January 25, 2008 1:12 PM
'Rainbow coalition' evaporating over illegal immigration?
A conservative think tank says illegal immigration is widening the political gap between blacks and Hispanics.
Steven Malagna writes in the Manhattan Institute's City Journal quarterly magazine:
Though blacks have long worried that the country’s growing foreign-born population, especially its swelling rolls of illegal immigrants, harmed their economic prospects, they have also followed their political leadership in backing liberal immigration policies. Now, however, as new waves of immigration inundate historically African-American neighborhoods, black opinion is hardening against the influx. “We will not lay down and take this any longer,” says Anderson. If he’s right, it could upend the political calculus on immigration.Black unease about immigration goes back a long way. In the 1870s, former slave Frederick Douglass warned that immigrants were displacing free blacks in the labor market. Twenty-five years later, Booker T. Washington exhorted America’s industrialists to “cast down your bucket” not among new immigrants but “among the eight million Negros . . . who have without strikes and labor wars tilled your fields, cleared your forests, builded your railroads and cities.” Blacks supported federal legislation in 1882 that restricted Chinese immigration to the United States. They favored the immigration reform acts of the 1920s, which limited European immigration, and also urged restrictions on Mexican workers: “If the million Mexicans who have entered the country have not displaced Negro workers, whom have they displaced?” asked black journalist George Schuyler in 1928.
But the 1960s brought a big change in the views of black political leaders, especially after President Lyndon B. Johnson and congressional supporters of liberalizing immigration claimed the mantle of the civil rights movement for their reforms, which became law in 1965 and resulted in a 60 percent increase in legal immigration over the subsequent decade. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed that blacks and poor immigrants had much in common and could become political allies, which was why, in the run-up to the immigration bill’s passage, he endorsed the idea of letting Cubans fleeing Castro settle in Miami. Jesse Jackson would later herald the imminent arrival of a mighty “black-brown” or “rainbow” coalition that would—or so he claimed—propel him to the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination. As it turned out, Jackson failed to win much Hispanic support, which mostly lined up behind Walter Mondale. But Jackson’s dream continued to spread among black politicians, including those in the Congressional Black Caucus, which became one of Washington’s most vocal groups opposing immigration restrictions.
Black leaders’ liberal views clearly helped soften anti-immigration attitudes within the African-American community. A 1986 New York Times poll found that a larger percentage of blacks than of whites believed that immigrants took jobs from Americans—but it also found blacks less likely than whites to favor immigration restrictions. In the California vote on Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot initiative that banned government benefits for illegals, blacks split nearly in half on the measure, while whites heavily supported it and Latinos opposed it. “Even confronted with evidence that immigrants are taking jobs from them, some blacks would say, ‘These are people who are fighting for their rights like us,’ ” says Carol Swain, a Vanderbilt University political scientist and editor of the recently published Debating Immigration.
But as immigration reignited as a national issue in 2006, ambivalence has increasingly given way to opposition to current policies—and even to anger. When Earl Ofari Hutchinson, a columnist for BlackNews.com, wrote a series of pieces sympathizing with illegal aliens, the volume of hostile mail that poured in from other blacks shocked him. Illegal immigration has sizzled as a topic on African-American stations like satellite radio XM’s “The Power,” with most callers demanding more immigration restrictions. African-American bloggers have excoriated black politicians who favor liberal immigration policies. “In the realm of pandering black elites, there is no more notorious public figure than [Texas] Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee,” wrote Elizabeth Wright in the online newsletter Issues & Views. “According to Jackson-Lee, those blacks who forcefully oppose mass immigration are simply naive and are being ‘baited’ [by white opponents of immigration] into taking such negative positions.”
Recent polling data reveal the shift. Though a 2006 Pew Center national survey showed some of the same ambivalence among blacks toward immigrants, it also found that in several urban areas where blacks and Latinos were living together, blacks were more likely to say that immigrants were taking jobs from Americans, and also more likely to favor cutting America’s current immigration levels.
January 25, 2008
2:39 PM
Ben's Border Street writes:
Aren't the Democrats supposed to be the blacks "party". Obviously blacks are being replaced. Browns on the other hand back right up to our back door and are inside our "house" by the millions. Just like in prison, power in numbers.
January 25, 2008
2:47 PM
Chicken Little writes:
You go Ben!
January 25, 2008
3:02 PM
history buff writes:
Mark, you can't expect us to read all that. How about giving us the Readers Digest version.
January 25, 2008
3:09 PM
Shaggy, Soldier of Bens Brigade writes:
Ben, Didn't the Mexicans kick out the blacks in Mexico?
I haven't heard over the Hill talking her jive talk lately.
"I don't feels no ways tired"--HC
She must have lost this voice when she found her crying voice.
January 25, 2008
3:59 PM
Ben's Border Street writes:
Shag, the Mexicans are ethnically cleansing some neigborhoods in L.A. U.S.A.
I asked a Mexican in Juarez(can you believe it, he was actually in Mexico?) why there were no blacks in Juarez. His reply "we killed them all". So much for multiculturalism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOLGYp1_k6Q
January 25, 2008
4:13 PM
Ben's Border Street writes:
Mark, please disregard the 3:02 comment. I find it an attempt to stifle discourse on this subject, as per Democratic party rules.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMgNoZNY5Mg
January 25, 2008
4:46 PM
Rush, a soldier in the chicken little brigade writes:
browns are the devil
January 25, 2008
5:13 PM
Ben- Former Democrat writes:
Shag, Yeah, I played. You had posted it a while back. Thanks, I just got in a game.lol
Looks like 4:46/2:47 dude doesn't want any discussion on this subject. Must be a worker for the Democratic party.
Looks like and McCain and Guiliani wont' be getting the black vote in southern California.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVTacLDFy7M
January 25, 2008
5:18 PM
its an over simplification to say blacks dont like imigrants writes:
Hard to judge this
go into any neighborhood and you will find Blacks intermarried with hispanics. you can't just put blacks in one box and hispanics in another.
And you don't really know who dislikes who or who likes who. Take Cuban americans, lots and lots of them are trying to bring family over from Cuba.
Don't know how this plays out either.
January 25, 2008
5:34 PM
Ben's Border Street writes:
Now lets move on down to another section of the country.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_8071966?_requestid=3025386
January 25, 2008
6:17 PM
Shaggy writes:
LoL Mark.
I wonder if it would have been left up if it was about whitey running through the fields getting shot at by the illegals?
January 25, 2008
6:21 PM
Anonymous writes:
What do you get when you put two crackers together over a muddy article?
Cracker Mud Pie
January 25, 2008
6:26 PM
Anonymous writes:
5:18 Link please.
6:21- Keep the racism to yourself.
January 25, 2008
6:39 PM
Anonymous writes:
Mexicans thought it would work if they tried to shout down America by pulling the race card like hyphenated Americans of the black persuasion have done so consistently. Well, the majority of America has become quite numbed to that technique and pushed back at the Aztlan Invasion. Racism has nothing to do with it on the American side.
Now, racism has everything to do with what the Mexicans are doing....
January 25, 2008
11:56 PM
Dean Smith writes:
Seems like everyone "gets it" except the politicians looking for illiterate voters.
January 25, 2008
11:57 PM
Dean Smith writes:
Seems like everyone "gets it" except the politicians looking for illiterate voters.
January 26, 2008
1:03 AM
Racism is alive and well, sorry to say writes:
"A conservative think tank says illegal immigration is widening the political gap between blacks and Hispanics."
Conservative think tank hmmm.
most conservatives are neither hispanic or black. So...
I imagine a bunch of white republicans sitting around trying to project their own fear of hispanics on Blacks.
Just like our own right wingers probably spend most of their time boycotting Taco Bell thinking the cashiers would go back where they came from.
January 26, 2008
7:21 AM
Ben's Border Street writes:
This guy below is really trying hard. Links please Mr. Anonymous race baiter.
If you weren't busy casting racial sterotypes and the obligatory obfuscation 1:03, you would find that the majority of Latinos ARE conservative. Also you will find that Hispanics are not a monolithic group in regards to the immigration issue.
http://www.dontspeakforme.org/
Blacks joining Minutmen:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/06/eveningnews/main1596100.shtml
January 26, 2008
7:54 AM
Anonymous writes:
Latinos are conservative? vote republican?
http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=6660&cha=10
Washington, DC--(HISPANIC PR WIRE - US Newswire)--July 20, 2006--"A new poll released today by the New Democrat Network confirms that Hispanics have lost confidence in the failed leadership of President Bush and the Republican Party, with a full 61% of respondents saying the country is headed in the wrong direction. The poll also shows President Bush with a 58% unfavorable rating, a mirror opposite of the 60% favorable numbers he enjoyed in the 2004 cycle, and the Democrats leading Republicans by 59-23 if the election were held today
LOL
January 26, 2008
8:53 AM
Anonymous writes:
7:54 obviously has never hear of Blue Dog Democrats and assumes like most uneducated liberals that anyone who identifies with Democrats must be open borders idiots like themselves. Reliance on cherry-picked polls is another sign of this kind of self-hypnotic lunacy of the jay marvin type.
Sad.
January 26, 2008
9:20 AM
Anonymous writes:
Another fine example from our Mexican friends:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15140110/detail.html
January 26, 2008
10:08 AM
rogerg writes:
How in God's green earth does racism have anything to do with Mexicans? Mexicans are not a race, latino is not a race, where does this idea come from,Mexicans,latinos?
People should be aware those comic books that instruct how to get and stay across the border are handed out to prisoners getting out of jail in Mexico. Mexicos way of emptying the trash.
January 26, 2008
11:06 AM
SoCal Sam writes:
This sounds like a conservative wish fantasy. America is becoming like California where the only people who are hated are bigots and Mexicans. Tralala.
January 26, 2008
1:50 PM
wgorillaz writes:
A technology based lobby group in US, the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) wants United States Congress to drastically raise the annual cap on H-1B visas and give permanent residency to foreign nationals who graduate from U.S. colleges.
Like hell we need more workers here!
http://www.techbanyan.com
January 26, 2008
7:48 PM
Bettybb writes:
LoL Mark.
I wonder if it would have been left up if it was about whitey running through the fields getting shot at by the illegals?
Posted by Shaggy on January 25, 2008 06:17 PM
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
You realize this post is racist in the extreme - rather like using the N word? Shaggy should take some senitivity training and learn to clean up his mind.
#####################################
You put so much effort into this article Mark, it's a shame as almost all of it is irrelevant. Take a deep breath. Pull out a dictionary and find out the difference between legal immigrants and illegal aliens. It is HUGE.
This Black revolt has been going on for a while. Black interests and illegal interests are 100 per cent opposed. There is a lot of talk about Blacks saying Hasta La Vista baby to the Democratic Party. If Obama is not running, I think the GOP has a real shot at getting the Black vote.
So all the Dem pandering will be for naught. Only about 6% of Hispanics vote. So the Dems will get 1/2 of the 6%, (Hispanics are split on the rule of llaw), and lose let's say 10% of Black votes. And Hispanics will shift loyalty overnight. Blacks have been steadfast. If they move to the GOP it could be for along, long time. While Hispanics may switch back to the GOP at any time.
And the real racists in this debate are the illegals and their supporters.
Ask the Blacks.
Ask school teachers who have little kids in their class attending the Mecha club which has taught them that brown blood is superior and all other races must be killed (genocide).
I am serious. This is going on all over the place in the west. Most Universities have Mecha chapters. Read one of their web sites and you think that Hilter was alive.
Ask Shaggy who used a vile racist term on this board.
Ask La Raza whose motto is " Everything or our race, nothing for others". Also one of their top people has been quoted as saying it may be necessary " to kill whitie".
Are these the kind of people you want to give citizenship to? Lawbreakers, racists, and anti American.
Guess what? Of all the Mexicans who have the right to take out US citizenship ony 13% have. Why?
They don't want to be American. They just are ripping our system off for the benefits, then they want to take over the country entirely for Mexico.
Mark, you are naive in your thinking.
Forget Pollyanna. Not eveyone in the world is good, fair, decent, law abiding and upfront about their real intentions.
January 26, 2008
7:53 PM
Anonymous writes:
Actually, studies show that Blacks are being harmed disportionately by illegals taking their jobs.
As Americans Blacks are entitled to those jobs over illegals who should be on the bus home.
But don't worry, the New York Times, gleegully, reported a while back that now educated Hispanics are coming to take middle management positions! Now the middle class can know what it is like to lose a job to an illegal who will work for half the wages under the table.
Maybe it will be your job Mark.
January 26, 2008
8:29 PM
Ben's Border Street writes:
Betty, Thanks for your awareness. One day "they" will understand what is happening in this country,...one day. Lord nows I've tried. Siempre vigilans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bQAskXjwPI
January 26, 2008
8:46 PM
Anonymous writes:
gee who should we vote for now?
Tom Tancredo is not running anymore.
January 27, 2008
2:40 AM
Anonymous writes:
It doesn't matter. All the politicians from both parties won't do anything about this once elected. just watch.
January 27, 2008
6:20 AM
Bring back Tom Tamcredo 2008 writes:
I guess we vote for the one that looks the most presidential... Mitt Romney. Forget any and all Democrats(traitors) and the Democrats running in the Republican party (McCain, Guliani).
I believe Tancredo endorsed Mitt. Mitt will get my vote based on that endorsement if he is the nominee.
January 27, 2008
10:00 AM
Porter writes:
If anyone still believes the lies that mass media in the US is not biased liberal - note that the topic of illegal immigration has fallen off the map from every Democratic national debate. This could not happen if the mass media was not in cahoots with Democrats to choose which issues to discuss and which to suppress. This belies national polls reporting which issues are the top in importance to Americans (legal Americans).
January 27, 2008
11:55 AM
Shaggy writes:
"Shaggy should take some senitivity training and learn to clean up his mind."---Bettybb
My sensitivity has already ran its course, along with millions of other Americans.
I don't see ANY sensitivity coming from the illegals, do you??
btw, Since when did "ILLEGAL" become a race?
I guess in this case, I am a racist to Killers, Rapists and child molesters among many others....
January 27, 2008
12:00 PM
Anonymous writes:
Why does this topic bring out the weirdest of the weird?
January 27, 2008
8:04 PM
Bottombly writes:
Excellent point about the coordination between the liberal media and the Democratic Party. Illegal immigration is a topic feared by Dems because they have to choose pandering over listening to most Americans (other than ethnocentric liberals) in staking a losing position on the subject. Them chickens are winging it home to roost and the Dems are staring into the sky with their mouths open.
LOL
January 27, 2008
8:17 PM
Anonymous writes:
ANOTHER American killed by an illegal alien . Impeach or vote out ANY politician who even remotely utters any semblance of "amnesty" for illegal aliens.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/27/boulder-police-announce-arrest-1997-rape-and-murde/
January 28, 2008
6:00 AM
Imus writes:
Speaking of political correctness
we should seriously think of changing the name of Idaho to something else.
Idaho is an offensive name. I mean how would people feel if people had to say they were born in Udaho?
January 28, 2008
6:11 AM
Ben's Border Street writes:
Why are stories like these not front page news from coast to coast? If the perps where white males it would have been.
Genocide of black Americans by Latino imperialists in the USA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg4uQlTd-BI
January 28, 2008
9:20 AM
Go home Illegals, you are not wanted. writes:
This English teacher has phrased it the best I've seen yet
Tomatoes and Cheap Labor
CHEAP TOMATOES?
This should make everyone think, be you Democrat, Republican or Independent!!
From a California school teacher - - -
"As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that you should be aware that:
I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern California high school which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students average lower socioeconomic and income levels.
Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens , Huntington Park , etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools.
Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free breakfast, I'm not talking a glass of milk and roll -- but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten. ( OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK )
I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell phones . The school also provides day care centers for the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)
I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; my budget was already substantial.
I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, had been carved with graffiti by the appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free edcation in America ... (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)
I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students here in the country less then 3 months who raised so much hell with the female teachers, calling them "Putas" whores and throwing things that the teachers were in tears.
Free medical , free education, free food, day care etc., etc., etc. Is it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to demand rights, privileges and entitlements?
To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they LIKE their gardener and housekeeper and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs.
Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more crime, lower standards of education in our schools, overcrowding, new diseases etc., etc., etc .
For me, I'll pay more for tomatoes.
We need to wake up. The guest worker program will be a disaster because we won't have the guts to enforce it . Does anyone in their right mind really think they will voluntarily leave and return?
It does, however, have everthing to do with culture: A third-world culture that does not value education, that accepts children getting pregnant and dropping out of school by 15 and that refuses
to assimilate, and an American culture that has become so weak and worried about "politically correctness " that we don't have the will to do anything about it.
CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?
Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage.
Consumers don't want expensive produce.
Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs.
But the bottom line is cheap labor. The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth , a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as "cheap labor."
Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an " earned income credit" of up to $3,200 free.
He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent .
He qualifies for food stamps.
He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.
His children get free breakfasts and lunches
at school.
He requires bilingual teachers and books.
He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.
If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled , they qualify for SSI. Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this is at (our) taxpayer's expense .
He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.
Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.
He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.
Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after paying their bills and his.
The American taxpayers also pay for increased crime, graffiti and trash clean-up.
Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT! Wake up people!
THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING TO THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR EITHER PARTY. 'AND WHEN THEY LIE TO US AND DON'T DO AS THEY SAY, WE SHOULD REPLACE THEM AT ONCE!'
January 28, 2008
9:55 AM
From the Democratic elites aisle writes:
chirp, chirp (silence)..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................(silence)................................................................................................................... (silence)...........................................................................................
January 28, 2008
10:12 AM
peon lackey of Democratic party writes:
chirp, chirp(silence).......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
January 28, 2008
10:58 AM
mainstream media writes:
(silence)-chirp,chirp.............................................................................................................(silence).......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
January 28, 2008
11:02 AM
Let's Be Consistent writes:
How much is it going to cost to clean up illegal immigration? Where do we start? I'm all for doing something, but it sounds like most people prefer to bark at the moon than to take action.
January 28, 2008
12:07 PM
It's as simple as falling off a log writes:
Let's be,
We are a shrewd bunch we Americans. We've done it before we can do it again.
Deportation Worked- and It Can Again GB
Who SAYS it can't be done?
PRESIDENTS HOOVER & EISENHOWER DEPORTED MILLIONS OF
ILLEGAL SO AMERICANS HAD WORK!
I did not know of this until it was pointed out to me.
Back during the great depression, President Herbert
Hoover ordered the deportation of all illegal aliens
in order to make the jobs available to American
citizens that desperately needed work.
And then again in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower
deported 1.3 million Mexican nationals (called
operation "Wetback") in order that returning American
WWII and Korean veterans had a better chance at jobs.
It took 2 years, but they rounded them up and deported them.
If they could deport the illegal back then, they can sure do it today!!
If you have doubts about the veracity of this
information, just type Operation Wetback into your
favorite search engine and confirm it for yourself.
Reminder: Don't forget to pay your taxes..... 1.2
million illegal aliens are depending on you!
January 28, 2008
12:37 PM
Anonymous writes:
Another fine example from our mexican friends:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15150833/detail.html
January 28, 2008
12:42 PM
Ben writes:
Let's be Consistent,
My question is "How much is it going to cost if we don't control illegal immigration?"
January 28, 2008
12:51 PM
Anonymous writes:
"Deportation Worked- and It Can Again GB
How do you round up 12 million illegals?
and then how do you separate illegals from legals?
And then how do you ship them out?
Trains , planes, boat?
This is a real problems
January 28, 2008
1:04 PM
Anonymous writes:
No need to round them up. Take away all incentive to remain. They would self deport. It's already happening in states like Georgia and Oklahoma. It has been a huge success socially and economically for those state as a whole.
January 28, 2008
1:33 PM
Let's Be Consistent writes:
My question is "How much is it going to cost if we don't control illegal immigration?"
In other words, it's going to cost a lot. Are there figures about how many illegal immigrants have left and how many have stayed in Georgia and Oklahoma? Since they are illegal and under the radar, how do we know its effective?
As far as rounding up and deporting, how would that be done? Who would do it? National Guard? State militia? Minutemen? Do we need a law confiscating property? How much would all that cost? Would there be holding cells? Would the illegals be entitled to a hearing? What if one is common law married to U.S. citizen? Does that count? Would questions be allowed?
January 28, 2008
2:00 PM
Ben writes:
Let's be,
It was obvious you wanted to set this up from the get go. Which part of self deportation were you not creative enough to conceptualize from the that post and just examples in Georgia and Oklahoma?
Nah your right. The most powerful country in the world is helpless to control illegal immigration.
Hey, let's just give illegal aliens amnesty again and call it something like hmmmmm "guest worker program". Yea, that it. Then let's spin the crap out of it to convince the American citizen it's in their best interest.
Say something like, lettuce will cost $100.00 a head or the economy is going to collapse or some such nonsense, they'll buy it.
January 28, 2008
2:05 PM
thinkaboutit writes:
In 1980-81 former Pres Carted let in from Cuba hundreds of thousands of Cubans families that settled in Miami,
then Castro opened the prison doors,sent
all his prisoners to America, then lastly opened the mental institutions,
and here you are America! Thake these.
They did'nt have ID"s SS#. So who knows wwho they were. Gov had them in tent cities till they could prossess them, they couldn't be released unless they had family in USA or a Sponsor.
They didn't like rules. and would kill the sponsors, the ones that made their
freedom possible. They committed crimes of all sorts. Cubans from the 60's that come here would'nt even sponsor them,
knowing their anti-american personalities.Little by little, they were deported, they even burnt down the Federal prison in Atlanta and started a riot. The body of water from key west Fla. and Cuba (90MI) helped that they couldnt return. At least, not so easy,
or in three days like the open border.
It can be done if all the bleeding hearts that want the cheap labor would
not betray the American citizens.
January 28, 2008
2:32 PM
Matt writes:
Oh yea, Let's Be Consistent,
Lets just give up on rule of law, right? Are those stupid questions on logistics your best liberal defense for not wanting to defend your own country from an unchecked invasion? If that’s the best you've got then I guess I should expect to be called a racist next as you're argument scrapes the bottom of the barrel.
And just to not get too far off topic, I'd love to see the Rainbow Coalition go away. It is nothing more than a stable for the Left to store some of their minority-voting block in, hoping they'll stay with promises of relief from their predicaments. It never happened and never will, time to take the personal responsibility approach as prescribed by Bill Cosby.
January 28, 2008
2:54 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) aka ignorant strawman warmonger racist without friends writes:
The term should be illegal invaders. This has nothing to do with immigration it has to do with wholesale invasion and those who want to destroy America and hasten the One World Government run by Socialists and Communists. Immigration is controlled and should be fair and to the benefit of Americans. No Amnesty, No Birthright Citizenship and Deport all illegal invaders.
January 28, 2008
2:57 PM
Ben writes:
Amen brother, It's that simple.
January 28, 2008
3:34 PM
Anonymous writes:
"As far as rounding up and deporting, how would that be done? Who would do it? National Guard? State militia? Minutemen?"---LBC
Yep and we could also use the Military, have them use the Border for training purposes and every single Citizen of the United States should be obligated to do their part and report those who need deported.
Report companies hiring them.
Anyone caught harboring an illegal fugitive should also be held accountable.
This mess can be cleaned up very fast
January 28, 2008
3:45 PM
Ben writes:
Count me in.
Is any seriously thinking about voting for McCain?
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/25/meet-the-open-borders-family-mccain-hernandez-soros-and-the-reform-institute/
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life".
-John F. Kennedy
January 28, 2008
3:51 PM
Anonymous writes:
"Is any seriously thinking about voting for McCain?"
Hell No.
After 9/11. the Priority shouldve been to secure the borders North and South because of the possibility of terrorists. The repubs spent 200 billion that year invading Iraq. and 37 billion only on homeland defense.
Arizona had 3000 illegals streaming across a day. What was McCain doing?
Not a whole lot. thats for sure.
January 28, 2008
4:47 PM
Let's Be Consistent writes:
Gee, I asked if questions were allowed? Apparently not. No one answered a single thing I asked. Everyone who responded barked at the moon, as predicted.
So, how does it begin? What's the plan? Sounds like y'all are long on barking and short on ideas.
BTW, i want something done. Nothing is being done. It doesn't take half a brain to say it is stupid to ask about logic and logistics, but that is where it begins dumbass.
January 28, 2008
5:18 PM
Anonymous writes:
LBC
you are correct in asking questions. Practical ones. Because that is the GOP
platform. Cause fear alarm and offer no solutions after they are elected and do nothing.
Watch McCain and Romney do nothing
January 28, 2008
5:25 PM
Ben writes:
LBC, These illegals up and boogied. They didn't stop and muddle their departure with "logistics". Some in the mainstream media refer to illegal aliens as "migrants". The migrated then, or self deported. So the start would be enforce the law don't you think? Secure the border is a good start too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxe1WO27B_I
January 28, 2008
5:49 PM
Ben's Border Street writes:
LBC. More logistics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxe1WO27B_I
January 28, 2008
6:49 PM
Shaggy writes:
LBC,
Do you listen to the Candidates when they give their ideas what they will do to address the illegal immigration issue if they are the one to get elected?
Obama wants to give them DL's.and amnesty.
Hillary wants to give them DL's, then she doesn't, then she does, so I can see where it is confusing what her stance is.
Remember that she just said last week,"there is no illegal women here...there is no illegal man for that matter". She also is in favor for amnesty.
McCain helped write the shamnesty bill and is for amnesty.
It really doesn't matter what the breck girl wants. He has no chance.
Heres Mitts stance.
"Secure The Border. Follow through on Congressional commitment to build a physical and technological fence along the southern border, and secure other points of entry.
Implement An Enforceable Employer Verification System. Issue a biometrically-enabled and tamperproof card to non-citizens and create a national database for non-citizens so employers can easily verify their legal status in this country.
Reject Amnesty. Do not give amnesty or any special pathway to those who have come to this country illegally.
Punish Sanctuary Cities. Cut back federal funding to cities that are "sanctuaries" for illegal immigrants and refuse to comply with federal law or aid federal law enforcement.
Improve Interior Enforcement. Provide resources to enforce immigration laws throughout the nation, and crackdown on employers who continue to hire illegals with stiffer fines and penalties.
Encourage Legal Immigration. Streamline the system to recruit and retain skilled workers and welcome the best and the brightest from around the world to our universities."
Heres Ron Pauls.
" * Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
* Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
* No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
* No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
* End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
* Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods".
All I see the Democrats doing is walking softly on the issue as to not piss off the main stream America that want the borders closed and enforce our current laws and NO AMNESTY PERIOD.
However the Democrats don't want to come out and say they want to crack down because they might lose the Mexican vote.
This alone tells me they are putting themselves first and the good of the Country second.
At least a couple of Republicans are willing to risk losing votes and make a stance on the tough issue and put the Country in front of their personal goals.
January 28, 2008
9:07 PM
Kunta writes:
Look, I want the illegals to leave. But I understand what it is like to be singled out because I possess certain characteristics that fit a profile. How do you propose to get them out without bringing down the hammer on a bunch of people who look like the people you want to leave?
I think if we had nationalized health care we could catch alof of them. Everytime they come in to gilt the system, they could be arrested and sent to prison. We should build lots of big prisons and keep the illegals there so they know if they come back they will spend more time there.
I know that sounds like logistics, but getting rid of the Mexicans can be done without persecuting minorities.
January 28, 2008
9:24 PM
Matt writes:
LBC,
Everybody who is really interested in getting something done about illegal immigration will probably agree that the biggest obstacle to getting something done, is getting politicians in office that have the will to enforce the laws they are elected to enforce rather than how it is going to be carried out. Using a 10-story circus catapult wouldn’t be my first choice of methods but if it was the only one then I’d be all for it. It’s really not that difficult.
January 29, 2008
3:10 AM
Antonio Cruz writes:
Fortune cookies and noodles and money
1996 United States campaign finance controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
President Clinton with convicted fund-raiser Charlie Trie
President Clinton with convicted fund-raiser Charlie Trie
The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China (PRC) to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.
While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996,[1] the PRC's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of the PRC sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the PRC Embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC[2] in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the PRC targeted only congressional elections. The Chinese government denied all accusations.
Twenty-two people were eventually convicted for fraud or for funneling Asian funds into the United States elections. A number of the convictions came against longtime Clinton-Gore friends and political appointees.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Background
o 1.1 New China lobby
o 1.2 China plan
* 2 Major fund-raising figures and groups
o 2.1 Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie and Wang Jun
o 2.2 Ron Brown and the Department of Commerce
o 2.3 Johnny Chung, Liu Chaoying and General Ji
o 2.4 John Huang, James Riady and Lippo Group
o 2.5 Maria Hsia and Hsi Lai Temple
o 2.6 Ted Sioeng
* 3 Department of Justice investigation
o 3.1 Notable convictions
o 3.2 Calls for an independent counsel
o 3.3 Criticism of investigation
* 4 Congressional investigations
o 4.1 Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
o 4.2 House Government Reform and Oversight Committee
o 4.3 Lack of cooperation
* 5 See also
* 6 Notes
* 7 References
* 8 Bibliography
* 9 External links
[edit] Background
[edit] New China lobby
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
1997 Special Investigation in Connection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns
According to the United States Senate report Investigation of Illegal or Improper Activities in Connection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns, prior to 1995 the PRC's approach to promoting its interests in the United States was focused almost exclusively on diplomacy, including summits and meetings with high-level White House officials. In these meetings, Chinese officials often negotiated with the United States government by using the appeal of their huge commercial market.[3]
United States companies were also known to lobby the U.S. government on various issues involving their companies and China. In the 1990s, the news media reported on the phenomenon of U.S. companies lobbying for favorable trade policies regarding the PRC and labeled this activity as the "New China Lobby", which was contrasted with the "old" China Lobby that worked for the Taiwan. The group consisted of representatives of businesses with trade and investment interests in China such as AT&T, General Motors, and Boeing. In addition, prominent Americans, including several former United States Secretaries of State, were reported to be involved in promoting increased economic relationships with China, including Henry Kissinger as well as George Shultz, Cyrus Vance, Lawrence Eagleburger, Alexander Haig, and Brent Scowcroft. This "New China Lobby" urged United States officials to protect China's trade relationship with the United States because American exports to mainland China were rapidly increasing and creating new American jobs.[4][5]
Growing economic ties between the United States and China are one factor influencing the diplomatic and political relationship between the two nations
Growing economic ties between the United States and China are one factor influencing the diplomatic and political relationship between the two nations
The U.S. Senate report about the 1996 fund-raising investigation noted that American exports to the PRC grew from $3 billion in 1980 to $38 billion in 1994.N-[1] Between 1991 and 1996, United States exports to mainland China increased by 90.5 percent, and the United States designated the PRC as one of the top ten "Big Emerging Markets" offering the largest potential for United States goods in future years.[6] Total trade between the two countries had risen from $4.8 billion in 1980 to $63.5 billion in 1996, making China the fourth largest U.S. trading partner at the time.[3]
Given the increase in trade, critics questioned whether China should still be seen as a geopolitical rival of the United States. One explanation, according to the Senate report, was the American people's negative attitude toward China's human rights record, still marked by the PRC government's suppression of democratic movements, such as the crackdown on anti-government protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Another reason, from the Chinese government's perspective, according to the report, was that "the coming to power of a China-bashing U.S. Congress [was] perceived as part of an increas[ed] anti-Chinese atmosphere in Washington." According to the Senate Committee, information discovered during its investigation supported the conclusion that the PRC government, beginning in 1994, was concerned that decisions by Congress, including its stance toward the issue of Taiwan, would harm Chinese interests.[3]
[edit] China plan
According to the Senate report, Chinese officials eventually developed a set of proposals to promote their interests with the United States government and to improve China's image with the American people. The proposals, dubbed the "China Plan", were prompted by the United States Congress's successful lobbying of the president to grant a visa to Taiwan President Lee Teng-Hui. United States Secretary of State Warren Christopher had previously assured his Chinese counterpart Qian Qichen that granting a visa would be "inconsistent with [the United States'] unofficial relationship [with Taiwan]"[7] and the Clinton Administration's acquiescence to the Congressional resolutions led the PRC to conclude that the influence of Congress over foreign policy was more significant than it had previously determined. When formulating the so-called plan, Chinese officials acknowledged that, compared to other countries, it had little knowledge of, or influence over, policy decisions made in Congress, which had a sizeable pro-Taiwan faction under the influence of a more established "China Lobby" run by the Kuomintang.[3]
The plan, according the Senate report, instructed Chinese officials in the U.S. to improve their knowledge about members of Congress and increase contacts with its members, the public, and the media. The plan also suggested ways to lobby United States officials.[3]
Over the years, the PRC repeatedly denied these lobbying efforts involved financial contributions of any kind:
“ [S]ome people and media in the United States speculated… about so-called participation by Chinese individuals in political donations during the U.S. elections. It is sheer fabrication and is intended to slander China. [The PRC] has never, nor will we ever, use money to influence American politics — China's Foreign Ministry spokesman, May 1998.[8] ”
Though the ultimate level of participation or non-participation by the PRC government in the fund-raising schemes may never be fully known, investigations by the American media, the U.S. Justice Department, and the U.S. Congress, did prove there was a conspiracy by individuals to influence American elections with Asian funds prior to 1996.
[edit] Major fund-raising figures and groups
[edit] Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie and Wang Jun
Clinton with Wang Jun at the White House in 1996
Clinton with Wang Jun at the White House in 1996
The most significant one-time illegal foreign contribution was a $460,000 donation by Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie to President Bill Clinton's legal defense fund. The donation was made by delivery of an envelope containing $460,000 in $1,000 contributions, some on sequentially numbered money orders made out in different names but with the same handwriting.[9]
Born in Taiwan, Trie emigrated to the U.S. in 1974. He eventually became an American citizen and co-owner of a restaurant in Little Rock, Arkansas where he befriended then Governor Clinton. In addition to the donation to Clinton's defense fund, Trie and his immediate family donated $220,000 to the DNC which was later returned.[10]
Immediately after the donation to Clinton's defense fund, Trie sent a letter to President Clinton that expressed concern about America's intervention in tensions arising from China's military exercises being conducted near Taiwan. Trie told the President in his letter that war with China was a possibility should U.S. intervention continue:
“ ...[O]nce the hard parties of the Chinese military incline to grasp U.S. involvement as foreign intervention, is [sic] U.S. ready to face such [a] challenge[?]... [I]t is highly possible for China to launch [sic] real war based on its past behavior in [sic] Sino-Vietnam war and Zhen Bao Tao war with Russia — Charlie Trie in a letter to President Clinton, March 21, 1996[11] ”
After questions arose regarding Charlie Trie's fund-raising activities during Congressional investigations in late 1996, he left the country for the PRC.[10] Trie returned to the U.S. in 1998 and was convicted and sentenced to three years probation and four months home detention for violating federal campaign finance laws by making political contributions in someone else's name and for causing a false statement to be made to the Federal Election Commission (FEC).[12]
In February 1996, Trie brought Wang Jun, chairman of CITIC, the chief investment arm of the PRC, and Poly Technologies (a "front company for the PRC military"[13][14] that was later charged with smuggling 2,000 AK-47s into the U.S.), to a White House "coffee"N-[2] with the president.[15][16] President Clinton later admitted Wang's attendance at the White House was "clearly inappropriate."[17][18] According to Clinton, the event attended by Wang was a small group discussion with people from "different walks of life."
“ I'd talk for five or 10 minutes and then we'd ... go around the table and let people say whatever they wanted to say. I'm not sure that [Wang] ever said anything... I can tell you for sure nothing inappropriate came from it in terms of any governmental action on my part... We have to do a better job of screening people who come in and out of here — President Clinton, Dec. 20, 1996.[19] ”
Four days prior to Wang Jun's White House visit, the Clinton Administration granted Poly Technologies import permits that would allow the shipment of over 100,000 semi-automatic weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition to a Detroit company (China Jiang An) that had ties to the Chinese military. Robert Sanders, a U.S. lawyer representing the company, could not explain why the special permits were granted. "All of a sudden, there was a breakthrough," Sanders said. "I can't account for it."[20][21]
According to Wang, during a United Nations conference on women's rights in Beijing in 1995, he received an invitation from First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to attend a reception, but his schedule was fully booked. Wang had also met with Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger (whom he called "a good friend") in addition to former President George H. W. Bush after he left office. During his two-day visit to Washington in 1996, Wang also held talks with President Clinton's Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown, whom he had met once before at a trade mission in Hong Kong.[22]
In 2007, the Wall Street Journal reported a similar controversy with campaign financing for Hillary Clinton allegedly coming from a businessman, Mr. Hsu possibly being funneled through Chinese Californians to skirt the individual campaign contribution limits. In the same year, the Los Angeles Times reported that "the [Hillary] Clinton operation also has accepted what it later conceded were improper donations" from recent Chinese immigrants in New York.[23]
[edit] Ron Brown and the Department of Commerce
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown
A close business associate of Ron Brown testified in court in 1998 that Brown had told her that Commerce Department trade missions were used for partisan political fund-raising at the behest of President Clinton and the First Lady. Specifically, she said trade mission plane seats were sold to business people who gave at least $50,000 each to the DNC.[24]
A Commerce Department official reportedly threw away official government documents concerning the department's trade missions to China after a judge ordered they be turned over to Judicial WatchN-,[3] a conservative government watchdog group. According to the court: "No adequate explanation has been given as to why these documents were destroyed." Furthermore, the judge said: "[the Department's] misconduct in this case is so egregious and so extensive that... the agency [should be held] fully accountable for the serious violations that it appears to have deliberately committed".[25]
Ron Brown, who had been under investigation for fraud and bribery allegations, died in a plane crash in Croatia in April 1996.[26]
[edit] Johnny Chung, Liu Chaoying and General Ji
Johnny Chung (far left) with the Clintons
Johnny Chung (far left) with the Clintons
Johnny Chung also attended some of Ron Brown's Commerce Department trade missions to Asia. Born in Taiwan, Chung went from being the owner of a "blastfaxing" business (an automated system that quickly sends out faxes to thousands of businesses) in California to being in the middle of the Washington, D.C. elite within a couple weeks of his first donations to the Democratic Party. Called a "hustler" by a U.S. National Security Council (NSC) aide,[27] Chung made forty-nine separate visits to the White House between February 1994 and February 1996.[28] During one of the Commerce Department trade missions to China, Chung befriended former Chinese Lt. Col. Liu Chaoying, then an executive at China Aerospace Holdings (China's main satellite launching company) and daughter of former General Liu Huaqing.
Between 1994 and 1996, Chung donated $366,000 to the DNC. Eventually, all of the money was returned. Chung told federal investigators that $35,000 of the money he donated came from Liu Chaoying and, in turn, China's military intelligence.[27]
Specifically, Chung testified under oath to the U.S. House Committee investigating the issue in May 1999 that he was introduced to Chinese Gen. Ji Shengde,N-[4] then the head of Chinese military intelligence, by Liu Chaoying. Chung said that Ji told him: "We like your president very much. We would like to see him reelect [sic]. I will give you 300,000 U.S. dollars. You can give it to the president and the Democrat Party."[29] Both Liu and the Chinese government denied the claims.[30]
Chung was eventually convicted of bank fraud, tax evasion, and two misdemeanor counts of conspiring to violate election law.[31] Chung asserts that, after his guilty plea, the Chinese government attempted to assassinate him with "hit squads" three times, but the efforts were foiled by the FBI.[32]
[edit] John Huang, James Riady and Lippo Group
John Huang (center) with Bill Clinton, James Riady (right), and Clinton aide Mark Middleton (with back to camera) in the Oval Office
John Huang (center) with Bill Clinton, James Riady (right), and Clinton aide Mark Middleton (with back to camera) in the Oval Office
John Huang (pronounced "Hwä[ng]"), was another major figure convicted. Born in 1945 in Nanping, Fujian, Huang and his father fled to Taiwan at the end of the Chinese Civil War before he eventually emigrated to the United States in 1969. A former employee of the Indonesian company Lippo Group's Lippo Bank and its owners Mochtar Riady and his son James (whom Huang first met along with Bill Clinton at a financial seminar in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1980), Huang became a key fund-raiser within the DNC in 1995. While there, he raised $3.4 million for the party. Nearly half had to be returned when questions arose regarding their source during later investigations by Congress.[33]
According to U.S. Secret Service logs, Huang visited the White House 78 times while working as a DNC fund-raiser.[34] James Riady visited the White House 20 times (including 6 personal visits to President Clinton).[35]
Immediately prior to joining the DNC, Huang worked in President Clinton's Commerce Department as deputy assistant secretary for international economic affairs. His position made him responsible for Asia-U.S. trade matters. He was appointed to the position by President Clinton in December 1993. His position at the Commerce Department gave him access to classified intelligence on China. While at the department, it was later learned, Huang met 9 times with Chinese embassy officials in Washington D.C. The reasons for the meetings were never learned.[16]
Some DNC records suggested Huang started fund-raising before he left his government job which would have been a violation of the U.S. law known as the Hatch Act, though no charges regarding this issue were ever brought.[33] Huang eventually pleaded guilty to conspiring to reimburse Lippo Group employees' campaign contributions with corporate or foreign funds.[36] James Riady was later convicted of campaign finance violations relating to the same scheme as well.
“ Your honor, mistakes have been made, which I regret. I did not have to come back here [to the United States] but I wanted to own up to what I did and put this all behind me. I am grateful for the opportunity to be here today — James Riady, March 19, 2001.[37] ”
According to the Justice Department, some of those "mistakes" included reimbursing contributions made by Huang and various employees of Lippo Bank with funds wired from a foreign Lippo Group entity into an account maintained by John Huang at a bank in Hong Kong. Shortly after Riady pledged $1 million in support of then-Governor Clinton's campaign for the presidency, contributions made by Huang were reimbursed with funds wired from a foreign Lippo Group entity into an account Riady maintained at Lippo Bank and then distributed to Huang in cash. Also, contributions made by Lippo Group entities operating in the United States were reimbursed with wire transfers from foreign Lippo Group entities.[31]
An unclassified U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs report issued in 1998 stated that both James Riady and his father Mochtar had "had a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency." According to journalist Bob Woodward, details of the relationship came from highly classified intelligence information supplied to the committee by both the CIA and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).[38]
The most well-known of John Huang's fund-raisers involved Vice President Al Gore, Maria Hsia, and the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple in California.
[edit] Maria Hsia and Hsi Lai Temple
A close business associate of John Huang and James Riady since 1988, Taiwan-born Maria Hsia (pronounced "Shyä") began her association with Al Gore the same year as well. The association began after Hsia sent the then-senator a letter inviting him to come visit Taiwan: "If you decide to join this trip, I will persuade all my colleagues in the future to play a leader [sic] role in your presidential race..."[39]
Gore went, and the two began an eight-year relationship. Gore said his dealings with Hsia were strictly business in nature, but, at least at one point, Gore sent a letter to Hsia and Howard Hom (a business partner of Hsia) for support during a serious injury of Gore's son, Albert, writing "Thanks! You two are very special friends."[39]
Their relationship came to an end when she was charged with money-laundering in early 1998. The Justice Department alleged Hsia facilitated $100,000 in illegal contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore reelection campaign through her efforts at Hsi Lai Temple, a Chinese Buddhist temple in California. Hsia was eventually convicted by a jury in March 2000.[40] The Democratic National Committee eventually returned the money donated by the Temple's monks and nuns. Twelve nuns and employees of the temple, including the temple's abbess, refused to answer questions by pleading the Fifth Amendment when they were subpoenaed to testify before Congress.[41] Two other Buddhist nuns admitted destroying lists of donors and other documents related to the controversy because they felt the information would embarrass the Temple. A Temple-commissioned videotape of the fund raiser also went missing and the nuns' attorney claimed it may have been shipped off to Taiwan.[42] Vice President Gore said he had no idea the Temple meeting was financial in nature:
“ I did not know that it was a fund-raiser. But I knew it was a political event, and I knew there were finance people that were going to be present, and so that alone should have told me, 'This is inappropriate and this is a mistake; don't do this.' And I take responsibility for that. It was a mistake — Vice President Al Gore on NBC TV's Today show, Jan. 24, 1997.[43] ”
The Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights, California
The Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights, California
In response, the U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that investigated the controversy said:
“ The Vice President's staff... knew that the Temple event was a fundraiser. In March 1996, Deputy Chief of Staff David Strauss had helped arrange a meeting in the White House with the founder of the temple, Hsing Yun – a meeting which Strauss believed would 'lead to a lot of $.' The White House staff repeatedly referred to the event as a 'fundraiser' in internal correspondence, and assigned to it a 'ticket price' of '1000–5000 [dollars per] head'.[44] ”
Additionally, a memo written by John Huang to Vice President Gore's assistant Kimberly Tilley specifically mentioned the Temple meeting was a fund-raising event.[45] It is illegal for religious organizations to hold political fund-raising events in the U.S. due to their tax-exempt status.
The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee also said they learned that Hsia had served as an "agent" of the PRC government.[44] Hsia denied the claim.
[edit] Ted Sioeng
Another notable figure involved in the affair was Ted Sioeng (pictured above with Vice President Gore) who illegally donated money to both Democrats and Republicans. Sioeng, an Indonesian entrepreneur who could not speak English, was invited to sit side-by-side with President Clinton or Vice President Gore at three different fund-raising events.[46] According to the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, $200,000 of the $400,000 that Sioeng and his family gave to Democrats was "funded by transfer from overseas accounts." All the money was eventually returned.
Also, from their report:
“ [I]n late July 1997... [t]he Committee learned that Chinese government officials... were aware of, and possibly encouraged, [Ted] Sioeng's purchase of a Los Angeles-based newspaper... in 1995 and succeeded in having the paper report from a pro-Beijing perspective. There was also information suggesting that Sioeng met with Chinese officials in 1995 and 1996. ”
Furthermore,
“ Sioeng also may have been involved in directing or funding contributions to American political entities and campaigns. The public information obtained by the Committee suggests that Sioeng personally directed contributions to Republican California officials in 1995. According to public information, Sioeng was involved in these contributions, but the source of the contributions is difficult to determine. The non-public information suggests that approximately half of the just over $100,000 used for these contributions may have come from unknown sources in China. According to public information, one of the officials, Republican California State Treasurer, Matt Fong, has returned the $100,000 he received from Sioeng.[47] ”
Sioeng also joined Fong at a meeting with then House Speaker Newt Gingrich in mid-1995. Gingrich called the meeting a "photo-op".[48]
Attorney General Janet Reno and the directors of the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency (NSA) told members of the Senate committee they had credible intelligence information indicating Sioeng acted on behalf of China. A spokesman for Sioeng denied the allegations.[49]
[edit] Department of Justice investigation
Attorney General Janet Reno
Attorney General Janet Reno
The Justice Department opened a task force in late 1996 to begin investigating allegations of campaign fund-raising abuses by the Clinton/Gore re-election campaign. It expanded its internal investigation to include activities related to President Bill Clinton's legal defense fund in December 1996.[50]
President Clinton announced in February 1997 that he thought there should be a "vigorous" and "thorough" investigation into reports that the People's Republic of China tried to direct financial contributions from overseas sources to the Democratic National Committee. The president stopped short of calling for an independent prosecutor, saying that was the decision of the Justice Department.
"[O]bviously it would be a very serious matter for the United States if any country were to attempt to funnel funds to one of our parties for any reason whatever," President Clinton said.[51]
By July 1997, the administration determined that no evidence of any such thing had yet been proven.
"We have received the relevant [FBI] briefings," White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said. "We believe there's no basis for any change in our policy toward China, which is one of engagement."[52]
"I do not know whether it is true or not," President Clinton stated. "Therefore, since I don't know, it can't... and shouldn't affect the larger long-term strategic interests of the American people in our foreign policy."[52]
Members of Congress of both parties reached opposite conclusions. According to the Washington Post, Senator Fred Thompson (a Republican from Tennessee) and chairman of the committee investigating the fund-raising controversy, said he believed the Chinese plan targeted presidential and congressional elections while Democratic Senators Joe Lieberman and John Glenn said they believed the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections."[52]
[edit] Notable convictions
Including the convictions against John Huang, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, Maria Hsia, and James Riady (who was fined $8.6 million – the largest fine ever levied against an individual in a campaign finance related matter), the Justice Department task force secured criminal convictions against 22 people by 2001.[53]
[edit] Calls for an independent counsel
FBI Director Louis Freeh
FBI Director Louis Freeh
President Clinton's FBI Director Louis Freeh wrote in a 22-page memorandum to then Attorney General Janet Reno in November 1997 that "It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for appointing an independent counsel."[54]
In July 1998, the Justice Department's campaign finance task force head, Charles La Bella, sent a report to Janet Reno also recommending she seek an independent counsel to investigate alleged fund-raising abuses by Democratic party officials.[55] The media reported that La Bella believed there was clearly an appearance of a conflict of interest by Reno.[56] In his report to Reno he wrote: " [A] pattern [of events] suggests a level of knowledge within the White House—including the President's and First Lady's offices—concerning the injection of foreign funds into the reelection effort."[57] Additionally, La Bella stated: "If these allegations involved anyone other than the president, vice president, senior White House or DNC and Clinton-Gore '96 officials, an appropriate investigation would have commenced months ago without hesitation."[58]
Robert Conrad, Jr., who later became head of the task force, called on Reno in Spring 2000 to appoint an independent counsel to look into the fund-raising practices of Vice President Gore.[59]
Janet Reno declined all requests:
“ I try to do one thing: what's right. I am trying to follow the independent counsel statute as it has been framed by Congress. If you had a lower threshold, then any time somebody said 'boo' about a covered person, you'd trigger the independent counsel statute — Janet Reno, December 4, 1997.[60] ”
A CNN/TIME poll taken in May 1998 found 58 percent of Americans felt an independent counsel should have been appointed to investigate the controversy. Thirty-three percent were opposed. The same poll found that 47 percent of Americans believed a quid pro quo existed between the Clinton administration and the PRC government.[61]
[edit] Criticism of investigation
In addition to partisian complaints from Republicans, columnists Charles Krauthammer, William Safire, and Morton Kondracke, as well as a number of FBI agents, suggested the investigations into the fund-raising controversies (which some dubbed Chinagate) were willfully impeded.[62][63][64]
FBI agent Ivian Smith wrote a letter to FBI Director Freeh that expressed "a lack of confidence" in the Justice Department's attorneys regarding the fund-raising investigation. He wrote: "I am convinced the team at... [the Department of Justice] leading this investigation is, at best, simply not up to the task... The impression left is the emphasis on how not to prosecute matters, not how to aggressively conduct investigations leading to prosecutions." Smith and three other FBI agents later testified before Congress in late 1999 that Justice Department prosecutors impeded their inquiry. FBI agent Daniel Wehr told Congress that the first head U.S. attorney in the investigation, Laura Ingersoll, told the agents they should "not pursue any matter related to solicitation of funds for access to the president. The reason given was, 'That's the way the American political process works.' I was scandalized by that," Wehr said. The four FBI agents also said that Ingersoll prevented them from executing search warrants to stop destruction of evidence and micromanaged the case beyond all reason.[65]
FBI agents were also denied the opportunity to ask President Clinton and Vice President Gore questions during Justice Department interviews in 1997 and 1998 and were only allowed to take notes. During the interviews, neither Clinton nor Gore were asked any questions about fund-raisers John Huang, James Riady, nor the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple fund-raising event led by Maria Hsia and attended by John Huang and Ted Sioeng.[66]
[edit] Congressional investigations
[edit] Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
Senator Fred Thompson (Republican-Tennessee)
Senator Fred Thompson (Republican-Tennessee)
On July 8, 1997, the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs began its public hearings into the campaign finance scandal, chaired by Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN).
Opening statements of public hearings from Senate Committee Chairman Senator Fred Thompson:
“ I would like to turn our attention to one of the most troublesome areas of this investigation. I speak of allegations concerning a plan... by the Chinese government and designed to pour illegal money into American political campaigns. The plan had a goal: to buy access and influence in furtherance of Chinese government interests... The committee believes that... Chinese government officials crafted a plan to increase China's influence over the U.S. political process. The committee has identified specific steps taken in furtherance of the plan. Implementation of the plan has been handled by Chinese government officials and individuals enlisted to assist in the effort... Our investigation suggests that the plan continues today. Although most discussions of the plan focuses on Congress, our investigation suggests it affected the 1996 presidential race and state elections as well. The government of China is believed to have allocated substantial sums of money to achieve its objectives. Another aspect of the plan is remarkable because it shows that the PRC is interested in developing long-term relationships with... up and coming government... officials at state and local levels. The intent is to establish relations that can be cultivated as the officials rise through the ranks to higher office.[67] ”
Senator John Glenn (Democrat-Ohio)
Senator John Glenn (Democrat-Ohio)
Opening comments from the Committee's Minority Leader, Senator John Glenn (a Democrat from Ohio):
“ According to the press the Chinese government intended to use a relatively modest amount of money to gain influence in the Washington lobbying game, and it intended to do this by focusing on the legislative branch of government. Now, I mention these reports here because I am greatly concerned about how the reports are sometimes discussed by individuals in this body and in the press. I've heard language like infiltration, foreign spies, foreigners, as we're jeopardizing our national security. Well, on this issue the committee should go just as far as the facts take us, recognizing that it's the FBI that's in a much better position to do an espionage investigation. Now, let's be careful, however, not to jump to conclusions that treason has been committed based on a partial story with ambiguous information. But wherever the trail leads let's look at it.[67] ”
Thompson suspended the public hearings on October 31, 1997. The Committee's final report was released to the public on March 5, 1998.
[edit] House Government Reform and Oversight Committee
Representative Dan Burton (Republican-Indiana)
Representative Dan Burton (Republican-Indiana)
A United States House of Representatives investigation, headed by Republican Dan Burton, also focused on allegations of campaign finance abuse, including the contributions channeled through Chung, Huang, Trie, et al.
The investigation was lengthy, spanning both the 105th and 106th Congresses, and according to a Democratic report had cost over $7.4 million as of August 31, 1998, making it the most expensive Congressional investigation ever (the Senate Watergate investigation cost $7 million in 1998 dollars).[68]
The investigation itself was controversial, attracting criticism from partisans and moderates. A New York Times editorial in March 1997 characterized the committee's investigation as a "travesty" and a "parody".[69] A Washington Post editorial in April 1997 called the House investigation "its own cartoon, a joke, and a deserved embarrassment".[70] Norman Ornstein, a Congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute said in May 1998, "Barring some dramatic change, I think the Burton investigation is going to be remembered as a case study in how not to do a congressional investigation and as a prime example of investigation as farce."[71] In a May 5, 1998 letter to other Republicans on the committee, Burton admitted that "mistakes and omissions were made" in tape transcripts released to the public of phone calls made by Webster Hubbell. A committee investigator who was an advocate of releasing the tapes resigned at Burton's request.[72]
[edit] Lack of cooperation
Congressional investigators said that the investigations were hamstrung due to lack of co-operation of witnesses. Ninety-four people either refused to be questioned, pled the Fifth Amendment, or left the country altogether.[41][73]
[edit] See also
* Campaign finance reform
* Gandhi Memorial International Foundation
* Sino-American relations
[edit] Notes
N-[1]a All currency figures are in United States dollars.
N-[2]a A major element of the campaign fund-raising controversy was the DNC-organized "coffee" meetings with President Clinton, Vice President Gore and their wives. In January 1997, the Clinton administration released a list of 103 events held in 1995 and 1996, as well as lists of those invited to each coffee. The DNC collected an estimated $27 million from coffee guests, though only about a third of the invited guests were financial donors.[74]
N-[3]a After a nearly decade-long conflict with the Commerce Department over Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for documents, a federal appeals court ordered the Commerce Department to pay Judicial Watch nearly $900,000 for attorney’s fees and costs of their lawsuit related to the fundraising scandals.[75]
N-[4]a Gen. Ji was sentenced to death by PRC President Jiang Zemin in mid-2000 after being implicated in a smuggling scandal in China shortly after Chung testified before the U.S. Congress in 1999. A compromise sentence of 20 years in jail was eventually reached.[76]
[edit] References
1. ^ Miller, Alan C., "Democrats Return Illegal Contribution", Los Angeles Times, Sept. 21, 1996
2. ^ Woodward, Bob and Duffy, Brian, "Chinese Embassy Role In Contributions Probed", Washington Post, Feb. 13, 1997
3. ^ a b c d e Investigation of Illegal or Improper Activities in Connection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns, Minority Report, Chapter 2, U.S. Senate, Retrieved: April 14, 2006
4. ^ Weeks, Jennifer, "Sino-U.S. Nuclear Cooperation at a Crossroads", Arms Control Association, June/July 1997, Retrieved: April 14, 2006
5. ^ Judis, John B., "China Town", The New Republic, March 10, 1997
6. ^ Dryfuss, Robert, "The New China Lobby", The American Prospect, Vol. 8, Iss. 30, Jan. 1, 1997–Feb. 1, 1997
7. ^ Ross, Robert S.,"The 1995–1996 Taiwan Strait Confrontation: Coercion, Credibility, and Use of Force", International Security, 25:2, pp.87–123, Fall 2000, Retrieved: April 14, 2006 (PDF file)
8. ^ Pomfret, John, "China Denies Contribution Charges", Washington Post, May 20, 1998
9. ^ "The Exploits of Charlie Trie", Editorial, Washington Post, Aug. 3, 1997
10. ^ a b 1997 Special Investigation in Connection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns: Section 3, pp. 11–14, U.S. Senate, Retrieved: April 14, 2006 (PDF file)
11. ^ 1997 Special Investigation in Connection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns: Section 20, page 13, U.S. Senate, Retrieved: April 14, 2006 (PDF file)
12. ^ "Fund-raiser Charlie Trie pleads guilty under plea agreement", CNN.com, May 21, 1999
13. ^ NTI, Retrieved: Feb. 10, 2006
14. ^ Russell, Richard L., "China's WMD Foot in the Greater Middle East's Door", Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 9, No. 3, Article 6, Sep. 2005, Retrieved: June 8, 2006
15. ^ Jackson, Brooks, "Clinton's Re-election Road Paved With Money", CNN.com, Feb. 24, 1997
16. ^ a b "Highlights of U.S. report on alleged China spying", CNN.com, May 25, 1999
17. ^ "Campaign Finance Key Player: Wang Jun", Washington Post, July 27, 1997
18. ^ Duffy, Michael, "How Huang Makes Two Nominations Harder", TIME, Feb. 3, 1997
19. ^ Yost, Pete, "Clinton calls arms dealer's White House visit inappropriate", Associated Press, Dec. 20, 1996
20. ^ Daly, Michael, "This Prez Donor a Real Pistol", New York Daily News, March 26, 1997
21. ^ Hedges, Michael, "Shipment of Chinese Arms Linked to White House Visit", Scripps-Howard News Service, Rocky Mountain News, March 14, 1997
22. ^ Mufson, Steven, "Chinese Denies Seeking White House Visit", Washington Post, March 16, 1997
23. ^ Peter Nicholas and Tom Hamburger, "An unlikely treasure-trove of donors for Clinton", Los Angeles Times, October 19, 2007
24. ^ Frieden, Terry, "Ex-Ron Brown Partner Claims Clintons Backed 'Sale' Of Trade Seats", CNN.com, March 23, 1998
25. ^ Memorandum Opinion Judicial Watch vs. Department of Commerce, page 14, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Retrieved: April 14, 2006 (PDF file) Note: No longer online at original site. Retrievable from Internet Archive (PDF file)
26. ^ Frieden, Terry, "Independent Counsel: No Conclusions On Brown Probe", CNN.com, Nov. 14, 1996
27. ^ a b Jackson, David and Sun, Lena H., "Liu's Deals With Chung: An Intercontinental Puzzle", Washington Post, May 24, 1998
28. ^ Isikoff, Michael, "Cash and Kerry", Newsweek, Feb. 9, 2004
29. ^ Johnston, David, "Committee Told Of Beijing Cash For Democrats ", New York Times, May 12, 1999
30. ^ "Chinese Aerospace Official Denies Giving To Dems", CNN.com, May 21, 1998
31. ^ a b "James Riady Pleads Guilty", Department of Justice, press release, Jan. 11, 2001, Retrieved: April 14, 2006
32. ^ Chung, Johnny, "The Real Johnny Chung", WorldNetDaily, April 7, 2000
33. ^ a b "Campaign Finance Key Player: John Huang", Washington Post, July 27, 1997
34. ^ "The Democratic Fund-Raising Flap: Timeline", CNN.com, July 1, 1997
35. ^ "The Democratic Fund-Raising Flap: Cast of Characters", CNN.com, July 1, 1997
36. ^ "Former Democratic fund-raiser John Huang pleads guilty", CNN.com, Aug. 12, 1999
37. ^ "Clinton Donor Pleads Guilty", CBSNews.com, March 20, 2001, Retrieved: April 14, 2006
38. ^ Woodward, Bob, "Findings Link Clinton Allies to Chinese Intelligence", Washington Post, Feb. 10, 1998
39. ^ a b Suro, Roberto, "Gore's Ties to Hsia Cast Shadow on 2000 Race", Washington Post, Feb. 23, 1998
40. ^ Eskenazi, Michael, "For both Gore and GOP, a guilty verdict to watch", CNN.com, March 3, 2000
41. ^ a b Abse, Nathan, "A Look at the 94 Who Aren't Talking", Washington Post, June 9, 1998
42. ^ "Buddhist Nuns Admit Destroying Documents", CNN.com, Sep. 4, 1997
43. ^ "Gore Admits Temple Fund-Raiser Was A 'Mistake'", CNN.com, Jan. 24, 1997
44. ^ a b "Senate Governmental Affairs Committee's Majority Report Executive Summary", Washington Post, March 8, 1998
45. ^ Huang, John, "Memo for Kim Tilley", April 11, 1996
46. ^ China Connection: Summary of Committee's Findings Relating to Efforts of PRC to Influence U.S. Policies and Elections, page 9, U.S. Senate, Retrieved: April 14, 2006 (PDF file)
47. ^ 1997 Special Investigation in Connection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns (Minority Report): Volume 4, part 1.7, U.S. Senate, Retrieved: April 14, 2006
48. ^ "FBI Probes Businessman As Possible Chinese Agent", CNN.com, May 12, 1997
49. ^ Woodward, Bob and Duffy, Brian "Senate Panel Is Briefed on China Probe Figure", Washington Post, Sept. 12, 1997
50. ^ "Justice To Expand Inquiry To Clinton's Legal Fund", CNN.com, Dec. 19, 1996
51. ^ "Clinton Wants Probe Of Possible Chinese Involvement", CNN.com, Feb. 13, 1997
52. ^ a b c Harris, John F., "White House Unswayed By China Allegations", Washington Post, July 20, 1997
53. ^ Ernest G. Green Pleads Guilty to Tax Violations, Department of Justice, press release, Dec. 21, 2001, Retrieved: April 14, 2006
54. ^ Lewis, Neil A., "Freeh Says Reno Clearly Misread Prosecutor Law", New York Times, June 16, 1998
55. ^ Thomas, Pierre, "Reno Aide Recommends Independent Campaign Finance Probe", CNN.com, July 23, 1998
56. ^ Politics and Prosecution Discussion, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, transcript, PBS, Aug. 4, 1998, Retrieved: April 14, 2006
57. ^ La Bella, Charles,La Bella Memo, Introduction, page 51, July 16, 1998, Retrieved: April 19, 2006
58. ^ La Bella, Charles, La Bella Memo, Introduction, page 14, July 16, 1998, Retrieved: April 19, 2006
59. ^ Fund-raising Investigation Discussion, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, transcript, PBS, June 23, 2000, Retrieved: April 14, 2006
60. ^ "Reno Defends Independent Counsel Decision", CNN.com, December 4, 1997
61. ^ Holland, Keating, "Poll: Independent Counsel Should Investigate China Policy Decisions", CNN.com, May 20, 1998
62. ^ Krauthammer, Charles, "Reno's Humiliation" (Opinion), Washington Post, Oct. 10, 1997
63. ^ Safire, William, "Those Chinese Agents" (Opinion), New York Times, Oct.7, 1999
64. ^ Kondracke, Morton, "GOP must launch new probe of Chinagate" (Opinion), Jewish World Review, Aug. 9, 1999
65. ^ "FBI agents criticize Justice Department", Associated Press, Sept. 22, 1999
66. ^ "Justice's Clinton, Gore inquiry criticized", Associated Press, Dec. 16, 1999
67. ^ a b NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, transcript, PBS, July 8, 1997, Retrieved: April 14, 2006
68. ^ Cost of Congressional Campaign Finance Investigations to the U.S. Taxpayer, Minority Report: page 8, U.S. House of Representatives, Retrieved: April 14, 2006
69. ^ Editorial, New York Times, March 20, 1997
70. ^ Editorial, Washington Post, April 12, 1997
71. ^ Lacey, Marc, "House Probe of Campaign Fund-Raising Uncovers Little, Piles Up Partisan Ill Will", Los Angeles Times, May 2, 1998
72. ^ "Burton Apologizes In Hubbell Tapes Furor: House committee investigator quits; Democrats want Burton out, CNN, May 8, 1998
73. ^ Remarks by Senator Fred Thompson before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Washington Post, Oct. 8, 1997
74. ^ "White House Coffees Guest Lists", Washington Post, Retrieved: December 16, 2006
75. ^ "Judicial Watch Victory", press release, Judicial Watch, December 27, 2006, Retrieved: January 16, 2007
76. ^ Wo-Lap Lam, Willy, "How China retreats to attack", CNN.com, May 15, 2001
[edit] Bibliography
* Clinton, Bill (2000). The Clinton Foreign Policy Reader. M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 0-7656-0584-8.
* Gertz, Bill (2002). The China Threat: How the People's Republic Targets America. Regnery Publishing. ISBN 0-89526-187-1.
* Suettinger, Robert L. (2003). Beyond Tiananmen: The Politics of U.S.-China Relations, 1989–2000. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 0-8157-8206-3.
* Timperlake, Edward; William Triplett (1998). Year of the Rat. Regnery Publishing. ISBN 0-89526-333-5.
* Vogel, Ezra F. (1997). Living With China. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-31734-X.
[edit] External links
* 1997 (U.S. Senate) Special Investigation in Connection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns: Final Report (PDF files)
* Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
* Clinton Presidential Materials Project Archive of press releases and transcripts of speeches from the administration.
* Copy of official Charles La Bella memo to Janet Reno
* Copy of official Louis Freeh memo to Janet Reno
* Democratic National Committee (DNC)
* Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
* Federal Election Commission (FEC)
* Federation of American Scientists Archive of articles, government reports and transcripts of speeches from members of Congress.
* Open Secrets Archive of lists from the FEC of who donated how much to whom in United States political campaigns.
* U. S. Department of Justice
* U.S. House Committee on Government Reform
* U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
* Washington Post Special Report: Campaign Finance Archive of articles, editorials, and op-eds related to the controversy.
January 29, 2008
7:04 AM
Anonymous writes:
Here's another fine example from our Mexican friends:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15159271/detail.html
January 29, 2008
7:47 AM
just sayin' writes:
Hating the Clintons has turned into a cottage industry. Someone has way too much time on their hands.
January 29, 2008
8:03 AM
Anonymous writes:
Hey, Rectal Wart - Next time just post the damn link rather than all that garbage.
Sheesh!
January 29, 2008
8:15 AM
Anonymous writes:
Denver Museum of Nature and Science hires illegal aliens? Now that is total bullsh*t. Me and the family will take a pass on the museum until they verify that they are hiring Americans or legal persons. That is down right absurd!
January 29, 2008
9:43 AM
Shaggy writes:
Antonio Cruz,
We all know you just learned how to copy and paste but next time just post us a fricking link or even do something more spectacular and shorten it in your own words. Not one person here is going to read all that BS and you are now making everyone scroll past all your crap.
Got it??????
January 29, 2008
11:01 AM
Ben -Former Democrat writes:
Wow, the usual radical left wing Democrats from these blogs are totally avoiding this thread, and it speaks volumes..... The puppet master(Democratic elites) must have told them to do so. Indicative of the left wing radicals who have seemingly gained control in the party. Traitors is what I call them.
The Crispus Attucks Brigade- The Black Minutemen with Ted Hayes, black rastafarian conservative Republican activist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Hayes
January 29, 2008
11:02 AM
Ben -Former Democrat writes:
Wow, the usual radical left wing Democrats from these blogs are totally avoiding this thread, and it speaks volumes..... The puppet master(Democratic elites) must have told them to do so. Indicative of the left wing radicals who have seemingly gained control in the party. Traitors is what I call them.
The Crispus Attucks Brigade- The Black Minutemen with Ted Hayes, black rastafarian conservative Republican activist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Hayes
January 29, 2008
11:53 AM
jay writes:
Ben-Never Dem (we debunked that myth months ago)...we've heard it all before...you guys aren't getting your way on this one and it's boring watching you pout about it and simply refuste to acknowledge politically inconvenient facts...but let's review just for everyone's benefit.
Sure our immigration system needs updating...it's business 101...all systems need inevitable revision to perform at maximum efficiency. college folks know this...
Of course we need to increase our border and labor law enforcement. We need to commit $ and resources to that end. No one is saying otherwise.
Since we don't know the full effect of illegal immigration, we need to devote $ and resources to a full evaluation of both the costs and benefits.
Everyone favors decreasing the amount of illegal immigrants coming across our borders.
Our differences lie in that fact that you and the rest of the footsoldiers are nationalists. You are on record on this blog admitting that you favored crazy tom's idea of severely reducing ALL immigration, legal or not. You're also on record admitting (along with shaggy) that this current crop of immigrants from mexico are "inferior" to the immigrants who came in waves before them. The other major difference between the majority of americans and you (on immigration at least) is that you believe it's viable and advisable to remove the illegal immigrants already here and working.
There you have it. I'm not saying that you're wrong...just that you have no hope of getting those extremist policies adopted by the United States Government.
With immigration likely to be a non-issue in the race for President, I find it amusing that the far right spent so many resources and so much $ getting the far right wing footsoldiers so wound up about illegal immigration, only to have missed the mark on the wedge issues most important to the race. Oh well...there's always theh swiftboats...they'll galvanize that base.
Okay...pout away.
January 29, 2008
1:01 PM
RR writes:
Qué dicen?? Otra vez este mismo cagadero...Please get a life and try a little self control. One thing for sure racial hatred is not a thing of the past it is right here right now and it is the America that will destroy it's self. Really have you ever stopped to think that if you spent some moments using your brain instead of your behind this world would be a better place for all mankind. Why don't you get off this blog and make a difference...if you want change be proactive with the understanding that North American is multi-ethnic continent. For all you race haters I know this may be difficult for you to digest, but nothing that you and your KKK's do can change the order of things because you see some things were just meant to be.
For instance like Mexicans losing their land and rights to a bunch low down cut throats gringo invaders as yourselves. Then you bud use the race card to excuse all your racial hatred. No tienen vergüenza...you ain't got no shame.
January 29, 2008
1:24 PM
Ben writes:
RR. Pues yo digo: Enough with the Chicano propoganda and racism.
jay feel free to read all the posts beforehand.
jay quotes "Since we don't know the full effect of illegal immigration, we need to devote $ and resources to a full evaluation of both the costs and benefits."
Uh, yeah right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxe1WO27B_I
Posted by Ben's Border Street on January 28, 2008 05:49 PM
p.s. So I said all that? lol
You either have an awful memory of the past or are a bold faced liar. I believe (to paraphrase you) "everyone" knows which category you fall under.
January 29,