Finally a Democrat who speaks reality....

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson announced yesterday a state of emergency for four counties that bordered Mexico. He stated that the amount of illegal drug trafficking and illegal immigrants passing through are devastating. I may be mis-hearing this, but is a Democrat asking for an increased restriction in illegal immigration?

Gov. Richardson doesn't say how he wants this problem addressed, but I have a few ideas for him. First, let us round up all illegals in the state we can find, in CA, AZ, TX, etc. and deport them back to their homelands. Second, let's use military force (the national guard, etc.) to re-enforce our borders. No matter how much I agree with President Bush, I am in deep conflict with him on this point. Training more border control will not cut it. They are falling well below what our country needs and adding more will not close that gap. Third, any person who wants to come here is welcome to, as long as they can pass certain requirements (criminal history, medical, etc.) and can obtain the temporary work they need. After a term, they can apply for citizenship if they have proven themselves to be beneficial to society.

Securing our borders is important. Right now Britain is under great scrutiny for its lax standards on immigration. PM Blair is currently working hard to fix it. We can't continue to operate under the same standards. Not only is it a security risk, but illegal immigrants are causing all sorts of problems for US social programs (hopefully they'll just get rid of some of them). Many illegals come here to find a job, and then take money back to their homelands. I'm not against allowing them to work, but when every penny they get is taken out of the country, it takes those earnings out of the U.S. market and hinders growth (which is likely balanced by the small addition to GDP these illegal workers create...so a net 0). Secondly, most don't pay taxes but use Welfare programs for kids they have in the U.S. and send them to public schools that WE pay for, not these illegals. And like it or not, many of these illegals are committing crimes while they are here. If we are ever going to operate efficiently and protect ourselves...we must secure our borders.

If you still don't see a problem here, think about this: In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds (67%) of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

You better think again!!! 

So I was attending a meeting today on-campus about "Race relations on-campus and in the City". Listening to the presentors and comments of the crowd it sounded like the usual banter of needing to increase funding for minority programs, increased efforts to recruit minorities, and the need to educate all students about the benefits of a diverse campus. It was when I heard this last point that I had to speak up. All the conversation was focused around getting the "White students" to accept "Black students" as equals on-campus. That they have just as much to offer. I totally agree with this...however, when I asked about efforts to have "Black students" understand that "White Students" were also very important to the University's progress there was silence. Nothing came to mind. No programs to explain why "Whites" were important to the success of "Blacks" on-campus...only the other way.

SO why is this? Why is diversity only focused toward "Whites" accepting other minorities (and by this I mean a lesser number, not a lesser person---someone tried to tell me that I was being disrespectful by using this term) and not the other way around? I have seen many examples of minorities on-campus speaking ill of the "White" race in rallies and speeches. It seems to me that more and more "Whites" are becoming accepting of other races while more and more "Blacks" accuse these same people of treating them poorly. So I have concluded that this belief, while it may not stem from such, is perpetuated by the programs that this University offers and that many others do. These programs target the need for minoities to have special representation because if they didn't than "Whites" would keep them out. The fact that race is now allowed as  a basis for acceptance to Universities is outrageous. All people, no matter the race should be able to be accepted on equal terms...if you studied in school and made good grades, then you get accepted..simple!! So let's quit telling these minority groups that they need special help and empower them to work hard so that they earn their way in and are not given a spot that other deserving students should have. I ask you all to see articles by Mike Adams on www.townhall.com for more on the politics of educational institutions.

Since most "whites" are not discriminating against minorities on-campus, diversity programs targeted on "educating" whites about the need for diversity are unnecessary.  

As a student of The University of Texas at Austin I have been here for over 3 years now and had only once stepped into the LBJ Presidentital Library we have on campus and that was the day I moved in freshman year. So last week I made it my goal to visit, and actually look around at the accomplishments of LBJ.

After an hour of reading about the history of politics 1963-1968 I realized that LBJ was by no means a Great President that many liberals claim he is. Even the Democrats of the day were split about his policies.  There was a display of the social programs that he pushed through congress in his first 2 years in office...a number exceeding the total number of programs FDR began through his 2 New Deal programs and in his 4 terms as president (albeit his last was cut a little short). Then this man took America into Vietnam and continued to pursue the efforts there against the wishes of the people was elected to serve.. It seems his liberal legislation wasn't enough to persuade Democrats to support him on this front.  

So I point to this time in history where I see the fracture of the democratic party begin. Radical terrorists form out of the SDS called the Weather Underground who began to cause explosions in the name of the "New Left". It was during this time that even Democrats were so mad at the DNC nominee in 1968 that they supported Nixon...apparently there was no JFK this time to defeat Mr. Nixon. Reaganites began to take hold, a new breed of Republicans who split from the LBJ Democrats. So we see that pragmatic liberals shifted to a more responsible Republican party and the rest formed the vitriolic Liberals that we see today. Those led by the Howard Deans and the Hilary Clintons. Those bound to butcher the Constitution in the name of liberalism. Who unconstitutionally use the filibuster for non-legislative arguments. I guess desperation is the last act of a dying man, or in this case, a dying party.

After watching a segment of "The O'Reilly Factor" last night I was appalled to hear that "Professor" Ward Churchill again has made comments that, in my opinion, should put him in position to be prosecuted.

I know that dissent and speech is protected under the first amendment. However, Churchill supported efforts of troops who disagree with the war to roll grenades into commanding officer tents. He saw this as a more effective way to promote the "books not bombs" type agenda that he backs. Isn't it funny that people like Churchill are outraged by the fact that we are using a military arsenal to attack insurgents in Iraq that may cause innocents to be killed (very few at that) but are not as equally, nor more outraged about the car bombings that kill a multitude of Iraqi citizens every week.

Now enter the media bias. The papers report these bombings but the text explains that this is reason for the U.S. to leave Iraq and stop what's going on. There are no mentions of atrocities being committed by terrorists. No mention of the dispicable men who promote such an evil. No, all we hear is about a bombing that proves the Iraqi mission is failing. But as mentioned in another entry, why is the number of homicide bombings a measure a military success? It makes absolutely no sense.

And now we're back to Ward Churchill, a diplorable American and so-called educator. This man promotes the effectiveness of murdering superiors as protest to War; but will the media report it? Likely not. And if they do, will they show the same outrage toward such unpatriotic, treasonous ramblings as they did to Bush's nomination of Bolton to the U.N.? Absolutely NOT! If a conservative professor had said that the bombing of abortion clinics was an effective way to fight against abortion (something they don't agree with...like Churchill and the War) there would have been a nationwide outrage. It would have been the leading story on every news station and there would have been calls for prosecution on the grounds of inciting riots and crimes. But where is the outrage about this? No mention on CNN or in the NY Times. Even Bill O'Reilly had it as the second-to-last segment on his show. liberals can deny a media bias, but again it will rear its ugly head. As this story gets buried in the back of papers (if run at all), let us remind the media of this the next time they want swift action against conservatives who disagree with their ideology. I hope that all Americans, liberal or conservative, who consider themselves patriots will rise up and declare that these comments will not be tolerated. We as Americans can't let the educators of our youth try to tell people that it is okay to kill superiors if you disagree with them. Don't let morality escape our society; speak out against Ward Churchill!