You really have to pay better attention...
Sauer was bemoaning the fact that a Georgia state legislator was
proposing legislation to outlaw implanting people with them chips.
It was the reason given for this law.
Namely that chipping is part of some "endtimes antichrist conspiracy."
You know........you are a real prize! You will seek out
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.
some raghead imam pops out there with some horseshit about
promiscuous sex stimulation being the cause of earthquakes
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?
So then........this ought to go right over your head:
Whose country is this?
Pat Buchanan
So, you pull in a prominent racist to back up your claims?
Posted: April 26, 2010
8:51 pm Eastern
2010
With the support of 70 percent of its citizens, Arizona has
ordered sheriffs and police to secure the border and remove
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.
Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its
constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and
refuses to enforce America's immigration laws.
Yep, another point I agree on.
"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for
Washington to act," said Gov. Jan Brewer. "But decades of
inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable
situation."
True.
We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state
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.
What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to
see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?
He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the
ethnic lobbies.
Not true. Actually, blatantly not true. I don't agree with Obama
on this, but Buchanan's claims are BS.
He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets
this invasion of the country of which he is commander in
chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for
trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his
own dereliction of duty.
Notice he doesn't blame any of Obama's predecessors, going back
to Reagan's amnesty for illegals.
He has denounced Arizona as "misguided." He has called on
the Justice Department to ensure that Arizona's sheriffs
and police do not violate anyone's civil rights. But he has
And that is perfectly reasonable.
said nothing about the rights of the people of Arizona who
must deal with the costs of having hundreds of thousands of
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.
How's that for Andrew Jackson-style leadership?
Where is the leadership on any side?
...
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.
...
The state has a fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden
of providing schooling and social welfare for illegals and
their families, who consume far more in services than they
pay in taxes and who continue to pour in. Even John McCain
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.
Police officers and a prominent rancher have been murdered.
There have been kidnappings believed to be tied to the
Mexican drug cartels. There are nightly high-speed chases
through the barrios where innocent people are constantly at
risk.
That is within the authority of the state LEOs without this new
law.
If Arizona does not get control of the border and stop the
invasion, U.S. citizens will stop coming to Arizona and
will begin to depart, as they are already fleeing
California.
I don't know if that is a valid legal point, but I agree with
it.
What we are talking about here is the Balkanization and
breakup of a nation into ethnic enclaves. A country that
cannot control its borders isn't really a country anymore,
I agree.
Ronald Reagan reminded us.
Yet Reagan signed the first amnesty.
...
Arizona has been compelled to assume the feds' role because
the feds won't do their job. And for that dereliction of
duty the buck stops on the desk of the president of the
United States.
It did under Bush, but I didn't smell the smoke from the
burning effigies then.
Why is Obama paralyzed? Why does he not enforce the law,
even if he dislikes it, by punishing the businessmen who
hire illegals and by sending the 12 million to 20 million
illegals back home? President Eisenhower did it. Why won't
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.
Because he is politically correct. Because he owes a big
debt to the Hispanic lobby that helped deliver two-thirds
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.
Though most citizens of Hispanic descent in Arizona want
the border protected and the laws enforced, the Hispanic
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.
Fair enough. But the nation rose up as one to reject the "path-to-citizenship" (i.e., amnesty) that the 2007 plan of
George W. Bush, McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
envisioned.
Note: GWB. Yet the right is still trying to rehab him.
Al Sharpton threatens to go to Phoenix and march in the
streets against the new Arizona law. Let him go.
Yep, let him go.
Let us see how many African-Americans, who are today frozen
out of the 8 million jobs held by illegal aliens that might
otherwise go to them or their children, will march to
defend an invasion for which they are themselves paying the
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.
Last year, while Americans were losing a net of 5 million
jobs, the U.S. government (Bush and Obama both) issued
1,131,000 green cards to legal immigrants to come and take
the jobs that did open up, a flood of immigrants equaled in
only four other years in our history.
Another point on which I agree with him.
What are we doing to our own people?
Screwing them. Or, rather, ourselves.
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.
America today has an establishment that, because it does
not like the immigration laws, countenances and condones
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.
Nevertheless, under those laws, the U.S. government is
obligated to deport illegal aliens and punish businesses
that knowingly hire them.
And when I see the right rise up to denounce GWB for not doing
that I'll take them seriously.
This is not an option. It is an obligation.
I agree. Where were you in denouncing Bush?
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@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
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)