Posted on 09/10/2007 8:01:56 AM PDT by SmithL
Not at all. If they want to apply for entry into the country like everyone else, and show they'll be productive citizens, I'll be happy to have them.
The truth is Ms. Williams, YOU want more uneducated impoverished Hispanics so you can feel good about yourself and be in charge of the "little people". You think you can be one of the elite to control the masses. You don't give a damn about them one way or another. And you're a racist who thinks "brown" is superior to other races.
The bit in my post about US v. Wong Kim Ark is actually more important, as it's the foundation of the claim that there it supports the citizenship status of anchor babies. I don't know of anyone else that has written about it. Fuller's dissenting opinion is worth the read.
Thanks as always. I’ll look US v. Wong Kim Ark up and ponder.
No, we are fighting a proxy war with China for economic control of the world, and the Powers That Be have determined that it is essential to co-opt cheap Mexican labor, and by doing so stave off a China/Venezuela-sponsored Communist revolution in Mexico and deny the use of that labor to our Asian adversary.
Breaking the Longshoremen's Union by bypassing West Coast ports and building the NAFTA superhighway is just icing on the cake. ;)
No such law has ever been written. The idea comes from an ignorant misreading of the 14th ammendment (which is also one of the unratified/unratifyable ammentments, due to the fact that too many of the states didn't have elected governments in place to ratify them)
Bttt!
Mine too! In fact, just a few hours ago I was telling a friend about it, and I said: "He's been a hero of mine ever since!"
I love the way Baxley sank to their gutter level. It was like Act II of Tosca when she turns to scum-of-the-earth Scarpia and says, "Quanto?"
I don't think he sank to their level at all. That's what made it beautiful. The Klansmen probably spent most of a day coming up with threats to throw at him, and he swatted them away like the pests they are, with a letter it probably took him less than a minute to compose. More effort than they were worth, probably, but it was still beautiful.
For anyone who is still reading and doesn't know the story, Bill Baxley, ellected Alabama AG in 1970, re-opened the investigation of the 1963 bombing of Birmingham's 16th Street Baptist Church, a bombing that killed four little girls there for choir practice. He got a lot of threats.
He replied to one of them with a letter, on AG's office letterhead, that read "My response to your letter of [date] is -- kiss my ass." That is the entire body of the letter.
(I know the KMA is pushing the boundaries of FR propriety, but I choose to believe, for this limited use, that Baxley was inviting "dr." Fields to smooch his donkey.)
Baxley was term-limited, but before he returned to private practice, he got the ball rolling; other good men took up the cause, and before it stopped, that ball rolled over the rest of the surviving bomb crew.
Last I heard, Baxley was alive and well and practicing law in Alabama. I'd love to meet him one day. Medgar Evers' assassin was belatedly sent to prison, as were the killers of Schwerner, Goodman and Cheney. And it all started when Bill Baxley had the swingin' brass pair to tell the Klan to, well, smooch his donkey.
It is poetry.
I am not prudish, but I do not like foul language in polite society. This is exceptional, and I'm glad the FR Moderator let it stand.
No, I agree with you that Baxley did not sink to the level of the Klan. What I meant to say is that he maintained his dignity--his very great dignity--but spoke to them in language appropriate to their level and in doing so made clear the difference between their two levels and between himself and them. He spoke to vile low-lifes in vile language.
I like the comparison with Tosca and Scarpia.
For those unfamiliar with Tosca: Floria Tosca is someone of great dignity, majesty, and goodness--just as Baxley is. Scarpia is the scum of the earth, the vile head of the Secret Police.
The story takes place in Rome in 1800.
Scarpia is interested in Tosca and intends to rape her. He has no interest in winning her heart; that is utterly beyond his comprehension--or interest. He wants to rape merely for the brutality and sadism of it and to reduce her to his level.
In Act II, he invites her to his lavish apartment in the Palazzo Famese, purportedly to have dinner with him. She really doesn't even know him and certainly has no idea what he's up to.
Unbeknownst to her, his henchmen hold Mario Cavaradossi, the man she loves, in a torture chamber near Scarpia's dining room, from which the screams of the tortured can be heard.
As the scene unfolds, and Tosca begins to understand the position she is in--still not understanding that rape is Scarpia's purpose--she realizes that Scarpia has her trapped and intends to get what he wants.
Upon realizing this, this woman of the highest quality speaks to this vile man and, in language appropriate to him, says: "Quanto?"--the essential translation of which is: All right, whaddaya want?"
Incidentally--he doesn't rape her. She pretends to go along with him and kills him with an expensive knife from his dinner table.
It was originally a drama by Victorien Sardou. Giacomo Puccini elevated it to an operatic masterpiece.
Puccini's music is magnificent.
In some settings, I use a lot of profanity. Baxley's comment isn't something I'd use at dinner with the Archbishop, or (usually) in the office, or for that matter on FR in my own words. But i didn't think Baxley's language was inappropriately crude in context.
Thanks for the summary of Tosca -- I wasn't familiar with the story. I listen to a fair amount of opera music, but usually not operas in toto.
Me too.
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.