Replies

believe you two have been arguing there is no difference between the two political party's? [sic]

I believe you are wrong. We have not been arguing that. There are Reps running for the Presidency that have a decidedly different view on immigration than the Dems. There is a distinct choice.

Republicans listened to you and did got you the fence, Democrats defunded you.

No, both parties feared public reaction and passed the 2006 Secure Fence Act in October 2006 as political cover before the mid-term elections. The Fence Act passed 80-19 in the Senate on September 29, and it was passed 283-138 in the House on September 14.

In the Senate 26 Dems voted FOR it, including Prez candidates Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Chris Dodd. They were joined by the likes of Boxer, Feinstein, and Harkin. Kennedy was the lone senator not voting. On the Rep side, only Chafee voted against it.

The WH trumpeted the passage of the Act with President Bush stating, "This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform."

The fact that the funding has now been pulled from constructing the fence without much public comment/protest from the WH and very little from Congress does lend some credence to the proposition that both parties are guilty of hoodwinking the American public. The same thing is about to happen with the SAFE Act now sponsored by Heath Shuler. Our government has decided not to follow the overwhelming desire of the American people to construct the fence and secure our southern border. Such imperiousness is worthy of a monarchy, not a democracy. Eventually, the people will hold the political elite accountable. The question is whether it will be through the ballot box or in the streets.

Checking in late...

I believe you two have been arguing there is no difference between the two political party's?

No, we haven't.

Of course there are serious differences between the two major political parties. The argument, however, was that there are differences between ISSUES which, from the perspective of our survival as a sovereign nation of free citizens, transcend and trump the differences between parties.

As I said last week, not all issues are equal. Some are important, extremely so. Others are trivial, even silly, depending upon one's personal perspective. There are a few issues, however, which are existentially vital. By this I mean that the choices by the American people on these issues can mean the difference between the continued survival or the destruction of this nation.

Expressed another way, if you were to take a poll and make a list of the top 100 "hot-button" issues (per your characterization) facing the nation and then compare the differences between the two parties on them, you might find that they are almost diametrically apart on, say, 95 of those issues. You might further find that one of the parties agrees with you on 85-90 of those issues.

If, however, both of the parties either agree or are moving generally in the same direction on the remaining 5 issues, and if any of those issues are "existential" and the parties both choose unwisely and incorrectly for the safety and survival of the country, then those other 85-90% of issues where you may be "in-synch" with one party or the other are simply less important, no matter how you or I may feel about them.

For example, you may feel passionately that we need a Constitutional amendment banning flag burning. Others may disagree. However, whether or not we enact such a law it will not destroy this country. How about taxation? Whether the top tax rate is 35% or 27% may be deemed vital by us as individuals, depending on our circumstances, and be the impetus for vicious political battles in Congress, but whatever the outcome, the nation would endure. These are examples of issues which might be considered as extremely important by many of us, but they don't threaten the survival of the Republic.

There are some issues which do threaten the survival of the nation, however, and with regard to those types of issues we must evaluate political parties and candidates against the issue itself and the threat it presents to the nation, not just against each other.

Failure to control our borders and an illegal invasion is an example of one such issue which has the potential to destroy the nation. Despite your impression it is not my "personal hot button", though, merely one of several existential threats to the country. It is not even the most immediate and pressing. The entrenched culture of corruption and institutionalized treason which pervades our national leadership elite in government, media, academia, business, etc., is a far more immediate threat because it infuses, permeates and influences all other issues. If the American people do not soon wake up and clean house it will be merely academic as to how the nation perishes.

Now I realize that many people don't like to deal with these types of considerations. It is far easier and satisfying to just immerse yourself in the partisan battle of a campaign and content yourself with the tactical victories which winning elections represents. And, on a certain level, that is completely justified - that's the way our system works.

We have to be careful, however, not to allow our generals/candidates to lead us in a direction/campaign which will result in the ultimate loss of the war/destruction of the Republic. We are supposed to be free citizens of a sovereign nation, not expendable cannon fodder for a treasonous elite to use and use-up in order to further their own agendas.

By all means work for your candidate and party of choice, do your best, and vote. I shall do the same. However, if it works out that the only choices left to us in the final race are between candidates who will both lead us to ruin, then it will be too late.

Our duty is to not allow things to get to that point, and the only way to do that is to let the party leaderships know that candidates who don't measure up on those existential issues will not be supported, period. Once you have told the parties that whatever happens in the primaries you'll support "the Party's choice" in the general election, then their interest in you, and your influence on them, is gone. You're stuck playing by their rules, and the game is rigged...