1 - 9
In response to:

Wanted: Babysitters on the Southern Border

Don460 Wrote: Jun 14, 2014 12:14 PM
Mr. President, stop using these children as political pawns! Just join them up, put them on charter or USAF Medivac airplanes and return them to Mexico, preferably Mexico City. First, Interview each child with a soft-spoken female who is bi-lingual and determine the circumstances behind their travel. I don't think we will have to look far to find out just who is behind all this. ID the children with photo, DNA, blood, etc. and present a bill for each child to the Mexican government for the cost of apprehension, housing, food, and medical and demand payment. Advise the UN or a South American agency so they can follow-up on the children's safety. If Mexico balks on payment, close the border to all commercial traffic, including produce and Mexican made products. Also, publish new laws that the U.S. or its states, an impose penalties on illegal immigrants equal to the laws of Mexico, or their country of origin. This approach will not only save lives but also the cost of housing the children----and ditto for all illegals. Mexico and Canada both would tighten up their borders and procedures. And, the Southern border states should be demanding this action be taken immediately, like yesterday!
You do that and you will have to clean it up!
Scrapp...you are talking about Republican "big Government", when you have a setting president that has appointed a staff of appointed czars, whith their administrative staffs, have quadroupled the size of the Administration---and more than tripled the size of the WH staff.---then lets add HLS, FEMA, ad nausium. Sir, get real. Capiche? Yes, all too well!
Sounds like some U.S. Marhals or FBI were needed, with perhaps the National Guard placed on alert. Instead of calling "down town", call the nearest FBI or U.S. Marshal's office, Make your call in the presence of the Poll officials and cite their names to those you are calling.
Dixi, I am 80 years "young", have retired from the USAF, traveled the world over and have been in all 57 (Obama count) states. I find that in large groups, the general 80/20 rule applies; i.e., about 80% of the emigrants are good people; they are your neighbors, co-workers, business associates, class-mates, fellow church persons, and occasionally one's spouse---don't paint them all with such a remark.
Mattie, I appreciate your civil response. Yes, people have the right to associate, but that does not give them additonal rights, especially to do things they could not do as individuals (excluding money for business ventures). Since we agree that "money talks", especially in an election, it "in effect" permits them to vote more than once---that is "gang" mentality.
Mattie, The problem is, "money" is controlling the outcome of most elections and not "We the People". The judge(s) that determined that unions, corportions and the wealthy could contribute money to elections surely must have failed "Constitutional Law" while getting their l degree (I'm exercising my right of free speech). Regardless of how one "slices it", unions, corporations, PACs, etc., are not "citizens" with a right to vote or control election outcomes. As Perry Mason would say, "Your Honor, I rest my case".
We must be ever so carfeful if we tighten the rules on free speech. Everyone cites the "fire in a crowded theater" as the lynch-pin for making other restrictions. We already have laws that let you say what one will, but the law also states, in many instances, one can be held accountable for what you say. The loudest critics are the politicans an VIPs and who do not want want their actions criticized---we should never give even an inch in that department. I might be convenced to disallow gutter talk and threats, but then again that lets the camel get its nose under the flap of the free speech tent. I am firmly against contributions from unions, corporations and the wealthy, that exceed that which the "person on the street" can give.
The unions and the tax structure are the prime reasons that most of our industry has moved overseas. The unions "jacked" labor cost to a point where the "diffrential" became so great that business could no longer ignore it. The huge U.S. corporate income tax is written off by corporations as a "cost of doing business", and is passed on the the consumer. Unions must take into account that labor is much cheaper overseas, and the U.S. typical overseas tax is 5-10 percent as compared to our max of 35%. The primary cause was the "powers that be" opening up the "global economy", without taking into consideration, that low cost (slave?) labor would ruin the U.S. P & L equation, when compared to, "made in China".
1 - 9