A Random Chance

Canceled my newspaper subscription

2009-09-28T10:21:00.000-07:00

The reason:

Yesterday I canceled my subscription to my local paper, the Indianapolis Star for several reasons all of which I detailed for the lady who handled my call. Specifically:

The day after taking part in a TEA Party demonstration in downtown Indianapolis I opened my local Indianapolis newspaper, the Indianapolis Star, I discover that there were not 10,000 to 12,000 people there as I had actually seen but a mere 2,500. Obviously I could believe my lying eyes or my newspaper. I almost canceled it then but decided I enjoyed the comics entirely too much at that point.

After returning from the 9-12 DC protest (driving all day 9-11 to get there), spending the day in the midst of a minimum of 1.5m like minded individuals on 9-12, on 9-13 driving all day to return to Indianapolis - on 9-14 I get my newspaper excited to read about an historic event only to find a tepid article that doesn't begin to do the event justice.

On Tuesday 09-22-2009 my local paper offers me:

A front page article describing the plight of 5 individuals who don't have health insurance and the paper attempts to tug at my heart strings to feel sorry for a 25 year single mother of 3 who lost her $10.25 per hour job along with 4 other stories of people who've made similar bad life decisions. 25 years old, single with 3 kids and I'm to support destroying the best health care system in the world for her benefit? The other 4 were equally inane stories.
An inside the fold opinion piece (this was not the editorial page) that demeans me for paying attention to Glenn Beck instead of that monument to conservative thought, Joe Scarborough).
An editorial opinion piece by one Dan Carpenter that explains to me why I'm so terribly wrong about ACORN.

The editorial opinion piece didn't bother me because it was opinion on an opinion page but in total it was the straw that broke this camel's back.I explained to the gentle lady on the other end of the phone that I was simply tired of seeing opinion masquerading as news on the front page and was tired of contributing to the salaries of the other fools whose opinions didn't come near to my own set of values.

Now I have $200+ per year to waste on something useful.

2009 Washington D.C. TEA Party

2009-07-10T16:56:00.000-07:00

On Thursday July 2 of 2009 Margie and I drove from Indianapolis Indiana to Washington D.C. This was a 10 hour drive that took us through: Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland and then to D.C.

The reason for the drive was to take part in a TEA Party protest on July 4th. TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already, which is an understatement. There should also be an acronym for, The Government is too damn big already, but I can't think of anything catchy to describe full blown fascism, our current political system of governance(?).

We had a great time taking in both the history memorialized by the many monuments and staid buildings while still making our point. Margie actually appeared on a CNN video clip, it was a shot f her that was taken as we "marched" from our parking place to the protest site.

Here are some shots of the TEA Party speakers, signs and participants:

2009 Washington D.C. TEA Party

The TEA Party took place on July 4th but we arrived in D.C. late on the night of the 2nd. That gave us a full day Friday to explore. We visited as many monuments, cool buildings and museums as possible. I think we probably walked 10 miles but the sights were worth it. Here's some shots of what we saw:

2009 Washington D.C. Monuments and Museums

We found a couple of gardens tucked away with some interesting plants and trees. Here are a couple of shots of those:

2009 Washinton D.C. gardens

On the evenng of the 4th we took a dinner cruise on the Potomoc. We were able to watch the fireworks from the cruise boat and it was terrific. As you can see, Margie had a dandy time. I'm a lousy dancer so she had to dance with other sufferers. Anyway we got some shots of the fireworks:

2009-07-04 DC Trip - Fireworks and Cruise

Just why are Blacks so tied to the Democrats?

2008-11-12T15:40:00.000-08:00

Democrats have ALWAYS been the Party of Slavery and Racism United States History of Racism against Blacks

The Republican Party was formed in 1854 specifically to oppose the Democrats, and for more than 150 years, they have done everything they could to block the Democrat agenda. In their abuses of power, they have even used threats and military violence to thwart the Democrat Party’s attempts to make this a progressive country. As you read the following Republican atrocities that span three centuries, imagine if you will, what a far different nation the United States would be had not the Republicans been around to block the Democrats’ efforts.

March 20, 1854 Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party

May 30, 1854 Democrat President Franklin Pierce signs Democrats’ Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanding slavery into U.S. territories; opponents unite to form the Republican Party

June 16, 1854 Newspaper editor Horace Greeley calls on opponents of slavery to unite in the Republican Party

July 6, 1854 First state Republican Party officially organized in Jackson, Michigan, to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

February 11, 1856 Republican Montgomery Blair argues before U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client, the slave Dred Scott; later served in President Lincoln’s Cabinet

February 22, 1856 First national meeting of the Republican Party, in Pittsburgh, to coordinate opposition to Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

March 27, 1856 First meeting of Republican National Committee in Washington, DC to oppose
Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

May 22, 1856 For denouncing Democrats’ pro-slavery policy, Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) is beaten nearly to death on floor of Senate by U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC), takes three years to recover

March 6, 1857 Republican Supreme Court Justice John McLean issues strenuous dissent from decision by 7 Democrats in infamous Dred Scott case that African-Americans had no rights “which any white man was bound to respect”

June 26, 1857 Abraham Lincoln declares Republican position that slavery is “cruelly wrong,” while Democrats “cultivate and excite hatred” for blacks

October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

October 25, 1858 U.S. Senator William Seward (R-NY) describes Democratic Party as “inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders”; as President Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, helped draft Emancipation Proclamation

June 4, 1860 Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) delivers his classic address, The Barbarism of Slavery

April 7, 1862 President Lincoln concludes treaty with Britain for suppression of slave trade

April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 2, 1862 U.S. Rep. Justin Morrill (R-VT) wins passage of Land Grant Act, establishing colleges open to African-Americans, including such students as George Washington Carver

July 17, 1862 Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

August 19, 1862 Republican newspaper editor Horace Greeley writes Prayer of Twenty Millions, calling on President Lincoln to declare emancipation

August 25, 1862 President Abraham Lincoln authorizes enlistment of African-American soldiers in U.S. Army

September 22, 1862 Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation

January 1, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, implementing the Republicans’ Confiscation Act of 1862, takes effect

February 9, 1864 Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to U.S. Senate supporting Republicans’ plans for constitutional amendment to ban slavery

June 15, 1864 Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil War
June 28, 1864 Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Acts

October 29, 1864 African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth says of President Lincoln: “I never was treated by anyone with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me by that great and good man”

January 31, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

March 3, 1865 Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves

April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

June 19, 1865 On “Juneteenth,” U.S. troops land in Galveston, TX to enforce ban on slavery that had been declared more than two years before by the Emancipation Proclamation
November 22, 1865 Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

December 6, 1865 Republican Party’s 13th Amendment, banning slavery, is ratified

February 5, 1866 U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights

Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

April 19, 1866 Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slavery

May 10, 1866 U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866 U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

July 16, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of Freedman’s Bureau Act, which protected former slaves from “black codes” denying their rights

July 28, 1866 Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymen

July 30, 1866 Democrat-controlled City of New Orleans orders police to storm racially-integrated Republican meeting; raid kills 40 and wounds more than 150

January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

May 20, 1868 Republican National Convention marks debut of African-American politicians on national stage; two – Pinckney Pinchback and James Harris – attend as delegates, and several serve as presidential electors

September 3, 1868 25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by
Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress

September 12, 1868 Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress

September 28, 1868 Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editor

October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868 While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

November 3, 1868 Republican Ulysses Grant defeats Democrat Horatio Seymour in presidential election; Seymour had denounced Emancipation Proclamation

December 10, 1869 Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

May 19, 1870 African-American John Langston, law professor and future Republican Congressman from Virginia, delivers influential speech supporting President Ulysses Grant’s civil rights policies

May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870 Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

March 22, 1871 Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina

April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans

October 10, 1871 Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871 After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872 Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874 Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874 Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

March 1, 1875 Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

September 20, 1876 Former state Attorney General Robert Ingersoll (R-IL) tells veterans: “Every man that loved slavery better than liberty was a Democrat… I am a Republican because it is the only free party that ever existed”

January 10, 1878 U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919

July 14, 1884 Republicans criticize Democratic Party’s nomination of racist U.S. Senator Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) for vice president; he had voted against the 13th Amendment banning slavery

August 30, 1890 Republican President Benjamin Harrison signs legislation by U.S. Senator Justin Morrill (R-VT) making African-Americans eligible for land-grant colleges in the South

June 7, 1892 In a FIRST for a major U.S. political party, two women – Theresa Jenkins and Cora Carleton – attend Republican National Convention in an official capacity, as alternate delegates

February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote

December 11, 1895 African-American Republican and former U.S. Rep. Thomas Miller (R-SC) denounces new state constitution written to disenfranchise African-Americans

May 18, 1896 Republican Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting from Supreme Court’s notorious Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” decision, declares: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens”

December 31, 1898 Republican Theodore Roosevelt becomes Governor of New York; in 1900, he outlawed racial segregation in New York public schools

May 24, 1900 Republicans vote no in referendum for constitutional convention in Virginia, designed to create a new state constitution disenfranchising African-Americans

January 15, 1901 Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

October 16, 1901 President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to dine at White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

May 29, 1902 Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909 On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

June 18, 1912 African-American Robert Church, founder of Lincoln Leagues to register black voters in Tennessee, attends 1912 Republican National Convention as delegate; eventually serves as delegate at 8 conventions

August 1, 1916 Republican presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes, former New York Governor and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, endorses women’s suffrage constitutional amendment; he would become Secretary of State and Chief Justice

May 21, 1919 Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

April 18, 1920 Minnesota’s FIRST-in-the-nation anti-lynching law, promoted by African-American Republican Nellie Francis, signed by Republican Gov. Jacob Preus

August 18, 1920 Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster

June 2, 1924 Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

December 8, 1924 Democratic presidential candidate John W. Davis argues in favor of “separate but equal”

June 12, 1929 First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation

June 24, 1940 Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it

October 20, 1942 60 prominent African-Americans issue Durham Manifesto, calling on southern Democrats to abolish their all-white primaries

April 3, 1944 U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Texas Democratic Party’s “whites only” primary election system

August 8, 1945 Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “[t]he use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”

February 18, 1946 Appointed by Republican President Calvin Coolidge, federal judge Paul McCormick ends segregation of Mexican-American children in California public schools

July 11, 1952 Republican Party platform condemns “duplicity and insincerity” of Democrats in racial matters

September 30, 1953 Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education

December 8, 1953 Eisenhower administration Asst. Attorney General Lee Rankin argues for plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education

May 17, 1954 Chief Justice Earl Warren, three-term Republican Governor (CA) and Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948, wins unanimous support of Supreme Court for school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955 Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

October 19, 1956 On campaign trail, Vice President Richard Nixon vows: “American boys and girls shall sit, side by side, at any school – public or private – with no regard paid to the color of their skin. Segregation, discrimination, and prejudice have no place in America”

November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957 Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

June 23, 1958 President Dwight Eisenhower meets with Martin Luther King and other African-American leaders to discuss plans to advance civil rights

February 4, 1959 President Eisenhower informs Republican leaders of his plan to introduce 1960 Civil Rights Act, despite staunch opposition from many Democrats

May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

July 27, 1960 At Republican National Convention, Vice President and eventual presidential nominee Richard Nixon insists on strong civil rights plank in platform

May 2, 1963 Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

June 1, 1963 Democrat Governor George Wallace announces defiance of court order issued by Republican federal judge Frank Johnson to integrate University of Alabama

September 29, 1963 Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

June 20, 1964 The Chicago Defender, renowned African-American newspaper, praises Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) for leading passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act

March 7, 1965 Police under the command of Democrat Governor George Wallace attack African-Americans demonstrating for voting rights in Selma, AL

March 21, 1965 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson authorizes Martin Luther King’s protest march from Selma to Montgomery, overruling Democrat Governor George Wallace

August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose

August 6, 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of
Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

July 8, 1970 In special message to Congress, President Richard Nixon calls for reversal of policy of forced termination of Native American rights and benefits

September 17, 1971 Former Ku Klux Klan member and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D-AL) retires from U.S. Supreme Court; appointed by FDR in 1937, he had defended Klansmen for racial murders

February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act
August 10, 1988 Republican President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991 Republican President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996 Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

April 26, 1999 Legislation authored by U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) awarding Congressional Gold Medal to civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks is transmitted to President

January 25, 2001 U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee declares school choice to be “Educational Emancipation”

March 19, 2003 Republican U.S. Representatives of Hispanic and Portuguese descent form Congressional Hispanic Conference

May 23, 2003 U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduces bill to establish National Museum of African American History and Culture

February 26, 2004 Hispanic Republican U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX) condemns racist comments by U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL); she had called Asst. Secretary of State Roger Noriega and several Hispanic Congressmen “a bunch of white men…you all look alike to me”

I should also point out that The Klu Klux Klan was created by the democrats for the express reason of terrorizing blacks and republicans in the south to prevent them from voting, and that every known Klansman that were members of congress have been democrats.

My Candidates Lost

2008-11-07T16:15:00.000-08:00

Okay so the first Tuesday of November has come and gone and my candidates lost. Of course I am sad but then again my choice didn’t lose by enough to convince me that the nation has gone completely mad.

It is important to remember that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama had the media sucking his … and he reversed his commitment to only take public financing so he had wheel barrows full of cash to buy advertising between the media slurps.

I enthusiastically await Barack Hussein Obama’s sprinkling of magic dust to see him provide free healthcare for all, income tax reductions for people who do not pay income tax in the first place, and then to bring the entire world to the campfire so we can toast marshmallows and hug and shit.

He’s promised to deliver a lot, how sad do you think the loonies will be once he cannot? Time will tell. Actually that is the bright spot because not everyone who voted for his majesty were loons, some were actually well intentioned but mislead by the press.

Mislead by the press? How could that be? Now there’s a good question because if you had paid attention over the last 8 years you would realize than McCain / Palin ticket lost because the press demonized Republicans in general and President Bush specifically. The electorate, guided once again by the press, tied McCain / Palin to President Bush so they stacked the deck.

If you give the Bush presidency some thought you’ll remember that:

President Bush came to power just as the infamous dot.com boom came to a screeching halt and the stock market hit a difficult patch with a lot of folks losing both money and jobs.
The mistakes of the Clinton presidency bore fruit through the Al Q attacks on New York.
We know that the New York attacks were not the only planned, yet President Bush has prevented any more such attacks for 7 years. He did it by taking out an avowed enemy of our nation and suckering our enemies into a fight on our terms in a place of our choosing.

Not the way the press reported it though, is it? Nope. Led by that pit of dishonest scum (The New York Times) we were told constantly that the Iraq war was evil because soldier died. Did the press explain to you that more civilians are killed in Philadelphia / Chicago than are killed in Iraq? Nope. They sure didn’t. Why didn’t they? It doesn’t matter but look at the results. We’ve won by any measure and the press has lost as have other dishonest news outlets such as MSBNC and the corporate evil that sells to Iran, GE.

Speaking of honesty and the press, have you ever heard them clamor against automobiles? No? Why not, automobile accidents kill in excess of 40,000 people each and every year.

The election

2008-10-26T09:35:00.000-07:00

Well I am about to drive to the post office to drop off another contribution to the McCain-Palin campaign.

I’m compelled to do so because I absolutely cannot stomach the idea of “The One” and a Democratic congress turning this nation into a communist pit of nanny states.

As a result of a union controlled public school system and a moronic media (newsprint as well as electronic) we’ve educated generations of Americans to believe that it is patriotic to hold their hands out and ask the government to take care of them. I saw the beginning of this during the presidency of LBJ and the, “War on Poverty”. That “war” did nothing but destroy black families and create a greater dependency on the Federal government.

It absolutely defies logic but somehow Barack (Barry, until he decided he was black) Hussein Obama has convinced many people that their lives will be better if only they would give him permission to redistribute wealth more evenly by increasing the tax level of some for the benefit of others.

In the Barack Hussein Obama view it is somehow appropriate to rape high income earners so he can write a check for the rest of the country. He calls it tax relief but it is welfare pure and simple because the people he is giving the tax break to, pay NO INCOME TAXES. The come back to my comment is that, “well sure they do, they pay Social Security Taxes”.

That is an utterly ignorant come back, but you’re welcome to your opinion. Why do I say it is ignorant? I say it because Social Security was implemented as a way of forcing “you” to save for your retirement. Now the messiah (ok, Barack Hussein Obama) wants a tax increase on the 1% of the population that currently pays 60% of the federal income tax so that the 40% who pay No income taxes will not have to shoulder the burden of saving for their own retirement.

What is so irritating is that this 40% who pay NO income taxes today ALREADY GET A CHECK TO COVER PAYMENT OF THESE TAXES. Yes folks, they do. It is called the, “Earned Income Tax Credit”. Yep, pay NO taxes, but get a refund.

Make sense to you?

Yes, it makes sense if you live in Venezuela or communist Russia –or- if you think it is okay to follow that model.

Speaking of Venezuela or Russia, please kneel down and say a prayer of thanks that our founders were prescient enough to give us the 2nd Amendment. Then stock up on ammo. We may need both.

In case you can’t tell, I fully support the McCain-Palin ticket, because we defeated Communism once and we can’t give it life here

Whose fault is it?

2008-10-03T12:00:00.000-07:00

So ... whose fault is it? Not quite the story you've been told.

My Opinion, re: the November Election

2008-09-14T07:29:00.000-07:00

McCain v. Obama

McCain
McCain is first and foremost a man with integrity and a love of his country.

I don't trust McCain on: immigration, global warming (I think he's sipped the kool-aid or bought into what I consider to be the secular religion - back to worshipping mother earth).

I'm iffy on McCain regarding economic issues, my preference being open / free / a relatively unregulated market. I'm not terribly astute on these issues but every time the government tries to fix or regulate you get a patch on a flea applied by a gorilla - temporary relief with a subsequent doubling or tripling of problems somewhere else. But, he's not about to target the income and assets of high earners so everyone else can get a government written check in the mail as proposed by Obama. Additionally, he'll seek good advice.

I absolutely trust McCain to deal effectively with international issues, security and I want him to lead with the awakened Russia over there and Marxists south of us (Chavez, et.al.)

Obama
I don't trust Obama's integrity, he's entirely too comfortable with the left as exhibited by: his friendship with an admitted and unrepentant American terrorist, his pastor of 20 years and a radical Chicago priest (who should be thrown out of the church). His background is suspect and I do not believe we have an honest picture. I struggle to see how a single mother was able to educate him via private schools. Similarly I don't believe his self portrayal as a black man, he was educated and raised by whites and portraying himself as the every black man who made it in the white mans world is fraudulent, in short, he's no Michael Steele.

I don't trust Obama at all when it comes to the economy. His view is socialism at best and that isn't the economic model that I want to live under. There's little doubt the USA is moving in that direction but it is death to a nation built on capitalism, I want no part of it.

I consider Obama weak and believe he'll fold the first time a Putin or doofus from Iran calls his bluff. With Russia breast beating and China on a roll, I want someone a damn sight stronger in the Whitehouse.

Palin v. Biden

Biden
Has been rejected by his own party twice. Reportedly has a vast amount of international knowledge, yet has been on the wrong side of every current issue. Was willing to cut all funding for our soldiers in Iraq with little concern for the resulting effect on both those men and the Iraqis themselves.

Biden has little or no integrity, participating with Obama railing against lobbyists and just today had his son quit his job as a lobbyist. Apparently it just became visible.

Touts himself as a practicing Catholic yet doesn't follow the tenets of his faith.

This is not the man to have a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Palin
A fresh face with a quick mind and a role model for young women throughout our country.

Little or no real international knowledge but, as I said, she has a quick and facile mind and will learn. Her approach will be conservative with America foremost in her mind, and I like that.

On security and defense, I believe she'll learn from McCain and that is good.

McCain and Palin - one more thing
Both McCain and Palin will I beleive be supportive of bringing in the likes of Liebermann as well as Democrats and other independents. At no time has Obama led me to believe his presidency would be anything other than a Democratic fiefdom.

The Balkenizatin of America

2007-10-16T16:57:00.000-07:00

I recently got into a discussion on a technical forum that took a turn away from technical (programming) considerations. We wound up discussing multiculturalism and I tried to make the point that multiculturalism would be the death of America and was contrary to the basic ideal of America as a melting pot, something that has made us great.

I was replied to with, "yes but your opinion doesn't matter because it has happened, what would you propose to do about it?" - my reply follows.

What does matter is touchy / feely politics and similar mindsets in our society have in fact created a balkenized nation.

To fix it, we need to:
Eliminate all government forms that are printed in a foreign languageEliminate all, "press 1 for ..." options, governmental and corporate. It seems like a stretch to "impose" on corporations in this manner, but with OSHA + EEOC + IRS - I would bet they'd be glad not to fret about the next language they need to support.

Eliminate all ESL classes and replace those with English classes for anyone here legally that cannot speak and write English. These English classes should be held after hours and conducted by teachers who either volunteer or recieve extra pay. The idea being to reserve core shool hours to teach the 3 R's.

To further that concept, we need to realize that the Blakenization isn't just a problem with recent entrants into our society - it is also a function of ghettos and the drug culture.

To correct these problems:
Eliminate all Federal funding for local schools that do not have a dress code, this is to eliminate the ghetto look in schools - helps to eliminate a ghetto mindset (stress helps, not a panacea).

Draw a line in the sand and require that anyone who is 12 (just pick an age) today must complete high school as a prerequisite for any government assistance that they might apply for once they reach adulthood.

Draw another line in the sand similar to the above and add marriage as a prerequisite to anyone who applies for governmental assistance for a child. They don't have to be married when they apply, just need to have been married when they gave birth.

The first line in the sand works against balkenization for folks who land on our shores.

The second works against balkenization for generations of folks (of all shades) who live in the ghetto.

Harsh? yep - but without doing something radical 20 yer olds of today are looking at some dire circumstances 20 years down the road.

Then, legalize recreational drugs to take away the revenue source for the worse of ghetto denizens.

Finally, make it mandatory for all new entrants into America that are of public school age to take: American History and Civics.

2007-08-12T15:55:00.000-07:00

Margie (that would be my wife) and I are ever so sadly wrapping up one of the very best vacations that we've ever had. I'm saying that even though this vacation was the same year as our Hawaiian vacation earlier this past March.

On this vacation we my brother (Jim) and His wife (Nanette) drove up from Texas and arrived early on a Saturday evening. We had dinner at a favorite Mexican joint (no illegals there!) and hit the rack shortly thereafter.

Sunday was rest and relaxation. Steaks (2 inch think filets) grilled on the b-b-q grill out back, shared by the 4 of us plus Johnny (my stepson) and his soon to be mother of Scarlet, Katie.

Monday we arose relatively early and after filling up on both gas and breakfast at a local BP attached to a Mickey D's we were on the road and headed to visit our (me and Jim's) roots in Pennsylvania. We drove from Indianapolis through Ohio, a particularily boring state, and on to Pittsburgh PA. Pittsburgh was awesome, Jim and I had forgotten how beautiful the countryside was in and immediately around Pittsburgh. Our old home was in North Braddock, and both North Braddock and Braddock had really gone down hill in the last 46 years. When we moved to texas it was 1961 and the area was starting to go down hill way back then and while Pittrsburgh proper felt healthy, our old area did not.

It is pretty interesting how your memory plays tricks on you. I had remembered our town being a healthy distance away from Pittsburgh but it was virtually next door.

Talk about change, we stopped by and visited the projects where I lived from ages 1 - 10. What had been concrete block projects was now condos. The concrete block appearance was changed to field stone and a rough hewn wood facing of some sort. They had even added central air, quite a shock.

A bigger shock was the neighborhood we had moved to when we left the projects. I had remembered a really big two story home with insul-brick (an asphalt siding, sometimes called ghetto brick), a slate roof that my dad, unaware that I was deathly afraid of heights, used to make me patch with hot tar. Height was an issue since the ground was maybe 30 feet or morre below. The home was still there, now with vinyl siding, an asphaalt shingle roof and central air conditioning. The back porch was no longer there, I wonder what they did with the door that led to that porch - hope the closed it up because the porch was 20 feet off the ground.

Jim and I walked up and down the street remembering stuff. We talked to a few oldtimers but they had all moved to the street afe=ter we had already moved to Texas.

We then drove to South Greensburg where our grandparents had owned a small farm, they bought this and moved to it after my grandfather retired from the coal mines. This was a sad sight. Whoever bought it from my grandfather was one of those families that share their home with 20 cats and 10 dogs. It was abandoned and sad. Even though it was posted, "no tresspassing, no hunting, no fishing" I walked through the weeds and undergowth to see if some of my memories were correct. Sure enough, I found the 2 x 4s that supported the roof over the basement exit. This was important because I remembered my grandfather doing chin ups while holding on to the 2 x 4s with just his index fnger and thunb. He was one strong guy, this was when he was in his 60s. The old concrete block garage was still there. I would have loved to be able to go in the house, but ......

That was the end of Monday so we found a Days Inn and a place to eat and called it a night. The next day we (shock) found a recently opened up racino and played for a few hours, then headed back home. The drive took the rest of that Tuesday.

On Wednesday we woke before the crack of dawn so we could hit opening day at the Indiana State Fair. Jim, Nanette, Margie and I were at the fair by 6:00 AM. We did the early thing because on the opening day there is a hot air balloon race and we were there in time to watch them fill the things with heated air then take off. An inspiring sight. After that we spent an hour in line for breakfast then spent the better part of the day schlepping through exhibits and eating stick food. By exibhits I mean a whole building full of arsty stuff, a lot of needle work that Nanette and Margie really enjoyed. Jim and I were thrilled too.

Thursday was a Caesar's Casino day, our favorite casino a 1oo miles south and across the river from Louisville KY. We're desperately trying to avoid leaving an estate. Well, I am anyway. Everyone besides me actually came out okay.

On Friday Jim and I spent the day at the track, did I mention I'm trying to avoid leaving an estate? Margie and Nanette trucked up north a ways an visited a quilt shop.

On Staurday Jim and Nanette slunk away before the crack of dawn and arrived home in record time.

All in all, this is one of the best vacations I have ever had. Revisiting memories with Margie, my Bro and his lovely bride. One for the books.

Now here are some pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11680034@N05/show/

Information regarding the immigration debate

2007-06-20T09:27:00.000-07:00

As background, I attended a protest last Saturday in downtown Indianapolis. The protest was in front of senator Lugar and senator Bayh' offices. The event was sponsored by iFire the Indiana branch of Grassfire.org

The material below was sent to all participants, Well worth your time to read.
========================================================

To ALL,

I want to "thank you" all of you for taking your time, using your energies and spending your $$$$'s for gas to be with us today in downtown Indy. I was delighted to see so many new faces who were obviously as patriotic, passionate, concerned, angry, frustrated.....and even fearful, as are we members of IFIRE and Hoosiers For Secure Borders.

We have a wonderful military fighting to destroy terrorist groups overseas, but we, here at home, also have a battle royal to fight and that of course, is AMNESTY for a possible 20-30 MILLION illegal aliens. DO NOT believe the 12-million number that has been quoted in the liberal media and by politicians from all three Parties, since 1986! That folks, has become an outright lie.

Now, when speaking with you today, I mentioned the first email I sent would contain this Report. PLEASE take the time needed to thoroughly read and digest what the (foreign) author is quite pointedly letting us in on. I sincerely believe it is happening now, with this latest 'Comprehensive Immigration' Bill. Too me, after having read this information, it's has become as plain as day. Let me know if you agree, or disagree.

Again, "thank you" for participating today and I truly hope we will all continue to fight this together, as much as we possibly can.

One other thing, after reading (and understanding) this Report, if you know of any other folks who you believe would benefit from this information, PLEASE share it with them.

Immigration and Usurpation (Or, Real reasons why your Senators want this Amnesty/'immigration' Bill)

July 2006
By Fredo Arias-King[Fredo Arias-King from March 1999 to July 2000 was an aide to presidential candidate Vicente Fox Quesada of Mexico, largely handling the foreign relations of the campaign along with Dr. Carlos Salazar, who handled the foreign relations of Fox’s party, the PAN. After the July 2000 victory, Arias-King declined government jobs but agreed to represent the PAN at both the Republican and the Democratic national conventions in Philadelphia and Los Angeles, respectively. In 14 trips to Washington and to both party conventions, he spoke extensively to U.S. public figures, including 80 members of Congress, about the bilateral relationship. His role in the Fox campaign has been recognized in several books published in Mexico. A Harvard-trained businessman and Sovietologist, his academic work focuses on the post-communist transitions, and he is the founding editor of Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, published in Washington.]

Americans are aware that their political class may not always act in their best interest. This belief is enshrined in the American character, its laws, and the very philosophy underpinning the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers crafted things so that the "knaves" will be forced to abide by the will of the people, but they warned that their "natural progress" is to find ways to remain in power and increase that power at the people’s expense. They therefore also urged eternal vigilance, spiritedness, and the occasional revolt of the people.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and others got it right—the knaves have, by and large, behaved, and their actions largely reflect in some way the will of the American people. Americans do not need to engage their politicians in an uncivil way—as happens most elsewhere—since the ballot box, the media, and other constitutional tools largely suffice. Indeed, the American political system works remarkably well. However, there are a handful of topics where the elites do not act in the interests of those they govern. Of these, the most notorious is the contentious issue of immigration. Why are politicians so keen on mass immigration while the common American is not? This has perplexed analysts.

When I aided the foreign relations of presidential candidate and president-elect Vicente Fox back in 1999 and 2000, I met with almost 80 U.S. congressmen and senators during numerous trips and at several events. With just over 50 of them, my colleagues and I spoke about immigration in some depth, as it is one of the important bilateral topics. My findings were reported in a Backgrounder published by the Center for Immigration Studies called "Politics by Other Means."1 It is a dense and academic paper, but the basic finding was: Indeed, American politicians are overwhelmingly pro-immigration, for a variety of reasons, and they do not always admit this to their constituents. Of those 50 legislators, 45 were unambiguously pro-immigration, even asking us at times to "send more." This was true of both Democrats and Republicans.

These empirical findings seemed to confirm what some analysts without that level of access termed as a political "perfect storm" of widespread political-elite support for immigration despite its general unpopularity with the average American. The paradox is that immigration is the only issue (perhaps besides trade policy) that represents a notorious discrepancy between elite and popular opinion in the United States.2 But this contradicts the established conventional wisdom of a representative democracy such as the United States. If mass immigration from Latin America has debatable benefits for the United States as a whole, if a majority of the American people is against it, and if immigrants cannot vote until they become naturalized (which can take years after their arrival), why would nine-tenths of the legislators we spoke with be so keen on increasing immigration?

Before these encounters, I believed that it was a problem of either diffusion of responsibility, "creeping non-decision," or collective rationalization with those legislators, but that was dispelled the more of them we met. Most of them seemed to be aware of the negative or at least doubtful consequences of mass immigration from Latin America, while still advocating mass immigration.3

The familiar reasons usually discussed by the critics were there: Democrats wanted increased immigration because Latin American immigrants tend to vote Democrat once naturalized (we did not meet a single Democrat that was openly against mass immigration); and Republicans like immigration because their sponsors (businesses and churches) do. But there were other, more nuanced reasons that we came upon, usually not discussed by the critics, and probably more difficult to detect without the type of access that we, as a Mexican delegation, had.

Their "Natural Progress"
Of a handful of motivations, one of the main ones (even if unconscious) of many of these legislators can be found in what the U.S. Founding Fathers called "usurpation." Madison, Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and others devised a system and embedded the Constitution with mechanisms to thwart the "natural" tendency of the political class to usurp power—to become a permanent elite lording over pauperized subjects, as was the norm in Europe at the time.

However, the Founding Fathers seem to have based the logic of their entire model on the independent character of the American folk. After reviewing the different mechanisms and how they would work in theory, they wrote in the Federalist Papers that in the end, "If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America …"4 With all his emphasis on reason and civic virtue as the basis of a functioning and decentralized democratic polity, Jefferson speculated whether Latin American societies could be governed thus.5

While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and "dependable" in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.

Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and "teaching," they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.

Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with "converted"

Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized "new" United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would "go away" after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also "unfairly" take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the "natural progress" of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.

While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a "high five" when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them "rednecks," and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so—enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the "just and constitutional laws" they devised.

One leading Republican senator over a period of months was advising us, through a mutual acquaintance, about which mechanisms to follow and which other legislators to lobby in order to ensure passage of the amnesty proposal. In the meantime, he would speak on television about the need to "militarize" the border. This senator was recently singled out by a taxpayer’s advocacy group as a leader in "pork"-related politics.

Bill Richardson, who had served in Clinton’s cabinet and later became governor of New Mexico, kindly stopped to speak to our delegation at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles. He commented favorably to us: "What do Hispanics want? Fully funded government programs!"

The Economist mentioned about his state:
New Mexico is a poor place, with one of the highest proportion of people living on food stamps … Its political tradition also long had a Latin American feel, based around a padrón system of clients and bosses. The bosses ran grocery stores, gave you credit, helped you if you needed a job. And all you had to do was vote for the Democrats … New Mexican politics is still about jobs, contracts and personal loyalty, not ideology. And Mr. Richardson personifies this.6

Trailer-park poverty combined with a cult of personality, where government initiatives regularly bear the governor’s name, as they would with some Latin American potentate (the governor is half Mexican himself), prevails in a state that is 40 percent Hispanic, including Hispanics already many generations in the United States.

Those that have come out supporting amnesty are also associated with other attempts to undermine the Jeffersonian and Madisonian model of democracy. Sen. Arlen Specter, for instance, a leading supporter of amnesty, years ago proposed another bill that would have changed the outcome of elections based on quotas, whereby electoral outcomes could be changed by a federal judge.7

Some legislators had also mentioned to us (oftentimes laughing) how they had "defanged" or "gutted" anti-immigration bills and measures, by neglecting to fund this program or tabling that provision, or deleting the other measure, etc. "Yes, we passed that law, but it can’t work because we also…" was a usual comment to assuage the Mexican delegations.

In light of what we learned from speaking to them privately, it is surprising that many legislators have gone public recently with their pro-immigration views, as opposed to simply adding their votes discreetly and imposing a fait accompli. This is another conundrum, but may be explained because legislators also suffer a collective-action problem. My feeling is that if the vote on granting amnesty to the illegal migrants was up for a secret vote, then perhaps we would see a 90 percent vote in favor, coinciding with my random sample from six years ago.

One such example of "natural progress" that legislators attempted to impose with no debate was when Pennsylvania state legislators—in the middle of the night before a recess— in July 2005 passed a bill giving themselves a modest pay raise. The civic reaction and spontaneous popular mobilization was such (with effigies of pigs carried by demonstrators calling their legislators "Harrisburg Hogs"), the legislators recanted and, with only one dissenting vote, repealed their pay raise weeks later.

To Govern Is to PopulateA group of Argentine statesmen in the 19th century sought to populate their country with immigrants from certain parts of Europe, believing that they were more politically mature and more propitious for a stable state than the criollo and mestizo populations in their country at the time. One of those statesmen, President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, had a slogan: "To govern is to populate," perhaps because Argentina traditionally has been both under-populated and ungovernable.

What could be motivating U.S. legislators to do the opposite, that is, to see their constituents—already politically mature and proven as responsible and civic-minded—as an obstacle needing replacement? In other words, why would they want to replace a nation that works remarkably well (that Sarmiento was hoping to emulate), with another that has trouble forming stable, normal countries?

Mexicans are kind and hardworking, with a legendary hospitality, and unlike some European nations, harbor little popular ambitions to impose models or ideologies on others. However, Mexicans are seemingly unable to produce anything but corrupt and tyrannical rulers, oftentimes even accepting them as the norm, unaffected by allegations of graft or abuse.8

Mexico, and Latin American societies in general, seem to suffer from what an observer called "moral relativism," accepting the "natural progress" of the political class rather than challenging it, and also appearing more susceptible to "miracle solutions" and demagogic political appeals. Mexican intellectuals speak of the corrosive effects of Mexican culture on the institutions needed to make democracy work, and surveys reveal that most of the population accepts and expects corruption from the political class.9 A sociological study conducted throughout the region found that Latin Americans are indeed highly susceptible to clientelismo, or partaking in patron-client relations, and that Mexico was high even by regional standards.10

In a Latin environment, there are fewer costs to behaving "like a knave," which explains the relative failure of most Spanish-speaking countries in the Hemisphere: Pauperized populations with rich and entrenched knaves. Montesquieu’s separation-of-powers model breaks down in Latin America (though essentially all constitutions are based on it) since elites do not take their responsibilities seriously and easily reach extra-legal "understandings" with their colleagues across the branches of government, oftentimes willingly making the judicial and legislative powers subservient to a generous executive, and giving the population little recourse and little choice but to challenge the system in its entirety.

These pathologies are already evident across the border. For example, at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when even President Clinton’s strongest backers such as Rep. Richard Gephardt were distancing themselves from him and calling on the president to "tell the truth," the Hispanic Caucus in the U.S. Congress lent its support to the president. Rep. Esteban Torres stated "We’re going to stand by him to the end … no matter what!"11 The case of the "unconditional support" by the Hispanics in Congress to their patron demonstrated why the Montesquieu-Madisonian model had difficulty functioning in the Latin American context. This type of unconditional support seems to be what professional politicians of both parties expect from their Hispanic constituents and allies.

When thinking of populating as a way of obtaining power, perhaps these U.S. legislators, rather than from the statesman Sarmiento, took an unconscious cue from another Latin American leader who used migration and ethnic policy for less laudable goals. Mexican President Luis Echeverría (1970-76), who began the cycle of political violence and economic crisis from which the country has yet to recover, pursued a policy of moving hundreds of thousands of impoverished people from the country’s south to the more prosperous and dynamic northern states, where they remain to this day, mostly in shantytowns. His goal was to neutralize those states’ more active civic culture that threatened his power—as these states were at the time the main source of opposition to his dictatorial ambitions.

These pauperized and dependent migrants and their offspring would provide a ready source of votes for the ruling party along with a mobilizeable mass to counter (politically as well as physically) the more civic-oriented middle classes of those northern states and "crack" their will to challenge his corporatist regime. Along with other extra-constitutional tools (he almost succeeded in canceling the constitution to remain indefinitely as president), migration from undeveloped areas was used by Echeverría as "politics by other means." Echeverría, in other words, was the ultimate knave.

Do the U.S. legislators have an overt and well thought-out "plan," as Echeverría did? That is unlikely.

Unlike Echeverría, these 45 U.S. legislators (especially the Republican ones) may simply be following a string of what can be called "rational short-termisms," that seem beneficial now even though they may unwittingly lead to adverse outcomes for them in the end. Like a diet rich in fats and sugar brings a jolt of energy and pleasure in the short run but causes health problems in the longer term, these congressmen still have incentives to allow and encourage mass immigration because of its low political cost for them and the perceived short-term benefits it brings (for them and the special interests that fund them).

If these "rational short-termisms" exist within a given individual (where he assumes both the benefits and the costs, such as with an irresponsible diet), they are more prevalent in a country, as those accruing the benefits are not those who pay the costs, and have an incentive to organize themselves to pursue the behavior leading to those outcomes. Because of collective-action problems, those benefiting from mass immigration are better organized, even if they are in the minority and even if they are vaguely aware that "someone else" pays for their largesse. These groups only see the assets, not the liabilities. By nature, legislators should prefer these short-termisms, since the payoffs are immediate and directly attributed to a political figure, whereas the costs can be pushed into the future.

The payoffs and benefits of more long-term policies are unlikely to be associated with a particular political figure and become, essentially, public goods. Just as there is a large body of literature on "economic failure," we should begin to explore a related concept—"political failure," which could be the Achilles heel of the American and other models of representative democracy. In the end, the result of mass Latin American immigration will not likely present the stark choice of democracy versus non-democracy for the United States, but the quality of democracy may indeed be affected.

Acción Directa as a Double-Edged Sword
What awaits the United States when a critical mass of the American people realizes the immigration issue is little different than what happened in Pennsylvania with the pay-raise issue? What if they decide to organize?

These legislators are probably correct that, by acquiescing to mass immigration, they will eventually "crack" the immigration-control advocates. They do not need to win or even engage in a debate if they can change the terms of the game so decisively. However, they have only taken into account the legal or civilized resistance—from those who write in the papers or volunteer peacefully at the border. In Latin America, people engage in un-civil direct action because they have come to realize that attempting to convince their elites that their antisocial behavior has adverse consequences for the country—and expecting that this will dissuade them from engaging in it—is largely a futile exercise. But in the United States as well, once immigration-control advocates realize they cannot reach their goals through legal means, this could breed a form of resistance that has not occurred yet, but cannot be discounted offhand.

The degree of usurpation and neglect of their fiduciary duty by legislators could provoke immigration-reform advocates to engage increasingly in civil resistance, so that instead of influencing political institutions through civic engagement (as Americans traditionally have), they may attempt to politicize individual institutions.

Their direct actions are already being reported: local officers taking it upon themselves to detain illegal migrants, sit-ins at immigration offices, vandalizing of Mexican restaurants, threatening calls to the Hispanic mayor of Los Angeles, etc. Once these types of mobilizations begin, they will be difficult to stop.

Some Americans may take a cue from Spanish/Latin American culture itself and engage in what Spaniards call acción directa, or "direct action." A Spaniard once lamented that "In this country, nobody votes, but everyone protests." Immigration advocates should not be surprised if Latin American immigrants and their offspring continue their tradition of direct action and ignoring laws and institutions—as the recent mass protests in cities across the country demonstrate. But they should also not be surprised if Americans also learn to pursue acción directa. An interesting test for the U.S. political class will be how they respond to Americans utilizing direct action, since they seem to tolerate and even encourage it for Latin American immigrants and their offspring. So far, their reaction has been predictable—accusing peaceful volunteers of being "vigilantes" and labeling critics as "racist," while backing down in the face of mass protests by the illegal immigrants.

There were even reports that the U.S. government had handed over to the Mexican government the names of the "Minutemen" critics and border-control volunteers.

Moreover, those who challenge through extra-legal means the extra-constitutional and fait accompli pro-immigration methods of the elites would, paradoxically, be abiding more by the spirit and even letter of the U.S. Constitution than the political class being targeted by them. The Federalist Papers are replete with this philosophy. If they do so effectively, the reaction of the U.S. Congress may be the same as it was for the Pennsylvania legislature in the aftermath of the pay-raise scandal. Both policies are difficult to defend openly and publicly with an engaged citizenry.

If Americans do indeed take up civil disobedience and acción directa, hopefully they would realize that targeting Mexicans will not solve their problem, because even if for some reason they could "neutralize" Mexico as a source of mass immigration, soon they would be targeting Indonesians or Africans or South Americans. But that would be attacking the symptoms and not the root cause of their malaise.

Realizing this, what other events could turn the tables in favor of moderate and civic-minded immigration-reform advocates?

One, if these politicians begin to realize that the consequences of mass immigration for them are not what they expected—when the string of "rational short-termisms" crashes in the rocks of failed electoral campaigns or mass mobilization by critics of immigration against their political careers. Perhaps that is why three of the five lawmakers critical of mass immigration we met with are from border states. They perhaps have already come to realize that their "fantasy constituents" were different than expected. But this realization is unlikely to come any time soon to the remaining lawmakers.

Two, if a critical mass of Americans of Mexican and other Latin American descent take the lead in opposing the openly partisan and irredentist leaders mobilizing the illegal immigrants and the Latino citizens, since it is those types of leaders and provocateurs, not average populations at large, who start ethnic conflicts, as in Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland.12 But this is also unlikely because of the collective-action problem. American Latinos who criticize mass immigration tend not to organize, as they are especially targeted by the pro-immigration Latino "leaders."

A third peaceful way to close the gap between elite and popular opinion on the immigration issue is to pass certain political reforms that would help to assuage lawmakers’ concerns for their political and financial stability. Increasing their (already-high) salaries may be a small price to pay to reduce their proclivity to find solutions for their "natural progress" elsewhere, such as with immigration. However, in this case the medicine may be worse than the illness.
A fourth way would be for a political entrepreneur to successfully use popular discontent with mass immigration to reach power.

This is essentially what happened in Denmark. There, the antisocial behavior of Middle Eastern and other immigrants was largely ignored by both main parties and the press, both also displaying an elite consensus against the population’s antipathy for immigrants and for further immigration. The parties had even agreed between them not to make immigration an issue in campaigns or on television debates. Eventually, a political entrepreneur named Anders Fogh Rasmussen used the immigration issue to capture power inside his party, and then go on to win the general elections in 2001. As prime minister he enjoys popular support for his tough immigration and law-and-order policies, which also coincided with other reforms against big government and the welfare state. He was reelected in 2005, and even the opposition Social Democrats have dropped their prior position and now largely agree with Rasmussen’s views on immigration.

Bilateral Codependence
Some American and Mexican pundits argue that the outcome of the amnesty debate will affect the way Mexicans view the United States and their own democracy. The argument goes that if the U.S. Congress does not pass a law favorable to the undocumented workers, there will be a Mexican backlash against the United States that could ensure the victory of the illiberal, anti-American Left. However, this argument assumes that Mexico (through its population and political elites) acts in a rational way, and that these American overtures will be understood and appreciated (much the same way that France also understood and appreciated the American role in its liberation from Nazi Germany).

However, the same argument was made by Russian elites and their American sympathizers during the debate on expanding NATO, with the argument that if America pursued its interests (expanding NATO), this would cause an irreversible collapse of Russian democracy and a backlash from the Kremlin. This argument held sway for years at the Clinton White House. In the end, NATO expanded and Moscow’s relations with its former imperial colonies and with NATO itself actually improved.

Rather than rational and mutually beneficial, U.S. bilateral relations with Mexico (as it was with Russia in the 1990s before NATO expansion) can instead be called "codependence," which is defined by the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology as "silent or even cheerful tolerance of unreasonable behavior from others," or even a pathology of trying to fix things for other people and rescue them, which in turn encourages a certain behavior from the object to be rescued.

These sacrifices and concessions (with countries as with people) produce a sense of entitlement and an unending string of additional unreasonable demands. The IMF also engaged in a form of codependence with Moscow in the 1990s—the more money that was lent to the Kremlin, the fewer reforms it implemented, and the more anti-U.S. and anti-Western rhetoric it engaged in, with much of that money going to finance the war in Chechnya, for its weapons industries, and for its political class.13

During the 18 months when I aided Fox’s foreign relations, in those meetings with what became the new Mexican elite I do not recall so many discussions about "what can we do to make tough decisions to reform Mexico," but rather more "how can we get more concessions from the United States." Indeed, Fox largely continued governing the country as his predecessors did, even appointing as head of the federal police agency an Echeverría loyalist who was allegedly involved in a deadly extortion attempt against a museum owner in 1972. According to several leading world rankings on corruption, quality of government, development, and competitiveness, Mexico actually worsened during Fox’s presidency.14

Lacking internal or external pressure, the Mexican elites have taken the path of least resistance, which is not the best outcome for the country. Paradoxically, as happens in co-dependent relations, a firm but polite defense of American interests by Washington would force the Mexican elites to act and in the end (surely after a brief period of acrimonious recriminations) would be beneficial for Mexico, much as the European Union’s tough accession laws force elites in lesser-developed aspiring members (Spain in the 1980s and Central European countries in the 1990s) to adopt painful and otherwise politically unfeasible reforms that affect special interests but that benefit average citizens. After all, the gap between elite and popular aspirations in these countries is wider than in the United States, and on a broader range of issues.

This co-dependence is perhaps nowhere more evident than the personal relations of the political classes of Mexico and the United States. When speaking to these congressmen, we noticed an affinity toward the corrupt party we were attempting to overthrow in Mexico. Several had visited Mexico and apparently enjoyed lavish treatment from their hosts, even mentioning how some of the things they enjoyed in Mexico would not be possible at home.

Even though the Mexican political class is notoriously corrupt, they can often count on stronger support in Washington than can several more worthy world leaders who are genuinely attempting to reform and improve their countries. The history of the Bush family is symptomatic.

While snubbing pro-American reformers in the newly liberated Eastern Europe, George H.W. Bush did go out of his way to accommodate Mexico and its leader Carlos Salinas. Then-vice president and presidential candidate Bush openly endorsed Salinas after the latter’s fraudulent election in 1988, a favor that Salinas returned four years later when he met only with Bush and snubbed his Democratic rival, Bill Clinton. As presidents, Salinas and Bush crafted NAFTA, and then Bush assisted Salinas in joining the OECD (though Mexico was not qualified) and was even attempting to promote him to head the WTO before Salinas’s political star collapsed amid a torrent of corruption and political murders. Whereas Lech Wałesa—the slayer of communism and harbinger of democracy for Poland and the rest of east-central Europe—publicly scolded his fellow former president George H.W. Bush in a Prague meeting in 1999 for having done much less than expected for the transformation of his country and the region as a whole, Salinas remains a close friend and admirer of Bush Sr. to this day.

While Bush Sr. went out of his way to help Salinas, other deserving reformers besides Wałesa also complained of having been ignored by Bush Sr., even in countries more important to U.S. security and prosperity than Mexico. For example, Bush Sr. repeatedly refused to give even a modicum of assistance (moral or financial) to the Russian government of acting Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar during the risky and painful reforms launched to dismantle the Soviet legacy and attempt to put Russia on a reform and democratic path. Bush’s lackadaisical and lukewarm relations with such figures have been widely criticized, and seem counterintuitive. Gaidar’s failure can largely be traced to the lack of political and financial support from the West, and the United States in particular, for his reforms.

In April 2000, candidate George W. Bush followed in his father’s footsteps when he tacitly but unambiguously endorsed the candidate of Salinas’s ruling party against a then little-known opposition figure named Vicente Fox, perhaps believing that the official-party candidate, the former secret-police chief Francisco Labastida, would engage in a quid pro quo as president. Labastida himself could not receive the honor in person on April 7, 2000, since he had been fingered by the U.S. press as a possible target of the Drug Enforcement Administration because of his record as governor. Instead, he sent his wife to meet with Bush. Florida governor Jeb Bush knew for many years and apparently also received lavish treatment from Salinas’s brother Raúl, before Raúl was arrested on corruption and murder charges and spent the next decade in a Mexican high-security prison.

Bush Sr. had a long friendship and business relations with Jorge Díaz Serrano, then director of the Mexican oil monopoly pemex, before he was also arrested in a power struggle and accused of embezzling over $50 million. The long-time politicos of the Hank Rhon family, who were suspected of laundering drug money and who continue to win elections in Mexico, were also reported to have contributed money to the gubernatorial campaigns of George W. Bush from a Texas bank they own.15 To their credit, no overtly illegal practice has been proven against the Bush family in their dealings with Mexico, but the appearance of admiration toward its ruling classes cannot be easily discounted.

Though similar stories involving lesser politicians do not make headlines, several lawmakers we met also had a special, giddy mystique of Mexico as a place where moneyed leaders coexist with tame, grateful citizens. It would seem that the American political class has a special affinity for their colleagues south of the border. The appeal of their lavishness and impunity seems to strike a positive chord in the American politicians, who perhaps resent being held accountable by their citizens, who cannot become wealthy from politics, and who may be removed from power "unfairly" and without warning.

ConclusionSamuel Huntington speculated that the American "creed" (values and beliefs) cannot be used to openly oppose mass immigration.16 That may change. So far, the immigration debate has centered on the immigrants themselves—whether they are worthy or unworthy. This debate is a red herring, since average Americans are unusually kind and restrained in the face of mass immigration, something that cannot be said about other nations (including Mexico).17 Recent poll findings from Zogby challenge the popular belief that the average American somehow has negative or overtly prejudicial feelings toward Mexicans in particular.18 However, Huntington did not take into account the possibility that the debate could yet be framed in terms of potential usurpation from the political class using immigration as a tool.

If an organizeable mass of Americans comes to suspect that mass immigration from Latin America is being used by the political class to undermine their democracy and as a tool to liberate the political elites from the Jeffersonian and Madisonian constraints, then indeed we may witness a reaction—but hopefully not against the immigrants themselves, as they are also objects of elite manipulations in more than one country.

The Founding Fathers also prescribed a cure for usurpation. Hopefully the American people will not apply it so literally, for the sake of those legislators.

End Notes
1 "Politics by Other Means: The ‘Why’ of Immigration to the United States," Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, December 2003, http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back1703.html .

2 "See Elite vs. Public Opinion: An Examination of Diverge
nt Views on Immigration," by Roy Beck and Steven A. Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, December 2002, http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back1402.html .

3 Maybe this is where immigration policy differs from trade policy. At least the elites that promote free trade with other countries do genuinely believe it benefits the U.S. economy and the average person, and the evidence proves them right.

4 The Federalist Papers, No. 57.

5 Jefferson wrote "I wish I could give better hopes of our southern brethren. … what will then become of them? Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government. They will fall under military despotism …" Jefferson letter to Marquis de Lafayette, 4 May 1817, in http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl249.htm .

6 "Bill Richardson’s Story," The Economist, 29 May 2004, p. 34.

7 S 1992 (vote No. 177, 97th Cong.).

8 An analyst actually argued that allegations of corruption and abuse have a positive impact on a politician’s career throughout Latin America. Andrés Oppenheimer, "Los más denunciados, los más votados," Reforma, 17 September 2002, p. 33A.

9 Surveys indeed reveal a distrust of institutions by the citizenry, but also a distrust of each other—55 percent thought "most people in Mexico are corrupt," whereas 25 percent believed most other Mexicans are honest. See the Reforma survey focused on corruption, in "La cultura del soborno," Reforma, 29 August 2002, 8A. Moreover, social status and education seem to be positively correlated with corruption. Another survey by Transparency International revealed that the younger and more educated Mexicans are actually more likely to engage in corruption, and that most people believe public officials are entitled to gain financially from their positions. See Leonardo Valero, "Son más corruptos los jóvenes, revelan," Reforma, 5 April 2002, 7A.

10 The survey was conducted in 18 Latin American countries by Latinobarómetro. The question was if the respondent knew of someone who had received privileges for sympathizing with the party in power. The average for Latin America was 18 percent, whereas the Mexican figure was 34 percent. "Lidera México en clientelismo," Reforma, 30 October 2005, A1.

11CNN Headline News, 4 August 1998.

12This is the theory of Fintan O’Toole, The Lie of the Land: Irish Identities (London: Verso, 1997). O’Toole’s writings on Yugoslavia include "Serbian aim to kill all Kosovans is nothing new," The Irish Times, 5 May 1999.

13See Stephan Hedlund, "Russia and the IMF: A Sordid Tale of Moral Hazard," Demokratizatsiya, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2001),
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3996/is_200101/ai_n8944035 .

14See my article "Mexico’s Wasted Chance," The National Interest, Winter 2005-6.

15Steve Sailer, "Latino Magazine Probes Bushes’ Mexican Contacts," United Press International, 23 February 2001. See also Alan Zarembo, "Bush Family Ties," Newsweek International, 26 February 2001.

16 Samuel Huntington, "The Hispanic Challenge," Foreign Policy, March/April 2004.

17See "Mexico’s Glass House: How the Mexican constitution treats foreign residents, workers and naturalized citizens," by J. Michael Waller, Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper No. 7, April 2006, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Mexicos_Glass_House.pdf , and "Mexico’s Immigration Law: Let’s Try it Here at Home," by J. Michael Waller, Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper No. 8, April 2006, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Mexicos_Immigration_Law.pdf .

18See "Zogby Poll: Americans, Mexicans Want Closer Ties, But Suspicion Abounds," 19 March 2006, http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1082 .
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back706.html

A Wonderful Holiday

2006-12-27T15:33:00.000-08:00

Even though I am still numb from a 14 hour drive I had to take a minute and post a word of gratitude to the guy upstairs for a truly wonderful Christmas. It actually started with a really enjoyable Thanksgiving visit here in Indianapolis with my youngest son Doug and his family. We all had a chance to connect and really enjoyed our time together. After they left Margie went into a full steam ahead baking marathon and we shipped Christmas cookies to all compass directions. Once that was accomplished it was time to drive to Texas to spend a week there with my brother and his wife Nanette. Christmas Eve, our traditional family day, was once again a real joy. The family expands each year as new relationships are entered into the fold. Really looking forward to the next one when there will be a brand new great grandchild for us to coo over.

A Random Chance

2006-11-01T13:07:00.000-08:00

Well hello there! I have some breaking news for you!! Randall and Kat have told me that they are "expecting". Don't look now but it looks like there's going to be another: Great grandkid, Grandkid, Great Grand Neice or Nephew, etc. You know who you are...I think he or she will be here around July! I just love babies!! Tyler and Dominic will be sharing the attention next Christmas.

It appears that we are in for "round 2" of kiddos...

WHO is going to be next??? Hmmmm ;0*)

2006-10-17T18:16:00.000-07:00

Dennis Green tirade

The Bears are who we thought they were Damn'it! Any Questions? You'd better ask somebody....Edge

Summer fun 2006

2006-09-30T08:20:00.000-07:00

Please check out my "Photoshow". I hope you enjoy viewing as I did making it! Okay, I thought it was going to put a link...Oh well, ENJOY THE SHOW!!

Our Rennovation

2006-08-03T17:35:00.000-07:00

If you're interested in seeing what we've had done to our condo, click on the pix[^] and then either go through the pictures manually or click on the show button. The show button is much more fun but then you don't get to see the comment.

This all came about as a result of the nexus of several circumstances:
My desire to have a whirilpool tub
Saying the heck with it and our decision to redo the whole master bathroom
The sale of a rental property in Texas to fund major work by the Owner's Accociation
The Association deciding not to do the major work
Our realization that life is short

We certainly didn't start out with the idea of a major rennovation, but here we are and it is much more pleasant to enjoy our surroundings than it was to cash a small monthly rent check.

Anyway -come visit and enjoy it with us.

My family-Summer Fun

2006-07-29T11:28:00.000-07:00

This is my part of the family...some pictures, mostly of "the boys" having tons of fun this summer. I hope you enjoy viewing them as much as I did taking them.

This is my most favorite picture of my wonderful Husband of 14 years, Ozzy. As the kids say, He's "the man"!

Here's Randall. He looks just like his Dad, huh? (all grown up...)

He's looking more like him every year...

This is the big tree in our backyard...we just can't keep 'em out of it.

Randall and the boys at the waterpark...

Tyler...this is his last day of (Pre-K) school below. He loved it there.
(They're all superheros)...

Dom and Tyler at the park.

You know Boys will be boys....

Hot fun in the Summertime...

Tyler started Kindergarten this year...yes, already; Dom has started the Second grade. He just turned 8...

You know Papa has to get into the action!!

They're going to a brand new school in Allen...Gosh it seems like only yesterday...

These are some pics of them just having fun.....at Dominic's Birthday party...First, a couple of Randall and Kat.

Who's this young man??

Dom got his trophy!

There was a pinata...watch out, Randall has "control".

This is Tyler and just one of his many favorite cousins, Catherine.

You know they're always worn out by the time we get done with them!!

I hope you all had a great summer!!!! Those're my babies, I hope you enjoyed the photos!!
%0

May 1st – Demonstrations that our government has failed

2006-04-30T17:07:00.000-07:00

May 1st – Demonstrations that our government has failed

Tomorrow on May 1st, a day synonymous with communism and communist movements we’ll reportedly have millions of illegals marching in the streets of major cities to show us their strength. Today I heard that not only will it be Hispanics but Muslims as well. The demonstrations are supported by state governments (California), churches (my own church, in California of course) and silly-assed feel good liberals of all stripes.

If the activities of May 1st do not move you to call your congressional representatives and take a stand, then: you, your grandchildren and all future generations deserve the results.

What are the results?

There is anarchy, a total disrespect for our laws and our sovereignty. We have no borders, certainly no national language (press 1 for English) and no national leaders willing to enforce the laws they have sworn to up hold.

Should our inept national leaders decide to implement the so called “compromise” that hasbeen discussed, those inept leaders will extend a form of citizenship to law breakers. You will hear statements in the current debate that these illegals are not law breakers, they’re simply people looking for a better life. Well, both statements are true but if a legal status is extended, the result will be horrific. Think not? Well, do the math.

Estimates tell us that there are 11,000,000 to 20,000,000 illegals currently in the country. Few of these are here with their families.

If we compromise and say it is 15,000,000 and the Senate and the president have their way, these 15,000,000 will be bestowed a legal status, the immediate impact will be twofold. First they’ll be able to lay claim on the entire range of social services, forcing higher taxes (property, income and sales) to support. Second they’ll be able to bring their families into the country. Now we can multiply the 15,000,000 by as much as 5, adding 60,000,000 to the population. That 60,000,000 would be on the lower end of the economic scale and ultimately be able to VOTE.

Get the picture?

60,000,000 new citizens or legal residents, considering a current population of 300,000,000 means the new population would represent 16% to 15% of our population, a dramatic shift in the demographics of our country. If you consider that more than half of our current population pays exactly no incomes tax, then in the future envisioned by the senate and silly-assed liberals, something like 65% of the population will pay no taxes and be able to vote. Guess how our professional politicians get elected. Here’s a hint, they promise the masses something for nothing. Here’s another question. How to they pay for the promise? Here’s a hint, if you pay taxes then the politicians are promising your money away and will be doing so on far more dramatic terms because they will have a larger, non-tax paying group to cater too.

Mad yet? Probably not. If you are, then what can be done?

Let me repeat. Call your legislatures. Call your representative. Call your senators. Call the Whitehouse.

For my money, what needs be done:

First:
Build a real fence on the southern border.

Second:
Actually enforce the law against both the illegals and the businesses that hire them

Third
One and two above are a start. I do realize that there is a need for foreign labor so we need a guest worker program. To do that correctly and in a manner that allows our laws to be enforced, we need to support the guest worker program with state of the art identification cards. Those cards would be issued not here but in countries where the workers (should) live. That includes many South American countries. Those cards would be issued by a US Government agency and be encoded with biometrics that identify the worker and possibly a GPS signal capability. Once a worker is qualified and issued a card that worker could then contact US employers via web-site that matched business needs to worker capabilities. Once the card is issued and an employer accepts the worker, then and only then can he come to the USA.

Fourth
Once the engagement between employer and worker is completed, the worker must leave. I believe the employer should fund transportation costs, something as simple as bus fare. If the ID card is GPS enabled then we'd know the location of the worker.

Fifth
Any illegal caught violating the law / rules would then lose all privileges of entry into the USA for all times.

What should be done if our government continues to fail us? Ultimately it is the citizens of the country who must be in control, after all our form of government is democratic and the people must speak and be heard.

How can we make them listen if they refuse?

A set of simple steps:
First
On January 1, submit a W-4 claiming 99 dependents. That will squeeze the nation's coffers since virtually no tax revenue will be collected.

Second
On January 1, cash in any and all government bonds, further squeezing the federal government.

Third
Cease any and all political contributions and when asked why, explain.

Fourth
On January 1, contact your mortgage company and get the paperwork you need to fill out that says you no longer want them to escrow for your property taxes. Then refuse to pay those property taxes – that will squeeze local governments just as we did with the federal government. It will takes years of action for the local government to do anything significant in the way of collection activity. The minute they take action pay the minimum necessary to get them off your back.

Fifth
On April 15th of the following year fill out the federal tax form that requests an automatic 4 month extension for your federal income taxes.

Sixth
On August 15th of that same year make your personal decision whether or not you’ll pay. My guess is that by that time the federal government will have gotten the message or the country would have imploded.

I’m not sure which is worse. An imploded national government or a country that has been handed over to an invading army, which is what is now taking place.

Summary
I believe our country is committing national suicide, for corporate greed and silly-assed liberal feel good notions. The next time someone explains to you that these people just want a better life, remember that they got here illegally and achieved employment by using falsified social security numbers and utilizing other falsified papers – so, extending a legal status to these people is extending a legal status to people who have already proven they have no respect for our laws.

The point is, we lose and lose big if you don’t do something. The “something” today is as difficult as making a couple of phone calls and making your voice heard. Later it gets much much worse.

Not a rant - just a good idea

2006-04-21T15:13:00.000-07:00

The other day I needed to create a back up of a project that I've been working on. It is huge and I have been working on it for years so if it ever gets trashed I'd have a problem. when I tried to burn a CD I discovered that the result was unreadable, so I have a problem with the one high capacity media on my machine. This isn't a surprise as I have had this system for 5 or 6 years and it is wellpast it's prime. I still had to find a way to create the back up though because one thing is certain, if you think you need to back up something and don't then you'll soon regret it.

Here is what I did:
Identified the files I wanted to back up
Using winzip, zip up the files
Get on my Google gmail account and create yet another
Create an email from my old account to my new one
Attach the zipped file to the email and hit send

Now I have a redundant copy of those important file, 1 in my sent folder and 1 in my new in-box. Really works well, Google storing my files for me. Since they give you a little more than 2 gigabytes of space per account, I'm good for a while and have to find a new way to justify a new PC.

Eight of the People Arrested were Illegal Immigrants

2006-04-19T22:27:00.000-07:00

The title of this post is "eight of the people arrested were illegal immigrants" but I would like to point out that they ARE illegal immigrants. You have to understand that up here in the "Great Northwest", we seem to be very politically correct.
Three pounds of Meth and four pounds Pot? Eight of the nine "were" illegal?

No, there's no cause for concern here.... read the article for yourself.

I guess a fair question is; what would have prevented this? Would a change in our immigration laws have stopped this from happening? Maybe tighter border security, deploy the National Guard!

How can we rid our country of illegal immigrants? During World War II, we put a lot of people in internment camps to “protect” our citizens. Now understand that I’m NOT suggesting this course of action, but would like to point out that we have come a long way since then…..maybe too far.

We have to address the issues of illegal immigration and border security better then we have in recent history. Otherwise, our country will continue to arrest, prosecute and keep these illegal immigrants using our tax dollars and burdening a legal system they are not entitled to.

Article on illegal migrant workers

2006-04-16T10:49:00.000-07:00

A few days ago our local Indianapolis paper published an article on the protests / rallies / marches conducted by illegal migrant workers. I fully agree with Representative Hostettler's opinion but was absolutely disgusted by Senator Lugar's opinion. A representative government like our own is incredibally frustrating when our elected officials refuse to enforce the laws they have passed. At least one Indiana representative, Hosettler[^], has it right. The content of the article quoted Lugar and prompted me to write to the editor and express my opinion[^]

The 14th Amendment and more on the invasion of illegals

2006-04-09T15:59:00.000-07:00

As pointed out by MG below, the 14th Amendment makes any child born in the USA a citizen.

In the current debate, these children are called, “anchor babies”. The idea being that “you” won’t want to deport the parents (here illegally) if their children, born here, are citizens.

The question becomes, what do you do where “you” is the United States of America.

First there needs to be an effective wall built on the Southern border.

Yes, it can be done – Google up some research on Israel to see how effective this can be.

Second, as MG stated there needs to be serious penalties for any business that employs an illegal, migrant worker. Maybe a hand slap the first time, a stiff penalty the second, and forfeiture of their business and jail time the third. The effect will be to dry up the opportunities for work. This should be followed by a voluntary migration back to thee home of origin for these people.

Third, create special migrant centers in Mexico and other countries. These migrant centers would issue biometric (possibly GPS enabled) migrant worker identification cards. Once issued to a potential migrant worker, the worker can then contact employers through a web-based system that is accessed in the migrant worker center. If they connect with an employer then their migrant worker identification card would be authorized to allow entry into the United States.

If the now legal migrant worker wants to become a citizen and his background permits, he can apply for citizenship through a formalized process.

Forget about and fight against the garbage about creating paths to citizenship for the illegals already here. Allowing that is the next step into turning our country into something you don’t want for your grandchildren.

Along those lines, at today’s march of illegals in Dallas the news captured a leader of LULAC as he exhorted the crowd with, “this is our land, we’re not going anywhere”. This “our land” exhortation is (as I’ve been told) the battle cry of Hispanics who are working to create a Hispanic homeland in our country. Read up on LULAC, LaRaza, the Reconquistador movement, MEChA (Aztlan) – think long and hard, then make your voice heard.

Dig into Lulac[^]
and read between the lines.

Dig into LaRaza[^] and read between the lines.

Dig around on some of the links provided by MEChA[^]

If you don't read anything else, dig into Aztlan[^] - this is what is at risk, a Hispanic homeland carved out of your country, helped along by cowardly poiticians.

I'm With You - But Would Like to Add That...

2006-04-08T22:07:00.000-07:00

I to am sick and damned tired of the politicians who refuse to address this problem. In my view this is a clear demonstration of why the political division in this country runs too deep. This is an example of patrician politics at its height.

We are asking, no demanding that our elected leaders perform their constitutional duty and protect our borders. For them to guarantee our border security, more then a wall will be required.

A bi-partisan solution has to be created that will address border security and illegal immigration. I don’t think we can successfully address one without thoughtfully addressing the other. I don’t think we can put a wall up and deport every illegal in the country back to their homeland (even if we knew where their homeland was). Mostly because when those illegals give birth in the US, then they are US citizens according to the 14th amendment.

So when we ask our elected leaders to perform their constitutional duty, we cannot be selective as to which constitutional duties we are asking them to execute. There will have to be compromise to the extent where those in this country illegally have motivation to become legal US citizens. If not, then they will continue to be the financial burden of every legal citizen and community across America.

This motivation should come from those who employ non-documented workers. These employers should be severely fined, and if found to continually violate policy, be subjected to more harsh penalties such as liquidation, or forced retrenchment. This is similar to the policy for violations of the EPA. If there were no employers willing to hire them would they come?

I have agreed, in part, to almost each of the proposals recently talked about on the Hill. I think the real question is, are there a couple of leaders in this country willing to put forth a proposal that will possibly lose them the “swing” vote in the next election for the greater good of our country.

What can you do about the border and immigration?

2006-04-08T17:05:00.000-07:00

I am sick and damned tired of the politicians who refuse to address the problems they have created by ignoring the danger of unprotected borders. Repeat, THEY HAVE CREATED THE PROBLEM.

Those same buffoons have now converted the problem they have created such that it is now an immigration problem. So let me have the luxury of repeating myself, I AM SICK AND DAMNED TIRED OF THE POLITICIANS WHO REFUSE TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS THEY HAVE CREATED BY IGNORING THE DANGER.

Sorry President Bush, as much as I respect you, it is not a problem with our immigration laws it is a problem with you and your partners on both sides of the political spectrum who refuse to do their constitutional duty and protect our borders.

The most recent farce was the idiotic dance in the Senate. If you didn’t watch it or pay attention to what went on, a couple of bills introduced in the Senate focused on creating a path to citizenship for people who are here illegally.

That would have been the equivalent of rewarding the guy who tried to jack your car by forcing you to buy him a new one. Just how stupid are these people?

Those Senate bills were roundly defeated, the most egregious being the McCain / Kennedy piece of garbage. That was soundly rejected.

Then there was the farce created by Frist / Reid. This was a “compromise”. This particular compromise INCORPORATED AND EXPANDED the McCain / Kennedy bill – the same bill that was defeated earlier that same day.

The House of Representatives has it right. They have a bill that focuses on border security. Of course the senate can’t stomach it, because it makes sense.

What can you do? Don’t say nothing because it is time to wrest back your country. Consider the following:

Put them on notice. I mean you should let Washington DC (the President, your Representative in the House, your two senators) know how you feel. Call and email each and all.

When you call and / or email, tell them:
If they don’t do anything about border security, and I mean build a real wall like Israel has done, that you’ll mail in your voter registration card and sit out the next election.

Make sure they know you’re a voting Republican or Democrat.

Let them know your household income (you’ll see why below).

Tell them you’ll cash in any US savings bonds you happen to own, this will put a drain on the Treasury if there are any significant number of bond holders out there.

Tell them that on 1-1-2007 you’ll submit a W4 form claiming 99 (or the maximum amount) of dependents so the government will have a limited flow of income during the year.

And if we still don’t get something done, continue not voting and continue the W4 activity years into the future. No, it won’t hurt our country because we’ll have lost it anyway.

The Circus came to town...

2006-04-08T09:51:00.000-07:00

A tiger in the making....

Lions, tigers and bears, Oh my......

Well, we went to the circus the other day.....what did we see? Tyler the Tiger!! (Boy did we have fun with this one! I don't know what was more fun, getting ready and practicing, or the actual production at school).Of course Oz did all the make up and costume design. (remember Spiderman?)It was so cute! Just check out these shots.....He really fit the part! They had a wonderful time.

"A Star is Born..."

Still not completed

2006-03-28T09:22:00.000-08:00

Geez, this is taking forever. We've now nearly completed our painting project, but not totally.

The office is painted and Margie did a superlative job. Instead of "just" a color Margie did sponging for the walls. What "we" did was create a Florida kinda room with a coral color. The way it was done was: 1) wash the walls and ceiling with a solution of TSP, 2) rinse the walls and ceiling with clean water, 3) prime the ceiling with Killz [a kick butt primer that hides everything], 4) prime the walls with a tintable primer that contained pigment that matched the first coat of color, 5) paint the ceiling with an off-white called "Honey Bloom", 6) paint the walls with an undercoat of Blaze Red, 7) apply a Coral color, using sea sponges instead of a brush or typical roller. The result is really slick and makes it look like high dollar wall paper.
Three walls of the living area are painted a nifty green color. We went through the same drill on those walls: 1) wash, 2) rinse, tinted primer, 3) paint - but no sponging.
The other wall in the living area is yellow, again the same drill. We carried the yellow color down the hallway. Unlike with the green, we did a special effects thing on the yellow. We mixed in some sparkling granite chips. The result on the yellow walls is a sparkling effect when the light hits it just right.
The TV now sits inside one wall of the living area, in one of the green walls. It is really pretty, the 61" TV is framed in the green wall with a 3" wide frame, painted off white to match the ceiling.

All of this goes very nice with the bamboo floors.

This weekend we'll paint the kitchen. We're going to carry the yellow into the kitchen and get rid of that gawd-awful orange color I chose umpty-two years ago,

Next week we're having our remaining bathroom redone. This isn't as major an undertaking as the other bathroom was. Here we're going to install a stacked washer and dryer and use the bamboo flooring that remains instead of tile. This means our full size shower will be a half sized shower as the washer and dryer will go in that area. We'll install a new toilet, the black one just doesn't look right now that everything else in our home is brightly colored. Of course, this means more painting. We're going to try another sponging technique on this bath, using a glaze. It should be interesting.

Once the bath and kitchen are complete we're going to re-do the paint in the master bedroom. We aren't satisfied with the paint job the contractor did so we're going to re-paint it using the same color but use a technique called "dragging". That is a base coat of a high gloss (for color and slickness), with a top coat of the same color but maybe a slight variation. You put the top coat on over the base, then take a stiff bristled brush and drag it through the top coat creating lines in the covering. It will look something like a linen finish.

Once we finish that, I'm propping my feet up for a while.