Local to Joan Horn wrote on May 30, 2008 4:05 AM:There will always be the radical fringe. Why do you want to give them publicity? A news item in a 'Times-Advocate' circa 1925ish says that the KKK is building a clubhouse just south of the Escondido city line. They were radical and they are gone. Evil happens; don't promote it. Rise above it!

To Joan Horn wrote on May 30, 2008 5:59 AM:Thank you so much for your well written, insightful, honest, and passionate letter. It is true that some anti-immigrant groups have made this a race issue. I agree we need to dispel the lies, half truths, exaggerations, and fear that these groups have and continue to perpetuate. I have all confidence that the American people are much more intelligent than these groups give them credit for. It is difficult for people to believe or accept that hate crimes are happening to Latinos at a high rate and it is being caused by the anti Latino sentiment that groups like the Minutemen have conjured up. Thank you for having the courage to discuss this issue.

To Alf wrote on May 30, 2008 6:43 AM:Ever find your letters?

Karl wrote on May 30, 2008 7:03 AM:In response to "DD Wiz
[-] wrote on May 29, 2008 7:27 PM:"

Congrats back at you Double D's. My sons graduation was quite an emotional day for me. The nest has been semi empty for 4 years and now is completely empty. I am very impressed with the education my son received at SJSU. Given the fact that SJSU (and most schools of higher learning) is very liberal he received a very well rounded education that will indeed help him throughout his life. The school set him up with interships at Ebay, Intel and with State Senator Abel Maldanado (Republican). I was also very impressed with the graduation ceremonies. I was present a graduation ceremony a few years back at UC Santa Cruz and all I heard was the Prof's are getting screwed on pay from the Conservative Administration and Conservatives suck. At SJSU the only political message I heard was one in jest and quite funny. At the early graduation for the political science college one prof mention the word conservative and about 10 out of 60 students (obviously conservative including my son) erupted in a loud cheer to which the prof responded "We embrace diversity here at SJSU".

I would love to sit down with you and Alf for a brew sometime. I know Alf knows everyone but if he knows me he is keeping it a secret. I am easy to find, hint, with my passion for golf and the fact that you know which town I live in look up the only Private Country Club.

Don't tell Alf that the race deal is a set up. My golf cart is painted classic 50's black with yellow flames, has a 7.5 horse motor and was hit by our City's finest radar at 38 mph in a 25 mph zone on a flat stretch. I didn't even get a warning, the officer just wanted to check out a cart that could go that fast.

Peace

Roger wrote on May 30, 2008 7:10 AM:Pete de Jong contends this ruinously expensive, counterproductive, war in Iraq could not be prevented, despite the growing mountain of evidence to the contrary (including, most recently, Scott McClellan's book), and insists we must "Stay The Course".

Unfortunately, his letter arrived a day late for "Post As Floyd Day" :)

Joan Horn Rocks wrote on May 30, 2008 7:48 AM:To Joan Horn what a great letter. It is time we begin to face the reality that racism is alive and well in the United States even in the 21st Century. I have read many reports regarding this issue and I find the SPLC reports very compelling and alarming. I hope we all come to our senses and stop this trend now. Also I hope more people like Joan speak out about this issue. Just as Edmund Burke said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." As Martin Luther King said: "At the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." So friends I ask that you contact our Legislators and encourage them to take steps to compassionate, humane, and fair immigration reform it is the only way we can stop this current evil running rampant in our Nation.

Nick wrote on May 30, 2008 7:56 AM:2 letters to respond to today.
First, the letter from Joan Horn points out 2 very hateful points about 2 groups, and in doing so, she groups ALL anti- Illegal immigration folks together. There are MILLIONS of people who are Anti-Illegal Immigration and would NEVER stoop to violence against Illegals. Most of us all want our Immigration laws followed and an end to the abuse of the 14th Amendment by Millions of Illegals.

Secondly, the letter by Mark Ruhm brings to light a valid point about so-called Environmentalists. When I was growing up in Escondido, the dry lake area "WAS NOT" covered in trees, IT WAS UNDER WATER! You could see fisherman in boats under I-15 and 1/2 mile east of I-15 in their boats. Only after many years of drought did the trees sprout and grow in the area east of I-15. I totally agree with the fact the dry lake area needs to be cleared of trees and returned back to it's once pristine lake coverage. The enviornmentalists need to go hug a rock! Besides, Hodgee needs more room to roam and hide now that he is getting older. If you don't know anything about Hodgee, please go to hodgee dot com and learn a little about our local history, so you won't sound like such a newbie.
Cheers, Nick.

Alf wrote on May 30, 2008 7:59 AM:Well, "Karl" at 7:03AM, you got me hands down. My lawn tractor has a 16.5 hp engine and maxes out at 5 mph downhill, uphill, flat, while mowing and/or while hauling up to 1,000 pounds of stuff (dirt, sand, crushed rock, garden wall blocks, tree parts or whatever) in the trailer. By the way, I'll be "in the field" for a few days, so please solve all the problems of the world in my absence. Regards, Alf.

Jack_D wrote on May 30, 2008 8:21 AM:Joan Horn's letter was tendentious. Does one e-mail discredit the entire border security movement? I would take issue with Horn's description of the Southern Poverty Law Center. She says it is a "respected organization" that monitors hate groups. I will bet Horn any amount of money that its definition of "hate groups" includes only those on the right.

Horn says we should discuss "illegal immigration in a rational manner." How can is that possible when anyone critical of illegal immigration is called a racist, a nativist, a restrictionist,etc..? It is impossible to have a legitimate debate if one side is gagged.

Ron wrote on May 30, 2008 8:24 AM:As unfortunate as this maybe be Joan Horn, again... this is not THE issue. Some crazy people will always use an issue to advocate their own weird and particular hateful acts against someone else they believe is the reason for their miserable lives.
But, the issue.. again, is about law & order. Our we a nation of laws, and are we a nation who will respect and enforce the laws we enact?
Obviously, those who don't think the current system is working for them want the laws changed. The time to change the laws is BEFORE you break them.
Currently, we have 26 different guest worker programs. And the fact of the matter is those who do not want to wait in their home country until the paperwork is processed, have simply decided to break the laws. On our side, we have business owners who could use the more expensive guest worker programs, adding worker protection, transportation, housing, etc., but they find it cheaper to hire out of a canyon.
I'm always amazed by the lengths people will go to justify illegal activity.
The current system is slow & expensive, but it anit broken. People simply do not want to do the right thing.

Jack_D wrote on May 30, 2008 8:27 AM:To Carol Kissin: Anyone fair-minded knows that both liberals and conservatives often engage in personal attacks-both here and elsewhere. It's just absurd to say one side of the political spectrum is warm and fuzzy, and the other is mean-spirited.

Michelle Malkin wrote a book a few years ago (forgot title) saying the exact opposite as Ms.Kissin, namely that liberals were mean and vicious and conservatives. perfect gentlemen. I was not convinced then,and I'm not convinced now.

Ron wrote on May 30, 2008 8:30 AM:Carol Kissin says: "Liberal writers are more peace-loving", I assume she places herself into this catagory? Peace-loving...
But then she says this: "...but I don't forget things like that."
Let it go, Carol... let it go.
Grudges are very bad for your health.

Missing the point wrote on May 30, 2008 8:35 AM:As I've said before, when you set up a group like the MM, it is absolutely, 100% guaranteed that it will draw some real racists. To say that the immigrants are law breakers but the extreme cases in Joan Horn's letter are "weird" is inexcusable. My question is simple: why do we need to have "groups" like the MM? I can understand people being against "illegal immigration". So write to your representatives. Vote for people who want to enforce those laws. As soon as you form a "group", particularly one that is out on the streets, it is a sure bet that some really nasty, racist, violent people will be on board with you, and you will be known by the worst of what they do. This is also a 100% sure bet. So I just don't get it when you are shocked, surprised, defensive about the groups. This was all completely predictable. Find a better way.

Roger wrote on May 30, 2008 8:36 AM:Nick at 7:56 AM corrects Joan Horn on grouping all anti-illegal immigration groups together. Though I don't believe she actually did this, he is correct that one doesn't need to be xenophobic or racist to object to illegal immigration.

To Nick wrote on May 30, 2008 8:46 AM:I don't agree with you that Joan Horn is grouping all anti-illegal folks together. If you are not guilty of hate crimes and would NEVER stoop to violence against illegals than she is obviously not refering to you in her letter. You state "Most of us all want our Immigration laws followed and an end to the abuse of the 14th Amendment by Millions of Illegals." Now who is grouping folks together. I think that you should do some research on the Constitution of the United States before you make erroneous statements about the abuses of the 14th Amendment. I also want the Immigration laws followed but not in violent ways. I do read this blog everyday and I have read many, many of your comments. Although you state that you would NEVER stoop to violence against illegals your past comments do not reflect that statement. You have already become violent just by labeling them illegals! It is a very thin line the one that separates violence and non-violence. There is physical, verbal and non-verbal violence. I appreciate your attempt at diplomacy. Have a great day.

Focal Point wrote on May 30, 2008 8:51 AM:Roger[-] wrote on May 30, 2008 7:10 AM Roger is right. De Jong wants to stay the course/ My retort is that "the Marines are looking for a few good men." Enlist and stay the course. Be my guest.

Jack_D wrote on May 30, 2008 8:58 AM:To Nick said: "You have already become violent just by labeling them illegals"

Really. Please deign to explain how people with no legal right to be here in this country should be called? And how is it "violent" to call a spade a spade?

Pluto wrote on May 30, 2008 9:00 AM:Carol Kissin is correct that liberal letters tend to be more civilized. Respect and civility were hallmarks of letters by Rocky Velgos, who frequently wrote in support of our homosexual sisters and brothers. He never responded to ignorance or hate with hate. Rest in Peace, Rocky.

To Jack D wrote on May 30, 2008 9:01 AM:I agree with you Jack when you question the possibility of a discussion on "illegal immigration in a rational manner." I don't see how a rational debate could be possible because as Joan Horn correctly points out this issue is no longer about illegal immigration but an attack on the Latino community. Some anti-illegal immigration have now become anti-Latino groups. How can we possibly have rational dialogue with people who when their position is opposed immediately resort to name calling and personal attacks, rather than sticking to the facts! You are complaining that you are "called a racist, a nativist, a restrictionist,etc..? Well if the methods used by you or others are racist, nativist, etc...than what do you expect. I wholeheartly agree that it is impossible to have a legitimate debate if one side is gagged. The knife cuts both ways you see.

Alf wrote on May 30, 2008 9:06 AM:Well, "Jack_D" at 8:27AM, while you are correct when you say "It's just absurd to say one side of the political spectrum is warm and fuzzy, and the other is mean-spirited", looking at the comments about "gay" marriage or illegal immigration shows the "dark side" of many who profess to be "conservative". Bigotry, hateful rhetoric and attempts to control are not, by any means, limited to some "conservatives", some "liberals" can be equally foul-mouthed. I quoted "conservatives" and "liberals" because each side has their extremes, extremes that are more harmful to their cause than helpful. Regards, Alf.

Roger wrote on May 30, 2008 9:25 AM:Focal Point at 8:51 AM seems to think Pete de Jong's letter was serious. I just assumed it must be another knee slapper sardonic spoof for "Post As Floyd Day", which arrived too late.

Now I feel guilty for laughing so hard at it.

to Carol Kissin wrote on May 30, 2008 9:32 AM:practice what you preach, my dear hypocrite!

Focal Point wrote on May 30, 2008 9:36 AM:Jack_D[-] wrote on May 30, 2008 8:27 AM:
Sorry, Jack. Carol was limiting her opinion to the letters to the editor section and perhaps to this blog. She was voicing an opinion not an argument for acceptance. I concur with her observation.
I am warm and fuzzy. Regards FP

Dont become lawless to enforce laws.... wrote on May 30, 2008 9:48 AM:Joan is right on. The immigration debate is now a racist issue. Many people say that they are not racist but they want our laws enforced. So do I but I have read many articles in this and other newspapers regarding some of the hateful, hurtful, criminal activities some are doing all in the name of enforcing our laws. No that is not acceptable. No one has the right to take the law into their own hands. I don't think my comment will be posted if I list the names and what they have done so I will not include that information in my post. I disagree with verbal, and physical violence. I disagree with vandalism and any other kind of criminal conduct. I disagree with people trying to compare the United States to Mexico or any other Third World country..we are leaders not followers. So frankly I don't care how other countries handle immigration or immigrants we are the greatest Nation in World and we are bigger and better than any other country.

jvc wrote on May 30, 2008 9:48 AM:The national government will be taking 7 billion dollars from the state's general fund to help with health care for prison inmates. And, it looks like we are doing nothing to stop this...
why is Sacramento unable to do nothing
on spending or deficts? It is time for
prop 13 to be revise to include being means tested for assessments!

Karl wrote on May 30, 2008 10:39 AM:To "Nick
[-] wrote on May 30, 2008 7:56 AM:"

I couldn't have said it better (both issues). Great post.

What kind of Construction do you do? I seem to remember something about equipment.

To Jack D wrote on May 30, 2008 11:15 AM:Why is it necessary to label any human being with a derogatory label? Violence;–noun 1. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.

Focal Point wrote on May 30, 2008 11:29 AM:Take heed of what God says about Israel
Hey Jo Anne. Hate to tell you. I do not think that any one has ever been convicted under the Logan Act. I do not think it is enforceable against a former President of the United States. I am all for President Carter talking to anyone and everyone about the subject of peace. I certainly do not agree with Hamas. Neither do I agree with Israel. I suggest that the USA negotiate our treaty with Israel. The one en force now is based on a dual world power globe which no longer exists. The existence of Israel is not critical to our geo political or national requisites. I no longer believe that it is our responsibility to defend Israel. The Bible is not what God said. It is what the Jews assert that God said.

Chris to Chuck wrote on May 30, 2008 11:34 AM:As usual you don't have a clue about sanctions. The UN exempted humanitarian supplies to Iraq but the US stopped them. Many of the items stopped were food related and medical. But as is typical you point the finger at Hussein. But like my blog above you don't care about whatever atrocities the US commits. After all we commit the atrocities and blame the victim for what we do.

Karl wrote on May 30, 2008 11:40 AM:To" To Jack D
[-] wrote on May 30, 2008 9:01 AM:'

I understand and appreciate your passion. In this political climate anyone can be labeled as anything. I think that the fringe extremists on both sides of any issue are playing the rest of us for fools. I have always liked the statement "it is what it is". The spinners on both sides of any issue will skirt this statement. It seems that "it is what I think it is and anyone who disagrees with me is blah, blah , blah.

I totally disagree with Double D's, Vista Granny, Focal something and the rest of the lefties here on many issues but I totally respect their opinions because they are presented without malice (well Double D's sometimes gets near the line). You my friend need to learn how to separate your beliefs from reality as it presents itself with other peoples opinions.

Peace

Alf wrote on May 30, 2008 12:01 PM:Well, "To Alf" at 6:43AM, not the ones for the 22nd. Thanks for asking. Regards, Alf.

Chris to to Carol Kissin wrote on May 30, 2008 12:20 PM:What a nasty response. All of Kissins letters have been respectful and never have I seen any name calling or nastyness. But you have just proven what she was saying.

Question for the McCain camp wrote on May 30, 2008 12:49 PM:I read somewhere today that McCain voted in the Senate to support a Bush position or desire about 95% of the time. So McCain has been in fact a nearly total supporter of all things Bushian. Can you explain to me, considering what most Americans think about Bush's presidency, how McCain will win? Remember, once it's mano a mano, there won't be the easy slogans to peddle. McCain will be asked over and over why he agreed with each of Bush's proposals so consistently. How will he answer these questions? These are questions that matter one heck of a lot more than which pastor do you associate with. These questions are about how you actually believe the government should run. McCain will brag about his "experience". But that "experience" in the last 7 years has been to almost completely support Bush in all ways. How will McCain answer these questions?

To Carol Kissin wrote on May 30, 2008 1:27 PM:I agree with you!! Just ignore the rude post and comments, forgive them for they just don't know any better. I have discovered that this blog is not a forum for civil respectful discourse. I read the letters and blogs everyday and find that the sarcastic, cynical, disrespectful, rude, judgemental, hatefilled anger posts come from a handful of commentators. We all know esteban, Reardon, Karl, Ron, Nick, El Guero, Mike America etc... are the worst of the bunch. I believe in Free Speech but their has to be a place where your free speech infringes on my right to life, liberty and happiness. I hope one day they will come to understand this.

Bill wrote on May 30, 2008 1:28 PM:Carol Kissen cant be serious.

Liberals are no more elikely to be tolerant than anyone else. Get off the sanctamonious head trip.

Tell that to a conservative on a college campus.

Thats baloney Carol.

Liberals are vicious,

Bill wrote on May 30, 2008 1:34 PM:That is correct.

Yet, that doesnt seem to be enough for you.

Thats why we didnt have the votes in the UN to go to war to enforce the UN Resolution that Hussein was in violation of.

Yet, now you want us to listen to the UN?

Your views are all over the road.

This is exactly why Bush ignored the UN. The votes had nothiong to do with the war, it had to do with the business these countries were doing with Hussein.

Yet you want us to listen to them?

Bush was right to invade since the UN couldnt be trusted.

That is clear and thanks for making that point to highlight your hypocrisy.

You did that eloquently.

Focal Point wrote on May 30, 2008 1:53 PM:Karl[-] wrote on May 30, 2008 11:40 AM:
Please do not identify me as a leftie. I am an independent centrist. I admit that I have voted Democratic most of the time. But, I have voted Republican as well. I voted for Nixon and Regan. Any hoo. I hope that you and Alf pull that race off. Perhaps you could film it? See if it we can get it on news at 11:00 pm. Regards Focal Point.

Mike wrote on May 30, 2008 2:15 PM:Re: LTE: Lay lake problem at feet of these folks

The commenter says nothing to distinguish himself (herself) from the multitudes of well-trained ideological parrots who mindlessly and repeatedly squawk for an end to anti-growth "obstructionism" and for the unbridled privilege of stamping out the vestiges of nature which remain in an environment already grossly degraded. Such published commentary will make it easier for future historians to document how 21st century America, despite the evidence and warning signals, ignored the likely consequences of continued growth within a clearly overshot natural carrying capacity, leaving future generations to live off the resource-barren leftovers of such greedy and short-sighted policy advocacy.

question for jvc wrote on May 30, 2008 2:21 PM:I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you in favor of offering prisoners no health care? So regardless of their crimes, they should be put in a cell to rot until their sentence is done? Then what? Or maybe that all crimes should be punishable by life imprisonment or execution? I don't get it. I do find it crazy that we spend as much as we do on punishing people, since obviously our concept of punishing the guilty in this way fails to deter people, leads to an enormous rate of recidivism (i.e., to an enormous crime rate among people who've been jailed), therefore doesn't rehabilitate. So not only do we spend a megafortune on them, but we get nearly nothing for our money other than keeping them off the streets for a while. We are so addicted to this particular idea of revenge or punishment that we cannot even think clearly about crime and punishment in this country. Their health care is the least of our inanities in this area.

hardtack wrote on May 30, 2008 2:23 PM:Jan Bayer: “New beach fees are an outrage.” It’s amazing how people get upset over the wrong things. We pay all manner of hidden taxes with nary a disgruntled word. Every tariff on imported goods, every agricultural and manufacturing support, every gasoline tax that isn’t earmarked to build and repair roads, every corporate regulatory expense, etc., etc., . . . . all unseen taxes paid by consumers. Then there is the most insidious “unseen” tax of all: inflation (i.e., the federal banking system’s relentless devaluing of our dollar.) Even the very visible, highly discriminatory, progressive income tax is only criticized for being too low . . . . for the minority in the upper brackets, of course. Then comes a user fee to park your car, and people hit the roof. We are a strange bunch to figure.

Apollo wrote on May 30, 2008 2:26 PM:Re: Question for McCain Camp (12:49 p.m.)
Question is correct about the 95% figure, but outdated. That was for 2007.
So far this year (2008), it is 100%!
So much for change.

Focal Point wrote on May 30, 2008 2:40 PM:Bill[-] wrote on May 30, 2008 1:28 PM:
Vicious? No. Most of us are warm and fuzzy.

Chris to Bill wrote on May 30, 2008 2:46 PM:Why was Bush right to invade Iraq?

hardtack wrote on May 30, 2008 2:50 PM:Ms Spivey makes a good point . . . well written . . . intelligent. But, who the heck wrote that slug line? “God” isn’t mentioned in her letter – anyplace! I have a feeling it was the editor.

When I read, “Take heed of what God says about Israel,” I almost skipped the letter, thinking it belonged in the Faith and Values section. If her first sentence hadn’t grabbed my attention, I would have.

Whether Ms. Spivey or the editor wrote the slug line, my selection would have been: “Take heed of what John Adams said about sedition.”

Ron wrote on May 30, 2008 2:53 PM:Huh? "jvc" @9:48 AM? Or should I say: Double Huh? I'm simply not following the logic here...
First you say, QUOTE: "The national government will be taking 7 billion dollars from the state's general fund to help with health care for prison inmates. And, it looks like we are doing nothing to stop this..."END Quote
Then you finish with this:
Quote: "why is Sacramento unable to do nothing on spending or deficts? It is time for prop 13 to be revise to include being means tested for assessments!"

Excuse me? Come again?
Revise Prop 13 for means testing? Are you out of your gorde, dear friend?
I mean, first your complaining about all this spending & deficits that the Fed's & Sacramento can not seem to control, but then you say: Let's give them more?
Have we not "revised" Social Security, and added a means test to that enterprise, and it still anit solvent.
And now these dim bulbs are talking about raising the cap on income, as if.. THAT will solve a spending problem.
It won't, it'll just give them MORE to SPEND.

Chris wrote on May 30, 2008 3:00 PM:Did you see the story about all the Iraqis protesting against signing a US Iraqi defense treaty that would allow us to stay forever. Haven't we been told by the conservatives that the Iraqis love us. Why then do they want us to leave. I thought that once the Iraqis were capable we would leave. Does this mean that we Liberals were right again about never having the intention to leave?

Chris to Nick wrote on May 30, 2008 3:09 PM:Did you check out "Khazars" as it is thought that this is where the Ashkenism (Jews) came from. Not the ancient Israelites.

Reardon wrote on May 30, 2008 3:35 PM:At the risk of being accused of "hate speech" (whatever that is), a friendly Ph.D (M.E.) has sent me a lot of information on still another future clean energy -- biological-generated electricity.

Several years ago, in Montreal, a 17 year-old boy hooked up a small batch of magnetic bacteria for a science experiment, and generated half the electricity of a AA battery for 48 hours! Science has additionally found that a strain of waste-eating bacteria can develop electricity, directly.

While all of this may even be longer range than fusion energy – particularly if PETA decides to go nano in their protection – science marches on. Problems continue to have solutions – despite obstructionists.

DD Wiz wrote on May 30, 2008 3:51 PM:The post from "Bill" (1:34pm) confirms that he knows nothing about the U.N. or enforcement of its provisions.
The U.N. voted not to impose sanctions (unlike in 1991 when it did), because the weapons inspectors, under both Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradei, had found NO weapons violations, which also agreed with the conclusions of Bush's own inspector, Scott Ritter. All of them were roundly ridiculed by conservatives, yet were ultimately proven to be correct, as was Bush's own National Intelligence Estimate which concluded there were no weapons of mass desctruction.
The 2003 action was a "coalition" consisting primarily and overwhelmingly by U.S. forces, with secondary support from the British and token support from several other countries, some sending as few as one soldier to justify having their name on the roster. It was NOT an official enforcement action by the U.N. and, as the act of individual member nations, was a violation of the U.N. Charter provisions.
Chapter Seven (notably Articles 45, 48, and 5-51) specifies that enforcement of U.N. violations can ONLY be done by international action directed by the U.N., and NOT by individual member nations.
Thus, because the U.S. Constitution states in Article VI that itself and foreign treaties constitute the "supreme law of the land" superseding all other statutes passed by any state.
In violating the U.N. Charter to which we are signatories, the U.S. was not only in violation of International law, but also the Constitution. This should have been an impeachable offense.

Brittanicus wrote on May 30, 2008 5:07 PM:It is obvious to me that citizens and legal residents are being intentionally ignored, regarding the illegal immigration invasion. When states, communities cannot enact their own laws to stop any further propagation of 20 to 38 million illegal alien settlement in our nation. That Americans are continuously in battle with liberal judges, who interpret laws according to their own whims. When as citizens we are forced to support illegal foreign nationals, to support the profits of predator employers. We should be opposed to Hispanic separatist racist groups, not to forget the corporate machine, big religion, the ACLU, Southern Poverty league. Many of these organizations are run by Marxist, Communist and just pure Anti-American zealots, which taxpayers subsidies them with their own tax dollars. The illegal invasion can only be understood by the corrupting influence of our politicians for money. Cheap labor for the Republicans or the Welfare votes for the Democrats. Both parties dishonor their Oath of Office, our US Constitution against Invasion (Domestic and foreign) and Enforcement of our Immigration Laws! Us! Like much of Europe is being dis-inherited by the globalist open border fanatics, to fulfill their own agenda of cheap labor. Leading Democrats led by Madam Speaker Pelosi have threatened Moderates in the party of alienation, if they sponsor the Federal SAVE ACT (H.R.4088) It's our final chance before the new presidents AMNESTY? If we keep ignoring this issue, our employment is going to vanish, along with summer jobs that always were available for students for past decades.

Jack_D wrote on May 30, 2008 5:15 PM:At 9:01 A.M. someone "responded" to my post saying:

"How can we possibly have rational dialogue with people who when their position is opposed immediately resort to name calling and personal attacks, rather than sticking to the facts."

Uh, that was exactly my point. The person, further says:

"I don't see how a rational debate could be possible because as Joan Horn correctly points out this issue is no longer about illegal immigration but an attack on the Latino community."

Ah, case closed. Horn chooses to conflate legitimate opposition to illegal immigration with hatred of the Latino community. That's her assertion; it is not a fact as the poster assumes.
Query:Did every Bilbray voter in 2006 hate the Latino community? I thought I was voting for him because he was for border security. I see I was really motivated by hatred of the Latino community. How could I have been so blind?

Are we supposed to assume that the motives of the Southern Poverty Law Center, La Raza, Chamber of Commerce, etc.. are all pure as the snow, while opponents of illegal immigration are the worst kind of racists? The ad hominem in this debate seems to be the norm- for one side.

One more thing: please, in the interest of intellectual honesty, stop saying "anti-immigrant." It isn't anti-immigrant,as you very well know. It's opposition to illegal immigration.

Jack_D wrote on May 30, 2008 5:20 PM:To Carol Kissin (1:27) wrote: I believe in Free Speech but their has to be a place where your free speech infringes on my right to life, liberty and happiness.

Seems like a call for censorship. Who will determine where free speech infringes on this person's rights? Can I censor some people here who I think have used intemperate rhetoric? Reminds me of a great book: Free Speech for Me But Not for Thee by the great civil libertarian Nat Hentoff. Everyone is in favor of free speech- for their side.

Bill wrote on May 30, 2008 5:28 PM:Chris

Why Iraq?

For one thing, we had a dictator there that hates us and would have no problem aligning himself with our enemies even if they were his own.

"My ememys enemy is my friend"

The middle east is full of examples of enemies uniting to fight a common enemy so your claims of him being an enemey of AQ dont wash.

Next, whether you or any of your ilk want to admit it, the 9/11 report cleartly states that there were "collaborative" ties between Iraq and AQ. The report stated there were no "operative" ties so the claim that there were no ties is a half truth at best.

I read the report in its entirety.

The report distinguishes between operative and collaborative ties.

Thats why!

Now lets debate the 9/11 report OK?

Are you up for that because I sure am.

Im probably the only one that has read the report.

Apparently, in your world, it would have been responsible for a president to roll the dice with American lives.

Instead, the libs revise history by claiming that they said there were no WMD when they didnt say that then. Nobody said it. Not even Hans Blix could account for the inventories of missing WMD.

So all this BS that Bush lied is nothing more than the Dems not taking responsiblity for defending America.

So Bush took that lead.

I dont want a president that waits until a nuke is on the way before taking action.

Imagine had he been wrong and AQ would have gotten a WMD from him?

Imagine that Chris.

Imagine that.

But if warning dictators before they are to be invaded is such a good idea, then why dont we do it with drug dealers too?

Do you really think we would find any drugs?

Then why would we find WMDs?

Duh!

All that talking you libs wanted to do gave him so much time to move them that I put that on you and your ilk. This explains the immense movement of vehicles picked up on satellite along the Syrian border before we attacked.

Saddam did what a drug dealer would do and smuggled them out.

Either way, the treat is not there anymore and you and your kids are now safe.

Say thanks GW!!!!!

I hope that you love your children as much as Bush does by eliminating a possible future threat.

But dont try and make us think that had he invaded Afghanistan that you would be cool with that.

You would claim they had no ties blah blah blah!

Guess what Chris?

There were and the 9/11 reports says so.

Read it.

Did you?

Lets debate the 9/11 report Chris.

Thats all declassified now.

jvc wrote on May 30, 2008 5:31 PM:Ron: I now see the error of my logic
after reading your blog!

to Jack D wrote on May 30, 2008 5:40 PM:I agree with you about free speech. When speech becomes threatening, it crosses the line. I believe most "hate speech" does not cross that line. Note that the ACLU also defends non-threatening hate speech, even when it's Nazi groups that are doing the speaking. To my knowledge (I could be wrong and would like to know if I am) no one has been arrested for non-threatening hate speech, though. People HAVE been criticized severely for it, and I'm fine with that: criticism, too, is speech, after all. So if people say hateful things, they have no right to complain when they are criticized for it. Criticism most definitely is NOT censorship, despite what critics of "PC" whine about (they seem to believe that no one should have the right to criticize them for some reason I canno fathom). A third case is of the Don Imus variety. His comments about Rutgers were hateful, were not threatening, and so worthy of, at worst, criticism. But he was suspended from his job and could've been fired. That is a decision made by an employer, so I see nothing wrong with that. Lots of employers would punish or even fire an employee that was obnoxious to customers, right?

Reardon wrote on May 30, 2008 5:52 PM:Jack, Jack, Jack! Please understand -- to disagree in any manner with some people is "hate speech." It is a method to limit speech, much like a charge of "racism."

Most liberals on this net abjure those terms, and match speech with speech -- only a very few (as in the anonymous post at 1:27) engage in it, and that probably embarrasses most of the liberals on this Blog as well.

Jack, you will live longer and healthier if you ignore those who do not even have an identifiable nom de plume – they post as “To” or “Oh.”

They bring only criticism, never ideas.

Oh Bill wrote on May 30, 2008 5:59 PM:Your post defending the Iraq invasion makes very little sense, I'm afraid. First, everything you say about Saddam joining other enemies is purely hypothetical. Fact is, he was hated by one and all, so the idea that "who knows, he might've conspired" is one that justifies anything, anywhere, and therefore justifies nothing. In addition, you say (this is really bizarre to me) that the WMDs, which you are sure he had (as everyone is...we sold them to him, after all), are not there. Now to most rational people, this would not be good news at all. Where are they, Bill? Who has them? I'm pretty sure it's not our friends, because if Israel or some other ally had come up with them, we'd know it. But no one has ever claimed to have them. Hmmm. So if our friends don't have them, who might? Think about this before you assure us about how safe we are now. We had Saddam completely contained, but Bush blew the place apart. Who knows where those WMDs are now, Bill. You've bought the Bush campaign slogans hook, line and sinker, thoughtlessly. Bill: do you know what the roots of the word "pandemonium" are? Pan means "all"; demons means demons. Bush has unleashed all the demons in Iraq. And you feel safer and want to thank him. Incredible.

Alf wrote on May 30, 2008 6:23 PM:Well, "Bill" at 5:28PM, your comment takes the same position as one who would arrest and detain, indefinitely, someone based on what they might do, not based on what they have done. Since we suspect that you might (fill in the blank), we will take away your freedom and hold you without recourse until we are absolutely certain that you will never (fill in the blank). Sounds suspiciously like what we have now known as "civil commitment". Makes sense to me. Not hardly! Regards, Alf.

Nick wrote on May 30, 2008 7:09 PM:No "Chris", I haven't really had a chance to do a whole lot of research lately. I'll try to get to it though.
Cheers, Nick.

Nick wrote on May 30, 2008 7:15 PM:What do you know, the Blog Ed's have omitted 3 of my posts today. I guess you could say that's par for the course.
Of course, 2 were about "La MecHa" and taken directly from their website. They wouldn't want you to know the real agenda of the Reconquistas.
I also had a nice response to "To Nick" for calling me "violent" just by calling Illegals just what they are, ILLEGAL.
I wouldn't really expect anything else from the Blog Ed's. They are constantly letting their personal bias run these blogs instead of the rules "We" are supposed to abide by.
Cheers to all, except the Blog Ed's. You jokers get a HUGE rasberry.

Roger wrote on May 30, 2008 7:17 PM:Nobody has gotten worked up about Scott McClellan all day here on the board. Just to keep the True Believers' blood pressure from dropping to dangerously low levels, thought I'd share a quote from the REAGAN DIARIES with you:

May 17, 1986

"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida; the one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsey over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work."

Nick wrote on May 30, 2008 7:18 PM:To To Carol Kissin: Thanks for the compliment....LMAO. Worst of the bunch...lol. I guess the best of the bunch would be all the Liberal Dems, kinda like yourself. It's called free speech, get over it. You don't like it, try voicing your opinion in China. Yeppers, we're still free to speak our mind in America. If it ruffles the feathers of folks like, even better!

Oh Reardon wrote on May 30, 2008 7:50 PM:You are a perfect example of everything I commented on in my To Jack D. Sure enough, if you are criticized, it's the same as being censored. This is absurd. The person who, even erroneously, accuses you of hate speech or racism is doing nothing that you are not doing: exercising free speech. Furthermore, to say that if someone chooses to be "anonymous" on this anonymous e-space, they have no ideas, is beyond absurdity. Ideas should be judged on their own merit, not on the nom de plume of the writer. Good grief. Don't they teach you ANYTHING (except solving equations) in engineering school, Reardon?

How many times wrote on May 30, 2008 7:56 PM:How many times in the last couple of days has Reardon been challenged with simple, factual, logical questions to defend his views? A LOT! And see how he addresses these questions and criticisms? Ignoring them or ad hominem attacks, or attacks based on their nom de plume. Pretty cowardly! Man, I'd never hire Reardon as an engineer on any project I was involved in. If there were errors in calculation or if he were asked to explain his judgments, he'd be talking about Annapolis, or my name, or anything but the matter at hand. Not someone I'd trust with my money, tell ya that! (Comically, he has told us that his name, Reardon, is egomaniacally taken from an Ayn Rand hero. Yes, Reardon, that's really putting your true self out there, on the line. LOL)

Apollo wrote on May 30, 2008 8:05 PM:Re: Reardon (5:52 p.m.)
So this is what Reardon is now reduced to?
His big argument against the dreaded "liberals" now is -
their "noms de plume"?

This American wrote on May 30, 2008 8:22 PM:Joan Horn is the epitome of the disingenuous, anti American, open border cadre. First, she touts the SPLC as a respected organization. By whom are they respected? They are a well known, communistic, self aggrandizing fund raiser. Their very existence depends on gullible Liberals who advocate lawlessness and contribute heavily for the "cause." The "Intelligence Reports" they produce are no more intelligent, authentic or realistic than any dime store, pulp fiction rag. Case in point are the two "reports" (BOTH from 2006, I might add) Ms Horn refers to in her missive.
First, Laine Lawless is not now, nor has she ever a member of the Minuteman Project or any Minuteman group. She doesn't even live in California, but DOES live in a border state experiencing the same hardships as do we. The second is Hal Turner, a radio host. I have never heard him or heard OF him, but I don't recall ever hearing of haters taking his words to heart and mowing down illegal aliens as Ms Horn would have you believe.
Like the SPLC, ACLU and other anti American groups, they can scream racists, Xenophobe, nativist etc, etc, but don't you dare use the very apt term illegal alien, because THAT is hate speech.
How about doing some actual research on the subject, Ms Horn? Try various websites that do cover the subject intelligently with facts, statistics and integrity. Try Pew Hispanic Research, The Victims of Illegal Aliens, The cost of Illegal Aliens. Google the subject on any DHS, Border Patrol, FBI or CIA website, Joan. Then go to the MEChA, MUDP, Reconquista or Aztlan website for a real hate filled experience.
This is and always has been about illegal "immigration", Ms Horn, no matter how you and others try and spin the issue. Illegal aliens (NOT immigrants, Joan)by their very existence in the US, are lawbreakers. ... If there weren't 20-30 illegal alien invaders currently in the US ...I doubt the evil intentioned hate groups you describe would give them a second thought.

Reardon wrote on May 30, 2008 8:25 PM:bama has still more “associates” giving him trouble – and another disassociation from a supporter. This time it is radical Catholic Priest Pfleger, who makes Chris look like a Republican moderate. Yes, Pfleger has apologized for embarrassing Obama (because Pfleger was noted as an Obama supporter on the Obama website until this episode) – but is there any end to this group of Chicago supporters, who are truly “the gift that keeps on giving.”

Reardon wrote on May 30, 2008 8:34 PM:To "Oh" (whomever that is): Please read my post, and try reading comprehension. I did not use the term "censor." I used the term "limit."

As in "constrain."

Oh, nevermind. Public education, no doubt.

Karl wrote on May 30, 2008 8:59 PM:Focal Point
[-] wrote on May 30, 2008 1:53 PM:

Sorry FP, you missed my point "Focal something" that was a back handed compliment.

To Carol Kissin
[-] wrote on May 30, 2008 1:27 PM:

"We all know esteban, Reardon, Karl, Ron, Nick, El Guero, Mike America etc... are the worst of the bunch. I believe in Free Speech but their has to be a place where your free speech infringes on my right to life, liberty and happiness. I hope one day they will come to understand this."

Well dude, I hope to heck that someday you will come to understand a view point that is contrary to yours without throwing a juvenile hissy fit. Thanks for including me in your list, I feel honored to be mentioned in such company. Since I haven't posted in several weeks up to yesterday, I have to assume that something I said hit a nerve with you. Instead of including me in "the worst of the bunch" please let me know where my speech infringes on your right to life, liberty and happiness so I can either admit the error of my ways of debate said objection. If I have done so to you or anyone else I apologize because that is centainly not my intent.

Being the caring conservative that I am, I am willing to listen to reason regardless of political affiliation. Are you? think about it my good friend. Get back to me when you are off the Prozac

Peace to all and may everyone's God bless this poor misguided individual.

Chris to Bill wrote on May 30, 2008 8:59 PM:Your blog for 5:28 is rubbish. First of all Hussein was busy running his country and even if he hated the US he was not involved in doing anything about it. That is no reason for an invasion.This Idea that Hussein would hook up with AQ is a lie. First of all Bin Laden hated Hussein and second of all Hussein would be taking a chance of AQ causeing him greief later on. George Bush even said that there was no connection between Hussein and AQ so saying that Hussein was collaberating with AQ is anothe lie. You know I get tired of people like you just making up stuff that has no basis in fact. Show me where in the 9-11 report that says there was a conection between Hussein and AQ. Everything you said is bogus.

Karl wrote on May 30, 2008 9:01 PM:Lots of "absurdity" today. Thanks for the laughs all.

Peace and good night

Karl wrote on May 30, 2008 9:04 PM:What happened to the letters of June 3rd? Please address this ed and get back to me.

Sorry Alf, couldn't resist

Chris to Oh Bill wrote on May 30, 2008 9:12 PM:The weapons inspectors got rid of the WMDs in 1994 or 1995. I get so tired of trying to educate people that have no clue as to what is going on. First I have Bill that just makes up stuff and now you who thinks that the WMDs are spread around the middle east. They were destroyed and Hussein had nothing to do with AQ even as far as collaberating with them.

Karl wrote on May 30, 2008 9:14 PM:Reardon, the "gift that keeps on giving" are the posts like 7:50 and 7:56. I exclude 8:05 because Apollo typically makes decent points and does not resort to childish games and name calling.

Got it 7:50 qnd 7:56? NA,NA,NA,NA,NA!!!! Sticks and stones etc.

OBAMACAN wrote on May 30, 2008 9:29 PM:Reardon at 8:25 p.m. is critical of a Catholic priest who made some stupid and offensive remarks which Obama quickly repudiated. He was neither Obama's pastor nor did Obama turn to him for political endorsements as McBush did of Hagee, Parsley, Robertson and Falwell.
And this Catholic know-nothing has a lot of nerve to ridicule Hillary.
How soon after the discovery of the official manipulation of priest assignments to protect and abet felony child molestation did Father Pfleger renounce his Catholic faith?
Oops, he still has his collar on backwards.
Now is the time for Democrats to be coming together, not for divisive, hateful remarks that only put obstacles in the way of bringing us together.
Hillary Clinton has been a tenacious, worthy opponent, who offers much to the party and merits our respect. Again, it is time for all of us to come together to prevent four more years of war, division, corporate governance by special interests, and economic devastation.

Bill Clinton (1992 age 46):
When the choice is between hope and fear, always choose hope.

Reardon wrote on May 30, 2008 9:56 PM:Obamacan: Obama said Rev. Pfleger is his "moral compass."

Enough said. It is in Obama's own words. Spin all you wish, Obama said it.

OBAMACAN wrote on May 30, 2008 10:30 PM:Reardon at 9:56 p.m. claims that Obama called Rev. Pfleger his "moral compass."
Sorry Reardon, you have no credibility and I don't believe you.
Please cite a verifiable source.
Obama isn't even Catholic.
And by the way, I am still awaiting all the Republican Catholics who criticized Obama for his relation to pastor Wright (who Reardon might be confusing Pfleger with; he is often confused), to renounce their faith after learning that the hierarchy of their faith, going all the way back to Rome (which is currently harboring pedophile protector Bernard Law formerly of Boston), harbored, abetted and protected pedophile priests.
And Reardon, do you support McCain? If so, do you hold him to the same standard as Obama on dealing with pesky pastors.
Remember, Obama did NOT go to any of these pastors for POLITICAL influence, only religious guidance, and did not listen to their political views any more than they would listen to the political views of a doctor they went to for medical (not political) expertise. McCain did not seek out Hagee, Parsley, Robertson or Falwell for religious guidance, but specifically for POLITICAL support, so that his far more relevant ot his political operations.
Oh yeah, the ol' Republican hypocrisy and double standard.

Bill Clinton (1992 age 46):
When the choice is between hope and fear, always choose hope.

Pete wrote on May 30, 2008 10:45 PM:Oceanside's finest at work tonight outside the Regal cinema. There was a huge gang fight and a prgnant woman tried to stop the fight. Two OPD patrol cars drove up, saw the fight, and drove away. They make me so proud. They then came back after the fight was over and started threatening all the 12 & 13 year olds that they would arrest them for curfew violation. When will this City do soemthing about our pathetic police force,what I saw tonight was a disgrace

jvc wrote on May 30, 2008 11:06 PM:Is the Republican Party as dead as everything they ever stood for?
Since it has no representative ideology, then, what is binding this party other than being the party of the rich?Will our two party system now be created from a division of the ranks of
the Democrats ?

Jim wrote on May 30, 2008 11:37 PM:To Nick 7:15pm: I too wrote a post refering to the Reconquistas and the agenda and low and behold it wasn't posted either, coinsidence, I think not. This blog is definately not freedom of speech for all only for some.

dalphin jr wrote on May 31, 2008 12:25 AM:my response to carol kissin is that she must be smoking something, i have repeatedly challeged liberals to name facts and they refuse to do so, a few years back, Frawley wanted a debate I took him up on his offer and he chickened out, the straches were speading lies and I asked them to prove it or shut up, haven;t heard from them lately, J howard crews talked trash about how great unions are, and I asked him to explain the rust belt