And Michael is right…the more we allow special-interest groups and race-exclusion groups to exist, the worse we make it for all of us to come together as one nation. We’re called a Melting Pot for a reason…we all are different colors, races, creeds, religions, languages, but we get mixed together to become a totally new one called an American.

I got some of that when I ate some beans.

A. Pacifism is no way to approach life. This world would be a very different one were it not for U.S. dominance.

B. New winds of Democratic change? Give me a break. I can’t take Obama or any other Democrat seriously. If they wer serious about things like universal health care, they’d acknowledge that the illegal immigration issue undercuts it - we the people aren’t going to pay for free health care for illegals - who as George Will likes to note make up 40% or more of our “chronically underinsured”. The issues are intertwined to the point that the Democratic Party’s positions are so contradictory that one has to call “bull****”. Same thing when they speak of improving schools, reducing poverty, etc. The Democratic Party stands for nothing real as currently configured, making Obama a snake-oil salesman. Democratic ideals have devolved into a vacuous mass-marketing campaign (targeted at minorities and women, not so much at the white male demographic). All they stand for is empty sloganeering. watch and see, live and learn - and as Pete Townshend says, don’t get fooled again.

So I guess you consider yourself a winner?

Mackie said yesterday:
“The most important issue concerning the border is that there are very genuine and sincere people who have come to see us as a mortal threat to their faith…probably because that’s exactly how we have been behaving. These people intend to defend their faith at all costs and our wide open border is a open door.”

Firedancer said:
Well, they wouldn’t be Latino laborers. Using the security argument against that segment is just an excuse to villify.

Also for God’s sake, National Council of La Raza is an advocacy group like the League of United Latin American Citizens and the NAACP, that promotes social and educational opportunities for their constituents. To say they are out to destroy America is silly, and those arguments should be put to rest.

Michael, 30. June 2008, 15:04
FireDancer 11:34 and anyone else who believes group political advocacy is the “way of the future”

I never enjoy attacking any individual and I won’t here, but I really need to understand a fundamental issue here that bothers me over and over but never seems to bother anyone in a “minority” group.

It comes down to this. Which ethic Firedancer is the way of the future?

1. All races, genders, religious groups and ethnic groups will join together into politcial groups like La Raza, League of United Latin Citizens, and National Association for the Advancement of Colored people to promote social and educational opportunities for their “constituants”.

The legal arms of these organizations are designed to support the election of people into power that will create law favoring these organization’s goals and favor the execution of these laws to give these groups financial, educational and social advantage over other groups as they promote race, gender, religious and ethnic group specific “social” and “educational opportunities”.

This means that to be fair and equatible politically, new groups that do not now exist to represent the special political interests of the “majority” groups need to form political groups like “The Celtic Peoples”, The League of United Causasian Citizens and the National Association for the Advancement of Non-Colored people”.

2. Groups such as La Raza, League of United Latin Citizens, and National Association for the Advancement of Colored people look out only for the interests of their own race and ethnic group and as such care nothing for the political interests of people who do not qualify to be members of these groups and as such will not be equally or politically represented in thses groups promotion of social, financial, and educational opportunities for these “non-constituants”, not a member of their race or ethnic group and in fact will have no political faction representation at all. Becasue these groups practice racial and ethnic “exclusion” they should be classified as hate groups and prohibited from political funding and political advocacy unless it is legal for all groups of race, gender, religion and ethnic group membership to practice and promote “exclusion” and capture political funding and laws that advance only that groups social, financial and “educational opportunities”

Which choice Firedancer, is the choice you want people to make in the future, 1. we blend together and integrate using common law, or 2. we all advocate seperately, with our own leaders pursuing separatism and political advantage for our own’s groups political interests, exclusively of all others.

I would like to know the rules now, so I can choose to go one way or the other.

Michael, 30. June 2008, 15:09
If you choose one way, the first, we will eventually have war and conflict in our nation. If you choose the second, we will have less war and conflict in our nation and might last the next 100 years.

Censored bybvbl, 30. June 2008, 15:20
There are no rules about this, Michael. You chose what you’re comfortable with. This election has been interesting since women and minorities have had a choice about which candidate best represents them. Does a person’s skin color or sex matter most…or does the candidate’s political view trump everything else? It’s a choice that we as individuals make. Will the nation change? Yes, it always has. Will some groups feel more comfortable with the changes? Sure. We’ve been fed a white, upper-middle class perspective in most fields. It’s not the only game in town. And we don’t have to choose merely between your two alternatives of blending together or advocating separately.

Michael, 30. June 2008, 15:38
to Alanna:
I do have a question however, one that never seems to be answered.

If I assume that what people really want is “controlled” immigration rather than “un-controlled immigration then I have a basis to argue for the law. My first questions however before we even get out of the gate on debate is.

Does anyone on this blog believe we need to have “controlled immigration”? If the answer is no then all I can say to debate further is welcome to the destruction of the United States and democracy in the next 30 years as the US becomes a reflection of the “morality” and “political ideology” of the rest of the worlds nations typically fighting ethnic, religious and cultural wars that have neither democracy, nor high morals, and typically in these war-zones advocate for lawlessness and crime organizations to take over and put their own criminal leadership into power (like Somalia). Let’s say for example you “desire” uncontrolled growth in the number of Somalians that come into the US with their “moral” baggage that has allowed one ethnic and religious group to stay constantly at war with another. Will they simply change when they get here, or simply attempt to keep their existing culture of hatred going against other non-Somalians?)

If on the other hand (hope of hopes) you believe we need “controlled” immigration growth, how do you think we enforce the law to prevent people from seeking “un-controlled” entry again and simply advocating to ignore any growth control laws or legal concepts of “immigration status and papers”. To uphold any law you must have “illegal” immigrants and you must have “legal” immigrants, to seperate those who followed the control of immigration law from those who do not follow the control of immigration law.

If you beleive we need “controlled” immigration and by definition that means we will have “illegal” immigrants if some individials simply decide to come here un-lawfully anyway, how do you propose we enforce those laws? By our local police (effective) or by our ICE (in-effective and has been for 30 years or more)?

If you agree we need controlled “legal” immigration, what do you think is wrong with todays immigration law? It does not allow anyone to come into the US (It Does), it does not allow EVERYONE to come into the US (It Does not). It does not allow guest workers, tourists and students (It does), it does not allow anyone to overstay visas, student visas, temporary work permits, or simply fly into the US and stay or croos the border and stay without authorization.

What more do you want from this law? For it to not be enforced simply because people broke the law and since the last 1986 Amnesty, simply ignored “controlled” growth and chosen to become “illegal” in defiance of the law. If you “fix” the system (whatever you think that is beyond granting amnesty), how will you guarantee in the next 20 years that the law will be enforced and growth will be controlled. Do you think the law can simply be ignored in order for the system to be “fair” and “fixed” and that “anmesty” now will not prevent “millions” more from flooding the nation illegally in hopes we will feel sympathy for them and grant a “third” amnesty in 2030 when we reach 30 billion people in the US and 50% or more of them are “illegal”.

If enforcing the law is not your ideal solution then what is? Amnesty again and “no law” enforcement until it gets even more out of control?

Michael’s mental note before the last postback:
I simply couldn’t believe that Censoredbybvbl and others on this far left blog (Antibvbl), really believes that we need to return to the civil right violations of the 50s, so I fired this reply off hoping of hopes that some congressman, reporter, or political leader of this nation might read this and understand the magnitude and threat to all in our fair democracy and existing common law from the racial, gender, and ethnic seperatism and “exclusion” emerging on the winds of Hillary’s and Obama’s political “winds of change”. If you were afraid to vote Republican this November, the above concept (and CensoredbyBVBL is only the tip of the iceberg I’m un-covering) may find you living to regret voting against it.

Michael, 30. June 2008, 15:53
Censored bybvbl: Actually there are “rules” about this, those rules came out of the civil rights violations of the 50s and 60s. If you have no rules, and every color, race, gender and religion can simply do whatever it wants and become “exclusive” and self-centered politically, then you are saying we can all return back to the “lack of rules” that caused the civil rights violations in the 50s. I’m hearing you say that is OK with you, as long as the new dominant race or ethnic group is not white. I’m hearing you say the “class” and ethnic group separatism of the 50s is a good thing for America now in this new “change” in political winds.

Hmm, hmm, hmm I love this sign

We got cowboys, we got truckers
Broken-hearted fools and suckers
And we got hustlers, we got fighters
Fat broads and Bloggers,
And the veterans talk about their battle scars

Hmm, hmm, hmm I love this sign

[Chorus:]
I love this sign
It’s my kind of art
Just walkin’ by the big fence
Puts a big smile on my face
The 1st amendment is alive and benign,
Hmm, hmm, hmm I love this sign

Will they go back into their shell?

Barry Carter seems like one of these noveau Indians who probably has ambitions to open a casino or other business by exploiting any amount of Native American blood he might claim. Illegal aliens make great low paying laborers - just ask the folks at Lansdowne.