RC>> You really have to pay better attention...

RC>> Sauer was bemoaning the fact that a Georgia state legislator was
RC>> proposing legislation to outlaw implanting people with them chips.

RS>>It was the reason given for this law.

RS>>Namely that chipping is part of some "endtimes antichrist
conspiracy."

 TR> You know........you are a real prize! You will seek out
 TR> some thin-as-a-wisp situation to slam Christianity.....yet

 Uh... chipping *IS* part of the endtimes conspiracy theory.

 And a law based on such conspiracy theory is a bit whackjob.

 TR> some raghead imam pops out there with some horseshit about
 TR> promiscuous sex stimulation being the cause of earthquakes
 TR> and other catastrophic disasters, and you say not a word!

 Maybe because it's not something some lawmaker in this country
 is trying to pass a law about?

 Maybe because it is liberals who are fighting that, not
 conservatives?

 Maybe because a women's group is talking about fighting that by
 wearing even more sexy clothes to test the theory? And that
 doesn't sound all bad?

 TR> So then........this ought to go right over your head:

 TR> Whose country is this?

 TR> Pat Buchanan

 So, you pull in a prominent racist to back up your claims?

 TR> Posted: April 26, 2010
 TR> 8:51 pm Eastern

 TR> 2010
 TR> With the support of 70 percent of its citizens, Arizona has
 TR> ordered sheriffs and police to secure the border and remove
 TR> illegal aliens, half a million of whom now reside there.

 Yep. Something I have long expressed support for. Note, not
 necessarily the way they are doing it, but the goal.

 TR> Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its
 TR> constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and
 TR> refuses to enforce America's immigration laws.

 Yep, another point I agree on.

 TR> "We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for
 TR> Washington to act," said Gov. Jan Brewer. "But decades of
 TR> inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable
 TR> situation."

 True.

 TR> We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state
 TR> in Washington.

 True. If Bush had acted Obama would have inherited a fait
 accomplis, and one that would have worked so it would be
 difficult to reverse. And the current economic crisis might have
 been much mitigated.

 TR> What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to
 TR> see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?

 TR> He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the
 TR> ethnic lobbies.

 Not true. Actually, blatantly not true. I don't agree with Obama
 on this, but Buchanan's claims are BS.

 TR> He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets
 TR> this invasion of the country of which he is commander in
 TR> chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for
 TR> trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his
 TR> own dereliction of duty.

 Notice he doesn't blame any of Obama's predecessors, going back
 to Reagan's amnesty for illegals.

 TR> He has denounced Arizona as "misguided." He has called on
 TR> the Justice Department to ensure that Arizona's sheriffs
 TR> and police do not violate anyone's civil rights. But he has

 And that is perfectly reasonable.

 TR> said nothing about the rights of the people of Arizona who
 TR> must deal with the costs of having hundreds of thousands of
 TR> lawbreakers in their midst.

 We have millions of lawbreakers taking jobs from Americans in
 this country, but I don't see business owners taking the lead to
 expel them.

 TR> How's that for Andrew Jackson-style leadership?

 Where is the leadership on any side?

 ...

 TR> Obama has done everything but his duty to enforce the law.

 Where were you, and Buchanan, when Bush was doing the same?

 Buchanan gets some things right, but he still isn't putting the
 blame where it belongs, on the businesses that hire illegals,
 and the conservatives who defend them.

 ...

 TR> The state has a fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden
 TR> of providing schooling and social welfare for illegals and
 TR> their families, who consume far more in services than they
 TR> pay in taxes and who continue to pour in. Even John McCain
 TR> is now calling for 3,000 troops on the border.

 Where was McCain when Bush was failing?

 As to whether they consume more than they produce, that's
 arguable. What is relevant is that they take jobs from
 Americans, and pull down wages for far more Americans.

 TR> Police officers and a prominent rancher have been murdered.
 TR> There have been kidnappings believed to be tied to the
 TR> Mexican drug cartels. There are nightly high-speed chases
 TR> through the barrios where innocent people are constantly at
 TR> risk.

 That is within the authority of the state LEOs without this new
 law.

 TR> If Arizona does not get control of the border and stop the
 TR> invasion, U.S. citizens will stop coming to Arizona and
 TR> will begin to depart, as they are already fleeing
 TR> California.

 I don't know if that is a valid legal point, but I agree with
 it.

 TR> What we are talking about here is the Balkanization and
 TR> breakup of a nation into ethnic enclaves. A country that
 TR> cannot control its borders isn't really a country anymore,

 I agree.

 TR> Ronald Reagan reminded us.

 Yet Reagan signed the first amnesty.

 ...

 TR> Arizona has been compelled to assume the feds' role because
 TR> the feds won't do their job. And for that dereliction of
 TR> duty the buck stops on the desk of the president of the
 TR> United States.

 It did under Bush, but I didn't smell the smoke from the
 burning effigies then.

 TR> Why is Obama paralyzed? Why does he not enforce the law,
 TR> even if he dislikes it, by punishing the businessmen who
 TR> hire illegals and by sending the 12 million to 20 million
 TR> illegals back home? President Eisenhower did it. Why won't
 TR> he?

 Because Bush left him with a country where our military is
 overcommitted overseas, the very thought of increasing prices in
 the middle of a near depression is anathema, and business
 interests are too deeply into illegal immigration.

 TR> Because he is politically correct. Because he owes a big
 TR> debt to the Hispanic lobby that helped deliver two-thirds
 TR> of that vote in 2008.

 If the European American vote was not so divided by the hate speech
 of the right Obama would have had such a large Euro vote the
 Hispanic vote would have meant nothing. If the right was not
 spewing so much venom the Hispanic vote would be of little
 importance now.

 And the Hispanic lobby is divided, with most Hispanic Americans
 against illegal immigration by every poll I've read.

 That's not political correctness, that's being against the wall.

 TR> Though most citizens of Hispanic descent in Arizona want
 TR> the border protected and the laws enforced, the Hispanic
 TR> lobby demands that the law be changed.

 The Hispanic lobby he speaks of is irrelevant. Obama could shut
 off the border and still win the Hispanic vote. He just can't do
 it if the bigots are writing the laws.

 TR> Fair enough. But the nation rose up as one to reject the
 TR> "path-to-citizenship" (i.e., amnesty) that the 2007 plan of
 TR> George W. Bush, McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
 TR> envisioned.

 Note: GWB. Yet the right is still trying to rehab him.

 TR> Al Sharpton threatens to go to Phoenix and march in the
 TR> streets against the new Arizona law. Let him go.

 Yep, let him go.

 TR> Let us see how many African-Americans, who are today frozen
 TR> out of the 8 million jobs held by illegal aliens that might
 TR> otherwise go to them or their children, will march to
 TR> defend an invasion for which they are themselves paying the
 TR> heaviest price.

 On that he is most certainly right. Now, the question is, how
 many blacks are not finding jobs because of the fear Buchanan
 helped spread? That is why I call him a racist.

 TR> Last year, while Americans were losing a net of 5 million
 TR> jobs, the U.S. government (Bush and Obama both) issued
 TR> 1,131,000 green cards to legal immigrants to come and take
 TR> the jobs that did open up, a flood of immigrants equaled in
 TR> only four other years in our history.

 Another point on which I agree with him.

 TR> What are we doing to our own people?

 Screwing them. Or, rather, ourselves.

 TR> Whose country is this, anyway?

 Businesses. It is business that wants those illegals. Make no
 mistake, the Hispanic Lobby would have zero influence if they
 didn't have business interests behind them.

 TR> America today has an establishment that, because it does
 TR> not like the immigration laws, countenances and condones
 TR> wholesale violation of those laws.

 A business establishment. And it's not that they don't like the
 laws, but that violating those laws is more profitable than
 adhering to them.

 TR> Nevertheless, under those laws, the U.S. government is
 TR> obligated to deport illegal aliens and punish businesses
 TR> that knowingly hire them.

 And when I see the right rise up to denounce GWB for not doing
 that I'll take them seriously.

 TR> This is not an option. It is an obligation.

 I agree. Where were you in denouncing Bush?

 TR> Can anyone say Barack Obama is meeting that obligation?

 Can anyone say Bush met that obligation? Bush II or Bush I? Or
 Reagan?

 I am as much against Obama failing to meet his obligation as
 Buchanan is, but I consider the hypicrosy of the right in not
 demanding Bush do it just as offensive.

 Don't crucify Obama if you don't nail Bush to the next cross.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... And Jesus said,"If I'm not out in three days, call 911!"
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a