Posted on 07/02/2007 10:19:27 AM PDT by McCloud-Strife
Senator Ken Salazar D- Colorado will be visiting my Air National Guard Unit soon and I was wondering if you might help me out with a few respectful questions I might be able to bring up with him. I know he was one of the democrats who led the charge on amnesty and I was planning on asking how he would expect the American people to give amnesty to 12 million (I think closer to 20-25 IMHO) people while taking no serious steps to prevent another 10-20 million people from going across the border and forcing us to address this 10 years hence. I want to know how without border enforcement how we are going to prevent La Raza's "Requestuista" of the South West or is he in favor of it.
I plan on asking him one of these things,so I am asking you to help me come up with the best question(s) for him
thanks
Ask him if he’s figured out who the Anti-Christ is yet. I’m waiting with bated breath to learn that.
Since he supports rewarding criminality with citizenship, I would ask him for a list of laws that can citizens can ignore and what rewards he would give to citizens who ignore them.
Because a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimate stated that the Senate immigration bill will increase federal spending by $54 billion in the first ten years alone, it is expected that spending will far exceed the $5 billion threshold in future ten year periods.
According to Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the immigration bill would increase long-term federal spending by at least $50 billion a year. He also estimated that, based on the probable characteristics of immigrants and recipients of amnesty, long-term welfare costs are likely to be around $3,000 per person rather than $892 as CBO shows.
Furthermore, Rector estimated amnesty would increase Medicaid spending by $33 billion a year if a third of the nation’s ten million illegal aliens can bring in a single elderly parent.
Since the boy is a Democrat, and Democrats tends to be anti-business anyway. Ask him why amnesty seems to have already be granted to illegal employers. Dems want to beat upon business every chance they get, unless it is criminal activity which as we all know is a natural constituency for the the Democrat of party of Teddy Kennedy and the Kennedy wing of the Republican party.
Ask him why it’s ok for Hispanics to group up and defend one another and even ignore US laws but it’s racist for “whites” to?
Print out a screen shot of the LA RAZA website. Take it with you and show not just the honorable senator but everybody listening to you what it says. “LA RAZA” (for those who do not know) means “THE RACE.” This is integrationist and promoting assimilation, Senator? And good luck and please let us know how it goes.
Did I say, thank him for his support of the mission enough??
Make sure someone with a directional mike picks up his answer.
As a soldier, ask him if he would like to have less American troops serving in Iraq. When he says yes, say “Great, you must be for the creation of a U.S. Foreign Legion then, right?”
WHERE’S THE FENCE?
La Raza can also be “The roots” as in “family roots,” for example, depending upon the context. In this case, “La Raza” = “roots.”
Ask him why you and my daughter have to “fight them over there, instead of over here” when Osama Bin Laden could walk upright with a suitcase nuke, unmolested.
If you are on duty and in uniform, it is probably inappropriate to bring up political questions while the Senator is visiting your unit.
If you are off duty and out of uniform, then you might try all of the above suggestions.
http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html
Links to Mecha’s constitution at the above web site. Gives more information about this racist aspect of the movement. And yes I am a white guy and in Mexico at this time and racism is an issue (between Mexicans themselves, particular “los indios” the dark-skinned indigenous and those from Central American, especially “Tecans” from Guatamala.)
forwarned is for-armed.
Article 88—Contempt toward officials
Text.
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;
(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used.
Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element
(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.
Explanation.
The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.
Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not rdinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.
Lesser included offense.
Article 80—attempts
Maximum punishment.
Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.
Note: While only commissioned officers can be charged under this article, DOD Directive 1344.10- POLITICAL ACTIVITIES BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES ON ACTIVE DUTY, extend these same requirements to all individuals on active duty. Enlisted members and warrant officers who violate these provisions can be charged under Article 92, of the UCMJ, Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation.
Next Article> Article 89-Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer >
What race are Mexicans?
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.