- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE SECTOR
by Sandy Sandfort 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

C'punks, Fox News had a retired general on to discuss the purported billion dollar bounty on Bin Laden. His take was predictable. He was afraid that mercenaries would get in the way of government efforts to get OBL. Of course, he never consider that the government efforts might get in the way of the mercenaries nor that the two might have a community of interest in working together. I have been saying for 15 years that the solution to hijackings/kidnappings is bounty insurance. (A relatively small premium pays for a $10,000,000--or more--bounty on the heads of those who kidnap and kill an insured person.) Any insurance/entrepreneurial types out there who want to step up to the plate and put together such a policy? S a n d y P.S. Bounties are NOT "assassination politics." Those who believe they are the same are unclear on one or both concepts.

1 0

File - Automatic Monthly Repost of Basic Facts.txt
by Anti_Immigration Moderator 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

{This is an AUTOMATIC EMAIL. It is automatically posted to this email list once a month. It is a Repost of very important information that you may have missed before. Please resend this information to your friends and family and to everyone you know. Thanks, BobFromMichigan74(a)Hotmail.com} The following information comes from the Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/ http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab04.html http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab03.html Legal Immigration - Total numbers for each decade is listed as follows 1990 - 19,767,316 1980 - 14,079,906 1970 - 9,619,302 1960 - 9,738,091 FRIENDS - PLEASE NOTE THAT OVER 45 MILLION LEGAL (YES I SAID "LEGAL") IMMIGRANTS HAVE ENTERED THE COUNTRY SINCE 1970. NOW ADD TO THAT BETWEEN 10 AND 20 MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY LIVING WITHIN AMERICA. THIS MEANS THAT A TOTAL OF BETWEEN 55 AND 65 MILLION PEOPLE ARE NOW LIVING IN AMERICA WHO WERE NOT BORN IN AMERICA. WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT THE TOTAL POPULATION OF AMERICA IS LESS THAN 290 MILLION, IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMON SENSE AT ALL THOSE NUMBERS SHOULD SCARE THE HECK OUT OF YOU. "SOMETHING IS HAPPENING HERE AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS... DO YOU, MR. JONES?" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I Urge you all to go to this Website http://www.americanpatrol.com/archiveditems.html MYTHS AND HALF-TRUTHS ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION VCT Web Posted 1/17/2000 MYTH: America has lots of room to double the population (The U.S. Census Bureau says that the U.S. population will double this century). TRUTH: The open spaces one sees from an airplane are not where the 260 million new immigrants and their families will settle. They will settle in the already overcrowded urban areas of the country just like they always have. Much of America's open spaces are occupied by food production for our own people and to sustain tens of millions of people in other countries. Open spaces are also part of our national heritage of parks and wilderness. A U.S. Census spokesman recently said we shouldn't be very crowded even at twice the population because we still will have only about a fourth the density of England. This irresponsible "trick" statement averages our open spaces, much of which is farmland, parks, and otherwise uninhabitable land, into the equation. In the sections of the country where most Americans live, we are already very much as crowded as are Europeans. And do we want to live like Europeans who centuries ago destroyed most of their wild areas. MYTH: Americans won't do the work that illegals do. TRUTH: Prior to 1965 when the disastrous Immigration Bill was passed, there was very little immigration. In fact, between 1925 and 1965, there was even a period of net emigration out of the United States. During this time, our grass was getting cut, our meat was being packed, our children were being watched and our houses were being cleaned. The idea that somehow we suddenly can't run a country without an unlimited supply of foreigners is absurd. Those in favor of foreign labor are corporations who are addicted to cheap labor. They are the ones who are benefiting. But their benefit comes at the American tax payer's expense when you consider that the American tax payer is virtually subsidizing the labor costs of the greedy corporations by supplying the illegal foreign workers and their families with welfare, free education, free medical, WICs, housing assistance, etc. -- something the corporations won't do. Americans won't allow themselves to be exploited like illegals do, but they WILL do the work that illegals do for fair compensation and benefits. If Americans did the work that illegals do at higher pay, would that benefit the consumer? You bet it would in the long run. But many Americans who do not care about America's future are consumers who favor the idea of exploiting illegal workers because it keeps commodity and service prices down in the short term. HALF TRUTH: illegals eventually become assimilated Americans. TRUTH: Many do. But Most third world illegals come to the U.S. for personal economic reasons. Most do not cherish our system of government, A Constitutional Republic. Many so called "immigration rights" groups "fan the fire" with their rhetoric which encourages immigrants to preserve their culture and language at tax payers expense. Among some of these groups, the word "assimilation" is considered xenophobic. When ultimately illegal immigrants and/or their children do become voting citizens, many vote in blocks (Mexican-American, El Salvadoran-American, Guatemalan-American, etc.), not for the good of America, but for personal economic gain usually at the expense of another group. HALF TRUTH: Illegal aliens are better off in the U.S. doing lousy menial jobs than they are in their own country. TRUTH: That may be true for the Illegal aliens in the short run (and businesses that hire them), but for many "undocumented immigrants" (Mexicans make up the majority), the "American legacy of exploitation of immigrants" remains in the minds of their children for many generations to come creating resentment of America and hinders assimilation of even their American born offspring. Resentment of America has created anti-American organizations such as MECHA whose nationwide college and high school members must pledge their support to forcefully take back what they call "Aztlan," the U.S. Southwest ceded in 1846 to the U.S. in the Mexican War. HALF TRUTH: Illegal aliens pay taxes that benefit the economy. TRUTH: Most illegal aliens do not receive a typical paycheck with tax deductions -- they are paid in cash and do not pay taxes. Even when they do pay taxes (only possible if they use fraudulent social security numbers or government assigned ID tax numbers), their meager income is not enough to pay for medical expenses and all the expenses for all the children they give birth to. You don't have to look at statistics -- just visit the maternal ward at the L.A. county hospital. There, illegal immigrant women are having thousands of children per year free of charge and can't afford them once they give birth, and that doesn't stop them from having even more children -- most learn how to work the system so that they receive cash assistance and food stamps. A basic principle in economics is this: The more people that assimilate into the system the better -- if it creates a larger tax base. But here in California it hasn't. For example, the feds had to bail out the L.A. County hospital system several years ago and the county hospitals are now again headed for another crisis. The evidence shows that the net results are that illegal immigrants cost the taxpayer significantly more than they pay in taxes. HALF TRUTH: Illegal aliens have a good work ethics. TRUTH: It depends on what one means by "work ethic." If it means that illegals will allow themselves to be exploited, then they have a good work ethic. If it means that a group of day laborers would be consciences in the assembly of precision built automobiles, it might get an argument. But it is irrelevant if an illegal alien has a good work ethic -- they are working illegally! MYTH: Illegal aliens don't affect politics because they can't vote. TRUTH: Just by being counted in the census, illegals give political power to special groups. Many illegals fraudulently vote anyway and there is strong evidence that some key elections have been upset by illegal voters. Politicians represent the "people" even if those people are illegal aliens. Since the number of representatives in congress is fixed, any increase in population in California, for example, due to illegal immigration will require more representation for that group while taking away representation from people in other states. Most politicians that represent areas of large illegal population, vote in the interest of illegal aliens since they are the ones they represent. On the state level, it is clear that politicians like Governor Davis, California Speaker of the House Antonio Villaraigosa, California Senator Hilda Solis, California Assemblyman Gilbert A. Cedillo, etc., all want laws changed in the interest of illegal aliens. MYTH: illegals go to illegal unlicensed medical clinics run by unlicensed quacks because they have no other alternative and because they are afraid of being deported. TRUTH: Illegals know that they won't be deported simply for seeking medical help -- thousands go for free medical help every day. Obviously, the thousands of illegals who give birth in our county hospitals do not seem to be worried about deportation after their free delivery. The real reason many unsophisticated Hispanic illegals don't go to "free" medical facilities is because they actually trust "curanderos" ( type of witch doctors popular in Mexico) over licensed medical doctors. HALF TRUTH: Illegals come to the U.S. for jobs to support their families, and wives and kids in there homeland. TRUTH: Many do. But record numbers of those wives and kids are sneaking over the border to join their breadwinner in the U.S. But most alarming, is the record numbers of dead-beat dads that find an easy escape from their responsibilities in their homeland and in fact abandon their families. There is also strong empirical evidence that even illegal aliens who had good jobs in their homeland still want to be in the U.S. -- most of the world's people want to come to the U.S. because it is a very good place to be for many more reasons than just for a job. MYTH: Pete Wilson's attitude towards illegal aliens stifled trade with Mexico. Governor Davis will change that. TRUTH: Trade from California to Mexico increased 84.5 percent between 1992 and 1997 and did more trading with Mexico than any other state including Texas - all during the central years of the Wilson administration. MYTH: Proposition 187 is unconstitutional because governor Davis says so. TRUTH: Maybe 187 is unconstitutional. But it is not for the governor of California to decide that. That decision must come from the U.S. supreme court. Davis has preempted the supreme court and snubbed his nose at the voters of California by deciding on his own that 187 is unconstitutional -- contradicting a statement he made to the voters "I'm a governor, not a judge." MYTH: The cost of not educating undocumented children is higher than the cost of educating them. TRUTH: This kind of statement is absurd. It assumes that disallowing illegal alien children into our schools and/or deporting them is not an option. The idea that undocumented children are being punished for the bad deeds of their parents is ludicrous. Undocumented children already have citizenship in another country that is responsible for their education. California schools have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding who gets to go to school. This policy is a powerful magnet that attracts illegals to California. The costs are enormous. Undocumented children are being rewarded, not punished. Few disagrees that if the current rate of illegal immigration continues, a school a day will have to be built to accommodate the undocumented children and citizen children of undocumented parents. MYTH: Record public school enrollment on a national level of 17.5 percent from 1983 to 1997, is a result of Baby Boomers. TRUTH: Current Population Surveys (such as reported in the January 1999 Backgrounder) shows that 15.9 percent of the school-age population growth in 1997 had immigrant mothers. In California, officials say a new school each day -- or a new classroom an hour -- is needed to keep up with the growth (Since immigrants are just as likely (even more likely) than natives to go to public school, it's clear that nearly all the increase in public school enrollment over the past 15 years is due to federal immigration policy, not the Baby Boom generation. MYTH: Issuing California driver's licenses to illegal aliens will make our roads safer because they would be trained to drive safely and would have insurance. TRUTH: Giving illegal aliens driver's licenses will only make enforcement of our immigrant laws more difficult -- it would make it harder to detect them. It also "throws in the towel" and sends the wrong message to illegal aliens that they can change the law by breaking the law. Society must assume that anyone who would break the law and drive without a license, would continue to break driving and other laws even if they were licensed and most would not be any safer drivers. Moreover, it is laughable to think that these illegal aliens are going to run out and buy car insurance (one of more profitable documents now being sold to illegals, are fraudulent "proof of insurance" documents). MYTH: Lack of academic achievement and high school dropout rates are caused by the poor economic conditions of immigrants. TRUTH: This belief is another one of those "just accept this as truth" cliches." Poverty in itself does not cause school dropouts. This was proven in a report in Scientific American magazine (Indochinese Refugee Families and Academic Achievement, February, 1992). The article showed that many refugees from Southeast Asia with large families arrived in the U.S. with little more than the clothes on their backs and with no exposure to Western culture or knowledge of the English language. Yet their children display stunning scholastic achievement in American schools. In the U.S., the effect of poverty on education has been focused mainly on two ethnic groups, Black and Hispanics. Ironically, these groups have the most representation by their "leaders" who's livings depend on bringing high visibility to the children's penurious conditions -- instead of emphasis on the hard work it takes to succeed in academics. But for the sake of argument, if poverty of immigrants is the cause of their lack of academic acheivement, why would the U.S. want to import poverty. MYTH: Since illegal alien farm workers come to the U.S. for "jobs Americans won't take," they would not present a problem if they were given temporary visas to allow them to work the fields and then return to Mexico (or other country). TRUTH: Millions of illegal alien workers who could be doing all the farm work that "Americans won't do" are already in the U.S. Almost all illegals who come to work the fields do not make a career of low paying, hard working farm jobs. The belief that only pitiful third world laborers can be content in doing menial farm work is obviated when it is seen that almost all of these workers sooner or later "head for the city" for the better jobs. HALF TRUTH: Illegals are enjoying the fruit of the recent great American robust economy. TRUTH: While many Americans are benefiting from a robust economy, government data shows that record numbers of Americans are falling into poverty in spite of overall good economic conditions -- and in spite of 35 years of record government spending on social programs. This down slide can be directly linked to illegals flooding the low scale job market -- virtually importing poverty faster than it can be irradiated. Had there not been any massive illegal immigration in the past 20 years, poverty in much of America may well have been reduced significantly. MYTH: Employers are solely responsible for illegal immigration because they attract illegals by providing low paying jobs. TRUTH: Illegals are directly responsible for their illegal presence. Blaming the entire problem on employers for illegal immigration is like blaming a women for her own rape because she dressed to sexy and the rapist couldn't resist her. HALF TRUTH: Hispanic immigrants are family oriented and very religious catholics. TRUTH: The vast majority of illegal entries from across our southern border are unsophisticated, poor, and uneducated, who do not necessarily hold to strong family values or the Catholic faith. This is evident by U.S. statistics showing that while unwed teenage pregnancy in the U.S. is decreasing as a whole, Latina unwed teenage pregnancy is on the rise. The illegal immigrants of today are not all the honest, hard working, American dream seekers. This is evident by record numbers of dead-beat dads who walk away from their responsibilities to their children by leaving their homeland and simply crossing the border. MYTH: If the U.S. pumps money into Mexico and other third world countries for the purpose of improving their economies, it will create jobs thus eliminating the need to illegally immigrate to the U.S. TRUTH: The only way that the improvement of other countries' economies would appreciably stop illegal immigration to the U.S., is if those countries' economies were to become as strong as that of the U.S. Thousands of visa over stayers from non-third world countries like Canada, France, Israel, are also part of the illegal immigration problem and those countries have good economies. The U.S. is not the only country to which illegal immigrants seek to immigrate. Countries all over the world are experiencing illegal immigration driven by "wanting a better life." As soon as Third World countries become even only a little bit more prosperous than their neighbors, they rush to keep strangers out. Mexico, for example, does not tolerate its border violations by Guatemalans. Malaysia recently announced that in the case of repeat offenders, it will flog illegal aliens, their employers, and anyone who smuggles them into the country. In early January, 2000, over 35,000 illegal Zimbabwe! an! ! workers were tossed out Of South Africa. So forget it! The U.S. should be concerned with improving its own economy and strictly enforcing its immigration laws. HALF TRUTH: Immigrants make good entrepreneurs. TRUTH: The common belief that immigrants are natural entrepreneurs may have its roots in the observation of the thousands of illegal alien third world style illegal street venders now found in most large U.S. cities. This belief has been obviated by a wall street article in which recent data shows that native born Americans are more likely to be successful entrepreneurs. (Immigrant Entrepreneurs Slide From Their Top Spot, The Wall Street Journal, January 12, 1999). http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/mythshalftruths000117.html ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In 1980 there were only 67 Spanish-language radio stations in the United States. Today, at least 559 of the nation's 12,800 stations broadcast in Spanish, according to the Arbitron ratings service. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Claudia Smith, "Condemning Migrant Job Seekers to Death." My Findings and Suggestions: * Today 5 1/2 million illegal aliens from Mexico enter San Diego and Imperial counties in CA each year. Some bring drugs and later traffic drugs. Many come for other reasons. Drug smuggling is common with illegal immigration from Mexico. * A total of 7 1/2 million mostly Mexican illegal aliens now cross the U.S.-Mexico border yearly and permanently remain in the U.S., and this number is increasing 2 million per year. * The apprehension figures are almost identical in CA from 1994 to 1998, therefore the so-called "Gatekeeper displaced" illegal immigration to AZ and NM in 1999 may actually be NEW illegal immigration, or in essence a tremendous increase in illegal immigration from Mexico. Some of the new AZ figures alone extrapolate to more than 2 million more new illegals per year! * Most illegal aliens coming across the U.S.-Mexico border are not drug smugglers, but almost all drug smugglers and people smugglers are illegal aliens. * Illegal drugs produced in Mexico and smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico cost a U.S. family of four $1,286.00 in 1998. Tax money you paid which your family could have used for other things. * Illegal immigration from Mexico costs each U.S. citizen another $341.00 per year in federal, state, county, and local taxes and fees for public education, housing, health care, welfare, social security, emergency medical treatment, sanitation, unemployment, fire suppression, and a plethora of other costs such as private losses by property owners, ranchers, and border residents. $1394.00 for a family of four. * The cost of illegal drugs and illegal immigration from Mexico to your family of four is now $2,680.00 per year. And you have to earn $3,752.00 to pay this amount. * $3,752.00 right out of your pocket or your purse and those of every other U.S. family. U.S. citizens in high immigration states, counties, and cities will pay a higher amount. Maybe much higher. Example: The same family in California will pay an additional $1,250.00 in emergency medical care costs per year for illegal aliens. * The total cost of illegal drugs and illegal immigration from Mexico to your CA family of four is now $3,930.00 per year. And you have to earn $5,502.00 to pay this amount if you live in California. * One large city reports that up to 87% of their drug arrests are now illegal aliens mostly from Mexico. But most will not release this 'racially profiled' information. * The U.S. Border Patrol now has an armed patrol agent for every 475 feet* of the 66 mile border in San Diego county (2,200 armed agents plus support personnel), yet over 5,000,000 illegal aliens slipped by them in 1998 and remain in the U.S. in 1999. Unofficial USBP estimates are that fewer than 25% of these 2,200 agents are ever on or near the border engaged in their primary duty assignment at any given time. * The U.S. Border Patrol is not on the U.S. border. They stop motorists on highways. They conduct highway checkpoints. They help local, county, and state police. They rescue illegal aliens. They chase vans overloaded with 45 illegal aliens. They catch between 10% and 30% of the illegal aliens. But few USBP are on the actual real border strip of land that's 60 feet wide, owned by the federal government (in CA only), and defined as the U.S. Border. This must change. And control of the U.S.B.P. by I.N.S. management must change. And using privately owned and U.S. citizen occupied property as a "buffer zone" between the real border and the interior highway defined "pseudo* border" must stop. * The current I.N.S. illegal immigration policy is a deceptive plan of "catch, count, and release," sometimes without deportation of the illegal alien, but instead release into the community, with a promise by the alien to return to Mexico. Even after deportation, almost all (99.2%) illegal aliens return to the U.S. often bringing their entire extended families. * Once across the real U.S.-Mexico border, virtually all illegal aliens, smuggling drugs or not, are "home free" in the U.S.A. and almost all eventually become U.S. citizens. This is the real intent of the current I.N.S. management. * The U.S. desperately needs a National Border Fence and a National Border Control Procedure that respects the rights of the majority of U.S. citizens, the rights of U.S. citizen border residents near the border, and which takes their well-being and ideas into consideration too. And then shut down Operation Gatekeeper which is a failure in 79% of San Diego county and 100% of Imperial county based on apprehension figures from 1994 to 1998. * There will be another Mexico peso devaluation. Probably after December 2000 when President Zedillo's term ends. Today's flood of aliens and drugs from Mexico may only be a trickle in comparison. * Wake up Americans before it's too late. * Wake up Americans before it's Kosovo. *Excludes two days off per week, training days, holidays, vacation days, sick days, review board days, personal leave days, various interior duty assignments, court appearances, highway checkpoint assignments, and management personnel. * Today up to 75% of the illegal drugs in the U.S. come from Mexico across the U.S.-Mexico border. These drugs are produced in Mexico or transported through Mexico and then smuggled into the U.S. by mostly illegal aliens from Mexico. * The importation of illegal drugs into the U.S. from Mexico and the wide-spread smuggling of both people and drugs from Mexico results from an unprotected U.S.-Mexico border, a NAFTA caused relaxation of border inspections, and a corrupt neo*-narco Mexico government. * All the available evidence indicates massive drug money-corruption throughout Mexico's civil and military establishments: police officers, attorney generals, army officers, generals, cabinet officials, governors, and even presidents. Some experts say the Mexican drug cartels operate as an arm of the government of Mexico. * For every $10 million dollars we export to Mexico with NAFTA, the U.S. "imports" $12.28 million dollars of Mexican drug-related costs. This cost was $87.75 billion (with a "b") in 1997. * If only 2% of the illegal aliens now crossing the U.S.-Mexico border smuggle in 2 kilograms of cocaine (4.4 lbs) this would account for all 342 tons the DEA says now enter our country annually. * Mexico is the transit station for 50-70% of the cocaine, a quarter to a third of the heroin, 80% of the marijuana, and 90% of the ephedrine used to make methamphetamine entering the United States. - Senate Hearings 1998 * Methamphetamine cases now account for 80% of the nation's police departments' drug investigations. - DEA Report 1996 * One million legal immigrants come to America each year making the 1990s the highest population growth decade in U.S. history, not counting the 7 1/2 million additional illegal aliens coming from Mexico each year. * Most illegal aliens reside in large cities, not in less problem plagued unpopulated "open areas" that the pro-immigration proponents say the U.S. has "plenty of." * Can we expect people who don't respect laws and private property rights in Mexico to respect ours in the U.S.? Much of Mexico's rural population is socialistic. All Mexico rebel groups, the EZLN, EPR, etc. are openly Marxist communists. * We must control our country's border if we are going to control illegal drugs and illegal immigration into the U.S. and have true national security. * All the costs in this summary are directly attributable to Mexico and to illegal drugs and to illegal aliens coming directly from Mexico. Some of both originate elsewhere but all enter by crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. * Immigrant Rights attorneys should sue the employers of illegal aliens who are forced into wage peonage (economic slavery). A few multi-million dollar favorable judgments might accomplish more than the I.N.S. or the U.S.B.P. have yet achieved. * Mexican citizens should remain in Mexico and work for political and economic change in Mexico. * Drug use is increasing among U.S. children. Illegal immigration from Mexico is also increasing. * Based on my personal experience, the same ranch job in Colorado now pays $700 more per month than in Southern California. * Law enforcement and the media should stop making excuses for the criminal activity of illegal aliens. Illegal aliens pay to be smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico and illegal aliens are usually the smugglers. Crime is never politically correct. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ EFFECTS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IN CALIFORNIA (1) They threaten the public health with imported disease. They load the public hospitals beyond endurance because they have no means and are thus charity cases; no insurance--which means that taxpayers pick up the medical bills; (2) They have single-handedly...via gangs...accounted for most of the violent crime in L.A. (3) They overwhelm all public services--including welfare--paid for by guess who? (4) One-third of all prison beds in California are presently occupied by illegal aliens. (5) TWO thirds of all "live births to indigent mothers" (paid for by taxpayers) are to illegal alien women who came here specifically to give birth so that the child will be a U.S. citizen and hence eligible for massive and immediate largesse from Uncle Sucker. (6) The illegals are voting--contributing to massive voter fraud. And they--like the dead--vote reliably Democrat. Ask Bob Dornan. Other than those...and a host of other problems...they're fine. I'd love it if apologists for illegal immigrants--such as yourself--could be made to assume all the costs of their presence and flouting of U.S. laws. Then I'd cheer as they swim the Rio Grande. --Boris +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF COMMON OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THOSE WHO THINK THAT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH OUR CURRENT IMMIGRATION POLICIES. THE "OBJECTION" IS STATED FIRST AND IS THEN FOLLOWED BY A "SHORT ANSWER" AND A "LONG ANSWER." #1 - OBJECTION & ANSWER OBJECTION -- This is a country of immigrants #1 - SHORT ANSWER I am an American. I am not an immigrant. Therefore this country is not a country of immigrants. #1 - LONG ANSWER If you are discussing immigration with a friend, you are likely to hear him reflexively blurt out the above gem. When he does, simply point out to him that eighty percent of the residents of the United States were born here. How could that preponderance of home-grown Americans justify us being called a "nation of immigrants"? Certainly we are descendants of immigrants (as is everyone in the world except those living in the Garden of Eden), but that is not the same thing as being an immigrant. Sloppy use of language does not help the discussion. If your friend has been drinking and insists on repeating this meaningless phrase we are a nation of immigrants over and over like a mantra, explain to him that if he is, for some inexplicable reason, including ancestry in his argument, then all nations are nations of immigrants and we should simply open the borders. If he has been drinking a lot and this sounds like a good idea to him, take his keys away and suggest he go live for a while in a Third World country, asking himself why everyone there is coming here. If he is one of those really obstinate drunks who cannot be swayed by sober argument, then say to him, "We should open the borders? Fine. let's put it to a vote and see what most Americans think." We will win that vote. Every sovereign nation has the right and obligation to protect itself. That is to say: defend its borders. To advocate open borders is to say we are not a country, which is to say: there is no law. One of the most crucial things we must do in the U.S. to protect ourselves from the certain perils of overpopulation, is to stop our population growth. Our only tools are to reduce births and/or immigration. If we want to accomodate a million immigrants a year, then one should advocate a reduction by a million a year in births. And this would not even stop our growth. It would only freeze it where it is today. If we cut the number of births by two million a year and allowed a million immigrants a year to enter we would be somewhere close to achieving zero population growth. This should be the goal. "Smart Growth" won't do it +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ #2 - OBJECTION & ANSWER OBJECTION -- Your ancestors were immigrants, so you have no right to say anything about immigration #2 - SHORT ANSWER : Yes, I do. I am an American citizen. This is a constitutional republic with a bill of rights that includes both the right of free speech and the right to vote in free and honest elections at regular intervals. All Americans who vote are doing so in an attempt to influence the direction of our national governance. Therefore, as an American I do have a say in public policy issues. #2 - LONG ANSWER : Yes, my ancestors came from somewhere other than the North American continent. And so did yours. And so did everyone else's--including those of the American Indians. In fact, except for, possibly, on the banks of some isolated watering hole in Africa, everyone in the world's ancestors came from somewhere other than the place their descendants inhabit now. In other words, every nation is a "nation of immigrants" and the term itself is basically meaningless. But no one seriously thinks that this fact somehow renders the term "sovereignty" meaningless. Think of it this way: Imagine if, due to overcrowding in India, millions of Indians started pouring over the Himalayas into Sichuan Province in southern China. Undoubtedly, the CHinese would complain. Then, imagine if the Indians said to the Chinese, "You have no right to complain or to stop us from coming into Sichuan Province because you Chinese are ethnic Han people originally from Shanxi Province in the North near Mongolia and your ancestors were also immigrants here. Sichuan Province therefore belongs to all the people of the world." The Chinese would laugh at them and tell them to go home before they got a thump on the head. They would say, "Sichuan Province is a part of China and we Chinese decide who may or may not come here." In other words, the Chinese would not be moved by claims that because their ancestors had been born somewhere else, they had no right to decide public policy in their own country. In fact, nowhere in the world would such an argument be considered for even a moment. Except in the United States. It is only in this country where we actually consider the undemocratic notion that the majority of the citizens of our country have no justifiable say over who may and may not enter our nation. It is only in America where a person's skin color or ethnic background has a bearing on what they are permitted to feel is best for the country. It is only in America that we encounter the lunacy that race can somehow determine the legitimacy of one's patriotism. The rest of the world scratches its collective head in amazement at our folly, naivete and childishness. If we are going to try to start redefining the world's boundaries according to ancestral wanderings, we have quite a task before us. Maybe it would be better not to start. The boundaries of the United States are as they are, just as the boundaries of China or any other country are as they are, and the citizens of each nation in the world are the keepers of the boundaries of their own nation. Americans must retake control of their country's borders and discard the notion that somehow an Ecuadorean or a Swede or a Pakistani has some sort of "equal" say with an American over the boundaries of the United States. A foreigner does not have the right to determine American public policy vis-a-vis immigration policy. American Constitutional rights do not apply to Germans or Chinese or Mexicans. No foreigner has equal rights with an American citizen qua an American citizen. There is no such thing as "alien rights." On a deeper level, this argument is a kind of "original sin" argument. It is an easily refuted argument from a religio-anthropological stance. For now, let us say that ancestor worship is not a part of the American tradition. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ #3 - OBJECTION & ANSWER OBJECTION -- Only the American Indians, the "Native Americans", are true Americans #3 - SHORT ANSWER "And the Native Americans allowed uncontrolled immigration and look what happened to them." #3 - LONG ANSWER Anyway, this argument ignores the concept of "nation". There was no such thing as the political entity known as the American nation until the Founding Fathers created it in 1776. Furthermore, there are not grades of citizenship. One is either a citizen of this country, or one is not. We are not more or less citizens of the United States based on the number of generations preceding us on these shores. And, particularly, we are not more or less citizens of this country based on our skin color or ethnicity. Because my ancestors immigrated to this continent 5 or 6 generations ago does not make me a "truer American" than someone who took the Oath of Allegience yesterday. Nor are Indians "truer Americans" than I simply because their ancestors immigrated many generations before mine did ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ #4 - OBJECTION & ANSWER OBJECTION -- Immigrants built this country #4 - SHORT ANSWER At some point, maybe we should stop "building." #4 - LONG ANSWER And immigrants didn't build this country anyway. Americans did. If my family has been here for six generations, and they all had jobs, how can it be said that America was built by immigrants. If my case is typical, only 1/6 of America has been built by immigrants. Now, if having been built by an immigrant means that for the rest of eternity anyone calling himself an immigrant has carte blanche, then I say we settle the problem once and for all. We should turn over 1/6 of the U.S. land mass, declare it as having been "built by immigrants", open its borders and let everybody in the world move there. Alaska would fit the bill nicely. We might even be able to trick Russia into buying it back first. In all seriousness, immigration averaged only 235,000 persons per year prior to the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act. That's only 47 million immigrants over the course of our nation's history. Compared to our current population of 270 million, that's not much. And then, if we add all the people who have lived before in the United States, we are approaching a billion total Americans who live now or have lived in this country--all of them, or at least most of them, busy "building" it. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ #5 - OBJECTION & ANSWER OBJECTION -- Diversity is good for America #5 - SHORT ANSWER One shouldn't decide public policy on racist or ethnicist grounds. #5 - LONG ANSWER Whatever the benefits of ethnic or racial diversity, we are already the most diverse country in the world. It is not clear we need more of it. Though we often hear the mantra "Diversity is our strength," polls show that Americans of all ethnic backgrounds are less than convinced. Almost everyone agrees that balkanization--the breaking up of our country into combative, ethnically defined political groups contending against one another as hostile units--would be a bad thing. Yet, even a cursory glance around can not fail to impress upon the observer that, as our country becomes more diverse, it is also becoming more politically balkanized. "Identity politics" is increasing--not decreasing. Why in God's name would we continue to pursue a policy that can only intensify this tendency to balkanization? If we are going to maintain a public policy with the effect of making ourselves even more "diverse," let's put it to a vote. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Please send this info to all of your friends and family. Sincerely yours, Bob from Michigan, BobFromMichigan74(a)Hotmail.com, Moderator of this email group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anti_Immigration Subscribe: Anti_Immigration-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com Post message: Anti_Immigration(a)yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: Anti_Immigration-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com List owner: Anti_Immigration-owner(a)yahoogroups.com My Email address: anti_immigration_man(a)yahoo.com My Email address: BobFromMichigan74(a)Hotmail.com

1 0

File - Immigration, 6 Stipulations, Multi-Culturalism
by Anti_Immigration Moderator 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

Immigration Policy re 6 Stipulations, A Christian Nation, Multi-Culturalism Dear Friends and subscribers to the Anti-Immigration Email list, I am opposed to the massive waves of immigrants that our national immigration policy is currently allowing. Why? Because we are being overwhelmed by such large numbers of immigrants and they are not joining our churches and they are not melting into our Christian culture. Friends, my highest goal is that we remain a Christian nation with liberty and justice for all. The Bible states that "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty." I believe that the source of America's greatness and the source of America's wealth and the source of America's liberties is The Gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe that if America continues down the path to secularization and rejection of God, then we will lose our freedoms, lose our prosperity, suffer great tribulation, become slaves and ultimately be destroyed as a nation. Taking all of this into consideration I am not opposed to reasonable but much smaller numbers of immigrants who meet the following list of stipulations. First, I would demand that potential immigrants read, write and speak English proficiently at least at a 6th grade level. Rigorous tests should be designed and administered at American Embassys for the purpose eliminating applicants who do not know how to read, write and speak English proficiently. Second, they must be "selected" or chosen from the upper income and or more highly educated classes in the nation that they hail from. Why? Because we want our immigration policy to strengthen our nation and thus we want ONLY the best intellectuals and most successful types of people to be eligible for immigration into America. Third potential immigrants must either be well educated and have a useful University degree in a field such as medicine or engineering, or else they must have a high level of skill in an employable field such as engine repair, carpentry or plumbing. Potential immigrants must, for example, be computer programmers, electrician's or have some other such skill that is useful and makes them employable in the American economy. Fourth I would demand that they have an American sponsor who is reasonably financially successful and could support them during their transition to self reliance. Fifth, I would make them and their family ineligible for any kind of government benefits, whether welfare and or social security, Medical care, housing allowance, food stamps, University or college scholarships from any government supported agency of any kind until they have lived and worked in America for at least 21 years. Sixth and most important of all, I would demand that in order to be eligible to obtain a visa to emigrate to America that potential immigrants must be a "Christian," any kind of "Christian." Using and defining the term "Christian" in the broadest sense possible. Potential Immigrants must Orthodox, Anglican, Catholic or Protestant, or even members of western "Christian" cults such as the Morman church or Jehovah Witness'es. Potential immigrants must prove this with documentable evidence of faithful membership in such a church in their own nation for at least 10 years prior to their application to emigrate to America. Muslims, Buddhists, Hindi's, Taoist's, Ba'hai's, Pagan's, Wiccan Witches or those who practice Witchcraft or Shamanism, Atheists, Agnostic's and all members of all other manifestly non-Christian religions should be absolutely, permanently and strictly denied any and all rights to emigrate to America. Friend, Will you agree with me that we want our immigration policy to make our nation stronger, not weaker? Will you agree with me that anti-Christian Multi-culturalism is weakening our nation? Will you agree with me that our immigration policy has to be modified, because as it currently stands it is harming more than it is strengthening our nation? Please open your spiritual eyes and observe the wisdom of what I am proposing. I want to make America stronger because I believe that a strong America is a benefit to advancing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Can you imagine the wonderful implications for the Gospel of Jesus Christ if America were to grow stronger and stronger and wealthier in comparison to the nations of the world and if America at the same time became a more moral and more righteous and thoroughly Christian nation. Can you imagine how our missionaries in other nations would be benefited if America became a strong, righteous, moral, exceedingly wealthy and militarily dominant nation? Friend, are you in agreement with me? Do you agree with me that we need a drastic and immediate change in our immigration policy in America? Can you see how important it is to keep America strong? Can you see how our enemies have been using immigration policy to weaken our nation and turn us further away from Christ? I am sincerely yours, Bob from Michigan. PS - Please tell your friends and family about this email list. Send me their names and email address'es and I will invite them to join this email list. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anti_Immigration Post message: Anti_Immigration(a)yahoogroups.com Subscribe: Anti_Immigration-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: Anti_Immigration-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com List owner: Anti_Immigration-owner(a)yahoogroups.com My Email address: anti_immigration_man(a)yahoo.com My Email address: BobFromMichigan74(a)Hotmail.com Note from moderator of Anti-immigration list: In Quebec Canada there are two groups of people who hate each other. The French and the English. Why do they hate each other? One reason, the diffence in their language and culture. In the article below we see another example of multi-culturalism NOT working. Where? In Mexico. The root word of culture is CULT. The word cult refers to a religion. (Remember, one man's cult is another man's religion). Liberals in America and around the world are forcing Multi-culturalism upon the western nations. Let me say in no un-certain terms, WE DO NOT WANT MULTI-CULTURALISM. Multi-culturalism is a recipe for disaster. Multi-culturalism means that Christianity will no longer be the dominant religious group in Western nations. Multi-culturalism means that western nations will be subdivided into tiny little groups that all hate one another. Multi-culturalism means that western nations will be Balkanized into tiny subdivided religious groups, ethnic groups and language groups which are forever warring with each other over the monetary crumbs from the socialist government nipples. We must stop immigration now or America may very well likely be forever changed for the worse. It is a fact that immigrants are far more likely to vote for the Liberal candidate who is promising to give him free education, free health care and free everything. This is how America is going to be destroyed and turned into a socialist slave state if we do not get our immigration policy under control. In the past, our strength as a nation was our homogeneity, our shared religion, shared language and shared culture. Wake up your friends. Ask people to join this email list. Sincerely Yours, Bob from Michigan.] Here is the article (below) that I previously referred to in the letter above: Persecution of Evangelicals Continues in Mexico By Allie Martin and Jim Brown (AgapePress) - Local authorities in three small towns in different Mexican states are telling evangelical Christians to change their religion to traditional Catholicism or suffer severe consequences. Evangelical Christians who do not renounce their faith are being threatened with jail time, expulsion, the removal of public services such as water and drainage, and even death. In one case, two recent converts were jailed for 36 hours and asked to deny their new evangelical Christian faith. Terry Madison is president of Open Doors, a ministry which tracks the persecution of Christians. He says this is not a new problem. "This has been an ongoing challenge in Chiapas, where when people accept the Lord they choose not to participate in some of the local Catholic celebrations, many of which involve 'posh,' which is a locally fermented drink," Madison says. "They choose not to participate, which means they're not buying the candles and the costumes and the fireworks, and some of the other products that some of the local authorities profit by, so there's an economic loss." Madison says things are particularly bad for evangelical Christians in the state of Chiapas. "A particular community had 230 evangelicals. We're talking about a large body of Christ," he says. "Another had forty Christian church members who were challenged to renounce their evangelical faith and return to Catholicism or they would face having their homes burned and their animals destroyed." In another example of intolerance, The Alabama Baptist newspaper reports Catholic leaders in San Nicolas, Mexico, a town of some 4,000 people, are telling 36 evangelical families they must leave town within 90 days "or be kicked out." The paper says the families' water and sewer services have been cut off. A San Nicolas spokesperson is quoted as saying, "What the town wants is for the evangelicals to stop spreading their religion to more people and to stop having their meeting." Patrick Scully, a spokesman for the Catholic League, said he couldn't comment on the story because he was not aware of the details and also since the persecution is taking place outside the United States. http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/52001a.asp +++++++++++++++++++++++ Religious Jews in Israel are Anti-immigration, Jews in USA pro-immigration NOTE FROM MODERATOR: I have a question for your consideration... Why do the religious Jews in Israel oppose immigration laws that will increase diversity? And why do Jews in the USA support immigration laws in America to "increase diversity"? The religious Jews in Israel are strongly Anti-immigration. The Jews in America are strongly Pro-immigration. Why? If it is a good policy for Jewish Israel to oppose the immigration of non-Jewish immigrants, why isn't the same policy, opposing non-Christian immigrants, also good for Christian America? Do I sense some hypocrisy or double standards here? See article below: Israelis Debate Immigration Laws By MARK LAVIE Associated Press Writer JERUSALEM (AP) -- The bedrock of the Jewish state-a law that grants Israeli citizenship to anyone with a Jewish grandparent-is coming under the harshest attack in years, amid allegations it has enabled hundreds of thousands of non-Jews to immigrate. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, with the support of some government officials, proposed this week that the Law of Return be tightened. "Even sacred cows are slaughtered sometimes," Rahamim Malul, a lawmaker from the religious Shas party, asserted Monday. Prime Minister Ehud Barak staunchly opposes restricting immigration, angrily insisting at a Cabinet session Sunday that the law would not be amended as long as he is prime minister. The debate reflects the disagreement between secular Zionists and observant Jews about what Israel should look like. For the religious, the most important value is to preserve the Jewish character of Israel, while Zionists believe immigration should be encouraged at all costs. The recent debate was triggered by figures showing that non-Jews outnumbered Jews, 55 percent to 45 percent, among immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the first three months of 1999. Rabbis have complained that the influx of non-Jews has led to a proliferation of butcher shops selling pork, despite religious laws that prohibit Jews from eating it. Others warn that non-Jews from the former Soviet Union, estimated at 225,000 of Israel's 6 million citizens, are amassing increasing political clout. "The loopholes in the law must be closed," warned Malul, "so that the state will not turn into a country where a large percentage of its citizens are gentiles." The Law of Return was conceived five decades ago, when Israel was a poor, besieged, fledgling nation where survivors of Holocaust-ravaged Europe and Jews from Arab countries sought shelter. Now that Israel is a prosperous country with a per capita income on a European scale, some fear non-Jews from economically depressed areas may be lured by generous government benefits for newcomers. Faced with the statistics, officials in the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption have drawn up a proposal for restricting non-Jewish immigration. It aims at reducing the number of non-Jewish descendants who can gain automatic citizenship because of a distant Jewish ancestor. However, ministry spokeswoman Michal Aharoni said the proposal "will never be the policy of the ministry." The minister for immigrant absorption, Yuli Tamir, opposes restrictions on immigration. Cabinet Minister Haim Ramon said the Law of Return is the basis of the Jewish state, offering a home to Jews "in the wide definition and not the narrow religious definition." Under religious law, a person is a Jew if his mother is Jewish. The Law of Return recognizes a much wider category as eligible for citizenship. Ramon said experience shows that even those who are technically non-Jewish "become good Jews in a few years." Yet even some immigrants from the former Soviet Union feel it is time to make changes. Yuri Stern, a member of parliament from Israel Beiteinu, a party representing the immigrants, said those with no link to the Jewish people must be stopped from immigrating. Though his party stands to benefit from additional immigrant votes, Jewish or not, Stern warned that Israel could face a demographic problem if no changes are made.

1 0

File - "BEST OF" ANTI_IMMIGRATION
by Anti_Immigration Moderator 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF ARTICLES IN THIS "BEST OF" ANTI-IMMIGRATION RECENT EMAILS 1 - A personal letter from the Moderator regarding Immigration Policy 2 - A Personal Note from Moderator regarding Multi-culturalism. 3 - Religious Jews in Israel are Anti-immigration, Jews in USA pro-immigration 4 - A Comanche Patriot Tries to Save the White Man 5 - Mexico's plans for its newest colony: Inevitable response to U.S. abdication 6 - A LIST OF WEBSITES DEALING WITH IMMIGRATION ISSUES 7 - NYTimes: New Shelter Seeks to Better Accommodate Asylum-Seeking Families +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Friends and subscribers to the Anti-Immigration Email list, I am opposed to the massive waves of immigrants that our national immigration policy is currently allowing. Why? Because we are being overwhelmed by such large numbers of immigrants and they are not joining our churches and they are not melting into our Christian culture. Friends, my highest goal is that we remain a Christian nation with liberty and justice for all. The Bible states that "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty." I believe that the source of America's greatness and the source of America's wealth and the source of America's liberties is The Gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe that if America continues down the path to secularization and rejection of God, then we will lose our freedoms, lose our prosperity, suffer great tribulation, become slaves and ultimately be destroyed as a nation. Taking all of this into consideration I am not opposed to reasonable but much smaller numbers of immigrants who meet the following list of stipulations. First, I would demand that potential immigrants read, write and speak English proficiently at least at a 6th grade level. Rigorous tests should be designed and administered at American Embassy's for the purpose eliminating applicants who do not know how to read, write and speak English proficiently. Second, they must be "selected" or chosen from the upper income and or more highly educated classes in the nation that they hail from. Why? Because we want our immigration policy to strengthen our nation and thus we want ONLY the best intellectuals and most successful types of people to be eligible for immigration into America. Currently we are taking in millions of low IQ, poorly educated third world people with no skills and no chance of rising in or contributing to the American economy. Did you know that? Is that the immigration policy that you want for your nation? Third potential immigrants must be well educated and have a useful University degree in a field such as medicine or engineering, or else they must have a high level of skill in an employable field such as engine repair, carpentry or plumbing. Potential immigrants must, for example, be computer programmers, electrician's or have some other such skill that is useful and makes them employable in the American economy. Does that make sense to you or do you think it is a good national policy that we allow millions of immigrants from third world nations who cannot speak English and have no skills? Fourth I would demand that they have an American sponsor who is reasonably financially successful and could support them during their transition to self reliance. Fifth, I would make them and their family ineligible for any kind of government benefits, whether welfare and or social security, Medical care, housing allowance, food stamps, University or college scholarships from any government supported agency of any kind until they have lived and worked in America for at least 21 years. Sixth and most important of all, I would demand that in order to be eligible to obtain a visa to emigrate to America that potential immigrants must be a "Christian," any kind of "Christian." Using and defining the term "Christian" in the broadest sense possible. Potential Immigrants must Orthodox, Anglican, Catholic or Protestant, or even members of western "Christian" cults such as the Morman church or Jehovah Witness'es. Potential immigrants must prove this with documentable evidence of faithful membership in such a church in their own nation for at least 10 years prior to their application to emigrate to America. Muslims, Buddhists, Hindi's, Taoist's, Ba'hai's, Pagan's, Wiccan Witches or those who practice Witchcraft or Shamanism, Atheists, Agnostic's and all members of all other manifestly non-Christian religions should be absolutely, permanently and strictly denied any and all rights to emigrate to America. Friend, Will you agree with me that we want our immigration policy to make our nation stronger, not weaker? Will you agree with me that anti-Christian Multi-culturalism is weakening our nation? Will you agree with me that our immigration policy has to be modified, because as it currently stands it is harming more than it is strengthening our nation? Please open your spiritual eyes and observe the wisdom of what I am proposing. I want to make America stronger because I believe that a strong America is a benefit to advancing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Can you imagine the wonderful implications for the Gospel of Jesus Christ if America were to grow stronger and stronger and wealthier in comparison to the nations of the world and if America at the same time became a more moral and more righteous and thoroughly Christian nation. Can you imagine how our missionaries in other nations would be benefited if America became a strong, righteous, moral, exceedingly wealthy and militarily dominant nation? Friend, are you in agreement with me? Do you agree with me that we need a drastic and immediate change in our immigration policy in America? Can you see how important it is to keep America strong? Can you see how our enemies have been using immigration policy to weaken our nation and turn us further away from Christ? I am sincerely yours, Bob from Michigan. PS - Please tell your friends and family about this email list. Send me their names and email address'es and I will invite them to join this email list. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anti_Immigration Subscribe: Anti_Immigration-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com Post message: Anti_Immigration(a)yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: Anti_Immigration-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com List owner: Anti_Immigration-owner(a)yahoogroups.com My Email address: anti_immigration_man(a)yahoo.com My Email address: BobFromMichigan74(a)Hotmail.com http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A Personal Note from moderator of Anti-immigration list regarding Multi-culturalism. In Quebec Canada there are two groups of people who hate each other. The French and the English. Why do they hate each other? One reason, the diffence in their language and culture. In the article below we see another example of multi-culturalism NOT working. Where? In Israel. The root word of culture is CULT. The word cult refers to a religion. (Remember, one man's cult is another man's religion). Liberals in America and around the world are forcing Multi-culturalism upon the western nations. Let me say in no un-certain terms, WE DO NOT WANT MULTI-CULTURALISM. Multi-culturalism is a recipe for disaster. Multi-culturalism means that Christianity will no longer be the dominant religious group in Western nations. Multi-culturalism means that western nations will be subdivided into tiny little groups that all hate one another. Multi-culturalism means that western nations will be Balkanized into tiny subdivided religious groups, ethnic groups and language groups which are forever warring with each other over the monetary crumbs from the socialist government nipples. We must stop immigration now or America may very well likely be forever changed for the worse. It is a fact that immigrants are far more likely to vote for the Liberal candidate who is promising to give him free education, free health care and free everything. This is how America is going to be destroyed and turned into a socialist slave state if we do not get our immigration policy under control. In the past, our strength as a nation has been our homogeneity, our shared religion, shared language and shared culture. Wake up your friends. Ask people to join this email list. Sincerely Yours, Bob from Michigan.] +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religious Jews in Israel are Anti-immigration, Jews in USA pro-immigration NOTE FROM MODERATOR: I have a question for your consideration... Why do the religious Jews in Israel oppose immigration laws that will increase diversity? And why do Jews in the USA support immigration laws in America to "increase diversity"? The religious Jews in Israel are strongly Anti-immigration. The Jews in America are strongly Pro-immigration. Why? See article below: Israelis Debate Immigration Laws By MARK LAVIE Associated Press Writer JERUSALEM (AP) -- The bedrock of the Jewish state-a law that grants Israeli citizenship to anyone with a Jewish grandparent-is coming under the harshest attack in years, amid allegations it has enabled hundreds of thousands of non-Jews to immigrate. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, with the support of some government officials, proposed this week that the Law of Return be tightened. "Even sacred cows are slaughtered sometimes," Rahamim Malul, a lawmaker from the religious Shas party, asserted Monday. Prime Minister Ehud Barak staunchly opposes restricting immigration, angrily insisting at a Cabinet session Sunday that the law would not be amended as long as he is prime minister. The debate reflects the disagreement between secular Zionists and observant Jews about what Israel should look like. For the religious, the most important value is to preserve the Jewish character of Israel, while Zionists believe immigration should be encouraged at all costs. The recent debate was triggered by figures showing that non-Jews outnumbered Jews, 55 percent to 45 percent, among immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the first three months of 1999. Rabbis have complained that the influx of non-Jews has led to a proliferation of butcher shops selling pork, despite religious laws that prohibit Jews from eating it. Others warn that non-Jews from the former Soviet Union, estimated at 225,000 of Israel's 6 million citizens, are amassing increasing political clout. "The loopholes in the law must be closed," warned Malul, "so that the state will not turn into a country where a large percentage of its citizens are gentiles." The Law of Return was conceived five decades ago, when Israel was a poor, besieged, fledgling nation where survivors of Holocaust-ravaged Europe and Jews from Arab countries sought shelter. Now that Israel is a prosperous country with a per capita income on a European scale, some fear non-Jews from economically depressed areas may be lured by generous government benefits for newcomers. Faced with the statistics, officials in the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption have drawn up a proposal for restricting non-Jewish immigration. It aims at reducing the number of non-Jewish descendants who can gain automatic citizenship because of a distant Jewish ancestor. However, ministry spokeswoman Michal Aharoni said the proposal "will never be the policy of the ministry." The minister for immigrant absorption, Yuli Tamir, opposes restrictions on immigration. Cabinet Minister Haim Ramon said the Law of Return is the basis of the Jewish state, offering a home to Jews "in the wide definition and not the narrow religious definition." Under religious law, a person is a Jew if his mother is Jewish. The Law of Return recognizes a much wider category as eligible for citizenship. Ramon said experience shows that even those who are technically non-Jewish "become good Jews in a few years." Yet even some immigrants from the former Soviet Union feel it is time to make changes. Yuri Stern, a member of parliament from Israel Beiteinu, a party representing the immigrants, said those with no link to the Jewish people must be stopped from immigrating. Though his party stands to benefit from additional immigrant votes, Jewish or not, Stern warned that Israel could face a demographic problem if no changes are made. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A Comanche Patriot Tries to Save the White Man FrontPageMagazine.com http://www.frontpagemag.com/poesnotepad/2001/pn01-17-01.htm "I'M A PATRIOT because I love and value what America stands for," says Dr. David A. Yeagley, a Comanche Indian and humanities professor at Oklahoma State University in Oklahoma City. "I value freedom, and I'm willing to fight for it." Next month, Yeagley takes his fight to the state legislature, which will consider his proposal to add an optional patriotism course to Oklahoma's high school curriculum. Governor Frank Keating has endorsed the plan. Yeagley dreams of taking his course national. "Patriotism has to be taught," he says. "It doesn't just grow out of the ground." Up to now, U.S. schools have done an exceptionally poor job of teaching it. A Zogby poll taken in June 2000 showed that nearly one third of American college students are not proud to be Americans. "As an Indian, I feel it is my sacred honor to save the white man again, this time, from himself," says Yeagley, who holds a divinity degree from Yale. "Before he gives this country away, thus defeating me twice, I want to try to save what he built out of my land." Indians saved the white man before, says Yeagley, when they helped the first settlers get established. Now they must save him again, this time from political correctness. "White guilt is the biggest flaw in the American psyche," warns Yeagley. As a Comanche, Yeagley feels no guilt over his ancestors' deeds. "They were the lords of the south plains," he says. "They kicked out all the other Indians. They had no tolerance for other Indians, no tolerance for white people, no tolerance for anybody except themselves." Comanche elders have been instilling that warrior spirit in their young, for centuries, through the stories and customs of their ancestors. Unfortunately, says Yeagley, white Americans have failed to do the same. The fighting spirit that built this country has been allowed to fade. The problem became clear to him last summer, when he assigned his class to debate the question of whether or not patriotism should be taught in school. After a two-hour discussion, the student jury voted no. "They were afraid that skinheads and militia people would somehow get control of it," says Yeagley. Beyond such scare images from the media, his students had little concept of patriotism. Yeagley made up his mind to design a course that would fill the gap. "America has held out this offer of charity for all, that everyone, including minorities, can have a better life," says Yeagley. "But if you want to be kind to people and charitable and indulgent, you have to do it from a position of strength, otherwise you lose the ability to do any good for anybody." In their willingness to indulge even the most extreme demands of the Jesse Jackson crowd, white Americans are slowly giving up their strength, warns Yeagley. "I think it's demonstrable that, historically speaking, the most people get the best deal under this system," says Yeagley. "I'm trying to come to the rescue here and say to the white man, look, don't destroy everything you have. If you don't want the country, give it back to me! Don't give it away to someone else." Born of a Comanche mother and a white father, Yeagley has always been fascinated by the question of identity. "I was curious to know what makes a people a nation," he says. Yeagley concluded that love is at the root of it. "It's difficult to love an abstract idea, especially for young people. You love real things, the land, the people, the language, the food. Basic things." Yeagley wants to focus on those basic things in his proposed course, teaching a simple love and respect for one's people and culture. "Being willing to take your grocery cart back into the store instead of leaving it in front of somebody's car, I think that's patriotic," he says. During Yeagley's classroom debate over patriotism last summer, one young man confessed, "Dr. Yeagley, I don't think we have a clue of what you're talking about. When I think of patriotism, all I can think of is my grandfather who fought in World War II. I think of old people." Maybe that's not such a bad thing, Yeagley suggests. It is the elders who preserve the stories of the tribe. "If an Indian wants to know what it means to be Indian, he asks his elders," says Yeagley. "If you want to know what it means to be patriotic American, ask your grandfather. He'll tell you." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://savetheusa.net/mexiplan.html MEXICO'S PLANS FOR ITS NEWEST COLONY: INEVITABLE RESPONSE TO U.S. ABDICATION Mexico's recent presidential election may have profoundly altered the U.S. political scene. A Los Angeles businessman and Mexican citizen, Eddie Varon Levy, 42, a member of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), living and working in the United States (resident alien) has apparently become the first person living outside Mexico to be elected to Mexico's Congress. Even though his PRI party lost the historic July 2 election, Levy appears to have won a congressional seat. A Sunday, July 9, 2000 Miami Herald Article reported that the final vote results will be released next week and Levy may be a winner for one of approximately 50 PRI-controlled seats garnered by vote apportionment. If Levy has sufficient votes for a seat, he will take that seat when Mexico's Congress convenes September 1. Says Varon Levy, "It's a breakthrough. I am going to be in the trenches fighting for Mexicans living abroad." Mr. Levy added that he plans to commute between Los Angeles and Mexico City for the Tuesday through Thursday congressional sessions. Mr. Levy was one of three Mexican citizens/U.S. residents running for political office in Mexico's presidential election. Winning presidential candidate Vincent Fox's Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) ran 55-year-old Jose Jacques Medina of Los Angeles and 33-year- old Raul Ross Pineda of Chicago as its candidates for the 200 at- large Mexican congress seats. Mr. Ross runs the Mexican affairs section of the Chicago area American Friends Service Committee. Had Mr. Pineda won, regular commutes to Mexico City for the weekly congressional sessions would have been necessary. His PRI party would also have expected him to informally represent some 10 million Mexicans -- 10 percent of all Mexicans -- living in the United States. Early returns suggest that at least two of the expatriate candidates didn't receive enough votes. However, their candidacies and the fact that Mexican presidential candidates were campaigning in Los Angeles and Chicago show how important the growing expatriate Mexican population in the United States has become to Mexico's political scene. At this Los Angeles Times article readers can learn about the third Mexican congressional candidate, Eagle Rock resident Jose Jacques Medina who recently stated, "Now I'm here and I'm going to be here, fighting for my people," ... "It's my destiny, the U.S." Mr. Medina is an attorney, international AFL-CIO representative and behind-the- scenes player in the Mexican immigrant community through his nonprofit organization, Comite Pro-Union. Comite provides legal assistance on immigration problems and other issues. Last year he gained the right to become a U.S. citizen, and plans to file the papers soon. All three of these Mexican expatriates are very much aware of the AZTLAN plan - the Latin intention to conquer the seven U.S. southwest states. (California licensed) Attorney Jose Jacques Medina is very much in favor of AZTLAN. It is outrageous that any individual holding an office of trust (attorneys are court officers -- positions of trust) could attain or retain citizenship of the country he/she is openly trying to undermine. Fortunately, a remedy does exist and is described at end of this article. Mexican Racists Unafraid To Flaunt It ... Comments by prominent Mexican American public officials, activists and a Mexican newspaper: Augustín Cebada, Brown Berets: "Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. It is your duty to die. ..... Through love of having children, we are going to take over." Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council: "They're afraid we're going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They're right. We will take them over. .... We are here to stay." Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, Director of Mexican-American Studies Center, University of Texas at Arlington and founder in 1967 of the Marxist/Leninist Mexican American Youth Organization: "We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population. ..... I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it." And since 1970, he has professed, "Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes." Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party: "Remember 187 (proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non citizens) is the last gasp of White America in California!" and "Que Viva La Causa!" Long Live our Cause!). Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor: "We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country.... I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, "I'm going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back." Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton. "California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave." Jose Pescador Osuña, Mexican Consul General We are practicing "La Reconquista" in California." Professor Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount University: "We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos...." (emphasis added) Xavier Hermosillo, a Los Angeles radio talk show host In 1993, proclaimed on the CBS 48 Hours show that Mexican-Americans were taking political control of the "former Mexican colony, California ... house by house, block by block". Excelsior - The national newspaper of Mexico "The American Southwest ("AZTLAN") seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot." In a well-written Mankind Quarterly article, The Deconstruction of America, by Joseph Fallon, public officials Antonio Villaraigosa, majority leader of the California State Assembly and Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party, speakers at the "Latino Leadership Summit Response to Prop 187" are mentioned for their apparent agreement with many declarations uttered at the meeting. Neither Villaraigosa nor Torres repudiated these comments: "English should be a foreign language"; "We are hostages in our own land, prisoners of war"; "We live under occupying alien force."; "We live in the annexed territories of AZTLAN"; and "We're in a state of war ... a vicious threat to our existence". And neither man condemned the repeated calls for the establishment of an independent country of Aztlan or the references to this country as "AmeriKKKa" and the "United Snakes of America". SierraTimes.com has a picture of Mexicans burning the U.S. flag in L.A. The people of the United States should take such actions, comments and events seriously. They will be increasing. A Weapon For Those Brave Enough To Wield It ... Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8 of our Constitution prohibits government officers and employees from committing treason and bribery, and from taking office or pay from a foreign state "without the consent of Congress." However, no penalty is provided for such derelictions. In May of 1810, Congress overwhelmingly voted to send to the States, a proposed Titles of Nobility Amendment to the Constitution: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." At that time there were 17 states in the union and ratification by 13 states was needed for passage. On March 12, 1819, the last of the required 13 affirmations was attained when the Virginia Assembly (Legislature) voted to publish its "Revised Codes of the Laws of Virginia". This culminated a two year effort by that State's foremost legal and legislative authorities. The Revised Codes book contains the Constitution of the United States and amendments, including the Titles of Nobility amendment. Few citizens of the United States know about ! th! ! is amendment because it has been so well ignored, with claims that it did not achieve ratification. The story of the research which found evidence to the contrary is a fascinating tale and can be found at the following URLs: The Patriots' Missing 13th Amendment Pages Barefoot Bob Hardison's Missing Thirteenth Amendment page Demon of Discord: The Ratification and Suppression of the Original Thirteenth The Project 13 Home Page We invite you to visit these sites and/or our website: SAVE THE USA! Alan & Suzanne Nevling, nevling@e..., July 11, 2000 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A LIST OF SOME WEBSITES DEALING WITH IMMIGRATION http://www.americanpatrol.com/ vct@a... http://www.wakeupordie.com/ http://www.amren.com/index.html http://www.fairus.org/ http://www.usdoj.gov/ins/ http://www.census.gov/ http://www.americanworker.org/ http://migration.ucdavis.edu/ http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir http://www.tscpress.com/ http://www.netcom.com/~jimrobb/ http://www.ceousa.org/ http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/pub/Immigration/Index.html http://www.numbersusa.com/ http://www.projectusa.com/ http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b http://www.ilw.com/ http://www.cis.org/ http://www.numbersusa.com/home.html http://www.anu.org/newsservice.html http://www.numbersusa.com/home.html http://www.sqlife.org/ http://www.adnc.com/web/bstf http://www.h1-b-visa.com/ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Reference: http://www.nationalhomeless.org/causes.html Subject article boasts new shelter to "better accommodate" asylum-seeking familes. Reference was not mentioned in the New York Times article - reference provides a fact sheet on the homeless in the United States... which indicates that in 1997 14.6 million Americans earned LESS THAN HALF of the poverty rate. This article is from NYTimes.com New Shelter Seeks to Better Accommodate Asylum-Seeking Families By ERIC SCHMITT EESPORT, Pa., June 12 - Just off a tree-lined country lane nestled among lush rolling hills, the Immigration and Naturalization Service is trying to put a kinder, gentler face on a piece of its oft-maligned system of jails and detention centers that house 20,000 undocumented immigrants every day. Responding to a growing number of families who are entering the United States illegally, the immigration service has opened a new shelter in a converted nursing home here exclusively for asylum-seeking families fleeing persecution and death threats in their strife-torn native countries. Until now, the immigration service has routinely put hundreds of illegal immigrant families in hotel rooms, posting armed guards outside, or split up families, segregating men, women and children in different detention centers across the country. The dormitory-style Family Shelter Care center here, 60 miles northwest of Philadelphia, allows as many as 40 mothers, fathers and children from Albania to Yugoslavia to stay together while their claims for asylum are processed. While they wait, school-age children attend classes. Their parents learn the ways of the United States, from cashing a check to running a washing machine. Family members receive medical and dental care, and three meals a day. "In my country, it is a question of your race, of where you came from," a 32-year-old businessman from Rwanda said, lifting his pant leg and shirt to reveal scars that he said were inflicted when he was tortured in jail in his homeland. "Here, it's good," he said in an interview in French, speaking on condition that his name and family details would not be disclosed to protect relatives in Rwanda. "There is justice here and security." As a pilot program, the shelter has worked well enough since it started in March that officials plan to open others for all types of illegal immigrant families in Texas and the Chicago area, and perhaps the West Coast, in the coming months. The shelter stands out in a detention system that has gained notoriety from scores of complaints and lawsuits alleging physical and mental abuse of immigrants detained in 300 county jails and other detention centers nationwide. The immigration service finally issued national standards for the treatment of its detainees earlier this year. At the one-story brick building here, there are no bars on windows. Most doors are unlocked. "Residents," as immigration officials call the immigrants, wear photo identification cards around their necks, but no uniforms. But the hospitality goes only so far. Asylum-seekers are closely supervised and are not allowed to leave the center without an escort. And there have been growing pains with staff members who have training in law enforcement, not family dynamics, and who speak few, if any, foreign languages. Advocates for immigrants say, for example, that shelter officials are sometimes reluctant to use a $160-an-hour interpreter-by-phone service to resolve miscommunications. The culture clash has led to some tense moments, the advocates say. Shortly after the center opened, a Lebanese woman went on a two-day hunger strike to protest what she said was the staff's insensitivity to Muslims, said Charu Newhouse al- Sahli, who was a program coordinator with the Detention Resource Project, an advocacy organization in Philadelphia that assists asylum- seekers here. Immigration service officials said they had no reports of any protest. "When you have individuals in custody, issues will arise over and over again," said John J. Pogash, the agency's national juvenile coordinator. "But the overall high rating of the program is tied to how quickly those issues are overcome." The agency has contracted with Berks County, Pa., which operates another shelter for unaccompanied immigrant children in the same building, to run the family shelter. It costs the federal government $168.48 a resident per day. As of early June, the shelter had housed a total of 105 people, roughly half children and half adults, with slightly more women than men. The families are screened to ensure smugglers posing as loving couples with kids are not sent here. About 5,000 people taken in immigration service custody each year seek asylum. The asylum seekers chosen for the family shelter were screened at the airport where they entered the United States, and sent here if space was available. The families' cultural diversity and range of sophistication have challenged shelter officials. Asylum seekers have come from a dozen countries, from affluent professionals from Colombia with cellular phones to uneducated immigrants from other countries who had never used a flush toilet. Most families are here for only two to three weeks. So far all the immigrants here have persuaded asylum officers they have a "credible fear" they will be persecuted or worse if they return home, and have been released to sponsors in the community pending formal asylum hearings. Residents' lives revolve around a 110-foot-long corridor decorated with hanging plants and posters. Small group bedrooms and communal bathrooms - one for men, another for women - flank the hallway. Sleeping quarters are separated by sex - men and women and children older than 7, usually four to a room. Children under 7 may sleep in one of their parent's rooms. At night, state law requires shelter workers to check on all residents every 15 minutes. In recreation rooms along the corridor, art supplies, chess boards, computers, a pool table and stacks of toys await the children. But during a three-hour visit, most of the younger children not in class joined virtually all of the adults on couches watching television. The immigrants' days are tightly structured: Up at 7 a.m., breakfast at 7:45, classes for schoolchildren and adults. Then lunch at 1, an hour of outdoor activity, and dinner at 5:15. Children must be in bed with lights out at 9:30; adults at 11 p.m. Children have aerobics classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and take an occasional field trip to amusement parks and museums in Philadelphia, officials said. Outdoor volleyball and basketball courts are under construction.

1 0

Are you In The Know?
by telegraph.co.uk 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

Demonstrate your genius and win 10 Ferraris for the weekend! "Register now to play 'In The Know', the online quiz for the seriously clued-up - and win amazing prizes including a long weekend for you and 3 friends with 10 Ferraris and VIP-luxury in Italy." To register, click on the link below: http://195.200.168.169/S?b8a4c557a22dfa9a-456863-32351-33001 As a previously registered user of the Electronic Telegraph now telegraph.co.uk, we would like to invite you to play our new quiz - 'In The Know'. Every day during the month-long quiz, we'll send you 10 brain-teasing multiple-choice questions, drawn from our new channels that include news, sport, travel, fashion and much more. Answer the questions correctly and these incredible prizes could be yours: Grand Prize: This fantastic prize will be awarded to the person who correctly answers the questions in the quickest time over the duration of the competition. The winner will be asked to choose from: 10 Ferraris for the weekend for you and 3 friends. This once-in-a-lifetime experience includes 4 days spent touring Northern Italy in your chosen Ferraris, VIP treatment in the Ferrari museum and 3 nights in 4* hotels. OR Exclusive use of Eddie Irvine's 85ft yacht for you and five friends. This VIP trip includes flights, helicopter transfers and 2 nights in a luxury hotel in Monte Carlo. 'In The Know' Prize Draw: You don't have to be the fastest though. Correctly complete 10 questions on at least 10 of the 20 competition days, and your name will be entered into a prize draw to win one of 6 prizes of 3,000GBP worth of Sony Home Entertainment products, including the brand new Sony Home Cinema Projector Cineza VPL-HS1 and a DVD, HiFi system. For more information on Sony products, click on the link below: http://195.200.168.169/S?b8a4c557a22dfa9a-456864-32351-33001 Daily Prizes: In addition, prizes worth up to 1,000GBP each, are up for grabs each day for those who correctly answer all 10 questions. An amazing selection of top-class experiences are available including a helicopter away day for two, lunch for four on the Orient Express, or a romantic champagne balloon flight for four, from buyagift.co.uk at: http://195.200.168.169/S?b8a4c557a22dfa9a-456865-32351-33001 It's who you know (as well as what you know) If you recommend your friends to play, and they win any daily prize, you will win 500GBP! So there are four ways to win (but you knew that already). Show the world that you're 'In The Know' by registering now at: http://195.200.168.169/S?b8a4c557a22dfa9a-456866-32351-33001 If you do not wish to receive future updates about telegraph.co.uk, please visit: http://195.200.168.169/S?b8a4c557a22dfa9a-0-32351-33001

1 0

File - Welcome to our discussion re immigration
by Anti_Immigration Moderator 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

Friend, Welcome to the anti-immigration email list. I started this email discussion group for the purpose of discussing the legal and illegal immigration that is threatening to overwhelm America and destroy our Republic. This is a moderated group and the volume of email in this list is intentionally kept to a very low number of emails per week (usually less than 3-4 per day). Please join this List and invite your friends join also. Send me the email addresses of your friends who you think might be interested in this email list and I will invite them to join us. In general we post ONLY articles from REPUTABLE mainstream websites and newspapers, et al. Politically, I am very conservative, but this YAHOO email group will absolutely support free speech. I hate censorship and I will not censor anyone's opinion regardless of whether you are far left or far right unless you are an irrational & hateful person. So that you will know exactly where I am coming from I wrote the following; I AM A FAN OF WorldNetDaily.com-NewsMax.com-LewRockwell.com-FreeRepublic.com-FrontPageMag.com-Human Events Newspaper-MediaByPass magazine-The New American Magazine-Patriot Militias-General Douglas McArthur-President Ronald Reagan-Senator Joseph McCarthy-Robert Bork-Russell Kirk-Pat Buchanan-Allan Keyes-Dr. James Kennedy-R.J.Rushdoony-Andrew Sandlin-Gary North-Gary Demar-David Chilton-John Calvin-Jonathan Edwards-George Whitefield-Martin Luther-Donald Wildmon-Jay Sekulow-John Whitehead-John McManus-David Barton-Senator Bob Smith-Bob Dornan-Congressmen Ron Paul,Helen Chenoweth,George Hansen-Gordon Kahl-Howard Philips-Ludwig von Mises-F.A.Hayek-Milton Friedman-Russell Kirk-Martin Gross-Vin Suprynowicz-Walter Williams-Thomas Sowell-Alex Jones-Michael Savage-Frank from Queens-Shawn Hannity-Rabbi Daniel Lapin-Michael Medved-Chuck Morse-Don Feder-Sam Blumenfeld-Joseph Sobran-Michael Hoffman-Bo Gritz-Larry Becraft-Michael New-Charlotte Iserbyt-Beverly Eakman- Phyllis Schlafly-Josep! h ! ! Farah-Charley Reese-George Gilder-Paul Johnson-Alexis DeToqueville-Edmund Burke-Frederick Bastiat-Ayn Rand-George-Washington-James Madison-Patrick Henry-Thomas Jefferson-Noah Webster-David Horowitz-Reed Irvine-Paul Weyrich-Aaron Zelman-Larry Pratt and THE BIBLE & JESUS CHRIST and many more such heroes of liberty You may write me at BobfromMichigan74(a)Hotmail.com with any questions or concerns that you may have. I am sincerely yours, Bob from Michigan. PS - Please tell your friends and family about this email list. Send me their names and email address'es and I will invite them to join this email list. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anti_Immigration Post message: Anti_Immigration(a)yahoogroups.com Subscribe: Anti_Immigration-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: Anti_Immigration-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com List owner: Anti_Immigration-owner(a)yahoogroups.com My Email address: anti_immigration_man(a)yahoo.com My Email address: BobFromMichigan74(a)Hotmail.com

1 0

ADV: Deep Search Engine Submissions
by mike0927＠tunisiamail.com 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

Removal instructions below. I saw you listing on the internet. I work for a company that specializes in submitting web sites to search engines for maximum exposure. We can submit your entire web site (up to 50 pages) to over 400 search engines and directories for only $39.95 per month. No contracts or agreements! We are so confident or our services that we will let you cancel at anytime if you are unhappy with the results. Keyword (Meta Tag) optimization is included! We also do periodic progress reports that show you exactly where you are ranked in the major search engines. To get your web site in the fast lane call our toll free number: (888) 656-4665 Sincerely, Mike Johnson 888-656-4665 * All work is verified. To be removed call: 888-800-6339 x1377

1 0

FTC vs. First Amendment
by David Honig 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

So if someone goes to your site, the FTC can tell you how to communicate? Or only if your site's DNS entry is hamming-close to another? Or only if you're communicating unPC (e.g., erotica) content? And how does "bombarding them with ads" differ from spam, which has been 1st-amend. protected so far? If you run with javascript enabled, you deserve what you get. Keep your laws off my HTML. http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7371736.html?tag=mn_hd FTC shutters thousands of Web sites By Reuters October 1, 2001, 11:40 a.m. PT WASHINGTON--A U.S. court shut down thousands of Web sites after it determined that they diverted Web surfers and held them captive while bombarding them with ads for pornography and gambling, the U.S. government said on Monday. According to the Federal Trade Commission, John Zuccarini, of Andalusia, Pa., outside Philadelphia, operated more than 5,500 Web sites that diverted Web surfers from their intended destinations and exposed them to pop-up ads. Zuccarini did not immediately respond to calls for comment. Zuccarini registered many misspellings of popular sites, such as Cartoonnetwork.com, the FTC said, in a bid to draw traffic from sloppy typists. Visitors to his sites often could not leave, as the "back" button on their Web browsers would be rigged to trigger more pop-up ads. "After one FTC staff member closed out of 32 separate windows, leaving just two windows on the task bar, he selected the 'back' button, only to watch as the same seven windows that initiated the blitz erupted on his screen, and the cybertrap began anew," the FTC said in its complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia. The scheme is especially harmful to children or employees who may put their jobs at risk when they inadvertently call up pornographic or gambling-related material, the FTC said. The district court has ordered Zuccarini to take his sites offline, the FTC said, while the case continues. But as of early Monday afternoon, at least one site registered to Zuccarini, Annakurnikova.com, was still functional. Zuccarini had registered 41 variations on the name of pop star Britney Spears, the FTC said. In its court action, the FTC is seeking to get Zuccarini to return the estimated $800,000 to $1 million he earns in advertising revenues. According to the FTC, Zuccarini has been sued at least 63 times in the last two years by trademark owners, celebrities or others seeking to recover variants of their Internet domain names. He has lost 53 of those suits and been forced to return nearly 200 domain names, the FTC said.

2 1

Re: Brinworld: citizens with speed-radar
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

An Metet <anmetet(a)freedom.gmsociety.org> wrote : >Nomen wrote: >>> >>> According to collected data, the average speed in 30 mph zones ranged >>> from 35.5 to 46 mph. In the 35 mph zones, the average speed was about 43 >>> mph. The highest speed, clocked by Colonial Estates East Citizens on >>> Patrol group, was 62 mph in a 30 mph zone. >> >> Too bad this wasn't California. According to that states laws, if a >> survey shows that average driver speeds are substantially higher than >> the posted speed limit, the speed limit must be raised. It would have >> been a sweet irony if these busybodies had ended up with 60 MPH posted >> speed limits on their residential streets. > > And if that had been the response in my neighborhood, this busybody >would promptly start salting the roadway with vast numbers of 1" >roofing nails. Nobody has to put up with that bullshit. > On arterial roads this may be an interesting approach. In a residential neighborhood you're absolutlely right. Rather than flatten everyone's tires, ID the worst offenders then give them a chance to get it right. My dad has suggested leaving old strollers, bikes & kids toys around the streets. Deny knowledge or ownership. In our area the limit is 25, there are a couple of shitheads who regularly do 45. They deserve to be beaten to within an inch of their lives, if I thought I could get away with it...the same with the assholes who let their dogs run around loose. Oh to live out in the country again where an aggressive dog loose on your property could be called a threat to livestock... sorry, I'm pining... PS - about eartags for cows and sheeple^H^H - they only seem to mind for a few seconds then they go right back to chewing their cud...

1 0

9/11 Debacle Spurs Blind Trust in Government
by Jim Bovard 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

Matt: Thought you might get a laugh out of the following piece. FreeMatt's Alerts have been probably the finest source of news & ideas I have seen since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. You have been putting out great stuff! take it easy, Jim Investor's Business Daily October 2, 2001 Government Trust Grows Despite Its Inability to Protect by JAMES BOVARD Like a phoenix rising from the ashes, Americans' trust in government is soaring after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The number of people who trust the government to do the right thing has doubled since last year, and now is more than three times higher than in 1994. According to a Washington Post poll released on Sept. 27, 64% of Americans now "trust the government in Washington to do what is right" either "just about always" or "most of the time." Ronald Brownstein, a Los Angeles Times columnist, declared on Sept. 19: "At the moment the first fireball seared the crystalline Manhattan sky last week, the entire impulse to distrust government that has become so central to U.S. politics seemed instantly anachronistic." Brownstein's headline - "The Government, Once Scorned, Becomes Savior" - captured much of the establishment media's response to the attacks. It is puzzling that trust in government would soar after the biggest intelligence/law enforcement failure since the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. At least in the first weeks after the attack, the federal government's prestige appears higher than at any time since the start of the Vietnam War. The Post poll also revealed that the disastrous attacks of Sept. 11 greatly increased Americans' confidence that government will protect them against terrorists. From 1995 through 1997, the results consistently showed that only between 35% and 37% of Americans had "a great deal" or "a good amount" of confidence that the feds would deter domestic attacks by terrorists. In hindsight, the public was far more prescient than were the Washington policy-makers who chose not to make defending against such attacks a high priority. In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, confidence in government's ability to deter terrorist attacks has soared - clocking in at 66%, almost double the percentage in the most recent previous Washington Post poll on this question in June 1997. The bigger the catastrophe, the more credulous many people seem to become. The worse government failed to protect people in the past, the more certain most people become that government will protect them in the future. Prominent liberals are capitalizing on the new mood to call for razing the restraints on government power. Wall Street Journal columnist Al Hunt says it's "time to declare a moratorium on government-bashing.... For the foreseeable future, the federal government is going to invest or spend more, regulate more and exercise more control over our lives," he rejoices. "There is no real debate over expansion (of government power) in general." Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland snipped, "Ideologues on the right saw government as an evil to be rolled back." In a breathtaking leap of logic, he reasons: "The terror assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon ... should profoundly shake the less-is-more philosophy that was the driving force for the tax-cut politics of Bush and conservative Republicans." But there is no evidence that Osama bin Laden targeted the U.S. because of ire over George Bush's proposal to reduce the estate tax. Hoagland's effort is reminiscent of liberal efforts after the assassination of John F. Kennedy to paint right-wingers everywhere as unindicted co-conspirators in Kennedy's killing. It is difficult to understand how the failures of the CIA, the FBI, and the Federal Aviation Administration could generate a blank check for all other federal agencies to exert more control over 270 million Americans. The success of the disastrous attacks of Sept. 11 were due far more to gross negligence and a shortage of competence than to a shortage of power. The federal government needs sufficient power to protect Americans against terrorist attacks and to harshly punish the perpetrators of the recent attacks. But such power shouldn't place a golden crown on the head of every would-be bureaucratic dictator, from the lowest village zoning enforcer to the most deluded federal agency chieftain. The blind glorification of government, now popular, puts almost all liberties at grave risk. At least for the time being, people have lost any interest in government's batting average - either for actually protecting citizens or for abusing power. The best hope for the survival and defense of liberty is that enough Americans will recall the type of history lessons that public schools never teach. At this time of national crisis, we must forget neither our political heritage nor the inherent limits of any governmental machinery. Government has a vital role in defending Americans from deadly foreign threats. But nothing that happened on Sept. 11 or since changed the fundamental nature of American government. James Bovard is the author of "Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion & Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years"(St. Martin's Press, 2000) and a policy advisor to the Future of Freedom Foundation. ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

1 0