Welcome!
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Immigration reform? Or a comprehensive transformation of America? - Daily Inter Lake: Columns

Login to DailyInterLake.com

Subscribers Click Here

Non Subscribers Click Here

Immigration reform? Or a comprehensive transformation of America?

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, June 15, 2013 7:00 pm | Updated: 12:45 pm, Thu Apr 17, 2014.

The so-called “comprehensive immigration reform bill” is just the latest turn of the screw in the ongoing campaign to fundamentally transform America into a socialist republic.

Sadly, it may just be a matter of time before Congress surrenders its responsibility to protect our country and passes this bill, almost certainly resulting in a new America that will be less affluent, less secure, less educated and less relevant, but certainly more international in character.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

Choose an online service.

    Current print subscribers

      You must login to view the full content on this page.

      Thank you for reading 5 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 5 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 406-755-7000 . You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

      Have an online subscription?

      Login Now

      Need an online subscription?

      Subscribe

      Login

      Choose an online service.

        Current print subscribers

          Welcome to the discussion.

          136 comments:

          • hollyscott posted at 8:01 am on Sat, Jul 20, 2013.

            hollyscott Posts: 102

            MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE MAD! So mad they backed NumbersUSA lawsuit against Janet Napolitano and John Morton who as you may know, have resigned - If you want this nonsense with illegals to stop look up NumbersUSA. take action. it's simple. it's free. and FORCE behind stopping this insanity.

             
          • AmericanPatriot posted at 5:51 pm on Wed, Jul 3, 2013.

            AmericanPatriot Posts: 57

            Amen! Well said, Frank! I am an immigrant myself (came to this country legally in 1993 from Russia), and I feel that the bill that Senate passed is a spit in the face of all law-abiding citizens and especially legal immigrants. I don't see any need to legalize illegals or pass any kind of immigration reforms - we just need to enforce the existing law and deport those who invade our country without proper authorization. If anything, those who have broken the law already by illegally entering our country should never be eligible for any work visas or even tourist visas, as they have shown themselves to be criminals and not trustworthy.

            Instead of granting them amnesty, we need to go after employers who hire them, undercutting the wages and leaving millions of Americans out of work - pull their business licenses and impose stiff fines that could bankrupt them, and use the money to pay for the social services that illegal get before their are deported - such as educational expenses for their children, medical and other services.

            Using their logic, if I steal a Mercedes from the dealer and keep for a long time, somehow I become more entitled to keep it. What kind of nonsense is that?

            Too bad the Republicrats and Democans are determined to cater to criminals and big businesses and couldn't care less about American citizens - their voters.

            God help us all!!!

             
          • Claus posted at 6:16 pm on Sat, Jun 22, 2013.

            Claus Posts: 394

            Off topic, but has anyone gotten a questionnaire from the Census Bureau asking all sorts of intrusive questions?

             
          • Claus posted at 6:13 pm on Sat, Jun 22, 2013.

            Claus Posts: 394

            "After reading through all the posts for this past week, I've come to the conclusion that I am all for it."
            —Rob123

            I'm shocked —shocked I tell you...

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 5:15 pm on Sat, Jun 22, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            More insanity and government coercion in our Obamanation:

            The Obama administration is suing Dollar General and a BMW facility in South Carolina for the alleged 'unfair' use of criminal background checks for job applicants, months after warning companies about how such screenings can discriminate against African Americans.

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/22/obama-administration-files-suits-against-businesses-using-criminal-background/#ixzz2WzQUYNfn

            Maybe if the African-American population quit committing crimes in hugely disproportionate numbers, we wouldn't be having this silly debate.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 3:38 pm on Sat, Jun 22, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            After reading through all the posts for this past week, I've come to the conclusion that I am all for it.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 10:26 am on Sat, Jun 22, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Claus posted at 10:03 am on Sat, Jun 22, 2013 [thumbup][thumbup]

             
          • Claus posted at 10:03 am on Sat, Jun 22, 2013.

            Claus Posts: 394

            We should take a lesson from Texas. The Mexicans were its undisputed owners, but they had a problem getting Mexican citizens to go up to Texas. Along come the gringos. The Mexicans are reluctant to grant them entry because they are not Mexicans, do not speak Spanish, and are not Catholics. They are an alien culture. However, Texas needs development in order to be profitable, so a small number of Americans are granted entry. But, low and behold, many more illegally enter. The arithmetic works against Mexican rule, rebellion ensues and Mexico loses control of Texas, and its political and cultural future.

            Or, if you prefer, there is the story of the Goths and Romans. Th Romans thought they could profit from the misfortune of the Goths. Profit always seems to be a key in these stories.

            "War with Rome (376–382)

            The Goths remained in Dacia until 376, when one of their leaders, Fritigern, appealed to the Roman emperor Valens to be allowed to settle with his people on the south bank of the Danube. Here, they hoped to find refuge from the Huns. Valens permitted this. However, a famine broke out and Rome was unwilling to supply them with the food they were promised nor the land; open revolt ensued leading to 6 years of plundering and destruction throughout the Balkans, the death of a Roman Emperor and the destruction of an entire Roman army.
            The Battle of Adrianople in 378 was the decisive moment of the war. The Roman forces were slaughtered; the Emperor Valens was killed during the fighting, shocking the Roman world and eventually forcing the Romans to negotiate with and settle the Barbarians on Roman land, a new trend with far reaching consequences for the eventual fall of the Roman Empire."

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:58 am on Sat, Jun 22, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            As Egypt unravels, Team Obama increases support for Muslim Brotherhood
            By Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice
            June 21, 2013

            The news from Egypt is grim.

            Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi made international headlines this week as he appointed Adel Al Khayat as governor of Luxor, an ancient Egyptian city that is key tourist destination.

            The problem with Mr. Khayat? He just happens to lead the “political” arm of a terrorist organization that massacred tourists in Luxor in 1997. The details of the attack are beyond grisly, with many of the dead disemboweled and notes “praising Islam” placed inside their mutilated bodies.

            And that’s not all.

            On Tuesday, the New York Times reported on the rise of blasphemy prosecutions since Morsi ascended to power.

            In recent cases, Egyptian courts have sentenced a writer to 5 years in prison for allegedly promoting atheism, sentenced a lawyer to a year in prison for allegedly insulting Islam in a private conversation, and fined a Christian schoolteacher $14,000 for allegedly insulting Muhammed in her classroom.

            These recent revelations pile on top of the “old” news, including violations of the peace treaty with Israel, failing to protect our American embassy from attacks, and launching systematic crackdowns on Egypt’s Coptic Christian community.

            Against this backdrop of Shariah and jihad – and hidden behind the blanket news coverage of the Obama administration’s other scandals – the White House has decided to increase its financial support for the Muslim Brotherhood, quietly clearing the way for the U.S. to give Egypt $1.3 billion in military aid.

            On May 10, the very day that Lois Lerner issued her contrived apology for the IRS targeting conservative groups, Secretary of State John Kerry formally waived – on national security grounds – statutory requirements that he certify that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood government was “implementing policies to protect freedom of expression, association, and religion, and due process of law” before providing any further American military aid.

            Think about this for a moment: The Obama administration threw the Mubarak regime (for all its flaws, a stalwart American ally that kept peace with Israel) under the bus ostensibly because of its human rights violations but is waiving human rights conditions to prop up a more brutal jihadist government.

            Let’s not forget the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

            That is the organization that we are empowering – that we are arming – at American taxpayer expense.

            In the coming days and weeks, secular and Christian opposition leaders are planning nationwide protests against a Morsi regime that has proven competent at implementing Shariah law but not at running an economy.

            Morsi’s jihadist allies plan a crackdown, and if and when they succeed, you may see the terrible sight of American-made and taxpayer-purchased tanks and other armored vehicles literally crushing the Christian opposition.

            The saying goes that there is “no better friend and no worse enemy” than a United States Marine.

            The Obama administration has turned this on its head. -- When it comes to the Middle East, we have proven to be the worst of friends and the best of enemies.

            We sat on our hands during Iran’s Green Revolution, when the Mullahs were briefly in danger of being overthrown.

            We similarly sat on our hands in the early days of the Syrian uprising against the brutal, Iran-allied Assad regime, before jihadists had taken over the Syrian opposition.

            But we acted quickly to support the Egyptian uprising, tossing aside a longtime ally.

            Across the Middle East, jihad is ascendant. The Mullahs remain comfortably in power in Iran (busy building a bomb), Syria’s opposition is dominated by Al Qaeda-affiliated militias, and Egypt is firmly in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.

            And now we’re arming Egypt and considering arming jihadist rebels in Syria.

            The Obama administration is doubling down on failure – at the expense of Egyptian Christians and the American taxpayer.


             
          • mooseberryinn posted at 9:55 am on Sat, Jun 22, 2013.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2685

            Oh, no, no, no - Our good King Obama is doing everything he can to increase our energy resources, he says so himself! We must not oppose his transformation of america. He must be allowed to make progress by using the federal gov't agencies (IRS, DOJ etc.) against those who disagree. We must let our borders be unguarded to let in "the workers of the world", to support king obama. We have to let go of outdated, old fashioned ideas like our constitution, or bill of rights. Our (diminishing) Liberty and freedoms stand in the way of his attaining his agenda. And, of course, we all know his "agenda", will be a wonderful success. Imagine, he will wipe out hunger and poverty, he will redistribute wealth and resources to the whole world. he will heal the sick, help the lame to walk, the blind to see, the deaf to hear. Ah, the wonders to behold, etc. etc. etc.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:19 am on Sat, Jun 22, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            In his latest bid to effectively shut down our efforts to obtain oil independence, the Obama administration closes most federal lands to oil shale exploration and development. These are lands that had previously been reserved exactly for that purpose:

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/22/obama-administration-cuts-back-oil-shale-development/

            In addition to his blatant hostility towards fossil fuels (which you'd never guess existed, given his penchant for travel which typically involves many military cargo jets to carry his limo and other vehicles), one can't help but wonder if this isn't also a gift to his Muslim friends in the major OPEC countries who are concerned about the downward pressure that oil shale development in the U.S. is having on oil prices and their ability to control them at our expense.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 5:13 am on Sat, Jun 22, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            [offtopic]

            http://www.newser.com/story/169860/25k-dead-bumblebees-fall-from-trees-in-oregon.html
            "25K Dead Bumblebees Fall From Trees in Oregon"
            -----------------------------------
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid
            -------------------
            "Albert Einstein once said: “If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live. No more bees, no more pollination … no more men!” He wasn’t an entomologist, but entomologists around today agree that the sudden and mysterious disappearance of bees from their hives poses serious problems!"

             
          • get_involved posted at 2:13 am on Sat, Jun 22, 2013.

            get_involved Posts: 8

            IF YOU WANT THE IMMIGRATION AMNESTY BILL TO PASS, THEN SIT BACK AND RELAX. IF NOT, DO SOMETHING TO STOP IT!
            -
            How many on this site have called their 2 Senators? THE SENATE WILL BE DEBATING AND VOTING ON THE AMNESTY BILL IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS OR SO.

            Just complaining here does no good. Believe it or not contacting your elected officials can help IF ENOUGH people do it. That means YOU! Get some guts and do it!

            Call your 2 Senators NOW and tell them to vote NO on S.744 the Amnesty bill. (Here's a toll-free number: 888-978-3094). You can even leave a message after hours with most Senators 24 hours a day.

            Even if you have Pro-amnesty Senators and Congressman, what do you have to lose by e-mailing your Senators? You would only be losing 5 minutes of your time on the internet complaining.

            Just tell them NO to ANY Amnesty! That's all you have to say!

            Amnesty is any legislation or act that removes the illegal status from illegal aliens and allows them to remain in these United States. Under any terms or conditions, legalization is amnesty and amnesty is legalization. We remember 1986.

            Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me.

             
          • kohana posted at 1:57 pm on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            Rob123 posted at 11:08 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013

            I didn't even know prions were run by private companies. And people complain about AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 11:08 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/21/2193261/three-states-dump-private-prison-company-in-one-month/

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 11:03 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Rob123: Outside of that, I'm sticking with my image of you as the geeky little nerd with a Slide Ruler doing probabilities and then after the dance, being asked by Sister Mary Virgin to help her clean up the mess.

            HTC: You might as well; after all, your perceptions of many other things are dead wrong as well. This way, at least you can honestly claim a slight consistency.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 9:52 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            HighTechCowboy posted at 9:32 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

            [smile]

            I, too, tried to get my diploma changed to 'Political Economy', as I too recognize Politics as an art. However, the Board of Regents didn't see it that way. Has to do with Funding of the Sciences, as you know.

            Outside of that, I'm sticking with my image of you as the geeky little nerd with a Slide Ruler doing probabilities and then after the dance, being asked by Sister Mary Virgin to help her clean up the mess. And with broom in hand, listening to her tome on sublimation, and never raising a Freudian eyebrow concerning her visits by the Holy Spirit late at night.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:47 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            National Research Council study finds government is wasting tens of trillions of dollars per year on energy subsidies which have little effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/21/study-govt-losing-billions-on-inefficient-tax-subsidies-that-dont-curb-climate/

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:45 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Bloomberg gun-control supporters at a rally list Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects, as a 'victim' of gun violence:

            http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130619/NEWS07/130619169

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:32 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Rob123: And I was trying to broaden your perspective in order that you might understand that laws passed in the 20's affected you experience of growing up in the 50's and 60's.

            HTC: Gee, no kidding? I think that was part of my argument; namely, that controlled immigration in the first two decades after the war (which, granted, started much earlier), combined with the absence of the horrendous burden of the nanny state and today's regulatory state, were major factors behind the prosperity of that period.

            As our factories began churning out consumer goods, construction materials, etc. instead of products for the war, our returning GIs and our youth had good jobs waiting for them without millions of illegals or legal immigrants competing for those same jobs. In fact, we created 17.5 million jobs in the first 6 years after the war's end.

            If we could do the same thing today, we'd be able to put back to work most of today's nearly 21 million unemployed and underemployed.

            Rob123: And winning WW 2 with our manufacturing in place, while our competitors were bombed to he//, certainly didn't hurt US, from a GNP point of view.

            HTC: No, it didn't, and I've pointed that out many times before. On the other hand, paying down the war debt, paying billions to help rebuild our former enemies' countries, converting factories to civilian production and building the infrastructure needed to support 80 million baby boomers consumed much of that advantage.

            Rob123: Does the extra 20,000 Border Guards and additional 700+ miles of fence help you? Or do you just plumb want to round up 11 million+ illegals and ship them home because in your engineering world 'purity of thought' is so important and mastering variables in order to come to the ONE TRUE answer is paramount? "They broke the Law, they must Pay!"

            HTC: Considering the "catch and release" game that ICE is forced to play, the extra security really doesn't amount to much.

            As for the estimated 20 million illegals (I prefer to use more reliable numbers than those which come from the government) already here, I've never advocated that we "round them up". I've always pushed for doing the things which will force most of them to self-deport instead, much like the estimated 1.5 million who've already left because of Obama's pathetic 'recovery'.

            Educated as you were in political 'science' (it cracks me up every time I have to add the word "science" after the word "political"), you don't accept the fact that in life there generally is one better/best way of dealing with life's challenges. That your perspective is typical of those in your field of study is amusing because in REAL science, there's always only one correct answer.

            Rob123: I guess in our youth, while you stood in the gym at the Friday Night dance, alone, nervously playing with your Slide Ruler while observing the goings on, I was out on the floor dancing?

            HTC: No, I was probably the guy dancing with the girl you always wanted. I've never been the typical "geek" kind of guy. You don't find many of them going into law enforcement as I once did. Fact is, until I married, I had lots of girl friends. In fact, even after I married, I had lots of women come on to me. Sometimes it made fidelity a challenge, but I can honestly say that I remained true to my vows.

            Rob123: Yes, it was a different world.

            HTC: Indeed, and some would say a better world in many ways.

             
          • Pete posted at 7:07 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Rebel Rouser posted at 11:19 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013

            "Suck in your gut and inflate your chest while saying that"

            Now you're asking a lot.

            "...then think about how anyone from any country can come into your house and (with cash) buy anything or everything in it. National pride? Or, business as usual?"

            Not to mention how we mortgage the house itself. You're right, solving illegal immigration is no silver bullet. Most of our problems are self-inflicted. However, it's hard to solve old problems when we're constantly taking on new ones. It's like I tell my kids when they face a seemingly overwhelming problem - like cleaning their room. :-) How do you eat an apple? One bite at a time.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 4:38 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            HTC: "I didn't grow up in the '20s; rather, I grew up in the '50s and '60s and was contrasting THAT period of time with the present."

            And I was trying to broaden your perspective in order that you might understand that laws passed in the 20's affected you experience of growing up in the 50's and 60's. And winning WW 2 with our manufacturing in place, while our competitors were bombed to he//, certainly didn't hurt US, from a GNP point of view.

            HTC: "The point I was making was that unskilled and semi-skilled labor is far less valuable today than it once was; therefore, importing tens of millions of people with only those lower skill levels is going to have a devastating effect on wages for jobs in those categories."

            They are already here......they are already affecting wages......

            Does the extra 20,000 Border Guards and additional 700+ miles of fence help you? Or do you just plumb want to round up 11 million+ illegals and ship them home because in your engineering world 'purity of thought' is so important and mastering variables in order to come to the ONE TRUE answer is paramount? "They broke the Law, they must Pay!"

            I guess in our youth, while you stood in the gym at the Friday Night dance, alone, nervously playing with your Slide Ruler while observing the goings on, I was out on the floor dancing? And this song always brings back memories of Summer Ski Racing School in Red Lodge up on Beartooth Pass. Even learned the Art of riding Clothes Dryers! I wasn't old enough to drive a car, but was clocked at 82 MPH on my Head Downhill Skis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg8EQdcud7Q

            Yes, it was a different world.

             
          • Rebel Rouser posted at 11:19 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            Rebel Rouser Posts: 1563

            "Not one person posting here would allow the sovereignty of their home violated the way the sovereignty of our country is being violated"

            Suck in your gut and inflate your chest while saying that, then think about how anyone from any country can come into your house and (with cash) buy anything or everything in it. National pride? Or, business as usual?

             
          • kohana posted at 4:49 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            HighTechCowboy posted at 4:10 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013

            [thumbup][thumbup]

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 4:10 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Quote for the day:

            In 1776, Thomas Paine opened his famous pamphlet, "The American Crisis," with these words: "THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated."

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 4:07 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            "Barack Obama is turning into a one-man gaffe machine. "Obama repeatedly called British finance minister George Osborne 'Jeffrey' at the G8 summit." Agence France-Presse includes this lovely deadpan observation: "The chancellor, 42, bears little resemblance to Jeffrey Osborne, a 65-year-old African-American hit singer-songwriter known for his 1982 classic 'On the Wings of Love.' "

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577904578557550804014908.html?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb_h

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 3:48 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Survey: Manufacturing Executives Upbeat, But Wary of Obamacare and Government Regulation
            Autho: Josh Cable
            Jun. 19, 2013 | New Equipment Digest

            Middle-market manufacturing executives are optimistic about their companies' growth prospects, but see government regulation, health care reform, the federal deficit and other policy-related pressures as the greatest threats to their continued recovery.

            That's the overarching theme of McGladrey LLP's "2013 Manufacturing and Distribution Monitor," a survey of more than 1,000 executives representing middle-market manufacturers and distributors.

            Based on the survey results, manufacturers and distributors have high hopes for the next 12 months, with 85 percent of the executives expressing optimism about their firms' growth prospects.

            Eight in 10 executives (83 percent) said they expect their U.S. sales to increase, while 63 percent said they expect their international sales to increase.

            Meanwhile, nearly two-thirds of the survey respondents indicated that they expect to add jobs over the next year.

            Still, the survey suggests that manufacturers and distributors are much less optimistic about external forces beyond their control.

            At the same time, however, there are positive signs that a return to growth and improvement in the domestic economic outlook could boost hiring in the manufacturing sectors.

            Among the survey's key findings:

            Manufacturers and distributors see regulatory and policy-related roadblocks—including health care reform, the federal deficit, tax changes and others—as the biggest threats to their future growth. Government regulation in general was the most commonly cited threat, with 74 percent of respondents indicating that they expect it to limit their growth over the next 12 months.

            The potential impacts of health care costs and Obamacare implementation are of particular concern to manufacturers and distributors. Health care reform was the second-most frequently cited threat to growth, with 71 percent of respondents indicating that they expected implementation of the Affordable Care Act to either limit or significantly limit growth over the next 12 months.

            More than half of respondents expect the skills gap to limit growth over the next year. Fifty-seven percent of respondents said they expect growth at their respective firms to be limited by a lack of skilled workers, demonstrating that the issue is more than just a theoretical problem and one that is having a significant impact on economic progress.

            The onshoring trend has not caught on in the middle market. Only 14 percent of respondents said they are considering bringing overseas operations back to the United States over the next 12 months. At the same time, however, the survey also suggests that the trend could accelerate among midsize manufacturers and distributors in the coming years, as 52 percent said they believe it is important to have operations in close proximity to their customers, most of which are in the U.S.

            "The results from this year's monitor make clear that manufacturers and distributors are feeling better than last year about the things they can control, but they remain concerned about what is going on outside of the walls of their factories and offices," said Karen Kurek, national manufacturing and distribution practice leader for McGladrey.

            "While this internal-versus-external dynamic is not new, the displacement of traditional concerns such as market conditions and materials pricing as top threats represents a major shift for the industry. While executives remain concerned about those issues, in this post-recession environment, they now see regulation and government policy as the greatest threats to future growth."

            Among other findings, executives indicated that IT will be their biggest investment priority in the next 12 months, with 79 percent saying that they intend to increase spending on IT—more than any other category of investment.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 2:23 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Pete posted at 1:02 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013 [thumbup][thumbup]

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 2:23 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Rob123: That is a ridiculous, uninformed statement......Look at the thinking and editorials concerning the 1920's immigration debate and the beginnings of quotas. And do some research into the Union Movement in America, and what fueled it. And think out what it means that manufacturing, and the huge number of boring, repetitious jobs that these immigrants did 'for their children's future' went overseas in the 70's and 80's and 90's as the new mantra became "consume using House Hold debt! It's GOOD!",

            HTC: I didn't grow up in the '20s; rather, I grew up in the '50s and '60s and was contrasting THAT period of time with the present. Perhaps you grew up in the '20s as that would help to explain your growing difficulty at reading with comprehension.

            The point I was making was that unskilled and semi-skilled labor is far less valuable today than it once was; therefore, importing tens of millions of people with only those lower skill levels is going to have a devastating effect on wages for jobs in those categories. You yourself pointed out that many assembly line jobs were exported in the '70s, '80s and '90s, further reducing the need for blue-collar workers.

            As you would say: "Ketchup!"

             
          • Pete posted at 1:02 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Bronco posted at 10:48 am on Thu, Jun 20, 2013

            Look! The Darwin fish grew horns! [beam]

             
          • Pete posted at 12:44 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Not one person posting here would allow the sovereignty of their home violated the way the sovereignty of our country is being violated. THAT is the plumbline of this argument.

             
          • Pete posted at 12:31 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            who new posted at 9:34 am on Thu, Jun 20, 2013

            A pretty disingenuous article from the WSJ. First, illegal immigration dropped in 2008, coinciding with U.S. economic problems...nice of them to back into 2006 to make the numbers work for them. Second, they don't mention Mexico's aging population as contributing to the drop in illegals. Third, they fail to mention that 28 percent of the foreign-born population in the U.S. are illegal immigrants...virtually identical to the 2005 percentage. Fourth, they claim immigration is down because border security is working, and then they say we shouldn't spend more on border security....instead, we can limit illegal immigration by enhancing legal immigration. Using that logic, we could eliminate nearly all crime in the U.S. - and I guarantee that would eliminate immigration.

            It's pretty simple. Secure the border, enforce current laws, do away with anchor babies, and let people live with the consequences of their actions. Since when did libertarianism become a suicide pact?

             
          • Rob123 posted at 12:16 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            HTC: "There was no nanny state then to assist them nor were there millions of illegal immigrants dragging down wages for their unskilled or semi-skilled parents."

            That is a ridiculous, uninformed statement......Look at the thinking and editorials concerning the 1920's immigration debate and the beginnings of quotas. And do some research into the Union Movement in America, and what fueled it. And think out what it means that manufacturing, and the huge number of boring, repetitious jobs that these immigrants did 'for their children's future' went overseas in the 70's and 80's and 90's as the new mantra became "consume using House Hold debt! It's GOOD!", which blew up in 2007-2008. We are still in recovery mode, and it just might work, IF the Bond Market doesn't collapse in the next three years. I'm about 50-50 on that.
            ---------------------------
            HTC: Do you believe that garbage?

            Argh, you ideological dinosaur.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 11:48 am on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Rob123: http://www.whitehouse.gov/share/1trillion

            HTC: Do you believe that garbage? It totally defies most economic analyses including many done in the EU which clearly show that the legalization of these people will lead to further drains on the nanny state and declines in wages.

            The White House's projections are as absurd as their predictions regarding their stimulus bill and ObamaCare, none of which have or will live up to the rosy predictions of their authors.

            I do have to give Obama and his aides credit for one thing, however; that is, they have made lying an art form and they're VERY good at it.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 11:43 am on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            MfgMan: illegals run small, under the table businesses like landscaping, house cleaning, masonry, concrete flatwork, etc. They work as day laborers, on small farms and ranches, etc. Again, pragmatically, it would be difficult and not cost effective to enforce a ban on employment in these sectors.

            HTC: Special visa programs could supply workers to those sectors with a proven need (i.e., no one locally will do the work.) However, those doing landscaping, masonry and other construction work have seriously eroded the incomes of those who once did that kind of work. There are ways to combat this but we've simply chosen not to pursue them for political reasons.

            While I acknowledge that there will always be an underground economy, there are many proven methods which can significantly impede it. We simply lack the political will to do them.

            MfgMan: Furthermore, a great many of these illegals have legal children here, and while I don’t know where you stand on this, I can say with confidence that a LOT of people have serious moral issues with breaking up families. That is why I think we have to find a common ground here. Give them a path to citizenship, BUT stop the flow

            HTC: I doubt that there are many who would be willing to break up families in the process of dealing with our illegal immigration problem. That fact makes it more imperative than ever that we fix the "anchor baby" problem with a Constitutional amendment which bestows citizenship by birth only to those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen.

            But for those here illegally, we should NEVER give them a path to citizenship. They broke into our national home and stole of its treasures. To give them citizenship would be terribly wrong on a number of fronts.

            Firstly, it is an affront to those who came here legally. We must protect the value of jumping through all the hoops necessary to become a naturalized U.S. citizen. Granting citizenship to those who broke our laws instead will simply cheapen the value of legal citizenship and make the fool those who labored so hard to come here the proper way.

            Secondly, it amounts to rewarding the criminal by giving him what he once sought to take illegally. How does that make sense or honor those who are law-abiding?

            Thirdly, citizenship carries special rights (e.g. voting) and responsibilities which depend upon good character and this would-be citizen has already demonstrated a significant lack of character due to their being here illegally, often stealing identities in order to work, driving without a license or insurance (like the one who hit me in San Jose in 2004), etc.

            No, citizenship should be out of the question. I would support with proper qualifications a path to the equivalent of permanent residency status, but it should involve a yellow, orange or some other color card which signifies their prior illegal status. Those with green cards should not be dishonored by being lumped into the same group with those who chose to start their stay in the U.S. by breaking several of our laws.

            MfgMan: And yes, while I haven’t studied the current bill in detail, I am definitely in agreement that is should NOT provide an easy path to citizenship for relatives of illegals outside the country. Not much point in securing the border if you do that. It’s like locking your front door and opening up your back door.

            HTC: Unfortunately, that's exactly what the bill does in its current form. Those in opposition to the bill and who are focused upon securing our borders are totally overlooking this "back door" as you called it. That back door literally paves the way for tens of millions more of these poor, illiterate, poorly educated and desperate people to come here as relatives of those to whom the bill granted legitimacy.

            The Democrats are willing to increase border security as part of this bill because they know that this back door will enable a far greater legal flood of new immigrants into this country than ever made it across our borders illegally. They have built a large constituency of these people and they know that this new wave of immigrants will soon give them a super-majority politically.

            As the principal architects of the economic collapse which awaits us due to the impending bankruptcy of their nanny state, their having a lock on our political system would spell unimaginable disaster.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 11:39 am on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            http://www.whitehouse.gov/share/1trillion

            Thank you so much!

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 10:47 am on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Rob123: Nothing has really changed, except the Way in which one gives vs. the taking by the IRS.

            HTC: How wrong you are! The taking by the IRS and other government entities now consumes so much of America's wealth that charities cannot meet the needs of all those who could use their help. Breadlines cannot adequately stock their shelves; there is little space available to house the homeless; and cash assistance of any kind is virtually out of the question.

            There is no way that charity could absorb the tens of billions of dollars a year burden of caring for the illegals and there's no way they could educate their children who would be shut out of our public schools.

            While some will always stay regardless and there will always be some kind of underground economy to help them, the dire straits most would find themselve in would make attractive once more the places they once left behind.

            Some would make this a moral issue for us but it is not. THEY are the ones who behaved illegally and immorally when they entered our homeland and their suffering caused by their being shut out of the work force and our saftey net and other public services is nothing more than the consequences of their choices. When someone breaks into your home and steals things from you, do you offer to resolve the situation by allowing them to stay in your home and use your things instead?

            Of course not and to make an exception in the case of our national home is simply preposterous and unacceptable.

            Rob123: Certainly YOU understand the Holier than Thou mind-set?

            HTC: I grew up in a poor immigrant neighborhood where all of the immigrants were here legally. All of them aspired to become Americans and to master our language and our ways as quickly as possible. All of them wanted their children to get a good education which they recognized would be key to their success in life.

            They assimilated quickly and their children who went to school with me absorbed our culture like sponges. They took their educations seriously and most went on to college.

            There was no nanny state then to assist them nor were there millions of illegal immigrants dragging down wages for their unskilled or semi-skilled parents. They knew they had to make it on their own and they did. And they were rightfully proud of their success, even if it did not include many material possessions.

            But their stories are rare within the community of Hispanics who are here illegally. They cling to their culture and see no need to embrace ours. They cling to their language and refuse to speak or learn our language. They respect and even worship hard labor while placing little value on education. In other words, the culture which made them poor in their own country is the same culture they nourish here and which keeps them poor here.

            There is nothing "holier than thou" in acknowledging that we are dealing with a very different kind of immigrant today than those who previously came to our shores. But the fact that your nose is up in the air is claringly apparent.

            Rob123: http://mises.org/daily/2680/From-Spencers-1884-to-Orwells-1984
            Good read! "Stay calm! Commit Sociology."

            HTC: A good read, indeed! But I do have to question how much of it you actually understood since the principles described in the article stand in sharp contradiction to many of your posts.

             
          • MfgMan posted at 9:36 am on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            MfgMan Posts: 345

            HTC, I'm sure some to even a significant amount of illegals would self-deport if employers were held to task when it comes to hiring them. But above all else, I think a healthy dose of pragmatism is missing in the polarized world of politics, and pragmatically, most illegals work in the underground economy. I live in San Diego (I follow the DI because I have a summer home in Kalispell, grew up in Libby, and went to college in Bozeman)where illegals run small, under the table businesses like landscaping, house cleaning, masonry, concrete flatwork, etc. They work as day laborers, on small farms and ranches, etc. Again, pragmatically, it would be difficult and not cost effective to enforce a ban on employment in these sectors. Furthermore, a great many of these illegals have legal children here, and while I don’t know where you stand on this, I can say with confidence that a LOT of people have serious moral issues with breaking up families. That is why I think we have to find a common ground here. Give them a path to citizenship, BUT stop the flow. And yes, while I haven’t studied the current bill in detail, I am definitely in agreement that is should NOT provide an easy path to citizenship for relatives of illegals outside the country. Not much point in securing the border if you do that. It’s like locking your front door and opening up your back door.

             
          • who new posted at 9:34 am on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            who new Posts: 367

            The Border Security Ruse

            For many Republicans, the border will never be secure enough.

            The Wall Street Journal, June 19, 2013

            The immigration debate has turned once again to "securing the border," and Republicans are once again demanding more enforcement as the price of their support. Here's the real story: For some Republicans, border security has become a ruse to kill reform. The border could be defended by the 10th Mountain Division and Claymore antipersonnel mines and it wouldn't be secure enough.

            As we noted last month ("Border Security Reality Check," May 2), the U.S.-Mexico border is more secure today than it has been in decades. According to Border Patrol statistics, illegal entries are at a 40-year low. Apprehensions of illegal entrants exceeded 1.1 million in 2005, but in both 2011 and 2012 the number was below 365,000.

            According to a study by the Government Accountability Office, the number of illegal immigrants who escaped capture at the nine major crossing points from San Diego to El Paso fell an astonishing 86% between 2006 and 2011. All the talk-show shouting about America under siege from immigrants streaming across the Rio Grande is fiction.

            Some of this decline is surely due to the lousy U.S. job market, but some results from the border security mobilization that began in the 1990s and really got going after 2006. Today more than 21,000 agents patrol the border. Enforcement spending is up more than 50% in a decade for everything from 650 miles of fencing to military aircraft, marine vessels, drones, surveillance equipment, infrared camera towers and detention centers.

            The Gang of Eight bill now on the Senate floor would add another $4.5 billion or so for border control. That means still more agents, drones and fencing. The bill also puts in place vast new internal enforcement measures to apprehend the roughly 40% of illegal immigrants who do not cross the border illegally but overstay their visas.

            These measures include money for tracking down visa overstays, harassing employers with enforcement raids, and an E-verify system for employers to validate the legal status of workers. Republicans claim to like employers—except when they're chasing down Guatemalan hotel maids.
            Yet not even all this is good enough for most GOP Senators. So in recent days we have seen them offer one amendment after another to delay key elements of the bill. These Republicans want a "trigger" mechanism so that other provisions of reform are stymied until the border is declared "under operational control."

            Amendments by John Thune of South Dakota and Chuck Grassley of Iowa tried to delay the eventual permanent legalization of some 11 million currently illegal residents until "tangible" additional border security benchmarks are met. The amendments failed, but let's be honest. The border will never be secure enough for this crowd, so the "trigger" for the rest of the reforms will never be activated.

            This is the same trick Republican restrictionists used to kill immigration reform in 2007 when George W. Bush was President. Seven years later, illegal immigration is down by about 60%, yet the "secure the border first" chorus repeats the same arguments.

            If reducing illegal immigration is the real objective, Republicans should try to improve this reform. Not by tightening border security, but by making it easier for immigrants to enter and work in the U.S. legally. The bill includes more green cards for high-skilled workers and new guest-worker programs for low-skilled and farm workers, but the visa quotas are inadequate. If Republicans really want to reduce the future flow of illegals, they would use their leverage to expand these guest-worker programs, rather than trying to militarize the border even further.

            By far the most effective policy in reducing illegal immigration in the last 60 years was the Bracero guest-worker program of the 1950s and early '60s. Illegal immigration was almost eliminated for a decade as crossings fell from one million to fewer than 50,000 a year once migrant workers had legal channels to enter. Yet many of those on the right who claim to favor legal immigration also oppose guest-worker programs and other visa expansions. This betrays that they really want no new immigration.

            The value of all of this additional border spending is probably marginal, and at some point it becomes offensive to U.S. values of freedom and human dignity. We doubt many Americans would support anything like the police-state measures that would be required to reduce illegal immigration to near-zero as the restrictionist right wants as the price of reform.

            The real game here is to kill a bill that would create a more pro-growth and humane immigration system for America and the millions already here or in line to come. If the right succeeds in blowing all this up, one wonders what comes next? Perhaps Republicans can campaign in 2014 on self-deporting the 11 million illegals who are here now. That worked so well for Mitt Romney.

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323393804578555351816118168.html

             
          • bill39 posted at 7:39 am on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            bill39 Posts: 1050

            Rick Spencer: Hi HTC: From my youngest days when the Democrats offered me money at my first voting experience, directly at the polling booth, I have thought of them as a criminal element let loose in our society.

            Sad isn't it that the likes of rob bronco and others seem not to give a darn.

            HTC: It is more than merely monstrous. It is evil.

            And has been for many decades. In the past 70+ years the evil has lurked beneath where it is today.

            Rick Spencer: There simply is no bounds to their greed and desire for power to meet their ends of selfishness.

            The democrat voter today has different levels of selfishness, but every single one of them are selfish. And look what our govt. has become because of it.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 3:38 am on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            HTC: Most of those here illegally, at least from Mexico, Central and South America would self-deport if it became impossible for them to work here and ALL social services including education of their children were made unavailable to them.
            -------------------
            Sooooo, in this Hard Right Republican Scenario you just painted, lets say it actually happened and ALL government services to those without proof of citizenship were stopped. As you stood on Mainstreet, USA surveying this fine legislation you notice that many, many churches and old-time Humanist/Social organizations have thrown open their doors and are offering Food & Shelter to the Dispossessed.

            Would you want a Law against such actions of charity? Especially if your fellow Silicon Valley Rich Tycoons with dreaded 'Leftist' Social Politics opened their wallets? And after these Cash Rich Tycoons stepped forward, the new Pope with his Modified Liberation Theology followed suit, and then the Protestant Denominations decided to rethink their positions and offer a few loaves of bread plus temporary shelter with classrooms to the poorest among us, as the Historical Jesus taught.

            Nothing has really changed, except the Way in which one gives vs. the taking by the IRS. Yet, the 'Freedom' of 'Giving' masks the Social Coercion of unwritten laws concerning Tithes, and the perceptions of fellow parishioners and citizens and the petty jealousies than can erupt within the pews of the holy. Certainly YOU understand the Holier than Thou mind-set?
            --------
            http://mises.org/daily/2680/From-Spencers-1884-to-Orwells-1984
            Good read! "Stay calm! Commit Sociology."


             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:54 pm on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            MfgMan: Those people are here now, and they aren’t going anywhere, so legalization is something I would entertain ONLY if the border is 95% or better secured, and employers were required to use E-Verify and faced STIFF fines for hiring illegals. In short, legalization wouldn’t be a catastrophe IF we abruptly halted future illegals.

            HTC: Most of those here illegally, at least from Mexico, Central and South America would self-deport if it became impossible for them to work here and ALL social services including education of their children were made unavailable to them.

            Securing the border is also meaningless when "immigration reform" in the form of the current Senate bill all but fast-tracks legal immigration of family members currently residing outside the U.S. The current Senate Bill would open the door to tens of millions more poorly educated, low-skill and bankrupt individuals who could now easily come here under the new rules set out by the bill.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:48 pm on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Rick Spencer posted at 2:17 pm on Wed, Jun 19, 2013

            You and I were fortunate enough to have known better, freer times in this country. No doubt that is why we feel the loss more keenly than those younger than us who have been taught to believe that service to the "greater good" is the role of the 'good' citizen and who've never known nor likely will understand the freedoms that once existed here before their arrival.

            Progressivism is indeed like a cancer which typically is in an advanced state before the host becomes aware of it. I firmly believe that we are beyond changing course but I do believe that the ultimate outcome will be libertarianism by bankruptcy.

            But you are correct that this financially forced liberation will bring gut-wrenching days before the light of liberty finally shines again.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:41 pm on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Rob123: "Say 3 'Are Fathers' and 3 'Hail Mary's', son, and try some B 12. That nasty mood will destroy dialogue."

            HTC: That would be "Our Father's" and it's impossible to have a meaningful dialog with leftist idiots.

            You also mistakenly believe that I'm in a "nasty mood" or somehow miserable. Not at all. Dealing with progressives is like dealing with two-year olds. I got beyond being actually bothered by their behavior a long time ago; however, that doesn't mean that you don't correct and punish them as needed. Since we're talking about legal adults here, the only punishment available is ridicule and insult.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:37 pm on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Bronco: You missed the point: I don't enjoy insulting you.

            HTC: Well, then, I'd suggest you stop. Only a fool or someone suffering from OCD continues to do something that does nothing for them. And your insults mean nothing to me; hence, it's a completely foolish gesture on your part.

            Bronco: You, on the other hand, admit, and even brag about insulting others, and laughing at their suffering and ridicule. Thus you're a d-bag.

            HTC: I only take delight in insulting and ridiculing idiots on the left. They have cost our nation and will cost our children and grandchildren most dearly in dollars and in freedom; therefore, they deserve far more than mere insult.

            But since insult is legal and their just desserts is not, I'll have to stick with insult.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 5:51 pm on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            MfgMan posted at 4:01 pm on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            [thumbup]

             
          • MfgMan posted at 4:01 pm on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            MfgMan Posts: 345

            Set aside the moral questions for a moment and consider the cold, hard facts. Low income citizens consume more total state and local government resources than they contribute in taxes. Illegals are definitely no exception, but many do not take advantage of existing programs for fear of being deported. If you make them legal, expect an increase in government expenditures. A second cold, hard fact is that Latinos by and large vote Democrat, so even if you are on the left you should question the motives behind why your party is such a staunch support of legalization. I’m a conservative to moderate Independent. But I’m also pragmatic. Those people are here now, and they aren’t going anywhere, so legalization is something I would entertain ONLY if the border is 95% or better secured, and employers were required to use E-Verify and faced STIFF fines for hiring illegals. In short, legalization wouldn’t be a catastrophe IF we abruptly halted future illegals.

             
          • Rick Spencer posted at 2:17 pm on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            Rick Spencer Posts: 405

            Hi HTC: From my youngest days when the Democrats offered me money at my first voting experience, directly at the polling booth, I have thought of them as a criminal element let loose in our society. I know of no other country that has been more maligned and more robbed by such people spewing forth such false promises, other than the Communist countries themselves. The fundamental argument existing during the whole of my life is how the few have managed to plunder the many through the sophistry that persuades the victims that they are being robbed for their own benefit. There simply is no bounds to their greed and desire for power to meet their ends of selfishness. I would agree that Europe is a close runner up and are being destroyed by the same kinds of ideologies. And, I guess it will go on until we are all financially destroyed. And, what happens then will not be good. RLS

             
          • Rob123 posted at 1:30 pm on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            HighTechCowboy posted at 12:25 pm on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            "And contempt is the only proper response towards the useful idiots who support that party."

            "Say 3 'Are Fathers' and 3 'Hail Mary's', son, and try some B 12. That nasty mood will destroy dialogue."

             
          • Bronco posted at 1:27 pm on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            Bronco Posts: 4328


            HTC: Right. It's purely coincidental that all the accompanying photos were of people on the right.
            --------------------------
            Not coincidental. The Right seems to have way more than its fair share of d-bags.

            Bronco: Thank you for all the personal insults, j-wad.
            HTC: My pleasure. Really.

            Bronco: And I just never can remember that you, being a Right Wing nut job, can only find humor in seeing other people's suffering or when they are subjected to ridicule.

            HTC: Now who's engaging in insult and that which is beneath contempt?
            --------------
            You missed the point: I don't enjoy insulting you. You, on the other hand, admit, and even brag about insulting others, and laughing at their suffering and ridicule. Thus you're a d-bag.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 12:25 pm on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Rick Spencer: I did understand that it was spread in the U.S. largely by our own people, hidden under the political banner of the Democrat Party and through the mass media then available. It was/is monstrous in its entirety and it is a shame we cannot erase this ideology from The Democrat/Progressive agenda.

            HTC: It is more than merely monstrous. It is evil.

            If one truly understands and appreciates the importance and the sovereignty of the individual and the proper role of government as only the protector of the individual's rights, the Democratic agenda today can only be seen as evil.

            And contempt is the only proper response towards the useful idiots who support that party.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 11:18 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Bronco: Thank you for all the personal insults, j-wad.

            HTC: My pleasure. Really.

            Bronco: Cracked.com is not a Progressive site as you say. It is humor.

            HTC: Right. It's purely coincidental that all the accompanying photos were of people on the right.

            Bronco: And I just never can remember that you, being a Right Wing nut job, can only find humor in seeing other people's suffering or when they are subjected to ridicule.

            HTC: Now who's engaging in insult and that which is beneath contempt?

             
          • Bronco posted at 11:10 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            HighTechCowboy posted at 7:45 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.
            ----------------
            Thank you for all the personal insults, j-wad. Cracked.com is not a Progressive site as you say. It is humor. And I just never can remember that you, being a Right Wing nut job, can only find humor in seeing other people's suffering or when they are subjected to ridicule. Carry on with your wonderful perspective of life. It will put you in an early grave...now that is something I find amusing.

             
          • kohana posted at 11:08 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            June 19, 2013
            Leftus Ignoramus
            By Bruce Walker

            Mary Landrieu last Thursday showed what would be, for many of us, appalling ignorance. Debating against the need to build a fence to keep out illegal immigrants -- a proposal which Landrieu had earlier supported -- the Louisiana senator said to Senator Thune from South Dakota:

            A smart fence which is what Senator McCain and I want to build -- since he's from Arizona, I think he knows more about this than the Senator from South Dakota, who only has a border with Canada that is quite different.

            Consider just how profoundly ignorant that was for any grownup, to say nothing of a senator who chairs the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. South Dakota has no border with Canada. Perhaps a state which was north of South Dakota might have such a border. Let's see. What state might that be? How about North Dakota?

            Curiously, almost exactly three years ago, another elected Democrat, Peggy West of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors, in calling for a boycott of Arizona because of its tough law on illegal immigration, noted:

            If this was Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this, saying that they have a major issue with -- you know, with undocumented people flooding their borders, I would say... I would -- I would have to look twice at this, but this is a state that is a ways removed from the border.

            West, incensed enough to support a Milwaukee County boycott of Arizona, did not know that Arizona has a border with Mexico (and worse, suggested that if Arizona did have such a border, then its immigration law might have been justified).

            Leftists seem to harbor a profound ignorance of geography, history, and other hard facts which anyone involved in politics ought to know. Candidate Obama famously let slip that he thought that there were fifty-seven states in the republic. He also thought that Auschwitz was in Western Europe, the part which Allied soldiers like his grandfather helped to liberate. Most high school history students know that Auschwitz lay deep in Poland and was overrun by the Red Army, not the American Army. President Obama has called Europe a "country," and he has also said that Hawaii -- where he grew up! -- is part of Asia.

            Howard Dean has the same sort of deep-seated ignorance about the world. When asked in December 2003 how he would handle Iran, Dean replied:

            The key, I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the Soviet Union and it may require us buying the equipment the Soviet Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran to prevent Iran from them developing nuclear weapons.

            The Soviet Union, of course, had disintegrated a dozen years before. Imagine if a politician in 1934 was asked how best to restrain Germany, and he replied that a summit with the Kaiser to clarify the perspectives of Imperial Germany was the best approach!

            How can leftists who are so profoundly uneducated in history and geography rise so high? How can that prize dolt Al Gore be the "expert" on global warming when he states as fact in 2009 that the Earth's interior was "extremely hot, several million degrees," when the temperature is estimated to be less than 15,000 degrees Fahrenheit?

            Leftus Ignoramus is the product of several malodorous confluences. First, the left has strived mightily to dumb down ordinary Americans. And it has succeeded: half of all Americans between age 18 and 34 cannot find Texas on a map of American states.

            Second, the establishment leftist media gives a pass to every stupid gaffe by its cadres. The gathering of "select" media around Obama today -- a sort of Praetorian Guard of the very Fourth Estate which is supposed to protect us from Praetorian Guards -- ensures that a man who can do only one thing well -- read a teleprompter -- is never tested on his knowledge of the word.

            Third, leftists all believe that facts exist only to support ideology, and may even be invented to support leftism. In one case, the notorious "fact" that wife-battering jumped during the Super Bowl turned out to be based upon...nothing at all. Only the persistence of Christina Hoff Sommers uncovered this bit of whole cloth.

            Fourth and perhaps most ominously, leftists like to be led by ignoramuses, particularly ignoramuses who are blissfully unaware of just how little they know. Leftists need -- indeed, leftism cannot survive without -- true believers who know nothing but believe that their ideology is true and trumps all facts.

            Leftus Ignoramous is no accident. He is a Frankenstein created with purpose.


            Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/06/leftus_ignoramus.html at June 19, 2013 - 12:05:45 PM CDT

             
          • kohana posted at 11:05 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            Rick Spencer posted at 10:37 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013
            Ask your Democrat/Progresive friends if they understand that Marxism is the basis for the Party they belong. ... Try it on your friends and let me know their response.

            I have Mr. Spencer, and the answer is always, "That's a damn lie" or "I don't believe it." They refuse to face reality. My nxt post may clarify some of it.

             
          • Rebel Rouser posted at 10:40 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            Rebel Rouser Posts: 1563

            Where's the fence?

            http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-26-bush-immigration_x.htm?csp=1

            Ps Frank, I completely agree with this editorial. I appreciate the Omittance of the right left paradigm.

             
          • Rick Spencer posted at 10:37 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            Rick Spencer Posts: 405


            Here is an article about about the 30th anniversary of, “How Democracies Perish”, that I think that you all would like very much. It is surprisingly contemporary in nature.

            http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/how_democracies_perish_deathbed_edition.html


            I liked the article and just ordered ‘Perish’ from Abebooks. I like reading those type books written back when many of us were actively containing this evil foisted upon mankind but did not have the time for such leisure. But, I did understand that it was spread in the U.S. largely by our own people, hidden under the political banner of the Democrat Party and through the mass media then available. It was/is monstrous in its entirety and it is a shame we cannot erase this ideology from The Democrat/Progressive agenda. But, then one has to ask, “If we were to erase these sophistic notions of an Utopian society from their ideology, what is left for them to sell to their unsuspecting followers?” Ask your Democrat/Progresive friends if they understand that Marxism is the basis for the Party they belong. I have, and it always creates an almost unbearable moment when they realize there is more truth to the answer then they want to admit. I always feel their anxiety as they muse about how could they be a part of such a set of beliefs. I also indicate there are a few countries still around accepting true believers for immigration, i.e., North Korea and Cuba. Try it on your friends and let me know their response.

            Throughout Communist history, supposed enemies of the State were pejoratively labeled as leeches, rats, enemy agents, and capitalists. Such derogatory classifications of the enemy created the justification for terror, and totalitarian states need enemies to survive. There was no need for citizens to actually have done anything at all; extermination was in order to discipline and punish; enemies were to be killed. Trials, famine, and concentration camps were organized in the strictest secrecy and legitimized as a method.

            Also,, here is a review I wrote during 2007: The “Black Book of Communism” by heretofore raving French advocates about this murderous episode purposely spread on an international basis that they were supporting. As insiders, they were stark in their analysis, and they do explain why it is so popular among the academics, journalists, Democrats, unions, etc.

            But, the indifference of contemporary scholars to the criminal dimension of Communism and to their fellow humans can never be forgotten. It borders on criminality itself.

            http://cargomasterraster.blogspot.com/2007/11/november-book-of-month.html

            Enjoy, Rick

             
          • Rob123 posted at 9:26 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            http://www.nationalreview.com/article/351417/great-immigration-non-debate-charles-c-w-cooke

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:52 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            It's now been revealed that the IRS is about to payout roughly $70M in employee bonuses, even though we're supposedly in a period of 'deep' sequestration cuts. That $70M is enough to keep the White House (the people's house) tours going for 18 years!

            Obviously our 'public servants' take priority over the people themselves. This preeminence now given to public employees is made even more apparent in the various proposals to deal with the insolvency of public pensions, all of which involve more taxes on people who will never enjoy the cushy retirements of these federal employees.

            It's time to clean house and bring these folks down a notch or two.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:42 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            That should be "median household income".....

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:41 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            A new CBO report states that the Senate's immigration 'reform' bill, if it became law, would reduce average wages in the U.S. Great news for the middle class, given that the medium household income has already dropped by $5,000 during the Obama presidency.

            http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44346

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:37 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            TWA Flight 800 investigators break silence in new documentary, claim original conclusion about cause of crash is wrong

            “..This team of investigators who actually handled the wreckage and victims’ bodies, prove that the officially proposed fuel-air explosion did not cause the crash,” reads a statement by the producers of the film, which will debut on cable network EPIX next month. “They also provide radar and forensic evidence proving that one or more ordnance explosions outside the aircraft caused the crash.”

            http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/18/twa-flight-800-investigators-break-silence-in-new-documentary-claim-original/#ixzz2WfmboQHp

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:30 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Atlantic Extremist posted at 11:59 pm on Tue, Jun 18, 2013 [thumbup][thumbup]

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:28 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            What ever happened to sequestration?

            Costly Obama family trip to Africa under fire amid sequester cuts
            June 18, 2013 | FoxNews

            President Obama’s trip this month to Africa, with the first family tagging along, is projected to cost taxpayers as much as $100 million, sparking criticism as the federal government scrimps along during sequester-related budget cuts.

            Among the related costs will be fighter jets; hundreds of Secret Service agents; a Navy ship with a full trauma center; and military cargo planes to bring 56 vehicles including 14 limousines and three trucks loaded with sheets of bullet­proof glass to cover the windows of the hotels where the first family will stay. The details were reported by The Washington Post, based on a confidential planning document.

            The trip to sub-Sahara Africa runs from June 26 to July 3.

            The president and first lady have cancelled plans to go on a safari that would have included the additional expense of a sharp-shooting team, responsible for putting down a cheetah, lion or any other wild animal that became a threat.

            Figuring out the exact cost of the overall trip is difficult because the information is classified for the purpose of national security.

            However, a Government Accountability Office report shows President Clinton’s 1998 trip to six African nations cost at least $42.7 million – not including Secret Service expenses.

            Obama’s trip could cost the federal government $60 million to $100 million based on the costs of similar African trips in recent years, a person familiar with the Obama journey but not authorized to speak for attribution told The Post.

            The trip comes as agencies across the federal government try to find cost-saving measures to deal with the massive, across-the-board budget cuts known as sequester, which kicked in this year after Washington lawmakers failed to agree on a more measured approach. The Secret Service, for example, pushed to cancel public White House tours to save thousands in weekly overtime expenses.

            “For the cost of this trip to Africa, you could have 1,350 weeks of White House tours,” Rep. George Holding, a North Carolina Republican, said last week. “It is no secret that we need to rein in government spending, and the Obama administration has regularly and repeatedly shown a lack of judgment for when and where to make cuts. … The American people have had enough of the frivolous and careless spending.”

            The White House had defended the trip cost saying the Secret Service plan determines the security cost and that first family’s trip will result in long-term goodwill.

            “The infrastructure that accompanies the president’s travels is beyond our control,” said Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. “When you travel to regions like Africa that don’t get a lot of presidential attention, you tend to have very long-standing and long-running impact from the visit.”

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/18/first-family-trip-to-africa-projected-to-cost-up-to-100m-sparking-criticism/print#ixzz2WfkMwtYU

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:57 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Rob123 posted at 5:57 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013

            I have a VERY bad feeling about our getting involved in Syria. Certainly, Russia's and Iran's support of the regime there is not to be taken lightly. Nor should we overlook the fact that none of our interventions in Muslim countries have turned out even remotely as we'd expected. Obama's "Arab Spring" is fast becoming a violent Sharia Winter instead. No sane person would bet that the fall of the regime in Syria will produce a different outcome.

            Israel was also safer with Assad in power than will be the case with the terrorists in control.

            The bottom line is basically that our recent interventions in the Middle East have done much to make it safer for terrorists than for democracy or even simple stability. In fact, we've given them the control of large portions of the Middle East that they always wanted but could never have acquired on their own.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:45 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Bronco: http://www.cracked.com/article_15822_5-douchebag-behaviors-explained-by-science.html

            HTC: Still getting your 'science' from progressive blog sites, I see. What a joke.

            Like the author, you obviously don't know the difference between an explanation and a label. With the exception of andropause, which can be explained due to hormonal changes, the other four behaviors have merely been labeled and not explained.

            And where andropause is concerned, depression and withdrawal are far more likely than anger or chronic complaining.

            BTW, they do have a label for your behavioral disorder. It's called "denialism."

             
          • mooseberryinn posted at 7:32 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2685

            Immigration? So, let's see if we got this right. A burglar sneaks into your home, raids the pantry, uses the shower, "borrows" some clothes, and then he/she is given the house? Hmmm. Or, how about someone 'borrows" the car, and hides it for a few years, so then it's theirs? OK, then, must be the new regime way to deal with illegal immigrants. I guess if the most holy, good King and Comrade Obama says this is what to do, must be right? Welcome to Amerika Comrade, oh, and don't worry about the NSA, IRS, DOJ, FBI, HHS, or EPA, they're just here to "protect" your rights.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 5:57 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            HighTechCowboy posted at 5:47 pm on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/russia-flexing-its-muscles-with-syria/481205.html

            FYI?

             
          • Atlantic Extremist posted at 11:59 pm on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            Atlantic Extremist Posts: 60

            Using immigration reform as my basis for action, I've decided I want to be a member of Congress. House or Senate, it really doesn't matter. I simply want to be a member of Congress, with all their perks, franking privileges, parties on the yacht, camera time, imagined rock-star status. I don't want to run for Congress. That would be terribly expensive and take a very long time. I don' want to campaign, kiss babies, shake hands, be vetted by the media, or raise millions of dollars. I just want to be a member of Congress. Here's the plan. Somehow, I have to slip past security and illegally enter the capitol building. Maybe come in with a group of visiting members of the Coyote Growers Association, coming in to lobby for more coyote funding. Then I'll stay in the building-there has to be a myriad of places to hide, hang out, wash, and eat. I will pass myself off as a Congressman, like I have every right to be there. Schmoozing shouldn't be an issue as with no constituents to represent, I can make deals to support whatever legislation comes along, as long it meets my immediate needs. There's always an empty chair to borrow and who really keeps track of which Representative or Senator says yeah, nay or present.
            Sooner or later I will be discovered but that's okay. Maintaining that since I've been in the capitol building for a while, perhaps even held a few press conferences and been a swing vote on key legislation, it's only fair that I be allowed to stay. It might even be racist to say I can't stay. I'll even do the job for $100K a year, representing a considerable savings to the taxpayers.
            Of course, the idea is absurd, on many levels. Except, this is precisely what Congress is expecting the rest of the country to put up with as they rush to pass this monstrosity of an immigration bill. Based on an initial illegal act, both parties are pandering to criminals in a twisted attempt to secure a bloc of currently undocumented voters. Carried to a logical extreme, the next group of undocumented voters is sitting in our jails and prisons. What's next, amnesty for all criminal behavior?

             
          • Bronco posted at 11:54 pm on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            http://www.cracked.com/article_15822_5-douchebag-behaviors-explained-by-science.html

             
          • Bronco posted at 6:30 pm on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            Rob: @ Pete...it's usually best to zip over one's head.
            ------------------
            Pete's got more skin in the game. I'm sure he's a button guy.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 6:11 pm on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Louisiana State Sen. Elbert Guillory said in a video message delivered to constituents — and particularly, his fellow black voters — that he’s finally come to his senses and realized the Democratic Party disguises an all-consuming quest for control as concern and aid for minorities:

            http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/18/black-louisiana-senator-flees-democratic-party-fre/

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 5:47 pm on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Obama on Syria: Americans Just Don’t Understand
            By Chris Stirewalt
            Published June 18, 2013 | FoxNews.com

            “What I’m saying is, that if you haven’t been in the Situation Room… Unless you’ve been involved in those conversations, then it’s kind of hard for you to understand the complexity of the situation and how we have to not rush into one more war in the Middle East.” -- President Obama in an interview with the Public Broadcasting Service.

            President Obama and other Democrats keep talking about avoiding “another Iraq” and avoiding a “rush to war” similar to the 18-month run up to the invasion of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship.

            And while Obama seems to be following much of the U.S. playbook for Iraq between 1992 and 2001 – secretly training, encouraging and equipping rebels, but not enough for them to succeed – there’s no reason to think that anything on the scale of the 2003 invasion is remotely close to happening in Syria.

            Instead, the Iraq invasion straw man is key to Obama’s approach to the genocidal civil war between Muslim sects in the impoverished nation of 20 million at the crossroads of the Middle East.

            Much as he is defending his domestic surveillance programs by asserting that he is not like former Vice President Dick Cheney, he is defending his arming and training of Islamist rebels in Syria by saying he is not like George W. Bush.

            But Obama needn’t reach back a decade for an example of how U.S. military interventions work in the region.

            Obama and other NATO leaders in Northern Ireland for an economic summit met today with Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan.

            Zeidan is the man who helped convince Obama and his European counterparts to depose Libyan dictator Muammar Gadaffi and install a new government ultimately led by Zeidan, a liberal reformer Libyan exile, who worked as a human rights lawyer in Switzerland.

            The promise, articulated a few times by Obama, was that Islamism would be a transitory state for the new nation. Zeidan and his fellow exiles promised that, in order to take out Gaddafi, who had brutally oppressed Islamists. A moderate theocracy, they argued, was the only way to unite the opposition and usher in a new era. In time, Libyans would cease to bitterly cling to their rocket launchers and religion--and become enlightened.

            But it hasn’t worked out so swimmingly.

            Libya has remained a hotbed of Islamist extremism, most notably for Americans with the raid on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi that claimed the lives of four Americans, including the first American ambassador killed on the job in a generation.

            The topic of discussion with Zeidan today was likely focused on the fact that the radicals don’t seem to be moderating. The only thing keeping the Western-backed government in power are Islamist militias who, in some cases literally, defend it against popular unrest.

            But to keep the Islamists and their Kalashnikovs on board with the new government, the reformers have had to give away the store. When angry mobs are outside the door, the demands of one’s protectors tend to sound quite reasonable. The hard-line Islamists, though, are losing patience and may soon enough decide to oust the Western-backed crew entirely.

            Zeidan was likely asking his Western benefactors for some cash and protection. Obama and the Europeans were likely asking that Zeidan do something about the al Qaeda affiliated goon squads roaming the streets.

            And so it has been in other places where America and Europe less directly encouraged Islamist overthrow of secular strongmen. Egypt may make it to Western liberalism as Obama promises, but for now it is the world’s most populous theocracy.

            The net effect is that Iran is having a great run, as the Great Satan and the Little Satans in Europe help spread Islamism in a way that would have been beyond imagining a decade ago. Obama promises that these are the good Islamists, but sometimes it’s rather hard to tell.

            Obama, though, says he can tell. He told Charlie Rose that if Americans, strongly opposed to U.S. intervention in Syria, could see what he saw in the Situation Room at the White House they would be cool with the idea of arming the rebels, but not too well.

            The rebel crew in Syria seems to be the roughest lot of any to emerge in the Islamist awakening across the region. But Obama’s implicit promise is that we can help the ones who don’t eat the internal organs of their enemies or shoot children in the face for telling a joke about Mohammed.

            In the interview, Obama also pooh-poohed the notion that acting more forcefully or swiftly might have prevented the massive genocide or prevented the really, really bad Islamists from gaining a foothold. It’s complicated, he said. And it requires all of the secret knowledge he has to understand.

            The president argues that those people who want air strikes, etc. are trying to remake the Iraq invasion. And for those who don’t want to go in at all, he says he can make sure to help the good guys and not the bad ones.

            Obama’s nibbling interventionism – famously dubbed “leading from behind” – has produced plenty of unhappy results so far. But if you knew what he knew, Obama promises, you would be on board.

            That seems to be the new motif of this presidency, whether it’s domestic spying, taking it easy on the IRS and Department of Justice scandals or implementing his creaking and groaning health law. Americans can’t understand the details here, but Obama and his team of experts understand things in a way we can’t.

            Obama can’t tell you why he’s doing what he’s doing because it is too complicated. But if you could understand, you’d be all for it.

            For a government and a president suffering a crisis of confidence, “trust me” takes a mocking tone.


             
          • Pete posted at 5:18 pm on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Rob123 posted at 4:38 pm on Tue, Jun 18, 2013

            Like I said....*whiff* Probably didn't even ruffle your mullet.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 4:38 pm on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            Pete: (Even though I'm sure it zipped right over your head.)

            Well, numbnuts, it's usually best to zip over one's head.

             
          • Pete posted at 2:33 pm on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Rob123 posted at 11:39 am on Tue, Jun 18, 2013

            "Well, you nailed that cold!"

            [beam] I know! (Even though I'm sure it zipped right over your head.)

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 2:31 pm on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Bill Ayers: Obama should be put on trial for war crimes
            Published June 18, 2013 | FoxNews.com

            Bill Ayers, the Weather Underground co-founder who once supported President Obama, now thinks the commander-in-chief should be put on trial for war crimes.

            Ayers made the comments during an interview with Real Clear Politics. The former leader of a domestic terror group ripped the sitting president over his continuation of the U.S. drone program.

            Asked if Obama should go on trial for war crimes, he said: "Absolutely, every president in this century should be put on trial" at The Hague.

            "Every one of them goes into office, an office dropping with blood and then adds to it," he said. "And yes, I think that these are war crimes. I think they're acts of terror."

            Obama, during a speech last month on counterterrorism policy, defended his administration's practice of taking out terror operatives overseas with drone strikes. He also announced new checks on the program.

            Obama has tried to distance himself from Ayers, who previously lived in the same neighborhood as Obama and once served on a charitable board with him.

            The Weather Underground, when it was active during the Vietnam War period, carried out a series of bombings against U.S. government buildings.

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/18/bill-ayers-obama-should-be-put-on-trial-for-war-crimes/print#ixzz2WbNeP1Xu

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 2:22 pm on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Video shows workers offering 'Obamaphones' to those vowing to sell them -- for drugs

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/18/video-shows-workers-offering-obamaphones-to-those-vowing-to-sell-them/

             
          • Rob123 posted at 11:39 am on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            Pete: "That would make me as stupid as our immigration policy."

            Well, you nailed that cold! The life of a critic, eh?

             
          • Pete posted at 11:10 am on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Rob123 posted at 7:48 am on Tue, Jun 18, 2013

            "For gawd's sake Pete, we are not all home schooled."

            Well at least you've identified one of your problems.

            "And then give us a better system, to ponder."

            And fight the law of diminishing returns? I don't think so. That would make me as stupid as our immigration policy.

             
          • Bronco posted at 10:53 am on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            Frank: All that matters is embracing and welcoming foreign workers into our country because we are about 50 million short of the number of citizens needed to maintain our economy thanks to legalized abortion. Talk about the mother of all unintended consequences!
            -----------------------
            The demographics of abortion has changed quite a bit in the last 40-years. Today, a full 42 percent of women having abortions live under the poverty line, and another 27 percent have incomes within 200 percent of the poverty line. Taken together, 69 percent of women who have abortions are economically disadvantaged. So, thanks to legalized abortions, the "welfare numbers" are substantially lower.
            -------------
            The Demographics of Abortion: It's Not What You Think

            AMANDA MARCOTTE JANUARY 22, 2013

            In the 40 years since Roe v. Wade, quite a bit has changed about the abortion debate. Evangelicals have taken the helm of the anti-choice movement, once dominated by Catholics. The movement has shifted strategies repeatedly—from stoking moral outrage and blocking abortion clinics to feigning concern for women’s health and, most recently, passing innocuous-sounding building regulations aimed at eliminating access to abortion. For its part, the pro-choice movement has mellowed since the days radical feminists crashed town halls into a professionalized juggernaut of lobbyists and lawyers with a mighty service arm known as Planned Parenthood.

            But one thing that hasn’t changed since 1973 is the public image of what a typical abortion patient looks like: A middle-class, white high-school or college student with no children whose bright future could be derailed by motherhood. Hollywood portrayals of abortion patients are few and far between, but largely reinforce this understanding; Juno, Friday Night Lights, and Parenthood all focused on characters from this demographic. But these images, while they were closer to reality once, don’t say much about the typical abortion patient of today.

            In the ’70s, this image of the typical abortion patient was largely accurate. According to the Guttmacher Institute, women ages 18-19 accounted for 33 percent of the total abortions performed in 1974, with those in their early 20s made up another third. Fifty-four percent were childless, and 72 percent were unmarried. Data about the racial breakdown of abortion recipients in the early years after Roe v. Wade is hard to come by; racial data only began being tracked in the 1980s. But extrapolating back, it’s clear that for most of the first decades after Roe, a large majority of abortion patients were white.

            Since then, the demographics of abortion patients have changed dramatically. Women under 20 now account for only 18 percent of abortions. The percentage of women without children seeking an abortion has dropped to 39 percent, and non-Hispanic white women only account for 36 percent of abortion patients. The only thing that hasn’t changed is that women seeking abortion tend to be unmarried; around 85 percent of those seeking abortion aren’t married. While the discourse around abortion still focuses on scared white teenagers, the reality is that the typical abortion patient these days is a twenty-something single mother of color.
            The shift is the result of economic pressures and changing patterns of contraceptive use. Improved contraception use has led to a drop in the abortion rate for pretty much all groups of women since the 1970s. But in the early 2000s, the National Center for Health Statistics found that while contraception use in American women had been climbing for decades, it stalled in the 1990s. Loss of access for poorer women seemed to be the sole reason for this troubling trend, which led to an explosion in unplanned pregnancy, and therefore abortion. While poor women have seen a spike, women in the middle class continued to see unplanned pregnancies decline.

            The most recent data suggests that the disparity has only gotten larger. Today, a full 42 percent of women having abortions live under the poverty line, and another 27 percent have incomes within 200 percent of the poverty line. Taken together, 69 percent of women who have abortions are economically disadvantaged. Given recent attacks on Planned Parenthood—Texas, for instance, has rejected federal funding of the organization entirely—this trend is likely to continue. One can only hope the expansion of health-care coverage—with the contraception mandate included—under the Affordable Care Act can repair the damage.

            With numbers like these, why does the ’70s-era image of the white, middle-class teenager as the typical abortion patient persist? For one thing, the anti-choice movement, dominated by white evangelicals, presents it as the paradigmatic, relatable example. Georgia representative Phil Gingrey, who recently came to the defense of Todd “legitimate rape” Akin, referenced a “scared-to-death 15-year-old” when conjuring the image of a prototypical abortion patient. In comparing rape to having a baby out of wedlock, GOP Senate candidate Tom Smith cited his own daughter's choice not to abort.

            While there have been some recent efforts by anti-choicers to target women of color in their marketing, they have every reason to stick to a narrative that focuses on young white women as abortion patients. For one thing, anti-choicers heavily promote adoption as the preferred alternative to abortion, so it’s in their interest to imply that most abortion patients would have otherwise produced healthy white infants ready to be snatched up by affluent couples. As the cultural standard for purity, white teenage abortion patients reinforce the idea that young women who have pre-marital sex shame themselves and their families. Women of color and poor women tend to be nastily stereotyped as sexually incontinent over-breeders (e.g., the “welfare queen”)—the media doesn’t obsess over their “purity.”

            Of course, the image has cultural salience outside of right-wing circles. This country is positively obsessed with the sexual choices of unmarried, affluent white women in this new era of women’s rights and women’s autonomy. The bodies of young white women are the focus of most porn and most abstinence-only propaganda. Sandra Fluke became a household name simply by talking frankly about the sexual health needs of women like herself. Any given day in the tabloid media, the sexual activity—who they are or aren’t screwing, who they’re gestating—of young, mostly white, always wealthy women dominates the coverage. In a swirl of restrictive, degrading images of women that center their moral worth in between their legs, the complex realities of abortion decisions don’t stand a chance.

            The problem is that while the country is preoccupied with the sex lives of middle class and rich women, poorer women in this country are quietly having a sexual-health crisis. Already inadequate access to contraception is declining, causing the need for abortion access to rise. Bans on federal funding for abortion and affordable providers like Planned Parenthood shutting their doors puts even more stress on an already stressful situation. Forty years after Roe v. Wade, there’s strong evidence that the dreaded pre-Roe black market for abortion has returned, though now it lives on in internet trade of shadily sourced abortion drugs instead of in makeshift clinics in back alleys. While the war over the legal right to abortion wages on, the big battle now is and should be trying to expand contraception access so that everyone, regardless of race or income level, has the same chance to determine when she gets pregnant as economically privileged women now enjoy.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 10:38 am on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Rick Spencer: Frankly, I do not understand the pressure on the GOP by other members of the GOP and Democrats to pass an immigration bill in order to garner the Hispanic vote and supposedly save the Republican Party from disappearing into oblivion. . There is something else at work here as they were only seven percent of the total votes cast, was less than 2008, and few of them will vote for a Republican even if a bill is passed.

            HTC: Very good question, Rick. I agree with you that it would seem unlikely that the GOP will gain much of the Hispanic vote, even if they very enthusiastically and publicly supported so-called "immigration reform" as it currently exists in the Senate. Even if they started vocalizing support for extending social services to illegals, they'd gain little of that vote because those Hispanics who've traditionally voted Democratic don't trust the GOP and see nothing to be gained by abandoning the Democrats for a new and unreliable GOP clone of the Democratic Party.

            Not only that, the further down the progressive road the GOP goes, the more they risk losing large portions of their traditional base, especially the Tea Party types and fiscally conservative libertarians; in other words, they'd actually be hastening the demise of the Republican Party rather than saving it from a "demographic death spiral".

            So, either those within the GOP advocating this route are mind-numbingly stupid, which I doubt; or, they're betting that we on the right side of the political spectrum will forgive them and continue to vote for the lesser of two evils. That forgiveness would seem to be already evident in Rubio's current favorable rating which is quite high (58/11) in spite of his ardent support for the Gang of Eight's bill.

            This article offers an interesting theory as to what's possibly behind this shift by many within the GOP:

            http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/14/gallup-despite-amnesty-push-rubios-favorable-rating-among-republicans-sky-high-at-5811/

             
          • Rob123 posted at 9:39 am on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            HighTechCowboy posted at 8:49 am on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            So, if I was traveling through your neighborhood on Ye Olde Political Trail, my handlers would point out the nature of your Conservative-Budget Deficit concerns and I would jump up on the stump and rhetorically dazzle you with all types of Deficit Hawk Speak? Memorized, of course. Wouldn't want to slip up with some off-the-cuff remark that could be interpreted as a Soft Side.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:30 am on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            It is interesting to note that the Hispanic vote increases substantially in favor of the Democrats among non-English speaking Hispanics (which one would think we wouldn't have but do in great numbers.) While the Hispanic vote overall went 71% for the Democrats in this past election, among non-English speakers or those with poor English skills, the Democrats share zoomed to 88%.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:49 am on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Rob123: http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

            HTC: That chart makes it clear that most people are stupid until they attain middle age; but, I guess smart people already knew that.

            Rob123: Does your question imply we can skip statistics, demographics, and the concerns of 7% of the voting public and go straight into the Joy of Savings used to Invest? "

            HTC: Rather selective in your questioning, aren't you? The so-called "religious right" is a much bigger group; yet, you, Bronco and many others here would be more than happy to have their concerns ignored. Many feel the same way about gun owners, a FAR larger group than any other except that of Caucasians.

            Dr. Spencer is correct: Hispanics are a relatively small group and, when you consider the percentage that recently voted Republican (27%), they're a very small potential constituency for the GOP. While G.W. Bush, an honorary Mexican like his father and a 'comprehensive immigration reform' supporter, got somewhere around 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, that was still less than 4% of all the votes he got.

            Bush was a big social spender and Hispanics like that. Any real conservative who talks about dismantling the nanny state has little chance of duplicating Bush's success with that group. And ending the nanny state is the only way we can save our country from the financial ruin which otherwise awaits us.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 7:48 am on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            Pete posted at 7:10 am on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            For gawd's sake Pete, we are not all home schooled. I put out a historical fact. Look up any immigration group and the newspaper articles of the time concerning their coming to America. Irish, Polish, Slavics,
            Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.. And then read the debate concerning quotas in the 1920's, a system we are still using, sort of.

            And then give us a better system, to ponder.

             
          • Pete posted at 7:10 am on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Rob123 posted at 9:07 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013

            You post about lynchings and we're the negative ones? [beam] Only you could be blind to that irony...weird indeed.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 5:26 am on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            Rick Spencer posted at 7:23 pm on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.
            " There is something else at work here as they were only seven percent of the total votes cast....."

            "Dr. Spencer, sir! Does your question imply we can skip statistics, demographics, and the concerns of 7% of the voting public and go straight into the Joy of Savings used to Invest? "
            Kind of a little 'screw political sociology', eh? Except, maybe, to target customers in order to sell whidgets but NOT presidents?
            http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

             
          • Rick Spencer posted at 7:46 pm on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

            Rick Spencer Posts: 405

            The early days of immigration into America during the late 1800's. Amazing photographs, many taken with early flashbulb techniques. This was before the welfare state. RLS

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2343204/Welcome-America-Poignant-black-white-pictures-brutal-hardships-endured-immigrant-families-19th-century-New-York.html#ixzz2WWCATUfN

             
          • Rick Spencer posted at 7:23 pm on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

            Rick Spencer Posts: 405

            Frankly, I do not understand the pressure on the GOP by other members of the GOP and Democrats to pass an immigration bill in order to garner the Hispanic vote and supposedly save the Republican Party from disappearing into oblivion. . There is something else at work here as they were only seven percent of the total votes cast, was less than 2008, and few of them will vote for a Republican even if a bill is passed. The Cubans seem to be the only Hispanic Republican voters and they are few and concentrated mostly in FL. This does not suggest I am not in favor of an immigration bill, but it does suggest that I am in favor of one that has no hidden agenda and does not weight almost as much as the unaffordable Affordable Care Act. I would go out on a limb and say that no Bill will be better than the Bill signed by Reagan. As I understand, it was not a weak Bill, but it was weakly enforced. Wouldn't that be the problem with any Bill, no matter how much it weights? I am missing something here and I am hoping the readership can enlighten me. There seems to be a straw man here someplace, so what is it? RLS

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 5:24 pm on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Ordering a pizza in 2014 (thanks to the NSA & ObamaCare):

            http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 10:54 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            who new: I’m getting the impression that there are desirable ethnicities (EG: Italians and Orientals) and undesirable ethnicities (EG: Hispanics). The difference between the two is justified by rationalizing incompatible cultural differences.

            HTC: That's certainly too broad a filter to suit my tastes. There are highly desirable people of Hispanic origin, just as there are from other ethnic groups. Conversely, there are undesirable people within ALL ethnic groups.

            It would appear that Hispanics in general are an undesirable ethnic class only because they are by far the largest group invading this country illegally and that fact has kept the spotlight on them.

            If we did not have the massive nanny state which now consumes 70% of the government's nearly $4T this year and which will swallow over 90% of a nearly $5T budget come 2020, then I'd say let's allow almost anyone to legally emigrate here.

            But since we do have the nanny state which is now bankrupting us and there appears to be little likelihood that it is going away anytime soon, we have the right, even an obligation, to ensure that those we admit can adequately support themselves and their families and will not end up being wards of the nanny state.

            who new: It was suggested we shouldn’t allow immigration from Arabic countries because of the Islamic influence.

            HTC: If you really understood Islam, you'd understand the need to prevent the immigration of any non-secular Arabs and others from the various Islamic countries.

             
          • who new posted at 9:37 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

            who new Posts: 367

            I’m getting the impression that there are desirable ethnicities (EG: Italians and Orientals) and undesirable ethnicities (EG: Hispanics). The difference between the two is justified by rationalizing incompatible cultural differences.

            It was suggested we shouldn’t allow immigration from Arabic countries because of the Islamic influence. Should we do the same from Mexico?

            Good thing Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:12 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            A Crisis of Authority:

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324787004578494961837484232.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

             
          • Rob123 posted at 9:07 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            Pete posted at 7:26 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.
            HighTechCowboy posted at 7:48 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

            I interjected a little history into the immigration debate.

            You two are just plain weird. And negative.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:52 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham warns that if his party blocks the immigration 'reform' bill, they will only add to their “demographic death spiral.”

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/16/rubio-thinks-immigration-bill-in-good-shape-graham-says-gop-block-would-add-to/?test=latestnews

            I guess watching the Democrats gradually build their base into a super majority, thanks to one amnesty after another, is just too much for some Republicans who appear prepared to sell our country down the river in a bid to steal some of those immigrant votes for themselves.

            Looks like the midterm might bring us a choice between Evil (Democrats) and Evil-Lite (GOP).

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:48 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Rob123: http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/immigration/italian8.html

            HTC: How sad when even the 'scholars' at the Library of Congress don't provide documenting references.

            And what's your point (other than to take a cheap stab at Frank?)

             
          • Pete posted at 7:27 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            oldentimerz posted at 5:28 pm on Sun, Jun 16, 2013

            [thumbup][thumbup]

             
          • Pete posted at 7:26 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Rob123 posted at 3:00 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013

            ...too bad Frank's ancestors didn't know what you know huh? Might have saved them the heartache of coming to America. Sicilians too could have stayed and enjoyed the largess of the Italian government. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20. [sad]

             
          • Pete posted at 7:17 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Great article Frank. Sorry you have to put up with the likes of Cordwood.

             
          • mooseberryinn posted at 4:11 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2685

            Bottom line - We as Americans, right now, have the right to expect our congress and president will secure our borders. Just like any homeowner will close the door to control entry to their home, so should this country. Just because it's a big problem is not a good excuse to allow illegal aliens free entry. Just because so many are here already is not a good enough reason to allow them to stay and reward them with citizenship. Just because they are here and can't or won't pay their way is not a good enough reason to give them welfare checks. I've even heard there are some people who think illegal aliens should have driver's licenses and be allowed to vote! Get real! What part of "illegal" isn't being understood here? The law breakers deserve no free passes, if they wish to "immigrate" let them do it legally, or throw them out. Does any other country in the world allow uncontrolled entry?

             
          • Rob123 posted at 3:00 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/immigration/italian8.html

            "Attacks on Italians were not limited to the printed page, however. From the late 1880s, anti-immigrant societies sprang up around the country, and the Ku Klux Klan saw a spike in membership. Catholic churches and charities were vandalized and burned, and Italians attacked by mobs. In the 1890s alone, more than 20 Italians were lynched."

            "One of the bloodiest episodes took place in New Orleans in 1891. When the chief of police was found shot to death on the street one night, the mayor blamed “Sicilian gangsters” and rounded up more than 100 Sicilian Americans. Eventually, 19 were put on trial and, as the nation’s Italian Americans watched nervously, were found not guilty for lack of evidence. Before they could be freed, however, a mob of 10,000 people, including many of New Orleans’ most prominent citizens, broke into the jail. They dragged 11 Sicilians from their cells and lynched them, including two men jailed on other offenses. Italians worldwide were outraged, but the U.S. press generally approved of the action. It was the largest single mass lynching in U.S. history."

             
          • Rob123 posted at 2:41 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

            Rob123 Posts: 6597

            Blake posted at 10:35 pm on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.
            "The difference between American and Mexican ‘twin cities’ straddling the border is like night and day..."
            ---------------------
            Like traveling from Toronto to Detroit?

             
          • Blake posted at 10:35 pm on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            Blake Posts: 162

            In response to bigalber at 3:25 p.m.

            Mexico and the U.S. have very different histories and are politically incompatible.

            Here's the theory, Christopher Manion's classic article "Cultural Suicide": http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/manion7.html

            And here's a demonstration of the theory working itself out in the real world of southern California, Roger McGrath's equally classic "South Gate: Mexico Comes To California": http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/south-gate-mexico-comes-to-california/?print=1

            The difference between American and Mexican ‘twin cities’ straddling the border is like night and day (see reportage by Robert Kaplan in The Atlantic [ http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/98jul/future.htm ]), yet the land is obviously the same. It’s not the dirt that’s important, it’s the people. Put another way, if culture didn’t matter, Mexico and Central America would be paradise.

             
          • posted at 9:57 pm on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            Posts:

            Cordwood, your comment is beneath contempt. It also makes no sense, as you try to use my personal experience with legal immigration to apparently imply that illegal immigration is a good thing.

             
          • Rick Spencer posted at 7:34 pm on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            Rick Spencer Posts: 405

            oldentimerz posted at 5:28 pm on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            Your Grandfather is the story of America and lived the right to his own life that the Founders envisioned. He understood that the real and fundamental notion of "self-government" referred to the right of each individual to rule over himself. And, that he did, and all of America now misses him. The welfare state and immigration are incompatible when they choose the former over your Grandfather's choice. That has been its failure in the eyes of most citizens, the choice of slavery to the government rather than freedom for the individual. It has created a dysfunctional political system where individual rights are rapidly being destroyed. But, the false promises of Socialism always lead to the destruction of individual rights, then to the country, and then to violence. That is the irrefutable history of the world, I am sorry to say. RLS

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 5:50 pm on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            oldentimerz posted at 5:28 pm on Sun, Jun 16, 2013

            Kudos to your grandfather. It is people like him who helped to build America and make her strong.

             
          • oldentimerz posted at 5:28 pm on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            oldentimerz Posts: 70

            As a fathers day tribute to immigration ... my grandfather immigrated from Norway . He had two goals , learn to speak English and become a American citizen . Ellis Island changed his name to a proper American name , that was just fine with him . He took a job in NYC washing dishes . He studied English day and night .He became a citizen as soon as possible . He did this all on his own , from books and newspapers .Not bad for a man who arrived on a boat in steerage . He wanted nothing more than to become a American . I miss him .

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 4:24 pm on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            bigalber: Mexicans and Americans have more in common than immigrants from other parts of the world.....Not sure I see a downside to a combined Mexico and USA.

            HTC: You're kidding, right? [lol]

             
          • HRH Prince Michael posted at 4:15 pm on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            HRH Prince Michael Posts: 104

            The Children of Trinity Site
            The Coup of 1963 (Dallas CIA Agent-in-Charge George HW Son-of-a-Bush)
            55 Million unborn slaughtered
            Nuns murdered in Cental I. America
            Reagan/Bush Contra Cocaine
            Ruby Ridge
            The Waco Masscare
            Elian Gonzales (Unarmed 9-year-old boy in closet Vs. highly-armed Fed-COWARDS)
            Terri Schiavo
            Prince Gregory of The House of David (Bush/Cheney operatives...3rd-degree burns, 85%body)

            ".......TRUST THE GOVERNMENT TO DO THE RIGHT THING....."?!?!?!?

             
          • bigalber posted at 3:25 pm on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            bigalber Posts: 2

            How about this.

            Suppose the USA and Mexico were to merge into a single country.

            The USA is already a bilingual country. Aside from language, the people of Mexico and the USA have a lot in common, sharing many values and traditions. Mexicans and Americans have more in common than immigrants from other parts of the world.

            A significant portion of Mexico's citizens are already here. If Mexico were part of a single nation, then not only would the poor and uneducated be here, but also the productive, educated, and well off would be part of the single nation as well

            And if Mexico were part of a single nation with our laws applying to them, then the former Mexican providences, now states, would be required to provide the same financial benefits that are given to Mexicans that enter the country illegally. So the Mexicans here now could go back to their homes in the former Mexico, and get the same benefits that they enjoy here. There would be no reason for them to leave their homes and come here. But they could if they wanted to come here.

            Not sure I see a downside to a combined Mexico and USA.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 1:36 pm on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Rick Spencer posted at 11:12 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013[thumbup][thumbup]

            Richard Ebeling is a very clear thinker and very well spoken. I shall have to hunt down more of his contributions.

             
          • libra42 posted at 1:11 pm on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            libra42 Posts: 461

            Rick Spencer posted at 11:04
            Solid gold, Mr. Spencer! Thank you.[thumbup][thumbup][thumbup]

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 1:10 pm on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            ErikKengaard: " . . . the greatest destroyers of man's options are growth and excessive concentration of population." Joseph J Spengler

            HTC: Spengler was a Malthusian and, as such, firmly believed that continued population growth ultimately led to a subsistence level of existence. Malthus was generally disputed by his fellow economists, and for good reason. Malthus ignored the advances in education, productivity and technology which would solve all of the issues he'd identified; indeed, the 80 million plus baby boomers arrival led to the greatest period of economic growth, with a previously unseen accompanying increase in personal wealth and incomes that this nation has ever seen.

            The fly in the ointment here is the nanny state and the wrong kind of immigration. When a large portion of your population increase is among those unqualified for employment in all but the most unskilled tasks and that is coupled with a large portion of the population being sustained by the actual producers while they sit on their azzes, the whole thing begins to crumble.

            The baby boomer surge in population was good for the economy because the nanny state largely didn't exist back then and everyone had to care for themselves. It is not mere coincidence that those boomer years of the 50's, 60's and part of the 70's were good times and the best times where the state of our critical infrastructure is concerned.

             
          • Rick Spencer posted at 11:12 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            Rick Spencer Posts: 405

            Here is the full article where I posted a snippet below. I believe it would be in the best self interest of those who are interested in the economic and political future of the country for their progeny to study it.. Unless, of course, you do not want to engage in that particular argument. Which most do not! RLS

            http://www.thedailybell.com/29216/Anthony-Wile-Richard-Ebeling-on-Higher-Interest-Rates-Collectivism-and-the-Coming-Collapse

             
          • Rick Spencer posted at 11:04 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            Rick Spencer Posts: 405

            Here, I believe, is another good explanation of what Frank is saying and very well supports his argument of transformation of America into a Socialist republic. Which always fail BTW. Rick

            ========================================================================

            Daily Bell: It seems like a symptom of a larger dysfunction. You wrote an article recently implying the US was slipping into fascism. Is that a present danger, in your view?

            Richard Ebeling: The "larger dysfunction," as you express it, arises out of a number of factors. The primary one, in my view, is a philosophical and psychological schizophrenia among the American people. While many on "the left" ridicule the idea, there is a strong case for the idea of "American exceptionalism," meaning that the United States stands out as something unique, different and special among the nations of the world.

            That uniqueness arose out of the fact that the American Founding Fathers constructed a political system in the United States based on a concept on which no other country was consciously founded: the idea of individual rights.

            In the rest of the world, and for all of human history, the presumption has been that the individual was a slave or a subject to a higher authority. It might be the tribal chief; or the "divinely ordained" monarch who presumed to rule over and control people in the name of God; or, especially after the French Revolution and the rise of modern socialism, "the nation" or "the people" who laid claim to the life and work of the individual.

            But the American Revolution and the US Constitution hailed a different conception of man, society and government. Each individual, by his nature and his reason, had a right to his life, his liberty and his honestly acquired property. Governments did not exist to give or bestow "rights" or "privileges" at its own discretion. Governments were to secure and protect each individual's rights, which he possessed by "the nature of things."

            The individual was presumed to own himself. He was "sovereign." Self-government in this American tradition did not only or primarily mean the right of people to freely elect those who held political office for the enforcement of rights-protecting laws and legislation – though this was understood to be an essential aspect to a free society.

            The real and fundamental notion of "self-government" referred to the right of each individual to rule over himself. That is, as long as the individual did not violate the equal rights of others to their life, liberty and property, each person was free to shape and guide his own future, and give meaning and value to his own life as he considered best in the pursuit of that happiness that was considered the purpose and goal of each man during his sojourn on this Earth.

            It is not an accident or a coincidence that during the first 150 years of America's history there was virtually no Welfare State and relatively few government regulations, controls and restrictions on the choices and actions of the free citizen. Such non-interference with each individual was a logical and necessary corollary of a view of man as possessing a right to his own life and the fruits of his own labor. To compel him to do things or sacrifice things against his will for some presumed national or social good was diametrically opposed to the "American ideal."

            But for more than a century, now, an opposing conception of man, society and government has increasingly gained a hold over the ideas and attitudes of people in the US. It has been a "counter-revolution" against this American ideal. It was "imported" from Europe in the form of modern collectivism. The individual was expected to see himself as belonging to something "greater" than himself. He was to sacrifice for "great national causes."

            He was told that if life had not provided all that he desired or hoped for, it was because others had "exploited" him in some economic or social manner, and that government would redress the "injustice" through redistribution of wealth or regulation of the marketplace. If he had had financial and material success, the individual should feel guilty and embarrassed by it, because, surely, if some had noticeably more, it could only be because others had been forced to live with noticeably less.

            These two conflicting conceptions of man, society and government have been and are at war here in the United States. It is what is behind all the "crises" around us. They are the crises of the Interventionist-Welfare State: the attempt to impose reactionary collectivist policies of political paternalism and redistributive plunder on a society still possessing parts of its original individualist and rights-based roots.

             
          • kohana posted at 10:48 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            To all the fathers everywhere, have a happy Father's Day.

             
          • ErikKengaard posted at 10:32 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            ErikKengaard Posts: 5

            There is a massive amount of money to be made by agriculture, hospitality industry, education, tech industry, et al, with costs externalized and borne by the middle class. That is why over a billion is spent on lobbying.
            See "Our Massively One-Sided Immigration Debate" by John Carney @ CNBC.com (3/26)
            See "Untangling the webs of immigration lobbying" by Lee Drutman and Alexander Furnas at The Sunlight Foundation (3/25)

             
          • ErikKengaard posted at 10:30 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            ErikKengaard Posts: 5

            Nothing has done more to diminish the quality of life for the middle class through higher housing costs, competition for jobs, presence of poverty, increase in welfare burden, medicare fraud, crime, crowding of schools, and cost of college than the increase of and change in population since 1965, driven almost entirely by immigration.

             
          • ErikKengaard posted at 10:29 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            ErikKengaard Posts: 5

            "What should worry everyone today is that we appear to be so desperate to expand our population, period."

             
          • ErikKengaard posted at 10:28 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            ErikKengaard Posts: 5

            " . . . the greatest destroyers of man's options are growth and excessive concentration of population." Joseph J Spengler

            ". . . growth and concentration of population are processes that . . . are reversible only at very great, perhaps intolerable, cost." Joseph J Spengler

             
          • ErikKengaard posted at 10:28 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            ErikKengaard Posts: 5

            "we are about 50 million short of the number of citizens needed to maintain our economy thanks to legalized abortion?" We were fine 60 years ago with a population of 150 million. And the quality of life was better, much better.

             
          • kohana posted at 10:19 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            HighTechCowboy posted at 9:34 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013
            Blake posted at 11:52 pm on Sat, Jun 15, 2013

            Libra41 posted at 9:23 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013

            [thumbup][thumbup][thumbup]

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 10:04 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            cordwood: Just pointing out a little hypocrisy, that's all. It's another case of "I've got mine, now bolt the door."

            HTC: No, you're just highlighting the fact that you've got cordwood between your ears.

            There's no hypocrisy on Frank's part. He's made it abundantly clear that he wants to see continued LEGAL immigration which is managed to the best interests of this country, as it should be. Furthermore, his wife LEGALLY entered this country.

            These are points which are easily understood by a fifth-grader. Clearly, you're not as smart as a fifth-grader.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:58 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Blake posted at 11:52 pm on Sat, Jun 15, 2013 [thumbup][thumbup]

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:34 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9899

            Frank: Sadly, it may just be a matter of time before Congress surrenders its responsibility to protect our country and passes this bill, almost certainly resulting in a new America that will be less affluent, less secure, less educated and less relevant, but certainly more international in character.

            HTC: Excellent column, Frank! You are absolutely correct about the transformation of America into a shell of its former self, being far less affluent, less secure, less educated and less relevant; but, I have to disagree with you on it's being "more international in character." The fastest growing ethnic group in this country is the Hispanic segment and I'd hardly call looking more like Mexico or any of a number of poor third world Latin countries "more international in character."

            Economists are very worried about this transformation because they realize that we are importing a cultural illness that has kept these immigrants' own countries mired in poverty and corruption. Once here, most do not assimilate and their neighborhoods soon look like the eye-sores they left.

            Many estimates have shown that the vast majority of these Hispanic immigrants live near or below the poverty line. Most qualify for a number of our various social spending programs and, with 49% of Americans already receiving some kind of government assistance, can we afford to grow dependency even more?

            Frank: All that matters is embracing and welcoming foreign workers into our country because we are about 50 million short of the number of citizens needed to maintain our economy thanks to legalized abortion. Talk about the mother of all unintended consequences!

            HTC: I'm glad you brought that fact out into the open. Most Americans don't realize that, between our massive killing of the unborn and our selfish desire to live our lives without children, we haven't been producing enough of the next generation of producers and taxpayers.

            For an economy to grow and prosper, it has to increase the number of producers/consumers and/or increase productivity. Generally, a healthy economy does both.

            Under the Obama 'recovery', we have essentially focused on increasing productivity as more and more of the working class have disappeared into permanent unemployment. We are now at a point where, to further increase productivity, various automation approaches have to be and are being embraced, further limiting new hiring and often leading to more newly unemployed in the process.

            This process will ultimately lead to an even greater concentration of wealth and a much larger poverty class.

            That is indeed the" mother of all unintended consequences!"

            Frank: Heck, maybe the pressure of filling those 50 million empty jobs even justifies to some extent the willingness to allow immigrants to arrive in America on their own terms. It’s a short-term solution, but it’s entirely possible that at some sociological level, our country is doomed no matter what Congress does at this point.

            HTC: It isn't a solution at all. While it may appear to work for awhile, it ultimately only serves to drag down wages while increasing the drain on the social safety net. In the end, we wind up with a massive poorly educated 19th century workforce in a 21st century global economy.

            But I don't agree that it is already too late. If we were to make it nearly impossible for the illegals already in this country to obtain or maintain employment and make all social services beyond their reach, those already here would soon self-deport and few outside this country would seek to enter it.

            But we would have to quit playing games with employers who knowingly hire illegals. We should treat this like we do the flood of drugs into this country. Employers who are caught and convicted of hiring illegals should be subject to seizure of their corporate and personal assets, just like we do to drug smugglers.

            I doubt many MBA's would be willing to take that risk.

            Frank: ...may we never lose the ability to open our arms to our friends across the world and welcome them to our homeland.

            HTC: Indeed. But we must quit calling the Senate immigration bill (S.744) an "immigration reform" bill. It is no such thing. It is purely and simply an amnesty bill in disguise. Real "comprehensive" immigration reform would address the fact that nearly 85% of immigrants legally welcomed into this country each year lack the education, language skills and work skills needed in our 21st century world; in fact, the current system heavily discriminates against those we really do want and need who have advanced degrees in the sciences and engineering.

            That's what we need to address if we wish to revive our economy. This is the age of the knowledge-worker, not the janitor or landscaper, and we need to do everything we can to draw the world's best and brightest to our shores.

            Frank: Did you consider the fact that in a few years, we may have Spanish-speaking majorities in the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and very possibly others, and that we could well be facing our own Quebec crisis?

            HTC: Having moved here from CA in 2005, I know first hand of the reality of this threat. In San Jose and many other parts of CA, we actually had some classrooms where non-English speaking students far outnumbered the children of taxpaying Americans but the school couldn't afford interpreters; so, the classes were taught in Spanish with the children of parents who were actually picking up the tab being forced to learn Spanish by immersion.

            Frank: Jim, instead of just casually dismissing my column, could you please be specific about how the bill will strengthen America?

            HTC: Do you really expect a cogent, fact-based argument from the likes of MontanaJim72? Surely you jest.

            Folks like Jim are liberals because they can't think for themselves. All they do is simply disagree with you and they think that's 'argument'. When you press your case, they either attack you, simply dismiss what you've said or a they combine the two approaches. Occasionally they may post something from another liberal that they believe supports their beliefs, but that's about the extent of it.

            I'd probably fall over dead in my chair if Jim actually came back with a well-reasoned rebuttal of his own with actual facts to support his case.

             
          • cordwood posted at 9:31 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            cordwood Posts: 96

            Just pointing out a little hypocrisy, that's all. It's another case of "I've got mine, now bolt the door."

             
          • libra42 posted at 9:23 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            libra42 Posts: 461

            What a piece of work you are, cordwood. Bitter and twisted.

             
          • cordwood posted at 8:57 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            cordwood Posts: 96

            As long as I'm still able to shop for a bride on the internet and bring her into the US of A from, say, Communist China, I'm all for immigration reform. Just sayin'.....

             
          • Pequot posted at 7:46 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            Pequot Posts: 525

            This whole process encapsulated into a 'bill' by the Gang of Eight began many years ago when American institutions, one by one, capitulated to so-called progressive liberal doctrine. Doctrine which held that freedom means free from any form of governance that believed in and promoted any sort of order in our lives and ultimately how the United States Government should govern. The more that ignorance gained a foothold the quicker the pace of progressive liberalism. We are now at the point where those to whom we have entrusted our government no longer have an interest in good government but are willing to accept quick and easy governance. And those who are governed, the mass of ignorance, care less and less.

            Simply put. it's one heck of a convoluted mess.

             
          • Blake posted at 12:22 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            Blake Posts: 162

            I wonder if "MontanaJim72" is an alternative moniker for SorrySOB.

            He's shown up quite early in this thread -- typical of Sorry -- and the100%-informed-by-ignorance nature of his comment also makes one suspect so.

             
          • posted at 12:22 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            Posts:

            Jim, instead of just casually dismissing my column, could you please be specific about how the bill will strengthen America?

             
          • MontanaJim72 posted at 12:12 am on Sun, Jun 16, 2013.

            MontanaJim72 Posts: 223

            Nothing wrong here. Frank is OK with the people he wants in the country. Beyond that, he wants nothing to do with them. Just more tea party rhetoric.

             
          • Blake posted at 11:52 pm on Sat, Jun 15, 2013.

            Blake Posts: 162

            Mr. Miele is right about the fantastically awful Senate immigration bill (S.744) that, if it becomes law, will put the U.S. on a sure path to being a Third-World nation (as parts of it already are -- consider the barrios of east Los Angeles and the colonias at the Texas-Mexico border).

            First, there's Mr. Miele's excellent overarching point about how preposterous it is to be dealing with 1,000-page bills that very few can really read and understand. As Mark Steyn wrote about the health care law that was shoved down our throats in 2010, on the occasion of its hearing at the Suprme Court in March, 2012, "A 2,700-page law is not a 'law' by any civilized understanding of the term. Law rests on the principle of equality before it. When a bill is 2,700 pages, there’s no equality: Instead, there’s a hierarchy of privilege micro-regulated by an unelected, unaccountable, unconstrained, unknown, and unnumbered bureaucracy. It’s not just that the legislators who legislate it don’t know what’s in it, nor that the citizens on the receiving end can never hope to understand it, but that even the nation’s most eminent judges acknowledge that it is beyond individual human comprehension. A 2,700-page law is, by definition, an affront to self-government."

            But, second, the experts at the immigration-reduction organization NumbersUSA **have** done the scutwork of determining what S.744 actually will do, something we can be confident that none of the Gang of Eight bill sponsors have done. (With the possible exception of Sen. Chuck Schumer [D-NY]. Schumer, by the way, was instrumental in creating and passing the disastrous 1986 amnesty bill that brought us to the current state of affairs.)

            The NumbersUSA folks have produced two densely-packed documents that give many more details about the horrors within the bill:

            https://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/BadforAmerica.pdf

            https://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/4BigProblems.pdf

            These are worth going through to comprehend the scope of the disaster if this bill, too, is shoved down our throats. Beyond that, what's in those documents can be used for myriad different talking points when you make your (absolutely necessary) phone calls to Senators Baucus (202-224-2651) and Senator Tester (202-224-2644) to tell them "HELL NO on S.744!"

            Key point: The bill's doubling of **legal** immigration will actually lead to worse effects than the mass amnesty of 11 million (20 million?) illegal aliens, as horrific as that alone would be.

            Another critical point: The bill is so fundamentally flawed that amendments can't fix it. So don't worry about details on amendments. What's key is that our senators VOTE NO ON CLOTURE when Senate majority leader Harry Reid [D-NV] tries to end debate on the bill and allow a vote on final passage, about a week from now.

            Under public pressure, Baucus and Tester both voted NO on cloture during the great immigration-amnesty struggle in spring, 2007. And, again, when the DREAM Act amnesty threatened at the end of 2010. Their votes against cloture are, again, critical, and they haven't promised to do the right thing for the country this time. So renewed pressure on them is critical.

            (The bill **will** pass the Senate if allowed a simple majority vote -- there are certainly more than 50 insulated-from-reality senators. But to arrive at such a vote, Reid will have to overcome a filibuster by invoking cloture, and that takes 60 votes. So if there are 41 **patriotic** senators, cloture will fail and there won't be a passage vote on the bill. And the American republic will survive a bit longer.)


             
          • kohana posted at 10:59 pm on Sat, Jun 15, 2013.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            mooseberryinn posted at 9:23 pm on Sat, Jun 15, 2013

            Sorry to say MB that I have to agree with you, and probably sooner than you think. This is one of the saddest columns Frank has written, and I feel like hanging my head in shame for the people who are destroying our Republic.

             
          • mooseberryinn posted at 9:23 pm on Sat, Jun 15, 2013.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2685

            America's reign as the "leader of the World" is pretty much over. America as a 'free" country is gone. Oh it may be 'free" in name, but the federales under the control (sort of control), of the obama regime can do as they please to whomever they please. Over the next 10 to 20 years, America will come to resemble Europe with it's strikes, protests, anarchy orchestrated to the purpose of the regime. It's sad. This used to be a great country, noble in purpose, imbued with high moral values. Not so much anymore. We are seeing the destruction of our constitutional republic with no strong leader in sight to challenge the obama/demo-dummy/media regime. In the end, it will not turn out well for anyone. Not even the party bosses. We all will lose.

             
          rss

          Carol Marino: Good News

          Premium Rounding up bills makes a difference

          Flathead Electric’s Roundup for Safety Program has been making the rounds around Northwest Montana for 18 years, ensuring our communities are safer places to live.

          More From Carol Marino: Good News