Fair Enough-Jevica Part 3

Got this at Wikipedia, shows that America did not come "uninvited" into Texas. I'll have to do checking on the rest.

On 6 November 1528, shipwrecked Spanish conquistador Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca became the first known European in Texas.[12] Most of Texas was immediately claimed by Spain (mostly western Texas) as part of the Spanish dominions of New Spain.[13] However, France took advantage of Spain's failure to settle the land and in 1685 established Fort St. Louis and claimed most of Texas. The first Spanish colonization did not come until a few years after Fort St. Louis, as Spain was spurred by France to enforce its claims. The French claim was inherited by the United States as they bought the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the Spanish claim was later inherited by Mexico during the Mexican Revolution of 1821, setting the stage for the Mexican–American War. The French settlement was massacred by American Indians, and Spain only started sparse settlements, so most permanent settlements by Europeans did start until long after the first explorer arrived in 1521.

In the 1800s, two main ethnic groups settled the land: Tejanos and eventually Anglo Americans. Smaller numbers of Europeans also came. Moses Austin bought 200,000 acres (810 km²) of land of his choice, and moved to San Antonio in August of 1821.[14] His son, Stephen F. Austin, joined him. In 1821, Texas became part of the newly independent Republic of Mexico and, in 1824, became the northern section of Coahuila y Tejas. On 3 January 1823, Stephen F. Austin began a colony of 300 Anglo American families known as the "Old Three Hundred" along the Brazos River, after Austin was authorized to do so by Governor Antonio María Martínez and then successive Mexican officials as Mexico went through tumultuous political regime changes. Austin soon organized even more groups of immigrants, with authorization from the Mexican government. Meanwhile, more Tejanos were also settling in Texas, and as Antonio Menchaca writes in "Memoirs" in 1907, many Tejanos were already desirous of joining the United States. Tejanos were mostly full-blooded Spanish immigrants, few partly or entirely of American Indian heritage as most Mexicans south of the Rio Grande were.

The "Conventions" of 1832 and 1833 were a response to rising unrest at the policies of the ruling Mexican government, which included the end of duty free imports from the United States and the potential end to the special allowance for slavery in the state. Slavery had been abolished in Mexico with the independence.[14] Spain's policy of allowing only full-blooded Spaniards to settle Texas also ended with independence. In 1835, Antonio López de Santa Anna, President of Mexico, proclaimed a unified constitution for all Mexican territories, including Texas.[14] The new Constitution ended the republic and the federation, imposed a central style of government with power concentrated in the President, and turned states into provinces with governors appointed from Mexico City. Some states around Mexico rebelled against this imposition, including Chihuahua, Zacatecas and Yucatan. Texans were also irritated by other policies including the forcible disarmament of Texan settlers, and the expulsion of immigrants and legal land owners originally from the United States. The example of the Centralista forces' suppression of dissidents in Zacatecas also inspired fear of the Mexican government.[15]
Republic of Texas. The present-day outlines of the U.S. states are superimposed on the boundaries of 1836–1845
Republic of Texas. The present-day outlines of the U.S. states are superimposed on the boundaries of 1836–1845

On 2 March 1836, the Convention of 1836 signed a Declaration of Independence,[16] declaring Texas an independent nation.[17] On 21 April 1836, the Texans—led by General Sam Houston—won their independence when they defeated the Mexican forces of Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto. Santa Anna was captured and signed the Treaties of Velasco, which gave Texas firm boundaries; Mexico repudiated the treaties, considered Texas a breakaway province, and vowed to reconquer it. Later in 1836, the Texans adopted a constitution that formally legalized slavery in Texas. The Republic of Texas included the area of the present state of Texas, and additional unoccupied territory to the west and northwest.[15]

Where in all this...is the part that says...MEXICANS INVITED Anglo Americans to come in and stay?

Ok, so the Europeans came uninvited and stayed first...but does that negate the fact that (two main ethnic groups settled the land: Tejanos and eventually Anglo Americans) did the same?

And I honestly do not remember ever reading where it was ok with Hawaiians for Americans to take over our kingdom and imprision our queen.

I think you will find Indians and Mexicans who can tell tales of the diseases the White men brought and how they destroyed their culture and religion.

This is my point Jevica...America is a nation of immigrants...from the first White man to the present day Mexican. You cannot paint immigrants as a disease ridden unwanted group without stirring up memories of every racial injustice in America's past, warranted or not.

Do YOU want to spend the next decade "educating" people just to defend those injustices?

Talk about the immigrants of TODAY...the ones that imitate inner city Black gangs. Scrap the talking points that imply a White American superiority and don't play word games. No one who has broken the law would consider 13 years of monitored probation and thousands of dollars in fine "amensty" Jevica...find another word.

And when you do your research...try finding out why we cannot afford to p-iss off our second largest trading partner.

Come back and present reasonable solutions based not on some wish list of a conservative utopia but on the realities of a nation of Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, AND Republicans.

Same source, guess you could say that Mexico broke Spanish law when they became independent and fought a revolution for it [just like another country. BTW Arizona was part of the territory won in the Mexican/American War.

The first European to explore the coast as far north as the Russian River was the portuguese Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, in 1542, sailing for the Spanish Empire. Some 37 years later, the English explorer Francis Drake also explored and claimed an undefined portion of the California coast in 1579. Spanish traders made unintended visits with the Manila Galleons on their return trips from the Philippines beginning in 1565. Sebastián Vizcaíno explored and mapped the coast of California in 1602 for New Spain.

Spanish missionaries began setting up twenty-three California Missions along the coast of what became known as Alta California (Upper California), together with small towns and presidios. The first mission in Alta California was established at San Diego in 1769.[9] In 1821, the Mexican War of Independence gave Mexico (including California), independence from Spain; for the next twenty-five years, Alta California remained a remote northern province of the nation of Mexico. Cattle ranches, or ranchos, emerged as the dominant institutions of Mexican California. After Mexican independence from Spain, the chain of missions became the property of the Mexican government, and were secularized by 1832. The ranchos developed under ownership by Californios (Spanish-speaking Californians) who had received land grants and traded cowhides and tallow with Boston merchants.

Beginning in the 1820s, trappers and settlers from the United States and Canada began to arrive in Northern California, harbingers of the great changes that would later sweep the Mexican territory. These new arrivals used the Siskiyou Trail, California Trail,Oregon Trail and Old Spanish Trail to cross the rugged mountains and harsh deserts surrounding California. In this period, Imperial Russia explored the California coast, and established a trading post at Fort Ross.
The Bear Flag of the Republic of California
The Bear Flag of the Republic of California

In 1846, at the outset of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), the California Republic was founded and the Bear Flag (featuring a bear, a star, and the words "California Republic") was flown in an attempt to control Northern California. The attempt to form this republic came to a sudden end, however, when Commodore John D. Sloat of the United States Navy sailed into San Francisco Bay and began the military occupation of California by the United States. Northern California capitulated in less than a month to the US forces.

Following a series of defensive battles in Southern California, including; The Siege of Los Angeles, the Battle of Dominguez Rancho, the Battle of San Pascual, the Battle of Rio San Gabriel and the Battle of La Mesa, the Treaty of Cahuenga was signed by the Californios on January 13, 1847, securing American control in California.

Following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the war, the region was divided between Mexico and the United States; the western territory of Alta California, was to become the U.S. state of California, and the Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Utah Territories, while the lower region of California, Baja California, remained in the possession of Mexico.

In 1848, the non-native population of California has been estimated to be no more than 15,000. But after gold was discovered, the population burgeoned with U.S. citizens, Europeans, and other immigrants during the great California Gold Rush. In 1850, California was admitted to the United States as a free state (one in which slavery was prohibited).

About New Mexico, all is not as easy as they were "uninvited." Spanish took land from Indians [Native Americans] did they break Indian [Native American] laws? Mexicans fought war of independence with Spain and got the lands. Did they break Spanish laws? Then we come to Americans we fought the Spanish American war and land was given up as a result, was this "law breaking" in the sense of illegals crossing the border?

In 1609, Pedro de Peralta, a later governor of the Province of New Mexico, established the settlement of Santa Fe at the foot of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. The city, along with most of the settled areas of the state, was abandoned by the Spanish for 12 years (1680-1692) as a result of the successful Pueblo Revolt. After the death of the Pueblo leader Popé, Diego de Vargas restored the area to Spanish rule. While developing Santa Fe as a trade center, the returning settlers founded the old town of Albuquerque in 1706, naming it for the viceroy of New Spain, the Duke of Alburquerque.

[edit] Mexican province

As a part of New Spain, the claims for the province of New Mexico passed to independent Mexico following the 1810-1821 Mexican War of Independence. During the brief 26 year period of nominal Mexican control, Mexican authority and investment in New Mexico were weak, as their often conflicted government had little time or interest in a New Mexico that had been poor since the Spanish settlements started. Some Mexican officials, saying they were wary of encroachments by the growing United States, and wanting to reward themselves and their friends, began issuing enormous land grants (usually free) to groups of Mexican families as an incentive to populate the province.

Small trapping parties from the United States had previously reached and stayed in Santa Fe, but the Spanish authorities officially forbade them to trade. Trader William Becknell returned to the United States in November 1821 with news that independent Mexico now welcomed trade through Santa Fe.

William Becknell left Independence, Missouri, for Santa Fe early in 1822 with the first party of traders. The Santa Fe Trail trading company, headed by the brothers Charles Bent and William Bent and Ceran St. Vrain, was one of the most successful in the West. They had their first trading post in the area in 1826, and, by 1833, they had built their adobe fort and trading post called Bent's Fort on the Arkansas River. This fort and trading post, located about 200 miles east of Taos, New Mexico, was the only place settled by whites along the Santa Fe trail before it hit Taos. The Santa Fe National Historic Trail follows the route of the old trail, with many sites marked or restored.
Route of the Old Spanish Trail
Route of the Old Spanish Trail

The Spanish Trail from Los Angeles, California to Santa Fe, New Mexico was primarily used by Hispanics, white traders and ex-trappers living part of the year in or near Santa Fe. Started in about 1829, the trail was an arduous 2,400 mile round trip pack train sojourn that extended into Colorado, Utah, Nevada and California and back, allowing only one hard round trip per year. The trade consisted primarily of blankets and some trade goods from Santa Fe being traded for horses in California.

The Republic of Texas claimed the mostly vacant territory north and east of the Rio Grande when it successfully seceded from Mexico in 1836. New Mexico authorities captured a group of Texans who embarked an expedition to assert their claim to the province in 1841.

American territory

Following the Mexican-American War, from 1846-1848 and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, Mexico forcibly ceded its mostly unsettled northern holdings, today known as the American Southwest and California to the United States of America in exchange for an end to hostilities, the evacuation of Mexico City and many other areas under American control. Mexico also received $15 million cash, plus the assumption of slightly more than $3 million in outstanding Mexican debts.

Did the English break Dutch law after they fought a war and got New Amsterdam after the war? We declared our independence, stating the reasons why we were doing this. This was 1776, it was after a war had been fought [which we won], before our nation was born. The Founders in the Declaration was to justify their decision to declare independence. Now did we break our own law when the Constitution was written they [Founders] had met to make the articles of confederation stronger, but the Constitution was the outcome.

Same source as other comments

By 1674, the British had won the former Dutch colonies in the Anglo-Dutch Wars; the province of New Netherland was renamed New York. With the 1729 division of the Carolinas and the 1732 colonization of Georgia, the thirteen British colonies that would become the United States of America were established. All had active local and colonial governments with elections open to most free men, with a growing devotion to the ancient rights of Englishmen and a sense of self government that stimulated support for republicanism. All had legalized the African slave trade. With high birth rates, low death rates, and steady immigration, the colonies doubled in population every twenty-five years. The revivalist movement of the 1730s and 1740s known as the Great Awakening fueled interest in both religion and religious liberty. By 1770, the colonies had an increasingly Anglicized population of three million, approximately half that of Britain itself. Though subject to British taxation, they were given no representation in the Parliament of Great Britain.

Independence and expansion

Main articles: American Revolution, American Revolutionary War, and Manifest Destiny

Declaration of Independence, by John Trumbull, 1817–18
Declaration of Independence, by John Trumbull, 1817–18

Tensions between American colonials and the British during the revolutionary period of the 1760s and early 1770s led to the American Revolutionary War, fought from 1775 through 1781. On June 14, 1775, the Continental Congress, convening in Philadelphia, established an army under the command of George Washington. The Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, drafted largely by Thomas Jefferson, on July 4, 1776. The Congress, lacking authority to levy taxes, had difficulty funding the Continental Army. It overprinted paper money, triggering hyperinflation. In 1777, the Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, uniting the states under a weak federal government, which operated until 1788. Some 70,000–80,000 loyalists to the British Crown fled the rebellious states, many to Nova Scotia and the new British holdings in Canada.[22] Native Americans, with divided loyalties, fought on both sides of the war's western front.
U.S. growth by date of statehood and ratification of the Constitution
U.S. growth by date of statehood and ratification of the Constitution

After the British army's defeat by American forces, who were assisted by the French, Great Britain recognized the sovereignty of the thirteen states in 1783.

Mexicans or Indians so they didn't break the laws that govern themselves...but our Founding Fathers WERE English and they DID break the laws of their nation...which is worst than not respecting another countrie's laws isn't it?

The idea that Mexicans are law breakers and THAT is a good enough reason to be against giving them any way to join the descendants of immigrants that just happened to come here when there was no immigration law just doesn't hold water.

YOU were the one that said that the illegals should be deported for coming here "uninvited" and "stayed." And as YOUR posts amply illustrates, Americans, Spanish, French and other Whites have been doing just that for centuries.

I think Americans (whether they once called themselves Englishmen, Frenchmen, or Spaniards) can hardly stand on the ground of law abiding purity.

The point is, do you WANT to do this kind of research--and do you think this type of "educating" is going to change generations of stories handed down by grandparents?

Do YOU want to stir up this kind of racial tension?

Again, Jevica, come to us with realistic solutions to the illegal immigration issue, not talking points that raises the ghost of America's racial past.

Britain wasn't part of Holland so they didn't break the laws that govern them. Now those living in Holland but claiming to be British citizens sure was.

And so was the Founding Fathers who "broke" the English law of sovereignty...and were "traitors" to England but heroes to the new nation.

Sanity, your description of what happened in the Southwest is accurate. I think you have paid much too much attention to Jevica, who may in fact inform people about something or other. In this case, he is misinforming them about the Immigration Reform Bill and probably knows he's doing so. He's one of the people who assume that immigration -- legal and illegal -- is somehow a negative for America, which it is not. These immigrants are the ones (mainly) who are going to pay the $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security. We recipients of their money -- ours has already been spent of course -- can then forget to say "thank you."

You are correct that if we were just nice enough to give the land back to the Mexicans, the problem would then be solved . . . sorta.

Today's Newsweek poll shows that Rudy Giuliani is by far the strongest Republican candidate on a national level. It also shows Giuliani losing to Hillary Clinton . . . to Barack Obama . . . and to the ever-popular John Edwards. It's true that I blame the Jevicas of the world for this development for systematically mispresenting the Immigration Bill -- what is contains and why it should be passed.

steve

P.S. The main diseases the Europeans brought were smallpox and syphillis -- our little "gifts" to the original residents.

Spanish Came to Mexico and southwest of what was to be USA they took the land from those that were there, but because they didn't break laws that govern themselves it was ok. Just that they took others land and broke their laws that was alright.

No it's not. So since the illegals do not break laws that govern themselves [only our laws] then they do nothing wrong according to you. And since we did not break laws that govern ourselves when we went into our Southwest only laws that govern someone else it does not matter [according to you]

"didn't break the laws that govern themselves...but our Founding Fathers WERE English and they DID break the laws of their nation...which is worst than not respecting another countries laws isn't it?"

If those stories handed down are wrong or not quite the truth, what's wrong with setting them straight?

What racial tension? I'm not stirring up any tension, just setting out some facts which I believe show that your "uninvited" is not quite correct. As you can see by what I commented It's not quite as you show it. Hell it's only if you break laws that govern themselves.

Breaking the laws of England, we declare independence, fight war, win get country, if we had lost then a problem.

You raised the past. Illegals who ever they are [and wherever] are not supposed to come here. But since you feel that we [Founders in 1776] broke laws in the past then we [none of those lawbreakers are around] can't make laws to keep them out, or can't say they broke laws coming into the country? You can't be serious.

Except for the fact I found information to show that we were not "uninvited" to the Southwest, again you are wrong on that.

Again steve you are wrong I have always said that LEGAL immigration is no problem [your average is getting better].

Steve by 2017 Social will be in trouble, due to declining birth rate in US, and the baby boom generation, [Medicare even worse]

So we should give back the entire Southwest, your loss of reality is amazing.

Glad to see you finally realized you were wrong about me being a woman.

BTW please show me how I am misinforming people about the immigration bill, and how do you come up with ". . . probably knows he's doing so."

The diseases we brought were done accidentally, the Native Americans had no resistance.

Except for these points you had an interesting comment.

Look up the agricultural policies of WW2, principly the Bracero Program.

An opposing theory is that Syphilis was a disease brought back to Europe from the native Americans.

and the RINO press for hurting the only viable party that wants to win the war on terrorism.

I believe that people like Jevica don't realize that this illegal immigration issue is a losing issue--and that it IS hurting the GOP.

Day in and Day out, Ingraham and company talk about "people power" and forcing the GOP to do their bidding. What they do not tell you is that the GOP has only one ace--the President and in 2008, unless we stop acting like spoilt children, we WILL lose that.

They don't tell you on that ace, rides the hands of our economy, our courts and the war on terror.

They also don't point out that the proof of how insignificant the illegal issue is to Americans is in how the major candidates are NOT making it a major issue. Notice that almost everyone on the Dem ticket has made it a point to mention their Christian roots. Yet, NONE, ZERO, ZIP will call for the deportation of 12 million illegals and a Berlin type wall to the south.

Now either they are all idiots or the high powered, expensive political consultants they have hired, have run their own polls and found that most Americans either don't care enough to vote on that issue or are against it.

Just some info about the disease the Europeans brought [syphilis] again some facts might dispute your theory.

There are 3 theories on the origin of syphilis, which form an ongoing debate in anthropological and historical fields.

The pre-Columbian theory holds that syphilis symptoms are described by Hippocrates in Classical Greece in its venereal/tertiary form. There are other suspected syphilis findings for pre-contact Europe, including at a 13–14th century Augustinian friary in the northeastern English port of Kingston upon Hull. Skeletons in pre-Columbus Pompeii demonstrating symptoms of congenital syphilis have also been found.[citation needed]

The Columbian Exchange theory holds that syphilis was a New World disease brought back by Columbus. Supporters of the Columbian theory find syphilis lesions on pre-contact Native Americans and cite documentary evidence linking crewmen of Columbus's voyages to the Naples outbreak of the 1490s.[5]

Evidence for the pre-Columbian and Columbian Exchange theories are each disputed by the opposing school of thought, but Alfred Crosby suggests both are correct. Syphilis is a form of Yaws, similar to tuberculosis which has existed in both Old and New Worlds since time immemorial. According to Crosby: "the differing ecological conditions produced different types of treponematosis and, in time, closely related but different diseases".[6]

In other words, a common ancestor of the syphilis bacterium existed on both the Old and New Worlds, easily spread by the poor hygiene of primitive cultures. As hygiene standards improved in Europe the bacterium was forced to evolve into a more aggressive version to survive and reproduce, which also resulted in it becoming deadly to Humans. The European strain was carried to the New World, where the native population's exposure to the less deadly version of syphilis vaccinated them against the lethal variety. As fewer Native Americans than Europeans succumbed to the deadly syphilis, it appeared to contemporary thinkers that the New World was to blame for the disease.[citation needed]

From an article I got. Those that do care are the Republican base, that get out the vote and get people nominated and elected. I can't believe how Sanity102 and others can believe that having 12 to 20 million just come in and settle in your country uninvited and then have others complain when it's citizens want to do something about it. You mention the WOT who knows who among those at least 12 million are not just poor little immigrants? If we don't have enforcement and find out about these people then the WOT problem gets even bigger. Besides they are not breaking their law only ours and you say that's not that bad.


May 23, 2007

Initial public reaction to the immigration proposal being debated in the Senate is decidedly negative.

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey conducted Monday and Tuesday night shows that just 26% of American voters favor passage of the legislation. Forty-eight percent (48%) are opposed while 26% are not sure. The bi-partisan agreement among influential Senators and the White House has been met with bi-partisan opposition among the public. The measure is opposed by 47% of Republicans, 51% of Democrats, and 46% of those not affiliated with either major party.

The enforcement side of the debate is clearly where the public passion lies on the issue. Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say it is Very Important for “the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration.” That view is held by 89% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, and 63% of unaffiliated voters.

Advocates of “comprehensive” reform have taken to arguing that those who want an enforcement-only policy must explain how they would deal with the 12 million illegal aliens already living in the country. The public reaction to that question appears to be “Why?” Only 29% of voters say it is Very Important for “the government to legalize the status of illegal aliens already in the United States.”

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Democrats believe that legalization is Very Important. Just 22% of Republicans and 27% of unaffiliated voters share that view.

Still, 65% of voters would be willing to support a compromise including a “very long path to citizenship” provided that “the proposal required the aliens to pay fines and learn English” and that the compromise “would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country.” The proposal, specifically described as a compromise, was said to include “strict employer penalties for hiring illegal aliens, building a barrier along the Mexican border and other steps to significantly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the United States.”

The willingness of voters to accept compromise and allow a path to citizenship suggests both pragmatism and a strong desire to do what it takes to reduce the ongoing flow of illegal immigration. The challenge for proponents of the legislation is to convince voters that they are serious about enforcement and that the proposal will truly work. Until that can be accomplished, public opposition to immigration reform is likely to remain very high. In an era where voters overwhelmingly believe that members of Congress are more interested in their careers than the public good, that will be a difficult goal to achieve.

I adore the ctrl C and ctrl P commands too, but seriously I am getting extremely tired of re posting the polls which say differently to yours. But 65% of the populace don't want the illegals deported, according to YOUR poll. I can find another 12% easily too if needed.

So the immigration bill was correct, is this what you are saying? And you are unwilling to help convince a sceptic public of the bill's capability.

Well Jevica it seems to me that your agenda is not immigration reform nor the WOT. Congress cannot convince you so therefore any solution whether it would work or not, is irrelevant.

Therefore I must ask what exactly is your argument?

You're talking to me about me?

First off, I did NOT say it was ok for millions of illegals to come here...I've said that time and time again.

Second, I am not saying it is ok for them to break our laws...I am saying that we were founded by law breakers and cannot stand on the holier than thou mount of legality.

To the English, our Founding Fathers were traitors...to us, heroes.

I am saying that this kind of sanctimonous BS will not win elections.

I'm off to a dinner party so I'll check back later and hopefully find some clarification as to why you are insisting that I've said something I haven't.

Otherwise...I agree with Jim...what IS your argument?

BTW I say send them back when com in contact with authorities. JIM read about the 65% they must pay fine learn English & truly reduce number illegals coming in. How about the 26% of American voters support the legislation.

No I'm saying the bill as written sucks, is bad, I don't like it. Does that clear up my argument. I don't believe those are "talking points" anywhere.

So we can't stand on "they broke our law" because you say the founders broke English laws and we were English. According to another of your ideas since the illegals didn't break their law only ours that's not as bad.

They are not supposed to be here [the illegals], a country that cannot control its borders is in for trouble.

You worry about the WOT but its OK for 12 million [at least] to come in when they are not supposed to, make some sense.

JIM seems to me what you say about my "agenda" is wrong. I do care about the WOT, if you want to know about me read my blog. Jim why don't they enforce the laws on the books about immigration, before they enact a new bill, if they can't enforce laws on the books what makes you think they will enforce this on?

I've had horrendous problems with getting into TH and when, I do get in, editing or creating anything. As the summer goes on, I'll probably establish a "mirror" site at blogspot.com and then slowly shift to that. Other people told me they've been having trouble.

There are many things I don't like at TH, although someone there -- won't identify him because it wouldn't be in his interest if I did -- asked me to stay so as not to leave the place to the Pasadena Phil and the Paul-nuts. I told him I'd think about it.

Your point about winning elections: if your Party doesn't do so, then you have no say on the making of public policy. I have seen zero evidence that the immigration issue is hurting the Democrats. The latest polls show that all the top-tier Democrats are running ahead of all the Republican candidates.

I keep citing the guy who told me that the base has grown while the Republican Party has shrunk. All the poll evidence shows the latter part is true, with the number of Republicans going down 10% from 2004 and most of those people apparently going to the Democrats. However, I also don't see any evidence that the hard-right "base" has grown. They have grown louder, not more numerous.

All of the most vile acts in American history -- including slavery, segregation, and the oppression of Indians -- have been justified loudly on the basis of "principle." The Indians, after all, were "heathens." Slavery, of course, was "justified" by the Biblical mark put upon Ham.

As you've pointed out, our laws tend to get written and enforced by the majority, which seems to consist each time of white Anglos. When a man is trying to feed his family, the law does not apply. In such a case, every one of us would break the law. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" said Jesus when he was being pressured to enforce The Law. The particular law in question was one enforced against women but not men -- the unspoken reality between the story of the woman "taken in adultery."

It's amazing how Christian principle get cited when the issue of abortion comes up -- and get dropped quickly in the case of immigration.

. . . and now back to "mostly Palin most of the time." Hope TH works at least some of the time.

steve

Then you should be happy that they will be elected.

Slavery was ended after a long war which the leaders fought on principle to preserve the union.
Segregation was a point in the Democrat South, until principle by those that knew it was wrong helped to end it. And due to Republican support the voting rights act passed, [without that support it would never have made it.]

What does this "White Anglo" comment have to do with anything. If man trying to feed his family and he is illegal the law that should apply is deport him.

"and get dropped quickly in the case of immigration." I don't see how you balance killing the unborn, against immigration [illegals coming into the country]

I am really sorry that you're having such a difficult time accepting the idea that if someone breaks the law it doesn't automatically makes them bad. But the fact is that history is full of people breaking SOMEBODY'S law.

It is full of people coming in and staying "uninvited"

It is also full of people bringing in disease that wipe out whole civilization.

You're going to have to come up with a better reason for Americans to build a Berlin type fence and deport 5% of their work force.

And please Jevica...don't try that "security" excuse on me. You know and I know that terrorist can fed ex or buy the components of a dirty bomb...and terrorist can come from Canada with it's huge Moslem communities or hop on a plane.

As for "just enforcing the laws"...Jevica, why don't you think they do so?

I mean, per your group, most Americans are FOR securing the borders...yet the politicians who need the votes aren't "enforcing the laws".

Why?

"Just send them back...Just build a wall..."

So simple...and MOST voters WANT it...so here you have a Dem Majority who want to keep Congress...and a GOP Minority that wants to retake it...and Queen Hil that would sell her own mother and Edward who will try to get the tax payer to pay for his haircut...

Yet NONE of these people, dependent on the voter, is for JUST enforcing the laws.

WHY?

I never brought up anything about disease so don't ask me to answer for what others may say contact them.

I was a police officer for 34 years so when someone breaks the law such as coming into your country illegally they are bad. History may be full of it but America has 12 to 20 million that broke our law. You can say they broke our law not theirs so it's not so bad [I can't believe you actually came up with that].

Full of people coming & staying uninvited, come up with a better reason then they are not supposed to be here.

"Don't try security excuse," according to you there is no reason to enforce immigration laws

That's the reason "my group" has been trying to get the border secured and laws enforced [because the politicians are not doing it]. So you want to entrust the politicians who are not doing it now, with enacting a new law.

Why do I keep saying the same thing to you? When I bring up a reason you tell me "don't try security excuse" or we broke England's laws in 1776 [so can't tell that illegals broke immigration law].

That's a good question, why aren't they? I don't expect the liberal/Socialist Democrats to support the immigration laws on the books, and the GOP some support this bill others don't how come?

I'm really surprised you can't accept the fact that these people should not be here, why do you feel they should be allowed to be here, please tell my?

for Republicans. We lost seats in '06 after Laura, Rush, Hannity started attacking the President. Yesterday Congressman Gutierrez (D) and Pat Buchanan discussed the immigration bill on Meet the Press. Guess who looked more reasonable and in sink with most Americans?

President Bush is right on this and the bill needs to be passed. He ran on immigration reform and now his own Party is trying to force their views on him. If this tirade goes on on talk shows all over the country, we will lose badly in '08. Maybe that is what it will take for Talk Radio to get back to entertainment and not political action. But the price America will pay will be great.

Sanity, you ask some very profound questions, but they have simple answers. Someone once said that politicians learn how to count before they learn how to think. In PA in 2006, we had one Senatorial candidate (Rep. Rick Santorum) who was for tough enforcement of immigration laws and one candidate (Dem. Casey) who was for limited enforcement. Gee, who do you think won in a heavily unionized state that usually doesn't like "low-cost" labor? Democrat Casey got 59% and Republican Santorum (the incumbent) got 41%. Immigration was NOT an issue in a single PA race for Congress. Immigration is like abortion; it gets a lot of heat but it doesn't affect a lot of votes. Democrats generally favor relatively lax enforcement provisions on immigration, and I don't recall a single Democrat (especially in the Senate races) being hurt by that stand.

The Republican presidential candidates who are taking the strong stands against immigration (Hunter and Tancredo) are not getting 3% of the vote combined in the national polls. I haven't seen one poll that shows any Democrats being hurt by a "liberal" stance on immigration. The Newsweek Poll is the latest one, and it suggests immigration is hurting only Republicans, especially the most conservative ones.

No politician in his right mind is going to start deporting people en masse. It would lead to a major economic recession and violence in many states. It won't happen under Bush, and it won't happen on Hillary Clinton, the major beneficiary of the current commotion.

When someone like Jevica is "informing" people about immigration issues, he certainly won't be informing them about the points I've raised. That's why I disagree, and say he's a fount of misinformation.


As for my posts: everytime I try to create or edit on TH, the "font" locks and I can't put in any text. I have a mirror site for those really concerned about what I have to say on a given day, and it's at blogspot.

It's http://camp2008victoryA.blogspot.com

In generaly, I like blogspot (google) better. I also like Wordpress, but I will stay on TH (and the mirror spot) at least until the 4th of July.

This has got to be quick because I am off to work.

I am NOT for illegals coming into and remaining in America.

REPEAT--and Jevica, this is the LAST time. I am NOT for illegals coming into and remaining in America. You either believe me or this stops now because it is a complete waste of both our times.

I AM against the talking points that do zip, zero, nothing to sell the issue.

You've had years of experience in law enforcement...we'll I've had years selling and I can tell you what sells and what don't.

The vitriolic hate (and PLEASE, HONEST TO GOD JEVICA...PLEASE do not tell me that just because YOU don't do it, doesn't mean it's not happening.) that is being used to describe Mexicans and the absolute refusal to allow people to make amends is HURTING the GOP.

I am NOT saying that it's ok for Mexicans to break our law...I am saying that breaking laws doesn't automatically make you a bad guy. I am saying that I am sure that in the eyes of the law officers of England...our Founding Fathers were bad and traitors and a whole bunch of negative things. I do NOT agree with that...but I'm an American and from MY point of view, these guys are heroes.

I am saying that the law is NOT cut in stone...if it was there wouldn't be lawyers and judges and juries...and they sure wouldn't be a way to ammend it or over turn it.

I am saying if you accept the idea that sometimes there are good and righteous reasons for breaking the law (ie, to break from England or to stop slavery or female apartheid), then you have to accept the idea that SOME law breakers can and should be forgiven.

I am trying to get you to THINK outside of the box the media has you in. Start with the most interesting question.

WHY didn't the Media bring this up in 2000, 2002, 2004?

Why NOW?

steve
No I will inform them [people] about the points I feel are important. You can inform them [people] of the points you raised.

If I am such a "fount of misinformation" please let me know how the information I give is misinformation. Please limit yourself to information I actually give, not what you think I should give.

Sanity; I said because I don't do it I can't answer as to why it's done, and if you want an answer about it inquire to those that do it. I don't think it should be done on either side. What does this mean "refusal to allow people to make amends" which people?

Sanity I did not start it you put up three posts about me and what I have said about immigration, which is only a small part of what I post on. If you want it to stop now say so, that's your choice.

This immigration law is simple, [I have the sections of the U.S. code posted] you want to go back to 1776 to somehow say that it might give the illegals "good and righteous reasons for breaking the law." Also which are the "SOME law breakers can and should be forgiven.?"

If you want to limit what I can say in my comments let me know at the start not as we go along.

Sanity, if you don't mind, I won't respond to Jevica. I believe he's fundamentally dishonest in his description of the Immigration Bill, of the degree of support it has, and of the history of European/America relations prior to modern times.

Okay, on his dishonesty about American attitudes toward the Immigration Reform. The Opinion Research Poll that came out today indicates that 30% of respondents (American adults) support the proposed legislation. Sixteen percent said (the honest ones I assume) that they did not know enough about the legislation to have a solid opinion. Forty-seven percent of the respondents oppose the legislation as currently proposed. BUT . . . of the 47%, one-third oppose the legislation because it does not offer enough to immigrants. The other two-thirds of the 47% -- about 31% -- feel it offers too much. The remainder (7%) apparently have headed for the hills.

I said Gallup showed 52% of the American people wanted a "path to citizenship." The Opinion Research Poll shows that a solid majority of the people with an opinion want fair treatment for immigrants. There's a core of roughtly one-third of the country that doesn't want anything to do with Immigration Reform.

Okay, after hearing about the Opinion Research Council survey Bill Bennett showed up on CNN and said "80% of the Republican base" (I think he might people who identify with the Republican Party) strongly opposes the proposal. Bill is a craven man, but he's not a stupid man. He realizes that his numbers don't add up with the survey. Maybe he's relying on his radio talk show audience for statistics.

Because people like Hugh Hewitt, Bennett, Lou Dobbs, McCullough, and Jevica have consistently called this an "amnesty bill," they have mispresented it in such as way that they frightened many people about the proposal.

Bill Bennett is famous for writing inspiring books about American history. Well, much of it is inspiring, but a significant portion of it -- relations with Blacks, native Americans, and Mexicans -- is much less than edifying. Bill doesn't write about that latter part. His "base audience" consists of people who don't want to be disconcerted by the truth.

steve

Yes don't respond to me because you said you would not in this lifetime, but you do it sideways, by mentioning me.

steve what people see my blog or comments and "that they frightened many people about the proposal." Who have I frightened?

If you can get a prob. Z visa, pay $1,000 and stay here [renew the visa], that may not be amnesty like in the 80's but what else do you call it.

Telling people that is not misinformation, is it?

I have a column on Sarah I keep (hour after hour) trying to put it. It takes off on a comment you made. Added to it is the following that I sent to Elephantman, palinforvp:

Note; The following is the Sarah Palin column; it (see above) didn't post above because the TH window froze up. So I'll print it here, and my last word (last will and testament?) on immigration will appear below it. As I've mentioned to most of the Western world, my blogs henceforth will also appear at: http://camp2008victory.blogspot.com. If you want to support Sarah -- and trust me, you should -- either contact me at one of my blogs, or contact http://palinforvp.blogspot.com (the home of Elephantman) or e-mail me at TalkTop65@aol.com. Actually, of course, since this is the most democratic (small d) of all movements, you can contact anyone listed on the blogroll and tell them you want to back Sarah.

Following is part of a note I wrote today to the individual (Elephantman) who started the palinforvp movement. He mentioned that when he started, some people called him a moron for his audacity in highlighting Sarah. Here's how I responded:

"I never called you a moron because your idea always made sense to me. The way you start a huge forest fire is to light a match and wait for the wind to pick up. You lit one -- more than one. Also, if you do something in politics that strikes people as weird, it usually works out. Jimmy Carter was weird (well, actually he was) but he became President. Crazy Howard Dean might have gotten the nomination if he hadn't had a melt-down. Bill Clinton used to be a hick from Arkansas before he became a two-term President. The right people start saying "I like him" and soon everybody likes him (or her in our case). This autumn we have to be able to say to Sarah: "You've got a real chance." Then, she has to say, "They're right." At that point, it all begins to happen.

Let's try this. I'll ask you a question. You answer, when I think the question has been answered, then you can ask me one. When you think the question has been answered, I ask you another one. That way we know exactly what each thinks instead of making assumptions.

Ok. The first question I have is why do YOU think the illegal immigration issue wasn't a big deal in 2002 or 2004? (2002 was just a year or so after 9/11 and you could have really put the sc-rews to Congress. 2004 was the chance to get rid of a "guest worker"/"amnesty" president.)

Exactly. Insisting on "disagreeing" with Bush at a time of war is like insisting on telling the public about the products you dislike in the company you work for during a hostile takeover.

First, you can comment or not on who you want to. I am famous for deciding that something is not worth my efforts--and just walking away.

2nd, if I thought, truly, for one milisecond that Jevica was deliberately conning the Right, I'd be out of here--well it's my blog, so he'll be out of here, in that I'll refuse to acknowledge him.

3rd, I do not believe that Jevica is racist. And now that he has told me that he is an ex-cop, I understand where he is coming from.

4th, we...you, Sandra, Jim, Sheila...have been saying we want REAL dialog on this issue. This is the best we're going to get because Jevica can give, but more importantly, he can take it.

I agree with you that this issue is not the be all and end all. For most people, illegal immigration is something they can give lip service pro or con and sometimes both in the same breath. For most, EVEN IN THE ABSOLUTISTS group, this issue was a 2nd burner issue until 2005 AFTER the Miers borking and when Bush could no longer run.

The thing I find amazing is that those who listen to the people-power promising Laura and Hugh don't ask WHY...why only NOW.

If this IS about national security, it should have been up front and CENTER in 2002. And they should have been screaming for Bush to change his view on guest worker programs in 2004 when they could have tanked his re-election.

But they were all UNITED and behind Bush. They said it was because the alternative (Kerry) was impossible to contemplate...so Queen Hil and Obama is better? They say it was because we had a war to run and terrorists to destroy...so has the war ended when we weren't looking?

The ironic thing is that the media and their followers were never more powerful when they WERE supporting Bush and the GOP. They CLEANED the Dem's clock in both 2002 & 2004. They got taxes that over turned a war time economy...unheard of! They were straightening out the courts and slowly, but definitely undoing the damage of 40 years of Liberal rule.

And now like all king makers, they want the crown for themselves.

As I said before I got into a car accident and have therapy 3 times a week...Mon, Wed, and Fri...so those days my replies will be to those who have written on my blog. I will read and comment on others on Tues, Thurs, and the weekend.

IF I survive...btw, did you guys know that physical therapy was work? I mean, if I COULD do all those excercises, you think I'd be there??? duh...

I'll play your game here.

It has been a big deal for me all along, your doing the same thing asking me to speak for others, why it [the issue] wasn't a big deal with anyone else I don't know.

The same talk hosts you complain about have been on this issue during those years you talk about. Asking for enforcement, and secure borders.

I don't know what you classify as "a big deal?" No one is putting screws to anyone, they are just informing about the bill and letting the people make up their mind.

BTW when you think it's answered, so that makes it possibly never. So if you don't like my answer because it doesn't fit into your preconceived ideas of the immigration issue you don't accept it, what garbage.

There you go again, seems like you tell Sandra that no one should disagree with Bush in time of war on anything.

Sanity, you have my sympathy on the car accident. I do not believe Jervica is a honest man, ex-cop (not exactly a great signal to me) or no. I mentioned I saw Bill Bennett on CNN yesterday. He was nervous (with Wolf Blitzer?), confused about American public opinion, shocked that some people (George Bush, me, Linda Chavez, anyone who has eyes to see) was detecting "racism" and "nativism" in the opposition to immigration. I ask anyone who doubts that racism, nativism, and pure political hatred are major factors to read the "comments" to Hugh Hewitt's essay attempting to resuscitate his (politically dead) friend Jon Kyl. You detect something in Jervica -- a basic honesty and decency -- that I haven't seen yet. To me, he and Pasadena Phil and Virginia Patriot are brothers under the skin. He adds a dubious footnote or two to his spiel.

I have presented a detailed, factual analysis of how immigration is unnecessarily destroying the Republican Party. Jervica and his crew basically ignore anything that doesn't fit with their ideological grist mill.

Jervica has a moral and intellectual oblgiation to support the Immigration Bill. He is defaulting on both those obligations. As Senator Moynihan put it: "We have a right to our own opinions; however, we don't have a right to our own facts."

As I've said before, the question of immigration reform is moot. The Immigration Bill will be written and passed by President Clinton, Senators Reid and Kennedy and Speaker Pelosi in 2009. I don't think Jervica will like that legislation, but it will be exactly what he and his motley crew deserve.

-- The End

steve

Hey, get better soon!

I am asking YOUR opinion why.

And I mean BIG deal as this issue being the measure of conservatism and support. From 2001, I listened to Hannity, Laura, Beck, Medved, Prager and except for Laura who mentioned it once in a blue moon, none of them used this issue to complain about the GOP or Bush. None talked about "betrayal" and none talked about "firing" a GOP majority until 2005.

I want to know why YOU THINK (you ARE entitled to an opinion right?) these people supported the GOP and Bush in 2002 and 2004...we were STILL fighting a war, we STILL had our borders porus, we STILL had Dems we could not afford to be Commander and Chief of our troops. I want to know YOUR OPINION why things changed.

This is important Jevica. Becuase if, in your opinion, none of the reasons for voting GOP and Bush has changed, then why (again YOUR opinion please)are these talk show host making this the issue to make or break the GOP now?

As for when I think it's answered...Jevica, this is an excercise in stating our opinions...we're not "discussing" any point yet. When I think I am clear on your reply, then it's your turn. When you think you are clear on mine, then it's my turn again. I'm not going to argue the point yet and you may not like my replies, but at least we can have a dialog where we are clear what our positions are. This will save a lot of "so you're saying...", "no, that's NOT what I'm saying."

And you might want to ask exactly what Sandra and I ARE saying about supporting Bush...but that's a suggestion.

...sorry no time. I promise to read your post tonight...no therapy so I'll be home at a decent hour....hurrah! (although I do like the message--oh well tomorrow.)

Your ability to be consistently wrong about what you say about me is amazing.

Now I'm not a big fan of polls but you might be so here is one on immigration, "As backers of the compromise immigration bill move to resuscitate it on the Senate floor, the American voter remains overwhelmingly opposed to it. In the latest Rasmussen poll conducted this weekend, only 22% of likely voters supported the bill, and a majority outright opposed it" this is from Captains Quarters blog, I have a post on my blog with a link.

I don't have an obligation [any kind] to support this bill [as written]. Though I do love that quote by Moynihan, I have used it often myself.

I honesty do not like this bill. All this because I have a policy disagreement over this immigration bill. If as you say " President Clinton, Senators Reid and Kennedy and Speaker Pelosi in 2009." Then why can't they pass it now? Do you see so many more Dem Senators? If Reid & co pass it now Bush will sign it.

It's your side who brings up the [untrue] idea we're racist, want whites only and all the rest.
I have brought up reason after reason [you disagree with me] I'm told don't bring that up, don't tell me that.

As your quote says "We have a right to our own opinions; however, we don't have a right to our own facts." You can have your opinion of my but don't make up your own facts.

As I said, "It has been a big deal for me all along, your doing the same thing asking me to speak for others, why it [the issue] wasn't a big deal with anyone else I don't know."

"The same talk hosts you complain about have been on this issue during those years you talk about. Asking for enforcement, and secure borders."

What changed is that they have brought up this misguided immigration bill, and it seems that [check my blog about a recent poll] likely voters don't like the bill.

If Bush suddenly came out and said he supports abortion on demand, partial birth abortion, or if he's for gun control, take your pick.

Would it be my obligation to support him because it's time of war?

You say I spread misinformation about the immigration bill, but I'm still waiting for you to show me where I've done this. Here is a link read this article and let me know if it's misinformation,
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzgzYjZiOTI2MWE0NmUwOGRmYWNjMzMwZjBmZjg5ODk=

ok, just to get this straight...

It is your opinion that the level of support of Ingraham & Hannity & Rush & Hugh was the SAME for Bush and the GOP in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003,2004, 2005, and 2006 and ONLY changed in 2007 when this bill was "brought up"?

That these talk show hosts and your group of absolutist was talking about Bush and the GOP not being real conservatiaves and that they could not be believed or trusted in 2001...and there was talk of impeachment in 2002 and dissatisfaction in 2003 and firing the GOP in 2004?

You DO know that Bush HAS NOT changed on this issue, right?...he made it clear the both times that he ran that he believed in a guest worker program. You DID ask that important question in 2000 and 2004 when you voted for Bush right?

But you have a VERY GOOD question here, even if the premise is wrong, because actually I do have the dilemma of knowing that a presidential candidate (Rudy) is for something I am an absolute against. That is why pro-lifers are working very hard (as your absolutist on illegals should have) not to be placed in the position of voting for two pro-abortion candidates. We are, as your group should have, trying to get a pro-life candidate on the GOP ticket.

If however, Rudy should win, and I gave him my vote because of the war, I would not decide 7 years later to withdraw my support if we are still at war.

For me, supporting someone means something...it's like investing in a company...I don't do either without doing my homework...and once I give it, I don't use liabilities I knew about to excuse bailing out.

I fear you are right...the Dems are going to give us an immigration bill that will keep us up at night.

And the GOP is going to be in the political wilderness for decades unless the GOP can detach itself from those who claim no allegiance to her.

Yes I DO KNOW THAT BUSH has not changed on this issue, and I have said this before.

I have also said that Bush is conservative but not a conservative.

Hannity and Rush support Bush but on this issue Bush has left the party and [as of the last poll, for what polls are worth] most of the likely voters. Now the politicians for their own reasons support and want this bill.

Check some of my recent posts about this issue, and follow the link I left for steve, and you will see that this bill is bad for the country. Rush & Hannity have always been for secure borders and enforcement of existing laws Laura has supported Bush except on immigration and the Miers nomination. There might have been some other disagreements but there has been general support on the WOT and the economy.

Is there any possibility to you that this bill is not good for the country? Because this is a bad bill. The Dems and Republican [RINOs, and open border types] may give us this bill but it will be an error.

Has the possibility that Bush & co have left the base and Party, and others that want secure borders and enforcement first, ever occurred to you?

Do you recall how this all began? I wrote a post about the RINO press and MY opinion that THEY withdrew their support to justify the Mier's borking?

YOU wrote and disagreed.

So you must have some opinion as to why this has happened.

I am asking because you are basing your support of our war time president and the only VIABLE party that wants to win the WOT on the information of these people.

I am asking if on such a monumental decision, have you questioned the MOTIVE of those people?

You would NEVER accept the information given to you by the Liberal MSM because you know they have an agenda.

Well right now I don't see the difference between the agenda on the Right and the agenda on the Left...both are saying that the GOP has let down the nation and BOTH want the WH to do what THEY think is best for this country.

So again Jevica...do you have an opinion as to the MOTIVES of the people that are giving you the information about this bill?

If not, why not?

And if yes, if it is all about illegal immigration, why did these "principled" people NOT put this issue as the deal breaker in 2000, a whole year before 9/11, 2002, 2 whole years AFTER 9/11, 2004, when they could have pushed for a president that did not "leave the base and the party"?

Why only AFTER the Mier's borking? And after Bush could no longer run? And the war was no longer as important?

if it ever occured to me that Bush & company left the base and the party....

Jevica...how can Bush & company leave the base and the party when their position on illegal immigration hasn't changed?

Their motives are to inform the people what this bill is about, and how bad it is.

Most people do not have time to read a bill of hundreds of pages. The information released by "these people" has helped people see how bad this bill is.

They did not support Bush on the Miers nomination, they "withdrew" support on this issue. You will not accept the fact that people can differ with the President, even in time of war and not be back stabbers, disloyal or whatever else some can think up.

Bush & co support a bill that the base of the Republican party does not support.

I have told you this over and over. The same thing, I can't say it any other way.

Because the administration had not put forth a bill like this.

Ok so "these people" had two oppotunities to head this off in 1999-2000 and in 2003-2004 especially the latter when Bush had clearly indicated to congress that he intended to move on this exact issue.

If your contention is only now did they act because there is a bill on the table, need we remind you of the earlier legislation dating back to 2001. Infact this issue has been visited numerous times over the Bush administrations life time. Some legislation passed and some did not, all strangely right under the noses of "these people" who are supposedly informing the public about political matters.

At best it is censorship in which case they actually have an agenda or at worst it was ignorance which does lead one to speculate what else they have missed.

I understand that you trust "these people" but as the Gipper said "trust but verify"

Some people are already doing just that.

Not censorship [can't be] these are talk shows that can feature whatever they want so any allegation of censorship is bogus.

They have an agenda now to stop this bill. Also I believe they were for building the wall.

Yes I am verify and looking many places to find out information and it seems all to point in the direction of this bill should be defeated.

Though I don't like polls all that much but the last I saw showed that 23% of likely voters did not support this bill, I have this posted on my blog.

Sanity, sorry to interrupt, but we have a big development in the "Palin Movement"
AND ITS TIME TO MOBILIZE THE TROOPS!

My site got two links today from blogs on the Anchorage Daily News Website. The bigger entry is at http://community.adn.com/?q=adn/node/108554#comment, but we also made it into the sidebar at the same reporters "Alaska Newsreader" column (http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/newsreader/story/9084591p-9000668c.html).

Now here's how we can capitalize on this: The commentors on the first blog are treating the idea like a joke, and we can set them straight quicker than a grizzly bear can grab an Alask salmon. If we flood the comments section with seriousd Palin for VP comments, we can get their attentuion and maybe even more coverage! The great thing is that this can be done easily and effectively even with ourcurrently small blogroll...You will have to register as an adn.com user to post, but there's no fee or commitment involved (so it's painless).

Let's get rolling, and be sure to let any pro-Palin friends or family to join this effort. By this time tommorrow, the Anchorage Daily News won't know what hit them!

Sanity, let me second what Elephantman says. Let's contact the two linked sites at the Ancorage Daily News. This is important as we move toward victory in 2008 with Sarah Palin on the ticket. Anyone who feels strongly that Sarah would be a great candidate (not just those who've "signed up") should take this opportunity to sing her praises.

steve

Any time a Republican candidate comes to Pittsburgh, and they all do, I will mention Sarah to them if I can get close enough. Rudy was here today.

...so did you get close enough...lol

so it has to be short. As I promised I won't challenge you yet.

From what I can gather (and please tell me if this is incorrect), you believe that Ingraham and company always supported Bush and the GOP until this year (the year of the Bill) and that the illegal immigration issue was always a big issue for the talk show hosts and you have no opinion as to why they didn't get as vocal about it in 2000 and 2004 as they are now.

You are also not at all curious as to why they didn't push for such a candidate...the way serious pro-lifers are pushing for a pro-life candidate in 2008.

Censorship being the act of actively ommitting something? No I don't think its bogus at all. But that does bring forward the point about verification.

Your sources (thus far) have all the same idealogy, its a little like asking a bunch of Catholics repeatedly if they believe in God, and from that you verify that absolutely everyone in the US does indeed believe.

You and I know that isn't the case, so why are you expecting your argument to succeed here?

You are right to suspect Polls and quite frankly unless the results are overwhelming they mean very little. Asking 1000 people questions and rarely asking them in the direct way you and I would rarely refelect the countries views.

Anyway I suspect this is academic.

You will not accept the alternative press has its own agenda.
You will not seek to verify the facts outside those that support your position as a starting point.

If half a million illegals per year is acceptable to everyone, then there is no problem other than the damage its continually doing to the GOP, which is a shame.

For some unknown reason people have a problem with a party that whilst in the minority gets a bill to the table, and then promptly defeats it themselves.

Its enough to think that congress never achieves anything, but spending money. Oh well

They support Bush on WOT, economy but on issues that don't coincide with theirs they don't support.

I have no opinion about why not as vocal in 2000 and 2004 [as now], nor do I care.

No I'm not at all curious. And why does this bother you so much.

They disagree with Bush on immigration [and with you] so there are differing points of view.

It bothers me because if an issue REALLY mattered as pro-life does to me...I would never have supported Bush (if he was pro-choice) in 1999. That was a deal breaker to me.

And if another issue came about such as the WOT that trumped my pet issue, I wouldn't wait 7 years before withdrawing my support no matter what happened if the reason for supporting him was still in effect.

I mentioned Rudy...how fair would it be if I supported him and told all my listeners to support him KNOWING that he would try to uphold the Roe vs Wade or at least the partial abortion method because of the WOT...and then 7 years later, withdrew my support and told all my listeners to do the same because he did EXACTLY what he said he would do?

It bothers me a lot...because part of MY principles IS being FAIR.

How remarkable...you are ready to tank the ONLY VIABLE party that wants to win the WOT over a bill that talk show hosts say is bad and you don't care that these people might be lying to you...

You TRUST these people to inform you...the same way they "informed" you about Bush in 1999 and 2004 that Bush was for the legalization of illegals and guest worker programs...and that Bush was the ONLY one you could trust to send your sons and daughters to war but who you could NOT trust to do HIS job...appoint judges.

The SAME people who ranted day after day for months BEFORE the Miers borking about the MSM attacking a war time president...not ONE word about the MSM's right to "disagree".

When it's my turn again Jevica...here's my question...why SHOULD I TRUST the RINO press to tell me the truth about this bill?

It amazes me that you cannot understand the simple fact I am not wanting to tank anything.

You will not understand the fact that I support Bush on the WOT, but I do not support Bush on this bill.

You should find out the facts get you information and make up your mind, which is what I did, but you don't want me to do that. You will not accept the fact I have a different opinion on this immigration bill.

You want to go back to Miers and her SCOTUS nomination, and what talk hosts did or did not do . Or 1776 when the colonies had the Revolution against English law.

Find out things for your self

BTW you should not refer to talk shows as RINO press that is incorrect they are not the press.

You are allowed your support of this bill but you give me a constant barrage of the same question over and over, you will not allow me to have my non support of a bad bill that I feel should not pass. Why do you think this bill is so good that it should pass, how will it end the illegal problem in the future.

I truly hope to have more time tonight to answer your question.

My point is this...this BEGAN with a post I wrote about the RINO press...and the press as in newspaper columnist (Krauthhammer, Noonan)...talk show hosts...t.v. commentators. Press is anyone that is supposed to give you information...what people might call the media...and now that we have finished taking what little time I have on word definitions...

A post I wrote about the MOTIVES behind the so called Conservative press.

YOU disagreed with my opinion--and I STILL don't know why since you NOW insist you have no opinion at all.

In fact, you are now saying that you don't care if they ARE conning you and the base.

I think you now have Jervica's number. If you look beneath the supposed reasonableness, you will find what one novelist called "The Heart of Darkness."

One thing I passionately hope is that President Bush will somehow bring to an end the construction of the "Berlin Wall -- South." It's a terrible mark to leave on America.

Short update on the Palin for Vice President effort. I wrote today about the Anchorage Daily News (ADN) coverage of our movement -- see http://camp2008victory.townhall.com. The subject has generated tremendous traffic on the paper's web site/blog, many of the comments coming from Palin supporters. I hope if you and readers have time, you'll read my piece on Sarah (beneath the one on Fred Thompson). Many things are going on with this effort, and if they work, we'll let the world know immediately. Sarah "electronic bumper stickers" are available at: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com -- they attach her name to all known Republican presidential candidates (a big number now).

steve maloney

Press is the MSM, radio talk show hosts [Rush, Hannity, Laura, and the like] are not the press. Just because you call them that does not make it so.

The press [MSM] is not RINO, they are liberal pure and simple. Fox is the only outlet that is center/right, and it kills them.

Talk show hosts have their show and they run their show. They give you information but it's not like the MSM that give you news. You could not expect Al Franken to give you the same as Rush.

"Conservative" press whatever that is and whoever it is give you their opinion of the bill you didn't like that.

I don't care about "I have no opinion about why not as vocal in 2000 and 2004 [as now], nor do I care." About the 2000 et. al., nor do I intend to back to 2000, etc. on this issue and find out what they did or didn't do on this issue. I have said said Rush, Hannity, Laura have always been secure borders, and enforcement. This entire comment is moot, due to bill being stopped.

It is MY term. Or are YOU telling me what to say now?

Hannity, Laura, Krauthhammer, Noonan, Fox...they are Republicans In Name Only...as they keep insisting they are CONSERVATIVES and not Republicans (except to tell the party of Republicans what to do).

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) PRESS:
Definition #31
all the media and agencies that print, broadcast, or gather and transmit news, including newspapers, newsmagazines, radio and television news bureaus, and wire services.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) NEWS
a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: His family has had no news of his whereabouts for months. (notice one of the definitions is INFORMATION, which according to you is what Ingraham and company gives you.)

According to the dictionary, Jevica, you're trying to blow smoke up my butt.

In fact, you have done exactly what Liberals do when they can't answer...they "discuss" the meaning of words.

Do you realize that I have answered every one of your questions and you have tried to dance around every one of mine.

So much for dialog...

Steve was right, I've just wasting a week and a half of my time.

As YOU said...you don't care.

You started this, continued it for your reason.

So any talk show that gives any mention of the news is part of the press.

Main Entry: talk show
Function: noun
: a radio or television program in which usually well-known persons engage in discussions or are interviewed

For someone who came up with this idea;

Mexicans or Indians so they didn't break the laws that govern themselves...but our Founding Fathers WERE English and they DID break the laws of their nation...which is worst than not respecting another countries laws isn't it?

The idea that Mexicans are law breakers and THAT is a good enough reason to be against giving them any way to join the descendants of immigrants that just happened to come here when there was no immigration law just doesn't hold water.

And this one And please Jevica...don't try that "security" excuse on me. You know and I know that terrorist can fed ex or buy the components of a dirty bomb...and terrorist can come from Canada with it's huge Moslem communities or hop on a plane.

You started it kept it up anytime I gave you and answer you kept moving the goal posts. Yah discuss the meaning [generally accepted] of words. You bring up the Founders were law breakers so that makes the illegals somehow not so bad. Don't take my words out of context you know what and when I used that comment. But it doesn't matter when you can try to use it to make your point. I too should have realized that the quicksand was getting deep.

The fact you are on her blog, does make it rather hard for you to deny that you did not start this extremely long thread.

As for the goal posts they never changed, although the point of attack did, which you must expect in debate. You debate the issue not an opinion or a single point.

Although I think your points are marginal, you are entitled to hold which ever opinion you wish.

I think this is about over now surely, the bill is dead (again), the Democrats are laughing and when you won, you lost the WOT, so congratulations.

I guess we will debate how to continue the WOT with no majorities and WH another time.

If this issue is such a winner in your opinion, why haven't any of the top three candidates championed opposing the bill?

I wuld have said Tancredo, but you could have said he was just a crank and that would have been harder to refute.

being answered? mmmm.