Brian Kelly wrote:
Dick Carroll wrote in message ...

CHeck this out...


http://www.potomacnews.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WPN%2FMGArticle%2FWPN_BasicArti cle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031771619197&path=!frontpage


Good! Somebody had to bite the bullet and do it, let 'er rip. I'm
betting that Manassas will become the focal point of the whole issue.
It's likely gonna establish whether or not there's any money in it for
the service providers, whether or not the interference BPL generates
will terminally interfere with critical HF comms and how many of the
plugged-in $29.95/month citizen users of BPL in Manassas identities
get hacked, yadda, yadda, all of it.

For better or worse let the battle begin win lose or draw.

I vaguely remember Manassas being the last focal point of a much
earlier national debate, something about Lee handing Grant his sword
in Manassas . . is there some irony here?

w3rv


There is no irony. Lee surrendered to Grant at the Appomattox
courthouse, which is not in Massassas. There is a good summary of the
Civil War battles at http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm.

N6JPO

Duane Allen wrote:
... Lee surrendered to Grant at the Appomattox
courthouse, which is not in Massassas....

That whole "surrender" business is just Yankee propaganda-
completely made-up. Grant had been drinking again,
so General Lee got him to agree to a "tie."
It was covered up to protect Grant's presidential run
so his cronies could get power.
Yeeee-HAAA!
Dave S.

David Stinson wrote:
Duane Allen wrote:

... Lee surrendered to Grant at the Appomattox
courthouse, which is not in Massassas....


That whole "surrender" business is just Yankee propaganda-
completely made-up. Grant had been drinking again,
so General Lee got him to agree to a "tie."
It was covered up to protect Grant's presidential run
so his cronies could get power.
Yeeee-HAAA!
Dave S.


Sorry, I forgot that these posts ended up in both North and South.

On a serious off-topic note, does anyone know what is being done to
protec the CSA graveyards. Thanks in advance.

Duane Allen
N6JPO

In article . net, Duane Allen
writes:

On a serious off-topic note, does anyone know what is being done to
protec the CSA graveyards. Thanks in advance.

I do. The graveyards full of traitorous racist Confederates are being
converted to HAZMAT landfill sites and leach fields. You Rebs wanted
"states rights" so you could do such lovely things as own slaves. Well,
now our society is trashed by the millions of descendants of those
"slaves" who want their assets kissed with government support from
cradle to grave. Well, I guess it is better than your blue-blood white
trash ancestors getting their hands dirty. Of course, now we'll probably
have to sit through all the tired old QRM about how the Civil War wasn't
about slavery. Right.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) Well, now our society is trashed by the millions of
descendants of those "slaves" who want their assets kissed
with government support from cradle to grave. Well, I guess
it is better than your blue-blood white trash ancestors getting
their hands dirty. Of course, now we'll probably have to sit
through all the tired old QRM about how the Civil War
wasn't about slavery. Right.


Actually, the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but I'll avoid an
unnecessary repetition of those facts. I'll instead point out that the
majority of blacks in this country today are not decendents of American
slaves - they, or their ancestors, entered this country in the 150 or so
years after slavery was abolished (the majority of those within the last
twenty years). Therefore, if you have a complaint, perhaps you should focus
on those members of recent administrations who helped ease immigration
requirements, not on something that happened many decades ago. Both
political parties are responsible - the Democrats want voters and the
Republicans want cheap labor for big business.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


Actually, the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but I'll avoid an
unnecessary repetition of those facts. I'll instead point out that the
majority of blacks in this country today are not decendents of American
slaves - they, or their ancestors, entered this country in the 150 or so
years after slavery was abolished (the majority of those within the last
twenty years). Therefore, if you have a complaint, perhaps you should focus
on those members of recent administrations who helped ease immigration
requirements, not on something that happened many decades ago. Both
political parties are responsible - the Democrats want voters and the
Republicans want cheap labor for big business.

I believe requirements for immigration and naturalization should be
extremely rigid, involving extensive background checks and a requirement
that the person immigrating have the means in place to make his/her
own living. Eligibility for state or federal "welfare" benefits should also
be severely limited. I'd also do away with the law that states that any
person born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen, if the parents,
at the time, are *not* U.S. citizens themselves. The children born to
non-citizens would be considered to be citizens of the parents' own
country of origin. Also, no person who is not a U.S. citizen, by birth
or legal naturalization, should be allowed to vote in any local, state,
or federal election. Liberal immigration and naturalization policies
amount to political corruption in it's most dangerous form -- and the
danger is to U.S. sovreignty.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


Actually, the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but I'll avoid an
unnecessary repetition of those facts. I'll instead point out that the
majority of blacks in this country today are not decendents of American
slaves - they, or their ancestors, entered this country in the 150 or so
years after slavery was abolished (the majority of those within the last
twenty years). Therefore, if you have a complaint, perhaps you should focus
on those members of recent administrations who helped ease immigration
requirements, not on something that happened many decades ago. Both
political parties are responsible - the Democrats want voters and the
Republicans want cheap labor for big business.


I believe requirements for immigration and naturalization should be
extremely rigid, involving extensive background checks and a requirement
that the person immigrating have the means in place to make his/her
own living. Eligibility for state or federal "welfare" benefits should also
be severely limited. I'd also do away with the law that states that any
person born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen, if the parents,
at the time, are *not* U.S. citizens themselves. The children born to
non-citizens would be considered to be citizens of the parents' own
country of origin. Also, no person who is not a U.S. citizen, by birth
or legal naturalization, should be allowed to vote in any local, state,
or federal election. Liberal immigration and naturalization policies
amount to political corruption in it's most dangerous form -- and the
danger is to U.S. sovreignty.

73 de Larry, K3LT


What he said absolutely.

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


Actually, the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but I'll avoid an
unnecessary repetition of those facts. I'll instead point out that the
majority of blacks in this country today are not decendents of American
slaves - they, or their ancestors, entered this country in the 150 or so
years after slavery was abolished (the majority of those within the last
twenty years). Therefore, if you have a complaint, perhaps you should
focus
on those members of recent administrations who helped ease immigration
requirements, not on something that happened many decades ago. Both
political parties are responsible - the Democrats want voters and the
Republicans want cheap labor for big business.

I believe requirements for immigration and naturalization should be
extremely rigid, involving extensive background checks and a requirement
that the person immigrating have the means in place to make his/her
own living.


And, I believe the immigration laws are appropriate, although there is
probably room for improvement in the areas of process and validation
procedures. I think there are background checks in place as a matter of
policy--they just aren't done or aren't done adequately enough. We can put
all the laws and rules into place we want--it is getting them carried out
that is the problem.


Eligibility for state or federal "welfare" benefits should also
be severely limited.


State and Federal welfare programs need to be abolished. This would take
several years and I don't know the intricacies of the systems so I won't
pretend to know how to do it or how long it would take. The only allowance
I might be convinced of would be to have some kind of training program for
parents of children, with childcare provided through the system. And, who
would be providing the childcare? People who have been through the training
program and have chosen childcare as their avenue of profession. At any
rate, no more welfare, period.


I'd also do away with the law that states that any
person born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen, if the parents,
at the time, are *not* U.S. citizens themselves.


I am in support of any person born here being a US Citizen. There are too
many legal, ethical and social issues attached to having it otherwise.


The children born to
non-citizens would be considered to be citizens of the parents' own
country of origin.


If your thinking is that parents of children born here are automatically
excluded from being deported, you are wrong. Having a child born in the
United States does not "save" the mother or father from deportation. It is
just that they will be deported *without* their child. This is if the
immigration laws haven't changed over the last several years. I say
several, because it's been that long since I was politically involved in the
US/Central America issue and, at that time, parents were sent back to El
Salvador, Guatemala, or wherever--even if they'd had a kid here. The kid
stayed and was put into the custody of the state.


Also, no person who is not a U.S. citizen, by birth
or legal naturalization, should be allowed to vote in any local, state,
or federal election. Liberal immigration and naturalization policies
amount to political corruption in it's most dangerous form -- and the
danger is to U.S. sovreignty.

73 de Larry, K3LT


There is no danger to US sovereignty. It may not be a US you like; but it
is no danger of losing its sovereignty.

Kim W5TIT

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Liberal immigration and naturalization policies
amount to political corruption in it's most dangerous form -- and the
danger is to U.S. sovreignty.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Whatever that is. I meant to say, "sovereignty."

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

I believe requirements for immigration and naturalization
should be extremely rigid, involving extensive background
checks and a requirement that the person immigrating have
the means in place to make his/her own living. Eligibility
for state or federal "welfare" benefits should also be
severely limited. I'd also do away with the law that states
that any person born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S.
citizen, if the parents, at the time, are *not* U.S. citizens
themselves. The children born to non-citizens would be
considered to be citizens of the parents' own country of
origin. Also, no person who is not a U.S. citizen, by birth
or legal naturalization, should be allowed to vote in any
local, state, or federal election. Liberal immigration and
naturalization policies amount to political corruption in it's
most dangerous form -- and the danger is to U.S.
sovereignty.


In the end, the ONLY way to stop illegal immigration is to force employers
to exercise restraint over who they hire, with truly serious consequences
for those who knowingly hire, or should have known they were hiring, illegal
immigrants. As long as jobs better than what is available elsewhere are
available and we have a weak enforcement process, illegal immigrants are
going to come. Cut off the jobs and you clearly cut off the problem.
Employers claim it is not their responsibility to check out potential
employees. Nonsense. Employers routinely run checks on everybody else they
hire and it is every citizen's responsibility not to contribute to obvious
crime.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/