Posted on 04/02/2015 3:09:25 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
we’re rednecks and that can’t be all bad. who knew there were rednecks in burma. looks like there are.
barbecuing in a garage could be a fire safety issue i suppose. if it is violating fire regs then they should be asked to do it in the back yard.
culinary customs can be divisive i suppose.
but jrandom and i are grinning... burmese rednecks. sounds like these folks might actually have a chance at being self supporting, not perpetual welfare cases.
my sympathies for your olfactory challenges, however.
From the article: "The national refugee resettlement program runs as a partnership between the federal government and nine private resettlement agencies" These are an example of those wonderful "public-private" partnerships we've heard so much about. They're touted as a means of making government more efficient by involving the private sector and attracting private enterprise.
What a load of BS. These are liberal-funded government auxiliary departments performing extra-legal activities unauthorized by law and unsupported by the public except for the favored special groups infecting the body-politic by seeding in their own.
Maybe the point is that in the past people coming INTO this country did it on their own, at great cost to themselves and when here had to WORK HARD to get anywhere.
Now they are being BROUGHT HERE FREE, handed MONEY and not required to work at all.
It is a HUGE difference.
Our country is committing suicide.
I'm all for practical solutions that work, not rhetoric that may make me feel good.
/johnny
Considering that our government (which I did not vote for) is gone rogue and doing this there isn’t anything I can do.
“Practical solutions that work...”
Just what would that be?
The answer is always the same. Don't give up, get a group together, work the phone and the doors, ruin shoe leather. You know, hard work of activism.
That's why Cruz was elected Senator here in Texas over the GOP-E favorite Dewhurst.
It takes REAL work to get that done. More than me just sitting back at a keyboard, griping about the state of the world, and how we've already lost. That is a sure-fire way to not fight and give up before a fight starts. I don't have time for that kind of laziness.
You can make a difference. But it takes a lot of effort. Some here on FR don't want to do that. They just want to gripe.
/johnny
Galatians 6:9New International Version (NIV)
9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.
Doing good and being an activist, even for the conservatives, are NOT the same thing.
You clearly don’t have to spend 40 hours a week working to pay bills. You may be retired - if so - have at it. But don’t tell others they can’t speak up. And don’t criticize others who are merely pointing out that the king is wearing no clothes.
I have always REALLY BEEN ANNOYED when people quote a Bible verse out-of-context.
BELOW IS GALATIONS 6 in full and it is nothing like your use of it.
Galatians 6 New International Version (NIV)
Doing Good to All
6 Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. 2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. 3 If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. 4 Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, 5 for each one should carry their own load. 6 Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor.
7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.
When it comes to this subject, both parties are equally at fault. Look at the tens of thousands of Somali Muslims who were resettled in small towns across America, against the objections of virtually everyone, while Bush was President and Republicans controlled the House and Senate.
/johnny
In fact it was in 1965 that our government voted to begin increasing immigration. That has turned into a tidal wave
and here we are today....
The Hart-Celler Act abolished the national origins quota system that was American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants’ skills and family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents. Numerical restrictions on visas were set at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or “special immigrants” (including those born in “independent” nations in the Western Hemisphere, former citizens, ministers, and employees of the U.S. government abroad).[1]
The passage of the Hart-Celler Act contributed to increased illegal immigration from Latin America, especially Mexico, since the unlimited legal bracero program previously in place was eliminated.
The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained.[7] In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes.[8] In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill. Most of the no votes were from the American South, which was then still strongly Democratic. During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, “our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset”.[9]
The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained.[7] In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes.[8] In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill. Most of the no votes were from the American South, which was then still strongly Democratic. During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, “our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset”.[9]
The act’s supporters not only claimed the law would not change America’s ethnic makeup, but that such a change was not desirable. On October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the legislation into law, saying “This [old] system violates the basic principle of American democracy, the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country”.[10]
LBJ did more to undermine the American future in the slightly over five years of his Presidency than anybody before Obama. The above statement has so many untruths, both stated and implied, that it is something of model of Leftist newspeak. Lyndon would have done well in either Bolshevik Russia or Nazi Germany.
For a direct challenge to the post 1965 immigration policy: An American Immigration Policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.