2 May 2006

American politicians have refused to secure our borders and look after the welfare of middle class Americans

A retired border patrolman writes an open letter to Senator Bill Frist.
There is a huge amount of propaganda and myths circulating about illegal aliens, particularly illegal Mexican, Salvadorian, Guatemalan and Honduran aliens.
  1. Illegal aliens generally do NOT want U.S. citizenship. Americans are very vain thinking that everybody in the world wants to be a U.S. citizen. Mexicans, and other nationalities want to remain citizens of their home countries while obtaining the benefits offered by the United States such as employment, medical care, in-state tuition, government subsidized housing and free education for their offspring. Their main attraction is employment and their loyalty usually remains at home. They want benefits earned and subsidized by middle class Americans. What illegal aliens want are benefits of American residence without paying the price.

  2. There are no jobs that Americans won't do. Illegal aliens are doing jobs that Americans can't take and still support their families. Illegal aliens take low wage jobs, live dozens in a single residence home, share expenses and send money to their home country. There are no jobs that Americans won't do for a decent wage.

  3. Every person who illegally entered this nation left a home. They are NOT homeless and they are NOT Americans. Some left jobs in their home countries. They come to send money to their real home as evidenced by the more than 20 billion dollars sent out of the country each year by illegal aliens. These illegal aliens knowingly and willfully entered this nation in violation of the law and therefore assumed the risk of detection and deportation. Those who brought their alien children assumed the responsibility and risk on behalf of their children.

  4. Illegal aliens are NOT critical to the economy. Illegal aliens constitute less than 5% of the workforce. However, they reduce wages and benefits for lawful U.S. residents.

  5. This is NOT an immigrant nation. There are 280 million native born Americans. While it is true that this nation was settled and founded by immigrants (legal immigrants), it is also true that there is not a nation on this planet that was not settled by immigrants at one time or another.

  6. The United States is welcoming to legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are not immigrants by definition. The U.S. accepts more lawful immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined.

  7. There is no such thing as the "Hispanic vote". Hispanics are white, brown, black and every shade in between. Hispanics are Republicans, Democrats, Anarchists, Communists, Marxists and Independents. The so-called "Hispanic vote" is a myth. Pandering to illegal aliens to get the Hispanic vote is a dead end.

  8. Mexico is NOT a friend of the United States. Since 1848 Mexicans have resented the United States. During World War I Mexico allowed German Spies to operate freely in Mexico to spy on the U.S. During World War II Mexico allowed the Axis powers to spy on the U.S. from Mexico. During the Cold War Mexico allowed spies hostile to the U.S. to operate freely. The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 was cheered and applauded all across Mexico. Today Mexican school children are taught that the U.S. stole California, Arizona, new Mexico and Texas. If you don't believe it, check out some Mexican textbooks written for their schoolchildren.

  9. Although some illegal aliens enter this country for a better life, there are 6 billion people on this planet. At least 1 billion of those live on less than one dollar a day. If wanting a better life is a valid excuse to break the law and sneak into America, then let's allow those one billion to come to America and we'll turn the USA into a Third World nation overnight. Besides, there are 280 million native born Americans who want a better life. I'll bet Bill Gates and Donald Trump want a better life. When will the USA lifeboat be full? Since when is wanting a better life a good reason to trash another nation?

  10. There is a labor shortage in this country. This is a lie. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American housewives, senior citizens, students, unemployed and underemployed who would gladly take jobs at a decent wage.

  11. It is racist to want secure borders. What is racist about wanting secure borders and a secure America? What is racist about not wanting people to sneak into America and steal benefits we have set aside for legal aliens, senior citizens, children and other legal residents? What is it about race that entitles people to violate our laws, steal identities, and take the American Dream without paying the price?

Can't say that I disagree with very much of this letter. Though I think the ire is misdirected — instead, one only needs to follow the money to get to the crux of the problem. Who profits from a captive, restricted class of labor that undercuts the wages of Americans? Who gains from allowing American citizens to pick up the tax tab for health care, education and other services provided by the state for immigrant workers?


My first instinct regarding this post is to contest each point to basically point out all the fallacies and BS. I won’t do that because I know it will be a complete waste of my time. I am quite sure my comments will likely fall in deaf ears.

What I will state is that this patrolman does not represent any of these so called undocumented workers. I find it incredible ridiculous that he speaks in such a factual manner about what these people think, feel or believe as if he knows every individuals background and reasons for leaving a home country. In addition, if the issue of securing the home land was purely nonracial, why is the security of the borders justified by comments like: 1) these people do not assimilate to the American Culture; 2) Mexico is not a friend to the USA; 3) these people are criminals; 4) these people want to take over the states and they teach their children to hate America; 5) these people do not contribute to America; 6) these people are a burden on American tax payers.

If these people are so insignificant (only 5% of the American workforce according to patrol guy), what are American’s worried about? My guess is that some American’s don’t like the color of our skin.

Naum – I am sadden you agree with the patrolman. I am sadden this issue lacks a true presidential leader. I am sadden the topic has become so ugly.

I ask anyone who bothers to read my blog to look within oneself and ask what is worst on the American taxpayer. Is it the Iraq war or an illegal alien that comes to work in the US?
Good morning, Calatina. Let me first state that race is not an issue here for most americans, with the exception of the demagogues like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and radical leaders who fly their incidinary flags that have obvious connotations.
I also agree with many of these points. This is the problem with politics, I guess. There's no such thing as an open-mind; I could point out why I agree for the most part with this guy, but it would also fall on deaf ears. Wicked circle of politics......

Mexico is definitely not our friend right now. How do I mean? Of course I'm not talking of the millions of Mexican citizens who simply want to care for their families and loved ones. I'm talking of the government, who for decades have ignored the welfare of their own, instead wasting their GDP(or GNP) on an elite group.

Why continue an allegiance with a government that encourages its people to leave by handing out survival kits, and maps of the US?
Why continue an allegiance with a country that balks at meaningful reform that INCLUDES felonizing employers (Naum's theme of following the money).
Why continue an allegiance with a country that WANTS people to leave, holding their families "hostage" in a poverty stricken country and collecting 20 billion dollars sent back annually?

Why can't the Mexican government get their shit straight after so many decades? Implement a New Deal Program to encourage capital investment, private enterprise; especiall for public works like formal highways, transportation corridors, etc. Implement a Reclamation program to facilitate water canal systems, reservoirs and electrical distribution. Make peoples lives better through public and domestic services.
Concurrently, the government can preserve their natural and archaeological resources and encourage tremendous growth in tourism.

One final word, and it's a question of who's the racist in this situation. The bulk of the Mexican population consists of indigenous Indians who have been prosecuted, stripped of lands and forced to live in squalor as outcasts: 30 percent Indian, 60 percent mixed descent (spanish-Inidan), for a total of 90 percent of Indian descent.
I think an unwritten policy of the Mexican Government over the years has been to disregard the needs of its indigenous peoples, while preferentially treating those of Spanish descent. That's racism, and a government policy of racism and bigotry.

I'm aware of the history of American Indian relations in this country; I'm also aware of the problem issues of the BIA and American Indian Nations.
But I also think that this country has taken strides for the benefit of all to address issues of American Indian poverty. Certainly the American Indian continues to live in horrible conditions (at the bottom), and thje government can do more (Yes, I as a conservative would increase American Indian benefits, and rearrange funds given to nations with casinos to increase funds to nations who really need it); but I have to believe that the American Indian has a better chance of success in life than their brethren in Mexico.
Thanks Calatina for the comments.

I did say "much" and not "all" when I wrote of "agreement level"...

You are right that generalizing about a group of people (which I believe you are addressing his point #1) is fraught with error.

However, the points that strike a chord with me are:

1) American workers bear the brunt of o costs - social services and other indirect costs associated with immigrant laborers. Now, it can be argued that exploitation of immigrant labor is a kickback to employers and U.S. government that sanctions illicit behavoir.

2) Mexico has not been a good friend to the U.S., but more importantly, it has failed in serving its people. If that were not so, we would not be witnessing such an influx of folks enduring great risk to migrate to the U.S. for work.

3) No labor shortage, i.e., "jobs Americans won't do" is blatantly myopic. And the missing phrase is "at that rate of pay".
Neo –
I will concede one point. You are right about the Mexican government not being a good friend to the United States. I guess when I thought about that particular point, I was thinking more along the lines about the people versus the government.

I definitely do not agree with you in terms of your alliance comments. The last thing we need to do is sever all ties with the Mexican government. We need to work with them because the Mexican government has to be part of the solution. We can not pull off; I am a big dog move, because we have seen, as proven with Iraq and now Iran that can quickly turn into a big disaster.

Also it may surprise you that I am not only disappointed once again with our President, for his lack of leadership in trying to bring solution to this critical issue. I am angered with Vicente Fox and all his predecessors for not working on behalf of their people. Don’t assume for one moment that I don’t know what is wrong with the Mexican government. In fact, let me tell you that what has been wrong with the Mexican government for many years is el PRI (right winged) and el PAN (center to the right). These political groups my friend, are what we call Republicans in the United States and el PRI in particular has had control over the Mexican government for over 70 years. So yes, you are correct in stating that the Mexican government is racist. The Mexican government is not very different than many of the Republican politicians here in the United States. When I sit and consider what is wrong with the Mexican government, I quiver at the thought of the Republican Party being in power for 70 years.

Maybe to you this topic is nonracial and I truly do recognize that the majority of Americans are good people, but I believe the Republican Party does not help move this issue beyond race which is one of the many reasons the Latino community is protesting. Instead the Republican Party along with all the right winged media hores take an issue like this and scare the American people with BS lies, very much the same way they scared the American people with the weapons of mass destruction fiasco.

You know, yesterday the Minute Men were in Los Angeles trying to recruit African Americans and telling them that undocumented workers take their jobs away and that they suppress their wages. What do you think suggestions like that lead to when it comes to race relations? Do you really think the Minute Men care about the African American Community or are they just a convenient pawn? Where was the Minute Men Organization in New Orleans when many African American’s needed help? I am sorry my friend, but I don’t buy your argument that this is issue is nonracial.
Naum –
Your points are well taken and I understand the concern. I saw this problem slowing staring to boil and I Knew it was going to blow up.

Maybe I am wrong and I suppose I am speaking from my own interacting experience, but I don’t buy the burden on the American taxpayer argument because many of these individuals to do pay taxes.

My humble assessment is that Americans are frustrated because the middle class is being slowly deteriorated. The rich are getting richer and unfortunately the middle class is getting poorer and so the convenient people to blame this on are illegal immigrants and that’s the core of what angers me. I mean why not? They are an easy target. They have no rights. They can’t vote. They are perfect for blaming. I wonder why the Minute Men don’t have the balls to protest the businesses who hire these individuals. I mean how screwed up is that?
Calatina, how are you today?
I wasn't addressing the allegiance matter with Mexico in regards to the US, but to the immigrant workers; their country has betrayed them; they should disavow themselves of their nationality. That doesn't mean to disregard their cultural heritage, but simply to shred themselves of Mexican Citizenship and embrace the American ideals.
And I must respectfully disagree with your view of right wing pols in Mexico to blame for the decrepid situation. Witht this kind of complete failure, it goes beyond any partisan pandering. This is far worse, but not much different than the 80 years in which all of America neglected the rights of minorities between 1896-1954. Try as anyone might, this was an injustice for which we all share the blame. Same with Mexico. This blatant racism and disregard for indian and Mexican has gone on for more than a century; way beyond your contemporary view of evil- right and good-left. A leftist, socialist government in the image of as Chavez, or Castro will do nothing different; nothing whatsoever. Power corrupts; say what you might about our government today, but the fact is-it's much better than any in the world today.

Whether their leaders are liberal, or conservative, Mexico still needs a strong, democratic, capitalistic system to gain any foothold on modernity; not socialist-and definitely not communist.
One more thing, Calatina, I truly believe (from my own ideological view on the world around me) that the Dems are and have used race for too damn long to attract voters to their base. The last few months have ocnfirmed my point. The Dems would rather bamboozle legislation and ambush amendments to blacken the eye of the GOP.
The MinuteMen don't need to go after businesses, their single issue is simply to have the US give a shit about border security.
There is a website (need to find out what it is), organized by the activists who broadcast and label those companies hiring illegals in this state, to show how blatant the corporate community takes advantage of the situation.

It's always great talking with you Calatina, your civility and passion is quite evident. Thanks for the oppurtunity to converse.
Have a nice day all.
I know this posting is not an issue, nor will it ever be an issue for the unwashed masses. I am reminded everytime I visit this site this quote:

The media do not necessarily tell your what to think, but they tell you what to think about, and how to think about it.

--The Rise and Fall of Professional Journalism Robert McChesney

So while you folks are debating immigration, along with every other American. I am writing a paper on America's history of exporting democracy for my international conflict class and what can be done to improve it. I came across this quote, which I would like to share, whose author will remain nameless. I would like your comments as I am writing this paper, I already have gotten some realy great comments from wikipedia, and would like you guys' comments:
...During the Clinton administration, the sentiment has been proclaimed on so many occasions by the president and other political leaders, and dutifully reiterated by the media, that the thesis: "Cuba is the only non-democracy in the Western Hemisphere" is now nothing short of received wisdom in the United States. Let us examine this thesis carefully for it has a highly interesting implication.

Throughout the period of the Cuban revolution, 1959 to the present, Latin American has witness a terrible parade of human rights violation--systematic, routine torture; legions of "disappeared" people; government-supported death squads picking off selected individuals; massacres en masse of peasants, students and other groups, shot down in cold blood. The worst perpetrators of these acts during all or part of this period have been the military associated paramilitary squads of El Salvador, Guatemala, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Uruguay, Haiti and Honduras.

Not even Cuba's worst enemies have charged the Castro government with any of these violations, and if one further considers education and health care--each guaranteed by the United Nations "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and the "European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms"---"both of which," said President Clinton, "work better [in Cuba] than most other countries," then it would appear that during the more-than-40 years of its revolution, Cuba has enjoyed one of the best human-rights records in all of Latin America.

If, despite this record, the United States can insist that Cuba is the only "non-democracy" in the Western Hemisphere, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that this thing called "democracy", as seen from the White House, may have little or nothing to do with many of our most cherished human rights. Indeed, numerous pronouncements emanating from Washington officialdom over the years make plain that "democracy", at best, or at most, is equated solely with elections and civil liberties. Not even jobs, food and shelter are part of the equation.<b> Thus, a nation with hordes of hungry, homeless, untended sick, barely literate, unemployed and/or tortured people, whose loved ones are being disappeared and/or murdered with state connivance, can be said to be living in a "democracy"-its literal Greek meaning of "rule of the people" implying that this is the kind of life the people actually want-provided that every two years or four years they have the right to go to a designated place and put an X next to the name of one or another individual</b> who promise to relieve their miserable condition, but who will, typically, do virtually nothing of the kind; and provided further that in this society there is at least a certain minimum of freedom--how much being in large measure a function of one's wealth--for one to express one's view about the powers-that-be and the workings of the society, without undue fear of punishment, regardless of whether expressing these views has any influence whatsoever over the way things are.
It is not by chance that the United States has defined democracy in this narrow manner. Throughout the Cold War, the absence of "free and fair" multiparty election and adequate civil liberties were what marked the Soviet foe and its satellites. There nations, however, provided their citizens with a relatively decent standard of living insofar as employment, food, health care, education, etc., without omnipresent Brazilian torture or Guatemalan death squads. At the same time, many of America's Third World allies in the Cold War--members of what Washington liked to refer to as "The Free World"--were human-rights disaster areas, who could boast of little other than the 60 second democracy of the polling booth and a tolerance for dissenting opinion so long as it didn't cut to close to the bone or threaten to turn into a movement.
Thus it is, that Americans are raised to fervently believe that no progress can be made in any society in the absence of elections. They are taught to equate elections with democracy, and democracy with elections. And no matter how cynical they've grown about electoral politics at home, few of them harbor any doubt that the promotion of free and fair elections has long been a basic and sincere tenant of American foreign policy.

In light of this, let us examine the actual historical record....
William Blum is the author of "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower." The book has been endorsed by Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, Oliver Stone, A.J. Langguth (former NY Times Bureau Chief), Thomas Powell (Pulitzer Prize winning journalist) and Dr. Helen Caldicott (international leader of anti-nuclear and environmental movements)
This is a verbatium response to a conservative wikipedian:

"I have learned that certain people arouse certain feelings, and a person will automatically dismiss the words of this author if they knew who wrote it. For example:

1. if I said that Capatilism will build the rope that it would hang itself with, if you are like most Americans, you would dismiss this if you knew that Stalin said this.

2. If I provided an excellent history of the Pinkerton Detective Agengy and you were a conservative and learned that this was from Ward Churchill, you would dimiss it. ("From the Pinkertons to the PATRIOT Act: The Trajectory of Political Policing in the United States, 1870 to the Present")

I want to debate ideas, not personalities, so I will forgoe saying who the author is until we have debated away the ideas."

I am interested in your thoughts about what Blum said, not your broad opinion on who Blum is and what Blum stands for. That is why I did not include his name.


Kudos Mondo that you did not launch into a broad attack like TDC did. Believe it or not, I respect you more and more.

I am interested in comments about the content of the article, as I write my paper before the weekend--I hope to get some feedback on what democracy is...
Trav, how are you today? While the subject of your discussion is interesting and certainly worthy of dialogue, I have no time to address them. Your ideas deserve a lengthy reply requires more than a couple of days worth of back and forth comments.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, Trav, but I find that reading your posts (especially in regards to your Conflict class), that you're approaching this subject from a subjective, rather than objective point of view. In other words, you've staked your claim and and are fishing through history to specifically confirm and color your ideas and ideals, to the detriment of other historic events and truths that actually create a murky view of such ideals. This is, quite frankly, quite natural; it's human nature. Hell, I'll admit to being guilty, particularly to current events. Nonetheless, I feel you're doing yourself a disservice in not being forthright on the assessment of communist nations in the Cold War, and the historical development of Latin America. Granted, I'm relatively weak with the 20th century Latin America; but I must still question your conclusions knowing that historical events are usually rooted much deeper than contemporary views.

I'm sure you remember our short-lived attempt to read ideological-polarizing literature and debate ideas: left-leaners were to read Kissinger's "Diplomacy"; right-leaners read Zinn's "People's History". To be truthful, Trav, I found the first three chapters of Zinn fascinating and interesting. His reliance on centuries old witnesses and their written testimony over first contact could be questionedm, just as one would question Columbus' written testimonies regarding the Great Khan and his empire located on the relatively small island of Cuba.
But more than anything, what Zinn's words have shown me is that human nature and actions always have a light and dark side to it. Just as we learn in Physics that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, the same could be said for human actions and reactions.

I've perused this site, Trav, but haven't gone into depth; however, it's your cup of tea if you're interested in International Conflict:
http://www.hawaii.edu/power... (home page)
http://www.hawaii.edu/power... (conflict work and literature)

Please let me know what your opinion is on this guy.
Always a pleasure talking with you. Your ideas are always refreshing.

I will look at the site later.

Last night I learned some more about a famous early 20th century journalist, Walter Lippmann, who coined the term "Cold War" and "Public Opinion". He wrote the book "Public Opinion" which revolutionized the way that social scientists saw politics. His observations in Public Opinion mirror your own:

Having learned from his wartime propaganda how the facts could be distorted and suppressed, he realized that distortion was also embedded in the very workings of the human mind. The image most people have of the world is reflected through the prism of their emotions, habits and prejudices. One man can look in a Venetian canal and see rainbows, another only garbage. People see what they are looking for and what their education and experience have trained them to see. "We do not first see, and then define, we define first and then see," Lippmann wrote. Since no man can see everything, each creates for himself a reality that fits his experience, in effect a "pseudo environment" that helps impose order on an otherwise chaotic world.

That is a small sampling. More is here:


"In other words, you've staked your claim and and are fishing through history to specifically confirm and color your ideas and ideals, to the detriment of other historic events and truths that actually create a murky view of such ideals."

I wrote the wikipedian TDC this:

And for the record, I AGREE WITH YOU--I do think Blum is just as bad as Chomsky--he does "analyzes every event in the cold war in a vacuum" he does lessen and downplay the inheriet evil of the Soviet systems. I have to take Chomsky and Blum with a grain of salt and exhastively research everything they say. I just did a paper on Colombia, and Chomsky and Stokes (who Chomsky had an introduction in his book) ignore or downplay the entire history of Colombia. Colombia is not a disaster simply because of American agression in Colombia. Yes, American policy in Colombia plays a part, and makes the situation much worse, but by understanding Colombia's history, a person would understand that Colombia would probably be a disaster even without American intervention, and that US intervention is probably less important than Colombia's history for the cause of the violence and chaos. A casual reader who only read Stokes book, would never realize this.

That is why I continue to converse with you fellows, because I don't want to forget the horrors of communism. I want to attempt, as much as possible, to see a more balanced view of the world.

"Nonetheless, I feel you're doing yourself a disservice in not being forthright on the assessment of communist nations in the Cold War, and the historical development of Latin America."

How so? I am in no way saying the Cuba is a workers paradise, nor am I defending Castro or communism. Castro is a criminal and I have no respect for his behavior.

I am actually rather confused by your sentence.

I will read that information today.

Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War


I agree with everything on this first page, except this:

"Free people do not make war on each other..."

This is a common agrument, and a false one. My international relations teacher laid bare this common myth. First of all, the guidelines are so narrow, they only include a few countries. In addition, there is an arbitrary date that is set in this assessment. Worse, there are several cases were democracries have started war agaist each other, the first one that comes to mind is Argentina and the UK during the Fakland war. Also there is the many democratic governments which our own government has overthrown: Chile, Iran, Guatemalla, the Domitican Republic, to name a few.

So this theory is completly bunk.
"the making of a Republican meltdown"

The Economist, In Carterland, May 11th 2006

George Bush's presidency is shrinking even as you look at it. Just 31% of Americans think he is doing a good job and now his core supporters are drifting away...

Mr Bush’s poll numbers are collapsing at a rate that has political junkies searching for comparisons. Only four post-war presidents—Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon and Mr Bush’s father—have hit lower approval ratings (at some point) than Mr Bush. No president in the history of polling has ever gone into mid-term elections with such dismal numbers.

Mr Bush is flailing even on issues that were once his strong point. The New York Times/CBS News poll shows that the number of people who think that he was right to invade Iraq has fallen from 47% in January to 39% today, and more people think the Democrats share their moral values (50%) than the Republicans (37%). The polls also reveal a much more serious problem.

The president’s political strategy has always rested on supercharging the base while attracting just enough independents and Democrats to give him a majority. But the Democrats have long since abandoned him (that approval rating stands at 4%), and now it looks as if the base has had enough. The New York Times/CBS News Poll and the USA Today/Gallup polls both found that only about 50% of conservatives approve of Mr Bush’s performance. The figure for Republicans hovers in the high sixties. Their list of complaints is long. Small-government conservatives hate his lax spending. Paleo-conservatives hate his immigration policies. Libertarians hate his meddling in medical-ethics cases. John Zogby, a pollster, says that Mr Bush’s job approval has fallen to 50% or less among gun-owners and even evangelicals.

Mr Bush’s dismal poll numbers are limiting his ability to manage Congress. Normally loyal Republicans such as the House speaker, Dennis Hastert, are criticising his pick for the directorship of the CIA. The Senate ignored his veto threat and approved an inflated $109 billion spending bill. The House is in open revolt against his immigration-reform plans.

Add Congress’s own problems and you have the making of a Republican meltdown. The Jack Abramoff corruption scandal, the guilty plea of Randy “Duke” Cunningham on bribery charges, various unfolding FBI investigations, the latest bloated spending bills, all give an impression of a party that is more interested in enjoying the fruits of power than representing conservative principles.

An aura of dread now surrounds the mid-term elections. Why should conservative activists turn out to support a president who is spending money like a liberal? And why should they turn out to re-elect a Republican Congress that can’t get its act together on anything that matters? Mike Murphy, a Republican operative, says that if the election were held today, “the odds are 90% that we’d lose the House”. Some analysts talk of a Democratic tidal wave.

The White House is fighting back manfully. Mr Bush is in campaign mode, criss-crossing the country and raising lots of money. Josh Bolten, the new chief of staff, has re-energised the White House. Karl Rove is focusing on what he does best—preparing for the mid-terms. Mr Rove has told conservative activists that the administration is preparing to send the names of more than 20 judicial candidates to Capitol Hill—a sure way of exciting the base.

But there is an air of desperation about much of this. Republican strategists are relying mainly on fear to motivate the troops. Mr Rove raises the spectre of the Democrats taking over Congress—and then using their newfound power to humiliate the administration with endless investigations. Conservative political analysts console themselves with the thought that the Republicans have certain structural advantages—such as gerrymandering and incumbency—that could protect them from public disillusionment. But if this is all you can say in your defence, then you are running on empty.
Travis, I respect people who share their views, even if i disagree, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I am 100% for freedom of expresion.
I am 100% for a person's right to believe anything they choose to.
I actually support the "davinci code" movie and book being released, I think satanist have the same rights as christians in america.(not that TDC writter is a satanist) I think we ALL should be treated the same, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, etc, Republican, Democrat, Communist, etc. i think Lies can be told as well as the truth, especially if the lies are truth to some. If we deny one view, how can we allow another? FREEDOM is for everyone, not just those that think like me.
Kewl mondo. have a nice day. I think naum is on vacation or died.
beginning to wonder myself.....no memorial day post? where you at n-man?
I would like that you see the website from my music band based in Berlin, Germany. Thank you.


Add Comment

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it