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.

In article , JJ
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


What he said absolutely.

JJ:

With the exception of my spelling: It's actually "sovereignty." Apparently,
I don't spell as fast as I type.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"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

Kim W5TIT wrote:



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.

How about the Mexican women about to give birth that cross the border
into the US just long enough for her child will be born here, thus
reaping the benefits of citizenship? Now this child, who's parents have
never lived in the US and have never contributed a single thing to the
US society, is now eligible for medical care, schooling, and any other
welfare out country has to offer. Your hard earned dollars, part of
which you pay in taxes, will now help to finance this child who himself
will probably never contribute to US society, only take from it.

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:



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.

How about the Mexican women about to give birth that cross the border
into the US just long enough for her child will be born here, thus
reaping the benefits of citizenship? Now this child, who's parents have
never lived in the US and have never contributed a single thing to the
US society, is now eligible for medical care, schooling, and any other
welfare out country has to offer. Your hard earned dollars, part of
which you pay in taxes, will now help to finance this child who himself
will probably never contribute to US society, only take from it.


The Texas Twit is a world class liberal. She ran around supporting the
hippies, after that was all over. In otherwords, she doesn't think things
thru very well.

FWIW...I agree with your comments JJ.

Dan/W4NTI

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

And, I believe the immigration laws are
appropriate, (snip)


We allow more immigrants into this country each year than any other
country on Earth, including those countries where most of our immigrants
come from. This mass influx is driving wages down and prices up. Our schools
are overcrowded. Education costs are going up. Medical costs are going up.
Home prices are going up. Land prices are going up. Food prices are going
up. Crime continues to go up. Our overall standard of living is going down.
At the same time, I don't see a single benefit for the average American. Can
you describe one benefit for me or my family, Kim?


State and Federal welfare programs need to be
abolished. (snip)


Why would you want to cut off the parachute put in place to help
Americans? If you want to fix welfare, cut off the many thousands of illegal
immigrants who are taking benefits from others. Next, get rid of the obvious
bums abusing the welfare system. This two steps alone would cut the cost of
welfare programs dramatically, yet still provide help for those Americans
why really need it.


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


Kim, we've allowed millions of immigrants into this country from areas of
the world openly hostile to the United States, with no method to establish
their views of this country and its people. After 9-11, this is clearly not
safe for Americans. Can you be so sure it is not a threat to our
sovereignty? This reminds me of an old joke that is perhaps not that far
from the truth; an enemy doesn't have to invade today - they can just fill
out immigration papers for their entire army.

Blacks have almost the entire continent of Africa and Hispanics have
almost the entire continent of South America. Perhaps you can explain why
either group needs to expand to this continent, or why it is so wrong to
resist that expansion. Unless we're prepared to spend lots of tourist
dollars, they're certainly not rushing to open their doors to us.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

And, I believe the immigration laws are
appropriate, (snip)

We allow more immigrants into this country each year than any other
country on Earth, including those countries where most of our immigrants
come from. This mass influx is driving wages down and prices up. Our schools
are overcrowded. Education costs are going up. Medical costs are going up.
Home prices are going up. Land prices are going up. Food prices are going
up.

Salaries are going up.


Crime continues to go up.

I believe that crime rates have actually gone down, Dwight.

Our overall standard of living is going down.

Really? I have trouble accepting your claim.

At the same time, I don't see a single benefit for the average American. Can
you describe one benefit for me or my family, Kim?

I can think of one, Dwight. Those folks work and pay social security
taxes so that you can retire and draw SS benefits. They also pay State
and Federal taxes. Many of them are very bright individuals. Some are
doctors. Some do computer design work. Some do menial labor which most
American workers don't desire.

State and Federal welfare programs need to be
abolished. (snip)

Why would you want to cut off the parachute put in place to help
Americans? If you want to fix welfare, cut off the many thousands of illegal
immigrants who are taking benefits from others.

I don't believe that we owe illegal immigrants anything. Legal
immigrants are entitled to the same protections and benefits which we
enjoy.


Next, get rid of the obvious
bums abusing the welfare system. This two steps alone would cut the cost of
welfare programs dramatically, yet still provide help for those Americans
why really need it.

That has been implemented over the past decade.

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

Kim, we've allowed millions of immigrants into this country from areas of
the world openly hostile to the United States,...

There are a number of places in this world where governments are hostile
to the United States. That does not indicate that citizens of those
countries are all hostile to the U.S.

...with no method to establish
their views of this country and its people.

On this one, you need to do your homework.


After 9-11, this is clearly not
safe for Americans.

I have trouble accepting your claim at face value. While it may be clear
to you, it isn't at all clear to me.

Can you be so sure it is not a threat to our
sovereignty? This reminds me of an old joke that is perhaps not that far
from the truth; an enemy doesn't have to invade today - they can just fill
out immigration papers for their entire army.

It wouldn't work. They'd all find jobs, start families, buy homes, cars
and TV sets. After they settled in, they could start complaining about
the newer immigrants fouling things up for them.

Blacks have almost the entire continent of Africa and Hispanics have
almost the entire continent of South America. Perhaps you can explain why
either group needs to expand to this continent, or why it is so wrong to
resist that expansion.

I hadn't realized the extent of your racist views, Dwight. Maybe you
have some insider knowledge of organized attempts by Africans or South
Americans to take over "our" country through immigration.

Unless we're prepared to spend lots of tourist
dollars, they're certainly not rushing to open their doors to us.

I lived in four African countries over a period of nearly ten years. In
all of those places, I found thousands of whites who live in harmony
with blacks. I don't know of many African countries who have government
policies aimed at restricting the flow of white residents into their
countries. That aside, I never found an African country where I'd
choose to spend the rest of my life. Many whites have.

Dave K8MN