Continued decline in Zimbabwe's tobacco production could bring the tobacco industry "to its knees" if unchecked, a Zimbabwe Parliamentary committee has been told. According to the country's state-owned The Herald newspaper, the tobacco industry painted a gloomy picture on the state of preparedness ahead of this year's season because of "numerous challenges" faced.
On Tuesday, tobacco auction-floors representative Wilson Nyabonde told the Parliamentary portfolio committee on lands, agriculture, resettlement, rural resources and water development that with the introduction of the dual marketing system, auction floors continue to see declining sales with only between 17-million and 20-million kilograms expected this selling season, The Herald said. "This is far below the pick of 237-million kilograms in 2000, representing a 7% to 8% utilisation of available capacity for the auction floors in the country."
Nyabonde was quoted as saying that if the decline in production continued, it would not be surprising that this could be the last year for tobacco auctioning in the country. "The signals are that with this trend, auctions will become a thing of the past," he said. If auction floors failed to open next year, thousands of jobs would be lost as well as world-class auctioning facilities. To restart them later may not be possible, he added.
Contrary to scenes of hundreds of thousands of united Latinos marching across the country in support of immigration reform, a sizable number of the ethnic group opposes the marches and strongly objects to illegal immigration.
But their voices have largely been muffled by the massive protests, which will continue Monday as tens of thousands of demonstrators are expected to take to the streets of Tucson, Phoenix and other cities nationwide.
They are voicing their support of a Senate bill that would give an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the country a chance for U.S. citizenship.
"That's the objective of the marches -- to give the impression that all Latinos are for allowing the illegals to become citizens," said Phoenix resident Lionel De La Rosa. "Well, I'm not."
The 71-year-old Texas native and Vietnam veteran said he favors punitive measures more in line with the immigration bill passed by the U.S. House in December that would have made it a felony to be in the United States illegally.
"I'm for that 100 percent," he said. "As far as my Latino friends are concerned, they all agree on this."
A 2005 survey by the Pew Hispanic Center found that Latinos in general have favorable attitudes toward immigrants and immigration.
But when it comes to illegal immigration, significant numbers have negative views of illegal immigrants.
The survey found those feelings are strongest among middle-class and middle-age U.S.-born Latinos.
And though 68 percent of Latinos said they believe illegal immigrants help the economy by providing low-cost labor, nearly a quarter felt illegal immigrants hurt the economy by driving down wages.
U.S.-born Latinos looked even less favorably toward illegal immigrants than foreign-born Latinos.
More than a third of U.S.-born Latinos said illegal immigrants hurt the economy, compared with just 15 percent of foreign-born Latinos.
Latinos also are divided over whether to allow illegal immigrants to earn citizenship. the survey found.
Though 88 percent of foreign-born Latinos favored allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship, a smaller number of U.S.-born Latinos, 78 percent, said illegal immigrants should be allowed to do so.
Though views such as De La Rosa's are common among Latinos, they are rarely reflected among Latino leaders, said Steven Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C. think tank that favors greater restrictions on immigration.
"It's easy to tap into the views of the intellectual class, but harder to tap into the views of the common folks," he said.
And because so much of the debate over illegal immigration comes off as anti-Hispanic, Latinos who favor greater restrictions on immigration are often reluctant to speak out.
"That's extremely off-putting," Camarota said. "Whatever their views, they keep it to themselves."
Many Latinos fear being ostracized for their negative views of illegal immigrants, said Phoenix resident Frank Barrios, 64.
"There are a lot of Hispanics that are upset about the illegal just the same way as the Anglo population," said Barrios, a third-generation Mexican-American who traces his family's roots in Arizona to the 1870s. "That group is larger than many people would believe."
South Phoenix resident Elsie Orta said she has no plans to participate in Monday's march in Phoenix.
"Other Hispanics have told me to go to the demonstrations," said Orta, 55, who said her mother is from New Mexico and her father's family traces its roots to Spain. "I think it's hurting them. They're making a fool of themselves."
The Phoenix native believes Arizona is under siege by illegal immigrants who speak Spanish, use public services and take jobs away from citizens. Illegal immigrants, she said, should be deported.
"They want us to cater to them all the time," she said. "They're coming over here, they're taking our jobs. And now, everything has to be in English and Spanish? I don't think so. They need to go back." This division is pronounced. Remember that 44% of "Hispanics" voted for Bush in 2004, and the popular attitude of Mexican-Americans is often very conservative, though their self-appointed leaders are uniformly leftist-liberal.
#1
This story jives with the turnout a few years back in California. There was a ballot imitative to restrict public services of illegal aliens, the "conventional wisdom" claimed that there would be a Latino uprising at the polls, but the measure passed by 75%. Hard to deport 11 million but if you get started I bet half of them will leave before you have to send them back forcibly.
#2
A lot of the illegals will self-deport if you DON'T let them get legal status while here and DO expedite granting legal status to applicants at ports of entry. Quit rewarding those who cut ahead of the line and start rewarding those who do things right. Make it worth their while to go back to Mexico and get in line where they belong.
#4
I await the counter-demonstrations by those who are of Mexican birth but are now genuine Americans who believe in the rule of law. Should they materialize, it will gut this Tranzi wet dream in a heartbeat and leave the Democraps flopping about on the beach.
If they do not, then they have learned nothing being here and do not deserve to enjoy the wondrous freedom of America. One might even say they differ little from the phantom moderate Muslims, in fact -- playing both sides of the issue until the outcome becomes clear.
#5
Ulinter Angeagum6865: Successful, prosperous people don't agitate against those who are not successful or prosperous. Mostly, they work for a living. They're too busy.
The people out on the streets are out solely because they are scared that they're about to be declared "felons". Yes, that should scare them. It would scare me.
The bottom line to ALL of this crapola is that there is ONE thing, and ONE thing only that will solve MOST of the problem. And that is to build a wall.
Any other proposals, that is, ANY AND ALL other proposals, are efforts to NOT build the wall.
Nobody is serious about declaring illegals felons. The argument is hogwash, as is deporting them *or* giving them amnesty. ALL bogus, to avoid the one big thing that will matter.
So look to Washington, D.C. If you understand that EVERY effort on the subject except to build the wall is a deception, suddenly it becomes very clear.
There are a handful of Congressmen who understand what is going on, and want to build a wall. But there are a LOT of Congressmen who DON'T want that wall built, and will throw up vast amounts of bulldada, trying to sound "helpful".
But the latter are like people standing in a bucket brigade, but instead of passing buckets of water, they are passing buckets of gasoline, while pretending to be "helpful".
#6
I'd like to weigh in... Regards real people having jobs and little time for demonstrating, good point, Moose. At the end of the day, what energy is left (most of us would agree) should be invested in being a good spouse and parent. Citizenship is a distant second for most of us, I think. Only the kiddies (which seem to be a very large percentage of those agitating) and the professional Tranzis seem to have the time for marching around.
If the citizens who emigrated legally from Mexico vote for rule of law, then they have done the least they can do. If they were to do more, however, it would deflate the demagoguery very quickly. The greatest positive impact potential comes from them acting. Others will be branded bigots and racists - as we see happening now.
Indeed, the fence works well enough to help stem the tide. I support building it where it would have the greatest impact - and a little more on both ends, lol.
The US Senate is our real problem and I don't see how we will make sufficient effective changes in its composition in a timely manner. It would take a huge mobilization of those real Americans who recognize the rule of law is the very foundation of our system, the very reason for our success. And they are probably not motivated to do more unless there's a personal impact... a very American trait. The Minutemen are the exception to the standard selfishness which rules supreme in most issues.
We owe them a huge debt of gratitude for getting this issue front and center and putting their asses on the line to back up the rhetoric. BUT they are largely white and many retired, so their impact is less than it should be. I think that what impact they have had is due to their restraint and careful observance of the law. The ACLU thought they would be able to destroy them and the movement to control our borders, but have failed miserably, lol. God bless the Minutemen leadership - they got it right on the first pass.
In the short-term, I believe we're screwed. We have to find a legislative formula which can swing over the support of the cowards to something that, at least, begins to slow the flow. Once that is accomplished, then we push for more, I guess. We have to proceed in stages, and each must give the cowards political cover to move forward to the next.
1) They're undocumented or carrying false documents. That allows law enforcement to hold them with a charge beyond the 72 hour limit to clear their background. 72 hours is not enough to have all jurisdictions to report in on outstand felony warrants for robbery, rape, murder, etc.
2) It allows multiple counts against coyotes for each act of abetting and aiding in the commission of the federal felony.
3) It allows the prosecution of local and state officials as conspirators in the commission of a federal felony by providing 'safe haven' to those committing a felony.
I could care less about individually prosecuting each and every illegal. Points 2 and 3 will do a lot to cut the support system.
#10
LOL. Oh yeah, sure thing. Without the legislative will you've got nothing. No law changes. No felony offense. Nothing. SOS. Just holding your pud and spouting off won't change a thing folks, you've got to do it at the polls every November. Cull the DC herd of the weaklings - or pound sand.
Excerpt:
As far as the kind of treatment illegal immigrants from Mexico deserve, lets treat them as Mexico treats all immigrants. According to the Center for Security Policys J. Michael Waller, Mexico deals harshly not only with illegal immigrants. It treats even legal immigrants, naturalized citizens and foreign investors in ways that would, by the standards of those who carp about U.S. immigration policy, have to be called racist and xenophobic.
If you think these critics are mad about U.S. immigration policy now, imagine how upset they would be if we adopted an approach far more radical than the bill they rail against which was adopted last year by the House of Representatives - namely, the way Mexico treats illegal aliens.
For example, according to an official translation published by the Organization of American States, the Mexican constitution includes the following restrictions:
Pursuant to Article 33, "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."
Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable." ...
Article 55 denies immigrants the right to become federal lawmakers. A Mexican congressman or senator must be "a Mexican citizen by birth." ...
Article 27 states, "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters."
Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country." What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen's arrests. ...
According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."
Posted by: ed ||
04/10/2006 10:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sounds like a haven for foreign investment and entrepreneurship.
#2
A former coworker of mine was Mexican by birth and here legally, with green card and all. She wanted to become a US citizen but dared not because she would lose all rights to her family's land in Durango.
#3
You know, I don't like Clancy as much as I used to, but in Debt of Honor, they had a nifty law that would mirror the laws of another country. That would be amusing to do to Mexico. Tell them we'll make our laws just like theirs. Then if they complain, we'll just say we're following their lead.
#4
I'm not too sure about that story your former coworker told you, Sea. I think most of Durango is over 100 miles from the ocean, so even if the Mexican government recognized her as an American now, she could legally own the land. (They never used to recognize when one of their citizens took another country's citizenship, unless they've recently changed their laws.)
#5
IIRC the Mexican government recently changed their laws to allow 'former' citizens [those naturalized in the US] to continue to vote in Mexican elections.
EFL
One hears not an encouraging word about US President George W Bush these days, even from Republican loyalists. Yet I believe that Bush will stage the strongest political comeback of any US politician since Abraham Lincoln won re-election in 1864 in the midst of the American Civil War.
Two years ago I wrote that Bush would win a second term as president but live to regret it. Iraq's internal collapse and the president's poll numbers bear my forecast out. But Bush's Republicans will triumph in next November's congressional elections for the same reason that Bush beat Democratic challenger John Kerry in 2004. Americans rally around a wartime commander-in-chief, and Bush will have bombed Iranian nuclear installations by October.
One factoid encapsulates Bush's opportunity: in a February 14 CNN/Gallup poll, 80% of respondents said they believed that Iran, if it had nuclear weapons, would hand them over to terrorists; 59% said Iran might use nuclear weapons against the United States. A slight majority of those polled, to be sure, did not wish to use military action against Iran, but that should be interpreted as "not yet", for two-thirds said they worried that the US would not do enough to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Americans are a misunderstood people. Only one in five owns a passport, and a tiny fraction of non-immigrant Americans learns a foreign language. US apathy regarding what might plague the rest of the world is matched only by US bloodlust when attacked. President Bush earned overwhelming support by toppling Saddam Hussein, a caricature villain who appeared to threaten Americans, but earned opprobrium by committing American lives to the political rehabilitation of Iraq, about which Americans care little.
Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is the sort of villain that Central Casting once sourced for studio film productions in Hollywood. No more than Napoleon Bonaparte could stay away from Russia can Ahmadinejad abandon Iran's nuclear ambitions. He represents a generation that has bled for its country and its sect for a quarter-century and now has come into its maturity and must demonstrate its mettle. The Revolutionary Guards of 1979 now are middle-aged men who now at last have a chance to lead. Ahmadinejad has salted the regime's middle ranks with thousands of men like himself.
America's discomfiture in Iraq provides Iran with an opportunity to restore its regional greatness, the last one for centuries, if not millennia. If Iran stands down as a prospective nuclear power, it faces a rapidly graying population, declining capacity to export oil and discontent among rural folk and the urban poor. The promise of the Islamic Revolution will have melted into mediocrity and cynicism, and the generation of Ahmadinejad will have turned out a damp squib.
To be very precise, I am not accusing the White House of manipulating the Iranian issue for political purposes. On the contrary, if the US president thought only in terms of political consequences he never would have risked so much on the Quixotic quest for Iraqi democracy. Still, Bush has the opportunity to shift the subject away from the unpopular campaign to improve the politics of the Middle East, and back to the extremely popular subject of killing terrorists. He believes (and I am long since on record agreeing) that Washington will have to put paid to Ahmadinejad before very long, and there is no reason not to look for a political benefit as well.
Just as in the 2004 elections, the Democrats will have a losing hand if the White House orders force against Iran. Americans rally behind a wartime leader; the one exception was Vietnam. America's engagement with Iran would resemble the Bill Clinton administration's aerial attack on Serbia rather than the Iraq wars, for there is no reason at all to employ ground groups.
God takes care of drunks, small children and the United States of America. Improbably, destiny has a surprise in store for George W Bush.
#1
The $64 question is will we wait for an Iranian attack? The political reality is that it is a mid-term election season, one day beyond which election Bush is seen as a lame duck.
This means that republican loyalties will wane, and the democrats will work overtime to undermine Bush, the economy, and the government as a whole--first running against Bush, until other republicans come forward to declare for President.
In turn, even with damning evidence, it will be hard to persuade Congress to once again go to war. Too many of them would want the war to be "the next President's war".
For this domestic reason, and for many international reasons, it would then be to all our advantage if Iran attacked first. An ineffectual, ill-prepared, and ultimately unsuccesful attack, done when we are fully prepared to attack ourselves.
An ideal, from our perspective, would be something like "The Ems Dispatch", which caused France, and its buffoonish leader, Napoleon III, to attack Germany in the Franco-Prussian War. Having been insulted, he ordered a small French unit to advance into Germany, with no other French Army preparations. On crossing the border, they met the fully prepared, loaded, and ready, entire German Army. The war lasted two weeks.
In our case, if we could not stimulate the Iranians to attack at a time and place of our choosing, it might well be worth our while to make it appear that they had attacked.
For example, if a Shahab-3 missile on a mobile launcher in the middle of nowhere, Iran were to launch a missile on a trajectory to a US airbase in Iraq, even though the missile detonated prematurely, it would be more than adequate causus belli.
Many nations satellites would detect the missile launch and trajectory, and Iranian denials about a "rogue" missile crew would be ignored.
Most likely something more complex could be done, but that is the basic concept.
#3
Anon, you're shalob-3 scenerio reminds me of Spies Like Us. Not that it is good or bad mind you, but would the Iranians be up on mediocre American comedies and have defenses prepared for such a thing?
#4
There's a fraction of a paragraph in there that just begs for a fisking:
Americans are a misunderstood people. Only one in five owns a passport, Mr. Spengler: get out your world atlas. Got it? Good. Now turn to the page with the U.S. national map. See that big thing the U.S. is sitting on. It's called North America. It's a continent. Continents are big, really big, vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big things. Starting in most places in the U.S., you can go as much as a couple thousand miles before you bump into another country. When you do, it'll be Canada or Mexico. Americans can enter either one for short stays without a passport.
Why do so few Americans have passports? It's not ignorance or isolationism; it's because we don't need them for daily living. and a tiny fraction of non-immigrant Americans learns a foreign language. Remember that big continent thingy I was telling you about? Well, nearly everyone on it speaks English. Within the U.S. itself, there are linguistic subcultures (Mexican immigrants, Chinatown, Little Italy, and so on), but you need not be bilingual to interact with them, as most people within them are at least conversationally functional in English. French-speaking Canada -- same story. Mexico -- plenty of English speakers in at least the tourist-y parts. As for the rest of the world, English is the de facto language of international commerce, so most business dealings overseas are conducted in English. While a lot of us nevertheless learn a second language in school, we tend not to need it in actual daily life; and if you don't use it, it atrophies. US apathy regarding what might plague the rest of the world is matched only by US bloodlust when attacked. . . . We come by our indifference honestly. Recall that the U.S. was settled largely by people who moved here to get away from the rest of the world. We also have a default live-and-let-live social philosophy which carries over into foreign policy. Oh, and we also believe in self-defense.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/10/2006 16:20 Comments ||
Top||
#5
rjschwarz: mediocre is an understatement.
However, I was remembering from Gulf War I, when one of our teams laid hands on a mobile SCUD launcher after dispatching its crew, and how similar the Iranian's use of mobile SHAHAB-3 launchers has become.
I highly doubt they would have much security either on their launcher or their missiles, and we might have as long as half a day to work our works on it, after having borrowed it from its previous owners.
The point is that there are any number of ways to demonstrate Iranian aggression, but that missiles are easy to independently verify, and thus tend to dispel doubts.
The rest of the world needs to get over itself. We really don't give a shit about them, as long as they leave us alone.
And that just kills them.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/10/2006 18:43 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Wrong, November, right after the mid-term election.
Posted by: Captain America ||
04/10/2006 21:42 Comments ||
Top||
#9
MadMoud's anti-Israel rants has already provided enuff casus belli within the context of the UN Charter, both for the imposition of UN-specific sanctions as well as demands for Iran NOT to dev any nuke weapons - the UNO only needs the consensus of the UNSC, espec the "Big Five" and Russia-China. Where 2008 is concerned, the agenda-less RINO/Repubs-for-Socialism-Communism-OWG Dems have nothin to run on against Dubya's super-successful record -as long as MadMoud copntinues to threaten Israel and America and rant about universal Islamism/Islamist OWG, any Dem or MSM criticisms of Dubya, includ but not limited to claas for investigation or impeachment, won't and hasn't worked. Prez wannabe Hillary may be about power, Communism-Socialism,and Socilaist OWG, but like Bill she is also about doing eight years of PC, Bill-style "nothing-accounts-for-something" national governance, geopolitics, and personal ease/convenience. Real world, real-time problems are STILL for the GOP, NOT wavy-gravy laissez faire = Regulation/Govt, Utopia = Totalitarianism Dialectic Policratic Democrats-Lefties whom as a class care about everyone = no one, and whom gets the blame for anything. THE RINO AGENDA-LESS DEMS NEED MADMOUD = KIMMIE = CHINA-TAIWAN, ETC CRISES; THEY NEED AMERICA TO ATTACK = AMERICA BEING ATTACKED - THE DEMS-LEFIES AND ANTI-AMER AMERICANS NEED TO JUSTIFY OWG AND SWO AT ANY PRICE, EVEN IY MEANS DIR OR INDIR COLLUDING FOR THE DEATHS OF 3000 CITIZENS ON 9-11, EVEN IFF IT MEANS INDUCING OR ENSURING THE PC DEFEAT OF THEIR OWN COUNTRY AND ARMED FORCES OVERSEAS. Iff one accepts that the Dems_Lefties intend that America in future give up or lose its sovereignty, freedoms, Govt. and endowments to OWG, be it voluntarily = by force, then one must accept that any anti-OWG, pro-anti-sovereinty,pro-USA GOP-Democrat MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO WIN IN POTUS ELEX YEAR 2008, by any means necessary, as 2015-2018 > both Russia-China agree that war against the USA and only the USA is not only possible but desired. This means that any "Manchurian Candidate" POTUS has from 2008-2016, or 2012-2020, to PC lead democratic, FASCIST =HALFCOMMIE America down the path to full-fledged anti-Amer Amer Socialism, anti-US OWG, and anti-US NWO/Soc-Commie World Order, where the extermination of 90% of the world's population + 5.8 Bilyuhn of world's 6.0+Bilyuhn + 200Milyuhn of Amer's 300Milyuhn + loss of minima 1/2 of CONUS-NORAM, etc. is good for everyone, includ the genocided/holocausted Americans, whom will hug each other and sing songs as they happily report to their local death camps!?ALa LIFE OF BRIAN, Clintonian Americans will be more than happy to be crucified as long as they are not placed next to Jews or the [non-kosher]"other Son-of-God".
So there I was, thinking that the only "imminent" threat was the Islamization of the Western world, a historic shift well underway in Europe. Yes, it remained clear that out-of-control immigration in the United States jeopardized the future of our nationhood. But after Sept. 11, the present danger had become creeping sharia: the gradual -- and not so gradual -- acceptance of Islamic law by Western and, therefore, non-Islamic societies.
But then came last month's massive, mainly Mexican street protests against border control and in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, mainly Mexican, who have crossed into this country since the last time Uncle Sam granted amnesty in 1986. Back then, it was amnesty for less than 3 million. Today, 20 years later, these protestors, along with George W. Bush, want to see some 12 million illegal aliens "earn" citizenship (amnesty). In another 20 years, will a new, amnesty-seeking illegal population number 48 million?
In light of the post-protest retreat -- I mean, "deliberations" -- in the U.S. Senate, such a colossal figure looks increasingly plausible. After all, what does an illegal alien or two (or 48 million) have to lose? We are, as we are repeatedly lectured, "a nation of immigrants" who do the work that "Americans" won't do. In fact, maybe just forget about "Americans." If We, the People, get anything like Amnesty 2006 -- with provisions to attain an increasingly Hispanic demographic -- the United States will change from being a neighbor of Latin America to becoming a part of it. Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
04/10/2006 20:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Combined factors are working not only to prevent such a straight line project, but to actually strongly reduce the number of illegals coming into the US naturally, with no intervention.
#1 is that Mexican demographics have radically changed, their birthrate has dropped to 2.1 per family. This really takes the pressure off down there.
#2 is that much of the push northward is caused by Fox's PPP, that is forcing Mexicans off of land to be developed. Not only is there a finite number of such people, but once the PPP is underway in earnest, it will actually need vast amounts of labor to construct and maintain. This will cause a demographic pull South, and away from the North.
#3 is any efforts done against immigration, such as the wall. Even if nothing else is done, it will reduce a major portion of the immigrants who are capable of making it North.
Put it all together and the cumulative effect is that most of the pressure to emigrate to the US will be reduced, and the total numbers will strongly drop.
#2
That will just open the door to unlimited Muslim immigration to the US from the Middle East under the same pretext of "doing jobs Americans don't want." The corporate love of low wages is just too powerful.
The real answer is to enact strong border enforcement and decrease immigration.
We're now expected to believe that this system will be able to stop hassling 68-year-old cello players long enough to process an extra 10 million-plus immigration applications, and that furthermore an agency that keeps no reliable records of legal entry into the United States will somehow be able to determine on the basis of utility bills whether this or that undocumented alien falls into amnesty-eligibility category.
RTWT, for it is good.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
04/10/2006 07:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Superbly done. Thanks Mike! Hope you are doing well.
#6
It amazes me that people aren't more upset about the illegal immigrants chanting, "Today we march! Tomorrow we vote!" They probably have been voting Democrat for years and just didn't know it.
#7
Did anyone watch C-Span today? Was the wall-to-wall use of Spanish because the audience
1) didn't understand English
2) understood English but rejected using it because they have decided Spanish is to be the official language of the US?
I am not saying it isn't a good idea to speak more than one language. It is a great idea to study at least one more language. Me, I can get by in French and Spanish. Nor am I suggesting that an immigrant can't speak his native language in public. But does this lobby not realize that throwing aside the common language of the host country in a widely publicized national debate is a breach of the most elementary manners? There is a real disrespect going on with this defiance against speaking English. Watch the footage of the audience from C-Span recorded today. Most the audience knew when to applaud after some English phrases were spoken. Thye understood English; they just shoved it aside so that Spanish would reign supreme, similar to the way that (until today) they flew the Mexican flag above the American flag on the same staff.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Continued decline in Zimbabwe's tobacco production could bring the tobacco industry "to its knees" if unchecked, a Zimbabwe Parliamentary committee has been told. According to the country's state-owned The Herald newspaper, the tobacco industry painted a gloomy picture on the state of preparedness ahead of this year's season because of "numerous challenges" faced. 
