Posted on 09/01/2003 12:32:47 AM PDT by goldstategop
I know: Let's have dictionaries with erasable print! That way, when words are changed to suit political or ideological purposes, we can just make the corrections and move on. Wouldn't want being correct to get in our way, now would we?
Note, I said "correct." Not "politically correct."
A rose is a rose is a rose. Yeah, sure it is.
We are careening past the day when words have accepted meanings. If we keep on at this rate, dictionary makers will be faced with three choices: either publish volumes twice the size they are now, print the books with erasable type, or just throw in the towel. What good is a dictionary when the meaning of words keeps getting changed, modified or downright destroyed?
It's too easy to use Bill Clinton's variations of "is," but that's an extraordinary example of what's happening.
We're in a world where "pro-choice" means the right to kill an unborn baby, where "single mother" encompasses any female who gives birth regardless of her marital status, where anyone who raises serious and thoughtful doubts about affirmative action is a "racist," where anyone who has concerns about homosexuality based on religious or historic ramifications on a society is a "homophobe," where anyone who disagrees with the liberal media culture is deemed a "fanatic right-winger" and sometimes "redneck" as well.
What happens if you love your country and want it to be safe and free and are willing to fight to maintain that safety and freedom? You once might have been called a patriot. Today, you'd be called a "war monger" or an "isolationist" and certainly would not be praised for your "flag-waving xenophobia."
Speaking of the flag, God help you if you revere the flag and expect it to be honored as a symbol of our country, our history. You will be vilified and mocked.
And then there are the "borders." Borders? Oh, right: the geographical boundaries of our country – any country.
Traditionally, borders are respected. You just don't walk across from one country to another. There are rules and regulations governing who crosses, when, how, for how long and, in some cases, for how much. Every country has its own laws. Traditionally, those laws are seriously enforced.
Yes, laws. My dictionary (Webster's New World) defines laws as "all the rules of conduct established by the authority or custom of a nation." In other words, those rules and regulations instituted by governments which guide how citizens of the country live and behave and how "visitors" to the country do the same.
"Lawful" is defined as conforming with the law.
"Lawless" is defined as non-conformance with the law or illegal.
"Lawbreaker" is one who violates the law.
Interestingly, "lawmaker," "legislator" and "lawgiver" all have the same definition: as one who makes law.
So, will someone please explain why we have duly elected legislators making laws benefiting people who have crossed our borders illegally, work in this country illegally using fake birth certificates and/or social security numbers, and are employed under the table by businesses who are themselves violating federal and state laws?
Historically, anyone operating that way in a country would be constantly on the run, fearful of authorities. But, not in our world, where these illegals are protected:
by cities which turn a blind eye to the lawlessness and in some cases provide extraordinary protection;
by churches and religious organizations which provide sanctuary;
by unions which solicit membership among illegals (who in turn, by their very presence and "membership," are taking jobs from union members who are legal citizens and lowering pay levels);
by local, state and federal laws which mandate the rights of citizens be accorded to these illegals;
by similar laws which burden the legal, taxpaying citizens of the country with paying the bills for all the costs of these illegals. The end result of all of this obfuscation waters down the meaning of U.S. citizenship. It also demeans the observance of our laws by people born here and those who immigrate legally and become citizens.
There is a clear definition of citizen: a member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to it by birth or naturalization and is entitled to full civil rights.
How is it acceptable for lawmakers to make it possible for foreigners here illegally to get driver's licenses, open bank accounts, hold jobs, get social security, insurance, free housing, food, school, medical and other social welfare, and ultimately be forgiven all their lawbreaking and made citizens?
It is not acceptable. Talk about recall! Get rid of every one of them.
Go Pat Go
Right. Jesus have HIS money to the poor. He did not go around to people, stick a sword in their faces, and demand that THEY give money to the poor under penalty of death.
Which is what socialism is: the use of political violence to redistribute wealth from those who earned it, to those who didn't (with the latter class including those who run the socialist system -- in the USSR, the ones who better than royalty were the inner circle of the Party).
If you do not believe that socialism involves taking your money by force, try sending a letter to the IRS telling them that you are declining to send in that part of your tax bill which goes for welfare. See how long it takes for IRS agents with guns to show up at your door
If the battle you are referring to consists primarily of "illegal immigration", then the battle is already close to being lost. Yes, I say that in all earnest: LOST. We are nearing that point in our history where no "reversal" (back to the norms of yesteryear) of these trends can be possible, without the risk of violent confrontation (certainly insofar as California goes).
The following post was written for the "California recall" threads, but I'll post it again. For years, California has been regarded as a "trend-setter", a harbinger of the fate of the _rest of_ the country. Perhaps now that can be changed, although California itself must be sacrificed in order to save the rest of the nation (or at least _most_ of the nation, save for the "Atzlan states").
-----------
CALIFORNIA'S FATE
California is finished. Nothing, nor anyone, can save it now. Repeat: no one -- not McClintock, not Swarzenegger, NO ONE -- can turn California around. Whatever destiny California faces, it is rushing headlong towards that fate _today_.
The problem is not that California's course can't be changed. The problem _is_ that the steps necessary to actually _reverse_ California's progress towards disaster will be perceived as too draconian to take. Too draconian even by the terms of a Swarzenegger or McClintock. With tongue only half-in-cheek, it would take a politician of the persuasion of David Duke to actually speak the "fix" that is needed on the left coast.
It is obvious to me (and I would think also obvious to most readers of Free Republic), California has two overwhelming problems, one social, one fiscal, but both related.
The "social" problem is the innundation -- more succinctly, the INVASION -- of illegals (mostly Mexicans) from across the southern border. How many are living there now? I presume _any_ number officials come up with actually UNDERcounts the present number of illegals in the state. And how many more arrive every day?
And how many millions more will come in the future? 10 million? 20 million? Who is going to STOP them from coming? The border patrol? (hearty laugh) The answer: NO ONE. No politician in California (again, short of Mr. Duke, if they can persuade him to migrate there) is going to bluntly state that there are:
• Too many illegals in California now, and
• That no more should come, and
• That the ones already there should be "encouraged" to return to their native land(s).
Does anyone reading this seriously think that Arnold Swarzenegger will say as much?
Does anyone reading this seriously think that Tom McClintock will say as much?
So I think that it's a certainty to state that the illegal invasion will continue into the foreseeable future.
With the continuing flood of illegals, the second problem is economic. To wit: the hordes of illegals must be subsidized by the state, and, it follows, by the productive citizens of the state -- i.e., the taxpayers.
But there are so many [largely illegal] "tax-consumers" now (with their numbers growing daily) that there isn't enough revenue from the tax-producers to pay for them. The state is going broke at breakneck speed. Many conservative Californians perceive this, and are packing up and moving out. That will exacerbate the problems, like some kind of "Laffer curve" gone insane. As the tax-consuming population zooms upward, the tax-producers will escape across the borders. And the state's deficit will degenerate into something resembling an economic black hole.
They _had_ a chance to put some brakes on it with Proposition 187. But we all know what happened to that.
Not being familiar with the particulars of the court decision that declared 187 unconstitutional -- and whether that court decision could still be appealed to a higher forum (read: U.S. Supreme Court), would Tom McClintock be willing to push for a _new_ ballot initiative to deny benefits to illegals? And -- after it is again declared unconstitutional at the Circuit Court level, will he keep pushing? Would a Governor Ah-nuld do the same?
I doubt it. Whatever steps a Republican governor might take, he is going to be thwarted by the overwhelming Democratic majority at every step. The more drastic the proposals a McClintock or Swarzenegger might make (and, as explained above, only drastic measures can have a Chinaman's chance of turning the Titanic of California around), the greater resistance he will face from the legislature.
Ultimately, California will likely become the first state in history that goes bankrupt. $38 BILLION in debt NOW, with no relief in sight. How are they going to get out of this? Will Congress force the other 49 states to pay for it? Answer: unknown at this time. This could become an issue in the 2004 presidential election - remember that you read this prediction here first.
Perhaps, for the _rest of us_ (meaning everyone in the other 49 states), the election of Bustamente might be the preferable alternative. For, if anything, Bustamente (with his MECHA background) will take pro-active steps to accelerate the conversion of California into a quasi-Mexican state, finishing off any hope that the bulk of the state will remain something resembling the rest of the United States.
In other threads, I've stated several times that conservatives in the "other 49" should ask themselves the "Ann Landers question" regarding California: would we be better off with it, or withOUT it?
I realize there is still a conservative base within California, but in the future, they will find themselves marginalized in the same way that whites are being demonized in South Africa. The only recourse for survival will become physical escape.
And as California inches ever closer to the precipice, perhaps the best course for the rest of America will be to let it fall away. For all the talk of the legendary earthquake that would cause the state to slide into the Pacific, ultimately, it will be an "earthquake" of social/economic upheaval that splits the erstwhile golden state from the rest of the nation.
Cheers!
- John
You thank God for "W", yet "W" is exactly what you describe above. His policies are savaging our rights and our safety when it relates to illegal immigration. He has done exactly nothing to even put a dent in it, he refuses to protect our borders and enforce immigration laws.
We'll print up thousands of flyers and distribute them in areas where illegal aliens are found in high concentrations.
The flyer will state that the doors to your home are wide open to illegals and you are willing to feed and take care of as many as you possibly can. Thanks for caring.
Please post your address so you can help.
There is certainly a large amount of truth in what you say, and I'm inclined to agree with many of your opinions.
However, your central thesis overlooks one important point: immigration is not controlled by the states; it is controlled by the federal government. So even if the politicians of California don't have the stomach to take on illegal immigration, it ultimately wouldn't matter if the federal government did its job in securing the borders and deporting illegals. But therein lies the problem: the federal government doesn't have the stomach to take on illegal immigration either. It won't be until all the people of America raise their voices in unison about this problem, that the politicians--at all levels of government--will start to take action.
And that leads me to my second bone of contention with your post: namely, that the rest of the US should stand back and watch California "fall away" (as you put it). I would call this "Kitty Genovese Diplomacy."** The arguments that "it's not our problem", or that the rest of America would be "better off without California" are dangerously false.
This is a problem for all citizens (and legal immigrants). If the federal government is willing to allow California (and other border states) to collapse under the weight of illegal immigration, why do you think they'll act to protect your state? As the border states overflow with illegals, where do you think they'll go next? (Hint: look at the growth of illegals already occurring in your own neighborhoods.)
Furthermore, consider this: why do you think the economy of America is so bad right now? One of the main reasons--if not the main reason--is because California is dragging the national economy down like a giant ball-and-chain. California's state debt is greater that the combined state budgets of all other 49 states. California was (before Gray Davis took office) the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world. If America were to let California "fall away", do you not think the rest of the country would feel it? (Heck, the whole world would feel it!) That would be like doctors cutting out a necrotic heart and then sewing up the empty chest cavity: the diseased organ will be excised, but the patient will still die.
Do you really want to pick up the tax burden previously filled by a once productive and prosperous California? As California becomes a giant welfare trough for the overpopulating poor (mainly) from Central and South America, who do you think is going to be paying for their "social services"? (Hint: it won't be Californian taxpayers because, as you say, most will either be "marginalized" or will "physically escape".) The truth is, the forty-some other non-border states will become the "rich uncle" that will be bled dry to feed, clothe, house, school, entertain,... the occupying invasion of illegals. That won't happen, you say? You won't allow that? Why not? You're already willing to allow it to happen to California. And as California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and others fall under de-facto Mexican control, what do you think is going to happen to their Senators, Congressmen, and numerous electoral votes? If you think our federal government is corrupt, wasteful, and repressive now, just wait until it's controlled from south-of-the-border!
As I said before, if we lose the battle against the invasion of illegals in California and other border states, then we will lose America...all of America!
[** For those not familiar with Kitty Genovese, she was a young woman living in New York in the early 1960's. One night, while walking home from work, a man attacked her with a knife. Her screams brought dozens of her neighbors to their windows. But not one of them did anything to help. No one even bothered to call the police, and Genovese was stabbed, raped, and stabbed again (to death) over the course of half-an-hour. This phenomenon is referred to as "bystander apathy."]
As I stated in my original posting, California will almost certainly become the first state to face bankruptcy. With the billions upon billions upon billions of dollars they are in debt (and that's only _this_ year's debt, not considering each and every year to come), there can be no escape.
No governor -- not even one wielding his line-item veto like a Jedi sword -- is going to be able to free California from this debt. No one. The debt burden is "embedded" into California's [deteriorating and Mexicanizing] culture and social structures in ways that cannot be reversed. Can you seriously assert to me that _any_ new governor, McClintock or Swarnegger or ANYone, is going to take steps to prevent illegals from sapping the public health system with free medical care? Can you seriously assert to me that _any_ new governor, McClintock or Swarnegger or ANYone, is going to take steps to end the ridiculous requirement that more than 50% of all state spending be earmarked for education (educating a huge number of illegal children)??? Please respond to these questions directly, and maybe I'll believe your arguments have weight.
But you are overlooking something else that will become very important -- perhaps not in the next few years, but certainly within a decade or two. As whites and businesses flee and mestizos flock to the state, there will arise (shades of "Reconquista!") a cultural sentiment that California should again become a part of Mexico. _Mexico_, and _not_ the United States. We will almost certainly see the rise of a "separatist" movement a la the Party Quebecois. Granted, Quebec [at this time] remains a part of Canada, but the possibility remains that the citizens of that province could someday vote to secede from the Canadian commonwealth. If that day ever comes, I predict English-speaking Canada would make scant effort to restrain Quebec from secession.
If anything, the situation in California is deteriorating so rapidly that it may reach the "cultural breakoff point" _before_ Quebec.
What will the _rest_ of America think when California has become a financial burden on the national coffers, with an ever-increasing alien population (now surging into the majority) clamoring for cultural secession?
Prediction: the citizens of the "other 49" may just decide to relinquish the California territories -- which by that time will little resemble what it did when it was culturally part of the United States -- back to from where they came, with all the social and financial problems along with it.
Your prediction of "de facto" Mexican control will at that point face conversion to "de jure" control. If it's "Atzlan" they want, let them have it. There will be little left to save, and the costs (to Americans) of trying to "save" California will have become more than the costs of "letting it go".
SpyGuy continued:
As I said before, if we lose the battle against the invasion of illegals in California and other border states, then we will lose America...all of America!
You could very well be right. But I sense that -- for the vast majority of "the rest" of America (read: flyover country), the illegal issue is just now beginning to come to a head -- along with the realization that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are _ever_ going to do anything to stop it, short of a grassroots revolution.
Perhaps all is lost. Perhaps the innundation of illegals in California is unstoppable for the rest of the nation. Unsure at this point. One thing I can state: the illegal invasion _is_ most certainly "unstoppable" in California, far past critical mass at this point. How can it ever be contained (which would not solve the problem) or _reversed_ (which _might_)? I challenge you to refute this.
For these reasons, the loss of Atzlan (or, more correctly, the "conversion" of previously white California into brown Atzlan) may become the "clarion call" for a new rebirth of European-American cultural consciousness and defense. Kind of a "last stand" for the white folks?
As California falls, it will -- it MUST -- be this rebirth of cultural consciousness if there is any chance to save the REST of the country.
California cannot be saved. Oh, conservatives out there continue to rail against the obvious, as Lear raged against the storm that would eventually destroy him. But there is still time remaining to "build the cultural wall" necessary to contain much of the rest of the land.
Whether we do that or not (and, frankly, I wish I could be more optimistic that it will be done) is solely a matter of our resolve to do so.
Cheers!
- John
Possibly.... But let's not fool ourselves: the financial crisis of California was/is caused by much more than simply illegal immigration (although that certainly plays a major role). California has a HUGE state government workforce with outrageous salaries, benefits, and pensions. This is because the CA Legislature and Governor have pandered to the state workers unions in exchange for political influence and campaign contributions. California has a grotesque workman's compensation system. California has social handouts that are magnets not just for illegals, but also for hordes of worthless bums who migrate here from other states to cash in. California has punitive and oppressive tax and regulatory systems that drive businesses out of state. California has an education system that is so top-heavy with overpaid bureaucratic administrators, that even if we discharged all the illegals, it would still cost us a fortune to run. The point of pointing this out is that it is not just illegal immigration running the late great state of California into the ground: it is unchecked Leftism. And it's coming to a state near you. Sure, flyover country is predominantly conservative. But flyover country doesn't have the political might and/or will (at this time) to overturn the race towards national socialism. Frankly, it doesn't matter how conservative flyover country is as long as the federal government continues to move Left (and I'm talking about BOTH political parties).
John writes:
"Please respond to these questions directly, and maybe I'll believe your arguments have weight."
I already responded that. In many ways, it doesn't really matter what the new governor's position is on illegal immigration. Border control and immigration control are not within the state government's purview. Let's assume that we could elect a governor who will take a hard-line stance against illegal immigration. What could he do? He couldn't put troops on the border. He couldn't round up and deport illegals (that's the job of the INS...or whatever they're calling themselves these days). He couldn't even enact legislation to cut off social services to illegals (assuming he could get such legislation past the communists and socialists in the CA Legislature) because some Leftist judge(s) would simply overturn it (the same way they blocked the voter-approved Prop 187).
So my point is that the salvation to California, in regards to the problems of illegal immigration, rests not within the California government, but rather in the will of the American people as a whole putting pressure on our national government to end this problem.
But for a more direct response, I agree with you that it will be very difficult for any new governor to turn California around, primarily because we will first have to also recall 99% of the CA Legislature. One of the reasons Gray Davis and the legislature are trying to push through (before the recall) this bill giving driver's licenses to illegals is specifically so that more illegals aliens will become illegal voters--to keep the Leftist Demoncrats in power, of course.
John writes:
"there will arise (shades of "Reconquista!") a cultural sentiment that California should again become a part of Mexico. ... We will almost certainly see the rise of a "separatist" movement a la the Party Quebecois. ... Prediction: the citizens of the 'other 49' may just decide to relinquish the California territories."
I have a prediction for you: if California does fall under Mexican control, there is no way in hell they would want to secede. Why would they want to throw away the golden goose (i.e., the rest of America and the socialist federal government that will be confiscating YOUR tax dollars and redistributing it to the "Bronze State")?
Sure there will always be an undercurrent of reunification with Mexico by radical activists, but they will be a small minority compared to those that would rather continue sucking at the teat of Aunt Sam (i.e., Uncle Sam after the feminists emasculated him and the homosexual lobby forced a sex-change operation). And with California's political clout, you wouldn't be able to boot the state away if you wanted to.
John writes:
"One thing I can state: the illegal invasion is most certainly "unstoppable" in California, far past critical mass at this point. How can it ever be contained (which would not solve the problem) or reversed (which might)? I challenge you to refute this."
I'm not willing to surrender just yet. But it will take a NATIONAL effort to reverse the downward spiral. This is not just California's problem: it is AMERICA's problem. If the remaining states do not want to follow California's lead (and they will follow our lead--whether they want to or not--if things don't change in Washington), then all must act to stop this invasion by force of our country.
John writes:
"California cannot be saved."
Allow me to paraphrase Pastor Martin Niemöller:
First they came for California
and I did not speak out
because I did not live in California.
Then they came for Arizona
and I did not speak out
because I did not live in Arizona.
Then they came for New Mexico
and I did not speak out
because I did not live in New Mexico.
Then they came for Texas
and I did not speak out
because I did not live in Texas.
Then they came for my state
and there were not enough electoral votes
to speak out for me.
John writes:
"But there is still time remaining to 'build the cultural wall' necessary to contain much of the rest of the land."
Don't think that you can throw California to the wolves to keep them at bay. The wall we must be building, is not between California and the rest of America, it needs to be between America and her neighboring countries. And it will take all the states UNITED (now there's a concept!) to do it.
I am confident that this is starting to sink in, at least to the American people. I can't say the same for our so-called leaders.
He also puts out "World Magazine". Or do you think he is in a cult?
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.