Posted on 05/23/2006 12:03:30 PM PDT by mnehring
Live Streams:
http://www2.krla870.com/listen/
http://www.ktkz.com
http://radio.findanisp.com/radio-shows-on-air.php
From the Rush thread:
Question for the day spurred by a comment by LibertyLee yesterday.
Why is President Bush taking a 'balanced' approach to immigration instead of the hard nose, lock-em up, ship-em back, line up the tanks approach?
Two words- Hugo Chavez.
Ever since LL brought up Hugo Chavez, I've been doing some research and he is really on to something. Chavez has been courting Mexico for a few years now and really would like to bring them in under his fold.
The money we 'loose' with all the illegal immigration is probably pocket change in comparison to what would be needed if Mexico becomes a communist country financed and armed by China and Venezuela.
Ping
Makes a lot of sense. There are always things the president knows (whoever it is!) that fall under the "loose lips shink ships" category. IMO
Always a pleasure.
Yep. Read this...
* Jack Kelly: Conservatives need to see the big picture (THOUGHT
PROVOKING!) http://jewishworldreview.com/0506/jkelly052306.php3
Mexico has a presidential election on July 2. The leading candidates are Felipe Calderon, a conservative, and Andres Lopez Obrador, a leftist who has the backing of Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro....
An Obrador victory likely would be a greater blow to our national security than the Ayatollah Khomeini's ouster of the shah of Iran has proven to be. Imagine the harm a Marxist dictator controlling a nation of 108 million people which shares a 2,000-mile border with us can do. President Bush has. You should.
The No. 1 source of revenue for Mexico is remittances from Mexicans working in the United States. Threatening those remittances helps Mr. Obrador. Regularizing them helps Mr. Calderon....
We should not institute a major domestic program primarily to aid a foreign ally. But a guest-worker program can benefit both our economy and our security.
LL, ping to this article..
Good afternoon, again and thanks for the ping! Here in work, n'lurk n'drive home mode...
Yeah, it deserves it's own thread but I'm pretty swamped herre at work.
Thanks for this ping as well...it's very true and the race is neck and neck South of the Border right now. If you don't believe it can happen, look at Peru (not to mention Venezuela). Very dangerous.
You're absolutely right. Access to nukes is not a right and we have the right to protect ourselves and our allies, by, if necessary, taking preemptory action to stop them. Especially Iran and North Korea.
Just tossing some things out because I don't have any inside information about any of this and don't know what President Bush's true motive(s) is/are.
What were the former Presidents motives for not doing anything to hamper illegal immigration? Were they all worried about communism as well?
What happens if the commie guy gets in anyway? I don't really understand how what we MAY do in the future is going to affect an election that's coming up in a few months because we all know any major shift in law, policy, enforcement, border barrier isn't going to happen before July 2nd.
It's also pretty cheesy if the new (old?) plan to fix social security is to continue to let massive amounts of foreigners
pour into this country. This shift in demographics is going to create (has created) problems. Isn't this Europe's approach?
These problems have no easy answers. I know I'm not smart enough to figure it out. I'm just afraid the politicians will do what is easiest on their brains and what is best for their political careers.
Eveningstar; hitmanLV; grame; swake; bitt; shoot this thing; right in east lansing; itsamelman; softballmom; libertarianizethegop; conservative4life; abby4116; justiceseeker93; rushcrush; usafearsnobody; headsonpikes; tiggs; rahbert; bradyls; latina4dubya; missmarmelstein; kevindavis; sinkspur; goppachyderm; csm; Owl_Eagle; varmintxer; gopwinsin04
Sorry for the late MM radio show ping.
Thank you. That is a fascinating perspective and I think very prescient.
Wow.
Penn Jillette just had a baby boy--Zolten.
Penn Jillette, wife welcome baby boy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1636789/posts
When I was trying to pick a name for my daughter last year you should have seen all the crazy names people were coming up with. One lady and her husband were considering Thor.
Nevaeh came up a lot on the baby lists.
Isaac Hayes and wife named their new baby boy Kwadjo (Kwo-Jo).
Isaac Hayes the Father of Baby Boyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1633559/posts
Can't wait to see what Angelina Jolie comes up with.
Thanks for the link.
What were the former Presidents motives for not doing anything to hamper illegal immigration? Were they all worried about communism as well?
It may have been simply the necessity to keep Mexico dependent on us instead of our enemies. The Mexican government has been corrupt for many years, so it would stand to reason that we would want them in our corner, rather than isolating them and forcing them to look to Russia, China or now Venezuela.
What happens if the commie guy gets in anyway? I don't really understand how what we MAY do in the future is going to affect an election that's coming up in a few months because we all know any major shift in law, policy, enforcement, border barrier isn't going to happen before July 2nd.
There is no guarantee he won't. But government officials and those charged with our national security must do everything they can to keep that from happening. If we ended up in a full scale war with Mexico, funded in part by Venezuela and the Chinese it would be really horrible. And expensive. So we have to at least try.
It's also pretty cheesy if the new (old?) plan to fix social security is to continue to let massive amounts of foreigners pour into this country. This shift in demographics is going to create (has created) problems. Isn't this Europe's approach?
Yes. It isn't just cheesy, it is, imo, immoral. It builds social security on the backs of the least vested in society and causes no end to problems. A better route would be to do what the President wanted in the first place...partial privatization. But as a stop gap, I can see why some would see this as a solution.
These problems have no easy answers. I know I'm not smart enough to figure it out. I'm just afraid the politicians will do what is easiest on their brains and what is best for their political careers.
Well, first of all, we're all smart enough to figure parts of it out. We just have to pay attention and not let ourselves get to distracted by the minutiae.
Second, while some politicians do what is easiest, there are some that do what is best for the country. I think if you look at WHY the President was willing to let his polls fall this far, you have to see a man who is looking a lot further down the road than most of us. He may just be doing his best not to set up America-altering problems in our neighborhood for future generations.
We may someday look back and really appreciate what he did. Or we may never even know. All I know is that I trust him because he has been astonishing consistent in keeping his word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.