “walking across my grass” may not do harm, but a constant stream of people will destroy the vegetation.

            If the “artificial lines on the map” that define your private property are valid, then the “artificial lines on the map” that define a “country” are valid too, because that “country” is made up of individuals that have agreed to a certain set of “laws” governing their individual private properties.

            • Who says it’s an individual right?

              All human rights ARE individual – there are no human rights that exist for “a group” other than what an individual grants to that group.

              You cannot grant what you do not have.
              For a group to have, it must come from the individuals in that group.
              But no individual has any more rights than any other individual – the group, no matter the size, has no more rights than that of an individual.

              Why do you get to define “walking across my grass” as not a violation but “driving across my grass” as a violation?

              The Law of Reciprocity: what is done to you, you get to do to others.
              But what has been done to you?

              In the first case, no cost and no harm = nothing. The Law of Reciprocity applied: you get to do nothing.

              In the second case, cost and harm to property = “something”. The Law of Reciprocity applied: you get to do “something”.

              I have planted some very delicate grasses and clovers, and your big boots will trample them.

              So you actually admit you do not comprehend what I wrote, huh?

              Go back and reread the my post you are commenting about “harm to property” – 10 times, if you still do not “get it”.

              If the “artificial lines on the map” that define your private property are valid, then the “artificial lines on the map” that define a “country” are valid too, because that “country” is made up of individuals that have agreed to a certain set of “laws” governing their individual private properties

              There is no such ‘agreement’.
              You are making up stuff, Todd.

              Absolutely the individual has a right to determine the use of his property – the government does not.

      • Because those lines on a map have the blood of men on them. And that is something we should honor. I live in Small Town, Mi, USA not Small Town, Earth

        • As said above – if you resolve to violate human rights because of a particular, ego-centric, point of view – then understand your human rights WILL BE violated equally because of another particular point of view.

          What you do to others shall be done to you.

      • ok…coolamundo

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Black Flag

    What is the origin or source of your supposed right to the land within the boundaries you call property lines?

    You did not create that land.

    • To live, A man needs exclusive right to resources.

      To obtain that exclusive right, there are only two methods.

      Force of arms.
      Rights.

      The latter is a lot less bloody.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        So according to you MAN simply CREATED Rights as a means of avoiding the use of arms?

        And to survive man does NOT need exclusive right, man simply needs access to resources.

        • No, man did not “create” rights – man USES rights.

          Man does not create gravity, we use gravity.

          Man needs EXCLUSIVE right to the resource = we cannot both eat the same apple.

          For further eloquence on the topic, review:

          “According to this understanding of private property, property ownership means the exclusive control of a particular person over specific physical objects and spaces”

          The Ethics and Economics of Private Property
          by Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe

      • Black Flag,
        You seem to be making up stuff and wallowing around here.

        If a man needs exclusive rights to resources to live, then GET OFF MY LAWN, cause I need it to live.

        And “exclusive rights”? Says who?

        I don’t see a whole lot of difference in your “two methods,” because if I don’t accept the Rights that you CREATED, I’m pretty sure you’ll declare me to be “using violence against the non-violent” and retaliate against me as you see fit.

        Your “Rights” are just as bloody as anyone else’s “Force of arms”. You’ve just justified them in your head.

        • Nonsense – I do not make stuff up unless I actually make stuff up. This is not one of those times.

          Correct – if you need that part of the lawn, your right is supreme to the man walking across it.
          But if you are not there, it created no cost or harm.

          “Exclusive” so says the universe. Only one person at a time can sit in that chair under you. Review Dr. Hans Hoppes magna opus and volumes of essays on the topic.

          Correct.
          It is a human right to use violence to protect a human right…. called “self-defense”.

          No, rights are not “as bloody” – it is a means to avoid blood.

  31. I haven’t read the through the entire comments here, but have y’all seen the thread of the petitions to secceed from the Union? They involve 20 states, both North AND South?

    Before I hear the Smarmy comments, I will let you know, that while I am not opposed to the idea, I don’t believe it’s possible. And also, there aren’t NEARLY enough signatures. 😆

    • It is fun though, isn’t it. Last time I looked there were about 70000 votes to recount the election. And someone wants those who sign the petition to secede to have their citizenship taken away. Haven’t looked back to see how many jerks agreed with that one. 🙂

      • Have their citizenship taken away. Yeah. Everyone has the right to have their opinion as long as it agrees with ours. Typical liberal response. Why worry about it? It’s not like it’s going to get anywhere. Why doesn’t it just get ignored like everything else the Consevatives want?

        That ignoring, spite and hatefull talk is why the petitions are there now. So just keep on with it. Divide us even more than we already are. 😉

    • WOW! This thing is growing by leaps and bounds! All 50 States are now in it. 🙂

      http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/secession-petitions-now-filed-50-states-183500440.html

      • I don’t recall this ever occurring in the past (my lifetime). Why do people continue to appease these corrupt bastards and bitches in D.C.? We don’t need to peaceably succeed, we need to fire all of them and put the “people” back in charge. I saw we hang’em all and start over! OH wait, that’s violent. Any other ideas?

    • I think its GREAT – the next lame excuse to oppose Obama.

      Birtherism didn’t work.
      Muslim didn’t work.
      Socialism didn’t work.

      So now let’s submit Secession Petitions – to show our “Patriotism”! Yeh – Yeh – Yeh!

      You don’t want to “stop being the stupid party” anytime soon. I’m sure that will work out great in 2014 and 2016.

      • Todd, Come On Man! This will never accomplish anything. It’s just frustration. If you can’t see the corruption in DC, I feel sorry for you.

      • Well, I don’t intend to actually sign one-but I still think it’s funny. I might sign the one to do a recount. And seriously, if we’re gonna talk stupid party-lets talk about the constant claims of racism. I think that’s pretty stupid and evil actually. This in comparison is nothing to get all strung out about.

      • Is the stupid party the one who has bad ideas or the one that whose electorate continues to put them in power despite their consistent lies and failure to improve their lives despite claiming they care about them?

        Just wondering. As you know I don’t like either party. But one has stupid leadership and the other has an uninformed and gullible voter base. I think I would rather have none of the above. But you are free to believe that THIS time the Democrats are really going to do something about the poor in America….

        sucker

          • @Todd

            And what is your point here? That there are dumb people voting for Republicans too? I Agree!

            Jeez… I didn’t think saying sucker was all that offensive, but if it was I apologize. It wasn’t meant to be. I merely am pointing out the fact that Democrats rely on an uninformed or misinformed voter base. Seeing all the videos that come out showing how uninformed blind supporters of the Democratic leadership are is all the proof needed. Should I start to post al of those for you? Check out Jesse Watters latest foray to a Bill Maher show where people believe that Obama spent less money than any President in history.

            That being said, the Republican leadership is every bit as dishonest and reliant on ignorance as the Democrats. Blind faith in a book that says some people don’t deserve equal rights coupled with people gullible enough to believe that Glenn Beck has merit.

            The bottom line is that the media is a joke now (both on the left and on the right), The politicians have become the most dishonest and manipulative group of men and women in America, and voters are less informed and more apathetic than at any time in US history. Anyone who still believes that the people in Washington DC have any interest at all in helping the middle class or the poor in America isn’t paying attention and falls into the old adage that a sucker is born every day.

            You are welcome to still believe in your party and to be blind to the hypocrisy with which it operates and absolute lies that it tells on a daily basis. I will not be falling for what the two parties are selling. Time to wake up and realize the dream was just that… a dream. Washington DC doesn’t care about you or anyone else. They stopped caring about you the second you case your vote. And they won’t care what you think again until they need your vote again. Then they will once again feed you some BS and see if you believe that this time they really will do good things.

            • You seem a little agitated…

              • I am not in the least bit agitated 🙂

                I simply see what is going on in American politics and wonder if people are really so dumb as to buy the lies that these two parties are selling…

            • USWeapon,

              I didn’t think saying sucker was all that offensive

              I didn’t say it was offensive. It’s just childish.

              This isn’t about the voters, it’s about the Republican leaders and pundits looking for any and every reason they lost the election – except the obvious: Their platform, comments, and campaigns are alienating a large portion of the population.

              I remember 3+ years ago, the common theme here was that all politicians are crooks. But as the 2010 elections came up, that theme disappeared, only to resurface a few months later. The same pattern occurred for the 2012 elections – just a few weeks ago many people were adamant in their support of Romney and many Republican candidates. Now that the Republicans didn’t do as well as they thought, we’re back to ” all politicians are crooks,” with Obama at the top of the list of course.

              You consider the media a joke (both on the left and on the right), but you seem to ignore the fact that the “right” media has been spinning everything in the Republicans favor for a longtime, and the elections finally bore out this fact. But they just continue along, making up new excuses and lies about why they weren’t really wrong before. And the right just keeps eating it up.

              To justify this to yourself, you lump all media and all politicians into the same bucket, so you can feel self-righteous and declare them all “dishonest and reliant on ignorance.” Just because someone doesn’t agree with you, or the media doesn’t report what you want to hear, doesn’t mean they’re “dishonest and reliant on ignorance.”

              • @ Todd

                I didn’t say it was offensive. It’s just childish.

                Point Taken, which is why I apologized.

                This isn’t about the voters, it’s about the Republican leaders and pundits looking for any and every reason they lost the election – except the obvious: Their platform, comments, and campaigns are alienating a large portion of the population.

                Completely agree. However, I also believe that between the Tea Party and Talk Radio, they have done an exceptional job of lying to and misinforming the public. In addition to this they have created a baseless fear of nearly everything the left does.

                I remember 3+ years ago, the common theme here was that all politicians are crooks. But as the 2010 elections came up, that theme disappeared, only to resurface a few months later. The same pattern occurred for the 2012 elections – just a few weeks ago many people were adamant in their support of Romney and many Republican candidates. Now that the Republicans didn’t do as well as they thought, we’re back to ” all politicians are crooks,” with Obama at the top of the list of course.

                I believe I have maintained that they are all liars and crooks throughout. I just happen to believe that the Democrats are more dishonest than the GOP (although only slightly). What bothers me nearly as much as this is the fact that the left has created this message of racism everywhere rather than confront their opposition on merit. And Obama tops the list because he is the President and thus gets the most spotlight of any of the liars and crooks in DC.

                You consider the media a joke (both on the left and on the right), but you seem to ignore the fact that the “right” media has been spinning everything in the Republicans favor for a longtime, and the elections finally bore out this fact. But they just continue along, making up new excuses and lies about why they weren’t really wrong before. And the right just keeps eating it up.

                100% agreed. That is why in the initial reply to you I was clear to say both sides have their media avenues and both have been equally dishonest. I also believe that the voting public has been equally buying what they are selling and this is ruining the country. As I said, I believe that both sides are equally guilty. I think talk radio and the conservative blog world has been in the tank for the right and spreading lies and disinformation for quite some time.

                Will you also agree that the television media and many leading “news” publications have been equally biased in their praise for Democrats and liberal positions?

                More important, do you agree that the voting public is generally easily manipulated and gullible on both sides?

                To justify this to yourself, you lump all media and all politicians into the same bucket, so you can feel self-righteous and declare them all “dishonest and reliant on ignorance.” Just because someone doesn’t agree with you, or the media doesn’t report what you want to hear, doesn’t mean they’re “dishonest and reliant on ignorance.”

                This is where we part ways. I don’t make this statement to justify myself and I think you know that. I make that statement because it is true. Members of the Tea Party holding signs saying “Keep your government hands off my Medicare”
                Liberals buying the lie that the economy is improving and that Obama has spent less than other Presidents
                Interviewing people at political events that don’t have even a cursory grasp of the truth or reality of what their candidate stands for

                It is clear that the voting public is filled with gullible and ignorant people who are buying the lies

                A media that has largely given Obama a pass on nearly everything. Did you see that press conference he just did? When will this media EVER challenge him with tough questions and hold him to what he claims
                A media that covers only what they want to cover, and does so in completely partisan ways
                A media whose most recognizable representatives are Maddow, Limbaugh, Beck, Olbermann, Matthews, etc

                It is clear that the media is biased, partisan, and offers little other than party lines, propaganda, and has no resemblance at all to the media of even 20 years ago that held politicians and parties responsible for their lies, false claims, and broken promises.

                In fact, I challenge you to show me a media platform that is not biased to one party or the other. Further I challenge you to point me to a major media outlet of any kind that fits into the journalistic principles that we used to REQUIRE of the media.

                Rangel, Franks and Waters under constant ethics enquiries
                Two consecutive Presidents that are accomplished liars and creators of misinformation
                Two major parties that do little other than oppose each other and misinform their voter base to ridiculous degrees
                The Patriot Act, GM bailout, man made global warming, the fictional war on women, the fiscal cliff, class warfare, etc

                It is clear that the politicians on the federal level are ALL consistent liars and manipulators of the voters. In fact, can you name a single major national political figure who is honest, conducts themselves with integrity, or who offers up real solutions that will better the plight of the middle class or poor? I can’t think of a single one.

                Todd, it isn’t about justifying my positions or feeling self-righteous. It is about recognizing what the current reality is in regard to our media and politicians. I don’t have a problem with someone differing in opinion from me and I don’t claim they are shit now because I don’t like their conclusions.

                It is about the fact that there is no non-partisan news source any longer. It is about the fact that there are no honest politicians any longer. 20 years ago the media would have DEMANDED some answers on Libya. Today’s media does no such thing. Further, today’s media outlets spin everything to one party or the other. They fail to offer context to what they report. They manipulate data. And they absolutely will ignore a story that doesn’t help their political position.

                You can continue to throw this back on me and claim that I only see it this way because I don’t agree with what they cover or how they cover it. If you cannot see that the entire world of media is biased and dishonest and that all of the national level politicians are the same, I don’t know what to tell you. I know you are a smart guy, so if you don’t see it, I have to assume that you are trying really hard to not see it.

                Bottom line…. This isn’t about me, it is about them. And only a fool can’t see the games they are playing.

  32. Wow-lots of stuff going on out in the world .

    Top Hamas commander killed in Israeli airstrike…
    VIDEO…
    ‘OPENED GATES OF HELL’…
    Target tied to Iran…
    ‘WAR’…
    TEHRAN MOUNTS MASSIVE DRILLS…
    Israel launches Operation Pillar of Cloud…
    Recommends That No Hamas Operatives ‘Show Their Faces Above Ground’…
    EGYPT THREATENS TO GET INVOLVED…
    Hits 20 underground rocket sites in Gaza…
    IDF ‘ready to initiate ground operation’…
    Rockets explode in Israeli border town…

    Petraeus agrees to testify.

    • Judge Judy is wrong.

      All income, regardless of source, is fungible.

      Because the State gives money for “rent” – it goes into a bank account with all other money. Whether he pays rent from the $400 or out of another source is immaterial – which ALSO includes not paying anything.

      If the State demand a receipt for such rent (not the case here, but merely as an example), then that is a different matter – but that does not change the fungible of the money. He could have partied the State’s money away, and then paid the rent from another source later, generating the receipt requirement.

      Further, dismissing the woman’s claim was wrong. Judge refused to listen to the reason she did not pay the rent – perhaps because her tenant did not pay. But we do not know why it as it was dismissed badly.

      If this was a real court (and worth the trouble), it would be easily overturned on appeal.

      But the entitlement mindset is still telling and scary.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Todd

    Any ideas on how to decide how many and WHO gets to immigrate each year??

    Currently there are classes of applications, such as political refugee or children of a citizen, and a LOTTERY. It seems the lottery is a bungle.

    The purpose of the Lottery was to assure some “diversity” in immigrants but the data I saw shows overwhelming favoritism to certain groups in certain years. 2008 was heavy to Bangladesh, Africa and Croatia.

    • Good question, remember there are also special visas. A number of the hospitals in this area have imported Philippina nurses because there is such a nursing shortage. Apparently, if you have a real shortage in an industry you can recruit them in their home country and then apply for special visas. Off hand I would say that the visas should be based solely on the number available divided by the populations of all other countries who want to come here. Within that you can screen for other things.

      I am very reluctant on the refugee visas. They have been badly abused. That Amadou Dialo fellow in the Bronx who was mistakenly killed by the police a few years ago died because believe it or not he lied on his refugee application. I forget which country he said he came from., some war torn west African hell hole and said his entire family had been wiped out in a massacre. After he was killed, Mom and Pops showed up, buried him, announced that he really came from a totally ineligible for refugee status west African country, sued the city and took off back home with a several million dollar settlement.

      Yes, yes , some will dismiss this as just another of those odd stories which prove nothing. I think not. What are the odds such a freaky thing could happen to the only fake in the Bronx. Oh and there was that Sudanese guy in the West Bronx three years back who owned a three family house. Wife # 1 and he and kids occupied the first floor, wife # 2 and kids occupied the second floor and wife # 3 and kids occupied the illegal basement apartment. Wives 2 and 3 and some kids did not make it out in the fire. I think possibly wife # 4 was still waiting on her visa approval in the Sudan and I am sure by now that he has replaced the other two. Just another one of those rare occurrances no doubt.

      My neighborhood twenty some years ago was overrun with Russian Jewish refugees. Many were not Jewish, just needed a fast track in. Refugees are eligible for aid that normal immigrants do not get. that includes housing assistance, food stamps and medical care. To this day, anyone from Cuba or Vietnam, if they can get to the US proper can claim refugee status and receive it. I know a few of the Vietnamese who were not born until ten years after Saigon fell. They went to college with my son.

  34. If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot solve our problems. By expanding these policies we cannot expect good results.

    Everyone claims support for freedom.

    But too often it’s for one’s own freedom and not for others.

    Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom.

    They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties.

    No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior.

    Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny. This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty.

    The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried.

    The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war.

    The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time. It’s time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do.

    A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people’s beliefs or habits.

    A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society.
    All great religions endorse the Golden Rule.
    The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials. They cannot be exempt.

    The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.

    The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.

    ————

    For those that demand to make criminals of men who merely seek to work, these excerpts from Ron Paul’s final speech in the House should bear merit.

    • As I see it, the problem is that no one sees labor as an economic good. Thus we have conservatives who argue for free trade and less government regulation of various markets but want a tight-fisted control of the supply of the labor market – we can’t have any more immigrants if we have already met our quota of 5,000,000 unskilled workers or 30,000 nurses or what-have-you.

      The emotional response always seems to be “these people are stealing our jobs”. So why not legislate a fixed number of suppliers of other goods, then? You can only have 10,000 different banks, reach that number and you are forbidden from starting a new one. We’re good with just 10 airlines, so no one else can start a new one and the few who were created most recently (at the end of the line) have to dissolve. Or once we hit 300 million TVs produced, we’re not allowed to make any more until some of them start breaking down (dying/retiring). It only gets crazier from there.

      • My most regular complaint – economic illiteracy.

        Yet, it is so damn easy.

        Milton Friedman said it best:

        Economics is so simple, it’s basic laws can be written on a single sheet of paper and understood by nearly everyone, yet almost no one does.

      • I just do not see that in the conservative movement. What I see is the desire to control the border and find out who is coming here. I have been fooling around in politics for 48 years, have met a few stone age traditionalist republicans who can literally trace their ancestry back to the Mayflower and resent my grandparents. The vast majority I know have no problems with immigration so long as it is legally done and orderly. I’m sorry if Flag does not agree, personally with his 3.5 million jobs per year and 150,000 per month, he should be working for the Obama Administration. They can use those kinds of numbers. Right now we probably take in 1,000,000 plus legally, the same illegally every year. What you guys are proposing is just knock the walls down and see the “economic” good.

        I tend to take it to the next level, when is too much too much. How far until Calcutta and how real are those 3.5 million jobs and do they pay enough to live on. There are a lot of good people out there looking for jobs they can raise their families on. I see you folks telling them to take anything or to become vagabonds and migrants moving from job to job, season to season. That sucks if you will pardon the expression.

        Today I talked about my experiences with Leo and David. What I forgot to say in my comments is when I broached the topic of immigration to them, they simultaneously said, When is the government going to stop giving away stuff to them, welfare and food stamps were mentioned. Hey, they live on the Northern edge of Harlem and know of which they speak. When sane Republicans talk of the Hispanic vote, these are the kind of people they mean. Hard working folks who have an intense dislike for those on the dole.

        • I’m sorry if Flag does not agree, personally with his 3.5 million jobs per year and 150,000 per month, he should be working for the Obama Administration. They can use those kinds of numbers. Right now we probably take in 1,000,000 plus legally, the same illegally every year.

          And there you go.

          Fact makes no impact on your blind dogmatic belief.
          Every fact must be Obama’s minions making up stories.

          No, sorry, these are facts published since WW2 – Obama wasn’t born then.

          Further, as already posted – so just goes to show you don’t even bother reading and just meander on with more nonsense – 500,000 NEW IMMIGRANTS a YEAR come to the US.

          You go and say “we could take a million” you never got near a million in the first place, for God’s sake!

          There are a lot of good people out there looking for jobs they can raise their families on.

          They are hiring burger flippers in ND for $15/20 hr – that’s $40,000/yr.
          Strange, don’t see them jumping at these jobs the “so desperately want so to raise their family”

          Heck, with even a modicum of skill, $50/$60k a year –

          how about just driving a truck?

          I work where truck drivers are guys, young and old, high school dropouts, guys with full body tattoos, piercings on their visible body in places I would think is weird … so probably even weirder places too… women too ’cause the trucks all have power steering, so small strength is not a barrier…. making $100k/yr. No way these guys could find a “normal” job in the “real” world — they are outcasts (not all of them of course….)

          You know what is funny about it? You don’t need a driver’s license (though the company requires merely a normal operator license as its own policy). A truck that carries 1.6 million pounds, and lil’ 20year old missy with no high school diploma, driving the 800 ton beast making 6-figures.

          And you know what is even funnier? The way you get that job is by driving a 100 ton truck for a year, earning $60k. And what is funny about that? They have more trucks then drivers. Always needing drivers. Can’t find ’em.

          And, its expanding – another 5,000 jobs needed by the end of the year. They have been offering them for two years. Filled: less than 1/2.

          So BULLSHIT about jobs and “lookin’ for good jobs” nonsense. All a lie.

          It is “looking for the same job I had, but it has to pay more, and it has to be RIGHT HERE”.

          Yeah, right “they will take anything” – a crock of bullshit.

          They don’t want to work in the “cold, no sun, smelly, a bit dangerous, far far away from home” job.

          • and more stories.

            An worker here who has become a friend actually lives 3,000 miles away on the East coast.
            He works two weeks in and two week out. Flies back twice a month – he figures it costs him $4,000/month just in flights.

            He has – as he describes – a medium small house, mortgage, a couple of cars, a young son and his wife and two dogs. They live “pretty good” by his measure, and though the time away is long, the time at home is well-spent.

            Think about it.
            He spends more then the average income earner on flights – and still pays all the bills and a “pretty good” lifestyle. He is a general mechanic … turns a wrench and figures out why some things don’t turn when they are supposed to, or turn went they aren’t supposed to.

            I’d say (me included) 85% of the guys up actually make homes a thousand miles away. The company pays for some of it (such as mine) but for others, their own income more than pays for it.

            What is also interesting is the two classes of people – the dumb; who really don’t understand how sweet this gig is, and they won’t last long, quit, thinking there are “better paying jobs while doing nuthin'” – and other (mostly older) guys like me who know how sweet it is.

            It’s a hoot riding shotgun on a 1500 ton (3 million pounds) shovel, digging 100 ton a cut, with a 30ish high school dropout, AC/DC playing as loud as he can on the stereo, swinging the boom in time with the beat, while relating how his wife and daughters can live on a ranch with their horses way south where its warm, while he digs way north where its cold.

            He says in a typical Texan drawl “This is the best damn job in the world … where else could a stupid guy like me be able to have all of that!”

            http://www.phmining.com/MinePro/Literature/Brochures/XS54914100C_BOSS_AC_brochure.pdf

        • “What I see is the desire to control the border and find out who is coming here.”

          That’s not what’s being discussed, though. Everyone has been talking about immigration, and in terms of limiting who can enter based purely on volume. By all means keep track of who goes where.

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    “You are an Ethnocentrist – prejudicial not by race but by culture.”

    Damn Straight. I am an American and I believe in Freedom, Liberty and Justice for All. Those who are not Citizens of MY COUNTRY do not necessarily share my values, my culture. So they are not welcome in MY COUNTRY, MY STATE, MY COUNTY or MY HOUSE.

    • But you do not believe in Freedom or Liberty … except for you. You want to deny basic freedoms for…. why again? … protect freedom? hmmm….

      Many Citizens of YOUR COUNTRY do not share your value nor your culture – so you wish to unwelcome them… how?

    • JAC, My family has been traced back to the 1600’s in Scotland. Known as the McPhearson Clan, they immigrated here in the late 1700’s. My 5th Great Grandfather (a McPhearson) was the first person to find General Custer after the Battle of Little Big Horn. He was not the first US veteran, but one of a long list. As an American, I have welcomed many people in my home and shared bread and beverages who were NOT born in America. It is what our country is made of, immigrants. I find your freedom of choice refreshing and honest, at least you admit how you feel, I just don’t agree with it. You are, however, entitled to your opinion. 🙂

      • In addition, When I was far from home, serving in the USAF, I was invited to, broke bread with, British, Scottish, Panamanian, Saudi Arabian (including a Royal Prince), Mexican and Canadian. THese times were nothing but wonderful.

    • You do not own me – you have no right to say who I allow in MY house.

      By all means refuse immigrants in your house. Refuse to associate with anyone who does. Refuse to purchase from or sell to anyone who does. Gather a bunch of people together who think the same way you do until you drive out the immigrants and the filthy immigrant-lovers by sheer economic and social pressure. But the minute you threaten me with violence for the mere crime of associating with someone you don’t like, you’ve crossed the only line that matters.

  36. From memory on TV! Obama says “We cannot attribute any weather events to Climate Change”. This might be the smartest thing he has EVER said !

  37. Forget immigration for a moment. Immigration and border security are not (necessarily) linked at the hip.

    Legitimate reasons for border security, regardless of whether you allow or disallow (or somewhere in between) immigration:
    1) Prevent the spread of infectious, virulent disease.
    2) Protection from an invading hostile force.
    3) Interception of inherently dangerous materials (ie: active nuclear material)

    All of these fall under the Clear and Present Danger doctrine, of course.

    • ….AND apply to situations “on this side of the magical, invisible, mystery line in the dirt” too.

      Got a biological attack on San Diego -it is quaranteed from LA.
      It takes an international border make this happen?

      LA rioters spread to San Diego – they are intercepted before reaching the city.
      Only international borders make this possible?

      Dangerous materials are being shipped to NY.
      Only international borders allow NY to prevent this?

      • Absolutely – I did not make a distinction of whether the border was international or otherwise.

        • Exactly.

          I await an argument why international borders makes a unique case on the migration of free men vs other migration of free men within borders.

          Your point reinforces the lack of meritorious argument in demonstrating this unique case.

          • Actually Flag they had you at your properties edge. Your superiority complex just will not let you admit it. You have no personal property (real estate) rights that are not defined by our government via the consent of the governed. The right to own land is not bestowed on you by your creator. Without government, your right to the land is limited to the strength of your arms and your ability to defend it. Our value and claims to property rights come from our English/European foundations. An alternate view of property rights was held by the Indians. They viewed it from a tribal rather than individual perspective and fought continuous wars over their tribal piece of N.A. Again, strength of arms.

            It is the collective (citizens of the USA) that defines your property rights. It is the same collective that claims the territory known as the USA as their collective property. Within that territory, the collective has defined migration between counties and states to be open and free. However, the collective using the same property right arguments you use to define who can enter your house, who and how your land is used also define who and when foreigners can come into the country. It is the same principle. It is an internationally recognized principle. Wars are fought over those imaginary lines. Our borders are as real as your property lines.

            We currently have a large number of foreigners who have crossed our borders with total disregard for our laws. We are a nation of laws. These laws also protect your private property rights. One of founding principles of our government/culture (a nation of laws) is being broken by these individuals who continue to flout our laws by working, drawing welfare, schooling their kids at our expense, etc. SKT is trying to find a common sense way to bring these people out of the shadows and into compliance with our laws while simultaneously trying to stop the illegal inflow. And before you start, I fully understand that you think that is doing violence to these poor individuals. SKT has clearly stated that they should be polled for their opinion. So it will be self inflicted violence.

            We get that you’re an open borders advocate. We get your economic arguments. However, there is more to this than economics. There is the continuation of the American culture, love of the freedom you espouse, and fairness to all residents in this country. Not everything is measured by economics. We have all read your opinion. I sense that many are not buying it.

            Over the last few years, I have seen you try to dominate arguments via sheer volume of responses, a haughty attitude of superiority, and constant changing of the subject to avoid acknowledging a winning point by the opposition. The result is no consensus on any topic mainly because people get too fatigued responding to you. You are free to continue to block SKT’s efforts, you can provide criticism, you can simple just not participate, or for once possible provide some positive ideas on how to solve the issue at hand.

            Now I am going to bed as I have a full day of work tomorrow.

            • Bravo, T-Ray.

              The short of that, BF … try dealing with reality for a change.

            • Wow – what you just said is that the majority has the right to take anything they want from any individual/minority because the collective gets to define property rights. Are you sure you’re not a progressive?

              A group *can* agree to collectively hold property, so saying that the Native Americans had a ‘tribal’ view of their land does nothing to disprove the notion of property rights.

              Then you fall back on ‘we are a nation of laws’ – does that mean you agree with every single law passed, and all of them are morally correct and superior? You didn’t fight Obamacare at all in the last year? Right and wrong is independent of what some idiots in Washington say or do.

              • DKII.. With respect, as I’ve never had a discussion with you …Everyone has a wish list. You can wish all day long that there were no borders. Doesn’t change the fact that there are borders, have always been borders, will always be borders. These guys are trying to hash out some immigration reform within the boundaries we have today that are REAL. You are not living reality and at the same time mocking those who are trying to make tracks forward with what is reality. I’m sure they understand your points but you and Flag continually sidetracking their discussion isn’t helping. How bout giving them some room to figure something out, without shutting down their discussion? Relax, you aren’t going to win with your position and they probably won’t get anywhere with theirs, but at least give them the room to try. 🙂

              • DKII, you misconstrue what I am saying. Individual property rights are a fundamental premise in our organization of society and government. I will defend those rights from the grasping politicians. I am steadfastly against the direction eminent domain has gone in the last few years.

                I watched 3 kids get born. Everyone of them came out screaming for their right to life. Not one came out with a deed or a claim to anything resembling property. It is not an inherent right as stated in the Declaration. It is a construct of how we have organized our society and very good one at that. Without definition of property rights by the collective and through their consent as per the Declaration, there is no definition of property rights. Without government there is only the law of the jungle. In the jungle there are no rights, only might.

              • On the contrary, every newborn child comes screaming out of the womb owning their own body. Without a right to property, you do not own yourself. If you do not own yourself, you have no right to life or liberty, either.

                We had laws long before we had government, they are not inseparable. It is the government that rules by might – or what do you think happens if you disobey them?

                The points made with state borders have nothing to do with current laws – obviously. It’s asking a serious question. What is the problem that you have with people immigrating from another country? Why do you not have that same problem with someone coming from another state?

                If you can answer that question, *then* you can start finding actual solutions to the properly framed problem.

                Relying on a law passed by idiots in Washington as the final arbiter of right and wrong is ridiculous. If someone passed a law mandating that everyone make a blood sacrifice of their first born child, does that make it right?

                I have a home in Montana on the border with Canada. My next door neighbor is on the other side. He just lost his job so I want to hire him to build me a new deck, but I can’t because he was born in the wrong place? I can’t invite him to go from his property to my property – with nothing in between – because….why ,exactly?

                In the end illegal immigration is primarily a symptom. They come here because they are needed here. They do so illegally because they are prevented from doing so legally. They freeload off the system because the system rewards freeloaders. Illegal immigration is not the problem here.

                If you’re just concerned about the price of labor bottoming out, you’re not looking at the whole economic picture. Cheap labor in an open, competitive market means cheaper prices for everyone. More people means more demand for goods. You can never just isolate one economic effect of a change, it ripples throughout.

                I was invited to elaborate on the discussion but obviously what I say is not what you want to hear so now you all want to shut me up. Now I remember why I haven’t come here in a couple years.

              • No, no, no, even if we argue and disagree, the disagreement is worth it. From my point of view it makes me work harder. Like tonight, down below when I bring up the issue of third country nationals in the ME. Something I knew a little about but learned a lot about by talking to my son who has been there. Not only does this allow me to counter an argument like Flags but it sends me off in different directions looking for more information.

                This discussion has changed my mind on a major point. I am now in favor of citizenship and a modified dream act if you will for children brought in by their parents. I was not before, not at all. But where I give something, I expect to get something. Something is the building of that fence and the documentation of everybody who comes here to stay.

                Again, please try to get it OUT of your head that anything I propose here is anti-immigrant. It is not. Some otherwise bright people are very knee jerk on these things. If we were sitting at a bar discussing this in downtown Butte, I could probably get that point over better. Things are out of control, people are being abused and abused badly. They have no recourse or protection. Neither I nor you can have all we might want so why can’t we come up with something that gives us some of what we want?

                The old joke about negotiating with the Soviet union was what was theirs was theirs, what was yours……well, that is up for negotiation. Please don’t be the Soviet Union.

                This is a very important argument and a very soluble one too and good things can come of it.

              • “Things are out of control, people are being abused and abused badly. They have no recourse or protection.”

                That is not because they are immigrants, it is because they have been forced to hide in the shadows because the government has declared their presence to be illegal. It is an argument for making immigration of any kind not illegal. With as large as the borders are – land and sea – and so many ways to enter the country legally and then just disappear, you’re never going to actually stop all ‘illegal’ immigration through direct action against them. The best you can hope to do is make it *difficult* on them by increased border security, employment enforcement, etc. – but that just makes life even *worse* for the ones that do come here, and there will always be some that do so anyway.

                Again, these people would rather come here even if they have to live in the shadows with no protection or civil rights. That tells you how bad it must be for them at home. So do you force them to stay in their home country, where they are in constant fear for their lives from corrupt government, mercenary groups, drug cartels, etc., or welcome them with open arms here and allow them to actually participate in and contribute to society here?

                As for the third country nationals – it’s not a choice, for them, between what you saw and how you live yourself. It’s a choice between what you saw and something worse back where they came from. You see immigrants as some kind of lower class; I would rather all immigrants be the same as anyone else here – free to do what they will to make their own way in society. Many have started businesses and done very well for themselves. Many others are content with low wage, low skill jobs because it’s so much better than anything they had before that they’re content with just that.

                And I’m not arguing that we should just close our eyes while a flood of people sprint for the border. Documenting who comes is reasonable, and if it’s not a closed door, you won’t have otherwise innocent people entering undocumented. Then the ‘illegal’ immigrants that are left will be more likely to be the true threats. In principle I still don’t agree that it’s *right* to monitor the comings and goings of everyone, but that’s my compromise given where we are today, since in theory government having knowledge of someone’s location is not seriously violating their rights (it’s just what they do with that knowledge that is usually the problem).

            • T-Ray

              You have no personal property (real estate) rights that are not defined by our government via the consent of the governed. The right to own land is not bestowed on you by your creator.

              Utter nonsense.

              Property rights supersede and precede all government law. The best government law can do is codify what is already the rights of property. Government can further destroy such rights with more law – but by no measure is this “defining” property rights.

              Without government, your right to the land is limited to the strength of your arms and your ability to defend it.

              So, in two sentences you completely succeed in contradicting yourself.

              Sentence 1 “You have no property rights without government…”
              Sentence 2 “Without government your right to the land [exists]…”

              Further WITH government, property still is protected by force of arms – what do you think “conquering” means?

              Your twisted argument – that my rights are limited by my defense of them, so I need government – but government rights are limited by defense too – yet, you have no issue with that. You apply a complaint to me that equally exists against your own position, but you ignore the complaint when applied to you, pretending it only applies to me.

              …a mind tornado….

              Our value and claims to property rights come from our English/European foundations.

              Actually just English Common Law which, for your information, is law the exists WITHOUT government statutes and regulations.

              Perhaps you first need to bone up a bit of your own position and information — you are punching yourself with your own argument.

              It is the collective (citizens of the USA) that defines your property rights.

              Nope.
              The USA can evaporate, and I still have my property.

              Over the last few years, I have seen you try to dominate arguments via sheer volume of responses, a haughty attitude of superiority, and constant changing of the subject to avoid acknowledging a winning point by the opposition.

              Laughable.

              If my argument from principles consistently defeats your irrational whim, yes, you should learn that reasoned argument is always superior to irrational nonsense. But you still believe in trying to use irrational nonsense as an argument. Not my fault.

              I do not change the subject. I point out the contradictions – you want to believe up is down, and get annoyed after landing on your head at those that warned you.

              What “winning” point? You think repetition of irrational nonsense – Charlie style – wins?

              The result is no consensus on any topic mainly because people get too fatigued responding to you. You are free to continue to block SKT’s efforts, you can provide criticism, you can simple just not participate, or for once possible provide some positive ideas on how to solve the issue at hand.

              And that is the ridiculous foolishness that muddles you and others.

              You believe in shutting up those that make call against your principles. You want to use evil “in a positive way” to solve some human problem, and ignorantly believe you using such evil will never come back to haunt you – “if we work really hard with good ideas”.

              No matter how many millions of died by such idiocy of such a belief, you think if you just work harder at it, you can find a way to use evil to create an everlasting good.

              And you get all annoyed at me who ridicules such a gross stupidity.

  38. Good Morning SUFA 🙂

    As ya’ll continue the immigration debate, there are riots in Italy, Spain, and more to come in Greece. So far Germany and Denmark are spared. Isreal and Hammas are at it and missiles are flying, which takes away from the Syria issue for the moment. Some Generals are in trouble, apparently couldn’t keep their thingy in their pants. I say “who cares” to that stupid issue. Benghazi is still s strong topic, but will likey get swept under the carpet after some drama to make the masses believe they are actually doing something.

    On the immigration issue, I think it’s an overblown issue. The Liberal media and the Jackwagons in DC make this crap up to keep our attention from much more important issues. AS we sit here, this country has laws in place, let’s enfrce them instaed of making new ones and see what happens. Of course that might be too hard for those in DC to do, but it’s a start. Sunny and cool today, perfect 🙂

    • TQM teaches you to pick one topic at a time and solve that. You generally start with a Pereto Chart to find the worst problem and then attack it first. I think we would probably agree that the worst problem is the fiscal crisis we face. Unfortunately, I doubt Congress is yet up to the task (See Paul’s farewell speech). The next big suggestion is to find a smaller topic that can be used as team building exercise. One small success can give people the confidence to tackle the bigger issues. We are a microcosm here of the much larger country albeit possibly above average in education. If we can not find a compromise solution to one smaller problem, how do we expect the country as a whole to work together. Does it take another 9/11 to unite us? God I hope not.

  39. It’s that time of year. Good luck to the hunters starting today. My son is a first timer..he’s waaaay excited. Plus some of you need some CHILL music:

  40. New jobless claims = 439,000. The blame is being pushed on “Sandy”. I think that is horsepoop. This is just the beginning of the Obamacare debacle. Sad days are ahead for many because of this rediculous law. How many will have to stand up and say “NO’ to these idiots in DC before we can end their stupidity?

    • Probably depends where they are. When the clean up finishes and reconstruction starts, they should boom along with prices of cars, construction materials, white goods etc.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      The numbers don’t seem to add up to place blame on the storm. How do they get 78,000 more claims out of this?

      “Hurricane Sandy hammered the Northeast late last month, and was largely the cause of the surge in claims. Claims soared by 5,675 in New Jersey and hit industries most likely impacted by the massive storm: construction, accommodation and food service, transportation and warehousing and manufacturing.

      On the other hand, claims in New York dropped by 2,241 as state systems were unable to take claims due to power outages, the Labor Department said.”

      Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/11/15/jobless-claims-rise-to-highest-level-since-april-2011/#ixzz2CJ4j1IWj

  41. “Last night during a press conference, the Supervisor announced her office had determined that approximately 3,650 ballots were double-counted on election night, and approximately 1,950 ballots were not counted at all, with all ballots coming from the last three days of early voting – which is what was retabulated on Sunday. However, if this information is accurate, the total vote in the county should have decreased by 1,700 votes after the Sunday retabulation. Instead the total votes cast declined by 799. It simply does not add up.

    In addition, according to news reports, the Supervisor of Elections announced her office re-ran some 26,000 ballots from early voting. This would account for the first 6 days of the 8 days of early voting. However, on election night, the campaign staff was told there was a problem with the first 3 days of voting, which would involve approximately 13,000 ballots based on information uploaded to the Division of Elections. What is the truth?

    Finally, during the same press conference, the Supervisor announced there were some “blank” memory cards involved. If these “blank” memory cards were in reference to the election night decision to retabulate 26,000 ballots, then the cards processed on the first 5 days of early voting have been processed twice, the ballots on day 6 have been processed three times, and of the ballots on the last two days, some have been processed twice and some only once. Whether this resulted through mechanical malfunction, negligence or willful action, the voters of St. Lucie County deserve to know their votes have been fairly counted.

    Towards that end, we are pleased Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner has decided to send auditors to St. Lucie County to examine the returns and the ballot-counting process, and we have detailed our concerns to him in a letter today.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/11/suspicious_vote_count_in_allen_west_race.html#ixzz2CJ7LECnQ

  42. Just A Citizen says:

    For those concerned about the discussion on immigration being derailed, do not worry. While the added commentary makes it hard to read, I assure you that we can all hold different discussions at the same time. It it becomes to time consuming then simply pull away and return to your original focus.

    Now along those lines. Lets tackle some issue relative to HOW MANY are we going to allow and HOW do we pick them. SK pointed out the other forms of Temporary Residents, such as Work Visas.

    I would like to point out that these OTHER forms of legal entry are in themselves a SOURCE of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. It is currently pretty easy to come here on a Work Visa, and then melt into the underground economy. The same can be said for any Visa. Look how many Student Visas have been violated.

    So as long as these violators do not face arduous challenges in staying here, we can expect the practice to continue.

    This, in my view, supports the need to increase enforcement at the EMPLOYER level.

    Any other thoughts?

    How many? How do we pick them?

    • One of the arguments used in Reagan’s time as now was that if you deal with the millions here now and take them off the table, then Immigration can spend its time tracking the new ones who come in. A truly great idea if it were implemented. Obviously it was not in the eighties.

  43. Just A Citizen says:

    S.K. and others on the military road to citizenship.

    I STRONGLY DISAGREE with this allowance. That includes the CURRENT policy and the one you presented.

    With a completely voluntary Army we are setting the stage for coercion to get recruitment. It feeds into the creation of a Mercenary Army.

    Think Hessians in the Revolution.

    It also encourages ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION because once in the door you can enlist and get a Get Out of Jail Free Card.

    I don’t support a draft but would rather see that than using Military Service as a means of short cutting Citizenship.

    • I’ve banged this one around for years with my eldest son, the Army Reserve Major. I could live with a “Foreign Legion”. France limits the size of the Legion. perhaps they studied history and saw what happened to Rome when most of the Roman Legions though Roman Citizens, came from outside Italy and were of a different ethnicity. Their loyalty to Geographical Italy and Historic Rome was no greater than that to the lands they came from. Junior disagree, no foreign legion for him.

  44. Just A Citizen says:

    Re: PERMANENT RESIDENT

    The Green Card, or Permanent Resident category should be used to allow full participaton, excluding voting, one someone is allowed to immigrate to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining Citizenship.

    So instead of application being allowed it should be REQUIRED. The purpose of immigration is to become an American. So we should require them to full fill their stated purpose or send them home.

    • Why? I’m sure there are people who come here, who never become citizens for one reason or another. Why should we send them home if they don’t pass the test or just don’t bother to follow through with citizenship. Why should I care? What difference besides being able to vote do you see as a problem with their being allowed to stay? We don’t have this as currant policy as far as I know 🙂 .

    • I really don’t want to send Chris back to Germany.

  45. Just A Citizen says:

    Follow up on Permanent Residents

    from wikipedia:

    “A lawful permanent resident can apply for United States citizenship, or naturalization, after five years of residency. This period is shortened to three years if married to a U.S. citizen. Lawful Permanent Residents may submit their applications for naturalization as early as 90 days before meeting the residency requirement. Citizens are entitled to more rights (and obligations) than permanent residents (who are still classified as aliens in this respect). Lawful Permanent Residents generally do not have the right to vote, the right to be elected in federal and state elections, the ability to bring family members to the United States (permanent residents are allowed to sponsor certain family members,[10] but this is often not practical due to long approval delays),[11][12] or eligibility for federal government jobs. Male permanent residents between the ages of 18 and 26 are subject to registering in the Selective Service System. Permanent residents who reside in the United States must pay taxes on their worldwide income, like U.S. citizens.”

    This explanation includes my issue regarding “can apply” and “must apply” for citizenship. But it raises another issue as well, although related. Those granted Permanent Resident status can sponsor family members, but the delays in approving these requests make it impractical. If we allow such sponsorship then paperwork delays should not be allowed to form a barrier.

    P.S. Sarcasm Alert. One way to get the Dems on the side of restricted immigration and citizenship status is to REMOVE the barrier to getting Govt Jobs…… 😉

    • Guess I should have read this first. Hmmmm, Not sure we should change the law denying people who aren’t citizens government jobs. But sending them home if they don’t become citizens sounds unlikely-look at the mess we have now.

  46. Just A Citizen says:

    S.K.

    Some historical information on the “Oakie” migration you raised the other day.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/dustbowl-mass-exodus-plains/

    Worthy of note: Of those that migrated due to the Dust Bowl only about 200,000 migrated to California. At that time California had about 5 million people. So this migration amounted to 4% of the existing population.

    Your estimate of 10 million illegal immigrants amounts to about 3.3% of our current 300 million people in the USA.

    California, and the USA, was in a Depression at the time. It is documented that the 200,000 migrants caused the value of labor to drop dramatically. It actually resulted in displacing the Mexicans who were working the farms before the migration.

    The USA today is in serious recession or economic condition. It is not hard to understand that a large influx of people when we have high unemployment will cause a decline in the value of labor.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      S.K.

      P.S. I forgot to raise this point in response to the why this line is more important than that line arguments you were getting the other day.

      California did in fact try to stop the migration. This effort was challenged by the ACLU, of all people. Funny how the more things change the more they stay the same.

      Speaking of which, I watched a history channel discussion last night of the McKinley v. Bryant election of 1896. The parallels between that election and the 1900 election and the past 4 years is enlightening.

    • Thank you for the link. As you probably know estimates of illegals run from 10 to 30 million. In most cities, the ghettos are cities unto themselves and getting accurate information is damned near impossible. There are of course, also the “sanctuary” cities who will not cooperate.

      I cannot understand for the life of me why there should even be an argument over this issue. Couched by some as “racism”, I think it is the exact opposite. I see what has to be done as being best for all concerned. It protects the country, it’s citizens and most importantly the people in that shadow world. If I am my brothers keeper, then I do not want my brother to be constantly ripped off, abused and in fear for himself and his family, do I?

      Any suggestions I have ever made always involve me putting myself in the shoes of those who would be affected. That I got from my father. So, coming up with what I did a year or so ago, is based on what I would want, and could accept if I had come over the border without papers. Believe me when I say I know a lot of people in that situation. I had once rented an apartment to a revolving group of three young men. They came, they stayed a year or so, they then came in and said XXX was taking their place on the lease. These guys were all young Irish guys and master carpenters. It was pretty obvious that this was some underground railroad. These guys did make good money but of course not union scale. As they became more comfortable here, they then went out to live on their own. Every now and then you would hear of some ICE raid on an Irish bar downtown or in the NE Bronx. I was always afraid it was “my guys” who got picked up.

  47. Just A Citizen says:

    V.H.

    A bit mind numbing but more detailed look at how Obama won the election. Also a discussion of polling accuracy this cycle.

    While we still don’t know who didn’t vote for Romney this time, this indicates that given history Romney should have won anyway. He didn’t because the Obama machine made sure they got their targeted audience signed up and to the polls.

    http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/15/sometimes-it-really-is-different-this-time-a-polling-post-mortem-part-ii-of-iii/

  48. Oh, hell, I might as well join in on this immigration issue since I am on the front lines, so to speak.

    I will have to admit, that BF is right in one aspect. Immigration is a result of economic conditions. Without economic conditions, there would be no immigration. ( Why would anybody wish to come to the United States other than to better their position for themselves or their family……political considerations notwithstanding.) So, I think that all are going to have to reflect on this very strongly. People come here for a variety of reasons, but first and foremost, it is economically driven. I have personally conducted over one thousand interviews of detained personnel and I have found very few, less than 50, that did not list economic reasons as the PRIMARY issue for risking life to come to the United States. Desperate men do desperate things. Therefore, I am of the opinion and belief that you must accept the argument that immigration is economic driven. (Religious persecution and political issues actually pale in comparison.) But desperation, in itself, is not a reason nor should it be a reason or excuse to violate a nation’s laws…..evil or not.

    Having said that, the issue now boils down to is immigration a right or a privilege. Immigration, in my opinion, is a privilege…it is not a right and it is bound by boundaries, imagined or otherwise. Borders, lines in sand or on paper, recognized or not, ARE a reality. And they are a reality regardless of common law, Law of the Universe, Natural Law, or those that wish for the Utopia of no borders or lines. The fact is….they are there and have been since man was either created or walked out of the ocean. The Star Trek world has never existed, nor will it exist. (Hell, even Star Trek has boundaries enforced by the Federation). Would I like to see a world of cooperation and no boundaries and no laws and perfect free trade….you bet I would but it would be a short trip to the rubber room for me to dwell on it because of the reality of the world. Our country, right or wrong, is a nation of laws. Good or bad, it is the way of things. Consequently, our nation, as all other nations of the world, have boundaries….they have imaginary lines drawn in the sand and they have lines drawn on a map……duly constituted or not. It is there. If a nation has laws, then it is, or should be, the enforcer of those laws equally to all persons, regardless. I cannot make a distinction as to why there are boundaries…I did not make them…and even if I disagree with them…it is reality. You cannot claim a belief in Universal Law or Natural Law and claim that as sacrosanct, when the society you choose to live in does not, for those that do……..the reality is they are living in and abiding by the very laws they claim are evil.

    So, if economics drives immigration…..why are people flocking here and risking life and limb to get here? BF is correct in there are thousands of jobs available. Why are they available? Because people here, citizens, do not want them. There are over 3,000 classified ads advertising work on the DFW area on a daily basis…..and they are vacant. Unemployment in the DFW area is 6.4%. Simple math shows, that 6.4% times a work eligible population of 4,700,000 equals 308,000 people NOT APPLYING for jobs. This example, is just the classified ads on a Thursday. It does not include professional hiring firms, the internet, or any other media. The reasons are varied but does that really matter? The fact is, there are jobs available and that draws immigrants. This is the reality.

    How to handle immigration D13’s way:

    1) We are a nation of laws. Enforce them or change them.
    2) Streamline the immigration process and do it through the employers. Give the employers the incentive to hire immigrants legally. If an employer chooses to not follow the procedure, then he/she does not have the right nor the privilege to continue in operation. Job fairs and employer coalitions do work. It is being proven this day in Texas. Dry up the employer source and the immigration stops.
    3) The entitlement program needs to be canned……in its entirety…..and start over. It is NOT a right nor privilege of an immigrant to come to the United States and partake of our societal benefits without being a LEGAL part of society and that means a citizen. I am convinced that our entitlement program promotes laziness and dependency. I do not subscribe, any longer, that the majority of those on the program want to work. I believe otherwise. Require work programs for entitlement and require drug and alcohol testing and the available jobs will dry up and the need for immigrants reduced.
    4) We have a set of rules that explicitly defines what it takes to become a citizen. Follow it verbatim or change it….and it does say you must be able to read, write, and comprehend the ENGLISH language. It does not say it is a national language but it does specify. Enforce it.
    5) DO not, under any circumstance, allow any felon into the United States or to remain in the United States UNLESS he is a legal citizen. Deport them immediately when found and that includes the family as well. This would include revoking anchor baby citizenship of this felon. Harsh? Yes…but deporting only the felon is not strong enough. Make it hurt.
    6) CLOSE THE BORDER NOW. It is easy to do and you do not need a fence.
    7) Those that are already here and in jobs paying taxes and supporting families……come forward and be recognized. I can see granting temporary permits and visas immediately for 24 months…thereby giving them time to do things properly. Failure to do so and you are outta here…..kids and all.
    8) Once an immigrant becomes a citizen, then I have no problem making his immediate family citizens as well as long as they abide by the rules of read, write, and comprehend the English language. I call this reasonable and incentive.

    BF is also correct in that immigration is not limited to national boundaries or borders. IF persons move from one state into another….that is immigration. But that is LEGAL immigration and it is usually for the same reasons….economics.

    It is impossible and improbable to have open borders anywhere in the world. Culture is a major problem and you cannot, under any circumstance expect or force anyone to accept another culture. Cultural differences exist. Even in so called multi-cultural Europe, a citizen of Spain who lives in Germany and even has citizenship in Germany….will never be a German nor a European…he will always be a Spaniard. That is the way of the world and that is the way of Europe. Cultural differences do exist and you cannot expect a host country to adopt your culture.

    In closing, this is not what I would wish…but it is what is.

    • Colonel, thanks for your comments. A couple of ideas came up at work that I will add:

      1) Immigration laws should be enforced by all law enforcement officers throughout the country. There are just not enough INS agents to do the job. At the very least, local law enforcement should turn in names and locations of the illegal immigrants they find. There are many immigrants who come here with limited time and purpose visas and then overstay them. It is just not a problem associated with our southern border.

      2) Temporary work visas should be given only to individuals who already have an employer lined up. This goes along with your job fair idea.

      3) I do not know the current rules but I suspect that green card residents can draw SS, unemployment insurance, etc. I would limit their ability to draw on these programs until after they have contributed to them for 40 quarters. Welfare, SSDI, food stamps etc. should be off limits to non-citizens.

      I have already stated that I think legal immigration quotas should be liberalized and streamlined. I can see the frustration of outsiders who have to wait years to get an answer.

      Once again, thanks for your input. I greatly appreciate it.

      • T-Ray

        watched 3 kids get born. Everyone of them came out screaming for their right to life. Not one came out with a deed or a claim to anything resembling property. It is not an inherent right as stated in the Declaration. It is a construct of how we have organized our society and very good one at that. Without definition of property rights by the collective and through their consent as per the Declaration, there is no definition of property rights. Without government there is only the law of the jungle. In the jungle there are no rights, only might.

        You make an error in describing your children’s birth.

        They did not scream about their “right to life” – no such thing exists, because you die.
        You cannot claim as a HUMAN right that which the UNIVERSE dictates.

        You don’t claim “gravity is a human right!” – that’s nonsense, and a “right to life” falls into that category.

        What they are screaming for is a right to express their wants and desires. That is a human right. Nor does the Declaration assert ALL human rights – read it properly, “… they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among them…“. Jefferson made no attempt to write them all, but merely the one he wished to address in his complaint to the King.

        They also didn’t come out with a declaration for protection of government nor a constitution. But they did come born with a RIGHT TO PROPERTY – themselves. They exist with a right to self-ownership, self-expression, and choices for their own action… born free.

        To declare property rights is set by a collective, you would then declare your self-ownership would be so set. So you contradict your own declaration “right to life” because it cannot exist of your self-ownership actually rests in the hands of others.

        But further, you are contradicted. By what right does a collective act? A collective is an abstraction – a group of people.

        So what right does a group of people act?
        But all human action is individual – it is your fist that falls upon the body of another, not the fist of an abstraction.

        So what right do YOU have so to describe, declare and make property?
        If you have such a right, so do I and JAC and everyone else.
        What right do you have that makes YOUR declaration superior to anyone else?
        If you have a right of superior declaration, well, so do I and JAC and everyone else!

        Therefore, the collective has no rights of itself – it only has rights of the individuals in that group.
        Private property exists by human right of the individual, by the right of self-ownership. To seek and believe such property is established somewhere else is a fallacy and irrational OR you truly do not believe in human rights.

        With government, it is law of the jungle – the law of violence. Government is nothing but violence. As Washington is claimed to have said: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force!”

        Reason is the tool of free men, in voluntary peaceful action – not a murderous brute whose only answer to human problems is the gun.

        You call forth the very brute, right by violence, right by might that you claim you are against.

        At your roots, T-ray, you contradict your principles by your demands

    • Just to clear up the issue Flag and I disagree on one itsy bitsy point, he wants totally open borders because of the economic benefit. I want controlled immigration for exactly the same reason but I take it a step farther. I want the economic benefit to extend to the immigrant too. Up here in the Northeast, in front of almost any Home Depot or :owes on any given morning there are a large number of day laborers mostly illegals who will when hungry, work for almost anything. Flag things this is a good thing near as I can tell because it gives me more stuff. I don’t.

      People do not take existing jobs for a variety of reasons, some have to do with travel, some with aesthetics (don’t want to be cutting off chicken heads and gutting cattle) some have to do with “I’m worth more”. Of course, we make this possible. I remember little story back in the ’60’s when my Dad went nuts watching Eyewitness News and there was the usual impotent effort to get people off welfare. Well they were interviewing a woman who might have been the Obamaphone lady’s mother. She kept going on about how she was not going to be cleaning some other persons floor, she’d rather stay on the welfare. MY father looked at me, muttered a curse under his breath and screamed at me, his poor son, “What the hell is she talking about, YOUR mother cleans peoples floors for a living”. True, she did. Then he launched into a nonstop tirade about how no work is not noble, nothing that you do to put food on the table for your family is demeaning. Of course there is that issue of our wonderful little offspring these days who are just too precious to take an after school, or summer or holiday job. Stores up here are going begging for holiday help. Then again, that’s temporary, part time and comes with no benefits, not too attractive to a father of three when he can sit home draw $ 405 a week unemployment and foodstamps. So, to get the folks off their lard asses, then something has to be done about making them a wee bit less comfortable. But, we all know that is not going to happen.

      On your points:

      1. Yes, enforce or change, absolutely a long overdue serious conversation

      2. After the Reagan amnesty it was required that employers verify citizenship. I had to do it annually as does my wife. Obviously some employers are playing fast and loose. What resources have been devoted to that????????

      3.If sanctuary cities like New York by fiat of their Mayors and Councils do not ask for proof of residency status, just how can you get a handle on that. One way might be to just cut off all Federal assistance to sanctuary cities. Want to be profligate? Do it with your own money. Likelihood of that happening? When pigs fly.

      4. Yes but only if you want citizenship. If you want to remain a 2nd class citizen and lose opportunity after opportunity, just keep speaking that Mother tongue of yours.

      5.Of course not, no felons. But again I want a chance of success here, you cannot deport the kids lawsuits, lawsuits. We should get after that automatic citizenship thing which was never the intent of the Reconstruction amendments. Perhaps the first instance of “Courts Gone Wild”.

      6.Close the border, agreed and first.

      7. Come forward with a deadline, yes. problem again with kids who have citizenship. Kids could stay. Pops has to go. Kids could accompany him if they want and return as citizens automatically when they grow up.

      8. Every adult coming here legally has the right to take out citizenship. Under certain circumstances their minor children can too. A good friend was surprised back in ’65 trying to enlist in the USAF to find out he was not a citizen even though his folks had become naturalized. He was six months old on entry to the US from Canada. Illegal entry? See below.

      I still do not agree that Illegals should ever be allowed full citizenship. They must pay a penalty, we must discourage political demagoguery. Legal permanent resident status is one hell of a lot better deal than they have now. Want the whole nine yards? Leave, take a number and come back through the front door. Their born here kids have full citizenship and I am not even totally opposed to granting naturalization rights to minor children who were snuck in. Was not their fault nor intent. But, the clock starts ticking for them only upon attaining their majority at 18.

      See the issue of state boundaries raised by DK and Flag for what it is, a red herring. Irrelevant, immaterial and absurd once you say the following words carefully and slowly. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

      • he wants totally open borders because of the economic benefit.

        You just can’t help it, can you?

        You cannot present my arguments without lying and falsifying and strawmaning.

        You are a dishonest.

        It is YOU who claims the economic LOSS of immigration – you raise the point and I contest you economic crackpottery with economic theory

        I proclaim open borders because interference with free men in peaceful pursuit of their own benefit is an affront to freedom

        Wake up!

        I am really tired of you playing stupid.
        Leave that part to Charlie.

        laborers mostly illegals who will when hungry, work for almost anything. Flag things this is a good thing near as I can tell because it gives me more stuff. I don’t.

        I do not make judgements on the free decisions of other men.
        I do not push them there.

        They went there.
        They have their reasons, not mine to debate.

        Their consequences, not my fault.

        Your false pity – you want remove their own choices, imprison them, kill them if necessary – so that you don’t see them? You think YOUR solution is better – using evil on them so that your dainty little eyes won’t see them, and therefore you won’t have a guilty conscience on your failure of human charity.

        People do not take existing jobs for a variety of reasons, some have to do with travel, some with aesthetics (don’t want to be cutting off chicken heads and gutting cattle) some have to do with “I’m worth more”.

        Exactly, so don’t pander bullshit about “will do ANYTHING to support their family” nonsense.

        They are making choices about themselves as they have a right to do.
        But the consequences of those choices are theirs too. Not my fault. Not a Mexican’s fault either.

        THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

        Meaningless abstraction devoid of principles.

        What principle do you believe the nation was founded to uphold?

        Oh..gee.. freedom.

        Good on ya, SKT, you work hard to destroy it because you have no idea what principle rooted the founding of the nation.
        You are blinded by the stripes and stars waving in your eyes.

        • Third country nationals, ever heard of them? Bet the Colonel has. I knew about them, only a little but tonight I talked to my Air Force Reserve son who has been deployed to the Middle East three times. He has spent serious time in Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE. Last week, one of his buddies returned and they sat down to compare notes. His friend asked him if he’s like to go back. Joe said only if the Air Force sent him. Besides being totally phony constructs, (they make Vegas look real) they have these people called Third Country Nationals. They are foreign workers imported from the poorer countries to do the heavy lifting since the natives are too rich to bother or more likely too dumb to learn. Being in a country loaded with third country nationals reminds one, he said, of being surrounded by slaves. These people have no rights, can never be citizens and are treated like crap. Now, I myself, when surrounded by my immigrant employees have felt similarly, especially if they are new to the country. I’m a very casual guy and don’t like fawning. I understand that may be common in other countries especially throughout Latin America where that Padrone crap still flies, but this is the US of A and I don’t believe in separate classes. Point is though, there is not much of that wonderfulness of open borders in the ME with these people. They are treated like serfs never allowed to integrate into the society and lorded over by people who think they are there betters.

          I hear over and over that the gap between the rich and poor widens in the United States. Thinking about that today makes me wonder why we never ask who the poor are? Oh, we know the rich. We watch lifestyles of the rich and famous. But if you spend three and one half seconds thinking about it, you realize that the poor are the ever increasing immigrant poor that flood the barrios and skew the stats. Lets settle for the fact that there are 15 million illegals here now, mostly adults since I can’t see them sneaking the kids in. They draw social services and are counted among the poor (at least that is what my Church keeps telling me). By keeping them locked away in the dark, how will they ever rise out of poverty? If they don’t, and more keep pouring in every year there will be an ever widening gap between “rich” and “poor”.

          Look up the meaning of UNITED as in United States. You might just find that it explains why one can travel from NY to LA without showing a passport. Just don’t try bringing a handgun along.

          Mr. Flag, frankly, you deserve a horsewhipping. First I was a racist, now you brand me a liar. I guess I really got under your skin this time. I am so tempted to strike back but instead I think I have brought you out in the open for all to see. Hard to believe that in this day and age a misanthrope like you still exists. Man is more than an animal, man is more than economics. Unfortunately for me I believe Man was made in the image and likeness of God, is his brothers keeper, and should love his neighbor as himself. But, he should not go broke doing that, helps no one.

          • They are foreign workers imported from the poorer countries to do the heavy lifting since the natives are too rich to bother or more likely too dumb to learn.

            Sounds like a good deal for foreign workers. Are making a complaint about the arrangement?

            Being in a country loaded with third country nationals reminds one, he said, of being surrounded by slaves. These people have no rights, can never be citizens and are treated like crap.

            Bullshit.

            They have rights – they can go home if they want.

            Who gives a flying *bleep* about citizenship?

            And maybe some are, but that occurs anywhere, so not an argument.

            The fact, sir, is that they are paid so much more money doing that, then doing something else back “home”. That is why they go there.

            You are a superficial reviewer.

            Because YOU would not want to do that – because YOU have different desires, talents and choices – you have some sort of brain block in thinking NO ONE wants to do that.

            I don’t believe in separate classes.

            I do.
            So what?

            Point is though, there is not much of that wonderfulness of open borders in the ME with these people. They are treated like serfs never allowed to integrate into the society and lorded over by people who think they are there betters.

            …and it is a world a difference better than where they came from. You are a superficial reviewer and ego-centric.

            You make judgements and proclamations UPON other people solely based on YOUR point of view. You have no idea or ability to understand why they chose what the did and do what they do, because you are stuck in your head that everything revolves around you.

            “If YOU wouldn’t do it, NO ONE will do it” – and it doesn’t matter what those others want, your wants are better.
            It doesn’t matter what they don’t want, they get if you think they should.

            I hear over and over that the gap between the rich and poor widens in the United States.

            Yet, did you actually go and check the facts to see if it is?

            The fact is, no – its not.

            It’s not a static thing – because it is relative, it can never be static – but it is within the same statistical range as it was for the last 75 years.

            It has, is and always will be 80/20 rule or about. 80% of the wealth owned by 20% of the people.

            If they don’t, and more keep pouring in every year there will be an ever widening gap between “rich” and “poor”.

            So more of this fake pity.

            To solve this -to you- human tragedy, you will condone the beating, killing, and imprisoning of these people because … you sympathize with their plight???

            Utterly bizarre.

            Look up the meaning of UNITED as in United States.

            It was a unity for defense. You best look up the United states and its founding and not make up irrelevant ideas based on your ego-centric view point.

            You might just find that it explains why one can travel from NY to LA without showing a passport. Just don’t try bringing a handgun along.

            Yeah, so why do you think you should demand at the point of gun someone show you a piece of paper because they merely want to travel south instead of west?

            Mr. Flag, frankly, you deserve a horsewhipping. First I was a racist, now you brand me a liar.

            First was a hunt for a concept to describe the root of your position – not racists as you do not exclude by merely race alone, but chauvinist, you exclude because you think YOUR group is superior.

            But liar – it is a reasoned label – you misrepresent my position almost constantly to confirm with your brain twists – and make up stories based on that twist that you then reapply back to me.

            I’ve warned you every time about that, and you blubber on with no alteration.
            What do you think you have that is a problem that makes you do that?

            I think it is purposeful, thus, lying.

            If you think it is because you have a medical condition, ignorance, or something else, tell me so I can be more gracious or use different words to make it easier for you to understand.

            man is more than economics.

            Economic illiteracy at its finest.

            The science of economics IS the science of man – human action.

            It is the science that says “If you do this, you will get that”.

            You continue to believe you can “do this, and get something else” – and you don’t. You scratch your head – and instead of learning – you believe its economics that is wrong

            should love his neighbor as himself. But, he should not go broke doing that, helps no one.

            You do not even follow your own declared principles.

            You show your love for your fellow man by beating, killing and imprisoning him – simply because he was to work.

            You are not going broke helping him. You are not helping him. You are doing grave violence on him.

            It’s almost like a brain disease or some sort of mental illness, it’s got to be.

            Like “Mars Attacks!”

            Like the Martians – “We come in Peace” while slaughtering and killing thousands – you and a substantial population go around “we love you and here to help” while beating, killing and chaining others…..

            I don’t get how that makes sense to you.

    • D13,

      So, the whole long post – one that I was waiting for as an example of a meritorious argument regarding immigration over a border

      …is empty.

      The best you claim is “a nation of laws” – and so, whatever evil law is made, that’s what will be enforced … because I surmise by your declaration of “nation of laws”, government law is the highest moral order in your society. Thus, no matter the law, its cost in death and destruction, it must be moral as it is the highest order within your system of principles.

      So, a declaration of open borders, if made law, would instantly reverse your position on the immigration question. You would be its champion as equally as you champion the illegality of it, right? “Nation of laws”, and all that?

      Well, if true, then you have no real principles of human and rights – rights must be government given, because law is supreme and if so given by law, they are therefore not a right but a privileged by writ.

      Do you believe this? If you don’t … then you don’t believe in this “nation of laws” crap really either… so what was your argument again?

      But if you do believe rights do not exist except by law (thus a “privilege”)- there is no such thing as a human right – then why did you fight for freedom? It isn’t a law….

      hmmm…..

      Anyway, you get a “point” for at least trying….

    • It is impossible and improbable to have open borders anywhere in the world. Culture is a major problem and you cannot, under any circumstance expect or force anyone to accept another culture. Cultural differences exist. Even in so called multi-cultural Europe, a citizen of Spain who lives in Germany and even has citizenship in Germany….will never be a German nor a European…he will always be a Spaniard. That is the way of the world and that is the way of Europe. Cultural differences do exist and you cannot expect a host country to adopt your culture.

      But what does this have to do with borders?

      Is your culture so weak, base, irrelevant, and strife-filled, that a FOREIGNER, grossly outnumbered, is a threat by introducing his?

      Eek!

      If YOUR culture is so strong and good, they will seek it.

      If it isn’t, why are you saving it?

      • During the Middle Kingdom of China, the Chinese did not actively resist invansions – such as the Mongols. After a few battles, the Chinese went home.

        The Mongols moved in, importing their culture.

        A few generations later, the Mongols are a part of China.

        Chinese culture was confident theirs was superior and saw no threat of the introduction of others.

  49. Yesterday, I wrote this I think a lot of you did not pick up on it. My own little poll of Hispanic immigrants is included starting in the third paragraph.

    Stephen K. Trynosky says:
    November 14, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    Fast forward 120 years to that progressive Theodore Roosevelt who often and with great emphasis denounced hyphenated Americans. One of the reasons I like TR is that he could be so confusing. Was reading this morning a condemnation of both great progressives Roosevelt and Wilson (who hated each other). There is something about Roosevelt though. A brilliant intellect coupled with a man who actually did things a whole lot of things and a whole lot of really dangerous, put your life on the line things at that. there is a lot more there to bite into and chew on than that intellectual Woodrow Wilson, a man of great ideas (flaming racist too) but no practical experience.

    As a sickly child myself, I admired Roosevelt. Many, many of the things he came up with were based solely on his personal experiences with people, he was perhaps the most gregarious of our presidents. I think that is why I am always mentioning people and events I have either seen first hand or been involved in. Nothing like actually trying ideas out in the real world.

    Today I had the opportunity to sit down at my old job and crack a bottle of Presidente (wonderful Dominican beer) with Leo and his brother David. These two were born in Ecuador. They are in their fifties, immigrated here as young men in the early ’70′s. Both speak virtually accentless English, have become American citizens and are blue collar workers. Leo was a contractor, now an employee of a contractor and David works with him. Politically, Leo, the older brother by a year is a conservative. David leans towards Che Guevera. Their Father, in his eighties, is a Physician in rural Ecuador.

    I posed them the question about permanent residency with no voting rights. Leo is for it. David against. However, David is against illegal immigration period. If you do get through the door though he believes there should be a pathway to citizenship. When I asked him why, he said that he would want it. I then pointed out that this does not count, “you did it legally”, I told him, it would not apply to you. He still disagreed with me because, he would not like it. I then asked the magic question about the fairness of allowing people who have snuck onto the line ahead of you, That gave him pause, suddenly it became personal. Unfortunately we had to break at that point but I do believe that he too would have come around. Both, as immigrants agreed that the quantity of immigrants depressed wages and made the competition for jobs much tighter.

    The new manager who forced me out of that job, is according to Leo and David, employing illegals exclusively. Contracting to pay them appx. $ 8,000 per apartment for the labor in a gut renovation and then demanding up to $ 4,000 in kickbacks to stay working. I suspected that he was doing this when he first came on board. If anyone has some really good suggestion on how to blow this over to IRS I will take it. I can’t prove it, they would have to do the leg work.

    Another of the 8,000,000 stories in the naked city.

  50. Howard Stern on Obama voters … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ECS8LEeI5M

    To be fair, both parties are a joke and do nothing for the poor or the middle class. They are shills. Fiscal conservatives need to vote Libertarian and the really smart people 🙂 (liberal like me) need to vote Green Party … or socialist … or communist.

    But let’s face it … we’re all spinning are wheels … whether we’re arguing in here or voting.

  51. @ BF….

    You asked ” The best you claim is “a nation of laws” – and so, whatever evil law is made, that’s what will be enforced ” My answer is yes.

    You surmise ” by your declaration of “nation of laws”, government law is the highest moral order in your society. ” My answer is no….you surmise incorrectly.

    You asked ” So, a declaration of open borders, if made law, would instantly reverse your position on the immigration question. You would be its champion as equally as you champion the illegality of it, right? ” My answer is….absolutely.

    You state, ” Well, if true, then you have no real principles of human and rights ” My answer is you are incorrect and your assumption is also incorrect. The fact that I understand the reality of the situation (Nation of Laws) does not in anyway mean that I agree with them. It simply means that I accept the reality of it and will abide by it and protect it until it changes….just as you do.

    You state, ” rights must be government given, because law is supreme and if so given by law, they are therefore not a right but a privileged by writ.” My answer is….You are entirely correct and is probably the most profound and true statement I have seen you make that supports the reality of the situation. This is the way of it. I do not agree with it at all and will do what I can do to change it. But until it is changed, I have no choice but to live within its confines (and confines is a great word for it) until I can change it. But because the “writ” is there, then it SHOULD be enforced. If that means there are borders…then there are borders. But, rest assured, I do not believe they should exist. But because they do exist and because I defend our way of life, does not make me empty at all. It makes me the other way….as consistent as you are.

    I believe borders do define culture……and they do define economics…..and they do define laws…and they do exist. Therefore, I believe, that those borders define the actions of peoples with in those borders.

    But allow me to reciprocate……I will take your point and I will give you one of mine for your consistency and your passion.

    • You surmise ” by your declaration of “nation of laws”, government law is the highest moral order in your society. ” My answer is no….you surmise incorrectly.

      Then I’m confused.

      The previous sentence, you confirmed that you would enforce evil because it was law – in other words, you will completely dismiss your own principles of good/evil and seize, solely, the declaration of law to determine your action. You would – as you admit – enforce evil.

      If you admit you have utterly voided your own principles in favor of government law, what could be higher ordered principle then government law for you?

      In any test, you would hold one set against government law, and you admit, government law would always win if there was conflict in principles.

      So how can you claim it isn’t the highest order when nothing you test against it wins?

      • A VERY good question and, indeed, a conundrum of major proportion. Does the statement….fighting within myself give any credence? My principles are as intact as yours. You have a drivers license, I assume. It is against your principles but it is a law. You abide by the law and, therefore, enforce that law by having a driver’s license.

        I am on the border. I sympathize with the man and his family trying to find work for food…nothing more. He is no threat to security and he is simply trying to find food. As much as I want to turn my back and let him in, I will not because the law is absolute. You and I are fighting the same war but from different strategies. I see it as a disregard of moral character to not enforce the laws of the society…you see it as a disregard of principle to enforce the law. You view it from the anarchist principle and I view it differently but our total principles and end result are the same.

        Another example….that may help you understand me. There is a secession thing going on the internet right now. You and I both know it will go nowhere but it is more than a joke. Hundreds of thousands do not sign onto a joke. I am a United States Army Officer sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the Unite States. I will do that. BUT…….if Texas were to decide to secede and Texas upholds my principles and morals the best way, I would immediately resign my commission and go to Texas. To keep my commission would not be honorable if there were another choice available. Very much like the cadets of West Point during the Civil War.

        Anyway, it is a pleasure discussing these things with you and sorry if I have confused you. Hope you and yours are doing well, sir.

        • A VERY good question and, indeed, a conundrum of major proportion. Does the statement….fighting within myself give any credence?

          Of course – but what matters is who wins.

          My principles are as intact as yours. You have a drivers license, I assume. It is against your principles but it is a law. You abide by the law and, therefore, enforce that law by having a driver’s license.

          Nope, doesn’t work that way.

          I do not have a license because it is law.
          I have it because I need to drive, because driving is critical to my living.

          When a murderer seizes your means of survival, and then demands you must dance to live – it is not the dancing that is evil, it was the taking and the threat that occurred in the first place.

          This is different then kowtowing to the law – because it is law.

          The difference is, the essence of driving a car does not kill someone. I do not “follow the law” – I drive.
          If -for sake of understanding- the essence of driving required me to beat up my next door neighbor daily – I would not drive.
          If the law said I must drive and beat my neighbor even against my will to do either, no matter – I would not drive nor beat my neighbor. I simply do not care about evil law.

          I am the judge and I am the law of my own action.
          Much along the lines of Bradbury.
          I chose which law I obey, based on my own convenience and my own choice.

          Or like King,
          If you believe one must obey moral and just laws, you equally must believe one must disobey immoral and unjust laws.

          sorry if I have confused you. Hope you and yours are doing well, sir.

          Confusion is good when it is well addressed.

          I completely understand the internal struggle – I know we grow up with rote authority that surrounds us, and it embeds some great evil into our brains that merges into us to make us who we are.

          It is very painful and wrenching to rip that evil out – its roots are deep in us and tears us to shreds as we tear it out of soul.
          Been there, did that. Huge cost.

          And that’s the rub. The huge cost.

          A practical man would measure that cost vs. the gain.

          There is very little gained and a lot lost by men who remain consistent to core principles. They tend to die alone and badly.

          Because I’m in a “movie” mood, how many times do you see the principled fellow – “I won’t leave my post!” while everyone else is abandoning their positions to save their lives. The ones that ran away (and lost the battle) live – the principled fellow … well, we find a limb or two left…. among the ruins.

          Take care, sir!

    • The fact that I understand the reality of the situation (Nation of Laws) does not in anyway mean that I agree with them. It simply means that I accept the reality of it and will abide by it and protect it until it changes….just as you do.

      Nope, not as I do.

      You CHOOSE to do so – and more so, CONDONE it to be done so.
      It is your hand that strikes the blow.

      I do not CONDONE, I condemn.
      My hand does not move.

      As well stated in a movie –
      “It is not who you are inside, but what you do that defines you

      .You are entirely correct and is probably the most profound and true statement I have seen you make that supports the reality of the situation.

      First it is not reality – that you call “reality” is a lie.

      However, the position that is stated only comes from a principle of someone who hold government law to be the supreme moral principle – regardless of the violence upon non-violent people it exercises. All I did is follow the reasoning from the view point.

      I think I told you I met a spook, whose core principle was the same. What ever the US government did, it was right.
      If the US slaughtered a dozen nuns, the nuns deserved it and it was right for them to die, because the US government is always right.

      I asked him – ok, if the government said for you to kill your wife and kids, would you do it?
      He hesitated for but a second and looked at me with his killer eyes and said “The government is always right”

      Well he was consistent.

      Are you?

      If the law so stated that you would have to arrest and enforce a law upon your own wife and children – including to the point of their demise – would you?

      • Ok….so the reality is a lie………it is still there.

      • If the law so stated that you would have to arrest and enforce a law upon your own wife and children – including to the point of their demise – would you? My answer….absolutely not….unless they are violating the law. So you need to be more explicit. If my son committed murder..yes, I would arrest him. If my son was executing his right to free speech and the government said to kill him….no I would not. I would pack up my family and leave.

        • But that is what I said – if they were breaking government law.

          Keep it simple – do you believe the government law in “NO free speech zones”? Would you enforce them?

  52. @ BF……

    I have to respect your introduction of China because history is the best teacher and it is the way to look at China today. The secret to China is the past.

    Ahhh…the Mongols……a great dynasty but one of violence and suppression. China was smart….they isolated them. That isolation led to their defeat. The Mongols assimilated. While descendants exist today….the Mongol way of life is gone.

    In today’s modern world, I have no problem with anyone coming here. I do have a problem with the forced introduction of competing….yes, I said competing…..culture. I have a problem with the forced recognition of any outside, yes, I also said outside, culture.

    • In Japanese culture, I would have to introduce the Samurai….they prospered better than the Mongols…..the Samurai are dead but they did have principles that found its way into Japanese culture and laws…..not so of the Mongols.

  53. Black Flag® says:
    November 14, 2012 at 2:30 pm • Edit

    “Mexican drug cartels have no reason to assist terrorists. To what gain?
    There is no sense in attracting even more US military against them then already provided. Add terrorists, the cartels would be reeling.”

    “The boogyman simply does not exist.”

    Congressional report ties Middle East terrorists to Mexican drug cartels

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/16/congressional-report-ties-middle-east-terrorists-to-mexican-drug-cartels/#ixzz2COaawcBR

    • Loi,

      Nice find, but sadly, devoid of any real information. At best it merely postulates a relationship claimed only that there are Lebanese immigrants in Latin America, therefore there must be Hezbollah too.

      If you can find a Stratfor article to support your position – they tend to explain the relationship (if it exists) instead of here, merely postulating it.

      And IF there is such a relationship, it has nothing to do with the US – it is far more likely it is a trade of drug money for AK-47s from Middle east.

      • Actually both….we know where there are two camps run by Hezbollah. But the training that is going on there is has nothing to do with the United States per se, they are training cartel members. AND…the association is money and guns going back to the ME. The Mexican government is giving a tacit ok…….and so is the US.

        • Furthermore, we even know the banks, the entry points, and the contacts of the guns for money. Drugs sold to the US….cash to Mexico…..guns are drying up in the US…..the cartel gets them from Hezbollah who has an unending supply…..in return, Hezbollah gets entry into Mexico. Pretty simple, actually and condoned by this administration. The camps were not there until 2010.

        • Hahaha….

          D13, our own personal Stratfor source…. 🙂

          Thanks for the info – sorta confirms my guess.

  54. NOw they have gone and done it…….Hostess shut down today….no cup cakes, twinkies, or Ding Dongs…….WTF?

    • This is called “stupid”. It involves people deciding that no job is better than a less than perfect job. Answers some of the questions too about vacant jobs going begging. There has to be a happy medium. Sometimes you have to die on the hill and the hill is worth dying for, other times, you flow around it. So the workers involved and their union rabble rousers fall into the category of Dumb F—ers.

      A few years ago Stella D’oro in the Bronx, a fine product line, died the same way. Sometimes when you play brinksmanship, you lose. Both brand names will probably now be sold and they will come back to you as “el Twinkies” from Mexico.

      Seen some of that around here lately with absolutes decreed from an ivory tower.

%d bloggers like this: