(hat tip The Radio Equalizer)
Has Janeane Garofalo's liberal talk show been declared FUBAR by Air America Radio? With one source indicating (via hard copy information) that it may leave the airwaves as soon as tonight, it appears very likely that the self- loathing and acerbic talker / actress / Hollywood political hothead may already have done her last show.
If the hate- filled Garofalo remains in any capacity at the network, it will be as an occasional political correspondent, perhaps for phone-ins during election season, for example. But she may very well be ready to walk away for good.
In addition, the "Majority Report" show appears to have been cancelled, with co-host Sam Seder possibly heading into a temporary late- evening hosting role in many Air America markets outside of New York City.
Seder has been working as a fill-in host for the Randi Rhodes Show this week, while a local personality from San Diego has taken over the "Majority Report" in Sam's absence.
If Seder's new show can find adequate financing from political groups, it may remain beyond the end of July. In addition, some program staffers may be allowed to stick around during this period to see how that works out.
#3
If Seder's new show can find adequate financing from political groups, it may remain beyond the end of July
what about all that ad revenue?...heh heh... I don't recall Rush or any other VRWC talkshows being subsidized by political groups...sounds like AA's shows should've appeared as a political donation on FEC reports
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/01/2006 11:36 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I have a feeling she has been "sacked" by a lot of folks.
#7
I read somewhere recently that Air America is morphing into a women's network, sort of a virtual Women's Studies department. If so, the old political types won't be wanted, not to mention any of the men. Although I cannot imagine such a format being more successful in attracting audiences or advertisers. Seafarious, your friend's timing may have been fortuitous.
#8
AIR AMERICA, like the Clinton-centric DemoLeft in general, is waiting for the Spetzlamists to attack America again, and take out the GOP-led, anti-OWG = pro-USOWG NPE. Until that day, the game is RINO-ism, CINO-ism, and Americans-in- name only, etc. THEY WANT WAR, REVOLUTION, AND ANARCHY, ETAL. IN AMERICA, BUT WITHOUT EXPLAINING WHY NOR WANTING ANY OF THE BLAME OR CONSEQUENCES FOR SAME - SOMEONE(S) ELSE MUST BE BLAMED FOR THE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION: you know, Secular Atheist Intellectual "Courage of Conviction"!?
Headline by headline, a trickle of news leaks on Iraq and the antiterror campaign has grown into a steady stream of revelations, and from Pennsylvania Avenue to Downing Street, Copenhagen to Canberra, governments are responding with pressure and prosecutions.
The latest target is The New York Times. But the unfolding story begins as far back as 2003, when British weapons expert David Kelly was "outed" as the source of a story casting doubt on his government's arguments for invading Iraq, and he committed suicide.
And it will roll on this fall, when Danish journalists face trial for reporting their government knew there was no evidence of banned weapons in Iraq.
In London's Central Criminal Court, too, accused leakers will be in the dock this fall, for allegedly disclosing President Bush talked of bombing al-Jazeera, the Arab television station. The British government threatens to prosecute newspapers that write any more about that leaked document.
Media advocates are alarmed at what they see as a mounting assault on press freedom in country after country, arguing it is potentially chilling the pursuit of truth as U.S. and European leaders pursue wars on terror and in Iraq.
"It's grotesque that at a time when political rhetoric is full of notions of democracy and liberty that we should have this fundamental right of journalists to investigate and report on public interest matters called into question," Aidan White, general-secretary of the Belgium-based International Federation of Journalists, told The Associated Press.
But others counter that national interest requires stopping leaks of classified information, and that some media reports endanger lives by tipping terrorists to government tactics.
"We cannot continue to operate in a system where the government takes steps to counter terrorism while the media actively works to disclose those operations without any regard for protection of lives, sources and legal methods," Sen. Pat Roberts said in Washington.
The Kansas Republican was reacting to a June 23 report by the Times _ and other papers _ detailing a U.S. government program that taps into a huge international database of financial records to try to track terror financing.
Some Republican lawmakers called for criminal investigations of the journalists responsible and of the government insiders who leaked the information.
Investigations are already under way in other U.S. cases, reaching back to 2003, when whistleblower Joseph Wilson questioned a Bush administration claim about Iraq's supposed nuclear program. Times reporter Judith Miller spent three months in jail in that complex case last year, as investigators sought whoever leaked the name of Wilson's CIA-agent wife.
The Washington Times says the Justice Department is also investigating New York Times and Washington Post reporters _ the Times for disclosing in 2005 that the government was monitoring Americans' phone calls without court warrants and the Post for reporting that the CIA was operating secret prisons for suspected terrorists in eastern Europe. The CIA in April fired a top analyst as an alleged source for the reports on covert prisons.
Just as the stories cross borders, so do the crackdowns.
Swiss investigators are looking for the leaker of an intelligence document attesting to the CIA prison network and are weighing criminal charges, under secrecy laws, against three journalists at the weekly SonntagsBlick who reported the story.
In Britain, revelations and retributions have filled news columns and airwaves since the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq in 2003, when the British Broadcasting Corp., citing an unidentified government source, said allegations of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction _ now known to have been false _ had been "sexed up."
In July that year, bioweapons expert David Kelly informed superiors he was the BBC's source. He expected confidentiality, but his identity was disclosed and he was compelled to testify, under harsh questioning, before two parliamentary committees. Within days, Kelly killed himself.
In 2004-05, at London's Daily Telegraph and then at The Times, correspondent Michael Smith reported on leaked memos from Prime Minister Tony Blair's government indicating the Bush administration was long committed to invading Iraq, and weapons intelligence was "fixed" around that aim. Smith says he has been investigated under Britain's Official Secrets Act, but neither he nor any leaker has been charged.
For David Keogh, a former British Cabinet Office spokesman, and Leo O'Connor, an ex-Parliament aide, the outcome was different.
Both are charged under the secrecy act in the alleged leaking of a classified memo about a Bush-Blair meeting in 2004 at which Blair was said to have argued against a Bush suggestion of bombing al-Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar. Keogh and O'Connor face up to two years in prison if convicted this fall.
After London's Daily Mirror reported on that memo last November, Britain's attorney general warned other editors they could face prosecution if they divulged any more of the leaked document.
Across the North Sea, Michael Bjerre and Jesper Larsen of Berlingske Tidene, a major Danish daily, face two years in prison at their trial this fall _ the first such prosecution of journalists in Denmark's modern history.
They reported in 2004 that before joining the Iraq invasion, the Danish government was told by military intelligence there was no firm evidence of banned weapons in Iraq, a finding the Danes presumably based on U.S. and British information.
Because it involved going to war, "the articles published were obviously in the public interest," the newspaper's chief editor, Niels Lunde, told AP.
The Danish leaker, a former intelligence officer, was convicted and jailed for four months last year. Now "the court must decide whether the penal code provision banning publishing secret information applies to these journalists," said prosecutor Karsten Hjorth. The government contends the leak damaged its intelligence relations with other nations.
Elsewhere:
_Two journalists in Romania face up to seven years in prison for possessing classified documents about the Romanian military's operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though their newspapers never published the information.
_A German parliamentary report May 26 disclosed Berlin's foreign intelligence agency had been illegally spying on German journalists since the 1990s to find the sources of leaks.
_De Telegraaf, the Netherlands' biggest paper, had to go to court to win a ruling last month ordering the Dutch secret service to stop wiretapping calls of two reporters who obtained leaked information about official corruption.
"Systematic surveillance is becoming one of the most worrying features in relations between authorities and media worldwide," said the journalist federation's White.
Even whistleblowers who don't divulge state secrets can feel the heat _ like Australia's Rod Barton.
After the Canberra government dismissed what he privately reported about phony weapons "intelligence" and prisoner abuse in Iraq, the former Iraq weapons inspector went public last year with the information. Soon Barton's government contract work evaporated, he was "disinvited" from official functions, and former colleagues were ordered to shun him.
"Although there is still freedom of speech, it is not entirely free. There is a price," he told AP.
There's always a price, as with all precious things. Freedom isn't free, and part of the cost is acting responsibly.
#1
blah, blah, blah. Reporters are making the mistake thinking that we somehow care more about them and how IMPORTANT they are than we care about ourselves. Wrong choice.
Expect more of these blathering, excessive word whiney missives which cause extreme boredom in everyone but the authors and their editors. Note to reporters - you get the megaphone to tell us how important you are - but we don't care, we're not reading past the first couple of sentences and your circulation numbers are collapsing.
#2
"Although there is still freedom of speech, it is not entirely free. There is a price," he told AP.
It never was entirely free. I just love the retroactive myth-making of the LLLs. Like Michael Moore's Dude, Where's My Country? BS. I seem to remember he wasn't too enamored of his country back in the day either.
#3
I think we should prosecute the leakers. Of course, the best way to find the leakers would be to ask the reporters (Lichtblau, Risen, et al.) who told them about the SWIFT program. When they say they don't have to tell because they promised their sources anonymity, they should be thrown in jail until they do tell. Either they will tell, or rot in jail forever. They have NO 1st Amendment privilege that says they can hide their sources.
The two editors -- Dean Baquet [of the LAT] and Bill Keller [NYT] -- rely heavily on the idea that government officials shouldn't have the final say over what gets out and what remains secret. Citizens need to be able to evaluate these officials, who can't be trusted controlling the flow of information. As Baquet and Keller put it: "They want us to protect their secrets, and they want us to trumpet their successes." Government officials are biased toward suppressing things that make them look bad, and the press needs to bring out the full story, so that citizens can exercise the independent judgment that is crucial to democracy.
But the recently revealed secrets -- about the surveillance of telephone call patterns and financial transactions -- were not cases of government suppressing failures. These ongoing programs were successful, and revealing the secrets impaired the operation of very significant efforts in the war on terrorism. I realize that there are arguments that people need to know about successes that are subject to controversy: the telephone surveillance program is attacked as an illegal invasion of privacy.
Here, Baquet and Keller have written a lengthy defense of their behavior, behavior that they know has been severely criticized, even called "treason." Despite the length, the piece seems padded. Look at that last paragraph in the blockquote above. We judge, we weigh, we make judgments. Essentially, trust us. Trust us, because you shouldn't just trust the government. Agreed, but why should we trust you? We look at what you just did and feel mistrustful. What in these generic remarks cures that mistrust? You tell us you really did think about it. Those who abhor what you did will not feel inspired to trust you when you say this is where we ended up when we really thought deeply about it.
MORE: Here's a related article in tomorrow's NYT, going into the history of publishing government secrets. It quotes Ben Bradlee's memoir:
"Officials often more often than not, in my experience use the claim of national security as a smoke screen to cover up their own embarrassment."
It's good to remember the problem with trusting the government. It will want to cover up mistakes. But let's also remember that this is not the case with the recent disclosures.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/01/2006 11:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Time to play hardball with these scumbags, and everybody who works for them. So DoJ doesn't think they can justify prosecuting Keller, Lichtblau, Risen, etc. for treason or espionage? Fine. Then GWB needs to issue an executive order stating that NYT reporters, editors and staff will not be granted access to any federal office or installation, anywhere in the world, effective immediately. And Tony, yes, that means that the NYT White House crew gets their passes yanked yesterday, and that they get shot by the Secret Service if they try to enter the WH grounds again. As for NYT personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan - their credentials are invalidated immediately. And they're forcibly escorted out to the other side of the wire, preferably after dark. Not so good being a Western civilian in that situation minus a press pass...
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
07/01/2006 17:42 Comments ||
Top||
There is a Constitutional reason why the Executive Branch has war making authority, and why battlefield captures fall under the Executive.
These are forward leaning endeavors that don't lend themselves to lawmaking debates of Congress. Congress does have the power of the purse and can withhold funds (i.e., Vietnam).
You don't want judges doing anything other than interpret existing law.
Unfortunately, our TANZI justices have divined that terrorists should be granted Geneva Convention treaty rights that they are not entitled to. In so doing, they have nullified the underlying intent of the Geneva Convention, which is to safeguard the rights of POWs from signatory states.
I have zero confidence in Congress restoring war making authority to the Commander in Chief.
Specter, John Warner, Opey Graham, each have their own interests in mind. High on the list is for more power to be ceded to Congress, and less to the President.
Specter has a grudge against the President for not complying with his wishes to have FISA approve any actions concerning Terrorist Surveillance. He will try to use his Judaical Committee hearings to extract his pound of flesh.
John Warner, Opey Graham, and John McCain spearheaded the "detainee rights" and torture legislation months back. They obviously have no aversion in clawing away Presidential authority.
Posted by: Captain America ||
07/01/2006 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
Andrew McCarthy, "The Corner," National Review, responding to an earlier post by Jonah Goldberg on military commissions . . .
Jonah's right: it's illegal (according to the court), not unconstitutional. And I think it's strategically right to say this is a gift to the those concerned about national security, because it invites a debate in the months leading up to November about exactly what rights members of congress are willing to accord to the enemy in wartime. Two points here.
1. Justice Breyer's short concurring opinion maintains that all the court has really done is invite the president to seek legislation from congress authorizing the commissions and defining their structure. Several folks, me included, have argued from time to time that this is overdue anyway we should have a national security court, created by congress to get many of the terrorism cases out of the regular criminal justice system. But that said, Justice Breyer's unfortunate invocation of the left-wing/civ-lib-extremist talking point, to wit, that "Congress has not issued the Executive a 'blank check,'" is bombast.
There has never been a moment since 9/11 when Congress, had it chosen to, could not have prescribed a new scheme for military commissions. The president's commission plan, well known since 2001, was fully permissible under existing statutory law and venerable court precedent. But Congress was not bound by it. It could have jumped into the breach at any point. In fact, it did jump in, enacting the Detainee Treatment Act in late 2005. By doing so, it demonstrated the obvious: if congress had been unhappy with the president's commission procedures, it would have modified them. Instead, it acted in a manner precisely designed to let the commissions go forward without court interference.
This was no blank check. Congress examined what the executive branch was doing, was fully satisfied, and acted to correct the only thing it found offensive the judicial intrusion.
2. A big issue to watch out for as congress re-examines this: the protection of classified information from al Qaeda in the trial process.
One of the principal reasons for having commissions rather than courts-martial or civilian trials is to prevent our enemies from learning what we know and how we know it. But the court held that the president had not justified procedures which call, potentially, for excluding the terrorists from the courtroom when classified information is introduced.
Now, let's compare. Alien combatants have no constitutional rights; therefore, they have no constitutional right to be present at trial. On the other hand, protecting the security of the American people which is what classified information is all about is the number one obligation of government. So by what law does an al Qaeda killer's purported right to be present outweigh the American people's unquestioned right to have the government protect them (by, for example, not providing the enemy with sensitive intelligence)?
It could only conceivably be Geneva's Common Article 3 an international law provision the court had to twist beyond recognition to give the enemy its benefit. That fuzzy language talks about providing "judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people." OK, but who says all "civilized people" would opt to elevate a homicidal maniac's right of access to the government's most sensitive information over the government's obligation to protect its citizens by withholding intelligence that may help those trying to kill them do just that?
Why is this question so important? Because you can bet a big part of the debate in congress will be about whether the court has left congress with any latitude here on this point.
That's why Jonah's observation about Hamdan not being constitutionally based is crucial. Congress absolutely has the power to deny al Qaeda terrorists the right to be present at portions of trial where sensitive evidence is introduced. Let's leave aside that the court's entire Common Article 3 rationale is hooey (the article doesn't apply to al Qaeda and the court owed deference to the president's interpretation to that effect). The salient point here is that when the inevitable argument is made that the Geneva Conventions now require handing over our intelligence to the enemy in wartime, congress and more properly, the president (who has the authority to cancel treaties) should make clear that we would withdraw from the Geneva Conventions (or at least any offending portions of them) before we do that.
The United States government's job is to protect Americans, not please judicial elites, self-styled human rights activists, international law professors, and transnational progressives everywhere.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/01/2006 08:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Jonah's right: it's illegal (according to the court), not unconstitutional.
Actually it was both legal and constitutional until the Court reverse itself. In 1946 in Yamashita vs Styer the court wrote in its finding -
The military commission appointed to try the petitioner was lawfully created. P. 9. (a) Nature of the authority to create military commissions for the trial of enemy combatants for offenses against the law of war, and principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by such commissions, considered. Citing Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, and other cases. Pp. 7-9. (b) A military commission may be appointed by any field commander, or by any commander competent to appoint a general court martial, as was respondent by order of the President. P. 10. (c) The order creating the military commission was in conformity with the Act of Congress (10 U. S. C. @@ 1471-1593) sanctioning the creation of such tribunals for the trial of offenses against the law of war committed by enemy combatants. P. 11.
So the day before, such commissioned were IAW existing SCOTUS findings.
In other words, SCOTUS has extented its fingers once again into the process to create the government and the country in its own image. Notice how all the 'legal' blogs avoid this point? Professional courtesy.
#2
heh, heh. Dems have painted themselves into a corner again. While their self-lothing loon base is happy to do ANYTHING to bash Bush, including inviting terrorists into their own living rooms for tea, the great majority of Americans aren't that suicidal. Witness the success *snicker* of their flagship the Titanic Air-America. The left has control of the megaphone but without the dead, fraudulent absentee ballots, felons, illegal aliens and the dems who vote early and often - they don't have the numbers. And now, even with all of the above they are coming up short.
A week or so ago, a fan of No Pasarán contacted us with a query. He had moved to Paris from Baghdad! Would we be interested in posting the State Department officer's impressions of his experience in the American embassy in Iraq? After we picked ourselves off the floor and climbed back into our chairs, we answered, "Sure, why not?"
#3
I noted also that the gentleman in question stated that the war on Iraq was based on false premises and unjustified. He went in with the stereotypical State outlook on the situation, and his post indicated no change while there.
That said, it's always helpful to get the impressions of someone actually there, if only to know what will be said in Paris.
#4
A report from the Green Zone, "where almost all decisions were taken for the good and ill with regard to the administration and occupation of Iraq", of a self absorbed donk.
Former treasury secretary John Stone, at a Quadrant dinner on Wednesday, on the perils of Islamic culture
WE need to understand that the core of the Muslim problem - for the world, not merely for Australia - lies in the essence of Islam.
It is the problem of a culture that, for the past 500 years or so at least, has failed its adherents as its inward-looking theocracy has resulted in it falling further and further behind the West.
It is that sense of cultural failure (and) smouldering resentment that fuels the fires so busily stoked by the more extremist Muslim teachers. Fiercely exclusive rather than inclusive, Islam holds that church and state are inseparable; that women, while respected so long as they stick to their appointed place in the Islamic scheme of things, are less than equal to men generally; and that even the most extreme violence is justifiable when applied in pursuit of approved Islamic ends.
Until all that changes - and it can only be changed from within Islam, if indeed it can be changed at all - the Islamic culture will never reside in harmony with others.
This is where all those comfortable (one might even call them lazy) assumptions about our own Muslim community break down. Contrary to those assumptions, I do not believe that this latest body of newcomers among us will emulate the examples of their predecessors from, say, Italy, Greece, Poland, the Baltic states or, more recently, Vietnam, Hong Kong and China.
How can it be possible for them to become part of a united Australia when any Muslim woman who wishes to marry out risks not merely social and familial ostracism but outright violence, even death by way of honour killings, by her father or her brothers? Almost without exception, the only marriages occurring in Australia today between Muslims and non-Muslims involve conversion to Islam of the latter.
The high priests and priestesses of multiculturalism should not be surprised by this. It is, after all, a product - admittedly, an extreme one - of policies they have been espousing with such religious zeal for 30 years or more.
This reality of separateness, however, does not stop at the marriage line.
While individual ethnic communities throughout our post-war history have always tended to cluster together at first, gradually they have dispersed. My very nice next-door neighbours are Chinese, as are two other families down the street who, together with an Assyrian family, make up our own little example of that diversity of which our politicians so blandly prate.
So far as I can see, however, Muslims do not so much move out as move in.
In communities where large numbers of Muslims gather, non-Muslims are gradually driven out. It is then not long before there are established no-go areas where Muslim gangs flourish on the proceeds of drugs, extortion, armed robbery and so on.
In turn, as the host country's own laws are set aside in these no-go areas, there develop demands for the recognition of these areas as small states within the state, to be governed by sharia law, administered not by national courts but by sharia-type courts overseen by local imams.
In France, we have begun to see the ultimate expression of such developments. There, a public official is reported to have agreed to meet an imam outside the predominantly Muslim district of Roubaix which, according to the imam, was Islamic territory and closed to non-Muslims.
Similar demands can already be heard in Britain. To a more limited extent (so far), we have begun to hear them in Australia.
Darwin doesn't care which organizm is nice to gays and sings kumbaya. It only distinguishes between weak and strong. Liberalism is weak and passive. Islamic culture is predatory and united.
#2
I really don't give a rat's rearend about islam and it's demented inability to integrate into a society that has progressed beyond the 7th century. If they break the law, put them in prison. If they refuse to let government officials into their neighborhood, bring out the D-9s. I am sick to my stomach as we culturally kiss islam's collective butt while they support, either directly or indirectly, the killing of US troops, and downfall of western socity in general.
#3
As with failed Communism and Secular Socialism, the failed and failing, primitivist, self/ideo-proclaimed "final/ultimate form-model" for all mankind canot be the one whom concedes to successful or powerful "inferior/lower" forms-models. The Failed must control the Successful, Failed Superior-Final the Successful Inferior-Lower, the Weak the Strong - a significant prob wid Socialism is that the Weak gener stay weak despite temporary, random periods of success, i.e. no upward escalatory positivist proactivist "universal progress" [the Masses] save only for the handful of ruling elites, AND NEVER WILL BE.
Richard Fernandez of the Belmont Club blog reminds us that New York Times Editor Bill Keller, who approved publication of NSA surveillance secrets last December and Swift bank secrets this month, does set some limits about what he will publish.
He refused, for example, to publish the Danish cartoons of Muhammad about which Islamofascists stirred up riots in various parts of the world. In response to a USA Today reporter who asked whether his paper would print the cartoons:
New York Times editor Bill Keller said that he and his staff concluded after a "long and vigorous debate" that publishing the cartoon would be "perceived as a particularly deliberate insult" by Muslims. "Like any decision to withhold elements of a story, this was neither easy nor entirely satisfying, but it feels like the right thing to do."
So that's the standard. Disclosing classified programs that help protect us against terrorists is just dandy. But publishing cartoons that would be "perceived as a particularly deliberate insult" by Muslims is beyond the pale. Coddling tender sensitivities is more important than protecting national security.
Of course, there's another way to look at this. The New York Times is, evidently, not afraid that the government or its supportersnot even rabid talk radio listeners or right-wing blog readerswould wreak violence on 229 W. 43rd Street. But aggrieved Muslimsmore accurately, Muslims purporting to be aggrievedmight. It's nice that Keller feels a responsibility to protect his staff. It's too bad he doesn't feel a similar responsibility to protect his fellow citizens after they've had the effrontery to re-elect George W. Bush.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/01/2006 21:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It will probably take a while, but he'll get his comeuppance. There is a gradual shift in people's understanding what's at stake as WOI is concerned. The elites still don't get it, but at some point, they would have to confront the reality or be swept aside by voters. In about 4-7 years, the shift would be already firmly staked out on the political landscape. People like Bill Keller would not be looked upon kindly.
Where did the storm over immigration come from? In conversations with folks who are in the thick of the battle, I am struck that everybody seems rather taken by surprise. A year ago, they say, they knew the issue was there, along with many other issues, but nobody anticipated that it would become the politically dominant question that it is today. . . .
What is truly striking is the rapidity with which the public debate over immigration policyor lack of policyseems to be changing. At the big EWTN bash down in Philadelphia last weekend, I was asked, What would Christ do about illegal immigrants? This is a variation of the WWJD question that was ubiquitous a few seasons go. Anyone who asks what Jesus would do if he were president of the United States or a United States senator has a very big problem with Christology. . . . With respect to politics and everything else, the better framing of the question is, What would Christ have us do? I am not at all sure. In terms of whats good for the American economy, I am impressed by the arguments of the Wall Street Journal and many economists that a more or less open immigration policy is, all in all, an economic plus. The Catholic bishops are also undoubtedly right in their insistence upon compassion for the twelve million or more illegal immigrants already here, and it does not detract from the moral integrity of their position that the great majority of immigrants from the South are Catholics, and therefore immigration is seen as benefiting the Church.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mike ||
07/01/2006 08:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't have a complete answer but I do know the fist step is to secure the border. Build and defend a fence. Stop the incursion.
#2
What would Christ do about illegal immigrants?
Considering that Christ was residing in the Roman Empire where people traveled freely, what would he indeed think. You think people would like to be part of an Empire again? That could be arranged.
The last material I've reviewed covering the era certainly points that even Judeans wanted the Romans out. Part of the dynamics leading to his being tacked up on the cross, was because of fears of another uprising against the Romans. Can't we just all get along. /sarcasm. You think Jesus would have been happy for the foreigner [re:Rome] and his interference to be gone from his ancestral lands?
#3
Yes, that's one of the main reasons I lost my religion, Jesus was a "Rabble Rouser" much like the present day (And largely unchanged)Islamonuts, only the name has changed in 2000 some years, the whole place is a fester.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/01/2006 9:12 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"The political elites seem to be indifferent to the disruption of communities resulting from unbounded illegal immigration."
The political elites, yes, and some members of the business community and some economists, who are indifferent to the effects on the general American populace. The planned huge influx of guest workers who are accustomed to earning 1/6 or less of American daily wages will result a new kind of wealth redistribution, this time from the middle and lower-middle classes to the impoverished and illegal.
#5
If businesses want unlimited labor, I want unlimited access to products. End tarriffs, quotas, and other obstructions to my access to 'cheap' goods.
#6
If businesses want unlimited labor, I want unlimited access to products
why not just go steal whatever it is you want. Isn't that the moral of the story here?
Sure, we Americans work hard and give up more than 25% of our income for our own security and welfare - but don't you see, it belongs to the world. By that same train of thought - all products made belong to the world ...ie: you.
#7
Finally, a Catholic priest (my own faith) who gets it. Too many in our hierarchy are for open borders. I'd like to bitchslap Mahoney every time he chastises the US for not allowing open borders. Were he so morally outraged at pedophile priests in his own control, many children would've been spared a life-changing horror
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/01/2006 11:26 Comments ||
Top||
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.
