The Real Reasons Behind Washington’s Attack on Arizona’s 1070



The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we’re a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights. What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male. This is our homeland. We cannot – we will not- and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It’s a matter of time. The explosion is in our population. 

Professor Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas at Arlington, founder of La Raza Unida Party; 1995

Here are a couple of little known quotes on immigration from another point of view.

“In recent years a new International System has been developing, oriented toward the establishment of norms and principles of universal jurisdiction, above national sovereignty, in the areas of what is called the New Agenda…we have to confront ….. what I dare to call the Anglo-Saxon prejudice against the establishment of supra-national organizations.”   — Mexican President Vicente Fox Club XXI, Hotel Eurobuilding, Madrid, Spain 5/16/02

“I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important – a very important – part of this.” – Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, Chicago on July 23, 1997

“The effort to unite the economies of the Americas into a single free-trade area began at the Summit of the Americas which was held in December 1994 in Miami. The heads of state and government of the 34 democracies in the region agreed to construct the Free Trade Areas of the Americas (FTAA) in which barriers to trade and investment will be progressively eliminated. They agreed to complete negotiations towards this agreement by the year 2005 and to achieve substantial progress toward building the FTAA by 2000.” So begins the history of what President George W. Bush called “The Century of the Americas” (Summit of the Americas, 1994).

Lets now consider some of the following goals and objectives of the FTAA as taken from their website:

Share best practices and technologies with respect to increasing citizen participation in the electoral process, including voter education, the modernization and simplification of voter registration…” [remember motor-voter and the ubiquitous early vote by mail]

Support initiatives designed to strengthen linkages among migrant communities abroad and their places of origin and promote cooperative mechanisms that simplify and speed up the transfer of migrant remittances to their country of origin.  [do you get the idea that because Mexico is bankrupt and ungovernable, remittances from the U.S. are about all that’s keeping that country stable?]

Support programs of cooperation in immigration procedures for cross-border labor markets and the migration of workers, both in countries of origin and destination, as a means to enhance economic growth in full cognizance of the role that cooperation in education and training can play in mitigating any adverse consequences of the movement of human capital from smaller and less developed states into … [I think you get the idea where that one goes]

Strive to ensure that migrants have access to basic social services, consistent with each country’s internal legal framework… [now you know why AHCCCS is subsidized by the Federal government to some extent]

In Mexico’s official “National Plan of Development 2001-2006″ specific strategies for expanding the nation’s political reach far beyond the U.S. / Mexico border are outlined.  Through out the lengthy document, globalization is frequently referenced, however again, the devil’s in the details.  To achieve their national plan, the government of Mexico reliles on those of its peoples migrating into the United States who, in 2002 sent back to Mexico over $14 billion dollars of hard U.S. currency.  These remittances as of 2006/07 were Mexico’s #1 source of foreign capital, replacing tourism and oil.  This of course isn’t counting drug money pouring into that country.
In 2001 the Mexican National Congress established dual citizenship for all Mexican national living abroad, legal or otherwise.   In the words of Mexican Congressman Manuel de la Cruz, an American citizen elected to the Mexican National Congress in 2002 and residing in California, “There are 23 million Mexicans in the U.S. that need a voice in Mexico.” (Washington Times, Ken Bensinger)

In a 2000 FoxNews interview, Mexican President Vicente Fox made Mexico’s intentions crystal clear:

“I’m talking about a community of North America, an integrated agreement of Canada, the United States, and Mexico in the long term, 20, 30, 40 years from now. And this means that some of the steps we can take are, for instance, to agree that in five years we will make this convergence on economic variables. That may mean in 10 years we can open up that border when we have reduced the gap in salaries and income.”

Now does it all make more sense?  Now do you have an idea why the Obama Administration is suing the State of Arizona?  Now do you know why our Southern Border is open and our Federal government has no intention of doing anything unless they achieve an Amnesty Program?

And why John McCain is needed back in the U.S. Senate?  Is it beginning to make some sense?  Its not about race and its not about human rights – its about globalism and the Free Trade Area of the Americas.



Comments

  1. Arizona politics, news, commentary…

  2. Steve Calabrese says:

    Well, duh.

    Anyone who doesn’t see that there is a very organized movement to make the US feel guilty for merely attempting to do what every other nation on earth does is denying reality.

    In Mexico, it is a felony to be an illegal alien. The Mexican government is corrupt and evil, but they DO know how to preserve their sovereignty. A shame Obama doesn’t know or care how.

  3. The only long term solution is to vote out every single politician who supports this destruction of our national sovereignty.

    Starting in November 2010.

  4. Oberserve says:

    What you fail to mention here is that eVerify is part of the FTAA open border plan. It’s specifically mentioned as needed for open borders to provide the federal executive branch with the ability to instantly clear all legal workers’ in the United States employment eligibility, both illegal and legal.

    You fools think that eVerify will help the anti-amnesty, closed border agenda, when its precisely the opposite.

    Way to go conservatives! Helping to accomplish the left wing dream.

  5. Mr. Mustachio :{O says:

    Hoorah, I’m not the only one who sees it!

    I’ve wondered why other nations (Mexico) can challenge US laws in a US Court?! Oh, yeah, the degradation of sovereignty.

  6. Michael Holliday says:

    The New World Order is global economic interdependence.

    Economic interdependence precedes political interdependence.

    That is, the grafting of mutually exclusive foreign regimes to our political system via outright corruption, lies, economic interdependence, criminal alien influx, international treaties, laws and diplomatic connivance.

    With interdependence comes the loss of independence through the erosion of our “borders, language and culture” (Michael Savage phrase).

    The formula is simple. The mechanisms, complex. The result, tragic.

    Once you understand the above, you can make sense of the insanity that we see in regards to aid and trade with countries such as Mexico and Communist China.

    The rationalism given by elite organizations, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, behind selling out to our sworn enemy, Red, Communist China is that (a) nations that trade are interdependent; hence, interdependent nations don’t go to nuclear war with each other; (b) through the process of “gradualism” “they” will come to resemble “us” more and more over time and an era of global peace will ensue.

    The critical missing part of that flawed equation is the natural corollary: “we” will start to resemble “them,” more and more, in the process. I.e. Los Angeles, Phoenix, Detroit, et al will more and more resemble politically and economically failed states like Mexico as this unnatural de-evolution transpires.

    What Maobama wants for America is the China model: a “democratic” interventionist, command economy wedded to a ruling Nomenclatura oligarchy masquerading as a free-market democracy, with the people symbolically “voting” every four years for Socialist Candidate A or Socialist Candidate B.

    Voila!

    Thanks John McCain! Thanks for furthering the dream of empire that has haunted mankind for centuries: a New World Order.

    Of course, the elite are going to be on the winning side of the failed equation simply because they have the luxury of living outside of its dictates.

    The oligarchs can escape most of the pain of transition to the new order by simply floating above it, chauffeured limousine and all.

    Islam is the wild card!

  7. James Davidson says:

    Michael:

    You are babbling. The United States has been economically “interdependent” since its beginnings. Where did the capital come from to start American industry? Try London and Amsterdam. To give you one other example that anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the history of our people should know, what was the prime cause of the War of 1812? Answer: Freedom of the seas, and Great Britain’s attempt to choke it off in her blockade of France in the Napoleonic Wars.

    Why did we enter WW I? That same old thing called freedom of the seas, and the Kaiser’s declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare against any ships from any nation trading with Great Britain or France.

    Why was freedom of the seas so important? Because we could throw off the British economic shackles and stand toe to toe with her in world markets. What does an end to free trade mean? Loss of jobs and income and real surrender to Wall Street. For 85 years after the Civil War, the Northeast manufacturing interests, led by Wall Street, used high tariffs to bleed the South and the West dry. It was only with the end of WW II and the realization by the leadership of the Greatest Generation that free trade was good for all America that we broke the bonds of high tariffs. The West and the South prospered in unprecedented ways, as did all of America.

    Some of you people know so little of your country’s history, and yet feel competent to babble on. It’s depressing.

  8. Veritas Vincit says:

    re: posting #4 above, you are 100% correct.

    eVerify is just a prelude to much more ambitious things. And, a gun registry is on their list.

  9. Michael Holliday says:

    #James Davidson Says:
    July 30th, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Michael:

    You are babbling.
    _____

    Me: Actually you are not only babbling, you’re comparing apples and oranges and trying to superimpose antiquated historical generalities over our current political economy instead of demonstrating where my analysis is wrong.

    You: The United States has been economically “interdependent” since its beginnings. Where did the capital come from to start American industry? Try London and Amsterdam.

    Me: Sir. We’ve moved from mercantilism, to industrial capitalism to the information age and on to an increasingly post-industrial, neo-feudalistic system.

    We’ve never been interdependent on a communist regime bent on our destruction simply because the present economic evolution is new and China’s rise is a result of interdependence with America.

    Me: To give you one other example that anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the history of our people should know, what was the prime cause of the War of 1812? Answer: Freedom of the seas, and Great Britain’s attempt to choke it off in her blockade of France in the Napoleonic Wars.

    You: You arrogantly bait and switch to the causes of the War of 1812, and assume I have no knowledge of that war. What does the war of 1812 have to do with the price of tea in Communist China? Stick with the issue, Mr. Constitutionalist super patriot. I know your delusional type well and can spot you a mile away.

    You: Why did we enter WW I? That same old thing called freedom of the seas, and the Kaiser’s declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare against any ships from any nation trading with Great Britain or France.

    Me: Very well, but you’re not addressing my analysis. You’re just saying I’m babbling while changing the topic to one you presume to know more than anyone else. I understand the self-styled super patriot Constitutionalist mindset. You’re as delusional as the far left wing but in your own way.

    You: Why was freedom of the seas so important? Because we could throw off the British economic shackles and stand toe to toe with her in world markets. What does an end to free trade mean? Loss of jobs and income and real surrender to Wall Street.

    Me: First of all, Mr. Libertarian, there is no such thing as “free trade.” At best, we have a mixed market and an interventionist market. Also, “free trade” and “free market trade” are two different creatures.

    The only reason that any unmolested trade transpires at all is because the US military ensures the safety of the transnational flow of capital and goods. This is a function of the middle class support through manpower and taxation. As the middle class goes, so goes America. As America goes, so goes the world.

    You: For 85 years after the Civil War, the Northeast manufacturing interests, led by Wall Street, used high tariffs to bleed the South and the West dry. It was only with the end of WW II and the realization by the leadership of the Greatest Generation that free trade was good for all America that we broke the bonds of high tariffs. The West and the South prospered in unprecedented ways, as did all of America.

    Me: WWII got us out of the depression. The regulation of the large moneyed interests and the separation of investment banking from commercial banking were necessary to preclude the kind of chicanery we saw leading up to the great depression and what we just experienced with the merging of investment banking and commercial banking via the mortgaged backed securities fiasco.

    We emerged from WWII largely with our industrial base intact, whereas great portions of Europe and Asia sustained significant losses to theirs. We do not have the same rate of industrial capacity we had and that made this country great.

    Plus, American workers were not part of a globally triaged work pool and the theory of competitive advantage still held some sway. We live in a world of absolute advantage when a country like Communist China can utilize virtually free slave labor to feed their growing export-based economy; thereby, dumping large amounts of cheap goods on a US market in which we simply cannot compete based on labor costs alone.

    Furthermore, we didn’t have the massive insourcing of cheap labor from Mexico and high-tech labor through HB-1 visas, nor did we have the massive amount of outsourcing to the same aforementioned countries, including China, et al.

    You: Some of you people know so little of your country’s history, and yet feel competent to babble on. It’s depressing.

    Me: I could, likewise, throw out a hidden history of the behind the scenes machinations of our conflict with Panama and claim the same thing about you. My knowledge having been gained by soldiers on the ground, yours from textbooks.

    Don’t be such a presumptuous theoretical dolt or you may turn into this: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/2687806225_2446b05a11.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/a_dg/2687806225/&usg=__JvE-Vl_MIMsPAEBsjbSGommfhSg=&h=355&w=500&sz=88&hl=en&start=90&tbnid=MYjMgkMHt6oIpM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=172&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsugar%2Bglider%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D800%26bih%3D408%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C3224&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=508&ei=Ih1TTOfTH5LCsAPDg7jOBQ&page=12&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:90&tx=112&ty=26&biw=800&bih=408

  10. James Davidson says:

    Michael,

    You are still babbling. You started your rant with the following two sentences:

    “The New World Order is global economic interdependence.

    “Economic interdependence precedes political interdependence.”

    I exposed that as historical nonsense. At least since independence the United States has been enmeshed in “global economic interdependence.” What was the international gold standard, prevalent from about 1880 to 1933, if not the clearest form of “global ecomomic interdependence”? Trade is never entirely free, thanks to government taxes, but we have prospered most when trade has been freest.

    You cannot refute that fact, so you resort to the rise of China as some new sui generis occurrence. It is not. Whom do we hurt if we do not trade with China? Look in the mirror. Do you think the rest of the world will follow such foolishness? They will jump in and take our place and laugh all the way to the bank. China did not destroy Detroit. Government mandates, bad management, and greedy unions own that one.

    Was it China that took over the electronics industry, originally started in the USA? I don’t think so. Can “slave labor” ever beat skilled labor? Only in simple manufacturing, not a chance with the complex. Where it really counts it is the Germans and the Japanese who are whipping us in manufacturing, not the Chinese.

    You say, “We do not have the same rate of industrial capacity we had and that made this country great.” That also is foolishness. We now have more industrial capacity in this country than we have ever had, though with the current recession it is under utilized. What changed are 1) the percentage of the economy that manufacturing takes up, and 2) the type of manufacturing. On the latter point, do you want to manufacture shoes or chips? You probably already know where I come out on that one. Until the latest recession, manufacturing has grown in absolute terms but declined in relative terms — exactly the sign of increasing prosperity that we want.

    China is not the cause of our current economic squalor, nor is Mexico. Neither has been responsible for the huge deficits that Bush racked up or the even huger ones that Obama is racking up. Neither had a thing to do with collateralized mortgages nor credit default swaps. Neither bailed out Wall Street and neither created Government Motors. Our economic squalor is made in America, if you can’t see that you are blind.

    Last, your knowledge “gained from soldiers on the ground” and mine from “textbooks”? A great appeal to heroism of soldiers, but no dice here. Soldiers on the ground are heroes but their line of work is warfare not business and not economics. They are no more qualified at business or economics than anyone else. That does not detract one iota from their dedication, courage, or love of country. It is merely a fact of life. Your resort to it exposes the weakness in the logic of your positions.

    I repeat. You are still babbling.

  11. Adolpho Quiroga Cervantes says:

    How about one more quote on the subject of immigration? Just to be fair and balanced like Fox News.

    “Latinos come to the US to seek the same dreams that have inspired millions of others: they want a better life for their children. Family values do not stop at the Rio Grande. Latinos enrich our country with faith in God, a strong ethic of work, community & responsibility. We can all learn from the strength, solidarity, & values of Latinos. Immigration is not a problem to be solved, it is the sign of a successful nation. New Americans are to be welcomed as neighbors and not to be feared as strangers.”

    George W. Bush, June 28, 2000.

    Let’s repeat some key points: Immigration is not a problem to be solved, it is the sign of a successful nation. New Americans are to be welcomed as neighbors and not to be feared as stragers.

    Final KEY POINT: GEORGE W. BUSH

    Yes, that’s GEORGE W. BUSH

    How about another fair and balanced quote. Try this one:

    “The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952…We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans….Distance has not discouraged illegal immigration to the United States from all around the globe. The problem of illegal immigration should not, therefore, be seen as a problem between the United States and its neighbors. Our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people.
    The act I am signing today is the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory. It has truly been a bipartisan effort, with this administration and the allies of immigration reform in the Congress, of both parties, working together to accomplish these critically important reforms. Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.”

    President Ronald Wilson Reagan, November 6, 1986, statement upon signing a comprehensive immigration reform bill that granted amnesty to millions of people who entered the country illegally.

    Let’s repeat some key words there: AMNESTY. That’s A-M-N-E-S-T-Y. Mr. Reagan used the words “legalization program.” Which means amnesty.

    Let’s repeat some other key words from Mr. Reagan: humane. Reasonalbe. Fair. Generous.

    And let’s repeat a very very very importannt three words, just for emphasis.

    RONALD WILSON REAGAN

    Think I’m making this up? Think again.
    http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/110686b.htm

    So my real question is this: What the hell happened to the Republican Party? Why is the party of Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln abandoing its ideals and repudiating its own history? Why is it catering to a handful of racists who’ve been throwing a temper tantrum since Barack Obama was elected? Where are the real Republicans? Where are the real Christians? Where are the real Americans?

  12. State Senator Jack Harper says:

    Read my Secure Border Plan outline:

    http://www.harperforarizona.com/Announcements/index.php

    Call Governor Brewer’s office and ask for a special session of the Legislature to enact the Homeland Security Force.

  13. Michael Holliday says:

    #James Davidson Says:
    July 30th, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    Michael,

    You are still babbling. You started your rant with the following two sentences:

    “The New World Order is global economic interdependence.

    “Economic interdependence precedes political interdependence.”

    I exposed that as historical nonsense. At least since independence the United States has been enmeshed in “global economic interdependence.”
    _____

    Sir, actually you have not exposed it as historical nonsense simply because you are looking to the past, not the present and future economic system as it is evolving. In a word Political Economy.

    The intellectual elite (CFR, Trilateral Commission, Commerce, State, Fed, various think tanks, et al) who are working towards this goal state that the purpose of economic interdependence is, ultimately political interdependence.

    Two major highly-regarded macro historians that shared this perspective, indeed who tried to “warn” us, since they were primarily historians, were the late Carroll Quigley and the late Samuel P. Huntington.

    The raison d’etre of interdependence being stated expressly, in Richard Nixon’s book entitled “The Real War” as to avoid global thermonuclear war. However, the aims of the interdependent transnational corporations and those of the United States are often at odds, the former being solely money and power driven. Or, as David Rockefeller said, these NGO’s are the new unelected sovereigns, not the people of America.

    You: What was the international gold standard, prevalent from about 1880 to 1933, if not the clearest form of “global ecomomic interdependence”? Trade is never entirely free, thanks to government taxes, but we have prospered most when trade has been freest.

    Me: No, the gold standard was one of the clearest forms of individual and national independence. It was Lenin and Hitler that moved to outlaw the ownership of gold. In a the free countries of the past “money” was built upon the solid foundation of gold and silver independent of the local, national or international politician. In other words, global economic independence. Not interdependence. And I’m not talking about mercantilism because there are key moral components of individual freedom and liberty involved.

    You: You cannot refute that fact, so you resort to the rise of China as some new sui generis occurrence. It is not.

    Me: I just refuted that fact! I never resorted to China’s rise as transpiring in a vacuum, i.e. sui generis, or ceteris paribus. Once again, you missed the whole point that the rise of China is because of deliberate economic and political actions fostered by the West, viz economic interdependence.

    You: Whom do we hurt if we do not trade with China? Look in the mirror. Do you think the rest of the world will follow such foolishness? They will jump in and take our place and laugh all the way to the bank.

    Me: You’ve made no argument that aiding and abetting a sworn enemy of the United States, i.e. maintaining their dictatorship and fueling their aggressive military buildup is in our national interest nor in the interest of world peace, minus a regime change to a democratic form of government.

    You: China did not destroy Detroit. Government mandates, bad management, and greedy unions own that one.

    Me: How stupid is it for US taxpayers to subsidize and bailout, to the tune of billions of US dollars, GM who outsources to Communist China, our main threat to US manufacturing jobs? If you love Communist China so much, why no just offer tax breaks to Toyota, Nissan Honda for each laid off GM worker they hire? Almost half of US auto workers work for them anyway and they are not sworn enemies of the United States.

    You: Was it China that took over the electronics industry, originally started in the USA? I don’t think so.

    Me: Actually, it was Japan first, by vociferous, ubiquitous dumping and paying off Americans to distribute their goods. Dr. Bill Wattenburg was in this fight against unfair Japanese trade practices in the 1980s-’90s. The Japanese targeted the camera industry first.

    You: Can “slave labor” ever beat skilled labor? Only in simple manufacturing, not a chance with the complex. Where it really counts it is the Germans and the Japanese who are whipping us in manufacturing, not the Chinese.

    Me: Wrong again, as usual. You would probably not like my radio interview (when I was a local talk host) with former Soviet dissident and post nuclear nanotechnology super-weapons expert Lev Navorzov, who spoke about the millions of highly-skilled engineers China educates every years, and Project 863, designed to destroy America.

    You: You say, “We do not have the same rate of industrial capacity we had and that made this country great.” That also is foolishness. We now have more industrial capacity in this country than we have ever had, though with the current recession it is under utilized. What changed are 1) the percentage of the economy that manufacturing takes up, and 2) the type of manufacturing. On the latter point, do you want to manufacture shoes or chips? You probably already know where I come out on that one. Until the latest recession, manufacturing has grown in absolute terms but declined in relative terms — exactly the sign of increasing prosperity that we want.

    Me: Even the Department of Defense (DOD) realizes our industrial base, as key ingredient to our strategy of deterrence and national security, is deteriorating. They are concerned that this slippage will negatively effecting our ability to provide essential support during a military crisis.

    The fact that the DOD purchases items from more than a 250,000 different companies, within 215 distinct industries demonstrates that the vitality of the defense industrial base is inextricably linked (interdependent on) the health of the US industrial base. If that industrial base is shifting overseas, the implications are obvious.

    A few of the current problems that the DOD has cited are: (1) decline in the number of USA DOD suppliers; (2) dependence (interdependence with) foreign suppliers; (3) lack of surge capability; (4) low productivity growth rate in some industries; (5) availability of scarce resources during times of conflict.

    A decline in our economic and industrial strength is evidenced by: our out of control budget deficit, huge trade imbalances with countries such as China, the devaluation of the dollar and the shift from a manufacturing to a service based economy.

    As a matter of fact, the Defense Science Board stated that, “Quite simply, the strength of the defense industrial base is derived from the strength of the
    U.S. industrial base, and there-in lies the concern. The U.S. defense industrial base, a key ingredient to deterrence and
    national security, is deteriotating.”

    An effective mobilization base, of both manpower and industrial resources,
    is essential to support our military capabilities, and provide a clear means for the US to communicate resolve. The maintenance of a broad, responsive, technologically superior industrial base is fundamental to the US defense policy.

    You: China is not the cause of our current economic squalor, nor is Mexico. Neither has been responsible for the huge deficits that Bush racked up or the even huger ones that Obama is racking up.

    Me: I could go on in detail but your libertarian ideology is getting in the way of the facts. I know, I know it’s George Bush’s fault. Why is Congress considering trade sanctions against China for currency manipulation that has led to our trade imbalances?

    You, sir, are really, really ignorant and too Libetarian in your ideological fog that precludes you from seeing reality. More blithering and blathering from you won’t make you seem any smarter or informed.

    You: Neither had a thing to do with collateralized mortgages nor credit default swaps. Neither bailed out Wall Street and neither created Government Motors. Our economic squalor is made in America, if you can’t see that you are blind.

    Me: Well, if you’re arguing it’s our fault, you can readily see that in part I agree with you. Greed for money and power has something to do with it. There are those that say since China own billions in Collateralized Debt Obligations, the TARP bailout funds to the banks were assurance/insurance to the Chinese that they’d get paid for the junk CDOs they bought by the billions. But then again, you’re a blame America first Libertarian dreamer.

    You: Last, your knowledge “gained from soldiers on the ground” and mine from “textbooks”? A great appeal to heroism of soldiers, but no dice here. Soldiers on the ground are heroes but their line of work is warfare not business and not economics. They are no more qualified at business or economics than anyone else. That does not detract one iota from their dedication, courage, or love of country. It is merely a fact of life. Your resort to it exposes the weakness in the logic of your positions.

    Me: I was illustrating a point that you are operating from a different base of knowledge than me, yours being tainted highly by a Libertarian ideology that prohibits your ability to see reality the way it is rather than the way it ought to be or you think it is. You’re simply mistaken and rambling off apples vs. oranges arguments.

    You: I repeat. You are still babbling.

    Me: Once again, your incessant babbling, fraudulent suppositions and inability to grasp the basics of historical, political and economic reality renders you incapable of fielding a decent argument because you simply do not understand what’s going on.

  14. “And we’re a new Mestizo nation. … What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male. This is our homeland. We cannot be made illegal in our own homeland. We are migrants … because we belong here. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies.”

    This statement doesn’t reflect any RACISM now does it????

  15. Michael Holliday says:
  16. wanumba says:

    Adolpho Quiroga Cervantes Says:
    July 30th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
    How about one more quote on the subject of immigration? Just to be fair and balanced like Fox News.

    ? Why is it catering to a handful of racists who’ve been throwing a temper tantrum since Barack Obama was elected? Where are the real Republicans? Where are the real Christians? Where are the real Americans?
    ………………….

    Where ARE the real Christians?

    This command from God seems to have been AWOL amongst all our illegal “Christians”: “Obey the authorities.”

    WHen I travel to other countries, I follow ALL their laws, pay their fees, respect their right to decide who can enter their nation and who cannot, and how long I can be permitted to stay. I respect all their work laws, their taxes and their employment rules. I don’t have problems. WHen I’m asked, I show the authorities so they are satisfied I’m not cheating on them.

    I come home to my country and find not a few, but millions of whom aopologists call “Christians” breaking my nation’s laws, coming in without asking, sneaking around, not paying taxes, not paying for services, and when I say, “Hey!” I’m called a “racist!”

    I’m not a racist, and Christians who break laws to disobey the authorities, a sin, and falsify papers to lie, a sin, to cover up their transgressions, aren’t “Christian.”

    If anyone wants to claim, “Christian” for sympathy points, then they have to remember GOD is their judge, and NOTHING is hidden from Him.

  17. Jane 001 says:

    What you fail to mention here is that eVerify is part of the FTAA open border plan. It’s specifically mentioned as needed for open borders to provide the federal executive branch with the ability to instantly clear all legal workers’ in the United States employment eligibility, both illegal and legal.
    ___

    I guess people are supposed to accept this comment and never think again. Check the agreement on the FTAA site. EVerify is not “specifically mentioned.” How about eVerifying facts. Btw, you could use a hammer to build a house OR tear one down? A tool is a tool and they work anyway you please.

  18. James Davidson says:

    Michael,

    Are you wearing the Union label? Sure sounds like it, as you continue blithering on. Or maybe you are too young to have any real experience in busines or economics.

    Here’s where you are wrong:

    1. I am not now and never have been a Libertarian. My views are purely Reagan Republican. In case you were too young to remember, Reagan was the greatest free trader to sit in the White House since John Kennedy.

    2. You cannot refute that from its birth the United States has been integrated in “global economic interdependence.” That 234 year history destroys your central point, to wit: “Economic interdependence precedes political interdependence.” There is no historical basis for your central claim.

    3. Denied any historical moorings, you resort to the argument that somehow we now are in new and unique circumstances where the Chinese are a threat to us because of their (foolish) export oriented growth model. I heard that argument from my Democrat acquaintances ad nauseam in the 1980s only the bugaboo then was Japan. What happened? Japan quickly plunged into the lost decade, which really has amounted to two lost decades. In contrast, the United States went through two decades of growth broken up by two shallow recessions in 1990 and 2001. No other developed economy matched America’s performance.

    4. What major American industries has China whipped? Name one. I dare you. You will find out you can’t. China has taken export business in low-wage manufacturing industries form South Korea, Mexico, and other developing countries. Until now she has not been a large player in high-wage, complex, high-tech manufacturing. Our competitors there are mainly the Japanese and Germans. Do you want the toy business back? Or shoes, textiles, furniture, or other low tech industries? It’s not going to happen, regardless of whether China is or is not a player on the international stage. Those industries started in the North, moved to the South, and then moved overseas. If it’s not China, it will be Korea, or India, or Singapore, or somewhere else.

    5. Here is where your ravings really fall apart: Who is going to pick the American industries to shelter or protect with tariffs or quotas? Congress? The President? The Federal Reserve? If the choices are made by politicians, they will be made to favor political friends and punish political enemies. They will not be made in the best interest of America. Recall the Bush tariffs imposed in 2002 to shelter the steel industry and win votes in Pennsylvania? A complete failure. Recall Obama’s take over of Government Motors? The unions got a sweetheart deal, the bondholders got screwed. We all would have been better off if GM went through a normal bankruptcy and shed itself of its unproductive lines and bloated union contracts.

    6. Here is where your ravings really fall apart (Part Two): If you shelter certain industries, as Bush did with steel, the price goes up and hurts consumers and all domestic industries that buy that industry’s products. In 2002, the price of everything made with domestic steel went up, and became less competitive in the world market. As a footnote, it hurt Bush politically in other states and did nothing for him in Pennsylvania.

    7. Here is where your ravings really fall apart (Part Three): Free trade has been America’s goal and policy (even if unevenly achieved) since WW II. First, several rounds of GATT, and now the WTO, were founded on it. The United States will be exposed as a hypocrite and pariah if we unilaterally impose quotas or tariffs on China. She will sue us in the WTO and she will win. Free trade has brought us unprecedented prosperity. If we replace it with tariffs and quotas decided on by politicians, Heaven help us. Smoot-Hawley, and resulting disaster, all over again.

    8. Last, your comments on the gold standard betray a really shallow understanding of economics. As I noted before, America was on the international gold standard from about 1880 to 1933. It resulted in thorough integration of the American economy in “global economic interdependence.” The country lost most control of its money supply and surrendered it to the London and New York bankers. Example: In 1931, after international speculators forced Britain to close the gold window, they attacked the Dollar next, and massively sold dollars for gold. In response, the Fed raised interest rates domestically to draw gold back into the United States. It worked – only too well, because it led directly to the collapse of the American banking system. If you don’t believe me, read Friedman’s analysis.

    I will repeat: You are babbling.

  19. Juan Bautista says:

    We have no one to blame but ourselves. We are about to send back to Washington John McCain, one of the most rabid pro amnesty characters ever. We were fooled in 1986. We did not know better. Shame on them. But we are being fooled a second time in 2010. Shame on us. True, 10 million dollars can buy a lot of fooling, But still, shame on the 55% of AZ voters who are being fooled a second time.

  20. Michael Holliday says:

    #James Davidson Says:
    July 30th, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    Michael,

    You: Are you wearing the Union label? Sure sounds like it, as you continue blithering on. Or maybe you are too young to have any real experience in business or economics.

    Me: Mr. Davidson, I’d venture to say that you really didn’t pay attention during your high school history and economics classes because you evince a profound lack of understanding of the way the world really works.

    But school is in session now, so pay attention!

    Again, your name calling, patronizing attitude and no real analysis or counter to my arguments except glittering generalities is exhausting to me. More evidence of a mediocre mind. Sir, if I may, please let me deconstruct your fallacious constructs, for they exist in your own self-deluded mind.

    You: Here’s where you are wrong:

    1. I am not now and never have been a Libertarian. My views are purely Reagan Republican. In case you were too young to remember, Reagan was the greatest free trader to sit in the White House since John Kennedy.

    Me: President Reagan imposed a 100 percent tariff on selected Japanese electronics in 1987. A president can earn the title of free trader if his efforts demonstrate an attempt to remove trade barriers at home and prevent the imposition of new ones. Hence, hardly anyone was surprised when the Reagan administration also imposed quotas on sugar imports.

    By that standard Reagan failed promote free trade and by his actions became the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover, the historical heavy hitter of protectionists.

    By the way, Mr. Mistaken, I served in the military under Reagan and voted for him. Yeah, I know who he is Mr. know-not-much.

    You: 2. You cannot refute that from its birth the United States has been integrated in “global economic interdependence.” That 234 year history destroys your central point, to wit: “Economic interdependence precedes political interdependence.” There is no historical basis for your central claim.

    Me: Wrong again! But do read on… Sir, it’s happening right before your very eyes! Nations trade. Spheres of influence develop. Economic interdependence leads to political interdependence through mutuality. The historically accepted term is called “gradualism.”

    Take, for instance the economic interdependence between Canada, Japan, and America. In broad terms, each shares the view that nature should be conquered by rational means. Each nation utilizes five basic factors to foster dynamic technological and economic growth: labor, research and development, natural resources, capital, and markets for goods and services.

    To some degree, each country is dependent (i.e. interdependent) on the other for one or more of the five basic factors. It’s this dependency that leads to political interdependence.

    Here’s how economic interdependence can lead to political interdependence and hence to political difficulties:

    Say Japan needs to sell cars in the US market because the Japanese domestic market is too small to sustain the dynamic growth of its automobile industry. In turn, Japanese competition hurts the American auto industry leading to less dynamic growth; hence, lower profits and the layoff of workers.

    These problems become political problems once the American auto industry and American workers start calling for action against Japan. The types of action the American government can take (for instance, prohibiting Japanese investment, banning Japanese imports, etc.) are limited because America is dependent on Japanese (or Chinese) capital to service its debt (the Chinese own 1 trillion in T-Bills), create new jobs and keep the American stock market buoyant.

    Hence, while the two nations can debate and fight with each other, neither can really afford to take strong action against the other without damaging itself. You hear a lot of talk about China dumping its US holdings. But can they?

    Here’s a historical example of economic interdependence preceding political interdependence: Take a look at the relationship between Canada and the United States. It’s relationship began in the eighteenth century with mutual fear and hostility, and relatively little interdependence.

    Today, as things have evolved, the two countries are highly integrated economically, share many of the same social and cultural values, and have many political connections between them.

    Even though Canada still maintains its political sovereignty, many Canadians feel that Canada is little more than a satellite of the United States, a country with its own political institutions but an economy that is so much controlled and owned by American interests that it’s impossible for Canadian political institutions to make independent decisions concerning most significant questions. Hence, a defacto political interdependence has arisen from the economic interdependence.

    My main contention is that the unbridgeable abyss between communism and capitalism is so great, and the Marxist Lenninist mind so impenetrable and impervious to Western moral thinking, that we are engaged in a “Marxist Lenninist embrace” through economic interdependence, that may ultimately prove fatal once China or Russia stabs us in the back!

    You: 3. Denied any historical moorings, you resort to the argument that somehow we now are in new and unique circumstances where the Chinese are a threat to us because of their (foolish) export oriented growth model. I heard that argument from my Democrat acquaintances ad nauseam in the 1980s only the bugaboo then was Japan. What happened? Japan quickly plunged into the lost decade, which really has amounted to two lost decades. In contrast, the United States went through two decades of growth broken up by two shallow recessions in 1990 and 2001. No other developed economy matched America’s performance.

    Me: Sir, with Chinese growing economic power they are pursuing an interest in increasing their military power. China has been spending 10 percent of its burgeoning wealth for, the past 2 decades, on growing their military. Official figures estimate that China spends about $71 billion a year on their armed forces, but experts believe that they spend a hell of a lot more than that!

    China’s has an expanding army of cyber warriors, is developing asymmetric capabilities to combat the U.S., is accumulating missiles opposite Taiwan, and and building up of a blue-water navy to project Chinese power regionally and globally. Not to mention the development of post-nuclear nanotechnology super-weapons.

    You: 4. What major American industries has China whipped? Name one. I dare you. You will find out you can’t. China has taken export business in low-wage manufacturing industries form South Korea, Mexico, and other developing countries. Until now she has not been a large player in high-wage, complex, high-tech manufacturing. Our competitors there are mainly the Japanese and Germans. Do you want the toy business back? Or shoes, textiles, furniture, or other low tech industries? It’s not going to happen, regardless of whether China is or is not a player on the international stage. Those industries started in the North, moved to the South, and then moved overseas. If it’s not China, it will be Korea, or India, or Singapore, or somewhere else.

    Me: The US is the world’s largest manufacturing nation by output, but is poised to relinquish this lead in 2011 to China; thereby, ending a 110-year run as the #1 country in factory production.
    Last year, the US created 19.9% of world manufacturing output, compared with 18.6% per cent for China, with the US slightly ahead.

    A study by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that Chinese investment in clean energy soared by more than 50% in 2009 reaching $34.6 billion, far more than any other country. The report said that China has shown determination to be on the forefront of green technology, while Total U.S. investment was about half that at $18.6 billion.

    China has overtaken the United States as the world’s largest energy consumer, according to the International Energy Agency. China’s 2009 consumption of energy sources ranging from oil and coal to wind and solar power was equal to 2.265 billion tons of oil, compared to 2.169 billion tons used that year by the United States.

    China has made technological innovation a leading goal innovation in every from supercomputers to nanotech, including clean energy technologies.In 2009, it invested $34.6 billion in clean energy, almost double of that spent by the U.S.

    China has a massive technical labor pool. A large Shanghai outsourcing company screens applicants with an IQ test with a cutoff score of 140; less than 1 percent of the population reach that high. In 2005, the U.S. awarded 137,000 engineering degrees while China awarded 351,500 at the same time.

    China’s rate for undergraduates earning science or engineering is 42 percent of all college graduates. Only 2 percent of U.S. 9th-grade boys and 1 percent of girls go on to attain the same degrees.

    China is getting U.S. technology and technology such as that of the Sony Corporation who closed its last TV manufacturing plant, shifting an assembly plant to Mexico but most of the components are made in Asia.

    China does have huge problems with pollution, corruption, accounting and finance chicanery. So the word’s not yet out on their long-term prospects. Caution is the watch word.

    China has overtaken Japan as the world’s second-largest economy. China is on a course to eclipse the United States and catapult into the No.1 spot sometime around 2025.

    You: 5. Here is where your ravings really fall apart: Who is going to pick the American industries to shelter or protect with tariffs or quotas? Congress? The President? The Federal Reserve? If the choices are made by politicians, they will be made to favor political friends and punish political enemies. They will not be made in the best interest of America. Recall the Bush tariffs imposed in 2002 to shelter the steel industry and win votes in Pennsylvania? A complete failure. Recall Obama’s take over of Government Motors? The unions got a sweetheart deal, the bondholders got screwed. We all would have been better off if GM went through a normal bankruptcy and shed itself of its unproductive lines and bloated union contracts.

    You: You’re just projecting a bunch of things I never said onto my postings and ranting away. I actually agree with some of the above statements you made but you’re acting like a reactionary. Do I need to go line by line and say where I agree and disagree with you? You’re friggen’ scatter-brained and too ideologically marinated in the cool Ranch Dressing of your own mental fruit salad! I’m sick of exploding your hypotheses and trite statements! Sheesh!

    You: 6. Here is where your ravings really fall apart (Part Two): If you shelter certain industries, as Bush did with steel, the price goes up and hurts consumers and all domestic industries that buy that industry’s products. In 2002, the price of everything made with domestic steel went up, and became less competitive in the world market. As a footnote, it hurt Bush politically in other states and did nothing for him in Pennsylvania.

    Me: Aww, shut up! Quit bitching and whining. Now you’re just ranting about this and that…gawd almighty! You’re worse than a pro-amnesty McCain-bot. I’ve had it with your dumb nonsense and suppositions…

    You: 7. Here is where your ravings really fall apart (Part Three): Free trade has been America’s goal and policy (even if unevenly achieved) since WW II. First, several rounds of GATT, and now the WTO, were founded on it. The United States will be exposed as a hypocrite and pariah if we unilaterally impose quotas or tariffs on China. She will sue us in the WTO and she will win. Free trade has brought us unprecedented prosperity. If we replace it with tariffs and quotas decided on by politicians, Heaven help us. Smoot-Hawley, and resulting disaster, all over again.

    Me: Do I really need to go into detail again and waste another half an hour refuting or agreeing in part with your vomitus extremus imbecilous grande? Stick a bagel in your mouth and cool out!

    You: 8. Last, your comments on the gold standard betray a really shallow understanding of economics. As I noted before, America was on the international gold standard from about 1880 to 1933. It resulted in thorough integration of the American economy in “global economic interdependence.” The country lost most control of its money supply and surrendered it to the London and New York bankers. Example: In 1931, after international speculators forced Britain to close the gold window, they attacked the Dollar next, and massively sold dollars for gold. In response, the Fed raised interest rates domestically to draw gold back into the United States. It worked – only too well, because it led directly to the collapse of the American banking system. If you don’t believe me, read Friedman’s analysis.

    Me: I’d have to do another long dissertation on your long list of generalities and it’s just not worth it at this point. You’ve been biatch slapped silly and tongue tied by your own broad brush sweeps of history and presumptuousness. Turn the TV off…

    You: I will repeat: You are babbling.

    Me: Sir, I list facts that explode your silly broad generalizations. YOU HAVEN’T GIVEN ONE EXAMPLE OF WHERE MY ANALYSIS IS WRONG!

    You just go on and on about apples when the subject is oranges…

    What do your rantings have to do with the price of tea in China?

    Nothing!

    Here is your professor of insane rantings, Dr. Frazzled Scruffins of Aardvark University where you obtained your BS degree in BS: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://locallytoned.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/lupin-handvert.jpg&imgrefurl=http://locallytoned.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/sugar-glider-tones/&usg=__aGYqkV_F0aFNhaBHCx5ceB6CkRs=&h=600&w=450&sz=395&hl=en&start=494&tbnid=0qF5r91O09OkkM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=86&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsugar%2Bglider%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26biw%3D800%26bih%3D408%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&ei=DINTTOHhLYqisQO5yYHbAg&page=61&ndsp=9&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:494&tx=36&ty=23

  21. James Davidson says:

    Michael:

    As I suspected, you need a little more seasoning and experience with the world. You also should peel off the Union label, give up your Democrat talking points, and join the Republican Party. You might like it.

    1. This was your main claim: “Economic interdependence precedes political interdependence.” I said there is no historical basis for your central claim, and I am right.

    If the best you can do is Canada and the United States to make your main point, you really are coming up short. Where were you when Jean Chretien was premier or better yet Pierre Trudeau. Canada is culturally overwhelmed by the United States, as is most of the world, but she is not “politically interdependent” on the United States. She vigorously opposed America on Iraq, and on numerous other topics over the years. Like any free nation she supports us when she sees it in her interests to do so, and opposes us when she sees things differently. Recall: During the first Bush administration Chretien opposed us as much as Chirac did — or did you miss all that? Where were you when South Korea started playing footsie with the lunatic to the North, despite American objections? The EU is thoroughly integrated economically, and Greece still called the Germans good Nazis, all the while having her hand out. Speaking of Greece, she never passes up a good opportunity to defy the United States.

    2. Reagan was a free trader, as am I. He fell short on several occasions. We all sin. Yet he did it for political reasons, not because he was convinced that tariffs (read taxes) were good for America. That proves my point that it would be idiotic to trust politicians in Congress or in the White House with the power to select industries to protect and others to let go. If Reagan cannot be trusted to honor his principles regarding free trade, who can? And he was not the most protectionist president since Hoover. That is silliness.

    3. I wrote: “What major American industries has China whipped? Name one. I dare you. You will find out you can’t.” You couldn’t and didn’t. Instead, you cited the growth of the Chinese economy and the size of its foreign trade. Sorry, it won’t work. You’re out on a limb and you can’t climb back by changing the subject. I repeat, Name one major American industry China has whipped. Stating the obvious that the largest nation in population now has the second largest economy proves nothing. Japan humbled Detroit. China never did. And as I said, if China were not dominant in toys, furniture, textiles, and other low-tech industries, they still would not return to American shores. That does not mean that China will not develop high-tech industries. She will, but that’s an issue for the future.

    4. You clearly can’t rehabilitate the glaring defect in your position, to wit: Who is going to pick the winners in American industry, who get protection, and the losers who don’t? Being a good protectionist, you have to trust the politicians. There is no other way for a protectionist. I am not a protectionist and thus neither want to trust the politicians nor need I do so to defend my position. So you again try to change the subject. You should have the integrity to defend a position or admit you were wrong and give it up.

    5. Same with the damage that higher prices caused by protection will do to the American economy. You, and all Democrats of your stripe, never can answer that one, so you resort to name calling. Very tawdry behavior.

    6. Last, on the gold standard you are utterly out of your depth, and you know it, so more name calling.

    Michael, Face it. You started with some silly points you cannot defend and of which you know next to nothing. It’s all right. We all are given to hyperbole from time to time. But you really ought to lay off the name calling. Rather childish, isn’t it?

  22. James Davidson,
    Also, how terribly economically interdependent is Canada with US, if the US can have a financial meltdown and Canada’s financial institutions come out unscathed?

    There has been a global economy for 500 years, it is odd that some here fail to understand that.

  23. State Senator Jack Harper says:

    Dear CQ (contributing under a different name on a different post),

    You are a liar. I did not discharge any debt to the state. You also are violating the business agreement we have. I paid you to be my consultant for June and July. You took my money and back-stabbed me all the while you were trying to force me to run as a team with your criminal client. Posting this during the month that you are supposed to be working FOR me should send a red flag to your other clients. Of course, you damaged them for Scott as well, when Scott tried to get the Legislature to pass an amendment to give him an exclusive contract after he had already lost the bid for E-procurement. He was lobbying without being registered and is unelectable in the general election.

  24. @Todd – #22 – the reason that the Canadian financial institutions come out unscathed is because they are more heavily regulated than US ones…

  25. Economically independent is not the same as national sovereignty. Successful nations have extensive interdependencies of trade with other nations. The socialist fad of the 1950s and 1960s of “independent” as practiced by India, for example, was a disaster as India tried to produce ALL its needs, no imports. Basic Economics points out that the most successful economies work on “comparative advantage.” Produce for local consumption and exports what the nation has a comparative advantage in, and import the rest from other nations who have comparative advantages in those products. It’s the most efficient use of resources.

    Trade is not the issue today, but SOVEREIGNTY. There is no reason a nation must give up it’s national integrity, laws, rules, identity and security to have free and properous trade ties with other countries. AMerica in the late 1700s was an international maritime trade powerhouse and free markets across the globe was the goal of American foriegn policy.
    Until we got our butts kicked, our private ships pirated, seized, robbed, and our citizens enslaved. There’s no trade, commerce, production, when there is no security.

    Our enemies simply want to get rid of the USA by other means than simple warfare, which at this point in time, they would lose, so they propagandise and finance to degrade from within. What’s rather unique in history is the number of citizens who do not understand at all how good they’ve got it, how hard it was to build it,how much is required to maintain it, and how much they stand to lose if they don’t protect it.

  26. The reasons many GOP are supporting SB1070:

    80% of the voters in AZ are white;
    45% of the students in today’s schools are not white.

    Tonight Pat Buchanan commented on the McLaughlin Group that the GOP was shooting itself in the foot in regards to the Hispanic vote through its current behavior and going to make itself irrelevant for many years.

  27. Veritas Vincit says:

    Adolpho Quiroga Cervantes in posting #11:

    We have no problem with legal and orderly immigration in accordance with our laws – we welcome immigrants.

    We DO have a major problem with *ILLEGL* immigration Moron! Don’t matter where they came from, do it right as generations of immigrants have been doing.

    http://www.aztlan.net/mexican_american_war_has_not_ended.htm

  28. Michael Holliday says:

    James Davidson

    I’m bored with setting the record straight with you.

    You’ve demonstrated no grasp of the basic issues of globalism, international relations, history, economics or politics.

    There’s no point in even trying to talk sense to you.

    You may proceed in your own delusions and mediocrities with abandon.

    Have at it!

  29. James Davidson says:

    Michael,

    OK you didn’t convince me and I didn’t convince you. No surprise there. I do owe you an apology for one thing. We are taught, “Soft words turneth away wrath.” I fell short of that in some of my posts to you, and am sorry for it.

  30. wanumba says:

    Ron Says:
    July 30th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
    The reasons many GOP are supporting SB1070:

    80% of the voters in AZ are white;
    45% of the students in today’s schools are not white
    ………………..

    Damn straight they aren’t all “white” students. They’re Navajo and Apache and Yavapai and Hopi and 100% LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL SINCE FOREVER, being shoved aside politically and socially in favor of illegal FOREIGN NATIONALS: – people who still maintain a citizenship and loyalty to another country.

    You need to put more nuance in your narrow-minded profiling. “Brown” isn’t QUITE enough, “brown” is lazy blabbing to explain the concern of Arizona citizens, or worth much to describe students in any meaningful way in Arizona schools.

    Ever consider how stupid it is for illegal foreigners to drop their kids in AZ schools when AZ education is amongst the last in the nation and the USA as a whole isn’t making it into Underdeveloped countries rankings in academic achievement?

    All that effort for a piss-poor education! What a joke!! WE can ALL thank the Democrats for re-designing education to fail, and thus guarantee illegal kids in AZ schools will not be equipped for future achievement in work or college.

  31. It’s definitively a gorgeous piece of writing. An content page such as this provides precisely how intensely the style is actually appreciated by author.

Speak Your Mind

*