View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Steve Lunetta: The crisis with illegal immigrant kids

Posted: July 10, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: July 10, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

I have written in this column in the past that I support illegal immigration. This position has earned me the ire of my fellow conservatives.

I believe that we should open our doors to all immigrants, give them a green card, create a strong system for moving them from the border to areas they need to go, and remove the fear from the immigrant community.

This will cause all “honest” immigrants (which are 99.99 percent of those folks) to work with us and make the “dishonest” ones try to sneak across the border.

That will make it much easier to identify the criminals, drug runners and terrorists. Good folks will not fear us.

We will be safer, more secure, give hope to many, and enjoy the fruits of inexpensive labor.

Unfortunately, an unforeseen development has arisen. Many unaccompanied children from Central American countries are attempting to cross the border in record numbers.

The Border Patrol reports about 52,000 apprehensions have been made so far. The total may be far greater by year end.

The Florida Times-Union reports that 75 percent of the children entering are from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. They are fleeing poverty and gang influence.

The AP says that many Salvadorans are fleeing a gang called “Sombra Negra” or “Black Shadow,” which appears to be involved in the “killing of teens in gang-controlled neighborhoods.”

Central American parents are making the incredibly difficult choice to send their kids on an arduous, 1,000-mile journey through Mexico to escape the problems in their home country.

I can only imagine the anguish that these parents feel.

It appears that drug cartels are complicit in trafficking of children. As many as one-third of the girls are raped during the journey, and many wind up in the sex trade.

That is, if they reach the border at all.

Part of the problem is a law signed by George W. Bush that precludes the repatriation of children from Central American countries. This law, as many that come out of Washington, has severe unintended consequences that were not foreseen at the time of their passage.

President Obama has tried to stem the flow with statements such as “do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it, they’ll get sent back.

“More importantly, they may not make it.” In retrospect, this was a very odd statement.

The Obama administration knew about the coming surge in minor children crossing borders as early as January.

Reports have circulated that the Border Patrol was ordered to prepare for this surge early this year.

Border security has broken down. The Border Patrol is so overwhelmed that uniformed officers have been removed from the field to care for the children.

The cartels and criminals know this and are penetrating our borders with impunity.

What happens if one of these unopposed crossers is a terrorist? Or a team of terrorists? These people are not stupid and will gladly take advantage of the administration’s gross mismanagement of the situation.

And for our liberal friends, yes, Republicans are complicit in this mess due to the Bush repatriation legislation.

So what should we do? Short term, we must do the humanitarian thing and house/feed/protect these kids. Allow churches, synagogues, and other humanitarian groups to help.

But, ultimately, these kids must be returned to families in Central America.

Why? Simple reason. If we do not return them, we encourage more of the same behavior of parents to endanger their children by future crossings.

If parents see children returned to other families in Central America, they will realize that it is a fruitless venture and will stop doing it.

Of course, this will cause families to look hard at their own communities and ask questions of their leadership:

Why is gang violence allowed in our town?

Why is drug trafficking ignored and even encouraged? Why is our community unsafe?

This may cause positive change.

Let’s also be honest. The bad guys are taking advantage of this. The opportunity to slip in a terrorist team right now is tremendous. Drugs can flow across the border nearly unimpeded.

Criminals with long histories can walk into San Diego with impunity.

President Obama must act to protect these kids, protect future kids, protect our borders, and protect our nation.

To do otherwise is simply irresponsible.

Steve Lunetta is a resident of Santa Clarita. He can be reached at slunetta63@yahoo.com.

 

Comments

ricketzz: Posted: July 10, 2014 9:29 a.m.

If we weren't doing the dirty work for big oil we wouldn't be a "terrorist" target. I don't blame America, I blame the cowardly US representatives that will do anything to stay in office, greater American interests be damned. Is Tar and Feathers too cruel for these unusual traitors?

The Canadian border is wide open. Nobody screams at Slovakians and tells them to "go home". We are too massive to be sealed up like Cheney's panic vault. You can't put fences on a river that meanders. Livestock need to drink.


projalice11: Posted: July 10, 2014 11:27 a.m.

BINGO, BINGO, BINGO Mr. Lunetta ********


BrianBaker: Posted: July 10, 2014 11:46 a.m.

Utterly idiotic column.

"I have written in this column in the past that I support illegal immigration."

Great! Let's just allow anyone in the world who wants to live here to come on down!

In no time at all, we'll be a third-world pesthole with a population stricken with rampant disease, flooded with under-educated and unskilled people swamping our welfare state with costs that will promptly bankrupt us beyond any hope of salvation, all while getting to enjoy all the joys of "multi-culturalism" run amok.

Living space might get kind of tight, once our population swells to a billion or so, but hey! "Illegal immigration" is a GOOD thing, right, Lunetta?

But wait! Is there trouble in Paradise?

"Unfortunately, an unforeseen development has arisen."

"Unforseen" by whom, Lunetta? You open-borders advocates? Because those of us who still have our heads fastened and our brains working forecast EXACTLY this kind of "development", and have for decades.

"But, ultimately, these kids must be returned to families in Central America."


Wait a minute! Didn't you just say you're FOR "illegal immigration"? What's the story here, Lunetta? How can you be "for" and "against" it at the same time?

If you're FOR illegal immigration, you have to accept responsibility for all the consequences that arise from that policy. You don't just get to pick and choose what's convenient for the moment. Heck, that's what the Dem/socialists do as a matter of course.

Which makes you no different from them.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 10, 2014 1:24 p.m.

BB- the current system does not work (obviously). AND there is no political will to remove 18MM illegals from our country. Not gonna happen. We are stuck. Can't move forward, can't move backward.

While people argue, the situation gets worse. There needs to be a compromise that folks can live with.

So, what is your solution?


BrianBaker: Posted: July 10, 2014 1:57 p.m.

No amnesty... ever. No "pathway to" anything. No benefits. No "rights". No "legal" status of any kind.

Just exactly the same as Mexico, and most other countries in the world.

They're here ILLEGALLY! What part of any of that is hard for people to understand?

I can't think of any other developed country in the world that just sits around with its thumb up its butt while it's being invaded by a flood of illegal liens, let alone hand out free education and healthcare to them. It's insane.

In any other country, if an illegal alien comes into contact with the authorities, they immediately find themselves on their way back over the border. In some countries -- Mexico, for one -- they get to enjoy a stay in jail while they're on their way.

If they're in this country illegally, as far as I'm concerned they can "stay in the shadows" until they self-deport themselves.

If they have kids born in this country, I guess under the current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment the kids get citizenship, but there's no such thing in that Amendment that creates anything like an "anchor baby", so the kids get to go with their parents back to the old country until they're adults, at which point I guess we're stuck with allowing them back in.

This isn't a "compromise" issue. Some things can't be "compromised" away. Reagan already tried that in 1986 with Simpson-Mazzoli, and all we ended up with was the amnesty for 3+ million illegals, with none of the other aspects of that "compromise" ever put into effect, like secure borders, employer sanctions, etc.

You can't "compromise" on a problem that will completely destroy this country.

Period.


therightstuff: Posted: July 10, 2014 2:18 p.m.

We MUST secure our border. According to Governor Perry of Texas, only 2% of the $3.7-billion called for by Barack Obama is for border security.

Obama went to Texas but no where near the border. Amazing. He had time for fund raisers and to play pool one afternoon for a photo op but didn't have time to personally inspect the crises, thank the workers caring for these children, and provide encouragement the way a leader would do.

Obama and the Democrats see this as a political opportunity. As long as this drags out, there will be less focus on all the other scandals that are overwhelming this corrupt administration. They can also demand the $3.7-billion to clean up the mess they created and if Republicans balk, they and their wh0res in the media will paint the GOP as uncaring for needy children, especially Latino children.

Reason #2,881 why I would never be a Democrat.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 10, 2014 2:21 p.m.

BB- I hear you. But still. How do we move forward?

The Reagan's failure was that he assumed the left would be honest and live up to the promises made in the last compromise. He was wrong.

It seems prudent to create a new compromise but, this time, insist that the reforms take place BEFORE any action on amnesty can occur.

Could that work?


therightstuff: Posted: July 10, 2014 2:21 p.m.

"""The AP says that many Salvadorans are fleeing a gang called “Sombra Negra” or “Black Shadow,” which appears to be involved in the killing of teens in gang-controlled neighborhoods."""

Just last weekend in Chicago there were 82 shootings, killing 14. Should we send Chicago's kids to Canada?


BrianBaker: Posted: July 10, 2014 2:46 p.m.

"It seems prudent to create a new compromise but, this time, insist that the reforms take place BEFORE any action on amnesty can occur.

"Could that work?"

No. Not a chance. No "new compromise". Nothing. There is no "moving forward". Why should there be?

What I said. Leave them in "the shadows". Let them self-deport, or winnow down by attrition. Seal the damned borders. Use the military if necessary.

We border a failed nation. We're being invaded by a sea of illegals with the tacit approval, and even aid, of a pathetic excuse for a government.

Screw that.

Further, why would you believe any "promises" that you heard this time? How many times do you have to be mugged?

AND NO AMNESTY! EVER!


chefgirl358: Posted: July 10, 2014 3:37 p.m.

They are NOT unaccompanied minors...they are ILLEGAL ALIENS!


BrianBaker: Posted: July 10, 2014 3:37 p.m.

Yes. Exactly!


chefgirl358: Posted: July 10, 2014 3:45 p.m.

Additionally, many of the kids coming here ARE already actual gang members according to some reports. There are tons of reports about the diseases and parasites many of them are bringing here including: measles, scabies, lice, ACTIVE TUBERCULOSIS, and several other extremely contagious and dangerous diseases. These have already been spread to many workers for border patrol, church organizations, etc., as well as the family members of border patrol agents. This is no joke, we should NOT be risking the health of OUR citizens to deal with these people. They need to be put on a bus and shipped back muy pronto. Some of these kids have reportedly never had ANY level of schooling. We cannot allow these kids to be allowed to stay, and take all of the necessary resources away from our own children and citizens. We have our own problems with the education and medical systems currently and we need every available resource we have to take care of our existing legal citizens. We cannot afford to expend our precious resources on these folks, however sad their stories may be.

We should be shipping them back and putting pressure on their government to provide their citizens with additional resources. These people are the responsibility of their own countries. Just because our president is a complete baffoon and largely created this fiasco with his policies and executive orders, bypassing congress and the senate in order to get what he wanted without listening to reason, does not mean we as a nation need to stand for this. Now Obama is begging the very institutions he circumvented to help him clean up his mess? Screw him!


Lotus8: Posted: July 10, 2014 4:30 p.m.

America needs immigrants to grow and prosper. Our current domestic birth rate is nowhere near adequate to keep the economy moving forward. I think that a great compromise would be to:
1. Seal the southern border. Now. Put a giant wall up with a moat. Put military on the border and annihilate the militarized drug importers.
2. Legalize drugs like cocaine and weed in the US. If people want to fry their brains, let them. It would severely reduce the drug trade profitability for both foreign and domestic gang activity. Our jails would suddenly have adequate capacity and the amount of street crime committed while hunting down money for black market drugs would go way down as well.
3. Put in place a formal system to bring in a large number of immigrants each year. I'm talking big numbers here. But here's the catch. We control how many and which ones come in. We give priority to those who have college degrees and technical/work experience that will benefit our economy. We look for people who are additive to our national bottom line rather than causing a headwind.

America is trillions upon trillions in debt. We are a net borrower of funds. When you add up our unfunded liabilities (promises we have made for future payment for which we have no current savings) we are actually around $100 TRILLION in debt. Each penny we spend taking in people with no skills who put a strain on our schools, our hospitals, our police, our jails, our wages, etc. is borrowed money which we don't have. That money we are spending on foreign aliens will end up costing us 4 times the original amount or more by the time you add the interest payments.

Were I the governor of our state, I would sue the federal government in order to be reimbursed for its lack of border enforcement. All of the billions per year we spend to care for this increasing stream of poor immigrants should be reimbursed, as it is caused by the federal government not enforcing the immigration laws on the books. Maybe if the folks up in the northeast of our nation had to pay for their head in the clouds vision of a welcoming nation they might reconsider their position.

We should be welcoming, but we should also be selective. It is OK to act in our own best interest here, right? Or have we all lost any concept of being able to stand up for ourselves because we may be labeled xenophobic by some irrational political nutjob?


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 10, 2014 4:37 p.m.

BB- you gotta admit, this whole thing is brilliant. If we act in any other way that does not include taking care of these kids, we instantly become the bad guys.

From a PR perspective, we were out-maneuvered and out-flanked by a bunch of drug traffickers....

For all Obama's "brilliance", he was either too dense to see it or was complicit in it.


tech: Posted: July 10, 2014 4:42 p.m.

Nicely done on a well stated, cogent argument, Lotus8. American freedom and the ability to profit from innovation is a major international draw. Immigration policy should work to the advantage of our society instead of the inverse. That has been the case in our history.

Certainly repatriation should be done in a humanitarian way. However, rational policy rather than appeals to emotion should inform Federal action.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 10, 2014 5:37 p.m.

Actually, AR, it's not really working out that way for the ObaMessiah and his Myrmidons.

Public opinion on this has boomeranged against him. Coming on the heels of all the other "scandals" Fearless Leader has piled up, people are seeing this as just another attempt by him to circumvent the law.

Then there's his absolute and adamant REFUSAL to even visit the affected border areas while he's actually physically down in Texas right now. That would be like Bush not visiting N'Awlins after Katrina. It is NOT viewed kindly, to say the least.

His response? "I'm not interested in another photo op".

Yep, he actually said THAT! Mr. "Here's Me Being Cool For The Photogs" himself.

I don't at all agree with your assessment that anyone's been outmaneuvered. This is blowing up in The One's face.


therightstuff: Posted: July 10, 2014 5:40 p.m.

I wish you were right BB but I think this tragedy plays right into Obama's hands to detract from his other problems and to put the GOP in the position of giving him the $3.7-billion or be tagged once again as haters of children.

It works every time.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 10, 2014 5:50 p.m.

No, it doesn't detract. It adds to the long and growing list.

There's a reason why his credibility is gone, and his poll numbers are down the toilet, even lower than Bush's ever were.

There's a reason why last week's Quinnipiac poll listed him as the WORST Prez since WW2.

You've been paying too much attention to the Mainscream Media. But even THEY are now questioning mighty Caesar, and by "they" I mean the NY Times, WaPo, and others.

There's a reason why NO Dems want anything to do with Fearless Leader during their re-election campaigns, and I mean NONE.

He's poison, and everyone knows it.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 10, 2014 5:59 p.m.

We, meaning the American people, BB. You are right that Obama is taking the lumps but we, as a nation, were outplayed on this one.

Obama or his staffers may have even cooperated, not realizing what a fiasco it would turn into.

The narco traficantes read us perfectly and found our weak spot. And, unless we change our strategy NOW, we are going to continue to lose.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 10, 2014 6:07 p.m.

Again I disagree.

Yeah, we're "outplayed" if this bullpuckey results in some kind of "legalization" or, even worse, amnesty.

Because we've been down this amnesty road twice before, in 1965 and 1986, with all the same empty meaningless promises and other crapola. All we ever get is the amnesty, and contrary to the stupidity of the GOP, these new "citizens" NEVER turn out to be "naturally aligned" conservatives. Hispanics have voted over 75% for Dems... reliably. That obviously includes the beneficiaries of those amnesties.

So... let's go ahead, and create 10 - 20 million new Democrats, and while we're at it stick our national heads between our knees and kiss our country goodbye.

This is NOT an issue we can "compromise" on, unless we're willing to just let our country go the way of the Western Roman Empire: complete disintegration.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 10, 2014 7:13 p.m.

There has to be a way, BB. If we say no, the problem gets worse. If we say yes, the problem gets worse. We don't seem to have a way out.

What I see is that conservatives are dumb negotiators. Liberals start out with a far left proposal, we start out with a neutral proposal (that is rational), and we negotiate towards them. This always makes the solution to the left. Repeated enough times, we wind up moving toward socialism.

Instead, why don't we propose something to the far right and negotiate to the center? Or, better yet, negotiate to the right of center.

This problem could be handled the same way. Insist on draconian reforms while dangling the hope of amnesty, then arrive at a reasonable solution- but we get the reforms first.

BB- if we don't try to negotiate, we don't find a solution. We just have to be smarter about how its done.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 10, 2014 7:41 p.m.

AR: "If we say no, the problem gets worse."


Dude, you're buying the hype of the leftists, Chamber of Commerce, and Lunetta types. In what way does it get "worse"?

Step AWAY from the Kool-Aid!

I already told you the solution: seal the damned borders. Use the military if necessary. That's part of their job: to protect us from foreign invasions, and if this isn't an "invasion" I don't know what is.

No "reforms first". No "dangle amnesty" ... ever. It's either done in bad faith, which is beneath us, or it's an Achilles Heel that the open borders crowd will always exploit to their fullest extent and benefit.

This issue has been "compromised" on for almost 50 years, and it's time it stopped. You don't "compromise" on fundamental principles, especially when the country's future viability is at stake. And I am NOT overstating the seriousness of the threat from amnesty and/or "legalization".

Why do you think NO other industrialized country puts up with this nonsense at all?

Why do you think MEXICO'S own immigration laws are so hypocritically strict?


Indy: Posted: July 10, 2014 8:28 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Utterly idiotic column.

Indy: I hope everyone that comes to this forum rereads what Lunetta wrote and then revisits this post . . . and rereads what Baker wrote.

I don’t really have to say anything more . . .


Indy: Posted: July 10, 2014 8:40 p.m.

Lotus8 wrote: America needs immigrants to grow and prosper. Our current domestic birth rate is nowhere near adequate to keep the economy moving forward.

Indy: The poster makes an interesting comment and sadly ignores the issue of ‘sustainable growth’ that over population threatens.

We can already see the oversupply of labor in the developing world that is putting downward pressure on wages as the wages are used to distribute limited resources.

The primary reason for the migration from the developing world is over population relative to resources.

Sadly, the media won’t address this and instead recites the same ‘problems’ versus the actual driver.

But even sadder is the GOP fight against international non-abortive (see Nixon) birth control that mitigates the population issue and gives people a chance at economic security.

As long as politicians including Obama ‘promise’ the public here ‘unlimited’ growth, the population driver will not be addressed either here or internationally.

Even as I write this, about 70 billion net (births minus deaths) humans will be added to this ‘fixed rock in space’.

In 1980, the planet ‘held’ about 4 billion people and today, we’re at about 7 billion . . . that’s a 3 billion increase in just over 30 years . . . it’s unsustainable.

Yet the public is so poorly informed that the media ignores for the most part and just again, recites issues of the illegality of border crossings forgetting the ‘economic unrest’ that drives people to migrate.

If we don’t see this bigger picture, we’ll not address the migration, ever.

We’ll spending trillions of dollars when a tiny fraction of that amount could be used for proper internationally family planning practices that would address why people born in the developing world want to come here.

And absolutely, it’s about the ‘jobs’ . . .

For some good discussion on this topic, go here:

www.worldwatch.org
http://steadystate.org/
www.populationconnection.org

I suggest suspending your values and beliefs while you educate yourself to the ‘economic and resource’ issues in play . . . then decide if the policy you support will actually work.


tech: Posted: July 10, 2014 8:41 p.m.

"I don’t really have to say anything more . . ". - Indy

Well, that's a first, Indy.


Indy: Posted: July 10, 2014 8:46 p.m.

Lunetta wrote: I have written in this column in the past that I support illegal immigration. This position has earned me the ire of my fellow conservatives.

Indy: I know that many fiscal conservatives here like to cite JFK about economic growth and taxes but this post goes into something else I remember about JFK.

In one of his many great speeches on civil rights and the people that were fighting for same back in the 60s, he simply noted ‘that these Americans have placed themselves on the firing line, and I commend them for their honor and their courage’.

While I disagree with Steve on many issues, this statement from JFK is most appropriate for what Steve wrote today to address a very important issue, the welfare of children, and not blame them for circumstances beyond their ability to understand or affect.

Well put, Steve.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 10, 2014 9:21 p.m.

Indy: "BrianBaker wrote: Utterly idiotic column.

"Indy: I hope everyone that comes to this forum rereads what Lunetta wrote and then revisits this post . . . and rereads what Baker wrote."

Me, too! At last... we finally agree on something.

"I don’t really have to say anything more . . . "


Is that a promise? Be still my fluttering heart.


tech: Posted: July 10, 2014 9:42 p.m.

Even as I write this, about 70 billion net (births minus deaths) humans will be added to this ‘fixed rock in space’. - Indy

Wrong again, Indy.

The Earth is dynamic, with an annual heliocentric orbit. There's the Chandler axis wobble as well. It isn't "fixed".

Time to lose another of your clichés.

fixed
Syllabification: fixed
Pronunciation: /fikst /
ADJECTIVE

Fastened securely in position:
fixed iron ladder down the port side


tech: Posted: July 10, 2014 9:45 p.m.

FYI, the global population trends are set for a reversal to non-replacement birth rates.

World population to peak by 2055: report

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101018722#.

More detail:

The end of global population growth may be almost here — and a lot sooner than the UN thinks

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/09/the-end-of-global-population-growth-may-be-almost-here-and-a-lot-sooner-than-the-un-thinks/


therightstuff: Posted: July 10, 2014 9:57 p.m.

Brian: """You've been paying too much attention to the Mainscream Media. But even THEY are now questioning mighty Caesar, and by "they" I mean the NY Times, WaPo, and others."""

With respect, I disagree. If the press burst into a room with all of Obama's cabinet shot to death and he was holding a smoking gun in one hand and a written confession in another, his media wh0res would bury the story, blame Republicans, or spin the story that they had it coming to them.

Since the Hobby Lobby decision, both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have made disparaging remarks about the "men" on the Supreme Court. Can you imagine the media firestorm if ANY Republican would make a disparaging remark about the "women" on the Supreme Court? But if Democrats do it....all we hear from the media is crickets chirping.

While tens of thousands of illegal immigrants are flowing into our southern borders and bombs are falling on Israel, Obama chooses to go to a pool hall and play pool. If Bush had done this we would be seeing a newsfeed running the image 24/7. But when it's Obama, the media just spreads their legs and begs for more. Total wh0res.


projalice11: Posted: July 10, 2014 10:26 p.m.

These children and adults are refugees..

They are not sneaking over the border ..

They are walking over the boarder of the United States for asylum ..


BrianBaker: Posted: July 10, 2014 11:01 p.m.

TRS, you have to actually read what they're writing. Just go to their websites.

Am I saying they've reversed course? Of course not. HOWEVER, they ARE criticizing him, regularly. That in itself is a major sea change.

As to Pelosi and Reid, they're pretty much irrelevant, other than Reid's obstructionism to the work of Congress. And they're unpersuasive, regardless of how their comments are reported.

Again, check out the current polling data. The ObaMessiah and his minions are in very deep doodoo.


tech: Posted: July 10, 2014 11:16 p.m.

They're responding to a tangible incentive, projalice11.

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, less than 4,000 unaccompanied Central American minors were apprehended each year over the past decade. Then Obama halted deportations of some young illegals in June 2012 and the number of apprehensions jumped to 10,146 in that fiscal year. It then doubled to 20,805 last fiscal year and reached 39,133 by mid-June of this year, with 3½ months left in the fiscal year.

If Bush started all this, why did it take until 3½ years after he left office for the number of unaccompanied Central American minors crossing our borders to surge? The rush of child illegals began when Obama suspended enforcement of existing immigration laws shortly before the 2012 election. That helped him win Hispanic voters, but the result of ignoring the nation's laws can be seen across the entire southwest border. --edited.


tech: Posted: July 11, 2014 12:21 a.m.

I suggest suspending your values and beliefs while you educate yourself to the ‘economic and resource’ issues in play . . . then decide if the policy you support will actually work. - Indy

In it, Ridley, who is also a member of the Advisory Board of HumanProgress.org, argues that humanity’s impact on the environment need not be catastrophic. This is partly because there is a strong relationship between economic growth and a greener planet. I am going to reiterate that fact - acknowledged by no lesser authority than the IPCC - because everyone should know it: the richer we become, the lesser our impact on the environment will be. Since economic freedom and growth are correlated (i.e.: more economic freedom means higher growth), economic freedom encourages a higher quality of life and a healthier environment. Gloomy predictions about the future of the planet are based on unrealistic assumptions that are unlikely to happen. The current scare, in other words, may be just like the doomsday scenarios from the past that have never materialized.

And if you have another few minutes, check out HumanProgress.org, Cato’s newest website. It is a data-heavy site that presents reputable, third-party data and a host of analytical tools. Use it to discover what Matt Ridley spoke about: the state of humanity is improving, and fast!

http://www.cato.org/blog/matt-ridley-discusses-improving-state-humanity-0?utm_content=buffere42ea&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


ricketzz: Posted: July 11, 2014 9:11 a.m.

They are asylum seekers until proven otherwise. Y'all be mean.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 11, 2014 11:06 a.m.

Oh, boo-hoo, ricketzz.

Yeah, "mean" to insist that the laws be observed and enforced. What meanies we be!

Show me the constitutional dictum that "illegal aliens are presumed asylum seekers until proven otherwise". I can't seem to recall it....


therightstuff: Posted: July 11, 2014 11:54 a.m.

tech: """The rush of child illegals began when Obama suspended enforcement of existing immigration laws shortly before the 2012 election."""

Precisely. It was about the same time Obama said the murders in Benghazi was the result of an offensive video and NOT a terrorist attack. He was also saying that if you liked your insurance, you could keep it - period! Also close to the time he urged minorities to "vote for revenge!"

Obama was saying ANYTHING to get re-elected.


therightstuff: Posted: July 11, 2014 11:58 a.m.

Brian: """TRS, you have to actually read what they're writing. Just go to their websites."""

I'll take your word for it, Brian. I don't have the stomach to look at the websites of the mainstream media.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 11, 2014 1:51 p.m.

Hahahaha!

Yeah, trust me, it's how I get my blood pressure up to operating pressure every morning.

I'ma martyr, taking one for the team.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 11, 2014 2:12 p.m.

Obama's change in policy in 2012 does make sense and is consistent with his actions earlier this year (notifying the Border Patrol about the projected influx).

What would be driving this for the Obama Administration? What is Obama gaining? Common sense seems to indicate only down-side and little up-side.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 11, 2014 2:50 p.m.

AR, you give him WAAAAAY too much credit.

The guys the Golfer-In-Chief, an AWOL doofus who has no idea what he's doing. He's always stumbling around in the dark, lurching from scandal to crisis, with no real "plan" at all, other than to enjoy the grandiosity and trappings of being El Presidente without actually showing up and having to DO anything, all while making empty promises to the constituency of the actual moment when he's standing in front of them at a fundraiser.

There IS no "common sense" there anywhere.



Indy: Posted: July 11, 2014 4:54 p.m.

Tech wrote: Even as I write this, about 70 billion net (births minus deaths) humans will be added to this ‘fixed rock in space’. - Indy

Wrong again, Indy.

The Earth is dynamic, with an annual heliocentric orbit. There's the Chandler axis wobble as well. It isn't "fixed".

Indy: I understand how hard it is for a libertarian market fundamentalist that promotes ‘unlimited’ economic growth and population to realize that we exist on a ‘fixed rock in space’ . . .

Yeah, I know we gain a ‘little mass’ from meteorites . . . and lose a little mass in the molecules that ‘escape’ in the upper atmosphere that can allow a gaseous molecule to reach ‘escape velocity’ . . . and off it goes into space!!!

In any event, look at the earth with a ‘system boundary’ around it.

Realize that the energy that we get from the sun in the form of radiation is ‘limited’ per day not to mention the loss of radiation that hits the earth and is reradiated back into space (think net energy here).

Thus, if we lived only on the current energy hitting us . . . we’d have a severely reduced economy and far fewer people that could survive on ‘current sunlight’.

Today, however, we use ‘ancient sunlight’ that fell here millions of years ago and was captured by the action of photosynthesis that plants use to survive.

Once the ancient plant material was ‘buried’ from our earth’s active geology (think plate tectonics), we now have access to that ‘ancient sunlight’ in the form of fossil fuels.

Most Americans are unaware that the ‘energy bonds’ in their gasoline were formed millions of years ago . . .

So I’m not sure what the poster was trying to address taking my remarks out of context but now you have some information to decide the motivation.

Anyway, a good read is: The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight: Revised and Updated: The Fate of the World and What We Can Do Before It's Too Late [Kindle Edition] by Thom Hartmann


Lotus8: Posted: July 11, 2014 4:58 p.m.

If we view these hordes streaming over the border as simply asylum seekers, and using that to justify just letting them in, think about what that logic leads to down the line. Mexico is a democracy. It has an army, oil resources, a decent economy sitting right next to the largest economy in the world. Does the fact that corruption is rampant and they allowed criminal drug gangs to gain access to military grade weapons and take over "ungoverned" sections of the country mean that anyone from Mexico should be allowed to knock on our door and come in? What about folks from other countries in Africa where there is no economy, a ruthless dictator and his thugs chop up the population with machetes, and every election is rigged? Should we send some barges over there to take hundreds of thousands of folks from there and bring them here? What about all of the Christians being exterminated in Muslim countries?

I am more open to taking folks from countries run by ruthless dictators and from countries where they are killed simply for their religion than I am to taking folks from a democracy where real change can be effected if the population would stand up for itself and quit voting for the party that gives away free toasters or other silly bribes. Someone coming to America simply for a better shot at a more profitable life should have to get in line with others and be evaluated as to whether the feeling is mutual.


Indy: Posted: July 11, 2014 5:02 p.m.

Tech wrote: FYI, the global population trends are set for a reversal to non-replacement birth rates. World population to peak by 2055: report
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101018722#.

Indy: Yes, thanks to the efforts of proactive people that understand the over population issue, progress is being made.

A good place to get more information is: www.populationconnection.org

What concerns me, however, with religious conservative controlling the shots in the republican party, is that they still continue to fight against ‘sex education’ and ‘non-abortive’ family planning both nationally and internationally.

This is puzzling knowing in that resource constraints exist . . . and even today, the estimate of global human deaths from lack of food, clean water and sanitation is from 15,000 to 30,000 PER DAY with a third of those deaths children.

But to focus in here on a topical issue, the migration to the US is based on population pressure.

Yet, the republicans who are the most outspoken about it fight against polices that reduce it migration.

Further, to really collapse the case of libertarian market fundamentalism that rest its case on ‘unlimited’ everything, then why would movement of people on this planet be a concern to them?

When you start to see these things, you realize the limitations of ideology based belief systems . . .


therightstuff: Posted: July 11, 2014 5:14 p.m.

Everyone knows the limitations of your ideology based belief systems, Indy. Back to reality. Obama is at it again. Though warned for months it was coming, he does what he does best - blame Congress. Here's what he said in Texas:

"Are folks more interested in politics, or are they more interested in solving the problem? The challenge is: Is Congress prepared to act to put the resources in place to get this done? There's a very simple question here, and that is Congress just needs to pass the supplemental."

Translation: Give me $3.7-billion to clean up my mess or I will continue to blame you for playing politics!

How much time does this guy have left? Counting the days.


Indy: Posted: July 11, 2014 7:58 p.m.

Tech wrote: I suggest suspending your values and beliefs while you educate yourself to the ‘economic and resource’ issues in play . . . then decide if the policy you support will actually work. - Indy

In it, Ridley, who is also a member of the Advisory Board of HumanProgress.org, argues that humanity’s impact on the environment need not be catastrophic. This is partly because there is a strong relationship between economic growth and a greener planet. I am going to reiterate that fact - acknowledged by no lesser authority than the IPCC - because everyone should know it: the richer we become, the lesser our impact on the environment will be. Since economic freedom and growth are correlated (i.e.: more economic freedom means higher growth), economic freedom encourages a higher quality of life and a healthier environment. Gloomy predictions about the future of the planet are based on unrealistic assumptions that are unlikely to happen. The current scare, in other words, may be just like the doomsday scenarios from the past that have never materialized.

Indy: Just some background on this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley
“Ridley is best known for his writings on science, the environment, and economics.[4] He has written several science books including The Red Queen (1994), Genome (1999) and The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (2010). In 2011, he won the Hayek Prize, which "honors the book published within the past two years that best reflects Hayek’s vision of economic and individual liberty."[5] Ridley also gave the Angus Millar Lecture on "scientific heresy" at the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) in 2011.[6] He was recently elected a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,[7] and won the Julian Simon award in March 2012.[8]?”

Indy: I’m not surprised you quoted a libertarian but this guy is like the book author you noted . . . he ‘sees’ the present and ‘assumes’ the future will likewise be like the present.

We know that strategy failed when economist, using the same type of thinking, were advising Bush W that they were expecting ‘growth’ in 2007 . . . not a market crash.

I see also that he’s written a book: The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves which when I went to Amazon has your author as another book read by those that purchased this one.

In any event, I understand that libertarians want to believe in the future is bright and so do I for that matter . . . but I’m looking at the reality that exists not what I ‘want it to be’.


Indy: Posted: July 11, 2014 7:59 p.m.

Tech wrote And if you have another few minutes, check out HumanProgress.org, Cato’s newest website. It is a data-heavy site that presents reputable, third-party data and a host of analytical tools. Use it to discover what Matt Ridley spoke about: the state of humanity is improving, and fast!

http://www.cato.org/blog/matt-ridley-discusses-improving-state-humanity-0?utm_content=buffere42ea&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Indy: Yes, the Cato Institute (The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C.) will understandably advocate libertarian ideology and viewpoints . . . but if they suffer from the same malady of assuming the ‘future will like the past’ then we’ve got a lot more to present.


Indy: Posted: July 11, 2014 8:09 p.m.

AlwaysRight wrote: Obama's change in policy in 2012 does make sense and is consistent with his actions earlier this year (notifying the Border Patrol about the projected influx). What would be driving this for the Obama Administration? What is Obama gaining? Common sense seems to indicate only down-side and little up-side.

Indy: Let me asking you this: When Reagan created his ‘amnesty’ during his administration, did people think that was going to solve the human migration problem?

I was communicating back then that the ‘driver’, that being population pressure, wasn’t being addressed . . .and his amnesty bill wasn’t going to address that.

So on or about when Reagan took office, there was about 4 billion people on this ‘fixed rock in space’, today we have more than 7 billion . . . and we’re still adding about 70 million net (births minus deaths) each year.

Since resources aren’t produced as fast as population growth and are limited by their nature (trying reading: Extracted: How the Quest for Mineral Wealth Is Plundering the Planet by Ugo Bardi and Jorgen Randers (Apr 10, 2014) - Kindle eBook), people are going to go where they have the best chances for economic success and that's here.

Sadly, blaming Obama . . . and there’s no reason not to since he too promised as the GOP has ‘unlimited’ growth in his SOTU speech . . . even he won’t address the resources or population issues.

In any event, while it’s prudent to make a reasonable attempt to ‘guard’ the border, the reality is that terrorist are a lot more well financed and clever than migrate workers and children. Believing that we’re going to ‘tie down’ the borders completely is a fantasy.

And while we’re throwing stones at each other over the border issue, the real drivers of the migration aren’t even in the discussion . . . just ask anyone you know about the population numbers I noted . . .


Indy: Posted: July 11, 2014 8:15 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: "Are folks more interested in politics, or are they more interested in solving the problem? The challenge is: Is Congress prepared to act to put the resources in place to get this done? There's a very simple question here, and that is Congress just needs to pass the supplemental."

Translation: Give me $3.7-billion to clean up my mess or I will continue to blame you for playing politics!

Indy: It still amazes that the primary ‘whiner crier’ about Obama still ‘whines and cries’ when he wants to spend . . . hold on . . . wait for it . . . ‘more money on the border’!

Obama could ‘part the red sea’ and this guy would be out screaming that he really didn’t do it!

Just be advised that posters here that are buried in Fox ‘innuendo and speculation’ will deceive you, even unknowingly, for their own partisan political gains.

No better example than this guy . . .


Indy: Posted: July 11, 2014 8:22 p.m.

Lotus8 wrote: I am more open to taking folks from countries run by ruthless dictators and from countries where they are killed simply for their religion than I am to taking folks from a democracy where real change can be effected if the population would stand up for itself and quit voting for the party that gives away free toasters or other silly bribes.

Indy: You need to get real . . .

Many people in Mexico have very little money . . . and the folks with the weapons are over powering.

Saying that the poor there will make the change you believe will happen is naïve.

Even the population here in the US now sees our own congress ‘owned’ by lobbyist where the ‘we the money’ has now taken over the ‘we the people’ government that the Founding Fathers put together.

Lotus8 wrote: Someone coming to America simply for a better shot at a more profitable life should have to get in line with others and be evaluated as to whether the feeling is mutual.

Indy: While I agree in principle, this isn’t going to happen.

The influx from the expanding world population will simply overwhelm us . . . and after all, people on the street you live on probably hire illegals to ‘save money’ on their nanny care and gardening . . . we already know they lower food prices through ‘migrant’ workers . . . and notice in the local fast foods who’s serving you the burgers . . .

The reality is that ‘energy per capita’ is falling worldwide and that people born into abject poverty are going to ‘look for better opportunity’.

Finally, the Chinese tried the ‘great wall’ thing . . . and how’d that work out?


therightstuff: Posted: July 11, 2014 10:31 p.m.

Indy: """It still amazes that the primary ‘whiner crier’ about Obama still ‘whines and cries’ when he wants to spend . . . hold on . . . wait for it . . . ‘more money on the border’!"""

Such embarrassing ignorance. Only 2% of the $3.7-billion Obama wants to clean up his mess will go for the border. I guess they didn't report that part on MSNBC.



More Indy: """Just be advised that posters here that are buried in Fox ‘innuendo and speculation’ will deceive you, even unknowingly, for their own partisan political gains."""

Tell us Indy, what is Fox News reporting about the border crises that is factually inaccurate? Specifically, what am I saying that is deceptive?

What amazes me is how this guy screams about people being deceptive while defending a pathological liar like Barack Obama...and for what....wait for it....his own partisan political gains.

Hypocrisy exposed yet again.


tech: Posted: July 11, 2014 11:18 p.m.

"Indy: Yes, the Cato Institute… - Indy poisoning the well.

Let me know if you wish to dispute any of the data at HumanProgress.org. Otherwise, continue to be junior league pedant. It's what we expect.


ricketzz: Posted: July 12, 2014 10:02 a.m.

They are asylum seekers. They did not "sneak" in. They presented themselves to authorities and begged sanctuary. They get a lawyer and a hearing. If they are sick we must treat them because we lead by example. We do not turn sick dirty children away. We at least get them comfortable while they are here. That is who we are.


projalice11: Posted: July 12, 2014 12:16 p.m.

Yeah for Indy and Ricketzz -------


tech: Posted: July 12, 2014 2:46 p.m.

Your endorsement speaks to the quality of their arguments, projalice11.


therightstuff: Posted: July 13, 2014 1:37 a.m.

I can think of few things more embarrassing than if I was on the same wave length as the crazy BINGO lady.


ricketzz: Posted: July 13, 2014 9:25 a.m.

Lotus 8 thinks we are not taking in Middle Eastern refugees now. He is misinformed. Refugees will be a permanent part of the scene as climate chaos disrupts and rearranges populations. How much of the Israel Likud v Palestinians conflict is about water and food? Was the Syrian war started over food and water?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/30/climate-change-war-conflict-military-industrial-complex-syria-egypt-uprising


therightstuff: Posted: July 13, 2014 12:49 p.m.

And Disneyland's prices have made it hard for a family of four to go anymore. Damn that global warming!


tech: Posted: July 13, 2014 3:33 p.m.

Come to think of it, I had to replace an irrigation valve and my car needs detailing, TRS.

Coincidence?


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 11:27 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """It still amazes that the primary ‘whiner crier’ about Obama still ‘whines and cries’ when he wants to spend . . . hold on . . . wait for it . . . ‘more money on the border’!"""

Such embarrassing ignorance. Only 2% of the $3.7-billion Obama wants to clean up his mess will go for the border. I guess they didn't report that part on MSNBC.

Indy: Well, let’s look at the data again this time not on Fox:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-asks-congress-for-3.7-billion-to-handle-border-crisis/article/2550599
Obama asks Congress for $3.7 billion to handle border crisis
By Susan Crabtree | July 8, 2014 | 8:15 pm


President Obama is asking Congress for $3.7 billion to respond to the immigration crisis at the Texas border -- nearly twice as much as early reports expected him to request.

Of those funds, more than half, $1.8 billion, would go to the Department of Health and Human Services to house and care for the 52,000 unaccompanied children apprehended along the border after crossing into the border and the tens of thousands more expected in the coming months.

Highlights of the plan include:

• The Homeland Security Department's Immigration and Customs Enforcement division would receive $1.1 billion to pay for more a more border enforcement units in Central American countries and the apprehension and detention of adults traveling with minors, and transportation costs involved.

• The department's Customs and Border Protection agency would receive $433 million to pay for overtime pay for border patrol agents and additional crews for unmanned aerial surveillance systems.

• Only a fraction of the funds — $64 million — would be devoted to hiring more immigration judges and attorneys to help expedite the judicial processing of illegal immigrants, which even before the crisis often took two years with many immigrants failing to show up for their hearings.

Indy: So let’s do the math . . . $1.5 billion for more border protection . . . out of $3.7 billion?

I think the poster has got to stop repeating the nonsense from Fox and use his own calculator!!!


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 11:32 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: More Indy: """Just be advised that posters here that are buried in Fox ‘innuendo and speculation’ will deceive you, even unknowingly, for their own partisan political gains."""

Tell us Indy, what is Fox News reporting about the border crises that is factually inaccurate? Specifically, what am I saying that is deceptive?

Indy: Just do the math . . .

Therightstuff wrote: What amazes me is how this guy screams about people being deceptive while defending a pathological liar like Barack Obama...and for what....wait for it....his own partisan political gains. Hypocrisy exposed yet again.

Indy: Oh . . . . the sadly confused religious conservative ideology can’t grasp that Obama will probably go down as the greatest president in the 21st century!

Just kidding . . . but he's so far above Bush W . . . it feels that way . . .

The reality is that this guy is so partisan he couldn’t see reality if it stepped up and slapped him in the face . . . and let’s be clear, this guy is who the ‘tea party’ is that now controls the republican party.

And now that republican’s voter registration is at an all-time low in CA . . . denial is powerful ‘kung fu’ . . .


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 11:36 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Indy: Yes, the Cato Institute… - Indy poisoning the well.

Indy: You keep siding with these libertarian ‘think tanks’ . . . well, who’s running CATO . . . just a little FYI . .

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/cato-institute-and-koch-brothers-reach-agreement/
Cato Institute and Koch Brothers Reach Agreement
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
June 25, 2012 6:40 pm 8 Comments

A rift between the Cato Institute and two of its leaders, the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, ended Monday with an agreement to revamp the research group’s leadership in a way that Cato officials said should maintain its political independence.

As part of the agreement, the Koch brothers will drop two lawsuits they had brought to gain greater control over the institute’s board. In exchange, the Cato Institute said that its longtime chief executive, Ed Crane, who had been at odds with Charles G. Koch, would retire.

Indy: Do all Americans want the Koch Brothers setting up their future?

November . . . sweet November . . . is just around the corner . . .


tech: Posted: July 13, 2014 11:54 p.m.

And Indy's response is… double down on poisoning the well! LOL!


therightstuff: Posted: July 14, 2014 11:42 a.m.

Indy, I have to hand it to you on the $3.7-billion figure. I was quoting the Texas Governor on the 2% for border security but the link you provided shows a different story which appears more accurate. You were right on this one and I was wrong.

And this is all I ask of you, Indy. Just back up your comments.


therightstuff: Posted: July 14, 2014 11:44 a.m.

Indy, just when I thought you were ready to deal in reality, you post this gem:

""""Obama will probably go down as the greatest president in the 21st century!
Just kidding . . . but he's so far above Bush W . . . it feels that way . . ."""

And then you accuse me of being too partisan. Dude...you've got to stop going by your feelings and stay in the realm of facts.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 14, 2014 4:16 p.m.

Indy: Let me asking you this: When Reagan created his ‘amnesty’ during his administration, did people think that was going to solve the human migration problem?

Me: uh, yes. Immigration reform was part of the "deal" that Reagan made to grant amnesty to 3 million folks. Reagan lived up to his end but the Dems did not. Hence the rancor that many conservatives feel around this issue. We were cheated once and it won't happen again. Reform first, then we'll talk about amnesty.

But, once again, non sequitor. The question on the table was what did Obama hope to gain? Was it a cynical ploy to garner favor with the Hispanic community? An attempt to win another Nobel Peace Prize? Or simply the machinations of a well-intentioned but bumbling leader with lack of foresight?

I submit the latter.


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 5:23 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy, I have to hand it to you on the $3.7-billion figure. I was quoting the Texas Governor on the 2% for border security but the link you provided shows a different story which appears more accurate. You were right on this one and I was wrong.

And this is all I ask of you, Indy. Just back up your comments.

Indy: Well, it gets more interesting . . . from:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/14/steve-king/rep-steve-king-says-obamas-37-billion-plan-regardi/
• $1.8 billion for basic necessities like food and shelter for unaccompanied immigrant children;
• $897 million for judicially processing and deporting undocumented families;
• $364 million for other administrative processing related to the surge in apprehensions of unaccompanied children and families;
• $295 million for the reintegration of migrants to countries in Central America;
• $109 million for expanding immigration and customs investigations and enforcement;
• $45.4 million for additional immigration judges to increase case processing;
• $39 million to increase air surveillance of the Rio Grande region;
• $29 million for expanding the Border Enforcement Security Task Force program;
• $15 million for direct legal representation services to children in immigration proceedings;
• $5 million for public programs and support related to Central American migration issues;
• $2.5 million for expansion of the legal orientation program;
• $1.1 million for additional immigration litigation attorneys.

The conclusion:

Our ruling
King said there is "nothing" in Obama’s $3.7 billion request to address the child immigration situation "that actually secures the border."
King has a point that a majority of the funding request would cover basic necessities for children crossing the border as well as additional resources for the legal process. But somewhere between $177 million and possibly as much as $1 billion of the total request would be spent on items that can be described as aiding efforts to secure the border. Because this is not a trivial amount, King is wrong to say it’s "nothing." On balance, we rate his claim Mostly False.

So you can argue this issue either way . . . the bigger issue of what’s driving the migration is ‘never’ addressed that being over population and limited resources. Thus, my call for a global discussion on sustainable growth that includes both those factors.

http://steadystate.org/
http://www.worldwatch.org/
http://www.populationconnection.org/site/PageServer


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 5:26 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy, just when I thought you were ready to deal in reality, you post this gem:

""""Obama will probably go down as the greatest president in the 21st century!
Just kidding . . . but he's so far above Bush W . . . it feels that way . . ."""

And then you accuse me of being too partisan. Dude...you've got to stop going by your feelings and stay in the realm of facts.

Indy: I thought that would get a rise out of you . . .

In any event, these folks are all politicians and most of them aren’t addressing the long term factors that influence our future.

When Reagan did the amnesty thing in his administration, I was saying back then that this doesn’t address the ‘driver’ of migration . . . and Obama doesn’t address it either.


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 5:33 p.m.

AlwaysRight wrote: Indy: Let me asking you this: When Reagan created his ‘amnesty’ during his administration, did people think that was going to solve the human migration problem?

Me: uh, yes. Immigration reform was part of the "deal" that Reagan made to grant amnesty to 3 million folks. Reagan lived up to his end but the Dems did not. Hence the rancor that many conservatives feel around this issue. We were cheated once and it won't happen again. Reform first, then we'll talk about amnesty.

Indy: Again, what did that bill do to address the migration issue that emanates from over population and limited resources?

The dems and repubs can rant to their bases till hell freezes over but they don’t want to deal with reality . . .

AlwaysRight wrote: But, once again, non sequitor. The question on the table was what did Obama hope to gain? Was it a cynical ploy to garner favor with the Hispanic community? An attempt to win another Nobel Peace Prize? Or simply the machinations of a well-intentioned but bumbling leader with lack of foresight? I submit the latter.

Indy: None of our leaders want to address ‘sustainable growth’ that includes stabilizing the global population humanely and then reducing it such that the earth can support those folks indefinitely.

This whole immigration issue I hope starts to get people thinking that without addressing the drivers, the migration of people from areas of low resources to high resources (relative in the senate the US uses energy to make that happen . . . and that’s limited too . . . ), the amnesty thing will come up time and time again . . .

I don’t see the political world as you do although I understand the political motivations you noted.

I like to think of what JFK said in his inauguration address (paraphrasing): ‘what we have here today is not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom’.

So to me it’s not party based . . . that’s sadly what’s destroying the public’s ability to think clearly about the issues.

And we’re ALL losing as a result . .


cirago: Posted: July 14, 2014 6:58 p.m.

The voters of California already passed a solution to this problem. It was called Proposition 187 and it denied most government benefits to illegal aliens. If it had been allowed to take effect we'd be living in a vastly different California now.

It was scuttled by corrupt courts and a Democratic Governor, Gray Davis who was later run out of California on a rail.

This would be a profoundly more prosperous state, crime would be vastly reduced, we'd be living within our means, and the standard of living for all citizens would be vastly higher.

Borders can be crossed and after decades and billions devoted to border security we've seen that it just doesn't exist.

Shutting off the supply of freebies and incentives does work. If you just can't plain get a check from someone else, waltz into a classroom, or an emergency room you're going to go somewhere else.

It's time to bring 187 back but in a stronger enhanced version that slams the door shut on every illegal.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 14, 2014 7:37 p.m.

Indy- I hear what you are saying about scarcity but it is an extrapolation from the issue in 1986. If Democrats had followed through with the commitments made to President Reagan, we'd have a much different situation today.

But now, there is a conservative base that feels lied to and betrayed. Of course, there are other issues besides immigration reform but some of the angst is due to the Reagan double-cross. The Tea Party is a large portion of this angry segment.

Look at our good friend, BB. He is a thoughtful, reasonable, intelligent person who is now intractable on the issue of amnesty. And, he is not alone.

This has helped create a rift in American politics that can only harm our nation. There needs to be reform in immigration policy that will open the door to discussions of amnesty.

Like I said before, we are stuck. We cannot go forward nor can we go backward.


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 10:01 p.m.

AlwaysRight wrote: Indy- I hear what you are saying about scarcity but it is an extrapolation from the issue in 1986. If Democrats had followed through with the commitments made to President Reagan, we'd have a much different situation today.

Indy: Sadly, no democrat addresses sustainability any more than any republican . . . so I have very little faith in either party to deal with reality.

The amnesty that Reagan put forth will be little different than the next one . . . and the next one . . . expect the number of people involved with grow.

As I noted, the human net population growth is still at about 70 million per year! It’s simply going to lead to collapse . . . but even as I write this, between 15,000 to 30,000 humans die ‘each day’ from lack of food, clean water and sanitation.

Any coverage in the media from anyone? Nope . .

AlwaysRight wrote: But now, there is a conservative base that feels lied to and betrayed. Of course, there are other issues besides immigration reform but some of the angst is due to the Reagan double-cross. The Tea Party is a large portion of this angry segment.

Indy: I don’t have any faith in this sub-republican group either . . . since most of what they discuss are the ‘symptoms’ of migration not the driver.

AlwaysRight wrote: Look at our good friend, BB. He is a thoughtful, reasonable, intelligent person who is now intractable on the issue of amnesty. And, he is not alone.

This has helped create a rift in American politics that can only harm our nation. There needs to be reform in immigration policy that will open the door to discussions of amnesty.

Like I said before, we are stuck. We cannot go forward nor can we go backward.

Indy: I feel sorry for the young people in the US today since their leaders and their parents are simply too busy to think . . . most are lost in folklore . . .

I’m not sure how this is all going to play out . . . but make no mistake, there’s a lot at stake.

Any amnesty bill passed (call it immigration reform or whatever) without addressing the migration drivers will not solve anything . . . writing ‘laws’ on little pieces of paper that don’t deal with reality solve nothing . . .

Finally, this whole border issue to me is a colossal waste of ‘your’ money . . . it’s great to have some control but to think you’re going to ‘shut down’ the border is make believe . . . but it does drive a lot of people in either party . . . who can’t see the bigger issues.

Any motivated terrorist that is funded is going to get into the US . . . we should be asking ourselves why they hate us . . . that will lead back to the economics which the border issue doesn’t address.


ricketzz: Posted: July 15, 2014 9:50 a.m.

The border is as secure as possible. The GOP just hates brown people. That is what is really obvious.


therightstuff: Posted: July 15, 2014 11:10 a.m.

ricketzz, I've said it once and I'll say it again. You're an idiot.


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 2:19 p.m.

The root cause of the current manufactured crises is laid out well by Sen. Sessions recent "Dear Colleague" letter. In full, below.

Dear Colleagues:

I write to inform you of a development that threatens the foundation of our constitutional Republic. On July 3, 2014, the National Journal reported:

“Obama made it clear he would press his executive powers to the limit. He gave quiet credence to recommendations from La Raza and other immigration groups that between 5 million to 6 million adult illegal immigrants could be spared deportation under a similar form of deferred adjudication he ordered for the so-called Dreamers in June 2012…

Obama has now ordered the Homeland Security and Justice departments to find executive authorities that could enlarge that non-prosecutorial umbrella by a factor of 10. Senior officials also tell me Obama wants to see what he can do with executive power to provide temporary legal status to undocumented adults.”

This is breathtaking.

The action the President is reportedly contemplating would be a nullification of the Immigration and Nationality Act by the Executive Branch of government. Indeed, it would be an executive nullification of our borders as an enforceable national boundary. By declaring whole classes of illegal immigrants beyond the reach of the law, it would remove the moral authority needed to enforce any immigration law, creating the very open-borders policy explicitly rejected by Congress and the people. And it would guarantee that the current illegal immigration disaster would only further worsen and destabilize.

As you know, over the last five and a half years, the President has routinely bypassed Congress in order to suspend enforcement of our immigration laws. The most dramatic of these lawless directives was the President’s 2012 Deferred Action Program for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), in which the President implemented by executive fiat legislation that Congress has three times rejected.

Not surprisingly, the illegal DACA program has led to catastrophic results. By declaring to the entire world that America will not enforce its immigration laws against those who enter the country as minors—indeed, that the United States will freely grant them access to work permits and taxpayer resources—President Obama unleashed a flood of new illegal immigration into the country. This is the disaster he created.

However, there is clear path forward to prevent the continued dissolution of America’s borders. Certainly, DACA and the President’s other numerous unlawful policies must be terminated. But as a first step, Congress must not acquiesce to spending more taxpayer dollars until the President unequivocally rescinds his threat of more illegal executive action.

(cont.)


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 2:19 p.m.

Congress must demand that the President use his lawful powers to begin enforcing the law now—instead of passing legislation on the promise of future enforcement—and that he back down from his plan to widen his disastrous DACA program, which would of course escalate the existing border disaster to unthinkable proportions.

If Congress simply passes a supplemental spending bill without these preconditions, it is not a question of if the President will suspend more immigration laws, but only how many he will suspend.

Congress cannot surrender to this lawlessness. Acting in defense of Congress, our constituents, and their communities, we must stand firm. This transcends politics. It is about our duty as constitutional officeholders. It is about the solemn oath we all took as Members of Congress.

Very truly yours,

Jeff Sessions

U.S. Senator


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 3:22 p.m.

Tech wrote: Congress cannot surrender to this lawlessness. Acting in defense of Congress, our constituents, and their communities, we must stand firm. This transcends politics. It is about our duty as constitutional officeholders. It is about the solemn oath we all took as Members of Congress.

Indy: This is laughable . . .

This is why I’ve noted that putting attorneys in charge of running things threatens our future.

But with libertarian market fundamentalist in charge of the GOP, I’m not surprised that they are trying to ‘pull one over’ on the public . . . as they obstruct our nation with nonsense.

This House term with Boehner will be judged by historians as perhaps the most lackluster group of ideologues ever to ‘occupy’ that body of congress.

In any event, the border issue is a false canard.

Notice conservatives can’t grasp the nature of why people are migrating.

They ignore economic scarcity and can’t grasp the concept of sustainable growth.

They believe they can site in government buildings and argue over the ‘writings’ on pieces of paper and solve ‘real' problems.

This poster is the type of person occupying GOP held seats in congress.

How’s that working out . . .

Think about that his November . . . do you vote for 'do nothings'?


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 4:29 p.m.

Missed this post . . . so I’ll respond today!

AlwaysRight wrote: Indy- LOL. You have got to be kidding. These threads on this website are all about entertainment.

Indy: Pretty much like congress now, no?

Media makes clowns into celebrity and then recites their nonsense for entertainment? Sad but true . . .

AlwaysRight wrote: Do you think you are proposing new legislation that will be voted on by senators and congressmen? Nope. Its going to be seen by a small number of people in this community. To think that this is anything but entertainment is simply delusional.

Indy: Dude . . . you need to ‘think big’! Do you honestly think this is the only place I address politics? Please . . .

But hey, you wish to remain a victim and feel you can’t contribute . . . go ahead . . . you’ll be in company with hundreds of millions of Americans that feel helpless, hopeless, and just resign themselves to the nonsense . . . but don’t count me in that group.

AlwaysRight wrote: Making substantitive debates with you is pointless. I've seen the discussions that you've had with other folks (like Tech) who try and show you fact. Your responses are tedious and rambling and often ignore the information presented to you. Your writing fails to convince.

Indy: Yes, this ‘legal mind’ likes to try and address issues with technology, engineering, economics, budgeting and management to which he does little more than recite libertarian ideology . . . that’s not debate per se . . .

But yes, I do counter such nonsense and address the shortcomings of capitalism as well as the failings of libertarianism.

AlwaysRight wrote: However, as I've said in the past, sites like this need a villain or a foil. That is what you provide. If everyone were like minded, this would not be entertaining. Yes, I said the word again.

Indy: Well, you’ve got that right . . . many here follow conservative ideology blindly and simply IGNORE what is shown not to work . . . that’s not my fault . . . that the failings of the ideology.

AlwaysRight wrote: And, don't try and say that you do not find this entertaining. It is clear that this is a fun hobby to you. So be it. Enjoy.

Indy: No, I take this seriously in that guest readers used to being ‘bathed’ in political nonsense have a hard time finding anyone to challenge it and then show why much of it is misleading and wrong.

AlwaysRight wrote: But, please, do not fool yourself into thinking that the world is changing simply by posting your opinions on this site. Its entertainment, pure and simple.

Indy: Yes . . . you’re the guy I want to be a fox hole with . . . not!

Hey, you want to feel like a victim . . . go ahead . . . but I’m not one of them.


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 4:39 p.m.

As always, your ad hominem attacks are an indicator that you have no idea of what you're talking about, Indy. You address zero points raised in the Senator's letter.

Modern mass migrations are caused by humans (politics/ideology) and are composed of escapees from dysfunctional nation states to countries that offer the hope of a better life.

A nation state that can no longer control its borders ceases to exist.


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 5:37 p.m.

Indy: Yes . . . you’re the guy I want to be a fox hole (sic) with . . . not!

Picturing you in a foxhole made me LOL! Better stick to your cubicle, Indy. :-D


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 7:21 p.m.

Tech wrote: As always, your ad hominem attacks are an indicator that you have no idea of what you're talking about, Indy. You address zero points raised in the Senator's letter.

Indy: I guess you could call ‘vigorous debate’ an ‘ad hominem attack’ but that misses the point.

As far as Sessions goes, his bio:

“Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions III (born December 24, 1946) is the junior United States Senator from Alabama. First elected in 1996, Sessions is a member of the Republican Party. He serves as the ranking minority member on the Senate Budget Committee.
From 1981 to 1993 he served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. President Ronald Reagan nominated him to a judgeship on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in 1986, but he was not confirmed. Sessions was elected to Attorney General of Alabama in 1994. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996 and easily re-elected in 2002 and 2008. He and his colleague Richard Shelby are the state's first two-term Republican Senators since Reconstruction.
Sessions was ranked by National Journal in 2007 as the fifth-most conservative U.S. Senator, siding strongly with the Republican Party on political issues. He supported the major legislative efforts of the George W. Bush administration, including the 2001 and 2003 tax cut packages, the Iraq War, and a proposed national amendment to ban same-sex marriage. However, he was one of 25 senators to oppose the establishment of TARP. He has opposed the Democratic leadership since 2007 on most major legislation, including the stimulus bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act. As the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he opposed both of President Barack Obama's nominees for the Supreme Court.”

Indy: We can get into the state of affairs in Alabama . . . but let’s start with the Governor of that state who refused the Medicaid expansion . . . for the poor people living there . . . many of them minorities.

No, I don’t trust that guy and feel that the residents in that state are being poorly served by both the Governor and Sessions.

You wish to promote him, great . . . but he’s of no value to me.


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 7:29 p.m.

Tech wrote: Modern mass migrations are caused by humans (politics/ideology) and are composed of escapees from dysfunctional nation states to countries that offer the hope of a better life.

Indy: Yes, this is what libertarian market fundamentalist assert . . . who lack any global insight as to why over population and limited resources are creating the global unrest.

You like to believe that we can just write things down on little pieces of paper and make change.

Or that we can use ‘bullets’ to address economic issues.

We can see that doesn’t work.

Tech wrote: A nation state that can no longer control its borders ceases to exist.

Indy: Yes, the idea that mass migrations can be controlled with ‘walls’ is just plain lunacy . . . didn't China try that once? How'd that work out . . .

The money wasted to build and patrol could be better spent in educating people to the relationship between population and resources.

But a quick example is what we’re finding in Egypt.

There’s a nation with 70 million people that has added about 10 million people every decade.

The media likes to report on your issues of political malfeasance but nothing on resources or population.

The fact that the government has to give out ‘bread’ every day to keep those folks from staving . . . . just illustrates the lack of any cohesive attempt to see the bigger resource issues facing that nation.

No wonder the residents there of the different political factions are so frustrated since the people trying to lead them are clueless . . .


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 7:34 p.m.

Indy: Yes, the idea that mass migrations can be controlled with ‘walls’ is just plain lunacy . . . didn't China try that once? How'd that work out . . .

How about something modern and relevant? Israel, for example.


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 8:08 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: Yes . . . you’re the guy I want to be a fox hole (sic) with . . . not!

Picturing you in a foxhole made me LOL! Better stick to your cubicle, Indy.

Indy: Yes, it’s a bit disturbing to me that someone like that poster is so quick to throw in the towel and leave the ‘thinking’ to lobbyist dominated political machine politicians that clearly aren’t acting in our best interest.

And if he wants to believe that forums like this are only for ‘entertaining’, he might want to go back to the greatest conservative entertainer alive today that being Rush Limbaugh.

He entertains his audience with nonsense 3 hours per day . . .

As far as you go, I like the libertarian presentations you put forth here since it gives me an idea of how libertarian ideology is being presented to the public.

It also allows me to see where the gaps are with respect to basic economics and business.

It’s important that the public understand the shortcomings of capitalism as well and why libertarians ignore those to keep their ideology ‘pure’ . . .

In any event, I’d be curious of the ‘throne’ you type this post at myself . . . but I’d rather have your educational background so I can help you better . . . just say’n . . .


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 8:16 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: Yes, the idea that mass migrations can be controlled with ‘walls’ is just plain lunacy . . . didn't China try that once? How'd that work out . . .

How about something modern and relevant? Israel, for example.

Indy: Yes, it’s harder to deal with the socio economic issues versus just ramping up the hatreds in each nation . . . and then subjecting their youth to violence.

Hatred is taught to the young who then grow up and repeat the cycle.

Let’s look at Iraq where the fundamentalist Sunnis and Shiites are still fighting the ‘7th century’ war . . . except now they have ‘modern weapons’.

That’s the issue here in America that frustrates many people in that we all just don’t think alike . . . but isn’t that what freedom is about?

And here in the US, if you wish to not use government safety nets for example since you don’t believe in them, then let’s create a system where you can ‘opt out’ . . . and I mean out . . . no coming back.

Don’t like health insurance . . . then we set up the ‘dead and dying’ zones at hospitals or if you’re in a bad accident, leave it to your relatives to come help you out . . . bring you home for your own ‘personalized’ medical care . . . whatever that may be.

I’m all about individuals and taking responsibility . . . but I’ll hold you to it.

Sadly, Americans in general don’t like that . . . they would still feel sorry for you . . . and that’s the reality that exists whether you want to believe that or not.

But for me, you sign a ‘contract’ to opt out . . . you’re out . . . forever . . . you now take the risk and I won’t feel sorry for you . . . at all.

I’d prefer that wasn’t your choice . . . but if that’s your idea of being ‘free’, then right on!


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 9:00 p.m.

Better get out of the sun, Indy. You're beginning to rave.


ricketzz: Posted: July 16, 2014 10:15 a.m.

Israel is a perfect example of a fascist country with a wall. Both Israel and the people they displaced have lost any moral title to the land. They blew it. The UN should take over the whole mess and lock up anyone who even thinks about a hate crime. And these people claim to be religious. That pile of dysfunction is the best ad for atheism going. I say get out of the way and let the religious idiots "neutralize" each other.


tech: Posted: July 16, 2014 12:50 p.m.

Your support of genocidal religious fanatics over an allied democracy is noted, ricketzz.


ricketzz: Posted: July 17, 2014 9:20 a.m.

Israel is a fascist country, not a democracy. They do not have universal suffrage. They have a hyper-nationalist foreign policy. They have a state religion. They are convinced there is a God, and that that God favors them. They are violently racist and exist only by force. They have had 67 years to work things out. They refused to be polite and now they have their entire region united against them. We'd have to be idiots to get involved in that. They blew it. We can't prop up a miscreant forever. Arabs hate us because we support the neonazis.


tech: Posted: July 17, 2014 10:50 a.m.

Israel is a civilized liberal, Western style democracy and a member of of the UN. Women, gays, minorities and Arabs enjoy equal rights and freedom of religion.

Your warped view and denial of facts is irrational.


tech: Posted: July 17, 2014 7:04 p.m.

HOUSTON, Texas—An elite, law-enforcement sensitive El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) intel report from July 7, 2014 was leaked to Breitbart Texas and reveals that homicide rates in Central America suggest violence is likely not the primary cause of the surge of thousands of unaccompanied minors and incomplete family units illegally entering the United States.

The EPIC report indicates that the belief among the illegal immigrants that they would receive permisos and be allowed to stay was the driving factor in their choices to come to the United States and that the crisis will continue until 'misperceptions' about U.S. immigration benefits were no longer prevalent . The report also states that the migrants cited Univision and other other outlets as having shaped their views on U.S. immigration policy. Another implication of the report is that family members already in the U.S. are encouraging the minors to come and organizing the travel with smugglers. EPIC is a widely respected intelligence analysis group and was initially staffed by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/07/14/Leaked-Intel-Report-Violence-in-Central-America-Likely-Not-Primary-Factor-in-Border-Crisis


Indy: Posted: July 17, 2014 8:06 p.m.

Tech wrote: www.breitbart.com

Indy: I was wondering where you get some of your ideas . . . good to know . . .


tech: Posted: July 17, 2014 9:15 p.m.

Never mind the attached EPIC document, you've got to poison the well, Indy! Pathetic you can't read before whipping up an ideological froth.

Facts, regardless of source, remain facts. In this instance, the source was the Feds.


ricketzz: Posted: July 18, 2014 10:17 a.m.

Tech. We understand they are coming based on rumors and lies (they are religious people and they blindly go, a lot). We have taken steps to counter the disinformation.

Once people are under our jurisdiction they get some rights. By law these kids have a statutory due process. While waiting for their cases to come up we have a duty to ourselves to get them clean and healthy, same as any other pre-trial detained person in our system of jurisprudence. To not do so out of spite is not an urge that should be nurtured.


tech: Posted: July 18, 2014 7:38 p.m.

Wait…what? You mean the Centroamericanos aren't coming due to AGW and overpopulation? Does Indy know?


ricketzz: Posted: July 19, 2014 9:11 a.m.

Tech, it is an interconnected globe, as much as some of us don't like the homogenization of the species. Food and water shortages are driving conflict and conflict is where big crimes go un-noticed. The apparent chaos will only get worse. We should learn to band with our neighbors to maximize our food growing and hydrological potential. Canada has plenty of water. Mexico has year round growing season, etc. This is no time for suspicion and exclusion. You will burn out on hate.

This is more like the 1959 Cuban Revolution forcing people to flee than your routine "Born in East L.A." type immigration.

That dotted line up the middle of Lake Erie is not a fence; people travel by boat from Canada to the USA every day, without declaring at customs or getting their passport stamped. They tend to be European or Asian, so I guess no fence is necessary for them.


tech: Posted: July 19, 2014 12:35 p.m.

It isn't hate, ricketzz. It's rationality and the rule of law. Your attempts to denigrate those who oppose porous borders and having our infrastructure overwhelmed as xenophobic racists is untenable.

You posit a false equivalency between the functional nation state of Canada with it's educated, affluent populace and the waves of uneducated, impoverished inhabitants of dysfunctional, corrupt nations. It has zero to do with race.

The USA is a polyglot of legal immigrants and their descendants. I'm 2nd generation removed from Austrian and British immigrants. My wife is 2nd generation from northern Mexico and her skin color is a stunning mocha brown. What's important is our ancestors emigrated here legally rather than their national origin or ethnicity.

It's the story of America. --edited.


ricketzz: Posted: July 20, 2014 9:47 a.m.

If you recall we destroyed people who did not attack us as we took over their continent in our orderly migration.

Righties keep trying to imply that the USA is going broke and that we can't afford to rescue poor people like we used to, whether they be in the Lower Ninth or on the Rio Bravo Grande. This is absurd. Some restructuring and tweaking and the debt starts vanishing. A lot of the "terrible" things about Obama are actually his enemies making life miserable for everyone out of spite. There is proof the Congress is dragging its feet to skew Obama's numbers negatively, to the detriment of everyone, out of sheer spite. It ain't because he's the first Hawaiian.


tech: Posted: July 20, 2014 8:47 p.m.

Please explain why the colonization history of the USA by Spaniards, French, English, Dutch, Russians, etc. is relevant to present immigration law, ricketzz.

In regard to domestic finances, you'd have a rather different perspective if we debase our economy to the point that the U.S. Dollar is no longer the global reserve currency.


ricketzz: Posted: July 21, 2014 10:48 a.m.

The sooner the economy crashes the better. The worst thing Bush did was save the criminal banks. Shiny silver coins.

Until we freaked out that the Chinese were taking over the place and making it smell like dead fish and cabbage, did we even care who came here to live?

"Shortly after the U.S. Civil War, some states started to pass their own immigration laws, which prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in 1875 that immigration was a federal responsibility. In 1875, the nation passed its first immigration law, the Page Act of 1875, also known as the Asian Exclusion Act, outlawing the importation of Asian contract laborers, any Asian woman who would engage in prostitution, and all people considered to be convicts in their own countries.

In 1882 Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Chinese Exclusion Act stated that there was a limited amount of immigrants of Chinese descent allowed into the United States for 10 years. The law was renewed in 1892 and 1902.

Prior to 1890, the individual states, rather than the Federal government, regulated immigration into the United States. The Immigration Act of 1891 established a Commissioner of Immigration in the Treasury Department. The Canadian Agreement of 1894 extended U.S. immigration restrictions to Canadian ports."


tech: Posted: July 21, 2014 3:52 p.m.

"Righties keep trying to imply that the USA is going broke and that we can't afford to rescue poor people like we used to… Some restructuring and tweaking and the debt starts vanishing." - ricketzz

"The sooner the economy crashes the better. The worst thing Bush did was save the criminal banks. Shiny silver coins." - ricketzz

Objective observers who attempt to reconcile your conflicting statements may wonder if you're afflicted with a multiple personality disorder.


Indy: Posted: July 21, 2014 9:14 p.m.

Tech wrote: It isn't hate, ricketzz. It's rationality and the rule of law. Your attempts to denigrate those who oppose porous borders and having our infrastructure overwhelmed as xenophobic racists is untenable.

Indy: I really am LOL on this one . . .

Here a libertarian market fundamentalist that ignores over population, insist resources are ‘unlimited’ . . . yet makes comments like this.

This is where you realize the ideology burden simply can’t be overcome . . .

And the border issue?

Why do you think people migrate from areas of low resources to high?

But the biggest misconception by libertarians is their belief that governments control resources versus understanding that the resources or lack of same are inherent constraints of the planet . . . not ideology based humans.

In any event, those that advocate ‘limitless’ growth like this poster can’t even grasp the contradiction of his positions.


ricketzz: Posted: July 23, 2014 9:56 a.m.

The National Debt of the USA is backed by the full faith and credit of the USA. The "economy" is a Ponzi scheme house of cards that produces nothing but excessive liquidity, volatility. High speed algorithmic trading dominates the markets and the banks are running derivatives (casino gambling) on 100:1 cash (or worse) margins. It's already a disaster, except for the quants.

Right libertarians want all real property in private hands; left libertarians want all real property in the commons. Either way, pollution is a crime against property.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...