ulysses s. grant, former union general and potus, once said " Labor disgraces no man, but occasionally men disgrace labor." i think we have reached a point as a society where political correctness has disgraced the notion of right and wrong...
i have often attempted to have logical conversations with people who say that the "undocumented workers" do not take away from our society but add to it. i hate that term "undocumented worker". it ignores the entire reason that the person is "undocumented". they are "undocumented workers" because they are here ILLEGALLY. and if they are here ILLEGALLY then, by definition they cannot be GOOD people.
this is not an esoteric conversation like with my fourth amendment case, there is no question of whether or not they are legally in this country. if they did not come here in the manner prescribed by law, they are here illegally. and if they came here illegally, than they are teaching their kids that no law matters so long as you're trying make a better life for yourself. how can any good come of that for our society or our country?
today i received an email that broke it down so well, that i knew i had to share it. it was titled "joe legal vs. jose illegal" and it went like this:
You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal".
Both families have two parents, two children, and live in the same area of Southern California.
Joe Legal works in construction, has a legal Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax and now has: $31,231.00.
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year, pays no taxes and still has: $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year and now has: $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year and still has: $31,200.00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare, so he pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year, and now has: $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare and still has: $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year and now has: $9,631.00.
Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy, pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year and still has: $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 per year for insurance and now has: $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has: $31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.
Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch.
Joe Legal's children go home after school each day where Joe pays for child care out of that $7,231.00 he had left.
Jose Illegal's children have a FREE after school ESL program provided by the U.S. tax payers.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
Do you get it, now? If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens or amnesty for illegals then YOU are part of the problem!
over the weekend i attended a send off program for the daughter of my most liberal friend. her daughter, we'll call her holly (20-year old soon to be college senior), is every bit as liberal as her mother - possibly more - and she is heading to sierra leone to work with the school sisters of notre dame on their long-standing education mission to that country. i think this is a wonderful move for her and should be very humbling in terms of what we have vs. what "they" have.
holly and i had a long conversation on monday when she came over to get a long silk/linen scarf to take for her head covering (to help keep her hair out of her face and keep her cool) and a travel pillow. i love this girl for so many reasons, but one of the things i love most about her is her ability to debate logically. one of the things that so infuriates me is her ability to take a rational point in a debate and fail to see or understand how it can and should be applied. it's the liberal thing.
in our conversation we were talking about the places i've been and her previous two trips to italy and the places we'd both like to go. somehow (i'm not sure how) the talk turned to the "plight" of immigrants here, there and everywhere. because, let's face it folks, it is NOT just the united states that is having a tough time with illegal immigrants.
anyhow, holly said something fairly profound that really got me thinking. in talking about the instability all over africa, she said "do you know anything about tanzania and how it got things mostly stabilized?" to wit i had to answer "um, no, not really." so she told me to look it up because they had done something "so amazing" to help engender a feeling of nationalism that was working on a grand scale.
for those of you who don't know a whole lot about politics and stateism in africa, suffice to say that a great deal of the strife and fighting on that continent is caused by age-old tribal rivalries. the fact is that imaginery borders were put into place and countries named and tribes were told to "you now belong to this country or that country" with told disregard of the status of relations between the various tribes being sent to this country or that country.
many of these countries were "founded" in the 1960's or even later. a majority of people in those countries don't think of themselves as somalians or sierra leonians or even tanzanians but as members of the various tribes. for instance, tanzania is made up of more than 125 tribes and each has its own language and identity. not only that, it is actually two separate countries (tanganyika and zanzibar) combined into one with a unified republican government formed by the governments of the two countries.
there is quite a bit of interesting information here if you're interested. it talks of the differences between the tribes, between women and men, the economy and just about everything else you never wanted to know about tanzania. it also mentions a few times that the national language is kiswahili (go here to learn about it); english is the language of the government and higher level jobs. apparently the "amazing" thing they did in tanzania was to establish the national language to elevate a sense of country.
what a concept, eh? so i said to holly "this is the exact reason intelligent, logical people in our country are pushing for english to recognized as the official national language of the united states." and she said? "well our situation is a bit different and we need to honor the different cultures of those who immigrate here by not forcing them to speak the language of the majority."
huh? if there is anyone out there who can make sense of that convoluted statement, please comment and explain it to me. i surely don't get it.
but the whole conversation and my subsequent reading on tanzania got me to thinking about how similiar the united states is to those african countries. we're every bit as much of potpouri in terms of our cultural make up as any of those countries - the primary differences being that our states (and country on the whole) were self formed and the majority of the people here are here because they choose to be so.
think about it. we're a melting pot. we have people here from all over the world. each comes with his or her own language and cultural identity. each is looking to do more than merely survive - seriously folks, why would someone move to a new country if they don't have any hope to do better there than in his or her country of birth?
when this country was in its formative period as colonies, it was primarily a subject of england. thus the majority of people here spoke english as their first language. as new people moved here from germany, italy, china, japan, mexico, france, spain, greece, russia and so on and so forth they arrived speaking languages that were not english. but because the majority of people spoke english and business and government were conducted in english people learned english. this was true even BEFORE we became an actual independent country.
this doesn't mean that some of them didn't continue to speak spanish or german or italian or mandarin at home, but it wasn't a language they could use in the outside world of the united states (previously american colonies). they may have kept some of the traditions from "home" but they didn't expect the rest of the population to adopt their traditions or eradicate traditions that had come into existence (or accepted) here.
today, in the united states, the majority of people still speak english as their first language. business and government is primarily conducted in english. and yet english is not our official or national language. but why not?
in our schools we teach (or attempt to teach) those whose first language isn't english in their language. officially we call it "english as a second language" (or esl), privately i call it sheer stupidity. people can't learn a language by getting a new word each day ala sesame street. people learn a language by using that language.
but here in our country the pc crowd has determined that immigrants will do better if we help them to hang on to the national identity of their former country. huh? this is just illogical and devoid of all common sense.
nearly 100 years ago, in 1919, theodore roosevelt penned these words:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
these are sage words even today. but too many think they are passe or ancient thinking or maybe it's simply that they are unapologetic in their sentiment that is good to be an american. one other thing that teddy said that sticks with me is this
"We want to make our children feel that the mere fact of being Americans makes them better off... This is not to blind us at all to our own shortcomings; we ought steadily to try to correct them; but we have absolutely no grounds to work on if we don’t have a firm and ardent Americanism at the bottom of everything."
and this statement emodies everything that is emotionally tied to being an american. we are better in that we welcome more people of more cultures and nationalities than ANY other country in the world. we recognize that there are things we need to work on and we do. we work at our weaknesses at the personal, local, national and international level. and we are, for the world's elite, the most reviled nation in the history of the world.
even the elite of the world want to come here. even they recognize the opportunity and freedom available here. so why do they want to change that?
i don't know anyone who is against all immigration into our country - i'm not saying those people don't exist, i just don't know any of them. i do believe that the media, some immigrant support groups and some of our friends on the left, are trying to portray those of us against illegal immigration as being against all immigration. but this is simply isn't the case.
i realize that it may be scary to come to a new country and leave behind all that you know and all that is familiar. but how much worse it must be to come to a new country and still try hold on to everything you knew at "home". i guess that is the primary motivation behind those who refuse to assimilate, but they are truly missing the point of coming to the united states.
people coming to this country - from anywhere else - and not becoming fluent in the language and the history of the country is a bad thing. it lessens the immigrant's chances for an excellent, successful life and it weakens the fabric of our country.
when i was halfway through this post, i found a post on this subject over at my good friend donald's place (american power) and asked if i could crosspost a portion of it here - thankfully he acquiessed. you can read his whole post here, and it's well worth the time to do so, but here are the important parts:
"The media offers up a steady diet of data about current immigration from Mexico, and much of it consists of "averages" regarding English-language skills, income, home-ownership rates, education and so forth. But while digesting these figures, it's important to keep in mind that Latino immigration is ongoing. These averages are snapshots of a moving stream and therefore of little use in measuring assimilation. To properly gauge assimilation, we need to find out how immigrants in the U.S. are faring over time. Only longitudinal studies that track individuals can provide that information.
"Just looking at averages can give you a very distorted view of who's learning English or dropping out of school or climbing out of poverty....
"The reality, however, is that the longitudinal studies show real socio-economic progress by Latinos. Progress is slower in some areas, such as the education level of adult immigrants, and faster in others, such as income and homeownership rates. But there is no doubt that both assimilation and upward mobility are occurring over time. With respect to linguistic assimilation, which is one of the more important measures because it amounts to a job skill that can increase earnings, the historical pattern is as follows: The first generation learns enough English to get by but prefers the mother tongue. The children of immigrants born here grow up in homes where they understand the mother tongue to some extent and may speak it, but they prefer English. When those children become adults, they establish homes where English is the dominant language. There's every indication that Latinos are following this pattern. According to 2005 Census data, just one-third of Latino immigrants in the country for less than a decade speak English well. But that proportion climbs to 75% for those here 30 years or more. There may be more bilingualism today among their children, but there's no evidence that Spanish is the dominant language in the second generation. The 2000 Census found that 91% of the children of immigrants, and 97% of the grandchildren, spoke English well."
donald also quotes from a u.s. news article, "mexican immigrants prove slow to fit in" which shows that the question maybe a bit more complicated than huntington purports:
In the heart of California's iconic Orange County—home to Disneyland and the bourgeois teens of MTV's Laguna Beach—is troubled Santa Ana. The county seat of 353,000, where nearly 6out of every 10 adults over age 25 lack a high school diploma, suffers from crippling poverty and an explosion in crime. In 2004, the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government placed Santa Ana at the very top of its Urban Hardship Index—officially dubbing it worse off than Miami, Detroit, Cleveland, and Newark, N.J. With 76 percent of its population Hispanic, mostly Mexican immigrants, Santa Ana is the poster child for the troubles of the country's immigration policies and of Mexican immigrants in particular.
Now, a new study lays bare what sociologists and others have long argued: Mexican immigrants are assimilating to life in the United States less successfully than other immigrants. Sponsored by the conservative Manhattan Institute think tank, "Measuring Immigrant Assimilation in the United States" by Jacob Vigdor, a professor of public policy studies and economics at Duke University, introduces a novel assimilation index that uses census and other survey data to measure how similar select immigrant groups are to native-born Americans. Using such factors as intermarriage, English ability, military service, homeownership, citizenship, and earnings, Vigdor assembled a 100-point assimilation index. The closer to 100, the more assimilated an immigrant group. Overall, the report shows immigrants are weaving into the American fabric at a remarkable clip, despite arriving poorer and knowing less English than immigrants of a century ago. And they are gaining speed, with new arrivals assimilating faster than those who came more than 20 years ago. With a score of 53, Canadians are the most assimilated, followed closely by Filipinos, Cubans, and Vietnamese. The main outlier: Mexicans, with a score of 13—followed by Salvadorans.
Why Mexicans are faring so poorly in the United States is complicated, experts say. But the root of the problem is no surprise: Many Mexicans are here illegally, depriving them of rungs on the economic ladder and the opportunity to gain citizenship. "There are certain jobs or certain services you just can't get [as an illegal immigrant]," Vigdor says. "There are plenty of indications here that for those Mexican immigrants who are interested in making a more permanent attachment to the United States, their legal status puts very severe barriers in that path."
this may explain why the actual immigrant is failing at assimilation into americanization, but what of their children - even the "anchor babies" who are american citizens? what of the children of the anchor babies? thanks to the vagaries of esl, we have second and third generation americans who do not speak english fluently - in some parts of the country even naturally born americans of hispanic (primarily mexican) origin speak poor english with a spanish accent!
how do you explain this with anything other than they value their association with mexico more than with the united states? how do you see theese results and still cling to the notion that esl is the best way to educate these people?
"Mexican immigrants tend to be segregated somewhat from the rest of US society; some 42% of Hispanics lived in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods in 1990 (Chiswick and Miller, 1999). This is probably because of choice; immigrants feel most comfortable living with those who speak their language and share their culture. However, in choosing to live with other Mexican immigrants, they are choosing to live with people who have, on average, relatively little education, low English language skills, and scant earning power. Thus, employers will be less likely to open businesses and stores in Mexican neighborhoods, and simply by choosing to live among other Mexican immigrants they are choosing to live in economically depressed neighborhoods. Even the best and the brightest of the Mexican immigrants may be “pulled back” towards the 'average' Mexican and may earn less than they might have had they not been Mexican."
however, further in the u.s. news article the author posits:
Indeed, in a unique multigenerational study spanning four decades, Generations of Exclusion, sociologists Edward Telles and Vilma Ortiz found that many immigrants and their children had made slow progress assimilating for cultural and economic reasons. A large community means a large dating pool: Only 17 percent of third-generation Mexicans studied had married non-Hispanics. The authors found adult Mexican-Americans in the third and fourth generations lived in more segregated neighborhoods than they did as youths, largely because of the many new immigrant arrivals. Educational levels, meanwhile, lagged behind the national average. However, English ability was nearly universal, even among first-generation immigrants, which should ease the concerns of some lawmakers who want to make English the natural language. Significantly, though, 36 percent of fourth-generation Mexican-Americans studied could still speak Spanish.
i have been unable to ascertain what standard is used by the sociologists, edward telles and vilma ortiz, to determine "...english ability was nearly universal even among first- generation immigrants..." i have been unable to find any other study or author who puts forth this notion.
still further in the u.s. news article:
Perhaps most telling: Of the approximately 1,500 surveyed in two distinct immigrant communities—Los Angeles and San Antonio—most identified as "Mexican" or "Mexican-American" even into the fourth generation. It's that kind of cultural signifier that has so many white Americans concerned that this is a group not interested in becoming American.
wow - ya think?!?
donald continues in his post that as santa ana's "city's population is 76 percent Hispanic with 53 percent foreign born - the city's literally a classic microcosm of the phenomenal sub-national trends in demographic diversity giving way to ethnic homegeneous-hegemonic dominance."
but, as donald observes, should just talking about this stuff get you branded as racist?
is not my favorite. He's a political opportunist and grandstander on immigration, and his "war on the middle class" segments are unhinged on issues of economic mobility and trade. But some of his reports on immigration are indeniably accurate in detailing the problems of local commuities around the country in tackling out of control immigration .
And because of reports like these, the nihilist left-wing of the open borders operation is up in arms about the media's "
This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language, and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become a part of our society, learn the language!
The Velazquezes speak fluent English and cherish their middle-class foothold in America. Maria and Carlos each earn about $20,000 a year as a school administrator and a graveyard foreman, respectively, and they own a simple three-bedroom home. But they remain wedded to their native language and culture. Spanish is the language at home, even for their five boys, ages 6 to 18. The kids speak to each other and their friends in English flecked with "dude" and "man," but in Cicero, where 77% of the 86,000 residents are Hispanic, Spanish dominates.
The older boys snack at local taquerías when they don't eat at home, where Maria's cooking runs to dishes like chicken mole and enchiladas. The family reads and watches TV in Spanish and English. The eldest, Jesse, is a freshman at nearby Morton College and dreams of becoming a state trooper; his girlfriend is also Mexican-American. "It's important that they know where they're from, that they're connected to their roots," says Maria, who bounced between Spanish and English while speaking to BusinessWeek. She tries to take the kids to visit her parents in the tiny Mexican town of Valle de Guadalupe at least once a year. "It gives them a good base to start from."
based on the information further down in the article this is fairly typical of the mexican immigrants. it's a great article and one i highly recommend anyone concerned with the effects of unbridled/illegal immigration read.
essentially as mexican immigrants are coming into the states at an estimated 400,000 persons per year. i say estimated because we really don't know what the actual number is because of the illegals. additionally, they are reproducing at a rate of 3% per annum vs .8% by all other groups except muslims who are reproducing at a rate 5% - but that's a whole other discussion.
assimilation for mexicans and other hispanics is not really aided by the american society in general. from mandated esl classes in the public schools, to street signs to government forms (including voting ballots) to private industry "selling in spanish", we are enabling an entire segment of our society to "opt out" of being/becoming american.
america was not founded as a "nation of immigrants" but rather as a nation of freedom and independence and self-sufficiency. she (and we) have always welcomed those who yearn for freedom and want to be americans. but freedom isn't free - along with the rights afforded by our constitution, there is the duty of being a active and productive member of society.
how productive or active can you be as a member of american society if you have broken the law to get here? how productive or active can you be as a member of american society if primarily honor only the traditions of the country you left to come here to better yourself - from flying the mexican flag to eating primarily mexican foods to surrounding yourself with spanish speakers from your home country? how productive or active can you be as a member of american society if you don't actively seek out relationships with people outside of the hispanic community?
unless we act decisively and soon we will fulfill the words of one other thing that teddy roosevelt said:
"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, or preventing all possibility of it continuing as a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."
approximately 220 years ago, our founders presented to the citizens of our infant nation perhaps the greatest man-written document ever created. that's right, it was in 1787 that our ancestors read, for the first time, the united states constitution.
this document has been a rallying thought for people around the world in want of liberty and self-government. it has also been a sore in the thumb of many who are indebted to us and who wish us ill. much the same as our flag, eh?
our educational system (or socialist indoctrination process, as my hubby calls it) is in such a poor state that our children - and several of the past generations' children - have no clue as to what the document actually says. cripes, they think we live in a democracy for pete's sake!
well, while i am no constitutional scholar, i can read and i have fairly good comprehension. and besides, i believe justice scalia when he says that it means what it says and it's just not that difficult. so this is my attempt to start a discussion pertaining to where we are and where the document give us permission to be...
"The simplicity and depth of the words the Founders used in writing our Constitution should never be taken lightly or changed to fit the whims of an uninformed mob rule mentality or activist jurists. It however is not our defining document, The Declaration of Independence is and the Constitution just set down the rules and limits of governance."
goat is precisely right and it amazes me the number of people who try to discount the doi and say that it isn't what defines us. and while it isn't the "law of the land", it is the basis for the law of the land. further, if i'm not mistaken, when a legal decision is made, all supporting documentation for the law or contract is taken in to consideration.
in the case of the constitution, that would have to include the declaration of independence, the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers and, perhaps, even the articles of confederation. so a i embark on this first lesson i will use all of these to support and contrast.
i'm starting with the proceedings of the constitutional convention and will (through additional parts) get through the writing of all of the amendments. i truly hope to get people thinking and talking.
on 25 may 1787 george washington was elected president of the constitutional convention in philadelphia. after the failures of the previous six years of governance under the articles of confederation, washington held out little hope that THIS convention would turn out anything of consequence. 36-year old james madison, hoped differently.
after receiving a letter from george washington, where washington had written "Wisdom and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm." james madison put forth the notion of a strong central government stating: "Let it be tried then, whether any middle ground can be taken which will at once support a due supremacy of the national authority," furthering that state power would be maintained only when "subordinately useful." madison sought to establish a government in this mold.
in 1786 james madison and john tyler, both of virginia, made a proposal that the continental congress be giving authority over the the regulation of commerce throughout the confederation. in september 1786 several states attended a convention in annapolis, md to discuss commercial problems. at the end of this convention, james madison and alexander hamilton (new york) wrote a report on the convention and calling for delegates from all of the states to participate in a convention set upon "revising" the articles of confederation. a decree from congress (although the decree was not favorably viewed by most citizens) made the proposal a reality.
74 delegates were named to the convention; 55 attended. there were delegates from every state except for rhode island; she refused to send any as the leaders of that state viewed the convention as a conspiracy to overthrow established government. i should point out that rhode island was led by men who were in support of paper currency, low taxes and a popularly elected government - funny how things change, isn't it??
anyhow, although several "leaders" of the young country were not present - patrick henry refused to attend saying that he "smelt a rat" - the convention started with the 55 men who were there, including giants such as george washington, benjamin franklin, george mason and james wilson. the proceedings were understated at times and quite vocal at other times, but in the end they were the beginning of this great experiment we call the united states of america.
put forth in this convention were three basic plans: the virginia plan; the new jersey plan; the hamilton plan. the descriptions i offer to you of each, here, come from the patriot post's historical documents resources:
The Virginia Plan
On Tuesday morning, May 29, Edmund Randolph, the tall, 34-year- old governor of Virginia, opened the debate with a long speech decrying the evils that had befallen the country under the Articles of Confederation and stressing the need for creating a strong national government. Randolph then outlined a broad plan that he and his Virginia compatriots had, through long sessions at the Indian Queen tavern, put together in the days preceding the convention. James Madison had such a plan on his mind for years. The proposed government had three branches--legislative, executive, and judicial--each branch structured to check the other. Highly centralized, the government would have veto power over laws enacted by state legislatures. The plan, Randolph confessed, "meant a strong consolidated union in which the idea of states should be nearly annihilated." This was, indeed, the rat so offensive to Patrick Henry.
The introduction of the so-called Virginia Plan at the beginning of the convention was a tactical coup. The Virginians had forced the debate into their own frame of reference and in their own terms.
For 10 days the members of the convention discussed the sweeping and, to many delegates, startling Virginia resolutions. The critical issue, described succinctly by Gouverneur Morris on May 30, was the distinction between a federation and a national government, the "former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation." Morris favored the latter, a "supreme power" capable of exercising necessary authority not merely a shadow government, fragmented and hopelessly ineffective.
The New Jersey Plan
This nationalist position revolted many delegates who cringed at the vision of a central government swallowing state sovereignty. On June 13 delegates from smaller states rallied around proposals offered by New Jersey delegate William Paterson. Railing against efforts to throw the states into "hotchpot," Paterson proposed a "union of the States merely federal." The "New Jersey resolutions" called only for a revision of the articles to enable the Congress more easily to raise revenues and regulate commerce. It also provided that acts of Congress and ratified treaties be "the supreme law of the States."
For 3 days the convention debated Paterson's plan, finally voting for rejection. With the defeat of the New Jersey resolutions, the convention was moving toward creation of a new government, much to the dismay of many small-state delegates. The nationalists, led by Madison, appeared to have the proceedings in their grip. In addition, they were able to persuade the members that any new constitution should be ratified through conventions of the people and not by the Congress and the state legislatures- -another tactical coup. Madison and his allies believed that the constitution they had in mind would likely be scuttled in the legislatures, where many state political leaders stood to lose power. The nationalists wanted to bring the issue before "the people," where ratification was more likely.
Hamilton's Plan
On June 18 Alexander Hamilton presented his own ideal plan of government. Erudite and polished, the speech, nevertheless, failed to win a following. It went too far. Calling the British government "the best in the world," Hamilton proposed a model strikingly similar an executive to serve during good behavior or life with veto power over all laws; a senate with members serving during good behavior; the legislature to have power to pass "all laws whatsoever." Hamilton later wrote to Washington that the people were now willing to accept "something not very remote from that which they have lately quitted." What the people had "lately quitted," of course, was monarchy. Some members of the convention fully expected the country to turn in this direction. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, a wealthy physician, declared that it was "pretty certain . . . that we should at some time or other have a king." Newspaper accounts appeared in the summer of 1787 alleging that a plot was under way to invite the second son of George III, Frederick, Duke of York, the secular bishop of Osnaburgh in Prussia, to become "king of the United States."
Strongly militating against any serious attempt to establish monarchy was the enmity so prevalent in the revolutionary period toward royalty and the privileged classes. Some state constitutions had even prohibited titles of nobility. In the same year as the Philadelphia convention, Royall Tyler, a revolutionary war veteran, in his play The Contract, gave his own jaundiced view of the upper classes:
Exult each patriot heart! this night is shewn A piece, which we may fairly call our own; Where the proud titles of "My Lord!" "Your Grace!" To humble Mr. and plain Sir give place.
Most delegates were well aware that there were too many Royall Tylers in the country, with too many memories of British rule and too many ties to a recent bloody war, to accept a king. As the debate moved into the specifics of the new government, Alexander Hamilton and others of his persuasion would have to accept something less.
throughout the summer arguments were made and orators orated. it appeared at times that no one would prevail with even a modicum of happiness. washington was sad he was a part of it. franklin called for prayer after prayer that the "Father of lights . . . illuminate our understandings." and when, on 29 june 1787, the decision to establish state population as the basis for representation in the house of representatives all hell broke loose. perhaps the mood of the moment of the small states is best summed up by the words of luther martin (delegate from maryland) "The States have a right to an equality of representation. This is secured to us by our present articles of confederation; we are in possession of this privilege."
there was more compromise to come, but finally, on 06 august of that same year came the first draft of our beloved constitution. it was the article-by-article basis from which the final draft would come just a short five weeks later. but the controversy was not yet over.
after much haggling about slavery, regulation of commerce, regulation of navigation and the like, on 31 august 1787 george mason wrote to his son that he "would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands." further worrying about the lack of a personal "bill of rights" included in the constitution, mason called for a new convention to reconsider the whole notion of the formation of a new government. he was voted down.
several more revisions, debates and compromises later, the document written, primarily, by governor morris the constitution was turned back over to the convention for a final round. mason (joined by edmund randolph and elbridge gerry) called for amendments once again - soundly rebuffed, the vote on 15 september 1787 resulted in the return of an "aye" vote from every state in attendance. by 4pm on 17 september 1787, all members of the convention had dutifully set their hand to the document.
the matter was done - well sort of.
this when the fun really started. the process of ratification. i should note, that alexander hamilton thought there was a better than average chance that the document would NOT be ratified.
just 12 days after the convention ended, pennsylvania called for a ratifying convention for the state. in the previous weeks, the writings of the federalists and anti-federalists of that state were reprinted in newspapers far and wide. on the 29th, short by two of the count required to make a quorum for the ratify convention, a mob of citizens supporting the federalist viewpoint dragged two anti-federalist members from their homes and forced them to stay at the convention until the votes had been cast. hows that for a participating citizenry?!?
throughout the fall the battle waged - in every state - with the anti-federalists denouncing the proposed government and the federalists defending. by and large the federalists were much more organized than the anti-federalists, even so, the af's made their presence - and their dissatisfaction - well known.
it is at this time, in response to a series of essays by "cato", alexander hamilton and john jay wrote their 85 essays now known as the "federalist papers." thomas jefferson later called this group of essays the "best commentary on the principles of government ever written."
by 09 january 1788 only five of the require nine states had ratified the constitution - delaware, pennsylvania, new jersey, georgia, and connecticut. the outcome in massachusetts, new york and virginia were pivotal and uncertain. only after the state federalists agreed to recommend a list of amendments to be a "bill of rights" did massachusetts ratify the proposed document. the recommendation was a huge victory for the anti-federalists and soon after six other states made similar recommendations
after ratification failed in new hampshire and then rhode island (10 to 1 against the ratification) all eyes turned to the ratification convention in maryland. on 28 april 1788, with a vote of 63 to 11 the maryland convention accepted the tenets of the constitution. in july of that same year new hampshire reconvened and ratified the constitution and the ratification in south carolina made it nine.
over the course of the next two months, new york and virginia ratified the document and a congressionally appointed committee was busy "putting the said constitution to work." it is important to note that in most states, the margin for ratification was extremely close. hamilton deduced that the majority of the PEOPLE in the country were probably opposed to the constitution and it was only the promise of a "bill of rights" that had ensured the federalists' victory
yes, that's right people, the constitution of the united states of america became the law of the land BEFORE the first ten amendments to the constitution had even been written. we'll cover those later, but the limits of the government weren't delineated and excepted by a majority of states until 15 december 1791!
tomorrow, we'll begin to review the actual document. any comments thus far?
tuesday, fred at right wing nut house proposed that those of us who support fred make a concerted effort to help raise funds for fred's campaign in iowa. you can read the whole post, above, but in part he said:
don’t think any of us believe that our endorsement of Thompson alone means that much in the long run. But working together, uniting for one day and speaking with one voice, I think we could make a significant impact on Fred’s chances in Iowa. After all, when the candidate you support rolls the dice as Fred has, the least we can do is back his play to the best of our ability.
then, today, i received this email from fred's campaign - seems like fred was prescient...
The first leg of our Iowa bus tour last week was phenomenal. We visited with voters in 21 cities and towns and did 21 events all across the state. Everywhere we went we were greeted by enthusiastic crowds of Iowans who are looking for a consistent conservative leader who will tell it like it is.
It's working: Just last Friday a new Strategic Vision poll showed me moving into a strong third at 16%.
We are poised for the great showing we want!
Just last week I picked u p the endorsement of Congressman Steve King. He has been a champion in the fight to end illegal immigration, and I am pleased that he has joined our team. He's been with me on the bus and the great reception we've received on the tour has really put a jolt into this race.
This is where you come in.
I have a terrific new TV spot. You can see it now at Fred08.com. Take a look, and forward this message on to 10 of your friends.
I need your help to put it on the air. We need to put $248,846 in the bank before 6 PM EST on Friday, December 28th to do it.
Can you help me by making a contribution today? I know I've asked a lot, and you've done a lot, but this is critical to our success. Help me make history.
The Clear Conservative Choice: Hands Down bus tour will run from today to caucus day. We have a terrific ground game in place.
All we need is air cover--which the spot on our website will provide.
This ad will help me let the people of Iowa know that my plans for this country are the best that have been presented. It will help me make the case that not only am I the only reliable, consistent conservative in this race, but that I have the experience and the vision to lead our Party and our nation through difficult times.
if any of you out there like fred but are waiting to see what happens in the primaries, you're waiting too long. support him now so that he has a strong showing in iowa and he will be the nominee for the gop.
so this is my effort for the cause. i gave today and i will give again tomorrow. who among you will join me?
in my [way] old webster's dictionary at home - published well before 1950 - i looked up the word 'racism' and found this:
rac·ism(rā'sĭz'əm) n. the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.
that's it - one line and it's pretty straightforward. as near as i can tell, it doesn't differentiate between "white racism" or "christian racism" or "homophobic racism". notably, neither does it say anything about "black racism" or "muslim racism" or "jewish racism" or "asian racism" and so on and so forth. presumably they are all the same and one is not worse than another.
but here in america, it seems that whites - read that as heterosexual, conservative, fanatics - are held accountable for all manner of things that have "stricken" those who are not the same as we. we're white america, we're awful and we deserve to be castigated.
after all, slavery was our invention, right? well no. but ok, we were the slave traders of note - we captured the slaves and sent them back here, right? well, no again. ok ok, but whites were the only ones who owned slaves in america, right? well, not quite. ok, but america was the only country that ever allowed enslavement, that one's true, right? um, no. but slavery was allowed for a longer period of time in america than any where else, wasn't it? nope. well, conservatives are against welfare which is the only way to help the poor ignorant blacks out of poverty (which in and of itself is another form of slavery), everybody knows that. wrong again bozo.
let's pick apart these arguments, shall we?
slavery has existed for as long as man has had civilizations. people of all races have been subjugated to the realm of slaves. and in some parts of the world, it still exists today. according to wikipedia (yes i know not the greatest source, but it jives with my hard paper encyclopedias and it's easier than retyping everything):
The evidence for slavery predates written records. It can be found in almost all cultures and continents. Slavery can be traced to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi in Mesopotamia (~1800 BCE.), which refers to slavery as an already established institution. The forced labor of women in some ancient and modern cultures may also be identified as slavery. Slavery, in this case, includes sexual services.
Historically, most slaves were captured in wars or kidnapped in isolated raids, but some persons were sold into slavery by their parents as a means of surviving extreme conditions. Most slaves were born into that status, to parents who were enslaved. Ancient Warfare often resulted in slavery for prisoners and their families, who were either killed, ransomed or sold as slaves. Captives were often considered the property of those who captured them and were looked upon as a prize of war. Slavery may originally have been more humane than simply executing those who would return to fight if they were freed, but the effect led to widespread enslavement of particular groups of people. Those captured sometimes differed in ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race from their enslavers, but often were the same as the captors. The dominant group in an area might take captives and turn them into slaves with little fear of suffering the like fate. The possibility always existed of reversals of fortune, as when Seneca warned, at the height of the Roman Empire, when powerful nations fought among themselves, anyone might find himself enslaved.
Brief sporadic raids or kidnapping could mean enslavement of persons otherwise not at war. St. Patrick recounted in his Confession having been kidnapped by pirates. In the Genesis, Joseph was sold into slavery by brothers who were jealous of him.
that effectively rules out the argument that slavery is a white on black phenomenon in general and specifically that it was a heinous act perpetrated by american whites against african blacks. that's not to say that white americans didn't own black slaves, however, it does show that we didn't start the process. nor were we the last ones to practice it, that would be the muslims who are still practicing the art of slavery today.
while it is true that white european males were the primary transporters of slaves (and other goods) from africa, it is NOT true that white european males were responsible for the capture of the peoples being enslaved. according to bill warner, director of the center for the study of political islam (cspi) and spokesman for politicalislam.com, white european (and 'american') males were purchasing their slaves for resale from muslim slave traders. from part two of a two part interview with jamie glazov of front page magazine, bill warner has this to say:
"History records around 11,000,000 Africans being sent to the Americas and about 13,000,000 being sent to Islamic countries for a total of 24,000,000 African slaves. To get one slave, many others have to be killed for the tribe to surrender to enslavement. The old, sick and children are left behind to starve. These collateral deaths are conservatively estimated to about 5 to 1. So that implies that over 1400 years, 120,000,000 million Africans have been killed to furnish Islam with its profits.
The accepted history of race in the U.S. is that white men captured Africans, brought them to the U.S. and sold them as slaves. This is wrong. When the white slavers showed up on the west coast of Africa, they didn’t capture Africans. They looked them over in the pens, gave the Muslim slave traders their money, took their bills of sale, and loaded their purchases into their boats.
The Muslims had been plying the trade of war, capture, enslavement, and sale for a thousand years. Mohammed was a slave trader. Long after the white slave traders quit, the Muslims continued their African slave trade. It still exists today.
And to put a fine point on it, many African slaves were castrated by removing both testicles and penis. Castrated slaves brought more on the slave block. Castrated blacks were the traditional keepers of Mohammed's mosque in Medina."
isn't it ironic, then, that black people who convert to islam do so with the belief that islam is the religion for blacks while christianity is the religion of the whites? muhammed considered himself white and he was a huge proponent of slavery. did you know that the arabic word for black slave and black person are the same "abd"; the word for white and asian slaves is "mamluk" - just something i found interesting. but that's a whole other blog post in and of itself. muslims take slaves now and they did then.
black people point the finger at white people, to this day, attributing to all whites all manner of evil for having owned slaves. i don't know about all of you reading this, but unless you're a muslim i can't believe that anyone reading this post is a proponent of slavery - black, child or other. personally, i believe that it is wrong and it saddens me that anyone in the human race would ever engage in the perpetration of it - including black people.
in the sudan and nigeria and mauritania - all of which have predominantly black populations - are still practicing slavery today. i won't include egypt and saudi arabia and the other muslim countries where it's still going on because the arabs consider themselves white so it's not necessarily a valid argument. but let's contain ourselves to the question of the united states, shall we?
a google search of "black slave holders" returns approximately 148,000 results - click on darn ear any one of them and you're welcomed into a world that you were never taught existed - at least not in the public school systems in america. i chose a few that i found interesting to share here.
back in 2001 the fine folks at free republic reposted a 1997 barnes review article by robert m. grooves. mr. grooms is a freelance writer of the highest caliber. in the article he sites several references to support his writings. an excerpt from the article is here:
The leftists who predominate in the mass media and the world of academe have refashioned the by gone world of slavery and black life in the Old South. Their agenda does not allow for a balanced view of a world they never knew.
In a society molded by highly skewed and agenda-selective presentations of history, the tightest censorship involves the fact that large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.
The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.
The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.
in point of fact, slavery in america was founded by a black man named "anthony johnson". anthony johnson was one of the first 20 blacks to arrive on the continent - as an indentured servant not a slave. check out this excerpt the 'virginia, guide to the old dominion, wpa writers' program' published by the oxford university press in 1940:
"In 1650 there were only 300 negroes in Virginia, about one percent of the population. They weren't slaves any more than the approximately 4,000 white indentured servants working out their loans for passage money to Virginia, and who were granted 50 acres each when freed from their indentures, so they could raise their own tobacco.
Slavery was established in 1654 when Anthony Johnson, Northampton County, convinced the court that he was entitled to the lifetime services of John Casor, a negro. This was the first judicial approval of life servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
But who was Anthony Johnson, winner of this epoch-making decision? Anthony Johnson was a negro himself, one of the original 20 brought to Jamestown (1619) and 'sold' to the colonists. By 1623 he had earned his freedom and by 1651, was prosperous enough to import five 'servants' of his own, for which he received a grant of 250 acres as 'headrights.'
Anthony Johnson ought to be in a 'Book of Firsts.' As the most ambitious of the first 20, he could have been the first negro to set foot on Virginia soil. He was Virginia's first free negro and first to establish a negro community, first negro landowner, first negro slave owner and as the first, white or black, to secure slave status for a servant, he was actually the founder of slavery in Virginia. A remarkable man." (emphasis is mine)
and it is true that conservatives are against welfare but at least it's because they want to end all forms of slavery. the dems know that welfare and other such entitlement programs don't do anything for the plight of the poor - black or otherwise. even hillary knows it - but don't take my word for it read what she wrote in her college senior thesis. the whole story behind the thesis and its being hidden from view is an interesting read in and of itself, but in this excerpt is hillary's acknowledgment that she KNOWS what she's doing with her social programs support:
In her paper, she accepted Alinsky's view that the problem of the poor isn't so much a lack of money as a lack of power, as well as his view of federal anti-poverty programs as ineffective. (To Alinsky, the War on Poverty was a “prize piece of political pornography,” even though some of its funds flowed through his organizations.) “A cycle of dependency has been created,” she wrote, “which ensnares its victims into resignation and apathy.”
i know this has been a particularly long post, but i couldn't figure out where to cut it. perhaps i need to hire an editor or something. this is information that everyone in this country should know. i'm positive that the reverends jesse and al know it. i'm certain that most of the leaders of the naacp and the aclu know it too. lord knows the muslims know it - well the bulk of it any way.
in parting, just a couple more questions that i am unable to divine the answer to: why is that we aren't teaching our children actual history but rather some fairytale that does nothing if not inflame the hatred of america even here at home. when did white americans of european descent become the be all, end all of racism and hatred?
someone once told me that if you're not a liberal when you're young then you have no heart and that if you're still a liberal when you're an adult than you have no brain. sage words, these. but do they really apply in the here and now?
now-a-days all the kids are talking about this guy being a "moderate republican" that guy being a "compassionate conservative". excuse me? conservatism, by its very nature is compassionate and what does it mean to be a "moderate" republican. seems to me that's just liberal-lite.
i believe that there are four major components to being a conservative: fiscal, security, social and constitutional constructionism (is that a word?). it is not a pick one from column a and one from column b chinese dinner. it is an all or nothing proposition. without all of these qualities represented, what is the real difference between the republicans and the democrats?
i am a red state conservative. i make no apologies for it and i certainly don't make any excuses for it. i believe that the constitution means what it says. if i have a question as to the intent, i believe that i can find the answers in the federalist papers and sometimes even in the anti-federalist papers.
that said, as far as the 2008 republican race goes, this is the way i see things taking shape:
mitt romney may win iowa and/or new hampshire. he's been spending all of his capital (and then some) to make that happen. however, he currently has nearly double the amount of campaign debt as cash and so for all intents and purposes his campaign is about bankrupt. if it weren't for his use of his personal funds thus far, his race would already be in the "also ran" category.
john mccain is done and has been nearly since the time of his declaration of intent to run. he's nearly bankrupt and completely out of sync with the americans he claims to represent. his status as hugely unpopular can be traced to his insane views on immigration, the gang of 14 on judges confirmation, and even campaign finance reform. his refusal to aggressively interrogate terrorists isn't helping him any, either.
mike huckabee has small pockets of supporters who would like to see a baptist minister elected, period. as near as i can tell, he is conservative only in his pro-life stance and his support of one man + one woman = marriage. even if he somehow wins iowa, he won't go any further.
ron paul may be just a tad touched in the head. at the very least he's an isolationist who doesn't understand that we live in a global economy. and while ronald reagan did say "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.", that hardly makes me feel better where mr. paul is concerned. additionally, his ties to white supremacists and anti-semitics are starting to surface - all of which means there is no way he will ever be a serious contender for the republican nomination.
duncan hunter and tom tancredo are both awesome men. either of them could represent the country and the party quite well. however, for whatever reason, neither of them has been able to capture the attention of conservative voters nationwide and so make it unlikely that either one of them could get voters to unite behind him. i do hope that they each find a position in any republican administration that is formed as a result of the 2008 election. it will be very interesting to see which candidate each endorses - i really wish they'd concede already and allow people to start uniting under one of the others.
that leaves two players really left standing after super tuesday 2008 - fred thompson and rudy giuliani. fred is the only one i see who is able to reconcile all four points of conservatism that i listed above. he is the only one who seems to truly understand how our government is supposed to work as laid out by our founding fathers and ratified by our ancestors in each of the states.
rudy is trying to move to the right on the issues that are of concern, but i don't think it will work. there are just too many holes. i know people who say he's great except for the abortion thing but that he says he'll appoint conservative judges so that's good enough. but is it?
according to university of pennsylvania's factcheck.org only 14 of the 23 tax cuts that rudy giuliani has been claiming can actually be credited to him. they further say:
In fact, he strongly opposed one of the largest cuts for which he claims credit, reversing himself only after a five-month standoff with the city council. In addition, the ad's claim that Giuliani turned the budget deficit he inherited into a surplus, while true enough, ignores the fact that he also left a multibillion-dollar deficit for his successor, not including costs associated with 9/11.
FACT: Mayor Giuliani Not Only Wanted To Keep The Tax, He Wanted To Raise It:
Mayor Giuliani Said That The Commuter Tax Should Be Increased Rather Than Eliminated. "Earlier today, Mr. Giuliani assailed the Legislature for seeking to end the commuter tax, saying that if anything, it should be higher." (Clifford J. Levy, "Leaders In Albany Plan To Eliminate Tax On Commuters," The New York Times, 5/13/99)
Mayor Giuliani Threatened Politicians Who Considered Voting For The Tax Cut. "At the City Hall event, Giuliani also warned Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) and any other city-elected backers of the tax cut: 'Voting against the interests of the city, somehow, some way, you will pay for it.'" (Dan Janison, "Former Foes United," [New York] Newsday, 5/17/99)
in august of 1996, on the charlie rose show, rudy stated that he didn't fully agree with tax cuts proposed by bob dole, but thought that it was a good political ploy to get people focused on bob dole. so is rudy using it as a political ploy now? makes me wonder.
also, when questioned about how he was justifying his claim of being responsible for all 23 tax cuts the exchange went like this:
The former mayor summed up his position in this exchange:.
Saltonstall: All you have to do is say, ‘I support it,’ and you get credit for it? Giuliani: Of course. That’s exactly right. Of course.
i disagree with this statement, as do tax experts quoted by the Daily News.
rudy ran new york as a sanctuary city but says he didn't. his stated stance was that it is up to the federal government to deal with illegal aliens. rudy says that he supports a tamper-proof id and such, but how would he enforce it? the cities and states MUST work with the federal government, not against it, to enforce anything having to do with immigration - illegal or otherwise - else the problem will simply continue to grow. sounds like he agrees with kansas's stance which is just plain ridiculous. it's like saying "yes, it's illegal to rob the bank, but once you have the money it's yours." whatever.
his spending was nothing to write home about either. while he claims to have had a surplus when he left office, that's not quite the truth. when rudy took the reigns for nyc from dinkins, the city had a $1.4 billion budget shortfall. when he left, the after math of 9/11 not withstanding, the city had a $3.5 billion budget shortfall - more than twice the amount as when he took over. if you factor in the damages from 9/11 (which i don't think it fair to do) the budget shortfall is greater than $5 billion.
we have had nearly eight years of "compassionate conservatism" and what has it gotten us? don't get me wrong. i am NOT bashing bush for the sake of bashing him, but while he has been steadfast in his effort to appoint conservative judges and executing the war on terror, he has been an excessive spender as well. we can't afford another "compassionate conservative" or "moderate republican".
there are other issues as well, too numerous to list in this post, but he is not the conservative he is claiming to be. the long and the short of it is that middle america or texas or anywhere else outside of new york, really, is not new york. by and large, red state conservatives will not vote or unite behind a new york republican. this means that if rudy gets the nod from the rnc, we are very likely looking at the democrats winning the white house. can you say "madame president"?
so do the words from the start of the post apply to the here and now? in my mind yes. if the republican party is not the party of conservatives then what is the point of having the republican party? if the alternative to the secular, anti-american liberals is the pro-american, secular "moderate" republicans then, again, what's the point?
everyone keeps saying that rudy giuliani is the inevitable winner of the 2008 rnc nomination. why? because "he can beat hillary?" i disagree. he's not inspiring in real life, but he sure does great in the soundbites! let's examine the real mr. giuliani a bit, shall we?
some are pointing to the fact that he's been married more than twice as an issue. that's just fluff - actually, i think the msm is saying that the marriage thing is an issue for conservatives because they assume it is and they found a couple of people to agree so we all must think so too.
no, i'm more concerned about the things he did as mayor giuliani than as mr. giuliani. i'm also concerned with what he is saying now to try to change who he has been - and i believe that we all need to be so.
in a recent column, pat buchanan posits that rudy is "...represents a return to liberal Republicanism that would strip the GOP of its hard-won progress on moral, social and cultural issues..." he further says:
A Giuliani presidency would represent the return and final triumph of the Republicanism that conservatives went into politics to purge from power. A Giuliani presidency would represent repudiation by the party of the moral, social and cultural content that, with anti-communism, once separated it from liberal Democrats and defined it as an institution.
i believe this to be dead on accurate. this video says so much about him while rudy's have a grand ol' time:
so after a public lifetime of being pro-abortion, anti-gun rights, pro-affirmative action, etc. and being in march after march in the gay rights parade in new york, we are now to believe that he's a conservative? sorry, i'm not buying it.
"...the smart money has long suggested that Giuliani is incapable of winning the Republican nomination for the presidency because of his hideous positions on homosexuality and abortion. But it appears Giuliani is aware of this weakness and is attempting to hoodwink American evangelicals the way Bill Clinton did.
As Andrew Sullivan put it, "If Rudy is talking Jesus, he's going to run."
And, boy, is he ever talking the talk.
Rudy Giuliani in drag
Now, before I tell you what he said, and to whom he said it, let me first introduce to you the real Rudy Giuliani.
Is America really ready for a drag-queen president?
Can America survive another obnoxious phony baloney masquerading as one thing and governing as another?
Will Republicans be fooled again and nominate a candidate who favors unrestricted abortion on demand?
Should we expect the Grand Old Party to become the Gay Old Party in 2008 and put its stamp of approval on a guy 100 percent committed to the homosexual activist agenda?
and look where we are with rudy.
for instance, with rudy giuliani we get the same view on abortion that president clinton had (and will have): personally against it, but believes a woman has a right to choose. and then he says he supports constitutional constructionists for judges. forgive my blondness, but aren't these two viewpoints just a tad contradictory?
it would be different if he said "i personally am opposed to abortion, and i believe that with a court comprised of constitutional constructionists roe v. wade would be overturned and the rule on abortion would be handed back to the states (where it belongs) and then i would fight at the state level to protect a woman's right to choose." but that's not what he has said. at least i have been unable to find any thing to indicate that this is what he believes.
the people over at the jewish task force break it down even further, calling rudy the 2008 election disaster. much of the article is no longer timely (john mc cain and condoleeza are both mentioned as possible winners) but the information on rudy is still valid, if a trifle harsh... in the article (that was originally published in 2005) they say:
Giuliani is completely pro-abortion, and even supports the barbaric practice known as partial birth abortion.
But that is just the beginning of his extreme left-wing positions: Giuliani is pro-Sodomite, pro-Third World immigration and anti-Second Amendment.
Every year as New York's mayor, Giuliani marched in the Sodomite parade down Fifth Avenue with all of the transvestites, the sadomasochistic freaks wearing Nazi helmets, and the child molesters of the National Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).
Giuliani himself dressed in "drag" - he wore a dress, a wig, makeup and lipstick - on more than one occasion.
Giuliani's sexual escapades are as bad as those of Bill Clinton.
Giuliani married his first cousin and then pulled all types of strings to get the marriage annulled by the Catholic Church. (Catholics are not allowed to divorce, and so "annulment" of a marriage is sometimes used to end an unwanted union.)
Giuliani then married his second wife, Donna Hanover, who starred in the evil pornographic and child-molesting play, The Vagina Monologues. In the play, a grown woman has a lesbian, child-molesting relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
An uncaring mother and a cheating husband made for tabloid fodder during the messy Giuliani-Hanover divorce - Television personality Donna Hanover starred in The Vagina Monologues, a play about lesbian pedophilia, and played Jimmy Carter's sister, Ruth Carter Stapleton, in The People vs. Larry Flynt, a loving cinematic tribute to the infamous porn king, depicted in the film as a “free speech” crusader
Giuliani then openly cheated on his second wife, parading around the city with his adulterous mate, Judith Nathan. Giuliani even wanted to bring his adulterous mate into the Mayor's official residence in Gracie Mansion to openly live with him. He did not care that his young son Andrew was living there and would have seen his father together with his adulterous partner every day.
Finally, Giuliani sought to divorce his second wife. This time, he did not seek an "annulment," he openly sought a divorce.
When the Giuliani's separated, he moved into the apartment of an AIDS-infected homosexual "couple" whom he had befriended.
How can Republicans who so bitterly condemned the terrible moral example set by Bill Clinton now support for President the equally slimy Rudy Giuliani?
back in june william burnett references a piece in the village voice denouncing rudy's catholicness. in so far as i could care less what religion potus is (provided it's not islam or the like) this does have some implications. if he's not really catholic, based on his actions and his life, then how can we expect him to behave in a conservative manner at any level? any way, in the burnett piece he says:
On abortion, the article goes point-by-point in Giuliani's public career to demonstrate a man embracing the so-called right to abortion much more than politically necessary to get elected into office. In fact, as a matter of policy, Giuliani continued Mayor Ed Koch's practice of having the city fund abortions at city hospitals for women who could not afford it -- no questions asked. According to the article...
One of [Giuliani's] prime claims to the presidency, emphasized on the stump, is his slashing of the city's welfare rolls. But even as he found brutal new ways to cut the poor off the dole, he was using millions in city funds to subsidize abortions for women whose incomes were too high to meet [Federal subsidy] eligibility standards.
this does not sound like a man who is "personally against abortion" to me. does it to you?
possibly more informative is this information from john hawkins over at human events. he lays it out so well, i can't think any more should be necessary as a reason to vote against this guy in the primaries. mr. hawkins posits that rudy is not really against gay marriages, is anti-second amendment, pro-abortion, and he is pro-illegal immigration. in fact mr. hawkins says:
If you agree with the way that Nancy Pelosi and Company deal with illegal immigration, then you'll find the way that Rudy Giuliani tackles the issue to be right down your alley.
there is more, but it goes on and on and on. none of it good. call him charismatic. call him personable. call him a great salesman. just don't call him a conservative, because he isn't.
personally, i think that rudy was very positive and public in the aftermath of 9/11. however, i also recognize that 9/11 saved rudy politically. does this make him a good fit to be potus? i don't think so. but make no mistake: IF rudy gets the nomination (because a lot of people are too idiotic to vote for an actual conservative) i will support his bid for the presidency. i just don't want it to come down to that....
earlier this year jerry rivers, aka geraldo rivera, says that "...illegal aliens commit crimes at a lower rate than u.s. citizens..." however, shouldn't someone remind geraldo that if they came here without permission, then 100% of them have committed a crime? i'm sure all of you have seen the video, but here it is just in case.
i bring this up because i saw this on the back of a pickup truck on i-35 today: "don't worry, the king of england didn't like the minute man project either" and it got me to thinking about all this again. He also had "Support the 2nd Amendment; its the original homeland security act" but that's a whole other post...
recently due, at least in part, to public outcry dick durbin and harry reid's latest version of the "dream act" was defeated. i doubt seriously that it will finally die here. these people apparently don't understand that the good people of the united states simply DO NOT support their efforts to give amnesty to the illegal aliens in this country.
they will not admit that the amnesty push is simply a ploy to get more voters into the fold. and it seems that each the democrats and the bush "republicans" think that "they" will be the ones to garner the voters.
the proponents of "undocumented citizens" will tell you that at one point all of us entered the country illegally. whatever. if they really believe this, then why do they not oppose the immigration laws of mexico or canada or - well you get the picture. they don't believe this, it's just a convenient sound bite to justify support for breaking the laws of our country.
the people who are coming to our country illegally, are NOT coming here to become a part of our communities and our country. they demand that we change our culture to accommodate them. they demand that we speak their language. the fly the flag of the country they abandoned to come here. they demand the rights of citizens when they are NOT citizens.
but do they support the same type of treatment for immigrants to their countries? of course not. well, at least vincente fox doesn't. he believes that the u.s. borders should be open but that mexico has the right to keeps its borders closed.
but the worst is not the trash they are bringing to our country. it is not the increase in the cost of educational services, medical services, welfare services, crime and punishment or infrastructure. no, the worst is that these illegal immigrants take so much and contribute so little.
i had a conversation with some people i know who put forth the argument that these people who are working "without documentation" or with "borrowed documentation" are actually good for the country. see, the rationale is that they are paying all this money into the tax system and taking so little because they can't because they are "considered" illegal.
usillegalaliens blog had a great post (well one of many) where they analyze the impact of illegal aliens on our country. the article is long and has many references, but it is well worth the read; the information contained in it is simply amazing. the article also brings out a point i had not heard before:
Finally, another negative aspect of illegal immigration, that few realize, is the impact it is having on Congressional reapportionment. Remember, the Census Bureau counts all people for determining representative apportionment, not just citizens. As a result, there is a shift of political power going on from the states with lower illegal alien populations to states with higher illegal alien populations as noted in a Center for Immigration Studies article, Remaking the Political Landscape - The Impact of Illegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment, as detailed in the chart to the right.
Note the 18 seat swing from mostly rust belt to sun belt? You can expect more of this after the 2010 census, if we continue counting foreign nationals for congressional representation - something I'm sure the founders did not intend when they put the enumeration requirement in the Constitution.
All this is massive collateral damage from a "victimless crime" so we can save ten cents on a head of lettuce.
additionally, as this article by daniel gonzalez of the arizona republic points out, the illegals spend as little as possible so that they can send as much as possible home. this allows the family members left behind to live a bit better than they otherwise would and it props up the mexican economy to boot.
i know, i know. not ALL immigrants who are here illegally are from mexico, but the vast majority of them are. i understand that there are others who are slipping in side door and it includes drug dealers and perhaps even terrorists. all the more reason we need to close the borders.
recently chris burgard released a new movie, border, paints a horrible but true picture of what the illegal immigration is doing along our border with mexico. according the film's website:
"Border takes you on a journey from state to state and exposes a failed system and a failed policy. Burgard's courageous journey includes powerful footage in the border crossing regions of America where dead bodies, armed Mexican military incursions, 'rape trees,' and drug traffickers are commonplace."
in an interview with frontpage magazine, chris burgard discusses the film and how/why he got started in making it. i think the most telling thing he said in the interview (and none of it was fluff) was:
Well I know that the problem will continue only as long as the Federal Government wants it too. After seeing a US Stryker unit completely close down one of the biggest drug corridors in New Mexico for a month, and after spending a great deal of time working with the rank and file US Border Patrol agents. I am convinced that we have more than enough tools in the shed to secure the border whenever we want to. It is a matter of choosing not to. If enough people pay attention and participate, keep up the same kind of pressure that shut down the phone system of the US Senate, only then when the politicians in Washington are afraid of losing their jobs and their power will you see real change.
i believe he's right. i believe it's time to shut this down NOW. any ideas of what the next step is?
i watched the debate last night. and then i watched it again this morning. and then again at lunch time.
i really like watching these things on the computer, after the fact, so that i can pause and reflect and pause and replay, etc.. in addition i read the live blogging from fred's campaign page to get his people's viewpoint and it's a must read in my opinion.
i also, purposely, didn't watch the "post debate action" until after i was satisfied that i had gleaned all that i could from the debate. i also didn't watch the "post debate action" until i had visited the blogs of a few of my favorite bloggers including conservatism with heart, blogs for fred thompson, hot air, goat's barnyard and michelle malkin. i have great respect for each of these blogs and like that they always challenge me (and themselves) with great questions.
having said that, i'd like to give my point of view and hope to spark some good conversations here, and elsewhere.
dee's view, over at conservatism with heart is that rudy won the debate and that fred was down the list with a "b" rating. she says:
Fred Thompson--B I hate to admit it but Thompson was some what of a disappointment last night. He had some good answers on things but he didn't do anything to inspire passion. I liked his answer on Education and vouchers, his line referring to the Haditha marines and he had a great response to the lazy question but otherwise not a big night for him.
it's really rare, but i have to respectfully disagree with dee (sorry, but i still love you). he's a slow speaker, but that shouldn't be mistaken for lack of interest. i listened to his words, i watched his face, i think he was brilliant.
fred addressed the questions put to him honestly and forthrightly (is that a word) regardless of the "fall out". i thought fred had great passion - when he spoke about beating hillary and reminding us what the party stands for: "...let's don't get diverted onto some single individual, whoever their nominee is, they're going to lead us down the road to a comfortable mediocrity and that's not the united states of america that i grew up in." when he spoke of integrity in saying what he said that needs to happen with social security - he stood by what others have quoted him as saying, saying: "...it's based on the notion that there's no reason to run for the presidency of the united states if you can't tell the truth..."
i'd love to see a thompson/hunter ticket for 2008. i believe the two of them to be the most consistent, conservative and electable on the stage last night.
i heard some other things that i liked from some others.
i used to like mccain. then he started veering left in the 2000 cycle to appeal to the libs. then he pulled his "gang of 14" gig. then the immigration issues. and the list goes on and on. but aside from the woodstock comment that garnered him a standing 'o', he also said "...he's going to force us to setup a league of democracies..." in regards to putin and russia. however, we can't setup a league of anything if we sign onto the law of the sea treaty which mccain isn't speaking out against at this point.
i've never been a big fan of mike huckabee. i know that many like him, but he just seems like a lib in rino clothing to me. not at the debate, but still one of my favorite stories ever:
congratulations are in order for Keith Richards, lead guitarist for the Rolling Stones. The man has been promised a pardon for a traffic offense — from 1975 — courtesy of a fan, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Richards was fined $162.20 for reckless driving more than three decades ago after being stopped in a tiny town 70 miles south of Little Rock, between shows in Memphis and Dallas, reports Reuters. Richards paid the fine by mail.
Huckabee said he talked to the possible future father of Capt. Jack Sparrow backstage at a Stones concert in March, and, after Richards joked about his past, the governor (and bass player in an amateur band) suggested the rocker apply for a pardon.
i like that story because my husband plays bass in an amateur band too. :) but seriously folks. i have to give kudos to mr. huckabee for having the best line of the debate when he said "there's nothing funny about hillary being president." how right he is, how right he is. but still not enough for to want him on the ticket....
i'm not going to comment too much on mitt or rudy. i would vote for either of them if they made it on the ticket, but i won't be voting to put them there. i just don't like them very much. i think mitt likes to make too many deals with the libs in order to say he did something, anything. and i think rudy likes big government and likes being a part of big government.
any how, all in all i think fred was the most impressive. i think fred was the only one on the stage who deserved to invoke ronny. i think i like fred more and more as time passes...
in what world do the people who have entered a country without going through legal channels have an expectation of a citizen's rights? in the [race] apologists' world. in what country do these people reside? why the united states of america, of course.
among those clamoring for the u.s. to open our borders is the president of mexico himself. by now, i'm sure you've heard that he made some remarks if not the actual words; if this is redundant for you, i apologize in advance. earlier this month mexican president, filipe calderon, gave a state of the union address to his constituents and he said "I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico. And, for this reason, the government action on behalf of our countrymen is guided by principles, for the defense and protection of their rights." talk about imperialistic aspirations!
and yet, although you've heard much from the likes of michelle's gang over at hotair and other bloggers big and small, there has been precious little to expose this man for who he is in the msm. however, i do want to give credit where due so i must acknowledge that chris dodd did speak out against calderon's arrogance. further, there has been no condemnation from anyone in our government - or at least none that i can find. nor can i find any from any of the presidential candidates on either side of the aisle. in fact, the only one i can find who has denounced this at all is walter moore, candidate for mayor of los angeles; hat tip to vanishing american.
it's amazing to me that any candidate for the american presidency would allow this comment to stand unchallenged. but that is a whole other discussion.
here in kansas city, the town where i have now lived for nearly 3 years, we have a skirmish that is reminiscent of some of the larger battles being waged nationwide in this immigration debate. and trust me, i use the word 'debate' loosely.
here in kc, la raza was scheduled to have their 2009 national conference but they are apparently threatening a pull out now. and some of the members of the naacp have questioned the planned 2010 conference, but so far no one from the leadership has said anything about it.
what is all the fuss about, you ask? well, in june our new mayor, mark funkhouser, appointed frances semler to the board of commissioners for the department of parks and recreation. so? well, horrors of horrors, ms. semler is a member of the minuteman civil defense corps. now, la raza and members of the local media as well as much of local lefties are up in arms.
it seems that if you are a member of a group which states its mission statement as: "To see the borders and coastal boundaries of the United States secured against the unlawful and unauthorized entry of all individuals, contraband, and foreign military. We will employee all means of civil protest, demonstration, and political lobbying to accomplish our goal." you are a racist and maybe worse. the number of people gunning for her is seemingly endless.
in fact, for standing up for what she believes to be right, she has even been accosted by illegal-alien supporters in her own home! the thug tactics being employed follow the normal lines of threats and attempting to get the focus off of illegal immigration is no real surprise.
the advocates of shamnesty believe the calderon lie that we, the us of a, have no right to limit those who come into our country. perhaps they actually believe the lie being spewed by oaxaca that we "stole" the southwest from mexico. based on the constant pandering of the various different groups it certainly seems that way to me.
in fact, we've made two purchases of land from mexico getting us Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, and western Colorado. when money has changed hands between the rightful owner and a willing buyer, a theft has not been perpetrated. but don't look to anyone in the msm to educate the masses. and don't look for anyone in the msm to stand up for ms. semler. or to speak out against calderon.
they are too busy attempting to cast aspersions on those among us who want to enforce the immigration laws of our country. in researching this post, i found several people who posted these two links as proof that the minuteman organization is a racist hate group: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lOE_LQfWgA and www.minutemenunvarnished.com/minutesite/home.html. i watched them a number of times and i fail to see what they see - but you be the judge and let me know what you think.
in the meantime, i support the appointment of frances semler to the the board for the dept of kansas city's parks and rec. i support what the minutemen are doing. i have written to both to tell them and to funkhouser's office as well.
i believe it is time that all of us who are on the side of enforcing our laws and sealing our borders to illegal entry, to stand up and say so. and i think that we need to make our voices heard that we are no longer going to allow the pro-illegal people in this country (and mexico) to cast us in the light of racists or hate mongers. there is no other country on this earth that would even entertain unfettered immigration, including mexico, and we need to stop the people in this country who would have us believe otherwise.
and still has: $31,200.00.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.
rino clothing to me. not at the debate, but still one of my 
