Liberals and Conservatives By Dark Chapter

Source: http://www.darkchapter.net/board/read.php?action=print&TID=257

Joyce Comments: This post is inspired by Phillips Philes newest contributor, Dan. This article in general talks about liberals and conseratives. Not all liberals agree with everything stated here a liberal thinks, nor all conservatives (as lately is common hearing there various kinds of conservatives like "fiscal conservatives" - also known as RINOs, those who are sharp with keeping government budgets balanced, but are not in line with "social conservaties"; "social conservatives" are those who care most about life issues from conception to death; "hawkish conservatives" are those who are strong on national security by the United States having an intimidating size military and Department of Defense, formally called Department of War) Personally, I think there is only one kind of conservative and that is a conservative who follows all of the above, any person who is a combination or just one of the above is not a conservative, but just a Republican or a center-right person.


February 8, 2003
By Dark Chapter

Many, especially on the far right, the far left, and in the apathetic middle, have long and loudly proclaimed, "there is no difference between the mainstream right and the mainstream left, between Democrats and Republicans!" They use it as an excuse to opt out of the democratic system, or to deride and denigrate those who are brave enough to take a stand. The differences, though, are real and as stark as that between the darkness of a freezing winter night on the left, and the middle of a bright, spring day on the right. Here are a few of them:

1. Liberals think with their hearts. Conservatives think with their heads.

2. Conservatives go in with their eyes and minds open, but ready to roll up their sleeves and start shoveling. Liberals duck under the covers, close their eyes tightly and wish for bad things to go away.

3. Liberals are cynical, always look for the lead lining in every cloud, and expect the worst. Conservatives are optimistic, like happy endings, and know that tomorrow is another day.

4. Conservatives fear government and respect individuals. Liberals fear liberty and respect nothing.

5. Liberals believe mankind is irredeemably bad. Conservatives believe humanity is destined to do ever-greater things; and though some of us are truly terrible, most of us are ultimately good. Liberals believe animals are better than are humans. Conservatives wonder how one applies to the great dolphin universities, where the elephant hospitals are, where the chimp charities are headquartered.

6. Conservatives believe in hard work, sacrifice, and risk-taking. Liberals believe in equal distribution of labor, abhor the very idea of any sort of want, and cringe at the idea of anything that doesn’t offer absolute safety. Liberals bedeck themselves in loud, expensive Spandex and ride road bikes through town in big packs made up of vague acquaintances and co-workers tying up traffic for miles, offering anyone who honks at them the collective finger, before finally arriving at a Starbucks for $7 lattes and making fun of all those idiots who were pissed off at them blocking traffic. Conservatives ride off-road either alone or with one or two friends, pushing themselves, but bothering no one else; they muscle their way up high peaks where they sip ordinary tap water and look back with pride on what they’ve accomplished.

7. Liberals view "the poor" as noble victims who, because of their race or gender or ethnicity or "diseases" like drunkeness, have been "held down" by an inherently and inescapably racist and sexist "system," through which "the rich" (Conservatives) steal their wealth from "the poor." No Liberal can explain how this happens--it should just be taken as a matter of faith, dammit! Conservatives know that some of "the poor," are a lost cause; they have no intention of helping themselves. Liberals believe with all their hearts that all material "poverty" can be "solved" by simply throwing more of someone else’s money at it. Conservatives give generously and voluntarily to charities that responsibly help those temporarily down on their luck. Liberals want to force "the rich" to give through ever-more onerous taxation, to state-sponsored programs to "help" the needy. The rat holes of government programs like methadone clinics and midnight basketball don’t work, but at least no private charity is involved! Conservatives know from experience and history that you help the truly needy through encouragement of self-reliance--you teach them to stop whining, roll up their sleeves and work, sacrifice, and take risks.

8. Liberals believe any and all of humanity’s problems should be solved BEFORE any advancements are made. We should have "solved" poverty before going to the moon! Conservatives believe we will always have problems that need to be addressed and, through hard work, sacrifice, and risk, mitigated where possible. Conservatives know that certain things are simply a part of the human condition, and that stagnation is the result of the Liberal plan.

9. Conservatives believe that all possible barriers by social, governmental, and bureaucratic means to individual success should be removed from everybody’s path. Liberals loathe and despise the successful, and "celebrate" those "brave enough" to live under bridges while whining that others are not giving them enough. Conservatives laud and venerate those who make themselves into successes through hard work, sacrifice, and taking risks.

10. Liberals believe in equality of outcome. Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity. Liberals believe that government should erect unscaleable barricades around those who have or might prove themselves to be more ambitious and hard-working, more skilled and experienced, more able and smarter and willing to sacrifice, bust their humps and take their lumps, and rise even slightly above the lowest common denominator.

11. Conservatives are pragmatists; they want to know what’s do-able. Liberals compare everything to perfection; they’ll settle for nothing less than what’s conceivable. Conservatives are happy with an imperfect missile defense system that may let one or two through--better we should lose Salt Lake than the entire nation--and can be improved over time. Liberals believe that any plan that cannot guarantee perfection *now* should be scrapped because, after all, "one nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day."

12. Liberals wear blinders and think every problem has a solution if we just throw more money at it. Conservatives observe the past and present broadly, and learn from them, recognizing that if something has failed in the past, simply ignoring the failure will not make it better; they point to the public schools for their proof.

13. Conservatives believe in shutting the hell up and getting to work. Liberals prefer sloganeering and platitudes.

14. Liberals think the so-called "rights" those nitwits in their powdered wigs enumerated on those tired, dusty documents from 1776, are silly things that certainly don’t apply today, but that they nevertheless make handy-dandy carrots and sticks, with which they can gain more power and control over every aspect of the American citizen’s life, and things which can and should be altered or even deleted upon the political whim of the moment. Conservatives believe these liberties are just what the Founders said they are--unalienable. Liberals hold that these rights are nothing special; any kindergartner coulda come up with them. Conservatives recognize the brilliance of the Founders and their words, and know that these rights are what give our form of government practical, material, and even moral primacy over every other. Liberals pooh-pooh such overtly patriotic maunderings and roll their eyes in cynical dismissal of the American who venerates these ideals. Conservatives couldn’t give a rat’s ass. They still love their country and they honor the men who made it possible.

15. Conservatives believe that words and ideas have express and precise meanings. Liberals believe it all depends upon what your personal definition of “is,” is.

16. Liberals blanch at the sheer arrogance of people who love America and believe we should all hate and blame America first. Conservatives believe in the primacy (not perfection) of the American society including our government and economy. Liberals believe that since our system is not perfect, it should be dumped in favor of the perfection of, say, what they have in Sweden, or Denmark. Or Cuba. Conservatives know that our imperfect system is still far better for the individual than anything else in place today, or ever in history. Liberals look at the Kung of the Kalihari and wonder why we can’t model the social, cultural, government, and economy of a huge, technologically-advanced, resource-rich nation of nearly 300 million souls, on that of a stone age tribe that occupies a strip of empty desert, and hunts rodents and digs roots and grubs for a living. Conservatives realistically assess the ways in which large nations and large economies work and shake their heads in dismay at the sort of quixotic dreams Liberals want to turn into policy.

17. Conservatives admire and emulate the successful. Liberals loathe the successful. Conservatives know successful people get and stay there through work, sacrifice and risk, and that through their success, they are able to provide jobs and give back to the community. Liberals tell themselves that rich, powerful people are dull-witted thieves who were born rich, and maintain their wealth and power on the backs of “the poor.” Um, that is, unless they are rich, powerful Liberals, who are geniuses who got rich by a completely different route: through work, sacrifice and risk . . . or maybe like a Kennedy, by picking the right parents.

18. Liberals hold quavering, rickety opinions that blow away in the slightest breeze of serious contemplation, or worse, if someone raises questions on the basis of the always-shifting scale of political correctness. Conservatives hold strong, absolutist opinions, but are open to change when their ideas and ideals are proven wrong.

19. Conservatives honor those who are and have been brave enough to serve America in uniform, and especially those who died doing so. Liberals hate the military and believe those who died defending our rights are all baby-killers anyway, and that US soldiers who survive a war should be dragged to the Hague and tried as war criminals.

20. Liberals have always depended upon the kindness of strangers. Conservatives know the world is a dangerous place filled with those who envy or hate us and who would do anything in their power to destroy us. Liberals believe 9/11 was our fault for not being “sensitive” to the needs of our Muslim brothers and that now that we know how they feel, we should do everything in our power to change ourselves so that we don’t threaten them so much. Conservatives know this is utter horse**** -- cowardly appeasement that didn’t work in the 1930s and won’t work now, and that only a weak-kneed, empty-headed Liberal would believe it. Most Liberals DO believe it. There are other things that set Conservatives apart from Liberals. Many other things. Some of these, above, are the big ones; some are not. All, however, are important distinctions.

Flashback: Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

Dan's pre-comment: We can go back and forth on this issue. The bottom line is this: Saddam had weapons. I'll go so far as to even say that he had very dangerous and highly-destructive weapons. But the American people were led to believe his weapons posed a far greater threat than they really did.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.

The Iraq Survey Group report, released Wednesday, is 1,200 to 1,500 pages long.

The massive report does say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future.

"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says.

Duelfer, testifying at a Senate hearing on the report, said his account attempts to describe Iraq's weapons programs "not in isolation but in the context of the aims and objectives of the regime that created and used them."

"I also have insisted that the report include as much basic data as reasonable and that it be unclassified, since the tragedy that has been Iraq has exacted such a huge cost for so many for so long," Duelfer said.

The report was released nearly two years ago to the day that President Bush strode onto a stage in Cincinnati and told the audience that Saddam Hussein's Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "is seeking nuclear weapons."

"The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time," Bush said in the speech delivered October 7, 2002. "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

Speaking on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, Bush maintained Wednesday that the war was the right thing to do and that Iraq stood out as a place where terrorists might get weapons of mass destruction.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take," Bush said.

But Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, seized on the report as political ammunition against the Bush administration.

"Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war," Rockefeller said in a press release.

"The report does further document Saddam's attempts to deceive the world and get out from under the sanctions, but the fact remains, the sanctions combined with inspections were working and Saddam was restrained."

But British Prime Minister Tony Blair had just the opposite take on the information in the report, saying it demonstrated the U.N. sanctions were not working and Saddam was "doing his best" to get around them.

He said the report made clear that there was "every intention" on Saddam's part to develop WMD and he "never had any intention of complying with U.N. resolutions."

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday, panel Chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, called the findings "significant."

"While the ISG has not found stockpiles of WMD, the ISG and other coalition elements have developed a body of fact that shows that Saddam Hussein had, first, the strategic intention to continue to pursue WMD capabilities; two, created ambiguity about his WMD capabilities that he used to extract concessions in the international world of disclosure and discussion and negotiation.

"He used it as a bargaining tactic and as a strategic deterrent against his neighbors and others."

"As we speak, over 1,700 individuals -- military and civilian -- are in Iraq and Qatar, continuing to search for facts about Iraq's WMD programs," Warner said.

But Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the committee, said 1,750 experts have visited 1,200 potential WMD sites and have come up empty-handed.

"It is important to emphasize that central fact because the administration's case for going to war against Iraq rested on the twin arguments that Saddam Hussein had existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that he might give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda to attack us -- as al Qaeda had attacked us on 9/11," Levin said.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, asked Duelfer about the future likelihood of finding weapons of mass destruction, to which Duelfer replied, "The chance of finding a significant stockpile is less than 5 percent."

Based in part on interviews with Saddam, the report concludes that the deposed Iraqi president wanted to acquire weapons of mass destruction because he believed they kept the United States from going all the way to Baghdad during the first Gulf War and stopped an Iranian ground offensive during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, senior administration officials said.

U.S. officials said the Duelfer report is "comprehensive," but they are not calling it a "final report" because there are still some loose ends to tie up.

One outstanding issue, an official said, is whether Iraq shipped any stockpiles of weapons outside of the country. Another issue, he said, is mobile biological weapons labs, a matter on which he said "there is still useful work to do."

Duelfer said Wednesday his teams found no evidence of a mobile biological weapons capability.

The U.S. official said he believes Saddam decided to give up his weapons in 1991, but tried to conceal his nuclear and biological programs for as long as possible. Then in 1995, when his son-in-law Hussain Kamal defected with information about the programs, he gave those up, too.

Iraq's nuclear program, which in 1991 was well-advanced, "was decaying" by 2001, the official said, to the point where Iraq was -- if it even could restart the program -- "many years from a bomb."

Fred Thompson For POTUS By Joyce Kavitsky

The crop of Republican candidates running for President of the United States have been good respresentatives of what a big tent the Republican Party really is. For the RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) there is Rudy Giuliani; for the "go along to get along" crowd there is John McCain and Mike Huckabee; and for conservatives the majority or base of the party there are Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson; we even have a dove in Ron Paul. For candidates we don't quite know what to make of there are Mitt Romney and Alan Keyes. Of the candidates who have dropped out are two former Governors, Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin and Jim Gilmore of Virginia, and one senator Sam Brownback of Kansas.

As for me, I was trying to decide whether to vote for Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson. Both are conservatives with good credentials who are thoughtful and articulate who I wouldn't mind seeing on each others presidential ticket or in a lead cabinet position in the others administration like Hunter as Secretary of Homeland Security or Thompson as Attorney General. Hunter is a very appealing candidate for his spunk and dependable conservative votes and positions, the one big down for him is that he is not well known or registering any sizable support or showing any traction in early surveys of the candidates.

I have decided to vote in the New Jersey primary for Fred Thompson because for years I have been impressed with his work in Congress as a pork buster and his dependable votes as an all around conservative, except for a few strays here and there. Thompson's White Papers on Border Security and Immigration and Israel are excellent proposals. His demeanor is that of a real person, not a conniving power-hungry politican like the Democrat's frontrunner. Thompson entered the presidental race at the urging of successful Draft Fred Thompson drives. He comes across as somebody who would be the strong leader our country needs in this post-September 11, 2001 era. Thompson's intellect and stature dwarf that of any candidate the Democrats can put up. Come together behind Fred!

For further reading:

Excerpts From: Why Fred Thompson Will Win by Peter Mulhern October 1, 2007

Fred Thompson 101 by Josh Painter

Phillips Philes Welcomes New Contributor: Dan Eisner!

Phillips Philes warmly welcomes new contributor Dan Eisner! Dan has been a reader of Phillips Philes for a couple years now who has also been commenting on various posts from time to time.

Dan is the creator and author of the blog Eye of the Storm. He is from Massachusetts, and is a liberal. He wanted to join Phillips Philes in a personal effort to help end divisive partsianship in the United States between the political left and right both on and off the beltway. Dan, is a decent liberal American who when posting uses reasoning, compromise, and better understanding in his approach.

Welcome again, Dan and have many interesting posts!

---

UPDATE 10/3/2023: Phillips Philes severed ties with Dan Eisner as a contributor to this blog as his personal FaceBook post from July 16, 2018 was recently discovered. The statement posted showed a violation of the standards and spirit of this blog to have civil discourse. Eisner's comment was unAmerican, extremely offensive, slanderous and misguided. We respectfully end our association with him and wish him well in his day job.

Phillips Philes WANTED: Volunteer Contributors

IMAGE from http://mcalabre1.wordpress.com/armchair-traveler-how-to-create-a-travel-blog/

Phillips Philes is looking for volunteer contributors who can post posts both of original writing and noteworthy articles. A flair for coherent, witty, logical, historical, pithy, creative, and of course politically conservative writing is wanted. If you also know how to bloglist, add site meters, You Tube and RealPlayer video, and more, please comment on this post with your actual e-mail so that we can formally invite you to be an admistrator contributor. You may add any links you want, and free features to Phillips Philes as an administrator that would improve the blog. Phillips Philes reserves the right to remove or bounce any admistrator that hurts the integrity of the blog.

Phillips Philes started in July 2004 and is based in Southern New Jersey in the suburbs of Philadelphia. No money is exchanged, this is a super dooper blog in the making run by regular grassroots conservatives, who will gladly accept Blue Dog Democrats as well, aiming to be informative, persuasive, and at times activist. This is for the closet hobby writer or person who has an eye for interesting news that catches your eye. Posts do not have to be just about the Delaware Valley area, you are welcome to post the news, or an interpretation of news from your area too even if it counters or instigates supportive posts on the Philadelphia sports teams.

Reply now and get started!


PHILLIPS PHILES FACT SHEET

Budget.....$0.00
Writing experience.....Amateur to professional, all welcome
Blog design.....moderate to advanced
Reference.....Valuable to list Phillips Philes on your resume, demonstrates experience online
No to minimal censorship.....on Phillips Philes you could have free reign to post almost anything within reason. This becomes your blog too when you join. Nudity, pornography, and SPAM ads are prohibited here. Exclusives and original research are welcome!

UPDATE 6/6/2016: Phillips Philes, according to Blogger, averages thousands of hits a month! In our heyday, before addictive interactive alternatives became popular online, we received an impressive amount of daily hits for a small blog! Potential contributors please contact Joyce for an invitation to post directly to Phillips Philes.

Immigration Reform is Simple: Enforce Existing Laws by National Commander Paul A. Morin

Source: http://www.legion.org/vision/currentevents/2007/06/immigration_reform_is_simple_e.html

The American Legion’s Position on Illegal Immigration

By American Legion National Commander Paul A. Morin

The United States Senate should block the compromise immigration bill---the issue is too important to create new laws while ignoring existing laws.

The American Legion, most Americans, and the majority of legal immigrants oppose any measures that sanction or condone coming to this country in any manner other than as stipulated by existing law, whether disguised as "undocumented workers" or "guest-worker programs" or any other wordsmithing that is synonymous with amnesty.

Americans understand the meaning of "immigration," but the adjectives "legal" and "illegal" seem to be deliberately ignored by some.

The American Legion’s official position is simple: enforcement, enforcement, and enforcement.

Assimilation into American society by legal immigrants is important to the nation’s welfare; however, the failure to properly enforce existing immigration laws divides the nation and manifests both serious racial and cultural turmoil.

The message to Capitol Hill is clear:

* Oppose any great influx of legal immigrants and support immigration quotas set on a moderate and regulated scale in numbers that enable immigrants to be readily absorbed into the culture and lifestream of the United States.
* Call for a strong and ceremonially rich citizenship naturalization process.
* Remain steadfast in the belief that all legal immigrants seeking citizenship should possess a level of proficiency with the English language and an understanding of U.S. history and government.
* Advocate that a naturalization ceremony should be mandatory and conducted in the English language and in a U.S. district court.
* Support legislation that allows legal immigrants who are U.S. military veterans, with less than three years of active-duty service, to seek naturalization if they are injured or their injuries were aggravated while on active-duty with the U.S. Armed Forces, resulting in a discharge under honorable conditions.

Before enacting new laws that legalize illegal conduct, try enforcing existing laws.

Governor Schwarzenegger: "Turn Off Spanish TV"

Source: http://joomla.latinoreporterdigital.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=77&Itemid=31

Wednesday, 13 June 2007
By Ana Ley

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger touched on some of his signature issues – including immigration and the environment – in an appearance before hundreds of journalists at the California Theater in San Jose Wednesday night.

A panel of journalists peppered the governor with questions at an informal chat that was part of the National Association for Hispanic Journalists convention.

One issue that drew attention was Schwarzenegger’s comment on the need for immigrants to turn away from Spanish-language media in order to better assimilate in this country.

"You have to turn off the Spanish television set," the governor said. "I know this sounds odd, it’s not the politically correct thing to say, and I’m getting myself into trouble. But I know that when I came to this country, I did not or very rarely spoke German anymore."

His comments raised the ire of some in the audience.

"Hello, you’re at a convention with Spanish-language media," said University of Texas-El Paso student Fernanda Camarena, adding that the message seemed contradictory to the message of the convention.

Others said his comments reinforced the perception of him as a moderate Republican.

"He's compassionate about immigration, but he's no-nonsense about it," said Gustavo Arellano, a staff writer at the Orange County Weekly. "You can't peg him."

Schwarzenegger is credited with raising the state minimum wage and flexing his muscle on global warming issues. Some critics say he spends too much money and is too lenient on immigration issues.

Before tackling politics, Schwarzenegger was a businessman and "famous bodybuilder and a Hollywood action hero," according to a biography on his office's Web site.

Schwarzenegger: Hispanics should shun Spanish media to learn English

Source: http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/24190

By KEVIN YAMAMURA
Thursday, June 14, 2007

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told hundreds of Latino journalists that Spanish-speaking immigrants who want to learn English more quickly should shun various forms of Spanish-language media.

"You've got to turn off the Spanish television set," Schwarzenegger said Wednesday at the 25th annual National Association of Hispanic Journalists convention, which included many who produce Spanish-language material.

"It's that simple. You've got to learn English," he said. "I know this sounds odd and this is the politically incorrect thing to say and I'm going to get myself in trouble. But I know that when I came to this country, I very rarely spoke German to anyone."

The Republican governor, an Austrian immigrant, was responding to a question about how to improve Latino academic performance.

Schwarzenegger said tutoring and after-school programs are essential. But he emphasized that immigrants should avoid a diet of Spanish-language books, TV and newspapers in order to learn English, calling it a "drastic" but necessary step.

Schwarzenegger last year angered some Latino leaders by observing that Mexican immigrants have problems succeeding in the United States because "they try to stay Mexican." He hammered at the same point Wednesday in San Jose, saying that immigrants from Germany or France have an easier time learning English because they do not have many outlets to speak their native tongues.

"You're just forced to speak English, and that just makes you learn the language faster," Schwarzenegger said. "It is much more difficult and much more challenging when you are ... let's say, Latino. Because you have so many Latinos, as I see at the Capitol in Sacramento, there are so many Latinos who speak Spanish all the time, they speak to each other in Spanish. So it makes it difficult to perfect their English skills as quickly as possible."

"They're busy working," remarked panelist Pilar Marrero, political editor of the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinion. "They don't have time to."

Marrero seemed to grow visibly tense as Schwarzenegger made his case against Spanish-language media, and the governor apologized at one point after he said not to read Spanish-language newspapers.

She agreed later that Latin-American immigrants have a different experience than European newcomers. But she said those coming from Spanish-speaking countries do make an effort to learn English and that there are plenty of bilingual immigrant households.

"Spanish media is there to do what the English media doesn't do, which is to serve the immigrants," Marrero said afterward. "As he said, it's a political hot potato. I think he believes it, he thinks about his own experience. It's different when you come from Austria than when you come from Latin America."

During his 45-minute appearance, Schwarzenegger had a wide-ranging discussion moderated by Sacramento Bee Executive Editor Rick Rodriguez. The governor was generally received warmly by more than 300 journalists at the California Theatre in downtown San Jose and drew his biggest applause when promoting bipartisan themes.

The governor said he does not support the immigration bill that has stalled in Congress despite his repeated calls for an overhaul. He said the current bill lacks specifics on enforcement, financing and regulations for new immigrant arrivals, though he believes lawmakers are close to an agreement.

(Kevin Yamamura can be reached at kyamamura(at)sacbee.com.)

MexAmerica?!?!

"...Statistics show that lawful Mexican immigrants have the lowest percentages of any immigrant group in seeking out American citizenship or in efforts to either learn English themselves or teach it to their children. They also have the lowest rates of moving outside immigrant communities into the wider society. It is obvious that many Mexicans just do not want to assimilate to America but want America to assimilate to them. Remember, these are the legal immigrants. Can you imagine the attitudes of the illegals? Couple this with the prevailing attitudes that vast parts of America are actually part of Mexico, and the growing presence of separatist groups it is plain to see that America has a major problem brewing on the horizon..."[Our "Ally" To The South] [Link updated: Apr 5, 06]

"... America has generally welcomed those who desire to emigrate and become a part of this nation. Our ancestors were all immigrants. But they usually did not come here illegally to suck up our resources or engage in criminal behavior. They came with a desire to work and contribute to their communities. They had an interest in the success of their villages and towns. They constructed homes, farms, churches and synagogues which demonstrated their permanence. They embraced the language and culture while still honoring and retaining their heritage. They did not demand that we adapt to their language and culture – after all they were entering our country as guests..."
[Deanna Spingola]

For more about Mexifornia see http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=2983










For more information about this check out these articles:

United States Border Fence Needed
http://phillipsphiles.blogspot.com/2005/11/united-states-border-fence-needed.html

The High Cost of Cheap Labor
http://phillipsphiles.blogspot.com/2005/12/high-cost-of-cheap-labor.html

Is Mexico Instigating Another War With The United States?
http://phillipsphiles.blogspot.com/2005/12/is-mexico-instigating-another-war-with.html

Illegal Aliens (Los Angeles County crime statistics)
http://phillipsphiles.blogspot.com/2006/05/illegal-aliens.html

National Security Entry-Exit Registration System
http://phillipsphiles.blogspot.com/2007/02/national-security-entry-exit.html

CHANGES TO NATIONAL SECURITY ENTRY/EXIT REGISTRATION SYSTEM (NSEERS)
http://phillipsphiles.blogspot.com/2007/02/changes-to-national-security-entryexit.html

Global Warming a.k.a. Climate Change

Chicken Little Lives

Source: http://www.uschamber.com/press/opeds/0206kovacsclimate.htm

By William L. Kovacs
June 2002

We know the story of Chicken Little. The little chick thought the sky was falling because she was hit in the head by an acorn. She convinced the other barnyard animals that the sky was falling and soon they were all in hysterics.

Well, when it comes to global warming, environmentalists have adopted a Chicken Little approach. Recent news reports have fanned global warming hysteria over the contents of a Bush administration report on climate change. Environmentalists focused on two sentences out of 255 pages to “prove” that permanent global warming is being caused by human activity and that major ecosystems will disappear, water supplies will be permanently disrupted and we will suffer an ever-increasing number of stifling heat waves.

“Environmental havoc” was the description of our future in The New York Times, which claims the report “unambiguously states that humans are the likely cause of most of the recent warming.” Some talk radio hosts went further, claiming that cities such as Miami and Mobile would be underwater one day.

The 2002 Climate Change report needs to be read. It states that its own projections “are limited by the paucity (smallness) of data available.” The report cautions “current estimates of the magnitude of future warmings should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments.” Later the report states “definitive prediction of potential outcomes is not yet feasible.”

The earth has been around for millions of years and one thing is certain: the weather changes dramatically. The earth has experienced ice ages as well as warming periods. The North and South poles are 50 degrees Fahrenheit colder than they were when dinosaurs roamed the earth and a vast tropical forest dominated North and South America. Our climate has remained somewhat stable for the last 10,000 years, with the exception of a Little Ice Age in the 14th century. In the 1970’s, hearings took place on Capitol Hill about a coming Ice Age. Today, Capitol Hill hearings look at global warming. The political winds change faster than the weather.

Worrying about the weather is harmless until Congress actually believes it can do something about it. The problem is that solutions based on the belief that the “sky is falling” would drastically limit the amount of energy that we can use to run our businesses, homes, cars, computers and every aspect of our lives. Based on a Wharton study, the impacts of limiting our use of energy to reduce global warming gases – as proposed by the Kyoto Climate Change Treaty – would lower our annual gross domestic product by about $300 billion; cause the loss of more than 2.4 million jobs; and raise the annual energy bill for every household by $3,700. Even if the United States limited global warming gases, developing nations will not reduce their own emissions and the net impact would be zero.

The Bush Administration needs to stay on its course and continue to reject the Kyoto Treaty. It should spend the billion or so dollars needed to develop good science and sound computer models to evaluate the problem. It needs to ensure that developing nations use the most energy efficient technologies, so that emissions of global warming gases are reduced while these countries become more competitive.

Finally, the Bush administration needs to stop apologizing for using common sense. It can’t change the weather. “Environmental havoc” makes for catchy headlines, but the story is clear: long-range climate forecasts are less accurate than the local weatherman. The best the Bush administration can do is what the King did for Chicken Little – buy umbrellas for the hysterical, but stay focused on sound environmental progress without compromising our economic recovery and jobs.

William L. Kovacs is the Vice President of Environment and Regulatory Affairs at the United States Chamber of Commerce.


Joyce Comments: Dan and others interested in this subject should know that the debate still rages on and that there is NO universal acceptance of "Global Warming"/"Climate Change". I suggest you check out http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm for more information. Also, you may want to turn your interest away from this baseless Fascist crusade to destroy the United States of America through shaking down our government with intimidation and ignorance and instead invest your time and energy into actually lessening pollution, if that is indeed your interest.

An Immigration Shipwreck in Sight

An Immigration Shipwreck in Sight

by Newt Gingrich

May 21, 2007
Vol. 2, No. 21

Dear Friend,
The announcement last week that the White House and a group of senators have reached an agreement on "comprehensive immigration reform" should have the same effect that the word "iceberg" had on the passengers and crew of the Titanic.

This proposed agreement is a disaster of the first order, and it would severely cripple America for the foreseeable future.

You can tell how bad this bill is by the Senate Democratic leadership's announced goal of trying to pass it before the Memorial Day weekend.

Remember, this bill has not yet been finished. Senators and their staffs were still negotiating over the weekend and many key items were still in confusion. So here's what we have to do:

TODAY'S ACTION ITEM:

CALL YOUR SENATORS AND LET THEM KNOW HOW ANGRY YOU WILL BE IF THEY PASS A BILL BEFORE IT HAS BEEN PRINTED AND PUT ON THE INTERNET AND EXPOSED FOR THE COUNTRY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND.

75 Reasons to Oppose the New Immigration Bill

When the FBI arrested six terrorists in New Jersey two weeks ago it turned out that three of them had been in the U.S. illegally for at least TWENTY years.

These three had crossed our unprotected border and had been living in New Jersey.

But here's the even more outrageous part: The police had filed 75 (SEVENTY-FIVE!) charges against them, including drug possession and possession of drug paraphernalia.

In 75 interactions, the police never once learned that these three people were here illegally.

The government failed twice: First, by failing to secure the border, and second, by failing to determine that these people were here illegally. The result was that more than five years after 9/11 we were saved from a mass killing at Fort Dix only because of the patriotism and courage of a clerk at an electronics store.

Compare the 75 charges made against the would-be Fort Dix terrorists with how we rounded up German spies in World War II. In June 1942, it took a total of 15 days to track down and arrest eight German spies who landed in Florida and New York from submarines. We executed six of them and gave one life in prison and the other thirty years. We were serious about winning that war. Go here for a more detailed comparison and a list of the 75 charges against the Fort Dix terrorists.

Faced with this level of failure of bureaucracy, how could anyone believe for a minute that this new immigration bill will work? The fact is it can't and it won't. It will rely on the same failed bureaucracy and produce more years of failure.

We Have Been Here Before

In 1986, I voted for the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration bill. We were promised that in return for amnesty for far fewer than three million illegal immigrants we would get:

Control of the border;
Enforcement of laws requiring employers to know someone is here legally before hiring them; and
No more amnesty and no more tolerance of illegality

The government broke its word on every one of those provisions.

We eventually amnestied three million people who had broken the law, and we sent a signal to the world that it is okay to break the law and come to America.

Now, 20 years later, we are told to trust Washington while we amnesty 12 to 20 million more people who have broken the law.

A Tax Amnesty Too?

When its supporters refer to the new immigration bill as "comprehensive," they must mean comprehensively outrageous.

The Boston Globe reported this weekend that the new bill will not require illegal workers to pay back taxes.

If this is true, the bill is an assault on every law-abiding, patriotic American who has been obeying the law, working legally and paying his taxes.

Every taxpaying American should insist that any bill involving any condition for illegal workers having any future in America should require them to do three things when it comes to taxes: 1) Admit how long they've been here (under threat of immediate deportation if they lie); 2) admit whom they worked for (who, after all, had also been breaking the law and avoiding paying taxes); and 3) pay any back taxes and penalties they owe.

There Is a Way to Deal With Illegal Immigration -- This is Not It

I have written extensively about good solutions for our current immigration mess in Winning the Future and elsewhere. Click here for more information.

Dr. Jerry Falwell and Liberty University

It was a great honor to have been invited by Dr. Jerry Falwell to give the commencement address at Liberty University last weekend.

Like all his friends and admirers, I was shocked and deeply saddened last week by his death. I found myself facing a three-part challenge: Giving the 3,300 graduates at Liberty University a charge for their future while also bearing witness to the great work of Dr. Falwell and actually giving the message of "Rediscovering God in America" which he had personally asked me to address.

You can read my commencement address at newt.org.

On a personal note, let me add that being in the robing room putting on our graduation gowns and watching Dr. Falwell's younger son Jonathan (who will be the pastor at Thomas Road Baptist Church) drape the chancellor's medallion on his older brother Jerry, Jr., (who will be the new head of Liberty University) was a moment of passing the torch and seeing new lights emerge which I will always treasure.

Undermining America's Young Men and Women in Uniform

No one should doubt how much damage the Democrats are doing to America and to our young men and women in uniform with their political maneuvering in Congress.

In Atlanta Friday night, a doctor in the National Guard who had just come home from serving in Mosul briefed me on the damage he had seen to American morale and the confusion among young soldiers as the Democrats continue to play games with the supplemental appropriations and talk about legislating defeat in the war our troops are trying every day to win.

How would you like to be risking your life on the point in Iraq knowing some politician back home was undermining everything you are trying to do?

Call your House and Senate members and tell them to quit undermining our troops in the middle of a war and get the money to the troops without any more games or delays.

(I discussed Iraq with Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd on NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday. You can watch it here.)

The Sixth of June and FDR's National Prayer for D-Day

I hope you will join me in a new project to get as many radio stations as possible to play President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's national prayer from D-Day, June 6, 1944, on its anniversary, June 6, 2007.

This prayer is a beautiful and powerful appeal to God on behalf of young Americans who were landing in Normandy to liberate Europe from the Nazi totalitarian evil that had overwhelmed it. It was truly a crusade for freedom and civilization.

In this prayer, on nationwide radio on June 6, 1944 -- as the Greatest Generation launched its mightiest battle of the Second World War -- Roosevelt demonstrated that he knew how our faith bound us together as a country and he urged the American people to a rededication of their faith, not through a "single day of special prayer" but that "our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer."

Given the efforts of the secular radicals to drive prayer and God out of public life, I believe creating an annual tradition of playing FDR's D-Day prayer will have a powerful effect:

It will remind people that it is correct to identify evil as evil and to seek to defeat it.
It will remind people that President Roosevelt saw Word War II in religious terms as a conflict between pagan tyranny and our "Christian civilization" (as he termed it).
It will remind people that the proper goal for America when facing evil and confronting enemies is to win.
It might help liberal Democrats to learn that their favorite 20th Century President was proudly in favor of helping Americans in uniform and praying publicly.

If you have never heard the FDR D-Day prayer, listen to it online at newt.org.

Call your favorite radio stations and shows and urge them to play this prayer on June 6. It will be good for all Americans to hear it, especially when we consider our own young Americans -- our sons and daughters, our neighbors -- in harm's way around the world today.


Your friend,

Newt Gingrich
-------------------------
P.S. -- We had a great first week launching our new novel Pearl Harbor. We will be in New Hampshire, Iowa, Texas and California this week for book signings (go to newt.org for the time and place near you or where you may have friends). And don't forget: Next Friday, we will be in Hawaii with Sean Hannity and Ollie North for a Freedom Rally at the Hawaii Convention Center in Honolulu. Go to premieremarketing.us for more details. And the following week, I will be in Maui signing copies of Pearl Harbor.

P.P.S. -- If you have not visited AmericanSolutions.com, you should. The Solutions Day workshops are beginning to gain momentum, and we now have people in all 50 states signed up to host workshops aimed at transforming government in all 511,000 local, state and federal elected positions. We would love to have your help.

On the Radio

Winning the Future with Newt Gingrich, a new series of 90-second radio commentaries, can be heard Monday through Friday on more than 350 radio stations during The G. Gordon Liddy Show and The Michael Reagan Show. For a list of stations, click here.

Who c-cares about Live Earth?

Source: The Drudge Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who c-cares about Live Earth?
May 19, 2007

JUST when it looked like every rock star on the planet was jumping aboard AL GORE's green bandwagon, there’s a backlash already underway.

THE WHO's ROGER DALTRY has blasted the big Wembley gig Gore is organising to raise awareness of global warming.

The huge concert - which features performances from the likes of MADONNA and RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS - is taking place at Wembley on July 7 and in other countries around the world.

But Roger, who played with U2 at Live Aid and Live8, reckons the whole thing is a waste of time.

Speaking exclusively to Bizarre, Roger said: "Bo***cks to that! The last thing the planet needs is a rock concert.

"I can't believe it. Let's burn even more fuel.

"We have problems with global warming, but the questions and the answers are so huge I don't know what a rock concert's ever going to do to help.

"Everybody on this planet at the moment, unless they are living in the deepest rainforest in Brazil, knows about climate change.”

The rocker, who used to sing about my g-generation, added: "My answer is to burn all the f***ing oil as quick as possible and then the politicians will have to find a solution.”

Roger's comments come hot on the heels of SIR BOB GELDOF’s equally scathing views.

Last week the Live Aid hero lashed out, saying: "Why is Gore actually organising them? To make us aware of the greenhouse effect?

"Everybody's known about that problem for years. We are all f***ing conscious of global warming."

A Live Earth spokesman said: “People are aware of global warming but millions are not doing anything about changing their lifestyles.”

But before Sir Bob thinks he has found an ally in Roger, the legendary British singer also admitted he feels badly let down by Live 8.

Ten concerts were held simultaneously in July 2005 with the goal to Make Poverty History.
Again Roger complains that unlike the original Live Aid in 1985, where the money went directly to famine relief, the follow-up 20 years later had no achievable aims.

Roger moaned: "What did we really achieve at Live 8? We got loads of platitudes and no action.
"Who were we kidding there?"

"At least with Live Aid, Bob Geldof was willing to work the trenches and they did save a lot of lives."

"We could see what we achieved at the end of it."

Roger also confirmed that he and PETE TOWNSHEND will not be performing at this summer's other big charity music event, the Concert For Diana.

He said: "It would be wrong of us to play. It should be for those two boys, the show that they want.

"They obviously want Elton John, as he holds memories for them, but it would be a joke for us to play."

"Not unless they are real Who fans, which I very much doubt."

You can see The Who very soon though, as the band are playing a number of shows and festivals in England as part of the European tour.

Dan, This One is for You! Re: Global Warming

As some may be aware, there is an individual named Dan who has been posting his comments on "global warming" on various posts that have nothing to do with it. Rather than having him pollute his non-factual filth on just any various post he pleases, I will make this spot just for him. Before I do, I will present my side of this "global warming" non-issue. If Dan wants to contribute, he can add it as a comment to this post ONLY! If any comments about "global warming" are attempted to be made on an unrelated post, it will be deleted.

1. Global warming is a farce, nothing more than a scare tactic by the left-wing liberals. What folks need to remember is that Mother Nature has a mind of her own, and we can not control weather patterns. History will show that most weather patterns occur in cycles, just like anything else in life. Just thirty years ago, the so-called experts who are now going hysterical over global warming was crying global cooling. MAKE UP YOUR MIND, WOULD YOU PLEASE? Oh, I forgot that Algore (aka Al Gore) is the pied piper.,
2. The former Vice President is nothing but a HYPOCRITE! Most probably do not know this, but he owns a coal mine not far from his residence outside of Nashville; and, is a major pollutant. A truck driver from Tennessee told me this, then I heard this factoid mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's radio program. By the way- He barely passed Earth Science in college. He scored a D-, which means he barely passed. I just wanted to provide some food for tought for those who take Mr. Gore's words as the Gospel. In conclusion, I have never seen "An Inconvenient Truth", nor do I ever, as it is nothing more than a gross exaggeration.,
3. Life could not exist with carbon, and carbon dioxide is essential for life to exist. We exhale carbon dioxide, which is consumed by the plants, which provides the oxygen we need to breathe. These factual tidbits may come in handy if you should become a contestant on "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader"., and
4. I am aware as to what Newt Gingrich has said about this subject matter, but even I do not agree with everything he says. There is a good chance that I have that post in my "Mr. Newt" folder in my e-mail. If I do have it, I will make a separate post of that article.

I have no problem in finding solutions in energy conservation, but it is not an "end all to be all" type of thing to me. I am aware of what Rupert Murdoch said yesterday. I think that he did this in a business sense, as energy use is a big part of corporate overhead, and not as an endorsement of "global warming". If I remeber, I did not hear him mention the term.

In conclusion, here are my two tips for energy conservation:

1. Turn off any lights when not in use, and unplug any small appliance when able (e.g., a toaster), and
2. If you are heading out in your vehicle, plan your trip to be as continuous but concise as possible. Mapquest does come in handy.

Bill

THE COMING ASS AGE

THE COMING ASS AGE
by Ann Coulter
March 21, 2007

No matter how much liberals try to dress up their nutty superstitions about global warming as "science," which only six-fingered lunatics could doubt, scratch a global warming "scientist" and you get a religious fanatic.

These days, new religions are barely up and running before they seize upon the worst aspects of the God-based religions.

First, there's the hypocrisy and corruption. At the 1992 Democratic Convention in New York, Al Gore said: "The central organizing principle of governments everywhere must be the environment." The environment would not, however, be the central organizing principle of Gore's own life.

The only place Al Gore conserves energy these days is on the treadmill. I don't want to suggest that Al's getting big, but the last time I saw him on TV I thought, "That reminds me — we have to do something about saving the polar bears."

Never mind his carbon footprint — have you seen the size of Al Gore's regular footprint lately? It's almost as deep as Janet Reno's.

But I digress. As has been widely reported, Gore's Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the energy of the average home in that state. But it's OK, according to the priests of global warming. Gore has purchased "carbon offsets."

It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to develop corrupt practices such as papal indulgences. The global warming religion has barely been around for 20 years, and yet its devotees are allowed to pollute by the simple expedient of paying for papal indulgences called "carbon offsets."

Americans spend an extra $2.2 billion on gas a year because they're overweight, requiring more fuel in cars to carry the extra pounds. So even with all those papal indulgences, Gore may have a small carbon footprint, but he has a huge carbon butt-print.

Further proving that liberalism is a religion, its practitioners respond with the zeal of Torquemada to any dissent from the faith in global warming.

A few years ago, Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book titled "The Skeptical Environmentalist," disputing the hysteria surrounding global warming and other environmentalist scares. Lomborg is a Greenpeace anti-war protester — or, as he is described on liberal Web sites, he is a "young, gay vegetarian Dane with tight T-shirts." His book was cited favorably in The New York Times.

But for questioning the "science" behind global warming, Lomborg was brought up on charges of "scientific misconduct" by Denmark's Inquisition Court, called the "Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation." I take it Denmark's Ministry of Truth was booked solid that day.

The moment anyone diverges from official church doctrine on global warming, he is threatened with destruction. Heretics would be burnt at the stake if liberals could figure out how to do it in a "carbon neutral" way.

Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball is featured in the new documentary debunking global warming, titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." For this heresy, Ball has received hate mail with such messages as, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further global warming."

I'm against political writers whining about their hate mail because it makes them sound like Paul Krugman. But that's political writers arguing about ideology.

Global warming is supposed to be "science." It's hard to imagine Niels Bohr responding to Albert Einstein's letter questioning quantum mechanics with a statement like: "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further quantum mechanics."

Come to think of it, one can't imagine the pope writing a letter to Jerry Falwell saying, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further infallibility."

If this is how global warming devotees defend their scientific theory, it may be a few tweaks short of a scientific theory. Scientific facts are not subject to liberal bullying — which, by the way, is precisely why liberals hate science.

A few years ago, The New York Times ran an article about the continuing furious debates among physicists about quantum mechanics, which differs from global warming in the sense that it is supported by physical evidence and it doesn't make you feel good inside to "do something" about quantum mechanics. It is, in short, science.

Though he helped develop the theory of quantum mechanics, Einstein immediately set to work attacking it. MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark called the constant testing and arguing about quantum mechanics "a 75-year war."

That's how a real scientific theory operates. That's even how a real religion operates. Only a false religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it.

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

United States Border Fence Needed

Joyce Comments: This picture says it all. Ever since the 1846-1848 U.S. War with Mexico for "Manifest Destiny", our country has been used as a doormat to Mexicans and others who take advantage of our countries good will. We need to stop them from doing that for the sake of our sovereignty and national security and a fence is a very good start to that. Other discouraging things or loopholes that lure illegal aliens here are "free" (that is we the U.S. taxpayer through our federal, state and local taxes) pay for their health, education, welfare--ironically this is the name of a former executive branch department before Carter disbanded it for seperate ones on Health and Human Services and another for Education--and anchor babies that is babies born in this country to illegal alien parents that are granted immediate full U.S. citizenship upon their birth being on U.S. soil because of the 14th Amendment to the Consitution.