DD Wiz wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:29 PM: The published letter from Darrell Beck brings out more crackpot conspiracy theories looking for ways, after seven years of disastrous, destructive Bush administration devastation, to try to blame this havoc on the Democrats who have been completely shut out of power for most of this time!
He cites no credible basis for supporting these bizarre allegations, other than to cite an extremist Republican hit piece. Why does this not come as a surprise?

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:31 PM: The published letter from E. Ann Harter is right to bemoan the many distrous failures of the failed Bush administration and to tout the abilities Hillary Clinton would bring to the office. However her bizarre and unsubstantiated slams against Obama reek of mudslinging and fear tactics.
She says "we really know nothing" about Obama but, if she knows nothing about him, it is her own fault as there is extensive biographical information and a substantial public record, as well as detailed policy proposals that are available both from the Obama campaign and from the major media.
Both Hillary and Obama have their differing strengths and are stronger on different issues, and that is where the campaigns should be focused. Smear tactics against either of these two well-qualified candidates drags Democratic decency down into the level of the Republican slime machine of character assassination.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:32 PM: The published letter from Harold Weber makes an excellent point: the same Republicans who are always whining and crying about "Hollywood" being liberal or trying to shut people up if they exercise their right of free speech that applies to everyone, even actors, is actually more Republican than Democrat if you look at the actual people who have run for office.
In other words, when actors who have no qualifications whatsoever to hold office (as their records in office confirm) run for office, they run as Republicans, and you don't hear any crybaby whining about media influence in politics.
But if actors as private citizens dare to voice a dissenting opinion from dictatorial Big Brother, they are ridiculed and demeaned and bullied, not on the basis of their ideas, which Republicans are incapable of addressing, but just based on who they are -- that they don't even have a right to express their opinions.
- In similar vein, the published letter from William Ficere rails against the leftist North County Forum, not by citing actual differences on issues, but ust because he wants them to shut up. He brags about his military record, but seems to forget what those freedoms were that he claims to have been fighting for.

sdraoul wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:36 PM:"Question for Raoul..." asks what my immigration policy would be in Raoul's perfect Union. If my program is implemented it will cut illegal crossings by a conservative 90 percent.

Consider today’s simplistic letter that talks about the “burden” illegals force on the “middle class.” What garbage! Illegal nannies make it possible for thousands of “middle class” families to prosper and move upward. Minimum wage farm workers produce food for us that is the least expensive in the Western World. Illegals work on new house that produce prices ten or more percent lower than they would be if they weren’t there and would take four months longer to complete -- according to a U. of Arizona study. Lastly, illegals go to areas where there is an economy and they make that local economy bigger and better.

The man from Carlsbad makes simple statements that are meaningless and do not reflect reality.

Unlike his simple position simple because it is fantasy, my proposed program is based on facts and my real experience and it is simple.

It is based on my own experience of working in Mexico -- legally -- with a work permit-- I offer this proposed policy:

1. A temporary work permit program that fills employment requests from individual employers who must hire through an American Consulate in Mexico or Guatemala. The employer must certify that he couldn't find enough Americans to fill his jobs at minimum wage plus 25%. The permits would be for multiple years of, say, three, five or seven with a renewal or two. Payroll would be through non-profits subject to federal audits.

2. Mexican and Guatemalan workers could only apply through the Consulate and be serious conviction free and certified healthy.

3. They could not bring their families with them but as their permits would allow them to cross the border whenever legally, they could go home on holidays, for Christmas or in between harvests and plantings or bona fide vacations. Cheaper for one person to travel than three, four or five.

4. Those already here would be granted a work permit to stay on the job. But they must have a job and file 1040s for the three most recent years if they had enough income. They would be given credit for those three years any Social Security taxes they paid during that time.(At the present time, most pay Social Security taxes but can never collect the benefits)

5. All workers with permits who manage to stay out of trouble and pay their taxes, will be permitted to apply for permanent residence after, say, ten years. That means all those legal immigrant applicants as of the day of the program' inception would have been cleared so the new guys would not be in front of the line..

Illegals as we know them would disappear. Why would anyone pay a COYOTE $2000 to smuggle them in when they could pay the U.S. Government $300 for a work permit with an annual renewal fee?

Any talk of "open borders" or "militarizing the border" or wholesale arrests and deportation are silly and come from the sterile minds of ignorant people who do not see the real problem at all.

The real problem: It is a labor shortage here and labor surpluses in Mexico and Guatemala. The solution is a work permit that will fill the labor shortage with a labor surplus.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:45 PM: The published letter from Zac Aaron Paulk is kind of the mirror image of the published letter from Bob Sheard back on February 15.
Sheard's 2/15 letter complained that species of plants and animals were expendable, and human needs should take priority, and I expressed my vigorous disagreement.
Paulk now seems to be suggesting the opposite, seemingly putting the needs of other species ahead of humans. I disagree with that as well though, in fairness, Paulk's position does not actually present these competing needs as being mutually exclusive in the same way Sheard did.
The reality is that the interests of humans and other species rise and fall together.
In the long run, at the human level, what is good for inidividuals is consistent with what is good for the community. And at the level of the entire circle of life on earth, what is good for nature and life in general is the same thing that is good for humans. We all need clean air, clean water and a decent environment. Trying to separate these interests is all short-run, self-delusional thinking.

Chris wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:13 PM:The letter by William Ficere is pure bunk. I am tired of hearing how great everything is in Iraq by these Marines. These Marines have a nice place to stay when they are off duty in their heavily secured fort. Plenty of food, electricity and medical care. Do any of these Marines go to the refugee camps and see what a opulent lifestyle the Iraqis have. Yes as long as we taxpayers keep paying and arming the various militias in Iraq they tolerate us. How many of these Marines got their houses bombed and family killed. Now if these Marines sent a letter to the NCTimes it would be printed and would give me something to comment on. Most of these Marines are wet behind the ears and so full of this Semper Fi propaganda that they don't know what is going on in the real world of the Iraqis.

El Guero wrote on Mar 5, 2008 5:43 AM: sdraoul's "immigration policy" is the product of a muddled or insincere mind.

To begin with, he say's: "Illegal nannies make it possible for thousands of 'middle class' families to prosper and move upward...Illegals (build) new homes that (cost) ten or more percent less (than they would if built by American workers), (and) illegals go to areas where there is an economy and they make that local economy bigger and better."

But then he says: "If my program is implemented it will cut illegal crossings by a conservative 90 percent."

Question: If illegal immigration is such a great deal for everyone, why cut it at all? While the "man from Carlsbad" says it is "a huge burden to the middle class," raoul insists it "makes it possible for thousands of 'middle class' families to prosper and move upward." I don't see the middle class "moving upward." Does anyone? As for illegal workers shaving ten percent off the cost of a new home, it's the developer who gets to save ten percent (or more) on the cost of labor, not the consumer who saves ten percent on the sales price. Or is it cynical to suggest that businesses automatically pass along savings to their customers?

That aside, I see some merit in some of raoul's proposals, such as hiring workers through U.S. consulates in Latin America (only if U.S. employers can certify they can't find enough U.S. workers to satisfy their needs...a BIG IF!); and not allowing screened workers to bring their families with them. The only problem is that once in the U.S., many workers will (and do) remarry or have children out of wedlock, leaving a huge loophole in raoul's plan that could only be plugged by a Supreme Court reinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's "birthright citizenship" clause.

As a matter of common sense, anyone truly serious about endindg illegal immigration would have to include a proposal removing birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants (or anyone else) as a starting point. Clearly, sdraoul doesn't. So his proposal isn't worth the huffing and puffing he spent explaining it.

Finally, the "real problem" with illegal immigration isn't "a labor shortage here." It's an obsession with cheap labor on the part of businesses here. On the other side of the border it isn't only "labor surpluses in Mexico and Guatemala" that drive illegal migration to the U.S., it's a culture of endemic corruption and social delinquency among the ruling elite in those countries that is the root cause. Until that culture is changed?by dipomacy or force?there won't be any hope of ending, once and for all, our illegal immigration problem.

White Rabbit wrote on Mar 5, 2008 5:49 AM:I, the other hand, know all about Obama. I have read the available material. It appears the good people of Texas and Ohio have also. I said on Sunday yesterday was going to be a wake up call for Democrats and the people responded. What do you think is more representative of the will of the people? Real primaries in states with traditional Democratic demographics where everyone has an opportunity to participate or the cloistered caucuses? The Super Delegates should take note. -

Artsyrat wrote on Mar 5, 2008 6:59 AM:In response to Michael Booth's letter to the editor, 'Decide Eminent Domain by Vote of the People'. I say, "Here, here!" Big government, big insurance companies, big corporations are all controlling the average American's way of life and limiting our freedoms and choices. Let's defend our homes, the one place most of us find sanctuary and a place to call our own. A vote by the people for the people to keep our homes from being stolen by government. Sounds reasonable. If not, then maybe we can vote in a re-call of our elected officials. Sounds reasonable.-

Nick wrote on Mar 5, 2008 7:02 AM:"SD RAoul's" Immigration Policy sounds good on the cover, but you notice he laughs at asking any of the 20+ Million ILLEGALS to leave and get back in line. Problem #1. I have never hired an Illegal and never will. Our Nanny is from France and so are 4 of our closest friends. Our Nanny used to get really upset when her Visa would expire and she would have to return home to France for a little while and then re-apply for a new one to return. Plane fair to France isn't cheap, I know, I paid for it. She didn't understand why she had to leave when Millions of Mexicans thumb their noses at our laws and refuse to leave. I told her that was the difference. She has respect for our laws and our Country, where as "SD Raoul" and his 20+ Million amigos do not. That's the reason why I don't care to have them here. Funny, the majority of Europeans follow our Immigration Laws, but those from South of the border could care less. Do your fellow American a favor, DON'T HIRE AN ILLEGAL! If you need labor, hire Marine's, if you need a nanny, hire a European. -

Chuck wrote on Mar 5, 2008 7:11 AM:The news is saying that Hillary is hinting at shared ticket with Obama. She must be telling him she'd be willing to be VP, because the whole world knows if she gets the nomination, that BJ Clinton will be the VP nominee-

To Fritz wrote on Mar 5, 2008 7:30 AM:How about finding a real problem, not creating one.-

sdraoul wrote on Mar 5, 2008 8:28 AM:Nick is smoking funny tobacco. He should go to Boston and count the illegals from Ireland.

As for El Guero's -- the self-proclaimed white guy -- he doesn't offer anything but urban myths. There are not "20 million amigos" here. That is a lie. If he will show us a legitimate reference for that figure I will apologize but he can't.

His call to change the Constitution of the United States, a change that would deny citizenship for children born here, good luck. What is more un-American than what he proposes. Natural born citizenship has been the law of the United States since before it was the United States going back to the Scottish cases in the English courts in the 1600s.

El Guero --- the self-proclaimed white guy -- doesn't know what he is talkign about.

He needs to read the Supreme Court decision Wing Kim ark (1898) before he tries to subvert four hundred years of law.

Concerned-1 -- Q for DD and Ron wrote on Mar 5, 2008 8:35 AM:Question for DD Wiz and Ron: Lately I've been seeing a lot of flack on the North American Union and how there's a conspiracy to abolish the U.S. Constitution for the sake of global economy. According to the reports, Halliburton is now building jails or gulags here in America to round up an uprising of American patriots. Yes, it's a big, big conspiracy theory. I just wonder what our two esteemed political posters think about it. Would you take a moment and post your thoughts? Or anyone else, of course. Thanks in advance, C-1.

Patriot wrote on Mar 5, 2008 8:41 AM:sdraoul's immigration policy as stated in his 9:36 PM post proposes to cut illegal border crossings by 90 percent by offering a work permit program through our consulates in Mexico and Guatemala. While this program would be a boon to workers lucky enough to get accepted, there is one big problem: the sheer size of the labor surplus in Mexico and Guatemala. Lacking economic opportunity in their home countries, those unable to secure one of sdraoul's work permits will surely pay a coyote to smuggle them in. We offer three big incentives:
1. Jobs. Illegal or not, annual income earned here that they could never earn in their home country.
2. Family opportunity. Citizenship, financial assistance, health care, education and opportunity for every child born here.
3. A chance for permanent legal residency. History has shown that amnesty is a real possibility if you can manage to stay here long enough.
These three reasons alone cast serious doubts on sdraoul's 90% figure. Even if we could expand his program to take in tens of millions of workers and absorb all of the excess labor from Mexico and Guatemala, we certainly could not expect each laborer to remain celibate while here. Some would marry U.S. citizens and others would give birth to U.S. citizens. Being a compassionate country, we would allow those people permanent legal residency, a path to citizenship, and eventually a chance to sponsor family members as legal immigrants. The resulting population explosion would create a whole new set of problems.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 5, 2008 8:44 AM: The published letters from Jack Davis and Richard Baker both address, in different ways, the misplaced priorities of those in government from both parties.
I completely agree that, while addressing large and small issues are not necessarily mutually-exclusive, priority must be given to solving the myriad of very serious problems that face our nation, and Davis' prioritization was right on target.
For the most part, I also agree with Baker that the emphasis on going after people like Martha Stewart, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, and especially hitting Democrat Stewart with penalities far more severe than those of Enron and other energy criminals who did real damage to millions more people and whose ill-gotten gains were thousands of times those of Stewart, shows priorities out of whack. But, oh, conveniently those Big Oil Bullies happen to be cronies of the White House Oilmen -- makes you wonder about the priorities of the surviving U.S. Attorneys and the political motivations behind selecting targets for prosecution.
I do not agree, however, with Baker's inclusion of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby among those who did little harm. Libby outed an active, on-duty CIA agent specializing on middle-eastern WMD at a time when that was extremely critical, and also outed her cover organization, interrupting ongoing operations and destroying any future value it might have had, and endangered the lives of many other agents still in the field, solely for the purpose of retalliation against her husband as a personal vendetta for having the nerve to exercise the First Amendment rights those CIA agents, not to mention the whole military adventure in the first place, are supposedly trying to protect. Libby further caused harm, through his lies, by obstructing justice to the point where he covered up and destroyed evidence rendering further indictiments, including of his boss Karl Rove, impossible. As the Republican-appointed special prosecutor described it, he made it impossible for the umpire to call the real play by blowing sand in his eyes.
Libby "harmless"? I think he needs to stay in "The Big House" a lot longer than Martha Stewart.

Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 5, 2008 8:48 AM:There are some good points being made today by all SDRauol's plan has merit, and El Guero makes some valid points as well. This is good. It's a start. Now, back to my conspiracy question. Are there jails being built in America? Is the media in on the NAU push? I hope not.

Karl wrote on Mar 5, 2008 9:01 AM:To "sdraoul wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:36 PM". It is fact that Raoul and those on his side of the Illegal immigration issue call the "anti illegal immigration" racists. Their reasoning is that the "anti" crowd only complain about illegal immigration from our southern border while there are a lot of illegals coming from other countries. With this in mind, I find it very intersetingn that Raoul's solution to illegal immigration includes only Mexicans and Guatemalans. What about all the illegal immigrants from all the other countries the pro illrgal crowd claim are here illegally.

Vista Granny wrote on Mar 5, 2008 9:05 AM:I don't know how far Michael Booth will get with his Eminent Domain ideas, but I do know that the City of Vista appears to have marked anything and everything along both Santa Fe and Vista Way as blighted. There are homes and condominiums, etc. in these areas which are quite nice. I, for one, suggest they start enforcing speed limits and enact some sign ordinances before they start bulldozing people's homes. Some of the areas marked have been upgraded in the past few years, due to the high cost of housing. People have chosen to move into older, affordable homes and remodel. Now the city wants to tear them down? Vista has the most expensive government and the worst in North County!! Time to move the old guard out.

Karl wrote on Mar 5, 2008 9:05 AM:To "Chris wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:13 PM" Let me get this straight Chris, are you claiming to know more about what is going on in Iraq than a soldier who's boots where on the ground?

Ron wrote on Mar 5, 2008 9:07 AM:What do you expect, Herbert Pairitz. It's an election year. This just goes to show you how removed these careerist politicians are to not serving the good or the needs of the Americans public.
It is true, at one time the Democratic Party had reputation of favoring the middle class and the poor in its agenda. But this new group, this newer more leftist version will do whatever it takes to gain & maintain political power, even if that means going against Unions, the middle-class,
miniorites, and the poor.
As for my own Republican Party, except for a few, have completely lost their minds under GWB in regards to immigration. Bush's own words: "I'll see ya at the bill signing." Have stuck in the craw of many Americans, and the relentless way this Congress has tried to sneak in the many pieces of the INComprehensilble Immigration bill after we called, wrote, and voiced our disgust, is just beyond the pale. showing many, they have no clue, bought or otherwise, and the only thing that seems to matter, is more voters for them. The GOP has traditionally favored business, but not at the expense of obeying the laws of the land. Bush has thumbed his nose at literally decades of immigration law, in an effort to garner this cheap labor for business, with the Democrats right there, although for mostly different reasons. They see voters, I guess Bush did too. Back when Reagan gave amnesty to the 3 million then, that was not to become the "norm." In fact, Reagan & Congress had agreed it would be the "last time", and that our immigration processes would be fixed, and the system secured. Like social Security, that was wishful thinking.
Illegal immigration may provide a source of cheap labor for businesses, places a huge burden to the middle class and the poor. No one can tell me they pay their "fair share" in any form of taxation. In fact, they are a drain.
The mathmatics simply do not work. Even Americans who make minimum wage, we are told - mostly by the left, need help. Why? Cause they can not afford stuff, and they burden the rest of society with their needs. If it's true for Americans in America, it's virtually true for immigrants.
It is insane this idea of giving corporate welfare like this, subsidizing business's on the backs of average hard working Americans who do play by the rules, and obey the laws. Our American sense of "fair play" is being taken advantage of by both parties, for their own selfish reasons.
Our schools are over-run, are social system are over burdened, and our quality of life has been disrupted. For what? For a few bucks more in someone's pocket? It is too bad tarring & feathering, and running certain people out of town has lost it's enthusiasum. We need to bring it back.

Wet behind the ears Chris wrote on Mar 5, 2008 9:09 AM:You just stay at home where you lecture us about a place you've never been, lock the doors behind that make-believe world you live in, where it's nice and safe. We'll protect you.....even though you don't deserve it. Semper Fi

Karl wrote on Mar 5, 2008 9:12 AM:To "sdraoul wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:36 PM". In todays letter you claim that "Illegals work on new house that produce prices ten or more percent lower". In the past you have claimed that Illegal Immigrants do not drive down wages for anyone. Which one is it?
How can Illegals save 10% on the cost of a house without driving down wages in the construction trades. I can't wait to hear the spin on this one.

Chris to Karl wrote on Mar 5, 2008 10:41 AM:Well I guess that all those vidios shown on the news and the dire warnings from the U.N. regarding the refugee crisis was all just made up. And of course you will not believe the reports from the congressional budget office because some grunt knows more about what is going on than they do. I am sure that some grunt knows more about what is going on because he just sees what he sees in his own little world. But what's the use. You will not believe anything that the U.N. says or what the news media shows in their vidios. After all when a Marine speaks he is getting his information from the same God that Bush gets his from.

Ron wrote on Mar 5, 2008 10:43 AM:Yesterday @ 4:24 PM, Not A wiz questioned my sourcing, and made the claim it was nothing more than an ALLEGATION. Wiz ole buddy meet E. Ann Harter, fellow Democrat.
And today, still not having read the sources I and Ms. Harter have obviously read, he continues to bemoan the many disastrous slams against Obama, saying they reek of mudslinging and fear tactics. Well, I hate to break the bad news to ya ole buddy, but it's the Clinton's, and their surrogates. According to both the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune,
QUOTE: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton uttered the name "Rezko" at a Democratic presidential debate last Monday, she moved to center stage and shined a spotlight on Tony Rezko, facing a Feb. 25 trial on federal corruption charges. Sen. Barack Obama's long relationship with Rezko is a major political problem for him in the primary, and in the general election if he wins the nomination.
Until the debate, Rezko's complicated ties with Obama mainly were contained in the pages of the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune, with the national press only occasionally visiting the story of a career patron of Obama who raised money for his state and U.S. Senate campaigns.
Rezko debuted as a troublesome factor for Obama in 2006, after his wife bought a parcel of land next to a house the Obamas were purchasing on the same day." END QUOTE
That story posted on January 26, 2008.
To my dear friend, sincerely... you gotta get out more.

Chris to Just Curious wrote on Mar 5, 2008 10:46 AM:There are an estimated two million refugees in internal exile and some of the camps are located outside Bahgdad. Then there are an estimated two million refugees in Syria and Jordan and they live in the shadows. You know if you want to check me out you have a computer so just start by checking out Iraqi refugees and go from there. The whole world is at your fingertips.

Ms M wrote on Mar 5, 2008 10:57 AM:I tried to make a post 4 or 5 times and it was rejected because of language. Each time I tried to resubmit my post I read it and could not find any offensive language. What exactly was offensive.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 5, 2008 10:59 AM: The post from "Concerned-1 -- Q for DD and Ron" (8:35am) directs a question to me and another participant. He says, "Lately I've been seeing a lot of flack on the North American Union and how there's a conspiracy to abolish the U.S. Constitution for the sake of global economy."
He's been "seeing a lot of flack"? Wow, that is specific!
I am not familiar with any specific, official proposal to abolish the U.S. Constitution (other than Bush's end run around the Bill of Rights with illegal signing statements, illegal warrantless wiretaps, unlawful detainments, "extraordinary rendition" instead of calling it kidnapping across international borders, torture, and abuse of presidential powers to obstruct justice by blocking legitimate inquires, subpoenas, etc., by the formerly co-equal Legislative Branch).
If there is a specific policy that can be identified (rather than rumors about bizarre conspiracy theories to distract us from the real subversions of the Constitution), and if I find it interesting, I may choose to respond, though my suggestion is that participants make general comments and whoever wants to can jump in -- it's an open forum.
In the meantime, my response is that I oppose all efforts to abolish, subvert or ignore the Constitution, and all such attempts should be treated as the criminal acts that they are and, if it involves any person who has sworn any oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" then such violator should be dealt with especially harshly.

Unfortunately wrote on Mar 5, 2008 11:00 AM:Mr Ficere seems to think that the Marine or Marines he talks to have the only opinion about Iraq. Many of us talk to Marines whose view of the situation is quite different than Ficere's friend. I know some who describe it as hell on earth, as a place where no one can trust anyone, as a place where our presence is utterly resented. There are plenty of Marines who, even though they do their jobs admirably, resent their C-i-C for brewing up this mess, with its multiple deployments, its comrades' lives destroyed by brain injuries, for no apparent reason. These are equally truths from the soldier who's there.

Ms M wrote on Mar 5, 2008 11:01 AM:The FBI improperly used national security letters in 2006 to obtain personal data on Americans during terror and spy investigations, Director Robert Mueller said Wednesday.
The report is a follow-up to an audit by the inspector general a year ago that found the FBI demanded personal data on people from banks, telephone and Internet providers and credit bureaus without official authorization and in non-emergency situations between 2003 and 2005. See what happens when folks go unchecked. I just cannot understand how the FBI thought they had the right to invade the privacy of our citizens. The key word is non-emergency - and this is what we know about - I wonder what else has been going on!

Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 5, 2008 11:14 AM:Thank you DD. By Flack I meant links and emails sent from people. Let's start with the easy one, the North American Union. Surely you've heard about it. I'd like to hear your thought/analysis, and that of Ron's as well. I will try and post some of the transcripts I've received for reference. Thanks again, C-1.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 5, 2008 11:20 AM: The post from "Ron" (10:43am) confirms the point I made yesterday. He now finally provides a specific source and quote, which I have not bothered to verify since, as submitted, it validates the point I made, that there are no allegations of wrongdoing to which Obama are linked.
Look at what "Ron's" own quote says, which I am quoting here in full with comments at specific points:
1. "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton uttered the name "Rezko" at a Democratic presidential debate last Monday, she moved to center stage and shined a spotlight on Tony Rezko, facing a Feb. 25 trial on federal corruption charges."
This shows a POLITICAL strategic move by Hillary to try to embarrass her opponent. This shows nothing that links Obama to any wrongdoing.
2. "Sen. Barack Obama's long relationship with Rezko is a major political problem for him in the primary, and in the general election if he wins the nomination."
This is an opinion, however it is a reasonable conclusion that anything that links a candidate to a supporter who got in trouble will embarrass him and thus be a political problem. A POLITICAL problem does not have anything to do with actually being involved with wrongdoing.
3. "
Until the debate, Rezko's complicated ties with Obama mainly were contained in the pages of the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune, with the national press only occasionally visiting the story of a career patron of Obama who raised money for his state and U.S. Senate campaigns."
A self-serving statement by the local press boasting of their coverage of what was, appropriately, a local story until a national candidate tried to make it into something bigger.
4. "Rezko debuted as a troublesome factor for Obama in 2006, after his wife bought a parcel of land next to a house the Obamas were purchasing on the same day."
Rezko was a major fundraiser and friend of the Obamas. What is wrong with that?
The Obamas wanted to buy a house but thought the lot too small. The owner of the parcel next door would not sell only part of that and the Obamas didn't want to buy the whole lot. So Rezko bought the lot next door, sold the Obamas the extra slice they wanted, and that was that. No one has suggested that this violated the law.
Again, just as I said, no one has even suggested that Rezko has been found guilty of any crime, though he has been accused of bribing a former governor. No one has suggested any specific instance of wrongdoing in which Obama was at all involved.
Rezko raised funds for people. This is not illegal if it doesn't cross certain lines. Rezko knew a lot of people and no wrongdoing is even alleged in most of those involvements.
Rezko was a player. He knew (and did legal fundraising for) a lot of political people in Chicago. He raised funds for people. Perhaps it will turn out that he will be found guilty of inappropriate dealings with those who his radar detected would be susceptible to accepting more than the usual legal fundraising help.
So, "Ron," WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Like I said yesterday, if you have issues, you talk issues.
If all you have is trash, you talk trash.
And you don't even have that! You got ZIPPO!
I stand by my comments yesterday.

To Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 5, 2008 11:20 AM:Well, I do know that Ron Paul was the only presidential candidate who was willing and interested in discussing the North American Union publically, but you might want to google North American Union to get more facts. I haven't heard about jails for patriots but I do know that the North American Union is a real ongoing behind-the-scenes push and involves changing our currency to Ameros and eliminating the borders between Mexico the US and Canada. I am very opposed to the NAU which is why I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries for all the good it did me.

Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 5, 2008 11:23 AM:This is an article I saw published on a site called patriotunion. Before you jump on me, I do not use this site for information and know nothing about it. I'm providing this excerpt for conversational purposes and in regards to the question posed by today's letter writer Herbert Pairitz. Here it is:

The illegal alien amnesty bill is being drafted right now and should be coming out next month (March).

This amnesty bill they're proposing will likly bankrupt the US by adding trillions to our debt to pay for criminals. It creates a permantet Z visa, which means anyone who obtains a Z visa can be here as long as they wish---issues them to all illegal aliens/criminal aliens/terrorist aliens (requires a background check but due to backlogs will take decades to complete so the rule is issue the visa anyway and when the bakground check arrives, even if ten years latter, then deny the visa then).

Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 5, 2008 11:25 AM:Here's just a little more of this far-fetched story (conspiracy?). My purpose is to shed some light on this. C-1.

The NAU issue is so large and widesweeping that it makes all other issues and pursuits by citizens and activist meaningless---it will simply trump all progress on all issues in the final analysis. For example, what does it matter if we rally Americans to make a new tax plan (fairtax) if in a few short years there will no longer be a USA but instead an NAU with entirely new rules, laws, and tax systems in place---and leaders who cannot be removed from office (as with the EU design)?

Amnesty, or illegal immigration are closely tied to the NAU pursuit, as the goal is to place a strong Mexican citizen foothold in the US toward making it easier to press the NAU into reality while further collapsing the US dollar (toward collapsing the US economy), for an internally destroyed and demoralized country is much easier to usurp control over - Americans with spunk would never allow the NAU but make them scared and hungry and demoralized and they will accept anything---even an NAU and loss of all their rights.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 5, 2008 11:30 AM: The post from "Concerned-1" (11:14am) persists: "Let's start with the easy one, the North American Union. Surely you've heard about it." I am not the slightest bit interested in "links and emails sent from people."
There are so many rumors flying around the Internet and, unless you can provide a specific credible basis, there is nothing for me to waste my time with.
Cite a specific proposal now before either house of congress or by any of the current presidential contenders to abolish the Constitution and supersede it with a "North American Union" or stop wasting my time.
In the meantime, I responded to yours.
Would it be fair to ask you to respond to the litany of specific Constitutional violations I enumerated by the current occupant of the White House?

Rezco wrote on Mar 5, 2008 11:36 AM:It is fascinating that while the Chicago Sun-Times (not a minor league paper) has been following the story of Rezco and Obama for some time, it's gotten very little coverage outside that city. Now why might that be? Is it a vast left-wing conspiracy to protect the candidate? I'm sure some will think so, but if you give it a moment's thought, that hardly makes any sense at all. Like all the other media in the country believe that a hot story in a major city paper can be a secret? My guess is that, at least to date, the Obama aspect of it has no legs as a story...there's no there there. Nothing but campaign contributions by an unsavory dude, hardly a crime by the recipient. The enron boys donated heavily to the Republican party. So what? But time will tell, I guess. Maybe something incriminating actually will turn up. My fear is that the right wing hacks and swift boaters, without a story, will just repeat the two names together and use the nonsense word "linked" for the sheer pleasure of character assassination. We'll see. Sadly, we'll definitely see.

Ron wrote on Mar 5, 2008 11:39 AM:No Concerned-1 @11:14 AM, I'm not a "Black-Helicopter" type. I heard about it, I've read some stuff about it, but I don't see any connection, politically speaking.
What I do see, are lot's of corporations doing what Mexico & Central Latin America had asked for in the beginning of NAFTA, a building of specific infrastructure to maintain & grow commerce, as was done by the European Union with Spain. If you recall, Spain was the lagging country, they requested, and were granted monies to build up their infrastructure to be "on-par" with the other Euro countries.
As to gulags...
Are you actually listening to Alex Jones, and reading his associates webpages? Aren't these the same clowns who said 9/11 was an inside job?

To DD Wiz wrote on Mar 5, 2008 11:56 AM:Try this site as a prelude to, or euphemism for, the NAU - http://www.spp.gov/ .

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 5, 2008 12:10 PM: The NCT handling of post from "Ron" (10:43am) shows the bias of the current blogeditor on duty. As usual, "Ron" and Republicans are allowed to vent their hateful bile with unsubstantiated character assassination against decent candidates such as Obama, but when I respond point-by-point, my response (at 11:20am) to clear an innocent man's name is delayed while rants about bizarre conspiracy theories posted after mine appear within a few minutes.
Please provide a little fairness and balance, NCT.
If you air the false charges, please also air the rebuttal to protect the innocent from these slanders!

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 5, 2008 12:16 PM: The post from "Ron" (10:43am) confirms the point I made yesterday. He now finally provides a specific source and quote, which I have not bothered to verify since, as submitted, it validates the point I made, that there are no allegations of wrongdoing to which Obama are linked.
Look at what "Ron's" own quote says, which I am quoting here in full with comments at specific points:
1. "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton uttered the name "Rezko" at a Democratic presidential debate last Monday, she moved to center stage and shined a spotlight on Tony Rezko, facing a Feb. 25 trial on federal corruption charges."
This shows a POLITICAL strategic move by Hillary to try to embarrass her opponent. This shows nothing that links Obama to any wrongdoing.
2. "Sen. Barack Obama's long relationship with Rezko is a major political problem for him in the primary, and in the general election if he wins the nomination."
This is an opinion, however it is a reasonable conclusion that anything that links a candidate to a supporter who got in trouble will embarrass him and thus be a political problem. A POLITICAL problem does not have anything to do with actually being involved with wrongdoing.
3. "
Until the debate, Rezko's complicated ties with Obama mainly were contained in the pages of the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune, with the national press only occasionally visiting the story of a career patron of Obama who raised money for his state and U.S. Senate campaigns."
A self-serving statement by the local press boasting of their coverage of what was, appropriately, a local story until a national candidate tried to make it into something bigger.
4. "Rezko debuted as a troublesome factor for Obama in 2006, after his wife bought a parcel of land next to a house the Obamas were purchasing on the same day."
Rezko was a major fundraiser and friend of the Obamas. What is wrong with that?
The Obamas wanted to buy a house but thought the lot too small. The owner of the parcel next door would not sell only part of that and the Obamas didn't want to buy the whole lot. So Rezko bought the lot next door, sold the Obamas the extra slice they wanted, and that was that. No one has suggested that this violated the law.
Again, just as I said, no one has even suggested that Rezko has been found guilty of any crime, though he has been accused of bribing a former governor. No one has suggested any specific instance of wrongdoing in which Obama was at all involved.
Rezko raised funds for people. This is not illegal if it doesn't cross certain lines. Rezko knew a lot of people and no wrongdoing is even alleged in most of those involvements.
Rezko was a player. He knew (and did legal fundraising for) a lot of political people in Chicago. He raised funds for people. Perhaps it will turn out that he will be found guilty of inappropriate dealings with those who his radar detected would be susceptible to accepting more than the usual legal fundraising help.
So, "Ron," WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Like I said yesterday, if you have issues, you talk issues.
If all you have is trash, you talk trash.
And you don't even have that! You got ZIPPO!
I stand by my comments yesterday.
Posted 11:20am; re-posted 12:16pm

More idiocy from the party of fear wrote on Mar 5, 2008 12:16 PM:From the NY Times QUOTE: [Arizona]State Senator Karen S. Johnson, has sponsored a bill...] that would allow people with a concealed weapons permit — limited to those 21 and older here — to carry their firearms at public colleges and universities. Ms. Johnson, a Republican from Mesa, said she believed that the recent carnage at Northern Illinois University could have been prevented or limited if an armed student or professor had intercepted the gunman. [...] She initially wanted her bill to cover all public schools, kindergarten and up, but other lawmakers convinced her it stood a better chance of passing if it were limited to higher education. ENDQUOTE Yes, students will be much safer from people who intend to suicide anyway if they are all armed. Students, after all, are never drunk or high, never impulsive, never get in raging fights. The one and only time it'd occur to any of them to draw that weapon would be when a shooter appears. And who wouldn't want to be a faculty member handing out grades of F to a class full of armed students whose future you'll be seen as destroying? Or a professor who observes students cheating on an exam, knowing they could be armed? Yes, this is a great idea, very reality based! I can't understand why anyone could talk her out of her initial idea, of arming kindergarten staff. No way a gun ever would go off accidentally in those classrooms, uh uh.

Ron wrote on Mar 5, 2008 12:25 PM:You know, it is absolutely amazing to read statements like Not A Wiz@
10:59 AM, and not laugh out loud.
On any given day, my buddy, ole wizzer, is repleat with reasons why the Founders were stupid white men, slave owners, and obviously "could not foresee" all the changes our society would make. So, people like the wiz, feel the need to "help" these brilliant men out, with a Living Constitution. A Living Constitution is nothing short of a means to errode the principals set by the Founders of a Federal Government with only certain enumerated powers.
In fact, the whole idea, was to preclude a growing and increasingly oppressive Central Government. All one needs to do is read Jefferson or Madison to know what their personal views were.
So, to me, it is laughable when he voices concern over how far certain Presidents will go to pursue their power. Especially when his mentors are people like Woodrow Wilson, & FDR. Who he claims to have saved our democracy.
Anyone ever read about these two Presidents? I have. These two alone, are repleat with literally volumes of how these two men personally violated American civil rights, Constitutional rights, and personal property rights.
It's humorous to read him cite chapter & verse regarding Bush, yet he does not see where this stuff came from, & where it all started? He is famous for his retort: "While I mostly agreed with them, I do have certain areas where we disagreed." The point is: There are specific enumerated restrictions set upon the Federal Government in the Constitution. To "leak" in one area you just happen to agree with, naturally leads to "leaks" in other areas. It's a "FireWall" of sorts. Most of these "leaks" just happened during the Wilson & FDR adiminstrations. FDR is particularly reprehensible in that, he sought to pack our Supreme Court with Ideologue's who saw the Constitution "his way", without regard to long standing precedent, and enumerated powers. Wison openly attacked the co-equal Congress, as he often refered to them as: "These petty barons..." "...exercise an almost despotic sway within their own shires..." and then refered to them as "... fundamentally undemocratic..."
While at the same time violently suppressing anti-war movements.
We all know of FDR's internment camps for the Japanese, it's not wonder, FDR served in the Wilson administration. Nothing new there. And these are the Progressives folks. Wilson was also an ardant "free trader", he said this: "Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused." Of course today, our current day Progressives like to call that US Imperialism. It's a wonder how his League of Nations was viewed in respect to his belief in Colonies? But, have no doubt, between Wilson & FDR those two men broke down the door, and as Our Founders predicted, once in... you'll never get the despots out. So, the question I have is this: After all these years of tyrrany, your just now complaining?