Replies

In the early part of 2001 the Texas Legislative Branch had inside knowledge that the newly elected President was going to Washington and pass amnesty either in the lame duck months of 2004 if he was going to lose in 2004 or in his lame duck years of his 2nd term. It was inevitable from their perspective so Texas decided to get a jump on it and wanted to turn as many as they could into Tax Payers instead of legal welfare draws. The only thing that stopped him was 9/11.

This leaves Perry with a really big problem right now, most of Perry's money is coming from Texas where Bush is still very much loved and respected. If Perry comes out and tells people why that law was passed his money will dry up and all the rest of the base will accuse him of parroting 0bama by blaming Bush.

Perry says he is against amnesty and that he thinks it is immoral. Considering Perry's religious convictions that is a pretty strong stand against it.

There are a lot of misconception about the law. The biggest one is that it is a handout, our state colleges and universities are funded by sales taxes and property taxes that illegals have no choice but to pay so at least they have 'skin in the game'. Also, to say other American children are put at a disadvantage to illegals is just not true. They are at a disadvantage because they are not Texans, just like Texas kids are at a disadvantage in the 56 other states.

Those kids are here. Because of our laws a good portion of them are going to get their statues changed as soon as they have a kid here. If the laws were different Texas would have had other options. But we didn't, those are the cards we are holding and we had to play them. Only Washington has the ability to draw new cards. Perry wants the job, he is one of the only two people (Jan Brewer) in this country that is actually fighting the border war and understands it. He told us what he plans to do when he became the head of the RGA and if you research the border you will come to the same conclusions that Perry has. The only way to secure the border is to return order to Mexico by sending US troops into Mexico. You can also see here at least one report by the DoD that shows their intent to move the "War on Drugs" under the umbrella of the "War on Terror" (See page 7) which is probably the correct thing to do, but will have massive implications on Border States like Texas, Arizona and your state of California. The thought of having the next battlefield on our front porch should scare the hell out of all of us. We better have someone in office who understands it and is not trying to learn on the job.

So who are the choices?

Herman Cain who thought it was funny to say he wanted to kill people climbing the fence that he somehow thought you could put in the middle of the Rio Grande? That shows either he has no concept of what is going on at the border or does not understand that what he says now has massive world wide consequences if he were to be elected. By the way, Cain had no problem supporting Mike Huckabee (see letter C) in 2004 who sponsored a bill that actually did give illegals tax payer money to pay tuitions, books, living expenses and anything else they wanted to buy in Arkansas.

Mittens? Please!

Newt, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul? All of them are or were members of the Federal Government who were charged by the US Constitution to secure the US Border and all of them failed to do so and should be given no credibility on the issue.