Free Republic

That is an excellent quote and very succinctly tells the truth about what is going on. Too bad that we have lost that honesty and realism of 1924 and replaced it with a form of voodoo reality shored up by the modern day PC drones.

Why do they, with all their boycotts, continue to overlook the ultimate most effective one of just going back to their home country and refusing to return until their demands are met? Now, that would really teach us a lesson. And, actually put their boycotts where their mouths are.

I don't know, but it is possible that the reporter was getting the quotes from the police sargeant before he knew what the sex of the baby was. I imagine the sargeant was being interviewed in the parking lot shortly after he was called to the lot and having been busy making sure the baby was safe, figuring out what was going on, and arresting the father -- maybe he just didn't know.

This story was carried on the local TV news last night. It was also on a CBS national radio newscast just a few minutes ago. The K-Mart parking lot referred to is in Sioux Falls, SD.

From Ann Coulter:

The Department of Transportation filed a complaint against United Airlines, claiming United removed passengers from flights in "a few instances" based on their race, color, national origin, religion or ancestry. Mineta gave United no credit for so scrupulously ignoring ethnicity on Sept. 11 that it lost four pilots, 12 flight attendants, and 84 passengers (not including the nine Arab hijackers). In November 2003, United settled the case for $1.5 million.

In another crucial anti-terrorism investigation undertaken by Norman Mineta, the Department of Transportation claimed that between Sept. 11, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2001, American Airlines – which lost four pilots, 13 flight attendants and 129 passengers (not including 10 Arab hijackers) on Sept. 11 by ignoring the ethnicity of its passengers – removed 10 individuals who appeared to be Middle Eastern from American Airline flights as alleged security risks. On March 1, 2004, American Airlines settled the case for $1.5 million.

Frontpage

I know Coulter can be a little flaky at times, but I would bet that those airlines that were fined had reasons to pull the passengers other than they just looked Arab.

A provision included in the intelligence-reform bill would allow the air marshals to wear less-conspicuous clothing. The final vote on the bill is expected today in the Senate.

So, Congress has to pass a bill in order to correct the moronic directions of some mid-level bureaucrat and micro-manage a department? Isn't there anybody in the Bush Administration chain of command that could have handled this administratively? As far as I can tell from the story, it wasn't Congress that legislated the dress code in first place but rather just department policy. Doesn't seem that Congess should be wasting time and money dealing with such detail. Am I missing something?

It depends on your point of view. The U.S. is currently taking around a million legal immigrants per year which I believe is more than all other countries combined -- so it is a lot. But, those 1 million are being taken from a world population pool of approximately 6 billion people. Assuming that probably at least 3-4 billion of those would consider themselves better off here and want to come, 1 million/4 billion is a relatively small number. Not a great chance of winning the lottery, assuming the chances of all entrants are equal.

It also depends on where you are. For example, we generally won't touch the farmers being killed in South Africa with a 10 foot pole, but bring in Somalis, Bantus, etc. in groups of thousands.

I don't believe that the article is saying that illegals are going to vote to punish Bush (although some illegals do vote), but rather it is saying that relatively recent immigrants who are now citizens and sympathize with the illegals will vote to punish Bush. That would generally include former illegal immigrants who have been amnestied and now have citizenship status as well as legal immigrants generally from the same countries as the illegals. For example, those represented by groups such as La Raza (and there are many more).

Was on no one's side during WWII but did not get rears kicked because they did not fight.

Just to be fair, I think there were a number of Mexicans who came to the U.S. and worked the mines (and probably in other places as well) during WWII. They may have done it more for their own economic benefit than any desire to help the war effort -- I don't know.

Did they punish Bill Clinton for not making them citizens?

Actually, Clinton did make a whole big bunch of them citizens right before the election in 96 (knowing that they would generally vote Democrat) by ordering the INS in effect to skip the normal background checks and other procedures -- the program was called CitizenshipUSA.

I can't remember which pool these new citizens came out of, i.e. if they were generally previous illegals who had been amnestied (or 245(i)ed) or if they came through more normal channels (doubtful). Clinton didn't directly turn illegals into citizens with this program, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did turn a substantial number of former illegals into citizens.

GENEVA PARK, ONT. -- Misbegotten U.S. foreign policy is pushing Islamic fundamentalists closer and closer to the use of weapons of mass destruction, warns British historian Karen Armstrong, one of the world's foremost authorities on religion.

Sounds like those Islamic fundamentalists have had the capability to use WMDs all along, like for years, but have refrained hoping that we would see the error of our ways.

I wonder what it takes to be one of the "foremost authorities on religion". I do wish reporters would be more objective and leave out the subtle propaganda.

The emancipation of women, she said, has fuelled fundamentalism in all major religions. "We've been the worst religion [Christianity] in the world for integrating sexuality and gender with the sacred.

So, does that mean if women are un-emancipated, then fundamentalism will be de-fueled, and then there will be world peace and harmony? But, if fundamentalism is de-fueled, wouldn't that cause women to want to be emancipated and start the whole cycle over again? Actually, I couldn't figure out what integrating sexuality with the sacred meant, anyway. But, at best, she seems to be making a big deal out of stating the universally obvious -- that until the status quo is threatened, there is no reason or incentive to mount a serious effort to preserve it.

I suppose she does have a point, to a degree, in that liberation of women in the west, along with our other decadent ways, being introduced into Islamic countries is a threat to fundamental Islam. But, wouldn't they have a better chance of preserving traditional Islam by working to keep western influence out of their Islamic countries rather than attempting to blow up western countries (which will probably fail and result in them being blown up)? Maybe the goal is more to spread and conquer rather than preserve?

And the third step is to recognize that many people "just want to be more religious in some way or another. . . . The trick is to create conditions which will make sure that it's good healthy religion and not distorted bad religion.

So, it should be our responsibility and goal to define "good healthy" and "distorted bad" with respect to religion in other countries and somehow manipulate conditions in those countries in order to achieve our definition of good religion in those countries? That would be a nice trick, but would also give the fundamentalists even more justification (in their minds) for blowing us up.

I did a google search on "Karen Armstrong" and read some other interviews. She, IMO, seems to have a real tendency to attribute effects to totally unrelated causes. Also, seems to have some bitterness due to having been in a convent someplace.

Those "alleged" comments by the "alleged" Yahoo posters seem mild compared to the ones I've seen there. Maybe if the shys..., er attorney can't stand the heat he should stay out of the message boards and not get his poor poor pitiful little feelings hurt.

This is America, and it's our flag, and our culture.

Well, granted, the flag is still flying (except in a few areas where it's the Mexican flag). The other two are a little debatable. About .95 out of 3 ain't good, IMHO.

Thanks for the info.

Is there a constitutional right for illegal aliens to receive benefits and services NOT required by federal law? I haven't seen one.

IIRC, the federal judge ruled the original 187 unconstitutional by saying that the State of CA was usurping (with 187) the rights of the federal government which has sole authority for determining immigration policy and enforcement.

IMO, logically it would be the other way around. That is, states that knowingly give benefits (not required or specifically allowed by federal law) to illegal immigrants are usurping the immigration regulatory power of the federal government because by giving those benefits the state is determining that it is okay to be here to get the benefit -- but lawfully only the federal government can say it's okay to be here.

I may be mistaken, but I think the Kansas Kobach lawsuit which deals with giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens is based on that line of thinking. Also, why would Hatch need the Dream Act to give states the right to give in-state tuition, if they already have that right?

I hope this initiative constitutional amendment petition is successful. The last "save our state" or so-called "son of 187" initiative petition earlier this year failed for lack of signatures.

Why? Lack of time? Lack of interest? Lack of organization? Lack of money? Badly written?

I remembering seeing some posts about "son of 187" back around February on alt.politics.immigration. I was wondering what happened to it.

Any reason to think this one will do any better?

I just checked the Kansas Secretary of State's web site and according to the "Unoffical" results listed there with all precincts reporting, Kobach won with 38,124 votes to Taff's 38,037. Couldn't find any articles on the Kansas primary elections. I suppose there could be a recount or the results could change if absentee ballots aren't all counted.

Naw, it doesn't go that way. I did some future remote viewing and found this entry in a Russian Encyclopedia, published in 2103.

John F. Kerry. Last President of the United States from 2005 through 2007. Kerry served during a period of numerous terrorists attacks and open and hostile mass legal and illegal immigration. These factors eventually resulted in the break up of the United States into regions now know Al Qaedazhan, Aztlandland, Somalialand, and Chinanminorland. A few residents of the former United States survived by fleeing to what was then called the upper peninsula of the state Michigan. Historians believe Kerry's final words as the White House burned were "So what, I have 3 Purple Hearts, plenty of ketchup, and got the Hispanic vote". Kerry is also reported to have mumbled something about an UN and a Vicente telling him that borders were no longer needed in the 21st century. Finally, weeping, he said "George would have done all those amnesties, too, you know, he wanted the Hispanic vote too".

I think that I would call you astute, practical, and honorable -- long before heartless.

Watching the "Airline" marathon now running on A&E cable, I don't think I would last long as a airline service person before I punched somebody. Sure, sometimes the airline screws up, but there are so many passengers that are just really rude and expect the impossible -- of course, the TV show probably shows the worst of the lot.