thanks for the info!…

The 80% of Americans who are rightfuly pissed, would go balistic if only the truth could be shared.

So many people deserve prosecution that a commission would have to be formed to replace them fast enough.

After Pelosi is impeached who gets to be Pres. next?

Please email me at worldsreality at yahoo dot com

Fredo Arias-King from March 1999 to July 2000 was an aide to presidential candidate Vicente Fox Quesada of Mexico, largely handling the foreign relations of the campaign along with Dr. Carlos Salazar, who handled the foreign relations of Fox’s party, the PAN. After the July 2000 victory, Arias-King declined government jobs but agreed to represent the PAN at both the Republican and the Democratic national conventions in Philadelphia and Los Angeles, respectively. In 14 trips to Washington and to both party conventions, he spoke extensively to U.S. public figures, including 80 members of Congress, about the bilateral relationship. His role in the Fox campaign has been recognized in several books published in Mexico. A Harvard-trained businessman and Sovietologist, his academic work focuses on the post-communist transitions, and he is the founding editor of Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, published in Washington.

Even with all of that …

The usual suspects will soon be calling this guy a nutbag hack.

Let’s not forget … Tony Snow and Carlos Espinosa both told John Hawkins that it aint true. Will Hawkins be giving Fredo Arias-King a “buzz” next? I look forward to his next post, detailing that conversation.

Great find on that paper written by Mexican insider Fredo Arias-King.

I found this passage illuminating:

Bill Richardson, who had served in Clinton’s cabinet and later became governor of New Mexico, kindly stopped to speak to our delegation at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles. He commented favorably to us: “What do Hispanics want? Fully funded government programs!”

..and this:
“Those that have come out supporting amnesty are also associated with other attempts to undermine the Jeffersonian and Madisonian model of democracy. Sen. Arlen Specter, for instance, a leading supporter of amnesty, years ago proposed another bill that would have changed the outcome of elections based on quotas, whereby electoral outcomes could be changed by a federal judge.”

“Some legislators had also mentioned to us (oftentimes laughing) how they had “defanged” or “gutted” anti-immigration bills and measures, by neglecting to fund this program or tabling that provision, or deleting the other measure, etc. “Yes, we passed that law, but it can’t work because we also…” was a usual comment to assuage the Mexican delegations.”

I encourage people like Texas Gal to read this article and realize that GWB sees you as a fellow traveler. A dupe to change our country into an elitist run Government that benefits only the ruling class.

Especially when Fredo said this is what they believe about mass immigration from Mexico:

Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so—enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the “just and constitutional laws” they devised.

Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with “converted” Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized “new” United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would “go away” after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also “unfairly” take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the “natural progress” of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.

While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a “high five” when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them “rednecks,” and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so—enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the “just and constitutional laws” they devised.

One leading Republican senator over a period of months was advising us, through a mutual acquaintance, about which mechanisms to follow and which other legislators to lobby in order to ensure passage of the amnesty proposal. In the meantime, he would speak on television about the need to “militarize” the border. This senator was recently singled out by a taxpayer’s advocacy group as a leader in “pork”-related politics.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back706.html

If only the American public had any idea of just how deeply they have actually been betrayed.
I don’t doubt that riots would occur at our centers of government and that tar and feathers would be in short supply.
To achieve the mission of national soveriegnty, the only action needed is to pursue the education of the public.
The facts will win the battle.
Get the word out and the traitors will run like the frightened chicken hens they really are.

Chances are that you will want to preserve America, too.

Our diversity is our greatest strength as well as our greatest weakness.

We must decide if our nation is worth preserving. I believe that it is – what do you think?

Otherwise … I know from experience that it would get bombarded by votes from “referred” readers who have been alerted by others to help slant the poll. I don’t want that from either side. I truly want to know an accurate number.

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 3:44 PM

Somewhere in Queens, AP is laughing at us…

If a united North America (i.e. North American Union) comes about, what makes some of you think the outcome will have to be disastrous?

Mexico would be forced to reform its laws and address its corruption.

Why? What makes you think the reverse wouldn’t take place? What would stop Mexico’s corruption from spreading into our own government and police forces (not that there isn’t already corruption, but not on Mexico’s scale)? Do you really think the Mexican government would simply stop being corrupt because WE said they had to? And if we told them that … why would they be interested in joining a union?

Canada would be forced to assume a greater role in territorial defense.

Why? What makes you think Canada would agree to that. Isn’t it more likely that in the formation of a Union, Canada would demand to have a say in military decisions? And if so, isn’t it more likely that we would end up being bogged down in our ability to make our own decisions, possibly putting us in a situation where Canada vetos a move that we need to make?

Migration would stabilize because wealth would be spread over a wider area.

Why? What is going to suddenly create hundreds of thousands of jobs in Mexico that will cause the population to suddenly stop migrating when our borders are open up for free travel? Isn’t it more likely that the sudden flood of immigrants would drag our economy into the mud? How many of these immigrants will now be eligible for welfare and other financial aid? Who’s going to pay for that?

It would be much easier to secure our borders.

Why? How would it be easier to secure borders, when there ARE none? If we have no border security here at home, how can we possibly expect to now be able to be responsible to secure the border around Mexico too?

Liberty would spread.

Huh? Liberty? Is there liberty in Mexico, under a brutally corrupt government? Is there “liberty” in Canada, with it’s socialist society? If these governments somehow merge or partnership with our own, even on a small scale … isn’t it more likely that THEIR beliefs will start to TAKE AWAY the liberty we already THINK we have? If we have small town governments in the U.S. – in places such as Seattle – who have actually considered the possibility of having “Sharia Law communities”… what makes you think merging three different governments and cultures into our own will have a “positive” effect?

An interesting exercise in how I say one thing and you hear another.

Funny. You didn’t argue that I missed any of your points when I outlined them earlier. Obviously I’m hearing you quite well. Maybe you would like to give me an example of something that I “heard wrong” rather than just didn’t agree with?

BTW, if 85% of the voters agreed with the Republican House, they’d still be in control.

Now THIS is an example that YOU aren’t listening to what anyone here has said. Nobody here said that voters voted for Democrats because they didn’t agree with the House bill. In fact, I specifically told you that the GOP lost because voters LIKED the house bill and were pissed off at the GOP for not getting it done. You might have noticed that the House bill FAILED! Voters were PISSED at that.

You mean to tell me that ALL the conservatives on this blog who voted Democrat to PUNISH the GOP are in effect now responsible for ushering in a Democratic controlled Congress that will not fund the fence they all fought so hard to get passed.

Yes, those who voted Democrat, didn’t vote, or voted independent in order to punish the GOP for lack of border security are definitely party responsible for us losing our majority, but … I won’t blame them for the fence not getting built or any failure on immigration issues. Why? Because the GOP wasn’t doing anything more than the Democrats and they weren’t showing any sign of that changing.

In case you don’t believe me … look for yourself. Click here and read Allah’s post first, and then follow the comments. It got quite animated.

Just to spare you the searching, Allah started it off with the following quote:

if Bush insists on doing Mexico’s bidding again, if he can’t bring himself to endorse even a symbolic measure of border enforcement, then I hereby swear before the Hot Air readership that I’ll vote a straight Democratic ticket next month. I live in New York so it won’t matter, but one symbolic turn deserves another.

That fence was not going to be built regardless of who won the election. Even the PROPOSED fence is a sham. If it ever DOES get built, they’ll build it in an area that has absolutely no impact on illegal entry.

Considering that in Jan. of 06 Americans were intimidated to the point we thought twice before saying anything derogatory about illegal migration;

Immediately after the 2004 election, Bush announced his guest worker program. Republican shills like Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved were pushing it all they could. If people called their radio programs to complain, they were called stupid, crazy, and racist, and hung up on. This went on for a couple of months. With much resistence, they started softening their position but you knew it was all b.s. It’s still happening: the republican hardliners are going to shove this down our throats.

A successful merger would just as likely enhance the United States of America rather than diminish it. Do you think the center of government would shift to Ottawa or Mexico City? I see such a union forming more along the lines of the ancient Latin League, where Rome was the dominant power.

The combined territory, resources, and manpower of North America would only increase our dominance and power, and would usher in a golden age for Anglo-Hispanic culture, bringing our civilization to new heights in the arts and sciences. We would truly become the American Empire.

Mexico would be forced to reform its laws and address its corruption. Canada would be forced to assume a greater role in territorial defense. Migration would stabilize because wealth would be spread over a wider area. It would be much easier to secure our borders. Christianity would take a more prominent role. Liberty would spread.

Now…before I am accused of being a moon bat, let me add that I’m not advocating such a union. But with the dangers that Western Civilization faces today, I don’t see a united North American continent as out of the question, or even necessarily a bad thing (as long as the U.S. is the driving force): it might be the only choice before us if we care to preserve our civilization in the tumultuous times ahead.

I don’t have an opinion one way or another on the conspiracy possibilities. The idea of uniting the North American continent isn’t a new one though, and it isn’t an unlikely future reality.

Notice the difference? There is no basis in what he said for the the transcript to have it capitalized. Think about the distinction of what it means in the English language to have those words capitalized and that there is no basis for it and you have the explanation why this is not a conspiracy theory nor is it even wrong.

*Psst, don’t worry, nobody knows enough history to know I’m wrong on all counts here; nobody remembers the ’80s so we’re safe doing this again. Leave it for 2020 to figure out*

I sure remember. I also remember pre 80s amnesty, enforcement was better. After amnesty, it just seemed to stop altogether. They sold the amnesty program by swearing up and down they were going to go after employers and levee huge fines and arrest those who violated the laws. What a joke! It was a huge lie and it was under Reagan.

If so, you might have noticed all the conservatives who publicly advertised their intention to vote Democrat to PUNISH the GOP for not getting the fence built. You might not have paid attention to the polls which showed conservatives were fed up with the Bush administration’s lack of action. What’s the mystery here?

You mean to tell me that ALL the conservatives on this blog who voted Democrat to PUNISH the GOP are in effect now responsible for ushering in a Democratic controlled Congress that will not fund the fence they all fought so hard to get passed. What a hoot! And here I thought conservatives were … er … never mind.

Y’know Gregor, I’ve really enjoyed our discussion and it’s been every enlightening. An interesting exercise in how I say one thing and you hear another.

BTW, if 85% of the voters agreed with the Republican House, they’d still be in control.

I’m sure the combination will work perfectly and we’ll get secure borders in exchange for some form of amnesty for those already here. I can’t see any problem with this, it’ll be fine.

Except for the fact that his plan not only gives a path of citizenship to all that are here illegally, but to all of their relatives currently in Mexico.

Except for the fact that his plan gives retroactive social security to illegal aliens who have never paid a dime into the system.

Except for the fact that his plan would REWARD every illegal alien for breaking our country’s laws in coming here, thereby spitting in the face of every legal immigrant who did it the correct way.

Enforcement! What a concept!

The comments at the end by the immigration lawyer make me thump my head on my keyboard.