Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Tony Blankley :: Townhall.com Columnist
Pat Buchanan's "State of Emergency"
by Tony Blankley
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


On page 240 of Pat Buchanan's stunningly logical new book, "State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America" (St. Martin's Press, New York, 2006) appear the following words:

"One of the truly major issues with which America must deal [is] the vast tidal wave of human beings coming from the Third World. There is a fragmentation going on in this country. At what point does cultural, racial diversity become a kind of social anarchy? How do you get national cohesion this way?"

But those are not the words of my friend and political sparring partner Pat Buchanan. They are words he quoted from a 1987 interview in The Christian Science Monitor with Eric Sevareid, the CBS correspondent and close associate of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow.

Only 19 years ago, one of the nation's most respected public liberals could unself-consciously utter words that today could be a scandalous career ender for a public figure.

And it is around that issue -- race, ethnicity, language, culture and immigration -- and the problem of talking honestly about it, that Buchanan has constructed his most important book to date.

Most people will be familiar with Buchanan's view on immigration. But even those who have read his earlier books and read his columns, as I have, will not be prepared for the remorseless presentation of unimpeachable facts with which he makes his convincing case for the reality of his book's subtitle: "The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America."

Here he deepens his case against illegal immigration (and his case for a moratorium on even legal immigration) with statistic after statistic concerning, among many topics, the shockingly disproportionate degree of disease and crime that illegal Mexican and other immigrants are transmitting into the country.

For example, in Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide, which total 1,200-1,500, are for illegal aliens. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, California now has almost 40,000 cases of tuberculosis (a disease only recently thought to be virtually extinct in America).

He presents compelling evidence that the "Reconquista" of southwestern United States is not merely the silly conceit of a few extremists but is widely desired by Mexicans (he cites a 2002 Zogby poll showing that by 58 percent to 28 percent of Mexicans believe the American Southwest belongs to Mexico).

New to me was his citation to the fact that all 47 Mexican consulates in the United States are mandated to provide textbooks to U.S. schools with significant Hispanic populations, which textbooks teach history from the point of view of General Santa Ana -- in which America stole the Southwest. The Los Angeles consulate, alone, has distributed 100,000 such textbooks just this year to the L.A. Unified School District.

Buchanan recounts the observation that "every great truth begins in blasphemy." In that sense this book is one extended blasphemy against not only liberal proprieties, but even against received wisdom about the nature of America believed by many conservatives.

I have particularly in mind his chapter 9: "What Is a Nation," in which he rejects the argument that America is fundamentally defined as a "creedal nation" of democracy, equality and the institutions formed by our constitution.

Rather, Buchanan argues, "The Constitution did not create the nation; the nation adopted the Constitution." While the Founding Fathers did believe in universal principles and rights, "they were loyal to a particular nation and to kinfolk with whom they shared ties of blood, soil, and memory."

In this elegantly crafted chapter, he weaves into a thought-provoking tapestry on the nature of nationhood and patriotism the writings of George Washington, Arthur Schlessinger Jr., Alexander Hamilton, Psalms and Genesis, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Joseph De Maistre, Abraham Lincoln, Charles DeGaulle and Israel Zangwill (Jewish author of the 1908 play "The Melting Pot") among others.

Of course, there is nothing more dangerously controversial than trying to define the ethnic, language and cultural nature and desirability of America. But until we as a country come to terms publicly with what kind of a country we think America is and should be, we can never have a rational and full debate about what kind of immigration policy we should try to enforce.

Buchanan quotes the French poet Charles Peguy: "It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of looking insufficiently progressive."

By that standard, Buchanan, in this book, is positively fearless. He is also right. Americans, from whatever nation or ethnicity we originated, have formed a common culture worth preserving and a common history worth continuing.

I am convinced a large majority of Americans agree. This book, "State of Emergency," will give its readers both the facts and the backbone to powerfully make that case.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Tony Blankley served as press secretary to then Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich. Tony Blankley is the author of The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations? .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Tony Blankley's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
It seems as if on this issue...
... Buchanan's right on the money.

It is beyond comprehension
(mine, anyway) to try to understand how it is that lefties manage to think of themselves as the 'enlightened ones' and at the same time do all that they can to inhibit and squash any public debate on the issues of race, ethnicity, language, culture and immigration.

Obsession with egalitarianism
What's happened in the last 35 years is that the leftists' obsession with egalitarianism in all things, people, and circumstances has taken over, not just in this country but world-wide, and despite the continued protestations of the majority of Americans to this Pollyana-ish view of the world. I don't see it changing without a catastrophic event of some kind (9/11 just wasn't quite enough) leading to the overthrow of the leftist elites who control the political branches, MSM, and public institutions and who refuse to allow honest debate. These people will pay for mischaracterizing the legitimate and realistic concerns of the average American. Unfortunately, we all will, until it all shakes out into a new order.

Cowardice
"It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of looking insufficiently progressive." Is that not the greatest quote to sum up the current mindset of the Republican leadership in Washington? The Democrats and liberals have so successfuly pinned this racist/xenophobic label on Republicans that rather than confront the charges head on, they have decided to cower under the cover of political correctness, diversity, and expediency. Cowards: that perfectly sums up the compassionate conservative wing of the Repbulican Party led by El Presidente Jorge Bush himself.

Some of the cowardly rationalizations for inaction: "They do the jobs that Americans Won't Do"..."It's IMPOSSIBLE to round up and deport 12 million+ people"..."Our Economy would crumble without their contributions"... The cowards that we have elected seem to like the status quo (despite a tepid acknowledgement that somehow we need to do more to secure our borders) and they are just simply too afraid to try and offer any actions or solutions that deal with the problem head on.

So what we have now is an immigration policy that is determined not by the citizens of this country, but rather an immigration policy that is determined by the wants and needs of the billions of desperate 3rd world refugees. If that is not a loss of sovereignty than I don't know what is.

The "god" of the left
It is not just liberal cowardice that drives the left. It is the passion of the religious zealot. Bush believes that democracy is the cure for the ills of the Mid East just as passionately as liberals believe that diversity is a cure for the ills of the West. Neither view can stand up to empirical evidence. However, like most belief systems they are never examined, only defended.

The irrationality of the left is based on religion. They would claim that they are not religious, but their passion betrays them. Their religion is secularism (the worship of man in general and self in particular). They work tirelessly to over come competing religious systems using education and the propaganda of the media.

The ten commandments of the left

1. Everyone is equal, if they don’t appear or want to be equal, make them
2. The should be no hunger, poverty, war, or hurt feelings
3. There should be no guns except for the government
4. Everyone should do what they want except have guns, be rich, or believe in God.
5. The United Nations should run everything
6. Take money from the rich, if they still have money, take more
7. Kill everyone who is intolerant
8. Provide therapy instead of jail to criminals
9. Elevate feelings over truth
10. Have no other gods besides yourself

BrianR's got a point
Buchanan seems to be dead on. Of course, one is forced to ask if he himself shares "loyalty to a particular nation and to kinfolk with whom they shared ties of blood, soil, and memory" with his German ancestors, who arrived as recently as 1825. Probably not -- I guess 180 years is enough time for sauerkraut to turn into apple pie.

Yes, that's a snide comment. But after having read Paddy on TH for the past couple of years, I feel it's a fair one.

"Victim" of a universalist ideology
The rightist critics who are backing up Mr Buchanan here seem to have forgotten that the US presents itself around the world as the model of the triumph of universalism: representative democracy, global free trade, the ability to forge a law-loving nation out of disparate roots (e pluribus unum).

On that foundation, how do you go back and argue that the US is built on blood and soil?

Of course, Buchanan can be consistent here: arguing these universal values is a mistake, and it is not America's business imposing its model on the world.

But is that what Americans want to believe? That America belongs to the Anglo-European diaspora, and chooses to embrace those of American Indian and African descent out of a sense of guilt?

Here in northern New Jersey, America shows its proudest face. The workforce here is profoundly mixed in racial origin. Foods from all around the world can be found here. Yes, there are major problems of cultural integration.

But the challenge is for us to be able to articulate those profound universalist values so that these races can become one in the US melting pot experiment.

While the left embraces a combination of isolationism and internationalist naivete, the right has a tendency to veer off into chest pounding about blood and soil. But that is not the future. The future will be increasingly about globalism, in trade, education and culture.

Evil is real, and lives are lost everyday because of the desire of some to hold on to medieval ideals. But the transitory form of politics called the nation-state to which Buchanan clings will not solve this problem.

PeterE
PeterE writes: "But the challenge is for us to be able to articulate those profound universalist values so that these races can become one in the US melting pot experiment."

A well written and thought out post, but I would like to hear your plan for accomplishing the above objective. Particularly when we have so many people in positions of power (media, education) who are working feverishly to undermine the very concepts we have to advance if we are to preserve goodwill, assimilation and unity. It seems obvious that the Anti-America crowd believes we have too much power, which consists in land mass, resources and unity of culture and language, as these are the strengths they continually attack. A majority of Americans are oblivious to what's happening, but the trends cannot be stopped without their informed involvment. I fear that in a matter of 50 to 100 years, America will have lost Alaska and Hawaii to cesession, becoming separate nations or possibly uniting with other nations, and the continental US will be carved up along language and ethnic lines. This continent might then become wracked with revolutions and wars of expansion and re-possession, elimnating even the possiblity of an alliance of these new nations against encroachments by China, Russia and even Europe. I believe that should we approach the cusp of an impending breakdown, our military will stage a coup, suspending the Constitution and declaring martial law. This would be beneficial only if the military leadership is of the calibre of George Washington, wishing to update the Constitution and re-establish a government of, by and for the people. In itself, a risky scenario, but the lesser of the evils.

A response to PeterE
PeterE writes, "[T]he US presents itself around the world as the model of the triumph of universalism: representative democracy, global free trade, the ability to forge a law-loving nation out of disparate roots (e pluribus unum)." He then writes, "On that foundation, how do you go back and argue that the US is built on blood and soil?"

This global-free-trade business is relatively new to America, so it's simply wrong to imply, as PeterE does in his second sentence, that global free trade is a part of America's foundation. America, and the American Right, have had a proud history of protectionism. And every Republican president before Eisenhower (no conservative, he) was a protectionist.

PeterE is also wrong to imply that America's "ability to forge a law-loving nation out of disparate roots" is the signal this country sends to the rest of the world. America was very prosperous before it became a salad bowl of increasingly mutually hostile cultures that compete with one another for governmental preferential treatment and that accuse each other of bigotry with disturbing regularity.

John Jay's Federalist #2 explained, "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."

Now, as a religious minority, I do not advocate removing or harming anyone on the basis of nonconformity to the majority culture. But I do think it plain that the more differences a society accepts, the more difficult it will be to maintain cohesion. Bringing in millions more people from different cultures when assimilation has so clearly failed over the last few decades is only making us a far weaker nation.

PeterE writes, "Here in northern New Jersey, America shows its proudest face. The workforce here is profoundly mixed in racial origin." In other words, it's better if we don't have too many white people? There really is no evidence of that, and the increasingly serious failures of assimilation, coupled with policies such as affirmative action, seems to me to discredit the notion that states like New Jersey (where who-knows-how-many people were dancing in the streets on 9/11) are the model for the country. I don't think, as PeterE does, that having diverse kinds of food compensates for the problems that he implicitly acknowledges but clearly doesn't find as troubling as he should.

He continues, "But the challenge is for us to be able to articulate those profound universalist values so that these races can become one in the US melting pot experiment." That's simply not working. And plenty of people simply don't believe in this melting-pot business. Immigrants in the modern age, especially immigrants from the Middle East, seem to me less enamored of their country and less willing to assimilate than immigrants from many decades ago, when people wanted not only to live in America, but to become American.

To Alan and John
It is true that the US has not been always pro-free-trade. But that is who we are now as a nation - the hub of global economic interdepency and the greatest force towards making the world one economy.

Someone once observed that free trade tends to be the mantra of the most powerful trading nation, as it was of Great Britain.

The US created itself invoking the name of inclusiveness largely because of the painful European history of religious intolerance. But once this door is opened, it is hard to close it. Do not American blacks cling to the universalism of the Constitution, pointing out that "all men were created equal" does and should mean something?

The US might have been prosperous before it became "a salad bowl", whatever that is, but it used the labor of blacks and imported migrants in order to increase its prosperity, not necessarily for any altruistic reason. If the is now the greatest power on Earth, it is not just because of the contributions of Anglos.

The melting pot is the reality of the modern world, and closing the doors to further immigration won't stop that from being the case.

Immigration should be - and probably is - mainly determined by economic needs of the host. And now that millions of Americans are of Hispanic, Asian and Arab descent, the focus should be on helping to create one culture, not trying to make immigrants feel that the host made a mistake by admitting them.

That culture, by the way, might not be one that you or I recognize as American culture. It may be the first true universal culture.


Blind
I can't believe there are some people here actually blaming "leftists" while mostly giving a pass to, eh..."rightists". NOTE TO HYSTERICAL ZEALOTS: I did not say EVERYONE...I said "some".

Bush and the Republicans have pushed for an expansion of immigration as much as anyone. That's because at the heart of this is greed, corporate or otherwise. They've duped conservatives for years, probably most of you included. (E.g., it's a bit hard to promote strong families when wages are driven down, down, down year after year).

But don't worry, increasingly scarce energy resources will bring an end to the much vaunted "globalization" in the next decade or two, at least for the masses. Then, if we're lucky, many of the illegals may just pack up and go home. More likely, there will be a lot of violence.

Or, rather, to put it into Townhall-speak, don't worry, the free market will find a solution to all our problems without causing any. Yay free market!!

Immigration and the U.S State Dept.
The biggest stumbling block to preserving the American Culture and Security is the U.S. State Department. They haven't held the nation's interests first since the founding of the Republic.

Have all eleven of the "Egyptian Exchange Students" been found yet?

PeterE - You Got It Backwards
PeterE, I just couldn't let one comment in particular go unchallenged, "Immigration should be - and probably is - mainly determined by economic needs of the host". Sorry, but you've got it backwards. Right now our immigration policy is being determined by the economic needs of the desperately poor immigrants themselves. They are the ones that have decided that laws or no laws they are going to come to our country any way they can. I don't necessarily blame them for this, but it is profoundly bad policy and economics for us to accept them. We essentially have no immigration policy right now as the numbers and content of our immigration is decided by the immigrants themselves. An unenforced policy is no policy at all.

Hosting a swarm of millions of uneducated and low-skilled immigrants is not the prescription for economic success. If it were then we could just as easily close down a large number of our schools in order to create a larger number of our own home-grown uneducated underclass -- does that make sense? Well neither does importing them.

Is it in the economic interest of the low wage employers in this country to have these desperately poor immigrants come into this country? Well sure it is. But that doesn't mean it is in the overall interest of our country to have them here. Believe whatever study or statistics that you want, but you just can't convince me that a vast underclass of poor uneducated English-illiterate immigrants gives the host country more than it takes -- especially not in the welfare entitlement-program society that is modern day America.

Another response to PeterE
To say (as you do) that "who we are now as a nation" is "pro-free-trade" is to elevate current economic policy to the status of national identity. And that's just plain ludicrous.

And even were it otherwise, it would be in America's interests to change, for "global economic interdepency [sic]" is a very bad thing, not a good one. I don't like the idea of sending billions and billions of American taxpayer dollars out to countries I couldn't care less about just to keep their economies afloat. Global economic interdependency forces us to do that. I don't like the idea of our welfare being bound up with other countries' welfare. I say bring the global era to an end. I'm a nationalist, not a cosmopolitan. I don't want my country merged with Canada and Mexico just because some starry-eyed economists say it's good for us. I say it isn't.

To "mak[e] the world one economy" is a utopian idea, unworthy of serious consideration. I know you libertines love to think that it's going to be all hand-holding and economic Kumbaya in the future, but the plain fact is that there's always going to be too much hostility between nations and, yes, cultures, for the world ever to be peacefully united.

You also write, "The US created itself invoking the name of inclusiveness largely because of the painful European history of religious intolerance." No; as a matter of fact, when the American Revolution broke out, nine states had established churches. I'm not saying we should go back to that, but let's stop pretending that America was founded on the idea of "Hands Across the World." Did we want to be integrated with the world back then? What does the word "independence" mean to you? Do you mourn Independence Day rather than celebrate it, since you want us to be integrated with the rest of the world? If the Founders wanted us to be bound to all other countries, then why did George Washington speak so disdainfully of permanent alliances, and why did John Quincy Adams say that while we're the friends of liberty everywhere we're the guardians of our *own*? America thought of herself as a very special place because she would be distinct from, and INDEPENDENT OF, the rest of the world.

The libertines' cosmopolitan vision isn't just bad for America, it's profoundly un-American.

You wrote, "Do not American blacks cling to the universalism of the Constitution, pointing out that 'all men were [sic] created equal' does and should mean something?" The Constitution doesn't say that all men are created equal; the Declaration of Independence does. But be that as it may. I don't see how this justifies bringing in millions of people who don't speak English and don't assimilate. Blacks contributed greatly to America, and very much against their will. People who come here today do so voluntarily, and the benefits they bring are, at best, open to question, thanks to their shockingly disproportionate contributions to crime and terrorism and their likewise disproportionate consumption of welfare benefits.

Modern immigration does not make us more prosperous. It is tearing this country asunder at the cultural level and causing numerous other problems (of which I've listed some above).

You talk about how America should include the immigrants, to melt them into one culture. Well that's not going to happen if they resist it, and they've been resisting it very successfully for decades. You talk about creating a "universal culture," but as long as immigrants retain their distinct identity, that's not going to happen. How much failure are you willing to see before you finally admit that your solutions won't work? To say nothing of the other problems to which I've referred: We needn't import more poverty and crime right now; we're already stocked up.

P.B. is RIGHT on this, folks!
When Buchanan writes and speaks of a "State Of Emergency," he speaks not in hyperbole-- the GREATEST THREAT to America's future socio-economic well-being is the tsunami invasion of ILLEGALS!!! They bring with them poverty, often only 8th grade educations, diseases, crime, gangs, illegitimacy, ethnocentricity, and drugs-- all of which ineluctably snowball as blights and permeate like a cancer. Dependence on entitlements (entitled?!) follows as soon as they give birth to new "Americans," who are now account for over half of our traditional Welfare expenditures. [And we thought that its abuses had been curtailed?!]

Speaking as one who relentlessly barrages Members of Congress with e-mails and letters on this CRUCIAL TOPIC, I urge EVERYONE to speak your mind to those in Washington who will soon decide on new immigration guidelines. The forces on the other side are highly organized and POWERFUL-- big business seeking cheap labor, liberals seeking big government voters and dependents, big labor seeking new bodies, the scandal-plagued Catholic Church seeking better-heeled latino and replacement parishioners, and the weird PC, open borders, one-world, anti-America, multicultural, effete "elites," who like cheap domestic help and want to redefine America. The average ILLEGAL will cost us $100,000 each all-in (Heirtage). Do you imagine that the proponents and apologists for ILLEGALS will reimburse the U.S. Treasury for all of that?! Right!

Fully 62 quisling Senators voted for the Kennedy-McCain Amnesty Bill... those who voted against it were substantially all up for re-election. Give 'em a piece of your mind, folks!!! Let freedom ring out, and save america before it is too late!!!

http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/index.htm

comments@whitehouse.gov

Betting on the future
If I were a gambling man, I'd put my money on the continuation and acceleration of globalization on all three levels of politics, economics and culture, whether or not that was to my personal taste.

But we DID steal it!
Has anyone actually read a history of the Mexican-American war?

Abraham Lincoln (and the Republican party)opposed it.

General Grant wrote that it was the only military action he was ashamed to have participated in.

Henry David Thoreau was jailed for refusing to pay taxes to support it.

It was started when American troops deliberately entered disputed territory, got shot, and then claimed to have been attacked "on American soil."

It was driven by anti-Catholic sentiment (ironic, given that Pat is Catholic) in a virulently Protestant nation.

America stole the Southwest by provoking a military confrontation through unprovoked invasion of another sovereign country.

I can't blame some Hispanics for remembering that.

Skellmeyer
The problem with your comment is that the Spanish stole it from the Indians, who stole it from, etc.

Yesterday, I wrote an essay on my blog dealing with exactly this issue: "Who 'Owns' Israel?" Take a look.

Territory changes hands all the time throughout history. That's just the way it is. You lost a war and also some land? Tough.

Reply to skellmeyer
If some hispanics/Mexicans believe the southwest belongs to Mexico, this is a great reason to build a border wall to keep out the invaders! If they believe the southwest belongs to them, and they come here illegally, that makes them invaders not immigrants!!!

We DID steal it!
Has anyone actually read a history of the Mexican-American war?

Abraham Lincoln (and the Republican party)opposed it.

General Grant wrote that it was the only military action he was ashamed to have participated in.

Henry David Thoreau was jailed for refusing to pay taxes to support it.

It was started when American troops deliberately entered disputed territory, got shot, and then claimed to have been attacked "on American soil."

It was driven by anti-Catholic sentiment (ironic, given that Pat is Catholic) in a virulently Protestant nation.

America stole the Southwest by provoking a military confrontation through unprovoked invasion of another sovereign country.

I can't blame some Hispanics for remembering that.

Yeah, we did steal it
And it's also history. Just TRY to sort who stole what in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. Really, I dare you. The maps changed every couple of years and it's a wonder that anyone could figure out who their ruler was on any given day, LOL! Give the Southwest thing a rest.

Epiphany!
It just hit me! Let's give it back.

Because, obviously, that will end all the problems associated with illegal immigration; high medical cost, over crowded schools and prisons, mexican gang related crimes, mexican flags speeding down our freeways, and in the end, foster a better relationship with our southern neighbors.

Oh, yeah baby!!!

And did you know, there really is gold at the end of a rainbow? Really.

Wanna See a Civil War?
If we close the border and start rounding up illegal aliens and send them home--all hell will break lose. Meecha, La Raza, Aztlan, are highly organized political and social networks. So are the Mexican gangs.

Buchanan's time table is off. SoCal is already Mexifornia. Inner cities and rural areas are heavily populated with illegal immigrants and immigrants who have never learned to speak English. Look at the anger and violence directed at the Minutemen when they attempt to do what our Federal government will not do. Civil War on the horizon?

"Stealing" the South-West
For those interested, the data are:

Feb 2,1848 U. S. Congress ratified peace treaty, ended Mexican War, & for $15 million brought the territories of California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming - the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.

Dec 30, 1853 Gadsden Purchase Treaty, clarification of Mexican – US border, payment of additional $10 million, modification of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.

So what is the argument about - the price? Perhaps France with want to renegotiate the Louisanna purchase and Russia the deal for Alaska?

I think not.

Daniel Pipes
Pipes has stated his principle of education by murder. Since 3000 deaths have not enlightened the Public to the danger of Islam and unlimited immigration,perhaps 100,000 will. Does anyone-except brain dead ACLU types- believe a major catastrophe is not on the horizon or US or both? Oliver Wendel Holmes has stated that the law has more to do with felt-needs than logic. Once the slaughter starts,there will be plenty of felt-needs.

Immigration
In today's PC enironment, you can speak about immigration if you swear you are not making distinctions based upon the R word. But what that really means is that you have boxed yourself into a corner to talk about everything but the most essential aspect of national existence and the way immigration affects a nation. We suggest it is time to discuss this without the PC code. Read the rest of this article here: http://www.saneworks.us.

immigration and Spanish speakers
Hi
Thank you for your opinions.

My 16 year old son in Elgin, Il had to quit his job at a fast food restaurant. This job gave my son confidence and money and a place for a social life...............until the staff changed on the afternoon shift. For the last
3 hours of the shift, the entire group of employees spoke Spanish. My son was left out of every conversation.

This is not new to my son. He was a student in Western Massachusetts at a high school called Sci Tech. We moved from MA because my son was ignored by his classmates in their conversations. The kids spoke Spanish on the bus and Spanish in the hallway. He was the odd man out.

I worked in a clinic (free health care to illegals) and it was the same for me. I would daydream and kick myself for daydreaming. Then suddenly the reality slapped me in the face. They are speaking a language, I do not understand. What else can I do but daydream as the doctor and patient spoke.

This is our country and we are made to feel uncomfortable. In my son's situation, he was very frustrated and quit due to this problem. The self-esteem he gained was cut short due to a problem that he could not control.

Please write back and help me to know what we can do. I am meeting with the mayor of Elgin soon to discuss this.

But I doubt that he cares.

Thank you for being so on target with politics today. We are heading in a terrible direction. I worry about my children's future.

Nancy Patano, Elgin,IL Cotton2222@aol.com
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.