Immigration and Usurpation - Real reason why your Senator wants this immigration amnesty bill

cis. ^ | July 2006 | By Fredo Arias-King

[oblomov]

>>How the heck does the MSM, Dems, OBL, WSJ, and Quisling Republicans all get on the same page without any precise
>>written communication of their thoughts and strategy?

There isn’t a coordinated effort among the various amnesty advocates, so there isn’t any need for a set of talking points, a blog, or a message board.

Instead, the amnesty advocates simply confirm Rufus Miles’ dictum, “where you stand depends upon where you sit”. For most people, self-interest trumps ideology as a factor of political belief. This is not the case among those with a strong belief in a particular political philosophy. Many people at FR might stand to personally benefit from illegal immigrant labor, but they do not subordinate their political beliefs to their desire for material gain.

Why doesn’t anyone explicate their self interest, that is, just come out and say it? I think there is an awareness that it is morally shabby. There can’t be much pride in doing what suits oneself at the expense of what one professes. Also, seeking self-interest at the expense of professed beliefs, what we call hypocrisy, is as common and plentiful as sand. The hypocritical act needs no justification, simply because it is so natural.

[Plutarch]

Good points.

Bumping this profound piece back to the top.

[oblomov]

Although I'm against the Federal Reserve, it is a myth that there wasn't a quorum for the votes on the Federal Reserve Act:

This idea is better described as folklore than a full-blown conspiracy theory because I've never been able to find it in print, only on occasion on Usenet or in e-mail from readers. Gary Kah, author of En Route to Global Occupation, came close when he wrote that the bill's supporters waited until its opponents were out of town and it was passed under "suspicious circumstances" (Kah, p. 13-14).

Nevertheless, the myth has no basis in fact. The House passed the bill 298-60 on the evening of Dec. 22, 1913.3 The Senate began debate the following day at 10am, and passed it 43-25 at 2:30pm.4

What of the missing Senators? Since there were 48 states in 1913, forty eight votes plus the tie-breaking vote of vice-President Thomas Marshall would have been sufficient to approve the bill even if all absent votes had been cast against the bill. However, many of the missing Senators had their positions recorded in the Congressional Record.1 Of the 27 votes not cast, there were 11 'yeas' (in favor of the bill) and 12 'nays.'1 Even if the absentee Senators had been there, the Currency Bill would have passed easily.

President Wilson signed the Currency Bill into law in an "enthusiastic" public ceremony on Dec. 23, 1913.4

Text Here

[Jason_b]

Thank you for that and it looks like a cool site to look for other things of interest. I didn't doubt it got passed, I just didn't like the way it got passed. And it goes beyond the time of year---events leading up to it concern me. I don't doubt there were engineered panics for years to create a perception of need in the public mind for a central bank, lender of last resort.

By the time the fed res act was enacted it did have much support of the people who were tired of the panics and bank runs.

Responsible for the panics and runs was none the less the tendency of banks to over issue bank notes, deliberately and knowing each time what the result would be. Each time the people held worthless paper and someone else held the gold. It is an uncomfortable truth that this country simply has always had trouble getting its financial act together. And one less than noble fix was applied on top of the last.

Is our act any better today? I say not. There is no free lunch. And economic law will not be mocked. If things are not done right there is going to be pain, and if the pain is covered up in one sector it will show up in another. We still have pain but it may be spread across more people who lose their property due to inflation, or to a sharp stock market correction, those who have been suckered into absurd mortgages with ARMs are going to feel pain for years but their borrowing benefitted someone; they're all taking some of the pain that would have otherwise been felt by depositors at a bank that overissued. The pain is not gone, it's just been shifted around, and spread.

A good metaphor is the bed of nails. Lie on one sharp spike and you will be impaled, yet they entertainer who lies on a bed of nails is not penetrated because the weight of his body is spread over hundreds of sharp points supporting a small surface area. A bank failure was for the few depositors at that one bank like being stuck by the spike while the depositors at other banks were unaffected. Having banks constantly be "rescued" spared the few depositors at whichever the bank in trouble was at the time but it put the whole nation on a bed of nails as we all are forced to suffer some discomfort (inflation) so that no one small group has to be ruined. Is this better, or does it encourage more malinvestment, and absurd risktaking with other peoples money because the bank officers are confident they'll be rescued? I think it increases moral hazard, absurd risk taking, malinvestment, makes the economy less efficient.

[JamesP81]

bump

[Carbonsteel]

Bump

[happygrl]

Talking about our racism there, but not a brown skin among them.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Just doing the political corruption that real Americans won’t do...

[BufordP]

...One leading Republican senator over a period of months was advising us, through a mutual acquaintance, about which mechanisms to follow and which other legislators to lobby in order to ensure passage of the amnesty proposal. In the meantime, he would speak on television about the need to "militarize" the border. This senator was recently singled out by a taxpayer’s advocacy group as a leader in "pork"-related politics...

I'd sure like to know who the Hell that was. Stevens?

[Christopher Lincoln]

Am I alone in finding something screwy in this? Arias-King doesn’t address the obvious question (obvious to me, anyway). The question is: if immigration from Mexico to the U.S. benefits the former at the expense of the latter, what, from his point of view, is wrong with that?

[Mr. Mojo]

Big Bump to a thought-provoking article.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Just say NO to Amnesty!! Keep calling!! It’s NOT OVER!!

U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121

U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121

White House comments: (202) 456-1111

Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep

Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[nygoose]

I can sum it up in two words: CHEAP LABOR.

If only it were so simple.

[dirtboy]

Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so—enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the "just and constitutional laws" they devised.

I don't think our Congresscritters are that smart. Plus, the undermining of the Constitution started long before mass Hispanic immigration to this country. Liberal anglos are more than up to the task.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Actually, I should’ve worded it to say that it’s a factor. It’s one facet to this whole thing but surely not the only one.

[BenLurkin]

Back to the top

[dennisw]

Good find. Things are the same as 2007 as far as why the hacks in DC want to gut this nation by bringing in a new type of gov’t dependent voter via mass immigration legal and illegal. Shows how sick and demented Washington DC is, where the party never stops as they live it up on out tax dollars