26% OF REPUBLICAN VOTERS AGAINST MCCAIN IN NORTH CAROLINA

McCain 342,959 74% 0 Huckabee 56,641 12% 0 Paul 34,152 7% 0 No Preference 17,996 4% 0 Keyes 12,388 3%

Let me say, as a lifelong Yankee fan, that we sent the Dodgers their new manager when it became obvious that Joe Torre was too addicted to playing the Todd Zeiles of this world over talented prospects. Since our Yankee farm system (unlike whatever remains of the conservative movement which now resembles the recent decades of the Kansas City Royals or Pittsburgh Pirates) is absolutely loaded with quality prospects with the next draft to be held on June 7-8, we brought in Joe Girardi to manage the talent and avoid reliance on players old enough to have played with Joe Torre.

If Joe Torre had won a World Series since 2000, it would not have guaranteed his continued tenure. If the old conservative movement that elected Ronald Reagan survived the likes of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, we can survive four years of John McCain while we rebuild from within. Of course, that means getting away from the keyboards and going out to organize seriously for the first time in three decades. What would be fatal to conservatism is continuing to avoid hard work not electing a temporary and elderly caretaker of insufficient ideology or morality.

Panic has nothing to do with it. I just don't care to relive the 1992-2000 experience of having the barbarians running the nation and culture. I don't need to be "electrified" literally or figuratively to be mobilized. That happened a long time ago when I learned to hate the New Left and its various spawn. Nixon did not front for conservatism. Nor did Feckless Ford. Nor will John McCain. Let McCain understand that his political survival is subject to conservative approval. Think Harriet Myers and the reaction to her candidacy for SCOTUS. If Barack Obama were POTUS and nominated Crusty the Pantsuit for SCOTUS, I don't think we can peel that one back. Then you can trust her to live and stay in office until she is 97 years old.

The loss of the Iraq War and of the war on terrorism would be a permanent thing. The election of a soulmate of Bill Ayres and Bernadine the Radical Queen Dohrn likewise. One man, one vote, one election is a lot worse than campaign finance reform.

A lot of this controversy has to do with which issues are truly important. The rest may well be generational. Those of us who spent 16 years building the movement that elected Ronaldus Maximus (and then foolishly retired to normal life) read a terrific lot of worthy books: Burnham's Suicide of the West, anything by Friedrich von Hayek or by Ludwig von Mises, Whittaker Chambers' Witness, Phil Crane's Democrats' Dilemma, Russell Kirk's Enemies of the Permanent Things, Ayn Rand's Anthem (though la Rand was no conservative and was an evil person), Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984, many of Robert Heinlein's books, Malachi Martin's books (for those really Catholic and those who sympathize), biographies of Patton and Churchill and Robert Taft the Elder and of Reagan and of Goldwater (another who was unworthy) and a lot of books with which we disagreed as well but were worth reading to know thy enemy and mine and very occasionally to appreciate that the other side has an occasional worthwhile idea or motive.

Conservative candidates, however defined, will be hard to elect without an army of conservative activists, well-organized and acting with self-discipline as well as movement discipline. Our enemies organize relentlessly and successfully while all too many of us sit around whining as though we were entitled to win on all issues and win as each of us respectively may idiosyncratically wish (which is therefore not possible given current internal divisions).

How we define left and right is important. If we regard the founding fathers as permanently infallible oracles on everything they said (i.e. Washington's Farewell "Address" which was actually a newspaper column) and everything they wrote in the constitution (necessarily filtered through each individual's ideological prism) and everything they wrote elsewhere (like SCOTUS being "the least dangerous branch" no less) and everything we attribute to them rightfully, wrongfully and/or selectively, we are foolish and doomed to failure as a nation. We do the founders a disservice by doing a disservice to the nation they founded. They were remarkable men. They were NOT gods. The constitution has not achieved the authority of Scripture. In the aftermath of such as Roe vs. Wade, the "rule of law" ain't what it used to be and "stare decisis" has become Latin for crimes against humanity.

You write that "patriotic principles" should be read as founding principles, sovereignty and self-determination. To the extent that "self-determination" is a conservative principle, it is already covered by sovereignty. Sovereignty IS a conservative value or principle. Usually, "self-determination" is a Marxist buzzword for the "right" of Marxist revolutionary thugs to seize control of a nation and impose totalitarianism. Used by Castro, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Chairman Mao, et al. I know that you mean the independence of our nation but sovereignty covers that as well. "Sovereignty", as used here, has its own baggage during the current anti-Mexican border hysteria. This is not meaningful since the issue has already been decided by previous history. If the issue is stretched out by perfectionists, we will simply become more and more Mexican with each passing year. While this is probably not good news for Americans seeking good paying jobs, that issue is a LOT bigger than bordermania. Just one elk's opinion. "Founding principles" is too imprecise a term.

There are permanent principles in the constitution that ought never be transgressed or even infringed upon. One example is the right to keep and bear arms. Others include freedom of worship, freedom of speech (actual speech and not "symbolic speech"), freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, due process of law, freedom from unreasonable and/or unwarranted searches and seizures (and from unreasonable arrests which are seizures), the right to trial by jury, equal protection of the law, and some others.

There are principles in the constitution which need not be at all permanent: the prohibition of alcoholic beverages or the restoration of the right to consume alcoholic beverages, prohibition of poll taxes, presidential succession provisions, term limits on the presidency, state legislative elections of US Senators, popular election of US Senators, voting privileges or rights for eighteen year olds, and such. Any one might be a good idea but few or none are necessary.

There are a few provisions, abolition of slavery, voting rights, women's suffrage which seem to have been necessitated by history although not included by the founders.

There are provisions of the constitution which ought to be removed ASAP as manifest threats to sovereignty (the provision putting treaties on a par with the constitution itself as "the supreme law of the land") or as manifest threats to public morals such as the "full faith and credit clause" under which morally decent states such as Alabama may be required to "recognize" sexual perversions posing as "marriage" as ruled by the Taxachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

A founding principle which needs restoration is checks and balances which have not bound SCOTUS and the federal courts effectively since Marbury vs. Madison in the first decade of the 1800s, a power grab by CJ John Marshall, then the Federalist "dead hand of the past."

Compared to the foregoing problems, we should keep John McCain in perspective as a minor problem, certainly not as bad as Gerald Ford or Nixon.

The foregoing discusses primarily constitutional issues. There are plenty of other non-constitutional issues and McCain is wrong on more than a few: Kyoto, global whatever it is called this week, Gitmo, waterboarding, and many more. OTOH, Gitmo and waterboarding are useful in the Iraq War and the WOT. McCain's opponents actively seek our defeat and are no better on the GITMO and waterboarding issues. McCain wanted to increase the troop levels in Iraq all along. He was right and he is right on that more important score as his Demonrat opponents are wrong.

I made a lot of money for a lot of years over a gin rummy table by never panicking. War is gin rummy by other means.

Illinois would be electrified by a suitcase Islamonuke leveling Chicago. What's more, the prevailing winds would take the fallout away from me since I am west of Chicago. Illinois would be suddenly as Republican as Idaho. Michigan would stop being a swing state as would Ohio and both would become firmly Republican. Even Buffalo, NY, might become a Republicanizing base in NY. Nonetheless, I'll pass on the suitcase Islamonuke in favor of old-fashioned organizing and persuasion.

Maybe we need to give more attention to GOP legislative nominations. Tennessee owes more to America than Lamar Alexander of Goals 2000 fame. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are not going to become Tom Coburns. Some here thought it was a terrific idea to defeat Rick Santorum as punishment for supporting Arlen Specter over some "fiscal conservative" who would have been defeated in any case. Now we have lost not only Senator Santorum but Congress members like Melissa Hart and some very good guys in Eastern Pennsylvania as well. North Carolina can do better than Giddy Dole. Arizona may well improve on McCain. We have many fewer than 38 members of the Senate under the best of circumstances. There are plenty of weak tea Senators holding GOP seats because many conservatives cannot be bothered to mobilize for races lesser than the presidency or to organize year round because organizing and educating and teaching conservatism and effective tactics are what we should be about all year long every year.

There are issues of military effectiveness, law enforcement, education, abortion, marriage, regulation, taxation, spending, religious freedom, culture, foreign policy, and dozens more that deserve our attention. I love some few in politics and loathe a lot more. Politics, however, is a LOT more than recognizing who is perfect (practically no one) and who is imperfect. Before the activism of electing candidates, it is necessary to learn and reflect so that the activism is well-directed and useful.

Nothing in this post is meant as a personal criticism of you or of your views. I disagree with some of your views but a world in total agreement would be a boring place. I suspect that I am older than you as I am older than most here (61). Thanks for your initial comment to frame where you are coming from. It helps. That's my take as well. I agree with regard to the boring comment. I will be 57 in 11 hours and forty minutes.

Let me say, as a lifelong Yankee fan, that we sent the Dodgers their new manager when it became obvious that Joe Torre was too addicted to playing the Todd Zeiles of this world over talented prospects. Since our Yankee farm system (unlike whatever remains of the conservative movement which now resembles the recent decades of the Kansas City Royals or Pittsburgh Pirates) is absolutely loaded with quality prospects with the next draft to be held on June 7-8, we brought in Joe Girardi to manage the talent and avoid reliance on players old enough to have played with Joe Torre. Good. That should help.

If Joe Torre had won a World Series since 2000, it would not have guaranteed his continued tenure. If the old conservative movement that elected Ronald Reagan survived the likes of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, we can survive four years of John McCain while we rebuild from within. Of course, that means getting away from the keyboards and going out to organize seriously for the first time in three decades. What would be fatal to conservatism is continuing to avoid hard work not electing a temporary and elderly caretaker of insufficient ideology or morality. I think I understand where you are coming from. My take on it is somewhat different than yours though. You see, I think you are convinced that Obama and Clinton would do things that would screw this nation up and couldn't be undone. Hey, I agree. The problem for me is that McCain could do the same thing. And at the most, three Senators and twenty Congressmen would oppose him. At least 38 Senators and 175 Congressmen would oppose Hillary and Obama.

What is your plan if McCain proposes to legalize all illegal aline crimmigrants? What is your plan if he joins the Democrats in setting up a worker program that allows five million more Mexicans to pour into our nation each year legally? What is your plan if he tries to close Gitmo? What is your plan if he decides to grant terrorists Geneva Convention status? What are your plans if he decides to give those terrorists access to our courts? What is your plan if he outlaws waterbording? And what is your plan if because of the lack of waterbording, the granting of Geneva rights and these other policies allow terrorists to kill massive amounts of our troops or to conduct terrorism on our soil before we can prevent it? You see, John will have no opposition whatsoever if he decides to do these things, and he has already stated he will. The only thing I might be exagerating here, is the number of guest worker permits that will be granted. Other than that, this is all a done deal. Do you like that prospect. And this is just getting started. This is the first six months.

I don't necessarily have a problem with going out and hitting the pavement. What I do foresee is a brick wall as we try to pull the party back toward the right with McCain as the titular head of Conservatism. He will be seeking to install folks who agree with his liberalism. The RNC will be doing the same thing. State and local party heads will have signed on. If McCain's liberalism wins elections, who do you plan on supporting your gorilla tactics within the Republican Party? Congressional candidates aren't going to be encouraged to support right wing agendas if a leftist like McCain has shown how to get elected.

My take is that if McCain gets slaughtered in 2008, it causes the party to move back to the right. Otherwise it is going to be dug in at liberalism central for the duration.

Panic has nothing to do with it. I just don't care to relive the 1992-2000 experience of having the barbarians running the nation and culture. I don't need to be "electrified" literally or figuratively to be mobilized. That happened a long time ago when I learned to hate the New Left and its various spawn. Nixon did not front for conservatism. Nor did Feckless Ford. Nor will John McCain. Let McCain understand that his political survival is subject to conservative approval. Think Harriet Myers and the reaction to her candidacy for SCOTUS. If Barack Obama were POTUS and nominated Crusty the Pantsuit for SCOTUS, I don't think we can peel that one back. Then you can trust her to live and stay in office until she is 97 years old.

I am by no means convinced that the guy who voted for Ginsberg, Kennedy and Souter is going to loft true Conservatives for SCOTUS justices. His reach out to the other side moments, don't convince me at all that this is a sound reason to back him. As for Crusty the Pantsuit, McCain has basically stated he and she are almost identical. That's his take on it, not mine. And his comments about the Democrat Party in general are downright scarey. This guy is clueless.

The loss of the Iraq War and of the war on terrorism would be a permanent thing. The election of a soulmate of Bill Ayres and Bernadine the Radical Queen Dohrn likewise. One man, one vote, one election is a lot worse than campaign finance reform.

And who helped finance some of McCain's pipe dreams? George Soros and another bright path whose name I can't recall a the moment. These folks are all fellow travelers, and McCain is one of them.

A lot of this controversy has to do with which issues are truly important. The rest may well be generational. Those of us who spent 16 years building the movement that elected Ronaldus Maximus (and then foolishly retired to normal life) read a terrific lot of worthy books: Burnham's Suicide of the West, anything by Friedrich von Hayek or by Ludwig von Mises, Whittaker Chambers' Witness, Phil Crane's Democrats' Dilemma, Russell Kirk's Enemies of the Permanent Things, Ayn Rand's Anthem (though la Rand was no conservative and was an evil person), Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984, many of Robert Heinlein's books, Malachi Martin's books (for those really Catholic and those who sympathize), biographies of Patton and Churchill and Robert Taft the Elder and of Reagan and of Goldwater (another who was unworthy) and a lot of books with which we disagreed as well but were worth reading to know thy enemy and mine and very occasionally to appreciate that the other side has an occasional worthwhile idea or motive.

All admirable, I'm sure. You have seen what has taken place and have been more involved than I was. I worked a very draining job and was on call for twenty-six years. It didn't leave much time for me to do outside activities. I have tried to become more involved in my later years. I'm not against hitting the pavement, going door to door or whatever it takes.

IMO, Reagan didn't get elected because a lot of people worked tirelessly for 16 years. IMO, he was elected over the objections of the party elites who actually wanted Bush elected instead of him. Reagan was too connected to what drives the average man, and he caught fire. Where Bush was reluctant to call a spade a space in 1980, Reagan told it like it was, and the U.S. Citizens loved it.

While I say I am not afraid to go out and hit the pavement, it's going to be for someone who has fire in the belly, knows what Conservatism is, and has lived it. Don't bring me some guy that hasn't lifted a finger for a Conservative cause in twenty years, but now calls himself one so he can get my vote. Not no, but hell no. I won't work for them.

Conservative candidates, however defined, will be hard to elect without an army of conservative activists, well-organized and acting with self-discipline as well as movement discipline. Our enemies organize relentlessly and successfully while all too many of us sit around whining as though we were entitled to win on all issues and win as each of us respectively may idiosyncratically wish (which is therefore not possible given current internal divisions).

Please tell me who the last true Conservative was that you are aware of. (national figure) I don't see them. I see Hunter, but other than that, I'm not seeing a bunch of guys on fire for Conservatism. Now you advocate that we put a guy who is essentially a Democrat in as the head of the Republican Party. The best way I know of to defeat a movement is to put someone in charge of it who doesn't believe in it. John McCain is not a Conservative.

You and I can go out and beat the bushes endlessly. If the party doesn't support the folks we pick, you can kiss their electibility good-bye. While you and I scrape together a few bucks, the party will advance millions to the lefty running against your Conservative. It happens over and over again.

How we define left and right is important. If we regard the founding fathers as permanently infallible oracles on everything they said (i.e. Washington's Farewell "Address" which was actually a newspaper column) and everything they wrote in the constitution (necessarily filtered through each individual's ideological prism) and everything they wrote elsewhere (like SCOTUS being "the least dangerous branch" no less) and everything we attribute to them rightfully, wrongfully and/or selectively, we are foolish and doomed to failure as a nation. We do the founders a disservice by doing a disservice to the nation they founded. They were remarkable men. They were NOT gods. The constitution has not achieved the authority of Scripture. In the aftermath of such as Roe vs. Wade, the "rule of law" ain't what it used to be and "stare decisis" has become Latin for crimes against humanity.

I agree. Now, do you still propose electing a man that voted to confirm a judge to the SCOTUS who actually had the gaul to cite E. U. Case law to buttress his decsision? I don't. This is a member of the Gang of Fourteen. He has no business being anywhere near judicial appointments.

You write that "patriotic principles" should be read as founding principles, sovereignty and self-determination. To the extent that "self-determination" is a conservative principle, it is already covered by sovereignty. Sovereignty IS a conservative value or principle. Usually, "self-determination" is a Marxist buzzword for the "right" of Marxist revolutionary thugs to seize control of a nation and impose totalitarianism. Used by Castro, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Chairman Mao, et al. I know that you mean the independence of our nation but sovereignty covers that as well. "Sovereignty", as used here, has its own baggage during the current anti-Mexican border hysteria. This is not meaningful since the issue has already been decided by previous history. If the issue is stretched out by perfectionists, we will simply become more and more Mexican with each passing year. While this is probably not good news for Americans seeking good paying jobs, that issue is a LOT bigger than bordermania. Just one elk's opinion. "Founding principles" is too imprecise a term.

I said what I said and I meant what I said. Our founding principles became the U. S. Constituion and the Bill of Rights, the Amendments to the Constitution. As for sovereignty and self-determination, your comments may touch on academic values, but you're wrong.

You are dead wrong with regard to sovereignty and self-determination. Our nation could have sovereign borders and the citizens still not have self-determination. If there comes an American Union like the E. U., our borders won't necessarily become null and void. None the less the A. U. would be making laws that we would be bound by. We could vote in who we wanted nationally, but it would make little difference as the A. U. overruled their decisions at every turn. Another example would be a totalitarian state. It's borders would be sovereign, but it's citizens would not have self-determination.

I stated that "patriotic principles" should be read as founding principles, sovereignty and self-determination, and I stand by that.

What the hell are you talking about? Anti-Mexican hysteria? Are you nuts? What issue has already been decided by previous history? You'll need to explain this, because you're sounding like you've got a screw loose on this one.

There are permanent principles in the constitution that ought never be transgressed or even infringed upon. One example is the right to keep and bear arms. Others include freedom of worship, freedom of speech (actual speech and not "symbolic speech"), freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, due process of law, freedom from unreasonable and/or unwarranted searches and seizures (and from unreasonable arrests which are seizures), the right to trial by jury, equal protection of the law, and some others. Agreed.

There are principles in the constitution which need not be at all permanent: the prohibition of alcoholic beverages or the restoration of the right to consume alcoholic beverages, prohibition of poll taxes, presidential succession provisions, term limits on the presidency, state legislative elections of US Senators, popular election of US Senators, voting privileges or rights for eighteen year olds, and such. Any one might be a good idea but few or none are necessary. I don't disagree with this. I do think it' a rather strange interpretation of my comments to extrapolate that I think the Presidential term is vital to our founding principles. It looks as if you are looking for an arguement where none is intended. And it belittles what we both consider to be the important matters of our founding. It's almost undignified to go in this direction IMO.

There are a few provisions, abolition of slavery, voting rights, women's suffrage which seem to have been necessitated by history although not included by the founders. Once again, your are attempting to twist my comments to infer that I don't realize that some adjustments would be natural over time. I will state that we need to be very very careful what we do change with regard to the Constitution, and avoid a Constitutional convention where possible. That doesn't mean that on occasion some issue wouldn't need to be codefied.

There are provisions of the constitution which ought to be removed ASAP as manifest threats to sovereignty (the provision putting treaties on a par with the constitution itself as "the supreme law of the land") or as manifest threats to public morals such as the "full faith and credit clause" under which morally decent states such as Alabama may be required to "recognize" sexual perversions posing as "marriage" as ruled by the Taxachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. I wouldn't disagree with this, but once again, you're beating a dead horse here.

A founding principle which needs restoration is checks and balances which have not bound SCOTUS and the federal courts effectively since Marbury vs. Madison in the first decade of the 1800s, a power grab by CJ John Marshall, then the Federalist "dead hand of the past." I'm not familiar with the case, but I'm not immune to such an arguement. If I knew more about it, I would probably agree.

Compared to the foregoing problems, we should keep John McCain in perspective as a minor problem, certainly not as bad as Gerald Ford or Nixon. Although I voted for both these men, I have never made the case that they were good Conservatives. I would make the case that their actions were far less destructive to this nation long term than a McCain Presidency could very likely be. Even Nixon, with his Watergate issues, was basically a mere blip on the radar screen. He wasn't poised to open our borders to foreign nationals. He didn't grant terrorists Geneva Convention status.

The foregoing discusses primarily constitutional issues. There are plenty of other non-constitutional issues and McCain is wrong on more than a few: Kyoto, global whatever it is called this week, Gitmo, waterboarding, and many more. OTOH, Gitmo and waterboarding are useful in the Iraq War and the WOT. McCain's opponents actively seek our defeat and are no better on the GITMO and waterboarding issues. McCain wanted to increase the troop levels in Iraq all along. He was right and he is right on that more important score as his Demonrat opponents are wrong. McCain held various stances on the war. At this point he can point out that we should have had more troops. There were times when he didn't think so. Giving the guy credit is silly. I could take five stances on any number of things and be proven later to have been a sage. It would mean nothing. And McCain's stance here means nothing.

I made a lot of money for a lot of years over a gin rummy table by never panicking. War is gin rummy by other means. John McCain has reached across the isle far too many times for me to grant him the Presidency with only 3 Senators and about 20 Congressmen opposing anything he does. That's one party rule. I won't back it. Give me Obama or Clinton with 175 Congressmen and 38 Senators to oppose them. Give me them with an RNC, state level Republican leaderships and the rank and file pushing for renewed growth of Conservatism. I'm not signing on to watch even this forum become a cheer leading squad for McCain, while Conservatism's network from top to bottom is destroyed.

Illinois would be electrified by a suitcase Islamonuke leveling Chicago. What's more, the prevailing winds would take the fallout away from me since I am west of Chicago. Illinois would be suddenly as Republican as Idaho. Michigan would stop being a swing state as would Ohio and both would become firmly Republican. Even Buffalo, NY, might become a Republicanizing base in NY. Nonetheless, I'll pass on the suitcase Islamonuke in favor of old-fashioned organizing and persuasion. Bud, Conservative bulleting boards will be heralding McCain when he is elected. Local, state and federal Republican candidates would be championing leftist ideology as McCain proved that worked. The state Republican Leaderships would be whipped into line to back McCain and his polices. The RNC would be behind their top man. Congresssional Republicans would be loathe to oppose McCain on anything lest they lose access and quid pro quo. And here you talk about renewal. That's just sad. What network would you suggest for building that renewal. 90% of the people calling themselves Conservative would be behind McCain. Who would you get to support renewal?

If McCain isn't in there, then you get renewal. You get active opposition to the left across the board. You get nothing like that with McCain in office.

Maybe we need to give more attention to GOP legislative nominations. Tennessee owes more to America than Lamar Alexander of Goals 2000 fame. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are not going to become Tom Coburns. Some here thought it was a terrific idea to defeat Rick Santorum as punishment for supporting Arlen Specter over some "fiscal conservative" who would have been defeated in any case. Now we have lost not only Senator Santorum but Congress members like Melissa Hart and some very good guys in Eastern Pennsylvania as well. North Carolina can do better than Giddy Dole. Arizona may well improve on McCain. We have many fewer than 38 members of the Senate under the best of circumstances. There are plenty of weak tea Senators holding GOP seats because many conservatives cannot be bothered to mobilize for races lesser than the presidency or to organize year round because organizing and educating and teaching conservatism and effective tactics are what we should be about all year long every year.

While you are lofting folks who you think are Conservative, the Republican Party (doing McCain's bidding) will be lofting their own leftists. You haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of building up Conservatives in Congress in that atmosphere. You rail on getting rid of folks like McCain here. If that doesn't prove to you that you're off in la la land, I don't know what would.

We don't want leftists in Congress under our banner. They pass liberal legislation. That's what got us here. It's precisely where McCain came from.

There are issues of military effectiveness, law enforcement, education, abortion, marriage, regulation, taxation, spending, religious freedom, culture, foreign policy, and dozens more that deserve our attention. I love some few in politics and loathe a lot more. Politics, however, is a LOT more than recognizing who is perfect (practically no one) and who is imperfect. Before the activism of electing candidates, it is necessary to learn and reflect so that the activism is well-directed and useful.

Bud, please... this is beneath you.

If, as seems apparent, you are determined not to be convinced, you won't be convinced.

As to the Mexicans, there are 25 million "illegals" here. They aren't going home voluntarily or otherwise. They are very much dedicated to having kids here who are born as American citizens. Although there are a handful of citizens and a bunch of talk show hosts determined to sell out conservatism for a mess of nativist and xenophobic pottage, the imagined political power of the bordermanics has yet to be demonstrated. If the GOP caters to the rude and crude, we can look forward to an otherwise socially conservative group becoming as Demonrat as are 90% of the blacks and they can hardly be blamed for reacting in self-defense. You are quite correct that I have been more involved than you and more than most of those who screech in outrage over the replacement of the 50 million slaughtered by abortion but who have not worked the trenches to build a movement and don't know how to work those trenches.

I wasn't twisting your words at all in the distinctions I made about constitutional principles. I was stating my own views and separating some of what you call "founding principles" from others. Some are necessary. Some dangerous and some a matter of indifference. It is not all about you and neither is "self-determination." Political philosophies are seldom individualized and designer affairs. They tend to be more like one size fits all in that once enacted they govern all (at least theoretically).

Marbury vs. Madison was the case in which SCOTUS CJ John Marshall invented out of whole cloth the alleged right and power of SCOTUS and other courts to declare legislation "unconstitutional." Try and find that power in the constitution's text. Before the War Between the States, there were two other cases in which the SCOTUS found acts of Congress "unconstitutional": The 1830s Marshall decision involving the removal of the Cherokee people from the Southeast to Oklahoma over the Trail of Tears (a decision which garners my sympathy as to substance but not as to procedure) which was ignored by Andrew Jackson who invited Marshall publicly to call out Marshall's army to enforce Marshall's decision and the infamous Dred Scott decision.

If you are concerned about the future of the GOP as a vehicle for your views, consider that many Reagan Republicans became Republicans because of the social issues, war and class heresies of the reds who seized the Demonrat Party under McGovern. Piss off enough of us and we can give thought to going back to the Democrat Party, change economic policies to populism, welcome Mexicans to our country, infiltrate the black community which is far less pro-abort and pro-lavender than its leaders and far more pro-military as well. Bear in mind that it was the GOP that was traditionally hostile to social conservatism (after all, it just wouldn't do for upper middle class Muffy to hang out at the polo club preggers at 16 and it just wouldn't be fair to expect her to drop out of the sexual revolution) and that, as book after book by left wingers have pointed out, the left just does not understand why God, guns and social issues keep us from voting ourselves goodies. What will end the GOP as it ended the Know Nothing, Whig and the Federalist predecessors of the GOP is faux "constitutionalism," and genuine bigotry and greed. God so loved the poor that He made a tremendous number of them and large numbers of them can be recruited to vote for military, social and law enforcement conservatism.

I welcome the immigration. If the party of the corporate board members wants to alienate the social, military and gun owning right, then maybe a divorce is in the offing. Then, instead of worrying about Mexicans, we will put a stop to the outsourcing of jobs, and go back to the original plan of protecting American industry and becoming self-sufficient and stomping SCOTUS and the "constitutional" fantasies and anachronisms that have accumulated.

Your take on McCain is ridiculously jaundiced. Compare his voting record with Obama or Crusty the Pantsuit. Compare what we know about each of them. While McCain was tortured and having his arms broken by Jane Fonda's North Vietnamese pals, Obama and Crusty were hanging out with their American counterparts. It is tempting and probably valid to assume that the canned anti-McCain litany of selected out of context factoids and factoids twisted beyond recognition is coming from playbooks of the John Birch Society or of the usual gang of racist xenophobes at FAIR and similar groups who also happen to be enthusiasts for Planned Barrenhood and Zero Population Growth. You may have gotten them elsewhere and you may believe that the litany is fairly representative of McCain. I don't and won't. I also don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job or that Al Qaeda is innocent.

Don't lecture me about Reagan. I worked at the GOP convention in Miami in 1968 on staff for the California delegation trying to nominate Reagan then (and we came closer than you may think). I was a state chairman for him when he challenged Feckless Ford. My first Reagan for POTUS sticker was attached to my car in 1964 two years before he was elected governor.

As to books and education in politics and conservatism, they are not really optional as the current status quo proves. It has been observed that a fanatic is one who, having forgotten his purpose, redoubles his efforts. Likewise those with insufficient grounding in facts, books, education, debates and defense of principles. Redoubling their efforts does not make them better activists unless they know why.

If you don't know enough, then hitting the pavement will do no good. If you think McCain is a leftist, then you do not know enough. He is not as bad as Ford and no worse than Nixon. He is infinitely better than Obama or Crusty. If you would not like a McCain pick for the SCOTUS, wait until Barack Hussein appoints Crusty, Lani Guarnier and Bill Lan Lee. Anthony Kennedy was well vetted by a friend of mine and he was quite fit for the SCOTUS when appointed. He was married to the same woman for many years. She ran a crisis pregnancy center to help stave off abortions. They had nine kids of their own. Kennedy was volunteer attorney for the pro-life caucus of the California General Assembly. Vanity was his unforeseen weakness and it was appealed to by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe who followed Anthony Kennedy all over the country and all over the world, tugging at his sleeve and telling him that no one would respect him if he kept voting with Scalia. He then emerged as Sandra Day O'Kennedy (she lied her way onto the SCOTUS because James Baker wanted the nomination of a pretty, blond pro-abort who could be sold to Reagan as a pro-lifer).

Temper tantrums do not achieve policy. We win some and we lose some. When we lose, we pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, scrape away the mud and the blood, lay us down and bleed awhile and then come back again. In a country of three hundred million, we seldom see an opportunity for "my way or the highway."

It appears that you will not participate in stopping Obama. Fortunately, most of us will and, what's more, we shall probably succeed given the identities of Obama's friends. Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn make the Rev. Mr. Jeremiah Wright look like St. Paul. While you foresee a brick wall within the party, I have been there and done that against the actual Rockefeller and George Romney types and against pro-abort, anti-American, pro-gay, Taxasaurus Rex Lowell Weicker in Connecticut. Led by Bill Buckley, we gave Weicker's Senate seat to Lieberman in spite of pro-abort, pro-gay Goldwater coming to Connecticut to beg for Weicker. He reacted by leaving the GOP and getting elected governor as an independent, installed an income tax, left after that term and is never likely to even live in Connecticut again much less hold office.

You see Duncan Hunter as a POTUS candidate. He is a fine man and would make a good POTUS but the last sitting member of the House of Representatives to be elected POTUS was a Speaker of the House named James Garfield in 1880. I think, but am not sure, that Garfield was the only sitting Congressman ever elected POTUS.

God bless you and yours.

If, as seems apparent, you are determined not to be convinced, you won't be convinced. Isn't that a two way street?

As to the Mexicans, there are 25 million "illegals" here. They aren't going home voluntarily or otherwise. They are very much dedicated to having kids here who are born as American citizens. Although there are a handful of citizens and a bunch of talk show hosts determined to sell out conservatism for a mess of nativist and xenophobic pottage, the imagined political power of the bordermanics has yet to be demonstrated. If the GOP caters to the rude and crude, we can look forward to an otherwise socially conservative group becoming as Demonrat as are 90% of the blacks and they can hardly be blamed for reacting in self-defense. You are quite correct that I have been more involved than you and more than most of those who screech in outrage over the replacement of the 50 million slaughtered by abortion but who have not worked the trenches to build a movement and don't know how to work those trenches. Tell you what, when you learn what the U.S. Contitution has to say on the subject of invasion in Article Four Section Four, came back and we'll talk. As for criminal behavior, anything that is in violation the the criminal code in the United States, I am aginst it. I am also against any person of any ethnic group gettting away with it. By your rule of thumb someone of Mexican heritage would be forgiven any crime, based on the fact that he was of a different race than those who objected. That is a preposterous stance. Illegal immigrants need to be repatriated to their nation of origion. It's is the rule of law. Unless you wish to advocate for anarchy, then we as a nation will continue to abide by the rule of law.

I wasn't twisting your words at all in the distinctions I made about constitutional principles. I was stating my own views and separating some of what you call "founding principles" from others. You were making some wild assumptions based on my comments. You're not the only person who understands that some things need to be sacrosanct and others don't. By going this route you sought to demean my comments and I called you on it. Some are necessary. Some dangerous and some a matter of indifference. It is not all about you and neither is "self-determination." Political philosophies are seldom individualized and designer affairs. They tend to be more like one size fits all in that once enacted they govern all (at least theoretically). This is just smoke and mirrors. You're not explaining anything here that most folks don't understand. By doing it, you sought to destroy my demand that we remain true to our founding principles. And you failed miserably. You are smart enough to know what I meant, and I think most people are.

Marbury vs. Madison was the case in which SCOTUS CJ John Marshall invented out of whole cloth the alleged right and power of SCOTUS and other courts to declare legislation "unconstitutional." Try and find that power in the constitution's text. Before the War Between the States, there were two other cases in which the SCOTUS found acts of Congress "unconstitutional": The 1830s Marshall decision involving the removal of the Cherokee people from the Southeast to Oklahoma over the Trail of Tears (a decision which garners my sympathy as to substance but not as to procedure) which was ignored by Andrew Jackson who invited Marshall publicly to call out Marshall's army to enforce Marshall's decision and the infamous Dred Scott decision. While I lean heavily in the directon of avoidence of the SCOTUS to legislate from the bench, I am in kind of a quandry about some situations that might arrise. In certain decisions, I think it is patently absurd for the SCOTUS to make some of the decisions it does. In others, I might find some sympathy for it overturning Congessional action. What if Congress passed a law that Blacks/Whites/Asians or any other group, could not be admitted to our nation's colleges. Would the court have no standing to challenge this, if a case came before it?

The separation of powers is an important aspect of our government. I cannot think that such a law being allowed to stand would be a good thing. What would be your opinion in a circumstance like the one I mentioned above?

If you are concerned about the future of the GOP as a vehicle for your views, consider that many Reagan Republicans became Republicans because of the social issues, war and class heresies of the reds who seized the Demonrat Party under McGovern. I disagree. Democrats became Reagan Republicans based on two important issues. One, the economy was in the tank and Reagan proposed ways to turn that around. Two, Carter was an abysmal leader as it related to the cold war and our military. There were no active wars at the time, except Afghanistan. We weren't going in. Piss off enough of us and we can give thought to going back to the Democrat Party, change economic policies to populism, welcome Mexicans to our country, infiltrate the black community which is far less pro-abort and pro-lavender than its leaders and far more pro-military as well. If you feel the need to go back the Democrat party so illegal activity can be advanced, by all means please go. I certainly wouldn't want a person that supports criminal activity to help us advance Conservatism. That isn't Conservatism. And that's part of the reason why Conservatism has been so watered down, well meaning members who don't support part of what Conservatism is. Bear in mind that it was the GOP that was traditionally hostile to social conservatism (after all, it just wouldn't do for upper middle class Muffy to hang out at the polo club preggers at 16 and it just wouldn't be fair to expect her to drop out of the sexual revolution) and that, as book after book by left wingers have pointed out, the left just does not understand why God, guns and social issues keep us from voting ourselves goodies. What will end the GOP as it ended the Know Nothing, Whig and the Federalist predecessors of the GOP is faux "constitutionalism," and genuine bigotry and greed. God so loved the poor that He made a tremendous number of them and large numbers of them can be recruited to vote for military, social and law enforcement conservatism. Bud, you just slandered the whole body of people of Mexican ancestry, by stating that they are unable to comprehend the rule of law enough to understand why illegal immigration is wrong, and that they couldn't be reached on rock solid core values if we enforced the rule of law. And then you call ME xenophobic. Let me guess, you don't agree.

I welcome the immigration. Well, I cannot. You have made the case that our immgration laws are unjust. If you want to get picky, what you actually have supported is an abandonment of enforcement. This implies that our laws are unjust. And the implication of what you have come to support, is that we can no longer be allowed to regulate the borders of our nation. By your stance, you are claiming that anyone who can get to our shores, is entitled to citizenship. And if that influx reaches one hundred million per year, you would be all for it. I'm not going to sign on to that. If I did, any civil rights attorney could claim a case of defacto change in our laws governing immigration. He would have a perfect case for claiming that anyone who made it to our shores should be granted the same rights as the 20 to 35 million illegal immigrants were this time. And then we would face the chain migration that would result, anywhere from one to sevent-five people being allowed to enter that U.S. based on relationships with the newly recognized citizens. The implications for our infrastructure are astounding. If the party of the corporate board members wants to alienate the social, military and gun owning right, then maybe a divorce is in the offing. Then, instead of worrying about Mexicans, we will put a stop to the outsourcing of jobs, and go back to the original plan of protecting American industry and becoming self-sufficient and stomping SCOTUS and the "constitutional" fantasies and anachronisms that have accumulated. The one thing that you have consistantly done related to this topic, is seek to justify illegal activity. When you do that, you destroy your ability to be taken seriously on just about any subject.

Your take on McCain is ridiculously jaundiced. You're welcome to your opinion. Peronally, I think you view of him is far too forgiving. Compare his voting record with Obama or Crusty the Pantsuit. Compare what we know about each of them. So his voting for Ginsberg, Kennedy and Souter don't bother you. Well, at least you're on the record. You don't care about McCain/Fiengold or McCain/Kennedy either. Okay, fine. While McCain was tortured and having his arms broken by Jane Fonda's North Vietnamese pals, Obama and Crusty were hanging out with their American counterparts. Yep, trot out his POW days and how we should all be reverent about them. Don't mention that there were somewhere in the area of 600 to 1000 POWS unaccounted for in Vietnam when John McCain tore into their families for objecting to his support for the U.S. to extend normal trade relation status to Vietnam prior to a full accounting. Don't those MIAs service, captivity and torture deserve as much respect and reverence as John McCain's did? Evidently John didn't think so as he heartlessly railed on the family members who opposed his plan. Many of those MIAs had been seen alive after capture. Many had been seen by others who came home. A full accounting was never achieved. And that's the rest of the story. It is tempting and probably valid to assume that the canned anti-McCain litany of selected out of context factoids and factoids twisted beyond recognition is coming from playbooks of the John Birch Society or of the usual gang of racist xenophobes at FAIR and similar groups who also happen to be enthusiasts for Planned Barrenhood and Zero Population Growth. You may have gotten them elsewhere and you may believe that the litany is fairly representative of McCain. I don't and won't. I also don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job or that Al Qaeda is innocent. You know, this was just pathetic. John's actions are on the record, and that's the only place I need to go to understand that he is unfit to hold the office of the Presidency.

Don't lecture me about Reagan. I worked at the GOP convention in Miami in 1968 on staff for the California delegation trying to nominate Reagan then (and we came closer than you may think). I was a state chairman for him when he challenged Feckless Ford. My first Reagan for POTUS sticker was attached to my car in 1964 two years before he was elected governor. This is very impressive in light of the comments you have made here that destroy your credibility. It's sad to see someone who has gone so far off course, seek to wrap himself in the Reagan legacy. Very disappointing...

As to books and education in politics and conservatism, they are not really optional as the current status quo proves. It has been observed that a fanatic is one who, having forgotten his purpose, redoubles his efforts. Likewise those with insufficient grounding in facts, books, education, debates and defense of principles. Redoubling their efforts does not make them better activists unless they know why. Well, at the risk of you not understanding why I'm going to say this, I can't honestly think of a better reply than to say the same exact words back to you.

If you don't know enough, then hitting the pavement will do no good. Such wisdom, and you're wasting it on me. I feel so unworthy. If you think McCain is a leftist, then you do not know enough. I'm not going to go into a litany of why I think McCain is a leftist, but that opinion is based on John's own actions. If you can view what policies John has chosen to associate himself with, and still not realize he is a leftist, then that speaks for itself. He is not as bad as Ford and no worse than Nixon. He is infinitely better than Obama or Crusty. On it's own merits, I would agree. That doesn't eliminate the problem of selecting a leftist to be the leader of Conservatism, and what that will result in. It is my belief that a person who is demonstrably left of center even for a Democrat, having been installed as the point man for Conservatism in our nation, could most certainly do more damage to Conservatism and the Nation, than the consumate leftist like Barack Obama, being the head of Liberalism. With one you get opposition, and with the other you get almost no resistance. McCain would get almost no resistance, and the ability for Conservatism to grow and fluorish would be destroyed under him. If you would not like a McCain pick for the SCOTUS, wait until Barack Hussein appoints Crusty, Lani Guarnier and Bill Lan Lee. Anthony Kennedy was well vetted by a friend of mine and he was quite fit for the SCOTUS when appointed. He was married to the same woman for many years. She ran a crisis pregnancy center to help stave off abortions. They had nine kids of their own. Kennedy was volunteer attorney for the pro-life caucus of the California General Assembly. Vanity was his unforeseen weakness and it was appealed to by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe who followed Anthony Kennedy all over the country and all over the world, tugging at his sleeve and telling him that no one would respect him if he kept voting with Scalia. He then emerged as Sandra Day O'Kennedy (she lied her way onto the SCOTUS because James Baker wanted the nomination of a pretty, blond pro-abort who could be sold to Reagan as a pro-lifer). I have had others make this case to me as well. I'm not immune to it. There is a reasonable case to be made here. How does that apply to the likes of Ginsberg? How does it explain away McCain's activities related to the Gang of Fourteen? I'm sorry, but John fails to impress on issue after issue.

Temper tantrums do not achieve policy. We win some and we lose some. When we lose, we pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, scrape away the mud and the blood, lay us down and bleed awhile and then come back again. In a country of three hundred million, we seldom see an opportunity for "my way or the highway." What would you call McCain's efforts to grant amnesty to illegal aliens? The public has had it say. It does not want the illegal aliens to be granted citizenship in any way shape or form. And John McCain has stuck his thumb in their eye to tell them that what they think doesn't matter. He has most recently stated that they should be processed right along with those who have spent years going through the process legally.

It appears that you will not participate in stopping Obama. If that means voting for John McCain, you're very astute. Fortunately, most of us will and, what's more, we shall probably succeed given the identities of Obama's friends. Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn make the Rev. Mr. Jeremiah Wright look like St. Paul. All well and good, but you forgot to mention that John McCain has been chuming it up with George Soros and another consumate socialist. Soros and Ayers and Dohrn are fellow travelers. And John McCain has proven himself to be a member of that club. While you foresee a brick wall within the party, I have been there and done that against the actual Rockefeller and George Romney types and against pro-abort, anti-American, pro-gay, Taxasaurus Rex Lowell Weicker in Connecticut. Led by Bill Buckley, we gave Weicker's Senate seat to Lieberman in spite of pro-abort, pro-gay Goldwater coming to Connecticut to beg for Weicker. He reacted by leaving the GOP and getting elected governor as an independent, installed an income tax, left after that term and is never likely to even live in Connecticut again much less hold office. Look, you may have done many fine things related to Conservative policy. I am not here to argue your past. I am here to tell you what my reaction is today, to the policies you support today. I cannot back a man who has no more common sense than to associate himself with Ted Kennedy, Feingold and Soros. I can't back a guy who agrees with the left on so many issues. Is he worse than Obama? No. Is he worse than Hillary, from what I hear he has stated he thinks they are very close in their views. Now, are Clinton or Obama running to be the head of Conservatism in our nation? No they aren't.

We can and will oppose what Obama and Clinton suppport. We will not oppose the same policies when John McCain proposes them. It is political suicide to loft someone like McCain to lead Conservatism, plain and simple.

You see Duncan Hunter as a POTUS candidate. He is a fine man and would make a good POTUS but the last sitting member of the House of Representatives to be elected POTUS was a Speaker of the House named James Garfield in 1880. I think, but am not sure, that Garfield was the only sitting Congressman ever elected POTUS. That is a valid point to make. It still doesn't grant McCain amnesty from being recognized for being what he is. I will never vote for the man. Ever!

God bless you and yours.

Thank you. Although we disagree, I express the same wish for you and yours. I'm sorry we couldn't agree more. We proably do have much more in common than our exchange here reflects.

When your hysteria is tamped down, consider that, as to Ginsberg, there were three (according to other posts of yours) senators who voted against her and you do not even remember who they were, that whoever you may have backed for the GOP nomination was apparently not a factor and certainly not the nominee, that you were admittedly doing other career things while many here were electing Ronaldus Maximus. You don't know what you are talking about and you have about as much chance as the John Birch Society or paleoPaulie of electing someone of your choice.

You imagine 38-42 GOP senators opposing Hussein's insane probable nominees when only 3 opposed Slick Willie's nomination of the pro-abort general counsel of the American Communist Liberties Union. You seem too lazy to do the work of movement building but then hallucinate that it will just happen so long as Hussein is elected POTUS or so long as McCain is not.

"Invasion" would be by armed forces. If the Mexican military ever attacks the US, you can count on the US military to handle the situation. Machine-gunning mamacitas and their babies at the border is, well, not the same thing. If the founders almighty thought that walking into our nation with one's family to lead a better life was an "invasion", wouldn't you think that they would have taken the trouble to enact laws consistent with that view??? They didn't and, as a result, most of my immigrant ancestors needed no papers when they came in. Yours too, probably. Of course, I am not Mexican by ancestry and I bet you aren't Mexican by ancestry either.

Bordermania is NOT part of what conservatism is. It is just a temporary virus that will continue to be cured by history and reality. The only question is whether the incoming "illegal" Mexicans and the 25 million already here and their children and their grandchildren are going to feel compelled to react against common sense in American politics just because people otherwise conservative were too stubborn to accept reality.

"Credibility" is in the eye of the beholder. I know my history whether you choose to believe it or not. I will be happy to vote to elect McCain without your help.

Show me your affordable and constitutional plan for expelling the "illegals."

Is "illegal" entry to the United States a crime? What is the statutory citation? What is the prescribed criminal punishment? In the event that it is a crime, how much would 25 million individual jury trials cost??? The right to a jury trial is a lot more certainly constitutional than is any "right" of the government or of perpetual malcontents to expel ANYONE from this country without due process of law.

No one needs to demean your comments. Your comments demean themselves. I am smart enough to know what you meant.

I don't agree with you on the Mexicans.

If Congress passed a law prohibiting blacks/whites/Asians from attending our nation's colleges which are West Point, Annapolis, Air Force Academy, Coast Guard Academy, Merchant Marine Academy, that would seem downright impractical in the same sense as Congress passing a law that up is down. If you mean instead colleges located in the United States of America, that law would probably do some good considering the ideological viruses that thrive at those campuses and the high cost of subsidizing the lifestyles of faculty members who are rich and Marxist.

My opinion on SCOTUS meddling is that, if SCOTUS is to be imagined a guardian of the work of the founders almighty, then it can jolly well obey the constitution itself which provides nowhere for a SCOTUS power to declare anything "unconstitutional." The rule of law is dead in any event until Roe vs. Wade is gone. Roe vs. Wade or anarchy is not the question. We have both. Likewise Lawrence vs. Texas and a lot of other SCOTUS decisions on other subjects. Wasn't it SCOTUS that refused to interfere with McCain-Feingold???? Do you really believe that it is First Amendment protected SPEECH for George Soros or anyone else to pour oceans of cash into the political campaigns to skew the system??? That sounds about as silly as calling the burning of draft cards speech or flag burning as speech. You underestimate the literacy of the founders almighty. When they said speech, they meant speech.

I call you xenophobic only because you are xenophobic.

Whether Mexicans understand the rule of law is less a question than whether our public officials and philosopher king wannabes understand it.

If Congress passed McCain-Kennedy, I take it that you would knee-jerk for it under the rule of law. If not, why not? The assumption of "rule of law" arguments is reflex obedience to and enforcement of at least statutory laws regardless of ridiculousness. For example, Kansas once had (still has?) a law requiring each motor vehicle operator driving on a public road who spots a horse coming from the opposite direction to disassemble his motor vehicle and hide the parts from the horse's sight lest the horse be frightened. How can we live with ourselves if we fail to enforce such a law? Puh-leeeeeeze!

War and class heresies = war heresies and class heresies.

As to commerce with Vietnam, I find that McCain's single worst aspect.

When your hysteria is tamped down,...

Oh, so it's hysteria if I disagree with you and point out that something that is taking place is illegal?

...consider that, as to Ginsberg, there were three (according to other posts of yours) senators who voted against her and you do not even remember who they were,...

Are you making the case that 97 people were right to vote for the likes of Ginsberg? Wow...

...that whoever you may have backed for the GOP nomination was apparently not a factor...

And that make me wrong to have backed a better man?

and certainly not the nominee, that you were admittedly doing other career things while many here were electing Ronaldus Maximus.

You tout your efforts on behalf of Ronald Reagan. I'm sure you may think that without your efforts he wouldn't have been elected. The funny thing is, I wasn't contacted by a single Republican operative and asked to vote for him. Go ahead and flatter yourself that you did it if you like, but the fact is a lot of Democrats and Republicans tuned in to what Reagan had to say and voted for him. And I doubt you swayed very many of them at all.

You don't know what you are talking about and you have about as much chance as the John Birch Society or paleoPaulie of electing someone of your choice.

Here you go with your John Birch Society comments again. In what passes for reason on your part, someone would have to be a Bircher or a racist of some sort to object to someone coming to the United States without going through the legal process. Why do you think that process was determined to be necessary? Don't you think that we should know who is coming into our nation? Evidently not. Only a racist could support such a thing. Honestly bud...

You imagine 38-42 GOP senators opposing Hussein's insane probable nominees when only 3 opposed Slick Willie's nomination of the pro-abort general counsel of the American Communist Liberties Union.

I stated specifically that 38 to 42 GOP Senators would oppose his lefitst proposals. I did not state that number would oppose his appointments. Did I?

You seem too lazy to do the work of movement building but then hallucinate that it will just happen so long as Hussein is elected POTUS or so long as McCain is not.

Just because I haven't bothered to tell you my life history, it doesn't mean that I haven't participated in political activites. I don't really care what it seems like to you. You're a person who considers me a racist because I want our nation's laws enforced. That speaks for itself. I have explained what my thoughts on an Obama vs McCain victory. If you wish to call it halluncinating, I don't mind. Go for it.

"Invasion" would be by armed forces.

Invason is the same as an occupation. We are being occupied by a massive wave of foreign nationals. And when a significant number of those foreign nationals are here, and we're there, there will be serious repercussions. If you wish to claim there aren't serious problems now, that's okay. I can live with the disagreement. I think there are.

If the Mexican military ever attacks the US, you can count on the US military to handle the situation.

Yes, if the military attacked, I'd expect our military to take care of the situation.

Machine-gunning mamacitas and their babies at the border is, well, not the same thing.

Hmmm, I don't think anyone raised the issue except you. Do you support it? If not, then why did you raise the issue?

If the founders almighty thought that walking into our nation with one's family to lead a better life was an "invasion", wouldn't you think that they would have taken the trouble to enact laws consistent with that view??? They didn't and, as a result, most of my immigrant ancestors needed no papers when they came in. Yours too, probably. Of course, I am not Mexican by ancestry and I bet you aren't Mexican by ancestry either.

You've never heard of Elis Island right? You've never heard of the Department of Immigration and Naturalization? What do you think the Island and the agency were developed for, if not to control access to our nation? Seriously, you sound rather wierd as you bloviate on this subject.

Bordermania is NOT part of what conservatism is.

Well, you're welcome to that opinion. I don't mind you going on the record to state that advocacy for a sacrosanct border is wrong. I'm more than happy to see you go out on that limb.

It is just a temporary virus that will continue to be cured by history and reality.

Once again, term it anything you like. It is not in accordance with our laws governing legal access to our nation. And you know damn well it isn't. So prattle on.

The only question is whether the incoming "illegal" Mexicans and the 25 million already here and their children and their grandchildren are going to feel compelled to react against common sense in American politics just because people otherwise conservative were too stubborn to accept reality.

Okay ace, how many illegal immigrants would be too many? 100 million? 150 million? You tell me where you rebel at the level of flow.

"Credibility" is in the eye of the beholder. I know my history whether you choose to believe it or not.

You didn't know about Elis Island, the duties of the Immigration and Naturalization Service? You don't know that there are laws that govern access to our nation? You don' think 25 million people walking across our border and sqatting on U.S. soil is a foreign invasion. Yes, I'd say you do have a bit of a problem with history, or legality.

I will be happy to vote to elect McCain without your help.

Well, I'm betting you wouldn't be as happy as I will be for you to do it without my help, but I suppose it could be a tie.

Show me your affordable and constitutional plan for expelling the "illegals."

Oklahoma enforced strict new laws that eliminate services and jobs for illegal immigrants. Once they had done so, students disappeared from classrooms and vagrants disappeared around sites where illegal immigrants used to congregate. Occupancy rates in poorer rental properties went down.

Is "illegal" entry to the United States a crime?

If we have laws that govern how people are supposed to come here, then it would seem to me that a crime had been committed when those statutes were broken. It would be a violation of the statutes set down by the Congress of the United States. The penalty, is incarceration and deportation.

What is the statutory citation? What is the prescribed criminal punishment? In the event that it is a crime, how much would 25 million individual jury trials cost??? The right to a jury trial is a lot more certainly constitutional than is any "right" of the government or of perpetual malcontents to expel ANYONE from this country without due process of law.

Are you acting this stupid, or are you actually this stupid? Illegal aliens have been taken into custody and deported consistantly for the last 100 years as far as I know. I know for sure this has been taking place since the early 1970s when I returned to California. Due process is not requred. Anyone looking like an illegal alien, and unable to provide proper documentation is deported. End of story...

No one needs to demean your comments. Your comments demean themselves. I am smart enough to know what you meant.

If these are your comments, then you sure didn't let on to the fact that you were able to understand what I meant.

I don't agree with you on the Mexicans.

Tough. You don't agree with the government of the United States either.

If Congress passed a law prohibiting blacks/whites/Asians from attending our nation's colleges which are West Point, Annapolis, Air Force Academy, Coast Guard Academy, Merchant Marine Academy, that would seem downright impractical in the same sense as Congress passing a law that up is down. If you mean instead colleges located in the United States of America, that law would probably do some good considering the ideological viruses that thrive at those campuses and the high cost of subsidizing the lifestyles of faculty members who are rich and Marxist.

What a consumate juvenile exercise that was... Every college in this nation is one of our nation's colleges. They are not Canadian, Chinese, Russian or the colleges of any other nation. I didn't make the point that those colleges were funded by the U.S. Government, but even if I did, every college in this nation, with perhaps a few exceptions use federal dollars to run their programs.

My opinion on SCOTUS meddling is that, if SCOTUS is to be imagined a guardian of the work of the founders almighty, then it can jolly well obey the constitution itself which provides nowhere for a SCOTUS power to declare anything "unconstitutional." The rule of law is dead in any event until Roe vs. Wade is gone. Roe vs. Wade or anarchy is not the question. We have both. Likewise Lawrence vs. Texas and a lot of other SCOTUS decisions on other subjects. Wasn't it SCOTUS that refused to interfere with McCain-Feingold???? Do you really believe that it is First Amendment protected SPEECH for George Soros or anyone else to pour oceans of cash into the political campaigns to skew the system??? That sounds about as silly as calling the burning of draft cards speech or flag burning as speech. You underestimate the literacy of the founders almighty. When they said speech, they meant speech.

I knew you could do it. Very good. I'm thinking you could have done without the prior paragraph, but you obvisously couldn't psychologically, so so be it.

I call you xenophobic only because you are xenophobic.

No, you call me xenophobic, because you are. You are claiming that I am xenophobic for merely demanding that the laws of our nation be adhered to. You have assumed that I am white, and you are siding with people who are Mexican citizens even though they have clearly broken the laws of our nation, and I have not. That is reverse descrimination. You are xenophobic against whites, even if they are within the letter of the law to advocate for what they are.

Try that on for size.

Whether Mexicans understand the rule of law is less a question than whether our public officials and philosopher king wannabes understand it.

That's just insipid. The Congress of the United States has every right to set rules governing a legal process for individuals to enter our nation. Anyone that would claim otherwise is an ignorant fool.

If Congress passed McCain-Kennedy, I take it that you would knee-jerk for it under the rule of law.

No I would not. I would also not agree to have bank robberies termed long term loans, making all bank robberies legal. We have laws on the books. They are reasonable laws. If we are going to make laws mean nothing, then no laws should mean anything. Is that your goal?

If not, why not?

I have stated why not.

The assumption of "rule of law" arguments is reflex obedience to and enforcement of at least statutory laws regardless of ridiculousness. For example, Kansas once had (still has?) a law requiring each motor vehicle operator driving on a public road who spots a horse coming from the opposite direction to disassemble his motor vehicle and hide the parts from the horse's sight lest the horse be frightened. How can we live with ourselves if we fail to enforce such a law? Puh-leeeeeeze!

Good Lord bud, you're stark raving mad. You pull that horse vs vehicle nonsense out of your poserior, and then seem to claim that Congress has no right to devise laws governing the nation. So it must be your premise that it is unreasonable for our nation to devise any laws governing the sanctitiy of our borders.

You are the consumate open borders advocate, along the lines that the U.N. has been employing for decades aren't you.

War and class heresies = war heresies and class heresies.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... zzzzzzzzz... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Good grief.

As to commerce with Vietnam, I find that McCain's single worst aspect.

The deferment on the issue of the Missing in Action, was what I found to be most revolting of anything he has done, but that may have been what you meant.

It's hysteria when you are hysterical and you are. hat the "illegals" are criminal in entering the United States is your claim. Back it up with a federal statutory citation, including the range of criminal punishment or give your keyboard a rest.

I was making the point that 97 Senators voted for Ruth Buzzi Ginzberg, that you don't remember the identities of the three who voted the right way, that you are soooooo marginalized by your own far outness that you have long departed planet earth. Unless you can recognize a negative reality as reality, you cannot very well effectively change that reality and certainly not by unsupported whining, kvetching and moaning or baying at the moon.

If only three US senators opposed Ruthie who was a leftist proposal of the Arkansas Antichrist, what makes you think that 38 to 42 US senators would oppose her if she had been nominated in your fantasies by John McCain???

I note that we are not hearing the identity of that "better man" you supported any more than we are likely to see your non-existent resume of "conservative" activism. When your resume is non-existent, it is understandable that you prefer to deal in generalities and to ignore specifics.

I don't think I made any references to your race or ancestry. The leading advocate of cracking down on "illegal" Mexicans here in Illinois is herself apparently a full-blooded Mexican with American citizenship by birth. She actually works for her causes and is a very good organizer. I see no evidence that you compare favorably to her. For the record, I am English, Irish, Scots-Irish, Scottish and German by ancestry and that's all of them. I also imagine it quite unlikely that any of my immigrant ancestors were processed through Ellis Island or any similar facility. America somehow survived.

25 million undocumented Latinos being present here is a significant number. If you don't think so, why are you bellyaching. If, as I suspect, you do think that number significant, the serious repercussion is that the bordermania is a lost cause. Each child born here is a citizen by birth. Their kids will be citizens by ancestral citizenship and, most, by birth as well. Whenever you want to see the border closed (our very own Berlin Wall!!! Gee, Muffy or Skipper, isn't that just wonderful!!!!) to some extent, all you have to do is support what you would call a "shamnesty" bill that would legalize those already here while slowing the flow. IIRC, McCain-Kennedy would have produced such a law but then the rule of law is only applicable when you like the law. At least I admit that the rule of law is dead. Until new legislation is enacted and new policies actually enforced (consistent with the constitution) millions per year still cross the border without papers. So, I turn the question back at you, will 100 million be enough or 150 million? Your position is dead as the proverbial doornail but y'all haven't the sense to fall over just yet. Each passing day will strengthen the hand of the undocumented immigrants. Take as long as you like. Your strategy sure has worked so far and just imagine how well those borders will be enforced under POTUS Hussein.

When California under Planned Barrenhood (or Puddin' Head) Pete Wilson tried to refuse public services to "illegals", the federal courts understandably slapped down that effort via the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment which applies to persons and not merely citizens. Has Oklahoma's tough guy act survived the federal courts? If it does at the District and then Court of Appeals level, then SCOTUS awaits and there goes your fantasy.

If the bordermania, in a stunning upset, should become actual public policy, don't you think that the mamacitas and babies would be shot at the border??? Would you imagine that the border patrol will wrestle them to the ground instead (film footage at 5 on Eyewitless News!)? What if there are a lot more mamacitas than there are border F Troopers? What if they crawl on hands and knees between the troopers and keep on crawling? Maybe the border guards should be disarmed??? Maybe you haven't begun to think this through in practical terms??? No maybe about it.

You claim that the "illegals" are violating criminal law, we need the statutory citation. The US Code is online. You don't access it and the reason will seem obvious.

Banks have been robbed illegally for the entire nation's history and we already have lots of anti-bank robbery statutes. Of course, statutes against bank robbery are quite constitutional.

Sanctity means holiness. Out of curiosity, what makes you imagine borders to have sanctity or holiness???

It was not McCain but the loss of the Vietnam War that determined the POW/MIA issue. Losing wars has consequences as this nation will surely learn if you get your way.

I'll revise that statement on McCain's worst folly. Commerce with Vietnam is his second worst policy. This global warming nonsense is the worst. The POW/MIA issue was already dead with the war effort. Blame Feckless Ford for that one.

BTW, what DO illegal aliens look like so F Troop can recognize them on sight while expelling them without due process??? If you look like one, I certainly hope you carry your papers at all times.

Here’s the federal law the illegal aliens are breaking.

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, “Improper Entry by Alien,” any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

• Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

• Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or

• Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.

Section 1325 [of Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII]. [U.S. Code as of: 01/06/03]
Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -

(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or

(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.
#

Cesar Chavez, founder of the United Farm Workers of America, was opposed to illegal immigration. Mr. Chavez knew that illegal immigration drove down wages of legal workers especially among the lowest paid in our society. A disproportionate number of our lowest paid citizens and legal resident aliens are black and Hispanic. These people are hurt first and worst by illegal immigration.

As the very liberal, and generally pro-criminal, columnist, Ruben Navarrette Jr., admitted a column in the Arizona Republic: “Cesar Chavez, a labor leader intent on protecting union membership, was as effective a surrogate for the INS as ever existed. Indeed, Chavez and the United Farm Workers he headed routinely reported, to the INS, for deportation, suspected illegal immigrant workers who served as strike breakers or refused to unionize.”

In 1969 Mr. Chavez even led a march from the Coachella and Imperial Valleys to the Mexican border to protest the INS’ less than stringent enforcement of our immigration laws.

Mr. Chavez also started border patrols much like those done by the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps does today trying to halt the influx of criminals. His brother headed the group and it was staffed with Mexican Americans and legal immigrants sick of the criminals driving down their wages. If opposition to illegal immigration makes one a racist, Mr. Chavez, his brother, and those legal Hispanic workers, must have been racists.

It’s also instructive to note that many of the criminal employers, who are backing the pro-criminal politicians, used illegal aliens as scabs to break Mr. Chavez’s strikes.

In 1979 Mr. Chavez testified before Congress; “... when the farm workers strike and their strike is successful, the employers go to Mexico and have unlimited, unrestricted use of illegal alien strikebreakers to break the strike. And, for over 30 years, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has looked the other way and assisted in the strikebreaking. I do not remember one single instance in 30 years where the Immigration service has removed strikebreakers. ... The employers use professional smugglers to recruit and transport human contraband across the Mexican border for the specific act of strikebreaking...”

Of course, the pro-criminal axis never mentions any of this. Mr. Chavez must be rolling in his grave. Were he here today, he’d be fighting the pro-criminal axis and fighting against amnesty for the criminals.

The pro-criminal axis wants us to believe the mostly black construction workers working to rebuild after Hurricane Katrina who were fired because “the Mexicans had arrived” are racists because they don’t like being replaced by scofflaws who will work for less money.

The Washington Times reported the story on April 10, 2006: “An Alabama employment agency that sent 70 laborers and construction workers to job sites in that state in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina says the men were sent home after just two weeks on the job by employers who told them “the Mexicans had arrived” and were willing to work for less.

Linda Swope, who operates Complete Employment Services Inc. in Mobile, Ala., told The Washington Times last week that the workers — whom she described as U.S. citizens, residents of Alabama and predominantly black — had been “urgently requested” by contractors hired to rebuild and clear devastated areas of the state, but were told to leave three job sites when the foreign workers showed up.
“After Katrina, our company had 70 workers on the job the first day, but the companies decided they didn’t need them anymore because the Mexicans had arrived,” Mrs. Swope said. “I assure you it is not true that Americans don’t want to work.

“We had been told that 270 jobs might be available, and we could have filled every one of them with men from this area, most of whom lost their jobs because of the hurricane,” she said. “When we told the guys they would not be needed, they actually cried ... and we cried with them. This is a shame.”
These American workers who lost everything in the hurricane got no help from the government when the criminal contractors replaced them with scofflaw illegal aliens. In fact the government kicked them while they were down. The Washington Times reported: “Would-be employers in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, awash in cleanup and reconstruction jobs, faced little in the way of legal problems in hiring the illegal aliens after Katrina because the Department of Homeland Security temporarily suspended the sanctioning of employers who hired workers unable to document their citizenship.

Mr. Bush also had suspended the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires local contractors to pay “prevailing” wages, in the areas hit by Katrina to encourage reconstruction and cleanup.”

The government that is supposed to protect Americans spit on Americans devastated by Katrina by telling criminal employers they faced no penalty for violating immigration laws or for replacing American workers with illegal aliens. If you object or speak out against that sort of crap, the pro-criminal axis will call you racist.

Tired as I am of wasting bandwidth on you as an irreconcilable and noting that no one else seems interested in this thread but thee and formerly me, suffice it to say that, if you don't think due process necessary, check Amendment 5 and Amendment 14, each of which REQUIRES due process for each PERSON (not merely each citizen). As you claim to be a believer in the "rule of law" (as you interpret it to be according to your own personal interpretation of law), I expect you to advocate obedience to Amendment 5 and Amendment 14 of the constitution which are even higher law than some "Yellow Peril" legislation of the late 19th century or anti-Mexican pipedream of our own era. The alternative would be to tell us what your theory is as to the non-personhood of Mexicans.

Yawn... in the face of reality, you trot out this tripe. Illegal immigrants have been loaded on buses and transported back to Mexico for the last forty years. If they can't provide paperwork to prove legal status, they are deported. The due process part, is where they are able to contact a family member or some other person who can provide documentation. If no one can, adios.

It's hysteria when you are hysterical and you are. hat the "illegals" are criminal in entering the United States is your claim. Back it up with a federal statutory citation, including the range of criminal punishment or give your keyboard a rest.

I have noted hysteria. It's not being emitted by my keyboard, but I do appreciate your attempt to make it look as if that were the case. If no illegality were taking place, illegal immigrants could not be legally incarcerated and deported. So you prove to me that is not happening, or that it is not supported by our laws.

I was making the point that 97 Senators voted for Ruth Buzzi Ginzberg, that you don't remember the identities of the three who voted the right way, that you are soooooo marginalized by your own far outness that you have long departed planet earth. Unless you can recognize a negative reality as reality, you cannot very well effectively change that reality and certainly not by unsupported whining, kvetching and moaning or baying at the moon.

Make any point you like. The fact of the matter is that Ginsberg is an activist judge. She is the very epitomy of what you have railed on, someone who legislates from the bench. Either you are in conflict with yourself, or it has simply sailed right over your head that 97 people voted incorrectly. Don't tell me that I am in the minority. Tell me something I don't know. You don't scoop into that 97 and place one of them in the White House if they don't know better than to vote for the confirmation of a person like Ginsberg to serve on the SCOTUS.

If only three US senators opposed Ruthie who was a leftist proposal of the Arkansas Antichrist, what makes you think that 38 to 42 US senators would oppose her if she had been nominated in your fantasies by John McCain??? I made no projections related to court appointments.

I note that we are not hearing the identity of that "better man" you supported any more than we are likely to see your non-existent resume of "conservative" activism. When your resume is non-existent, it is understandable that you prefer to deal in generalities and to ignore specifics.

I did mention Hunter and you responded on point, so your comment here isn't factual. As for my resume, it's not necessary for me to provide one to you. I don't have any qualms about my contributions over the years. If you do, I can live with that.

I don't think I made any references to your race or ancestry. The leading advocate of cracking down on "illegal" Mexicans here in Illinois is herself apparently a full-blooded Mexican with American citizenship by birth. She actually works for her causes and is a very good organizer. I see no evidence that you compare favorably to her. For the record, I am English, Irish, Scots-Irish, Scottish and German by ancestry and that's all of them. I also imagine it quite unlikely that any of my immigrant ancestors were processed through Ellis Island or any similar facility. America somehow survived.

You didn't. You just sought to cast me as a racist. Since you wouldn't do that if I were Hispanic, it was obvious where you were headed. As for the lady in your state who is of Mexican ancestry, you still can't get off the topic of race can you, whether implied or addressed directly. I dont' really care what race you are either. What possible difference could that make to me? It makes no difference whatsoever if your family came through Ellis Island. Tens of millions of others did. They were regulated. They were screened for disease and other disqualifiers. And that has been the legal method for at least a century.

25 million undocumented Latinos being present here is a significant number. If you don't think so, why are you bellyaching. Where did I say it wasn't?

If, as I suspect, you do think that number significant, the serious repercussion is that the bordermania is a lost cause. Since I've already said so in prior posts, this is very astute of you. If we were to enforce our laws, it would not be a lost cause.

Each child born here is a citizen by birth. Their kids will be citizens by ancestral citizenship and, most, by birth as well. Each of these children's parents should be motivated to repatriate themselves to their nation of origion. When the reach adulthood, they can go through the process of obtaining documentation and return to the United States. At the present time, they are the wards of illegal alien parents.

Whenever you want to see the border closed (our very own Berlin Wall!!! The Berlin Wall was to keep people in. It was not to keep them from flooding across the border and overrunning the Eastern Block territories. I thought you said you knew history.

Gee, Muffy or Skipper, isn't that just wonderful!!!!) Well, since we haven't seen anyone here propose a wall with guardposts to shoot people trying to leave our nation, I guess I won't have to answer that question Goober.

...to some extent, all you have to do is support what you would call a "shamnesty" bill that would legalize those already here while slowing the flow. Ain't going to happen bud. I'm not going to support the subversion of the laws that are on our books today.

IIRC, McCain-Kennedy would have produced such a law but then the rule of law is only applicable when you like the law. No, I don't approve of ex-post facto laws. I have stated so a number of times, so mentioning it again is truly a wast of time.

At least I admit that the rule of law is dead. Admit to anything you like. I don't really see what that has to do with me.

Until new legislation is enacted and new policies actually enforced (consistent with the constitution) millions per year still cross the border without papers. We don't need new legislation. What we need is enforcement. You are aware of that.

So, I turn the question back at you, will 100 million be enough or 150 million? You didn't answer the question.

Your position is dead as the proverbial doornail but y'all haven't the sense to fall over just yet. Each passing day will strengthen the hand of the undocumented immigrants. Take as long as you like. Your strategy sure has worked so far and just imagine how well those borders will be enforced under POTUS Hussein. My position is not dead. It is alive and harbored by tens if not hundreds of millions of U.S. Citizens. Each passing day will raise the calls for these folks to be repatriated to their nations of origion. As for POTUS Hussein, his reaction will be no different than McCain, to ignore the populace who put the brakes on the last attempt to legalize those where are here now, and to usher in tens of millions more people through chain migration.

When California under Planned Barrenhood (or Puddin' Head) Pete Wilson tried to refuse public services to "illegals", the federal courts understandably slapped down that effort via the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment which applies to persons and not merely citizens. Has Oklahoma's tough guy act survived the federal courts? If it does at the District and then Court of Appeals level, then SCOTUS awaits and there goes your fantasy. That is a falacious charge on several counts. What was struck down was a state-wide innitiative on the ballot in California, that was approved by considerably more than a clear majority of Californians. That law was struck down by the judgement of a less than full hearing before the Circuit Court of Appeals. It was not heard by the full court. It was also never challenged by the sitting governor, appealed to the Supreme Court by a man who should have sought to carry out the wishes of the will of his constiuents. It's never been tested before the Supreme Court. Therefore any attempt to act as if it has been judged to be truly unconstitutional, is misleading. We don't know what the ruling by the Supreme Court would have been.

If the bordermania, in a stunning upset, should become actual public policy, don't you think that the mamacitas and babies would be shot at the border???

Once again, you seek to turn this into a matter of gunning people down. I have never advocated it. I haven't seen any credible or even fringe group suggest publicly that such a thing should happen.

Would you imagine that the border patrol will wrestle them to the ground instead (film footage at 5 on Eyewitless News!)? What if there are a lot more mamacitas than there are border F Troopers? What if they crawl on hands and knees between the troopers and keep on crawling? Maybe the border guards should be disarmed??? Maybe you haven't begun to think this through in practical terms??? No maybe about it. I'll have to admit, that going into this conversation, I gave you way too much credit. You are now unraveling to the point of being an absolute fool.

You claim that the "illegals" are violating criminal law, we need the statutory citation. The US Code is online. You don't access it and the reason will seem obvious. Deportations taking place, it is impossible for you to claim that the illegal immigrants are not violating our laws. End of story.

Banks have been robbed illegally for the entire nation's history and we already have lots of anti-bank robbery statutes. Of course, statutes against bank robbery are quite constitutional. LOL, bud, you're just melting down here. I know what you're trying to do, and you're an idiot.

Sanctity means holiness. Out of curiosity, what makes you imagine borders to have sanctity or holiness??? Here, always glad to help: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacrosanct

It was not McCain but the loss of the Vietnam War that determined the POW/MIA issue. Losing wars has consequences as this nation will surely learn if you get your way. McCain joined John Kerry and others to lift the trade embargo with Vietnam bofore all our MIAs were acounted for. This removed any leverage we had, to get that full accounting. Those MIAs have never gotten a full accounting to this day. So your comment does nothing more than reveal another part of history you know nothing about. Many of those MIA POWs had been seen alive and well in the custody of the Vietnamse. What is shocking to me is that McCain would have so little regard for men that may have gone through, and at that time sitll be going through the same treatment he got as a POW. And he sold them out anyway. Sorry, I can't join you in thinking anything else could rise to this level.

I'll revise that statement on McCain's worst folly. Commerce with Vietnam is his second worst policy. This global warming nonsense is the worst. The POW/MIA issue was already dead with the war effort. Blame Feckless Ford for that one. You still haven't clue one what I am addressing regarding the MIA issue. Read my commet after the paragraph above again.

BTW, what DO illegal aliens look like so F Troop can recognize them on sight while expelling them without due process??? If you look like one, I certainly hope you carry your papers at all times. I generally do have my California Driver's License on me at all times. Thanks for your concern. As for refering to our U.S. Troops and Immigration agents on the border as "F troops", it says more than I could about you.

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.