We rented a movie the other night - "The Family Stone" http://videoeta.com/movie/72706 Actually my two daughters and step daughter rented it. It's rated PG-13, so most people would not find it offensive.
I did, of course. I'm a prude. I'm old fashioned. The review on the above link doesn't sound bad at all - "love" ties up all the loose ends for the dysfunctional family Stone.
I didn't watch it all the way through. I rebelled. Here's the problem I had with it. It focused on a dysfunctional family - two sexually disoriented men, a couple of selfish egotists, and a couple of other generally confused people. With a personality deficit disorder prevalent in most of the characters throughout the movie, any coming together in the name of "love" at the end must certainly be a fleeting event. The point is that the movie focused on really screwed up people. Maybe that makes those of us who feel similarly depraved feel better about ourselves - as in stupidity loves company - or is that misery loves company.
Why do people spend so much time soaking up violence, bad behavior, and downright destructive action and attitudes in our "entertainment?" Aren't there enough real life problems and counterproductive influences in life without deliberately immersing ourselves in it? It's not like we have to endure it because we have no choice. We actually pay for and spend hours of our valuable time offering up ourselves to have this crap pumped into our brains.
The same weirdness applies to some of the addictive habits we have. Smoking, for example. The facts are clear. Smoking gives people lung cancer. It stinks on people. It gives them yellow teeth. It's addictive. My brother and mom died from diseases caused by smoking. Yet "intelligent" people still smoke. Why? Do they have a death wish? Do they turn off parts of their brain that house most of their intelligence when they decide to light up? What causes them to "feel good" about smoking? And alcohol abuse and drug use - that's a whole different dimension.
If I dare suggest smoking is not good for them and encourage them to quit, of course they will point out that I eat too many brownies and oreos. Ooops. They got me there. Can't argue with reason. Although I do maintain the secret little thought that my habit is neither as anal or as harmful as smoking.
We don't realize how true the digital adage "Garbage in - garbage out" really is in all that we expose ourselves to.
Dysfunctional behaviors, dysfunctional families, and dysfunctional entertainment have become the norm. I am trying to be an oddity. My goal is to be labeled "odd" in the eyes of the dysfunctional of the world. I occasionally hear comments that convince me that I am succeeding. Yesss!
I have experienced and created my share of dysfunction during periods of my life, and frankly, I'm rather sick and tired of it.
It is difficult to understand the processes that lead up to the actual point that inappropriate decisions are made. But I will speculate - and I believe this is true - that all of the influences in our life, from the time we are little children, through the hundreds of hours of interacting with other people (most of whom we choose to interact with), the hundreds of hours we expose ourselves to various forms of entertainment (all of which we choose to expose ourselves to), and the hundreds of hours that we direct our minds to unproductive or destructively inappropriate thoughts (despite the fact that we can control these thoughts) - all of these things together form the path that we take. We have control over all these things that influence, consciously or not, the decisions we make. We can control how we react to our hormones. We can separate ourselves from destructive or negative people. Do we take advantage of the control that we do have to "do the right thing?" Sadly, much of the time we do not.
There is no greater truth than this verse from the Bible:
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." Philippians 4:8
Selfishness is not pure or lovely. Destructive habits are not virtuous. Spending our time being entertained by dysfunctional lifestyles is not of good report. There is no virtue in these things.
The truth in this Scripture can help us avoid selfish, perverse, degenerate, painful and destructive actions and attitudes. We cannot change the past. We have the ability to focus on the good and virtuous with each decision we make from this moment forward. Long live my disdain for The Color Purple and The Family Stone - despite the fact that our society says they are fine for 13 year olds!
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Extremist Habits of the Media
They act like two-year olds...or psychotic adults who see everything in extremes of black and white - they distort to sensationalize. Many are "drama queens". They do this to increase readership at the expense of reality, truth, and reason. They have their audience, and unfortunately, I am part of it.
I am speaking of the media - both liberal and conservative. Here is a typical example from a site I frequent, though I have to admit its blatant sensationalist exaggerated reporting is getting on my nerves...
The headline reads "Church Damns da Vinci" with a closeup photo of burning books. The reality: The "church" did not "damn" anyone. And the chuch is not burning books. CNN, FOX, CBS - they all do this... Drudge is a somewhat more blatant.
This may be my turning point away from the sensationalizing liars.
I am speaking of the media - both liberal and conservative. Here is a typical example from a site I frequent, though I have to admit its blatant sensationalist exaggerated reporting is getting on my nerves...
The headline reads "Church Damns da Vinci" with a closeup photo of burning books. The reality: The "church" did not "damn" anyone. And the chuch is not burning books. CNN, FOX, CBS - they all do this... Drudge is a somewhat more blatant.
This may be my turning point away from the sensationalizing liars.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
It's Not Like They're Common Criminals - Ya, riiiight...
How often do we hear this line of (screwed up) reasoning regarding the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country: “Let the ones who are already here stay. Don’t deport them. It’s not like they’re common criminals. Don’t treat them like criminals.” Even our President believes this! (Click the title for his true feelings.)
Oh no? Then what are they? Law abiding citizens?
Will the average American citizen be let off of the hook for committing these comparable “petty offences”? (don’t dare call them crimes)
- Document forgery
- Driving without a license
- Breaking and entering
- Criminal trespass
- No work permit
- Income tax evasion
…and dozens more – you get the point
And this doesn't begin to touch on the other “offences” that these poor, innocent, “immigrants”, just trying to make a buck, commit. Come to think of it, if they are willing to commit all the above offences, what level of conscience or propriety would get in the way of their lovable, petty crime wave expanding to even greener pastures. See the links, below:
http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/isacrime.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
Hey, let’s treat American citizens with the same lack of regard for our laws and legal system as some are proposing to apply to illegal aliens. That should prove interesting! Yes, Mr. President, just treat the well-meaning illegals like you would average Jo Citizen.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Sustainability - Alien To Our Immigration Policy
In my planning profession, we have a concept called "sustainability." Growth needs to be "sustainable" to be healthy growth. Otherwise, growth more closely resembles a rampant cancer, eventually killing its host. Successful communities plan and manage their growth to avoid this condition. Some communities may be desperate for "growth at any price" or promote "growth for growth's sake" as their highest priority. This kind of growth is not sustainable - its benefits are short-lived. In the long run, severe economic and social problems are assured.
Our immigration policies and lack of enforcement of our immigration laws result in the same cancerous, out-of-control growth. We have the short-terms benefits of cheaper labor...but at what longer term cost.
Looking back to the pre-depression years of the 1920's, this nation also had liberal immigration policies to facilitatae cheap labor. Then came the great depression, and the years following when we suffered through national unemployment rates of 20 to 30%. There was a backlash not only against non-citizens, but against recent legal immigrants. Many hundreds of thousands were deported back to Mexico as a reaction to the unemployment rate of US citizens. The rate of immigration was not sustainable through the inevitable ups and downs of our economy. Citizens required their government to take the painful action of massive deportation to correct our previous unsustainable actions. That "repatriation" program was not an act of an ill-intentioned or evil government. It was a mandate from the American people!
This graph shows the number of new immigrants in the period from 1900 to 2005. Note the peak in the period 1910 to 1920. The came the depression in the 30's. I wonder what role the unsustainable numbers of immigrants might have had in precipitating our "great depression?".
The numbers declined in the following decades. But we didn't learn our lesson as the numbers of immigrants begins it's cancerous rise in the 70's to the present at an increasing rate.
This link http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1405.html provides the current numbers of new illegal immigrants entering this nation each year: 3.7 million. This is far, far from sustainable immigration growth, even if they were legal, which they are not. Those who promote legalizing this number of existing illegal aliens are looking for disaster! The "bleeding hearts" who insist on opening our borders and ignore reasonable immigration limits are clueless to the disaster they our courting via their unsustainable policies. Even if the majority of illegals wanted to be assimilated (which they don't) current numbers do not allow for assimilation. We will end up, not with a melting pot, but with a balkinization that will perpetuate social conflict for generations to come. That does not translate to sustainability.
Our immigration policies and lack of enforcement of our immigration laws result in the same cancerous, out-of-control growth. We have the short-terms benefits of cheaper labor...but at what longer term cost.
Looking back to the pre-depression years of the 1920's, this nation also had liberal immigration policies to facilitatae cheap labor. Then came the great depression, and the years following when we suffered through national unemployment rates of 20 to 30%. There was a backlash not only against non-citizens, but against recent legal immigrants. Many hundreds of thousands were deported back to Mexico as a reaction to the unemployment rate of US citizens. The rate of immigration was not sustainable through the inevitable ups and downs of our economy. Citizens required their government to take the painful action of massive deportation to correct our previous unsustainable actions. That "repatriation" program was not an act of an ill-intentioned or evil government. It was a mandate from the American people!
This graph shows the number of new immigrants in the period from 1900 to 2005. Note the peak in the period 1910 to 1920. The came the depression in the 30's. I wonder what role the unsustainable numbers of immigrants might have had in precipitating our "great depression?".
The numbers declined in the following decades. But we didn't learn our lesson as the numbers of immigrants begins it's cancerous rise in the 70's to the present at an increasing rate.This link http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1405.html provides the current numbers of new illegal immigrants entering this nation each year: 3.7 million. This is far, far from sustainable immigration growth, even if they were legal, which they are not. Those who promote legalizing this number of existing illegal aliens are looking for disaster! The "bleeding hearts" who insist on opening our borders and ignore reasonable immigration limits are clueless to the disaster they our courting via their unsustainable policies. Even if the majority of illegals wanted to be assimilated (which they don't) current numbers do not allow for assimilation. We will end up, not with a melting pot, but with a balkinization that will perpetuate social conflict for generations to come. That does not translate to sustainability.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Immigration and the Catholic Church
This http://www.ptdiocese.org/Sites/Org1/Uploads/I000987.pdf links to a letter from a Bishop of a Catholic archdiocese in the Florida Panhandle. The Bishop urges his parishioners not to be concerned about immigration law. The Bishop is a great and well-respected man in his field. I believe his error is in being out of his field in this letter. I quote his letter below and provide my reaction to a number of his erroneous, patronizing, condescending, or otherwise outrageous remarks in [brackets] in blue:
________________
"My Dear Friends in Christ,
We celebrate today the resurrection of our Savior, Jesus Christ who laid down his life out of love and compassion for the human family. As followers of Christ, who are called to build a world based on justice and love, [read on to see his convoluted use of the word "justice"] I call to your attention today the plight of the immigrants in our midst. [The immigrants don't have the plight; the illegal aliens do. The Bishop fails to recognize this essential difference. A thief has a "plight", the honest person does not. The Bishop needs to get histerminologyy correct before he can realize that he is proposing to reward bad behavior.]
Today in our country and our state [Florida], we are facing the reality of some 11-12 million people living in our country without proper legal status. ["without proper legal status" is a softball phrase for "illegal aliens disrespecting and ignoring the laws of this nation."] Many people of good will analyze this situation merely from a legalistic ethic [meaning "we are too law abiding for our own good"] if people do not have legal status they should not be here. [This is true, isn't it? Why is he having difficulty understanding this simple concept?]
The Church has always taught respect for the law [the Catholic Church in California obviously does not hold this basic Christian and American tenet - see this site: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/neumayr200604120719.asp ] , and honors the sovereign right of countries to protect their borders, but the Church has also taught that we have a moral obligation to work to change unjust laws [I've asked him to explain what is unjust about our immigration laws, aside from the fact that they are not being enforced] and to have the faith to protect ourselves without closing our doors to the needy in our world. [There is a big difference between opening our doors to a limited number of "huddled masses yearning to be free" and a "thronging hoard of protesters demanding rights they have not earned and to which they are not entitled!"] In keeping with the teaching of the last judgment (Matthew 25:1-46), we judge the morality of a nationÂ’s laws by how they treat the least among us, including by whether or not we welcome the strangers among us. [True - but don't we have a right to distinguish between those who disregard our laws athosehos who respect them? Where is the "justice?"]
The current immigration system is profoundly broken, separates families and facilitates exploitation. [What's broken about our immigration system is the lack of enforcement! The "separation familiesies and exploitation" is caused by those who choose to enter this country illegally. Don't blame enforcement, Bishop. You seem to have things a bit backwards.]
The Church knows this from our daily pastoral experience. We minister to people defrauded or cheated by people who know the workers cannot complain to authorities. [Wow. Isn't it a rather universal fear of lawbreakers to complain to authorities?] We work with families where spouses are separated for as much as ten years, while they await the legal process to get a green card. We work with honors students who have lived here most of their lives but who have no future after high school, because they do not have proper documents. [This is what I appreciate about the Gospel...it clearly teaches the need for personal responsibility, obedience to laws, and the concept of consequences for our actions. Doesn't it seem right and just that those who tap dance around, flaunt, and ourright ignore the laws of a nation they have no right to be in that there may be some unpleasant consequences?] In the worst cases, we see the human trafficking that occurs when smugglers can make great profit doing what the law does not allow poor people to do easily: to migrate in order to help feed their families. [Would it be more just and fair if only wealthy illegals were smuggled in?] We know the fear, violence, and victimization that occur in a system in which legal avenues are not available for matching willing workers to willing employers for many of Florida's key industries. [Sounds like drug trafficking - if there is a willing seller and willing buyer, who cares what the law allows or prohibits! Hello - it's illegal! And yes, there is a reason for limits: It is destructive to our nation to have unassimilatable numbers of people from any nation.]
I ask all Catholics in our diocese to become informed about the moral imperative for just and
comprehensive immigration reform. [I would suggest the Bishop is uninformed. He needs American history and government lessons.] I urge all people of good will to put aside the myths and misinformation that keep us from hearing our brother and sister immigrants cries for justice. [Here is that misused "justice" word again. "Cries for justice" would mean deportation with a fine."] Please refer to the diocesan website at www.ptdiocese.org and click on the reference to immigration reform which examines economic, social and political and references the texts of Scripture and Catholic social teaching that call each of us to action.
I pray that you and your families will enjoy the blessings of Easter and I am grateful to you for
the opportunity to bring this to your kind attention.
Sincerely in Christ,
Most Reverend John H. Ricard, SSJ
Bishop of Pensacola-Tallahassee
_____________
My reply to the Bishop is provided below:
________________
"My Dear Friends in Christ,
We celebrate today the resurrection of our Savior, Jesus Christ who laid down his life out of love and compassion for the human family. As followers of Christ, who are called to build a world based on justice and love, [read on to see his convoluted use of the word "justice"] I call to your attention today the plight of the immigrants in our midst. [The immigrants don't have the plight; the illegal aliens do. The Bishop fails to recognize this essential difference. A thief has a "plight", the honest person does not. The Bishop needs to get histerminologyy correct before he can realize that he is proposing to reward bad behavior.]
Today in our country and our state [Florida], we are facing the reality of some 11-12 million people living in our country without proper legal status. ["without proper legal status" is a softball phrase for "illegal aliens disrespecting and ignoring the laws of this nation."] Many people of good will analyze this situation merely from a legalistic ethic [meaning "we are too law abiding for our own good"] if people do not have legal status they should not be here. [This is true, isn't it? Why is he having difficulty understanding this simple concept?]
The Church has always taught respect for the law [the Catholic Church in California obviously does not hold this basic Christian and American tenet - see this site: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/neumayr200604120719.asp ] , and honors the sovereign right of countries to protect their borders, but the Church has also taught that we have a moral obligation to work to change unjust laws [I've asked him to explain what is unjust about our immigration laws, aside from the fact that they are not being enforced] and to have the faith to protect ourselves without closing our doors to the needy in our world. [There is a big difference between opening our doors to a limited number of "huddled masses yearning to be free" and a "thronging hoard of protesters demanding rights they have not earned and to which they are not entitled!"] In keeping with the teaching of the last judgment (Matthew 25:1-46), we judge the morality of a nationÂ’s laws by how they treat the least among us, including by whether or not we welcome the strangers among us. [True - but don't we have a right to distinguish between those who disregard our laws athosehos who respect them? Where is the "justice?"]
The current immigration system is profoundly broken, separates families and facilitates exploitation. [What's broken about our immigration system is the lack of enforcement! The "separation familiesies and exploitation" is caused by those who choose to enter this country illegally. Don't blame enforcement, Bishop. You seem to have things a bit backwards.]
The Church knows this from our daily pastoral experience. We minister to people defrauded or cheated by people who know the workers cannot complain to authorities. [Wow. Isn't it a rather universal fear of lawbreakers to complain to authorities?] We work with families where spouses are separated for as much as ten years, while they await the legal process to get a green card. We work with honors students who have lived here most of their lives but who have no future after high school, because they do not have proper documents. [This is what I appreciate about the Gospel...it clearly teaches the need for personal responsibility, obedience to laws, and the concept of consequences for our actions. Doesn't it seem right and just that those who tap dance around, flaunt, and ourright ignore the laws of a nation they have no right to be in that there may be some unpleasant consequences?] In the worst cases, we see the human trafficking that occurs when smugglers can make great profit doing what the law does not allow poor people to do easily: to migrate in order to help feed their families. [Would it be more just and fair if only wealthy illegals were smuggled in?] We know the fear, violence, and victimization that occur in a system in which legal avenues are not available for matching willing workers to willing employers for many of Florida's key industries. [Sounds like drug trafficking - if there is a willing seller and willing buyer, who cares what the law allows or prohibits! Hello - it's illegal! And yes, there is a reason for limits: It is destructive to our nation to have unassimilatable numbers of people from any nation.]
I ask all Catholics in our diocese to become informed about the moral imperative for just and
comprehensive immigration reform. [I would suggest the Bishop is uninformed. He needs American history and government lessons.] I urge all people of good will to put aside the myths and misinformation that keep us from hearing our brother and sister immigrants cries for justice. [Here is that misused "justice" word again. "Cries for justice" would mean deportation with a fine."] Please refer to the diocesan website at www.ptdiocese.org and click on the reference to immigration reform which examines economic, social and political and references the texts of Scripture and Catholic social teaching that call each of us to action.
I pray that you and your families will enjoy the blessings of Easter and I am grateful to you for
the opportunity to bring this to your kind attention.
Sincerely in Christ,
Most Reverend John H. Ricard, SSJ
Bishop of Pensacola-Tallahassee
_____________
My reply to the Bishop is provided below:
Bishop Picard:
I am writing in response to your letter concerning immigration reform. You asked us to become informed about "the moral imperative for just and comprehensive immigration reform." You referred to the "11-12 million people living in our country without proper legal status..." and urged "all people of goodwill to put aside the myths and misinformation that keeps us from hearing our brother and sister immigrants' cries for justice."
There are some crucial aspects of the illegal alien issue that are being confused or misrepresented in your letter and on your web site.
First, your reference to the word "justice" is confusing. "Justice." Isn't that a term of law? I haven't heard cries for justice" from illegal aliens. Justice means paying the consequences for breaking a law. If the illegal aliens were crying for justice they would be asking for the penalty of the laws they are breaking to be imposed on them and that would be deportation. I trust that is not what you meant. Consequently, what you are suggesting by the term justice in this context is misleading and confusing.
The major theme of your letter and the website is "Justice for Immigrants." This infers that our current immigration laws are unjust. On what basis do you make that claim? How are they unjust? Are you advocating ignoring or violating the law because you feel it is unjust? There are millions of other American citizens who believe these laws are just and necessary. And we have a two-hundred year old process in place for amending our laws if they need to be changed. We don't simply ignore and violate them! I was appalled to hear the Cardinal in California urge his Priests and Bishops to rebel against (disobey) any law that sought to bring order to our "out of control" immigration policies. That should make any Christian cringe!
This nation did not impose an improper legal status on the illegal aliens. They imposed it on themselves as a result of the own actions. They chose to do what they did, and expended a great deal of energy doing it. It was no accident on their part. How does that make the citizens of this nation "unjust.?"
Second, as a grandson of four immigrants who came to this country legally and with an enthusiastic desire to obey the laws of the land and to assimilate into the culture of this nation, I take offense at lumping "illegal aliens" in the same category as "immigrants." The term "immigrant", by definition, presumes that they are legal and abide by all laws that establish their immigrant status. I sincerely caution you to not discount these distinctions. They are essential. Your web site and your letter disingenuously ignore the crucially important distinction between "illegal alien" (which the 11 to 12 million people are) and "immigrants", which the 11 to 12 million ARE NOT.
This distinction is no small matter. It is dangerous to trivialize the law, fostering disrespect for the law which ultimately brings anarchy and chaos. I take exception to being labeled "legalistic" just because I believe in respecting and obeying the law. And yes, I do expect others to obey the law. We are a nation of laws. Your article sounds as though you take the "rule of law", which is the basis of our successful self-governance in this nation, lightly. Please do not dismiss the importance of this aspect of our culture.
I reviewed your web site and could not find the scriptural references your letter mentioned. However, what I do remember from my own studies is that Jesus taught us to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and gave his life to fulfill the law. His disciples and Paul urged others to be obedient to their government and all its laws. I don't mean to emphasize one aspect of scripture over another - immigration policy is not a simple matter of law versus grace. But the law should not be dismissed as offhandedly as you appear to do.
And finally, there appears to be a world of difference between the attitudes of most of the illegal aliens and the immigrants of the previous 200 years. The facts appear to point out these differences, overall, and I know there are exceptions:
- Illegal aliens are lawbreakers; the immigrants were law abiders
- Illegal aliens are resisting assimilation; the immigrants desired assimilation
- Illegal aliens are demanding the rights of citizenship; the immigrants earned the rights of citizenship
- Illegal aliens are demanding that this nation adapt to their language; the immigrants learned English
- Illegal aliens are overwhelming our social services infrastructure; immigrants contributed toward it
- Illegal aliens are doing all the things that gain the disrespect of citizens (ignoring laws, demanding rights that they have not earned); immigrants worked hard to gain respect
Neither the church nor this nation should become the enabler and encourager of civil disobedience and presumptious demands that are widely being demonstrated by the illegal aliens and their sympathizers. Rewarding bad behavior is a bad idea. Our borders need to be respected through effective enforcement measures, both at the border and through appropriate disincentives for those employers who hire illegals. Only then will effective immigration reform have any impact. Perhaps the church could do more to provide resources and ethics training to the citizens of Mexico (the ethics part they sorely based on my understanding of the rampant corruption in Mexico), and English training in this country to facilitate assimilation.
We need immigration reform. But we cannot confuse "reform" with lack of enforcement, with "open borders" and with destabilizingly high immigration limits that make meaningful assimilation nearly impossible. As liberal as our nation has become with regard to tolerating just about anything, there remains a passion for equity and justice. If we are expected to abide by the laws of the land, we expect others to do the same. If our grandparents were expected to abide by the immigration laws of the land, we expect the illegal aliens to do the same. There is a visceral, righteous, and justified indignation when this does not happen.
Sincerely,
_________________
The State of Georgia has taken the initiative - see this link: http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2006/04/17/daily8.html
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
A Great "Immigration Facts and Action" Web Site
I've reviewed the content and sources of the "NumbersUSA" website. It appears well-reasoned, sound, and very pointedly concludes this nation is headed in a very wrong direction.
Please take a few moments to scan the site and learn of the coming changes in this nation's culture, economy, and quality of life. I don't have much to worry about. But my daughters and grandchildren certainly do!
A good summary analysis from this website follows:
"In Congress, there now is a serious debate about whether the nation should even try to enforce its immigration laws. The debate is between "national-community Americans" -- those who continue to believe in the idea of a separate, self-governed nation -- and those who have a "post-American" vision. The post-American vision is for (1) America's workers to be "allowed" to compete directly with every worker in the world who makes the effort to move to this country and for (2) the quality of life of a local community to be determined by global forces rather than by democratic self-determination."
This is a radical and depressing option - one that is 180 degrees opposed to what made this a great nation.
Please take a few moments to scan the site and learn of the coming changes in this nation's culture, economy, and quality of life. I don't have much to worry about. But my daughters and grandchildren certainly do!
A good summary analysis from this website follows:
"In Congress, there now is a serious debate about whether the nation should even try to enforce its immigration laws. The debate is between "national-community Americans" -- those who continue to believe in the idea of a separate, self-governed nation -- and those who have a "post-American" vision. The post-American vision is for (1) America's workers to be "allowed" to compete directly with every worker in the world who makes the effort to move to this country and for (2) the quality of life of a local community to be determined by global forces rather than by democratic self-determination."
This is a radical and depressing option - one that is 180 degrees opposed to what made this a great nation.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
TO: President & Congress; RE: Illegal immigration
As a citizen of the United States, and as the grandson of LEGAL immigrants, I appeal to you to respect our nation’s borders, heritage, culture, and laws by doing the following with all due haste:
- Deport all illegal aliens (proactively enforce existing legislation or pass additional legislation, if necessary)
- Prosecute any individual, institution, or business that harbors illegal aliens
- Pass legislation that makes English the official language of this nation
- Secure our borders by whatever means that will be effective whether via fences, walls, technology, or personnel, military or otherwise
- Ignore the corporate greed that drives this nations lust for cheap labor over the rule of law and security of our borders.
- Devote the fiscal resources necessary to accomplish these things.
I voted republican in the past two elections. I will not hesitate to vote for whichever individuals will aggressively pursue this agenda and I will join forces and expend resources to encourage others to do the same.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Wakeup Call - Cheap Labor Part III
Will images like this make you more or less likely to support the President’s proposed “Guest Worker” (amnesty) program?
Will images like this make Congress more or less likely to pass the President’s proposed “Guest Worker” (cheap labor at any price) program.
What if you also understood that a great number of these people, if not the majority, are in this country illegally? Further, what if you knew that a great number of them, if not the majority, have their allegience more with our "neighbor" (as corrupt as it may be) to the south more than to the country that allows them the privledge to demonstrate?
See also http://www.michellemalkin.com/ Scroll down to the heading there titled “WELCOME TO RECONQUISTA” The message is clear that many thousands of these people believe the southwestern United States still belongs to Mexico and they intend to make it so.
Call me “old fashion”, but I would consider this to be quite distastefully similar to a group of whatever nationality coming into my living room without invitation, in fact, after breaking in, and making demands of me and my family.
Why should this be tolerated? Why shouldn't every one of these lawbreakers be deported to where they came from?
We know the answer, don't we. There are a things held in higher esteem by our nation than our laws. Corporate greed for cheap labor, our collective aversion to performing our own labor, and our lust for cheap consumer goods all are held in higher esteem than our laws.
For the past two years I ranted and warned about the dangers of the growing influence of Islam and its facist tendencies. These demonstrations by these illegals and their sympathizers deserve as much attention because they pose an equal threat to our nation's stability.
What poses an even greater threat to the nation is the very idea that we are no longer a nation of laws and we no longer pride ourselves as a nation worthy of preserving and defending. Even the Catholic Church is in the act - they are a proponent of ignoring our laws. Cardinal Roger Mahoney is directing his Bishops and Priests to shelter all immigrants, both legal and illegal. He is urging that our immigration laws be ignored in the name of Christianity. The last I read the Bible, Jesus would do no such thing. In fact, Christians are urged to abide by the laws of the land. See this site http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/oreilly030606.asp for an excellent discussion of the ideocy of the Catholic leaders in promoting this insurrection.
Lou Dobbs of CNN has an enlightened understanding of the issue in the following article titled "U.S. policy on immigration is a tragic joke" at this site
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0828dobbs0828.html
He concludes by affirming that "Reform begins with the truth. And our elected officials must begin to recognize the reality that a war on terror and war on drugs can be won only by securing our borders and that any reform of our immigration policies must begin first at the front line of the crisis: our border with Mexico."
I'll end this with an admonition spoken by a former president:
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
--Theodore Roosevelt, 1919
A nation that loses respect for its laws... a nation that loses respect for its culture and has no control over its borders, and allows its' infiltrators to run rampant in protest against their host nation is in fact a nation in deep trouble. We have lost control of ourselves. We are more and more a nation divided. How long will it stand?
Will images like this make Congress more or less likely to pass the President’s proposed “Guest Worker” (cheap labor at any price) program.What if you also understood that a great number of these people, if not the majority, are in this country illegally? Further, what if you knew that a great number of them, if not the majority, have their allegience more with our "neighbor" (as corrupt as it may be) to the south more than to the country that allows them the privledge to demonstrate?
See also http://www.michellemalkin.com/ Scroll down to the heading there titled “WELCOME TO RECONQUISTA” The message is clear that many thousands of these people believe the southwestern United States still belongs to Mexico and they intend to make it so.
Call me “old fashion”, but I would consider this to be quite distastefully similar to a group of whatever nationality coming into my living room without invitation, in fact, after breaking in, and making demands of me and my family.
Why should this be tolerated? Why shouldn't every one of these lawbreakers be deported to where they came from?
We know the answer, don't we. There are a things held in higher esteem by our nation than our laws. Corporate greed for cheap labor, our collective aversion to performing our own labor, and our lust for cheap consumer goods all are held in higher esteem than our laws.
For the past two years I ranted and warned about the dangers of the growing influence of Islam and its facist tendencies. These demonstrations by these illegals and their sympathizers deserve as much attention because they pose an equal threat to our nation's stability.
What poses an even greater threat to the nation is the very idea that we are no longer a nation of laws and we no longer pride ourselves as a nation worthy of preserving and defending. Even the Catholic Church is in the act - they are a proponent of ignoring our laws. Cardinal Roger Mahoney is directing his Bishops and Priests to shelter all immigrants, both legal and illegal. He is urging that our immigration laws be ignored in the name of Christianity. The last I read the Bible, Jesus would do no such thing. In fact, Christians are urged to abide by the laws of the land. See this site http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/oreilly030606.asp for an excellent discussion of the ideocy of the Catholic leaders in promoting this insurrection.
Lou Dobbs of CNN has an enlightened understanding of the issue in the following article titled "U.S. policy on immigration is a tragic joke" at this site
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0828dobbs0828.html
He concludes by affirming that "Reform begins with the truth. And our elected officials must begin to recognize the reality that a war on terror and war on drugs can be won only by securing our borders and that any reform of our immigration policies must begin first at the front line of the crisis: our border with Mexico."
I'll end this with an admonition spoken by a former president:
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
--Theodore Roosevelt, 1919
A nation that loses respect for its laws... a nation that loses respect for its culture and has no control over its borders, and allows its' infiltrators to run rampant in protest against their host nation is in fact a nation in deep trouble. We have lost control of ourselves. We are more and more a nation divided. How long will it stand?
Thursday, February 23, 2006
The Real National Policy - "Greed"
A guest on the Laura Ingraham show this morning defended the Administration's UAE ports management deal on the basis of an overarching federal policy that is at the heart of the matter.
Why would the President suggest this morning, in response to the warranted uproar of concern about national security, that "people don't need to worry about security?" Is it because another federal policy takes precedence over national security?
What is that "other" policy? As this guest explained, it is the economic vitality of this nation. It is the material wealth of this nation we are concerned with. And he was sincerely matter of fact when he was saying this. He explained that we are part of a global, multi-national economy. We are a trading partner - a trade zone. We have to reach out and be a part of all of it to remain competitive and successful. And the ports deal is a part of it. While the above is not a direct quote, that is the essence of his message.
That "policy" statement explains our lax immigration policy as well.
While I enjoy prosperity and a successful economy as much as the next guy, these policies verge on greed at the expense of security. I think of Pooh Bear getting his hand stuck in the hollow of the tree, not wanting to let go of the honey, while the bees have a field day with the rest of his hairy bear body. Trouble is, our hairy bodies may get blown up, not just stung.
The business interests in this nation are huge and greedy. The President is not immune - he's bought into it. There are billions hinging on this deal. There will be a lot of excuse making by those special interests with the most to gain from "the deal."
"The deal" does not meet the straight-face test with regard to national security. But if we understand that our primary national policy is greed, then what this administration does will make more sense. I hope this helps those who were heretofore as befuddled as I.
Why would the President suggest this morning, in response to the warranted uproar of concern about national security, that "people don't need to worry about security?" Is it because another federal policy takes precedence over national security?
What is that "other" policy? As this guest explained, it is the economic vitality of this nation. It is the material wealth of this nation we are concerned with. And he was sincerely matter of fact when he was saying this. He explained that we are part of a global, multi-national economy. We are a trading partner - a trade zone. We have to reach out and be a part of all of it to remain competitive and successful. And the ports deal is a part of it. While the above is not a direct quote, that is the essence of his message.
That "policy" statement explains our lax immigration policy as well.
While I enjoy prosperity and a successful economy as much as the next guy, these policies verge on greed at the expense of security. I think of Pooh Bear getting his hand stuck in the hollow of the tree, not wanting to let go of the honey, while the bees have a field day with the rest of his hairy bear body. Trouble is, our hairy bodies may get blown up, not just stung.
The business interests in this nation are huge and greedy. The President is not immune - he's bought into it. There are billions hinging on this deal. There will be a lot of excuse making by those special interests with the most to gain from "the deal."
"The deal" does not meet the straight-face test with regard to national security. But if we understand that our primary national policy is greed, then what this administration does will make more sense. I hope this helps those who were heretofore as befuddled as I.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Spending tax dollars to rebuild Islamic Mosques
Something is very strange here. We can't spend federal dollars on places of worship unless it is to rebuild an Islamic Mosque? An Islamic mosque in Iraq is bombed by a bunch of satanic psycho radicals and what do our Ambassador and President promise? "We will help you rebuild it."
Numerous Baptist churches in the United States are torched by a bunch of satanic psycho radicals and what do our leaders promise? "No federal dollars can be spent on church-related matters."
Isn't there something a bit odd about this? Why is it OK to spend our money on the religions of others but not our own? Especially a religion as full of hate and murder as that one. Am I being Islamo-phobic? Am I fearful of rattlesnakes? Well, yeah.
Quote from tonight's news:
"U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and the top American commander in Iraq also warned it was a "critical moment for Iraq" and called the bombings [of the Islamic Temple] a deliberate attempt to create sectarian tension. They promised the U.S. would contribute to the shrine's reconstruction."
Why do they call it a "shrine?" To cover the fact that it is an Islamic Temple?
Before (if ever) there is one cent spent to rebuild the facilities of a religion who's proponents wish to dominate us, shouldn't we help our own? Oh, yes, we have "separation of church and state." But apparently that is only intended to limit us in our own country. When our taxes are used in a foreign country to buy someone off, anything goes.
Numerous Baptist churches in the United States are torched by a bunch of satanic psycho radicals and what do our leaders promise? "No federal dollars can be spent on church-related matters."
Isn't there something a bit odd about this? Why is it OK to spend our money on the religions of others but not our own? Especially a religion as full of hate and murder as that one. Am I being Islamo-phobic? Am I fearful of rattlesnakes? Well, yeah.
Quote from tonight's news:
"U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and the top American commander in Iraq also warned it was a "critical moment for Iraq" and called the bombings [of the Islamic Temple] a deliberate attempt to create sectarian tension. They promised the U.S. would contribute to the shrine's reconstruction."
Why do they call it a "shrine?" To cover the fact that it is an Islamic Temple?
Before (if ever) there is one cent spent to rebuild the facilities of a religion who's proponents wish to dominate us, shouldn't we help our own? Oh, yes, we have "separation of church and state." But apparently that is only intended to limit us in our own country. When our taxes are used in a foreign country to buy someone off, anything goes.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Respecting Muslim Violence...
I hear calls from various corners of civilization, such as the Pope, to "respect" the Muslim religion - to refrain from publishing cartoons of Muhammad which, by the way, happen to be true and to the point.
Well, I certainly cannot respect a religion that teaches or encourages their adherants to act like psychotic lunatics with or without minimal provocation.
So, in celebration of my own views, I offer those of one who writes better than I:
I couldn't resist posting this entire commentary by dear "don't hold back" Ann Coulter...
MUSLIM BITES DOG by Ann Coulter
February 15, 2006
The amazing part of the great Danish cartoon caper isn't that Muslims immediately engage in acts of mob violence when things don't go their way. That is de rigueur for the Religion of Peace. Their immediate response to all bad news is mass violence. That's a "dog bites man" story and belongs on page B-34, next to the grade school hot lunch menu and the birth notices.
After an Egyptian ferry capsized recently, killing hundreds of passengers, a whole braying mob of passengers' relatives staged an organized attack on the company, throwing furniture out the window and burning the building to the ground. Witnesses say it was the most violent ocean liner-related incident since Carnival Cruise Lines fired Kathie Lee Gifford.
The "offense to Islam" ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. These people have a serious anger management problem. So it's not exactly a scoop that Muslims are engaging in violence. A front-page story would be "Offended Muslims Remain Calm."
What is stunning about this spectacle is that their violence is working. With a few exceptions, the media won't show the cartoons that incited mass violence around the globe (cartoons available at www.anncoulter.com). And yet, week after week, American patriots endure "The Boondocks" without complaint.
Where's the justice here? Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Iran. The mass violence by Muslims over some cartoons reminds us why we have to worry when countries like Iran start talking about having nukes. Iran is led by a lunatic who makes a big point of denying the Holocaust. Indeed, in response to the Muhammad cartoons, one Iranian newspaper is soliciting cartoons about the Holocaust. (So far the only submissions have come from Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau and The New York Times.)
Iran is certainly implying that it has nukes. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but you can't take chances with berserk psychotics. What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with a nuclear bomb? If you don't want to get shot by the police, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then don't point a toy gun at them. Or, as I believe our motto should be after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that's offensive. How about "camel jockey"? What? Now what'd I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?
In addition, I believe we are legally required to be bombing Syria right now. And unlike the Quran's alleged prohibition on depictions of Muhammad, I've got documentation to back that up! Muslims in Syria torched the Danish Embassy a few weeks ago, burning it to the ground. According to everyone, the Syrian government was behind the attack — the prime minister of Denmark, Condoleezza Rice and White House spokesman Scott McClellan. I think even the gals on "The View" have acknowledged that Damascus was behind this one.
McClellan said: "We will hold Syria responsible for such violent demonstrations since they do not take place in that country without government knowledge and support." We are signatories to a treaty that requires us to do more than "hold Syria responsible" for this attack. Syria has staged a state-sponsored attack on our NATO partner on Danish soil, the Danish embassy. According to the terms of the NATO treaty, the United States and most of Europe have an obligation to go to war with Syria. Or is NATO — like the conventions of civilized behavior, personal hygiene and grooming — inapplicable when Muslims are involved?
Liberals complain about "unilateral action," but under the terms of a treaty created by Dean Acheson and the Democrats, France, Germany, Spain and Greece are all obliged to go to war with us against Syria. Why, it's almost like a coalition! OK, Mr. Commie: Saddle up!
COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER
Well, I certainly cannot respect a religion that teaches or encourages their adherants to act like psychotic lunatics with or without minimal provocation.
So, in celebration of my own views, I offer those of one who writes better than I:
I couldn't resist posting this entire commentary by dear "don't hold back" Ann Coulter...
MUSLIM BITES DOG by Ann Coulter
February 15, 2006
The amazing part of the great Danish cartoon caper isn't that Muslims immediately engage in acts of mob violence when things don't go their way. That is de rigueur for the Religion of Peace. Their immediate response to all bad news is mass violence. That's a "dog bites man" story and belongs on page B-34, next to the grade school hot lunch menu and the birth notices.
After an Egyptian ferry capsized recently, killing hundreds of passengers, a whole braying mob of passengers' relatives staged an organized attack on the company, throwing furniture out the window and burning the building to the ground. Witnesses say it was the most violent ocean liner-related incident since Carnival Cruise Lines fired Kathie Lee Gifford.
The "offense to Islam" ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. These people have a serious anger management problem. So it's not exactly a scoop that Muslims are engaging in violence. A front-page story would be "Offended Muslims Remain Calm."
What is stunning about this spectacle is that their violence is working. With a few exceptions, the media won't show the cartoons that incited mass violence around the globe (cartoons available at www.anncoulter.com). And yet, week after week, American patriots endure "The Boondocks" without complaint.
Where's the justice here? Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Iran. The mass violence by Muslims over some cartoons reminds us why we have to worry when countries like Iran start talking about having nukes. Iran is led by a lunatic who makes a big point of denying the Holocaust. Indeed, in response to the Muhammad cartoons, one Iranian newspaper is soliciting cartoons about the Holocaust. (So far the only submissions have come from Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau and The New York Times.)
Iran is certainly implying that it has nukes. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but you can't take chances with berserk psychotics. What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with a nuclear bomb? If you don't want to get shot by the police, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then don't point a toy gun at them. Or, as I believe our motto should be after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that's offensive. How about "camel jockey"? What? Now what'd I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?
In addition, I believe we are legally required to be bombing Syria right now. And unlike the Quran's alleged prohibition on depictions of Muhammad, I've got documentation to back that up! Muslims in Syria torched the Danish Embassy a few weeks ago, burning it to the ground. According to everyone, the Syrian government was behind the attack — the prime minister of Denmark, Condoleezza Rice and White House spokesman Scott McClellan. I think even the gals on "The View" have acknowledged that Damascus was behind this one.
McClellan said: "We will hold Syria responsible for such violent demonstrations since they do not take place in that country without government knowledge and support." We are signatories to a treaty that requires us to do more than "hold Syria responsible" for this attack. Syria has staged a state-sponsored attack on our NATO partner on Danish soil, the Danish embassy. According to the terms of the NATO treaty, the United States and most of Europe have an obligation to go to war with Syria. Or is NATO — like the conventions of civilized behavior, personal hygiene and grooming — inapplicable when Muslims are involved?
Liberals complain about "unilateral action," but under the terms of a treaty created by Dean Acheson and the Democrats, France, Germany, Spain and Greece are all obliged to go to war with us against Syria. Why, it's almost like a coalition! OK, Mr. Commie: Saddle up!
COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER
Sunday, February 05, 2006
A sensitivity training quiz...
Which upsets Muslims most:
a) 9/11 in New York
b) 3/11 in Madrid
c) 7/7 in London
d) cartoons
a) 9/11 in New York
b) 3/11 in Madrid
c) 7/7 in London
d) cartoons
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)